Amtrk Senate Debate

[TomDiehl]

Here are some high (low?) lights.

There's a small mountain of people in mechanical ~4000.  By comparison, NS has about 1000 and the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has.....and NS has to inspect and lace up a few hundred thousand frt cars a week, to boot.

Unfortunately, you forget what you're comparing. How many of those NS freight cars have heating and air conditioning? Just to name an obvious difference.

A boxcar load of washing machines or a hopper full of coal doesn't require climate control, lighting, food, etc. that the human "cargo" requires.

Did you miss the part where I mentioned that NS has more LOCOMOTIVES than Amtrak has locomotive and cars combined!  So, unless you believe taking care of a passenger car is 4x more labor intensive than keeping after a locomotive, what, exactly are those 4000 guys doing all day long?

I didn't miss anything, in fact it was even quoted above. The mechanical maintenance crews required for maintaining freight cars would only cover the shell of a passenger car. What I did say is maintaining a passenger car is more than four times more involved than maintaining a freight car. Add to that the NS doesn't cover the whole country, so they can centralize more easily. Only Amtrak's heavy maintenance facility is centralized. Inspection and maintenance crews need to be available all over the national system.

In addition to the points I mentioned above, the furnishings need to be maintained, linens need to be removed and washed, supplies need to be replenished. A car load of washing machines isn't going to complain about a door that rattles or is drafty, or a torn or stained carpet.

[oltmannd]

Here are some high (low?) lights.

There's a small mountain of people in mechanical ~4000.  By comparison, NS has about 1000 and the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has.....and NS has to inspect and lace up a few hundred thousand frt cars a week, to boot.

Unfortunately, you forget what you're comparing. How many of those NS freight cars have heating and air conditioning? Just to name an obvious difference.

A boxcar load of washing machines or a hopper full of coal doesn't require climate control, lighting, food, etc. that the human "cargo" requires.

Did you miss the part where I mentioned that NS has more LOCOMOTIVES than Amtrak has locomotive and cars combined!  So, unless you believe taking care of a passenger car is 4x more labor intensive than keeping after a locomotive, what, exactly are those 4000 guys doing all day long?

[TomDiehl]

Here are some high (low?) lights.

There's a small mountain of people in mechanical ~4000.  By comparison, NS has about 1000 and the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has.....and NS has to inspect and lace up a few hundred thousand frt cars a week, to boot.

Unfortunately, you forget what you're comparing. How many of those NS freight cars have heating and air conditioning? Just to name an obvious difference.

A boxcar load of washing machines or a hopper full of coal doesn't require climate control, lighting, food, etc. that the human "cargo" requires.

[oltmannd]

Great bill for Amtrak over 6 Years about 19 Billion Dollars

Where did you get that figure from? I count between $1.6 billion and $1.9 billion over six years, which works out to $10.8 billion over the six years, when I look at the text of the bill.

We get much, much, much more for our tax dollar subsidy to air passenger and highway travel

How so? For $862,310.56 per route-mile every year, the interstates are not cheap, nor can they keep up with the costs of serving their captive audience—note all the ongoing moves to privatize not only toll roads, but also highways that are presently un-tolled. Even if this bill passes the House and the President signs it, Amtrak's going to get a tenth of that per route-mile, in current route miles, and they'll still be getting 12 percent of what commuter railroads get on average, per route-mile.

There's a small mountain of people in mechanical, (approximately) 4000. By comparison, NS has about 1000

Source for that NS figure?

(FTR, Amtrak's figure for the mechanical headcount is 3,863, which is 52 fewer than authorized. If you don't like the figure, then you're going to have to ask Congress as to why they authorized so many, not to mention find out what they're paid out of that $1.2 billion per year subsidy. I'm not excusing it-I find it very curious, myself-but the question still remains as to why such a number was authorized and how much of that small "pie" they are consuming.)

The number of people in mechanical is an important insight into the cost-competitiveness of trains relative to airlines

Actually, no. It is, however, an insight into the corruption in Washington DC and their attempts to make rail travel look far more expensive than air travel. States are quite complicit—consider the example of NJ Transit's "River Line" light rail, which cost $29 million per mile to construct (close to double the cost per mile of the LGV Sud-Est), and this along an already-operating freight line, and another NJ Transit project, Access To The Region's Core, which is going to cost three to four times what the Pennsylvania Railroad spent to build not only New York Penn Station but also all of the tunnels leading to that station (with modern technology assisting, to boot). Further note Alexander Kummant's claim that it would cost some $7 billion to upgrade the Northeast Corridor merely to allow Acela Express to achieve a 96-mph average speed between New York and Washington DC—that's an unheard of $31 million per mile, which hasn't even been spent on dedicated high-speed rail alignments anywhere in the world that I know of, and if so, then only so that they may traverse the most difficult terrain in earthquake-prone environments. Bought-and-paid-for politicians are not going to give you a true picture of rail costs-you're going to have to look overseas and see what they're doing there.

During the same time period, and dealing with the same unions, the frt RRs have moderinzed a great deal and managed some pretty impressive productivity gains

They're still losing market share to trucks, though, and we continue to lose track miles. When "Productivity gains" means more money for the bosses alone, then that's no gain. Remember how the salaries of CEOs have risen beyond the bounds of the reasonable—between 300 and 500 times the average employee salary nowadays, whereas twenty years ago the highest was 20 times the average employee salary. Greed is out of control.

Re: Subsidy

Let's try it on a per passenger mile basis, and back out direct use taxes....  Route miles mean nothing.  It's what moves on those routes that counts.  Amtrak's route mile subsidy would look really good if they'd just stop running trains

But, having said that, I do believe that no matter how hard you try to figure out the subsidy game between modes, you always wind up with apples and oranges.  So, I don't think direct comparisons are all that useful.  However, Amtrak's subsidy per passenger mile is SO far out of whack that any attempts to justify it ring very hollow.

Re: NS Mechanical Dept man count

It has been between 1000 and 1100 for the past couple of years - and that includes staff.  How do I know that?  Check my profile.  How does Amtrak justify having 4000?  What are all these people doing all day long? 

Re: cost to upgrade NEC

The NEC uniformly runs through the most expensive real estate in the country.  Are you suggesting that a new alignment could be had at the same price as French farmland?

Re: RR productivity

At least you're not denying that the productivity gains are real!  Where are Amtrak's productivity gains?  Although I would agree that CEO compensation is out of whack  (NS's CEO has opined similarly), the productivity gains, in part, have rescued the industry from a slow, but certain death to a postion of having a chance at being going concern.  I've spent the past 29 years watching it happen from the inside.

RR market share vs truck is as misleading as comparing pipeline market share vs. truck.  You have to compare the niches where there is direct competition.  In the past decade or two, train miles, ton miles and shipments on the RRs have all continued to grow faster than the rate of economic growth.  The slight decrease in route miles is the last of the obsolete 19th century branch lines giving up the ghost as the last few dollars are squeezed out of the physical plant and the de-industrialization of the US is nearly complete.

Re:  The institution and culture of Amtrak.

Amtrak is a fat, sloppy, inefficient, low productivity outfit.  You can look at their numbers.  You can listen to anecdotes and stories.  The pattern is clear.   But, it's not their fault.  They've never been given any incentive to be anything but.  

I just think it's time we got more for our money.  Amtrak as a starting point for intercity train travel may be justifiable.  Amtrak status-quo is not.  Fix it or kill it.  I vote for "fix it".

[JT22CW]

Great bill for Amtrak over 6 Years about 19 Billion Dollars

Where did you get that figure from? I count between $1.6 billion and $1.9 billion over six years, which works out to $10.8 billion over the six years, when I look at the text of the bill.

We get much, much, much more for our tax dollar subsidy to air passenger and highway travel

How so? For $862,310.56 per route-mile every year, the interstates are not cheap, nor can they keep up with the costs of serving their captive audience—note all the ongoing moves to privatize not only toll roads, but also highways that are presently un-tolled. Even if this bill passes the House and the President signs it, Amtrak's going to get a tenth of that per route-mile, in current route miles, and they'll still be getting 12 percent of what commuter railroads get on average, per route-mile.

There's a small mountain of people in mechanical, (approximately) 4000. By comparison, NS has about 1000

Source for that NS figure?

(FTR, Amtrak's figure for the mechanical headcount is 3,863, which is 52 fewer than authorized. If you don't like the figure, then you're going to have to ask Congress as to why they authorized so many, not to mention find out what they're paid out of that $1.2 billion per year subsidy. I'm not excusing it-I find it very curious, myself-but the question still remains as to why such a number was authorized and how much of that small "pie" they are consuming.)

The number of people in mechanical is an important insight into the cost-competitiveness of trains relative to airlines

Actually, no. It is, however, an insight into the corruption in Washington DC and their attempts to make rail travel look far more expensive than air travel. States are quite complicit—consider the example of NJ Transit's "River Line" light rail, which cost $29 million per mile to construct (close to double the cost per mile of the LGV Sud-Est), and this along an already-operating freight line, and another NJ Transit project, Access To The Region's Core, which is going to cost three to four times what the Pennsylvania Railroad spent to build not only New York Penn Station but also all of the tunnels leading to that station (with modern technology assisting, to boot). Further note Alexander Kummant's claim that it would cost some $7 billion to upgrade the Northeast Corridor merely to allow Acela Express to achieve a 96-mph average speed between New York and Washington DC—that's an unheard of $31 million per mile, which hasn't even been spent on dedicated high-speed rail alignments anywhere in the world that I know of, and if so, then only so that they may traverse the most difficult terrain in earthquake-prone environments. Bought-and-paid-for politicians are not going to give you a true picture of rail costs-you're going to have to look overseas and see what they're doing there.

During the same time period, and dealing with the same unions, the frt RRs have moderinzed a great deal and managed some pretty impressive productivity gains

They're still losing market share to trucks, though, and we continue to lose track miles. When "Productivity gains" means more money for the bosses alone, then that's no gain. Remember how the salaries of CEOs have risen beyond the bounds of the reasonable—between 300 and 500 times the average employee salary nowadays, whereas twenty years ago the highest was 20 times the average employee salary. Greed is out of control.

[oltmannd]

You're forgetting the one major difference: with the freight railroads the unions don't have government to run to and politicians who are receiving their financial and "get out the vote contributions" to step in and put pressure on managment to cave.   And Amtrak has no stockholders exerting pressure not to cave.

I'm not sure but almost anytime a railroad labor dispute results in a strike, it usually requires an Act Of Congress (literally) to settle the dispute.

Much of the reduction in force on the freight Class 1's was accomplished by buyouts.  I'm not sure that Amtrak is in a position to ask Congress to provide funding to do the same.

For the non-agreement jobs, you can just cut and provide severence per corp policy.  Amtrak did exactly this when they whacked the express business. CSX has done this many times in the recent past.  Buyouts come when companies can use off-books pension funds to pay for the buyout.  If the pension fund isn't overfunded, you're out of luck.

For the agreement jobs, you just cut off the jobs and let seniority determine who falls out the bottom.  This is what's currently done at all the class ones.  You can wind up paying somebody to stay home ala NY Dock, depending on who and how the cuts effect.  I believe this arguement was used by Gunn - even total shutdown will still cost a good chunk of change.

Rather than cuts, I'd perfer to see more service......

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

You're forgetting the one major difference: with the freight railroads the unions don't have government to run to and politicians who are receiving their financial and "get out the vote contributions" to step in and put pressure on managment to cave.   And Amtrak has no stockholders exerting pressure not to cave.

I'm not sure but almost anytime a railroad labor dispute results in a strike, it usually requires an Act Of Congress (literally) to settle the dispute.

Much of the reduction in force on the freight Class 1's was accomplished by buyouts.  I'm not sure that Amtrak is in a position to ask Congress to provide funding to do the same.

[oltmannd]

The Amtrak Monthly Performance Report provides detailed head count information.  It can be found on the Amtrak web site.

There's lots of good info in those reports.  That's where I got some of my facts for my earlier post.  What's interesting to me is that not a single person can even give a semi-plausible reason for Amtrak's bloated head count.

[Anonymous]

The Amtrak Monthly Performance Report provides detailed head count information.  It can be found on the Amtrak web site.

[Anonymous]

Amtrak has no stockholders exerting pressure not to cave.

Actually, Amtrak DOES have stockholders. Amtrak stock was provided as compensation to the Class Is when Amtrak acquired their passenger equipment in 1971. Some of this stock has been bought and sold over the years. The majority shareholder is American Financial Group. The second largest shareholder is BNSF.

The issue of stockholder rights came into play a couple years ago when the Laney board proposed spinning off the NEC, as described in this article.  

[alphas]

You're forgetting the one major difference: with the freight railroads the unions don't have government to run to and politicians who are receiving their financial and "get out the vote contributions" to step in and put pressure on managment to cave.   And Amtrak has no stockholders exerting pressure not to cave.

[oltmannd]

Friend of mine is a long-time Amtrak employee.   Based on what he tells me, I have the impression that Amtrak has been slower to modernize, including labor, than the freight railways the last 35 years.   Trying to hold Amtrak's feet to the fire sounds good in theory but past experience has been that when push comes to shove or even one of the Amtrak labor unions objects to something, nothing changes.

During the same time period, and dealing with the same unions, the frt RRs have moderinzed a great deal and managed some pretty impressive productivity gains.

It may be hard, but, it's not hopeless.

[alphas]

Friend of mine is a long-time Amtrak employee.   Based on what he tells me, I have the impression that Amtrak has been slower to modernize, including labor, than the freight railways the last 35 years.   Trying to hold Amtrak's feet to the fire sounds good in theory but past experience has been that when push comes to shove or even one of the Amtrak labor unions objects to something, nothing changes.

[oltmannd]

There's a small mountain of people in mechanical ~4000.  By comparison, NS has about 1000 and the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has.....and NS has to inspect and lace up a few hundred thousand frt cars a week, to boot.

The number of people in mechanical is an important insight into the cost-competitiveness of trains relative to airlines.  What does Amtrak have in service -- about 2000 revenue cars and the locomotives that go with them?  Assuming a high-level of utilization on LD trains and making some assumptions about the work week, that is roughly one worker-hour of mechanical work per road-hour of a revenue passenger car.  I had heard that the early jetliners needed something like 4 worker-hours of maintenance per flight hour (keep in mind there is not that much downtime on a jet -- there may be a squad of workers assigned to a jet when it is in the maintenance hanger), and perhaps the jetliners have improved since the early days.  Also keep in mind that each flight hour may be the equivalent of 10 rail car road hours in terms of mile productivity.  Is this saying that operating a passenger rail car and its associated locomotive power takes twice the maintenance per revenue mile as a jet airliner?

The thing is that everyone assumes that a jet is mechanically expensive to operate because it has to meet strict standards of airworthiness and a jet needs to be lighweight to fly so it is built to narrow margins on strength and wear on bearings.  A train should be cheaper mechanically because it is not on such a strict weight budget and can be overbuilt of longevity.  If trains are higher maintenance than airliners, there is a major problem long term for maintaining train service.

....so a likely conclusion is....

that maybe the Mech forces aren't all that busy

or

they spend a lot of time doing things that don't need doing

or

Amtrak's equipment is horribly designed and overly complicated.

(also don't forget one jetliner carries about 2 or 3 coaches worth of people.  If you add in the current load factors for each mode, it's even worse - 55% vs 80%)

[Paul Milenkovic]

There's a small mountain of people in mechanical ~4000.  By comparison, NS has about 1000 and the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has.....and NS has to inspect and lace up a few hundred thousand frt cars a week, to boot.

The number of people in mechanical is an important insight into the cost-competitiveness of trains relative to airlines.  What does Amtrak have in service -- about 2000 revenue cars and the locomotives that go with them?  Assuming a high-level of utilization on LD trains and making some assumptions about the work week, that is roughly one worker-hour of mechanical work per road-hour of a revenue passenger car.  I had heard that the early jetliners needed something like 4 worker-hours of maintenance per flight hour (keep in mind there is not that much downtime on a jet -- there may be a squad of workers assigned to a jet when it is in the maintenance hanger), and perhaps the jetliners have improved since the early days.  Also keep in mind that each flight hour may be the equivalent of 10 rail car road hours in terms of mile productivity.  Is this saying that operating a passenger rail car and its associated locomotive power takes twice the maintenance per revenue mile as a jet airliner?

The thing is that everyone assumes that a jet is mechanically expensive to operate because it has to meet strict standards of airworthiness and a jet needs to be lighweight to fly so it is built to narrow margins on strength and wear on bearings.  A train should be cheaper mechanically because it is not on such a strict weight budget and can be overbuilt of longevity.  If trains are higher maintenance than airliners, there is a major problem long term for maintaining train service.

[Paul Milenkovic]

So the S294 19 billion over 6 years -- is this a standalone bill or is the Amtrak funding tied into a larger transportation bill?  Do people have a sense of how this will fly in the House?  The 70 votes in the Senate are a good sign if it comes to a veto override.

Does someone have a roll-call on this?  It is almost certain that of the Wisconsin delegation, Herb Kohl (who is based out of Milwaukee) voted for this; there is a possiblity that Russ Feingold (who is based out of Madison) sided with the minority as a fiscal conservative.

I just want you all to know that I am happy this bill passed and I will e-mail Tammy Baldwin to support this in the House.  I view this bill as "test of the hypothesis" that a significant infusion of funds can results in substantial improvement to Amtrak by some agreed upon metric.  Once Amtrak gets this money, it will have to deliver.  Part of a "test of the hypothesis" is that if Amtrak doesn't deliver, we will need to accept the consequences instead of blaming it on the Amtrak critics and highway interests.

[oltmannd]

Amtrak has 18,500 employees (8700 employed on trains or in stations)

Assuming that is correct, it really bothers me.  Sure, people are needed for repairs in the shops, train cleaning in the yards, and MOW on the relatively short portion of the tracks owned by Amtrak.  But what is it that those 10,000 people are doing?

Does anyone have a more detailed analysis of the headcount by function?   

http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/0708monthly.pdf  page 77

Here are some high (low?) lights.

There's a small mountain of people in mechanical ~4000.  By comparison, NS has about 1000 and the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has.....and NS has to inspect and lace up a few hundred thousand frt cars a week, to boot.

There are 500 people in purchasing.  300 in finance.  90 in the IG's office. 170 in HR (and this doesn't include labor relations - there's another 35 there)

There are 400 in risk mgt.  (say what?)

There are 1700 in engineering to maintain 500 route miles of track, catenary and signals.

About the only number that seems right to me is the 250 in IT.

 

[Dakguy201]

Amtrak has 18,500 employees (8700 employed on trains or in stations)

Assuming that is correct, it really bothers me.  Sure, people are needed for repairs in the shops, train cleaning in the yards, and MOW on the relatively short portion of the tracks owned by Amtrak.  But what is it that those 10,000 people are doing?

Does anyone have a more detailed analysis of the headcount by function?   

[oltmannd]

Great bill for Amtrak over 6 Years about 19 Billion Dollars, to Airlines 15 Billion & Highways 40 Billion Dollars every year. When Amtrak just gets about little over 1 Billion Dollars every year. We needs Amtrak in the USA not less service, but more trains in the USA.

Amtrak has historically done a horrible job or leveraging their subsidy.  Horrendous labor productivity.  Horrendous overhead.  No real mgt incentive to improve either.

We get much, much, much more for our tax dollar subsidy to air passenger and highway travel.

This bill helps starts moving things in the right direction. 

We need to support this funding....

AND

we need to keep Amtrak's feet to the fire to deliver!

[Prairietype]

My perspective on Amtrak spending is that our rail passenger system has been snipped to point of collapse. If most of it had gone under and all that was left was the northeast, that system would/may have continued as the equivalent of a big light rail system.

Airways and highways have their place and are vital for transportation infrastructure. These systems are also under great stress. I'm stressing balance, and a modest increase in a passenger rail system contribues to the balance and actually benefits the other systems.

[conrailman]

Great bill for Amtrak over 6 Years about 19 Billion Dollars, to Airlines 15 Billion & Highways 40 Billion Dollars every year. When Amtrak just gets about little over 1 Billion Dollars every year. We needs Amtrak in the USA not less service, but more trains in the USA.

[Prairietype]

S. 294 has passed the Senate with 70 votes in support.

This is good news, and it would help if everyone who cares would rally in continued support. Amtrak has problems and needs fixing. The private sector will not readily step and and take the lead, and since Amtrak is now a national railroad, we the people need to encourage our government to rebuild and expand a working passenger rail system.

[CG9602]

S. 294 has passed the Senate with 70 votes in support.

[Prairietype]

S-294 is on the floor today. The ammendments issues have been resolved and Lautenberg is speaking, the roll call has been completed and the Bill looks to pass probably around 65-27.

[oltmannd]

Here's an interesting comparison:  Airtran vs Amtrak.

Airtran has 8800 employees, 70,000 passengers day who ride an avg of 750 miles per trip.

Amtrak has 18,500 employees (8700 employed on trains or in stations), 78,300 passengers per day who ride 232 miles per trip.

Airtran has TWICE the labor productivity of Amtrak (using just the train and station employee count), based on passenger-miles and number of employees.

Sounds like a broken business model, to me.

And what, exactly are the other ~10,000 employees doing?  Some are Mech, C&S, MoW, etc, which Airtran pays for in other ways (ticket tax, contract maint, etc.) but still.......

I don't want to kill it.  I just want it fixed.  Not everyone who suggests some change is an enemy.

[oltmannd]

Amtrak's current level of subsidy for the LD trains is very hard to defend.  Many of the reasons the subsidy is so high have been discussed here - low frequency of service vs. fixed costs, lack of labor productivity improvements/no profit motive, low equipment utilization/cost of ownership, etc.  These are all intertwined.

So, is it all hopeless?  No.

If the backbone of Amtrak was a series of short/medium haul corridor daylight trains whose expense was justified by avoided public spending for highway/air expansion, then the LD network would only have to be justified in terms of their incremental cost to operate.

I think this is what Kummant sees when he talks about Amtrak as a growth industry.  The problem is getting the political stars to align properly to get on with this.

[conrailman]

Amtrak should get the 6 year bill for 11 Billion Dollars when the Highways to get about 40 Billion and Airlines is get about 15 Billion and poor old amtrak is getting pennys to these big players and this Aid to these other Countrys every year 200 Billion. Spend the in money in the Good USA

[Prairietype]

So, just just how many billions of dollars do the airlines and supporting industries kick into the construction of airports, homeland security, air traffic control, the power grid, fuel tank storage on site, and everything else that keep the friendly skies friendly to the tax paying public? Do they contribute a fair share or is there just a little subsidy, here and there? 

If you look at one major subsidy, in rough round number, the FAA gets about 12 billion to run the air traffic control system of which 10 billion comes from airline tickets and av fuel taxes and which 2 billion comes from general revenue.  Furthermore, airlines carry about 100 times more passenger miles than Amtrak does in intercity travel.

How many passengers would the airlines be carrying if they only flew three airplanes a day from let's say Chicago to LA, or Chicago to Denver, with no landings in Des Moines or Wichita, Phoenix, Nashville, or Louisville, and dozens of other major cities? It would be kind of hard to justify the expense of the airport, the plane and the taxpayer money 'thrown at it."

Now Paul, I understand your points, and am not arguing this to be combative.  Everything you have said is correct, and indisputable, and sadly unfortunate for this country. We're not getting ahead with such a system, where actually digging ourselves in deeper and deeper, laboring under a collective sense that we're wasting money on Amtrak, when we can't keep up with the demands and responsibilities of maintaining the other forms of surface and air transportation. So why do Americans think they're over-taxed when we can look forward to a bright future of 16 lanes cutting quarter mile swaths across the landscape?  Heck, think of the jobs it creates, the road crews, the sign holders, the port-a-potty maintenance business, the orange cones and the years of job security to improve a two mile stretch that consumes over 4.5 years-and it still takes 30 minutes to travel 23 miles because the top speed on this stretch is 65mph, but all you'll ever do is average 39mph, at best.

Also, when there is a fatality (or serious accident) these days, the highway patrol has taken to shutting down the entire highway no matter what kind of traffic jam it causes in order to do a thorough crash-scene investigation. This can last 2-3 hours. 

 

[SFbrkmn]

I am pro psgr rail also but do not buy into the current concept of Amtrk. This will never take place, but I would rather see all long distance routes abolished, every diner & slpr rebuilt into coaches and all that equipment be used on more short haul corridor daylight runs that would most likely  create more public interest. I live on the route of the Southwest Chief. Gets old getting up in the middle of night to catch the train (I'll be doing that on a vac next Feb). I will  gladly replace 3&4 w/a daylight train to either KC or Oklahoma City anytime.

[Paul Milenkovic]

So, just just how many billions of dollars do the airlines and supporting industries kick into the construction of airports, homeland security, air traffic control, the power grid, fuel tank storage on site, and everything else that keep the friendly skies friendly to the tax paying public? Do they contribute a fair share or is there just a little subsidy, here and there? 

Well, that is the problem right there.  One argument made in rail advocacy circles is that you can't really trace all of the subsidy going into airlines -- the power grid largely is a private undertaking, just like the freight railroads, but there are various direct and indirect subsidies such as military spending on advanced jet engines, and so on.

If you look at one major subsidy, in rough round number, the FAA gets about 12 billion to run the air traffic control system of which 10 billion comes from airline tickets and av fuel taxes and which 2 billion comes from general revenue.  Furthermore, airlines carry about 100 times more passenger miles than Amtrak does in intercity travel.

If you look at Federal highway spending, that budget is around 30 billion per year in rough round numbers and is supported by about 50 cents per gallon tax on gasoline which is split between Federal and individual states.  The intercity auto passenger miles is about 500 times what Amtrak handles.

Another way to look at it is that if there is 50 cents per gallon paying for roads, there might be another 50 cents per gallon not levied against the gas tax but coming out of property tax -- you are paying the gas tax as soon as you turn the key on your car, but the initial mile of any trip is on a local road.  If we assume in rough round numbers a 25 MPG car and 50 cents per gallon external subsidy, cars are getting subsidized at about 2 cents per vehicle mile.  Amtrak (again there is the question of fully-allocated and direct cost), is subsidized at about 20 cents per passenger mile.  Amtrak in that sense requires 10 times the subsidy as driving.

The essential Amtrak problem is that the subsidy is small compared to the total amount spent on other modes but large on a passenger mile or other unit of of work product basis.

The other issue with subsidy of the other modes is that with airlines there is everything from the runway surface and below, and everything from the landing wheel tire patch on up.  On the everything on the landing wheel tire patch up basis, airline operations are run on a for profit basis.  Yes, 9-11 airline bailout, but that was a one-time thing.  If there was some kind of one-time grant to Amtrak to put it on a for profit basis forward, you would find a lot of support.

The case for Amtrak subsidy needs to be made on its own merit in terms of unique social benefits of having rail transportation because if the case is made on "everyone else is getting subsidy" we will fail.