I ahve discussed the hidden subsidies for highway transportation at great length on this website already and do not need to repeat. They are enormous, beleive me.
Dakota,
If your arguement is correct, not that I think it is, then should the NPS not be running stage coaches between Independence MO and Sacramento plus steamboats on the Mississippi, Ohio, Missouri, Sacramento, and Columbia Rivers? How about the misquito fleet on Puget Sound? Dont forget the Commodore's boats going everywhere out of New York City!
I guess that would not be in the filthy lucre category, like any other government exenditure, but in sainted public service of the NPS.
Mac
"Why are the long-distance trains so expensive to operate?"
I think we know the answer to this one: Because it takes so many resources and so much time to collect the fare you can reasonably charge and still expect to sell a ticket.
I can accept that the labor efficiencies and fast turnaround of equipment of the jet airplane blew the economics of the passenger train off the tracks. What I can't accept is that a country of the wealth of the United States can't afford the pittance it takes to subsidize operation of a skeletal remnant of a form of passenger transport that was uniquely important to development of our country.
It's not in the same category as every other small expenditure -- "a billion here and a billion there" -- that in aggregate has us wallowing in debt. It's way more important than that; it's about our national soul. Make Amtrak part of the National Park Service, if you like. As long as people ride it, as they use the national parks -- and they do ride it -- that's good enough for me.
daveklepper And most motorists don't realize the hidden subsidies that they enjoy, especially long distance on specific interstate highways.
And most motorists don't realize the hidden subsidies that they enjoy, especially long distance on specific interstate highways.
I think what you are saying is that there is heavy cross subsidy within the highway system, that the person jammed in commuting traffic burning gas idling on one stretch of urban interstate is subsidizing a vacation traveller bopping along at 80-per on a lightly used stretch in Wyoming. And that if a person travelling those sparsely used rural highways had to pay a toll, maybe they could consider a long-distance train, perhaps an AutoTrain type service as an alternative?
Well, maybe. It seems that especially sleeping cars, or the long distance train model of the full-featured train with sleeper, diner, lounge, and baggage car service is a particularly expensive way to provide a transportation service.
If the coach seats were subsidized on LD trains in the style of Essential Air Service but if the passengers in First Class were charged a high enough fare to pay their own way, that might be an arrangement people would be happy with. But the argument has been made that the First Class passengers, even though they are paying a lot of their trip, are benefiting from their proportional share of a high rate of subsidy.
Why are the long distance trains so expensive to operate? It is something that I call the Bus on Steel Wheels argument. Owing to the enabling legislation for Amtrak, the fees paid for the trackage rights are a minor part of the balance sheet of those trains. We can argue whether this is a "taking" from the freight railroads or this is justified by the freight railroads having benefited from land grants and other concessions in the past, but let's just set this argument aside from now. Why are trains and especially long-distance trains so expensive to operate on an everything-above-the-wheel-rail-contact-patch basis? That is the question we should be asking rather than dismissing the concern over subsidies with "yes, everyone else is getting them."
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
And you don't appear to understand federal highway financing in the United States, i.e. that of the 18.4 or 24.4 cents motorists pay in federal fuel taxes (gasoline or diesel), two cents goes to the Mass Transit Administration and four cents goes to the Treasury Department for deficit reduction. The subsidy is just the opposite of what many people think. In FY10, the amount of money transferred to the MTA and TD would nearly equal the amount of the transfer (so-called highway subsidy) from the general fund back to the Highway Trust Fund. You assert that motorists receive hidden subsidies, but you don't provide any amounts.
No matter how you slice and dice the numbers, the so-called federal rail passenger subsidy in the United States, either per passenger or per passenger mile, is nearly 20 times the federal subsidy for air, motor vehicle, etc.
One of your arguments, i.e. that highways don't pay real estate taxes, is unique. It makes little sense since government(s) own most of the nation's roadways. Having said that, one could argue that roadways take land off the property tax rolls, to the extent that it could be used for tax generating purposes, and shifts the tax burden to residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural users.
Determining the value of the land taken off the tax rolls for highway purposes would be a nightmare. In some locations, such as major metropolitan areas, one might be able to come up with a number, predicated on the assumption the land could be converted to tax generating purposes, which is not a given, and would require some unique estimates. In many parts of the country, however, the land would little or no tax value, i.e. it is too remote or unfit for any other purpose.
To the extent that land is removed from the tax rolls, the tax rates necessary to generate a required level of government revenue must be higher. Land for highways is not the only part of the equation. Land for public schools, places of worship (churches, synagogues, etc.), has also been removed from the tax rolls.
There are more than 206 million licensed drivers in the United States. Most of them pay property taxes, either directly if they own property, which approximately 65 per cent do, or indirectly if they rent. Theoretically they are paying higher rates to compensate for the land supposedly taken off the tax rolls for streets, county roads, state highways, and federal highways. However, since there are so many of them compared to the number of people who use Amtrak, they generate sufficient revenues to pay for the nation's roadways.
If you want to use the highways don't pay real estate taxes argument to justify the subsidies for Amtrak, as well as other forms of passenger rail, you should remember that Amtrak does not pay any taxes on the land that it owns. In fact, it does not pay any taxes.
You have claimed that Amtrak makes public service contributions on its stations. Actually, most of Amtrak's stations are owned by municipalities, which don't collect taxes on them, and for which a public service contribution would make no sense. In any case, I would like to see the numbers.
Penn Station in New York and 30th Street Station in Philadelphia are owned by Amtrak subsidiaries. Several years ago I reviewed their financial statements. I did not see anywhere in the reports where they made a contribution for public services. Of course, that could have changed since then. I would be happy to have a reference to verify your assertion.
At the end of the day I have stressed two consistent themes. Passenger trains make sense in the United States for relatively short, high density corridors where the cost of expanding the airways and highways is prohibitive. Long distance trains make no sense. And all transport subsidies should be eliminated. I walk the talk. I ride trains in Texas (Austin to Dallas or San Antonio) and the NEC, and I write at least annually to my elected representatives to express my views, i.e. stop funding Amtrak's long distance trains and eliminate all transport subsidies.
Murray From the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/business/pleasures-return-on-a-long-train-trip.html?ref=businesstravel
From the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/business/pleasures-return-on-a-long-train-trip.html?ref=businesstravel
This is a good article. But it does not tell the whole story.
The same trip on January 15th would cost $420. The cost of the rail transport would be $127 and the room charge would be $293. Back out $40 for the fair market value of the meals, and the cost of the room would be $253. This is for an accommodation that is slightly larger than a broom closet. A comparable room at the Sheraton in Baltimore, as an example, would cost approximately $160. This includes all taxes. It would be more in New York or Washington, but Baltimore is probably a good comparative market for the east coast as a whole.
Also overlooked is the fact that the fare, including the room charge, did not cover Amtrak's cost of carrying the passenger over the distance of the journey waxed about. The subsidy would be $277.88, based on FY10 numbers. Due to accounting changes, Amtrak is yet to report the numbers for FY11, which ended on September 30, 2011. And this is before interest, depreciation, and miscellaneous charges, although these would be minimal for the portion of the trip south of Washington.
If the cost of the taxpayer subsidy were added to the ticket price, it would be approximately $698. Add on another 10 per cent for depreciation, interest, etc., and the ticket price, sans subsidies, would be $767. Not many Americans could or would pay the total tab if they were billed the true costs of traveling by Amtrak, especially in sleeper class. But most people don't have a clue about how much the long distance trains cost or the subsidy they receive every time they ride one of them.
Thanks, Murray. At first, I thought it was an account of a trip you had taken.
It is good that Amtrak can make a good impression on a first-time traveler. I could wish that this particular traveler were familiar with the long-time terms, such as berth, but even Amtrak apparently does not know them (just as VIA mentions single, double, and triple passenger cabins and not roomettes or duplex roomettes, bedrooms or compartments and drawing rooms; course, VIA's designations are descriptive of the accomodations).
I still remember a first-time traveler on the Sunset several years ago who was adamant that she would never travel by train again because the train was delayed by a motorist who put his vehicle on the track right in front of the train; she refused to listen to reason, and seemed to blame Amtrak for the delay. We were on the Eagle, and woke up expecting to be many miles west of San Antonio--but were still in San Antonio because of the delay.
Johnny
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.