From today's New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/business/hassles-of-air-travel-push-passengers-to-amtrak.html?_r=1&hp
Murray From today's New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/business/hassles-of-air-travel-push-passengers-to-amtrak.html?_r=1&hp
This is a good article. It highlights my view that passenger trains make sense in relatively short, high density corridors. The author, however, made a few misstatements.
The Acela does not make money. Neither does the NEC. The Acela, because of its premium fares, covers its operating costs and helps off set the operating loses of the other NEC trains. How much? Actually, we don't know since Amtrak stopped showing the route results, claiming that it is working on a new accounting system. When the capital, interest, and ancillary costs are added to the mix, none of Amtrak's routes make money. A business has to cover all of its costs to be successful.
Amtrak does not own the NEC. It owns approximately 360 of the 457 miles between Washington and Boston.
The writer also misstates the share of the air/rail commercial market enjoyed by Amtrak between New York and Washington. The implication is that Amtrak has the lion's share of the New York to Washington market. This is probably not correct. It has the lion's share of the New York - Washington market, which would include passengers traveling from New York to Philadelphia or Trenton to Washington, which is different than the end point to end point market.
The article is encouraging. With a bit of fare tweaking, coupled with better labor contracts (productivity, compensation, etc.) and modern management techniques, the NEC could probably cover all of its operating costs and make a substantial contribution to the capital costs.
Providing a link to a newspaper article can present a problem. For example, when I activated the link to the article, I was told that it was my last free article for the month. Had I already exceed the freebies, I would not have been able to read the article. I don't intend to subscribe to the NY Times. Or if I link you to a Dallas Morning News article that is for subscribers only, you would not be able to read it unless you are a DMN subscriber. Just a point for the participants to keep in mind as more and more news outlets are attempting to recover the cost of their on-line editions.
Sam1 Murray From today's New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/business/hassles-of-air-travel-push-passengers-to-amtrak.html?_r=1&hp This is a good article. It highlights my view that passenger trains make sense in relatively short, high density corridors. The author, however, made a few misstatements. The Acela does not make money. Neither does the NEC. The Acela, because of its premium fares, covers its operating costs and helps off set the operating loses of the other NEC trains. How much? Actually, we don't know since Amtrak stopped showing the route results, claiming that it is working on a new accounting system. When the capital, interest, and ancillary costs are added to the mix, none of Amtrak's routes make money. A business has to cover all of its costs to be successful. Amtrak does not own the NEC. It owns approximately 360 of the 457 miles between Washington and Boston. The writer also misstates the share of the air/rail commercial market enjoyed by Amtrak between New York and Washington. The implication is that Amtrak has the lion's share of the New York to Washington market. This is probably not correct. It has the lion's share of the New York - Washington market, which would include passengers traveling from New York to Philadelphia or Trenton to Washington, which is different than the end point to end point market. The article is encouraging. With a bit of fare tweaking, coupled with better labor contracts (productivity, compensation, etc.) and modern management techniques, the NEC could probably cover all of its operating costs and make a substantial contribution to the capital costs. Providing a link to a newspaper article can present a problem. For example, when I activated the link to the article, I was told that it was my last free article for the month. Had I already exceed the freebies, I would not have been able to read the article. I don't intend to subscribe to the NY Times. Or if I link you to a Dallas Morning News article that is for subscribers only, you would not be able to read it unless you are a DMN subscriber. Just a point for the participants to keep in mind as more and more news outlets are attempting to recover the cost of their on-line editions.
Enough with the Amtrak has to be profitable crap, no matter what you say Passenger transit will for the most part be unprofitable and government run. So stop beating a dead horse. Air travel is heavily subsidized and is often unprofitable airports and air traffic control cost a lot money too you know.
Railroad to Freedom
Quite true. I took Amtrak from Chicago to Charleston, SC last month and there were around 8 other people who took the train. Most took the train because flights to Charleston from their home town connected through Atlanta and were around $ 500.00. Amtrak coach was $ 200.00.
"enough with the Amtrak has to be profitable crap......
If one takes an objective look at the numbers, as per a variety of government data bases, one can see that commercial air and commercial bus companies received no direct operating subsidies in any of the last ten years. Moreover, the subsidies that can be attributed to them are minuscule compared to those for passenger rail. Depending on whether one looks at just the federal subsidies or takes into consideration a variety of state and local subsidies, such as they are, passenger rail gets 20 to 10 times the per passenger mile subsidies that are paid out to competing modes of transport, which includes commercial transport and personal transport.
No where is it written that passenger rail is entitled to taxpayer subsidies. It is my contention that it could compete in the market place if it ran trains where they make sense, i.e. relatively high density, short corridors, and the subsidies as they are are eliminated for all competing modes of transport. Moreover, it would be important to price the true cost of each mode of transport at the price point, i.e. pump, ticket counter. Could it work? We are about to find out. Private operators in Florida and Italy are giving it a go.
A read of the financial reports for most of the nation's major airports will show that they cover their costs and, in most instances, show an increase in net assets over time. Most of them have received small grants from the federal government under the Airport Improvement's program, but the grant monies in most instances are less than two to four per cent of the capitalized value of the airport.
Most of the people that I know who claim that the airlines, bus companies, and motorists are heavily subsidized have not read any of the government or company or airport financial statements. I suppose that can be comforting. As an old boy told me one time, "I have made up my mind, please don't confuse me with the facts."
Sam1 "enough with the Amtrak has to be profitable crap...... If one takes an objective look at the numbers, as per a variety of government data bases, one can see that commercial air and commercial bus companies received no direct operating subsidies in any of the last ten years. Moreover, the subsidies that can be attributed to them are minuscule compared to those for passenger rail. Depending on whether one looks at just the federal subsidies or takes into consideration a variety of state and local subsidies, such as they are, passenger rail gets 20 to 10 times the per passenger mile subsidies that are paid out to competing modes of transport, which includes commercial transport and personal transport. No where is it written that passenger rail is entitled to taxpayer subsidies. It is my contention that it could compete in the market place if it ran trains where they make sense, i.e. relatively high density, short corridors, and the subsidies as they are are eliminated for all competing modes of transport. Moreover, it would be important to price the true cost of each mode of transport at the price point, i.e. pump, ticket counter. Could it work? We are about to find out. Private operators in Florida and Italy are giving it a go. A read of the financial reports for most of the nation's major airports will show that they cover their costs and, in most instances, show an increase in net assets over time. Most of them have received small grants from the federal government under the Airport Improvement's program, but the grant monies in most instances are less than two to four per cent of the capitalized value of the airport. Most of the people that I know who claim that the airlines, bus companies, and motorists are heavily subsidized have not read any of the government or company or airport financial statements. I suppose that can be comforting. As an old boy told me one time, "I have made up my mind, please don't confuse me with the facts."
I will give you that you are more researched on the issue. However I only claimed that airlines recieve such subsidies some direct some indirect whether it be the building of the infrastructure or essential air service just to name a few here is a list of some subsidies http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001001.html
more on the essential air service
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2782755/posts
Plus you have to take into account the externalities any mode of transit causes in the case of airlines noise or massive loss of real-estate or with highway urban sprawl and congestion etc.
ontheBNSF Enough with the Amtrak has to be profitable crap
Enough with the Amtrak has to be profitable crap
NittanyLion ontheBNSF Enough with the Amtrak has to be profitable crap That's my sentiment. Government operations exist to provide security and services to their citizenry. Amtrak doesn't make money. So what? Neither does the DoD, FAA, NASA, the National Parks, NIH, or anything else. USPS is bleeding money like it has hemorrhagic fever and people are fighting tool and nail for it. Amtrak's a public service that enough taxpayers want and that's that. I think WMATA is horribly managed and will never make a profit, but I accept that as the reality of the situation. Instead, I complain about the terrible service they provide because that is something that can be altered. Profitability is not a requirement for a government sponsored operation. Its a device to improve the viability of an area as an economic center.
Sam1 NittanyLion ontheBNSF Enough with the Amtrak has to be profitable crap That's my sentiment. Government operations exist to provide security and services to their citizenry. Amtrak doesn't make money. So what? Neither does the DoD, FAA, NASA, the National Parks, NIH, or anything else. USPS is bleeding money like it has hemorrhagic fever and people are fighting tool and nail for it. Amtrak's a public service that enough taxpayers want and that's that. I think WMATA is horribly managed and will never make a profit, but I accept that as the reality of the situation. Instead, I complain about the terrible service they provide because that is something that can be altered. Profitability is not a requirement for a government sponsored operation. Its a device to improve the viability of an area as an economic center. None of the federal agencies that you cite are commercial enterprises. I don't know anyone who has suggested that they are intended to earn a profit, although the FAA, National Parks, and USPS cover most of their costs via user fees. Amtrak is a commercial enterprise. It competes with commercial airlines and commercial bus companies for passengers. It also competes with automobiles, which are not commercial activities. Why should commercial air and commercial bus operators be expected to cover their costs and earn a return for their shareholders from the users whilst Amtrak is given a pass? No commercial operator should be supported directly by the government. Subsidies should be eliminated and each mode places on a level platform. Any government sponsored infrastructure required to support commercial transport operators should be paid for by the users in proportion to their use of it. If the country took this stance, with some of the changes that I have advocated, passenger rail could possible thrive in a few relatively short, high density corridors. As to the argument that the taxpayers want it, they certainly don't show it by their arms length transaction decisions. Less than one per cent of Americans choose the train for intercity travel, which is defined as a trip between two cities that are located at least 50 miles apart. I like trains. But I don't think that they should be treated any differently from any other commercial enterprise. Carrying fare paying passengers is a commercial activity.
Amtrak isn't a commercial enterprise and thus shouldn't be treated as one. Their purpose is to provide service and the amount people using it in all areas has increased so much that they need new capacity if anything we should give them more money. If you go ANYWHERE in the world you will be hard pressed to find a system that isn't atleast some what government subsidy and most of those systems indeed lose money. You seem to completely ignore the air service subsidies such as tax breaks, bailouts, free pilot training, free access to air traffic control, free R&D from the military, and of course subsidizing of unprofitable routes in rural areas tell me should we end these subsidies if we end Amtrak subsidies?, how about you hold things to a common standard well you clearly aren't. Transit is not inherently unprofitable per say just really expensive and has many barriers to entry for as private institution so private institutions tend to avoid it, the reason why Amtrak exists is because private institutions didn't want to run passenger trains but people still wanted to go on the. Essentially you end with mid evil style toll bridges with expensive fares and with monopolized public transit frankly I don't want to go back to those days.
Sam1 None of the federal agencies that you cite are commercial enterprises.
None of the federal agencies that you cite are commercial enterprises.
Neither is Amtrak. Its a government controlled non-profit organization. It has more in common with all those city owned subways and state owned commuter trains than any sort of commercial operation.
And to be completely frank about it, the amount of Federal money appropriated to Amtrak is practically a rounding error in the budget. Its existence or non-existence is so minuscule as to be completely inconsequential for all intents and purposes. We spend more just to operate the International Space Station per year than it costs to operate Amtrak.
Amtrak was formed by Congress to relieve private enterprise railroads of the burden of passenger service in view of the fact that Congress's creation, the United States Postal Service, as an entity to replace the United States Post Office, had pursued avenues of operation which took intercity mail and local city and town mail delivery services off the railroads in favor of standing buildings and highway trucks. Without this revenue railroads were stuck with high costs of maintaining passenger train services. Congress thus deemed that the new entity of Amtrak be charged with making a profit, an achievement I believe they knew could not be accomplished and thus it would be abandoned and there would be no passenger trains.
As for being a business...the only for profit business Congress ever really dabbled in was the Consolidated Rail Corporation which it created through the USRA to own and operate bankrupt Northeast railroads which was set up to be sold off to private stockholders at a near future date which did happen successfully. Amtrak and the USPS have not been set up in the same manner so therefore continue to muddle through life by politics and whim rather than sound business, or even sound political, practices.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Amtrak's federal subsidies are a rounding error in the federal budget. Agreed! It is chump change.
In FY09, Amtrak received federal operating and ARRA subsidies of approximately $3.7 billion. The operating subsidy was in the neighborhood of $1.3 billion. The combined transfers worked out to an average of $45.20 per taxpayer. The operating subsidy, which repeats itself annually, averaged $14.65 per taxpayer.
Each year the Congressional Budget Office publishes a report of potential savings by budget line item for the federal government. Amtrak makes the list each year. So too do hundreds of other items, many of which are relatively small on average per taxpayer. Here are a few other examples (on average) per taxpayer: $28.09 for the highway trust fund transfers; $23.21 for the arts and humanities; $17.10 to change the Social Security COLA; $4.89 to reduce the premium subsidy for crop insurance; and $2.16 for the Essential Air Services Program.
The list goes on for many pages. Every special interest group claims that its perk is just a rounding error in the federal deficit. Unfortunately, when one adds them all up, they come close to $600 billion, which is approximately half of the annual federal deficit.
Amtrak is the moniker for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. It is a federally sponsored corporation. The federal government owns the preferred stock. The common stock was issued to the private carriers that agreed to contribute their equipment upon start-up of the corporation. They refused a 2002 Amtrak offer to buy back their stock. Language regarding the formation of the corporation can be found in a number of authoritative sources, including the enabling legislation and the corporation's by-laws. Whether the sponsors intended it to fail appears to be mostly conjecture. Clearly, it was intended to operate as a business.
The federal government runs a number of other businesses that most people are unaware of or don't understand how they operate. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is in effect an insurance agency designed to insure private pension plans. It collects premiums from the insured and pays benefits if the insured pension plan goes into default. Although the intent is for it to recover all of its costs, it currently has an estimated shortfall of $26.3 billion.
The federal government also runs the Federal Deposit Insurance, which is a government corporation operating under authority of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. The FDIC acts as an insurance company that insures most commercial bank deposits up to stated limits. It collects premiums from depositors, although most of them don't know it, and covers depositors accounts in case their depository fails. Historically, the FDIC has been managed well.
The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 abolished the United States Post Office Department and created the United States Postal Service, a corporation like independent agency with a monopoly on first class mail. It is expected to cover all of its costs.
All of these government functions are expected to operate like a business; i.e. they are expected to re-cover their costs through premiums, fees, etc. It is true that they are not expected to generate a profit for their stakeholders. Amtrak has not generated a profit for its stakeholders; it has not even come close to covering its costs.
Sam1 Amtrak is the moniker for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. It is a federally sponsored corporation. The federal government owns the preferred stock of the corporation. The common stock was issued to the private carriers that agreed to contribute their equipment upon start-up of the corporation. They refused a 2002 Amtrak offer to buy back their stock. ...
Amtrak is the moniker for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. It is a federally sponsored corporation. The federal government owns the preferred stock of the corporation. The common stock was issued to the private carriers that agreed to contribute their equipment upon start-up of the corporation. They refused a 2002 Amtrak offer to buy back their stock. ...
Why did the RRs refuse the Amtrak offer to buy back the common stock. Were they holding out for a higher price, or did they want to have a say in how Amtrak was run (presuming they had common stock voting rights) ?
cbq9911a Quite true. I took Amtrak from Chicago to Charleston, SC last month and there were around 8 other people who took the train. Most took the train because flights to Charleston from their home town connected through Atlanta and were around $ 500.00. Amtrak coach was $ 200.00.
Riddle me this. If the airplane is $500 and Amtrak coach is $200, why isn't Amtrak, say, charging $400, undercutting the airlines by a comfortable margin and requiring proportionately less subsidy? Or is it that Amtrak needs to undercut the airline fare by $300, drawing on its subsidy to do this, to induce those 8 people (8 people!) to take the train.
But if trains are so much more hassle-free and comfortable than the plane, couldn't Amtrak charge $600 and still get takers?
Maybe Amtrak has indeed cranked up the fare, especially in the NEC market where they are perceived to be indeed a better mode of transportation rather than a bus-like inferior mode that needs to be priced at a discount. That the fares are so high on the Acela accounts for the Acela covering its operating costs, which people seem to keep saying over and over and over again that a train can never do. So why can't Amtrak boost fares on the long-distance trains the way they do on the Acela?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Exactly. So nine people rode two trains taking an elapsed 33 hours. If you were to take Amtrak this Monday, 8/20, you will pay $249 to $301 for coach. I can book a ticket right now on US Air for a flight with a change in Charlotte. Elapsed time for the entire flight is 4 hr 46 min. Price? $205 inclusive of tax and fees. Seriously, who would want to take the train, other than someone who just "likes riding trains"? Running trains on routes longer than 400-500 miles (and that at high speeds) does not provide transporation, just land cruises.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Under the The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-134), the DOT preferred stock lost its voting rights and liquidation preference against Amtrak assets. The original voting rights of the common shareholders were restored, and the common stock was supposed to be redeemed by Amtrak at its fair market value by October 1, 2002. It has not been redeemed.
I don't know the ins and outs of the issue. I suspect that it has to do with a determination of the fair market value of the stock as well as related control issues. Since there is no market for the stock, determining a fair value for it would be difficult.
Sam1 The Acela does not make money. Neither does the NEC. The Acela, because of its premium fares, covers its operating costs and helps off set the operating loses of the other NEC trains. How much? Actually, we don't know since Amtrak stopped showing the route results, claiming that it is working on a new accounting system. When the capital, interest, and ancillary costs are added to the mix, none of Amtrak's routes make money. A business has to cover all of its costs to be successful.
MidlandMike Sam1 Amtrak is the moniker for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. It is a federally sponsored corporation. The federal government owns the preferred stock of the corporation. The common stock was issued to the private carriers that agreed to contribute their equipment upon start-up of the corporation. They refused a 2002 Amtrak offer to buy back their stock. ... Why did the RRs refuse the Amtrak offer to buy back the common stock. Were they holding out for a higher price, or did they want to have a say in how Amtrak was run (presuming they had common stock voting rights) ?
American Premier Underwriters (APU), owner of 55.8% of Amtrak's common stock (from Penn Central) filed a lawsuit seeking $52 million plus 40 years of interest. The federal court granted Amtrak's motion to dismiss the lawsuit in 2011, but APU filed an appeal. Could drag on for years and years. In short, APU wants money. The subject is covered at length in the annual financial report for FY 2011 which is available on Amtrak's website in the Reports & Documents page.
I'm not against air subsidies but we seem to ignore both the direct and indirect subsidies provided to them if we drop Amtrak subsidies shouldn't we in turn drop air subsidies I view we should hold things equal like SAM1 said? An honest question in my opinion. I know more people use air travel than trains but still people use both and people are using the ladder in increasing number so wouldn't it be appropriate to give Amtrak more money?
I believe the issue is not subsidy or no subsidy. It's using money wisely. More money for capital improvements makes sense. Since another poster showed that Acela is covering all costs (I'm assuming this includes depreciation), having corridor services that can cover operational expenses plus, within ~10 years of start up seems like the way to spend resources. Spending scarce money on LD trains that serve so few at such a high per passenger subsidy seems foolish.
schlimm Seriously, who would want to take the train, other than someone who just "likes riding trains"? Running trains on routes longer than 400-500 miles (and that at high speeds) does not provide transporation, just land cruises.
Seriously, who would want to take the train, other than someone who just "likes riding trains"? Running trains on routes longer than 400-500 miles (and that at high speeds) does not provide transporation, just land cruises.
I completely disagree with this sentiment. For instance, if you were to leave DC bound for Charleston SC, it would take you about nine and a half hours on Amtrak. The no traffic drive time is about an hour less. But you're going to lose well over an hour in traffic just at Lorton VA. That's a trip of over 500 miles. I used to make that trip with a girlfriend. Leaving friday afternoon for that week's vacation was an 11 hour drive. We didn't exactly travel light on those trips, which ruled out air.
Lion: I was referring to the previous post, about riding from Chicago to Charleston for 33 hours. With a higher speed train, service from DC south to Charleston, or more likely a 2nd connecting corridor from Charlotte to Charleston could be feasible..
Alan F Sam1 The Acela does not make money. Neither does the NEC. The Acela, because of its premium fares, covers its operating costs and helps off set the operating loses of the other NEC trains. How much? Actually, we don't know since Amtrak stopped showing the route results, claiming that it is working on a new accounting system. When the capital, interest, and ancillary costs are added to the mix, none of Amtrak's routes make money. A business has to cover all of its costs to be successful. Check the updated September 2011 Monthly Performance Report on Amtrak's website. The revised MPR for the end of FY2011 with final audited financial data for the route financial performance numbers was posted a month or 2 back. The fully allocated contribution/(Loss) columns shows that the Acela and the NE Regionals (for the first time I think) are operating in the black for fully allocated overhead.The total revenue numbers for the state supported and short distance corridors include the state operating subsidies, so actual ticket revenues for the FY shown back on pg 24 of the report should be used to get a measure on the true cost recovery for the corridor service. The total revenue for the trains must include food & beverage sales to add up, but the F&B income is not broken out. The Lynchburg Regional ran at a profit for the year and the DC to Richmond & Newport News Regionals almost broke even.
schlimm I believe the issue is not subsidy or no subsidy. It's using money wisely. More money for capital improvements makes sense. Since another poster showed that Acela is covering all costs (I'm assuming this includes depreciation), having corridor services that can cover operational expenses plus, within ~10 years of start up seems like the way to spend resources. Spending scarce money on LD trains that serve so few at such a high per passenger subsidy seems foolish.
The Acela does not cover its fully allocated costs, i.e. depreciation and interest, although it covers its operating costs and contributes to the capital costs. The amount of the contribution depends on how much of the NEC capital improvements are allocatable to the Acela. Amtrak does not provide us with enough information to make the determination.
Alan F MidlandMike Sam1 Amtrak is the moniker for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. It is a federally sponsored corporation. The federal government owns the preferred stock of the corporation. The common stock was issued to the private carriers that agreed to contribute their equipment upon start-up of the corporation. They refused a 2002 Amtrak offer to buy back their stock. ... Why did the RRs refuse the Amtrak offer to buy back the common stock. Were they holding out for a higher price, or did they want to have a say in how Amtrak was run (presuming they had common stock voting rights) ? American Premier Underwriters (APU), owner of 55.8% of Amtrak's common stock (from Penn Central) filed a lawsuit seeking $52 million plus 40 years of interest. The federal court granted Amtrak's motion to dismiss the lawsuit in 2011, but APU filed an appeal. Could drag on for years and years. In short, APU wants money. The subject is covered at length in the annual financial report for FY 2011 which is available on Amtrak's website in the Reports & Documents page.
APU's law suit is part of the issue. Equally important appears to be the issue of the fair market value or value of the stock. Amtrak offered the holders $0.03 per share. Counsel representing the four holders rejected the offer. Your correct in stating that the issue probably will be tied up in the courts for years. At the end of the day everyone except the lawyers will come out a loser.
ontheBNSF I'm not against air subsidies but we seem to ignore both the direct and indirect subsidies provided to them if we drop Amtrak subsidies shouldn't we in turn drop air subsidies I view we should hold things equal like SAM1 said? An honest question in my opinion. I know more people use air travel than trains but still people use both and people are using the ladder in increasing number so wouldn't it be appropriate to give Amtrak more money?
There was a call on this thread to stop beating dead horses regarding the "subsidy question."
Amtrak carries about 1 percent of the traffic (in passenger miles) of the commercial air carriers. Amtrak gets something north of 1 billion/year in subsidy.
I don't think you can find 100 billion plus per year in subsidy to commercial airlines, no matter how you slice it and dice it.
Can we lay to rest, "Amtrak gets subsidies but the airlines get them too"? Amtrak gets subsidy, the airlines get subsidy, the airline subsidy may be larger in real dollar terms (although even that is arguable), but the Amtrak subsidy is multiples bigger than any other mode on a dollars per passenger mile standard. Can we stipulate that around here and "move on" or is this point arguable? If it is arguable, I would like to be able to respond and discuss it without some of the words that have been sent my way.
If the matter of how much the other modes are subsidized is arguable and a fair matter for ongoing discussion, do we get to "beat the dead horse" of the Amtrak subsidy whenever it comes up for discussion on this forum?
I have never argued on this forum for the elimination of the Amtrak subsidy or that Amtrak should be held to a go-it-on-your-own no-subsidy standard. But I have argued for considering economic and engineering trades for how Amtrak spends its money, spends your money.
Paul: That was my hope, but some folks will persist. However, if you want to move forward, you could just ignore the "relative subsidy" issue. So if the issue is not how much subsidy (for operating expenses) but where to place it, would you agree that it would be best used where it does the most good, however we agree to measure that (subsidy per passenger or per passenger mile)? I would think it best to use it in developing existing and new corridors, which hopefully end up like the NEC and show (for Acela) a positive contribution on operations. And a separate, though related issue is whether capital improvements should be government funded or at least funded through tax-exempt, government guaranteed bonds?
schlimm ... would you agree that it would be best used where it does the most good, however we agree to measure that (subsidy per passenger or per passenger mile)? ...
... would you agree that it would be best used where it does the most good, however we agree to measure that (subsidy per passenger or per passenger mile)? ...
Isn't the crux of the discussion exactly this -- how do you measure "the most good"? I'm not sure that it is as simple as deciding between "subsidy per passenger or per passenger mile". How do you factor in some measure of social or public good?
A concrete (literally, and non-rail) example: Here in the urban areas of California, adding freeway lanes frequently involves consideration of whether to add regular lanes, or HOV (High-Occupancy Vehicle, or so-called "diamond") lanes. The regular lanes will clearly serve more people, but allowing busses and carpools better/faster access (and thereby indirectly encouraging carpool & transit use) may be a social good that actually may be considered to benefit many more, albeit some indirectly.
Are there not comparable considerations in the passenger train discussions?
Dragoman Isn't the crux of the discussion exactly this -- how do you measure "the most good"? I'm not sure that it is as simple as deciding between "subsidy per passenger or per passenger mile". How do you factor in some measure of social or public good? A concrete (literally, and non-rail) example: Here in the urban areas of California, adding freeway lanes frequently involves consideration of whether to add regular lanes, or HOV (High-Occupancy Vehicle, or so-called "diamond") lanes. The regular lanes will clearly serve more people, but allowing busses and carpools better/faster access (and thereby indirectly encouraging carpool & transit use) may be a social good that actually may be considered to benefit many more, albeit some indirectly. Are there not comparable considerations in the passenger train discussions?
Precisely. And the ones arguing that only trains in short-distance, high-density corridors make sense are people who live in [wait for it]..... short-distance, high-density corridors! Those who live in areas with relatively sparse populations though relatively few attractive transportation options think it is unfair that they should subsidize yuppies to go to work with their state income taxes and yet the long distance trains through rural areas (I am thinking about downstate Illinois where I am from) are considered "inefficient."
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.