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.
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.
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.
ontheBNSF Enough with the Amtrak has to be profitable crap
Enough with the Amtrak has to be profitable crap
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.
Railroad to Freedom
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."
"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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.