D.Carleton oltmannd But, it's pretty clear the future is in corridors The future is corridors... operated by entities other than Amtrak.
oltmannd But, it's pretty clear the future is in corridors
But, it's pretty clear the future is in corridors
Well, not if Amtrak gets their act together....
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
John WRYglesias is politically opposed to the social needs part. But he is also naïve. He fails to see what you do see. Our long distance routes are used. Whether or not that use justifies a $600 million a year subsidy is another question.
I reject the "social need" argument because it is extremely unevenly distributed so therefore cannot be an actual need. Southern Kansas has more "social need" than South Dakota? How so?
That sort of "But dad, everybody else gets one, so why not me?" argument is totally invalid. We are talking about Amtrak and passenger rail service and it will be judged on its merits. Amtrak receives a yearly subsidy, as it should be. The entire point of the Brookings report [and my criticisms, oltmann's and maybe Paul M's] is getting the most bang for the buck. You set up a straw man by suggesting this is about making a profit versus serving a social purpose. That distinction is a false one. Rather, a lot more people could be served (isn't that the purpose of the social component?) if the dollars were used where the people are, namely in developing corridors under 400 miles connecting metro areas. If that operating subsidy could be used for equipment and infrastructure, that would be a far better use.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmIt is absurd that riders of Acela have to subsidize Mr. Smith on his land cruise in a sleeper on the CZ or SL or EB or SWC.
But Schlimm, we have many many subsidies in America and not just for poor people. Consider, for example, the income tax write off of mortgage interest. That is a hugh subsidy to home owners. And the fact that capital gains are taxed at a special low rate. That is a hugh subsidy to our wealthier people. Even roads that do not have bus routes are subsidies to people who can afford cars.
John
63.% of the riders are from the top 10 metro areas, which include many of the shorter corridors.
from the Brookings Report: "Simply put, short-distance routes are the engines of Amtrak ridership.36 When only considering corridors of 400 miles or less—an accepted distance for optimal rail ridership—these short corridors are responsible for over 80 percent [82.9%] of all Amtrak ridership." So 17.1% of the ridership [whose growth is at less than half the rate of the under 400 mile corridor ridership] creates a loss of $613.9 mil. and thus uses all the subsidy, government-sourced = 613.9 mil. and subsidized by riders on routes under 400 miles = $46.6 mil. for a total = $660.5 mil.It is bad enough that the taxpayer has to subsidize at a heavy level 17.1% of the ridership. It is absurd that riders of Acela have to subsidize Mr. Smith on his land cruise in a sleeper on the CZ or SL or EB or SWC. Time for Amtrak to reform and pull the plug on an antique that bears no resemblance to a modern rail passenger service.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
oltmanndHit did bite on the "nobody rides them" urban legend. The problem is their cost - even if you ignore the hidden subsidy by the host RRs.
Don,
I think Matthew Yglesias didn't understand the Brookings Institute article he quotes from.
To put the costs in proper perspective, here are statistics from the report:
Amtrak routes of 400 or fewer miles Profit $46.6 million
400 to 750 miles Loss $16.3 million
Over 750 miles Loss $597.6 million
The early part of the report explains why Congress does not see this as a problem as you do. At first glance the problem seems to leap off the page. However, Amtrak has two purposes. One purpose is to provide rail passenger service at a profit or a minimum cost. The second purpose to to provide for a social need. It should not come as a surprise that the social need part is where we spend almost all of the money. This has been debated over and over again in the Congress and there are those members who do not agree with it. But over the years of Amtrak's existence Congress has continued to fund both the practical part and the social need part of Amtrak.
Yglesias is politically opposed to the social needs part. But he is also naïve. He fails to see what you do see. Our long distance routes are used. Whether or not that use justifies a $600 million a year subsidy is another question.
D.Carleton "...trains are running in places where nobody rides them..." There were an awful lot of "nobodys" riding those trains last time I looked. Remember, at Amtrak NEC stands for "Nothing Else Counts."
"...trains are running in places where nobody rides them..."
There were an awful lot of "nobodys" riding those trains last time I looked. Remember, at Amtrak NEC stands for "Nothing Else Counts."
Hit did bite on the "nobody rides them" urban legend. The problem is their cost - even if you ignore the hidden subsidy by the host RRs.
But, it's pretty clear the future is in corridors.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/03/01/amtrak_profits_in_the_northeast_where_people_use_it_they_make_money.html
It's obvious to Mr. Yglesias, too. (BTW, he generally comes down on the liberal side of moderate...)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.