schlimmOne simple question, which the dining car enthusiasts duck is this: Why should taxpayers subsidize your meal on a train?
Same reason taxpayers pick up about three and a half cents of uncompensated medical care on average when you use the roadways. Even individuals with automobile and medical insurance may not really have the insurance they need if they become seriously disabled. That typically falls to Medicare or Medicaid. That would be about $14 a meal period per party. More important is the leveraging of the interstate road routes off the local road system paid for by property taxes.
All told about $0.125/automobile vehicle mile of cost is not recovered by a user charges (gas tax) that is variable per mile of interstate travel. The current Long Distance trains are operating at a direct cost and equipment capital cost deficit of about that level. The real question is what to do with the fixed costs for NEC infrastructure.
I have yet to see any evidence that it is actually a better financial move to operate a train currently operating as a long distance train as a series of short corridors during the daytime. After all buses don't have overnight stops but roll right through as most people find it hard to transfer.
I believe the realities of Amtrak's current SAP_APT accounting method is that revenue attracts cost assignment.
http://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/dot/files/Amtrak%27s%20New%20Cost%20Accounting%20System%20Report%5E3-27-13.pdf
"Amtrak assigns only about 20 percent of its costs, and allocates the rest. APT increased the percentage of assigned costs from RPS’s 5 percent to 20 percent."
"According to Amtrak officials, Amtrak has not yet implemented FRA’s methodology for estimating avoidable costs because of time and resource limitations. However, the methodology—meant to provide Amtrak and Congress with information on the financial impact associated with eliminating any route—has significant limitations because it relies to a substantial extent on statistical estimation"
"However, some aspects of Amtrak operations will inevitably have allocated components because routes that share all or most of their facilities with other routes generate about half the company’s train-miles and expenses. At the same time, Amtrak’s organizational structure and complexity necessitate some level of allocation. About two-fifths of Amtrak expenses (corporate overhead and shared facilities) must be allocated and another fifth (maintenance of equipment) must be substantially allocated as they concern assets that are, in most cases, rotated among routes (Figure 1). Even the transportation operations accounts include support activities, such as dispatching, that necessitate allocation."
Translation... Amtrak and FRA haven't really agreed on how much it costs. If you want my take look at the paper I posted on the Intercity Marketplace thread. I ran the Crescent route as a model.
The equivalency argument.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
V.Payne More important is the leveraging of the interstate road routes off the local road system paid for by property taxes.
I wonder if it is even possible to begin to estimate the costs to our society of the massive destruction of our cities caused by interstate highways that run through the cities instead of running around the cities. There is, of course, loss of property taxes previously collected from the homes and businesses that are destroyed. Also, the people turned out of their homes are forced out of the cities. City dwellers are the people who are most likely to use public transit and who are most likely to go downtown to work and to shop. But interstate highways force them to move out to the suburbs and the lack of public transit in the suburbs forces them to use cars to get to suburban shopping centers.
I don't argue that after World War II no one chose to leave the cities for the suburbs. Many people did just that. But when the cities were gutted to make room for highways many more were forced out. And employers with city locations were also forced out. And ultimately had to follow their customers. Once out in the suburbs families that had found one car quite sufficient now found they needed two or more cars due to the lack of public transit. And the remaining transit required increasing subsidies from a narrowing tax base.
Meanwhile, the motor fuels tax doesn't begin to pay for repairs to our interstate highways so Congress appropriates large amounts of money from general funds to do so. And still it isn't enough. Two years ago New Jersey had a severe snow storm. The Federal government doesn't pay for snow plows. The state sent out plows but between state and federal highways there were not nearly enough. So local towns sent out plows to clear the interstate and police officers to pick up stranded motorists. The burden of paying for it all fell on the homeowners who pay property taxes.
Our interstate highways might have been routed around cities rather than through them. That decision was a massive and costly mistake and we will never stop paying for it as long as the highways run through our cities.
John WROnce out in the suburbs families that had found one car quite sufficient now found they needed two or more cars due to the lack of public transit.
Why would you supply transit for something specifically built for automobile use? Suburbs were designed around automobiles. That wasn't a drawback, that was a selling point!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
John WR Meanwhile, the motor fuels tax doesn't begin to pay for repairs to our interstate highways so Congress appropriates large amounts of money from general funds to do so. And still it isn't enough. Two years ago New Jersey had a severe snow storm. The Federal government doesn't pay for snow plows. The state sent out plows but between state and federal highways there were not nearly enough. So local towns sent out plows to clear the interstate and police officers to pick up stranded motorists. The burden of paying for it all fell on the homeowners who pay property taxes. Our interstate highways might have been routed around cities rather than through them. That decision was a massive and costly mistake and we will never stop paying for it as long as the highways run through our cities.
Yes, and so things are not "fair"?
That's interesting, but it doesn't inform us of "now what?"
V.Payne schlimmOne simple question, which the dining car enthusiasts duck is this: Why should taxpayers subsidize your meal on a train? Same reason taxpayers pick up about three and a half cents of uncompensated medical care on average when you use the roadways. Even individuals with automobile and medical insurance may not really have the insurance they need if they become seriously disabled. That typically falls to Medicare or Medicaid. That would be about $14 a meal period per party. More important is the leveraging of the interstate road routes off the local road system paid for by property taxes. All told about $0.125/automobile vehicle mile of cost is not recovered by a user charges (gas tax) that is variable per mile of interstate travel. The current Long Distance trains are operating at a direct cost and equipment capital cost deficit of about that level. The real question is what to do with the fixed costs for NEC infrastructure.
Here is the problem I have with claims "well, highways are subsidized too."
The billion and a half subsidy to Amtrak "buys" about one tenth of one percent of the total passenger miles carried by automobiles. If the auto mode receives direct or indirect subsidy in a proportional amount, there must be then a trillion and a half dollars of government money going to highways and autos in one form or another. I can see our system of automobile transportation being in the low trillions when you add up all of what is spent, but I just don't see a trillion and a half dollars being spent by the government on cars and highways.
As to economies of scale, that if Amtrak "weren't underfunded" it would be much more cost efficient, well, no one has any evidence of that.
OK, OK, there is the cross-subsidy argument. Interstates and especially rural Interstates are a particularly capital-intensive form of transportation. When you drive to the corner grocery store and pay tax on the gas, you are cross-subsidizing the rural interstates that certainly don't pay their way on the tax collected on gasoline for motorists on that segment of road.
So, maybe instead of having built the Interstates, forget that, instead of building expensive lanes on I-95, let's build that new passenger train "backbone" in the Northeast, build another in Texas, and certainly see to it tha the California one gets built. OK, so instead of a person driving the whole way, they would drive and park their car, take the HSR, and then "work out" some mode of transportation (transit, ride from friend or family they are visiting, rental car, "Community car", etc.)
But then you are thinking that the passenger train line (such as an HSR that runs fast enough to make up for the lost time at the "mode changes") is fully equivalent to the Interstate highway. Where the Interstate highway is carrying a goodly amount of common carrier and private carrier intercity freight. Where people aren't just driving their car, they are driving their RV and maybe trailering a boat to go to their favorite vacation spot.
Ultimately, and especially because the HSR won't raise its own private capital and pay its own way, the HSR (or near high-speed rail, the 110 MPH thing?) has to justify itself politically. The people who are using the Interstate to drive to Grandma or spend some time at the vacation home or any of a gadzillion reasons why people drive from some spread out suburban home, drive part of their journey on the Interstate, and then drive to some destination spread out among possible destinations at the other hand, that the people would prefer to have a train or perhaps an HSR spliced into the middle of that trip. Which may or may not work, especially when a boat is involved.
And then when people don't want this train because they like their unitary car trip thank-you-very-much (the president of our local train advocacy group in opposing the Madison mayor's downtown train station plan that he rather liked his suburban home and desired a train station with adequate parking so he could drive their and park for the duration of his trip, and the mayor's idea of a downtown-to-downtown intercity trains so people could live without having to own a car was too radical)? Do we talk about the "concrete and oil lobby"? Do we scold they very people are train is supposed to serve, the very people we are trying to persuade to direct tax money towards the train, do we scold them as having "a love affair with the automobile"?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
According to Joseph Kile's prepared testimony before the Committee on Finance, United States Senate, May 17, 2011, the total U.S. spend on roadways (local, county, state, and federal) is approximately $160 billion per year. Of this amount, approximately $40 billion is from the federal government.
All the monies spent on highways in the United States ultimately come from the taxpayers or the overseas folks foolish enough to keep lending us money. It does not arise from thin air, although it can be created with the touch of a computer key and ultimately monetized away.
The core problem for transportation (all modes) is the users don't see the true cost of their mode at the price point, i.e. pump, ticket counter, etc., and, therefore, depending on the mode, tend to over or under use it. The best fix is to stop subsidizing all modes.
oltmanndWhy would you supply transit for something specifically built for automobile use? Suburbs were designed around automobiles. That wasn't a drawback, that was a selling point!
Mainly, Don, because all suburbs are not the same. Some suburbs do have transit although not as much as cities do. Then there are the 5 acre lot suburbs.
John
oltmanndYes, and so things are not "fair"?
Basic to the idea of government services, Don, is the fact that some public necessities by their nature benefit some people much more than others but their costs cannot be allocated strictly based on use. Yet they are so important that the society as a whole needs them and so using tax monies to pay for them is justified.
During the snow storm I described there were people who were trapped in their cars and died there or died walking to try to get help. I do not begrudge my property taxes that were used and which, in some cases, saved lives simply because I was safe at home. Fairness does not necessarily mean each person will pay for what he or she uses and only for what he or she uses. Fairness means equal consideration of all people's needs.
However, we do need to know how much we spend for transportation, where we spend it and why we spend it.
oltmannd John WROnce out in the suburbs families that had found one car quite sufficient now found they needed two or more cars due to the lack of public transit. Why would you supply transit for something specifically built for automobile use? Suburbs were designed around automobiles. That wasn't a drawback, that was a selling point!
Paul MilenkovicWhere the Interstate highway is carrying a goodly amount of common carrier and private carrier intercity freight.
I would say that the vast majority of the US will not be served in the next one hundred years by a dedicated passenger main. So most of the lines will be mixed use intermodal freight and passenger trains. I can see the breakeven point for trailer based intermodal coming down to a bit less than 300 miles. The two would be a good fit together and give economies of scale with close to 24 hour use.
Now I still think that the two systems will coexist, if you want to haul a boat, your probably going to get a SUV (Like mine) and a trailer but if you are looking to make a one way trip or like me get tired of wasting 10 hours a week driving the exact same road you will look to intercity rail and figure out a way to get around on the other end. I still see intercity rail users being a minority of total people miles but a pretty good chunk of trips over 200 miles.
I would also like to make the counter argument to how will existing interstate users make use of a rail... for perspective. What of the people that can drive but just not at night or not can't make it a long time in the car without frequent stops for medical reasons. There is some evidence of frustrated demand that is not met. We have catered to one set of users only.
My solution to mediating the coexistence, is a per mile financial equivalency for the user cross-subsidy. If you have just a bit of users wanting to participate then you run a few trains over moderately upgraded existing infrastructure, yielding a higher ratio of operations to capital, same nominal dollar value. If you have a lot of users you build a mix of new and upgraded lines, more higher capital to operations.
V.Payne What of the people that can drive but just not at night or not can't make it a long time in the car without frequent stops for medical reasons.
To what extent do we provide for people with impairments that make using other kinds of transportation difficult? Some years ago I knew a lady who rode Amtrak. She worked full time but had a back injury that made flying simply too confining for her. She had been on one flight that was so crowded that at the end she was unable to get up from her seat and had to be carried off the plane. For a few days she had do deal with a lot of pain. The ability to get up and walk around on a train and to move freely about was important to her. As we get older many of us loose certain abilities we once had. The extra room a train provides can be important. This can be particularly important on long trips. There are people who, if they can not take a train to a distant place, really cannot get there at all.
John WR V.Payne What of the people that can drive but just not at night or not can't make it a long time in the car without frequent stops for medical reasons. To what extent do we provide for people with impairments that make using other kinds of transportation difficult? Some years ago I knew a lady who rode Amtrak. She worked full time but had a back injury that made flying simply too confining for her. She had been on one flight that was so crowded that at the end she was unable to get up from her seat and had to be carried off the plane. For a few days she had do deal with a lot of pain. The ability to get up and walk around on a train and to move freely about was important to her. As we get older many of us loose certain abilities we once had. The extra room a train provides can be important. This can be particularly important on long trips. There are people who, if they can not take a train to a distant place, really cannot get there at all.
What if she needs or wants to get to Mt. Rushmore?
Some suburbs were "built" by streetcars, some by commuter railroads, and some by the auto. I there is great congestion, it is usually more economical to make the investment in some sort of rail transportation and subsidize it than taking the land for new or expanded roads. That is the situation today yewhere there is great congestion. Otherwise, even if streetcars or commuter railroads "built" the suburb, relying on the auto probably makes the most sense. But the congestion neet not be only in the suburb itself, but in the work-study-shopping-entertainment destination. And obvioiusly improved bus transportation can be an intermediate solution, in many cases.
But again, if government, uses taxes to subsidize the commuter in order aleviate congestion and allow the city to function, I think it is also fare to subsidize the woman who wishes to cross the country once a year without great backpains, the college student graduate who wants a lifetime trip to see the country, etc., and insure they have some decent food and even a place to sleep while doing so.
oltmannd John WR V.Payne What of the people that can drive but just not at night or not can't make it a long time in the car without frequent stops for medical reasons. To what extent do we provide for people with impairments that make using other kinds of transportation difficult? Some years ago I knew a lady who rode Amtrak. She worked full time but had a back injury that made flying simply too confining for her. She had been on one flight that was so crowded that at the end she was unable to get up from her seat and had to be carried off the plane. For a few days she had do deal with a lot of pain. The ability to get up and walk around on a train and to move freely about was important to her. As we get older many of us loose certain abilities we once had. The extra room a train provides can be important. This can be particularly important on long trips. There are people who, if they can not take a train to a distant place, really cannot get there at all. What if she needs or wants to get to Mt. Rushmore?
Or Brownsville, Texas? Or the hundreds of Texas communities that don't have passenger train service? Because there is no viable market for it!
oltmanndWhat if she needs or wants to get to Mt. Rushmore?
As I understand your perspective, Don, you point out that Amtrak does not now serve many places in the US that people might want to travel to. One such place is Mount Rushmore. In fact, Amtrak does not enter any city in South Dakota. It is one of the few states without Amtrak.
But I don't recall seeing your conclusion to your observation.
The subject of this thread was Amtrak's subsidized food services. John you frequently bring up Amtrak's mission in its charter (and also Boardman's comment) as a justification for Amtrak. But that cannot possibly be interpreted as a basis for providing meals far below the cost to the passengers. Amtrak is for transportation. It is not a restaurant, nor should it provide subsidized food. That activity is legitimate for government to do, for those in need, through SNAP, school lunch programs, etc. Providing restaurant-quality food to folks who choose to ride an LD train, who may well be quite well-off is not . Nor, for that matter, is providing subsidized sleeping accommodations.
I think Schhlimm's posting above was thoroughly answered by my earlier post and by the one just previous to mione.. Decent food is absoluteley necessary for long distance travelers and cannot be considered a luxury. Ditto for a decent sleep. I don't think Amtrak does provide the excellence of meal experience that we used to get on the Suuper Chief, El Capitan, 20th Century, Broadway Limited, Panama Limited, Rio Grande and California Zephyrs. It is more akin to what was served in the lower priced New Haven Grill Cars, rather than the Merchants limited dining car. But it is good enough to be an enjoyable experience, not like a Penn Central cafe car or a an SP Automat. And I think that is the way it should be, and that amount of subsidy is justified. If the existing level of quality can be maintained and greater efficiency and savings found, I am all for it.
The problem with outside catering is assured timelly delivary under all conditions.
Dave, I agree with you that the level of food service now available on the long distance trains is far below that of the service available on the trains you mention. It is also below that of the service available on the Amtrak long distance trains I traveled on in the first ten years of Amtrak existence. It is above that which I found when I traveled in the srping of 1982.
Johnny
daveklepperI think Schhlimm's posting above was thoroughly answered by my earlier post and by the one just previous to mione.. Decent food is absoluteley necessary for long distance travelers and cannot be considered a luxury.
The operative term here is "subsidized." If you want decent food (whatever that is in your opinion) then you should pay for the entire expense of it. If you were driving, you could pack food, eat fast food, or eat and sleep at the Ritz-Carlton and you would pay entirely for YOUR choice. Why should the taxpayer or the fare-paying patrons of Acela service or the riders of the coaches on your LD train be expected to partially pay for you to have a bedroom and meal in the diner?
schlimmJohn you frequently bring up Amtrak's mission in its charter (and also Boardman's comment) as a justification for Amtrak. But that cannot possibly be interpreted as a basis for providing meals far below the cost to the passengers.
Schlimm,
On the subject of food service I would like to yield the floor to my distinguished colleague Mr. Klepper. I realize that you are not fully persuaded by his arguments. However, I don't know of any better arguments than he makes.
Let's see. --- The OIG and congress are the cost accoountants that determine that Amtrak food service is a money loosing cost center so it should be discontinued, ?.
Now the Cruise industry cost accountants probably also determine that their ship food service is a money loosing cost center.
I guess the airline also have cost accountants that have determined their food service on long distance flights are a loosing cost center. And maybe $1.00 peanuts on the discount airlines ae also a loosing cost center.
The same for the the cruise river boats such as the Delta Queen ? Or the evening cruise boats ?
The same for long distance limo services ? I guess the ones I've been on do ?
1. None of those are government corporations, so your comparisons are irrelevant.
2. Those entities largely have a net profit on operations, probably also on paying depreciation, etc. in their cases, a loss leader can be considered to increase business overall. In Amtrak's case, dining cars and sleepers add to the operating loss.
In a private auto I have the freedom to choose where I can stop off an eat and where I can sleep. On a train, I have to eat what is provided and I demand it be decent, at least up to the quality of a New Haven grille car or a Great Northern Frontier Lounge (similar food). And I want a good nights sleep while traveling. And I claim that on a passenger mile basis with present Amtrak long distance service, my subsidy from the tax-payers, overall subsidy is LESS than the subsidy you are receiving by driving your pdrivate car over the same distance, because of the land your interstate highway is occupying wihout paying real-estate taxes, costs of medical care due to the far higher highway accident rate, police and highway patrol, motor vehical bureau offices and staff, and the fact that the highway trust fund has failed to cover maintenance and has needed infusion from general tax revenues.
The bed and the meals are simply essential parts of providing decent rail long-distance transportation.
That's why.
I will make an exception if you are driving a wife and a full car of kids!
The relative subsidy (rails, roads and airways) issue has been debated here and elsewhere. The results seem pretty fuzzy. But you fail to answer the question and seem to have totally missed the essential part of the analogy. it wasn't a case of the road subsidy. It is the lodging and food. And unless one has a travel account, it is not subsidized at all. Within the realm of Amtrak, why should you feel entitled ("I demand") to get your food subsidized by both the general taxpayer and also the riders of Acela? If "bed and meals are an essential part of providing decent rail long distance transportation" then why can't you pay fully the cost for that portion above what the poor passengers in coach do? And I mean pay the full cost of your meals and bed. You are already getting a subsidy just riding the train.
schlimm 1. None of those are government corporations, so your comparisons are irrelevant. 2. Those entities largely have a net profit on operations, probably also on paying depreciation, etc. in their cases, a loss leader can be considered to increase business overall. In Amtrak's case, dining cars and sleepers add to the operating loss.
But they can be government companes when the buy outs and bankruptcies for the likes of Crysler & Pen Central
What net profit in the long run ? Since the beginning of airlines they have a net loss not profit. Every major airline has gone thru bankruptcy and the taxpayers subsidize them with tax write-offs. As well any bond holders , stockholdeers, loan holders all get that subsidity thru tax write offs.
schlimmWithin the realm of Amtrak, why should you feel entitled ("I demand") to get your food subsidized by both the general taxpayer and also the riders of Acela?
But Schlimm, all of us, every single one of us who lives in the United States, get our food subsidized. That is because most food is delivered to supermarkets by truck over roads where the trucks do not pay their share of the costs.
It is true food subsidy is not simple. In some cases price supports enacted by Congress add to the price of food and some producers are subsidized. I don't know who comes out ahead with price supported foodl However, much of the food we eat is subsidized.
blue streak 1 schlimm 1. None of those are government corporations, so your comparisons are irrelevant. 2. Those entities largely have a net profit on operations, probably also on paying depreciation, etc. in their cases, a loss leader can be considered to increase business overall. In Amtrak's case, dining cars and sleepers add to the operating loss. But they can be government companes when the buy outs and bankruptcies for the likes of Crysler & Pen Central What net profit in the long run ? Since the beginning of airlines they have a net loss not profit. Every major airline has gone thru bankruptcy and the taxpayers subsidize them with tax write-offs. As well any bond holders , stockholdeers, loan holders all get that subsidity thru tax write offs.
The makers of aircraft engines. I am told that the engine makers extend the airlines lines of credit.
With regard to tax write-offs as a subsidy, there has to be some earnings against which to take the write-off. Would a passenger train company given "the same deal" as the airlines even be able to offer service?
John WR schlimmWithin the realm of Amtrak, why should you feel entitled ("I demand") to get your food subsidized by both the general taxpayer and also the riders of Acela? But Schlimm, all of us, every single one of us who lives in the United States, get our food subsidized. That is because most food is delivered to supermarkets by truck over roads where the trucks do not pay their share of the costs. It is true food subsidy is not simple. In some cases price supports enacted by Congress add to the price of food and some producers are subsidized. I don't know who comes out ahead with price supported foodl However, much of the food we eat is subsidized. John
schlimm On another thread you gave figures as to who rides LD. Sounds like it is a shrinking group because of age. They rode private rail passenger service when younger. But in 10-15 years, there will be very few left.
Interesting you should mention that Schlimm.
Today we have fewer younger drivers:
Age Per Cent with Drivers License
1983 2010
16 46 28
17 69 46
18 80 61
19 87 70
20 - 24 92 81
35 - 39 95 87 (sic) but I wonder if it is a misprint and should be 25 to 29.
From Elizabeth Rosenthal, The End of Car Culture, The New York Times Week in Review June 30, 2013 p 3.
Young people are not exactly abandoning cars but there is a marked decrease in the number of licenses being issued.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.