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.
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.
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?
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.
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?"
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
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!
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.
The equivalency argument.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
I think, Schlimm, there is a large overlap in your opinion and mine about Amtrak.
But I don't want to loose Amtrak. I see sleeping cars, dining cars and similar things as the price we must pay to keep it. And I am willing to pay that price.
But you see the costs of such luxuries as weakening Amtrak. You would eliminate them to have a stronger Amtrak.
So I think we can only agree to disagree on that particular issue. But the essence of your vision, that Amtrak should be about providing the best passenger service to move the most people we can for the money we spend is something I very much agree with.
John
If you agree with all three points, then you should understand that addressing #1 takes care of most of the LD problems, which contribute a huge percentage of the operating loss. But even handling the "low hanging fruit" of the absurd 2% food service improves its image.
As far as opinion goes, much of the general public has no awareness of Amtrak. That is why, in henry6's words, a real "passenger service" is needed in identified corridors. That means frequent service throughout the day, such that people start to consider the train as a viable option for transportation distances under 500 miles.
As far as Congress goes, Amtrak should be able to get more cooperation if they don't have to come to the House each year begging for money to cover operating losses. Maybe then they can even get the funding through bond issues for infrastructure.
schlimmI believe the essence of what some of us are saying about dining cars on LD trains is basically as follows.
I agree with your three points, Schlimm. The only point I would make is that beyond this website I don't know of anyone who is calling for similar changes to Amtrak. Do you know of anyone who is?
My own assessment of where the country is when it comes to Amtrak is that most people are just not engaged in the issue. Of those who are some are pro Amtrak and some are anti Amtrak. However, neither the pros nor the antis are big enough to make much of a difference.
As far as the cost of food service is concerned, Joe Boardman has pointed out that is about 2 per cent of Amtrak's budget. I suspect those people who are engaged in Amtrak look at broader issues.
I believe the essence of what some of us are saying about dining cars on LD trains is basically as follows.
1. LD trains should be pruned to keep the ones that actually serve the most LD passengers, i.e. folks riding most of the length of the route. For others, divide into segments served by day trains, i.e., no sleepers.
2. Where food service is needed, outsource it to food service specialists and have patrons pay the true costs of their meals.
3. Various delivery modes can be used: aisle service, lounge snack/bistro cars, actual dining cars. "Gourmet" meals are not primarily why a person rides a train and taxpayers or Acela surpluses should not be subsidizing their continuance or that of sleeping cars. Boardman said that quite clearly to the Midwest HSR group..
One simple question, which the dining car enthusiasts duck is this: Why should taxpayers subsidize your meal on a train?
oltmanndThe thing I can't swallow is that Amtrak appears to view themselves as some sort of innocent bystander in the whole process.
I'm not sure of what you mean here by "Amtrak," Don.
First of all, there is Joe Boardman. In his testimony to the Congress he certainly presents a strong argument for long distance trains. We all know his arguments or at least those of us who bother to read his testimony know them.
Also, when you get below the board of directors, every single Amtrak employee, both labor and management, is represented by a labor organization. These organizations all lobby the Congress. We generally don't know what they say but they all publish newsletters for their members which would show their positions. But I think it is safe to believe that they do not argue against Amtrak as it now exists and they oppose any diminution of Amtrak.
However, none of these entitles make the law. They simply administer the law that Congress has made. They can do only what the law authorized and they cannot do anything not authorized in law.
INMO There has not been a proper accounting of the food service draw.. Maybe Amtrak needs to break out on each train its food revenue.
1. When a sleeping car passenger uses the dining car then that cost should be fully accounted for by making it a food revenue from the sleeping car accomodaation charge. May be as well some transfer of the fare ( either one may already be done ) .
2. Each time a coach passenger uses the dinning car then there would be a flat subtraction from the fare paid to food revenue.
3. A lounge car / cafe, etc use could be transferred in the same way.
For example only: a coach pass uses dinning car then $7.00 of fares collected transferred to food service. Purchase of several items from lounge maybe $4.00, Drinks $1.00 These figures are not meant to be actual numbers..
John WR Sam1The cruise lines don't get taxpayer subsidies for their food service. So tell me again why the taxpayers should subsidize food service on Amtrak. Since you ask, Sam, here is the reasoning behind it as I understand that reasoning. Back in 1970 the American Public and Congress arrived at an agreement. Congress would allow the private railroads to abandon their passenger service. In return Congress would fund a national rail passenger system. That rail passenger system is not nearly as big as the one the public had to give up and Congress's support of it has been grudging at best. However, Congress has never refused to fund it. Ever since 1970 many individuals have questioned our rail passenger system. Some find it too expensive and want it eliminated. Some find it inadequate and want it expanded. And some feel it is unsuited to the needs of today's traveling public and it should be modified. However, there has never been a new consensus that we should either eliminate it or modify it. Thus it carries on at it was originally structured. It is not completely static. Amtrak has made some changes over its history. But it still is pretty much the same as it was in the beginning. Improvements in service have generally been funded by the states with the exception of the Northeast Corridor where the Federal Government has funded them. If Amtrak were to withdraw long distance trains as being unsuited to today's needs I cannot see any reason for Congress to do substitute anything in their place. But never say never. I really do not know what the future will bring. John
Sam1The cruise lines don't get taxpayer subsidies for their food service. So tell me again why the taxpayers should subsidize food service on Amtrak.
Since you ask, Sam, here is the reasoning behind it as I understand that reasoning.
Back in 1970 the American Public and Congress arrived at an agreement. Congress would allow the private railroads to abandon their passenger service. In return Congress would fund a national rail passenger system. That rail passenger system is not nearly as big as the one the public had to give up and Congress's support of it has been grudging at best. However, Congress has never refused to fund it.
Ever since 1970 many individuals have questioned our rail passenger system. Some find it too expensive and want it eliminated. Some find it inadequate and want it expanded. And some feel it is unsuited to the needs of today's traveling public and it should be modified. However, there has never been a new consensus that we should either eliminate it or modify it. Thus it carries on at it was originally structured.
It is not completely static. Amtrak has made some changes over its history. But it still is pretty much the same as it was in the beginning. Improvements in service have generally been funded by the states with the exception of the Northeast Corridor where the Federal Government has funded them.
If Amtrak were to withdraw long distance trains as being unsuited to today's needs I cannot see any reason for Congress to do substitute anything in their place. But never say never. I really do not know what the future will bring.
The thing I can't swallow is that Amtrak appears to view themselves as some sort of innocent bystander in the whole process.
Paul Milenkovic schlimm I, too, enjoyed meals on trains. In my case, they were on the dining (one "N") cars on the Burlington, Sante Fe, Pennsy or NYC of old, . Asking about "N" train cars? Try the Model Railroader section of the Forum . . .
schlimm I, too, enjoyed meals on trains. In my case, they were on the dining (one "N") cars on the Burlington, Sante Fe, Pennsy or NYC of old, .
I, too, enjoyed meals on trains. In my case, they were on the dining (one "N") cars on the Burlington, Sante Fe, Pennsy or NYC of old, .
Asking about "N" train cars? Try the Model Railroader section of the Forum . . .
I, too, enjoyed meals on trains. In my case, they were on the dining (one "N") cars on the Burlington, Sante Fe, Pennsy or NYC of old, . I also enjoyed a light meal recently on a Bord-Restaurant car on an ICE (HSR intercity express) on German Rail. In all cases, the meals were not subsidized by taxpayers, American or German. It is possible to have decent food on trains, whether prepared on board or brought aboard at stops, as Don Oltmann has suggested. Since Amtrak hasn't been able to figure that out in its 40+ year history, perhaps it is time to outsource?
cjn282 I think though, Sam, that the amenities offered on LD trains , going back to CN and CP, Via and Amtrak, still makes a difference as to who will buy a ticket. Having ridden a number of long distance trains over the years, I can truly say that my transportation would have been something else had decent food service not been available
I think though, Sam, that the amenities offered on LD trains , going back to CN and CP, Via and Amtrak, still makes a difference as to who will buy a ticket. Having ridden a number of long distance trains over the years, I can truly say that my transportation would have been something else had decent food service not been available
Mica's concern is with so-called gourmet meals on Amtrak trains that don't command a price sufficient to cover their cost. Some meal service on long distance trains, or short corridor trains for that matter, should be offered. Does it need to be in sit down, table serviced dinning cars or could it be offered in lounge cars? And should it be priced to cover the cost or should the taxpayers subsidize the eats?
I just returned from a one week Caribbean cruise. The cost of my meals was priced into the cruise ticket, although I could have opted for somewhat better eats in one of the specialty restaurants. It would have cost me more. The cruise lines don't get taxpayer subsidies for their food service. So tell me again why the taxpayers should subsidize food service on Amtrak.
I agree for most, but not all, of my long distance travel. When faced with an overnight run leaving just before dinner time, I probably would have been willing to brown-bag it. But a day and a night on a train with no good dining car, or anything longer, I probably would have flown despite my real love for rail travel.
This what happens when fools who need help to get dressed are elected to Congress.
BonasA outside food contractor could be greasing Con. Micas skids
I'm not sure what you mean, Bonas. It would be beyond inappropriate for Amtrak to even seem to be trying to influence an election, though.
A outside food contractor could be greasing Con. Micas skids
I understand. But again, my point wasn't so much the impact a PR fiasco like the $15 burger had on politicians or right wingers. I am referring to the impact it had on the general population which is largely apolitical and outside those living near the NEC, has probably never ridden Amtrak. This is especially true with the under 30 crowd, who mostly regard trains as some relic from the past. So jokes about the burger or for that matter, trains running into each other, offset all the good PR from Amtrak commercials (boring) or the talking GE train.
Actually a good cost accountant takes into account the very things you mention when determining the contribution margin that a unit makes when deciding whether to discontinue the unit. So in the case of Amtrak food service or sleeper service, a good cost accountant tries to quantify how much revenue direct and indirect gets lost and how much expenses truly get saved.
So dropping a diner may cause some riders to not take the train at all. Same is true for the sleeper. Now these indirect revenue losses are harder to quantify but not impossible to estimate. It's also important to identify which costs are truly saved. Allocating overhead to diners or sleepers is bad accounting if you are trying to decide whether to drop a diner or sleeper because you won't actually save the overhead. It would just get allocated somewhere else.
Amazingly management nonetheless makes these mistakes everyday in all types of businesses from airlines to auto making, and that's why companies fail to shrink to profitability (or less losses).
schlimmConsequently, when something becomes a joke like the $15 hamburger, it seriously damages Amtrak's image in the eyes of the general public, far beyond Mica's district. That's the point.
And I take your point, Schlimm. I did some web surfing trying to make some assessment of how damaging it was. What has happened is that it generated some discussion and that discussion has not been good for Amtrak. A fair amount of discussion was by people who were already predisposed to dislike Amtrak so it didn't change their opinions but it gave them a new chance to explain why Amtrak is unconstitutional. It kept their issues alive. So I have to agree you are right.
I also found some pro Amtrak backlash which could help Amtrak. But there was not a lot of it.
Finally, you don't have to look far beyond this forum to know that a lot of people are anti government, especially anti Federal government. They will link on to any issue they can to spread their anti government message. But the Federal government has been dealing with this for a very long time and is remarkably robust. Amtrak seems typical. So yes, I think the issue is damaging but I also think Amtrak can and will absorb the damage and go on.
John WR The $15 hamburgers have gotten him a lot of national exposure. (See your comment about David Letterman). So among the conservatives in his district the Congressman has succeeded and he intends to continue to succeed. But among Americans as a whole I doubt his attacks are more than an amusing diversion. John
The $15 hamburgers have gotten him a lot of national exposure. (See your comment about David Letterman). So among the conservatives in his district the Congressman has succeeded and he intends to continue to succeed. But among Americans as a whole I doubt his attacks are more than an amusing diversion.
A lot of Americans pay more attention to comedians like Letterman, Leno, Fallon, Conan O'Brien, etc. and pundit comedians like Stewart and Colbert than they do to serious news. Consequently, when something becomes a joke like the $15 hamburger, it seriously damages Amtrak's image in the eyes of the general public, far beyond Mica's district. That's the point.
John WR oltmanndYou can rent a private car and invite your friends to come along. Might cost a bit more than $100 a head, though. I'll put this on my "Things to do when I win the lottery" list. Along with your name as a guest.
oltmanndYou can rent a private car and invite your friends to come along. Might cost a bit more than $100 a head, though.
I'll put this on my "Things to do when I win the lottery" list. Along with your name as a guest.
I'll be there!
blue streak 1 oltmannd Stop the train? What for? Just load the meals on with the passengers. In a perfect world that would work. Being in the airline business for 30+ years lots of luck. Catering locations fall into 2 distinct operatioons. 1. At smaller locations as long as you are on time the caters will show up on time sbout 90% of the time. For every minute the plane is late expect a 1 - 2 % increase of them not showing up at your arrival. So if your plane is 30 minutes up late then caters showing upon your arrival goes down to about 60 % of time. Since a late train would not be affected by another train unless the opposite trains arrive at the same time who knows ? That would depend on capacity of catering truck. If caters also serve a small airport ( usually unlikely ) then lack of trucks could be a factor. 2. Large stations ? Even with the large amount of trains served at LAX, CHI , WASH, NYP, Bos delays happen though infrequently. But again late trains get later ( usually ). Whenever there are disruptins to service delays in catering were completely unpredictible. 3. No matter how tight performance contracts were there were always mistakes by the caterers in about 10 - 20 % of the time. Many times we woulld just have to leave without some missing items.
oltmannd Stop the train? What for? Just load the meals on with the passengers.
It would be a challenge... I was thinking more along the lines a national contract with very local administration. Perhaps each train would make it's own arrangements and adjust en route as conditions change.
We're only talking a couple hundred meals per train, per meal.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.