United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Amtrak At Twenty End Of The Line For Taxpayer Subsidies
Source:
www.cato.org
URL Source: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-266.html
Published: May 16, 2015
Author: Jean Love, Wendell Cox, and Stephen Moor
Post Date: 2015-05-16 08:17:21 by CZ82
Keywords: None
Views: 6510
Comments: 26
Amtrak At Twenty End Of The Line For Taxpayer Subsidies by Jean Love, Wendell Cox, and Stephen Moore This year Amtrak is celebrating its silver anniversary. Unfortunately, after 25 years of federal ownership and $13 billion of federal subsidies, Amtrak appears no closer to financial independence than the day taxpayer assistance began. This study shows that virtually every stated justification for continued Amtrak subsidies is based on myth, not reality. Amtrak makes a negligible contribution to the nation's transportation system. Amtrak represents just .007 percent of all daily commuter work trips and just 0.4 percent of all passengers making intercity trips. Amtrak's typical riders are not low-income Americans. Only 13 percent have incomes below $20,000. Amtrak has virtually no impact on reducing traffic congestion, pollution, or energy use. Even a doubling of train ridership would reduce energy consumption and traffic congestion by less than 0.1 percent. Amtrak is by far the most highly subsidized form of intercity transportation. The average taxpayer subsidy per Amtrak rider is $100, or 40 percent of the total per-passenger cost. On some of the long-distance routes, such as New York to Los Angeles, the taxpayer subsidy per passenger exceeds $1,000. It would be cheaper for taxpayers to close down expensive lines and purchase discount round-trip airfare for all the Amtrak riders. Introduction In 1970 Congress created Amtrak, the National Passenger Railroad, as a publicly owned for-profit company. [1] Twenty-five years later, Amtrak remains heavily dependent on public subsidy; taxpayers contributed more than $1 billion to Amtrak in 1995. [2] And between 1970 and 1995, taxpayers provided more than $13 billion in federal capital and operating support of the passenger rail system. [3] States have contributed additional funds. More than two decades after Congress intended it to become financially solvent, Amtrak commercial revenues cover less than two-thirds of total costs. [4] Amtrak is unique among forms of intercity transportation--including airlines, buses, and private vehicles--in several respects. First and foremost, Amtrak is the only publicly owned form of intercity transportation. It has by far the highest unit costs (per passenger mile) of any intercity mode--double the highest cost alternative. Amtrak carries the smallest number of passengers of any intercity mode of transportation, and it serves a disproportionately high percentage of affluent passengers. And Amtrak is the only intercity mode that requires net public subsidies. Amtrak now needs additional public financing and has asked Congress to create a trust fund for its capital needs. Unlike the trusts for highways and air, which are derived from taxes on their respective users, the proposed Amtrak trust fund would be financed not by ticket taxes paid by its passengers but by taxes on road users--that is, on people who do not use Amtrak. Opponents of phasing out operating subsidies or privatizing the rail system justify continued taxpayer assistance by contending that Amtrak has many benefits. The alleged benefits include the following: Amtrak is a heavily used form of intercity transportation; Amtrak provides crucial transportation for lower-income Americans; Amtrak is a national transportation system serving the whole nation; The favorable European experience with subsidized rail service is transferable to the United States; Amtrak is energy-efficient and good for the environment; Passenger rail requires only small taxpayer subsidies; Amtrak is not more heavily subsidized than other transportation modes; Amtrak reduces traffic congestion; Amtrak provides indispensable intercity transportation to areas outside the Northeast Corridor. This study demonstrates that these claims about Amtrak are based on myth rather than reality. Poster Comment: This is a very long article so go to Full Text to view it.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 18.
#6. To: CZ82 (#0)
Amtrak's typical riders are not low-income Americans. Only 13 percent have incomes below $20,000. More welfare for the rich. And money spent on rich lawyers and corporate sponges is money you can't spend on transport systems that benefit the poor or the general public. As with ethanol subsidies and so many other Big .Gov programs, you have to truly hate the poor to advocate for these programs.
Why are highways OK to fund but not the railroad?
Passenger rail subsidies are extremely high and serve only a vanishingly small population, less than 1/100th of 1% of all travelers. We may as well stop now since I consider passenger rail nuts as hopeless economic ignoramuses or socialist sponges. I also disliked the kind of customers Amtrak attracts. By way of disclaimer, I did once work for a railroad including some duties involving Amtrak, knew their crews well. I know a lot more about them from direct experience than others do.
Funny, I hate airports in the same way. Ever have to sit next to a fat slob from the heartland? And airports are total socialist bait and for some reason everyone I visit is staffed by Muslims. But Cons hate trains more for some reason.
I tend to hate both. If I can't drive, I don't go. I just never enjoyed the train. Even the planes are kinda rotten and I gave up on those before 9/11.
When we were in Italy we used to ride the trains to go sightseeing, and a lot of the train stations were close to the historical areas. When you only had a few days and wanted to see a lot it was the way to go, cause you didn't have to drive and you could eat or sleep while going from city to city. A lot of the areas were lit up so it didn't really make any difference if you were there during the day or at night. Ever been to the Leaning Tower of Pisa at 2AM?? The only bad part is it isn't open to where you can take the tour all the way to the top but oh well. Bapistry (Battistero di San Giovanni) in the foreground, and the Camposanto Monumentale (Monumental Cemetery) to the left of the Bapistry, Cathedral of the Archdiocese of Pisa in the center and the Tower in the back, not a very flattering picture but it fits.
You shouldn't try to compare European passenger rail, a system designed for and prioritizing passenger rail service, with American freight rail, a system designed for and prioritizing freight rail service. Many places in western Europe use passenger rail to good effect and have very nice trains. However, the rise of cheap regional commuter flights has seriously displaced the primary role of passenger rail even in Europe that dominated mass transit in Europe during the post-war era. Only the northeast corridor in America has the same potential for quality service and sufficient ridership to rival European passenger rail. American long-distance rail, like the cross-country routes, are all big money-losers and have miserable low-quality service. And they aren't worth the rent that Amtrak pays the freight railroads to run their trains at only 80mph. Passenger rail or freight rail: pick one. And America chose freight rail many decades ago and built an extensive system essential to the economic health of the heartland as well as intercoastal shipping. If you really wanted American passenger rail, you would need an entirely separate rail system. To do it right, it should be on tracks at least 4 times as wide as our passenger rail system, should have cheap staterooms, large comfy commons areas, and should run on double-mains at a minimum of 200mph (allowing for a few slowdowns perhaps at truly scenic locations). Think of a motel on rail at 200mph with several nice restaurants on a big cross-country train. Also, you need a much heavier proper suspension system on the train with no swaying. Also, it should run on a continuous ribbon rail with well-maintained rail joints and very few siding switches. The problem with rail fanbois like Willie is that they never seem to notice just how undesirable current passenger trains on freight rail really are and that you can't fix the fundamental problems of operating on a freight rail system that is not designed for travel faster than 80mph, 100mph tops. The curves aren't built for it, not even in the northeast. And banging over rail joints and switchs on a swaying train even at 80mph makes people want to avoid the experience of passenger rail altogether. You can't wave a magic wand at America's vast freight rail system and suddenly make it suitable for high-speed passenger rail.
I'm not trying to compare the 2 just saying that's what we used to do. The trains back then stopped at most major towns and cities. And Pisa to Rome (225 miles or so) took about 7-8 hours, now I think it takes only about 2-1/2 hrs. BTA the newer trains run on new rails and are pretty much straight thru instead of all the stops. Even if you consider the high speed limits on the Autostrade you could only drive Rome to Pisa in 4 hrs or so. So it all depends on how much of the countryside you want to see and how many stops you want to make. Taking the trains today means you would miss the best of Italian cuisine, all of those little hole in the wall diners/restaurants that have the best food you'll ever eat. Just make sure the wine and or bottled water you drink has a label on it though.. :) Oh BTW some of the train services in Italy are now privately owned and operated instead of by the government.
#19. To: CZ82 (#18)
That alone would greatly improve the service. Amtrak food is rotten crap and greatly overpriced. There is no excuse for it other than government control and union labor. Corrupt to the bone.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Amtrak makes a negligible contribution to the nation's transportation system. Amtrak represents just .007 percent of all daily commuter work trips and just 0.4 percent of all passengers making intercity trips.
The average taxpayer subsidy per Amtrak rider is $100, or 40 percent of the total per-passenger cost. On some of the long-distance routes, such as New York to Los Angeles, the taxpayer subsidy per passenger exceeds $1,000.
#7. To: TooConservative, Vicomte13 (#6)
As with ethanol subsidies
#8. To: Pericles (#7)
#9. To: TooConservative (#8)
We may as well stop now since I consider passenger rail nuts as hopeless economic ignoramuses or socialist sponges. I also disliked the kind of customers Amtrak attracts.
#10. To: Pericles (#9)
#13. To: TooConservative (#10)
(Edited)
I just never enjoyed the train.
#14. To: CZ82, Pericles, Willie Green, Vicomte13 (#13)
When we were in Italy we used to ride the trains to go sightseeing, and a lot of the train stations were close to the historical areas.
#18. To: TooConservative (#14)
(Edited)
Replies to Comment # 18. Oh BTW some of the train services in Italy are now privately owned and operated instead of by the government.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 18.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]