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: 6478
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
#1. To: All (#0)
Amtrak services have an even smaller impact outside the Northeast Corridor. [49] The highest diversion from private vehicles is estimated between New York and Niagara Falls at 11.9 private vehicles per lane hour (one car every 5 minutes). That is less than 0.5 percent of a lane's capacity. In the Los Angeles to San Diego corridor, diversion from private vehicles is estimated at 9.1 vehicles per lane hour, or approximately 4 percent of lane capacity. Further, with the exception of Amtrak's Washington to New York services, Amtrak's passenger trains operate at terminal-to-terminal speeds that are sometimes faster and sometimes slower than intercity bus and automobile speeds. For example, Amtrak's Chicago to Los Angeles train requires 40 hours compared with 51 hours for intercity buses. The trip from Chicago to Oakland is 52 hours by Amtrak and 48 hours for intercity buses. The Washington to Chicago train takes 23 hours compared with 18 hours for intercity buses. Amtrak is nearly one hour slower than intercity buses and automobiles in the Portland to Seattle market and nearly two hours slower than autos and buses in the Philadelphia to Pittsburgh market. [50] Between Boston and New York, the fastest train and bus travel times are virtually the same. The estimates in Table 9 are for the weekly peak average. Amtrak ridership can be higher on particular days, but given the natural constraints of Amtrak resources (trains and schedules), even on its busiest days, Amtrak's contribution to mobility falls far short of what would be required to contribute to "gridlock" in even its mildest form. [51] Table 9 shows that Amtrak ridership has little impact on any portion of the nation's transportation system. Amtrak's six billion annual person miles are less than 1/30th of the unused capacity of scheduled airline services. [52] In contrast, Amtrak services would need to be increased by at least 35 times to accommodate the nation's air travel. [53] Amtrak has a negligible effect on congestion of the nation's highway and air traffic systems. An amusing excerpt.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Unfortunately, no. "The bipartisan Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2015 would subsidize Amtrak by an estimated $7 billion from 2016 to 2020. It passed the House by 316 votes to 101 votes on Wednesday and is now headed to the Senate and, presumably, President Obama’s signature.
This study is 20 years old. It's 2015, not 1995. How does Amtrak measure up today, as compared to 1995? Those are the relevant numbers.
I'll answer my own question: In 2015 (as opposed to 1995, the year of that study), Amtrak's shorter (less than 400 miles) major routes (Northeast Corridor and San Diego to Los Angeles), are PROFITABLE. Over 400 miles, they decline in profitability. The long cross country routes are unprofitable and take up most of the subsidies. So, the answer is that overall Amtrak still requires subsidies, but that is only because the cross-country routes are still being maintained. New York to Washington and San Diego to Los Angeles - those are profitable and help sustain the rest of the railroad. Truth is: air travel is more economical for long range flight, but for things in the range of New York to Washington, Amtrak is less expensive, less hassle, and over all more time efficient. Air travel requires a trip to airports, which are usually not in the business district. Then there's the 1 hour prior, security lines, waiting to board. Taxi time, landing, deplaning...in another exurban airport. Amtrak takes you point-to-point downtown to downtown. When you add in the wait times and the getting to and from the airport, for New York to DC runs, Amtrak is cheaper and as fast. That's why it's profitable on those runs. If you've got to take the train from Chicago to San Diego, well, an airplane is more efficient for that. Amtrak isn't a total failure, as the 1995 report posted above would lead you to believe. It's a success in short Interurban transit. It fails as a longer- range competitor to airlines.
Yea I know it's 20 years old and it shows nothing has changed except for some services aren't available anymore. Once government gets its grubby hands onto something it only gets worse not better, and a lot of the time that is by design.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
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.
And it's funny that we have that many people here at LF whining about how it's the right thing to do, makes you wonder what they gain from all that whining besides a few crumbs??
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Try sitting next to some Europeans who have no idea what soap and a razor are for and have been smoking cigarettes that smelled like dirty socks, now that makes for a long trip.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
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.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
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.
It's ok to fund both highways AND the railroad, if you're smart about it. It's not ok to fund anything stupidly. As far as the railroad goes, short range (300-400 miles) high speed interurban is smart. Transcontinental is not.
Truth is, living in the New York area, I look around and ask: Why don't we have high-speed hovercraft water shuttle? The "road" is already there, and untravelled, and there are barely-used docks all over Manhattan. With high-speed ferry people in Connecticut, and up the Hudson Valley, and Long Island, and all along the Jersey Coast, could get to Manhattan MUCH faster, and MUCH cheaper, in all weather (except perhaps dense fog - though good radar can ameliorate some of that), and be RIGHT THERE. New York is on two islands and the whole area is a nest of coasts and navigable rivers and bays. The reason we don't have good ferry service is that the Port Authority demands utterly exorbitant docking costs in the City. They seem to have a desire - probably driven by union interests - to NOT let water ferry compete with commuter rail and subway. And that's stupid.
Europe used to do some advanced hovercraft. Not perfect but worth discussing. I think the ride wasn't smooth enough to inspire real rider comfort. There are some new hovercraft designs that do overcome many of the problems with former large hovercraft designs. Maybe someone like Elon Musk will see an opportunity there and build some. You are right that the existing overpriced transport options in cities like NYC and Boston and others actually work strongly against any newcomer.
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.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
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.
It's easy to sit next to Europeans. They are not obese land whales.
With high-speed ferry people in Connecticut, and up the Hudson Valley, and Long Island, and all along the Jersey Coast, could get to Manhattan MUCH faster, and MUCH cheaper, in all weather (except perhaps dense fog - though good radar can ameliorate some of that), and be RIGHT THERE. New York is on two islands and the whole area is a nest of coasts and navigable rivers and bays. The reason we don't have good ferry service is that the Port Authority demands utterly exorbitant docking costs in the City. They seem to have a desire - probably driven by union interests - to NOT let water ferry compete with commuter rail and subway. And that's stupid. It is that no one in NYC thought they lived on an Island. Also, the city was geared around manufacturing or business and not residential or tourism. So nothing was built on the water except warehouses. Water travel was ignored because it was not fast or big enough for moving workers. It is just a failure of oversight and future planning. Or some such.
I think you are in denial TooCon - the right wing hate on Amtrak dates back to some arcane struggle between Repubs and Demos where for some reason Repubs thought that for political points amongst voters they can claim they were fighting for their suburban roads over the Dems who wanted to take away money from the roads and put them on rail. So it has become a turf issue where lobby groups for the trucking business and highway construction donate to Repubs to prevent any competitive alternatives. This is a conversation that should have happened a long time ago. Now the rail system is so old and decrepit that it may as well be built from scratch. A lot of our current political war fighting was between groups that started in the late 60s and early 70s and we need these old farts to die off so that the millennials who could not give 2 shits that LBJ ran a dirty smear campaign with the Daisy WW3 commercial and won and has been seeking revenge ever since. We saw this sadly with the gay rights marriage - Repubs folded like a cheap suit because all their base that used to support denying gay rights is reduced every year as they die off. Also, if you look around - more people are actually moving back into cities and buying less cars each year. That means this debate about rail vs highway will be solved by the grave yard in the next ten years. We should be good stewards and plan for our children but the current generation - again born from the divisive conflicts of the 60s and 70s is spiteful and would rather shit on the next generation than help them. Like I said, they will die soon so it will solve itself but the cost will be higher than it should be.
I read recently that 184 congressional districts have no Amtrak service in their districts. The vast majority are safe GOP seats. It isn't decrepit at all. It is the finest freight rail system in the world, given its continental reach. Actually, it happened because Catholic voters decided to betray their church at the ballot box. Much as happened with abortion. They are very unreliable political allies because they don't really believe anything, however much they insist that they do. Then fine. You'll win and dance on their graves. Enjoy. Not that I think you have any children to be a good steward for. OTOH, the Blue states are facing severe financial crises brought on by the dominance of union politics and the sheer mismanagement of their states and cities. So I wouldn't bet on the outcome just yet.
Up until WW2 there were overnight boats that connected NYC with New England, and Albany. There were a number of cities that had such a connection at one, Baltimore and Norfolk had the last service which ended in 1962. I think today something like that might work if it was integrated with the highway network, similar to some of the overnight ferry runs such as the Stockholm-Helsinki route. In particular if it allowed one to bypass crowded interstates, such as a route connecting New England to the South.
Our freight system became focused upon the hauling of lower values commodities, as goods have value added they tend to go by truck, unless you have a real long haul such as LA to Chicago, and the trucks or containers are handled like a commodity. A half century ago we had more rail infrastructure that was geared toward the transport of finished goods, with lots of double tracked lines and super elevation on curves. That was in the era when the US wanted to be an industrial power rather than a supplier of commodities to the more advanced manufacturing nations, who add value to the materials for importation back into the US. A third world nation does not require an advanced rail network, just a minimal system to facilitate trade with its more advanced trading partners to whom it functions somewhat like a colony.
So much of the traffic on the rails has been coal for coal-fired power plants or grain trains. Boxcars to move stuff like TVs, refrigerators, furniture has declined and you see trucks moving most of those goods now unless they are containerized. As the massive coal train traffic recedes due to coal plant closings and broader use of natural gas for energy, we may see some attempts by railroads to fill those rails with new traffic. That might include passenger rail but only if they think they can turn a profit or get big subsidies to guarantee their profits. Over the next five years or so, we may see some rail changes due to less coal train traffic. I don't see increased cross-country passenger rail as a likely outcome.
Myth #10: Amtrak Service Provides Indispensable Relief to Highways and Airports outside the Northeast Corridor
#2. To: CZ82 (#1)
"Amtrak At The End Of The Line For Taxpayer Subsidies"
-- http://www.economics21.org/commentary/PRRIA-2015-amtrak-reform-subsidies- privatization-2015-03-06.
#3. To: CZ82 (#0)
#4. To: CZ82 (#1)
#5. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
#6. To: CZ82 (#0)
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)
#11. To: TooConservative (#6)
As with ethanol subsidies and so many other Big .Gov programs, you have to truly hate the poor to advocate for these programs.
#12. To: Pericles, Too Conservative (#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.
#15. To: Pericles (#7)
#16. To: TooConservative (#14)
#17. To: Vicomte13 (#16)
Truth is, living in the New York area, I look around and ask: Why don't we have high-speed hovercraft water shuttle? The "road" is already there, and untravelled, and there are barely-used docks all over Manhattan.
#18. To: TooConservative (#14)
(Edited)
#19. To: CZ82 (#18)
Oh BTW some of the train services in Italy are now privately owned and operated instead of by the government.
#20. To: CZ82 (#12)
Try sitting next to some Europeans
#21. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative (#16)
Truth is, living in the New York area, I look around and ask: Why don't we have high-speed hovercraft water shuttle? The "road" is already there, and untravelled, and there are barely-used docks all over Manhattan.
#22. To: TooConservative, CZ82, Willie Green, Vicomte13 (#14)
(Edited)
#23. To: Pericles (#22)
(Edited)
I think you are in denial TooCon - the right wing hate on Amtrak dates back to some arcane struggle between Repubs and Demos where for some reason Repubs thought that for political points amongst voters they can claim they were fighting for their suburban roads over the Dems who wanted to take away money from the roads and put them on rail. So it has become a turf issue where lobby groups for the trucking business and highway construction donate to Repubs to prevent any competitive alternatives.
This is a conversation that should have happened a long time ago. Now the rail system is so old and decrepit that it may as well be built from scratch.
We saw this sadly with the gay rights marriage - Repubs folded like a cheap suit because all their base that used to support denying gay rights is reduced every year as they die off.
We should be good stewards and plan for our children but the current generation - again born from the divisive conflicts of the 60s and 70s is spiteful and would rather shit on the next generation than help them. Like I said, they will die soon so it will solve itself but the cost will be higher than it should be.
#24. To: Vicomte13 (#16)
With high-speed ferry people in Connecticut, and up the Hudson Valley, and Long Island, and all along the Jersey Coast, could get to Manhattan MUCH faster, and MUCH cheaper, in all weather (except perhaps dense fog - though good radar can ameliorate some of that), and be RIGHT THERE.
#25. To: TooConservative (#14)
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.
#26. To: nativist nationalist, Willie Green (#25)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]