http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.../us_amtrak_subsidies

WASHINGTON – U.S. taxpayers spent about $32 subsidizing the cost of the typical Amtrak passenger in 2008, about four times the rail operator's estimate, according to a private study.

Amtrak operates a nationwide rail network, serving more than 500 destinations in 46 states. Forty-one of Amtrak's 44 routes lost money in 2008, said the study by Subsidyscope, an arm of the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Stephen Van Beek, president of the Eno Transportation Foundation, a think tank, said the analysis could help guide decisions on how to spend $8 billion set aside for high-speed and intercity rail in a $787 billion economic stimulus bill. Rail planners may decide that spending the funds on high-speed rail makes more sense than slower intercity rail, which the Amtrak numbers show need higher subsidies.

Subsidyscope says its review counted certain capital expenses that Amtrak doesn't consider when calculating the financial performance of its routes, namely wear and tear on equipment, or depreciation.

Leading the list was the train traveling between New Orleans and Los Angeles — the Sunset Limited — which lost $462 per passenger. Taxpayers subsidize the losses to keep the passenger train service running.

The Northeast corridor has the highest passenger volume of any Amtrak route, greatly enhancing efficiency. The corridor's high-speed Acela Express made a profit of about $41 per passenger. The more heavily utilized Northeast Regional lost almost $5 per passenger.

Passenger rail systems throughout the world lose money and require government subsidies to cover operating expenses.

Marcus Peacock, project director for Subsidyscope, said his group's analysis should lead to more scrutiny for the Amtrak routes that are losing the most money.

Van Beek cautioned against holding passenger rail service to a higher standard than other forms of transportation.

"Let's not hold rail up and say it needs to make money when highways don't make money, transit doesn't make money and a lot of small airports don't make money and they all get subsidies," Van Beek said.

The Government Accountability Office had previously said the omission of depreciation substantially understates the capital expenses associated with Amtrak's routes.

Amtrak officials said they're working with the Transportation Department to come up with a fair way to determine capital expenses but the method used in the report unfairly burden routes whose equipment was sold and then leased back.

The next question is how many Billions of our tax money is being spent on the upkeep of the government owned and controlled airports and what is the cost per passenger?

Also, how much do federally funded highways get subsidized? Is an apples to apples comparison possible?

My taxes went up more than that so we're even.

quote:

Leading the list was the train traveling between New Orleans and Los Angeles — the Sunset Limited — which lost $462 per passenger.

I can understand some loss per passenger but the above was really eye opening for me.

The Sunset Route is widely known for how poorly UP dispatches Amtrak. That train is never on time and UP will frequently hold Amtrak to let freight pass in spite of the agreement with the feds. The route is not multi-track over a large portion of the line either.

I suspect the loss per passenger comes to overtime pay, outlawed crews and general down time caused by dispatching. If you want to get a decent train out of AZ, riding the Chief is the much more time effective route. BNSF handles their Amtrak commitments much better in the West.

quote:

Also, how much do federally funded highways get subsidized? Is an apples to apples comparison possible?

Federal highway funds come largely from federal excise taxes on motor fuel. What taxes do Amtrak users pay to ride trains that go directly back to funding Amtrak?

Auto based taxes also go to subsidize many transit operations, bike trails and even trolley restorations. Could you imagine a bus or train that was so valuable to ride that you would pay the full cost of the trip plus taxes that subsidized other forms of transportation to ride it?

Think of the taxes payed by your local auto repair shop, tire store, car dealership, etc. Can passenger rail stand up to an apples to apples comparison?

quote:

Originally posted by GG1 4877:
Also, how much do federally funded highways get subsidized? Is an apples to apples comparison possible?

I don't think that an apples-to-apples comparison is possible in comparing any of the subsidized modes of travel.

With highways, everyone uses them (unless they never leave their homes) and many people use them to get to and from work which generates taxable income, and businesses use them to ship goods which, again, generates tax revenue. So it makes sense to use some of the tax money the government takes from us to build and maintain highways. Basically, the money spent on highways is recovered by taxing the activities of those who use the highways. I suspect the same can be said for air travel (although to a lesser degree), since a lot of air travel is for business purposes. It is hard to calculate how much tax revenue is generated by the activities enabled by the various subsidized modes of transportation, but I'd suspect that rail travel generates a lot less than what its associated costs are.

Personally, I hope to some day take a train trip across the country, but I can't in good conscience ask that others pay for even a part of that trip.

I wonder if there are ways of adding some revenue-generating cars to Amtrak consists (LCL freight) to help offset the costs. Would adding 3 or 4 boxcars with ground freight help?

Andy

quote:

Personally, I hope to some day take a train trip across the country, but I can't in good conscience ask that others pay for even a part of that trip.

Andy, thank you for exercising your well formed conscience. That seems to be going out of style these days.

Amtrak tried a joint venture to add perishables in refers to the Empire Builder. Its 3th stop eastbound out of Seattle is Wenatchee, "Apple Capital of the World." Despite what looked like great things going for it with a fast shot to Chicago and a great source or perishables traffic it didn't work out. IIRC, Amtrak payed a penalty to get out of the venture early.

Despite the failed attempt at generating head end revenue the Empire Builder remains Amtrak's best long distance train. It is the least subsidized, has the best food and as Jonathan noted above the BNSF keeps passenger trains on schedule. But few take if from Seattle to Chicago, not much competition to a jet over that distance. Many riders go Minnesota to N Dakota, Washington to Montana. Some are vacationing at Whitefish or Glacier, others are visiting relatives. It is a good alternative to driving that distance, especially in winter.

With Acela making $40 per passenger and the distances that are popular on the Empire Builder perhaps there should a focus on regional high speed trains. Could they be profitable enough to attract investors?

When you purchase an Amtrak ticket you pay a sales and excise tax. On a typical round trip that could amount to $50 or more so from the gitgo that government has confiscated before you even get on the train. Now add the fare. Now add in the federal income tax that Uncle Sam takes out of the paychecks of all Amtrak employees.
If you do the math they aren't losing as much as they state and by my formula probably making money. Point is that when you ride Amtrak the government gets everything- the fare, the tax on the ticket and the federal income tax from every Amtrak employee.

I can see why putting perishables on an Amtrak train would be a bad idea, but non-perishable less-than-carload ground freight on the other hand, might be a good idea (do the class 1's even like handling LCL freight?). Perhaps a deal with UPS, Fed-Ex and/or the USPS for ground shipments on the cross-country routes and maybe even some express service in the Eastern corridor might generate some revenue to offset the costs.

Andy

quote:

do the class 1's even like handling LCL freight?

Railroads do not have the ground presence, network, know how or interest to do retail transportation. They haven't since local station quit being the equivalent of todays UPS store. Roads are todays transportation network to everywhere. If you have an address chances are UPS will get a package to you.

Railroads like LCL when UPS and JB Hunt do the hard part for them. Railroads just aren't in the retail transportation business anymore. But if you can come to them with TRAIN LOAD business they love you.

Highway dollars are 62:1 compared to combined USA rail subsidies.
("Getting There, the Epic Struggle between road and rail in the American Century", 1994, University of Chicago Press, Stephen Goddard).

Read this academically oriented but easy reading and fascinating study if you want the real facts about all of these dollars and why they go where they go. It is a complicated and never ending story of how America works and how it works even against itself and common sense much of the time.

One basic theme: President Eisenhower was an early propoent of the Interstate highway system but wanted it to go around cities instead of tearing them apart. He was betrayed in this aspect by his own political appointees and the book tells how and why. He realized the damage this caused too late to do anything about it.

We subsidize the highways and airports and don't ever ask how profitable they are. Highways get about $40 billion last year. Not a peep from the pundits.

Do you care that new the 20 million interstate interchange near you didn't make a profit last year?

Heck, commuter transit companies aren't held to being profitable. It is accepted as needed for good transportation.

Yet we scream a travesty of justice that Amtrak gets, what about $1.5 billion? THEY get held to a different, double standard.

Why is Amtrak the ONLY passenger company that people feel has to be profitable? I just don't get this.

Profit making passengers trains were the exception, rather than the rule even in the good ole' days.

Yet the Great American Public has been brainwashed that this is what is normal.

Then they go to Europe or Japan and rave about the trains and ask why don't we have them here.

Other nations recognize the need for a balanced view of transportation. This is contrary to the USA post WW II view that the automobile was the only answer.

Agreed.

quote:

Originally posted by Dennis LaGrua:
The next question is how many Billions of our tax money is being spent on the upkeep of the government owned and controlled airports and what is the cost per passenger?

Exactly ! Add up the real cost per airline passenger when you take into account the direct subsidies for the FAA, Air Traffic Control, airports which get federal, state, and local support. It can be said that the airline industry was indirectly subsidized by way of military funding. Without huge government orders for aircraft in the past (WW2 era) the development of civil airliners would have been much more costly. In addition, many airports were born from former military establishments, essentially subsidy to the air industry. The railroads were never given this boost, but to the contrary were left worn out and used up after WW2.

The highways have had massive subsidy, and anyone who believes that their license plate fees and fuel tax pays for this is incorrect. Our government has heavily subsidized air and road while rail passenger service had nothing in the way of support until Amtrak. And we all know that Amtrak has been given just enough to keep its heart rate above flatline, while never really giving it enough to become a truely functional transport mode with exceptions being the east and recently west coasts.

Other countries, in fact all industrialized countries of Europe, Asia, etc, split funding for transport more evenly. Rail passenger is given a fair piece of the funding pie. This country, largely from Eisenhower forward, has pushed only two modes, air and road. The highway based system perhaps was to help support the auto and steel industry, yet, look at the failure known as Detroit, and other auto industry based cities. It has not worked. It is time for a balanced transport system in this country which is equaly subsidized.

Back to the original post, I would bet the cost per airline passenger if all subsidies indirect and direct were tallied up, would exceed the $32 for Amtrak passenger.

quote:

Originally posted by VistaDomeScott:
It can be said that the airline industry was indirectly subsidized by way of military funding. Without huge government orders for aircraft in the past (WW2 era) the development of civil airliners would have been much more costly...The railroads were never given this boost, but to the contrary were left worn out and used up after WW2.

Only one of the many factual inaccuracies posted in this topic, but railroads benefited from government-funded technology. Early development of high-horsepower, light weight diesel prime movers was driven by, and subsidized by, the U. S. Navy's need for a suitable submarine power plant. Winton (later EMC and then EMD) and Fairbanks-Morse were the primary suppliers of diesel engines for the hundreds of Navy fleet submarines built prior to and during WWII. These engines were also used, both directly and as the basis for further development, in railroad locomotives, which like USN submarines, used a diesel-electric propulsion system.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter Bowler:
President Eisenhower was an early propoent of the Interstate highway system but wanted it to go around cities instead of tearing them apart.

Most eastern cities having their own "beltways", wether close in like Baltimore and Washington, or Boston's RT 128 which pre-dates the Interstate system, or a wide outer loop like I-287 in NJ. Yet on two recent trips to Minnesota I was made clearly aware that you literally cannot go "around" Chicago without travelling half way across Illinois!

quote:

Originally posted by Peter Bowler:
Highway dollars are 62:1 compared to combined USA rail subsidies.
("Getting There, the Epic Struggle between road and rail in the American Century", 1994, University of Chicago Press, Stephen Goddard).

Read this academically oriented but easy reading and fascinating study if you want the real facts about all of these dollars and why they go where they go.

I second this book. I read it for a graduate class I took over the summer. It is really well written but not overly academic. It is a great read for those interested in the decline of the railroads after WWII.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ...ativeASIN=0226300439

quote:

Originally posted by jdmavanti:

quote:

Originally posted by VistaDomeScott:
It can be said that the airline industry was indirectly subsidized by way of military funding. Without huge government orders for aircraft in the past (WW2 era) the development of civil airliners would have been much more costly...The railroads were never given this boost, but to the contrary were left worn out and used up after WW2.

Only one of the many factual inaccuracies posted in this topic, but railroads benefited from government-funded technology. Early development of high-horsepower, light weight diesel prime movers was driven by, and subsidized by, the U. S. Navy's need for a suitable submarine power plant. Winton (later EMC and then EMD) and Fairbanks-Morse were the primary suppliers of diesel engines for the hundreds of Navy fleet submarines built prior to and during WWII. These engines were also used, both directly and as the basis for further development, in railroad locomotives, which like USN submarines, used a diesel-electric propulsion system.

However, the interstate highway system was originally designed as part of national defense for emergency landing fields for nuclear bombers in the event of nuclear war. If we look at MOST technology developed by this country, we can thank our branches of military for developing it first and the taxpayer for subsidizing it. The internet, google maps and google earth, and GPS are just a few of these technologies.

4877:

If not the DOD, NASA!

But how could a B52 land on an Interstate?

quote:

Originally posted by DominicMazoch:
4877:

If not the DOD, NASA!

But how could a B52 land on an Interstate?

The Interstates have to have segments that are long and straight and clear of obstructions (trees) on the sides and medians. I forget the particulars on how long these straights had to be, but they were indeed intended to serve as makeshift runways in times of emergency (nuclear war, natural disaster, or even civil emergencies, like an airliner with failing engines).

And speaking of NASA, do some research into all of the great technology and medical discoveries and innovations that can be tracked back to the space programs. It is fascinating.

Andy

quote:

But how could a B52 land on an Interstate?

They can't. At least not without removing wires, overpasses, center dividers, medians and street lights. This one is a myth. Busted!

Check out snopes on this one if you like. They aren't too kind "folks who commit to believing this crazy notion."

There is however, a relationship between the capacity of interstate bridges and the weight of a main battle tank. It seems the army doesn't want to have to wait for a train to move around. In that they are no different than the rest of America.

As a result we have very heavy and efficient commercial trucks moving on our highways. They are usually the most efficient way to get perishables and merchandise from shipper to receiver. Trains ran a great article on the history of truck/rail competition in a relatively recent edition. They pointed out that the railroads lost out to trucks in the premium freight market before the interstate highways were built. The same goes for cars and local passenger trains. By the 1930s cars, trucks and Americas roads already made railroads a less desirable transportation option for many market segments.

We railfans, at least NP fans like me, shouldn't make too much noise about unfair subsidies to highways. The US government did give land equal to the area of Georgia to the NP to entice them to build out west. Now that is a subsidy!

quote:

Originally posted by Kanasket:

quote:

But how could a B52 land on an Interstate?

They can't. At least not without removing wires, overpasses, center dividers, medians and street lights. This one is a myth. Busted!

Check out snopes on this one if you like. They aren't too kind "folks who commit to believing this crazy notion."

There is however, a relationship between the capacity of interstate bridges and the weight of a main battle tank. It seems the army doesn't want to have to wait for a train to move around. In that they are no different than the rest of America.

As a result we have very heavy and efficient commercial trucks moving on our highways. They are usually the most efficient way to get perishables and merchandise from shipper to receiver. Trains ran a great article on the history of truck/rail competition in a relatively recent edition. They pointed out that the railroads lost out to trucks in the premium freight market before the interstate highways were built. The same goes for cars and local passenger trains. By the 1930s cars, trucks and Americas roads already made railroads a less desirable transportation option for many market segments.

We railfans, at least NP fans like me, shouldn't make too much noise about unfair subsidies to highways. The US government did give land equal to the area of Georgia to the NP to entice them to build out west. Now that is a subsidy!

You cannot be a trucking executive and a railfan. You are a model railroader and history buff. That having been said, trucking provides a unique and vital service to our nation. Your industry makes Just-in-Time logistics possible and we need a STRONG trucking industry, America's future depends on it. Furthermore, our way of life DEMANDS what ONLY TRUCKS can bring. However, America's future also depends on a greatly expanded passenger rail system.

quote:

Check out snopes on this one if you like. They aren't too kind "folks who commit to believing this crazy notion."

We railfans, at least NP fans like me, shouldn't make too much noise about unfair subsidies to highways. The US government did give land equal to the area of Georgia to the NP to entice them to build out west. Now that is a subsidy!

quote:

You cannot be a trucking executive and a railfan. You are a model railroader and history buff.

It is all very easy to understand when the original poster of the comment is nothing more than a forum troll who likes to take contrary opinions and takes pride in not only pointing out others' misinformation, but rubbing their nose in it at the same time.

Jonathan

Your perspective on public transportation and mine may differ but troll? Heck, who is who? Tell you what, you quit chumming the waters and I'll quit taking the bait. Together we can all keep America's highways from going nuclear.

Techie

quote:

You cannot be a trucking executive and a railfan.

Why do you see them as mutually exclusive?

I have never claimed to be the former, and do claim to be the latter.

While not a trucking industry executive I am a customer. My business wouldn't function without trucking. And it often functions less expensively when trucks and trains work together. Rail does very well hauling bulk commodities long distances. Trucks are usually more economical and flexible in getting shipments originated or to the customers door. Trucks often work nicely with rail at either end of the long haul.

You believe that greatly expanded passenger rail is vital to our countries future. What market segments do you see where rail can be competitive with other modes in cost per passenger mile and time? Do you see passenger rail and other surface modes working together as with freight? If so how can we reduce the time lag we accept with shipping bulk commodities but could not tolerate in moving people?

Amtrak has lost money since day one. There are many good posts here regarding this subject. Yes government has played a very important role in the development of new technology that has benefited the entire nation. But let us understand, government has never in the history of this nation, nor was it the intent, operated or created a successful business model.

That is the sole purpose of the private sector. There have been other posts here regarding private enterprise, and light rail. If there is a demand for light rail, and I believe there is, some private entrepreneur could fill the void. One of the reasons for not filling this void is government, at all levels. Has anyone ever had to deal with government, and came away with a good feeling that our tax dollars are working well?

As far as the National Highway System is concerned. A B52 can land on a clear interstate highway. If there are obstacles in the way, no problem. The military has something called dynamite. I can only tell you that based on twenty years in the Air Force & Rhode Island Air National Guard, the military has contingency plans that cover A Thru Z.

If Amtrak ever turns a profit, then I will believe that government is the answer for rail travel.

Many thanks,

Billy C

quote:

You cannot be a trucking executive and a railfan.

Sure you can.

I'm sure Mr J.B. Hunt, Mr Schneider, and Mr. Werner LOVE seeing their names on the containers and trailers that get moved by rail.

The "dump Amtrak because it doesn't turn a profit" gang is disingenuous.

By that yardstick, I say let's stop funding for highways, airports, and air traffic controllers. THEY don't make a profit either. We'd save 40 billion tax dollars a year! Amtrak is small potatoes at around 1.5 billion.

Of course, transportation would be chaos and the economy would be in ruins but we'd be saving all those tax dollars!

Also we could wait for private enterprise to step in.

Just like they have providing private highways, private light rail transit, and private rail passenger since there is SO much profit to be made.

quote:

Originally posted by ChooChooDennis:
The "dump Amtrak because it doesn't turn a profit" gang is disingenuous.

By that yardstick, I say let's stop funding for highways, airports, and air traffic controllers. THEY don't make a profit either. We'd save 40 billion tax dollars a year! Amtrak is small potatoes at around 1.5 billion.

Of course, transportation would be chaos and the economy would be in ruins but we'd be saving all those tax dollars!

Also we could wait for private enterprise to step in.

Just like they have providing private highways, private light rail transit, and private rail passenger since there is SO much profit to be made.

The fact of the matter is that there is NO totally private sector transportation other than freight rail.

quote:

Originally posted by William Cunningham:
Amtrak has lost money since day one. There are many good posts here regarding this subject. Yes government has played a very important role in the development of new technology that has benefited the entire nation. But let us understand, government has never in the history of this nation, nor was it the intent, operated or created a successful business model.

That is the sole purpose of the private sector. There have been other posts here regarding private enterprise, and light rail. If there is a demand for light rail, and I believe there is, some private entrepreneur could fill the void. One of the reasons for not filling this void is government, at all levels. Has anyone ever had to deal with government, and came away with a good feeling that our tax dollars are working well?

As far as the National Highway System is concerned. A B52 can land on a clear interstate highway. If there are obstacles in the way, no problem. The military has something called dynamite.
Many thanks,

Billy C

Nah, they use something called C4. BOOM!!!!

I doubt very much if Amtrak is losing money as stated before.
Its a matter of how you do the math:
Amtrak gets Sales & excise tax on a round trip ticket that could amount to $50 or more.
Then Amtrak gets the fare itself
Now consider the federal & state income taxes that Uncle Sam takes out of the paychecks of all Amtrak employees. Perhaps 25% goes right back to the gov't?
Amtrak pays no tax on the fuel that they use or the real estate that they own.

Combine the multiple streams of revenue and Amtrak is profitable.

quote:

Your perspective on public transportation and mine may differ but troll? Heck, who is who? Tell you what, you quit chumming the waters and I'll quit taking the bait. Together we can all keep America's highways from going nuclear.

Fair enough. I'm not sure about the chumming the waters, but I'll always accept that a different opinion is a different opinion. As to the interstates, I found the Federal Highway Administration website to be quite helpful about the history of the Interstates. I've seen too many people go nuclear on the Interstates in AZ, so I think we're too late. When you need to set the cruise at 90 just to keep up with Phx - Tus traffic and the only patrol cars are Border Patrol ... well...

As to a loss of $32 per passenger, perhaps a fare increase of $32 per passenger would make Amtrak budget neutral if we are to take this set of number as accurate?

quote:

Amtrak has lost money since day one. There are many good posts here regarding this subject. Yes government has played a very important role in the development of new technology that has benefited the entire nation. But let us understand, government has never in the history of this nation, nor was it the intent, operated or created a successful business model.

What about Conrail? It was a response to the biggest financial collapse in US history, yet the US taxpayer got the loan back with interest after Conrail was offered back to the private sector. All railroads benefited from government ownership of Conrail in the passage of the Staggers Act.

Also, while we can disagree on the overall success of PRR electrification and the role it played or did not in the companies ultimate demise, the PRR did manage to pay back the US government with interest on the money borrowed to build the system during the Great Depression.

quote:

Originally posted by techie:
The fact of the matter is that there is NO totally private sector transportation other than freight rail.

U. S. rail freight transportation is not a "totally private" operation. Plenty of government involvement, investment, and ownership.

quote:

Originally posted by Dennis LaGrua:
Amtrak gets Sales & excise tax on a round trip ticket that could amount to $50 or more.
Then Amtrak gets the fare itself
Now consider the federal & state income taxes that Uncle Sam takes out of the paychecks of all Amtrak employees. Perhaps 25% goes right back to the gov't?
Amtrak pays no tax on the fuel that they use or the real estate that they own.

Combine the multiple streams of revenue and Amtrak is profitable.

Huh? Amtrak doesn't get to keep the sales and excise taxes it collects. Like all businesses, it is just a collection agency for the government. And since when does a business get to add back the employment taxes it withholds from employee pay - again as a collection agency - in the calculation of its profit or loss? We might as well argue that Amtrak should add back the cost of purchased electricity on the Northeast Corridor or the cost of food served in its dining cars.

quote:

Originally posted by GG1 4877:
As to a loss of $32 per passenger, perhaps a fare increase of $32 per passenger would make Amtrak budget neutral if we are to take this set of number as accurate?

Ridership is not exclusive of pricing. If you increase ticket prices by $32 across the board, ridership will decline, more so in some markets than others, creating yet another loss.

quote:

What about Conrail? It was a response to the biggest financial collapse in US history, yet the US taxpayer got the loan back with interest after Conrail was offered back to the private sector. All railroads benefited from government ownership of Conrail in the passage of the Staggers Act.

False. The money returned to the U. S. Treasury from the Conrail IPO in 1987 (about $1.7 billion before the underwriting fees) repaid maybe half of the over $3.3 billion spent on aid to Penn Central and Conrail. And that calculation does not include the interest on the government aid, which started accruing from the PC bankruptcy in 1970. Since these figures are in nominal dollars, not adjusted for inflation, the present values would be higher.

The Staggers Act was passed in 1980, and did not create Conrail, which was a product of the 3R Act of 1973 and was created in 1976.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jdmavanti,

Amtrak should be subsidized in the same manner the air industry is...and highways are in regards to use by trucks. Why should trucks get subsidized infrastructure...when railroads must pay for their rails including property taxes? And no ... trucks do not pay their fair share of highway costs. If they did we would have perfectly maintained roads. Nor do they pay for the dangers they inflict upon other highway users by speeding, swerving, and using retreads to save money that come flying off. Of course there are many great trucking companies but there are the bad ones too.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mike W.,

Trains can carry 200 trucks with 2 people and much better MPG than one truck can move a load. But short distance are where trucks rule.

quote:

Originally posted by Kanasket:
As a result we have very heavy and efficient commercial trucks moving on our highways. They are usually the most efficient way to get perishables and merchandise from shipper to receiver.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike W.:
Amtrak should be subsideized in the same manner the air industry is...and highways are in regards to use by trucks. Why should trucks get subsidized infrastructure...when railroads must pay for their rails including property taxes? And no ... trucks do not pay their fair share of highway costs.

Our accumulated federal debt is now $12 trillion dollars, or $38,700 for every man, woman, and child in the U. S. Allocated across the percentage of the population that actually pays taxes, the amount per person is $109,790. Include the unfunded programs such as Social Security, Medicare, etc. and the liability per person is $344,240 for every man, woman, and child.

Our current year federal deficit is now over $1.4 trillion, of which we paid $383 billion in FY2009 in interest on the federal debt. And that's with today's very low interest rates. When rates go up (remember what they were during the late 1970s and early 1980s?), we could easily be paying double, triple, or more just in interest, with obvious impact on our annual deficit. We're borrowing to pay interest on money we borrowed. And as the debt accumulates, the portion of our annual budget given to interest payments increases, reducing the amount left for other spending, such as national defense. It's a sickening, downward spiral.

The conclusion is that we should not be subsidizing Amtrak. Or the airlines. Or the trucking industry. We can't afford it. We can either start to control our spending and debt, or the nations who buy our debt will eventually decide not to, and impose the fiscal discipline on us, which will be very painful and chaotic. Anyone who wants to know what our future looks like should spend time in a second or third world nation that has defaulted on its national debt. If you don't know what the "Weimar Republic" was, and what followed it, you should look it up.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jdmavanti,

quote:

Huh? Amtrak doesn't get to keep the sales and excise taxes it collects. Like all businesses, it is just a collection agency for the government. And since when does a business get to add back the employment taxes it withholds from employee pay - again as a collection agency - in the calculation of its profit or loss?

Amtrak is a divison of the US Government not a private enterprise. In other words Amtrak and Uncle Sam are one and the same. Any money that they collect, in tickets, taxes, or federal income from employees tax goes right back to Uncle Sam. It doesn't matter what the divison of government is. Where all the money collected ends up is the bottom line.

Switzerland is boring a tunnel through the alps for high speed rail (freight and passenger). The tunnel would almost be a level pass. It works for them?? I havn't been to Switzerland but I would also be willing to bet their highways have a lot less trash thrown on the median and less trashy billboards scattered all over. Thats just a side note but something important nonetheless. I am from SC...the worst billboard state in the country. In some counties here one can't by beer on Sunday...but its cool to have billboards advertising strip bars and topless cafes for all your children to read while riding by.

I think it works when states identify a specific rail need and work with a freight carrier to improve infrastructure for freight and passenger. I would much rather my tax payment go to rail or something similar than welfare for someone who does not try to work or better themselves. Just IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by Dennis LaGrua:

quote:

Huh? Amtrak doesn't get to keep the sales and excise taxes it collects. Like all businesses, it is just a collection agency for the government. And since when does a business get to add back the employment taxes it withholds from employee pay - again as a collection agency - in the calculation of its profit or loss?

Amtrak is a divison of the US Government not a private enterprise. In other words Amtrak and Uncle Sam are one and the same. Any money that they collect, in tickets, taxes, or federal income from employees tax goes right back to Uncle Sam. It doesn't matter what the divison of government is. Where all the money collected ends up is the bottom line.

Not exactly. The National Railroad Passenger Corp. (Amtrak) is a federally-chartered corporation, the stock of which is owned by the federal government. But it is not a part of the government, in the sense that the Department of Transportation is a part of the government.

Regardless, excise and sales taxes are not part of Amtrak's revenue. They are taxes collected by Amtrak on behalf of the government, and the government does not automatically return them to Amtrak for their discretionary use. Since Amtrak doesn't have control over the use of monies that it collects as taxes, then those monies aren't revenue to Amtrak, and can't be counted in its income statement, i.e. profit or loss. Same for employee withholding taxes that Amtrak collects.

Measured by any sane accounting method, Amtrak loses money. As Penn Central, Enron, WorldComm, the State of California and a long list of other companies and governments have demonstrated, creative accounting is only a temporary mask for fundamental flaws.

quote:

Originally posted by jdmavanti:
Not exactly. The National Railroad Passenger Corp. (Amtrak) is a federally-chartered corporation, the stock of which is owned by the federal government. But it is not a part of the government, in the sense that the Department of Transportation is a part of the government.

Regardless, excise and sales taxes are not part of Amtrak's revenue. They are taxes collected by Amtrak on behalf of the government, and the government does not automatically return them to Amtrak for their discretionary use. Since Amtrak doesn't have control over the use of monies that it collects as taxes, then those monies aren't revenue to Amtrak, and can't be counted in its income statement, i.e. profit or loss. Same for employee withholding taxes that Amtrak collects.

Measured by any sane accounting method, Amtrak loses money. As Penn Central, Enron, WorldComm, the State of California and a long list of other companies and governments have demonstrated, creative accounting is only a temporary mask for fundamental flaws.

No sense in arguing about the accounting method but my point was that the US Government owns Amtrak lock stock and barrel. While the revenue streams dervied from Amtrak may end up in different departments of the government, Uncle Sam still ends up with all the tax dollar "dividends" - same pants but just different pockets.

Doing the rough math, that $32 per passenger works out to approximately $768 million. If that sounds like a lot of money to you, consider this: our approximate total bill to pay for our automobile/highway addiction EACH year exceeds $300 Billion (yes "B" for billion). The number includes monies spent on maintenance & construction, policing of highways, insurance premiums to cover us from damages, medical costs to treat the killed, maimed or injured in auto or truck accidents, etc. Just looking at the Amtrak subsidy alone, the total subsidy since the beginning of Amtrak until now does not equal even one year's cost of just the portion of highways' subsidy to maintain and build the pavements.

Does it make sense in a rational society to stack the deck that heavily for one mode versus another? Of course not; the only sensible policy would be to encourage and nurture by policy and funding all modes, highway, rail passenger, air, and water and leverage the best of all of them for a far more efficient system. But our society seldom acts completely rational anymore.

quote:

But our society seldom acts completely rational anymore.

Please name the era it did.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter Bowler:
Does it make sense in a rational society to stack the deck that heavily for one mode versus another? Of course not; the only sensible policy would be to encourage and nurture by policy and funding all modes, highway, rail passenger, air, and water and leverage the best of all of them for a far more efficient system. But our society seldom acts completely rational anymore.

Yes, it does make sense. "Efficiency" is an undefined term in your argument, and before anyone should accept the reasoning that passenger rail transportation is more "efficient" than highway, we need to look at the entire spectrum of what makes any transportation system "efficient".

Cost per passenger mile is one common measurement. So while we spend massive amounts on highway travel versus rail, that inequality is not prima facie evidence that rail is more "efficient" than highway. Does it cost more per passenger mile to drive or ride a train? And which highways, and which trains?

And let's not ignore the productivity gains of a highway based transportation system that delivers people door-to-door on their individual schedules versus set-schedule and oftentimes infrequent passenger rail that runs between fixed terminals. How "efficient" are the two systems on these measurements?

The only encouragement and nuturing that the government needs to do is to end subsidies (direct, indirect, and tax-based) for all modes, and let the markets (i.e. individual choice and preference) make the decision. A far more "efficient" system than having politicians decide how we should get from A to B. You can force distortions on decision making all day, but until you figure out a way to eliminate individual choice and free will, all systems imposed by the government will result in inefficiency and illegal circumvention of the system.

Everything in the USA that moves get subsidized.

Interstate Highways, Buses, Roads, Bridges, Airports and their infastructure-- just about everything. If they did an analysis of how inefficient an 18 wheeler, and I do believe CSX railroad shows that in one of their ads. CSX shows that one freight train hauling inter-modal freight (trailers) gets 400 miles per gallon as opposed to the lone 18 wheeler/tractor trailer. Trains are an efficient mode of transportation, some routs are money losers. The new fed stimulus bill just paid 20 million to pave 10-12 miles of existing highway in my area of New Hampshire, that was a huge waste of time/money IMO.

George

quote:

Originally posted by Seacoast:
Everything in the USA that moves get subsidized.

So that makes the current system okay? Because everyone is doing it? As I noted in a previous post, we're spending money that we don't have. I guess all of this talk last year about "change" applies only to selected things.

quote:

Interstate Highways, Buses, Roads, Bridges, Airports and their infastructure-- just about everything. If they did an analysis of how inefficient an 18 wheeler, and I do believe CSX railroad shows that in one of their ads. CSX shows that one freight train hauling inter-modal freight (trailers) gets 400 miles per gallon as opposed to the lone 18 wheeler/tractor trailer. Trains are an efficient mode of transportation, some routs are money losers.

First, those figures were selected to present the most advantageous picture of rail, as they should have been for a CSX ad. Second, that rail efficiency only gets the box from rail terminal to rail terminal, and does not include the highway drayage at each end to get the box from the shipper to the rail head, and then from the rail terminal to the consignee. Third, there's no mention of time efficiency. How often does the train run, and what is the elapsed time door-to-door? If a business runs on just-in-time inventory, and some of the auto plants measure on-hand inventory in hours, not days or weeks, then frequent, on-time, repeatable deliveries are essential. How does the train compare to the truck on these measurements?

quote:

f they did an analysis of how inefficient an 18 wheeler, and I do believe CSX railroad shows that in one of their ads. CSX shows that one freight train hauling inter-modal freight (trailers) gets 400 miles per gallon as opposed to the lone 18 wheeler/tractor trailer.

Seacoast

Listen carefully to the railroad add. They claim over 400 TON miles per gallon. The trains fuel economy would be measured in the gallons per mile, not miles per gallon. A fully loaded 18 wheeler can exceed 10 miles per gallon for a truck and trailer and 200 ton miles per gallon for the cargo. While less fuel efficient than a train it is still excellent and often offers a better overall economic value. Few stores have rail to their loading dock and saving some fuel is worthless if it results in a trailer load of wilted lettuce.

quote:

Originally posted by Kanasket:

quote:

f they did an analysis of how inefficient an 18 wheeler, and I do believe CSX railroad shows that in one of their ads. CSX shows that one freight train hauling inter-modal freight (trailers) gets 400 miles per gallon as opposed to the lone 18 wheeler/tractor trailer.

Seacoast

Listen carefully to the railroad add. They claim over 400 TON miles per gallon. The trains fuel economy would be measured in the gallons per mile, not miles per gallon. A fully loaded 18 wheeler can exceed 10 miles per gallon for a truck and trailer and 200 ton miles per gallon for the cargo. While less fuel efficient than a train it is still excellent and often offers a better overall economic value. Few stores have rail to their loading dock and saving some fuel is worthless if it results in a trailer load of wilted lettuce.

A simple illustration of the economy of rail freight is that CSX claims that they can move 1 ton of freight 400 miles on one gallon of fuel so if they are moving 10 tons of freight the fuel consumption will be 40 miles per gallon or 100 tons of freight at 4 miles per gallon. This is still way better than truck freight fuel economy. A semi can only move 18-20 tons and will use 4MPG doing it.

Dennis

Over the road truck fuel economy has improved dramatically in recent decades with advances in electronic engine control and aerodynamic tractors. In level territory a Kenworth T-600 with a trailer loaded to 80,000 lbs gross weight can exceed 10 miles per gallon. With a 20 ton load that puts it over the 200 ton mile per gallon mark.

Throw in a mountain pass or two and fuel economy goes down for trucks and trains alike. The number CSX advertised was definitely not achieved on a 2.2% grade.

Size definitely matters in transportation efficiency. A car carrying a payload of five 200 pound adults would need to get over 400 miles to the gallon to equal the Kenworth and 800 miles to the gallon to equal the train. Barges and ships exceed train fuel efficiency. But that is all irrelevant if you don't live on a waterway, have a railroad siding to your loading dock or want to ride in the back of a Kenworth with 199 other people.

Ok, I get it.
The point of all this is that trucks and trains ARE BOTH efficient ways for transporting goods. Trucks can maneuver where trains cant. Trains are better at moving large quantities of bulk material great distances. Both are needed to keep our economy moving.