So, How do we pay for it?

[AutoTrDvr]

AutoTrDvr (Arnold, BTW ),

I'm often following news stories around the country as they relate to rail, but it subway, light rail, commuter, or Amtrak. And one of the most common thing that I see from those opposed often goes like this "I can get in my car and drive there for $35 vs. paying $100 for Amtrak." Far too many people equate the cost of driving only to the cost of the gas in their tank. Many even forget to include the cost of filling up once again when they get home to their trip. I'll point out the fact that one must include a pro-rated cost for insurance, interest, price of the car, repairs & maintenance, and wear & tear. That makes their trip more expensive that just the price of the gas they put in the car.

Then we come to the fact that the fuel taxes do NOT fully cover the costs of our roads & highways, meaning that we drivers actually get a subsidy to drive our cars.

When one starts including all of that, driving often isn't cheaper than Amtrak. But again, far too many people don't realize that, so they jump in their car and drive instead of taking the train.

Precisely the arguments I use with my diving community to justify the AT, which most would not use for the very reasons you state. They'd just rather drive the whole distance and "save money," short term.

 

[AutoTrDvr]

Long story short, in order for rail travel to be more relevant, not only must it be time competitive (not necessarily faster, just competitive), but it also needs the feed at the end of the line. That's what we don't have.

Totally understood.

That's one reason why it's probably a good thing that the ridiculous Tampa-Orlando HSR was stopped. For a starter segment, with no onward connections, it wouldn't have been useful to anyone as neither Tampa nor Orlando have a particularly good transit system to get people anywhere once they're there (and once it failed to generate any ridership, for that reason, the support most likely would not have been there to finish the rest of the planned system).

Perhaps, it was a reaction to the absolute monstrosity of "rush hour" on I-4. I've been victim of that. But yes, without feeder transport services, it would not do any good.

Regards,

Arnold

 

[tonys96]

People say "Don't subsidize Amtrak!" Every country that has a national railroad subsidizes it! And none ever run "at a profit"! We US taxpayers subsidize airlines (thru the FAA, ATC, airport construction, the BILLiONS given to them after the 9/11 shutdown, etc..., etc...) - yet "the public" doesn't complain when airline XYZ has a quarter loss of $XXX MILLION or $X.X BILLION! Yet it's a fight in Congress to provide Amtrak an amount to allow them just to maintain the routes they ow have!

THIS

 

[Nathanael]

So... how do we pay for it, assuming the above is true? I've been struggling with the concept of whether or not LD pax. train travel is worthy of being in the federal govt's portfolio

It's cheap. Most of it piggybacks on passenger corridor routes, which we definitely need -- if we didn't have them then either people would travel a lot less (bad for business) or we'd need a lot more roadways (extremely expensive at this point). Most of what's left piggybacks on freight routes.

The actual operating costs are small in the big picture of the federal government funding. Amtrak's federal funding is under $2 billion a year *including* the Northeast Corridor, *including* capital investments, station rebuilds for ADA access and stuff like that. In contrast, the US military is currently spending over $500 billion a year in order to, as far as I can tell, lose wars.

We can absoutely afford to simply fund LD trains from general taxation. What we can't afford to fund is the bloated military budget, which is approximately as large as the military budget of *every other country in the world combined*, and yet which is not actually winning wars.

Then there's the funding for bank bailouts of banks which continue to run criminal frauds on both investors and homeowners. That has also been measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Don't get me going on that.

And then there's the giant agricultural subsidies, several which are designed to promote chemical, industrial agriculture while suppressing local small-scale organic agriculture.

And if you want to stick to transportation, there's road funding. The general fund infusion into federal-aid highways in the last couple of years has now exceeded Amtrak's funding over its entire history.

Would you consider re-directing existing tax revenue away from existing portfolio items (and more towards Amtrak) to fund the present level of service?

So I guess my answer is "hell yes" to that question!

 

[Nathanael]

Instead of using our publicly funding military to protect private oil fields and transport routes while fighting pirates on behalf of Chinese merchant ships I'd cut our military budget back. Don't get me wrong, it'd still be the world's most expensive military, but only just above the world's second most expensive military.

Based on 2011 numbers, the US spends $711 BILLION per year. The next largest is China which spends $143 billion (though that's probably an inflated number because the Chinese military owns all kinds of non-military development and investment projects).

So cutting back to a bit over Chinese levels would save over $560 billion (with a 'B', remember) per year. For that we could build five to ten systems the size of California HSR -- using ONE YEAR'S savings. Then we could spend the next year's savings on something else, perhaps insulating every home in the US, or building a domestic solar panel industry and eliminating coal-burning power plants....

 

[me_little_me]

As an aside, I think what makes train travel a more viable option today in Europe and Japan, etc., are the shorter continental distances... probably not worth investing as much in domestic air travel within Europe or Japan or similar places. HSR makes much more sense. But to go coast to coast in the USA... most would opt for the 5+ hours by air, as opposed to whatever it is by train. So, as stated above, unless something happens and all domestic aircraft get "grounded" at once, I think we will never get that kind of demand back in LD train travel. But that doesn't mean it should go away, either.

If you take the entire European continent, it's actually larger than the continental United States ("lower 48"). If you just count "western Europe," it's still about the size of the US east of the Mississippi River. There's nothing about the size of the United States that makes passeneger rail travel impractical in modern times.

It has more to do with development patterns, and, as jis noted, the complete lack of local transit connections (which goes hand-in-hand with the development patterns).

It is not just size but a huge concentrated population (not as many places to build roads or the supporting infrastructure of gas stations, etc), the wealth of the population (back when the car matured in the first half of the 20th century), the political boundaries (each country building its own rail similar to states here doing the same), the effect of two world wars which allowed inexpensive "urban renewal" rail projects and the need after the wars to have a transportation network as well as the political attitude of the people (individualism and property ownership is king here) and the government (centrally planned economies are more accepted in Europe) towards what is important.

Physical size of the country is only one small part of the equation.

 

[AlanB]

It is not just size but a huge concentrated population

Population density is really not a big part of the equation at all. If it were a requirement, then the Lynchburg would be a total failure. The population of Lynchburg, VA is just over 60K. The same for the next few stops that train makes on the way to DC. It's not until you're in the suburbs of DC, where VRE operates and better serves commuters, that one approaches any decent population density.

The anti-rail crowd loves to trot out that population density argument as to why it works in Europe and not here in the US. But it's simply not true. Not saying that density doesn't help things some, but it is simply not a major factor either in the success or failure of a train.

 

[AlanB]

The actual operating costs are small in the big picture of the federal government funding. Amtrak's federal funding is under $2 billion a year *including* the Northeast Corridor, *including* capital investments, station rebuilds for ADA access and stuff like that.

Amtrak's annual funding represents about 0.04% of the Federal budget.

 

[AutoTrDvr]

The actual operating costs are small in the big picture of the federal government funding. Amtrak's federal funding is under $2 billion a year *including* the Northeast Corridor, *including* capital investments, station rebuilds for ADA access and stuff like that.

Amtrak's annual funding represents about 0.04% of the Federal budget.

Just curious... do you know the %age of Amtrak's revenue (not budget) that is "federal subsidy" vs. actual revenue streams (pax. fares, private cars, etc.)?

Regards,

Arnold.

 

[Trogdor]

I don't think federal subsidy counts as revenue on Amtrak's financial statements.

 

[AutoTrDvr]

I don't think federal subsidy counts as revenue on Amtrak's financial statements.

Perhaps not, but I was just curious as to how much they receive in federal subsidies vs. how much they receive in actual revenue and what the ratio is between them.

 

[AlanB]

I don't think federal subsidy counts as revenue on Amtrak's financial statements.

Perhaps not, but I was just curious as to how much they receive in federal subsidies vs. how much they receive in actual revenue and what the ratio is between them.

Amtrak covered 69% of its 2010 budget from fares, state payments, other income, and fees. The Fed only supplied 31% of what got spent.

 

[me_little_me]

It is not just size but a huge concentrated population

Population density is really not a big part of the equation at all. If it were a requirement, then the Lynchburg would be a total failure. The population of Lynchburg, VA is just over 60K. The same for the next few stops that train makes on the way to DC. It's not until you're in the suburbs of DC, where VRE operates and better serves commuters, that one approaches any decent population density.

The anti-rail crowd loves to trot out that population density argument as to why it works in Europe and not here in the US. But it's simply not true. Not saying that density doesn't help things some, but it is simply not a major factor either in the success or failure of a train.

I never said it was the only reason and you picked on one of the many items I listed as being the reason and claimed it wasn't true. It is true. It is part of the reason why "what makes train travel a more viable option today in Europe" exists. And the "anti-rail crowd" as you call them are not the only ones that consider it part of the reason train travel is more viable in Europe. The "success or failure of a train" of course has, in addition to the factors I mentioned for viability between Europe and the U.S., other reasons including local factors such as type of population, etc.

The success and extensiveness of Europe's rail system is in large part due to the many factors I mentioned. And no, Alan, I am not part of the "anti-rail crowd" as you so nicely put it.

 

[cirdan]

Commenting on this from a European perspective, I must say that here in Europe we don't really have LD trains in the style Amtrak runs. There are plenty of intercity trains connecting the cities within countries, and some also crossing borders connecting different countries, but these are mostly daytime trains with not very many running longer than 8 to 10 hours (but 6 hours being more typical), and then there are some night trains that start in the evening and arrive at destination the next morning, but these are not really comparable to Amtrak in LD either as they are purely night trains. But if you're looking for Amtrak style LD trains that run for two days and two nights, there are very few, at least in Western Europe. In Russia they do exist, but that's a different situation. So I would say that LD trains are unique to the USA, Canada, Russia, China. I can't think of any others, and definietly not Western Europe.

 

[PRR 60]

It is not just size but a huge concentrated population

Population density is really not a big part of the equation at all. If it were a requirement, then the Lynchburg would be a total failure. The population of Lynchburg, VA is just over 60K. The same for the next few stops that train makes on the way to DC. It's not until you're in the suburbs of DC, where VRE operates and better serves commuters, that one approaches any decent population density.

The anti-rail crowd loves to trot out that population density argument as to why it works in Europe and not here in the US. But it's simply not true. Not saying that density doesn't help things some, but it is simply not a major factor either in the success or failure of a train.

Listing the population of the city of Lynchburg understates the actual transportation market. Typical with older cities, the population of the municipality is not representative of the population of the metropolitan area. The population of the Lynchburg metropolitan area is 254,000. The population of the Charlottesville metropolitan area is 203,000. Those are pretty significant markets for travel to the major NEC destinations

The statement that population density is not a major factor in the success of passenger rail is simply not supported by transportation engineering principles. That does not mean that rail cannot be viable in low density situations, but population density is a very important parameter driving the success of passenger rail. Like the "anti-rail crowd" thinks rail is never the answer, sometime the "pro-rail crowd" thinks rail is always the answer. The truth lies somewhere in between.

 

[AutoTrDvr]

I don't think federal subsidy counts as revenue on Amtrak's financial statements.

Perhaps not, but I was just curious as to how much they receive in federal subsidies vs. how much they receive in actual revenue and what the ratio is between them.

Amtrak covered 69% of its 2010 budget from fares, state payments, other income, and fees. The Fed only supplied 31% of what got spent.

Interesting :excl: I would have thought the fed. % a bit more, actually. I trust there is no "deficit spending" or borrowing to cover a budget shortfall?

 

[jis]

I don't think federal subsidy counts as revenue on Amtrak's financial statements.

Perhaps not, but I was just curious as to how much they receive in federal subsidies vs. how much they receive in actual revenue and what the ratio is between them.

Amtrak covered 69% of its 2010 budget from fares, state payments, other income, and fees. The Fed only supplied 31% of what got spent.

Interesting :excl: I would have thought the fed. % a bit more, actually. I trust there is no "deficit spending" or borrowing to cover a budget shortfall?

Keep in mind that this includes NEC infrastructure maintenance costs as well as income from users of such. It is well known that users of NEC under-compensate Amtrak, just like Amtrak under-compensates the freight railroads that it runs on (what is good for the goose is I suppose is good for the gander). The bottom line is that many have contended that if NEC infrastructure costs and earnings are taken out of the equation while charging a reasonable equitable track access fees to Amtrak for the use of the NEC, the actual farebox recovery from pure train operations would most likely be noticeably better. That is one of the reasons that people argue about separating NEC from time to time.

The right thing to do of course is to charge track access fees that cover actual costs rather than what is done today. Similarly the right thing to do with LD trains is to pay track access charges that reasonably cover opportunity cost of the proportion of infrastructure actually used, rather than some cooked up number. This will definitely improve the attitude of the freight railroads towards Amtrak, but will have an adverse effect on farebox recovery of LD trains.

 

[Eric S]

Commenting on this from a European perspective, I must say that here in Europe we don't really have LD trains in the style Amtrak runs. There are plenty of intercity trains connecting the cities within countries, and some also crossing borders connecting different countries, but these are mostly daytime trains with not very many running longer than 8 to 10 hours (but 6 hours being more typical), and then there are some night trains that start in the evening and arrive at destination the next morning, but these are not really comparable to Amtrak in LD either as they are purely night trains. But if you're looking for Amtrak style LD trains that run for two days and two nights, there are very few, at least in Western Europe. In Russia they do exist, but that's a different situation. So I would say that LD trains are unique to the USA, Canada, Russia, China. I can't think of any others, and definietly not Western Europe.

Maybe add Australia to your list.

 

[jis]

Commenting on this from a European perspective, I must say that here in Europe we don't really have LD trains in the style Amtrak runs. There are plenty of intercity trains connecting the cities within countries, and some also crossing borders connecting different countries, but these are mostly daytime trains with not very many running longer than 8 to 10 hours (but 6 hours being more typical), and then there are some night trains that start in the evening and arrive at destination the next morning, but these are not really comparable to Amtrak in LD either as they are purely night trains. But if you're looking for Amtrak style LD trains that run for two days and two nights, there are very few, at least in Western Europe. In Russia they do exist, but that's a different situation. So I would say that LD trains are unique to the USA, Canada, Russia, China. I can't think of any others, and definietly not Western Europe.

Maybe add Australia to your list.

Not to mention India.

There are some LD trains in SE Asia, specially in Malaysia and Thailand.

Amtrak actually has three distinct types of LD trains:

Type I Day train: Palmetto (actually the Maple Leaf, the Adirondack and the Carolinian basically fall in the same category but are not characterized as LD because the distance they cover does not qualify them, and nor do the BOS - NPN trains). Canada has the odd Jasper - Prince Rupert service and the Montreal Jonquière and Senneterre

Type II: overnight one night: Silvers, Crescent, Cardinal, Capitol, CONO, LSL, Texas Eagle (ex-LAX section) taken together they carry the most riders in the LD network. Canada has Ocean, Chaleur (or whatever they are called this year).

Type III: overnight multi-night: Sunset, Texas Eagle (LAX Section), SWC, CZ, CS and EB. Canada has the Canadian

Type I are found quite a lot in Europe and the other countries too.

Type II are common in the countries listed and also some places in Europe and SE Asia, Japan and of course India. Heck they are found even in Turkey and South Africa!

Type III trains are also found in India, China, Russia, Australia and perhaps a few that I may be missing. US and Canada together has only 4 dailies and 3 three times a week counting Sunset and TE separately.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Type II are common in the countries listed and also some places in Europe and SE Asia, Japan and of course India. Heck they are found even in Turkey and South Africa!

Type III trains are also found in India, China, Russia, Australia and perhaps a few that I may be missing. US and Canada together has only 4 dailies and 3 three times a week counting Sunset and TE separately.

Type II is probably also found in Argentina, Kenya, and Egypt.

Type III is be found in all those places and maybe Argentina.

 

[AutoTrDvr]

Type II: overnight one night: Silvers, Crescent, Cardinal, Capitol, CONO, LSL, Texas Eagle (ex-LAX section) taken together they carry the most riders in the LD network. Canada has Ocean, Chaleur (or whatever they are called this year).

And the AT!

Type II are common in the countries listed and also some places in Europe and SE Asia, Japan and of course India. Heck they are found even in Turkey and South Africa!

In fact, there's a rather famous South African train, the Blue Train. I have a DVD about this one.

 

[jis]

Type II: overnight one night: Silvers, Crescent, Cardinal, Capitol, CONO, LSL, Texas Eagle (ex-LAX section) taken together they carry the most riders in the LD network. Canada has Ocean, Chaleur (or whatever they are called this year).

And the AT!

Ah yes of course! Thanks!

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Type II are common in the countries listed and also some places in Europe and SE Asia, Japan and of course India. Heck they are found even in Turkey and South Africa!

In fact, there's a rather famous South African train, the Blue Train. I have a DVD about this one.

There's some other trains too, the Blue Train is much more expensive and less frequent than the other trains. Do South African LDs make a profit?

 

[George Harris]

There was one alternative left off that I think should be the one:

Redirect federal revenue to increase and improve Amtrak services without any increase in taxes. A dedicated rail funding mechanism should be implemented.

Amtrak is such a rediculously small portion of Federal Expense that it is below the accounting errors in most of the items in the Federal budget. Each one of the presidents recent trips has probably cost more than one or two additonal cars for Amtrak. There is probably more spent on coffee in the Pentagon alone than the annual Amtrak budget. Any long distance route worth serving at all should have two (or more) trains per day.

 

[George Harris]

Commenting on this from a European perspective, I must say that here in Europe we don't really have LD trains in the style Amtrak runs. There are plenty of intercity trains connecting the cities within countries, and some also crossing borders connecting different countries, but these are mostly daytime trains with not very many running longer than 8 to 10 hours (but 6 hours being more typical), and then there are some night trains that start in the evening and arrive at destination the next morning, but these are not really comparable to Amtrak in LD either as they are purely night trains. But if you're looking for Amtrak style LD trains that run for two days and two nights, there are very few, at least in Western Europe. In Russia they do exist, but that's a different situation. So I would say that LD trains are unique to the USA, Canada, Russia, China. I can't think of any others, and definietly not Western Europe.

We tend to forget how blooming small most of the European countries are geographically. Just saw a map of Italy's high speed network compared to Califronia's. Milan-Rome-Naples, which amounts to a goodly portion of the length of the Italian "Boot" is very close in length to San Francisco-Fresno-Los Angeles which leaves a goodly length of the state unserved. In other words, a train at ordinary speeds can cover most any individual European border to border in 8 to 10 hours or less, and for some of the smaller ones, much less.