Join the discussion on the following article:
Boardman: Amtrak covers 88 percent of operating costs
That’s all fine for smoke and mirrors results as required by socialist government. How about using the same reality based accounting practices as used by the private sector? That, will never happen. Amtrak doesn’t want to everybody to realize that as a percentage of the population, it is hauling fewer people each year as the population grows. If Amtrak went away tomorrow, nobody who lives and works in the real world would miss it.
Private enterprise had to cover both operating expenses and capital costs, with hopefully something left over for the stock-holders. The taxpayers are on the hook for the capital costs and the operating expenses not covered by operating revenues. This is called progress?
Only through accounting tricks that would end up with a private CPA in jail or under SEC investigation is Amtrak covering that much of its expenses.
Remember, Amtrak counts state subsidies as revenue and counts maintenance as a capital expenditure instead of an operating expense.
I am not certain what “world” Mr. Guse lives in, but as senior
citizens my wife and I rely on Amtrak’s long distance trains
to visit relatives and friends on the East coast, Mississippi,
upper Midwest and Pacific Northwest. We are tired of long days in a car, don’t care to wait in long inspection lines at
airports, and believe we are not alone in our view of
passenger rail as a vital component of our nation’s transportation system.
Say what you will, but Boardman has been the best CEO yet. He has made a lot of progressive moves to benefit Amtrak.
Come on folks, why should Amtrak be the only form of public transportation required to make a profit. Heck most airlines can’t even do that. And trucks or buses wouldn’t come close to making a profit with out federal and state roads.
The hard facts: US Amtrak ridership from 2006 to 2012 grew 28.5%; US population growth during this time was 5.2%
US Amtrak ridership from 1974 to 2012 was 97.1%; US population growth during this time was 47.5%.
In Illinois, were investments in infrastructure are being made, Amtrak ridership grew 84.6% from 2006 to 2011, while Illinois population growth during this time was only 1.6%.
Amtrak is consistently growing faster than the population growth.
For those trying to pretend that the “private sector” is infinitely more “honest” in their figures, stop kidding yourself.
Non-rail transport is rigged to make it easy to hide government subsidies. It’s not as if a trucking company or motor-coach operator reports the costs of providing roads on their balance sheet. Airlines don’t include the costs of operating ATC or building airports on their’s.
Meanwhile rail transport is rigged to make it easy to hide government taxes. Amtrak has to pay access fees to private railroads. Those private railroads have to pass on a significant amount of that money to state and local governments, in the form of “property taxes”. Oh, and the latter constrains the ability of the private railroads to provide useful passenger infrastructure, as they discourage double-tracking and other important improvements, while nothing seems to stop states from spending the money on widening I-95 to five lanes in each direction.
So I suggest you stop making guses of yourselves.
In an older issue of Trains (10/09 I think) there was a graph showing what each mode of transportation received in tax funds and what was covered by taxes and fees collected. As I recall aviation was around $12billion over what was collected. Old numbers, but I’m sure they haven’t gotten any better. I have never heard anybody complain about this subsidy. Shouldn’t the people that use aviation cover all of the costs in the price of the service? Amtrak gets lambasted for not being “profitable” and the airlines always get a pass. If the government had subsidized rail like they did all of its competition in the past, we would probably have a high speed passenger rail system instead of the poorly funded whipping boy for narrow minded people we call Amtrak.
I don’t know about the numbers or percentages but I do know that Amtrak has to get more revenue generating rolling stock. Longer trains not more trains means more revenue per mile and less expense per train.
I don’t know about the numbers or percentages but I do know that Amtrak has to get more revenue generating rolling stock. Longer trains not more trains means more revenue per mile and less expense per train.
I don’t know about the numbers or percentages but I do know that Amtrak has to get more revenue generating rolling stock. Longer trains not more trains means more revenue per mile and less expense per train.
On an absolute basis, road get the greatest govt subsidy - but on a passenger mile basis, passenger rail gets the highest subsidy (both commuter and long distance).
By the way, taxes paid by truck and bus companies are generally greater than the subsidy they get by using taxpayer built roads - in others words, they pay their own way.
By far, the most economical means of traveling the 200-400 mile distances is bus. Greater than 400 miles, planes become better. Less than 200 miles it’s a tossup - buses or private car (assuming you have the car anyway). Trains don’t factor in as the best choice for any distance.
By the way, the modern bus is just as comfortable as a train - free wi-fi - clean restroom - faster - less expensive - comfortable seat - plenty of legroom.
On an absolute basis, road get the greatest govt subsidy - but on a passenger mile basis, passenger rail gets the highest subsidy (both commuter and long distance).
By the way, taxes paid by truck and bus companies are generally greater than the subsidy they get by using taxpayer built roads - in others words, they pay their own way.
By far, the most economical means of traveling the 200-400 mile distances is bus. Greater than 400 miles, planes become better. Less than 200 miles it’s a tossup - buses or private car (assuming you have the car anyway). Trains don’t factor in as the best choice for any distance.
By the way, the modern bus is just as comfortable as a train - free wi-fi - clean restroom - faster - less expensive - comfortable seat - plenty of legroom.
Lets see how profitable airlines would be if THEY had to bear their full cost.
For those of you who believe that Amtrak is the same as air or road, I have a wager.
I will live without Amtrak or anything delivered by Amtrak for one year. You live without road or air travel, or anything delivered by road or air.
If you die, I still win.
Regardless of how Amtrak reports it’s accounting, if it uses the same method from year to year, 88% is the highest I’ve seen or heard of. Regardless of how socalist it is to support Amtrak with the federal government (our constution does not forbid states from contributing) if airlines get federal funds as well, at least there is no inconsistency in principle there though there may be inconsistency in amount of funding for each mode. The federal government does have authority to establish “post roads,” so there is precedent for funding for transportation of some form. Soooo… regardless of what your views of the these issues are, if you like trains and enjoy riding them, this article should come across as good news. The closer Amtrak gets to that magical 100% point, the closer it gets to not being subjected to the whims of Washington politicians and being in danger of loosing all funding all together. And the easier it is to justify the expense from politicians who would otherwise oppose continued Amtrak funding.
As someone who works as a truck driver, I’ll be the first to say that trucks (can’t speak for busses) don’t “pay their way” on the roads. Going back to the 80’s, you used to see signs on the back of trucks patting themselves on the back because “over the road trucks pay an average $4752 a year in road use taxes.” Please don’t hold me to precision on that number, because it’s been a long time and I’m going from memory. However, it’s close if not dead on the figure they used. I pointed out to many people at the time that according to DOT analysis, one truck loaded to the legal limit (smaller at that time than now), put wear on the road equal to about 9500 cars. If you figured that a truck was empty half the time (which no trucker would allow), and if you figured that an empty truck was equal to one car (dubious), then you could see that a “fair share” of tax would be on a 4750:1 ratio for trucks vs. cars. In other words for every dollar a car paid in road use taxes, a truck should pay $4750. Since by their own calculation (and bragging), trucks paid an average of $4752 per year, then the proper ratio for cars would have been $1 per year. I will guarantee that even in the 80’s, cars paid a lot more than a buck a year for roads. If you calculated what cars were paying on the average and multiplied it times 4750 you would get the proper “fair share” of contribution to the road system for trucks, and the difference between that figure and $4752 was the annual SUBSIDY being transferred to the trucking industry in infrastructure costs being paid by others from which they benefitted. I haven’t bothered to redo this calculation since the early 80’s but I will guarantee that the situation has only gotten worse since then. I will stand by my final conclusion: ALL forms of transportation receive subsidy in some form or another, therefore they should be treated equitably.
Oh, and one other conclusion from many years of tal
Well - I guess we’ll have to have dueling studies … According to the Federal DOT for the period 2002-2009 subsidies per passenger mile are as follows:
- Amtrak - $0.254 per passenger mile
- Commuter rail - $0.193 per passenger mile
- Commercial Air - $0.008 per passenger mile
- Commercial Buses - $0.001 per passenger mile
- Commercial trucks - not in the study
But this does not include the income taxes paid by the commercial entities - so, assumming they are profitable, that kicks buses and maybe air into net payers. I couldn’t find truck information - so I’m less sure about that one - especially when you consider the damage trucks make to the road.
Three points:
(1) Passenger rail is a waste of taxpayer money. The ticket price should reflect the real cost of the ride (both capitol and operating) and then it makes it or it doesn’t.
(2) Other forms of transportation - trucks too - should pay their own way and let the chips fall where they may.
(3) Rail freight is a better deal than we normally figure because not only does it pay it’s own capital and operating costs, but pays property and income taxes too.