Are things looking up for Amtrak? Or am I misunderstanding the info?
As I stated before, Amtrak has been threatened year-after-year, since Carter was President. Amtrak often has more support than the critics speculate.
(I was around then…and this was when trains like the San Francisco Zephyr and the Champion were 18 cars long, and running full!)
Not all supporters are “foamers” as suggested by a poster on the other topic. Many do find Amtrak as a “genuine” transportation alternative, inspite of the limited routes and delays.
I was pleasantly “shocked” recently when a popular radio station here in Tampa has joined with Amtrak in promoting a rail vacation getaway!
Hmmmmmmmmm… Looks like it’s not all “Doom & Gloom” as I was beginning to wonder there, for a while there.
Cheers![:D][;)]
BTW: I did contact my congressman. Anyone else?[;)]
Amtrak should change it’s logo to something that looks like a cat? It does have 9 lives, getting just enought money to operate, but never enough to grow a national rail system. How many amcans qualify as heritage fleet, due to their age? How many Superliners may have a million miles on them, since they have been in service so long?
Can the stars be finnaly aligned so that Amtrak gets what it needs to survive, namely, enough public support for those in congress that support Amtrak?
For # 8 on the fact list, the “Kentucky Cardinal” was basically cancelled, not
particularly due to low ridership, but the condition of the track between Jeff-
ersonville, IN and Chicago, IL.
The city did run a spur into Union Station (which is also the local bus head-
quarters), and the spur is still there. Saw it the other day when I went to the
library. Mutt and I were not aware of a class action suit against Amtrak and
the USDOT.
Myth: Highways pay for themselves thtough user fees.
Here are the numbers for Federal subsidies. Federal transportation spending is what most people mean when they talk about government subsidies for transportation.
While it is true that 41% of road funding comes from other sources. The majority of the non-user fee money is from local sources and pays for local streets and roads which would be needed even if there were no national or even State highway systems. While not “user fees” Highway users pay their share.
"QUOTE: Originally posted by garr
A recent study by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics cited in todays (2/10/05, page A12) Wall Street Journal shows the federal subsidies breakdown of each mode based on per thousand passenger miles:
Amtrak …$186.35
Urban Transit …$118.26
Airlines …$6.00
Highways …–$1.91
Data was gathered on federal subsidies for all four modes from 1990-2002. The total for each mode had its pertinent users fees deducted and was then divided by that mode’s number of passenger miles. The aim was to “to show the amount of subsidy relative to the level of use.” Robert Poole of the Reason Foundation says this is as close as you can get to an apples to apples comparison.
In a number of other threads the people posting have wondered how the federal subsidies compare between transportation modes. I thought this might answer some of these questions. I am not familiar with the Bureau of Transportation Statistics or the Reason Foundation but assume they are valid since the Wall Street Journal saw fit to use them as sources. And yes, as far as federal subsidies are concerned, that is a negative $1.91 for highways."
Myth: Amtrak carries a half-percent of the US travel market, therefote its insignificent
DSchmidt
If you want to make the argument that the Kansas farmer shouldn’t have to be taxed to support the NEC, maybe you should also argue that he shouldn’t have to pay the Federal portion of the gas tax if he doesn’t use the federal highway system. Just as with Amtrak, the Federal Highway System does not serve every town in the country. So let’s get it straight, the federal gas tax is a tax on everybody that buys gasoline, not just those that buy gas and use the federal system.
I am not quite certain how the Highway subsidy works out to be a negative number. If you divide just $1.00 by 100 billion one thousand passenger miles, the result is a positive number. Very small, yes, but still positive.
You could get a negative number. If you read this again
See, it says the total for each mode had pertinent user fees deducted. If the user fees exceed the subsidy, you could call that a negative subsidy because more is coming in to the government than going out.
I couldn’t argue on a per passenger mile basis. Seat mile would be more revealing. An auto with 4 seats has 4 seat miles per vehicle mile, but if it is carring only the driver, there is only one seat mile per vehicle mile, and therefore, is operating at only 25% capacity.
All people who have access to auto’s use them in preference to scheduled transportation. It is because [bold] I can[/bold] go when I want, where I want, the route I want. I don’t have to go someone elses route, at their schedule, and to their stations. Service level has very little to do with it.
The intercity bus has “died” for the same reason as the intercity passenger train. The air plane has gained all its riders because it is very fast and only secondarily because of the SouthWest and JetBlue’s of the world.
At the Federal level the Mass Transit Account was created in 1983. It was allocated approximately 11% of the gas tax revenue. However, the actual percentage of the HTF that goes to Mass Transit is substantially less than 11% (some other threads gave the percentage) because the gas tax is not the only user fee. The MTA is not used just for rail either. Still for every dollar in user fees collected, less than one dollar goes to highways. That is why the number is negative.
To be honest, since there are so many fewer highway users in Kansas, the Highway user in Kansas is probably being subsidized by the highway user in New York.
I found the following information at Victoria Transportation Policy Institute http://www.vtpi.org/
From: TDM Encyvlopedia -Transportation Costs $ Benefit , Table 15
Cost per vehicle mile for motor vehicles (2000 US dollars) is $1.20
costs incliude: travel time, veh ownership, crash damage, non residential off-street parking, vehicle operation, roadway costs, traffic congestion, environmental costs, roadway land value, residential parking, fuel externalities, traffic impacts.
Assuming 1.4 passenger per vehicle cost per passenger mile (capital + operating) = 86 cents
From a report titled: Comprehensive Benefits of Rail transit Benefits
dated 12-May 2004
Table 6 US Transit Expenses and Revenues By Mode (APTA 2002)
note auto is not included in this Table
Total rail: Total exp/passenger mile 1.55 Fares paid $0.22 Subsidy $1.33
Percent subsidy 79%
All bus Total exp/passenger mile $1.86 Fare $0.26 Subsidy $1.59
Percent subsidy 83%
Costs include: Capital expences and operating expences
The Subsidy for Heavy Rail is 72% Commuter Rail 73% and Light Rail 91%
The Sibsidy for Bus 76% Trolley Bus 84% Demand Responce 90%
Note that the subsidy per passenger mile for rail is $1.33, which is more than the cost per vehicle mile of the automobile $1.20.
Actually this is not a fair comparison. The $1.20 cost for the auto include costs paid directly by the user plus costs to society (congestion, environmental, etc) not directly paid by the user. The rail costs (total rail $1.55) is operating plus capital only. Costs to society, travel time, environmental costs, land value, etc are not included.
I agree that looks like the direction it is headed. However, doesn’t Congress, the Senate and the Bush administration first have to negotiate the differences between their budget proposals before a final budget is agreed to? Of course with support in both the Senate and Congress it would seem to be favourable for Amtrak. I thought Trent Lott’s comment in the report was interesting: #8220;I am committed to find a way to get a reauthorization and get a reliable stream of funds for Amtrak so its future can be certain and so this does not have to depend on annual appropriations."
That release from NARP and their Hot Line report from Friday provides a pretty clear picture of the Amtrak status. The fact that there has been changes in the Chair assignments for the transportation appropriation committees of both the House and the Senate and the fact that a significant number of Republicans support Amtrak funding, I would say that getting at least the 1.2 billion for FY 2006 looks pretty good.