Amtrak's access rights to freight lines in danger

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

For highway funding, the states take in plenty of money to maintain the roads between gas taxes, licensing fees, fines, tolls, cargo taxes, permits, fuel tax stamps, etc. etc. etc.  Most of that money, however, funds things unrelated to its collection.  Which is why taxes should be collected from sources that make senses to finance their purpose.  

Anyway, a lot of transportation is certainly subsidized - but that's not a real good reason to keep it up.  Not to mention the fact that highways facilitate commerce and mass travel while AmTrak is as expensive as flying and has nearly no commercial value.  At the end of the day, it is CERTAIN that the nation as a whole benefits from good highways and that the governments tax revenues grow substantially as a result.  It is a good investment of tax payers money (if not a poor model).  

The same can not be said for Amtrak.  Something should be done.

You guys are crackin' me up![}:)]  First, the $30 billion is a public subsidy on top of all the other use-based forms of collection, i.e., gas tax, tolls, etc.  And that's $100 bucks a head.  A lot of us will be paying even more for that.  That means some joker who lives in a high-rise and takes a bus to work is paying for your roads, too.  That means that a guy that drives 5 miles to work is paying extra so that some other joker can drive 50.  That's what a subsidy is.

Second, the degree to which we choose to subsidize (or not subsidize) one form of transit or another will directly affect how much it is used for commerce and personal transportation.  It's called market forces...ever hear of them?  If trains were much, much, cheaper than a car, then more people would opt for the train.  If more people used trains for passenger service and freight, then it'd be more convenient; they'd create more routes and more expresses.  And then even more people would use trains; it's a beneficial cycle...get it?  The cost of adding a few more cars to a train that is already "going there" is next to nothing.

On the other side of the equation, if 18-wheelers had to pay full price for the damage they do to our highways, then we'd see more freight on trains and barges and not on interstates.  Just look at Europe and Japan.  Trains are successful there because gasoline taxes are much higher.

Take away Amtrak's subsidy...fine.  But, take away the highway subsidies too.  Instead of 18.4 cents a gallon, the feds could charge about 50 cents a gallon...that might do it.  Then let's see which forms of transit have "value".  This righteous highway-subsidy-loving nonsense is very unconservative.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

I'm all for Amtrak getting a boost if it gets its act together and does basic things like:

1) running even close to on-time;

2) cleaning up the interior of the trains;

3) actually serve good food in the dining cars instead of mass-produced microwave crap;

4) getting rid of the surliness of the employees.

Until those things happen, I don't see much of a point.

5) Serve Tulsa

I like to complain about Amtrack, too.  I'm just not silly enough to use the subsidy argument.[]

[cannon_fodder]

CL - dont misunderstand me.  I think the subsidies for roads are poorly administered and funded.  The guy in the high rise should not be paying for our long Oklahoma highways.  I was just arguing that of the two, there is a better argument for the highways.

The current federal gas tax funds something like $23,360,000,000.00.  Coupled with other taxes I would imagine it comes close to covering the cost.  If not, other forms of revenue that tax interstate drivers should be administered (gas tax punishes poor gas mileage, regardless of actual use.  As hybrid and electric becomes more viable it will become ineffective).  I am a firm believer in a pay-to-play system in nearly all aspects.

You also raise a very good point about market forces and the railroad.  But remember who paid to build the rail network to begin with - massive subsidies (worlds largest).  I am a big railroad fan (even when waiting for one as I work in North Tulsa), but when something no longer makes economical sense you have to let it die.  

Blah, this is becoming a ramble.  Subsidies are usually corrupt and wasteful and should be used MUCH more sparingly than they are.  That goes for trains, planes, and automobiles.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

CL - dont misunderstand me.  I think the subsidies for roads are poorly administered and funded.  The guy in the high rise should not be paying for our long Oklahoma highways.  I was just arguing that of the two, there is a better argument for the highways.

The current federal gas tax funds something like $23,360,000,000.00.  Coupled with other taxes I would imagine it comes close to covering the cost.  If not, other forms of revenue that tax interstate drivers should be administered (gas tax punishes poor gas mileage, regardless of actual use.  As hybrid and electric becomes more viable it will become ineffective).  I am a firm believer in a pay-to-play system in nearly all aspects.

You also raise a very good point about market forces and the railroad.  But remember who paid to build the rail network to begin with - massive subsidies (worlds largest).  I am a big railroad fan (even when waiting for one as I work in North Tulsa), but when something no longer makes economical sense you have to let it die.  

Blah, this is becoming a ramble.  Subsidies are usually corrupt and wasteful and should be used MUCH more sparingly than they are.  That goes for trains, planes, and automobiles.

And what I'm saying is that you can really place a higher value on roads unless you are first willing to ditch all of the subsidies, for all forms of transport, and see how things settle out.

Thanks for the gas tax number.  It jibes, more or less, with the previously posted citation.  Gas tax, plus tolls and other user-based collections pay for 56% of the National Highway System.  The other 44% comes from the federal budget in the form of a subsidy to the tune of $30 bill. a year.  To simply maintain what we have we'd need an additional $20 billion, and to have a pristine system that supports itself and continues to grow would cost us an additional $35 billion.

So, gas tax currently raises $23 billion at 18.4 cents a gallon.  In order to get rid of the subsidy and have a "perfect" highway system that can grow, we need $88 billion.  That's a gas tax of about 70 cents a gallon, if I'm not mistaken.  So, those tank a week drivers would end up paying about an extra $400 a year directly.  Instead of about $143 a year, they'd pay about $546.  The tank a week driver is getting a big subsidy from the federal gov't.  

Another way to look at it is subsidy per passenger mile.  Assuming the gov't should be taking in 70 cents a gallon instead of the current 18.4, the gov't is giving the one-occupant car a subsidy of 2.5 cents per passenger mile.  At its current, poor level of service, Amtrak subsidizes 20 cents per passenger mile.  Excluding the subsidy, they takes in 25 cents per passenger mile.  So, if ridership doubled, they wouldn't need a subsidy at all and they'd operate at a profit at current fares.  

If gas taxes went to 70 cents a gallon do you think amtrack could go from serving 61 to 122 million passengers per year?  Maybe.

[okiebybirth]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

I'm all for Amtrak getting a boost if it gets its act together and does basic things like:

1) running even close to on-time;

2) cleaning up the interior of the trains;

3) actually serve good food in the dining cars instead of mass-produced microwave crap;

4) getting rid of the surliness of the employees.

Until those things happen, I don't see much of a point.

5) Serve Tulsa

I like to complain about Amtrack, too.  I'm just not silly enough to use the subsidy argument.[]

TOTALLY agree with #5.  

Amtrak doesn't get high marks, but we don't subsidize rails enough to expect anywhere near the service we want.  Should we invest more?  Maybe not... It'll take a paradigm shift before Americans decide to use rail, but that paradigm might be right around the corner if we are indeed at "peak oil".

[Conan71]

CL, I will grant you this, as far as gov't transportation spending, this is about 1% of overall spending which is comparitively small.  I'm just curious if government inefficiency in essentially running every phase of this mode of transportation is what is keeping it impractical.

Interstate highways are a practical and expected service of government, as are sea ports and airports.  They move vital commercial goods and provide convenience for individual travelers in a hurry go get somewhere.

Amtrak is a bizarre hybrid of government owned and privately owned tracks, they operate and maintain the trains and stations.  They have a politically-appointed board, stock shares held by the government, etc.  IMO, it's one of the finest examples of the term "government cluster-F***".

In order for rail travel to appeal to more of the masses, it would require more stops and stations to maintain, which has the negative effect of creating a slower service which then becomes less practical than a car or plane.  

The business model of Amtrak is pathetic.  Poor service (about 10 to 12% less reliable than airlines), not convenient, and it is not a valuable commodity for the majority of Americans.  Amtrak came about to prop up what was essentially a bankrupt and outmoded source of transportation in America.

Amtrack takes in more than twice what airlines do in revenue per passenger mile and consumes 37% less Btu's per passenger mile than airliners.  Yet airlines, for the most part, are operating profitably these days while Amtrak isn't even breaking even.  That has to be the result of either:

A) Poor management of assets and personnel

B) Lack of ridership and mass appeal to a new market other than business commuters or scenic travelers with a lot of time on their hands.  (i.e. cost of supply is higher than demand load).

Perhaps with higher fuel prices, environmental concerns, etc. that will create more passenger demand.  

One thing you can see from various sources is that long lines like Orlando to LA or San Francisco to Chicago are huge money losers.  The lines which are profitable (or near profitable) are "commuter" in nature, like the Metroliner from D.C. to Boston, and (surprisingly to me) the Heartland Flyer.

Anyone who thinks the government would better manage health care only needs to look at Amtrak as just one of many examples of how government is inefficient and can't provide a better service than private enterprise.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little
If gas taxes went to 70 cents a gallon do you think amtrack could go from serving 61 to 122 million passengers per year?  Maybe.

Amtrak served about 25mm pax last year.  They averaged 69,000 riders a day on 300 trains.  Many of those are repeat commuters.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-11-28-amtrak-ridership_x.htm

[sportyart]

quote:Originally posted by pfox

Wow...I am not sure you all are recognizing how important this is...could you at least throw me a bone? Lie to me, tell me you called your congressperson...LOL

To get everyone back on track, I am very curious about this. What is the current law that allows Amtrak the right to use the rails? I would like to read it and better understand the issue. Secondly these are tracks that are owned by the rail lines, they are not owned by the government. To me what the government has done is use a type of eminent domain to use the lines and I do have some issue with that. I am thinking though that the government does subsidies the use of the rail to the companies.

I think new lines should be built with more direct and fast roots between major (top 100 cities) in the US.  That would get more people on board to the project, but I am not saying that we should shut down Amtrak I want it to come to Tulsa as well. But if your expecting people to use the train a lot when it gets here, that's not going to happen as we have seen with the state funding two million of our dollars to sustain the rail between OKC and Fort Worth.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by sportyart

quote:Originally posted by pfox

Wow...I am not sure you all are recognizing how important this is...could you at least throw me a bone? Lie to me, tell me you called your congressperson...LOL

To get everyone back on track, I am very curious about this. What is the current law that allows Amtrak the right to use the rails? I would like to read it and better understand the issue. Secondly these are tracks that are owned by the rail lines, they are not owned by the government. To me what the government has done is use a type of eminent domain to use the lines and I do have some issue with that.  

Yeah, but the rail companies could never build or manage those interstate lines without those same federal powers.  Letting Amtrak use the tracks every once in a while is a fair trade.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little
If gas taxes went to 70 cents a gallon do you think amtrack could go from serving 61 to 122 million passengers per year?  Maybe.

Amtrak served about 25mm pax last year.  They averaged 69,000 riders a day on 300 trains.  Many of those are repeat commuters.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-11-28-amtrak-ridership_x.htm

Thanks for the correction, but the question still stands, do you think that if gas prices went up, Amtrak ridership would increase?  

I'm sure Amtrak management has its problems, but the big picture is inescapable.  We spend 30 times more on highway subsidies than we do on Amtrak.

[cannon_fodder]

You have a lot of good points CL.  There are some serious issues with how we fund transportation in this country and how we have decided to honor one form above all others.  Unfortunately, in most American cities cars are dominant.  

Event if I took Amtrak to Dallas, or wherever, I would probably have to rent a car when I got there.  Coupled with the expense of a train meeting that of a plain ticket - the only reason to take the train cross country is for scenery. But most American's have only a couple weeks of vacation a year.  I dont want to spend half of it GETTING to my destination and back.

So while I applaud your well thought out arguments and you have persuaded me that Amtrak receives no more subsidy than highway travel, I still see little need for cross country rail service. As interesting as it seems, most people are like me and just do not want to spend the extra money or take the extra time.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little
If gas taxes went to 70 cents a gallon do you think amtrack could go from serving 61 to 122 million passengers per year?  Maybe.

Amtrak served about 25mm pax last year.  They averaged 69,000 riders a day on 300 trains.  Many of those are repeat commuters.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-11-28-amtrak-ridership_x.htm

Thanks for the correction, but the question still stands, do you think that if gas prices went up, Amtrak ridership would increase?  

I'm sure Amtrak management has its problems, but the big picture is inescapable.  We spend 30 times more on highway subsidies than we do on Amtrak.

I think it would go up on "commuter" routes of 250 miles or less.  The problem we have out here in "fly-over" country is there's not a lot of fares to pick up or drop off on a corridor say between Tulsa and KC.  That's why it's more economically viable on the east coast due to many major population centers.

Ostensibly, short routes are more convenient and quicker than going to the airport in large urban areas (i.e. NY, Philly, D.C.), clearing security, time on the plane including taxiing, then finding your way out at the other end.  A lot depends also on how close the station is to your ultimate destination than the airport.

This will piss off the nostalgia freaks out there, and I consider myself one as well, but: They need to cut out the long-haul "scenic" routes.  Those are the ones which are really sucking $$$ out of the system.  They aren't much cheaper than an airline ticket and it takes four days to get from Fla. to Ca.

My brother and I took an Amtrak with my grandmother from Kansas City to Reno, Nv. back in 1973 and it's an experience I'll always look upon fondly.  However, it's hardly a practical mode of transportation.  If people want to take a trip down memory lane, they can pay more for the experience to help sustain it.

I was truly amazed to see that the Heartland Flyer is "near profitable" or "profitable" depending on the source.  Part of that could be the lower cost of on-board amenities for a short route.

Another problem with rail service to Tulsa is there are plenty more who are apathetic to the concept than just grumpy li'l me.[]

[sportyart]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by sportyart

quote:Originally posted by pfox

Wow...I am not sure you all are recognizing how important this is...could you at least throw me a bone? Lie to me, tell me you called your congressperson...LOL

To get everyone back on track, I am very curious about this. What is the current law that allows Amtrak the right to use the rails? I would like to read it and better understand the issue. Secondly these are tracks that are owned by the rail lines, they are not owned by the government. To me what the government has done is use a type of eminent domain to use the lines and I do have some issue with that.  

Yeah, but the rail companies could never build or manage those interstate lines without those same federal powers.  Letting Amtrak use the tracks every once in a while is a fair trade.

correct me if I am wrong, but I think those rail companies own the land that their rails sit on.....so I don't see the need for federal powers to be in place for them to be able to work on on their land.

And don't get me wrong I am all for rail service, but The train was threatened with discontinuance during 2005; however, regional passenger rail advocates came out in force on April 11, 2005, for a state capitol rally sponsored by PassengerRailOk.org. Keynote speaker, Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett addressed the crowd along with the mayors of Perry, Guthrie, and Purcell, Oklahoma, encouraging the state to expand the train into Kansas.

The rally convinced state lawmakers to keep the Heartland Flyer in operation for at least one more year. The Oklahoma Legislature passed, and Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry signed House Bill 1078 that provided an annual $2 million subsidy to continue the service.

So is it now making money?

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by sportyart

correct me if I am wrong, but I think those rail companies own the land that their rails sit on.....so I don't see the need for federal powers to be in place for them to be able to work on on their land.

And don't get me wrong I am all for rail service, but The train was threatened with discontinuance during 2005; however, regional passenger rail advocates came out in force on April 11, 2005, for a state capitol rally sponsored by PassengerRailOk.org. Keynote speaker, Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett addressed the crowd along with the mayors of Perry, Guthrie, and Purcell, Oklahoma, encouraging the state to expand the train into Kansas.

The rally convinced state lawmakers to keep the Heartland Flyer in operation for at least one more year. The Oklahoma Legislature passed, and Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry signed House Bill 1078 that provided an annual $2 million subsidy to continue the service.

So is it now making money?

Owning land is nothing if the city, county, state, township, and mosquito abatement district all have a say in how I use it.  Multiply that by about 50,000 governments and you can see that the railroads would be nowhere if it weren't for the feds.

The Federal Railroad Administration preempts any state rail commission (if their are any left) or local authority on issues concerning safety.  Additionally, Carter deregulated rail, giving them the ability to charge what they want and where and how often they go, which cut the states out of a decent revenue stream and out of the picture entirely.  The railroads answer to no one but the feds.  The railroads owe the feds a heck of a lot more than the feds do the railroad companies.

[pfox]

FYI, in the case of the OKC to Tulsa connection, the rail line is owned by the State of Oklahoma.

Sgrizzle, the text of the legislation that created Amtrak, including the text that allows Amtrak to use existing freight routes, is inclulded in the original post (at the bottom). It is not long.  An executive summary would be longer...

It is very popular to complain about Amtrak, but I think CL captures the gist of the argument.  Complaining about a subsidy that encompasses 1% of the total federal transportation budget seems absurd.

The other day I saw a woman, a single driver, in the biggest SUV possible, on US 75 with a bumper sticker that said something to the effect of "Government should stop wasting my money..." CL is exactly right. We are subsidizing that womans right to drive the biggest, most inefficient vehicle possible on our public roads.  I think SHE is the one who should stop wasting our money.

The State of Oklahoma has committed to passenger rail service, yet it only serves OKC. Shocker, I know.  If we are going to subsidize rail for the State, I want Tulsa to benefit from it.  Can we agree on that?