Readers: Passenger Rail Critical To America’s Future
Four out of five readers that voted in the poll last week think passenger rail service is critical enough to warrant federal financial support, I fully agree. Mobility is an important part of our society and the federal government subsidizes all modes — planes, trains and automobiles.
Let’s start with automobiles, our roads and bridges have been heavily subsidized over and above gas taxes:
Federal gas taxes have typically not been devoted exclusively to highways – Since its 1934 inception, Congress only temporarily dedicated gas tax revenues fully to highways during the brief 17-year period beginning in 1956. This was at the start of construction for the Interstate highway network, a project completed in the 1990s.
- Highways don’t pay for themselves — Since 1947, the amount of money spent on highways, roads and streets has exceeded the amount raised through gasoline taxes and other so-called “user fees” by $600 billion (2005 dollars), representing a massive transfer of general government funds to highways.
- Highways “pay for themselves” less today than ever. Currently, highway “user fees” pay only about half the cost of building and maintaining the nation’s network of highways, roads and streets.
- These figures fail to include the many costs imposed by highway construction on non-users of the system, including damage to the environment and public health and encouragement of sprawling forms of development that impose major costs on the environment and government finances. (Source: US Public Interest Research Group)
And the massive subsidized road network needs further subsidizing because of deterioration:
Despite billions of dollars in federal, state and local funds directed toward the maintenance of existing bridges, 69,223 bridges — 11.5 percent of total highway bridges in the U.S. — are classified as “structurally deficient,” requiring significant maintenance, rehabilitation or replacement.
Two key problems persist: while Congress has repeatedly declared bridge safety a national priority, existing federal programs don’t ensure that aging bridges actually get fixed; and the current level of investment is nowhere near what is needed to keep up with our rapidly growing backlog of aging bridges. (Transportation For America)
And yes tax dollars are used to subsidize air travel:
Essential Air Service (EAS) is a U.S. government program enacted to guarantee that small communities in the United States, which, prior to deregulation, were served by certificated airlines, maintained commercial service. Its aim is to maintain a minimal level of scheduled air service to these communities that otherwise would not be profitable. This came in response to the Airline Deregulation Act, passed in 1978, which gave U.S. airlines almost total freedom to determine which markets to serve domestically and what fares to charge for that service. The program is codified at 49 U.S.C. §§ 41731–41748.
The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) subsidizes airlines to serve rural communities across the country that otherwise would not receive any scheduled air service. As of June 1, 2009, 152 communities were being served with a subsidy, of which 45 were in Alaska, whose guidelines for service are separate and distinct from the rest of the country. The decision as to what degree of subsidized service a community requires is made based on identifying a specific hub for the community and from there determining the number of trips, seats, and type of aircraft that are necessary to reach that hub. (Wikipedia — includes details on subsidized routes)
The following routes to Lambert International Airport are subsidized through the EAS program:
- Jonesboro AR
- Decatur IL
- Marion/Herrin IL
- Quincy IL/Hannibal MO
- Burlington IA
- Owensboro KY
- Cape Girardeau / Sikeston MO
- Ft. Leonard Wood MO
- Kirksville MO
It’s good to keep smaller communities connected to larger cities. I wonder how many small government/tea party types realize their flight from their local airport to a hub airport is subsidized? Oh wait, they know:
Tea party lawmakers from rural areas were among those fighting the hardest to preserve taxpayer subsidies for airline flights into and out of small towns last year after senior Republicans tried to eliminate the oft-criticized program. Now, the House Appropriations Committee is awarding the program an 11 percent budget hike. (Fox News)
Hmm…
Which brings us to trains, specifically, Amtrak:
The size of the federal government’s Amtrak subsidies – nearly $1.5 billion in this fiscal year, when both operating subsidies and capital costs are included – has led many Republicans, including presidential nominee Mitt Romney and the chairman of the House transportation committee, to call for ending or greatly reducing Amtrak’s federal support. (St. Louis Beacon)
As you might expect, Washington doesn’t agree on Amtrak:
The GOP platform takes a harsh tack on Amtrak in particular, which has been a frequent target of Republicans on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. (The Hill)
Versus:
For President Barak Obama, Amtrak symbolizes a communal investment in the American infrastructure that enables and catalyzes economic growth. (CBS News)
We’re getting closer to seeing benefits from the investments that’ve been made in rail transportation infrastructure:
The first test runs of 110-mph passenger trains in Illinois are scheduled to begin by the end of this month. But speed is only one piece of the test.
Transportation regulators and Amtrak also will monitor an automated system of crossing gates and lights intended to accommodate trains, motorists and pedestrians. If the system works as expected on the Amtrak line between Dwight and Pontiac, plans are to extend the upgrades to the remainder of the route downstate.
The target is to begin faster service between Chicago and St. Louis in 2015. (State Journal-Register — Springfield IL)
As you might expect, I’ve been happy with the investments made in rail to improve passenger and freight service. If Amtrak is privatized many communities will find themselves without service because that route wouldn’t please stockholders.
Background on Amtrak from Wikipedia:
The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as Amtrak (reporting mark AMTK), is operated and managed as a for-profit corporation and began operations on May 1, 1971 to provide intercity passenger train service in the United States. “Amtrak” is a portmanteau of the words “America” and “track”. It is headquartered at Union Station in Washington, D.C.
Although the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970, which established Amtrak, specifically states that “The Corporation will not be an agency or establishment of the United States Government,” the federal government (through the United States Department of Transportation) does own all issued and outstanding preferred stock in the company. Common stock was issued in 1971 to railroads that contributed capital and equipment; these shares convey almost no benefits but their current holders declined a 2002 buy-out offer by Amtrak. Amtrak also receives annual appropriations from the federal government to supplement operating and capital programs. In Fiscal Year 2011, the U.S. Congress granted Amtrak $563 million for operating and $922 million for capital programs. Amtrak points out that in 2010, its farebox recovery (percentage of operating costs covered by revenues generated by passenger fares) was 79%, the highest reported for any U.S. passenger railroad. The members of its board of directors are appointed by the President of the United States and are subject to confirmation by the United States Senate.
Amtrak employs more than 20,000 people. It operates passenger service on 21,200 miles (34,000 km) of track primarily owned by freight railroads. Amtrak operates more than 300 trains each day – at speeds up to 150 mph connecting more than 500 destinations in 46 states and three Canadian provinces. In fiscal year 2011, Amtrak served 30.2 million passengers and had $2.7 billion in revenue.
Amtrak’s origins are traceable to the sustained decline of private passenger rail services in the United States from about 1920 to 1970. In 1970, in response to the decline, Congress and President Richard Nixon created Amtrak, which was to begin operations on May 1, 1971. The Nixon administration secretly agreed with some railroads that Amtrak would be shut down after two years. After Fortune magazine exposed the manufactured mismanagement in 1974, Louis W. Menk, chairman of the Burlington Northern Railroad, remarked that the story was undermining the scheme to dismantle Amtrak.
Nixon and his secrets…
Here are the results from the poll:
Is Passenger Rail Service Important To America’s Future?
- Yes, even with federal support 104 [80%]
- No 9 [6.92%]
- Yes, but not with federal support 13 [10%]
- Unsure/No Opinion 2 [1.54%]
- Other: 2 [1.54%]
The two other answers were:
- Yes, but on a regional basis.
- Yes, but the infrastructure needs to be built comparable to Europe.
Remember these polls aren’t scientific, but they do reflect the views of an urban audience.
— Steve Patterson
Ah, the joys of arguing statistics. I like trains, but I also like fiscal responsibility. Should trains be subsidized? Yes. At any cost? No! Amtrak is pretty efficient in the northeast corridor, but just because it works well there does not mean that it works equally well everywhere else. And while the following quotes come form a study with an obvious bias, the underlying numbers are pretty startling. Intercity buses (Greyhound, Megabus, etc.) and low-cost airlines (Southwest, Frontier, etc.) may not be as sexy or romantic as high-speed rail, but they get the job done with much smaller government subsidies. It’s a zero-sum game. The more government dedicates to Amtrak and high-speed rail, the less it has available for more mundane things like rebuilding existing highway bridges and/or investing in new pedestrian and bike facilities.
“In 2004, the Department of Transportation published a report on the cost of federal subsidies for automobiles, buses, airplanes, transit, and passenger rail per thousand passenger miles. The survey covered 1990 to 2002. In every year except one, passenger rail was the most subsidized mode of transportation. For example, in 2002 Amtrak subsidies per one thousand passenger miles were $210.31. By contrast, the subsidy for automobiles was -$1.79, which means that drivers more than supported themselves through federal fuel taxes.”
“All of Amtrak’s long-distance routes lose money. According to the Government Accountability Office, these routes account for 15 percent of riders but 80 percent of financial losses. The long-distance trains exist largely for the benefit of rural populations, but the benefit is outweighed by infrequent or inconvenient service and a heavy cost to taxpayers.”
“There are only an estimated 350,000 rural people nationwide who depend solely on rail for public intercity travel. By comparison, intercity air and bus services provide the sole transportation option for 2.4 million and 14.4 million residents nationwide, respectively. Whereas intercity air and bus services are available to a respective 89 and 71 percent of rural America, the figure for rail is only 42 percent. The GAO says that “it appears that if rural transportation were a targeted public policy objective, other modes of transport could be better positioned to provide this benefit to a greater number of residents at lower cost.”
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/transportation/amtrak/subsidies
You are not considered are not considering the true cost of the Auto. Global warming. oil and oil wars are major hidden costs. And what was the true cost of the Gulf Oil Spill? In addition you are only talking federal subsidies, you do not include local and state subsidies. Public service sector police, ambulance and sometimes fire district respond to traffic accidents for instance. That activity is subsidized by taxpayer dollars.
In any case it comes down to design and the will to accomplish something meaningful. Other countries manage to create fast, efficient, rail and transit systems that serve both rural and urban populations.
Are you suggesting Americans are too dumb and incapable and can’t do something similar?
Yeah cut, cut, cut, the answer to everything. Lets start with Congress, eliminate raises, pensions (use social security) and make them use medicare when they retire (no other government supplied medical insurance).
Sounds like the GAO is a mouthpiece for the oil companies. God, no way Jose, America should not have an effective rail system, it might put a dent in the profits of big oil. But man, yeah, fire up those buses and airplanes.
60-80-100+ years ago, the USA had a much more comprehensive rail system, for both passengers and freight. We also had riverboats, bicycles and horses, used for both purposes. We still have solid systems, for freight, using some, but not all, of these technologies. As our cars, trucks and airplanes became more reliable, more comfortable and more affordable, many of us CHOSE, and continue to choose, them over trains. boats, bikes and horses. And as our communities and transportation infrastructure evolved to reflect these choices, by sprawling out and adding parking facilities, replacing and eliminating many of the spur lines that permeated the city, it has made it much more difficult to implement effective public transit systems.
Are there indirect costs involved? Absolutely! But no transportation is without costs. No system is accident free. “Public service sector police, ambulance and sometimes fire district respond to” accidents involving trains, planes, boats AND automobiles. Even if the “GAO is a mouthpiece for the oil companies”, what’s your alternative? Go back to coal and steam?! Cable cars? Electricity around here ain’t all that clean. It’s produced using coal and uranium, not wind, solar and/or hydro. Trains are needed to move the coal from Wyoming, where significant impacts to the land are occurring. There are significant transmission losses between the points of production and points of consumption. Most people value a quick trip, not a leisurely one, for most of their travels. Is there a market for leisurely travel? Absolutely! It’s called the cruise industry. The Mississippi Queen visited St. Louis last week. Many people pay good money to cruise the Caribbean, with minimal government subsidies.
If I want to take a train from Kirkwood to Hermann and back, to look at fall colors and visit a couple of wineries, how much should my trip be subsidized by my fellow taxpayers? 5%? 50%? 80%? 95%? (Something like 90% would likely be the true number.) In contrast, I can also take my own car, pay for my own gas, and rely on the taxpayers to pay for just the roads I use (hopefully I won’t need any emergency services). That subsidy would be much lower, more like 5%-10%. What if a resident of Hermann needed to come to St. Louis for medical care? And wanted to take the train? Is that a “better” reason? Should we subsidize his or her trip, to the tune of 90%? Should we provide a much bigger subsidy to provide air service? Or should we say/admit that a bus is just as good, and will get you where you need to go, for a MUCH smaller subsidy? AND will allow us to subsidize service to Washington, Troy, Louisiana, Mexico and Wentzville, as well?!
Yes, we should help each other. Yes, there should be government subsidies. The question is one of degree. Yes trains are great, and yes, high-speed trains appear to be even better. But dedicating scarce resources to a few select corridors means that many, many other corridors will be neglected or ignored completely. Why Chicago to St. Louis? Why not Chicago to Minneapolis? Why not Chicago to Indianapolis and Cincinnati? Why not St. Louis to Branson? They all have established travel patterns . . . .
“Why Chicago to St. Louis? Why not Chicago to Minneapolis? Why not
Chicago to Indianapolis and Cincinnati? Why not St. Louis to Branson?
They all have established travel patterns . . .”
The idea is to eventually construct high speed rail between Chicago and every major Midwestern city. St Louis was likely chosen first because virtually the entire route is in one state so the politics should be easier. If it is successful, there will be support for building to Minneapolis, Indianapolis, etc.
Branson will never get high speed rail because building it through mountainous areas is extremely expensive.
So you are saying since America has created this auto centric urban sprawl, we should live with it.
Yes concepts on how America should evolve in the coming decades include discussions about rail to Minneapolis or where ever. The Neanderthal policies that gave America a one dimensional movement systems locking us into dependency on oil and pollution with an urban sprawl that was not designed to offer any alternatives to the auto is coming to an end, even as people such as you cling to those policies.
And your damn suggestion I want to go back to steam engines, you’re so absurd it is unbelievable. You don’t really want a discussion.
You miss the whole point. This is not about subsidizing trips and offering meaningless percentages.
It is about designing a national movement system by rail that is effective and can begin to alleviate or at least curtail some of the implications of global warming and oil.
And yes this means the thinking on city and rural planning will have to change to accommodate new ideas also.
Ultimately the suburbs will become undesirable. It can’t be any other way given the conditions that are in place now. People in the future will ask what in the hell where we thinking? We are pissing away natural resources at a furious pace.
You seem to be okay with that and are unwilling to look for solutions. You defend the status quo. A status quo that is failing all over the place, look around, evidence abounds.
I “defend” the status quo because it’s our reality. Can it change? Yes. Should it change? Maybe. Radically? Again, maybe. You get one vote. I get one vote. Steve gets one vote. My wife gets one vote. Deshaun gets one vote. Bubba gets one vote. Jose gets one vote. We each choose how and where we live and get around, given the choices available to us when we need to make that choice. If, like Steve, you find the single-occupant vehicle to be unsustainable and expensive, and find public transit fits your needs and life better, feel free to embrace it. If, like my wife and me, you find the single-occupant vehicle to be more comfortable and convenient and “worth” the additional costs (both direct and indirect), then feel free to embrace that choice, as well.
Am I “unwilling to look for solutions”? Absolutely not. But I want rational solutions, solutions that work, not “solutions” that end up boondoggles, bottomless pits for government funding. We’ve invested in a decent light rail system here, but we’re seeing minimal TOD, even after 20 years. We advocate for urban living, yet work around crappy school systems and unacceptable crime levels. We’re spending millions on a streetcar line that has little chance of being financially viable, given the route chosen and the anticipated frequency and operating hours (every 20 minutes, and not starting until 11am! http://www.looptrolley.org/loop_trolley_questions.html ).
When it comes to “high speed” rail, the devil is in the details, whether it’s in Illinois or California. From IDoT’s website – http://www.idothsr.org/ – the route is 284 miles long, will offer maximum speeds of 125 mph and include stops at 11 stations: “Chicago, Summit, Joliet, Dwight, Pontiac, Bloomington-Normal, Lincoln, Springfield, Carlinville, Alton and St. Louis”. Do the math – 284/125 = 2 hours, 20 minutes. Add in another 30 minutes for the 9 stops along the way (3 minutes per stop). Add in another 25 minutes for slower-speed operations in urban areas (Alton-St. Louis, for instance), and you’re looking at a minimum total trip time of 3 hours, 15 minutes. Right now, flying takes an hour and both Amtrak and Megabus promise 5 hours, 30 minutes. Planning ahead, one-way by air can be as low as $100. Megabus is $15 or less, while Amtrak can be as low as $25. Fares for the high-speed train have not been published, but I expect a premium. Will they be closer to the bus or the plane? And, how will I get to where I want to get to once I get there? Driving now takes me 5-6 hours, door to door. The current bus and train options take longer. High speed rail MAY reduce that to comparable to driving, but only if I want to be somewhere near the Chicago station. If I want to be out in the suburbs (as I many times want or need to be), I need a car, either mine or a rental.
Finally the laws of physics. It takes energy to cause movement. It takes more energy to go faster and it takes more energy to move heavier stuff. It doesn’t matter if it’s a car, bus, train or plane. Where you get energy savings is when any vehicle, especially larger vehicles, is filled to capacity. A bus gets crappy mileage (<5 mpg) compared to the typical private vehicle (20 mpg), but if 6 people are riding, instead of driving, the numbers start to look a lot more favorable. If you want to leave a minimal carbon footprint, be like the old Steve – biking and scootering are highly efficient. Want to be a bigfoot, literally and figuratively, crank up that Super Duty Crew Cab for that solo daily commute, just because you need it to get the wife, the kids and the boat to the lake on the weekend. Which gets us back to choices. The status quo is what it is because so many people want to "live the good life" and have absolutely no interest in sharing, especially it comes to transportation!
The status quo has nothing to do with reality. Global warming and an oil dependency that makes America vulnerable is the reality.
You keep trying to bring up ineffective transit systems as examples. You go into great detail, but are missing the point of what an overall vision, an overall functioning of a viable rail/transit system on a national level would look like.
Nor does the status quo represent reality with the threat to the republic by corporations and the wealthy purchasing public policy right and left. That is largely why there is not an effective national rail/transit system in place right now.
And people, as you say, who “live the good life and have absolutely no interest in sharing” pretty well says it all. People who are so busy looking at their assholes they don’t see the threat to their very existence.
Amtrak would love to discontinue the rural routes. But rural politicians – often from the same party which generally opposes rail and transit funding – do not let it do so.
In the Northeast Corridor Amtrak receives no subsidies whatsoever.