Amtrak Boom Just One More Sign the Terrorists Have Won
The 9/11 attacks and rising fuel prices are just two more ways to say that there's something magic about a train!
Amtrak is proud to report, in the Wash Times' motion-sickness-inducing, pun-inflected gloss, that it "is chugging toward its fifth-straight record year for ridership nationwide….The money-losing service…says it is riding higher, illustrated by the hundreds of thousands of additional riders flocking to expanded routes in Illinois and California."
How big is the jump in ridership? In the fiscal year that ended last September, 24.3 million rode the service, setting a record for the fourth consecutive year; the odds look good that this fiscal year will set a fifth straight record.
But hey, Casey Jones, you better watch your speed. Trouble ahead, trouble behind:
The service has never been out of the red since its start in 1971, meaning it must rely on government handouts year after year.
In trying to hash out the federal budget for next year, Congress is weighing how much U.S. taxpayers should underwrite the passenger service. Amtrak has requested $1.53 billion, nearly twice the amount the Bush administration wants to give it. In the past, President Bush has proposed giving the service nothing.
The House Appropriations Committee recently agreed to boost Amtrak's federal funding to $1.4 billion - a modest increase from the service's $1.3 billion in government help - while a Senate panel has endorsed spending $1.37 billion. But Mr. Bush has promised to veto any spending bills exceeding his budget requests, forcing Amtrak to slice service if the president makes good on his threat….
The service also continues to be nagged by travel delays, mostly tied to having to share the tracks with freight haulers that own the rails and charge Amtrak a modest fee….With freight traffic soaring in recent years, Amtrak's on-time performance slid to an average of 68 percent last year, its worst showing since the 1970s….
I don't know about the current numbers, but in 2002, reason's Mike Lynch calculated that Amtrak cost $3.37 for every $1 they took in from passengers (I know, I know, they'll make it up on volume). And that same year, I noted that 71 percent of Americans--real Americans, the kind who drive everywhere, god bless their souls--absolutely loved Amtrak, "the state-sponsored terrorist network that has extorted billions of dollars from taxpayers over its tortured 31 years of existence."
And back in 1997, reason foundation founder Bob Poole counseled "Kill Amtrak Now!", a title that was reportedly optioned by Russ Meyer. And in 2005, reason cartoonist Peter Bagge devoted four fun-filled pages to the self-evident truth that Amtrak Sucks.
More Amtrakania (and it's all ania) here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I cant get real worked up over 1.5 billion a year when we're spending 1 billion a week in Iraq. At least I ride the train a couple times a year.
Let's not forget airline delays as an explanation for Amtrak's increase in ridership. Very bad news on that front for the past year.
And how much worse would that be if all of those Amtrak riders were flying? The transportation system functions as a system.
70 hours from Charlston, SC to Salt Lake City, UT for the same price as a plane ticket.
'nuff said...
Amtrak is the only subsidized transportation system in the US!
HAHA.. I just made a funny...
joe,
It'd be fine if Amtrak weren't sucking down tax dollars to function, but it takes up valuable rail space that could be used by rail shipping companies and meaning more semis moving things across the US, which is worse for the environment.
i just realized i made two completely different arguments with no segway. Ah screw it...
Seriously though, I think if we're going to pour money into the damn thing it should at least be on-time. Like Matt, I can't get worked up over such a small amount of money when cuts other places would be a lot quicker and substantial.
Besides, if you defund it, NY State will likely buy the whole damn system 🙂
The service has never been out of the red since its start in 1971, meaning it must rely on government handouts year after year.
Airlines taking flight? Not exactly.
LIT,
Sometimes, in some places, that may be true. The Northern route through South Dakota and Montana, maybe. Then again, do you really think it would be a net gain for the environment if all of those Amtrak riders flew in 747s or drove?
joe,
yes
So, if Amtrack is losing money and requires "government handouts", how does that compare to our automobile road system? Is that a big moneymaker that never requires tax money?
Then you don't know very much about high-atmosphere jet emissions.
Gotta hand it to Dan T. Excellent point on the road system. I sure like your "stance" Sir.
Travis
I made that point at 9:19am (although much less explicitly). What about me? huh? huh? 🙂
What disturbs me is that .1 billion is describes as a "modest" increase. The main problem with our Federal government is that we can throw around $100 million dollars left and right like it's nothing. All you have to do is throw it around like nothing 700 times or so and you get our national debt.
*Pats antlers*
You know a great deal about transportation, for a quadroped.
Dan, Rein,
The difference is if the interstate was privately funded, it would still be more useful and convenient than Amtrak.
@ Reinmoose. I beg your pardon. After re-reading your statement, you indeed make an excellent point. I also like your "wide stance" on the issue. Well done Sir. My humble apologies.
accepted 🙂
The difference is if the interstate was privately funded, it would still be more useful and convenient than Amtrak.
The difference is if the interstate was privately funded people would have to pay to use the roads at the time of use. Suddenly it doesn't seem like such a great deal when you have to shell out a few bucks for roads every time you want to commute to work. It would still be relatively painlessly paid for through an EZPASS or similar device, but it would show up noticably on your credit card statement. And the private owners likely wouldn't care that you bought a hybrid either.
Subsidization of one form of transportation doesn't justify another. I have yet to hear one argument (except from joe) that tries explains why we should subsidize Amtrak.
Reinmoose,
And your argument that it would be worse than Amtrak (which is not a commuting system in most cities) is...
Does anyone know how much we spend per person/per mile travelled on each of the two modes of transportation? That seems to be the more important issue. $1.4 billion per year seems like a lot to spend on something that like 20 people use. Plus, those 20 people shell out quite a bit to use it.
Roads v. Amtrak, I'm pretty sure I would never drive to Chicago, then to DC, hang around about ten hours then drive on to my destination in Atlanta arriving three days after I left St. Louis.
And your argument that it would be worse than Amtrak (which is not a commuting system in most cities) is...
There are portions of Amtrak that are absolutely useless. I really don't care about the organization itself, personally. There was a proposal a while ago to rid the unprofitable routes and sell off the profitable or potentially profitable routes to other firms. I'm not entirely against this.
I'm just saying, it's not cut and dry. I think you'd find a gradually increased ridership in Amtrak if roads were privatized, and that would increase the income to the system, potentially allowing increases to its service quality.
And for those talking about how crappy the service is, don't take a train across one of the least traveled routes in the system and then complain that it wasn't your most efficient option for time and money. Train travel is most useful for distances that would be drivable, though tiring, and too close to fly efficiently.
Geez, I don't want to defend Amtrak. I took a ride from Richmond, VA to Charleston SC that was pure and unadulterated hell. It took as long as to drive there and I had to spend my time around more crazy peasant than a Tolstoy novel...
But I often feel that there is a need for things like Amtrak, the bus services in various cities, the Post Office, etc..
Let me explain. I like markets. They are truly magic (I tell my classes the story about the African government officials who come to the U.S. and see the astounding economic conditions [thirty different kinds of cheese in any given supermarket!] and ask "how do you do this?" The American guide replies "we do nothing." The officials think they are being mocked, but of course that is the magic, doing nothing and allowing voluntary exchange based on mutual self interest to take over...).
However, there are certain basic needs that people have, and there are really poor people. And these poor people have to have a system to access these needs. Now it strikes me that just like a market will not put a plasma tv in every home, it will not always be profitable to serve certain populations (they may be geographically unprofitable or just too damn poor). I'm not saying that markets don't make what was once unaffordable affordable, they obviously do. But I will say there is a time gap between that occuring, and thes people need to mail letters and bills or travel to a funeral in the meantime. So it makes some sense for government to make sure these services are available, for the same reason that government should make police protection available to both those who could afford to hire private security and those who never, never could...
I like Amtrak, especially the East Coast corridor (DC-Boston or so). I always considered this section to be a good example of what the entire network could be if we didn't, and hadn't, pumped so much money for so long into killing the rail system. If memory serves me correctly, Joe can provide a reading list about we (the U.S.) spent about a half century strangling rail travel and, more generally, public transport.
I like roads. I use them too. When given the choice, I tend towards grabbing my soft-sided cooler, filling it with snacks and beers, and hopping on the train.
Air travel can be quick and reliable as well, depending on how much planning and room for delay you have available to you. And it's essential for trips abroad.
To my knowledge, all of these modes of transport are in some way heavily subsidized. At times I have probably paid more than my fair share given my usage rates, at other times, I'm sure I've underpaid. It's a wash to me. The type of bitching and moaning that goes on about Amtrak on H & R is extremely tedious and goes no way towards improving upon the more efficient management of what ought to be considered an absolute public necessity even among hardcore libertarians--safe, flexible, comfortable, and efficient public transport infrastructure. That's all I got.
You may continue flinging feces at Amtrak now.
Reinmoose,
I have always though a fully private road system would be a disaster. Some things really are better publicly owned. In the medieval Germany, the Rhine River was the interstate of the day. It was essentially privatized because every piss ant royal who owned land on the river, built a castle and extorted a toll from any one who passed buy. It was terrible for the economy. The economy benefited greatly, when all of the fiefdoms were cleaned up and people could use the river without paying a toll every few miles.
A private interstate system would really work the same way. When you went to drive across country, you would have to pay a toll to every for profit operator coast to coast. Yes, the owners couldn't charge too much money because people would stop driving. But, sometimes you have to drive and would be willing to pay a lot to do it. I would imagine the ideal price level for the owners would be high enough that it would discourage a lot of driving and commerce. Further, the profits that went to the road owners would amount to a tax on all of the economy skimmed off the top by the road owners. It would be a disaster.
How is spening billions of dollars a year on subsidies trying to kill rail service? The fact is that the country is too big for rail service to ever be profitable. It can work in the NE corridor where the cities are close together. But, I can't imagine how rail service could ever be able to compete with air service on a really long rout like say from New York to Miami or Chicago to Houston. On those routs, it will never be as fast as air travel or as cheap as car travel, so what niche does it fill?
Reinmoose,
Actually, it's not just the least traveled routes that suck. I've taken the D.C. to New York and New York to Boston routes numerous times -- these are probably the most popular routes. The train is always late, and unlike the plane, Amtrak never warns you that it's running late until it's already late (the train schedule signs are infuriating: they only tell you what you already know). Honestly, the Greyhound bus easily beats Amtrak or any plane route between DC and NYC besides Reagan/LaGuardia (anything involving JFK or Dulles is aweful). The DC to NYC train definetely takes the cake for wasted opportunity. It could be so convenient, but instead it completely sucks. Oh, and the Acela is horrible -- always late, always broken, not that fast, and more expensive than a plane.
Oh...what Mr Nice Guy said, without apologies for market intervention or for defending Amtrak.
Acela isn't more expensive than a plane if you walk up and buy a ticket for the next departure. It's actually quite a bit cheaper.
Acela also gets you into the middle of Manhattan, saving you the time and cab ride from the airport.
Chris,
I think if you got rid of Amatrak and sold it off, a private company would kill the airlines on the Washington to Boston corridor. There is no excuse why train travel, at least in that area, can't be more affordable and 10 times more convienent than air travel. But, Amtrak is forced to subsidize unprofitable routs and stuck with terrible employment regulations and can't compete.
If we had a better-planned transportation system, the airports in the northeast would have Amtrak stations, the "connector flights" to JFK from Boston, Providence, CT, Baltimore, DC,and Philly would be on Amtrak, and all of the gates and terminals currently dedicated to those connector flights could be used for longer, more valuable flights.
John -
Avoiding thoroughly explaining specific theories and every detail involved, I'll mention that a lot of technology at least facilitates the ability for privately owned interstates (if not all roads) to be realistic. I don't subscribe to the "it's for the good of the economy" rhetoric that is used to justify everything from road subsidies to bailing out investors.
You do make a good point about service between Houston and Chicago not being terrifically useful, but then again, I'm not advocating that we keep said service. If you ask me, a nice bus would do quite fine for that route. The NE corridor and the immediate branches of it are extremely useful, however. I recognize that trains are late, and that is, in fact, a real problem with the train system. My wager is that if roads were privatized and there was a user-fee involved, more people would ride the train, increasing revenues, and allowing them to upgrade service and reduce bottlenecks.
If we had a better-planned transportation system, the airports in the northeast would have Amtrak stations, the "connector flights" to JFK from Boston, Providence, CT, Baltimore, DC,and Philly would be on Amtrak, and all of the gates and terminals currently dedicated to those connector flights could be used for longer, more valuable flights.
...Likely decreasing air delays, the strangle-hold of airlines on how they treat passengers, overall air traffic, and decreasing prices for some routes.
Yeah, I agree. If a private company specializing in the Boston-D.C. corridor existed, it would almost surely be the best way to travel.
Joe,
Part of my disdain for Acela also comes from Amtrak's audacity to call it "high speed." The TGV and the Shinkansen are high speed. The Acela isn't much faster than a speeding Toyota Camry.
I have taken the Amtrack a few time from St. Louis to Kansas City. It is a little slower than driving, but I enjoyed taking the train.
Amtrak:
One way (Wednesday), DC to Philly - ca 1 hr 50 minutes, $43.00, regional (tourist class seat). Acela: either $114 or $127, one way, business class seat. Takes about 1hr 35 min. (low fare: $101 (Train 2166), low time, 1hr25 - Train 2120)
Either way, don't ever travel far without a little Big Star.
The difference is if the interstate was privately funded people would have to pay to use the roads at the time of use.
Ever driven from Chicago to DC? It's toll most of the way.
Passenger rail in the US is fairly worthless. Other than the DC to Boston corridor, I can't think of anywhere it could potentially be profitable. Maybe parts of California, or linking selected major cities. On the other hand, I think freight is vastly under utilized. I find it amazing how much interstate trucking there is.
Chris S.,
Another example of the problem of Amtrack subsidizing inefficient lines is that money that should be spent on capital improvements - such as upgrading its lines, perhaps to allow TGV-type trains - instead goes to operating costs for inefficient lines.
New World Dan,
There are a few other routes that make sense.
Vancouver-Seattle-Portland-Oakland-San Francisco-LA-San Diego.
Around the Great Lakes.
The Gulf Coast.
Ever driven from Chicago to DC? It's toll most of the way.
Wait.. why would you do that? Flights are pretty cheap on that route. You'd pay almost as much in gas if you got 30mph at $2.80 a gallon as you would for a plane ticket. Add tolls and you're shelling out tons of money to sit in a car for almost 12 hours each way. Let's not even bring up capital investment in your car.
The Transportation Bureau stats show the airlines carried 750 million passengers in the 12 months to May 31/07. They travelled 806 billion passenger miles. I do not know what the net subsidy would be after all the landing fees, passenger taxes, jet fuel taxes, etc.
The note says that 24.3 million passengers used Amtrak, but not how far they travelled.
If they were commuter passengers, then the comparison for that part of Amtrak's passenger load should be made to other commuter transportation systems, not the airlines.
Only the portion of Amtrak's load that competes with the airlines should be compared to the airlines.
The other factor that has to be taken into account is the passengers' time. What is the door-to-door time comparison for Amtrak vs Airlines or Amtrak vs automobile where they compete?
BTS figures:
http://www.bts.gov/xml/air_traffic/src/index.xml#TwelveMonthsSystem
On interstate trucking,
You always hear about gas taxes approximating a user fee for the highways, but highway costs don't break down per gallon of gas burned.
Heavy trucks go almost all of the damage that requires construction projects, while passenger cars cause almost none. In this sense, passenger cars subsidize truck freight travel, skewing the freight market towards the highways.
First, I would like to heartily thank Mr Gillespie for linking to the "printer-friendly" version of the story.
Here's a question for all you Amtrack fans out there in somebody-else's-money land: if there was a check-off on your tax return to direct $100.- of your refund to Amtrack, would you do it?
Think of it as a "referendum."
Nick,
You ought to add a link to:
http://www.moonamtrak.com
If there was a check-off to fund a highway widening project in Missouri, would you do it?
But, Amtrak is forced to subsidize unprofitable routs and stuck with terrible employment regulations and can't compete.
I agree. It could be so much better in the Northeast where I live but instead we have to subsidize the "heartland" where few people use it. That said, I've taken it many times between NYC and Buffalo or Rochester and it's a hell of a lot more pleasant than the bus.
And Mr. Nice Guy, while I'm sure your comment was well-intentioned, your attitude that the train and the bus are "for poor people" is part of the problem, the way I see it. It fuels the elitism most Americans share when looking down on the rabble who use public transit, which leads to less ridership, which leads to worse service, etc.
How does Amtrak numbers compare to the total number of trips people are making? That is, are their numbers growing more slowly than the total number of trips we're taking by other means?
If there was a check-off to fund a highway widening project in Missouri, would you do it?
Bingo.
It seems that we all seem to agree that much of Amtrak's problem is that they invest too much in inefficient lines/routes. I don't think I've ever seen another post where John, Joe, and I have all agreed on what the problem is (I guarantee you we don't completely agree on the solution). So why if we of so many different political ideologies can come to terms with this, can't the Feds?
I'd also like to add, that pouring money into merely operating crappy routes that should never exist provides basis for people to stereotype train travel (as exemplified here) and possibly decreases train travel in areas where it would be highly useful due to attitude problems.
MetroNorth is (I believe) subsidized/governement owned, but they are 98% on time with pretty damn good service, with lots of trains.
I would think that they are an example of what you can do with rail when there is a high demand for your services and you are operating in a limited, sensible area (NY metro).
I still think that they should be private, but at least they do what they say.
"The Feds" have come to grips with it.
"The Senators from rural states, who have vastly outsized power compared to the size of their constituencies," on the other hand...
Tom Daschle used to be Senate Majority Leader. Nuff said?
"It seems that we all seem to agree that much of Amtrak's problem is that they invest too much in inefficient lines/routes."
Uhh, no we don't, unless you're not counting me (or pinko, thanks for the [qualified] endorsement!). That is exactly why we have government subsidized stuff like Amtrak or the Post Office, to make sure that those who live on "inefficient lines/routes" get those services too...
"So why if we of so many different political ideologies can come to terms with this, can't the Feds?"
Because the Congress is more interested in pork than sollutions. Everone knows what the sollution is but no one in Congress wants to be the guy who killed nationwide train service.
I don't necesarily think that Amtrak invests too much in those underserved routes. There are non-economic objectives to public policy.
What we all agree on is that Amtrak under-invests in its best routes.
"70 hours from Charlston, SC to Salt Lake City, UT for the same price as a plane ticket."
Amtrak is BYOB, 'nuff said.
Mr Nice Guy,
And why should we subsidize inefficiency?
I don't necesarily think that Amtrak invests too much in those underserved routes.
I'm not convinced those routes are as necessary as those states' congressmen always like to tell us. The usual excuse is that all those tiny towns in Montana served by Amtrak have no access to air travel. Well... what about busses? Train travel is currently too expensive relative to busses to supply it to those areas with little demand.
A fair point.
"And why should we subsidize inefficiency?"
Because the market will not serve people in an inefficient situation. Should we just say "F' em" on some of these basic services?
I'm sure glad you all straightened me out on how we don't all agree on the problem. Thankfully now I have a better understanding of where you all stand.
I agree, for super-low traffic routes in the boonies, Buses are way more efficient.
And- as long as we're on the topic of "Federally Funded Hobbies" let's put the fucking space shuttle program on a tax return check-off.
*replaces lid, goes to breakfast*
Mr. Nice Guy,
Yeah
Mr. Nice Guy,
These things might have been important to a 19th century agrarian society, but nowadays, you're subsidizing someone else's lifestyle, not the US's way of life.
Because the market will not serve people in an inefficient situation. Should we just say "F' em" on some of these basic services?
With respect to train service and Amtrak, this argument is really poor. It's nothing like the post office. The nearest train station to where I grew up is 50 miles away because passenger train service ended there 50 years ago. Are you saying that we ought to bring passenger train service to every community that does not currently have it? Why subsidize the train needs of some smaller/remote communities over the needs of others, just because some are conveniently located immediately between 2 somewhat deserving metros?
"Why subsidize the train needs of some smaller/remote communities over the needs of others, just because some are conveniently located immediately between 2 somewhat deserving metros?"
Well, thousands live in these areas, for historical reasons. We can take what amounts to a few cents and dollars from folks, or we can end that subsidy and then these people will be forced to move from their ancestral lands. What has the most potential for freedom and liberty? What gives the most people the most opportunity imaginable? You are a LIBERtarian, right?
Ok, Mr. Nice Guy. Now I have NO idea what you're talking about. Ancestral lands?
What area is in your mind that if train service stopped existing that there would suddenly be some mass exodus?
What rural and isolated community would cease to exist without passenger rail?
And hello? Busses? (which can even stop at multiple, and convenient "stations" to pick people up, not just places that have historical or cheap land rights)
Well, thousands live in these areas, for historical reasons. We can take what amounts to a few cents and dollars from folks, or we can end that subsidy and then these people will be forced to move from their ancestral lands. What has the most potential for freedom and liberty? What gives the most people the most opportunity imaginable? You are a LIBERtarian, right?
What's wrong with cars and buses? And what does subsidizing someone else's lifestyle choices have to do with being a libertarian? Hey, I'll have to move out of my ancestral home (Northern Virginia) unless someone pays for my housing. Pay up in the name of liberty!
"""You do make a good point about service between Houston and Chicago not being terrifically useful, but then again, I'm not advocating that we keep said service. If you ask me, a nice bus would do quite fine for that route."""
A bus ride from Houston to Chicago, fine? Are you kidding? I would much rather take a train. You can stretch out, get a snack for the quasi-food car. Buses are way to uncomfortable. A plane ticket would be cheaper anyway.
I've been on Amtrack about a dozen times. A few times to VA Beach, but it's quicker to drive. 8 hours by train and I can drive it in about 6 1/2. If we had high speed trains, their might be more passengers, maybe, but fear of terrorism will never allow a 200+ mph train in this country.
fear of terrorism will never allow a 200+ mph train in this country
But it has no problem with flying?!
Mr Nice Guy,
Hyberbole much?
fear of terrorism will never allow a 200+ mph train in this country
But it has no problem with flying?!
Gentlemen, I propose our country should lead the world in the production of flying trains.
By ancestral lands I meant nothing more than that their fathers and mothers lived there.
There are a lot of these. And markets will not, indeed, should not, serve these areas.
So "f'ck em?" I await your responses.
Reinmoose:
With regards to the "why drive when you can fly" argument. Last year, I wanted to take my family from Long Island to St. Louis, MO to visit relatives. We costed out three options: 1. Drive in our largest vehicle. 2. Fly 3. Take AmTrak.
Driving wins BIG in this scenario from a cost point of view.
My house to my in-laws house is about 1030 miles. I'm going to be conservative and say our vehicle gets 12 miles per gallon. It is probably a little higher. That comes out to about 86 gallons of gas. At $3.10/gallon which again probably overstates the costs, that comes to about $530 round trip. Tolls don't tend to be that much anyway, but lets say we spend $70 on tolls. We took 2 days each way to do the drive, so factor in about $200 for hotels.
We have the truck anyway, so I'm not adding the cost of the truck payment or insurance. I am not adding meals because we have to eat anyway.
OK, so that's $800 for driving. Flying (with four people) is about double that amount, plus you don't have a car to use while in St. Louis unless you rent one at an additional expense. AmTrak is about double the cost of flying and takes even longer than driving.
AmTrak is probably safer and more relaxing than driving, especially if you get a sleeping accommodations. However, if I was really going by train, it would be hard to justify spending three days each way in transit vs. just flying.
AmTrak has most of the disadvantages of flying plus all the disadvantages of driving with none of the benefits of either.
Now it strikes me that just like a market will not put a plasma tv in every home
And people like you were probably saying a few decades ago that the market will not put a tv in every home.
...thousands live in these areas....
We could give each of these mythical "ancestral" families a pickup truck and an annual allotment of gasoline and probably come out ahead.
Here's one for you: if the Justice Department ordered a private owner to desist from operating Amtrak based on a finding that it is a predatory enterprise which destroys competition by operating at an intentional loss, what would you say?
Mr. Nice Guy,
I already said yes.
How much taxpayer's money have been poured into airline bailouts again? How much air-travel externalities (oooooo, bad word! bad word!!! especially when you're in "reason") are actually borne by the general taxpayer?
And since a fully-loaded tractor-trailer rig will do AT LEAST 10,000 (ten thousand) times as much damage to the road as one (1) passenger car (or, heck, even a fishing-trip bound SUV), how come a tractor-trailer's license plate isn't 10,000 more expensive than one passenger car's?
Who's the sucker there??? who's paying for whom?
No, the real "reason" that Reason is against Amtrak is because Amtrak doesn't make a profit, and if Amtrak made a profit, the profit wouldn't go into the pockets of private companies.
Soft_guy,
You've left out an enormous expense: your time/opportunity costs. Assuming you and your wife value your time such that you wouldn't accept less than a 30K a year for employment, you're probably bleeding about 1K in time/opportunity costs on your little journey -- unless you actually derive utility from driving from NY to MO, which would be completely insane. Your kids' time also needs to be factored in to that equation (I won't presume to know the value of their time). And this is all a low estimate. If you and your wife each value your time at about 100K a year, you're losing way more time than you can afford.
Jean,
Please read the above posts. If you're so worried about the cost of freight trucks, why would you want to subsidize a PASSENGER train service that shifts freight from train tracks to the road?
Chris,
Please understand my post: why is it okay to subsidize planes and trucks while it's not okay to subsidize trains?
Regarding this:
How much taxpayer's money have been poured into airline bailouts again? How much air-travel externalities (oooooo, bad word! bad word!!! especially when you're in "reason") are actually borne by the general taxpayer?
Too much. I don't think you'll find anyone here who wouldn't agree with that. Seriously, you're only fighting the libertarians in your head.
If my last post didn't answer it, my answer is: No, it's not ok to subsidize airlines. No here one here has argued for airline subsidies.
So it's not okay to subsidize roads, then.
So it's not okay to subsidize roads, then.
That's correct, if you ask me.
Jean,
Some people here have argued that it's not ok to subsidize roads. I think you'll find that opinions differ on that. Roads, unlike semi-private train companies and airlines, almost fit the classical economic definition of a "public good." Roads aren't entirely non-exludable (toll roads are a good example), but too many tolls can introduce enormous transaction costs and other problems (anti-commons problems, for instance, where too many people have rights of exclusion for the same goods or services, resulting in under-utilization). Private train services and airlines aren't associated with the same problems.
As I said above, not everyone here will agree with me regarding the public funding of roads.
Mr. Nice Guy | September 10, 2007, 1:36pm | #
By ancestral lands I meant nothing more than that their fathers and mothers lived there.
There are a lot of these. And markets will not, indeed, should not, serve these areas.
So "f'ck em?" I await your responses.
Ok, I'll bite.
As far as their "right" to subsidized passenger rail access, yes, f'ck em. It may not allow them to continue whatever archaic lifestyle they previously enjoyed, but so what? They can take a bus, or drive, or carpool, or hop on the back of a hay-rig... I don't care.
soft_guy:
My immediate calculations for the Chicago/DC trip were assuming a single passenger car.
Chris S. is correct though. Time is an enormous expense, unless you don't value your time. I conceed family road trips as a reasonable cause to drive over flying. Actually, clearly you don't value your time as much, so whatever decision you make is probably best suited to your individual preferences.
I didn't mean my "why drive when you can fly" argument as an all-encompasing statment against driving places.
What's archaic in a passenger train? And what's unprofitable in it?
Look at the (gasp!) French TGV. The first line (for which exactly ZERO amount of public money had been paid; it was entirely financed on the private financial markets) opened in 1981, and in 1989, 8 years of continuous operations have paid not only for the land acquisition and construction of the tracks, but also for the trainsets, AND the 25 years of prior research and development that were required to develop the TGV.
Since 1989, for the last 18 years, the TGV has been nothing but a gravy train for the french railroad.
Why can't it be the same in the US?
(Don't give me bull about distances and population density. The big US cities are distanced to each other similarly to European cities; and it doesn't matter if the high-speed train goes through a heavily populated area or a desert, because high-speed trains, by definition, DON'T STOP at each telegraph pole to make pee-pee).
I recently took Amtrak from Savannah, GA to Richmond, VA. Went in business class (wider seats, plugs for laptops). Total cost: $115. Time: 10 hours (it was supposed to be 8 hours).
On the East Coast, the primary reason for train delays is because Amtrak does not own the tracks. CSX, the private train company does. When CSX tells Amtrak "my train goes first," it goes first. Thus, delays.
Flight from Savannah to Richmond? About $250, with a connection, total time about 6 hours (when you account for connection and getting to the airport early). And in late summer, when I was traveling, thunderstorm delays are a real possibility. Flying wasn't that more convenient.
The bottom line is that I believe, like many posters, train travel would work if a private company took it over, owned its tracks and offered competitive service in key areas. It could be a reasonable alternative to flying along heavily traveled routes in air and on the roads.
Jean -
do you have a source for your allegation that the TGV was 100% privately funded? I happen to know that it's run by SNCF, a public French authority.
Oh, and who called passenger service between major cities archaic? Check your reference.
side note:
The TGV is awesome, except when it goes through tunnels. Especially if you're not already used to feeling like your head's going to explode 🙂
It'd be cheaper just to buy all the Amtrak passengers airline tickets then to continue as we are.
Reinmoose
Public French authorities frequently use private entities to finance, built and operate infrastructure.
I can't speak for the TGV but they constantly do it for roads and bridges.
About ten years ago I rode a TGV from Milan to Paris. The Italian lowland portion was on tracks that were not up to standard and then we were in the Alps where TGV speeds coud not be maintained due to cuvature and grades.
The only place we got up to 200 MPH was between Lyon and Paris or the last third (or less) of the trip. It was still pretty cool though.
Of course I should add the caveat that "us[ing] private entities to finance, built and operate infrastructure" sometimes results in subsidies (not to mention kickbacks and bribes) that can be hidden by the kind of creative bookeeping that public agencies frequently engage in.
Jean,
Almost everyone here has already agreed that passenger trains between major cities could work and be profitable in certain areas (NE corridor, parts of the west coast, etc.). We just don't need to be building and maintaining tracks in sparsely populated areas in middle America. It's this "run 'em all over the country" attitude that makes Amtrak such a taxpayer boondoggle.
Also, I've already praised the TGV, amd no one is "gasping" about the French. This isn't LGF, so please drop the Jean-against-the-rightwing-conspiracy attitude.
Issac -
That's good information to have.
The majority of my experience with the TGV were trips between Tours and Paris, and conveniently also Charles-de-Gualle (the biggest hell-hole on the planet)
It consistently ran probably at 150mph, or at least it felt really fast to me. It only took just over an hour as opposed to the slow train that took 2 1/2 hours (albeit, it took a different/longer route as well). The scenery wasn't much, and it was probably relatively cheap to build given that it's in the plains, but it was definitely a great option for travel.
*Charles de Gaulle
By the way, yes, Charles de Gaulle is the absolute shitiest airport in the world. I've been to third world airports running retired USSR cargo planes that were converted to passenger planes that seem brilliant in comparison to de Gaulle.
Reinmoose
Again to be clear. I can't speak to the amount of privatization at SNCF.
But given my knowledge of private road and bridge building in France I'm not going to dismiss Jean's claims.
Chris S.
I had 2 very packed bags when I got to the Airport TGV station. There was 1 (maybe 2, but still relatively unsubstantial) elevator going up and down between the train level and the level that you need to go to to get to the bus that takes you between the concourses. It took forever because there was a whole train full of people and their bags, and only 5 or 6 people could fit in the elevator at a time. Then when you FINALLY get to the top, I had to wait for a mostly-full bus to come and pick me up and take me in a single direction around this hell-circle to my concourse, which was actually just immediately to one side, but the bus only ran in the opposite direction.
On a separate occasion (flying to Austria), I had to do the same thing only with less baggage, and spent 40 minutes walking up and down whatever concourse it was (C?) before finally figuring out that, due to the way it was set up, I had to go through customs first before I could get to where I could check my bags, which of course meant everyone was standing in line with giant wheeling totes behind them. Then when I finally got through the metal detector area and into the waiting area at the gate, they didn't have a bathroom on the waiting-area side of the metal detector, so I had to go back through security after previously having gone because I had to go to the bathroom.
Ridiculous
Chris S,
A minor point - Amtrak doesn't build or maintain rail beds. They own and operate rolling stock.
I don't think there are any new heavy-rail rail beds being built anymore.
Sounds familiar. I missed a connection to Istanbul through de Gaulle about two years ago, and I had to go to about five different counters to sort out the various problems associated with getting a new connection and rerouting my bags. Each of the counters were in different locations, each requiring entirely new trips around the one way circle of hell. And yes, I went through security before peeing, because it the whole process took so freaking long (about 3 hours) that I was about to miss yet another connecting flight. I ended up waiting to pee on the plane. I think the only thing keeping me from thinking about my exploding bladder was my rage and frustration regarding the endless counter hopping and multiple trips around the circle of hell.
Not that there is not much wrong with Amtrak...
Like most government run agencies, it has some serious problems!
But until the market can cover these folks, then I support the subsidy. It's one of the nations earliest ideas (the Constitution makes allowances for the Post Office).
In other countries it's common to run four or more tracks along busy corridors that handle both freight and passengers. In America, we've ripped up rails right and left with our usual lack of foresight. That's why you're getting competition between freight and passengers for the same tracks.
So Mr. Nice Guy's argument boils down to "Everyone has a right to rail access"
Bearing this in mind, why doesn't it stop in the Buttfuck Nowhere town I live in?
However, there are certain basic needs that people have, and there are really poor people. And these poor people have to have a system to access these needs.
That system is called a "marketplace", Mr. Nice Guy. It seems to work a hell of a lot better than the alternative, "politicians buying votes with other people's money".
And, P.S. -- very few "really poor people", unless you define them as "overweight, have a roof over our head, drive a car, and have cable TV". You know, what are known as "rich" people in the Third World.
"That system is called a "marketplace", Mr. Nice Guy. It seems to work a hell of a lot better than the alternative, "politicians buying votes with other people's money".:
Usually, you are very correct. But not in cases where certain groups need this service but would never be able to afford it. Like the police. Everybody gets protected, but not everybody can afford it.
Well, thousands live in these areas, for historical reasons. We can take what amounts to a few cents and dollars from folks, or we can end that subsidy and then these people will be forced to move from their ancestral lands. What has the most potential for freedom and liberty? What gives the most people the most opportunity imaginable? You are a LIBERtarian, right?
Ummm, NOT taking the money from people and leaving the provision of goods and services to the most efficient method, the marketplace, gives the most potential for freedom, Mr. Nice Guy. You are a LIBERal, right?
"That system is called a "marketplace", Mr. Nice Guy. It seems to work a hell of a lot better than the alternative, "politicians buying votes with other people's money".:
Usually, you are very correct. But not in cases where certain groups need this service but would never be able to afford it. Like the police. Everybody gets protected, but not everybody can afford it.
Tell you what, Mr. Nice Guy. Let's get rid of the taxes, privatize the police forces, and have private charitable donations finance the tiny percentage of people who can't afford their police protection premiums even after their take-home pay goes way up. You're a nice guy, right? You'd voluntarily help out those needy, right? Or are you and all the other liberals in the country secretly afraid that when push came to shove, y'all would spend the money currently extracted in taxes on yourselves instead of the needy if it wasn't forcibly extracted from your paychecks without your consent? Kind of a dim view of human nature that says that people won't be compassionate unless compelled to do so, yeah?
"""So it's not okay to subsidize roads, then."""
If the federal government stopped subsidizing the roads then how would they bully states into changing the drinking age and such?
In other words, by giving federal handouts, the feds end up with a say. Why would they want to stop that!
Actually, joe, Amtrak owns Hell Gate Bridge in NYC. They use two
tracks. CSX and Conrail share a third while a fourth is out of service.
I was surpried at this since I thought the same as you.
But I have heard they actually do own some of the tracks they use in the NE corridor.
Other than spurs you're pretty much right.
There is quite a bit of activity trying to bring other beds up to modern standards though.
"NOT taking the money from people and leaving the provision of goods and services to the most efficient method, the marketplace"
Uhh, sorry if I don't assume this right away, since it is what we are arguing about...
My whole point is that it is that the market is not good for covering destitute people. That's why they don't have plasma tvs on their walls friend...
"You're a nice guy, right? You'd voluntarily help out those needy, right? Or are you and all the other liberals in the country secretly afraid that when push came to shove, y'all would spend the money currently extracted in taxes on yourselves instead of the needy if it wasn't forcibly extracted from your paychecks without your consent?"
Nah, we're worried about you and your ilk! Who benefit from the socially derived police (everybody's taxes pay) but don't want to see them provide the basic services for the poor. I don't mind my tax dollars for the cops even though I've never used them, do you?
But I have heard they actually do own some of the tracks they use in the NE corridor.
I've heard the same but I was too busy/lazy to look it up. Regardless, the problem isn't who owns the tracks; it's that there aren't enough of them. In my hometown (Rochester) there used to be tracks radiating in every direction from downtown; about half of them are left and in many places where there were 3 or 4 tracks there are now 2 or even 1. The rush to abandon rail of course went hand-in-hand with the need to build up a whole new transportation network based on cars and trucks.
How do destitute people benfit from Amtrak anyway?
Lost
No subsidy has anything to do with benefitting "destitute people."
> Reinmoose
> Jean -
> do you have a source for your allegation that the TGV was 100% privately funded?
> I happen to know that it's run by SNCF, a public French authority.
Back in the 1970's, when the SNCF got the go-ahead to build the TGV-PSE (Paris-Sud-Est; the first line between Paris and Lyon), the SNCF was a mixed-economy company. 49% of the capital was private (the old rail companies) and 51% was the State's.
There was no way in hell that the right-wing governments that were in power until 1981 would give one cent towards high-speed rail projects; road and air transport was the absolute priority. It was not until the 1980's when the socialist took power that the State would commit itself to finance high-speed rail - which nevertheless, pays off handsomely.
* * *
If the market was truly free, every single transportation user would pay all the fees of his transportation mode: infrastructure, maintenance, vehicle R&D, vehicle manufacture and maintenance, depreciation, insurance, energy costs.
And a truly free market would favour the cheapest overall transportation mode. And railroads consistently earn the plum in that method. How else such an "obsolete", "quaint" mode of transport survive nowadays???
Next time you're stuck at a rail crossing and watching a 100+ car freight train drag by, think how many trucks it would need to carry all that cargo around, and think of the effect on public roads?
Just like it was before the government started to build motor roads in the 1920's?
Oh, and in France, hardly a parangon of Private "Free" entreprise, autoroutes ("interstate"-like restricted access, divided highways) are private companies who charge quite a hefty toll. And that toll is hefty enough to warrant the building of one of the most impressive civil engineering feats of all time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millau_Viaduct
all done with private funds!
No way one will ever see such a thing in ?bercapitalist USA who are too dependent on socialist roads.
Nah, we're worried about you and your ilk! Who benefit from the socially derived police (everybody's taxes pay) but don't want to see them provide the basic services for the poor. I don't mind my tax dollars for the cops even though I've never used them, do you?
I believe about half the country voted for Democrats in the last two presidential elections. Even if you made the assumption that the other half wouldn't contribute a dime to the poor (a thoroughly unjustified assumption, IMO -- the most charitable state is Utah, which is also the reddest state), are you saying the remaining 50% wouldn't pony up more than they do now because it would be too darned cramping of the lifestyle they'd like to lead? Would they say -- to hell with the poor, we've given enough, and I want that flat-screen TV? Is that how you think liberals would behave when stripped of the ability to forcibly tax?
I don't mind paying for security forces. I do find it morally wrong to force someone else to pay for that protection for me, the same as I find it morally wrong for others to force me to pay for social programs they prefer.
P.S. Can you provide a link showing conservatives contributing less than liberals toward charity? Cause I just don't believe that characterization is true.
Thought you might want to read this, Mr. Nice Guy:
"In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others."
Jean Naimard
I have a feeling you don't know what the ideology of the people you're talking to is.
Let me see.. you are simultaneously arguing
1. Governments are the only entity that will ever build high-speed trains.
2. These trains are in fact tremendously profitable.
On a libertarian blog, my friend, you have committed an error. You have conflated a conservative government with libertarianism with capitalism.
Very few of us here have any respect for a conservative government (especially our own), or any government that possesses enough power to fuck over the people as you suggest a conservative government would do with respect to railroads. Here, we're more interested in people making choices for themselves, not their government.
If, like you say, the TGV system would be so tremendously profitable in the US, a pooling of private individuals with private money would make it happen, and *poof* we would have a TGV system. Our government gets in the way of a lot of stuff, and you'll find that 90% of the people on this blog recognize that in one capacity or another. So really, enough of the angry "because you don't want the government to make this train system, you don't want to receive terrific train service and tremendous profits while benefiting everyone" crap. We're not the enemies of the TGV, nor train systems or whatever. Go shout at GWB or something.
HMMMMMM....Amtrak ridership up for the fifth straight year..congress considering increased funding for passenger rail...this is bad news.
I recommend a new cartoon from Libertarian Minister of Propaganda Pyotor Baggovich reinforcing the Ministry of Reason's position that only smelly hippies ride the train! Make it so.
prolefeed,
Sorry to burst your self-righteous bubble, but since the publication of that book, its conclusion has been refuted.
When incomes are corrected for cost of living - especially housing - the most generous states in the Union are blue states in the Northeast.
Highly taxed liberals, it turns out, give more of their available income to charity.
Apart from the issue of how transportation is funded (one area where I tend to stray from doctrinaire libertarianism), I think it's important to build flexibility into the system. In other words, "planes, trains AND automobiles" in the conjunctive.
Typically, say, it doesn't make a lot of sense to jump in the car and drive from D.C. to Manhattan, with all the tolls and the impossible parking situation in Manhattan, but in some instances it could make sense. That preservation of flexibility and individual choice is both morally superior in my view and more efficient from the macro perspective.
Coach Jewelry Set are selling with a high techonology and at the lowest price. There are many kinds of products that people can choose from. All are of low price. Welcome to buy our Coach outlet online now.