Transit
Why isn't an Amtrak ticket cheaper in the Northeast?
Many DC-area residents would prefer to travel by train rather than by bus to other Northeastern cities, but some often find tickets too expensive. There are several reasons for higher fares, and a primary reason is simple economics.
Photo by tracktwentynine on Flickr.
The train is faster, statistically safer, and more comfortable There are three main factors that cause Amtrak's fares to generally be at least twice the highest competing bus fare:
Supply and demand: Amtrak still manages to fill most of the seats it carries between Washington, New York, and Boston on both on Acela Express and Northeast Regional services. This despite charging fares many consider to be too high. As long as Amtrak is under pressure from Congress to reduce the amount of federal subsidy it requires by maximizing ticket revenue, the railroad has very little incentive for lowering fares, outside of the occasional special promotion.
Besides, if Amtrak is selling almost every seat at its current fare points, there's little economic incentive to lower the fare. Lowering the fare wouldn't sell any more seats since they're selling out already. And it would bring in less revenue.
Capacity: Amtrak simply does not have enough coaches in its fleet to handle the amount of passengers who would want to ride the train if Amtrak fares were comparable to those of curbside buses. Furthermore, there is very little room on the existing railroad to add new trains, particularly at peak hours when tracks leading into New York Penn Station (from New Jersey) are already at capacity with both Amtrak and commuter train traffic.
Giving Amtrak the ability to handle the passenger volume that it could if it were price-competitive with buses would require sustained higher levels of capital investment from the federal government, or from private sector partners, which are absent a strong federal commitment. Unlike highways and aviation, Amtrak lacks a dedicated source of reliable annual funding.
Unlike buses, which operate over highways built and maintained by federal gas tax dollars (along with some general federal and state tax revenue), Amtrak owns its own tracks in the Northeast Corridor and has to bear the full cost of maintaining them, with limited federal assistance. If the bus companies had to pay their full share of highway maintenance, they could not get away with charging the fares they do.
Railroading, by nature, is characterized by high fixed costs. Fixed costs are those that do not vary based on how many people use a good or service (in this case, buy an Amtrak ticket). It will cost Amtrak roughly the same to maintain the tracks, signals and stations on the Northeast Corridor regardless of how many trains run and how many riders use them. Railroad labor costs are also largely fixed. Remarkably, Amtrak nevertheless covers over 80% of its total costs through revenue from passengers, whereas most of the world's passenger train operators fall in the 50% to 60% range.
Despite this, Amtrak trains in the Northeast Corridor actually make an "above-the-rail" profit. Fares bring in enough revenue to pay for operating costs on the Northeast Corridor, though not enough to pay for the maintenance backlog of the corridor.
The need to promote energy efficient travel, lessen highway congestion, and spur the development of walkable, livable communities around train stations are good reasons to encourage greater numbers to use the train instead of flying, driving or taking a bus. Increased federal investment in Amtrak infrastructure and equipment Some form of ongoing public capital investment will be needed to keep the infrastructure and equipment in good shape. Federal funding should come from a dedicated "trust fund" with its own revenue source rather than from a Congressional appropriation, which would make the amount of funding reliable year after year.
If you support higher and more reliable funding for passenger trains as a viable leading choice for intercity travel, join us in the National Association of Railroad Passengers in calling on Congress to fully fund Amtrak and the High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail grant program. 
An Amtrak cafe car. Photo by MoDOT on Flickr.
Malcolm Kenton lives in the DC neighborhood of Bloomingdale. Hailing from Greensboro, NC and a graduate of Guilford College, he is Director of Outreach and Engagement for the National Association of Railroad Passengers, where he blogs about national transportation issues. The views on GGW are his own and not necessarily those of NARP. 
Comments
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
- Latest Metro map drafts add Anacostia parks and other tweaks
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
I forget offhand whether structures along the corridor can permit two-level cars... but I seem to recall that they can, and opposition to such cars comes from Amtrak's own preferences. Am I remembering that right? If so, what's the hold-up to nearly doubling their capacity by introducing such cars? If not, what investments are needed to address any technical limitations to providing for such cars?
by Bossi on Aug 22, 2011 2:58 pm • link • report
by Awshux on Aug 22, 2011 2:59 pm • link • report
The North River Tunnels (under the Hudson) are the most constraining element on the entire Amtrak network. \
NJ Transit bilevels are the only double-decker cars that will fit through the tunnels. They were specially designed to do so. That size of car is not ideal for long-distance or inter-city trains because of low headroom and no space for overhead storage.
Additionally, there's the issue of through access. Riders on commuter trains have little reason to change cars. Amtrak patrons will walk to the cafe. Bilevel cars mean walking up or down a set of stairs at each end of each car.
They're not insurmountable obstacles, but they do have drawbacks. Additionally, no one has funded Amtrak's quest to get new equipment for the NEC.
by Matt Johnson on Aug 22, 2011 3:03 pm • link • report
by Rob P on Aug 22, 2011 3:04 pm • link • report
One other complaint/thought-
The bus services were quick to get WiFi, but Amtrak was quite slow even to get it to Acela, no less regional service. Might someone be familiar with the issues what Amtrak experienced that the private operators did not?
Is it just that Amtrak had greater obligation to provide a safe/reliable network & wouldn't roll one out before they were confident in one; whereas BoltBus & Megabus pushed out networks that were originally unsecured & had sketchy connectivity... but were at least something? For what it's worth, my most recent experience with BoltBus' wifi has been great -- was quick and stayed connected my full trip; much better than it'd been in its earlier days.
by Bossi on Aug 22, 2011 3:08 pm • link • report
Yes, many of them (especially the FRA stuff) will involve some legislative/administrative wrangling and strife, but so will asking for more money. But unlike more money, reforming these rules will be good not only for Amtrak, but also for commuter railroads across the country (VRE, MARC, SEPTA, Metra, LIRR, Metro-North, etc.).
The fact is, as much as us transit advocates would love it if transit had seignorage rights and an unlimited pile of money, we don't, so it's time to start making sure the money transit already gets is spent well. And at the moment, it's just not.
by Stephen Smith on Aug 22, 2011 3:08 pm • link • report
I'm not sure how you're defining the "problem".
If Amtrak did not operate the rest of the national network, prices on the Northeast Corridor would be the same. Those trains do not contribute to high fares on the Corridor.
Now, Amtrak gets a subsidy every year. The profit from the NEC offsets the amount they need. But those other routes do not cause higher fares on the Corridor (that's a function of supply and demand).
by Matt Johnson on Aug 22, 2011 3:11 pm • link • report
My sister and I had to re-book our train from 3:25 to 6:20 and got stuck with a $29 price difference even though the 6:20 train wasn't even half-full and it was Amtrak's fault that we had to re-book in the first place (we were waiting for our mother, who was stuck on a hideously late Capitol Limited). By contrast, leaving New York I wasn't sure what my plans would be so I left them open till the day before, I was still able to get a bus from 33rd Street to Greenbelt for $19 bucks.
by Steve S. on Aug 22, 2011 3:20 pm • link • report
by Rob on Aug 22, 2011 3:22 pm • link • report
Remarkably, Amtrak nevertheless covers over 80% of its total costs through revenue from passengers, whereas most of the world's passenger train operators fall in the 50% to 60% range.
Where does your link show that passenger revenues cover over 80% of total costs? It states that expenses were $3.74 billion and revenues were $2.51 billion. That means revenues covered only 67% of costs, not over 80%. These numbers are confirmed in the annual report.
Some of your other claims look similarly dubious, but I haven't dug into the numbers yet.
by Bertie on Aug 22, 2011 3:27 pm • link • report
by Awshux on Aug 22, 2011 3:33 pm • link • report
by Beth on Aug 22, 2011 3:39 pm • link • report
Yeah supply and demand are definitely the biggest factors. It's really the business travelers that bring in the dough for Amtrak on the NEC. The Acela Express trains only has business and first class, yet they're always packed. To them it's faaar more convenient to hop on a train, rather than drive out of the city to an airport, stand in ticketing and security lines, and deal with frequent flight delays, particularly when traveling such a short distance. Not to mention the much greater number of destinations (for example there are no airports in Trenton or Wilmington). Plus Amtrak is more comfortable than flying in every class: coach, business, and first. All this on the busiest and most densely populated travel corridor in the United States. It's kinda hard *not* to do well.
Amtrak is actually more expensive than flying in the Northeast, especially if you look at the cheap Southwest and Airtran flights out of BWI with a huge number of flights a day to EWR, LGA, ISP (Long Island), and BOS (a whopping 42 flights a day between the two airports on Southwest, JetBlue, and AirTran). Competition isn't as intense on the Boston-New York leg as the Washington-Baltimore-Philadelphia-New York leg, because Amtrak's time advantage diminishes (hence the large number of flights to BOS).
Personally I travel to New York around 6-10 times a year, but I get a really good deal since I have a Guest Rewards credit card which gives you points for free travel. So I usually buy a ticket one way ($45 if you buy early), and use my points for the return.
by King Terappin on Aug 22, 2011 3:45 pm • link • report
by jim on Aug 22, 2011 3:49 pm • link • report
I see no support for your claims about safety, energy efficiency or carbon emissions in your links. According to the report of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission (Volume II, Chapter 3, Page 3-20), intercity buses are much more energy efficient than intercity passenger rail. Intercity rail uses about 2,500 BTUs per passenger-mile, but intercity buses use only about 1,000 BTUs per passenger-mile.
by Bertie on Aug 22, 2011 3:57 pm • link • report
by John M on Aug 22, 2011 3:57 pm • link • report
See my comment from 15:03.
by Matt Johnson on Aug 22, 2011 4:00 pm • link • report
The energy use stats from that chart aren't really comparable. The 2,500 number for rail is an average of all of Amtrak's service, and it doesn't look like the 1,000BTU number for bus is. Energy use on the NEC is less than is indicated by that chart.
by MLD on Aug 22, 2011 4:08 pm • link • report
Maintenance. You know how we complain about Metro only having 2 tracks? That problem is 50x worse at the North River Tunnels. (Now, mind you, I wouldn't mind if Amtrak ran DC-Newark or Secaucus trains for service to almost-NYC, but I don't think that's ever been a serious proposal, and it doesn't directly help DC/PHL-Boston travelers)
Right now, 393 scheduled trains pass through the tunnels. That's one train through either tunnel every 3.5 minutes Good luck cramming more trains into that timetable, and expecting them to be able to run on time. A 30 second delay on one train at rush hour can have a huge cascading effect down through the system given just how tightly the schedule is packed.
At minimum, a third tunnel needs to be built, and realistically, a 7 Subway extension would also add some much-needed redundancy for passengers going to (but not through) NYC.
The Portal Bridge is also a *huge* problem, but thankfully, we're actually on track to fix that one.
I also agree with Stephen -- the FRA rules need to be massively revamped so that we can buy (and sell) locomotives off-the-shelf with the rest of the world. I can't believe that the regulations have stayed the way that they are for so long.
by andrew on Aug 22, 2011 4:16 pm • link • report
by David Alpert on Aug 22, 2011 4:37 pm • link • report
The most advanced signaling systems can handle 90 second headways (Metrorail is capable of it, though the powers that be are too incompetent to use ATO without killing people, so we're nowhere near 90 sec headways now). Pad that a bit and you're up to 120 sec headways. There's a lot of room between 2 minutes and 3.5 minutes.
And yes, with headways this short running things on time becomes very important, but luckily there's a lot of room for improvement here, too – Japan and Switzerland do much better, and we can too.
by Stephen Smith on Aug 22, 2011 4:43 pm • link • report
by Stephen Smith on Aug 22, 2011 4:45 pm • link • report
by Bertie on Aug 22, 2011 4:46 pm • link • report
I think they are trying to be, but their pricing model seems simplistic. Even Southwest seems to have a much more sophisticated model.
by movement on Aug 22, 2011 5:04 pm • link • report
by Pelham1861 on Aug 22, 2011 5:10 pm • link • report
Southwest has a pretty sophisticated revenue management team and has for at least several years now. I've asked if Amtrak has anything similar, and never gotten a good answer to the question.
by Rob P on Aug 22, 2011 5:12 pm • link • report
I like a horrible cup of coffee and a mealy-microwaved ham and cheese sandwich at $10.50 as much as the next guy, but they have machines that could give me that.
As the article showed, it probably wouldn't do anything to solve the high cost issue, but at least it would provide more seats for people. Is it a union issue?
by Shipsa01 on Aug 22, 2011 5:18 pm • link • report
Except those of us who still have to live on Earth.
by MLD on Aug 22, 2011 5:19 pm • link • report
From the link you provided: So even though the system is capable of that, expecting it to be able to do that on a regular basis is unfounded. The need for recovery time is essential.
by Matt Johnson on Aug 22, 2011 5:20 pm • link • report
I didn't read too closely, but I think this old document, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/111xx/doc11135/79-CBO-026.pdf , may show the various energy requirements of train travel vs other modes of transport.
In most of the tables, there is a distinction made between NEC and non-NEC trains. It looks like NEC requires between 60-75% of the power of the rest of the system per passenger mile.
Admittedly it's old, but there may be something to go on.
by jyindc on Aug 22, 2011 5:21 pm • link • report
by James W. Loewen on Aug 22, 2011 5:26 pm • link • report
by HogWash on Aug 22, 2011 5:26 pm • link • report
by OX4 on Aug 22, 2011 5:28 pm • link • report
The concept of a door-buster or loss leader - long popular with department stores, supermarkets, buses, and airlines, seems foreign to AMTRAK.
Certainly, sharply cutting fares on the 6am train will put downward pressure on other off-peak service. It will also mean some of your 7am passengers might take the earlier train, resulting in a loss of some revenue. But there are rewards for AMTRAK in drawing some of those bus passengers onto the trains. Like staking out their future customers.
AMTRAK is certainly better than the bus, more comfortable, and more reliable. But when it costs more than twice as much, it's not the number one choice for a lot of people.
AMTRAK should hire some young people to market to young people. They should be willing to break price and listen to new ideas. They haven't had a new marketing idea in twenty years.
And it's a real shame, because trains are the best way to travel in the northeast corridor and young people should be AMTRAK's biggest enthusiasts.
by Mike Silverstein on Aug 22, 2011 5:35 pm • link • report
by Bertie on Aug 22, 2011 5:38 pm • link • report
Amtrak is not an acronym. You should not spell it with all capital letters.
by Matt Johnson on Aug 22, 2011 5:39 pm • link • report
Based on what? What is the back-of-the-envelope calculation you're using?
by Neil Flanagan on Aug 22, 2011 5:42 pm • link • report
What you and others seem to ignore is the question: WHY should AMTRAK offer a loss-leader when their trains are filling up at the prices they are selling at?
Also trains in the very early morning and late at night are already cheaper than at more convenient times.
If AMTRAK is supposed to be a company, then their goal should be to maximize revenues. They shouldn't charge $40 just because the bus is $40. They should charge a price at which they maximize their revenues.
by MLD on Aug 22, 2011 5:50 pm • link • report
Based on the fact that the document I cited indicates that intercity buses are much more energy efficient than Amtrak.
by Bertie on Aug 22, 2011 6:20 pm • link • report
Please show us the documents showing that Amtrak has NOT lost money in its NEC operations. The recent monthly performance reports certainly don't suggest that.
by Bertie on Aug 22, 2011 6:23 pm • link • report
"Isn't part of the problem that the NE Corridor is the *only* part of Amtrak that makes a profit? Those funds go to routes that a commercial railway would never support in places like the south and midwest, where they have to lease rail space from freight, with much lower ridership."
The truth is that NO part of Amtrak makes a profit. Amtrak itself says that its high-speed Acela trains make a profit ABOVE THE RAIL, not counting the cost of upkeep and maintenance of the tracks and of supporting operations such as ticket sales, accouting, management and debt service. The Northeast Corridor is a very expensive property to own and operate and its fixed costs alone drag down Amtrak's financial performance.
The myth of the Northeast Corridor being profitable is just that, a myth. And there are some states such as New Jersey, who benefit from the Northeast Corridor through taxes paid by OTHER STATES which may be hundreds or thousands of miles away, and to whom the benefits of the Northeast Corridor are dubious at best.
by Frank Pratt on Aug 22, 2011 6:24 pm • link • report
This is incorrect. Amtrak loses money on the NEC...a lot of it. Some people at Amtrak like to speak of the Acela trains (but never the Northeast Regional trains) as "making a profit" but when all the costs of maintaining the tracks, supporting structures, electrical facilities, stations, switching yards, reservations, management and other support functions are figured in, the Northeast Corridor runs at a major and substantial loss. If those costs were not allocated in a manner favorable to Amtrak's public relations office, Acela would lose money, too. Also one must figure in (and Amtrak does not) that even the relatively new Acela trains will have to be replaced someday. Amtrak just goes along and conveniently doesn't mention that, but when the time comes to replace any of its equipment, they are in front of Congress with their hands out, begging. Not enough profit, indeed not ANY profit even on the vaunted Northeast Corridor, means no money to save or invest when it comes to buy new stuff.
"I want a new car (truck, house, whatever). Please give me the money because I have been working hard at losing money on every passenger and making it up in volume."
by Frank Hatfield on Aug 22, 2011 6:35 pm • link • report
by Neil Flanagan on Aug 22, 2011 6:37 pm • link • report
I'm not the one claiming that Amtrak, or the NEC, is more energy efficient than intercity bus alternatives. That's Malcolm Kenton's claim. Where is the data to support it?
by Bertie on Aug 22, 2011 7:05 pm • link • report
Amtrak has plenty of empty seats. Hundreds of thousands of them. And especially on off-peak trains.
My point is that intercity bus service passengers have been increasing by huge numbers in recent years, while Amtrak's ridership has increased by a much, much smaller number this past year, despite the jump in gasoline prices.
The buses have become a major competitor and Amtrak needs to attract younger customers to ensure its future.
The idea that Amtrak is doing just fine, thank you, hasn't cut it before. And it won't cut it now. It's not making a profit. It's losing younger passengers in the NEC to the intercity buses.
by Mike Silverstein on Aug 22, 2011 7:21 pm • link • report
But I don't think your point about bi-levels not being good for intercity service is correct- indeed, Amtrak uses them on its long-distance trains and on its Amtrak California routes. Pass-throughs between cars are located on the upper level, and since most seats are upstairs, most passengers don't have to go up or down to walk through the train. You do have to go up and down to board/alight, and admittedly, they limit people with disabilities to the lower level of the car they board.
Of course, if the tunnels don't bi-levels, the point is moot.
by RichardatCourthouse on Aug 22, 2011 8:22 pm • link • report
by Matt R on Aug 22, 2011 8:26 pm • link • report
In general, the statistics in this post below the level of the environmental stuff are just wrong. The Regional fills fewer than 50% of the seats; go to the monthly reports and compare per-seat-mile and per-passenger-mile losses if you don't believe me. Train length on capacity-constrained routes is double the average Amtrak consist, and the North River Tunnels could squeeze a few more peak tph with existing real-world mainline signaling - for one, Paris's RER B+D tunnel achieves a peak of 32 tph. The Acela has a positive EBITDA, but the Regional has a small operating loss (altogether, these have a positive EBITDA, which is not the same as being profitable).
by Alon Levy on Aug 22, 2011 9:03 pm • link • report
The above is a general theme throughout various comments in this thread and it is likely wrong. Most government operations like the military, highway system, schools, and DC Metro are not revenue or profit maximizing. Instead, their mission is to provide the greatest amount of service given their budget. Similarly, Amtrak's mission is to provide the greatest amount/quality of service for a given government subsidy.
AMTRAK should not even be operating on the Northeast corridor. The system has lost money since day one because it runs as a Federal bureaucracy. Kill AMTRAK and let the free-market operate trains where they make sense.
That would be like saying we should kill the highway system because gas taxes don't cover the cost. Or like saying we should kill Metro because pedicabs and taxi's make a profit, so we should just rely on them and other free market solutions.
So, what should Amtrak do? Assuming there's a way to add capacity to the NE corridor, they should do just that. They could pay for it by reducing service elsewhere by less than they add to service in the NE. The reason they can do that is that the NE corridor has one of the lowest subsidies per ride. For example, if the subsidy per ride is $20 in the NE but $40 elsewhere, Amtrak could add two rides in the NE for every one ride they subtract elsewhere.
And there are some states such as New Jersey, who benefit from the Northeast Corridor through taxes paid by OTHER STATES which may be hundreds or thousands of miles away, and to whom the benefits of the Northeast Corridor are dubious at best.
That is how government works. EVERY state gets something from the federal government that doesn't benefit other states. Overall, I'd bet that NJ contributes more taxes to the federal government than they get back in federal spending just because NJ is richer than most states.
by Falls Church on Aug 22, 2011 9:11 pm • link • report
I don't know what you're referring to exactly, but if it's this post on the blog "Reason & Rail," it refers only to "operational surplus," not a profit against total costs.
by Bertie on Aug 22, 2011 9:17 pm • link • report
Supply and demand: Amtrak still manages to fill most of the seats it carries between Washington, New York, and Boston on both on Acela Express and Northeast Regional services.
This is yet another example of a claim that is not supported by the link you provide. The linked article reports an increase in ridership on the Acela and NER services, but it says nothing about whether most seats are filled (load factor).
by Bertie on Aug 22, 2011 9:28 pm • link • report
And I suspect we've had this discussion before. At least, I know I have.
by Alon Levy on Aug 22, 2011 10:12 pm • link • report
by Paulis on Aug 22, 2011 11:03 pm • link • report
by JAY on Aug 22, 2011 11:15 pm • link • report
by Bertie on Aug 22, 2011 11:57 pm • link • report
by Paulus Magnus on Aug 23, 2011 12:27 am • link • report
by margarita202 on Aug 23, 2011 7:06 am • link • report
Someone mentioned that they have a lack of confidence in ... TRAINS? Aren't the bus companies the one with zero regulation and 100 percent abuse of drivers, driving doubles at 3 am and, you know, wrecking? I hope never to take a bus to NYC again after hearing those stories.
There is probably no doubt the bus is cheaper though. And someone said flying is cheaper too. But flying does not get you into the city center, so you have to pay for a shuttle or taxi. The train takes you right in.
Environmental footprint - can we nail this down? I've heard that it's in fact buses that have a smaller carbon footprint, and it seems that the link provided in the article/post supports this too.
competition - elsewhere, Amtrak does not own the tracks, so good luck getting anyone to even compete.
by Jazzy on Aug 23, 2011 7:07 am • link • report
AmtrakUSPS is owned by the federal government. That's why it is overpricedAmtrakThe military is owned by the federal government. That's why it is overpricedAmtrakNIH is owned by the federal government. That's why it is overpricedAmtrakThe Internet is owned by the federal government. That's why it is overpricedAmtrakNational Park Service is owned by the federal government. That's why it is overpricedAmtrakThe Mall is owned by the federal government. That's why it is overpricedAmtrakEverything on govsales.gov is owned by the federal government. That's why it is overpricedAmtrakThe Smithsonian Museum is owned by the federal government. That's why it is overpricedAmtrakBaker Island [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_Island] is owned by the federal government. That's why it is overpricedReally?
by Jasper on Aug 23, 2011 10:04 am • link • report
Amtrak's costs are higher than the curbside intercity buses because their employees have collectively bargained good wages and benefits and the curbside operators pay lower wages and have no terminal costs. As cities move to regulate the intercity buses and move them off of curbside (Boston has, DC is in the process.), the bus fares may rise somewhat. Amtrak prices against planes as much or more so than the bus.
by Steve on Aug 23, 2011 10:05 am • link • report
by Ken Conaway on Aug 23, 2011 10:43 am • link • report
by beatbox on Aug 23, 2011 10:50 am • link • report
by Matt Johnson on Aug 23, 2011 11:30 am • link • report
I have taken Amtrak for years and have never really had any problems with it. The trains have run on time generally. I'm willing to pay more for a better travel experience.
Megabus, Boltbus, and those other bus companies will do well with young people and college students who are broke and don't have much money. Those bus companies will attract those riders.
For those who aren't concerned about cost first and foremost, such as business travelers and those with some money, I don't see Megabus appealing to them. A bus is still a bus.
by Rain17 on Aug 23, 2011 11:38 am • link • report
I am fully aware that Amtrak trains operating in the West generally use double-decker equipment. And I am also aware that the pass-through between those cars is on the second level.
Now, aside from the fact that those cars wouldn't fit through the tunnels in New York, there's an even larger problem.
As was pointed out above, NJ Transit has specially designed double-deckers that will fit through the tunnels, so Amtrak could theoretically do the same. I pointed out problems with that design as an inter-city railcar yesterday.
The main problem, however, is that there is no way for a car with a second-level pass through to operate on the Northeast Corridor. The reason is that most of the stations have high-platforms only.
The double-deckers Amtrak operates in the West (the Superliners, California cars, and Surfliner cars) have 2 levels. The lower level has an entrance to the platform, which is a few inches above the rail. The second level has the pass-through between cars.
Now, the pass through can't be located on the lower level because the floor of that level is lower than the trucks (wheels) of the car.
With high-platforms on the NEC, a Superliner-type car would not be accessible. Someone standing at the platform door of a Superliner car would find the high-level platform at chest level.
(Example photo: http://flic.kr/p/9HdnBp)
Raising the floor of the lower level to high-level platform height would make the second floor too high even for some western routes.
Therefore, the only way to have a double-decker car capable of platforming at the high-level platforms in the Northeast Corridor is to have a middle level at each end of the car. This is how the MARC double-deckers and NJ Transit double-deckers are configured. They're lozenge-shaped.
From the upper level, you have to go down a half-flight of stairs to exit. From the lower level, you have to go up a half-flight of stairs to exit. And that means to go between cars, you'd have to go down (or up) a half-flight of stairs at each end of each car.
(Example photo - MARC: http://flic.kr/p/6TBpUD)
Compare that to bi-level commuter cars that can only use low-level platforms:
Tri-Rail photo: http://flic.kr/p/77dsSC
Amtrak Surfliner photo: http://flic.kr/p/8r5Mpb
by Matt Johnson on Aug 23, 2011 11:47 am • link • report
You're taking a point I was making based on economic principle and twisting what I said. Things the government has a monopoly on tend to be overpriced because there is no competition. By owning the tracks that the Amtrak train runs on and not allowing private train operators to compete, they can charge whatever they want. History and basic economic reasoning shows that if the tracks were not owned by the government, private companies could come and compete with the rates the government offers, which would lower all rates over time. Government does nothing as well or as economically as a private business can because of its' sheer size, hence why the fact that the Amtrak system is operated by the government makes it overpriced.
by margarita202 on Aug 23, 2011 11:49 am • link • report
LOL did you do *your* homework? As Jasper very clearly points out government-provided products/services are usually MUCH cheaper than the same product would be if provided by a private entity. That's common knowledge.
Also you are incorrect in your statement that no private railroads run on the Northeast Corridor. Last I checked, CSX and Norfolk Southern which uses sections of NEC trackage from DC to Philadelphia were private. Not to mention the non-federal commuter railroads in the Northeast that all run on the NEC: MARC-DC/Baltimore/MD, SEPTA-Philadelphia/PA/NJ/Wilmington, NJ Transit-NJ/New York, Metro-North-NY/CT, Long Island Railroad-NY, and MBTA-Boston/MA.
by King Terappin on Aug 23, 2011 11:57 am • link • report
As for Amtrak having "poor service" that is usually because of two things. First of all, outside of NE corridor, Amtrak has to share traffic with freight railroads. While some rail lines like BNSF treat Amtrak well, others like UP are extremely hostile. So sometimes they will let freight traffic run ahead.
Secondly, ever since its inception, Amtrak has had to fight powerful political opponents hostile to existence like Senator McCain. Every year Amtrak has to beg Congress for money to stay afloat. In the process, largely due to Republicans, Amtrak has to do more with less funds every year. As a result, when it inevitably can't do more with less, right-wing Republicans (those there are also some Democrats who are hostile to passenger rail) cite Amtrak's "failure to improve" as proof that it should be eliminated.
So, despite what Congressman Mica and other Republicans have argued, if they were to "privatize" Amtrak, there would be no buyers. And even if a private company began running passenger trains, it would inevitably close because it wouldn't make money.
And while the western trains do cost money it is also important to keep in mind that, in some of those rural small towns, it is the only transportation that passes through. And some of those towns are pretty far from airports and they don't always have bus service either
by Rain17 on Aug 23, 2011 12:03 pm • link • report
Are you serious? Government is ALWAYS cheaper than the private sector? Give me a break. If that were the case, there would be no private enterprises in existence and we would be a socialist country (which, if you've ever opened up a history textbook, you would know total government control does not work). Even if you look at the cost of government run-health care, the cost I'd have to pay out of pocket for a government plan versus a private plan may be lower, but if you look at the overall cost of the PROGRAM it FAR exceeds the cost of what running a private program of equal size would be. Which is partly because of mismangement and, you know, the fact that the country's bankrupt, but also because the government can't provide everyone with what they want which is why there is an incentive for private business in the first place. Furthermore, all the train providers you mentioned are all run by state governments which are in the end at the beck and call of Amtrak. Ever traveled from NYC to DC the weekend after Thanksgiving and been on an NJ Transit, LIRR, or MARC train even though you purchased your ticket through Amtrak?
@Rain17
I'd hesitate to make the blanket generalization that no one wants to operate passenger rail. If Republicans were successful and Amtrak were to be disbanded, that does not quiet the country's demand for passenger rail in the NE corridor. Likely, such a disbandment would come with significant government incentives for anyone who wanted to start a private rail service, so this coupled with the intense demand for such service would spark a flurry of private investment in a private rail project. The reason no one wants to buy Amtrak is that the entity as a whole is a giant mismanaged mess, not because there is no demand for passenger rail.
by margarita202 on Aug 23, 2011 12:16 pm • link • report
Amtrak is a "mess", as I said above, because it has never had a solid financing mechanism. Every year it has to battle powerful enemies hostile to its existence like Senator McCain to get any funding. Under such dynamics it's kind of a miracle that Amtrak has done what it has been able to. It has never had the proper funding to succeed. And when its budget constantly gets cut or undermined, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
And while perhaps the NE corridor may survive with a private operator, though even there I'm not convinced that a private firm would invest the funds to operate it, that doesn't do much for the rest of the country and rural areas where Amtrak is the only form of transportation that passes through their small towns. Amtrak has also corridor services in the Chicago Area, southern California, Bay Area, and Pacific Northwest that attract riders.
by Rain17 on Aug 23, 2011 12:25 pm • link • report
No. I took your exact statement and replaced Amtrak with other services that the government owns, with the purpose of showing the silliness of your statement.
Case and point:Things the government has a monopoly on tend to be overpriced because there is no competition.
Really? You think FedEx and UPS can deliver a letter from Key West, FL to Anchorage, AK for 44 cents? Do you really think that 44 cents is overpriced because there is no competition? Do you think there is a commercial operator that can operate the Skyline drive for an entrance fee of $15 per car? Why is it that Tourmobile - a commercial operator - clings for it's life to it's $32 per ride contract while DDOT is suggesting they can run a more frequent bus for 1/32nd of the price? Also, do you think the US military would be cheaper if it were run by BBBSR [Booz-Boeing-Blackwater-SAIC]? Where is the commercial party offering the services that NIH is offering? For less?
History and basic economic reasoning shows that if the tracks were not owned by the government, private companies could come and compete with the rates the government offers, which would lower all rates over time.
No it does not. There is not a country in the world where all railroads are running commercially and profitably without any government intervention. Perhaps you forgot that it was only due massive government incentives that the transcontinental railroad was built.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Transcontinental_Railroad
Government does nothing as well or as economically as a private business can because of its' sheer size
Yes it does. The examples are plentiful. National defense is one. Health care is another. And, according to ECO101, size works in your advantage.
a socialist country (which, if you've ever opened up a history textbook, you would know total government control does not work
It works pretty well for health care in Canada and Europe. It works so well for national defense that no single country in the world has a commercial defense. Finally, economically, China is doing rather well with it's totally controlled economy. Better on virtually all fronts than the US.
Also, you seem to be confusing socialism with a particularly distorted (Soviet) version of communism.
Even if you look at the cost of government run-health care, the cost I'd have to pay out of pocket for a government plan versus a private plan may be lower, but if you look at the overall cost of the PROGRAM it FAR exceeds the cost of what running a private program of equal size would be.
No it does not. The American "free market" health care system is the by far the most expensive in the world, and it does not even get the best results.
the government can't provide everyone with what they want
The UK government is perfectly capable of keeping Stephen Hawking alive, despite its miserable finances at the moment. Many Americans can not dream of such health care. Yet, the UK system is much cheaper than the American system.
Likely, such a disbandment would come with significant government incentives for anyone who wanted to start a private rail service, so this coupled with the intense demand for such service would spark a flurry of private investment in a private rail project.
So, that private company depend on significant incentives=subsidy=money from the government to run the rail service. How is that different from having Amtrak?
Are you sure you're not Lance?
by Jasper on Aug 23, 2011 12:37 pm • link • report
On most of my Amtrak experiences (during and post-college), the passengers are overwhelmingly under 40, with a few seniors and business travelers, but mostly young people.
My feeling is that one's decision to take bus or train is ENTIRELY based on price. No one wants to take a crummy bus if a train was similarly priced - even with free wi-fi.
by John M on Aug 23, 2011 12:59 pm • link • report
I am enjoying the back and forth on this a lot. Thanks to Rain for carrying the torch so well! And though I frequently disagree with him/her, Jasper has answered Margarita's points pretty succinctly and cogently.
by Jazzy on Aug 23, 2011 1:00 pm • link • report
The numbers on page 8, Group Results and Financial Position.
SNCF Voyages, the HSR and long distance division, paid 1.3 billion euros in infrastructure tolling, an amount which I would find it very hard to believe did not cover the full cost of maintaining the infrastructure.
I don't know why you think that. RFF is increasing infrastructure fees to SNCF, because the current fees are too low to cover the costs. This uncovered cost of infrastructure is not reflected in SNCF's financial accounting.
If you have any evidence that it includes substantial sums from other than ticket revenue, cafe cars, and such, do feel free to introduce it.
I don't have any evidence of what it includes, because the report doesn't say. If you have any evidence that it includes only ticket revenue, cafe cars, and such, and not any direct or indirect government subsidies, do feel free to introduce it.
I'm afraid that that's simply not true
It is true. For 2009, the report shows an "operating loss" of 460 million euros, a "net loss before tax" of 763 million euros, a "net loss from ordinary activities" of 954 million euros, and a "net loss attributable to equity holders of the parent" of 980 million euros.
by Bertie on Aug 23, 2011 1:17 pm • link • report
The problem I have with Amtrak is that it is owned by the government. And, as history and present day has shown us, organizations run by the government are not the most cost effective or efficient institutions. Perhaps America is not ready for passenger trains. That's why the private passenger rail companies died out before. If there was sufficient demand for passenger rail, the private sector would be more than happy to fulfill the demand if it was able to make a profit. If Amtrak (a government-run company) is indeed able to make a profit from the NEC section, then I believe private companies would be better at running it than the federal government.
by Lionel Bachmann on Aug 23, 2011 2:39 pm • link • report
So even though the system is capable of that, expecting it to be able to do that on a regular basis is unfounded. The need for recovery time is essential.
Yes, I am well aware. That's why in my comment, I wrote the following:
The most advanced signaling systems can handle 90 second headways (Metrorail is capable of it, though the powers that be are too incompetent to use ATO without killing people, so we're nowhere near 90 sec headways now). Pad that a bit and you're up to 120 sec headways. There's a lot of room between 2 minutes and 3.5 minutes.
by Stephen Smith on Aug 23, 2011 3:23 pm • link • report
Haha do you actually know what you're talking about or are you just blindly taking advantage of an opportunity to your right-wing views? Obviously, you didn't understand my post (and totally misquoted it), the end PRICE to consumers (not the COST of providing the service/product) is ***usually*** MUCH CHEAPER than it would be if a private company were selling the product/service. You probably didn't realize this but the government also subsidizes a large number of commercial passenger air routes to small airports so the airlines don't charge exorbitant prices to consumers, if there were unsubsidized.
Oh wow, did you even fully read my post or are you just cherry picking? What state governments run CSX and Norfolk Southern? Also, have your ever heard of ACES? It's a *privately-operated* train carrying passengers between New York/Newark and Atlantic City on the NEC? So much for Amtrak barring private-railroads from their tracks.
As far as the rest of your post, if you're talking about the Holiday Extra trains, Amtrak has to PAY MARC and NJ Transit for those extra trainsets, which those railroad don't *have* to provide. In New York and parts of Connecticut Amtrak is at the mercy of Metro-North which places multiple restrictions on Amtrak.
by King Terappin on Aug 23, 2011 3:32 pm • link • report
Why not use bi-level railcars on the NEC or replace cafe cars with revenue seating? Mainly for the reasons Matt Johnson mentioned, which contribute to lower customer satisfaction. Many are drawn to the train, despite the higher price, because of its advantage in (a) travel time and (b) passenger comfort. Regarding (a), when running on schedule, even Northeast Regionals take at least a half an hour less time to get from Union Station to New York Penn Station than Bolt Bus does to make the same trip.
If you take away (b) by removing food service (a vending machine is a poor subsititute for a live person, even if the quality of the food isn't great, and it would take at least 5 vending machines to offer the same quantity and variety of food as the cafe car currently offers) and using bilevels (leaving passengers with less luggage space and fewer restrooms per passenger), then (a) becomes Amtrak's only selling point, and it becomes harder to sell enough tickets at the prices required to minimize federal subsidy (which Amtrak is under enormous pressure to do).
Why should the government subsidize unprofitable Amtrak service outside the Northeast Corridor? For the same reason the government funds numerous unprofitable services: it's a public service. In the case of Amtrak, it's an essential mobility choice both for isolated rural communities and for people (particularly seniors) who cannot or will not drive or fly. Amtrak service, like all transportation infrastructure, is also an economic lifeline -- particularly for the tourism industry, in Amtrak's case.
In other industrialized countries, public investment in a national passenger train network -- like a national road network of both freeways and local roads -- is accepted as a wise use of taxpayer funds for the many external benefits such investment generates. It's only in the U.S. that it's a matter of such great controversy and a point of ideological division.
Sleeping car service on Amtrak's overnight trains -- while admittedly quite expensive -- nevertheless generates incremental profits, more than covering the additional costs (on top of merely operating a coach-only train with a cafe car) associated with it:
Here are some helpful links on this matter.
Why was Amtrak so slow to get WiFi? The slightly higher funding levels Amtrak has gotten in the past three fiscal years have enabled it to take on this significant capital expense. In the case of Northeast Regionals, every Amfleet I car has to be equipped with a router to provide reliable service. Most of the bus companies' fleets are brand-new buses that were built with WiFi. In Amtrak's case, it has to retrofit cars with an average age of 34 years, most of which just got a major overhaul 5 to 7 years ago.
Amtrak expects WiFi to be operational on all Northeast Regional trains by mid-October.
Are union contracts to blame for Amtrak's high costs? As others mentioned, the lack of union protections for the drivers of most discount buses comes with its own costs in terms of safety. The solution is not to get rid of Amtrak's unions, but to make unionization easier for Amtrak's competitors. Thanks mainly to the unions, most of Amtrak's employees can enjoy a middle-class lifestyle, have greater financial security, and have health insurance. Without the ongoing presence of the labor movement, there would be no middle class in this country.
At least we have a nominally democratic political process that gives unions at least some leverage over employers through legislative and regulatory channels. Take away unions, and you may get lower train fares, but you'll also get an increase in poverty and a less healthy society.
So, what should Amtrak do? Assuming there's a way to add capacity to the NE corridor, they should do just that. They could pay for it by reducing service elsewhere by less than they add to service in the NE. The reason they can do that is that the NE corridor has one of the lowest subsidies per ride. For example, if the subsidy per ride is $20 in the NE but $40 elsewhere, Amtrak could add two rides in the NE for every one ride they subtract elsewhere.
The trouble with that is, for most of the country, taking away one ride means discontinuing service entirely, since most cities served by Amtrak only see one train a day in each direction. Train frequencies can be reduced to less than daily, but the two trains that currently run three days a week have the lowest cost-recovery ratios, and thus the highest subsidy requirement, in the entire system mainly because of the inefficiencies resulting from less-than-daily operation. Taking away rides outside the NEC makes Amtrak a less relevant travel choice for more Americans and thus, among other maleffects, reduces the political support for Amtrak funding, which is essential to keep the NEC running.
For corridor services outside the NEC (such as Chicago to St. Louis and Raleigh to Charlotte, NC), maintaining multiple frequencies is key to attracting higher ridership numbers.
Finally, when looking at the competition between Amtrak and buses (and cars, for that matter), it's good to keep in mind that the federal highway program gets about $43 for every dollar that intercity passenger rail gets from the federal government. This is the opposite of "free market conditions," it reflects a public policy choice to feed one mode and starve another.
Someone who supports the private sector providing the optimal balance of transportation services in a free market should advocate either greater investment in passenger train infrastructure, or substantially lower investment in roads and let private companies build roads. Oh, right ... the private sector won't build or maintain the optimal amount of roads. Likewise, an unassisted private sector won't provide a level of passenger train service sufficient to meet demand, and would leave many American communities out in the cold when it comes to being able to get around.
by Malcolm K. on Aug 23, 2011 3:52 pm • link • report
by Paulus Magnus on Aug 23, 2011 4:08 pm • link • report
Tolls, traffic, tolls, traffic, tolls, traffic, you get the idea.
Bus to New York:
Nice new buses, cheap, free Wi-fi, but the driver might be overtired from a double shift of strung out on uppers to stay awake. Is your will in order?
Flying to New York:
Get to the airport, park, get in the security line, get from LGA or JFK or EWR to midtown Manhattan - are you for real?
Amtrack to New York:
City center to city center, no driving, no security lines is this a no-brainer or what?
by ceefer66 on Aug 23, 2011 4:22 pm • link • report
Why is only that division relevant, rather than SNCF in total? And the numbers provided for "SNCF voyages" show only "gross profit," not any of the "net profit/loss" numbers, all of which showed a loss for 2009.
I really don't think it is plausible to claim that their tolls are too low without substantial evidence to the contrary.
As SNCF Loses Its Public Focus, the Future of French Rail is in Question
Quote:
"Between 2005 and 2013, RFF will increase SNCF track fees from €1 billion to €2.2 billion, enough to destroy the operator’s profit and eventually push it into bankruptcy unless the government comes to its aid — unlikely considering European regulations."
by Bertie on Aug 23, 2011 4:28 pm • link • report
It is also suspect that we have a guest writer on this website who acts as a lobbying arm for rail service and desires Federal bailouts. If you are fearful of the free-market then passenger service is not sustainable...and therefore not needed.
However, kill AMTRAK as it is a drain upon taxpayers everywhere and allow private passenger service development. Environmental laws should be sacrificed in the short term for longer term gain...which would be increased passenger service and few autos and buses.
by Pelham1861 on Aug 23, 2011 5:25 pm • link • report
by Randall M. on Aug 23, 2011 5:32 pm • link • report
What's holding them back...arcane laws such as what happens to dead cows who wander onto tracks. Sheezz, nothing in this country would have ever advanced with the kind of nonsense private business has to contend with today...including rail service. The cow issue held up for years the Tampa-Orlando-Miami rail plan begun in the late 1970's. That, an continuing funding for worthless AMTRAK service in the state.
by Pelham1861 on Aug 23, 2011 5:35 pm • link • report
It seems capitalism has blinded you to reality and fact, as it does to many right-wingers. (Most) Federal rules and regulations are necessary as they make passenger travel safer. The same applies to highways and air travel. The feds DID save passenger rail i.e. if it weren't for Amtrak there would be NO intercity passenger service today.
If you actually think the Atlanta-Chattanooga-Nashville corridor is the "most advanced" lol then you're terribly mistaken. A "high tech clean industries and green innovation." Seriously? Florida High Speed Rail (the only true high-speed system in the South that could possibly be profitable) was not killed by "cow regulation" but by people like yourself who didn't think federal or state governments should contribute money to a promising high-rail route.
by King Terappin on Aug 23, 2011 6:02 pm • link • report
But roads provide more than 700 times as many passenger-miles of transportation as Amtrak. Not to mention a huge amount of freight transportation. 700 times as much transportation for 43 times as many dollars sounds like a bargain to me. If either mode is being overfed, it's Amtrak, not roads.
That said, I don't really have a problem with current Amtrak subsidies. In the context of total federal spending, a billion or two a year isn't much. I think a decent case could be made that it's worth spending that much to maintain a basic functional national passenger rail network. But the days of passenger rail as a major component of our transportation system are gone for good. For the vast majority of modern passenger travel needs, road and air modes are simply a much better fit than rail. Rail's strength is in the freight market. But of course that's not Amtrak.
by Bertie on Aug 23, 2011 6:33 pm • link • report
As for Florida HSR there was a plan ready to go that had the support of both parties in the state. After bickering for decades and fighting to get the money, the proposal was ready to go until Florida elected Rick Scott. And their governor turned it down. I think FL will rue the day that it turned down those funds, but that's who the voters there elected. The same applies for OH and WI.
For some reason the Republicans (though, again, some Democrats also fall into this category) just hate anything connected to rail. Anyway it is a shame because, while other countries modernize their infrastructure, the US continues to fall further behind.
by Rain17 on Aug 23, 2011 7:21 pm • link • report
As for the 2009 net loss, that is not attributable to the high speed rail division (and the major cause of which was a one billion euro write down, almost entirely on Fret SNCF).
That is not evidence that tolls are too low. Indeed, that article notes that RFF made a profit, which would indicate that they are too high. Furthermore, that is an inadequate attempt at refuting the basic point that the tolls are far too high to be simply maintenance of way, since the tolls levied upon SNCF alone are higher than all Class I railroads MOW budgets combined. Consider also that the approximately 1.3 billion euros in tolls equates to an annual spending of $1.6 million per mile, far in excess of any reasonable maintenance cost.by Paulus Magnus on Aug 23, 2011 8:01 pm • link • report
No it's not. The comparison was with Amtrak.
They show gross profit and current operating income. Net income, which involves taking out the relevant taxes, wasn't shown. As the total financial costs and income taxes paid by SNCF amounted to 453 million euros in 2010, even were this to be entirely (and wrongly) applied to the SNCF Voyages division, high speed rail would still show a profit.
We're not talking about high speed rail. We're talking about SNCF vs. Amtrak. The document you cited shows losses for all three types of "net profit/loss" for 2009. And there are no "net profit/loss" numbers at all for "SNCF Voyages," so you obviously can't claim that even that division made a profit.
That is not evidence that tolls are too low.
Yes it is. RFF has to raise its fees because the current fees are not sufficient to cover its costs and pay down its debt for outstanding infrastructure costs. What happened is that SNCF had huge debts for infrastructure that the government transferred to RFF so SNCF could claim, absurdly, that it's "profitable." It's like an airline claiming it's profitable because its revenues exceed its costs -- as long as you ignore the costs of actually buying the planes.
And RFF is in deep financial trouble, as the Transport Politic post notes. Here is Standard and Poor's analysis of their financial condition. It found that RFF's fees are insufficient to cover its costs and that it has increasing debt:
"- Unbalanced business model, as rail tariffs remain structurally below maintenance costs, resulting in a substantial dependence on state subsidies
- Aggressive financial profile, with significant refinancing needs and increasing debt levels"
by Bertie on Aug 23, 2011 8:31 pm • link • report
But roads provide more than 700 times as many passenger-miles of transportation as Amtrak.
That is only the case because federal policy makers have coddled drivers (and truckers) practically since the days of the Model T by building and maintaining roads with tax money. Yes, the gas tax (which wasn't instituted until the late 1950s) is technically a user fee, but it hardly covers the cost of maintaining the existing federal-aid highway system (witness the recent infusions of general fund money into the Highway Trust Fund).
Meanwhile, private railroads between 1910 and 1965, operating both freight and passenger trains, got almost no financial help from the government, and in fact had to pay property taxes on every mile of track they owned, while facing a major regulatory burden with regards to freight rates (yes, I'll admit, the degree of regulation of railroads played a role in the demise of privately-operated passenger rail) -- denying them a source of revenue that could have covered losses from passenger operations.
So, if you look at today's gross funding imbalance in favor of roads without the historical context, it looks like the government is simply putting money where the travelers are. But when you think about the decades in which this has gone on, you start to see a tremendous highway bias that has been the result of effective lobbying public relations by road builders and the auto and trucking industries, ingraining in the American mind that cars equal freedom.
But all recent indicators are that there is starting to be a cultural shift away from car dependency, and that more and more Americans are turning to trains. Yet federal (and in most cases, state) policy doesn't reflect the public's changing desires.
The only way to restore some semblance of fair competition between road and rail (in both the passenger and freight arenas) is to correct the imbalance by dramatically increasing public investment in rail (infrastructure financing assistance to private freight railroads, which also helps passenger trains using their tracks, and direct grants to Amtrak so it can renew and expand its fleet and add more routes and frequencies, thereby becoming an even more relevant travel choice).
by Malcolm K. on Aug 23, 2011 9:48 pm • link • report
Road subsidies are on the order of 1 cent per passenger-mile. That's just a small fraction of the total cost of driving, and a small fraction of the subsidies provided to Amtrak. In 2010, for example, Amtrak received government subsidies of at least $1.2 billion, which is about a third of total costs. Amtrak provided 6.3 billion passenger-miles of travel. That's a subsidy of about 20 cents per passenger-mile. Twenty times the subsidy received by automobile users. These numbers come from Amtrak's 2010 Annual report. And it's like this year after year. You should be grateful that taxpayers are willing to subsidize Amtrak as much as they do.
by Bertie on Aug 23, 2011 11:31 pm • link • report
MixnerBertie should stick to his real handle.by Alon Levy on Aug 24, 2011 12:18 am • link • report
/her, Jasper has answered Margarita's points pretty succinctly and cogently.Brrr. Compliments on GGW.
Quickly, let's start another flame war!
Where did Margarita202 go by the way?
by Jasper on Aug 24, 2011 10:35 am • link • report
We discussed the driving subsidy per-passenger mile and your source (which is highly flawed) put it at 1-3 cents per passenger mile. Using the 1 cent bottom end of the range is terribly deceptive don't you think?
And I had a source that put it at something much higher, 30 cents to $2 per passenger mile. So, to be accurate you should probably mention that.
But I guess you have a story to tell, and you won't let facts change it.
by David C on Aug 24, 2011 11:14 am • link • report
It doesn't really matter whether it's 1 cent or 3 cents. Both numbers are obviously much lower than 20 cents. But since you insist, yet again, on quibbling over details that are irrelevant to the basic point: no, there's nothing deceptive about the 1 cent number. That is the portion of the estimate that constitutes road subsidies. In fact, it's actually less than 1 cent. The 1 cent number is for vehicle-miles. The average occupancy of an automobile is about 1.6. So the subsidy per passenger-mile is more like 0.6 cents. I was being generous to Amtrak by rounding it up to a cent.
The 3 cent figure is the author's high-end estimate when every kind of spending that might arguably be considered a "subsidy" is included. This includes things like money spent on military protection of middle east oil supplies. As I said, even if you use the 3 cent figure, it's still much less than the 20 cent subsidy to Amtrak. But in fact, if this additional spending is to be counted as a subsidy for automobiles, it is also a subsidy for Amtrak. Most Amtrak locomotives run on diesel. Diesel comes from petroleum. So if we are counting military spending in the middle-east as a subsidy of petroleum-fueled autos, it is also a subsidy of petroleum-fueled trains. This would be an additional subsidy to Amtrak, over and above the 20 cents per passenger-mile in direct subsidies documented in Amtrak's Annual Report.
by Bertie on Aug 24, 2011 12:52 pm • link • report
by Pelham1861 on Aug 24, 2011 1:02 pm • link • report
However, let's close down decades of mismanagement by AMTRAK to the highest private bidder and see what happens. If there is money to be made...someone will come forth to make it happen.
All those subsidies for AMTRAK could be returned to taxpayers...and if they want a train service...a train service will be born.
by Pelham1861 on Aug 24, 2011 1:06 pm • link • report
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/mid/1508/articleId/700/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/Default.aspx
The key excerpt:
"Additionally, more than two thirds of Florida residents support state and federal funding of high-speed rail, "a particularly poignant point", notes Schulz, as Florida recently declined federal HSR funding the state had actively sought. "
The FL HSR project had bipartisan support in FL. Scott killed a project that had support.
by Rain17 on Aug 24, 2011 1:11 pm • link • report
Then why do you insist on only reporting the lower number? Why not be more accurate and state that "The analysis indicates that in the US current tax and fee payments to the government by motor-vehicle users fall short of government expenditures related to motor-vehicle use by approximately 20–70 cents per gallon of all motor fuel." and that that was from 2007, which is before we started having to transfer funding to the Highway Trust Fund. If it doesn't matter why only report the low end of the spectrum.
Most Amtrak locomotives run on diesel. Diesel comes from petroleum.
Yes, but I don't believe ALL Amtrak locomotives run on diesel do they? Some run on electricity. And how much diesel is used per passenger mile? Is it the same as for driving? If not then the subsidy is not the same per passenger mile. And that changes your 1:20 ratio to something else.
Two other things
1. Talking about direct subsidies, when they are so totally dwarfed by indirect subsidies, is to avoid the meat of the issue.
Comparing the direct subsidy from one to the other is like trying to figure out who will win a football game by comparing the quality of their punters. It is a very small part of the picture. Nonetheless, you continue to try to makes some sort of deduction based on this trivial fact.
If you want to talk about subsidies you have to talk about negative and positive exteranalities too. Unless you think pollution, congestion, CO2 production, foreign trade and health don't matter.
2. Really, talking about direct and indirect subsidies isn't complete either. The only thing that really matters is a cost/benefit analysis. The subsidies are only part of the cost and cost is only one half of what should be considered.
So why are you wasting our time by consistently pointing out the direct subsidies of things when it makes up only a tiny slice of one half of the componenets to be analyzed?
by David C on Aug 24, 2011 2:41 pm • link • report
Does the 1 to 3 percent subsidy-per-passenger-mile figure for highways cover just Interstates, or all federal-aid highways? Does it cover just federal subsidy, or does it include state and local subsidies? I'm sure the figure would be much higher if it included the entire "highway" network (Interstate, U.S. and state highways) and all possible subsidies from all government sources.
Even if Amtrak is indeed subsidized at a greater per-passenger-mile rate than roads, this only further reflects the decades of underinvestment in passenger rail. Amtrak would recover more of its costs (which are largely fixed) from passenger revenues if it were able to run more frequencies on all of its routes. But this, of course, requires up-front investment in equipment and infrastructure -- as does every major transportation upgrade.
Whatever high-speed rail systems in the world are able to achieve profitability today were only able to do so after significant up-front public investment to get to the point where trains were fast, frequent and reliable enough to attract sufficient market share over time to generate a profit. The TGV and Shinkansen both operated in the red for the first several years of their existence. It's just that the US, because of meager funding levels and immense subsidization of competing roads, has never advanced beyond the point where European railways were in the 1860s.
Also, I'll concede the point that intercity buses may have a slight advantage in energy intensity and carbon emissions per passenger mile over Amtrak, but keep in mind that Amtrak achieves its low energy intensity despite being undercapitalized. If Amtrak benefited from consistent capital investment, as most developed countries' railways do, it could have even more fuel-efficient and less polluting equipment, and almost certainly gain the edge over all other forms of motorized transportation.
But even putting energy and emissions savings aside, trains are still a more environmentally benign form of transportation as they can carry more people using less land than even buses can, and they are uniquely capable of fostering dense, walkable development around train stations.
Finally, suggesting that the only kind of passenger train service that "makes sense" is the kind that can be profitable is like suggesting that it only "makes sense" to build toll highways in the most densely populated corridors in the country, and not build or maintain roads anywhere else. Transportation infrastructure to rural communities and across long distances never generates a profit, yet it is built and maintained by governments to provide arteries for commerce and out of a sense of equity. The same principle should apply to long-distance passenger train service. It produces economic and social benefits that can't be measured on a single balance sheet.
by Malcolm K. on Aug 24, 2011 3:10 pm • link • report
Then why do you insist on only reporting the lower number?
Because I was responding to Malcolm K's claim about road subsidies. If you want to include other government spending that might arguably be considered a subsidy of automobiles, such as military protection of middle east oil supplies, then the total subsidy would be higher. But that "subsidy" WOULD ALSO APPLY TO AMTRAK. It would be an additional subsidy to Amtrak, over and above the 20 cents in direct subsidies. Either way, Amtrak subsidies are much greater than automobile subsidies, which is the basic point you keep ignoring.
You seem to think there are indirect subsidies to automobiles, that do not also apply to Amtrak, and that are so large as to offset the at least 20-to-1 advantage Amtrak enjoys in direct subsidies. If that is what you're trying to say, then please present your analysis supporting that assertion. If you cannot support it with serious empirical analysis then it is worthless.
by Bertie on Aug 24, 2011 7:18 pm • link • report
Delucchi never states the subsidy is 1 cent per passenger mile. You came up with that number.
What he came up with is that in 2002 the most direct subsidy (WOC#1), which is what you want to use, is 27 cents per gallon. The average American car got no where near 27 miles per gallon in 2002 or the 17 mpg it would need for your 1.6 persons per car. And that number is already out of date, it having been 9 years.
Once again, while a subsidy to fuel does apply to Amtrak, not in an identical way. The fuel use per passenger mile is not the same. Many Amtrak trains are electric.
Either way, Amtrak subsidies are much greater than automobile subsidies, which is the basic point you keep ignoring.
You have not proven that. You have shown that direct subsidies are higher. You have entirely ignored indirect subsidies.
You seem to think there are indirect subsidies to automobiles, that do not also apply to Amtrak,
No. I know there are. Unless you think Amtrak causes road congestion, storm water runoff, stress, obesity, hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage or 40,000 deaths.
and that are so large as to offset the at least 20-to-1 advantage Amtrak enjoys in direct subsidies.
I think they could be. And since the indirect subsidies dwarf the direct ones, until you address it your point is lost in the noise.
by David C on Aug 24, 2011 7:49 pm • link • report
This just doesn't make any sense. You cite the (small) subsidy provided to automobile users, and claim that it gives autos an unfair advantage over Amtrak. But when it's pointed out to you that Amtrak receives much larger subsidies, you claim that that much larger subsidy merely "reflects the decades of underinvestment in passenger rail." You have one set of standards for autos and another set for Amtrak.
And I have no idea how you have concluded that "Amtrak would recover more of its costs (which are largely fixed) from passenger revenues if it were able to run more frequencies on all of its routes." Amtrak's average load factor is 50%. On average, half the seats on Amtrak's trains are empty. So exactly how would running trains more frequently cause Amtrak to recover more of its costs from passenger revenues? It doesn't even come close to filling the trains it already runs, let alone any extra trains you want to add.
Finally, suggesting that the only kind of passenger train service that "makes sense" is the kind that can be profitable
I haven't suggested that. I said I don't really have a problem with the current level of subsidy. In the context of total federal spending, current Amtrak subsidies are pretty small, and I think there's probably a decent case for maintaining a basic skeleton national passenger rail network on national security and public service grounds. But I've never seen anyone make a serious case for a much larger network. The benefits just wouldn't be worth the enomous costs.
by Bertie on Aug 24, 2011 8:00 pm • link • report
Delucchi never states the subsidy is 1 cent per passenger mile. You came up with that number.
Delucchi's estimate of road subsidies is about 20 cents per gallon of gas. To compare that to Amtrak subsidies in cents per passenger-mile we obviously must convert it to cents per passenger-mile. Automobiles average about 20 mpg. So 20 cents per gallon is about 1 cent per vehicle-mile. Average auto occupancy is about 1.6. So 1 cent per vehicle-mile is about 0.6 cents per passenger-mile. Delucchi cites other academic and government studies that reached similar conclusions to his. But for the umpteenth time, the precise value doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if it's half a cent or 1 cent or even 3 cents. In all cases, the number is much lower than the equivalent number for Amtrak. I've been over all this with you before.
No. I know there are. Unless you think Amtrak causes road congestion, storm water runoff, stress, obesity, hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage or 40,000 deaths.
All the supposed "indirect subsidies" on this list apply to Amtrak as well as automobiles. Amtrak services are subject to congestion both among themselves and with freight trains. Amtrak's track, stations, maintenance yards and other infrastructure produce "storm water runoff." Sitting in a train promotes "obesity" just as sitting in a car does. And so on. And it is meaningless to apply automobile accident costs to Amtrak without adjusting for differences in passenger-miles of travel, so the fact that Amtrak does not cause "40,000 deaths" a year is completely irrelevant. These are really basic errors, but you just don't seem to recognize them.
I think they could be.
But you cannot provide any serious analysis indicating that that claim is even plausible, let alone correct. We have clear data on direct subsidies, and that data overwhelmingly shows that Amtrak receives much greater subsidies than autos, both in cents per passenger-mile and as a share of total costs. We have no data showing that indirect subsidies are greater for automobiles than for Amtrak by even a small amount, let alone the amount that would be needed to offset Amtrak's huge advantage in direct subsidies.
by Bertie on Aug 24, 2011 9:00 pm • link • report
Supposed? Do you doubt that they're real negative externalities? And even if they do exist for Amtrak they are not comparable and certainly not identical on a per passenger mile basis. The stormwater runoff related to Amtrak facilities is trivial compared to the millions of acres of paved roads and parking lots. Surely you'll agree that the runoff is more than 700 times greater. And rail passenger deaths are around 3 a year compared to 32000 car passengers - so certainly less than 1:700 ratio you quoted above. [I use passengers because getting into non-occupants means counting all trains and the deaths they cause, and most trains are not Amtrak, so it's complicated]
Or do you think killing one person per mile is the same as killing 200 per mile? You do see what I'm saying right. The negative externalities are all greater per passenger mile for driving than for rail.
I didn't think I needed to apply the number of miles traveled comparison because you provided it above. So the ratio of miles driven to miles railed is 700:1 and deaths is 9000:1. Is that still irrelevant?
But you cannot provide any serious analysis indicating that that claim is even plausible, let alone correct.
Gosh golly, some of that analysis is in the freaking post above is it not?
Here's the fuel efficiency cited - cars consumed 27.2% more energy per passenger mile than Amtrak:
Amtrak: 2,709
Commuter rail: 2,743
Rail transit: 2,784
Certificated air carriers: 3,264 (excludes international services)
Cars: 3,445
I eyeball the CO2 production at about 5 times more for the car.
Safety I've mentioned.
Etc...
Besides, I don't have to do an analysis. My point is that your comparison of direct subsidies is entirely meaningless. Not that trains are or are not less subsidized. You aren't considering a large part of the puzzle. The fact that I don't have that part doesn't change this. It's like you have a tiny corner of a map and think that tells you something. It doesn't, and I don't have to have the rest of the map to know that.
by David C on Aug 24, 2011 10:37 pm • link • report
They are obviously very unlikely to be "identical" on a per-passenger-mile basis. The point is that you haven't presented any data indicating that "indirect subsidies" are lower for Amtrak than for autos to any degree at all, let alone so much lower as to offset Amtrak's enormously higher direct subsidies.
The stormwater runoff related to Amtrak facilities is trivial compared to the millions of acres of paved roads and parking lots. Surely you'll agree that the runoff is more than 700 times greater. And rail passenger deaths are around 3 a year compared to 32000 car passengers - so certainly less than 1:700 ratio you quoted above.
No, I do not agree. Where is your data? Where is your evidence? Stop pretending that you can substitute wishful thinking for facts and figures. With respect to accidents, you're also ignoring the fact that most auto accident costs are internalized through insurance. Insurance costs are not a subsidy. They are paid by auto users themselves. Yet another basic problem in your comments.
Here's the fuel efficiency cited - cars consumed 27.2% more energy per passenger mile than Amtrak:
Another of your bizarre nonsequiturs. Yes, on average, cars use more energy per passenger-mile than Amtrak. So what? If you're trying to say something about subsidies, then say it.
My point is that your comparison of direct subsidies is entirely meaningless.My point is that your comparison of direct subsidies is entirely meaningless. Not that trains are or are not less subsidized. You aren't considering a large part of the puzzle.
There you go again, making up facts out of thin air. Where is your evidence that "indirect subsidies" are a "large part of the puzzle" at all, let alone so large as to offset Amtrak's enormously higher direct subsidies?
And your claim that comparison of direct subsidies is "entirely meaningless" is hilarious. If comparisons of direct subsidies are meaningless, then Amtrak (and urban mass transit) proponents have no basis for criticizing subsidies to automobiles at all, even if those subsidies were to rise to 100% of costs and Amtrak subsidies were to be reduced to zero.
by Bertie on Aug 24, 2011 11:19 pm • link • report
I was hoping that empirical evidence would suffice. I think most people would be surprised if rail caused as much runoff per passenger mile as cars, but if you don't want to cede what I think is pretty apparent that's your right.
With respect to accidents, you're also ignoring the fact that most auto accident costs are internalized through insurance.
The operative word here is most - as in not all. And I'd like to see some data backing that up. I'm not sure it is "most". Stop pretending that you can substitute wishful thinking for facts and figures.
Look at this case for example. In it a man had a claim that the insurance company evaluated as being worth between $375,000 and $475,000. They offered him $100,000 which is the policy limit. That happens quite often. That losses exceed limits. So that guy - who is a cyclist - has to eat the rest of the claim. That's a subsidy. He is non-driver who is paying for the costs of driving (or his health insurance is). This is not an isolated case.
What about hit and run property damage? That is often covered by home owners insurance. What about hit and run on a cyclist or pedestrian?
Yes, on average, cars use more energy per passenger-mile than Amtrak. So what?
Really? Energy use is tied to negative externalities like pollution and CO2 emissions. I thought that was obvious.
Where is your evidence that "indirect subsidies" are a "large part of the puzzle" at all
This Delucchi study you cited, for one. It shows the negative externalities for driving to be 5 to 28.4 cents per vehicle mile (or 3.125 to 17.74 cents per passenger mile using your 1.6 passengers per car number)> that is much larger than the 1 cent you cited right? And he doesn't even cover everything, as I mentioned before. So that isn't a fact made up out of thin air, it is from a report that you cited to make your point. At 17.74 cents (in 2000 dollars mind you) it won't take much to get to 20 cents which is the Amtrak subsidy according to you.
And your claim that comparison of direct subsidies is "entirely meaningless" is hilarious.
Bertie, do please try to be civil.
If comparisons of direct subsidies are meaningless, then Amtrak (and urban mass transit) proponents have no basis for criticizing subsidies to automobiles at all, even if those subsidies were to rise to 100% of costs and Amtrak subsidies were to be reduced to zero.
Not entirely correct. The comparison is meaningless. But people could criticize the subsidies to roads as a poor investment based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Drivers pay a gas tax. And that tax money is pooled with all the other money. That's part of our tax program.
Then we build roads with money we spend. That's part of spending. The idea that taxing and spending are coupled by some sort of user fee structure is just a shell game. Roads are 100% paid for by government money. That we tax some uses of roads doesn't matter. There is nothing to stop us from spending gas taxes on NASA or the Coast Guard or the School lunch program. Or we could cancel the gas tax and raise income taxes to cover roads. It would change the fundamental questions.
Are roads worth the money? Is Amtrak worth the money?
All of this comparison of subsidies is just misdirection.
by David C on Aug 25, 2011 12:40 am • link • report
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=2&xmldoc=In%20AKCO%2020110819014.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR&SizeDisp=7
by David C on Aug 25, 2011 12:41 am • link • report
Jeez. I need to proofread.
by David C on Aug 25, 2011 12:42 am • link • report
You haven't provided any empirical evidence. Where is your empirical evidence that the external cost of "runoff," per passenger-mile of travel, is any greater for autos than for Amtrak? You have none. Yet again, you're just making up facts out of thin air.
The operative word here is most - as in not all. And I'd like to see some data backing that up. I'm not sure it is "most".
Auto insurance is a multi-billion dollar industry in the United States. You haven't produced any evidence that auto accidents produce external costs that are even a small fraction of this amount. Speculation is not evidence.
Energy use is tied to negative externalities like pollution and CO2 emissions. I thought that was obvious.
Another nonsequitur. The issue is subsidies to automobiles and transit. If you have something to say about energy use and subsidies to automobiles and transit, then say it. Otherwise energy use is simply yet another irrelevant digression.
This Delucchi study you cited, for one.
Delucchi's best estimate of total subsidies and external costs of automobile use is 6.9 cents per vehicle-mile, which is about 4.3 cents per passenger-mile. This is just a small fraction of the 20 cents per passenger-mile Amtrak receives in direct subsidies. It is an even smaller fraction of Amtrak's total subsidies and external costs after the costs of negative externalities are added to that 20 cents. Your own citation explicitly contradicts your claim that "indirect subsidies" are a "large part of the puzzle."
Not entirely correct. The comparison is meaningless. But people could criticize the subsidies to roads as a poor investment based on a cost/benefit analysis.
No they can't. "Indirect subsidies" are part of the cost. If, as you claimed, comparisons of direct subsidies are "entirely meaningless" because "indirect subsidies" are "a large part of the puzzle" then cost/benefit comparisons are also "entirely meaningless." You're denying that there's any rational basis for transportation cost/benefit analysis or subsidy policy at all.
by Bertie on Aug 25, 2011 1:31 am • link • report
This is the comment section of a blog, not the Supreme Court. If I don't cite every fact I assert it is because I have a job and a life. If you believe something is incorrect or doubt the veracity you are free to ask for evidence, but accusing me of making stuff up is non-constructive. Should I make a list of all the facts you've stated without citing them? Such as "Auto insurance is a multi-billion dollar industry in the United States." I'd like a citation on that or are you making things up out of thin air?
If, as you claimed, comparisons of direct subsidies are "entirely meaningless" because "indirect subsidies" are "a large part of the puzzle" then cost/benefit comparisons are also "entirely meaningless."
I'm sorry. That doesn't make any sense at all. It is just a bunch of mindless jibber jabber. You're going to have to express your opinions clearly if you want people to understand you.
A cost/benefit analysis is the only thing that matters. Looking at just direct subsidies or just indirect subsidies is incomplete because each of those make up only part of the cost (or part of the puzzle. One needs to look at all of the costs of roads and rails [This includes, but is not limited to, actual government outlays, pollution, CO2, health impact, loss of life, property damage, quality of life, etc..] and benefits [mobility mostly]. So when you insist on looking only at direct subsidies you are only look at part of the cost, which is only half of the cost/benefit analysis.
I'm glad to see that you agree with me on the meaninglessness of comparing only direct subsidies.
If you have something to say about energy use and subsidies to automobiles and transit, then say it.
OK. I'll dumb this down for you. Cars use more energy per passenger mile. It is almost entirely in the form of oil. There are negative externalities associated with oil - which we have discussed. These are indirect subsidies. So the indirect subsidies to cars relating to oil are greater per passenger mile than they are to Amtrak. One must consider these externalities in a cost/benefit analysis and you have not.
You haven't provided any empirical evidence.
You do know what empirical evidence is right? I live in America and see how much pavement there is relating to cars and how little there is relating to trains. I see it as pretty clear that cars cause more stormwater runoff. Perhaps you don't. The point is moot. One must consider stormwater runoff in a cost/benefit analysis and you have not.
You haven't produced any evidence that auto accidents produce external costs that are even a small fraction of this amount.
The ratio of external costs to actual costs is irrelevant. There are external costs - which I've shown - and one must consider them in a cost/benefit analysis. You have not.
Your own citation explicitly contradicts your claim that "indirect subsidies" are a "large part of the puzzle."
No it doesnt. Go back and reread what I wrote.
Delucchi's best estimate of total subsidies and external costs of automobile use is 6.9 cents per vehicle-mile, which is about 4.3 cents per passenger-mile.
Whoa whoa whoa! "Best estimate!" Is some guys "best estimate" now a fact? How is that any better than a guess? You dare to lecture me about facts and figures and then you cite some guys 10 year old "best estimate" as a fact? I'm sorry, that is not a fact. Why don't you come back when you have some.
by David C on Aug 25, 2011 9:32 am • link • report
"Ever traveled from NYC to DC the weekend after Thanksgiving and been on an [commuter] train even though you purchased your ticket through Amtrak?"
No, I haven't, but again you're confused as to why that situation exists. Amtrak rents/borrows commuter rail cars to run "holiday extra" trains on that particular weekend. (Not sure how the payments work, and Amtrak may actually own said commuter cars since it contracts to run some commuter ops.) Otherwise, those commuter cars would be sitting empty and idle all weekend even while plenty of people would be willing to pay for Amtrak seats. If you really want to avoid these trains, avoid booking any Amtrak train number higher than 3000.
The bus lines do exactly the same thing; you'll see plenty of generic white buses running as "Megabus" even on regular weekends. Coach USA (etc.) either sub in their other services' buses or they rent buses from someone else.
by Payton on Aug 25, 2011 1:43 pm • link • report
by Payton on Aug 25, 2011 1:49 pm • link • report
Transportation impacts much of our lives, and it's silly to think about it within its own little silo.
by Payton on Aug 25, 2011 1:56 pm • link • report
Sorry, but if you cannot substantiate your claim that "runoff" costs are higher for autos than Amtrak, then there's no reason to believe it's true. Of course, even if those costs are higher for autos, they would need to be enormously higher to offset Amtrak's huge advantage in direct subsidies.
"Auto insurance is a multi-billion dollar industry in the United States." I'd like a citation on that or are you making things up out of thin air?
Well, let's see. AAA reports that the average annual cost of automobile insurance is around $1,000 per vehicle. The Federal Highway Administration reports that there are about 240 million registered automobiles. So auto insurance is a $200 billion a year industry. Now show us your evidence that the external costs of automobile accidents are anything close to this amount.
A cost/benefit analysis is the only thing that matters.
But you just denied that transportation cost/benefit analysis is meaningful at all. You claimed that comparisons of direct subsidies are "entirely meaningless" because "indirect subsidies" are "a large part of the puzzle." "Indirect subsidies" are costs. If costs are "a large part of the puzzle" then cost/benefit analysis is also "entirely meaningless."
"Best estimate!" Is some guys "best estimate" now a fact? How is that any better than a guess? You dare to lecture me about facts and figures and then you cite some guys 10 year old "best estimate" as a fact? I'm sorry, that is not a fact. Why don't you come back when you have some.
You yourself just cited Delucchi's work. When I point out that that work explicitly contradicts your claim that "indirect subsidies" are " a large part of the puzzle" you dismiss him as "some guy." Make up your mind.
To correct your misrepresentation of Delucchi, he is a research scientist at the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis. He specializes in transportation cost/benefit analysis. He has published extensively on the topic. As far as I'm aware, he is the most prominent researcher of transportation economics in the country, probably the world. No other academic researchers have challenged his basic findings about transportation externalities. If you have information to the contrary, please present it.
by Bertie on Aug 25, 2011 5:13 pm • link • report
by Eileen on Aug 25, 2011 5:20 pm • link • report
Roads provide access to an enormous number of public spaces and historical places, so I have no idea why you think rail promotes these things but roads do not. It's true that rail travel is safer than auto travel, but there's no evidence that the positive externalities of rail are more than a small fraction of the money it receives in public subsidies. And you offer no evidence or argument that "smart growth" provides more benefits than car-oriented development. In light of the very visible costs of smart growth -- high housing prices, slow and inconvenient transportation, noise, crowding, loss of privacy, etc. -- it's not surprising that it's so rare.
by Bertie on Aug 25, 2011 5:31 pm • link • report
But Americans buy $200 billion of automobile insurance annually. So the cost of crashes is internalized to automobile users.
by Bertie on Aug 25, 2011 5:48 pm • link • report
Apology accepted.
if you cannot substantiate your claim that "runoff" costs are higher for autos than Amtrak
According to the EPA 80% of all stormwater runoff comes from auto related impervious surfaces. And they list railroad ROW as areas that absorb stormwater not create runoff. So I'd say that substantiates the claim. Just because I don't know what the costs are, doesn't mean you can ignore it.
But you just denied that transportation cost/benefit analysis is meaningful at all.
No I didn't. I said that comparing part of the costs was meaningless. It's like comparing punters to decide who has a better football team.
You yourself just cited Delucchi's work.
I was using the study you prefer. The one I prefer is better, but I was showing you that even using your own data, direct subsidies (1 cent) are much lower than indirect (which you put at 4.3 cents - 1 cent or 3.3 cents). So I proved that point.
And I didn't use his "best estimate" I used his actual data. If you want to use his data, then have at it, but if you want to use 10 year old guesses than you might as well quote fairies and hallucinations.
By the way, here's a more recent study where he estimates other externalities (But not all of them). It shows that congestion delay, accidents, air pollution, climate change noise, water pollution and energy security costs per passenger mile are all higher for roads than rail. And it notes that it doesn't include all the externalities that it should. Odd that you don't cite this study isn't it?
by David C on Aug 25, 2011 6:07 pm • link • report
According to BTS, roads provide more than 98% of passenger-miles of surface transportation. Amtrak provides less than 1%. Railtrack laid on concrete or other impervious surfaces obviously does not absorb stormwater. Neither do rail stations, maintenance yards or other Amtrak infrastructure. In addition, urban roads are needed to provided access to Amtrak stations, so they are part of the cost of travel by Amtrak too. If you still claim that autos create higher external runoff costs per passenger-mile than Amtrak, present your detailed empirical analysis to that effect.
No I didn't. I said that comparing part of the costs was meaningless.
You said that comparing part of the cost is "entirely meaningless" because another part of the cost is "a large part of the puzzle." If the cost is a "puzzle," then you can't do cost-benefit analysis. Either you accept that the cost can be reasonably estimated, or you deny that cost-benefit analysis is reasonable at all. Which is it?
The one I prefer is better, but I was showing you that even using your own data, direct subsidies (1 cent) are much lower than indirect (which you put at 4.3 cents - 1 cent or 3.3 cents).
Now you're trying to move the goalposts. The issue isn't the difference between direct and indirect subsidies to autos. It's total subsidies per passenger-mile to each mode. We know that direct subsidies alone to Amtrak are 20 cents per passenger-mile. Your own Delucchi citation puts total subsidies to autos at 4.3 cents per passenger-mile. 4.3 is much smaller than 20. It's not even "a large part" of 20. It's only a small part. It is an even smaller part of total subsidies to Amtrak, after negative externalities are added to the 20 cents of direct subsidies. Delucchi's work explicitly contradicts your claim.
By the way, here's a more recent study where he estimates other externalities (But not all of them). It shows that congestion delay, accidents, air pollution, climate change noise, water pollution and energy security costs per passenger mile are all higher for roads than rail.
No it doesn't. He doesn't provide any estimate of congestion, accident, water pollution and non-health air pollution costs for passenger rail. And his "rail" category in that report includes urban rail transit, so it cannot meaningfully be used to compare autos to Amtrak, anyway. And even if it had found that the costs you list are higher for autos than Amtrak, that's not the relevant question. The question is whether the external costs of autos are so much higher than Amtrak's as to offset the 20-to-1 advantage that Amtrak enjoys in direct subsidies. The work by Delucchi that you yourself cited overwhelmingly indicates that they are not.
by Bertie on Aug 25, 2011 7:00 pm • link • report
Stormwater runoff is related to large, continuous impervious areas not small ones according to the EPA. Railroad ties do not count. The EPA considers railroad ROW as areas that absorb rainwater. That's a fact. You can't make up your own facts to counter it.
According to BTS, roads provide more than 98% of passenger-miles of surface transportation. Amtrak provides less than 1%
Roads account for 80% of runoff. If the ratio of passenger miles is 98:1 as you assert, Amtrak would have to account for at least 0.5% of all runoff. Since 20% of runoff is not roads, that means Amtrak would need to account for 1/40th of all the non-road runoff. Are you actually telling me that it is possible that Amtrak owns 1/40th of the building in the United States? That would make them one of the largest landowners in the world. If you think that is possible, then we might as well quit because you clearly aren't thinking clearly. Either you think it's possible, or you have to admit that car infrastructure is responsible for more stormwater per passenger mile than Amtrak.
In addition, urban roads are needed to provided access to Amtrak stations, so they are part of the cost of travel by Amtrak too.
That's just ridiculous. They are not needed. People can get to Amtrak without roads.
If the cost is a "puzzle," then you can't do cost-benefit analysis.
yes you can. If you have all the pieces. Haven't you ever done a puzzle? You know they can be finished right?
The issue isn't the difference between direct and indirect subsidies to autos.
It is too. You asked Where is your evidence that "indirect subsidies" are a "large part of the puzzle" at all That's my evidence. The report you cite.
Your own Delucchi citation
Not mine, yours. Mine puts the subsidy at between 17.5 cents and 47 cents a mile - and that's in 1998 dollars. Today that would be 23 cents to 63 cents. And even that analysis doesn't count everything.
63 is much larger than 20.
The Delucchi study I just cite puts the figure as high as 37 cents per mile (table 11, using all the highest values). 37 is much larger than 20.
The question is whether the external costs of autos are so much higher than Amtrak's as to offset the 20-to-1 advantage that Amtrak enjoys in direct subsidies.
And as I've shown they might be.
But that isn't really the question. The question is, what is the cost of roads and rail (counting all direct and indirect costs) and what are the benefits (again counting it all) and how do they compare?
by David C on Aug 25, 2011 10:25 pm • link • report
Passenger-miles, in millions (Table 1-40):
Highway: 4,236,384
Railroad: 5,914
Fatalities (Table 2-1):
Highway: 33,808
Railroad: 704
Fatalities per million passenger-miles:
Highway: 0.008
Railroad: 0.119
by Bertie on Aug 25, 2011 10:50 pm • link • report
Nope. Those numbers include freight rail. There are way more freight trains than Amtrak trains, so almost none of these are Amtrak crashes. And it includes suicides.
by David C on Aug 25, 2011 10:56 pm • link • report
Concrete supporting railtrack is a "large, continuous impervious area." As are train stations, maintenance yards, and the roads and sidewalks people use to get to and from Amtrak stations.
Roads account for 80% of runoff. If the ratio of passenger miles is 98:1 as you assert, Amtrak would have to account for at least 0.5% of all runoff.
Actually, it's more like 99-to-0.14. Amtrak's share of passenger-miles is truly minuscule. If you seriously think you can show that external "runoff" costs are higher per passenger-mile for autos than for Amtrak, then do so. I'm not interested in any more of your guesses or made-up numbers. If you have a serious case to present for your assertion here, then present it. If you cannot substantiate it, it's worthless.
That's just ridiculous. They are not needed. People can get to Amtrak without roads.
Whatever people "can" do, what they actually do is get to Amtrak stations in cars and buses and bicycles that run on roads. Even walkers use sidewalks, so those sidewalks must be included too. And also urban rail transit that people use to get to Amtrak stations. All of this urban infrastructure that people use to access Amtrak stations must be included in your "runoff costs" estimate for Amtrak, because it is part of the trip.
yes you can. If you have all the pieces. Haven't you ever done a puzzle? You know they can be finished right?
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. If you think transportation cost-benefit analysis is meaningful, then you must think that we can produce reasonable estimates of transportation costs. Those costs may include both direct and indirect subsidies. If we can produce reasonable estimates of these costs, then we can meaningfully compare them. But you denied that we can meaningfully compare them. So make up your mind. Do you think we can produce reasonable estimates of transportation costs or don't you?
by Bertie on Aug 25, 2011 11:19 pm • link • report
I did substantiate it.
Actually, it's more like 99-to-0.14
Who's moving the goalposts now? Above you said it was 1%.
All of this urban infrastructure that people use to access Amtrak stations must be included in your "runoff costs" estimate for Amtrak, because it is part of the trip.
Well then we have to include all the hallways and stairs, elevators and doors used to go to one's car in car trips because it is also part of the trip.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
Yes, I've noticed you are devoid of ideas.
But you denied that we can meaningfully compare them.
No I didn't.
Do you think we can produce reasonable estimates of transportation costs or don't you?
I think people can. You, I'm not sure about. But I'd love to see you try and create a reasonable estimate of all costs and all benefits for various modes. And....go.
by David C on Aug 25, 2011 11:35 pm • link • report
The highway numbers include freight also. The numbers are not definitive, but the fact that they show a fatality rate for Amtrak that is more than 10 times the fatality rate for autos demonstrates that the claim that Amtrak is safer than autos is very dubious.
Not mine, yours.
No, yours. You cited it to support your claim. But it doesn't support your claim. Delucchi estimates total subsidies and external costs for autos at 4.3 cents per passenger-mile. Amtrak receives 20 cents per passenger-mile in direct subsidies alone, before externality costs are even considered. 4.3 is much lower than 20. Delucchi's findings explicitly contradict your claim.
The Delucchi study I just cite puts the figure as high as 37 cents per mile
As I already told you, the Delucchi study you cited doesn't even provide any estimates for Amtrak. Its "rail" category includes all urban rail transit. And doesn't include any estimates for congestion, accidents or water pollution for rail modes. And the "road" figures include motorcycles, buses and all road freight vehicles. So its external costs estimates cannot meaningfully be applied to automobiles alone. Your comparison is meaningless.
by Bertie on Aug 25, 2011 11:47 pm • link • report
That is not a fact. That's not the fatality rate for Amtrak.
Delucchi estimates total subsidies and external costs for autos at 4.3 cents per passenger-mile
In an older study. In the newer study it's as high as 37 cents
he Delucchi study you cited doesn't even provide any estimates for Amtrak.
That's irrelevant.
You cited it to support your claim.
And it supported it. But I wish I hadn't now. I wish I'd used the other study. I was showing that even using your source you were wrong. Which you are.
by David C on Aug 26, 2011 12:03 am • link • report
So is their share of infrastructure. Amtrak has 730 miles of railroad compared to 3.9 million miles of public roads. That doesn't even count, private roads, driveways, the 100 million and 2 billion parking spaces, etc.. Even if rail is just as wide and just as impervious as road (neither of which is true) there is still 5400 times as much road. Amtrak better own a lot of railyards to make up for all that parking.
by David C on Aug 26, 2011 12:34 am • link • report
by Michael on Aug 26, 2011 12:55 pm • link • report
No it doesn't. You don't understand what the numbers you're citing mean. In the table in question, Delucchi presents a range of cost values for each externality. You're cherry-picking the highest value from each range and treating it as an estimate for automobiles. But it's NOT an estimate for automobiles. It's an estimate for road transportation in the aggregate. That includes motorcycles, buses and freight vehicles. In some cases, the high end estimate you're cherry-picking refers only to a particular MODEL of road vehicle. It's not an average for automobiles. If you had to taken the time to actually look at the studies you're citing you might have realized this.
That's irrelevant.
No, it's entirely relevant. In order to compare total subsidies we need estimates of indirect subsidies for Amtrak. Delucchi doesn't provide any. But even counting only direct subsidies to Amtrak, they're still much higher than total subsidies to autos: 20 cents in direct subsidies to Amtrak vs only 4.3 cents in total subsidies to autos. It's not even close. Amtrak enjoys a huge advantage in public subsidies over automobiles, even if we completely ignore Amtrak's negative externalities like accidents and pollution and runoff.
by Bertie on Aug 26, 2011 9:47 pm • link • report
Amtrak uses 21,000 miles of track to operate its passenger rail services. The Empire Builder route alone is over 2,000 miles.
You claimed that railroad track absorbs stormwater and does not produce runoff. Here is a video showing a deluge of stormwater runoff from Amtrak tracks in Pennsylvania.
And here is an article about water pollution by Amtrak, including stormwater discharges from maintenance yards. In 2001, Amtrak paid $1.4 million in penalties and costs to settle an EPA suit that Amtrak "violated numerous requirements of the Clean Water Act, including its storm water provisions, at nine Amtrak sites in New England."
Still waiting for your empirical analysis showing that Amtrak has lower runoff costs per passenger-mile than autos.
by Bertie on Aug 26, 2011 10:13 pm • link • report
Which is why I said "as high as". http://www.vtpi.org/tca/tca06.pdf">Here's another study putting the per passenger mile external cost of driving at 35 cents. That is also higher than 20.
It also puts the passengers per car at 1.42, well below the 1.6 you stated (but didn't cite).
It's an estimate for road transportation in the aggregate. That includes motorcycles, buses and freight vehicles.
Why does that matter? We're talking about road subsidies. Motorcycles use roads. Did you remove motorcycles from your total number of passenger miles? I'm going to need to see the total number of passenger miles by car only (no motorcycles or buses) and also the total number of passenger miles by Amtrak so that I know that you're doing the math right. If you don't think a motorcycle is a passenger vehicle that rides on a road than what is? And since trucks and buses and motorcycles pay gasoline taxes, I assume you removed that part of the gas tax from your direct subsidy calculation right?
In order to compare total subsidies we need estimates of indirect subsidies for Amtrak.
I'm not doing a comparison. You are claiming that even with indirect subsidies, there is no way that Amtrak could be less subsidized because the direct+indirect woun't exceed 20 cents. I've shown that it could since the total of external costs is in the 35 cent range. Amtrak has lower indirect subsidies because of reasons previously discussed so it could easily slip under that if both are considered.
4.3 cents in total subsidies to autos.
But it's not 4.3 cents.
Amtrak uses 21,000 miles of track to operate its passenger rail services.
That's almost all freight rail and it would exist with or without Amtrak. So it isn't a cost of Amtrak, it's a cost of the freight rail industry. Totally separate.
You claimed that railroad track absorbs stormwater and does not produce runoff.
No I didn't. I claimed it absorbs stormwater. Everything can produce runoff with enough rain. Even wetlands can produce runoff. Railroads have a lower Impervious Surface Coefficient(ISC) than roads do according to the EPA.
Still waiting for your empirical analysis
I have to ask again, do you know what empirical means?
by David C on Aug 26, 2011 11:33 pm • link • report
Well, that's because, like you, it's using made-up numbers. The 1.6 estimate for average automobile occupancy comes from the National Household Travel Survey (Table 16, Page 33). In fact, the latest figure is even higher -- 1.67. Again, I was being generous to Amtrak by understating the average occupancy of autos.
Which is why I said "as high as".
No, it's not "as high as." You still don't understand your error. You're citing external cost estimates that apply only to a particular type or model of road vehicle, or that are averages for all types of road vehicle including motorcycles, buses and freight vehicles, and using them as if they are estimates for automobiles. They are NOT estimates for automobiles. You're not even bothering to look at what the numbers you're citing actually mean.
Why does that matter? We're talking about road subsidies. Motorcycles use roads.
No we're not. You're trying to move the goal posts again. We're talking about subsidies for Amtrak vs. automobiles. You cannot use accident or pollution estimates for motorcycles and freight trucks as if they were estimates for automobiles. But that's what you're doing.
I'm not doing a comparison.
So the recent comment by "David C" comparing your meaningless "37 cents" number to the 20 cents per passenger-mile that Amtrak receives in direct subsidies wasn't actually written by you but by an imposter using your name, was it?
But it's not 4.3 cents.
Yes, it is. You yourself cited the study that put the cost at 4.3 cents.
That's almost all freight rail and it would exist with or without Amtrak. So it isn't a cost of Amtrak, it's a cost of the freight rail industry. Totally separate.
It is completely irrelevant whether it would exist without Amtrak. In order to provide its 5.9 billion passenger-miles of transportation, Amtrak uses 21,000 miles of railroad track. Therefore, the external costs of that passenger transportation include the external runoff costs of that 21,000 miles of track, not "730 miles." They also include the external runoff costs of the urban infrastructure that Amtrak riders use to get between Amtrak stations and the endpoints of their trips.
No I didn't.
Yes, you DID. You wrote "absorb stormwater NOT CREATE RUNOFF." Those are your exact words. And the video I just posted shows that your claim is false.
by Bertie on Aug 27, 2011 1:52 am • link • report
Here's the bottom line. You wrote "The only thing that really matters is cost/benefit analysis." Do you believe that transportation researchers have produced a reasonable estimate of the total cost of each transportation mode, including its negative and positive externalities, or don't you? If you do, what is that estimate for each mode, and where are you getting it from? If you don't think there are reasonable estimates, or you just don't know, then you don't have a reasonable basis for challenging the transportation status quo, which is overwhelmingly dominated by automobiles.
by Bertie on Aug 27, 2011 1:58 am • link • report
That includes motorcycles. We aren't - apparantly - talking about motorcycles.
You're citing passengers per vehicle estimates that apply only to a particular type or model of road vehicle, or that are averages for all types of road vehicle including motorcycles and using them as if they are estimates for automobiles. They are NOT estimates for automobiles. You're not even bothering to look at what the numbers you're citing actually mean.
You'll have to find data that doesn't include motorcycles. And since your direct subsidy per passenger mile number is based on this, that is now equally invalid. So, you don't have any accurate data it seems.
the latest figure is even higher
But you'd then be combining 2007 data with 2000 data. That's not a valid number either.
We're talking about subsidies for Amtrak vs. automobiles.
Fine, what are the subsidies for automobiles only then? Remember, you have to exclude any taxes from other uses. And you have to fix the passengers per vehicle number you used. Please cite all numbers so that I can confirm they exclude motorcycles, etc..
I'm not doing a comparison.
Those numbers showed that direct+indirect were larger than direct for Amtrak alone which refuted your claim that indirect subsidies were inadequate to exceed Amtrak's direct. Obviously putting direct+indirect for one vs. direct for the other is not a comparison of like vs. like. Do try to follow along.
You yourself cited the study that put the cost at 4.3 cents.
Hear ye, hear ye! I renounce the Delucchi study as incomplete an irrelevant for it leaves out many of the externalities that matter, has suspicious values and is a decade out of date. Any citation of them was an attempt to hoise Bertie upon his own pitard and is not to be interpreted as acceptance of that study.
Therefore, the external costs of that passenger transportation include the external runoff costs of that 21,000 miles of track, not "730 miles."
For starters, that isn't how externalities are calculated. Second, even if you're going to do it this wrong way, Amtrak should be dinged only for their share of the usage of those freight lines. or else the stormwater impact will be counted twice - once for Amtrak and once for freight. At worst Amtrak is responsible for only a small share of the runoff (which is half as large per mile as roads).
Also, a more relevant number is the miles of road-lane, not road. That's 8.5 million miles.
by David C on Aug 27, 2011 10:36 am • link • report
No they have not.
If you don't think there are reasonable estimates, or you just don't know, then you don't have a reasonable basis for challenging the transportation status quo, which is overwhelmingly dominated by automobiles.
I've not challenged the status quo. My point is that comparing direct subsidies is misleading because it fails to consider the larger indirect subsidies. It also ignores other costs and it ignores benefits. So to say that the direct subsidies to Amtrak ppm are larger than cars ppm is as meaningful as saying that one team has a better punter than the other. So what?
My bottom line to you is what do you think that the direct subsidy comparison means? How should it effect decision making?
by David C on Aug 27, 2011 10:40 am • link • report
Motorcycles contribute about 0.6% of total passenger-miles of travel in private passenger road vehicles. Their effect on the average vehicle occupancy statistic is negligible. Yet another irrelevant quibble.
But you'd then be combining 2007 data with 2000 data. That's not a valid number either.
It is entirely valid. The occupancy statistic for 2001 was also over 1.6. It's been at or above 1.59 in every NHTS survey going back to at least 1977. You still don't seem to understand that the precise value doesn't matter. Direct subsidies to Amtrak (20 cents per passenger-mile) are so enormously larger than the external costs of automobiles calculated using any of these values that it is irrelevant to the conclusion that total subsidies overwhelmingly favor Amtrak. Your comments are one irrelevant quibble after another.
I'm not doing a comparison.
You have repeatedly compared cost estimates between Amtrak and automobiles. Your comparisons are meaningless, for the reasons I have explained at length.
I renounce the Delucchi study as incomplete an irrelevant for it leaves out many of the externalities that matter,
What externalities that matter? How do you know they matter?
For starters, that isn't how externalities are calculated. Second, even if you're going to do it this wrong way, Amtrak should be dinged only for their share of the usage of those freight lines. or else the stormwater impact will be counted twice - once for Amtrak and once for freight.
Yet another basic error. The cost of providing Amtrak services includes the entire cost of the railroad track used to provide those services. The fact that some of that track is also used to provide other services is completely irrelevant to the costs of Amtrak. If those other services did not exist, the track would still be needed for the services provided by Amtrak.
by Bertie on Aug 27, 2011 5:06 pm • link • report
It's not merely that you haven't challenged the status quo. You have now denied that there is any basis for challenging the status quo. Since you deny that there are reasonable estimates of the cost of each transportation mode, you cannot claim that policies to shift our transportation mix away from automobiles and towards alternatives such as Amtrak and urban mass transit would produce a net benefit rather than a net loss.
So much for increased spending on Amtrak, or raising the gasoline tax, or expanding urban light rail, or building HSR. According to you, none of these policies can be justified on cost/benefit grounds, which, you say, is "the only thing that really matters." I'm glad you agree me that these policies are not justified.
by Bertie on Aug 27, 2011 5:28 pm • link • report
How do you know that? Where is your data? Where is your evidence? Stop pretending that you can substitute wishful thinking for facts and figures. You're just making stuff up. Unless you know exactly how much impact and how many passengers motorcycles have your number is utterly meaningless. If including motorcycles matters when I do it, it matters when you do it.
You still don't seem to understand that the precise value doesn't matter.
No. You don't understand that if you're just guessing at numbers, you don't really have a number.
What externalities that matter?
safety and health impacts, CO2 production, the use of eminent domain, government subsidy (which in his 6.9 cents per vehicle-mile number he has as $0.00, which you yourself have contradicted), the costs of reduced transport options, the external costs of resource consumption, costs due to the the barrier effect (also called “severance”) which refers to delays that roads and traffic cause to nonmotorized travel, land use impacts, hydrologic impacts and waste disposal.
How do you know they matter?
It's in the vtpi cost-benefit analysis. And because Amtrak has 3 fatalities in 2009, while cars contributed to about 30,000 (well over the 700:1 ratio you cited). And because cars use over 1000 times as much fuel as Amtrak (again over the 700:1 ratio).
The cost of providing Amtrak services includes the entire cost of the railroad track used to provide those services.
Well then we'll need to up the road costs to include the entire cost of every police officer who ever does a traffic stop or investigates anything related to car theft. The fact that some of those officers are also used to provide other services is completely irrelevant to the costs of roads. If those other services did not exist, the police would still be needed for the services provided by roads. Ditto with the entire Pentagon Budget. And the entire electric grid (since some cars are electric). And I'm sure there is more.
by David C on Aug 27, 2011 11:40 pm • link • report
Incorrect. There is a need to do a through cost-benefit analysis, which currently does not exist. That is a change to the current status quo. Then we need to make policy decisions informed by those.
In the absence of such information, we still have to make policy decisions. And since rail is indisputably so much less energy intensive and safer than driving it makes sense to fund further rail. It makes sense to add congestion pricing to roads to decrease congestion. It makes sense to tax CO2 production. It makes sense to tax pollution. And if we insist on paying for roads with a user fee on gasoline, then it makes sense to raise the gas tax.
Since you deny that there are reasonable estimates of the cost of each transportation mode, you cannot claim that policies to shift our transportation mix away from automobiles and towards alternatives such as Amtrak and urban mass transit would produce a net benefit rather than a net loss.
And you cannot claim that policies to continue funding automobiles to the exclusion of Amtrak and urban mass transit would produce a net benefit rather than a net loss.
by David C on Aug 27, 2011 11:47 pm • link • report
From the National Transportation Statistics that I already cited.
You don't understand that if you're just guessing at numbers, you don't really have a number.
I'm not guessing. The number comes from the National Household Travel Survey, as I already told you. I even gave you table and page numbers.
safety and health impacts, CO2 production, the use of eminent domain, government subsidy (which in his 6.9 cents per vehicle-mile number he has as $0.00, which you yourself have contradicted), the costs of reduced transport options, the external costs of resource consumption, costs due to the the barrier effect (also called “severance”) which refers to delays that roads and traffic cause to nonmotorized travel, land use impacts, hydrologic impacts and waste disposal.
Delucchi's estimate includes external costs of air and water pollution and accidents. What other supposed external "safety and health" and "CO2 production" costs "that matter" are you referring to, and how do you know they matter?
I have no idea what supposed external costs you are referring to from "the use of eminent domain," "government subsidy," "the costs of reduced transport options," "the external costs of resource consumption," "land use impacts," "hydrologic impacts" or "waste disposal." What exactly is the nature of these supposed external costs? How do you know they "matter?"
Ditto for "delays that roads and traffic cause to nonmotorized travel." I have no idea why you think bicyclists and walkers would be able to travel faster if we didn't have roads.
It's in the vtpi cost-benefit analysis
Why does that mean they matter? Where's the analysis showing that any of these costs are both real and significant enough to be relevant, rather than yet more of your endless irrelevant quibbles?
And because Amtrak has 3 fatalities in 2009, while cars contributed to about 30,000 (well over the 700:1 ratio you cited).
Another of your apples-to-oranges comparisons. The number you cite for Amtrak refers to fatalities among passengers on trains only. It doesn't include people killed by Amtrak on tracks or in stations or elsewhere. As I showed you earlier, the total number of railroad fatalities reported for 2009 is 704. That is about 15 times as many fatalities per passenger-mile as highways. Based on these numbers, it seems likely that Amtrak kills more people per passenger-mile than road vehicles.
And because cars use over 1000 times as much fuel as Amtrak (again over the 700:1 ratio).
Delucchi's estimate includes the cost of pollution, so again, I have no idea what you're referring to here.
Well then we'll need to up the road costs to include the entire cost of every police officer who ever does a traffic stop or investigates anything related to car theft.
Why? Amtrak obviously needs railroad track to move its passengers. Automobiles do not need police officers to move theirs. The rest of your paragraph here is similarly bizarre.
by Bertie on Aug 28, 2011 12:25 am • link • report
If the analysis does not exist, there is no basis for cost-benefit claims and hence no basis for challenging our current transportation policies on cost-benefit grounds (which, according to you, is "the only thing that really matters.")
In the absence of such information, we still have to make policy decisions.
But you just denied that we have any basis for making such decisions without that information.
And since rail is indisputably so much less energy intensive and safer than driving it makes sense to fund further rail. It makes sense to add congestion pricing to roads to decrease congestion. It makes sense to tax CO2 production. It makes sense to tax pollution. And if we insist on paying for roads with a user fee on gasoline, then it makes sense to raise the gas tax.
You're contradicting yourself. Those things would only "make sense" if their benefits exceeded their costs. In order to determine whether their benefits would exceed their costs we need to do cost-benefit analysis. But you deny that we have reasonable cost estimates of each transportation mode. Without those estimates, we can't do cost-benefit analysis. So there's no basis for your claim that those changes would "make sense." This is the corner you've painted yourself into.
by Bertie on Aug 28, 2011 12:39 am • link • report
Where does it say that the effect of motorcyles "on the average vehicle occupancy statistic is negligibl?"
The number comes from the National Household Travel Survey
That includes motorcycles. We aren't discussing motorcycles.
What other supposed external "safety and health" and "CO2 production" costs "that matter" are you referring to, and how do you know they matter?
CO2 production is not pollution. So he didn't account for that. Health impacts include not just "accidents" but the health impact of driving (stress, sitting for long periods and the reduced quality of air inside the car).
This brings up a great point. Looking at Delucchi's paper, it's unclear how he derived any of these numbers. He doesn't source any reasarch at all. He just throws the numbers out there. And many of his numbers are "based on his studied judgement." The more I read his paper, the more skeptical I become. In fact, he's entirely unreliable. Do you have any other research that backs him up? For example his "accident" number is lower than 3 out of 4 of the studies cited by VTPI. He has 0 cents listed for his government subsidy and you yourself have put it at 1 cent. He thinks unpriced parking ranges from 0 to 8 cents, but puts 0 cents as his best guess. The research of Dr. Shoup completely contradicts this. Like I said, his paper is entirely suspect and so your citing it is too.
have no idea what supposed external costs you are referring to from "the use of eminent domain," "government subsidy," "the costs of reduced transport options," "the external costs of resource consumption," "land use impacts," "hydrologic impacts" or "waste disposal." What exactly is the nature of these supposed external costs? How do you know they "matter?"
This is all covered in the VTPI analysis.
I have no idea why you think bicyclists and walkers would be able to travel faster if we didn't have roads.
We aren't talking about roads, remember? We're talking about cars. Who said that without cars we'd have no roads? we had roads before cars right?
This is also covered in the VTPI report. See the following studies for more:
J.M. Clark and B.J. Hutton (1991), The Appraisal of Community Severance, Transport Research
Laboratory (www.trl.co.uk), Report #135; Julian Hine and John Russel (1993), “Traffic Barriers and
Pedestrian Crossing Behavior,” Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 1 No. 4,
(www.elsevier.com/locate/jtrangeo), pp. 230-239.
It's in the vtpi cost-benefit analysis
Why does that mean they matter? Where's the analysis showing that any of these costs are both real and significant enough to be relevant
Like I said, it's in the VTPI analysis. The analysis you're looking for is in the analysis I cited.
As I showed you earlier, the total number of railroad fatalities reported for 2009 is 704.
And as I mentioned that includes freight rail and commuter rail. Those two dwarf Amtrak. Talk about apples to oranges. Here's another citation for you.
".04 - Number of fatalities per 100 million passenger miles experienced by Amtrak over the last 30 years. By comparison, the fatality rate for autos is 1.29 per 100 million passenger miles. (National Safety Council)"
Delucchi's estimate includes the cost of pollution, so again, I have no idea what you're referring to here.
Delucchi's numbers are uncited and unreliable. Also those costs are currently external. They should be moved internal.
If the analysis does not exist, there is no basis for cost-benefit claims and hence no basis for challenging our current transportation policies on cost-benefit grounds
In the absence of a cost-benefit analysis, decisions still must be made. The alternative is to spend no money on any transportation and to not tax transportation. Which in itself is a decision. You're making an argument for paralysis. That is not a policy.
Those things would only "make sense" if their benefits exceeded their costs.
You are talking my statement that "it is the only thing that matters" far too literally - it was in reference to direct subsidies only. We can still price externalities. No corner painted.
by David C on Aug 28, 2011 12:01 pm • link • report
It doesn't. That fact is a mathematical consequence of motorcycles' negligible share of total passenger-miles.
CO2 production is not pollution. So he didn't account for that.
Pollution is environmental contaminants that have an adverse effect on the ecosystem. CO2 can definitely be a pollutant. Delucchi's estimates include pollution.
Health impacts include not just "accidents" but the health impact of driving (stress, sitting for long periods and the reduced quality of air inside the car).
That's an internal cost, not an external one. You still keep confusing them.
Looking at Delucchi's paper, it's unclear how he derived any of these numbers. He doesn't source any reasarch at all.
Yes he does source research, in the Futher Reading section at the end of the paper. The paper you're referring to is a summary, not a detailed analysis.
For example his "accident" number is lower than 3 out of 4 of the studies cited by VTPI.
What studies cited by vtpi? "vtpi", by the way, is not an academic or government research organization.
He has 0 cents listed for his government subsidy and you yourself have put it at 1 cent. He thinks unpriced parking ranges from 0 to 8 cents, but puts 0 cents as his best guess.
No, it's not a "guess." It's an estimate. Guessing is what you're doing. Delucchi states: "On the auto side of the ledger, there is some question as to whether “free” parking is a subsidy. I believe it is not, at least not entirely, because in perfect markets some (and perhaps most) parking would remain unpriced." Why should unpriced street parking and unpriced private off-street parking be considered a subsidy to automobiles?
This is all covered in the VTPI analysis
No it isn't. There's no explanation of these alleged costs in the vtpi document you linked to.
We aren't talking about roads, remember?
Yes, you ARE talking about roads. The alleged external cost you described is "delays that ROADS and traffic cause to nonmotorized travel." Again, I have no idea why you think nonmotorized travel would be faster without roads. The paper you cite doesn't even attempt to estimate the net effect of roads on nonmotorized travel speeds. It merely describes a particular way in which a heavily used road may reduce such speeds for particular types of maneuver, but it doesn't discuss any ways in which roads increase nonmotorized travel speeds. Why do you think riding a bike or walking on undeveloped land is, on average, faster than doing so on a paved, leveled roadway? Do you have any evidence to support this implausible proposition?
Like I said, it's in the VTPI analysis.
As I already pointed out, there is no analysis of these alleged costs in the vtpi document you linked to. There's just some numbers, which appear to have been made up out of thin air.
by Bertie on Aug 28, 2011 2:51 pm • link • report
Your citation refers to events "over the past 30 years." I'm not talking about safety 30 years ago. I'm talking about safety now. Automobiles have become much safer over the past few decades and are likely to become even safer in the future. But even now, autos appear to be safer per passenger-mile than Amtrak.
I already provided numbers showing that in 2009, the most recent year for which the data is available, railroads killed about 15 times as many people as road vehicles. It's true that this includes fatalities from freight vehicles as well as passenger vehicles. But the Federal Railroad Administration breaks down the numbers for freight and Amtrak in its safety reports here.
As you can see from Table 1-4 in the most recent report (May 2011), total fatalities by Amtrak in 2009 was 139. This is a fatality rate about of 0.023 per million passenger-miles. That is three times the fatality rate of roads (0.008). In 2009, it appears that Amtrak killed three times as many people per passenger-mile as all passenger and freight vehicles on roads combined.
by Bertie on Aug 28, 2011 3:14 pm • link • report
Yes, of course decisions must still be made. But you claim there is no reasonable basis for such decisions, because there are no reasonable estimates of the costs of each mode. I'm not arguing for paralysis. You're arguing that any decision we make is arbitrary, because we don't know whether it will produce a net benefit or a net cost.
You are talking my statement that "it is the only thing that matters" far too literally - it was in reference to direct subsidies only. We can still price externalities. No corner painted.
You're contradicting yourself again. You claimed that reasonable estimates of the cost of each mode "do not exist." How can we price externalities if we don't have reasonable estimates of their cost? How can we do cost-benefit analysis if we don't have reasonable estimates of cost?
by Bertie on Aug 28, 2011 3:33 pm • link • report
You can't prove that until you calculate it. You're just speculating.
CO2 can definitely be a pollutant. Delucchi's estimates include pollution.
But he doesn't thinks it's a pollutant. Which is why he counts them separately 10 years later. C02 is a natural byproduct of life. The EPA is legally allowed to regulate it as a pollutant, but it is not a pollutant.
That's an internal cost, not an external one. You still keep confusing them.
Really health insurance pay outs are internal? Lost work is internal? Social Security and long term disability is internal? That's odd.
in the Futher Reading section at the end of the paper. The paper you're referring to is a summary, not a detailed analysis.
No. He doesn't source each piece of data, so it's impossible to check. And he cites some papers that are now 30 years old. What was that you said about "right now". Also, a summary in a non-peer-reveiwed magazine article is not compelling. The first paper on his list - the only one of his - isn't even one on his website. Not credible.
"vtpi", by the way, is not an academic or government research organization.
They're an independent research organization. How does that matter?
Delucchi states: "On the auto side of the ledger, there is some question as to whether “free” parking is a subsidy. I believe it is not, at least not entirely, because in perfect markets some (and perhaps most) parking would remain unpriced."
But in 2004 he changed his mind.
"The total annualized cost of unpriced parking is at a minimum several tens of billions dollars per year (Delucchi, 2004b)."
There's just some numbers, which appear to have been made up out of thin air.
There are dozens and dozens of citations in the VTPI report. More than I can say for the Delucchi article.
This is a fatality rate about of 0.023 per million passenger-miles. That is three times the fatality rate of roads (0.008).
That would be true if your last number was right, but it isn't. It's 1.3 per 100 million vehicle miles. Which is actaully 0.8125 (using your 1.6 passengers per car number) or 100 times larger then the number you just gave and 40 times larger than Amtrak. And that doesn't include pedestrians and cyclists killed by cars.
You're arguing that any decision we make is arbitrary, because we don't know whether it will produce a net benefit or a net cost.
I'm saying that in a philosophical argument about subsidies any decision is arbitrary. But in a real-world policy decision we should err on the side of safety, health and the environment. And that means supporting rail.
You claimed that reasonable estimates of the cost of each mode "do not exist." How can we price externalities if we don't have reasonable estimates of their cost?
Mode does not equal externality. We know the costs of externalities. So that's easy to price.
by David C on Aug 28, 2011 7:31 pm • link • report
This has been real. But it's clear I'm not dealing with a reasonable or honest person. You ignore data that contradicts your positions, change rules midway, state things that are clearly untrue and in are obsessed with pushing your agenda - facts be damned.
You're the only person in the world who thinks Amtrak is more deadly than cars. You're the only person in the world who thinks Amtrak creates more stormwater than roads (despite owning only $10B worth of real estate in the whole US - according to the Amtrak annual report).
And you're more than a little bit rude. Accusing me of not reading things etc...
There really is no point in continuing this. I will say that looking at the fatality rate of driving and the negative health impacts of driving, I hope you drive a lot every single day.
by David C on Aug 28, 2011 7:36 pm • link • report
You can't even recognize assertions that are obviously mathematically absurd. Even if we assume that every single motorcycle always carried two passengers, it would reduce the average number of automobile passengers by only 0.01.
0.6%*2 + 99.4%*y = 1.60
y = 1.59
So this is yet another in your endless series of irrelevant quibbles.
But he doesn't thinks it's a pollutant.
Yes he does. He specifically includes CO2 in the paper he cites in the summary.
Really health insurance pay outs are internal? Lost work is internal? Social Security and long term disability is internal?
No. Health costs to automobile users arising from their automobile use, which is the cost you falsely claimed to be external, are an internal cost to those users.
But in 2004 he changed his mind. "The total annualized cost of unpriced parking is at a minimum several tens of billions dollars per year (Delucchi, 2004b).
No he didn't change his mind. This again illustrates that you don't understand the difference between basic economic concepts. The issue is the EXTERNAL costs of parking, not the cost of unpriced parking. Delucchi clearly distinguishes these concepts in the document you're citing.
There are dozens and dozens of citations in the VTPI report.
The vtpi document you linked to doesn't provide any analysis or primary source at all for its external cost numbers. They appear to have just been made up by the author.
That would be true if your last number was right, but it isn't. It's 1.3 per 100 million vehicle miles.
My last number is right. The number in the document you link to is fatalities per "100 million vehicle miles," NOT per million passenger-miles. This is yet another elementary blunder on your part.
The highway fatality rate for 2009 was 0.008 per million passenger-miles. The passenger-miles and number of fatalities data come from the National Transportation Statistics. I already linked to the relevant tables and showed you the numbers here. This fatality rate is only ONE-THIRD the fatality rate for Amtrak.
by Bertie on Aug 28, 2011 9:17 pm • link • report
You are flatly contradicting yourself. You previously claimed that externality costs are a "puzzle" and hence that reasonable estimates of costs for each mode of transportation "do not exist."
Now you're saying we know what the externality costs are. So what are they? What are the externality costs of automobiles and Amtrak? And where are you getting these cost numbers from?
by Bertie on Aug 28, 2011 9:29 pm • link • report
@Bertie and David C:
I think the point both of you are missing is that a key reason to increase investment in passenger rail is purely as a matter of consumer choice. Most Americans ought to be able to choose train travel as easily as they can air or auto travel, just like we have choices in the food we eat and the clothes we wear. Many cannot drive or fly for medical reasons, and these people are at a severe disadvantage today. Also, many more would prefer to travel by train rather than drive or fly (or take a bus) because the train is a more comfortable and enjoyable way to travel.
But the skeletal Amtrak network that exists today (many places without service, and most with only one train a day, some of which only serve certain cities at inconvenient hours) makes train travel not a viable option for many Americans. If we had a more expansive passenger train network, then the number of passenger-miles traveled by train would not be so miniscule.
If Amtrak were able to run more trains and carry more passengers, and thus earn more revenue per unit of cost since most of its costs (tracks, stations, administration), are fixed, then it could lower its subsidy-per-passenger-mile requirement.
Because of the high fixed costs inherent in railroading, it actually costs the taxpayer more, on a per-passenger-mile basis, to run today's skeletal Amtrak network than it would to run a much more robust intercity passenger rail system. Yes, Amtrak's annual subsidy would be greater if it had a bigger system, but it would be carrying a lot more people, making the per-passenger-mile subsidy smaller.
Amtrak would require a large short-term infusion of capital funding to expand its system, but the "traveler choice" argument alone justifies this expenditure. A better-capitalized system would also achieve greater energy efficiency, and many more people traveling by train would mean more dense, less resource-intensive development patterns.
by Malcolm K. on Aug 29, 2011 11:03 am • link • report
David C. did address this at least once on Aug 27 11:40pm: Bertie asked, "What externalities that matter?"
David C. answered: "...safety and health impacts, CO2 production, the use of eminent domain, government subsidy,... the costs of reduced transport options..."
by Tina on Aug 29, 2011 11:27 am • link • report
by David C on Aug 29, 2011 11:52 am • link • report
by Bertie on Aug 29, 2011 1:36 pm • link • report
Amtrak is still not very competitive with alternative modes, except in a few places like the northeast corridor.
Its in the NE corridor where Amtrak is a viable option because of scheduling and reach of service, so the "Most people who already have the option of using Amtrak choose to fly or drive instead (or, less commonly, take a bus), because even with its large subsidy Amtrak is still not very competitive with alternative modes, precisely b/c Amtrak is NOT a good alternative option like it is in the NE corridor...where as you observe, it is a competitive mode.
You just made the argument for more train service by pointing out that when its a decent option its competitive.
by Tina on Aug 29, 2011 1:55 pm • link • report
Amtrak's low ridership numbers are also a result of capacity: load factors are a good deal higher on the long-distance trains than on the Northeast Corridor. Many people who are currently served by Amtrak, but choose to drive or fly instead, are turned away because long-distance trains often sell out within a few days of departure, and sleeper space sells out sometimes months in advance. They are also turned away from Amtrak by inconvenient departure times, lack of schedules to choose from, and unreliability (trains often being hours late), all of which can be fixed with more capital investment.
I'm sure there are a fair number of people who barely travel at all (and thus aren't factored into any current travel by mode statistics), who are turned away from flying and driving because of the hassles and costs involved, but would travel more often if convenient, affordable train service were available to them.
My point is: if you make capital investment towards making Amtrak a more viable choice for more Americans -- one that is frequent, reliable and affordable -- then Amtrak can compete on a more level playing field with all other modes, and thus the subsidy requirement per passenger mile will go down and taxpayers will get more bang for their Amtrak buck.
For underserved markets that can't be effectively served by train, I would also support subsidies for air and bus service, especially bus service that feeds into the rail network.
by Malcolm K. on Aug 29, 2011 2:05 pm • link • report
No, Amtrak is more viable in the northeast corridor because it links four large, dense cities that are only a few hundred miles apart, that have lots of jobs and people close to the downtown train stations, and that have extensive mass transit systems to get riders between the Amtrak station and the endpoints of their trip. These conditions make Amtrak much more competitive against alternative modes, although it seems to be having a lot of difficulty competing with the new intercity bus services (Boltbus, Megabus, etc.) at the low end of the market.
by Bertie on Aug 29, 2011 2:24 pm • link • report
The other place the train works very well is Chicago to Toronto.
Look, I can see you're just going to keep saying the train works as an option in the NE corridor b/c it a good option there, and it doesn't in other places where its not a good option...w/o acknowledging that if the train were a good option in more places it would ...be a good option and get used more.
by Tina on Aug 29, 2011 2:41 pm • link • report
One of the reasons Amtrak is even remotely viable in the northeast corridor is because it has a huge potential base of customers. There are huge numbers of affluent businessmen and government officials who need to travel regularly between downtown offices in Washington, Philadelphia, New York and Boston, and who can quickly get between the office and the Amtrak stations in each city by taxi or subway. There's also a huge non-business market. New York City alone has 8 million people. Cleveland, Toledo and Detroit combined have less than 1.5 million. And in case you haven't heard, the rustbelt is dying. Cleveland and Detroit each lost a quarter of their population between 2000 and 2010. Toledo's went down too. The central areas of the cities have been especially hard hit. There simply isn't the market to support viable passenger rail service in this region. Or in any other region outside the northeast. That's why Amtrak needs such large subsidies.
by Bertie on Aug 29, 2011 5:56 pm • link • report
As I see your fundamental claim is that - according to Delucchi - the indirect subsidy ppm is only 4.3 cents per passenger-mile and thus even with all the negative externalities considered and the 1 cent government subsidy the auto subsidy is still less than the 20 cent ppm direct subsidy to Amtrak.
So, the basis of my argument is that Delucchi's analysis is incomplete or wrong.
There are several factors listed above which he doesn't consider. You claimed to not understand these external costs (oddly enough, even "government subsidy" which is pretty clearcut and which you yourself have admitted is 1 cent ppm). VTPI did an analysis that considered these other factors that put the subsidy to cars at 35 cents ppm. Looking back I realize you were confused because I only linked to one of the subreports there. I think when you look at the new link you'll see that all of these other externalities are addressed.
Where Delucchi did consider externalities, I fundamentally disagree with some of his judgement calls. For example, Delucchi doesn't think unpriced parking is an external cost because it's bundled - it is, for example, added to the cost of items you buy at the grocery. But that only works if everyone drives. Not everyone drives. So when I walk to the store, I pay for parking I don't use. Considering that most of America has parking minumums it means I pay (through bundling) for parking I don't use in a lot of places. There are other places where he made judgement calls and I disagree with them as well. You can agree with him, but Delucchi is not God, so I don't have to.
I do not know what the social costs of Amtrak are. It is quite possible that the external costs plus the direct costs are lower than 35 cents that VTPI assigned to autos. Many of the costs Delucchi left out impact autos more than Amtrak. Without knowing all the subsidies, any discussion of relative subsidies is kind of pointless. A full cost-benefit analysis is what is really relevant.
However, policy makers need to make decisions. While we haven't fully priced the social costs of Amtrak, there are many estimates of the cost of CO2 (there is even a market to trade CO2 credits), air pollutants and congestion. It would be wise to price these items as they relate to energy, including gasoline and diesel and add them to the cost through a cap or a tax. Since cars are primarily run on gasoline, while Amtrak is primarily run on electricity, this will likely hit drivers more than Amtrak. It would also be wise to institute congestion pricing in cities where it makes sense.
Furthermore, the gas tax is no longer meeting the need for which is has been used - covering the Highway/transportation trust fund. So it also makes sense to raise the gas tax to cover that. A higher gas tax probably makes more sense than higher CAFE standards too.
Those decisions really aren't about Amtrak except that fuel costs will go up slightly.
The argument that investing more in Amtrak might make the system cheaper ppm also has some validity. Passenger miles on Amtrak have been increasing since 2005 while passenger miles by car have been dropping. The subsidy ppm has been dropping as well (excluding one-tiem ARRA money which was more about job creation and stimulus) while the subsidy for autos has been going up. It certainly seems like people are switching, albeit slowly. In the end people want rail, and that is - in the absence of a cost-benefit analysis - really the most important metric and the main reason why greater investment is needed.
by David C on Aug 29, 2011 6:12 pm • link • report
I understand the point that a higher total subsidy might reduce the subsidy per passenger-mile. But unless the marginal benefit from the higher number of passenger-miles was greater than the marginal cost from the higher total subsidy, this would be a net loss. Even if it were a net benefit overall, unless the marginal benefit to taxpayers specifically (i.e., not including the marginal benefit to passengers), was greater than the increase in subsidy, it would still be a net loss to taxpayers. This latter point about the distribution of costs and benefits is another problem for Amtrak. Why should millions of ordinary taxpayers all over the country pay higher taxes so that wealthy lawyers and bankers in New York and Washington can enjoy subsidized business trips on the Acela, or so that affluent retirees can enjoy subsidized vacation trips on the Sunset Limited? If you could demonstrate that Amtrak subsidies meet a genuine social need rather than being a big transfer of wealth to people who don't deserve it there'd probably be less resistance to them.
by Bertie on Aug 29, 2011 6:53 pm • link • report
I'm still waiting for you to make up your mind about whether we have a reasonable estimate of externality costs. At various times in the course of this discussion, you have said that externality costs are a "puzzle" and have offered externality cost estimates for automobiles of "as high as 37 cents," "35 cents," and "23 cents to 63 cents" per passenger-mile. This is a huge spread of values.
But you NOW say that "We know the costs of externalities. So that's easy to price." So I ask again, if you think we know the costs of externalities, WHAT ARE THEY? What are the externality costs of automobiles per passenger-mile? What are the externality costs of Amtrak per passenger-mile? If you now think we know these costs, then give us the numbers, and tell us where you're getting them from.
by Bertie on Aug 29, 2011 7:18 pm • link • report
VTPI did an analysis that considered these other factors that put the subsidy to cars at 35 cents ppm.
I do not know what the social costs of Amtrak are.
At various times in the course of this discussion, you have said that externality costs are a "puzzle" and have offered externality cost estimates for automobiles of "as high as 37 cents," "35 cents," and "23 cents to 63 cents" per passenger-mile. This is a huge spread of values.
I believe you're confused. All of these "quotes" are out of context and I've never said what you're implying. For example, I never said that externality costs are a puzzle.
I believe you're smart enough to go back and reread the comment thread and see your errors. Please don't prove me wrong by showing you aren't.
Furthermore, is this what you want to discuss? What you think I said versus what I think I said? This isn't about me. It doesn't change any of the core facts. It is a waste of our time and a distraction. Every time you resort to these kind of attacks you run the risk of seeming petty or like you've run out of real criticisms. I'm not saying that you're intentionally taking my words out of context or trying to twist my words to make it seem like I've said something I have not, but to a suspicious sort it might seem that way.
if you think we know the costs of externalities, WHAT ARE THEY? What are the externality costs of automobiles per passenger-mile?
It's in the VTPI analysis.
? What are the externality costs of Amtrak per passenger-mile?
As I said I don't know all of them. But the VTPI analysis covers the ones I think we should price and accordingly tax. For example they put CO2 at $35 a ton. They also document several estimates for air pollution per ton. Congestion would obviously be a local market and would vary from city to city, but congestion pricing has been around for several years in several cities so it is not difficult to replicate.
by David C on Aug 29, 2011 10:16 pm • link • report
I don't know what you mean by "social costs" here. Do you mean externality costs? If so, it contradicts your statement "We know the costs of externalities." So I still don't know from your numerous conflicting and confusing statements regarding the state of our understanding of externality costs whether you believe we know those costs or not. I don't know why you can't simply answer this question clearly. Telling me what you think vtpi estimated does not answer the question.
If it is your position that we do not know (or have a reasonable estimate of) the costs of externalities for Amtrak, then you have no basis for claiming that policies to expand Amtrak would produce a net benefit rather than a net cost.
by Bertie on Aug 29, 2011 10:43 pm • link • report
While we haven't fully priced the social costs of Amtrak, there are many estimates of the cost of CO2 (there is even a market to trade CO2 credits), air pollutants and congestion. It would be wise to price these items as they relate to energy, including gasoline and diesel and add them to the cost through a cap or a tax. Since cars are primarily run on gasoline, while Amtrak is primarily run on electricity, this will likely hit drivers more than Amtrak. It would also be wise to institute congestion pricing in cities where it makes sense.
Furthermore, the gas tax is no longer meeting the need for which is has been used - covering the Highway/transportation trust fund. So it also makes sense to raise the gas tax to cover that. A higher gas tax probably makes more sense than higher CAFE standards too.
Those decisions really aren't about Amtrak except that fuel costs will go up slightly.
The argument that investing more in Amtrak might make the system cheaper ppm also has some validity. Passenger miles on Amtrak have been increasing since 2005 while passenger miles by car have been dropping. The subsidy ppm has been dropping as well (excluding one-tiem ARRA money which was more about job creation and stimulus) while the subsidy for autos has been going up. It certainly seems like people are switching, albeit slowly. In the end people want rail, and that is - in the absence of a cost-benefit analysis - really the most important metric and the main reason why greater investment is needed.
by David C on Aug 29, 2011 10:58 pm • link • report
Perhaps page 1 of this will help.
by David C on Aug 29, 2011 11:00 pm • link • report
The way we determine what kind of public policies and laws people want is through the political process, not through your wishful-thinking-presented-as-fact ("people want rail"). The outcome of the political process doesn't show much support for a significant expansion of Amtrak. That would require a large increase in Amtrak's annual appropriation, sustained indefinitely.
by Bertie on Aug 29, 2011 11:01 pm • link • report
Amtrak funding has increased. Ridership has increased. People want rail.
by David C on Aug 29, 2011 11:05 pm • link • report
Do you believe we know (or have a reasonable estimate of) the externality costs of Amtrak or don't you?
by Bertie on Aug 29, 2011 11:06 pm • link • report
I do not know what the social costs of Amtrak are.
by David C on Aug 29, 2011 11:07 pm • link • report
Amtrak funding and ridership fluctuates with economic conditions, the balance of political power in Washington between the two parties, and other factors. It would be a serious error to interpret a short-term fluctuation as a long-term trend, whether favorable or unfavorable. The long-term trend in Amtrak's ridership has been one of decline.
by Bertie on Aug 29, 2011 11:14 pm • link • report
Then you have no basis for claiming that policies to expand Amtrak would produce a net benefit rather than a net cost.
by Bertie on Aug 29, 2011 11:18 pm • link • report
While we haven't fully priced the social costs of Amtrak, there are many estimates of the cost of CO2 (there is even a market to trade CO2 credits), air pollutants and congestion. It would be wise to price these items as they relate to energy, including gasoline and diesel and add them to the cost through a cap or a tax. Since cars are primarily run on gasoline, while Amtrak is primarily run on electricity, this will likely hit drivers more than Amtrak. It would also be wise to institute congestion pricing in cities where it makes sense.
Furthermore, the gas tax is no longer meeting the need for which is has been used - covering the Highway/transportation trust fund. So it also makes sense to raise the gas tax to cover that. A higher gas tax probably makes more sense than higher CAFE standards too.
Those decisions really aren't about Amtrak except that fuel costs will go up slightly.
The argument that investing more in Amtrak might make the system cheaper ppm also has some validity. Passenger miles on Amtrak have been increasing since 2005 while passenger miles by car have been dropping. The subsidy ppm has been dropping as well (excluding one-tiem ARRA money which was more about job creation and stimulus) while the subsidy for autos has been going up. It certainly seems like people are switching, albeit slowly. In the end people want rail, and that is - in the absence of a cost-benefit analysis - really the most important metric and the main reason why greater investment is needed.
by David C on Aug 29, 2011 11:43 pm • link • report
Delucchi doesn't think unpriced parking is an external cost because it's bundled - it is, for example, added to the cost of items you buy at the grocery. But that only works if everyone drives. Not everyone drives.
Whether everyone drives is irrelevant. The cost of parking is internal to the private transactions between the grocery store and its customers, whether it's bundled or separately priced. It's not a public subsidy.
I pay (through bundling) for parking I don't use in a lot of places.
You also pay through bundling for unpriced grocery store carts, unpriced use of store restrooms, unpriced grocery bagging, and all sorts of other bundled products and services that you don't always use. So what if you pay for parking and these other things through bundling?
Amtrak is primarily run on electricity,
Where are you getting this information from? Wikipedia reports that Amtrak has 351 diesel locomotives, and only 74 electric ones.
by Bertie on Aug 29, 2011 11:49 pm • link • report
There is no government mandated minimum for any of those. Many zoning laws mandate minimum amounts of parking.
by David C on Aug 29, 2011 11:52 pm • link • report
The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirement
by David C on Aug 29, 2011 11:57 pm • link • report
Revenues from gas taxes and other taxes and fees levied on automobile users fall short of the costs of road infrastructure by about 1 cent per passenger-mile. Revenues from Amtrak fares fall short of the costs of Amtrak infrastructure by about 20 cents per passenger-mile. If it "makes sense" to raise the gas tax to cover the full cost of roads, why doesn't it also "make sense" to raise Amtrak fares to cover the full cost of Amtrak infrastructure?
by Bertie on Aug 30, 2011 12:06 am • link • report
People want rail.
by David C on Aug 30, 2011 12:08 am • link • report
So what? Your complaint was about bundling. It's still bundled whether it's mandated or not, just like the cost of grocery store carts is bundled.
The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirement
What is the trouble with minimum parking requirement? What does it have to do with what we're discussing? If you think you have an argument to make, then make it.
by Bertie on Aug 30, 2011 12:12 am • link • report
Where Delucchi did consider externalities, I fundamentally disagree with some of his judgement calls. For example, Delucchi doesn't think unpriced parking is an external cost because it's bundled - it is, for example, added to the cost of items you buy at the grocery. But that only works if everyone drives. Not everyone drives. So when I walk to the store, I pay for parking I don't use. Considering that most of America has parking minumums it means I pay (through bundling) for parking I don't use in a lot of places.
What is the trouble with minimum parking requirement?
It's linked to an article that is relevant.
by David C on Aug 30, 2011 12:15 am • link • report
Why does "people want rail" mean that it doesn't "make sense" to raise Amtrak fares to cover the full cost of Amtrak infrastructure? If they want it, why shouldn't they pay for it?
by Bertie on Aug 30, 2011 12:19 am • link • report
by Bertie on Aug 30, 2011 12:24 am • link • report
We've decided to fund roads with dedicated gas taxes and fund Amtrak with general funds and ticket revenue. It is how things have been done for a long time. I'm open to other suggestions, but I suspect that full funding by passengers would not work. So general funds are needed because people want rail. If people don't want rail, they will tell their representatives in government to stop funding it. But that hasn't happened because people want rail.
by David C on Aug 30, 2011 12:27 am • link • report
Mandating minimum parking increases costs. Those costs are bundled into the cost of everything. That bundled cost is paid by everyone whether they drive or not. So mandated minimum parking is a government mandated increase of costs paid by non-drivers that benefits drivers. I believe that is an externality. You may disagree. Many do not. Include Shoup whom I linked to.
by David C on Aug 30, 2011 12:33 am • link • report
“We’ve decided” to subsidize roads to the tune of about 1 cent per passenger-mile. You claim it “makes sense” to change that decision and raise the gas tax to cover the full cost of roads. So why doesn’t it also “make sense” to change our decision about subsidizing Amtrak infrastructure?
If people don't want rail, they will tell their representatives in government to stop funding it. But that hasn't happened because people want rail.
Then if people don’t want roads, they will tell their representatives in government to stop funding it. But that hasn’t happened because people want roads. So why are you claiming that it “makes sense” to raise the gas tax to cover the full cost of roads?
by Bertie on Aug 30, 2011 12:42 am • link • report
How does mandating minimum parking increase costs?
Those costs are bundled into the cost of everything.
No they're not. The parking is provided by the business that is subject to the mandate. The business will presumably pass on the cost of the parking to its customers. That cost may be either bundled or priced separately.
by Bertie on Aug 30, 2011 12:51 am • link • report
You're welcome to disagree. Perhaps you feel there is a better way to fund roads. That's your opinion and this is mine. In my opinion it makes sense.
The business will presumably pass on the cost of the parking to its customers. That cost may be either bundled or priced separately.
Because motorists park free for most vehicle trips, they clearly do not pay the cost of providing
parking spaces. If motorists do not pay for parking spaces, who does? Minimum parking
requirements bundle the cost of parking spaces into the cost of development, and thereby increase
the cost of all the goods and services sold at the sites that offer free parking. These requirements
“externalize” the cost of parking, so that you cannot reduce what you pay for parking by
consuming less of it. Minimum parking requirements bypass the price system in the markets for
both transportation and land.
by David C on Aug 30, 2011 1:06 am • link • report
We've decided to fund roads with dedicated gas taxes.
by David C on Aug 30, 2011 1:08 am • link • report
You oppose raising Amtrak fares to cover the full costs of Amtrak on the grounds that "we've decided" to pay some of those costs with subsidies. Yet you claim it "makes sense"
to raise the gas tax to cover the full costs of roads despite the fact that "we've decided" to pay some of the costs of roads with subsidies. What is the justification for your double standard? If it "makes sense" in one case why doesn't it "make sense" in the other?
Because motorists park free for most vehicle trips, they clearly do not pay the cost of providing parking spaces.
Yes they do. In the case of "free" (that is, unpriced) parking, parking costs are bundled into the prices motorists pay for goods and services from the parking provider.
Minimum parking requirements bundle the cost of parking spaces into the cost of development, and thereby increase the cost of all the goods and services sold at the sites that offer free parking.
No, you're still confused. Minimum parking requirements do not bundle the cost of parking. They merely mandate a minimum amount of parking. The provider of the parking is free to either bundle the cost of the parking or price it separately. It's obvious at this point that you don't even understand Shoup's argument against parking minimums.
These requirements “externalize” the cost of parking, so that you cannot reduce what you pay for parking by consuming less of it.
Huh? Of course you can reduce what you pay for parking by consuming less of it. If you drive less you consume less parking. If you don't drive you don't consume any parking.
Minimum parking requirements bypass the price system in the markets for both transportation and land.
How do minimum parking requirements "bypass the price system in the markets for both transportation and land?" And even if they do, why are you complaining about this? You've just been defending bypassing the price system in the transportation market through huge subsidies to Amtrak on the grounds that "we've decided" to interfere with the market in that way. Well, "we've decided" to enact minimum parking requirements too.
by Bertie on Aug 30, 2011 1:29 am • link • report
No, "we've decided" to fund some of the cost of roads with dedicated gas taxes and the rest of the cost (about 1 cent per passenger-mile) with a subsidy. Just as "we've decided" to fund some of the costs of Amtrak with fares and the rest of the cost (about 20 cents per passenger mile) with a subsidy. So why does it "make sense" to eliminate the road subsidy but not the (enormously higher) Amtrak subsidy?
by Bertie on Aug 30, 2011 1:34 am • link • report
Raising the gas tax will raise more revenue and cover the gap in the HTF. We can probably raise the gas tax by a great deal - dollars maybe - before total revenue starts to drop.
Raising the price of Amtrak tickets will NOT result in more revenue. If it would, Amtrak would do that. They should be priced at equilibrium where raising or lowering ticket prices will result in less revenue. So there is no way for Amtrak to get more revenue - or they'd be doing that. Raising ticket prices isn't an option. Removing the subsidy would force Amtrak to cut service, which will lead to less revenue, which would force Amtrak to cut service, which will lead to less revenue....etc. And people want rail.
So that's why it doesn't make sense to raise Amtrak ticket prices but it does make sense to raise the gas tax.
by David C on Aug 30, 2011 8:27 am • link • report
No. I just disagree with you. So does Dr. Shoup - the premier expert on the economics of parking. I was quoting his paper directly. So if you disagree with Shoup, then it is you who doesn't even understand Shoup's argument
If you don't drive you don't consume any parking.
But you pay for it due to bundling. And you can't choose to buy less.
How do minimum parking requirements "bypass the price system in the markets for both transportation and land?" And even if they do, why are you complaining about this? You've just been defending bypassing the price system in the transportation market through huge subsidies to Amtrak on the grounds that "we've decided" to interfere with the market in that way. Well, "we've decided" to enact minimum parking requirements too.
Bypassing the price system in the transportation market through huge subsidies to Amtrak is an externality. That is correct. So are parking minimums. That's my point. Delucchi was wrong to dismiss them. I'm glad we agree that parking mimimums are similar to Amtrak subsidies and that both should be included.
by David C on Aug 30, 2011 9:14 am • link • report
You said: Cleveland, Toledo and Detroit combined have less than 1.5 million [population]. However the US census puts the Cleveland-Akron metro area pop. alone at nearly 3 million (2,891,988).
by Tina on Aug 30, 2011 11:08 am • link • report
by Tina on Aug 30, 2011 11:12 am • link • report
If you could demonstrate that Amtrak subsidies meet a genuine social need rather than being a big transfer of wealth to people who don't deserve it there'd probably be less resistance to them.
So you're saying that if I choose to drive, then it's right for the taxpayers to subsidize my trip, but if I choose to take a train, then it's wrong for taxpayers to subsidize my trip?
What if I happen to think that a lot of wealthy people in cars "don't deserve it?" Does that justify arguing that taxpayers shouldn't fund roads?
If you care to come to next spring's NARP regional meeting at Union Station, I can introduce you to plenty of people who depend on Amtrak service and aren't wealthy businesspeople or retirees? And so what if they are? Do retirees have less of a right to travel than others?
Wealthy business people and retirees use the roads too. They also travel by air, which is also heavily subsidized -- almost all airports are built and managed by airport authorities, which are local government agencies.
And by the way, another way the public declares what it wants is through opinion polls. An election every two years -- especially in an electoral system where those with money wield more influence than those without -- isn't a sufficient window for the full exercise of the public will. Democracy is more than just elections.
by Malcolm K. on Aug 30, 2011 2:53 pm • link • report
You don't understand what you claim to disagree with. Minimum parking requirements mandate the amount of parking a business must provide, not the pricing method. Businesses are free to either bundle the cost of the mandated parking or to price it separately. So yet again I ask, how are minimum parking requirements a subsidy?
Bypassing the price system in the transportation market through huge subsidies to Amtrak is an externality...
No, the "huge subsidies" I'm referring to here are the direct payments to Amtrak from the government to pay the costs of infrastructure and operations. Those payments are a subsidy, not an externality. Amtrak receives an additional, indirect subsidy, over and above the direct subsidy, in the form of unpriced negative externalities, such as its CO2 emissions.
... is an externality So are parking minimums.
How are parking minimums an externality? What "external" parties do you claim are paying for this parking?
by Bertie on Aug 30, 2011 3:02 pm • link • report
You said: Cleveland, Toledo and Detroit combined have less than 1.5 million [population]. However the US census puts the Cleveland-Akron metro area pop. alone at nearly 3 million (2,891,988).
I was referring to the city populations, not the metro area populations.
If you want to compare metro area populations, the New York metro area alone has almost 19 million people. The Washington metro area is another 5 million. The Boston metro area is another 4.5 million. These numbers dwarf the metro area populations of the rustbelt cities you cite.
by Bertie on Aug 30, 2011 3:09 pm • link • report
So that's why it doesn't make sense to raise Amtrak ticket prices but it does make sense to raise the gas tax.
Yes, eliminating the Amtrak subsidy would almost certainly force Amtrak to cut service. But why does that mean it doesn't "make sense?" You don't support providing more roads than road users are willing to pay for through the gas tax. So why do you support providing more Amtrak service than Amtrak users are willing to pay for through fares? Why does it "make sense" to massively oversupply Amtrak service if it doesn't make sense to oversupply roads to even a small degree?
by Bertie on Aug 30, 2011 3:23 pm • link • report
According to figures developed by University of California at Davis professor Mark Delucchi and updated by Shoup to account for inflation and the number of motor vehicles owned in the United States, in 2002 the subsidy for off-street parking alone was between $127 billion and $374 billion. This figure is roughly the same amount as our nation’s Medicare or national defense budgets—without including subsidies for the free on-street parking that exists on most urban streets.
While many American cities believe they suffer from a parking shortage, the real problem is that they have too much free parking. Over the last sixty-plus years, planning for parking has meant planning to provide parking without cost, and America has provided enough to satisfy 99 percent of all automobile trips to the home, office, or shopping. This superabundance has had costs well beyond municipal subsidies: parking lots mar the urban landscape, the high cost of providing parking makes developing affordable housing more difficult, and free parking skews transportation choices toward driving, thereby increasing congestion and pollution and encouraging sprawl. And because the cost of providing parking spaces is bundled into the cost of development, Shoup explains, this so-called “free” parking is actually paid for by everyone. Off-street parking, required by municipalities for nearly every land use, is expensive to provide. But rather than directly charge drivers who use the parking, developers absorb the costs of providing parking. The higher cost of development translates into higher rents in residential and office buildings and into higher retail costs in commercial buildings. Not everyone chooses to drive; yet we all subsidize drivers indirectly by paying higher costs passed on to us.
Everything above is from a summary of Shoup's book. You are welcome to disagree with Shoup's analysis. Delucchi - you will note - put the price at between 0 and 8 cents ppm, but decided that it was 0 based on his judgement. It was not the word of God. It was judgement. Judgement is not irrefutable. It is opinion. So you're arguing with me that I should have a different opinion, but you aren't telling me something new, so I don't know why you think it will change.
Shoup wrote a whole book on this. It is not crazy talk.
What "external" parties do you claim are paying for this parking?
Everyone who doesn't drive.
by David C on Aug 30, 2011 3:32 pm • link • report
The optimal choice is to not oversupply or undersupply. With roads that is an option.
With Amtrak it is not. The two choices are oversupply (by subsidizing) or undersupplying by letting Amtrak die. We have chosen the former, because (and I may not have mentioned this) people want rail. If you know a way to provide nationwide Amtrak service without a subsidy, I'm sure Amtrak would love to see your proposal.
by David C on Aug 30, 2011 3:37 pm • link • report
If there were adequate train service between Cleveland and Detroit it would get used. Currently there is one train a day from Cleveland to Toledo departing at 3am. There is no train service between Toledo and Detroit.
Lack of train service in a densely populated area like Cleveland to Detroit is not evidence that people living there don't opt for riding the train. Its evidence of lack of options.
Trains are valuable to millions of people personally and to the greater community of Americans for the reasons David C and Malcolm K have put forth even if you don't value trains or accept the evidence of their utility.
by Tina on Aug 30, 2011 4:13 pm • link • report
What do you mean by "optimal choice" of supply? How are you distinguishing the optimal choice from non-optimal ones? How have you determined that the optimal choice of supply of Amtrak is larger than the supply that Amtrak users are willing to pay for through fares (which may or may not be no supply at all)?
Shoup wrote a whole book on this. It is not crazy talk.
Telling me that Shoup wrote a book does not address the question I asked. I didn't say his book is crazy talk. Yet again I ask, how are minimum parking requirements a subsidy?
Everyone who doesn't drive.
Huh? If the store covers the cost of the mandated parking by passing on the cost to its customers, either through bundling or a separate parking fee, how is "everyone who doesn't drive" paying for the parking? The costs are internalized to the store's customers. No one who isn't a customer is paying anything for it, whether they drive or not.
by Bertie on Aug 30, 2011 7:15 pm • link • report
So you're saying that if I choose to drive, then it's right for the taxpayers to subsidize my trip, but if I choose to take a train, then it's wrong for taxpayers to subsidize my trip?
No, I'm not saying that. I'm pointing out to you that train (Amtrak) users are subsidized at a rate approximately 20 times greater than automobile users. About 20 cents per passenger-mile for Amtrak users vs. only about 1 cent per passenger-mile for drivers. How do you justify this enormous disparity in subsidies in favor of Amtrak? Perhaps for certain Amtrak services, that specifically serve low-income or otherwise disadvantaged communities, you could make a serious case for large subsidies on social justice grounds. But what about subsidies to Acela, whose passengers are almost all affluent business travelers? What about subsidies for expensive vacation trips? If you drive from Orlando to Los Angeles, you'll get about $20 in road subsidies. If you take the Sunset Limited, you'll get about $400 in Amtrak subsidies.
And by the way, another way the public declares what it wants is through opinion polls. An election every two years -- especially in an electoral system where those with money wield more influence than those without -- isn't a sufficient window for the full exercise of the public will. Democracy is more than just elections.
But we don't make laws and public policies through opinion polls. We make them through votes and elections. Opinion polls are one of the things voters and legislators may consider when deciding how to vote. However popular you may believe Amtrak is on the basis of opinion polls, the will of the people as expressed through the political process suggests that most people just don't really care much about it.
by Bertie on Aug 30, 2011 7:47 pm • link • report
Look up the word optimal. Look up the word supply. Put those two together
How are you distinguishing the optimal choice from non-optimal ones?
The optimal choice is to not oversupply or undersupply.
How have you determined that the optimal choice of supply of Amtrak is larger than the supply that Amtrak users are willing to pay for through fares (which may or may not be no supply at all)?
The two choices are oversupply (by subsidizing) or undersupplying by letting Amtrak die. We have chosen the former, because (and I may not have mentioned this) people want rail.
how are minimum parking requirements a subsidy?
Because the cost of providing parking spaces is bundled into the cost of development, Shoup explains, this so-called “free” parking is actually paid for by everyone. Off-street parking, required by municipalities for nearly every land use, is expensive to provide. But rather than directly charge drivers who use the parking, developers absorb the costs of providing parking. The higher cost of development translates into higher rents in residential and office buildings and into higher retail costs in commercial buildings. Not everyone chooses to drive; yet we all subsidize drivers indirectly by paying higher costs passed on to us.
If the store covers the cost of the mandated parking by passing on the cost to its customers, either through bundling or a separate parking fee, how is "everyone who doesn't drive" paying for the parking? The costs are internalized to the store's customers. No one who isn't a customer is paying anything for it, whether they drive or not.
The store passes the costs on to customers. Some of the cutomers do not drive. They are paying for government mandated parking that they don't use.
by David C on Aug 30, 2011 11:12 pm • link • report
You're just repeating what you wrote before instead of answering the question. How have you determined that the optimal choice of supply of Amtrak is larger than the supply that Amtrak users are willing to pay for through fares? How have you determined that the optimal supply is NOT smaller than the current supply? Just because you personally don't want a smaller supply of Amtrak services doesn't mean a smaller supply isn't optimal.
Because the cost of providing parking spaces is bundled into the cost of development,
For the umpteenth time, minimum parking requirements merely require the developer to provide a certain minimum amount of parking. The developer is free to pass along the costs of that required parking to his customers in whatever way he wants. If he wants to bundle the cost, he can do so. If he wants to charge a separate parking fee that only applies to customers who actually use the parking, he can do that instead. The developer IS NOT REQUIRED to pass along any of the parking costs to people who don't use it if he doesn't want to.
Off-street parking, required by municipalities for nearly every land use, is expensive to provide.
No, in most places off-street parking is cheap to provide. That is why in most places businesses do not bother charging their customers a separate parking fee but instead bundle the cost of parking into the prices of their products, just like they bundle the cost of shopping carts and store restrooms. It's only in places where land, and hence parking, is expensive that it's worthwhile to price parking separately. This is why parking at the Walmart in the suburbs, where land is cheap, is almost always "free" (bundled), but parking downtown in the city, where land is expensive, is usually separately priced.
by Bertie on Aug 31, 2011 12:04 am • link • report
Because the alternative is no supply and people want rail. I keep giving you the same answers because you keep asking the same questions.
How have you determined that the optimal supply is NOT smaller than the current supply?
I haven't.
The developer is free to pass along the costs of that required parking to his customers in whatever way he wants. If he wants to bundle the cost, he can do so. If he wants to charge a separate parking fee that only applies to customers who actually use the parking, he can do that instead. The developer IS NOT REQUIRED to pass along any of the parking costs to people who don't use it if he doesn't want to.
OK. But that doesn't keep it from being a government mandated externality in my opinion.
Here's what happens.
A. Government mandates parking.
B. Business passes costs of mandated parking on to all customers.
Now you think B has nothing to do with A. I think B follows directly from A. We disagree. That's all. Why can't you just accept that?
No, in most places off-street parking is cheap to provide.
How much is it?
by David C on Aug 31, 2011 12:13 am • link • report
No, that is obviously not the only alternative. One other alternative is to reduce the current subsidy, and thereby reduce the supply, without eliminating it completely.
I haven't [determined that the optimal supply of Amtrak is not smaller than the current supply]
Then how do you justify the current subsidy to Amtrak? If your answer is "people want rail," then the current subsidy to roads is justified because "people want roads" and, once again, you don't have any basis for challenging the status quo. As I told you way back, this is the corner you've painted yourself into.
OK. But that doesn't keep it from being a government mandated externality in my opinion.
How is it an externality if the developer only passes along the costs of the mandated parking to people who actually use it?
Now you think B has nothing to do with A. I think B follows directly from A.
How does B "follow directly" from A? A does not require B at all. A does not require any pricing policy. That is entirely the choice of the developer, just as it is for parking provided voluntarily.
How much is it?
It varies depending on the price of land.
by Bertie on Aug 31, 2011 12:43 am • link • report
The only gripe I have about this analysis is the basis in "most seats filled." That has not been my experience with Amtrak from DC to NYC and Boston. Each time I have traveled Amtrak, there have been numerous seats open. Examples: after a shopping bonanza in NYC over Thanksgiving weekend, returning to DC I had 2 seats to myself to sleep in; when moving from Boston to DC on a permanent basis, I took Amtrak to Boston and drove back with my moving truck, and had 2 seats to myself until Penn Station (at which point this AWESOME 94-year-old woman (94 in years, younger than 50 in spirit) sat next to me and told me about how she frequently used the train to visit her family in NYC - she lived in Boston - the train is USEFUL, as this woman demonstrated); I have frequently had an open seat next to me traveling to Wilmington for business. So, I do think that they could lower fares on at least some runs and increase revenue. I mean, it's RARE beyond all rareness for me to end up with empty seats next to me on flights, despite trying my darndest with seat maps and last-minute seat changes to make this happen.
I don't think that Amtrak should become like airlines, limiting the space of their passengers to uncomfortable levels, but they might also consider reducing seat size and pitch a bit in the NEC to add more seats, lower fares and induce more people to ride it. Trips in the NEC are typically pretty short, so I don't need enough room to stretch out for 3 or so hours, and I think most people would agree with this. Reduce seat size and pitch slightly in the NEC, and lower fares, and the passengers will flock. I know a number of people who typically take the buses who would take Amtrak if it were even slightly cheaper (they know I take the train, and tell me they would too, for the comfort and convenience, if it were only a little cheaper). My 2 cents, as an Amtrak and train in general aficionado (I also frequently take the train in China). I will say that we typically travel first-class service on "G" trains in China, and those accommodations are less spacious than coach on Amtrak (yes, there is something to be said for 200 MPH speeds, but the point being that for trips of a short-ish duration, lots of leg room is not totally necessary).
by Ms. D on Aug 31, 2011 1:07 am • link • report
That was not the alternative you gave. You were asking why it made sense to oversupply Amtrak, but not roads.
Reducing the subsidy is an option, as is increasing it.
If your answer is "people want rail," then the current subsidy to roads is justified because "people want roads" and, once again, you don't have any basis for challenging the status quo.
Ideally the "user fees" would cover the cost of these systems. With roads that is possible, so we should raise fuel taxes to do that. With rail it is not possible in the current configuration.
The argument that investing more in Amtrak might make the system cheaper ppm has some validity. Passenger miles on Amtrak have been increasing since 2005 while passenger miles by car have been dropping. The subsidy ppm has been dropping as well (excluding one-tiem ARRA money which was more about job creation and stimulus) while the subsidy for autos has been going up. It certainly seems like people are switching, albeit slowly.
How is it an externality if the developer only passes along the costs of the mandated parking to people who actually use it?
By bundling it for all customers, whether they drive of not. So people are using it. Honestly, I think you're being intentionally dense here now. I think I can clearly state your opinion on this and you act like you have no idea what I'm saying.
How does B "follow directly" from A?
Without A, B does not happen. A causes B.
It varies depending on the price of land.
Can you give an example?
by David C on Aug 31, 2011 1:08 am • link • report
by David C on Aug 31, 2011 1:11 am • link • report
A smaller Amtrak system would be possible with a smaller subsidy. What is your justification for the current subsidy and the current system? If your answer is "people want rail," then the current subsidy to roads is justified because "people want roads."
Passenger miles on Amtrak have been increasing since 2005 while passenger miles by car have been dropping.
No, Amtrak passenger-miles have not been increasing since 2005. They declined between 2008 and 2009. Even in 2008, Amtrak ridership was below the level in 1993, despite a much bigger national population. As I said before, the long-term trend in Amtrak ridership is decline.
By bundling it for all customers, whether they drive of not. So people are using it. Honestly, I think you're being intentionally dense here now.
Did you even read the sentence you're responding to? I wrote, "if the developer only passes along the costs of the mandated parking to people who actually use it." The cost of the parking is not "bundled for all customers" if it's paid only by customers who actually use the parking. So again I ask, how is this an externality?
Without A, B does not happen. A causes B.
Huh? How does A "cause" B? Developers are free to bundle parking costs whether the parking is mandated or not. Show me your evidence that "without A, B does not happen." You're just making up facts out of thin air, yet again.
by Bertie on Aug 31, 2011 1:49 am • link • report
Your experience isn't surprising. On average, about half the seats on Amtrak's trains are empty.
The new intercity bus services from BoltBus and Megabus seem to have been taking a significant number of riders away from Amtrak in markets where the buses compete, in the northeast and midwest. A recent study by researchers at DePaul University found that:
by Bertie on Aug 31, 2011 2:08 am • link • report
I do agree that NE Corridor cafe service is awful, though. The employees are uniformly quite friendly but the food is really, really bad and the coffee is worse. It doesn't have to be this way. Other trains outside the NE Corridor (for example, the Seattle-Vancouver train) have extensive menus that feature locally-made products. Heck, I could even see Amtrak striking a deal with McDonald's or Starbucks to provide service on their car in return for rebranding the car as the "Starbucks Cafe Car" or whatever.
It is also worth pointing out that Amtrak is safer. Some cars get struck by trains but the amount of train passengers killed each year is beyond minuscule (excluding the Red Line crash). In contrast, there's been a bad spate of intercity bus crashes the last few years, and in general your risk of getting injured on the highway is much, much, much greater.
by Marc on Aug 31, 2011 9:44 am • link • report
But let me again factually correct what you said. The 30+ year plans for Tampa-Orlando-Miami high speed rail was killed by arcane federal regulations. People there were not looking for federal subsidies to carry the program...it was championed by the Florida Chamber and local business communities. (See FLORIDA TREND MAGAZINE For three decades.)
Believe it or not, there are Americans who actually understand there would be no trains nor sustainable track in the USA had it not be for private enterprise.
And secondly, you apparently have ignorance of the efforts underway in the high tech/green corridor of Nashville-Chattanooga-Atlanta high speed rail proposal. The city in the middle of that, Chattanooga, has long been recognized (even by NPR) as one of the nation's leaders in green planning & construction. There is an innovative world beyond the NY-DC corridor by the way.
And finally...what proponents of taxpayer subsidies for AMTRAK still have left unanswered is why we should support AMTRAK when it is such a money loser?
Federal gas taxes should be discontinued and the taxing authority returned to the states and localities. They are in a better position to know what their own transportation needs are and can deliver it more efficiently than the Feds here in Washington. What you'd likely see then is more light rail, possibly monorail is some cities and sustainable train routes.
It's too bad those who want to take the most from taxpayers are the same ones who trust their fellow Americans the least.
Kill Amtrak Now and see private train service grow tomorrow.
by Pelham1861 on Aug 31, 2011 11:09 am • link • report
by Dane on Aug 31, 2011 11:25 am • link • report
The current system makes sense because that is what people want. The current Amtrak subsidy is the only way to keep the current rail system. But we can keep the current road system without the subsidy because we can raise the gas tax and increase revenue. So people can have the same amount of rail and the same amount of road with less direct subsidy. The current road subsidy would only be justified if there were no better way to fund roads. There is, so it is unjustified.
You act as though roads and rails need to be dealt with exactly the same way, despite obvious differences. If that's true we should do for the gas tax what we have done with Amtrak ticket pricing: namely set it so that it will produce the maximum revenue. Which would likely raise the gas tax to several dollars per gallon.
What is your justification for not maximizing revenue on roads but maximizing it for Amtrak customers?
Amtrak passenger-miles have not been increasing since 2005.
In 2005 there were 5381 pm on Amtrak. In 2009 there were 5914 pm. How is that not increasing? In fact every year since 2005 has been above 5381. I did not say that year-to-year ridership has been increasing every year.
They declined between 2008 and 2009.
Not as much as driving did. And let's not forget, we were in the middle of a deep economic slowdown. Context is important. Amtrak was down 4% and driving was down 14%. In fact, the ratio of driving pm to amtrak pm has gone from 920:1 in 2006 to 716:1 in 2009. So, your fact, while true, does nothing to change the fact that people are choosing to take the train more and drive less.
Furthermore, ridership is up again in 2010 and for the first half of 2011.
Even in 2008, Amtrak ridership was below the level in 1993
But in 2010, they set an all time record. With ridership rising 10% over 2009. Meanwhile, Highway vehicle miles traveled was down again in 2010 and is trending down in 2011.
As I said before, the long-term trend in Amtrak ridership is decline.
And you were wrong. In 1965 total rail ridership was 13260 pm. In 1970, the year before Amtrak, total rail ridership was 6179 pm. So that decline was all pre-Amtrak. By 1975 that had droped to 3931, but that was mostly due to disinvestment in the pre-Amtrak days. Ridership has never been that low again, or even close. In 2010 it was up to 6520 an all-time high. So the long term trend of Amtrak is not decline. And the short term trend is growth, unlike driving which has been down each of the last 4 years. To paraphrase you "I'm not talking about the trend 30 years ago. I'm talking about the trend now. Amtrak has become more desireable over the past decade and are is likely to become even more desireable in the future."
I wrote, "if the developer only passes along the costs of the mandated parking to people who actually use it." The cost of the parking is not "bundled for all customers" if it's paid only by customers who actually use the parking. So again I ask, how is this an externality?
We are not talking about parking people pay for directly. We are talking about unpriced parking.
How does A "cause" B?
Because Government mandates parking minimums (this is A), businesses have to add more parking than they would have otherwise.
Because businesses add more parking than they would have otherwise, they have to pay for that
Because businesses have to pay for government mandated parking, most bundle the price into everything they sell (this is B).
Show me your evidence that "without A, B does not happen."
What evidence would you accept? The thing is self explantory. Why would businesses pass the costs of mandated parking to its customers if government doesn't mandate parking?
by David C on Aug 31, 2011 1:11 pm • link • report
by Pelham1861 on Aug 31, 2011 2:44 pm • link • report
Because we're talking about Amtrak specifically. But obviously we could have passenger rail service without Amtrak.
We've had AMTRAK for roughly 40 years and it has been a financial disaster.
Only if you think we were trying to make money.
Why are you afraid to try something new?
I'm not. Bertie's arguing for the status quo.
If 'people want trains' then people will pay for them...if not they do not need to exist for passenger service and we could end the rape of taxpayers in the process.
People do pay for them. Through tickets, other Amtrak revenue and subsidies.
Are you just not open to new ideas?
I'd like to think not. But I don't care much for your ideas. Turning Amtrak over to a private company - I'm not even sure a private operator wants that business. Reducing it down to 3% of it's current size? That may not be the death of intercity passenger rail in America, but it might as well be. Removing clean air regulations? Are you of the opinion that are air is too clean?
by David C on Aug 31, 2011 3:02 pm • link • report
So we're back to "people want rail." Then the current road subsidy "makes sense" because "that is what people want" too. If people didn't want the subsidy, we wouldn't have it. We'd pay all the costs of roads from the gas tax.
And of course, your "because that is what people want" justification for the current Amtrak subsidy means that if people decide they want a smaller Amtrak subsidy, you won't have any basis for arguing otherwise. The next time the balance of power in Washington shifts to the Republicans, Amtrak subsidies will probably be reduced, as they have been before.
In 2005 there were 5381 pm on Amtrak. In 2009 there were 5914 pm. How is that not increasing?
They did increase over the period 2005-2009. But over the most recent year of that period, they fell, from 6,179 in 2008 to 5,914 in 2009. As I already explained, Amtrak's passenger-miles fluctuate over the short term in response to economic conditions, the Washington political cycle, and other factors. The long-term trend in Amtrak's passenger-miles is decline, despite the growth in population. Amtrak provided fewer passenger miles in 2009 than it did in 1993, despite the addition of almost 50 million people to the U.S. population over that period. That's a sign of a dying industry.
To illustrate just how insignificant Amtrak is in our national transportation system, for every mile Americans travel by Amtrak, they travel almost 100 miles domestically by air, and about 700 miles by road. If Amtrak disappeared tomorrow, most Americans would barely notice.
by Bertie on Aug 31, 2011 7:12 pm • link • report
I was most definitely talking about parking people pay for directly. That's why I wrote "if the developer only passes along the costs of the mandated parking to people who actually use it." The point is that minimum parking requirements mandate only a quantity of parking, not who pays for it.
Because Government mandates parking minimums (this is A), businesses have to add more parking than they would have otherwise. Because businesses add more parking than they would have otherwise, they have to pay for that. Because businesses have to pay for government mandated parking, most bundle the price into everything they sell (this is B).
You're not addressing the question. You claimed that the mandate (A) "causes" the cost to be bundled (B) rather than charged to parking users only. But you haven't explained how A "causes" B. Businesses are free to recover the costs of the parking from their customers in whatever way they like, whether the amount of parking is mandated or not.
What evidence would you accept?
A survey of real-world parking policies showing that parking costs are bundled only when the parking is mandated. That's what you claimed. Show us how you know it to be true.
by Bertie on Aug 31, 2011 7:36 pm • link • report
The transportation safety data indicates that Amtrak is safer than road travel for passengers, but less safe for people overall. In other words, you're more likely to be killed if you're making a trip in a car than if you make the same trip (same number of miles) by Amtrak. But SOMEONE ELSE is more likely to be killed if you make the trip by Amtrak than if you make the trip by car. This is because the vast majority of Amtrak fatalities are not passengers, but people who are killed when an Amtrak train hits them as they're crossing the tracks. In 2009, Amtrak killed about 3 times as many people overall (passengers + non-passengers) per passenger-mile as road vehicles.
I linked to the passenger-miles and fatality data in previous comments, here and here.
So not only is Amtrak small, dying and in need of large permanent subsidies to stay afloat, but it also kills more people per passenger-mile of travel than roads.
by Bertie on Aug 31, 2011 8:37 pm • link • report
No the amount of roads we have makes sense because people want roads. We can cover the direct cost of roads without a subsidy. That's the better choice.
But over the most recent year of that period, they fell, from 6,179 in 2008 to 5,914 in 2009.
But in 2010 it increased again, and in 2011 it is on track to increase yet again. Do you think one down year out of 6, with the down year being in the middle of a recession, when transportation in general was down, is indicative of some sort of trend?
As I already explained, Amtrak's passenger-miles fluctuate over the short term in response to economic conditions, the Washington political cycle, and other factors.
How do you know it is not that it is in response to economic conditions, the Washington political cycle, and other factors? What are those "other factors"?
Amtrak provided fewer passenger miles in 2009 than it did in 1993, despite the addition of almost 50 million people to the U.S. population over that period. That's a sign of a dying industry.
Driving has been down every year for the last 4 years.There were fewer miles driven in 2009 than any year since 1998, despite the addition of almost 35 million people to the U.S. population over that period. And when 2010 and 2011 data comes in, it will show even greater decline. That's a sign of a dying industry.
Meanwhile, Amtrak is on its way to back to back record ridership. Why are you still talking about 2009 data when we have 2010 and partial 2011 data?
To illustrate just how insignificant Amtrak is in our national transportation system, for every mile Americans travel by Amtrak, they travel almost 100 miles domestically by air, and about 700 miles by road. If Amtrak disappeared tomorrow, most Americans would barely notice.
So what?
I was most definitely talking about parking people pay for directly.
Well, I'm not.
But you haven't explained how A "causes" B. Businesses are free to recover the costs of the parking from their customers in whatever way they like, whether the amount of parking is mandated or not.
But most choose to do it via bundling. Even a business that charges for parking has to make enough to cover the cost of providing it or the excess gets bundled. Maybe if they were able to choose to how much to provide they would break even on it or turn a profit. So what if they can choose to charge for parking? If some don't, and instead choose to bundle it, then the price is being passed on to other customers or are taken out of the business' profit. That's external because THE DRIVERS DON'T PAY FOR IT. That's the very definition of an external cost is it not?
A survey of real-world parking policies showing that parking costs are bundled only when the parking is mandated. That's what you claimed.
You've misunderstood my claim. I am not claiming that parking costs are bundled only when the parking is mandated. I am claiming that when parking is mandated, the excess is usually bundled and that that is external.
Sometimes parking is bundled when it isn't mandated. Does that make you happy? It's an irrelevant point.
Amtrak killed about 3 times as many people overall (passengers + non-passengers) per passenger-mile as road vehicles.
To be fair Bertie, around half of those deaths are suicides. I'm not sure if you can count those as Amtrak's fault. Another large part are car crashes - which means that Amtrak is being blamed because driving a car is so dangerous that drivers get themselves killed crossing the tracks. That hardly speaks to the safety of driving.
Finally, it's a function of how deadly getting hit by a train is. But, when we look at injuries per million passenger miles it is cars that are more dangerous (and almost twice as much):
Passenger-miles, in millions (Table 1-40):
Highway: 4,236,384
Railroad: 5,914
Injuries:
Highway: 2,346,000
Amtrak: 1,733
Injuries pmpm
Amtrak: 0.293
Highway: 0.554
So, it's at best a wash.
by David C on Aug 31, 2011 11:51 pm • link • report
You're contradicting yourself again. If there may be a "better choice" than what people want, why isn't a smaller Amtrak system with a smaller subsidy a better choice than the current system with the current subsidy? How are you deciding that one choice is better than another? It can't be through cost-benefit analysis, because you deny that we have reasonable estimates of cost.
But in 2010 it increased again, and in 2011 it is on track to increase yet again. Do you think one down year out of 6, with the down year being in the middle of a recession, when transportation in general was down, is indicative of some sort of trend?
No, I think it's indicative of the recession, gas prices, and a temporary boost in Amtrak spending, which have made massively-subsidized Amtrak tickets slightly more attractive at the margin than they were a few years ago.
Meanwhile, Amtrak is on its way to back to back record ridership. Why are you still talking about 2009 data when we have 2010 and partial 2011 data?
Because the period you cited was 2005-2009. The long-term trend is massive decline. The more recent data doesn't change that trend. Ridership has been essentially stagnant for 20 years, despite the enormous growth in population. Stagnant sales despite enormous government subsidies and a massively growing market of potential customers is a sign of a business that is in a death spiral.
So what?
I just told you so what. Amtrak is an insignificant part of our national transportation system.
by Bertie on Sep 1, 2011 1:53 am • link • report
So what? As I told you, in most places parking is cheap, so it just makes more sense to bundle the cost than to price it separately. Same as for other cheap services, like the use of shopping carts and store restrooms. Whether the parking is mandated or provided voluntarily is irrelevant.
Maybe if they were able to choose to how much to provide they would break even on it or turn a profit.
If they were able to choose how much to provide they would have an incentive to provide less than they need and their customers would be more likely to poach parking from other businesses or park on local streets. That would create external costs to those businesses and to local residents. That's why we have minimum parking requirements in the first place. To reduce externalities arising from insufficient parking.
You've misunderstood my claim. I am not claiming that parking costs are bundled only when the parking is mandated. I am claiming that when parking is mandated, the excess is usually bundled and that that is external.
No, I did not misunderstand your claim. You're changing your claim. You're trying to move the goalposts yet again. You wrote, "Without A ['Government mandates parking'], B ['Business passes costs of mandated parking on to all customers'] does not happen." That means businesses only bundle the cost when they're subject to the mandate. Now show me your evidence that businesses only bundle the cost when they're subject to the mandate.
by Bertie on Sep 1, 2011 1:59 am • link • report
Your link contains no evidence about the number of Amtrak fatalities that are suicides. But it does suggest that Amtrak may be contributing to train suicides by failing to provide adequate barriers. In any case, suicides are still fatalities, whoever is at "fault."
Another large part are car crashes - which means that Amtrak is being blamed because driving a car is so dangerous that drivers get themselves killed crossing the tracks. That hardly speaks to the safety of driving.
No it doesn't mean that at all. You're trying to blame drivers because Amtrak highway crossings are so dangerous that Amtrak trains hit cars and kill people as often as they do. So often, in fact, that in 2009 Amtrak killed three times as many people per passenger-mile as road vehicles. That hardly speaks to the safety of Amtrak.
by Bertie on Sep 1, 2011 2:03 am • link • report
No, it would be a wash if getting killed were no worse than getting injured, and if the injury rate were as favorable to Amtrak as the fatality rate is favorable to roads. But neither of those conditions is true. Getting killed is much worse than getting injured, and Amtrak kills people at three times the rate of road vehicles while road vehicles injure people at only twice the rate of Amtrak. Based on these numbers, Amtrak is much, much more dangerous than roads.
by Bertie on Sep 1, 2011 2:53 am • link • report
Please show my my two contradictory statements.
Here's what I'm saying. People want rail and people want roads. In order to have the rails we have, we need subsidies. I am not asserting that people want subsidies. I'm asserting that to get the rail they want, they need subsidies. I think people would prefer not to have subsidies if they could still have the current rail system, which is why they want Amtrak to maximize revenue.
In order to have the roads we have, we do not need subsidies. I think people would prefer not to have subsidies if they could still have roads, which is why we should raise the gas tax.
If you think people want subsidies for roads - specifically a 1cent ppm subsidy - I'd love to see some polling or statements by politicians that backs that up. Perhaps there is a pro-1cent ppm road subsidy advocacy group.
If there may be a "better choice" than what people want
Where did I say there was a better choice than what people want?
why isn't a smaller Amtrak system with a smaller subsidy a better choice than the current system with the current subsidy?
People have demonstrated a wide-spread, bipartisan support for Amtrak at its curent level through polls and through their governments at local, state and fedeal levels, in both red states and blue states. This has continued for 40 years. There has been little support for a smaller system. If anything, my experience has been that people want a larger one. California's vote to support HSR shows support for more passenger rail.
Furthermore, as you wrote "I think [the recent increase in ridership is] indicative of ...a temporary boost in Amtrak spending, which [has] made massively-subsidized Amtrak tickets slightly more attractive at the margin than they were a few years ago." Over the last few years there has been higher subsidies, this has resulted in higher usage and it has resulted in the subsidy per passenger mile going down. So if more subsidy causes the subsidy ppm to gradually go down, and the goal is to lower the subsidy ppm, then we need MORE subsidy, not less.
The long-term trend is massive decline.
How do you figure? If you compare ridership-per-population from any year in the last 35 years to that of 2010, 2010 is higer than all of them but 8 (from 1987-1994 after which cuts in investment took there toll for a few years). In any other year-to-year comparison, Amtrak passenger miles have grown faster than US popluation.
Ridership has been essentially stagnant for 20 years, despite the enormous growth in population.
Ridership is up 66% since 1975, population only 43%. Ridership is up 44% since 1980, Population only 36%. Ridership is up 35% since 1985, population only 30%. Ridership is up 17.6% since 1995, population only 17.5%. Ridership is up 18.6% since 2000, population only 9.4%. Ridership is up 21% since 2005, population only 4.3%
Amtrak is an insignificant part of our national transportation system.
And yet, it is still wildly popular.
So what?
Because motorists park free for most vehicle trips, they clearly do not pay the cost of providing parking spaces. If motorists do not pay for parking spaces, who does? Minimum parking requirements bundle the cost of parking spaces into the cost of development, and thereby increase the cost of all the goods and services sold at the sites that offer free parking. These requirements “externalize” the cost of parking, so that you cannot reduce what you pay for parking by consuming less of it. Minimum parking requirements bypass the price system in the markets for both transportation and land.
That it is cheap - which you haven't proven - is irrelevant. The point is this is an external cost and Delucchi wrongly dismissed it in my opinion.
That would create external costs to those businesses and to local residents.
OK, so either way, there is an external cost caused by cars needing to park. And Delucchi isn't considering them. Some areas don't have minimum parking requirements. Did Delucchi add this external cost you've identified into his accounting? It doesn't seem so. I'm glad you agree that Delucchi did not do a good job of accounting for all external costs. I'm sure this means you'll stop citing his 4.2 cents ppm figure - since he didn't account for the extrenality you identified above.
You're changing your claim. You're trying to move the goalposts yet again. You wrote, "Without A ['Government mandates parking'], B ['Business passes costs of mandated parking on to all customers'] does not happen." That means businesses only bundle the cost when they're subject to the mandate. Now show me your evidence that businesses only bundle the cost when they're subject to the mandate.
Let me show you where you've misunderstood using the power of bold.
You wrote, "Without A ['Government mandates parking'], B ['Business passes costs of mandated parking on to all customers'] does not happen."
Unless you can explain to me how a business could possibly pass on the cost of mandated parking if parking isn't mandated, I think you'll see that my statement is 100% true. And your interpretation that "That means businesses only bundle the cost when they're subject to the mandate" is wrong.
Your link contains no evidence about the number of Amtrak fatalities that are suicides.
Technically correct, but it does quote a study showing that "There are 300 to 500 train suicides a year" which is about half the number of total train fatalities you cited above. It is possible those occur disproportionally with freight trains, but I don't see a reason to believe that.
In any case, suicides are still fatalities
True but the fact that trains are a preferable way to commit suicide isn't really an indication that Amtrak is dangerous. Those aren't accidents.
You're trying to blame drivers because Amtrak highway crossings are so dangerous that Amtrak trains hit cars and kill people as often as they do. So often, in fact, that in 2009 Amtrak killed three times as many people per passenger-mile as road vehicles. That hardly speaks to the safety of Amtrak.
So I think the problem here is that we have a Simpson's paradox. This means that fatalities or injuries per passenger mile may not be the best way to compare the two for safety. A better measure might be fatalities per exposure. Drivers may have fewer chances to be in a car-train crash than trains do. So the number of crashes per exposure may be lower for trains, than cars, which would show that trains are safer.
Amtrak's stats get thrown off because of the large number of cars.
I'm blaming drivers because they tresspass and attempt to cross the track when they shouldn't. I'd be interested to see if you can find any cases of Amtrak car-train fatalities where the train driver was found at fault.
No, it would be a wash if getting killed were no worse than getting injured, and if the injury rate were as favorable to Amtrak as the fatality rate is favorable to roads. But neither of those conditions is true. Getting killed is much worse than getting injured
If Amtrak casualties occured at the same rate as road casualties, there would be 91 fewer deaths, but 1543 more injuries. Obviously, comparing these depends on the seriousness of the injuries and then how you quantify these items. But it isn't cut and dry. Plus, that still includes the caveats I've mentioned above.
by David C on Sep 1, 2011 1:10 pm • link • report
You're claiming to know that people support the current Amtrak system ("people want rail") on the grounds that it is the outcome of the political process. The current Amtrak subsidy is part of that outcome. The current road system and subsidy are also the outcome of the political process. You have absolutely no basis for claiming that people support continuation of the current Amtrak subsidy but not continuation of the current road subsidy. That's the contradiction in your position.
And when the political winds shift away from Amtrak and funding is cut, as will surely happen at some point when the balance of power shifts in favor of the Republicans, you'll have no basis for challenging that cut, because it will also be the outcome of the political process. In fact, Senate Republicans have already erased high-speed rail funding for 2011 that was sought by the Obama administration.
How do you figure?
I already told you. Stagnant long-term ridership despite massive public subsidies and a huge increase in population. In 1991, Amtrak provided about 25 passenger-miles per person. In 2010, it was down to about 20 p-m per person. Over the same period, road and air travel grew enormously. And of course intercity passenger rail travel was vastly greater in the early 1960s. Amtrak was created from the dying remnants of the private passenger rail industry that went bankrupt as people flocked to cars and planes.
And yet, it is still wildly popular.
Hilarious. 0.2% of the domestic transportation market. That's "wildly popular," is it? In comparison to travel by car and plane, Amtrak is the equivalent of a rounding error. Even intercity buses provide fifty times as much transportation as Amtrak
by Bertie on Sep 1, 2011 7:09 pm • link • report
They only increase the cost in cases where the requirement causes a business to provide more parking than he otherwise would. The reason for doing that is to reduce the cost of externalities arising from insufficient parking, as I have already explained to you. And the business is free to charge the higher costs exclusively to his customers that use the parking. He is not required to offer "free" (bundled) parking.
These requirements “externalize” the cost of parking, so that you cannot reduce what you pay for parking by consuming less of it.
For the umpteenth time, minimum parking requirements DO NOT require businesses to bundle parking costs to their customers. Businesses are free to price the parking in whatever way they want. They don't have to "externalize" the cost to anyone. They are free to cover the entire cost using parking fees charged only to customers who actually use the parking. If you still dispute this, cite and quote the statutes that you claim require developers to bundle the costs of parking to their customers. They don't exist!
That it is cheap - which you haven't proven - is irrelevant.
No, "that it is cheap" is precisely why it's bundled. Just like other cheap services such as shopping carts and restrooms. The cost of separate pricing -- parking fee collection and enforcement -- is too large in relation to the cost of the parking itself to make it worthwhile. Only in places where land is expensive does separate pricing make economic sense.
OK, so either way, there is an external cost caused by cars needing to park. And Delucchi isn't considering them.
No, there is an external cost caused by insufficient off-road parking space. To reduce this cost, zoning authorities impose minimum parking requirements. I have no idea what external cost you think Delucchi isn't considering. As usual, your attempt to explain what you're talking about is cryptic and obtuse.
Unless you can explain to me how a business could possibly pass on the cost of mandated parking if parking isn't mandated, I think you'll see that my statement is 100% true. And your interpretation that "That means businesses only bundle the cost when they're subject to the mandate" is wrong.
In that case, your argument is meaningless. Yes, if parking isn't mandated, businesses obviously can't do anything with "mandated parking" because there is no mandated parking. So what was your point in making this utterly trivial observation? What does it have to do with external costs?
by Bertie on Sep 1, 2011 7:57 pm • link • report
No, my statement isn't merely "technically correct." It's correct, period. The study you refer to did not "show," it estimated (confusion between the two is a perennial problem in your comments). And that estimate is for "train suicides." Trains include freight rail, commuter rail, light rail and subways as well as Amtrak. So the estimate tells us precisely nothing about the number of Amtrak suicides.
True but the fact that trains are a preferable way to commit suicide isn't really an indication that Amtrak is dangerous. Those aren't accidents
I have no idea why you think it's a "fact" that trains are a preferable way to commit suicide. Preferable to what? The indication that Amtrak is dangerous is the data indicating that it kills several times people per passenger-mile than road vehicles.
So I think the problem here is that we have a Simpson's paradox. This means that fatalities or injuries per passenger mile may not be the best way to compare the two for safety. A better measure might be fatalities per exposure. Drivers may have fewer chances to be in a car-train crash than trains do. So the number of crashes per exposure may be lower for trains, than cars, which would show that trains are safer.
You don't clearly define "exposure" as you are using the word here, so I have no idea what "crashes per exposure" is supposed to mean, or why you think it's a better way of measuring safety than fatalities per passenger-mile.
I'm blaming drivers because they tresspass and attempt to cross the track when they shouldn't. I'd be interested to see if you can find any cases of Amtrak car-train fatalities where the train driver was found at fault.
You seem preoccupied with "blame." The issue isn't blame. It's safety. If a car kills a pedestrian, he's just as dead whether he is to blame or not. Ditto for anyone killed by Amtrak. The data indicates that Amtrak kills many more people per passenger-mile of travel than road vehicles.
If Amtrak casualties occured at the same rate as road casualties,...
If Amtrak casualties occured at the same rate as road casualties, you cannot assume that the proportions of deaths and injuries would be the same, so this exercise doesn't tell us anything, either.
by Bertie on Sep 1, 2011 9:05 pm • link • report
Bertie, there is no need to make this personal. Please refrain from these personal attacks. They are childish.
by David C on Sep 1, 2011 11:17 pm • link • report
That's only part of it. There's also polling data to support it. The rest of your paragraph falls apart because the above sentence is incorrect.
You have absolutely no basis for claiming that people support continuation of the current Amtrak subsidy but not continuation of the current road subsidy.
Which is why I'm not claiming that people support continuation of the current Amtrak subsidy. The support the current system and that requires the subsidy.
That's the contradiction in your position.
Again, show me two statements side by side that contradict each other. You don't seem to understand my positions and you keep getting confused (as above with the mandate thing) and so I don't thiink youreally know what you're talking about here. Show me.
you'll have no basis for challenging that cut, because it will also be the outcome of the political process
Yes I will.
Stagnant long-term ridership despite massive public subsidies and a huge increase in population.
Not true.
In 1991, Amtrak provided about 25 passenger-miles per person. In 2010, it was down to about 20 p-m per person. Over the same period, road and air travel grew enormously.
You're cherry picking your data, but I'll bite. In 1991, roads provided about 14279 passenger-miles per person. In 2009, it was down to about 13799 per person. So you're wrong - road traffic didn't grow enormously. As you point out, you can't just make up facts out of thin air.
0.2% of the domestic transportation market. That's "wildly popular," is it?
In polls it is wildly popular.
by David C on Sep 1, 2011 11:40 pm • link • report
For the umpteenth time, I never said they did. What I'm saying is that the natural result in most cases of minimum parking requirements is that the businesses bundle the cost and this is exteranlity.
The cost of separate pricing -- parking fee collection and enforcement -- is too large in relation to the cost of the parking itself to make it worthwhile.
And in those cases they bundle the cost and that is an externality for non-drivers. If non-drivers pay for parking they don't use, how is that not an externality.
So what was your point in making this utterly trivial observation? What does it have to do with external costs?
You're perfectly capable of going back up in the comments are read why that came up before you got bogged down in some gross misreading of it. Clearly you're confused. You aren't taking the time to read what I write. Perhaps you should take a nap and start over when you are fresh.
I have no idea what external cost you think Delucchi isn't considering.
This one
there is an external cost caused by insufficient off-road parking space....
Delucchi does not account for it in his calculation of of externalities. Not every place has minimum parking requirements - surely there are places in America with insufficient off-road parking, so this externality that you've identified is not counted by Delucchi. Once again, I'm glad to see you agree that his analysis is flawed.
The whole point of the parking discussion was that Delucchi's decision to exclude the external costs of unpriced parking was one reason why, in my opinion Delucchi's analysis was unreliable. And there were other externalies he left out. That's why I think the VTPI analysis is better. The fact that you've identified another externality that Delucchi failed to address, namely "the external cost caused by insufficient off-road parking space" only serves to make my point.
Both of us think there are externalities that aren't included by Delucchi. I've pointed you to the reasearch of Dr. Shoup that pretty clearly defines my position (which you are free to disagree with) on the external costs of required parking. And you've become very confused, not even remembering why we discussed certain subjects and such. So really, I think we're done with this parking discussion. You don't think minimum parking requirements are an externality and I do. You think the lack of minimum parking requirements IS and externality. Either way, Delucchi's number is wrong.
by David C on Sep 2, 2011 12:00 am • link • report
First of all, you have been quite happy to use Delucchi's "estimate," so I'm not sure why you're having a problem with one from the FRA.
That said, this estimate does tell us something. About half of all train fatalities are suicides. It's reasonable to believe that the ratio is similar for Amtrak as it is for freight and commuter - that they all are somewher near 50%. You might disagree, but it's still reasonable. The only reason you might claim otherwise is because you are unwilling to conceed even the most obvious points. Ask around, people will agree that it's reasonable.
Regardless, you are aware that many Amtrak fatalities are official deemed a suicide by the coroner, and another large group are deemed probable suicides right?
I have no idea why you think it's a "fact" that trains are a preferable way to commit suicide. Preferable to what?
The quibbling has really got to stop. Allow me to rephrase. "the fact that trains are a way that many people choose to commit suicide isn't really an indication that Amtrak is dangerous. Those aren't accidents"
The indication that Amtrak is dangerous is the data indicating that it kills several times people per passenger-mile than road vehicles.
Except that you aren't accounting for Simpson's Paradox.
You don't clearly define "exposure" as you are using the word here, so I have no idea what "crashes per exposure" is supposed to mean
Exposure refers to the times that a crash can happen. When your car is parking in the garage, it can't be hit by a train. So it is not exposed. When it is crossing a railroad crossing it is exposed. A train is unexposed when it is passing through a tunnel, but exposed when it is crossing a road.
why you think it's a better way of measuring safety than fatalities per passenger-mile.
This is complicated and couterintuitive and I'm pretty sure you'lld disagree, but here it goes anyway. The problem is that train-car crashes couple the data of the two modes (it links them so that the behavior of one changes the statistics in the other). Furthermore, train-car crashes make up a small part of car crashes but a large part of train crashes. This is a classic Simpson's paradox situation.
Imagine that a new fad develops wherein teens park their car on the tracks and wait for a train to come and try to drive away at the last second. As a result of this fad, the number of railroad crossing fatalities doubles. Now this will cause the fatalities per mile for cars to change very little. Only 700 more deaths out of 30000+. But it will cause Amtrak fatalities per mile to increase a lot. 70 more out of 150 or so. So it will appear, using your metric, that trains (including Amtrak) have suddenly gotten much more dangerous while cars have not. But nothing changed with Amtrak. It is exactly the same. It is driving that suddenly got more dangerous due to this fad. So that's the flaw in the per pm measure.
By separating out railroad crossing deaths for both cars and trains, and then measuring them per mile of exposure (how often they're going over a crossing) you can fix this problem for comparison purposes. Of course the fad will still make Amtrak look more dangerous, but not as much as it will driving.
Then you also compare all other crashes per non-exposure mile. Those will be better since driving and Amtrak are not decoupled. Bad behavior by drivers won't change Amtrak's numbers, and bad behavior by Amtrak won't change driving's numbers.
The data indicates that Amtrak kills many more people per passenger-mile of travel than road vehicles.
Yes, but as explained above, it is not the right way to compare the two. You have to decouple them.
If Amtrak casualties occured at the same rate as road casualties, you cannot assume that the proportions of deaths and injuries would be the same, so this exercise doesn't tell us anything, either.
That's exactly what I'm assuming, for instructive purposes.
by David C on Sep 2, 2011 12:36 am • link • report
Show me your polling data demonstrating that people support continuation of the Amtrak "system" but not the Amtrak subsidy. The claim is incoherent. How is it logically possible for the system to exist if people aren't willing to pay the subsidy on which its existence depends? If they're not willing to pay the subsidy, why shouldn't the system be cut to match whatever amount of subsidy they are willing to pay? And where is your polling data showing that people don't support continuation of the road subsidy?
In polls it is wildly popular.
What polls? And why do polls matter if people are not willing to support Amtrak as consumers and voters beyond a 0.2% share of the transportation system?
by Bertie on Sep 2, 2011 12:37 am • link • report
Never claimed that. You have to more careful in your reading.
I said "I'm not claiming that people support continuation of the current Amtrak subsidy."
I did not say "People don't support the Amtrak subsidy"
Do you see the difference. Really, this is happening so frequently that I'm beginning to think it's intentional. I guess this is what one does when they're losing.
Why do polls matter if people are not willing to support Amtrak as consumers and voters beyond a 0.2% share of the transportation system
It indicates what people want.
by David C on Sep 2, 2011 12:48 am • link • report
How do you know that? You're just making up facts out of thin air again. How is bundled parking the "natural result in most cases of minimum parking requirements," rather than the natural result of the fact that in most places parking is cheap to provide, like bundled shopping carts and bundled store restrooms?
And in those cases they bundle the cost and that is an externality for non-drivers.
So what if it's "an externality for non drivers?" Bundled grocery carts are an "externality" for people who don't use grocery carts. Bundled restrooms are an "externality" for people who don't use store restrooms. Coupons are an "externality" for people who don't use coupons. Sale prices are an "externality" for people who pay the regular price. There are a million ways in which businesses engage in price discrimination between their customers. The point is that these "externalities" are all internal to transactions between the business and its customers. They're not public subsidies.
You're perfectly capable of going back up in the comments are read why that came up before you got bogged down in some gross misreading of it. Clearly you're confused
I'm not confused at all. You're now telling me, in all seriousness, that by "Without A, B does not happen" you meant to say only that without a parking mandate, there's no mandated parking, and therefore no bundled mandated parking. I ask again, what is the point of this absurdly trivial observation? What does it have to do with externalities?
Delucchi does not account for it in his calculation of of externalities.
Because there's no evidence that it's a significant cost. The significant externalities of driving are congestion, pollution and accidents.
by Bertie on Sep 2, 2011 1:18 am • link • report
You've completely missed the point. They can't support the Amtrak "system" if they don't support the Amtrak subsidy, since the system requires the subsidy and they're willing to pay the subsidy. Where is your evidence that people don't support the road subsidy?
If people decide they're willing to pay only a smaller Amtrak subsidy, for a smaller system (in your parlance, "people want less rail"), Amtrak subsidies will be cut, and you'll have no basis for challenging that cut.
It indicates what people want.
No it doesn't. It indicates only what people tell pollsters they want. What people actually want is revealed by their behavior. And people's behavior reveals that they are not willing to support Amtrak as consumers or voters beyond a minuscule degree.
by Bertie on Sep 2, 2011 1:41 am • link • report
How do you know that? You're just making up facts out of thin air again. How do you know it isn't a significant externality like congestion, pollution and accidents? What is significant anyway. The point is that he doesn't include it, so whether it significant or not doesn't really matter. The point is that his analysis is wrong, because he never addresses this.
So, like I said, you have made the case that Delucchi failed to include all the costs, why are you contradicting yourself now?
by David C on Sep 2, 2011 1:50 am • link • report
They can support the Amtrak "system" and accept the subsidy as a necessary evil. Just as many people don't support taxes, but support the things they pay for.
For roads, the subsidy is an unnecessary evil. That's MY justification for raising the gas tax to cover the subsidy while continuing to subsidize Amtrak or even increasing the subsidy.
Honestly, you're grasping at straws now. It's pathetic. Have you got nothing left?
by David C on Sep 2, 2011 1:56 am • link • report
While I disagree, a miniscule amount of support is all Amtrak needs. Amtrak gets less than 0.04% of the US budget. Even doubling that would still be miniscule (since 0.2% is miniscule in your opinion).
by David C on Sep 2, 2011 2:01 am • link • report
The fact that "nothing changed with Amtrak" is irrelevant. The safety of a mode of transportation is determined by both the characteristics of the transportation mechanism itself and the characteristics of the environment in which it operates. If a change in the environment in which Amtrak operates causes it to kill more people, then it has become more dangerous. Just as an increase in pedestrian carelessness while crossing roads would cause cars to become more dangerous.
It's instructive of your anti-automobile bias that you never questioned this before I presented the data showing that Amtrak is more dangerous than road vehicles. You never claimed that fatalities per passenger-mile for highways is flawed because it depends on the behavior of pedestrians and bicyclists as well as drivers. You never questioned the numbers on the basis of "blame."
by Bertie on Sep 2, 2011 2:17 am • link • report
You haven't demonstrated that either subsidy is "necessary" or "unnecessary." How do you know that the gas tax could be raised to cover the road subsidy, but Amtrak fares could not be raised to cover part of the Amtrak subsidy? You don't. You're just making up facts again to try and justify your double standard.
In fact, this is another way in which your arguments contradict themselves. If, as you (absurdly) claim, Amtrak is "wildly popular" then Amtrak users are likely to be willing to pay higher fares. In which case the Amtrak subsidy could be reduced without reducing the Amtrak "system."
How do you know that?
If you believe there is evidence that insufficient parking is a significant externality of automobiles, then produce that evidence. If you cannot produce it there is no reason to believe it exists.
While I disagree, a miniscule amount of support is all Amtrak needs.
Minuscule support is all Amtrak needs as long as it remains a minuscule part of our transportation system. I was under the impression that you'd like it to be significantly more than minuscule. Perhaps I'm wrong about that.
by Bertie on Sep 2, 2011 2:48 am • link • report
How do you know that bundled parking is "the natural result in most cases of minimum parking requirements," rather than the natural result of the fact that in most places parking is cheap to provide, like bundled shopping carts and bundled store restrooms? You made this claim. Show us how you know it to be true.
by Bertie on Sep 2, 2011 2:55 am • link • report
I'm talking about the relative safety.
It's instructive of your anti-automobile bias that you never questioned this before I presented the data showing that Amtrak is more dangerous than road vehicles.
I had never thought about it before. Possibly because non-occupant fatalities make up only about 12% of all highway deaths. Where as highway-rail grade crossing fatalities are 35% of all rail fatalities.
While the non-occupant crashes certainly represent a Simpson's paradox as well, it's only relevant if you're trying to compare non-occupant safety to car safety. For train-car fatalities it wouldn't matter.
You never questioned the numbers on the basis of "blame."
Most of the deaths are single or multi-car crashes in which one driver or another is to blame. So drivers are mostly to blame for the death of drivers.
How do you know that the gas tax could be raised to cover the road subsidy,
The CBO has scored it as such.
but Amtrak fares could not be raised to cover part of the Amtrak subsidy?
Do you doubt that? If they can raise fares and make more revenue, they should do that. You have not argued that they could.
If you believe there is evidence that insufficient parking is a significant externality of automobiles, then produce that evidence.
No. THis is your claim. You claimed that "The significant externalities of driving are congestion, pollution and accidents." Which means that insufficient parking is insignificant. But you don't prove that. How do you know that insufficient parking is not a significant externality of automobiles? You have to back up your claims, right?
If you cannot produce it there is no reason to believe it exists.
Well then, I guess there are no negative externalities for Amtrak, or they are insignificant.
I was under the impression that you'd like it to be significantly more than minuscule. Perhaps I'm wrong about that.
You were. I'd like to see Amtrak grow, perhaps double or triple in size, but that would still make it "miniscule" by your measure.
By the way, you still haven't addressed this: How do you know that bundled parking is "the natural result in most cases of minimum parking requirements," rather than the natural result of the fact that in most places parking is cheap to provide, like bundled shopping carts and bundled store restrooms?
That's because you haven't proven that "in most places parking is cheap to provide". You prove that, and I'll tell you how I know. Or you could just read Shoup's book.
by David C on Sep 2, 2011 10:36 am • link • report
Did they? That's odd since, in the Senate, Republicans are in the minority. I know the House wants to gut all transportation including roads. That must have you crying yourself to sleep at night on your pillow made from old tires and car-seat cushions.
by David C on Sep 2, 2011 10:56 am • link • report
http://health.mo.gov/training/epi/RelativeRisk.html
In the 2nd item under the 1st bullet substitute "train track and road crossing" for "potato salad".
by Tina on Sep 2, 2011 11:49 am • link • report
Show me where the CBO scored that the gas tax could be raised to cover the road subsidy, allowing the road subsidy to be eliminated without cutting the road "system."
Do you doubt that?
Yes, of course I doubt it. Show me how you know that Amtrak fares could not be raised to cover part of the current Amtrak subsidy, allowing the subsidy to be reduced without cutting the Amtrak "system". You claimed that the current subsidy is "necessary" to fund the current Amtrak "system." Show me how you know this to be true. Your claim that fares could not be raised to cover even a small part of the subsidy is especially bizarre in light of your other (absurd) claim that Amtrak is "wildly popular." If it's so popular, how do you know its users aren't willing to pay any more for it?
Even if you could do this, your argument still wouldn't make sense. You justify your proposal to eliminate the road subsidy on the grounds that the subsidy is "unnecessary." But the mere fact that something is unnecessary does not mean it should be eliminated.
Did they? That's odd since, in the Senate, Republicans are in the minority.
There's nothing odd about it. The majority party in the Senate does not have absolute power. The filibuster rule and other power-sharing mechanisms mean that the majority party often needs to negotiate and compromise with the minority party to get things done. The elimination of funding for high speed rail that had been sought by the Democrats was the outcome of the appropriation deal for 2011 negotiated between Congress and the White House. They initially tried to get $2.5 billion, then it was cut to $1 billion, then it was eliminated altogether to placate the Republicans. They also cut an additional $400 million from the HSR funding that had been appropriated for 2010.
by Bertie on Sep 2, 2011 4:47 pm • link • report
I don't know what you think "relative safety" has to do with the problem I just described with your argument about safety statistics. The safety of a mode of transportation depends on the characteristics of the environment in which it operates. If the environment changes in a way that causes the transportation mechanism to kill more people, then the transportation mechanism has become more dangerous. The statistics aren't measuring "blame." They're measuring safety.
by Bertie on Sep 2, 2011 5:05 pm • link • report
You're right; I can't prove it. But I've never seen any evidence indicating that it is a significant cost. In the absence of such evidence, there is no reason to believe it's a significant cost.
Well then, I guess there are no negative externalities for Amtrak, or they are insignificant.
Huh? The Amtrak fatality data alone is evidence that Amtrak has significant negative externalities. So is the data on air pollution.
You were. I'd like to see Amtrak grow, perhaps double or triple in size, but that would still make it "miniscule" by your measure.
It would still be minuscule even at two or three times its current size. And why do you want it to be bigger, anyway? It can't be on cost-benefit grounds, because you deny that we have reasonable cost estimates for Amtrak. So you have no basis for believing that additional passenger-miles would be a net benefit rather than a net cost.
And why "double or triple?" Why not four or five times bigger? Or ten times? (Which would give it a whopping 2% of the market!) If this is not just some arbitrary number, how did you come up with it?
by Bertie on Sep 2, 2011 5:23 pm • link • report
With regards to Wi-Fi or WiFi, Amtrak released a On-Board Service Improvement Plan (which is an area they greatly do need to improve), which provided an update on the Wi-Fi additions this fall. Wi-Fi is available on the Acela, Downeaster, Cascades Corridor trains. Free Wi-Fi will be added to the following trains:
October, 2011 - Northeast Regionals, Carolinian, Empire Service, Ethan Allen, Keystone Service, Springfield MA shuttle, Vermonter. In short, all the Amfleet I equipped trains. The actual roll-out has been reported possibly as soon as October 1.
November, 2011 - California services - Capitol Corridor, Pacific Surliner, San Joaquin. Admittedly not that relevant to DC.
Late 2011 - Auto Train lounge cars.
The rest of the long distance, eastern medium distance trains (Pennsylvanian, Adirondack, Maple Leaf), Midwest trains are dependent on future funding, but I expect would to see WiFi added to most of them in 2012.
by AlanF on Sep 3, 2011 11:16 am • link • report
What polls?
See http://www.narprail.org/polls
And why do polls matter if people are not willing to support Amtrak as consumers and voters beyond a 0.2% share of the transportation system?
One reason is that people cannot support Amtrak much more than they do because of the limits to Amtrak's carrying capacity -- for non-Northeast Corridor trains in particular. Amtrak is using nearly every piece of equipment it currently owns, and without capital investment from the government to buy new equipment, it cannot carry very many more riders than it currently does.
And one reason why people don't support Amtrak more as voters is that transportation, in general, has always been low on people's priority lists when they're in the voting booth. Infrastructure is taken for granted by most Americans who (sadly) aren't tuned in to politics, and this combined with the media's focus on many other concerns at election time makes the outcome of elections a poor barometer of the public's opinion on transportation issues.
In European countries that have much more extensive passenger train networks that carry many times more riders than Amtrak, trains still carry less than a quarter of a given nation's passenger-miles. Yet, in most other industrialized countries, passenger trains are routinely subsidized by the government, and this is not a controversial matter as it is here. When I told my Indian housemate that there is strong opposition to passenger train subsidies in the United States, she laughed. It is absurd to her that people would make such a big deal about tax money supporting a component of infrastructure, and keep in mind that she is from a country with much smaller public coffers than the U.S. Likewise, an American who argued against taxpayer subsidies for sewer systems would be ridiculed.
by Malcolm K. on Sep 11, 2011 10:43 pm • link • report
I have no idea why you think those polls suggest that Amtrak is "wildly popular."
One reason is that people cannot support Amtrak much more than they do because of the limits to Amtrak's carrying capacity -- for non-Northeast Corridor trains in particular. Amtrak is using nearly every piece of equipment it currently owns, and without capital investment from the government to buy new equipment, it cannot carry very many more riders than it currently does.
Not true. Amtrak's average load factor is about 50%. That is, about half the seats are empty. Existing Amtrak services provide enough capacity for an additional 28 million passengers a year. The reason so few people use it is because it's slow, inconvenient and, despite massive subsidies, expensive.
And one reason why people don't support Amtrak more as voters is that transportation, in general, has always been low on people's priority lists when they're in the voting booth.
But we have a huge network of roads. And a huge network of airports. It's not transportation that's low on people's priority lists. It's Amtrak.
In European countries that have much more extensive passenger train networks that carry many times more riders than Amtrak, trains still carry less than a quarter of a given nation's passenger-miles.
Much, much less than a quarter, in fact. In the EU27, intercity rail provides only about 6% of total passenger-miles of travel. Larger than in the U.S., but still small as a share of total travel. And the main reason it's higher than it is in the U.S. is because distances between major cities in European countries tend to be much smaller than they are in the U.S. If Paris and Lyon or London and Birmingham were as far apart as New York and Los Angeles, the vast majority of French or British people would fly between them instead of taking the train (or driving).
Likewise, an American who argued against taxpayer subsidies for sewer systems would be ridiculed.
I think that's a pretty meaningless comparison. Basic sanitation is a public good. It's necessary to prevent the spread of infectious diseases and protect public health. No equivalent justification exists for subsidies to passenger rail.
by Bertie on Sep 18, 2011 1:12 am • link • report
Add a Comment