Since the article doesn't really go in detail as to why Amtrak is losing money, most of Amtrak's losses are from long routes across the US, not short distance travel.
That being said, Amtrak is definitely an interesting way to travel, and the route between Denver and California on the California Zephyr is really awesome if one likes landscapes.
GG Wash, a very pro transit/rail site, did an analysis of Amtrak cost-per-mile recently. https://ggwash.org/view/10891/funding-amtrak-is-more-cost-ef.... Amtrak's direct subsidies are more than 10x higher per passenger mile than roads. The site then adds back in a bunch of externalities like CO2 and parking (which is totally fair), and concludes that Amtrak is ever-so-slightly cheaper per passenger mile ($0.439 versus $0.447). As we move to more electric vehicles, car travel will become outright less subsidized than Amtrak even accounting for all the externalities. But look at the usage: 6.5 billion passenger miles for Amtrak, versus 4.24 trillion for roads. Amtrak is a rounding error in the country's transportation system.
In fact, rail as a whole is a rounding error, accounting for less than 1% of passenger miles. The political attention spent on high speed rail, subways, etc., is completely out of proportion with the actual number of people who use it. It gets a lot of attention because yuppies use it, but 99% of passenger miles in the U.S. are logged on cars and planes.
Rail doesn't deserve the amount of political attention it gets. Public money spent on rail is welfare for yuppies at the expense of people in need. Most low-income people can't afford to live near a train station in any U.S. city with a significant rail network. Low-income people who use public transit ride the bus, which costs half as much per passenger mile: https://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/transpor.... So when you spend money on rail, you're spending money on something that (1) disproportionately benefits yuppies, and (2) you're spending more of it to move the same number of people the same distance because rail is a less economically efficient mode of transport. It's morally indefensible.
Disclosure: I love trains. I ride Amtrak all the time, and ride the D.C. Metro every day. Which is precisely why we shouldn't fund rail. If you look around a Northeast Regional, it's mostly business travelers. Metro is likewise mostly white-collar workers (in the evening, comparatively well-off tourists and locals enjoying the night life). The folks cleaning houses in D.C. aren't hopping onto the Orange line at Clarendon, they're driving in from Herndon.
Different modes of transport serve different purposes. I would however like to point out there's a very strong distinction between long distance trains and rapid transit trains (i.e. Amtrak vs. subways a la DC or NYC): long distance is for travel between cities outside of the origin's metro area. Rapid transit is for travel within a city. Amtrak's only meaningful source of profit is their Northeast Corridor route [0]. That route effectively subsidizes all of the other routes. It is my understanding that the other routes are operated to provide access to rural communities that are otherwise unserved by transit.
Buses are generally better than subways until the surface level roads physically cannot contain the buses necessary to ensure there's enough space for passengers. Once that point is reached, subways are essentially the only option to prevent excessive amounts of sprawl.
I interned just outside of DC last summer and I agree the Metro was remarkably free of people who appeared to be working class. However, my personal belief is that it's a consequence of the Metro's distance-based pricing. In NYC, it's a flat $2.75 per trip if you're paying on a per ride basis regardless of how far you travel. On the NYC subways, everyone takes the subway. There, there is a mix of poor and wealthy on the subway. NYC is so densely built that the number of buses needed to accommodate every journey physically would not be able to fit on the (typically very narrow) streets.
Amtrak isn't profitable anywhere--it runs an operating profit in the northeast corridor, but that doesn't account for the fact that the federal government pays for capital expenditures. So even the NEC is subsidized--which is unjustifiable considering that NEC riders are primarily quite well off, often business travelers.
As to the rest of Amtrak--what is the purpose of connecting rural areas to transit just for the sake of it? Amtrak serves an infinitesimally small fraction of trips in these places, at subsidies an order of magnitude higher than for road travel. What is the logic of spending such disproportionate resources on that tiny handful of people?
As far as I can tell from some brief research you're correct that if capital expenses were accounted for, the NEC would run a fairly minor loss. I agree that NEC-fares should probably be raised so that it's profitable without government aid.
> What is the logic of spending such disproportionate resources on that tiny handful of people?
Government enterprises don't exist to make a profit. They exist to make the people better off; sometimes resources are focused on the most needy. If you view Amtrak in that light, then it's substantially more justifiable. I'm not saying that Amtrak is the best form of making people better off via providing easy transportation, but it's something.
> Government enterprises don't exist to make a profit. They exist to make the people better off; sometimes resources are focused on the most needy. If you view Amtrak in that light, then it's substantially more justifiable.
But that’s precisely the problem. Amtrak users even in rural places aren’t “the most needy.” Amtrak is more expensive than driving, especially if you’re traveling with a family, and everybody in rural America has a car (you can’t get to an Amtrak station without one). Portland to Eugene is $28 per person, for a trip that’s about $15 worth of gas. Over $100 for a family of four, and then you still have to get where you’re going at both ends. You can’t even take the train to less economically advantaged places along the Oregon coast. But everybody has a car.
That’s what’s so morally pernicious about rail. It’s rich yuppies’ idea of what poor people use and need. Poor people don’t take the train. They don’t work in a downtown office building near transit. They work in the suburbs or exurbs or in the country. On Christmas they pack their kids in a cheap car and go from their house, which is nowhere near a city center, to grandma’s house, which is nowhere near a city center. What helps needy people (and frankly, the 90% of America that lives outside major cities)—lets them get to work, go visit family, etc., is roads, cheap gas, and in more developed areas, reliable bus service.
You're presuming that everyone has affordable access to a (reliable) car. That's not necessarily always true. Amtrak is significantly cheaper than renting a car to travel short to medium distances when there's a corresponding route.
Support for Amtrak-style rail is very low. Hell support for subway-style rail is still pretty low, but it has its uses in the truly developed areas (a la NYC). I'm ambivalent about Amtrak. I'm strongly supportive of subway-style rail, when it's appropriate (it's not appropriate aside from a small handful of cities).
There's multiple types of poor (rural, suburban, and urban). Are you not facing selection bias from living in a fairly suburbs-dominated metro (DC)?
> You're presuming that everyone has affordable access to a (reliable) car. That's not necessarily always true. Amtrak is significantly cheaper than renting a car to travel short to medium distances when there's a corresponding route.
We're talking about Amtrak in rural areas here, and for a statistical definition of 100%, 100% of folks in rural places have access a car. Life is impossible without one.
As to urban poor--they take the bus. A saver fare for Austin to Houston is $48. Greyhound will get you there for $9.
> There's multiple types of poor (rural, suburban, and urban). Are you not facing selection bias from living in a fairly suburbs-dominated metro (DC)?
Every metro area in the U.S. is suburbs dominated except NYC.
Maybe if we tried phasing out long haul trucking, and letting the demand for moving goods to naturally flow to the most efficient solution it wouldn't be so bad, or maybe walmart would own a fleet of 747's to haul crap around the country. I'd put my money on trains though.
> Low-income people who use public transit ride the bus, which costs half as much per passenger mile
Where are you seeing that? From your link:
> Bus systems have the lowest cost per vehicle revenue mile and revenue hour, $3.1 and $45, respectively, but the highest cost per thousand passenger mile, $616.4.
Regardless, the issues you point out are largely the same ones that rail proponents are looking to solve. For many, the ubiquity of road-based transport is the problem, and in any case what really matters is the cost of new development, not the existing volume. Metro rail design and engineering in the United States compared to other countries is historically pretty subpar in a way that road development is not so it makes some sense to push for the low-hanging fruit here, population density issues notwithstanding.
Your comment about poor people not being able to live near rail stations is interesting because metro light rail typically cuts through urban inner cities that are not affluent to begin with. So rail has a strong gentrifying effect. If you're right about buses being the practically superior transit system, maybe the best thing we can do politically is figure out where all the perceived value of rail is coming from and how to translate that to the bus system.
Worked for AMTRAK. It’s northeast operations are very profitable. The people who work in their ops center in Wilmington, DE work their butts off. So do their yard staff. The problem is with their top heavy management and admin staff.
The bigger problem is trains are slow. A 8 hour trip via train costs more in wages than a 3 hour trip via aircraft. Then there are the infamous sleeper cars which are practically mandatory for journeys longer than 12 hours.
Meta comment: how wonderful that this includes a transcript and thus doesn't need the [video] warning in the title. I wish more web sites would do this.
> In fact, it's often more expensive to take an Amtrak train from New York City to Boston than to fly. Why does the US, a country that created billionaire railroad tycoons, have such an expensive and inefficient train system?
Japan has the most efficient train system in the world. For example, in the next half hour there are four bullet trains departing from Tokyo to Osaka (550 km), each taking less than 2:40. There's no need to buy in advance, no long security or boarding lines: you just go to the station whenever, buy a ticket, and get on the next train.
The train service is extremely popular, likely each of the trains I mentioned will be at least half full.
No, the trains are faster and more comfortable. Driving Tokyo-Osaka is probably 6 hours, while the train is less than 3. saving 3 hours each way on a trip is worth a lot of money to a lot of people. Imagine you work in Osaka and have a meeting in Tokyo. If you're driving you'd have to leave a day early, and spend a night in a hotel, leave as soon as possible after the meeting and probably wouldn't be home before midnight. With the train you hop on the train in the morning, work all the way to Tokyo, attend the meeting, grab the first train back and finish up any work you had on your way home.
Trains in Japan are also extremely convenient, with good connections to local public transit and with tons of stores nearby. In comparison, going to the Haneda or Narita takes at least 40 minutes from downtown Tokyo and requires all the security theater, boarding and deplaning, that adds up to quite a lot.
SEA-PDX by train = ~3.5 hours, ~$50, with a low chance of delays, although if you are delayed, it will likely be for 1 or more hours. Trains leave ~6 times per day or so.
SEA-PDX by air = ~50 mins, $90, with a low chance of delays, and those delays add ~10-20 mins usually. Flights leave ~20+ times per day.
If Amtrak can't get the corridor between these two cities to a competitive state, why would I ever bother with them on a more serious trip?
24 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 79.7 ms ] threadThis article from a few years ago has a breakdown by route: http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2013/03/long-distance-trains-...
That being said, Amtrak is definitely an interesting way to travel, and the route between Denver and California on the California Zephyr is really awesome if one likes landscapes.
In fact, rail as a whole is a rounding error, accounting for less than 1% of passenger miles. The political attention spent on high speed rail, subways, etc., is completely out of proportion with the actual number of people who use it. It gets a lot of attention because yuppies use it, but 99% of passenger miles in the U.S. are logged on cars and planes.
Rail doesn't deserve the amount of political attention it gets. Public money spent on rail is welfare for yuppies at the expense of people in need. Most low-income people can't afford to live near a train station in any U.S. city with a significant rail network. Low-income people who use public transit ride the bus, which costs half as much per passenger mile: https://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/transpor.... So when you spend money on rail, you're spending money on something that (1) disproportionately benefits yuppies, and (2) you're spending more of it to move the same number of people the same distance because rail is a less economically efficient mode of transport. It's morally indefensible.
Disclosure: I love trains. I ride Amtrak all the time, and ride the D.C. Metro every day. Which is precisely why we shouldn't fund rail. If you look around a Northeast Regional, it's mostly business travelers. Metro is likewise mostly white-collar workers (in the evening, comparatively well-off tourists and locals enjoying the night life). The folks cleaning houses in D.C. aren't hopping onto the Orange line at Clarendon, they're driving in from Herndon.
Buses are generally better than subways until the surface level roads physically cannot contain the buses necessary to ensure there's enough space for passengers. Once that point is reached, subways are essentially the only option to prevent excessive amounts of sprawl.
I interned just outside of DC last summer and I agree the Metro was remarkably free of people who appeared to be working class. However, my personal belief is that it's a consequence of the Metro's distance-based pricing. In NYC, it's a flat $2.75 per trip if you're paying on a per ride basis regardless of how far you travel. On the NYC subways, everyone takes the subway. There, there is a mix of poor and wealthy on the subway. NYC is so densely built that the number of buses needed to accommodate every journey physically would not be able to fit on the (typically very narrow) streets.
[0]: See last page of https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/p...
As to the rest of Amtrak--what is the purpose of connecting rural areas to transit just for the sake of it? Amtrak serves an infinitesimally small fraction of trips in these places, at subsidies an order of magnitude higher than for road travel. What is the logic of spending such disproportionate resources on that tiny handful of people?
> What is the logic of spending such disproportionate resources on that tiny handful of people?
Government enterprises don't exist to make a profit. They exist to make the people better off; sometimes resources are focused on the most needy. If you view Amtrak in that light, then it's substantially more justifiable. I'm not saying that Amtrak is the best form of making people better off via providing easy transportation, but it's something.
But that’s precisely the problem. Amtrak users even in rural places aren’t “the most needy.” Amtrak is more expensive than driving, especially if you’re traveling with a family, and everybody in rural America has a car (you can’t get to an Amtrak station without one). Portland to Eugene is $28 per person, for a trip that’s about $15 worth of gas. Over $100 for a family of four, and then you still have to get where you’re going at both ends. You can’t even take the train to less economically advantaged places along the Oregon coast. But everybody has a car.
That’s what’s so morally pernicious about rail. It’s rich yuppies’ idea of what poor people use and need. Poor people don’t take the train. They don’t work in a downtown office building near transit. They work in the suburbs or exurbs or in the country. On Christmas they pack their kids in a cheap car and go from their house, which is nowhere near a city center, to grandma’s house, which is nowhere near a city center. What helps needy people (and frankly, the 90% of America that lives outside major cities)—lets them get to work, go visit family, etc., is roads, cheap gas, and in more developed areas, reliable bus service.
Support for Amtrak-style rail is very low. Hell support for subway-style rail is still pretty low, but it has its uses in the truly developed areas (a la NYC). I'm ambivalent about Amtrak. I'm strongly supportive of subway-style rail, when it's appropriate (it's not appropriate aside from a small handful of cities).
There's multiple types of poor (rural, suburban, and urban). Are you not facing selection bias from living in a fairly suburbs-dominated metro (DC)?
We're talking about Amtrak in rural areas here, and for a statistical definition of 100%, 100% of folks in rural places have access a car. Life is impossible without one. As to urban poor--they take the bus. A saver fare for Austin to Houston is $48. Greyhound will get you there for $9.
> There's multiple types of poor (rural, suburban, and urban). Are you not facing selection bias from living in a fairly suburbs-dominated metro (DC)?
Every metro area in the U.S. is suburbs dominated except NYC.
Maybe if we tried phasing out long haul trucking, and letting the demand for moving goods to naturally flow to the most efficient solution it wouldn't be so bad, or maybe walmart would own a fleet of 747's to haul crap around the country. I'd put my money on trains though.
Where are you seeing that? From your link:
> Bus systems have the lowest cost per vehicle revenue mile and revenue hour, $3.1 and $45, respectively, but the highest cost per thousand passenger mile, $616.4.
Regardless, the issues you point out are largely the same ones that rail proponents are looking to solve. For many, the ubiquity of road-based transport is the problem, and in any case what really matters is the cost of new development, not the existing volume. Metro rail design and engineering in the United States compared to other countries is historically pretty subpar in a way that road development is not so it makes some sense to push for the low-hanging fruit here, population density issues notwithstanding.
Your comment about poor people not being able to live near rail stations is interesting because metro light rail typically cuts through urban inner cities that are not affluent to begin with. So rail has a strong gentrifying effect. If you're right about buses being the practically superior transit system, maybe the best thing we can do politically is figure out where all the perceived value of rail is coming from and how to translate that to the bus system.
Strange that salaries go unmentioned, as paying people instead of using slaves raises the cost of existing service.
> Union costs are one of these open secrets no one wants to talk about.
Wastefully paying people instead of using slaves is one of these open secrets no one wants to talk about.
Oh how horrible it is to pay people for work.
Japan has the most efficient train system in the world. For example, in the next half hour there are four bullet trains departing from Tokyo to Osaka (550 km), each taking less than 2:40. There's no need to buy in advance, no long security or boarding lines: you just go to the station whenever, buy a ticket, and get on the next train.
The train service is extremely popular, likely each of the trains I mentioned will be at least half full.
Nevertheless, flying is cheaper.
Are cars so expensive in Japan that the cost of a train ticket can be higher in comparison to the US?
SEA-PDX by air = ~50 mins, $90, with a low chance of delays, and those delays add ~10-20 mins usually. Flights leave ~20+ times per day.
If Amtrak can't get the corridor between these two cities to a competitive state, why would I ever bother with them on a more serious trip?