Amtrak Loss Comes To $32 Per Passenger: Study

WASHINGTON — U.S. taxpayers spent about $32 subsidizing the cost of the typical Amtrak passenger in 2008, about four times the rail operator's estimate, according to a private study.

Amtrak operates a nationwide rail network, serving more than 500 destinations in 46 states. Forty-one of Amtrak's 44 routes lost money in 2008, said the study by Subsidyscope, an arm of the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Stephen Van Beek, president of the Eno Transportation Foundation, a think tank, said the analysis could help guide decisions on how to spend $8 billion set aside for high-speed and intercity rail in a $787 billion economic stimulus bill. Rail planners may decide that spending the funds on high-speed rail makes more sense than slower intercity rail, which the Amtrak numbers show need higher subsidies.

Subsidyscope says its review counted certain capital expenses that Amtrak doesn't consider when calculating the financial performance of its routes, namely wear and tear on equipment, or depreciation.

Leading the list was the train traveling between New Orleans and Los Angeles – the Sunset Limited – which lost $462 per passenger. Taxpayers subsidize the losses to keep the passenger train service running.

The Northeast corridor has the highest passenger volume of any Amtrak route, greatly enhancing efficiency. The corridor's high-speed Acela Express made a profit of about $41 per passenger. The more heavily utilized Northeast Regional lost almost $5 per passenger.

Passenger rail systems throughout the world lose money and require government subsidies to cover operating expenses.

Marcus Peacock, project director for Subsidyscope, said his group's analysis should lead to more scrutiny for the Amtrak routes that are losing the most money.

Van Beek cautioned against holding passenger rail service to a higher standard than other forms of transportation.

"Let's not hold rail up and say it needs to make money when highways don't make money, transit doesn't make money and a lot of small airports don't make money and they all get subsidies," Van Beek said.

The Government Accountability Office had previously said the omission of depreciation substantially understates the capital expenses associated with Amtrak's routes.

Amtrak officials said they're working with the Transportation Department to come up with a fair way to determine capital expenses but the method used in the report unfairly burden routes whose equipment was sold and then leased back.

___

Associated Press writer Joan Lowy contributed to this report.

___

On the Net:

Subsidyscope: http://www.subsidyscope.com

Comments

[LeeCalif]

02:00 PM on 01/28/2010

Bring back Peter Gunn !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The only man who wanted Amtrak to succeed !!

[Rog49Thomas]

05:31 PM on 10/28/2009

Apples and oranges.

A fair comparison needs to look at

(a) the cost of road maintenance (repairs, plowing, etc), police and rescue services and all the other services provided for "free" to the users of automobiles and trucks

(b) the cost of air traffic control, airport maintenance, etc provided free to the airlines

(c) all the externalities - relative amounts of pollution generated, land usage, etc

[Rog49Thomas]

05:37 PM on 10/28/2009

And of course (silly me) the cost of the land and construction

[jtjsrch]

03:50 PM on 10/28/2009

Few know that Amtrak picks up the tab - for the "private sector" RRs - for a lot of infrastructure projects. Here in CA Amtrak paid for most of the double-tracking from Sacramento to San Francisco. Nice for Union Pacific!, which runs MANY more freight trains over that stretch than does Amtrak's passenger trains. As the old song goes "Nice work if you can get it!".

[hirogliffix]

02:27 PM on 10/28/2009

The math on trains is all wrong.

Checking today, I see I can go from Montreal to Philadelphia for $83. That is $16 more than it costs to go from New York to Philadelphia.

The taxpayer subsidizes the rolling-stock and the people who work and travel because there is no motivation to create railbeds to enable the kind of performance today's real high speed rail trains can deliver . The US does not yet have high speed rail. At least as defined in France, Japan, or Shanghai.

Unfortunately, the railbeds are owned by concerns who care about moving freight.

[Democratuser]

02:06 PM on 10/28/2009

We need more stimulus spending. More jobs programs. Lets pray that Obama can get it done. Millions of lower & middle class Americans are falling through the cracks. We need a bailout to help them, not the banks.

hat tip to http://financeopinionss.blogspot.com

lets get unemployment benefit extension passed

[denlong]

12:00 PM on 10/28/2009

At least it is NOT $32k

[solarian]

09:36 AM on 10/28/2009

I take the train all over the usa don't trust airplanes can go from sf to santa fe for $170 not bad

[robmclaughjr]

09:02 AM on 10/28/2009

How much does the US taxpayer lose on every airline seat? The dirty little secret is that the railroads are expected to be fully self-financed while polluting, inefficient airplanes are supported by taxpayer money to the hilt. Those extra fees don't begin to cover the cost of the FAA, the Homeland Security cops, the infrastructure, the free pilot training from the military, etc, etc.

[FGGreene]

01:27 PM on 10/28/2009

I wonder how much it costs taxpayers for every mile driven in an automobile? Most people think that streets, etc are paid for by gasoline taxes: it doesn't even come close to even paying for the pavement. In most american cities the city streets are at least 90% paid for by property and sales taxes, not any tax on vehicles or fuel.

[noaxe397]

05:15 AM on 10/28/2009

No one complained when Congress gave the airlines 5 billion in cash (gave, not loaned,) because the FAA had to ground the national fleet for 3-4 days in September, 8 years ago. There was also an additional 15 billion in loan guarantees for them.

At the same time Amtrack asked for a few hundred million due to its loses from that same September event 8 years ago.
The GOP controlled Congress told them to take a hike.

The Gop's constituency flies
The Democrats constituency uses inter urban ground travel.

BTW, does anyone know if the cost to the taxpayer for the FAA and ATC is factored into the cost of the ticket or in some way recouped by the government from the airline?

[MikeTN]

02:49 AM on 10/28/2009

A good number of small and regional airports are subsidized. If not for subsides you would probably find airports in cities like Des Moines, Iowa and Rapid City City, SD shut down. As a matter of fact you would probably have to shut down airport service in some entire states like Montana, the Dakotas, Iowa, Nebraska, etc. No Airport Service. It is not always about making a profit. The interstate system was not about making a profit. It it had been there would be no interstate system. Just a bunch of two-lane highways with a lot of Bates Models. And you know what happened there!

[MikeTN]

02:08 AM on 10/28/2009

If you have ever used the public transport systems in the U.K. or in Europe you will see that trains, subways and buses are interconnected. There is almost no point that you cannot reach with a combination of one or more of these. If you live in a city you can board a bus at a corner which will take you to, or very close to, a subway or light rail station. From there you can travel to, or close to your destination. At that point you can board another bus to continue to the street your going to.

In my travels to the U.K. I have seldom needed a car. Of course most Americans would be enraged if they had to pay what Europeans paid for gasoline of about $7.00 - $ 8.00 (when you convert liters to gallons). Most of that is taxes.

[KIVPossum]

04:44 AM on 10/28/2009

It is nice. I put about 1500 miles a year on a car, using it only when I need to carry a lot and don't want to fight with bags or supplies on the bus. The bus and train system in this country is antiquated but efficient - posted schedules are honored to the minute. And I can get anywhere in a town of 800K in twenty minutes for 30 cents, 60 if I have to change buses.

Love trains and ridden them all over Europe, much of Russia, and through central Asia. Two trips I took on Amtrak convinced me to avoid them. The schedules are works of fiction and the price too high.

The US needs to park their cars and invest in and use public transportation. That's do a lot more good than buying hybrids.

[InYourWorld]

05:37 PM on 10/28/2009

The transit system is by no means efficient. In fact if you dont live in a large metro area there probably isn;t ANY transit service.

I'd love to use transit instead of driving, but I still drive about 20,000 miles a year to and from work and doing errands as I have no option.

[MarcusT]

11:53 PM on 10/27/2009

One of the most frequently mouthed claims about high-speed rail is that it is enormously profitable. Judging by the claims made by proponents, you might wonder why all the world’s capital has not “beaten a path” to the station.

Some of the wildest profit claims have been made by board members and staff of the California High Speed Rail Authority, which plans to build a $50 billion system from San Diego and Los Angeles to San Francisco and Sacramento.

Sadly for rail advocates, these claims are largely bogus.

Recently, Iñaki Barrón de Angoiti, director of high-speed rail at the International Union of Railways in Paris, said high-speed rail is not a profitable business. The New York Times went on to report that he referred to the short Paris-Lyon and Tokyo-Osaka routes as the only ones in the world that have “broken even.”

[Caliwoman]

11:42 PM on 10/27/2009

So if 3 of 5 US servicemembers abroad are in oil rich areas to protect access, and we factor in the costs of highways, how many billions could we save reducing gasoline fueled vehicle use and the truwe expenses of that mode of transportation and going for rail and other forms of mass transit. And if we factor in selling off highway right of ways for crops and other uses? Right wing thing tanks always want to include rail maintenance costs for Amtrack butnot highway costs for car users.

[JessWonderin]

11:52 PM on 10/27/2009

Excellent point . . . the REAL figure on our "oil-auto" based system is BILLIONS more than rail when compared infrastructure/support to infrastructure/support.

[LeeCalif]

11:34 PM on 10/27/2009

BRING BACK DAVID GUNN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RJII]

11:08 PM on 10/27/2009

I ride the NE corridor. I'll be happy when it can get me from Bmore to DC in 25 minutes or less for say $15 bucks RT. Same with the express local commuter

[FGGreene]

01:28 PM on 10/28/2009

Can you get from Baltimore to DC in 25 minutes for under $15 in your car? Not if you count the fuel, the vehicle, the insurance and maintenance. No way.

[RJII]

08:27 PM on 10/31/2009

from baltimore to dc in 25-- you must be driving non-rush hour and/or 120 miles per hour. Wanna car pool?