JG-TC.com > News > Report: Amtrak subsidy comes to $32 per passenger

TODAY'S HEADLINES

SPECIAL SECTION

ONLINE POLL

ONLINE EXTRAS

Shop Smart, Shop Local

SITE TOOLS

OTHER LINKS

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Lee Enterprises

Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:22 PM CDT
Report: Amtrak subsidy comes to $32 per passenger
Forty-one of Amtrak's 44 routes lost money in 2008

By the ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) — 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.

Add your comments

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Not already registered?
Then click Here.

Comment policy:

JG-TC.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed. Comments posted on Saturday may not be reviewed until Sunday afternoon.

In order to keep the page a set width, long lines (mostly long links) will be chopped. Try putting spaces in your links or consider using tinyurl.com to make a smaller link that you can include.

We will never edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to remove comments that violate our code of conduct.

No comment may contain:

* Potentially libelous statements; such as accusing somebody of a crime, defamation of character, or statements that can harm somebody's reputation.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults, threats, harassment or inciting violence.
* Commercial product promotions.

If you have any questions, please contact our moderator.

medic57 wrote on Oct 28, 2009 4:14 AM:

" Why don't they just raise the cost of a ticket $32 instead of raping the taxpayers? "

jrhendren wrote on Oct 28, 2009 11:19 PM:

" medic57 wrote on Oct 28, 2009 4:14 AM:
" Why don't they just raise the cost of a ticket $32 instead of raping the taxpayers? "

It would be just like the Postal Service. They raised stamp prices knowing that revenue would go down. They said that less people would use stamps. If they raise ticket prices they will get less passengers, which in turn does not help. "