Comments on: AMTRAK’s Per-Passenger Subsidy Higher Than Cost of Airline Ticket from New Orleans to LA

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 01:52:02 +0000

There are enough sources provided with the information in the above link to verify the veracity of the information.

By: BobMcCarty

BobMcCarty — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:17:13 +0000

Buyer beware. “Facts” from lobbying organization.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:12:00 +0000

Some facts about transportation subsidies:

http://www.trainweb.org/moksrail/advocacy/resources/subsidies/transport.htm

By: Dan Nichols

Dan Nichols — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 06:23:09 +0000

The actual fuel usage measured in btu/mile/pass
(BTU per mile per passenger) is rarely discussed for transportation issues. Consider the following transportation media..Privately Owned Vehicle (POV), Passenger Airlines and Passenger Rail (Amtrak). Comparing apples to apples is a good idea.. We’llmake the trip 2000 miles long . The vehicle is turbo diesel vehicle getting 28mpg with 4 people on board using #2 diesel: The plane is a 747 with 280 passengers using Jet-A (kerosene) and gets 2.7 gal/mile. (Note that’s gallons per mile not the inverse) The Amtrak is the Empire Builder pulling 4 coaches and two sleepers with an average fuel usage of 1.7 mpg with a combined total of 280 passengers. The result is as follows: POV= 1200 btu/mile/pass; Plane=1309 btu/mile/pass and Rail=245 btu/mile/pass From the standpoint fuel efficiency I’d say the Train wins hands down… over 400 percent fuel savings over the other modes.

By: Anne

Anne — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:10:27 +0000

OK, so first, what are the subsidies for Southwest Airlines? Air Traffic Control System. Airports, NTSB Air Transportation related activities, budget of the National Aeronautics branch of the Department of Commerce. And how is Amtrak set up to function? Because they are expected to run on minimal subsidies compared to all other forms of transportation they run on the freight lines of other railroads, often giving up track priorities to freight trains, therefor running at a fraction of the speed of the (non-high speed) railroads in many other countries. And so few people want to ride from Indianapolis to Chicago at an average speed of 48 miles per hour, the trains run half empty (or worse) with few cars.

And then we can talk about high speed rail – China, yes China (who makes coal fired power plants that are 20 percent more efficient than ours, and where they are building wind turbines and solar power plants at a rapid rate while we are setting on our butts not creating a sane energy policy, thereby preparing to follow Britain from the pinnacles of power to the status of just another minor country) has 8,000 miles of high speed rail, running from 120 (for regular trains) to 220 (for mag-lev trains) mph. Indianapolis to Chicago would take less than 2 hours at 120 mph, and about an hour at 220 mph, instead of the current 4 1/2 hours. Might look really attractive, compared to the airlines – and you come right into downtown instead of out at O Hare.

And interesting that you should pick the New Orleans to LA trip for your comparison – it goes through Chicago. If it were a high speed train – 220 mph – at 1900 miles (that is the highway distance) is 8 1/2 hours – throw in an 2.5 hours for 10 – 15 minute stops so you have a trip time of 11 hours – a lot longer than the airlines, but if you were running full trains, the cost might actually be much lower than the airlines, thus enticing a whole bunch of riders and making the whole thing much more efficient and successful.

To restate all of this succinctly, if Railroads were run as a real business, as you would obviously like, they would be getting all of the benefits (sometimes called subsidies) that all of the other transportation businesses get from government, and they might actually be competitive, from both a cost standpoint and a desirability standpoint.

thanks for the opportunity to throw in my 2 cents worth.

Anne