Amtrak Not Worth State Support

The Antiplanner arrived at the Purple Line debate debate last night to find protesters who were apparently upset that anyone would consider not building a train whose projected costs have already risen by more than 40 percent and whose ridership projections are so outlandish that even the Federal Transit Administration uses a lower (though still unrealistically high) number. Some of the protesters recognized me and were nice enough to wish me well in the debate.

My opponent, Richard Parsons, seems to truly believe that a 15.5-mph, low-capacity rail line will spur enough development to increase county tax revenues by more than $10 billion. When I pointed out that this has not happened to any rail project in the last 40 years, and that at most all they have done is influenced where development takes place, he didn’t dispute it, but merely claimed that Montgomery County was unique. Those who wish to see my presentation can download the PowerPoint file here.

Meanwhile, in keeping with the fiscally conservative trend that swept much of the nation in the last election, Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner has proposed (see p. 3-32) to help close the state’s $6.8 billion budget gap by cutting state support for Amtrak from $46.2 million in 2015 to $28.8 million in 2016. Amtrak supporters are unsurprisingly outraged, claiming that a reduction in passenger train service will increase traffic congestion, air pollution, and wear and tear on the highways.

Get real. Passenger trains were once an important part of Illinois life, but today they are less important than the dot over the third i in Illinois.

The average Illinois resident travels more than 15,000 miles a year. How many of those miles are on state-supported Amtrak routes? Based on Amtrak’s 2014 performance report, these four routes–the Chicago-St. Louis “Lincoln Service,” Chicago-Milwaukee Hiawathas, Chicago-Galesburg Illinois Zephyr/Carl Sandburg, and Chicago-Carbondale Illini-Saluki–carry about 300 million passenger miles per year, or less than 25 miles per Illinois resident. Fewer than 5,500 people—not all of them Illinois residents—took a trip on one of these trains on a typical day in 2014, whereas millions of people a day drove or rode on Illinois roads.

Ticket revenues from these trains totaled $48.4 million in 2014. This means the $41.5 million in state subsidies plus the more than $10 million in federal subsidies were greater than the fares. Yes, other forms of transportation get subsidies, but not (except for public transit) for more than half the cost.
He had served in World War I, and often times his team was lowest price viagra referred to as the “Blackhawk Division”. And buy levitra viagra we see this happening everywhere, all the time. In recent years, the firms that produced previously supplements cipla tadalafil 20mg http://valsonindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Quarterly-Financial-Result-March-2018.pdf containing ephedrine finished to produce products with its contents. The theory of this remedy is to reduce or eliminate entire body and again viagra overnight usa discomfort, and to re-train difficulty muscle areas into a relaxed soreness no cost state.
Fares paid by riders of Illinois state-supported trains in 2014 averaged about 16 cents per passenger mile, while the trains required more than 17 cents per passenger mile in operating subsidies (not counting the billions of dollars Illinois taxpayers are spending on improving the Chicago-to-St. Louis corridor to 110-mph standards.) By comparison, fares paid by riders of regular trains in Amtrak’s Boston-to-Washington Northeast Corridor averaged 48 cents per mile. This doesn’t include the high-speed Acela trains, whose riders paid an average of 87 cents per passenger mile.

The Northeast Corridor trains are not truly profitable when capital and maintenance costs are counted, but they don’t require any operating subsidies. Why should Illinois trains be any different? If Illinois train riders aren’t willing to pay at least 33 cents per mile, why should Illinois taxpayers subsidize their rides?

If Illinois subsidies to Amtrak disappeared tomorrow, hardly anyone would notice a difference. Highway users might see a few extra Megabuses on the road, but would find no measurable increase in congestion.

Megabus has service from Chicago to 30 other cities every day. It receives no direct subsidies from anyone, yet has lower fares and in some corridors offers faster and more frequent service than Amtrak. If not Megabus, then some other bus company would quickly fill in any gaps left by a reduction or end to Amtrak service.

Those who ride these trains and think Illinois should keep subsidizing them need to suggest where that subsidy should come from. More cuts to children’s services? Schools? State pension funds? Or should the state raise taxes to nearly $4 for every resident of Illinois to subsidize train rides most of them will never take?

Instead, why not just increase fares to at least cover the real costs of operating the trains? If the trains are really so worthwhile to their riders, then they should happily pay 35 cents per mile, which is less than fares in the Northeast Corridor but enough to cover all of the costs (including inflation) of operating the Illinois Amtrak trains that now get state support.

Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

12 Responses to Amtrak Not Worth State Support

  1. OFP2003 says:

    The $45 ticket was to rich for me, I’ll just keep writing my elected representatives including the governor. People “Protesting” in favor of a train? If they are too cheap to shell out the $45 how come they want so many billions of out tax dollars wasted on this purple dinosaur? “The Barney Line!”

  2. JOHN1000 says:

    The IRS allows auto drivers a deduction of 57.5 cents per mile–which gives one an idea of what it costs to drive a car. I’ll bet that 16 cents of that covers payments to the government for gas taxes, tolls, property taxes, sales taxes on repairs and parts, etc. And they have to do the driving.

    At the 16 cents a mile they currently pay, the Illinois train riders have the greatest deal in the country. And now it is an entitlement? Cheers for the governor’s good start on the way to eliminating this unneeded subsidy.

  3. Sandy Teal says:

    I have tried to take Amtrak instead of flying several times, but outside of the NE corridor the times and cost are really tough to take. Usually the trips require boarding or arriving in the middle of the night. If you book a bed, then it is very expensive and you are not enjoying the train experience anyway. If you sleep in a seat, well that is a miserable trip.

  4. bennett says:

    “My opponent, Richard Parsons, seems to truly believe that a 15.5-mph, low-capacity rail line will spur enough development to increase county tax revenues by more than $10 billion. When I pointed out that this has not happened to any rail project in the last 40 years, and that at most all they have done is influenced where development takes place, he didn’t dispute it, but merely claimed that Montgomery County was unique.”

    To me it’s become clear that most new light rail line projects are about getting a certain type of land use in a certain area. When prodded, that’s what the most ardent light rail supporters here in Austin will finally admit to.

  5. bennett says:

    I also agree with Sandy. In college I took a train from Denver to Seattle. The only reason I did it was because of a special ticket deal, buy 1 ticket get 2 free. I was traveling with two friends so split three ways its was cheaper than air or bus. We didn’t have a sleeper car. We were 9 hours late getting into Seattle. For the most part it was a miserable experience. We got to see some nice country. That’s about it.

  6. metrosucks says:

    “-Light rail “is not worth the cost if you’re just looking at transit” says top Metro growth planner John Fregonese. “It’s a way to develop your community to higher densities.”

    (http://ti.org/FS6.html)

  7. ahwr says:

    @Bennet, Land use and transportation are inseparable. When transit supporters talk about transit (rail or bus, doesn’t matter) being cheaper or more environmentally friendly they are talking about changing land use patterns. Is this really such a secret?

  8. metrosucks says:

    Of course, when caught with proof of their plans, planners say, “well DUH, that is what we said we were going to do all along!”. However, they never told the public “our plans are to stuff you in rabbit hutches and run trains everywhere and increase congestion ten-fold to force car driving scum to give it up”, now did they?

  9. Frank says:

    “More cuts to children’s services? Schools?”

    PLEASE stop with the appeals to the children. Think of the children! THE CHILDREN!

    Come on. State intervention in the child services or education market is statism. Why is the AP supporting such statism?

    Particularly when public schools suck so bad. They are prisons. Reprogramming centers. Statist indoctrination locations.

    In WA state, 2010 data shows that more than half the capitol city’s schools “are listed as Struggling or Fair.” More money will not fix this! It will not magically empower the 65-year-old history teacher to take a technology literacy class so he, who makes over 100k in cash and benefits, can manage his own email inbox. More money will not cure the group think. More money will not teach the assistant principal to write in standard English with proper grammar that everyone can understand. And on. And on. Money is not the issue. You’ve got to know that. So please. No more appeals to the children or state “education”.

  10. bennett says:

    “@Bennet, Land use and transportation are inseparable. When transit supporters talk about transit (rail or bus, doesn’t matter) being cheaper or more environmentally friendly they are talking about changing land use patterns. Is this really such a secret?”

    It is a secret! A poorly kept one. I’ve gone to many public meetings and presentations advocating for various light rail projects. Rarely, if ever, do advocates come out and say “We’re using this project as a development and planning tool. We recognize a need for new developments in area x and this light rail line will enable us to do that.” Why don’t they say that? Because you’re not going to pass a bond if the case is spending a lot of public money so new developments far away from where you live can be built. You know what you hear at those meetings? “This is an integral part of the solution to the congestion problem. This is about mobility for those who need it most. This is about moving people.” But it isn’t about any of those things.

    Fregonese is right. I feel that public transit should be a human service first and foremost. The goal is to increase mobility. The way to increase mobility is to first focus service on populations that have mobility limitations for whatever reasons. Light Rail projects are often the opposite of human service. They are often a private development service first and foremost. Light Rail is also expensive to build, operate and maintain and transit agencies often have to cannibalize services for transit dependent cohorts to make the new train work.

    I am a pro-transit professional planner. Everyday I work with transit customers that have a hell of a time getting around because they don’t have a car and are poor, disabled or elderly. When new multimillion dollar train stations are being built 2 blocks away from a major bus transfer center that has virtually no amenities or protection from the elements, I get pissed. When new rail line is implemented in a city and a week later the ADA paratransit service area shrinks by 60%, I get pissed. When a productive intercity commuter bus service used by many working-class customers is cancelled and replaced with a new rail service that costs twice as much to ride, requires new transfers and takes significantly longer, I get pissed.

    As fun and delightful as they are, I could really give a shit about uber-white, hipster, mixed-use, bustling nodes, if we are getting them at the expense of those that need transit services the most.

  11. ahwr says:

    @bennett
    Can you give me some examples of the presentations you have in mind, anything posted online? I was under the impression that the AP attacks transit projects for claims of development they will bring on a regular basis. I assumed if development claims were made that it was clear that different land use was to be accompanied by the transit service.

    Who’s Fregonese? Which transit agency cut its ADA service area by 60% a week after a rail line opened? Which multimillion dollar train station do you have in mind that opened two blocks from a major bus transfer center that had no amenities? Did the train station have amenities? Small scale improvements for local bus service would be nice in many areas. Like heated bus stops in areas that have a bad winter. It gets expensive when you have thousands of stops that are lightly used instead of a few heavily travelled corridors. Transit service is expensive in low density areas.

    Which intercity service did you have in mind? What makes them productive? Which buses were replaced by a rail service that cost twice as much to ride? Do you mean commuter buses? Generally street running light rail systems are going to be more oriented towards shorter trips, so yea for those at the end of the line you’ll end up with a longer trip than a commuter bus would offer, possibly dependent on traffic. Which bus you are getting rid of matters. If it cost twenty five dollars per trip and the area’s contribution to the transit agency’s funding didn’t cover that I wouldn’t shed a tear. AP would scream bloody murder if a rail line was built where combined operating and capital costs were that high. I know he would, because when those lines are proposed he does. If the rail line had a per trip cost of ten dollars would it be so bad if you paid for it in a small part by cutting a bus that cost twenty five? Maybe it would’ve been better to cut that commuter bus to install heated bus stops on some highly used inner city local routes.

  12. bennett says:

    ADA Service shrunk in Austin right after CapMetro rolled out the Red Line (commuter Rail). Went from covering the entire CapMetro service are to 2/3 of a mile from fixed routes. Honestly, 60% is a generous estimation. The figure is probably much higher.

    New Train Station v. Ignored Bus Transfer Center: http://kut.org/post/plans-new-metrorail-station-dont-have-everyone-board

    Intercity Services: I was referring to the RailRunner in New Mexico. I do a lot of work out there. A lot of the working class commuters I’ve talked to much preferred the buses. As I stated, it cost more and takes longer (many even claim the buses were more comfortable, but I don’t know about that).

    I’ve been to a lot of Project Connect meetings: http://www.projectconnect.com/
    Been to a couple of FasTracks meetings: http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/main_1
    Went to a TRAX meeting a while back: http://www.rideuta.com/mc/?page=uta-home-trax
    Several years ago I went to some DART meetings. The major emphasis of every one of those meetings was mobility, either through congestion mitigation or increased levels of service. But none of the plans have had any substantive impact on congestion or travel times. The less emphasized economic development, real estate development and desired land use changes, which I would I would argue are the actual goals of many of these projects, are only given lip service.

    Fregonese was quoted by metrosucks. He’s is one of the founders of The Congress for New Urbanism. He’s an extremely talented planner and espouses many of the values that are utterly despised on this blog. He’s a smart growth advocate and is one of the few of us that is really honest about what light rail does. That is, it gives us a way to get the land use we think we need. That’s pretty much it.

Leave a Reply