Good Amtrak, Bad Amtrak.

Scene at the Lynchburg train station. Photo credit: WSET-TV.

Passenger rail in the United States is experiencing a renaissance, maintain the authors of a new Brookings Institution report. Amtrak ridership has increased 55% since 1997, faster than other major travel modes. The secret, the authors contend, is Amtrak’s collaboration with states to upgrade tracks, operate routes and redevelop stations.

Hmmm… The report downplays the fact that Amtrak required about $1.4 billion in federal and state support in Fiscal 2012, or that 40 of its routes lose money while only four ran a positive cash balance. The report does note, however, that there really are two Amtraks — a profitable core in the Mid-Atlantic/New England states and an unprofitable everything else. It’s worth noting that Virginia’s Amtrak service, a modest appendage to the profitable core, essentially broke even between 2007 and 2011.

Amtrak runs two high-volume routes in the Washington-Boston corridor, the most densely populated region of the country, where trains are competitive with air for mid-distance travel. The high-speed Acela, which runs 308 miles, carried 3.4 million passengers last year and generated a positive cash balance of $179 million in Fiscal 2011, by far the most profitable leg of the system. The Northeast Regional route, which runs 330 miles, carried 8 million passengers last year and generated a surplus of $28 million in Fiscal 2011.

Then there’s everybody else. Of those routes in the “everybody else” category, only two generated a positive cash balance, both miniscule. One is the Adirondack route, with a surplus of $1.3 million, and the other… drum roll, please… is the 173-mile Washington-Lynchburg route, which racked up a $3.3 million surplus on 185,000 passengers.

Every other route in the country lost money. Of those, the 187-mile Washington-Newport News route was one of the few to come close to breaking even, losing only a half million dollars on 624,000 passengers.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that the Virginia routes are profitable because the state negotiated a sweet deal with Amtrak several years back. Kudos to the unheralded administrators in the Department of Rail and Public Transport who struck such a good bargain. The bad news is that the deal is expiring and Amtrak wants more money. Virginia will be hard-pressed to maintain those routes profitably.

As much as I loathe transportation modes that fail to pay their own way, Virginia is probably justified in supporting its inter-city passenger rail service. Traffic is growing (and will grow even faster in the Old Dominion with the launch of Washington-Norfolk service), and will continue to grow as gasoline prices rise. The long-term future of passenger rail looks bright for the Northeast corridor, which bodes well for Virginians using the train to reach Northeast destinations. Maintaining the rail option for a modest sum provides Virginia inexpensive insurance against future run-ups in gasoline prices that make travel by car, bus and rail more costly. The McDonnell administration’s inter-city rail policy has not been ambitious but it has been sensible.

— JAB


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

8 responses to “Good Amtrak, Bad Amtrak.”

  1. larryg Avatar

    interesting that Amtrak’s subsidies are a bad thing and METROs are a good thing, eh?

    here’s the funny thing.

    we increased the sales tax to subsidize roads.

    but if we had done it to pay for METRO/Rail – folks would have gone berserk.

  2. Au contraire, I think a lot of that sales tax money is going to rail and public transit.

  3. larryg Avatar

    all of it?

    ๐Ÿ˜‰

    half of it?

    ๐Ÿ˜‰

    how much?

    bonus: how much for bike trails?

  4. TheWalkman Avatar
    TheWalkman

    Encouraging mutli-modal use of trains is a great concept. Whether it’s getting tractor trailers off the highways and onto rail cars or using a bike to get to and from the train station makes sense. Either way, we’re taking big vehicles off our roads and decreasing traffic and congestion.

    Taking a bike on a train in Europe is no more difficult than traveling with your two year old in a stroller. It also doesn’t cost anything. Not so on this side of the Pond: with Amtrak taking your bike along is a major production that bars all but the most determined.

    see: http://www.vabike.org/bikes-amtrak-ordeal/

    It would be great if Amtrak made it easy for folks to take their bike but they make you box it, pay handling fees and essentially double the price of your ticket if you’re going from RVA to DC.

    Can’t they make this a bit simpler?

    I’m betting most bike oriented commuters would be good rail customers if the rail folks would try to work with cyclists.

    When it comes to bikes on board, Amtrak qualifies as very BAD.

    (With such a, “can’t do” attitude do we really why they aren’t profitable?)

  5. reed fawell III Avatar
    reed fawell III

    Why has rail along the 95 US 1 corridor between DC and Richmond been so anemic relative to potential demand?

  6. larryg Avatar

    re: bikes on transit/rail.

    we have bike racks on our local transit buses – and they do get used but many of our roads are death traps for bikes.

    re: anemic Amtrak

    not in Fredericksburg to Washington…

    VRE actually uses it to supplement their operations and many in Fredericksburg will use AmTrak to get to BWI for cheaper air fares or Reagan rather than driving parking… or METRO to visit Museums, attend events.

    There is no question, however, that METRO, VRE nor AMTRAK can operate only on farebox revenues.

    Europe rail does not either. $8 a gallon auto fuel helps pay for their rail/transit.

  7. larryg Avatar

    some people, not all by a long shot – for sure, see public transportation like they do public education or public police and fire service.

    in each of the other cases, one could – make a case, that public schools, public roads, police, fire/rescue, are all “subsidized” services and not expected to recover their costs from the “fare box”.

    Europe, Japan, and many other countries views transit/rail in this way. We do not.

    In that regard – when McDonnell shifted funding from a tax per gallon to taxes “at the rack” and general purpose sales taxes – I think – he opened the door a bit to talk about the funding of transportation needs – regardless of mode.

    In the future, not only will education fight over the sales tax with roads – but public transportation will also claim the sales tax. Roads will not have the sole claim of it as a funding source.

    saaaaayyyyy… in this regard, do you think McD considered this dynamic in his efforts to deal with transportation funding?

    after all – he did move transit/rail funding from the fuels tax to the sales tax, right?

  8. larryg Avatar

    here’s another perspective on Amtrak:

    Bacon says this: ” The high-speed Acela, which runs 308 miles, carried 3.4 million passengers last year and generated a positive cash balance of $179 million in Fiscal 2011, by far the most profitable leg of the system.”

    Now .. in the age of … ” the govt is incompetent, wasteful, unable to perform efficiently…. etc, etc, blah, blah, blah”… isn’t it interesting that the govt actually operates a profitable enterprise – at least operationally.

    to be fair – the capital aspect of it probably tilts the scales otherwise but then again – who provides the capital investment for the road system that trucking companies depend on?

Leave a Reply