
Amtrak lost money every year since 1971 – here's why train are so expensive - nishantvyas
https://www.businessinsider.com/amtrak-why-so-expensive-america-train-system-2019-3
======
jfim
Since the article doesn't really go in detail as to why Amtrak is losing
money, most of Amtrak's losses are from long routes across the US, not short
distance travel.

This article from a few years ago has a breakdown by route:
[http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2013/03/long-distance-
trains-...](http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2013/03/long-distance-trains-and-
direct-costs.html?m=1)

That being said, Amtrak is definitely an interesting way to travel, and the
route between Denver and California on the California Zephyr is really awesome
if one likes landscapes.

------
impendia
> In fact, it's often more expensive to take an Amtrak train from New York
> City to Boston than to fly. Why does the US, a country that created
> billionaire railroad tycoons, have such an expensive and inefficient train
> system?

Japan has the most efficient train system in the world. For example, in the
next half hour there are four bullet trains departing from Tokyo to Osaka (550
km), each taking less than 2:40. There's no need to buy in advance, no long
security or boarding lines: you just go to the station whenever, buy a ticket,
and get on the next train.

The train service is _extremely_ popular, likely each of the trains I
mentioned will be at least half full.

Nevertheless, flying is cheaper.

~~~
m463
I wonder about the economics of the Japanese bullet trains. Are they
profitable?

Are cars so expensive in Japan that the cost of a train ticket can be higher
in comparison to the US?

~~~
dagw
No, the trains are faster and more comfortable. Driving Tokyo-Osaka is
probably 6 hours, while the train is less than 3. saving 3 hours each way on a
trip is worth a lot of money to a lot of people. Imagine you work in Osaka and
have a meeting in Tokyo. If you're driving you'd have to leave a day early,
and spend a night in a hotel, leave as soon as possible after the meeting and
probably wouldn't be home before midnight. With the train you hop on the train
in the morning, work all the way to Tokyo, attend the meeting, grab the first
train back and finish up any work you had on your way home.

------
gumby
Meta comment: how wonderful that this includes a transcript and thus doesn't
need the [video] warning in the title. I wish more web sites would do this.

------
rayiner
GG Wash, a very pro transit/rail site, did an analysis of Amtrak cost-per-mile
recently. [https://ggwash.org/view/10891/funding-amtrak-is-more-cost-
ef...](https://ggwash.org/view/10891/funding-amtrak-is-more-cost-effective-
than-subsidizing-roads). Amtrak's direct subsidies are more than 10x higher
per passenger mile than roads. The site then adds back in a bunch of
externalities like CO2 and parking (which is totally fair), and concludes that
Amtrak is ever-so-slightly cheaper per passenger mile ($0.439 versus $0.447).
As we move to more electric vehicles, car travel will become outright less
subsidized than Amtrak even accounting for all the externalities. But look at
the usage: 6.5 billion passenger miles for Amtrak, versus 4.24 _trillion_ for
roads. Amtrak is a rounding error in the country's transportation system.

In fact, rail as a whole is a rounding error, accounting for less than 1% of
passenger miles. The political attention spent on high speed rail, subways,
etc., is completely out of proportion with the actual number of people who use
it. It gets a lot of attention because yuppies use it, but 99% of passenger
miles in the U.S. are logged on cars and planes.

Rail doesn't deserve the amount of political attention it gets. Public money
spent on rail is welfare for yuppies at the expense of people in need. Most
low-income people can't afford to live near a train station in any U.S. city
with a significant rail network. Low-income people who use public transit ride
the bus, which costs _half as much_ per passenger mile:
[https://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/transpor...](https://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/transportation/bus-
versus-rail). So when you spend money on rail, you're spending money on
something that (1) disproportionately benefits yuppies, and (2) you're
spending more of it to move the same number of people the same distance
because rail is a less economically efficient mode of transport. It's morally
indefensible.

Disclosure: I love trains. I ride Amtrak all the time, and ride the D.C. Metro
every day. Which is precisely why we shouldn't fund rail. If you look around a
Northeast Regional, it's mostly business travelers. Metro is likewise mostly
white-collar workers (in the evening, comparatively well-off tourists and
locals enjoying the night life). The folks cleaning houses in D.C. aren't
hopping onto the Orange line at Clarendon, they're driving in from Herndon.

~~~
kevindong
Different modes of transport serve different purposes. I would however like to
point out there's a very strong distinction between long distance trains and
rapid transit trains (i.e. Amtrak vs. subways a la DC or NYC): long distance
is for travel between cities outside of the origin's metro area. Rapid transit
is for travel within a city. Amtrak's only meaningful source of profit is
their Northeast Corridor route [0]. That route effectively subsidizes all of
the other routes. It is my understanding that the other routes are operated to
provide access to rural communities that are otherwise unserved by transit.

Buses are generally better than subways until the surface level roads
physically cannot contain the buses necessary to ensure there's enough space
for passengers. Once that point is reached, subways are essentially the only
option to prevent excessive amounts of sprawl.

I interned just outside of DC last summer and I agree the Metro was remarkably
free of people who appeared to be working class. However, my personal belief
is that it's a consequence of the Metro's distance-based pricing. In NYC, it's
a flat $2.75 per trip if you're paying on a per ride basis regardless of how
far you travel. On the NYC subways, everyone takes the subway. There, there is
a mix of poor and wealthy on the subway. NYC is so densely built that the
number of buses needed to accommodate every journey physically would not be
able to fit on the (typically very narrow) streets.

[0]: See last page of
[https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/p...](https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/monthlyperformancereports/2018/Amtrak-
Monthly-Performance-Report-March-2018.pdf)

~~~
rayiner
Amtrak isn't profitable anywhere--it runs an operating profit in the northeast
corridor, but that doesn't account for the fact that the federal government
pays for capital expenditures. So even the NEC is subsidized--which is
unjustifiable considering that NEC riders are primarily quite well off, often
business travelers.

As to the rest of Amtrak--what is the purpose of connecting rural areas to
transit just for the sake of it? Amtrak serves an infinitesimally small
fraction of trips in these places, at subsidies an order of magnitude higher
than for road travel. What is the logic of spending such disproportionate
resources on that tiny handful of people?

~~~
kevindong
As far as I can tell from some brief research you're correct that if capital
expenses were accounted for, the NEC would run a fairly minor loss. I agree
that NEC-fares should probably be raised so that it's profitable without
government aid.

> What is the logic of spending such disproportionate resources on that tiny
> handful of people?

Government enterprises don't exist to make a profit. They exist to make the
people better off; sometimes resources are focused on the most needy. If you
view Amtrak in that light, then it's substantially more justifiable. I'm not
saying that Amtrak is the best form of making people better off via providing
easy transportation, but it's something.

~~~
rayiner
> Government enterprises don't exist to make a profit. They exist to make the
> people better off; sometimes resources are focused on the most needy. If you
> view Amtrak in that light, then it's substantially more justifiable.

But that’s precisely the problem. Amtrak users even in rural places aren’t
“the most needy.” Amtrak is more expensive than driving, especially if you’re
traveling with a family, and everybody in rural America has a car (you can’t
get to an Amtrak station without one). Portland to Eugene is $28 per person,
for a trip that’s about $15 worth of gas. Over $100 for a family of four, and
then you still have to get where you’re going at both ends. You can’t even
take the train to less economically advantaged places along the Oregon coast.
But everybody has a car.

That’s what’s so morally pernicious about rail. It’s rich yuppies’ idea of
what poor people use and need. Poor people don’t take the train. They don’t
work in a downtown office building near transit. They work in the suburbs or
exurbs or in the country. On Christmas they pack their kids in a cheap car and
go from their house, which is nowhere near a city center, to grandma’s house,
which is nowhere near a city center. What helps needy people (and frankly, the
90% of America that lives outside major cities)—lets them get to work, go
visit family, etc., is roads, cheap gas, and in more developed areas, reliable
bus service.

~~~
kevindong
You're presuming that everyone has affordable access to a (reliable) car.
That's not necessarily always true. Amtrak is significantly cheaper than
renting a car to travel short to medium distances when there's a corresponding
route.

Support for Amtrak-style rail is very low. Hell support for subway-style rail
is still pretty low, but it has its uses in the truly developed areas (a la
NYC). I'm ambivalent about Amtrak. I'm strongly supportive of subway-style
rail, when it's appropriate (it's not appropriate aside from a small handful
of cities).

There's multiple types of poor (rural, suburban, and urban). Are you not
facing selection bias from living in a fairly suburbs-dominated metro (DC)?

~~~
rayiner
> You're presuming that everyone has affordable access to a (reliable) car.
> That's not necessarily always true. Amtrak is significantly cheaper than
> renting a car to travel short to medium distances when there's a
> corresponding route.

We're talking about Amtrak in rural areas here, and for a statistical
definition of 100%, 100% of folks in rural places have access a car. Life is
impossible without one. As to urban poor--they take the bus. A saver fare for
Austin to Houston is $48. Greyhound will get you there for $9.

> There's multiple types of poor (rural, suburban, and urban). Are you not
> facing selection bias from living in a fairly suburbs-dominated metro (DC)?

Every metro area in the U.S. is suburbs dominated except NYC.

------
ycombonator
Worked for AMTRAK. It’s northeast operations are very profitable. The people
who work in their ops center in Wilmington, DE work their butts off. So do
their yard staff. The problem is with their top heavy management and admin
staff.

------
AcerbicZero
SEA-PDX by train = ~3.5 hours, ~$50, with a low chance of delays, although if
you are delayed, it will likely be for 1 or more hours. Trains leave ~6 times
per day or so.

SEA-PDX by air = ~50 mins, $90, with a low chance of delays, and those delays
add ~10-20 mins usually. Flights leave ~20+ times per day.

If Amtrak can't get the corridor between these two cities to a competitive
state, why would I ever bother with them on a more serious trip?

~~~
jfim
Is that 50 minutes door-to-door or are you taking into account the need to
travel to the airport, show up early, going through TSA, etc?

------
jseliger
Strange that unions go unmentioned, as they raise the cost of existing
service: [https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/242053-union-
defen...](https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/242053-union-defends-
amtrak-concession-workers) and new service:
[https://californiapolicycenter.org/how-unions-
artificially-i...](https://californiapolicycenter.org/how-unions-artificially-
inflate-costs-for-infrastructure/). Union costs are one of these open secrets
no one wants to talk about.

~~~
ebg13
> _Strange that unions go unmentioned, as they raise the cost of existing
> service_

Strange that salaries go unmentioned, as paying people instead of using slaves
raises the cost of existing service.

> _Union costs are one of these open secrets no one wants to talk about._

Wastefully paying people instead of using slaves is one of these open secrets
no one wants to talk about.

Oh how horrible it is to pay people for work.

