As you mentioned, highways don't make money either and the government subsidizes their construction and maintenance. Many small airports don't make money, as well, yet they also get subsidies as a cost of keeping the economy humming along. What's more, your $32/rider cost INCLUDES depreciation.

Tell me, what are the numbers for highway and airway travellers? And by the way, include depreciation. Oh, I'm sorry, the state DOT's don't depreciate their infrastucture... If they did, than you'll find out that we've been subsidizing the air and highway users also, and to a greater extent.

Let's try for balanced news, not sensationalism. And let's try for a balanced transportation system not dictated by Middle-Eastern oil sheiks and potentates.

Regards,
A J Cabal
Auburn, NY

Posted By a j cabal on October 30, 2009, 3:31 PM

We took an Amtrk train fron Detroit to Chicago to Whitefish Montana and the food was great and everything went well, lets keep the trains

Posted By jerry Redoutey on November 2, 2009, 11:15 AM

I don't understand how this can be unprofitable and a money loser for the government. As a frequent traveler on the Northeastern corridor (New York to DC), I can confirm the trains are always full and the ticket prices fairly high. And yet they lose money?!? I can only surmise there is a lot of waste in the system.

I wonder what would happen if Amtrak was run like a private business. I'll bet the losses would be zero, since the non-performing lines (ex. LA to New Orleans) would be discontinued and additional trains would be added to the profitable lines. Maybe we should look to privatize Amtrak. It shouldn't be run by the government.

Posted By Sue in Philly on November 2, 2009, 11:20 AM

How many times have we driven through a highway construction zone and observed the sign stating "State Funds Used" with millions of dollars and "Federal Funds Total" with many more millions of dollars? The "Bridge to Nowhere" comes to mind...I'm so glad my tax dollars paid for that. Amtrak has always been an easy target for critics who only look at numbers on a spreadsheet but do not consider a host of other factors. Many Americans now take the train because flying has become so distasteful. Moreover, the Pew study should have uncovered the fact that the Auto Train between Florida and Virginia is a consistent money maker for Amtrak. My Ford Explorer and I recently made that trip, and it was nothing short of first class. How many cubic tons of carbon emissions are saved each year by the number of automobiles put on the Auto Train instead of driving up and down Interstate 95? As the price of fossil fuel continues to increase Americans may finally realize that an efficient, comfortable and dependable passenger rail infrastructure will become increasingly more important. Anyone who has been to Europe will attest to that. The bottom line is, studies that only put forth raw numbers and attempt to startle the public are not balanced. Put a price tag on some supposed "intangibles", and the dollar gap will close dramatically.

Posted By Chris Sheard on November 2, 2009, 12:18 PM

It's time to scrap AMTRAK...let it DIE!!! We continue to nurse this lame excuse for travel with tax dollars that could go elsewhere to solve transportation methods that are USED by the general public.

Until we get "high speed" trains like Europe and Asia, the pathetic AMTRAK will continue to be nothing more that a transportation "amusement park" and will never be a mode of useful transportation. Subsidizing AMTRAK is like subsidizing Disney World, the New York Yankees, or Cruise Lines.

We let the telegraph machines, Dirigibles, and horse drawn carriages die, not it's time to let AMTRAK sink or swim on their own and quit fooling ourselves about them being public transportation.

Posted By Mr. Bill on November 2, 2009, 12:23 PM

Looking at how other tax dollars are allocated, I see our subsidy of AMTRAK as a good deal. We gave CIT $2.3 billion for their so-called bail-out and now they've recently declared bankruptcy, taking all of those tax dollars into a black hole.

At least with AMTRAK we have a public transportation system alternative to driving and flying. No passenger rail system in the world is self-sustaining without government subsidies. All of our other transportation systems are subsidized by the government. Why not rail, which is the most energy-efficient way of moving people and goods from one place to another?

Posted By Lewis A. Edge, Jr. on November 2, 2009, 12:40 PM

I love Amtrak and riding trains, period. You are able to walk around, read, just look out the window, or just sleep and relax. I wish they would expand services to other areas, such as no train goes though Alabama to Florida. There was at one time and it was a real treat to ride the Amtrak to Disney in Fla. I took my kids several times.

Posted By Genie on November 2, 2009, 1:00 PM

I love train travel. It doesn't have the hassle, stress, cramped space, and expensive food of the airlines. I'd like to know how the Coast Starlight line, their flagship, with old-style parlor cars for sleeper/first class passengers, fares. If we developed high speed lines, it would help the whole system, including reducing carbon emissions and highway traffic. People avoid the trains now because of the time it takes. High speed would reduce that barrier. Also, as long as the freight trains can pay a fee to make the passenger trains move to the siding, they will remain slow and delayed.

Posted By Renee on November 2, 2009, 1:15 PM

Amtrak is our country's subsidized national rail service. Maintaining tracks and maintaining/ purchasing trains are very costly endeavors. This past weekend, my husband and I just took a train trip on the Wolverine train between Detroit and Chicago. It was great to be able to eat, talk, walk, sleep and work all the while getting to our destination. It is much more enjoyable than driving and/or flying. Taxpayers help pay for roads and have helped airlines as well. Travel by train is another transportation option for travelers. It is not always possible to get from one city to the next by airplane or bus. Not everyone has a car. And besides, the roads and the skies are crowded already. There are lots of reasons we need to keep our rail transportation.

Posted By Diane on November 2, 2009, 1:18 PM

For three years I commuted between Philadelphia and New York,enjoying the ability to just relax, read the paper, doze, or watch the endless streams of cars wasting gas going nowhere in particular. Amtrak has made some service moves which has made it much more dependable,and pleasant to use versus a car.
Wish the government would spend more to make train travel more attractive to the population.

Posted By Ron on November 2, 2009, 1:28 PM

And this is the gov't that we want to run our healthcare?
I ride Amtrak....and love it. There sure must be a lot of Gov't waste...

Posted By cyndy on November 2, 2009, 2:04 PM

Perhaps there is a subsidy per rider for Amtrak -- but how much per air passenger for TSA, airports, FAA and Air traffic controllers?

Posted By BB on November 2, 2009, 2:30 PM

Glad to see some people understand you have to look at the whole picture. Some additional points: without AMTRAK and commuter rail you would need to add several lanes, with associated carbon footprint, to every highway into each major city. Not only are small airports subsidized, service to them is also subsidized at rates that make the Sunset Limited look profitable. The air traffic control system is government provided.

No rail passenger systems in the world are profitable. In the US rail corridors are taxed, except for some owned by governments, Highways and airports are not. A major factor why AMTRAK replaced private operations in 1971.

In answer to Mr. Bill; current rail operations will be necessary to feed passengers into a high speed cross country system. Just as feeder airlines do for the majors.

p.s. $220 million for the new Yankee Stadium from the City of New York. Subway and bus access, New York City. Highway Access to Disney World courtesy in part, taxpayers. Cruise ports, mostly city owned.

Posted By George on November 2, 2009, 2:55 PM

Just another bit of tilted research. The conservatives will stop at nothing to end expansion of any government program. They are trying to kill the Obama administrations effort to build a high speed rail system in the US. And they say that the press is all liberal? Hogwash I say Hogwash.

Numbers can be twisted to a desired conclusion.

Posted By Mark on November 2, 2009, 3:36 PM

Since rail travel is subsidized in most countries around the world and reduces auto emissions, why would a travel magazine make a big deal about a 36/per passenger (if that is even correct)charge. What this country needs is more rail travel not less, and it won't be run by private companies. We subsidize the oil industry by not charging them to drill on public land so lets give some money to keep passenger rail going and work toward high speed rail in more areas of the county

Posted By Deb on November 2, 2009, 3:50 PM

You can't put a price on "some things" like train travel. Government subsidies are much, much lower for AMTRAK than for other forms of transportation. Train travel is more leisurely, more comfortable and more convenient for many in the U.S. Some persons cannot fly for health reasons. Others have mentioned many more reasons that keeping and improving our train system is so important.

Posted By Nancy on November 2, 2009, 3:54 PM

Amtrak has plenty of faults and shortcomings, but the "money losing" argument is a red herring.
1. Interstate 95 and JFK airport also lost money, and we taxpayers paid for those, too.
2. The high speed trains in Japan and France also lost money.
3. Most US airlines lost money.
4. Amtrak's biggest money losing trains often serve small towns that have no other long distance travel services. Maintaining these services is a political rather than economic decision. Most of the relevant Members of Congress and Senators fight tooth and nail to keep those services for their constituents.
5. In general, accounting systems are incapable of accurately crediting rail transit with "second order" benefits -- economic, pollution mediation, etc. -- that come from having rail infrastructure nor are they capable of crediting the costs -- increased wear and tear on a crumbling highway infrastructure, increased pollution, decreased economic activity -- of not having a rail infrastructure.
"Botton line" (pun intended): this article tells us more about the limits of modern accounting systems than it does about how transportation in general and rail transportation in particular loses money.

Posted By Bill on November 2, 2009, 4:02 PM

So basically, Amtrak is the most efficient form of transportion in the U.S. while being the least costly form of transportation to taxpayers. Cool!

By the way, regarding the comment about subsidizing the Yankees that was meant to be sarcastic--it's a well-documented fact that sports teams of all kinds, Yankees included, are among the biggest recipients of taxpayer subsidies in the country, because of some unproven economic trickle-down effect that never happens. The teams cost cities and regional governments lots of money, the jobs they produce are low-paying, and if they didn't receive government money they wouldn't be able to pay those star salaries. It's a total scam. Amtrak is a steal at twice the price and no individual owners are getting immensely rich off of it.

Posted By Paul on November 2, 2009, 4:20 PM

It's not just that no rail system anywhere in the world survives without government subsidies. It's not just that no mass transportation system in the world survives without government subsidies. It's that no TRANSPORTATION system in the world survives without subsidies.

Amtrak's subsidies are more visible, but roads, airports, TSA, air traffic controllers, the FAA, the DOT the FHSA, the U.S. armed forces, including a nine-aircraft-carrier fleet keeping the sea lanes open for oil tankers, the whole cost of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East -- all of that is subsidy to transportation.

Posted By Seth Chandler on November 2, 2009, 4:40 PM

truly amazing since their prices are so high it's cheaper to drive and pay gas and tolls, talking to people who work their explains much ,makes gov look efficient, nice place to work though.

Posted By dan p on November 2, 2009, 4:47 PM

I live in Southern California and have used a combination of Amtrak's Pacific Surfliner and Metrolink (county-run) trains for years to make my way to work and back every day. While the distance is only about 60 miles - a normal commuting distance for many of us who can't afford to live where the jobs are - I choose to take the train because it (1) definitely saves money overall, especially on gas where it's now consistently hovering around $3/gallon and (2) takes less time to get to work and back by train than by car, which (3) makes my days going between LA and Orange County a lot less stressful.

Each train I've taken has been full of people (unless there is a religious holiday), and seats can be harder to find when schools are in session because of the university kids that also ride the rails. Trains are even more crowded during the holiday season because it is now obvious that Amtrak has outlasted the days of cheap gas.

If Amtrak is truly losing money despite increased ridership, I suspect there are accounting tricks being used to skew the real picture. Then again, if Arnold can use accounting tricks toward California's budget problems, I suppose anyone can do the same with any budget and any organization.

Posted By Bob on November 2, 2009, 4:58 PM

"We let the telegraph machines, Dirigibles, and horse drawn carriages die, now it's time to let AMTRAK sink or swim on their own and quit fooling ourselves about them being public transportation."

Are you serious? How about letting the roads sink or swim on their own? Gas is going to get expensive, which will drive all of us to public transportation. We'd better have some options when that happens. We let telegraph machines, dirigibles, etc. die when better options availed themselves. I refuse to fly because United, as we all know, breaks guitars, not to mention is a bigger waste of time than rail travel even with the huge subsidies it gets from Republican Presidents, or at least one Republican President.

Posted By James Michalek on November 2, 2009, 5:53 PM

It's indicative of what a diverse "nerve" you struck in dissing AMTRAK; I've never read better-written, more thoughtful comments on an electronic message board! Thanks to Bill and all the fiscal gurus who checked in with salient points about accounting "smoke and mirror" games.

My personal experience w/ this company has been great. I often travel at peak seasons (e.g., Thanksgiving), when airports and the Interstates are nightmares. Trains (betw. Chicago and Rochester, NY) have been clean, comfortable, and ontime. The personnel at the customer service stations (ticket windows, onboard conductors, baggage handlers) have all been knowledgable and civil. Can't say the same about our nation's fellow motorists and/or airlines. I'll continue to follow this post and the responses to it...good reading.

Posted By Martha on November 2, 2009, 6:42 PM

Our country doesn't lend itself to major expansion of AMTRAK for high-speed rail. I wish it did. We desperately need to improve passenger rail. All nations subsidize their mass transit; be it rail, airline, highways, subways, buses, trams, etc. Naturally, it costs money, but it beats the alternative. If you think we have gridlock now on our nation's highways, can you imagine what it would be like without mass transit? And if you think population will decline in the future, I'll take the other side of that bet. I'm all in. As a European friend once said to me, "funny how you people vote on infrastructure projects. In my country, we let the experts, engineers, decide what is best and then find a way to finance it." DOH!

Posted By TrainLover on November 2, 2009, 7:36 PM

BB said, "And this is the gov't that we want to run our healthcare?"
Well, I guess in your view we should let the private sector, like Enron, WorldComm, Lehman, Bear Stearns, General Motors,....... I could go on and on. The notion that somehow the federal government is more inefficient or corrupt than the private sector is utter nonsense. The brightest minds to come out of our business schools over the last few years created derivatives. Buffett calls them financial weapons of mass destruction. They brought the World's financial system to the brink of another Great Depression. Many of those toxic assets are still on the banks' books. The "Masters of the Universe" on Wall Street and elsewhere rewarded themselves handsomely for the profits these instruments brought to their firms. The are still paying themselves huge bonuses. Talk about ego! The don't seem to realize that it was their flawed logic that put us in this crisis. These mental giants may understand math, but they fail to comprehend risk.

Posted By TrainLover on November 2, 2009, 7:50 PM

As an alien from Mars, actually Australia, I have always enjoyed travelling AMTRAK when in the States.
Actually I enjoy travelling by rail anywhere, my own country included.

Posted By Michael Kelly on November 2, 2009, 8:44 PM

We took Amtrak to Chicago and Denver this year on the California Zephyr and it was pretty wonderful. My 12-year-old swears he's in love with train travel now.

A major part of government's role is to orchestrate things that we as individuals can't--such as highways and certain forms of transportation. In my opinion, that should include trains and shouldn't include GM and other inappropriate bailouts.

Posted By eliewriter on November 2, 2009, 8:44 PM

If you are going to evaluate the economic worth of your railways you need to take freight into account. My suspicion is that a huge amount of freight is carried and that it makes the system as a whole profitable. Not only that, but the behaviour of the privately owned freight carriers will affect the profitability of government-owned Amtrak - for example along the north-west Pacific where Union Pacific owns the track and gives priority to its own trains. This makes the Starlight Coast run appallingly late - and I believe this happens on other lines too.

Posted By ian chandler on November 2, 2009, 11:12 PM

I hope Budget Travel realizes the irony of beating up Amtrak for being
subsidized in the same web edition containing the Newsweek article about China's major INVESTMENT in rail.

Talk about a double standard!

Posted By Dan Carter on November 3, 2009, 12:18 AM

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is pushing a half trillion dollar transportation bill that is mostly for highway expansion. I look forward to seeing alleged conservatives argue for a moratorium on federal subsidies to highways and airports ... not likely.

It's going to be interesting to watch the "blame game" when the downslope of oil production becomes harder to deny. We're likely to stay on the Peak Oil plateau for a few years, but the remaining oil is going to be the more difficult to extract oil than the easy oil that built the industrial era. Hint: airplanes and road construction cannot be powered by wind turbines, and there's probably not enough rare earth minerals to make enough wind turbines to replace the coal in the electric power grid. Get ready to live more locally and to learn to convert your suburban lawn into food production.

Posted By Mark on November 3, 2009, 12:42 AM

I am really disappointed in Budget Travel for this piece. Is this guy on the payroll? However, I am glad to see so many comments indicating that people who read this site understand a biased presentation of the numbers when they see it. Most city or regional mass transit systems are not "profitable" if you just look at total costs (including depreciation!!) and ticket sales. Does this mean we should scrap all of those systems? I don't think so. What about the cost of additional pollution that each person in a car adds to the air that we all have to breathe? It's not a cash outlay, but a cost to society neverthless. Due to large fixed costs, mass transit systems, like rail, require lower per passenger subsidies when they have more passengers. So if any of you really wants to DO something about what was framed as a very big government subsidy per passenger, just take the train! Do your part to make the average subsidy smaller!

Posted By Jennifer on November 3, 2009, 12:47 PM

Every civilized country subsidizes its rail transport and for good reason. The idiots who want to scrap AMTRAK because it is not profitable are very shortsighted and pretty ignorant. One of government's biggest responsibilities is to invest in and maintain infrastructure, and the rails are included. If there were more trains and better schedules, I would do the lion's share of my travel by rail, rather than flying. As it is I have to do a lot of flying, but sometimes it's faster to drive. If I can take a train, I will. I love AMTRAK. I have used it for everything from short commuter hops to overnight trips with a private sleeping compartment. Maintaining the infrastructure for AMTRAK also maintains the infrastructure for freight trains, which are far more economical and environmentally sound ways to transport goods than all the 18-wheelers now dominating our highway system.

Posted By Charlotte on November 3, 2009, 1:43 PM

Keep the trains going! The first of October we rode Amtrak from Portland, Oregon to Vancouver, BC, Canada. This was a great "no layover" trip. The train was on time, full of people, and took us no longer than driving. (Who would want to drive through Seattle?) We need a great rail trip like this to more places. We were told that ridership on this link has to increase to keep it after the Winter Olympics. So try it out if you live in the West. Vancouver and beyond are great destinations.(Just an aside. Greyhound Canada provides you with inexpensive mass transit once you reach Vancouver.) Park those cars.

Posted By Diana on November 4, 2009, 12:31 AM

I'm not surprised in these recessionary times.
People don't have the money for Amtrak the way they did years ago. The average Joe, doesn't have the as many choice like 10-60yrs.

Posted By Joseph Blazewicz on November 5, 2009, 10:23 PM

Reply to Joseph B., "People don't have the money for AMTRAK the way they did years ago." Did you know that booking a reservation early for several routes will enable a traveller to rcv. a discounted fare? Or, that AMTRAK has a standard "Senior Discount;" a promotional "Family Plan," according to which spouse and/or dependants ride either free or cheaper; coupons printed or avail. as "blow ins" with travel magazines?

In my humble opinion, there are at least as many money-saving incentives to use AMTRAK as available w/ airline travel and narry a glitch like oversold seats. The only pricey booking is for a Pullman berth or compartment/"couchette." It would still be an attractive way to go...esp. w/ the grandkids.

Posted By Martha on November 6, 2009, 3:08 PM

I've travelled long distances on AMTRAK. From WEST to EAST coast about 4 times. I've taken the LA to N.O Route, the LA to Chicago via the southern tracks and the Starlight up to Seattle and then the Empire across to Chicago, down to Florida. Great experiences, a little pricey for the sleeper cars but worth it. One thing is if the LA to N.O. route isn't making money - it's no doubt due to the fact that along those southern routes the tracks are shared by other industries and you end up sometimes sitting on the tracks for hours at a time waiting your turn. Also after Katrina for a long time services were interrupted. I don't take that route anymore. There's no excuse for that happening. There's plenty of land and open space along the way to put in more tracks for the effiencey of rail travel. The gov't does little to promote train travel, doesn't add new tracks and isn't interested in high speed train travel.America who was the pioneer has an antiquated system but we the people dont mind picking up the tab. The gov't shouldnt be in it to Make money - except what they put back into it. It is part of our infrastructure and heritage and we should demand that the money be spent properly on it.

Posted By gia on November 6, 2009, 5:40 PM

My wife and I have enjoyed every moment on Amtrak, and there have been many. Amtrak has taken us from Dallas to Seattle and back thru Chicago, to Glacier National Park's door from Dallas several times. From New Orleans to Montreal and every long distance train west of Denver several times. We would happily do it all again. Never take the long distance trains if you are in a hurry. Enjoy the scenery and the interesting people you meet from all over. If you go fast the scenery will just go by faster. That said, Amtrak only owns the tracks between Washington D. C. and Boston with the exception of a short line from Chicago I believe. In the rest of the U S, Amtrak is a guest on the freight railroad tracks. The speed is dictated by track conditions and the signaling system used. Speeds vary from a top speed of 79 to 90 mph across the US to a fast 150 mph in part of Rhode Island (on Amtrak's tracks). Notice that the Acela Express from boston to D. C. (which can do the 150 mph where allowed) is all electric. Amtrak's intercity trains are diesel electrics capable of 110 miles per hour if track and signaling permitted. Some of our country is just catching on to what our European neighbors have known for a long time. You need to connect the transportation systems together. Trains should connect to airports much more than they do. Amtrak has been starved to near death for decades. It is a wonder anyone any of the crews have positive attitudes at all. Although it is not perfect and has room for improvement I am a full supporter of Amtrak and consider it a wise use of my tax money.

Posted By Ed Waldrup on November 6, 2009, 10:38 PM

can anybody tell me why amtrak does not accept to take less than ten pounds dogs in its case ..even if you pay for it ...airlines with its limited space take ..so why not the great amtrak ..
do you know how many new buses spramg between dc/ny ..with only $ 35.00 rt trip ??? time for amrtrak to start learning

Posted By hanna on November 11, 2009, 6:58 AM

Went to Seattle Washington from Chicago;
Amtrak Cheaper than the Canadian VIA.
Amtrak-Employees rude and arrogant Via Employees have manners and are courteous.
Amtrak- like being in a cattle car-VIA like riding a upscale passenger car.
Amtrak food on train-Burger king- VIA- a good resturant food.
Amtrak always late- VIA on time
AmTrak never again- VIA they have class

Posted By Michael Littlebig on November 11, 2009, 2:38 PM

It is essential to have the option of train travel. However, Amtrak personnel is real rude and arrogant. And buying a ticket is worse than going through security at airport. At PENN Station NYC, I was made to put in my signature on my credit card, whereas everywhere else, they just ask for an ID. Amtrak ticket booths ask for 2 IDs before they will sell you a ticket anyway, cash or credit. Plus once I dropped and lost my ticket at the station 10 minutes after buying it, but although they could pull up my purchase on the computer, it is their policy not to replace your lost ticket.Airlines will do that.

Posted By Gul Tan on November 18, 2009, 5:04 PM