Jump to: Amtrak Funding | Ridership | Environment & Comfort | Get Involved
Note: All external links are valid as of July 17, 2008.
Please let us know if you find a broken link.

Passenger Rail Advocacy

Amtrak. Formed in 1971 and given a monopoly in the national passenger rail market, the company has been chronically under-funded and unable to really advance its mission of providing quality rail transportation in this country. Critics say that there are more efficient ways to move people, that throwing money at Amtrak is a waste. We disagree.

Funding

There is no mass transportation system in the world that makes money. According to figures publicly available and provided here by the NARP, in fiscal 2008 (October 2007 - September 2008):

  • The Federal Transit Administration was funded at $9.4 billion.
  • The Federal Aviation Administration was funded at $14.6 billion.
  • The Federal Highway Administration was funded at $41.4 billion.
  • And Amtrak received a grand total of $1.3 billion.

During the past decade, Amtrak has had $11 billion at its disposal. In the same time period, the highway system has been funded at $333 billion, or 30 times as much. The FAA has received $137 billion, or 12.5 times as much. In fact, during Amtrak's 37-year history, we have spent about $20 billion on capital investment - that is, tracks, train cars, and maintenance of such - which is less than half of what the highway system is receiving this year. Note that we here at prb are not against funding all forms of transportation adequately - certainly, this is necessary for a cohesive, mobile nation. We should put enough money into every form of transportation - highways, airways, and rail - to keep them up and running in a state of good repair. But why should Amtrak be expected to break even when every other form of transportation doesn't even come close?

Ridership

Modal share - that is, market share - of rail transport in the US is only 0.3. Worldwide, the US places 31st in a list of countries in terms of modal share, trailing Japan and nearly all of Western and Eastern Europe.

Despite this, Amtrak ridership is at an all-time high, and has in fact been increasing every year for the past five years. In fiscal 2007, Amtrak carried a total of 25.8 million passengers. In the first half of fiscal 2008, the company has already carried 13.52 million passengers and is on track to carry a total of 27 million by year's end. A multitude of polls over the past several years have demonstrated that the majority of Americans want more and better train service, and believe that the federal government should have the means to pay for it - and that's before record gas prices this year have driven even more people off highways.

Further, there are numerous examples of where passenger rail works - and works well - in this country. None is more obvious than Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, linking Washington, D.C. in the south end with New York City and Boston, Massachusetts in the north end. In spite of 37 years of neglect and a cripplingly-small amount of money from the federal government, the NEC from Washington, D.C. to New York City currently carries 56% of all air/rail trips. The segment from New York City to Boston carries 41% of all air/rail trips. Combined, the Acela Express and Amtrak Regional services carried more than 10 million passengers in fiscal 2007. Additionally, the Acela Express, in fiscal 2007, achieved an on-time performance of 87.8%. This compares to the airline industry on-time average of 79%. (Source: Amtrak)

Now, Amtrak estimates that with a modest investment of $5-10 billion (or a quarter of what we spent on highways every year), the Northeast Corridor could be brought up to a state of good repair, travel times could be reduced, equipment reliability (and, hence, on-time performance) could be dramatically upgraded, and the NEC could take over a much larger share of the air/rail market - above and beyond the majority share that it already carries. And performing these upgrades would not just benefit Amtrak. It would get more people off of overcrowded highways and out of the congested airport system, reducing delays, stress, and negative economic impact in all other areas of our transportation infrastructure as well.

The Northeast Corridor is not the only place where trains can - and already do - make sense. Take a look at California. The state has invested more than $1 billion of its own money to develop its own cohesive rail transportation network, and the benefits clearly show. California has the highest Amtrak ridership of any other state in the country. The three rail corridors - the Pacific Surfliner (San Diego - Los Angeles - San Luis Obispo), the Capitol Corridor (San Jose - Oakland/San Francisco - Sacramento), and the San Joaquins (Bakersfield - Oakland/San Francisco - Sacramento) carried a total of 4.96 million riders in fiscal 2007. That's an average of 13,500 riders a day - can you imagine would it would be like dumping all of those cars back onto the strained highway system? Further, the 4.96 million riders of California's rail network, thanks to the state's generous support, enjoy custom-built, modern train cars and many new or renovated stations. Why can't we do this on a national scale?

Environment & Comfort

Trains are the most efficient and environmentally-friendly way to transport people. Period. According to the Department of Energy, trains are 18% more energy efficient than airlines, when measured in terms of energy consumed per passenger-mile. According to the DOE's Transportation Energy Data Book, Amtrak energy intensity was 2,935 BTUs per passenger-mile, while airlines stood at 3,587 BTUs and automobiles were at 3,549 BTUs. Additionally, Amtrak's Acela Express between Washington, D.C. and New York City has roughly twice the carrying capacity of a typical airline shuttle (304 seats on the Acela versus 142 seats on a Delta MD-88 shuttle). Travel times, city center to city center, are roughly equal. (2 hours, 45 minutes on the Acela, versus 1 hour 10 minutes flight time + an hour and a half travel to/from airports and airport check-in/security). Further, Acela trains are on-time more often than airplanes (Acela was on-time 87.8% of the time in fiscal 2007, while the airline industry hovers around 79% on-time.) Amtrak diesel fuel is produced at a higher volume per barrel than jet fuel.

Get Involved

Want to get involved in the cause? While we'll be the first to admit that rail travel is not practical ine very situation, there are a multitude of places where trains should be operating and, for whatever reason, aren't. We here at prb believe that this needs to be changed, and the only way to do so is a change in public policy. Congress needs to get on board and provide more money to develop the passenger rail system, much like they already do for the airways and highways.

Consider supporting or joining the National Association of Railroad Passengers, or NARP. This lobbying group is devoted to working for "a modern, customer-focused national passenger train network that provides a travel choice Americans want," according to the website. They have worked tirelessly for many years to advance the cause of passenger rail - and note that "passenger rail" is not synonymous with "Amtrak." While the group generally approves of what Amtrak does, they won't hesitate to call out a bad decision that goes against their mission. Rather, they will try to help any pro-passenger rail issue that may come up.

Also, write your Congressional representatives! Dropping them a quick note saying that you support Amtrak service and increased federal funding for Amtrak can go a long way towards improving rail service in this country. Check out the Senate page and the House of Representatives page to find email addresses for your representatives, or visit the NARP page for other resources.

Valid HTML 4.01 Strict Valid CSS