Amtrak Guest Rewards - More Gratification

Saw a billboard that had something to do with investment. It triggered some thought about a talk I had with a 57 year old dude on Empire Builder, about the folk who lost hundreds of thousands trying to get to Easy Street via some alluring short cut. Anyway, I was thinking how having a nest egg will involve some cutting back on other things. And that in turn might negatively impact the job situation. If people don't spend, employers don't hire. And then it occurred to me that riding Amtrak is one case where money spent supports American workers in many ways. For example, at least two meals I ate on the trip were made by contractors in towns along the route. The rest were made by cooks on board. Plus there were all the crew of the Empire Builder. And on and on to all the maintenance people, the people in the stations. There is a lot that we spend that flows right out of the country. But if you cut some of that and keep things like train rides, you might be able to save without causing layoffs of your countrymen. Sounds logical to me.

By the way, in many of the cars were little plaques showing where the car had been refurbished. To my eyes, these cars looked good, so props to the guys who did the work.

Amtrak actually puts out stats for each state on the number of riders at each station within that state. At the bottom of those reports they also provide infomation on just how much money Amtrak spends within each state, both via employees who work for Amtrak as well as for things like fuel, food, cleaning services, etc.

And several years ago the State of Montana had a study done on the economic benefit that Amtrak provides to that state. They study found that Amtrak actually pumps more money into the state than the citizens pay for Amtrak via their Federal income tax.

Amtrak actually puts out stats for each state on the number of riders at each station within that state. At the bottom of those reports they also provide infomation on just how much money Amtrak spends within each state, both via employees who work for Amtrak as well as for things like fuel, food, cleaning services, etc.

And several years ago the State of Montana had a study done on the economic benefit that Amtrak provides to that state. They study found that Amtrak actually pumps more money into the state than the citizens pay for Amtrak via their Federal income tax.

I don't find that hard to believe at all. Not sure what the gross state product of Montana is, but I do know its largest employer is government. I looked that up after talking with a new Montana resident who couldn't tell me the biggest industries in the state.

And then it occurred to me that riding Amtrak is one case where money spent supports American workers in many ways.

I've seen one study (http://westnorth.com/2005/10/10/transit-funding-structures/) that stated "public spending on mass transit has by far the highest economic multiplier among all industries in New York State." A high multiplier means that the money spent recirculates extensively in the local economy before leaking elsewhere; that's particularly true for NY state since much of the nation's railcar industry is upstate.

Transit is capital intensive to build but very labor intensive to operate. Transit vehicles are typically built in low-automation factories, kept in service for incredible distances through the help of local technicians, operated by legions of professional staff, and can run on electricity that's domestically generated. Compare that to a robot-assembled, imported car filled with disposable parts, burning imported gasoline, and operated by a "volunteer" driver (whose time, in most cases, would be more productively used doing something else). ~75% of a transit agency's operating budget goes to labor and thus right back into the local economy, whereas 75-85% of spending on cars and gas goes for cost of goods sold and generally leaves the local economy.

And they say the carbon footprint is smaller. But to me, just the fact of feeding money into our struggling economy is enough. Now that so many airplanes are being bought from Airbus, the gap between air travel and rail travel is growing. Fuel efficiency means that out of a travel dollar spent, less goes out of the country for the petroleum that is necessary. Comes a point where you have to get on a plane, but short of that point, taking a plane is a drag on the economy. And that doesn't even take into account the annoying practices whereby airlines exploit their customers.

Transit is capital intensive to build but very labor intensive to operate.

Actually, it depends on the type of transit just how labor intensive it is to operate, with buses being the worst and trains doing much better.

For example, out in Salt Lake City in 2009 they moved 20.657 million rides by bus and 13.385 million by light rail. The bus division needed 1,023 employees to move those people, while light rail only needed 314 employees. That works out to 1 bus employee for every 20,193 rides moved vs. 1 employee for every 42,627 rides move by light rail.

Which is a big part of the reason why they spent $109.3 Million operating their buses in 2009 and only $29.01 Million operating light rail.

It's also why after the first 12 years of operating light rail, 1996-2007, SLC has spent nearly $300 Million more on its buses than it has spent on light rail; $1.009 Billion for buses vs. $715.04 Million on light rail. Those numbers include both capital costs and operating costs for both the buses and light rail during that 12 year period, minus revenues collected for both.

Actually, it depends on the type of transit just how labor intensive it is to operate, with buses being the worst and trains doing much better.

For example, out in Salt Lake City in 2009 they moved 20.657 million rides by bus and 13.385 million by light rail. The bus division needed 1,023 employees to move those people, while light rail only needed 314 employees. That works out to 1 bus employee for every 20,193 rides moved vs. 1 employee for every 42,627 rides move by light rail.

Which is a big part of the reason why they spent $109.3 Million operating their buses in 2009 and only $29.01 Million operating light rail.

It's also why after the first 12 years of operating light rail, 1996-2007, SLC has spent nearly $300 Million more on its buses than it has spent on light rail; $1.009 Billion for buses vs. $715.04 Million on light rail. Those numbers include both capital costs and operating costs for both the buses and light rail during that 12 year period, minus revenues collected for both.

Anybody ever figure out the cost-per-ride for the automobile? Yeh, I know its one for one in the labor department. Well, maybe not. There are a lot of people in the background making the daily commute possible.

I saw a show on monorail systems with what they call "personal rapid transit". I suppose PRT has lower emissions, but wonder if the labor-intensity is less or more than rail or bus. I'm sure a few people who wouldn't climb on a vehicle occupied by strangers would ride solo in a PRT.

Got an email. Says I now have 764 points.

Got an envelope with NARP materials. Included among which was this:
http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n49/Gora_Chacha/NARPSticker.jpg

Gah, the message on that bumper sticker still has the line break in the wrong place (I got one when I first joined NARP about 20 years ago, similar design but different colors) -- it should be "I'd rather be/ON THE TRAIN!"

Never saw anything wrong with it. Figuring everyone who sees it will understand the sentiment. So you've been with NARP for 20 years? I'm totally impressed. I could imagine being in some advocacy group for 40 years since my devotion to train travel has never really left me. But till recently I was unaware that rail passengers had a lobbying group.