Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate - Hassles of Air Travel Push Passengers to Amtrak

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/business/hassles-of-air-travel-push-passengers-to-amtrak.html?_r=2&hp&pagewanted=all

Between New York and Washington, Amtrak said, 75 percent of travelers go by train, a huge share that has been building steadily since the Acela was introduced in 2000 and airport security was tightened after 2001. Before that, Amtrak had just over a third of the business between New York and Washington.

“It’s easier. I don’t have to take my shoes off,” he said as he shared a drink with a friend in the Acela cafe car.

I have no sympathy for the airline executives.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/business/hassles-of-air-travel-push-passengers-to-amtrak.html?_r=2&hp&pagewanted=all



I have no sympathy for the airline executives.

+1

I'm ready to make the switch myself, especially after experiencing Delta at JFK (One of the worst terminals I have ever seen-I swear I saw a couple of dementors flying around.). I'll be sure to drop the airline a note explaining exactly why, as well. Will my one note make a difference? Of course not. But it has infinitesimally more impact than complaining about it on the internet.

Mike

Of course, if enough passengers defect from the airlines because of government intervention, we the taxpayers can always bail them out.

:mad:

I know it's a true stretch, but you have an administration with a railroad fascination. So by making a travel truly miserable they indirectly support the push for more rail travel. Especially in the northeast corridor.

The part that I like is that I don't have to make my way to get to the airport. If I'm going city-to-city, the Acela is faster and more efficient. If I'm going from Manhattan to Downtown Boston, it's much easier to go straight from NY Penn to Boston South Sta. on Acela than it is to backtrack to JFK or LGA and wait for a plane to take me to Logan.

All those times wasted in getting to the airport, clearing TSA, waiting for boarding, push back, taxi to runway, "we're now number X for take off," actual flying in the air for 30 minutes, landing, taxi to the gate, deplaning, etc. etc. ... it's just not worth it for short intra-city distances.

I might as just head to the train station, hop on, read a book, and I'm already at the city center when I arrive.

Obviously a train won't work when going from LA to NY, but for shorter distances, the train is a better way to go than a plane due to the hassles involved.

“Nothing compares to air service for a quick, convenient, on-time experience between major cities in the Northeast,” Mr. Lehmacher said. “US Airways shuttle allows customers to travel at three times the speed in less than half the time versus traditional forms of ground-based transportation.”

The sounds of a desperate spokesman.

The sounds of a desperate spokesman.

I love the definition of "on-time." Funny how my 35 minute flights BOSNYC are blocked for 1h45. They'd better be on-time.

Mike

The sounds of a desperate spokesman.

I notice he's not even attempting to compare 'door-to-door' times, which is what matters to me.

It took me 3 hours recently - for a 30 minute flight (IIRC, actual air time was a few minutes less than that). I'm counting from the time I entered the departure terminal with carry-on only to the time I exited the arrival terminal (tiny) without stopping to pick up a bag.

I could have driven in almost the same time. No partial disrobing, no hands in my pants and between my legs, no shouting, no bellowing CNN overlaid with airport security announcements ad nauseum unlimited snacks and beverages of my choice.

(Only reason I flew was because I had to drive a truck back).

Over the years Amtrak has significantly changed for the better on those routes. The metroliners are pretty much gone, standing because the train is packed is a thing of the past in most cases, you have a seat, you have electricity, in some cases you have wifi or you have your own.

While you can attribute some of it to the hassles of an airport, some of it is Amtrak realizing if they give people the ability to work for the two or three hour trip if they want to work they will get way more business.

I'm currently sitting at my desk in Manhattan. Four minutes from now I could be standing on the Amtrak Platform (if I hit both walk lights in my favor). The airports can't possibly match that

I'm currently sitting at my desk in Manhattan. Four minutes from now I could be standing on the Amtrak Platform (if I hit both walk lights in my favor). The airports can't possibly match that

Sure, but the domestic travel helps to subsidize international travel.... Half an hour from now I could be boarding a plane to a beach in another country. Amtrak can't possibly match that!

I've traveled by Amtrak 5 times and 4/5 times the delays were insane, I had a 12 hour delay one time from Virginia to Rhode Island.

Frankly the entire article smelled like a PR spin for Amtrak, an unprofitable heavily subsidized government run service.

Granted airlines also take subsidies, but at least there are a couple of companies you can choose from.

I'd rather take the bolt buses or drive rather than take Amtrak, and foreign travel is kind of a no brainer.

+1

I'm ready to make the switch myself, especially after experiencing Delta at JFK (One of the worst terminals I have ever seen-I swear I saw a couple of dementors flying around.). I'll be sure to drop the airline a note explaining exactly why, as well. Will my one note make a difference? Of course not. But it has infinitesimally more impact than complaining about it on the internet.

Mike

As opposed to the beauty that is NY Penn Station:D

Sure, but the domestic travel helps to subsidize international travel.... Half an hour from now I could be boarding a plane to a beach in another country. Amtrak can't possibly match that!

I've traveled by Amtrak 5 times and 4/5 times the delays were insane, I had a 12 hour delay one time from Virginia to Rhode Island.

Frankly the entire article smelled like a PR spin for Amtrak, an unprofitable heavily subsidized government run service.

Granted airlines also take subsidies, but at least there are a couple of companies you can choose from.

I'd rather take the bolt buses or drive rather than take Amtrak, and foreign travel is kind of a no brainer.

And I'm sure any seasoned air traveler could find a five-trip sequence where he or she was delayed four times.

The article was about Northeast Corridor travel, not travel to far-flung beaches. So, what's your point?

Regarding profitability, get back to me when the (likely toll-free) highway you took to the airport turns a profit.

More desperate execs --

Delta and US Airways are also making bids to get passengers back. Gail Grimmett, a Delta vice president, said the airline had made several changes in recent years to attract business travelers, including adding Wi-Fi for a fee to its flights connecting Washington, New York and Boston.

“The idea is to build brand loyalty. We want you to fly with us no matter where you are flying, not just the East Coast,” she said. “The train can’t take you to South Africa.”

Funny, because the plane can't take me to midtown Manhattan or Boston's Back Bay.

It's worth noting too that PreCheck does nothing to address the one issue most at stake here: time. You don't know whether you'll be deemed worthy enough till you get to the checkpoint, so you need to show up to allow enough time for the full experience.

Anyone know the financials on this?

Just how profitable are these northeast routes to the airlines? More profitable, say, than west coast business travel (up and down the coast)?

I'm currently sitting at my desk in Manhattan. Four minutes from now I could be standing on the Amtrak Platform (if I hit both walk lights in my favor). The airports can't possibly match that

And as of a few weeks ago you needn't even stop to print out your ticket.

I know it's a true stretch, but you have an administration with a railroad fascination. So by making a travel truly miserable they indirectly support the push for more rail travel. Especially in the northeast corridor.

Right, because the cutting back of services, smaller seats, watered down air miles and status perks, nickle and diming what should be basic services, are all the doing of the government.

Sure, but the domestic travel helps to subsidize international travel.... Half an hour from now I could be boarding a plane to a beach in another country. Amtrak can't possibly match that!

I've traveled by Amtrak 5 times and 4/5 times the delays were insane, I had a 12 hour delay one time from Virginia to Rhode Island.

Frankly the entire article smelled like a PR spin for Amtrak, an unprofitable heavily subsidized government run service.

Granted airlines also take subsidies, but at least there are a couple of companies you can choose from.

I'd rather take the bolt buses or drive rather than take Amtrak, and foreign travel is kind of a no brainer.


No, you can't be boarding your flight to another country in 30 minutes. You have to check in, get felt up by the TSA, maybe check bags, and then wait for your zone to be called. Can't do that in less than 30 minutes and that doesn't even count the time it takes to get to the airport.

Boltbus is heavily subsidized too, gasoline taxes only cover 45% of the highway budget, the rest comes from the general tax fund.

1 year of Amtrak subsidy costs less than the project to rebuild 10 miles of the Van Wick Expressway.

I'll see your 12 hour delay from Virgina to Rhode Island and raise you a 30 hour delay from Pittsburgh to Louisville on United.

The kicker for Amtrak is that on the NEC, they are rapidly approaching capacity. They have more equipment on order (they plan to add length to the Acelas) but it won't get here fast enough.

But the more airlines raise prices, the more breathing room Amtrak gets on pricing.

Here's the way I see it:

"There are the right tools to do the right job"

For short city-to-city travel, an airplane is overkill. It's like trying to hit a nail with a sledgehammer; it can be done but it's not worth spending all that extra energy just to hit a nail when a simple hammer does the job with less effort.

And obviously, going from LA to Tokyo ain't possible on a train, so it's practical that such long distances need to be done on a plane.

Use the right tools for the right job. Trains are better for inter-city travel, planes are better for long distance travel.

There's no point in rail competing with air or air competing with rail. Each has their own specific needs that are fit for their jobs. Obviously you're not going to be driving an 18-wheeler to commute to an office job, nor are you going to haul pallets of goods cross country on a Honda Civic right? :D

Instead of rail and air competing with each other as competitors, they're better off partnering with each other and work together as a transportation industry as a whole. There's no point in competing a sledgehammer to a hammer because the jobs that those tool are made best for are meant for specific tasks. Instead, a sledgehammer and a hammer should just be classified as a "carpenter's tool" in which one uses a sledgehammer if you need to known down a wall, and use a simple hammer if you need to wedge a nail into wood.

Right, because the cutting back of services, smaller seats, watered down air miles and status perks, nickle and diming what should be basic services, are all the doing of the government.

Government does play a small part. Delta for instance has been big on the hill whining about the export tax, and European airline subsidies with jet purchases...so some may argue that government's lack of significant subsidies for US aircraft purchases does contribute to the many problems you describe.

Is government solely to blame? No. But the US government for a decade hasn't made it particularly easy for us to fly, or for air carriers to operate. Perhaps if they approached air travel with the same enthusiasm that they approach pet projects with rail we wouldn't have a need for this thread.

You also have to consider that inter-city travel up and down the NEC has huge passenger volume. But is it worth it for airlines, in this age of gas prices, to be going back and forth between these cities on big planes that can seat large enough passengers?

Say for instance, is it worth it for United or Delta to be using Boeing 747s just to go between New York and Boston? Or would they opt to use dinky little regional jets with cramped seating and make up for the need with lots of frequency?

See the airlines are faced with this dilemma:

Use one big plane to get between NY and Boston
Pro: Able to fit lots of passengers in one flight
Con: Waste of gas, lots of wear and tear from so many take-offs and landings in short amount of time, when they can be used for long haul international service as they were meant to be.

or

Use many small regional jets with lots of frequency between NY and Boston
Pro: Saves gas, lots of frequencies
Con: Need more pilots, flight attendants, more frequency = more air traffic and delays, eats up precious gate space when they could be better used for flights elsewhere


The Acela however doesn't to worry about that. It can send over 500 people in a single shot city-to-city and the juice that they run is fairly consistent electricity prices instead of up-and-down fluctuating gas prices.

Acela ^^^^

Several trips from DC to Boston and NY this year. Every one one time and enjoyable. I can't say the same for the airport/TSA/airline combo.

Acela DC to NYC is tolerable, but NYC to BOS is just too slow. If I take the 7am shuttle, I leave my apt at 6, and I'm at my meeting in Boston by 9am. If I leave my apt at 6, I can also make the 620 acela, but I'm not into Boston until 1030. less than 3 hours door to door by plane, nearly 5 by train.

Acela DC to NYC is tolerable, but NYC to BOS is just too slow. If I take the 7am shuttle, I leave my apt at 6, and I'm at my meeting in Boston by 9am. If I leave my apt at 6, I can also make the 620 acela, but I'm not into Boston until 1030. less than 3 hours door to door by plane, nearly 5 by train.

You must live pretty close to LaGuardia, to leave home at 6 and make a 7:00 flight.

For some reason that early Acela takes 30 minutes longer than most.

Of course there will always be scenarios where one mode works better than the other. But look at it this way: Those four hours on the train are one continuous block, with electrical power and (admittedly sometimes spotty) cell coverage. Your flying experience is broken up into several smaller chunks -- wait on checkpoint line, wait at gate, taxiing, takeoff, flying, landing -- during which time you cannot always use your phone and other electronic devices.

Consider too that when taking the train you have none of the shenanigans of shoe removal, liquid restrictions, laptop removal, potential friskings, etc.

And frankly, no matter which mode you take, leaving NY early morning to arrive in time for a 9 a.m. Boston meeting is asking for trouble. There's no way I would trust any mode to reliably get me to an important 9 a.m. meeting 200 miles away leaving that same morning.

Anyone know the financials on this?

Just how profitable are these northeast routes to the airlines? More profitable, say, than west coast business travel (up and down the coast)?

Well DL and US Shuttle are a shadow of their former self: smaller planes and less frequent service than pre-TSA

Well DL and US Shuttle are a shadow of their former self: smaller planes and less frequent service than pre-TSA

Yes, the days of the shuttles rolling out another plane for you if your intended one was full are long gone.

While of course there are numerous factors that go into determining ridership figures, I have little doubt that the TSA has made short-haul flights much less appealing than the train, driving or the bus.

DCA-LGA makes sense on USS. Corporate discount lets me book straight into F almost all the time and, on rare occasions, not until closer to flight time. The 7:00 AM rarely lands later than 7:45 and I am in mid-town Manhattan by 8:30.

On the return, Acela makes sense. End of a day, don't need to fight LGA traffic, ATC and other stuff. A couple of drinks, an OK meal at my seat and all is well.

But, the same isn't true for NYC-BOS and definitely not for WAS-BOS.

As opposed to the beauty that is NY Penn Station:D

Penn Station? Expecto Patronum, Expecto Patronum! :D

The difference is, with Penn Station, I'm in and out in seconds. JFK? Not so much.

Mike

WRT rail travel in the USA, the biggest hindrances I see are:

- Favorable treatment to airlines (I recall $30B in cash right after 9/11).

- Arcane FRA regulations that require trainsets to be built like bank vaults on wheels, making them far heavier, more expensive, and more prone to breakdown than the TGV trainsets used in Europe.

- "I want a car when I get there". On my most recent flight into CLT, a Budget shuttle took me to their on-site rental car lot--and back to the terminal when I returned the car. A quick Google check shows that, if I took Amtrak to Charlotte, the nearest car rental was Enterprise--1.3 miles away.

- Image, including media depiction. In _30 Rock_, a character said, "I had to take a shower; the train was filthy. I didn't ride it; I saw it out the airplane window." _Sex and the City_ once depicted a NYC-SF Amtrak ride going very roughly, so they flew back first-class. In _How I Met Your Mother_, they once flew from NYC to PHL.

On a side note, are there any regular Amtrak riders here whose friends and family are simply amazed that a person of middle-class-or-higher status would actually use Amtrak?

WRT rail travel in the USA, the biggest hindrances I see are:

- Favorable treatment to airlines (I recall $30B in cash right after 9/11).

- Arcane FRA regulations that require trainsets to be built like bank vaults on wheels, making them far heavier, more expensive, and more prone to breakdown than the TGV trainsets used in Europe.

- "I want a car when I get there". On my most recent flight into CLT, a Budget shuttle took me to their on-site rental car lot--and back to the terminal when I returned the car. A quick Google check shows that, if I took Amtrak to Charlotte, the nearest car rental was Enterprise--1.3 miles away.

- Image, including media depiction. In _30 Rock_, a character said, "I had to take a shower; the train was filthy. I didn't ride it; I saw it out the airplane window." _Sex and the City_ once depicted a NYC-SF Amtrak ride going very roughly, so they flew back first-class. In _How I Met Your Mother_, they once flew from NYC to PHL.

On a side note, are there any regular Amtrak riders here whose friends and family are simply amazed that a person of middle-class-or-higher status would actually use Amtrak?

I don't understand why Enterprise being 1.3 miles away would be a deal breaker... They'll pick you up. You probably were close to that distance on the Budget shuttle from the airport.

I used to be able to take Amtrak from PIT to CHI in a roomette for the price of a coach ticket on AA.... and I could take a shower on the train right before I had a great breakfast and then roll into my Chicago office at 9:30am rested, showered, and fed.

I can't do it any more due to company travel policy.

Almost every major station that I've been to had a rental car in or near the station. With them mostly being Enterprise, they will come get you at the station.

Half an hour from now I could be boarding a plane to a beach in another country. Amtrak can't possibly match that!



No, you can't be boarding your flight to another country in 30 minutes. You have to check in, get felt up by the TSA, maybe check bags, and then wait for your zone to be called. Can't do that in less than 30 minutes and that doesn't even count the time it takes to get to the airport.



Maybe he was already sitting at the gate when he posted. :D

I stand corrected; I should watch more TV ads: "Enterprise: we'll pick you up." :-)

Company travel policy seems to be part of the issue too. I used to work for the State of Florida, and the travel policy for Tallahassee-based employees was to fly for anything south of the Orlando/Tampa area; otherwise, car rental. Per-mile payments (which could technically allow one to travel by other means) were frowned upon; the State preferred to rent cars for its employees.

Budget was actually only a few hundred feet from the CLT terminal, but the shuttle ride went on a very long, windy trip, due to the way airport roads tend to be laid out. The worst for this is PHL, where you go on a seemingly endless shuttle ride...to be taken to the rental car lots just on the other side of the parking decks.

I can't do it any more due to company travel policy.

Almost every major station that I've been to had a rental car in or near the station. With them mostly being Enterprise, they will come get you at the station.

On a side note, are there any regular Amtrak riders here whose friends and family are simply amazed that a person of middle-class-or-higher status would actually use Amtrak?

When the grope became standard issue, I stopped flying, and started using exclusively AMTRAK.

My dad, at first, was amazed that I'd made such a choice... even though he retired after 30 years of railroading!

One bad experience at the airport later, he's now on the rails with me. Go fig.

When the grope became standard issue, I stopped flying, and started using exclusively AMTRAK.

I still know _way_ too many AFSers who Truly Believe that the NoS and gropes are the _only_ thing keeping airplanes from being blown out of the sky, so they willingly and happily go through the NoS/grope on a regular basis.

I've always wanted to take a vacation to Hawaii, but their tourism industry will not see one cent of my money until I can go there and back like it was 9/10.

You CAN go there and back like it was 9/10.

You just have to do it like it was 9/10/1890, and go by ship. ;)

You CAN go there and back like it was 9/10.

You just have to do it like it was 9/10/1890, and go by ship. ;)

Are there any cruise lines out there with US-flagged ships who can take you straight between the CONUS and HI? It appears that 99.9% of cruise ships are not US-flagged, and by federal law, have to stop in another country during the cruise.

Princess has one that goes from LA to Hawaii, and then makes a token stop in Mexico on the way back to get around Jones.

DCA-LGA makes sense on USS. Corporate discount lets me book straight into F almost all the time and, on rare occasions, not until closer to flight time. The 7:00 AM rarely lands later than 7:45 and I am in mid-town Manhattan by 8:30.

On the return, Acela makes sense. End of a day, don't need to fight LGA traffic, ATC and other stuff. A couple of drinks, an OK meal at my seat and all is well.

But, the same isn't true for NYC-BOS and definitely not for WAS-BOS.

I'm going DC-Boston next month and am flying Toyota Tacoma.

I stand corrected; I should watch more TV ads: "Enterprise: we'll pick you up." :-)

Company travel policy seems to be part of the issue too. I used to work for the State of Florida, and the travel policy for Tallahassee-based employees was to fly for anything south of the Orlando/Tampa area; otherwise, car rental. Per-mile payments (which could technically allow one to travel by other means) were frowned upon; the State preferred to rent cars for its employees.

I'm in a constant fight with the company to let me save them money.

The PIT-CHI Amtrak presented me a very unique itinerary that saved them money while getting them a better prepared employee. I board in Pittsburgh at 11:45. At 11:30pm I'd take a sleeping pill. By midnight, we are rolling out of the station and I'm settling in to sleep. I wake up around 6:45 am and walk downstairs to get my shower. By 7:15 I'm in the dining car ordering my pancakes and sausage (get the apple-turkey sausage, it's great!). Around 8 I'm back in my roomette which has been converted back to seats while I was at breakfast. I jump on my wifi hotspot and check email. We roll into Chicago Union Station at 8:45. I go pick up my rental car and drive to my office in the burbs typically getting in between 9:30 and 10.

Rested, showered, fed and ready to work and all included in the price of the ticket.

Coming home, I would get to Chicago Union by 5:30. Put in a dinner reservation for 7pm. Sit in the lounge until 6 when we do the walk out to the train. I'd have my steak dinner at 7pm, during which we'd hit a timezone change and suddenly a 1 hour dinner starting at 7 actually finishes at 9. During dinner my room has been converted to a bed. I take another sleeping pill and sleep till 5:30am. We arrive back in Pittsburgh at 5:45. I don't shower or eat on the train this morning. I have a shower in the gym at my office, so I head there for the shower, grab some breakfast, and I'm at my desk by 7am.

When I fly, I have to go the night before and spend an extra night in a hotel and an extra night with national and two extra meals.

I was able to justify Amtrak for a while by showing that the Amtrak ticket could cost up to $200 more than a coach seat on a flight and still save the company money on the overall trip.

I'm no longer able to book these itineraries because we're not allowed to book upgrades through our online booking tool and a Roomette counts as an upgrade.

You CAN go there and back like it was 9/10.

You just have to do it like it was 9/10/1890, and go by ship. ;)

Or take Amtrak Train 590, on the Glendale-San Francisco-Honolulu route... :D

(and yes I did have to drag out my Hot Shots Part Deux dvd for that one)

I'm in a constant fight with the company to let me save them money.

You and me both. I'm always amazed at how much extra I would spend by following the corporate travel policy.

Or take Amtrak Train 590, on the Glendale-San Francisco-Honolulu route... :D

(and yes I did have to drag out my Hot Shots Part Deux dvd for that one)

Possibly one of the most underrated movies in history.

Mike

The part that I like is that I don't have to make my way to get to the airport. If I'm going city-to-city, the Acela is faster and more efficient. If I'm going from Manhattan to Downtown Boston, it's much easier to go straight from NY Penn to Boston South Sta. on Acela than it is to backtrack to JFK or LGA and wait for a plane to take me to Logan.

All those times wasted in getting to the airport, clearing TSA, waiting for boarding, push back, taxi to runway, "we're now number X for take off," actual flying in the air for 30 minutes, landing, taxi to the gate, deplaning, etc. etc. ... it's just not worth it for short intra-city distances.

I might as just head to the train station, hop on, read a book, and I'm already at the city center when I arrive.

Obviously a train won't work when going from LA to NY, but for shorter distances, the train is a better way to go than a plane due to the hassles involved.

+1

NY to BOS or DCA is way better than air travel. Longer train times than 4 hours then that is another story

i have taken ICE trains in Germany with favorable results and little downtime even with very tight connections

Over the years Amtrak has significantly changed for the better on those routes. The metroliners are pretty much gone, standing because the train is packed is a thing of the past in most cases, you have a seat, you have electricity, in some cases you have wifi or you have your own.

While you can attribute some of it to the hassles of an airport, some of it is Amtrak realizing if they give people the ability to work for the two or three hour trip if they want to work they will get way more business.

I'm currently sitting at my desk in Manhattan. Four minutes from now I could be standing on the Amtrak Platform (if I hit both walk lights in my favor). The airports can't possibly match that

I can't remember the last time I approved a travel request that involved flying to New York. OTOH, I approve at least 3 requests a month for travel on Amtrak.

...if I took Amtrak to Charlotte, the nearest car rental was Enterprise--1.3 miles away....

Taxis wait for trains. I've even seen taxis waiting for Greyhound.

Regarding profitability, get back to me when the (likely toll-free) highway you took to the airport turns a profit.

Not sure what you mean by profit, but auto transportation is the only self sufficient form of transportation in the U.S. Fuel taxes more than cover the cost of highway construction and maintenance (and likley cover the massive subsidies to Amtrak). http://www.bts.gov/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/pdf/entire.pdf

Not sure what you mean by profit, but auto transportation is the only self sufficient form of transportation in the U.S. Fuel taxes more than cover the cost of highway construction and maintenance (and likley cover the massive subsidies to Amtrak). http://www.bts.gov/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/pdf/entire.pdf

This document only deals with the federal budget. Most of the expenditure of highway construction and maintenance is borne by state and local governments and comes out of general taxation.

This document only deals with the federal budget. Most of the expenditure of highway construction and maintenance is borne by state and local governments and comes out of general taxation.

The states tax road fuels at almost twice the rate of the federal government on average. In addition, states collect sales tax on vehicle sales, registration fees, taxes on tires and vehicle lubricants, tolls, etc. Whether those funds goe into a state's general fund or are set aside for roads is moot; the fact remains that auto transportation is more than self sufficient in most if not all states

The states tax road fuels at almost twice the rate of the federal government on average. In addition, states collect sales tax on vehicle sales, registration fees, taxes on tires and vehicle lubricants, tolls, etc. Whether those funds goe into a state's general fund or are set aside for roads is moot; the fact remains that auto transportation is more than self sufficient in most if not all states

Since you made a rather bold statement without any sources or support, I looked up some numbers for California:

sales tax for a year: $27.140 billion
9.6% of this is from gas stations, giving $2.6 billion
vehicle license fees: $1.36 billion
Total Revenue per year: $3.9 billion

spending on highways: $56 billion over 10 years, or $5.6 billion per year
spending for local streets over 10 years: $19 billion, or $1.9 billion per year
Total spending per year: $7.5 billion

So based on this rough calculation, the state spends almost twice as much on roads as it collects in taxes from motorists.

(This is attributing ALL gas station sales to motorists. If you only count sales of gasoline, the revenue from motorists will be even less, but I couldn't find any such numbers.)

cbn42 and KurtVH, I tried finding backup because I felt KurtVH was right.

Here is mine (http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/17/the-facts-about-transportation).

In 1957 about 67 percent of highway funds came from user fees. Forty years later the revenue from user fees has shrunk to just 50 percent of total highway funds. Indeed, user fee revenue as a share of total highway-related funds is now at its lowest point since the Interstate Highway System was created.

Seems cbn42 was right based on one article.

Since you made a rather bold statement without any sources or support, I looked up some numbers for California:

sales tax for a year: $27.140 billion
9.6% of this is from gas stations, giving $2.6 billion
vehicle license fees: $1.36 billion
Total Revenue per year: $3.9 billion

spending on highways: $56 billion over 10 years, or $5.6 billion per year
spending for local streets over 10 years: $19 billion, or $1.9 billion per year
Total spending per year: $7.5 billion

So based on this rough calculation, the state spends almost twice as much on roads as it collects in taxes from motorists.

(This is attributing ALL gas station sales to motorists. If you only count sales of gasoline, the revenue from motorists will be even less, but I couldn't find any such numbers.)

Regarding lack of sources: Fair enough. This is seat-of-the-pants stuff recalled mostly from years of semi-interest in the topic; my assertions are, I believe, generally accurate but far from dispositive. My excuse is that I'd had a couple of cocktails before posting yesterday.

On your post, I don't see fuel taxes in your calculation. Did you include this in the sales tax numbers? I also don't see sales tax on vehicles or truck weight fees (though those may be included in your license fee line).

California uses part of its fuel tax revenues to fund public transportation. Those should be counted in the percentage of highway funding that comes from user fees for a true picture.


cbn42 and KurtVH, I tried finding backup because I felt KurtVH was right.

Here is mine (http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/17/the-facts-about-transportation).



Seems cbn42 was right based on one article.



Good article. Couple of things, though. The article notes that about a quarter of federal gas tax revenues go to things other than highways. Those funds should be counted when determining if highway/road expenditures are paid for from user fees as those offset other general revenue spending. The same logic would apply to state and local funding.

The article also puts funding from bond issues in the non user fee category. That may be accurate, but if the monies raised by issuing bonds are repaid from user fees, those should also obviously be counted as funds from user fees.

I'm a huge fan of the Acela to either Boston or DC. Door-to-door from Manhattan, it is much faster and easier than taking a flight. The lounges are decent. The redcaps are always charming. And the on-board experience is lovely, with wi-fi, decent food served at your seat, and some beautiful views (depending on which side you are sitting on).

I'm a huge fan of the Acela to either Boston or DC. Door-to-door from Manhattan, it is much faster and easier than taking a flight. The lounges are decent. The redcaps are always charming. And the on-board experience is lovely, with wi-fi, decent food served at your seat, and some beautiful views (depending on which side you are sitting on).

^^ on the DC-NYC Acela. Yes, it might take a tad longer door to door compared to flying at certain times of the day, but I can get quality work done sitting in a comfortable seat, with full connectivity. And without the ridiculous security theater experience.

It's not just the Acela.

I have a conference to attend next month. It is 800 flight miles away and I have access to a 2.5 hour nonstop flight, which I could take for free as NRSA.

I am instead taking a 29-hour Amtrak, which does not include a 5-hour connection in Chicago. While I won't have WiFi on these particular routes, the trips are overnight, so I can sleep on the trip, get work done during the day that I can't complete while I'm at the office without the distraction of hopping on the internet, and because of the timing I save a night in the hotel on the other end.

As for timing, the conference is almost cross country, which means I have to close my business for a full travel day regardless of the mode of transit on both ends. The only thing I'm out is closing the office an additional day on the return, which isn't necessary due to my arrival time home, but I don't want to run the risk of arriving late and having my staff reschedule a day's worth of appointments.

All-in-all Amtrak is as easy, or easier than the flight option. As a bonus I avoid a longish flight in a Barbie jet, I don't have to attend the Security Circus, I won't be threatened with irradiation, and I won't "enjoy" an opt out choke, shove, testicular slap, or any of the other indignities I've actually received at my home airport.

The federal government is researching alternatives to the fuel tax. As cars grow more fuel-efficient, fuel tax revenues achieve less and less, and this is problematic for transportation agencies whose projected expenditures have been based on historical trends in fuel tax revenue. FWIW, the Obama administration is proposing a 2025 fuel efficiency standard of 54.5 mpg.

The kicker for Amtrak is that on the NEC, they are rapidly approaching capacity. They have more equipment on order (they plan to add length to the Acelas) but it won't get here fast enough.

The Northeast Regional rolling stock hasn't changed in 40 years. And you sometimes see consists with baggage cars that are clearly far older than that. With the malfunctions and derailments Amtrak suffers so often, I don't know where they get enough cars to piece the trains together.

I like the Acela but don't think the 40-odd minute speed advantage over the NER trains is usually worth the enormous price differential.

Regarding lack of sources: Fair enough. This is seat-of-the-pants stuff recalled mostly from years of semi-interest in the topic; my assertions are, I believe, generally accurate but far from dispositive. My excuse is that I'd had a couple of cocktails before posting yesterday.

No worries, I do that sometimes as well :D

On your post, I don't see fuel taxes in your calculation. Did you include this in the sales tax numbers? I also don't see sales tax on vehicles or truck weight fees (though those may be included in your license fee line).

On the state budget website, the fuel tax is not broken out separately, but it does say that 9.6% of the sales tax comes from gas stations, so I assume this includes the tax on fuel. I highly doubt that sales of cigarettes and beer at gas stations accounts for 9.6% of the state's sales tax revenue.

California uses part of its fuel tax revenues to fund public transportation. Those should be counted in the percentage of highway funding that comes from user fees for a true picture.

I think that is just an accounting gimmick. They use part of the fuel tax revenues to fund public transportation, and they use money from the general fund to pay for roads. What matters is the amount they spend on roads vs. the amount they collect on fuel tax and other automobile-related taxes.

The sounds of a desperate spokesman.

How bout telling us something we DON'T know!!!

I travel several times a year from my home in rural New Mexico to Oceanside, CA. If I fly (which I never do anymore) I have to drive 2 hours to ABQ and either pay for parking or be dropped off by family. Then I have to go through the nightmare of TSA screening, which ALWAYS involves the grope and shoes being taken away, x-rayed and swabbed. I have to allow 2 hours for the nonsense. I can fly to SAN or SNA, my daughter has to drive one hour each way to pick me up, so 2 hours plus waiting time to pick me up.

Or, I can drive less than one hour to the quaint Lamy train station, park for free or be dropped off. I spend the afternoon and night on the train, sleep in a bed, shower, and have nice meals. At Fullerton I jump off the Southwest Chief, walk across the footbridge over the tracks, and catch the southbound Surfliner about 5-10 minutes later. My daughter drives 6 miles (10 minutes) to the Oceanside train station to pick me up. No TSA, no parking fees, restful ride, and much much easier for my daughter.

My last trip and upcoming trip next month include(d) double Amtrak points. I now take Amtrak for all domestic trips unless I can't get there by train.

As opposed to the beauty that is NY Penn Station:D
As opposed to what? DL T2/3 at JFK? I'll take Penn Sta. any day.

I made this move YEARS ago and have had status on Amtrak and not on any airline for 3 years now. I have earned enough points the past few years to take my family to FL on the Autotrain for vacation. Going to NYC and actually landing in the middle of the city is so much more civilized than fighting the traffic in a cab from LaGuardia or even worse, JFK. I do plenty of work in Philly, NJ and NYC and will never fly up there from DC again. Unfortunately, my little secret has been getting out and the trains are getting more and more crowded.

This is a report from a New Orleans TV station about the TSA driving more people to Amtrak. This was back in November, 2010.

http://www.wwltv.com/news/Amtrak-sees-jump-in-traffic-with-new-TSA-screenings-110253089.html

November, 2010 was also the last time I flew. Thankfully, my job doesn't require travel. But the one time I was asked to attend a conference out of the area, I put my foot down until they allowed me to travel by train. I've been traveling by train ever since. It hasn't been easy on my relationship since he lives 800 miles away and train travel isn't always convenient, but we're dealing with it.