This June, Members of the House of Representatives will be asked
to support or reject the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement
Act of 2008 (H.R. 6003), an Amtrak reauthorization bill that would
substantially increase taxpayer subsidies beyond the extremely
generous levels already provided. Whereas Amtrak complains that it
receives only 2 percent of federal transportation spending, that
amount is four times higher than its fair share given that Amtrak
carries less than one-half of 1 percent of the nation's intercity
passengers. Even more inequitable is the per passenger federal
subsidy, which the U.S. Department of Transportation calculates at
$210.31 per passenger per 1,000 miles for Amtrak passengers,
compared to $6.18 for those using commercial airlines.
H.R. 6003 would tilt these inequitable subsidies further toward
Amtrak's advantage. In comparison to the $1.35 billion federal
subsidy that Amtrak will receive in fiscal year (FY) 2008, H.R.
6003 would increase the annual bailout to $2.2 billion in FY 2009
and $2.6 billion in FY 2010. Over the five-year life of the
legislation, taxpayers would have to provide a total of $12.8
billion for the benefit of the tiny share of the nation's travelers
using the system. A better policy would be to limit Amtrak's annual
subsidy to $900 million per year and link the receipt of that
subsidy to the requirement that Amtrak fill more than half of its
seats on an annual basis.
Since Amtrak's inception in 1970, the annual business-as-usual
bailout has allowed it to squander more than $30 billion in
taxpayer money for the benefit of a tiny fraction of the traveling
public and its overpaid workforce. Despite this massive subsidy and
endless promises of improvement by a series of recent managers and
board members, Amtrak is no closer to service sustainability today
than it was 38 years ago, in large part because its passengers
value the service at only a fraction of what it costs to provide
it.
These losses have continued and worsened down to the present
day: In FY 2007, Amtrak earned $1.7 billion in passenger ticket
revenues but incurred costs of $3.2 billion serving those
passengers. The loss for that year--$1.12 billion, up from $1.07
billion in the previous year--was covered by the taxpayers. As a
result, Amtrak's recent modest increase in passengers has been at
the expense of the American taxpayer.
Confronting several years of sluggish growth in passenger
boardings despite taxpayer subsidies nearly as large as ticket
sales, Amtrak has recently switched its promotional focus from
transportation to its potential to increase energy independence and
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Amtrak contends that its service
is energy-efficient and environmentally beneficial, but Department
of Energy data reveal that the benefits are exaggerated, and even
greater benefits could be achieved by replacing Amtrak with
intercity buses.
Data provided by several independent sources of expertise in
energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions[1] indicate that GHG
emissions and energy use attributable to rail passengers could be
reduced by two-thirds if all intercity rail passengers were shifted
from Amtrak to buses. Indeed, U.S. Department of Energy data show
that even scheduled airline service has become more
energy-efficient and is now only 17 percent less energy-efficient
than Amtrak--not a bad trade-off for the tremendous savings in time
on most routes.
Linking Subsidy to Performance
While neither Congress nor the White House will likely agree to
shutting down Amtrak and encouraging its passengers to shift to
buses and hybrid automobiles, they might seriously consider a plan
to cap and then reduce Amtrak's burden on the taxpayer in a process
that would also significantly improve performance. To do this,
Congress needs to link Amtrak's subsidy to performance, and the
most cost-effective performance measure would be Amtrak's ability
to increase its load factor (the percentage of seats occupied).
For FY 2007, Amtrak's load factor reached 48.9 percent compared
to 47.7 percent in FY 2006. During the first seven months of FY
2008, its load factor was 48.3 percent, compared to 45.1 percent
for the same period in FY 2007. In contrast to Amtrak's poor
performance in utilizing its excess capacity, commercial airlines
have been operating at a load factor of just under 80 percent in
recent years.
Given Amtrak's exceptionally poor ridership metrics, one option
might be for Congress to link Amtrak's generous federal subsidy to
improvements in its load factor. For example, Congress could give
Amtrak the same subsidy in FY 2009 as it received in FY 2008 but
condition future subsidies on Amtrak's increasing its FY 2009 load
factor to 55 percent.
If Amtrak did not meet this target, then the FY 2010 subsidy
would be reduced by $100 million for every 1 percentage point the
FY 2009 load factor was below the 55 percent target. Furthermore,
the target for each subsequent year would be increased by 5
percentage points until Amtrak matches airline performance. Setting
such reasonable goals would force Amtrak managers to shift their
focus from congressional lobbying and obsolete train schedules to
passenger satisfaction and meaningful transportation options.
More specifically, to put Amtrak on the path to fiscal
independence and to get federal transportation policy better
focused on energy efficiency, Congress should:
- Request that the Congressional Research Service, the
Department of Energy, and the Government Accountability Office
update and expand earlier studies on per passenger subsidies
and energy efficiency to assist Congress in making rational choices
among competing policies and special interests seeking
transportation subsidies.
- Reject any attempt to increase Amtrak's federal
subsidy.
- Cap the Amtrak subsidy at $900 million and condition
future subsidies on Amtrak's steadily increasing its passenger load
factor to match airline performance. Congress should also steadily
reduce the Amtrak subsidy from each year to the next.
- Terminate the 16 Long Distance Routes that Amtrak now
maintains and that account most of its losses. These routes
accountfor less than 15 percent of Amtrak's ridership but
reportedly incurred 130 percent of Amtrak's allocated operating
losses in FY 2007 according to Amtrak's primitive accounting
system, in which the reporting is distorted to claim that the
trains on the NEC earn a substantial profit. The NEC does not make
a profit, but maintaining the fiction that it does sustains East
Coast congressional support and helps to thwart proposals to
require the eastern states to help support the NEC in the same way
that California, Washington, and Oregon are required to financially
support much of their passenger rail service.
Conclusion
The transportation challenges confronting the United States over
the next several years will be unprecedented in their scope and
difficulty. As congestion worsens and undermines the economic
vitality of some metropolitan areas, voter skepticism about the
competence of federal and state transportation officials has
increased and in the process has discouraged efforts to increase
the public resources available for transportation investment.
Legislation such as H.R. 6003 deepens that skepticism by
demonstrating that Congress is more interested in pandering to
influential constituencies than in finding solutions to mobility
and congestion relief.
Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D., is
Herbert and Joyce Morgan Senior Research Fellow in the Thomas A.
Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage
Foundation.
[1] For
more details on Amtrak energy use, see Ronald D. Utt, "Congress
Should Link Amtrak's Generous Subsidy to Improved Performance,"
Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2072, September 20,
2007, pp. 11-14.