Philly Amtrak Fan wrote:
Totally agree. I'd rather a fairer distribution with regional routes requiring more funding from states but LD would still require some funding for states but less. As a federal taxpayer I'd rather pay for some shorter trains than some LD trains.
But Amtrak is already paying significant shares of the total cost to operate these shorter distance trains. The States are only subsidizing Amtrak's loses. Maybe a better expalanation is needed.
http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2014/11/ ... overy.html
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Example (1), the extension of corridor trains to Lynchburg made a profit of $4,304,973 in 2014, so Virginia contributes no subsidies in 2014 for this train.
Example (2), the extension of corridor trains to Norfolk, Virginia would have paid $151,000 subsidy for 2014 to make up Amtrak's loses.
Example (3)' the extension of corridor trains to Richmond, Virginia would have paid $2,605,047 for 2014 to make up Amtrak's loses.
Example (4) the extension of corridor trains to Newport News made a profit of $3,357,190 in 2014, so Virginia contributes no subsides in 2014 for this train.
Sub-Total for Virginia subsidies for 2014 was zero, because the trains making profits earned more than the trains losing money. The entire costs for operating the Virginia trains were paid by Amtrak and its customers.
Better example, the Carolinian itself.
Example (5) Carolinian needed $1,563,689 in subsidizes from North Carolina for Amtrak to break even in 2014. The entire costs for Amtrak to run the train was $20,700,000, while the train earned $19,136,311. So Amtrak and its customers paid over 19 million to run this train while North Carolina paid less than $1.6 million in subsidies.