Hopefully, the Amtrak subsidy won't be gone on January 21st.

It is such an absolute shame that AMTRAK has to live on a shoestring and so precariously, administration to administration.  They do a very good job with what they have to work with, IMHO.   

I had the pleasure of taking Amtrak last month from Baltimore to NYC for a business trip.  Having the freedom to move around and get something to snack on from the Cafe car whenever I wished sure beat the heck out of the hassle of flying.

We spend many billions of dollars subsidizing highway construction and airport travel, yet most people see this as worthwhile investment in infrastructure.  Yet, for some reason, they get upset when we subsidize rail service.

Jim

I find it quite odd that so-called "conservatives" have little interested in conserving the remnants of the once world's-greatest railroad system, nor in preserving an important part of our history and heritage.

Passenger rail is a part of our infrastructure, and should be supported just as highways, aviation, and waterways are supported.  It all gives back to our economy.  Amtrak certainly should be better managed.  In my opinion, not since the great Graham Claytor has Amtrak had proper management and cummunication with Congress. 

No one bats an eye over the subsidy for "essential air" services which as we speak operate networks of commuter airline service to "underserved" communites.  In fact Republicans keep these subsidies going without a second thought.  And, I think there is a need for some of these services. 

The key is to keep Americans mobile, which in turn keeps business rolling.  Successful emerging corridors like the Downeaster, Cascades, and Carolinian routes have proven to revive city centers and make communities more viable for residents and business. 

Amtrak is a benefit to the country.  And it should be maintained and upgraded.  I do feel that some money well spent would be for a proven leader with business experience who believes in rail passenger service.  I doubt there are many Graham Claytor's out there, but Amtrak desperately needs someone like that.     

This isn't really a partisan issue.  There are a lot of conservatives on here and I bet many of them are interested in rail travel.  Your assertion is false.

I agree.  Passenger rail is important.  Just as highways, waterways and airways are important.  The question though is how should they be supported?  I think it is an equally important question to ask where the money is going to come from.  We can't keep spending on credit and running up huge bills that can only result in a financial collapse.  Every single one of us is bound by the reality of not being able to spend more than we make (at least not for long) lest we face financial ruin.  It is no different for the country.

Liberals and conservatives have different ways of looking at problems and can bring different perspectives to the table to help solve them.  Let's stop playing partisan politics and get together to create real solutions.  True leaders will demonstrate their leadership by doing this.  Those that seek to divide will show themselves for what they are too.

This came from the U.S. Department of Transportation Office of the Secretary of Transportations website...Amtrak lost $506.9 Million in the fiscal year 2011

It's a VERY partisan issue.  Unfortunately.  Being "interested in rail travel" is virtually meaningless if money for support isn't included.  And, as you don't know anything about how I feel about any other issue, you can't tell what side i'm on, if either, from just one position.  

I know my brain isn't what it used to be after all those Martinis, but I can't think of a single prominent member of Congress -- of either or any party -- who is labeled "conservative" and also visible and vocally supports Amtrak and upgraded rail projects.  

Your original statement did not narrow the focus to "members of congress" but seemed to imply that people who said they were "conservative" were not "interested" (your word) in conserving the railroad infrastructure.  That is a pretty broad assertion and it is provably false.

To clarify...  I agree that I do not know what side you are on from one comment.  I wasn't making any assumptions.  To me it is irrelevant.  I was only focused on the one comment because I know political conservatives that support rail travel and subsidies.  Therefore, not all conservatives "have little interest in conserving remnants of the once world's greatest railroad system...".

As I commented before, the rub comes when you sit down to talk about where the money comes from and what needs to be sacrificed in its place.  If you only have $1T, you can't spend $10T.

My intent isn't to start a war here.  I apologize if that was how I came across.

Passenger rail is important.  Just as highways, waterways and airways are important.  The question though is how should they be supported?  I think it is an equally important question to ask where the money is going to come from.  We can't keep spending on credit and running up huge bills that can only result in a financial collapse.  Every single one of us is bound by the reality of not being able to spend more than we make (at least not for long) lest we face financial ruin.  It is no different for the country.

Eric

That strikes me as an entirely reasonable statement.  If we are going to come to reasonable conclusions as a group of railfans let alone a nation we need to have a discussion based on numbers.  That means the number of travelers, the number of dollars spent to move travelers and where those dollars are coming from.  Once the facts are understood we can have a more informed discussion of fairness, value to the overall economy and the rest.

Here is the breakdown of passenger travel by mode.

Rail travel represents less than one percent of total passenger travel in this country.  Amtrak's share is far less.  Even when intercity travel only is considered Amtrak represents less than one percent of passenger miles.

If anyone is interested they can look at the US Department of Transportation's Vision for High Speed Rail in America.  Figures 3 and 4 are quite interesting.  They show the trends in intercity travel by mode from 1929 to the present and federal spending on intercity travel by mode over the same period.

http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloa...A_HSR_Strat_Plan.pdf

Intercity travel by car has been more popular than by rail since before the advent to the interstate highway system.  Intercity travel by air has been more popular than by rail since the time of the DC-7 and the Super Constellation.  By the era of the jet there was no contest.  And intercity travel by bus has been more popular than rail travel since before Amtrak.

It is also worth noting that auto and bus travelers pay taxes on fuel of about 50 cents per gallon that fund local, state and federal spending on highway transportation.  Since the 1990s a portion of the federal motor vehicle excise tax goes into the general fund as well.  Air travelers also pay into a federal trust fund that supplies government spending on that mode.

The proportion of federal transportation funding allocated to rail is in excess of the popularity of the mode by market share and comes from taxes collected from the broader economy.

Amtrak is a popular choice in the North East.  There Amtrak can produce enough revenue to support it's operating costs but can not earn enough to fund its capital needs.

We seem to have a situation that hasn't changed much since the days of the Nixon Administration when Amtrak was formed.  People like that passenger trains exist but few actually ride them.  Those that do ride trains would likely stop if their fare was high enough to cover the cost of the service.

I have read some nostalgic pleas for maintaining Amtrak.  Can someone make a good business case for Amtrak?  How about a business case for another way of providing intercity passenger rail transportation?

If government continues to subsidize intercity passenger rail transportation is it fair to tax people who will rarely or never use it to subsidize the transportation choices of the few who do?  If we continue to fund Amtrak with a combination of outside tax revenue and borrowed money is it fair to saddle future tax payers with debt to pay for current services?

If you are for or against Amtrak funding what to you think is the best use of transportation dollars? 

What do you think is fair?

Trains Magazine newswire is reporting that the goverment of Brazil has announced a $40 BILLION commitment to 6,000 miles of new rail infrastructure over the next 30 years.

It appears that another country will be overshadowing America in rail service in the future.

Elect more legislators who speak & read Portugese.

Tony

Up on the "D & H Bridge Line"

For me, I prefer taking my car for most of my intercity travel.  If it were easier to get where I want to go by rail, then that would be my next choice.  I'd much prefer a pleasant trip to New Hampshire by rail than have to do a 750 mile trip by car.  But wait!  How do I "get there from here"?  Although Ann Arbor does have an Amtrak station, that pretty much confines me to the Wolverine to Chicago (or Detroit or Pontiac).  That's great if I am traveling out west but If I am headed east, I need to go to Toledo (which is not too unreasonable a drive) but then I need to leave my vehicle there.  From Toledo, I can get within an hour of my family (Brattleboro, VT) but getting there is a hassle.  I have to go way out of the way.  Then, I need to either try to rent a car (Brattleboro is not a huge city) or depend on family to pick me up.  When all is said and done, it still takes me less time to drive, even though it is over 700 miles.  Why?  Because in a lot of cases, you just can't get there from here - at least not easily.  If I could get to Brattleboro (or better yet Keene, NH) without having to go to New York or Boston first, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

For trips out west, I would take Amtrak over flying under almost any circumstances.  Ann Arbor to Chicago to pretty much any major city is pretty easy.

@Ted:  Thanks for a very informative post!

Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey, scrapped the most recent proposal in 2010, in the process forfeiting billions of dollars in federal aid mainly to burnish his political credentials as a cost-cutting Republican. That proposal was budgeted at about $9 billion.

B.S. Rhetoric for a non New Jersian! NJ taxpayers are on the hook for the WHOLE project. When Chris took over from Corzine- who shoved this project down NJ's taxpayers throats to "buy Commuter votes" the project that was a billion dollars spent on just a "bridge over Tonolle Ave" and a small hole in the rock of the Palisades Mountain! The project was already projectet to SURPASS the Budgeted $9 billion $$ and was estimated at 18 Billion $$ at the time the project was cut. And for what would this project would have done if completed?

1. a HUGE subteranian station underneath Macy's
2. A STEEP escalator ride to just the Penn Station Concoures
3. No FUTURE connection with Grand Central Terminal-because it's too far deep!
4. God forbid the Escalator and/or HVAC should break down!
5. Security nighmare for Police!
6. Rescue nightmare for fire/medical should a catastrophie occur!
7. A HUGE Cost free benefit to NYC and NY State!
8. Oh lets just conveniently omis the fact that NJT was FORCED to go this deep route BECAUSE Amtrak FOR DECADES has  on their books a new NJ/NY GATEWAY tunnel project that would expand the tunnels from 2 to four with the new tunnels side by side from the OLD PRR tunnels making perfect sense for trains to arrive at the current platforms at the station on the SAME LEVEL!
9. Now that the NJ Transit Tunnel to Macy's basement has been cancelled, The pressure is ON for AMTRAK, All the President and his men, and Congress to Start digging and Stop B.S. ing the past decades and move the economy forward with more huge sensable public works projects!

As stated above from other forumites, We ARE AMERICANS! AMERICANS LOVE Convenience! Green or NO green Revolution if it Ain't convenient for us Americans, we will NOT use it!

NOW for the current administration, there has been a Lot of Talk and Hot air on Expanding Acella and HST's across the country. What expansions have been done so far?

What's up with the California HST project?

those statistics are very interesting. I'd like to see the figures that focus on the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions only. I'll bet the percentages skew way towards rail travel.

I for one am quite happy the ARC  tunnel is dead. It was a grossly flawed plan and a life-safety nightmare. Why it wound up taking precedence over Amtrak's Gateway plan is a political mystery. Since the Administration purports to support high speed rail, it will be interestingto see how quickly Congress gets to work (an oxymoron if there ever was one) on funding the Gateway tunnels.

those statistics are very interesting. I'd like to see the figures that focus on the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions only. I'll bet the percentages skew way towards rail travel.

Chris

In a way they do, but it also illustrates how little market share rail really has.  In the one region of the USA that is most suited to intercity rail travel the market share for trains still only figure in the single digits, and about the same as air travel.

Have a look at Amtrak's own vision for the NEC.  The chart on page 4 shows a 89% highway, 6% rail, 5% air split.  In the text it states 6% for air and 5% for rail.

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/21...rtheast-Corridor.pdf

Amtraks vision is of an increase in business that will provide $900 million a year in revenue in excess of operating and maintenance costs.  That sounds great until you compare that figure to the $117 Billion  they envision being needed to attract serve that many customers.  Now imagine trying to get a $117,000 mortgage on a home if your income is only $900 a year greater than your basic cost of living.

One question not asked or answered in the report is how many passengers could be served for $117 Billion spent on highway or air infrastructure.  The freight mobility benefit of highways and the revenue created by highway travel are not considered either.

I think we need some more data to make a well informed decision on what transportation spending provides the most benefit per dollar.  Then we can consider where those dollars are coming from and make reasonable and fair decisions.

Let Amtrak die a graceful death. I'm tired of my tax dollars going to losing propositions.  If it makes a profit somebody will do it if not let it go. 

Where would we fit $117 billion of additional highways/airports in the Northeast?

That's a whole lot of eminent domain there.

---PCJ

I hope you're including Medicare in the tax dollars going to "losing propositions" since everybody enrolled ends up dead.  

Huh??????????????????????????? 

Amtrak has been dead for years but nobody burys it. Got a shovel?

just how wise is letting Amtrak die? there are approx. 200,000 people that ride NJ transit everyday on Amtrak owned NE corridor rails. Transit in no way could afford the upkeep on the system were Amtrak to go away and NJT assume onwership. for travel between NYC, DC and Boston and points between I far prefer using the train than driving. sure the train costs more than driving (though with the price of fuel and toll increases it's much closer now), and I certainly wouldn't fly to DC or Boston.

Now add the Metro North and there are somewhere close to 500,000 riders on the NE corridor every weekday.

a few years back Amtrak had a plan to focus on some 'corridors' between urban areas. the NE, west coast, N/S midwest, and one E/W corridor. I don't know whether that's still part of their plan, but at the time it made sensible use of limited dollars.

Interesting thread.  I would note that part of AMTRACK issues are both the lack of support for it from Congress and the way congress interferes (here both parties are guilty).  Even in the Northeast corridor run.  Does Newark, DE really need a stop if Wilmington, DE has one?  What does this do to the schedule?  The infrastructure costs?

   Frankly put the airline industry and the auto industry receive much more in the way of subsides from the government than the rail industry.  Doubt it?  Look at the transportatin budget for the US and see where it goes and then think further of the environmental costs of air and auto travel which neither industry has to pay for those costs, we as taxpayers get to pay for them in increased Medicaid asthma claims et cetera (and your private insurance costs more because of them too).  The airline industry has never made money so the market there isn't exactly working we are just luckey that companies fold on a reular basis and cost investors the dollars. 

Amtrak also is contracted to provide commuter train service for a couple of states, including mine, Maryland (MARC).

One of the other advantages of both rail service and commuter bus service is that it keeps additional cars off many roadways, many of which are already congested.

One my business trip last month, I also took NJ Transit from NY Penn Station to Morriwtown, NJ.  Wow, what an excellent commuter train service.  Runs early in the morning to late at night, including weekends.

Jim 

Why do some people like to misspell AMTRAK!

Because they can?

(Think I can, think I can, think I can.)

Scott

Thanks for an interesting post.  You have left me with several new questions.  As a frequent Amtrak rider perhaps you can supply the answers.

  The Nixon administration should have created a way to help private railroads continue to operate passenger services by subsidizing the infrustructure indirectly in the way airlines benefit from over $30 billion per year on FAA plus subsidized airport terminals. 

It appears that you have doubled the FAA budget.  Based on 2010 figures the FAA budget request was just shy of $16 billion.  That is about 10 times the 2010 federal spending on Amtrak.  But airlines handle about 108 times the passenger miles of Amtrak!  Given the number of people served for the dollar spent on the FAA is that a bad thing?

http://www.faa.gov/about/offic...udget_highlights.pdf

http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/passenger/274.shtml

And that is not even a fair comparison since that is total FAA spending vs. just Amtrak.  Total FAA vs. Total FRA would be more comparable.

Airlines also enjoy direct subsidy in "essential air service" networks which airlines operate rural routes paid entirely by federal dollars.  

That is true. And that program is a frequent target of budget hawks. But total federal spending on that program is about 1/8th of the spending on Amtrak. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_Air_Service

As a frequent Amtrak rider and someone who works in passenger transportation, I see areas they could find better results with better managing. 

I know that I am a passenger.  I imagine that most of the other posters are too.  It is good to have someone who works in the industry to bring knowledge from that side of the equation.  Would you like to tell us a little about your place in the passenger transportation market? 

I would fire about 20% of the on board staff tomorrow and replace them with people who would appreciate the job and perform better customer service.

Amtrak workers are unionized.  Private railroad employees are too.  How could you or anyone fire them tomorrow? 

Also, many people may not know that Amtrak provides a great backup for airlines each week during weather outages.  The biggest problem is not having enough Amtrak service or seats to accomodate.   There are many nights when an air hub is socked in with storms and weather, that any remaining seats on the trains are quickly filled.

That may be true with a few city pairs, but how many?  In the case of Chicago-LA, Chicago-San Francisco, Chicago-Portland or Chicago-Seattle a passenger on a canceled flight could wait to fly the next day and still get to their destination faster than on Amtrak.  The question is moot for Seattle-Denver, Portland-Denver or LA-Denver since there is no direct Amtrak service for those city pairs.

Next year, Amtrak should be required to find a qualified CEO from private business and pay him or her what they are worth, to create a better business method at Amtrak.

That really gets at the core of what I am asking.  Have you ever seen such a business plan?  If you have please share!

Amtrak should be operationally profitable, but while getting support in the way aviation and highways do.

Federal aviation and highway spending comes from taxes paid by users of those modes of transportation.  It would be fair to support Amtrak in that fashion.  But do you think Amtrak passengers would pay enough to make Amtrak profitable and pay the taxes too?

I'd like to know how much SeaTac actually cost and how much Washington State taxpayers kicked in.  Same for the huge Bellevue-Seattle bridge/tunnel.

Hi Folks,  I ride Amtrak a couple of times per year here in CA.  I only ride for pleasure now that I am retired.  I can attest that most trains that I ride are full.  

The real problem with all forms of people transportation is that no one anywhere in the world has figured out how to make a profit.  All forms of people transportation require significant government assistance.  There is a wonderful book, "Passenger Terminals and Trains" by John Droege, that was first published in 1916 and republished in 1969 by Kalmbach that is the best description of this topic.  It is a must read for anyone interested in passenger trains, terminals and operations.  

The book makes the point that most passenger services in 1916 were operated at a loss by the railroads.  This is the lead sentence of the book's second paragraph - "It is almost axiomatic that the passenger carrying business of most steam railroads is not entirely self sustaining."  (Diesel train engines had not been invented in 1916 and mainline electrification was new.)  Passenger service was subsided by freight and was seen as a public service by many railroads.   This was at a time when there was no significant automobile, bus or airline competition for the railroads.  The Wright brothers first flew in 1903 and Ford started making the Model T in 1909.  Reliable airplanes were not developed until after WW1 which began in 1918.

Let's also remember that nearly every major airline is or has been bankrupt - United, American, Delta, U.S. Air, etc.  None of the airlines could operate if they had to pay the full cost of the flight infrastructure.  I think that U.S. Air and American are getting ready to merge.  Would anyone like to see either airline shut down, all employees fired, and the planes grounded?  Is total shut down the best solution when a people transportation company fails?

In CA at least, there is very little ground left to expand the existing freeway system.  Most highways, even those in remote areas, are at capacity.  It is going to get worse as the population continues to grow.  Amtrak and the other rail services play an important role in keeping thousands of cars off the roads and thousands of people out of airports.  Can you imagine shutting down the Washington D.C. - NY trains and letting everyone drive or take the plane to travel this route?

The real question is how we can best keep people moving, what are we willing to pay and who should pay for it?  This debate was relevant in 1916 and is relevant today - nearly 100 years later.

Joe

The Nixon administration should have created a way to help private railroads continue to operate passenger services by subsidizing the infrustructure indirectly in the way airlines benefit from over $30 billion per year on FAA plus subsidized airport terminals.

Well let's talk about this aspect, that is the Federal Government subsidizing the railroads. Seems they did when the first few transcons were built by paying them by the mile and with land grants. Just the Burlington Northern alone before the Santa Fe merger owned 2,385,000 acres, had mineral rights on another 6,044,000 acres which btw is rich in coal, oil, wood & ore. One can just imagine what the Santa Fe brought with them to the table.

I say the Federal Government needs to get out of Amtrak and let it be privatized as the Fed's can't run anything and turn a profit.

Chuck,  The real point is that no one, private or government, can make a profit transporting people.  Airlines would be making money instead of going bankrupt if it was possible to make a profit on transporting people.  Private companies would provide commuter rail service, subway service, bus service, etc. it it was possible to make a profit.  Even Greyhound has been or is bankrupt and Trailways is no longer in business.  General Motors and the other American auto companies, except Ford, went bankrupt just a few years ago and had to be saved by the government.  

I have been in leadership positions in both the public and private sector.  It is a myth that the "private sector" runs things better than the government.  The only difference is that the government's mistakes are much more visible than the private sector's mistakes.  Mighty GM would not have gone bankrupt and the banks would not have collapsed in 2008 if "private" leadership and management was a great as everyone thinks it is.  Both the private sector and the government have both excellent and bad leaders / managers.

Therefore, the government is going to have to support passenger rail transportation just as it supports cars, busses and airlines.  The real question is do we need rail passenger transportation?  If we do need passenger rail transportation, how should it supported by the government?

Clearly, people from New England to Florida to California to Washington state and nearly everywhere in between have voted for politicians who have supported rail transportation.  People think it is important to the economy of their state or region.  New rail services are being started all the time.  Some examples are the Rail Runner commuter service in New Mexico and the ACE train in the SF Bay Area.

What would be the consequences if Amtrak and other subsidized passenger rail services were shut down?  I think that we would find that the costs to the economy would be far more than any savings that would be realized.  For example, the government would need to build more roads, expand airports, to support the increased transportation needs, etc.

Could Amtrak be run better?  Probably?  The people that I know who are, or have worked for Amtrak, did the best that they could with very limited resources.  The goal of passenger rail service is not to "make a profit" because it can't be done.  The real goal is to support the economy by moving people to their jobs and and across the state and country.

Joe

Drivers have a tendency to only figure in the cost of gas, assuming all the other costs of automobile ownership & operation are "sunk costs".  If the real cost of driving was evident perhaps more would flock to other modes of transit. 

In the Northern Virginia metro area we are spending billions to build 14 miles of express lanes and the tolls will be up to $1.25 per mile.  But I expect the new lanes will be immensely popular after the initial shock.  And folks will insist it is still cheaper to drive.

I'd like to know how much SeaTac actually cost and how much Washington State taxpayers kicked in.

Gilbert

Sea-Tac airport was built in the 1940s by the Port of Seattle.  The Port took on the project at the request of the federal government.  They wanted to remove civil aviation from county owned Boeing Field to allow Boeing Field to be fully devoted to the production and testing of B-17s and aircraft for the war effort.  The original construction funding was $1.1 million with $1 million from the federal CAA and $100,000 from the city of Tacoma.  Today Sea-Tac is operated by the Port under Washington state law as an enterprise fund financed by operating revenue.  Landing fees and terminal rental paid by airlines and other businesses totaled over $200 million in 2011.  The business paying those fees then passed them along to the 32 million people who used Sea-Tac last year.  With four trips in and out of Sea-Tac last year I must have contributed about $25.  Count me as a satisfied customer. 

The Port also has property taxing authority under state law to pay general obligation bonds.  These are usually used for property acquisition.  The largest recent property acquisition by the port was the former NP Lake Washington Belt Line from the BNSF for conversion from a rail line to a bicycle path.

The construction of Boeing Field by King County back in the 1920s has to be one of the best investments of all time.  Today Boeing employes over 80,000 people in the greater Seattle area.  Other aviation parts suppliers employ thousands more.  The local, state and federal tax revenue paid by Boeing Company and its employees is staggering.  Washington State is also the leading per capita exporting state in the union with over $64 billion dollars brought back into the US last year.  Boeing aircraft make up over 40% of that total.

Same for the huge Bellevue-Seattle bridge/tunnel.

The original Mercer Island floating bridge and Mt. Baker tunnels were built in 1940.  The construction bonds were paid by bridge tolls.  The second bridge and new tunnel was constructed in the 1980s and financed with state and federal taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel.

If the real cost of driving was evident perhaps more would flock to other modes of transit.

Bill

I don't know about you but I am well aware of what I pay for my vehicles, insurance, repair, tires, etc.  The amazing thing is that cars are so good that people will pay all those costs out of their own pocket to purchase and operate a car, pay taxes on fuel and pay more taxes and fees, many of which go to subsidize other forms of transportation, and driving a car is still their most cost effective and efficient option.

Cars are pretty hard to beat.  Unless you have a jet airplane. 

Well, the Feds/US taxpayer threw more than $300 million your way just to build that billion-dollar-runway, so your reply certainly doesn't answer my question.  Not that I expected you to answer my question, since I realize it would take a certain amount of digging through the years.

Well, the Feds/US taxpayer threw more than $300 million your way just to build that billion-dollar-runway, so your reply certainly doesn't answer my question.

Gilbert

And where did that $300 million come from? 

Hi all,

The real point is that no one, private or government, can make a profit transporting people.

Not true.

2010 US new and used vehicle sales totaled $635 billion.  In 2010 the the largest automakers posted the following after tax profits.

VW - $9.42 billion

Ford - $6.56 billion

Toyota - $6 billion

GM - $4.7 billion

Doubtless, their dealers were able to stay in business by also making profits on their new and used sales.  And while GM and Chrysler were bailed out, they never lost any money building and selling cars.  Retiree costs drove them into bankruptcy.  Plenty of money has been and is being made building and selling cars.  Over $100 billion are also spent annually on auto repair and maintenance.  The Center for Automotive Research estimated that in 2010 the automotive industry contributed $91.5 Billion in taxes to state governments and $43 billion to the federal government.  This only accounts for the business and personal taxes paid by auto repair and manufacturing and licensing fees.  It does NOT include fuel taxes.  The fuel taxes collected in 2009 are as follows...

Federal gasoline - $25 billion

Federal diesel - $8.6 billion

State gas and diesel - $37.8 billion

According to the Congressional Research Service, in 2010 the five largest oil companies made a combined $77 billion profit on $1.4 trillion in revenue (5.5% profit margin) on world wide sales, with 60+% for transportation fuels.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, US gasoline and motor oil consumption accounted for $258.2 billion of that revenue.  People argue about how to account for taxes collected from these companies.  Some look only at the corporate income tax, which is often relatively small.  Others look at the total revenues collected by governments including property taxes and lease payments.  For the sake of argument, lets assume a worst case that they pay nothing.

Meanwhile, according to the Congressional Budget Office, federal, state, and local expenditures on roads and highways in 2007 (most recent year available) totaled $146 billion.

So, to sum up...   We the people spend at least $993 billion every year to purchase, repair, maintain, and fuel our cars and light trucks.  That's actual cash out of pocket with no subsidies.  All that business generates at least $205.9 billion in taxes.  Only $146 billion of that $205.9 is spent on our roads and highways.  Nearly $60 billion are used for other purposes, such as actual subsidies for passenger rail services.  And even after the governments take their cut, the businesses that make and fuel our cars made more than $103 billion in profit for their shareholders.  The private passenger automobile pays the "full freight" of its own existence and then some.

Ted,  All of your points are well taken.  I will point out that retiree costs are also part of Amtrak's and airline costs.  A primary reason CA state and city governments are running deficits are retiree costs.  I don't think you can fairly say that but for retiree costs the organization would be profitable.  People costs including salary and benefits are part of the costs of doing business.

I think that the real reason GM and Chrysler collapsed was that they began building unreliable cars starting in the 1970s causing many Americans to switch to imports.  I know that is why my parents and I started to buy Toyotas instead GM cars.  We got tired of being stranded alongside the road.  Building a poor product was a gross leadership / management failure by the American automobile companies.  Another leadership failure was promising benefits, medical and retiree, that the companies could not afford.

I also recall that most of GM's recent profits have come from China sales and that the Chinese government is building roads as fast as it can.  I doubt that Chinese taxes on auto sales and fuel are fully funding their road building program.  I think it is more likely that electronic, model train, and other sales, etc., to the rest of the world are funding the Chinese road, rail and airport  building programs.

There are other automobile costs which you do not include but could be on the cost side of the balance sheet.  These include the cost of mid east conflicts to protect oil supplies, air pollution costs, oil spill clean up and loss of business costs on the gulf coast and in Alaska, etc.

I was in Seattle last week visiting relatives.  The traffic was awful everywhere.  In fact, I think it is worse than the SF Bay Area's traffic.  How many more bridges can be built across Lake Washington to accommodate the the steadily increasing number of cars?  I was in Redmond and Kirkland.  Apartments and new homes are being built everywhere.  All of the people moving into these new homes are going to have cars.  We are going to need rail or something else so we move all the people to and from their jobs and shopping, etc.  

Joe

I think that the real reason GM and Chrysler collapsed was that they began building unreliable cars starting in the 1970s causing many Americans to switch to imports.  I know that is why my parents and I started to buy Toyotas instead GM cars.  We got tired of being stranded alongside the road.  Building a poor product was a gross leadership / management failure by the American automobile companies. 

I really disagree on this comment because if this was the case, why until 2008? and not the mid 1980's or 1990's?

I agree on GM/Chrysler's failed management... failed to see that gas prices would increase since they did go through the 1970's gas "shortage" and that blip in the mid 1990's as gas shot over $2.00/Gallon and again in the mid 2000 when gas went over $3.00/Gallon! Gm/Chrysler had minimal product to combat the eventual rising cost of gas... not to mention the Hybrid Technology sale to Toyota for a mere 2 mil as Gm's management thought hybrids would go NOWHERE!. The Golden parachuse/Wall Street Greed was first and foremost instead of long term planning in both companies and this is why they should have been left to Fail and Teach others a lesson!

Joe,

Please note that last post was from Dave Hikel, not my brother Ted.

You may have decided to buy foreign cars for whatever reason, but millions kept buying American cars and the US manufactures remained profitable for most of the last 40 years.  If the worlds automobile manufacturers couldn't make a profit selling cars in the US they wouldn't do it.  And the oil companies certainly make money selling fuel.  The assertion that no one can turn a profit transporting people is simply false.

You can debate how extensively you should account for the public costs vs. tax revenues generated by the auto industry, but any reasonably balanced analysis will show that cars pay more than they cost.  Most people debating against auto transportation ultimately resort to more emotive arguments about size of roads, noise, etc.  Ultimately, it boils down to the fact that a lot of people just don't like cars and they want an alternative.  I'm totally fine with that as long as that alternative can cover the cost of its own existence just as cars do.

Throughout history different technologies have met that standard at different times.  Horse transportation was once very profitable because people were willing to expend the cost of keeping a horse to save the time vs. walking.  Many rail transit systems were built in the late 19th century and early 20th century by private companies that were actually profitable for many years.  People were willing to pay the cost of building and operating those rail systems because it saved them the costs of keeping a horse.  Then the automobile came along and proved it could move people faster than a horse, by the model-T was much cheaper than keeping a horse, and it had the flexibility of a horse that rail lacked.  The car didn't win out because of any conspiracy or government intervention.  It won because it was so good people were willing to pay for it.  Some day the automobile may well be replaced by something better.  A safe flying machine could certainly save a lot of time stuck in traffic and a lot of infrastructure costs.  But for now the car is still the best technology in town for short to medium range travel.

BTW, my '84 Buick Regal with 470,000 miles is now and has been highly reliable.  Roger Smith built a great car!