August 1, 2013

Report: Motorcoach travel more cost effective, efficient than Amtrak

A new study by M.J. Bradley and Associates prepared for the American Bus Association Foundation, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and the Reason Foundation reveals lower consumer and taxpayer costs and reduced emissions associated with motorcoach travel as compared with Amtrak’s rail system. Comparing a number of key areas, the study will be used to seek reforms in the transportation planning process.

The report establishes that motorcoach companies provide passenger service that is either more effective or on par with Amtrak, but at a fraction of the cost and with little to no public subsidy. The analysis compares consumer (fare, travel time) and societal costs (government subsidies, air emissions) associated with 20 trips between select U.S. city pairs on both Amtrak and scheduled intercity motorcoaches. These trips are representative of the Amtrak system covering a range of geographies, both urban and rural, and include the Northeast Corridor, including Acela; short-corridor trains; and long-distance trains.

Comparisons concluded these key findings:

  • On a fully allocated cost basis (capital and operating) motorcoaches average on cost per passenger less than 25% of the cost to provide comparable Amtrak Service
  • Only two Amtrak lines generate enough revenue to cover operating and capital costs.
  • On average, per-passenger carbon emissions from motorcoaches are 45% — 65% less than comparable Amtrak trips
  • Motorcoaches generally offer more schedules per trip than comparable Amtrak trips
  • Motorcoaches serve 2,766 cities and towns in the lower 48 states, while Amtrak serves more than 500 cities and towns in 46 of the 48 states.
  • Generally total trip time by motorcoach is comparable with Amtrak.

“This report once again shows that the transportation planning process should require careful consideration of all modes of transportation to help determine which are the best value for taxpayers, both in terms of short-term costs and long-term liabilities,” said Ryan Alexander, President of Taxpayers for Common Sense.

“Based on the report findings, motorcoaches clearly offer opportunities to reduce carbon emissions, save taxpayers and travelers time and money, while providing broader schedules to more destinations”, said Peter Pantuso, president of the ABA Foundation. “And, yet the transportation planning system reflects gaping inequities in modal choices, funneling tax dollars into projects that may not make environmental or fiscal sense.”

"As we strive to improve mobility and our infrastructure in this time of debt and deficits, we need to spend our transportation funding more wisely than ever. Congress shouldn't automatically keep pouring money into existing systems. Before spending taxpayers' money, Congress needs to closely examine the benefits and cost-effectiveness of alternatives, just as this report has done with buses and Amtrak," said Shirley Ybarra, senior transportation policy analyst at Reason Foundation and formerly Virginia's secretary of transportation.

The study’s sponsors hope to use the findings regarding cost effectiveness and environmental efficiency to evolve and transform the transportation planning process into a more inclusive system — to help save tax dollars and reduce carbon emissions.

deli.cio.us digg it stumble upon newsvine
[ Request More Info about this product / service / company ]


  • Al Hernandez[ August 1st, 2013 @ 2:32pm ]

    As a bus charter operator based out of San Diego, I am very proud to say that motor coaches are the way to travel!

  • andrew[ August 1st, 2013 @ 9:38pm ]

    STOP PRESS! A study commissioned by a lobby group comes out in favour of that lobby group's cause!

  • Eugene Skoropowski[ August 2nd, 2013 @ 8:34am ]

    When will we wake up and realize that this nation needs BOTH a good intercity passenger rail system AND a good network of buses? Things like trip duration, ride quality, meals, sleeping quarters, etc. were obviously not included in the study equation, and one has to wonder if the authors have ever actually relied upon the services they tout?....as for costs, when is the last time a bus company, or any motorized private company, built the roads they operate on......and we all know now that the gas tax supports less than 50% of the cost of the roads....we are so shortsighted! Transportation investments in all modes of transport (road, rail, air and water) reap economic benefits and jobs, so if we need public investment/subsidy in transport systems to grow the overall economy, it is a good place to put our tax dollars.

  • David Miller[ August 2nd, 2013 @ 8:51pm ]

    The second bullet of the key findings is not a comparison between motorcoaches and Amtrak, just a statement, but there is no similar statement regarding how many motorcoach routes pay for their operating and capital costs. Further, the study apparently assumes "little to no subsidy" for motorcoaches, who use public roadways, which are of course heavily subsidized, and thus motorcoach services are heavily subsidized. The last three bullets of the key findings are at best anecdotal and seek to cast motorcoaches in a favorable light when compared to Amtrak by stating they have "more schedules" and serve "more locations" while "generally" having the same total trip time. There is no link to the study. This entire article and it's conclusions are highly suspect and obviously partisan with only the crudest attempts of the appearance of objectivity. Take this with something like a bag of salt, not just a grain.

  • Nick Z[ August 4th, 2013 @ 5:03am ]

    The study was commisioned by the ABA, did you expect it to be unbiased? The Northeast Corridor proves that with frequent service and updated infrastructure, Amtrak can out-perform any mode -- air, bus, private car.

E-NEWSLETTER

Receive the latest Metro E-Newsletters in your inbox!

Join the Metro E-Newsletters and receive the latest news in your e-mail inbox once a week. SIGN UP NOW!

View the latest eNews
Express Tuesday | Express Thursday | University Transit

White Papers

Mass Transit Capital Planning An overview of the world-class best practices for assessing, prioritizing, and funding capital projects to optimize resources and align with the organization’s most critical immediate and long-term goals.

The Benefits of Door-to-Door Service in ADA Complementary Paratransit Many U.S. transit agencies continue to struggle with the quality of ADA service, the costs, and the difficulties encountered in contracting the service, which is the method of choice for a significant majority of agencies. One of the most basic policy decisions an agency must make involves whether to provide door-to-door, or only curb-to-curb service.

Mass transit mobile Wi-Fi & the public sector case study How Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority successfully implemented Wi-Fi on its light rail and bus lines

More white papers


 
DIGITAL EDITION

The full contents of Metro Magazine on your computer! The digital edition is an exact replica of the print magazine with enhanced search, multimedia and hyperlink features. View the current issue