Passenger

Phoebe Vet:

The primary problem with Amtrak is that it is spread too thin.

 I agree. It will continue to be too thin because X and y and Z congressmen will want service in their districts. Note the Hiawatha, Pioneer. Sunset, and other studys. The only way to end run these mandates is to purchase a very large amount of rolling stock.    l

I would love to see true high speed rail in the corridors where it is appropriate, but if I had to choose between 1 250 MPH train a day and 4 110 MPH trains a day on a given route I would vote for more trains over faster train 

 You are correct that 4 trains over a route is better. That allows passengers to be more flexible when they travel and return. That 110 MPH threashold gives the ability for much existing ROW to be used but with specific ROW purchases to straighten the inside of curves and ease grades.  This will benefit both freight and passenger trains.

Further when you measure the number of passenger minutes saved just getting the average speed up will attract more passengers and more freight traffic (especially Intermodal) when its transit time is reduced. The AMTRAK study to reduce times has many items needed including Constant Tension CAT (20 Min), upgraded electrical distribution, better signaling, third and fourth tracks, ROW improvements, etc.  

The NEC seems to have gotten close to diverting all the airline and bus traffic it can. Now where is the time tipping point to attract the  automobile traffic? There is a disjointed connection pattern in New York to the various commuter agencys and as those connections are improved then more passengers. The connections at New Haven, newark and BOS are better and PHL/ WASH the best. 

 frequent, and on time is the key to transportation success.

On time brings (means don't have overly optomistic schedules) back previous riders and frequent brings them in for the first time.

schlimm:

Sam1:

n FY08 the average federal subsidy for Amtrak was $48.50 per passenger or 22.61 cents per passenger mile.  The average federal subsidy for the nation's commercial airlines was $3.92 per passenger or .45 cents per passenger mile,

 

Fact check:  In the 2009 budget, total FAA = $14.6 Bil. ATC = $9.7 Bil; total commercial passengers = 675 mil., which works out to a subsidy of $21.63 per passenger, of which $14.37 is for ATC.  sam1 makes the point that commercial aviation only uses ~30% of the budget, but in fact the facilities would require about the same level of infrastructure costs and operating expenses for just the airlines; private aviation and the military piggyback on.  Even if one accepts the allocated expense percentage, the subsidy (not including local taxes to build airports) is $6.49, not 3.92. 

The 2009 FAA budget is irrelevant; it is the actual numbers, which for FY09 will not be available on an audited basis until later this month, that are important.  The FY08 FAA Citizens Report - FY08 Summary of Performance and Financial Results - contains the latest audited numbers. 

You appear to have attributed the total FAA operations budget to the commercial airlines.  Anyone with an understanding of cost accounting would know that this is incorrect.  Anyone familiar with aviation operations would know that you numbers are incorrect.  I hold every FAA license and rating (air and ground) with the exception of rotorcraft.  Equally important, accountants know that budgets are forcasts.  The bottom line, so to speak, is in the actual numbers at the end of the year or reporting period.  In a nutshell, you used the wrong numbers, allocated them improperly, and overlooked the Essential Air Service Program and the TSA Screening Program, amongst others. 

In FY08 the nation's airlines carries an estimated 786.3 million passengers, of whom approximately 675 million were domestic flyers, whilst the remainder were international arrivals and departures.  I assumed that half the international passengers were in some part of the U.S. controlled airspace at some time during their flight.  Accordingly, a reasonable estimate of the federal subsidy is $ $3.35 per passenger and .42 cents per domestic passenger mile as per acceptable cost allocation methods.  Information to determine the portion of the international miles controlled by the FAA's operations is not available. 

In FY08 the Treasury Department, which funds the FAA, transferred $2,231,396,000 net from the general fund to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF) to cover the FAA's activities not supported by revenues.  Assuming airline operations constitute 30.6 per cent of FAA operations, which is an average of the estimated commercial flights controlled by a tower and a control center, the subsidy allocable to the airlines was $682,807,176.  Most of the general funds transfer went to Operations and Safety, which benefit the commercial carriers proportionally. 

The driver for FAA operations is number of aircraft controlled.  It is not the number of passengers carried in each aircraft.  However, the number of passengers is a key factor in determining passenger seat miles, which is the only meaningful way to compare per unit cost between modes of transport.  Using aircraft, trains, vehicles, boats, etc. as a unit of comparative measure would be meaningless. 

Interestingly, in 2008 the FAA changed its air carrier safety measure from Commercial Air Carrier Fatal Accident Rate to Commercial Air Carrier Fatalities per 100 Million Persons.  It is a more meaningful statistic. 

All other FAA costs [Grants-in-Aid for Airports (AIP), Facilities and Equipment (F&E), and Research, Engineering, and Development (R,E&D)] were covered by AATF funds, which come from ticket taxes, fees, etc.

The Essential Air Services Program received $141,258,000.  The regional airlines that provide services under the program were the major beneficiary of the program. 

The Transportation Screening Program, which is managed by Homeland Security, was allocated $5,300,000,000 for FY08.  Approximately 70 per cent of the cost of the program is paid for through ticket taxes and other fees.  Thus, I assumed that the difference, $1,590,000,000, which was funded from the general fund, was a subsidy to be worn wholly by the airlines.

The total federal subsidy allocated to the airlines is $2,414,065,176, divided by the number of passengers produces a subsidy of $3.35 per passenger.  

Some passenger rail advocates point to a variety of difficult to determine subsidies supposedly received by the airlines whilst overlooking similar subsidies (past and present) that have accrued to passenger rail operations.  One of their favorites is the tax free funding that was used, at least in part, to build most of the nation's commercial airports.  The value of this subsidy, which is no different in kind, than the tax free funding many of the facilities used by Amtrak or its predecessor passenger rail operations have received, is not nearly as great as many people assume.  It is the difference between fully taxable funding and tax free funding for that portion of the facilities used by commercial air.  Over the years, depending on when the airport was constructed, the spreads have been relatively small.  They would not add a significant amount to the figures shown above. 

Activity based cost accounting attempts to tie a cost or revenue to an activity.  As is the case in all accounting, some judgment is required in making the allocations.  I used aircraft operations to allocate the FAA operational subsidy to the commercial airlines because it appears to be the most relevant activity.  There are other cost drivers that could be used, but I believe this is the best indicator of the commercial airline demand on FAA operations.  In any case, one could double or triple the federal subsidy to the commercial airlines, as well as the nation's highway users, and not come close to the per passenger or passenger per mile subsidy required by passenger rail. 

Of course the air transportation system should get subsidized.  Not in dispute.  But you do tend to minimize how large that is.  What's wrong with looking at a projected budget?  If anything, budgets are usually exceeded, at least government ones. You cite an allocation percentage for the airlines of 30%.  What is the basis of that number? 

The much-needed expansion of O'Hare will cost at least $20 Bil. Multiply that by the other outmoded airports that require expansion and one sees the price we need to pay.  My point is that ALL modes need help to have a viable system where each modality should provide the services it can do best.  Clearly LD trains are not what rail should be involved with.

schlimm:

The much-needed expansion of O'Hare will cost at least $20 Bil. Multiply that by the other outmoded airports that require expansion and one sees the price we need to pay. 

 Of course.  However,  one, I am not entirely certain bond issues for airports are totally covered by fees and two, the real issue is how the government spends money for transportation, not focusing on the revenue stream.  It is the rationing of resources that should concern us all.

schlimm:

 Of course.  However,  one, I am not entirely certain bond issues for airports are totally covered by fees and two, the real issue is how the government spends money for transportation, not focusing on the revenue stream.  It is the rationing of resources that should concern us all.

Most airport construction and improvements bonds are issued as revenue bonds.  They are serviced from revenues generated by the facility users.  In the case of the airports, the revenues come from landing fees, hangar fees, vendors fees, etc.  If these fees are insufficient to service the bonds, the difference has to be made up by the guantor of the bonds, which in most cases is a local government or agency of a local government.  Sometimes help is available from the federal government through the airport improvement program.

I looked at the financial statements for several of the large airports in Texas.  They cover their debt obligations with the revenues mentioned above.  In fact, several of them generate sufficient revenues from their activities to cover all of their costs and transfer a surplus to the sponsoring local government.  Some smaller airports do not generate sufficient revenues to service their debt and depend on transfers from the local government to make up the difference.

As I have said before, how much the government spends on other modes of transport is irrelevant to how much it should spend on passenger rail.  Where is rail the best solution to a transport problem is the key question.

Sam1:

As I have said before, how much the government spends on other modes of transport is irrelevant to how much it should spend on passenger rail.  Where is rail the best solution to a transport problem is the key question.

Right on!

Simple!  More money!!!  Back to the "Hiawatha Study".  I heard, yesterday, from an Amtrak engineer, that there was a movement in the southern part (non-served) of Montana to promote the "North Coast Hiawatha" resurrection, at the expense of the "Empire Builder".  Their solution would be to take the "Empire Builder" back to a 4-day-a-week schedule and run the other three days on the south line.  Not viable, methinks.  When the "Empire Builder" was cut to four-day-a-week service, a few years ago, business fell off about 80%.  Duh!  The 'southern tier' has, by far, the largest population base, in this state, but it doesn't have Glacier National Park.  You really can't count of college students using the line four times a year!  That said, they, down there, have to commit $$$ to upgrade the line and provide decent passenger station facilities.  I don't see much support forthcoming from North Dakota, on line improvements.  Uff da!  No, they don't need "Taj Mahals", like Albany, NY.  "Amshacks" would work, as starters.  The big problem is equipment.  Restore the 'wrecks' at Beech Grove and order new stuff!  A second trans-Montana route could be viable, as an adjunct/addition, not a replacement, for the "Empire Builder".

Comments from IL-WI-MN-ND-SD-ID-WA-OR would be interesting.  You are involved!  Thanks!

BNSFwatcher:

I heard, yesterday, from an Amtrak engineer, that there was a movement in the southern part (non-served) of Montana to promote the "North Coast Hiawatha" resurrection, at the expense of the "Empire Builder".  Their solution would be to take the "Empire Builder" back to a 4-day-a-week schedule and run the other three days on the south line.  Not viable, methinks.  involved!  Thanks!

Don't sweat it.  There WAS a movement in Southern Montana a couple of years ago to do this, but the uproar from those along the Empire Builder route resulted in the North Coast Hiawatha study having the stipulation that such a reinstated train could not have a negative impact on an existing Amtrak service.  This was specifically placed in the document by Senator Tester.

It doesn't matter, anyway.  The chance of reviving the North Coast Hiawatha is zero.  Amtrak has no extra equipment, and there are no stations along the proposed route that are currently capable of being used by a passenger train.  Whether you believe the $1 billion price tag of the study or not, it will cost hundreds of millions just for the equipment and stations, and then there's the negotiable part of the study about the track improvements.  That's a lot of money, and since the people in Montana think that the service should be federally funded, they will receive a lot of pushback.  Even with a price tag of half a billion, think of the other multiple Amtrak services elsewhere in the country that could be reinstated with that money (or as proponents, would say, don't spend the money at all).

The study was a ripoff all the way around.  If I remember correctly, its cost was about $1 million, and this money could have been better spent on something like repairing a wrecked car at Beech Grove and returning it to service on an existing train that could use it.

 Link to position pieces (some may call it propaganda and/or inaccurate) on the Amtrak site:

schlimm:

The much-needed expansion of O'Hare will cost at least $20 Bil. Multiply that by the other outmoded airports that require expansion and one sees the price we need to pay. 

It seems that a hot dog costs as much as a plane ticket at O'Hare.

VerMontanan:

BNSFwatcher:

I heard, yesterday, from an Amtrak engineer, that there was a movement in the southern part (non-served) of Montana to promote the "North Coast Hiawatha" resurrection, at the expense of the "Empire Builder".  Their solution would be to take the "Empire Builder" back to a 4-day-a-week schedule and run the other three days on the south line.  Not viable, methinks.  involved!  Thanks!

 

Don't sweat it.  There WAS a movement in Southern Montana a couple of years ago to do this, but the uproar from those along the Empire Builder route resulted in the North Coast Hiawatha study having the stipulation that such a reinstated train could not have a negative impact on an existing Amtrak service.  This was specifically placed in the document by Senator Tester.

It doesn't matter, anyway.  The chance of reviving the North Coast Hiawatha is zero.  Amtrak has no extra equipment, and there are no stations along the proposed route that are currently capable of being used by a passenger train.  Whether you believe the $1 billion price tag of the study or not, it will cost hundreds of millions just for the equipment and stations, and then there's the negotiable part of the study about the track improvements.  That's a lot of money, and since the people in Montana think that the service should be federally funded, they will receive a lot of pushback.  Even with a price tag of half a billion, think of the other multiple Amtrak services elsewhere in the country that could be reinstated with that money (or as proponents, would say, don't spend the money at all).

The study was a ripoff all the way around.  If I remember correctly, its cost was about $1 million, and this money could have been better spent on something like repairing a wrecked car at Beech Grove and returning it to service on an existing train that could use it.

I have seen hay-wire train advocates get the darndest things; but could the North Coast Hiawatha come from some Staggers-effect?

I should read the report; but it seems $40 million a year for operations could buy a lot of service elsewhere.

What other long-distance routes are there, such as Chicago-Florida, that might be restored; and what alternative populations might be served that makes the NCH a national priority?

Amtrak got in trouble in the beginning by looking at all the inherited long-distance equipment and setting up a long-distance network regardless of any more rational rail niche regional business.  I fear the same is happening again, especially with the Viewliner order.  Why not buy more Acelas to re-equip other NEC and Southeast trains out of New York?  Chicago-Milwaukee could use more trains than just the two Talgos that were ordered.

HarveyK400:

Why not buy more Acelas to re-equip other NEC and Southeast trains out of New York?  Chicago-Milwaukee could use more trains than just the two Talgos that were ordered.

HarveyK400:  Do you know why Talgos were ordered for the flat, straight CHI-MIL service?   Was nothing else available?

passengerfan:

Wisconsin is talking about Talgo why don't they look at other systems available in the world. Washington and Oregon have had Talgos for years already.

Maybe because there may be different criteria involved. Your situation is much more amenable to the solution you have while others may have differing things going on. I do not feel there is a one size fits all thing going--and not everyone needs/wants the latest edgiest thing either in HSR

schlimm:

HarveyK400:  Do you know why Talgos were ordered for the flat, straight CHI-MIL service?   Was nothing else available?

My answer to that is that Wisconsin is extremely concious of the potential for creating employment in  their state by hosting the Talgo assembly shop for all North American orders.