Fairly good article about Texas Eagle and athe general financial condition of AMTRAK.
One thing mentioned that we have not considered is that AMTRAK is meeting 85% of its operating costs ( not allocated ). All other forms of public transit --- Commuter rail, heavy rail type subway, light rail, buses including brt, etc ------- all have a lower rate. I'll let you see what figures are present.
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/blogs/lyndon-henry/amtraks-texas-eagle-highlights-passenger-train-success.html?channel=
I have a feeling those positive sentiments will soon be the recipient of some cold water!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
blue streak 1 Fairly good article about Texas Eagle and athe general financial condition of AMTRAK. One thing mentioned that we have not considered is that AMTRAK is meeting 85% of its operating costs ( not allocated ). All other forms of public transit --- Commuter rail, heavy rail type subway, light rail, buses including brt, etc ------- all have a lower rate. I'll let you see what figures are present. http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/blogs/lyndon-henry/amtraks-texas-eagle-highlights-passenger-train-success.html?channel=
I ride the Texas Eagle four or five times a year, usually between Temple and Dallas or Temple and San Antonio. I am familiar with the train.
TEMPO has never been shy about putting a positive spin on the Eagle's numbers. Likewise they have never been reluctant to leave out some of the key numbers that tell the complete story.
In FY11 ridership on the Eagle was up 4.3 per cent over FY 10 and revenues rose 7.7 per cent over the prior period. The Eagle's sleepers saw an increase of 4.3 per cent in passengers and 5.9 per cent in revenues. The FY12 numbers are estimates; Amtrak won't have verified numbers for 90 days.
Here is what TEMPO does not like to acknowledge. In FY11 the Texas Eagle lost $30.9 million before depreciation, interest, and ancillary charges. This was on $26.7 million in revenues. Or to put it another way, the train had an operating ration of 116 per cent, which is a long way from 79 per cent or 85 per cent cited as Amtrak's overall recovery ratio in the article. The losses for all the long distance trains were equally dismal.
Amtrak management claims that it recovered 79 per cent of its costs through the fare box in FY11. The 85 per cent recovery comes from other operations, primarily the company's ownership of Penn Station, 30th Street Station, and majority control of Washington Union Terminal Company. Unfortunately, since Amtrak is not a publicly held corporation, i.e. its shares are not listed on a public stock exchange, it does not have to report segment results.
Amtrak is an intercity passenger service provider. Its commercial competitors are the commercial airlines and intercity bus companies. They cover all of their costs and generate a return for their shareholders. One can argue that they don't cover their fair share of the infrastructure that they use; an endless argument that probably will be going on 50 years from now, but they make money in the sense they they have taxable net income.
Commuter rail, commuter buses (BRT and otherwise) are not intercity carriers. In most instances they function like utilities.They provide a vital public service for people who need transport and do not have an alternative. They are not in the same league with Amtrak.
Your going to see Amtrak close the gap further on the Loss as we approach 2017. You can thank Congress for finally smartening up there and looking carefully at Northeast Operations. Apparently Amtrak was not charging the many commuter railroads that use it's tracks the going costs of using the tracks nor were they apportioning Amtrak Capital Projects that benefit the commutter lines. I fully anticipate that Amtrak hits 90% or better coverage by 2017 if it starts to really apportion the Northeast Corridor costs appropriately among all the beneficiaries.
Also, I think Amtrak should start charging fees and issuing non-refundable tickets similar to what the airlines do. It's just silly to issue a ticket to someone and allow them to change it to another train without a fee within a few hours of train departure. They don't have to go overboard on this stuff like some airlines do but I think they need to look at fees in specific areas. Probably hike Sleeper rates a little as well.
CMStPnP blue streak 1 Fairly good article about Texas Eagle and athe general financial condition of AMTRAK. One thing mentioned that we have not considered is that AMTRAK is meeting 85% of its operating costs ( not allocated ). All other forms of public transit --- Commuter rail, heavy rail type subway, light rail, buses including brt, etc ------- all have a lower rate. I'll let you see what figures are present. http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/blogs/lyndon-henry/amtraks-texas-eagle-highlights-passenger-train-success.html?channel= Your going to see Amtrak close the gap further on the Loss as we approach 2017. You can thank Congress for finally smartening up there and looking carefully at Northeast Operations. Apparently Amtrak was not charging the many commuter railroads that use it's tracks the going costs of using the tracks nor were they apportioning Amtrak Capital Projects that benefit the commutter lines. I fully anticipate that Amtrak hits 90% or better coverage by 2017 if it starts to really apportion the Northeast Corridor costs appropriately among all the beneficiaries. Also, I think Amtrak should start charging fees and issuing non-refundable tickets similar to what the airlines do. It's just silly to issue a ticket to someone and allow them to change it to another train without a fee within a few hours of train departure. They don't have to go overboard on this stuff like some airlines do but I think they need to look at fees in specific areas. Probably hike Sleeper rates a little as well.
What is the basis for the claim that Amtrak has not been charging the commuter operators and presumably the freight carriers the fully allocated cost of using its rights-of-way?
Also, how do we know whether Amtrak is paying a commensurable rate for its use of those portions of the NEC owned by other government agencies or for its use of the freight carriers and other roads that handle its long distance and short corridor passenger trains?
How many Amtrak passengers change their reservations within a few hours of reservations? If the number is relatively small, the marginal income may not be worth the negative marketing and image impact on the customers.
Without access to Amtrak's accounting records, as well as those of the hoist railroads, it would be difficult to support the claims that Amtrak is getting what it is due or paying what it should.
Presumably you mean 90 per cent of its operating expense coverage as opposed to 90 per cent of its fully allocated expenses. Clearly, it has a way to go since it only covers 79 per cent of its operating expenses as of the end of FY11 as per Amtrak's National Fact Sheet, Monthly Operating Reports, and FY11 Financial Statements.
Well yes, Sam, but what you do not like to acknowledge is that Amtrak is a national rail system. Loping off routes is like me making a cost accounting analysis of my body and finding that my left arm is underperforming so I decide to lop it off.
John WR Well yes, Sam, but what you do not like to acknowledge is that Amtrak is a national rail system. Loping off routes is like me making a cost accounting analysis of my body and finding that my left arm is underperforming so I decide to lop it off.
Amtrak is a national rail system in name only.
If by national you mean the long distance train network, in FY11 the long distance trains carried just shy of 15 per cent of Amtrak's passengers. Those who could afford a sleeper (663,947) were 14.7 per cent of the long distance passengers and a whopping 2.2 per cent of Amtrak's system passengers.
The long distance trains, which are used by less than one per cent of intercity travelers, are not a vital public service. If the Texas Eagle, Sunset Limited, and Heartland Flyer were dropped, very few people in Texas, based on the ridership numbers, would even know that they are gone. So why am I opposed to the long distance trains, especially since I ride them on occasions, although I will tell you no more overnights on an Amtrak sleeper.
Because they take the eye off the ball. Pumping money down the long distance train rathole means that there are fewer dollars available for where trains make sense, which is in relatively high density, short corridors. Over ten years, the subsidies required to float the aforementioned trains would make a nice down payment on building up a corridor from San Antonio to DFW and perhaps from Houston to DFW.
As a nation we need a national passenger rail system. I agree with you that Amtrak should be larger but to say a passenger railroad system that allows people to go from Chicago to Seattle or Los Angeles or San Antonio or New Orleans or Miami or Washington, DC or New York or Boston is nationals "in name only" is counter intuitive to say the least.
The National Association of Railroad Passengers has proposed a much more extensive system which would connect many more of the city pairs you advocate. Here is their map:
http://www.narprail.org/resources/narps-vision-for-the-future
Cutting of parts of Amtrak makes no more sense than cutting off parts of our bodies.
John WR As a nation we need a national passenger rail system. I agree with you that Amtrak should be larger but to say a passenger railroad system that allows people to go from Chicago to Seattle or Los Angeles or San Antonio or New Orleans or Miami or Washington, DC or New York or Boston is nationals "in name only" is counter intuitive to say the least. The National Association of Railroad Passengers has proposed a much more extensive system which would connect many more of the city pairs you advocate. Here is their map: http://www.narprail.org/resources/narps-vision-for-the-future Cutting of parts of Amtrak makes no more sense than cutting off parts of our bodies.
Oh, no! Not grid and gateway! It's fill with all sorts of happy talk and crayon lines on a napkin and every "red herring" argument ever used to support Amtrak and not one scrap of a cursory cost'/benefit analysis.
It's awful.
If you like "Grid and Gateway", boy do I have a deal for you! (see my blog entry Sept 12th.)
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
That's right, Don. No cost benefit analysis. Was there a cost benefit analysis when the Parific Railroad Acts were passed? When, in the 1930's, FDR built our state highway systems to try to move the country out of depression? When Dwight Eisenhower built our Interstate Highway System? Or the St. Lawrence Seaway?
From the earliest days of our country we have created and maintained a tradition that our highways and waterways would be public works built by the government for the use of citizens. Except for railroads. Except for the roads funded by the Pacific Railroad acts and the Illinois Central and Mobile and Ohio, railroads have always had to pay their own way and compete with government subsidized transportation. And the land grant railroads ultimately paid all of the money they borrowed with government guarantees and, while they did benefit from land grants the land was valuable only because the railroads made it accessible.
We could also save a lot of money if, before paying a Medicare claim, we did a cost benefit analysis of the person who was sick and cut off those who were getting close to death.
Frankly, a cost benefit analysis simply masks a valid political opinion. You have every right to your political opinions and in today's aggressive political style it does not surprise me that you would make your "crayon on napkin" sneering comment. We disagree.
John WR That's right, Don. No cost benefit analysis. Was there a cost benefit analysis when the Parific Railroad Acts were passed? When, in the 1930's, FDR built our state highway systems to try to move the country out of depression? When Dwight Eisenhower built our Interstate Highway System? Or the St. Lawrence Seaway? From the earliest days of our country we have created and maintained a tradition that our highways and waterways would be public works built by the government for the use of citizens. Except for railroads. Except for the roads funded by the Pacific Railroad acts and the Illinois Central and Mobile and Ohio, railroads have always had to pay their own way and compete with government subsidized transportation. And the land grant railroads ultimately paid all of the money they borrowed with government guarantees and, while they did benefit from land grants the land was valuable only because the railroads made it accessible. We could also save a lot of money if, before paying a Medicare claim, we did a cost benefit analysis of the person who was sick and cut off those who were getting close to death. Frankly, a cost benefit analysis simply masks a valid political opinion. You have every right to your political opinions and in today's aggressive political style it does not surprise me that you would make your "crayon on napkin" sneering comment. We disagree.
One has to remember that Railway Age has always been the rail industry's "cheerleader". It was full of all kinds of sunny stories even back in the industry's darkest days. It's actually much better now than it has been since William Vantuono became editor. It still has it's sunny disposition, but there is useful info and news as well.
Below is an example of an organ transplant done with no consideration of costs and benefits. To sum up, a patient was given a kidney transplant paid for by medicare. However, Medicare coverage for drugs was taken away before she had recovered. The drugs are expensive and she could not afford them. As a result she needed a second kidney transplant and got it, also paid by Medicare. To save a few thousand dollars Medicare spent more than $125,000 on her second surgery. I suggest this was not a rational decision.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/health/policy/14kidney.html?_r=0
I'm happy to see that the cost benefit analysis you cite includes the costs of air pollution. But I wonder, just how do you assess those costs, especially the future costs of a policy that increases the number of automobile dependent Americans and automobiles on our highways? Not to mention airplanes.
If the lack of a cost benefit analysis on other forms of transportation is an "outrage and a travesty" one reason for that is when the analysis is applied to passenger rail transportation there is nothing to compare it with. That tends to negate the value of the analysis for rail transportation.
Finally, unless you are prepared to produce the napkin and crayon I believe your comment is sneering to the point of being abusive of NARP. The remark deserves no further comment.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.