Author Albert Papp. His letter to FRA was posted onto Railway age on their web site for March 31. Author takes position the Amtrak cost accouting (CA) for LD trains is fawed. Using this CA on current and any future train routes makes operating many of those routes have costs much higher than are actually the truth. Using above rail operating costs makes initiating the real costs of operating those routes more in line.
Author cites NARP 2018 study. He also notes that the audited financial reports and the performance reports. Notes that Amtrak fails (?) to report avoidable costs as required by statue. (If so then management is violating the law with penalties that should be applied).
Cited is the 2005 Volpe study that found 60,000 (OUCH) manual rules for allocating costs and revenues.
Next cite was congressional ordered OIG 2008. OIG noted that any route elimination Amtrak listed cost was not a reasonable statistical correction. OIG further noted that no other RR ( worldwide ? ) uses this method to figure the avoidable costs. OIG has been waiting for FRA response to its findings that would allow OIG to make a change in 6 months to new method(s). ( I have no idea when OIG asked for reply as that is not clear in article )
Author concludes that is FRA continues to acccept this method of accounting that Amtrak is using allowing the perception that it is only the NEC is cash flow positive. 18 years and still not following the law to make accounting transparrent.
NOW the real kicker. Please read on down to Amtrak's response to this letter. First to even respond to it must have made some concern at Mass ave. Amtrak says that the proposed cost projection method should not be used for new routes. Wimpy reason that Volpe did not address new routes. Sounds like management protecting future bonus? Mgliari might be getting thrown to the wolves if this response goes over with a thud ?
Full Volpe report and just pages 16 - 20 are linked in the article.
Response to FRA Request for Comment on ‘Amtrak L-D Service Study’ - Railway Age
"Avoidable revenues"? It's almost as if Volpe had something of a reading-comprehension issue with the statute...
Cue the usual whining about accountancy being too important to criticize. This is not about 'standards' but about what may be methodological shortcomings and failures in APT... which in my opinion completely bypasses "accounting" issues at this point in the discussion.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.