"I know the price of everything and the value of nothing".........
I had one experience way back when in not being able to book a sleeper space on the Gulf Wind between Jacksonville and New Orleans. I flew, and the flight for some reason was diverted to Mobile. I spent most of the night in the Mobile airport before flying to New Orleans. I was not in the best of shape for my New Orleans client meeting and had to pay for the hotel room I didn't use in New Orleans. That taught me a lesson. Any time I planned on a train trip and sleeper space was not available, I settled for coach. And on every single subsequent occasion except one (Washington - NY overnight on the Federal drop sleeper), I was able to upgrade to a sleeper accomodation.
My taking the Federal coach to NY wasn't too terrible, since I was living in NY, could get a few hours sleep in my east 16th Street apartment, and call in to say I'd be a little late at the office.
Dakguy201 wrote: I'm really disturbed about Passenger's tale of the Sunset routinely being sold out in sleeping spaces on the computer and then his finding that in fact space is available.
I'm really disturbed about Passenger's tale of the Sunset routinely being sold out in sleeping spaces on the computer and then his finding that in fact space is available.
This is a common risk on the Empire Builder. I thought about booking to Seattle two months from now last week, one leg of the sleeper was open, one was booked solid. The agent told me they "often" open up. I didn't want to take the risk. The airline got my business on that one simply because, even with substantial advance notice, Amtrak won't schedule the capacity for its ridership. How many changed their plans as I did?
n012944 wrote: daveklepper wrote:appreciate the information. What about food for coach passsengers? Was the Continental man's statement correct?Several airlines offer a "buy on board" type meal service. It is a box lunch that are sold once in the air. I have not flown Continental in many years, so I do not know if they do something different than that.
daveklepper wrote:appreciate the information. What about food for coach passsengers? Was the Continental man's statement correct?
Several airlines offer a "buy on board" type meal service. It is a box lunch that are sold once in the air. I have not flown Continental in many years, so I do not know if they do something different than that.
I few from Portand, Oregon to Houston on Continental about a year ago. They served the coach passengers a small ham and cheese sandwich, a small bag of chips, an apple, and choice of drink, e.g. coffee, coke, water, etc.
Yesterday I flew from Austin to Dallas on American Airlines. Passengers could buy a sandwich for $5.00; they could buy some snacks for $3.00; they could buy a beer or wine for $4.00 or $5.00. Coffee, a soft drink, water, etc. were offered for free.
As one who spent a lifetime traveling, I can tell you that airline food has never been very good. In fact, after the first couple of meals, I planned my trips so that I could eat in a good restaurant before the flight or after arrival.
An "expensive model collector"
n012944 wrote: daveklepper wrote: A recent article in THE JERUSALEM POST quoted a Continental Airlines executive as stating that NO USA AIRLINE IS SHOWING A PROFIT OR EVEN BREAKING EVEN ON DOMESTIC USA ROUTES!Well that is not true. Southwest posts profits year after year on nothing but domestic service.
daveklepper wrote: A recent article in THE JERUSALEM POST quoted a Continental Airlines executive as stating that NO USA AIRLINE IS SHOWING A PROFIT OR EVEN BREAKING EVEN ON DOMESTIC USA ROUTES!
A recent article in THE JERUSALEM POST quoted a Continental Airlines executive as stating that NO USA AIRLINE IS SHOWING A PROFIT OR EVEN BREAKING EVEN ON DOMESTIC USA ROUTES!
Well that is not true. Southwest posts profits year after year on nothing but domestic service.
Southwest Airlines had an operating profit of $838 million, with net income of $590 million, for the four quarters ended October 31, 2007. However, they are not the only U.S. carrier that made money on domestic operations. Other domestic or largely domestic carriers, e.g. AirTrans, Air Wisconsin, American Eagle, etc. had solid operating profits. In fact, most of the carriers had a positive return on their domestic operations, although the big carriers had a better return on their international operations.
In the case of the large carriers, it is frequently difficult to determine how much they cleared on domestic operations because of the trips that combine a domestic and international leg.
U.S. passenger airlines with annual revenues of more than $20 million did pretty well in 2007. For the four quarters ended October 31, 2007, these carriers had net operating profits of $7.4 billion on operating revenues of $130.9 billion. They realized a combined net income of $4.6 billion.
Operating profits were 5.7 per cent of revenues or sales, whilst net income was 3.5 per cent of revenues. These margins are slim when compared to many businesses, but they are solid for the airline business, which has always operated with razor thin margins. It is the nature of the business.
Had it not been for an extraordinary net income loss at Comair ($479 million), the country's largest carriers would have realized net income of $5.1 billion or 3.9 per cent of revenues. The extraordinary item was related to Comair's crash in Ohio.
The average operating revenue per passenger was $193.04, whilst the average operating cost was $182.10, leaving an average operating profit of $10.94 per passenger.
The average per passenger federal subsidy for the airlines, using NARP's figures, many of which are suspect, was $8.63 before adjustment for questionable items, i.e. those that cannot be verified. After adjustment for questionable items, the subsidy, again using NARP's figures, was $6.81.
The average per passenger federal airline subsidy using the latest government figures is $4.35. The major difference in the numbers is attributable to the fact that NARP fails to differentiate between general aviation and commercial aviation, or its claims that the airlines benefit from basic military and space research without offering any evidence to support its claim. .
Assuming the worse case scenario, i.e. the subsidy was $8.63 per passenger; the airlines would still have had an average operating profit of $2.31 per passenger. Applying NARP's numbers after adjustment for questionable items leaves the airlines with an average operating profit of $4.13 per passenger. Using the subsidy calculated by a review of the most recent governmental information leaves the airlines with an average operating return of $6.59 per passenger.
Even after backing out the identifiable federal subsidies to airlines, they still made money in 2007.
I understand why that could occur, but from his experience it would seem to be routine. I wonder how much money if being left on the table due to last minute cancellations. Should Amtrak impose a substantial penalty for last minute cancellations? If this is a daily problem, that would make a lot of sense.
Ther are some factors not considered in any of the arguments I have read about the Sunset. On at least three different occasions I have tried to make advance reservations on this train and by advance I mean three months at least. In all cases I tried to make deluxe sleeping car reservations and was told on all three occasions all sleeping car accommodation was sold out. I was not to happy with the idea of taking a coach across the country. I decided I would anyway because anything is better than flying and I would not even consider a bus. Well much to my surprise I was able to purchase the sleeping car space shortly after leaving LA on all three occasions. I don't believe that that space cancelled at the last minute on all three occasions especially during prime travel periods in all instances. I have had the same thing happen on the Coast Starlight at least a dozen times and on numerous other Amtrak long distance trains. Amtrak needs to get there reservation desk in order and I have also found there is a shortage of sleeping cars on all Amtrak long distance trains. I have never had a reservation problem with Via Rail Canada and the food service on the Canadian is superior to anything on today's Amtrak.
If we are going to operate passenger trains then let's put some real money behind it and see what we can do. There is no reason to believe that we cannot operate World class trains and it is certainly time to invest in highspeed rail especially in states like California, Ohio, Texas, and other corridors and if the airlines can't stand up to the competion than maybe it is time for them to go the way of the DoDo birds on those routes.
CG9602 wrote:The objection to Samantha's last post is that loss or profit of trains is measured in terms of the revenue passenger mile. When you quote these figure, Samantha, how did you calculate the figures per revenue passenger mile ?
Amtrak's ticket revenue per passenger mile in 2007 is the total ticket revenue ($1,519,130,000) divided by the total passenger miles (5,653,581,000). The result is $.2687 revenue per passenger mile. These numbers can be found on Page A-2.2 of the Amtrak September 2007 Monthly Performance Report. This report contains Amtrak's results for September 2007 as well as the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007.
During 2007 Amtrak's operating ratio was 1.45, which means that operating expenses were 145 per cent of ticket revenues. Accordingly, the operating expenses were $.3896 per passenger mile, and the loss was $.1209 per passenger mile before interest and depreciation.
Total National Train System Revenues during 2007 were $2,153,500,000 or $.3809 per passenger mile. Total expenses were $3,204,900,000 or $.5669 per passenger mile. The loss on this basis was $.1860 per passenger mile. However, total system revenues and expenses include items that are not directly related to operations, e.g. infrastructure management, ancillary businesses, federal and state capital payments, etc. These numbers can be found on Page C-1 of the aforementioned report.
These numbers are system averages. The results for the Northeast Corridor, State and Other Corridors, and Long distance trains vary significantly from the averages. The revenue to cost deficit is narrower for the NEC, which covers its operating costs and contributes to its fixed costs. The loss incurred by the long distance trains is much greater than the system average.
I don't recall discussing revenues, other than to point out that NARP frequently talks about year to year increases in Amtrak's revenues and riders. Unfortunately, it never discusses the costs, especially those associated with the long distance trains. Cost is the other side of the accounting equation. The key number, therefore, is how much it costs Amtrak to deliver its service and whether the revenues cover the costs. They don't.
Some commentators have noted that no scheduled passenger trains cover their costs. This fact is hardly the mark of excellence. They along with competitive modes of transport should be required to cover their costs, thereby creating a level playing field where passenger trains could compete in high density corridors.
oltmannd wrote: BaltACD wrote: oltmannd wrote: Amtrak needs fixed.Amtrak is just like all other rail passenger operations that exist in the world. A Public Service that does not operate at a profit. Expecting Amtrak to operate at a profit is an unreasonable expectation.I'm not expecting a profit. I'd just like it to be a bit less embarrassing to be an advocate!
BaltACD wrote: oltmannd wrote: Amtrak needs fixed.Amtrak is just like all other rail passenger operations that exist in the world. A Public Service that does not operate at a profit. Expecting Amtrak to operate at a profit is an unreasonable expectation.
oltmannd wrote: Amtrak needs fixed.
Amtrak needs fixed.
Amtrak is just like all other rail passenger operations that exist in the world. A Public Service that does not operate at a profit. Expecting Amtrak to operate at a profit is an unreasonable expectation.
I'm not expecting a profit. I'd just like it to be a bit less embarrassing to be an advocate!
When it comes to rail passenger tranportation the mind set has to be changed to the point that it is viewed as a necessary public service with minimal regard to the cost....the same view as is being applied to airline. Were the airlines required to fund all the costs that are a part of air travel no air carrier would ever consider approaching the break even point. The fees that the carriers pay for airport operation and the air traffic control system at present are just token payments for the services rendered, and still most airlines can barely break even.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Samantha wrote: Chafford1 wrote: Samantha wrote: If the Sunset were discontinued, the funds, presumably, could be used to improve existing corridors or help develop new ones. Tha amount saved wouldn't begin to cover the cost of developing a 300mile corridor passenger railway. Keep the Sunset and the other long distance trains, make them run on time and encourage their use for vacations.The cost to upgrade existing corridors depends on the amount of improvement required. Amtrak estimates that it would cost $625 million to upgrade the NEC to shave 15 minutes off the Washington to New York schedule. The distance is approximately 226 miles; the upgrade works out to $2.8 million per mile. The cost to upgrade the Portland to Seattle line to Tier I status, including amounts already spent, is estimated at $1.1 billion or approximately $6.1 million per mile. This includes upgrading stations, parking lots, etc. as well as the purchase of new equipment.
Chafford1 wrote: Samantha wrote: If the Sunset were discontinued, the funds, presumably, could be used to improve existing corridors or help develop new ones. Tha amount saved wouldn't begin to cover the cost of developing a 300mile corridor passenger railway. Keep the Sunset and the other long distance trains, make them run on time and encourage their use for vacations.
Samantha wrote: If the Sunset were discontinued, the funds, presumably, could be used to improve existing corridors or help develop new ones.
Tha amount saved wouldn't begin to cover the cost of developing a 300mile corridor passenger railway. Keep the Sunset and the other long distance trains, make them run on time and encourage their use for vacations.
The cost to upgrade existing corridors depends on the amount of improvement required. Amtrak estimates that it would cost $625 million to upgrade the NEC to shave 15 minutes off the Washington to New York schedule. The distance is approximately 226 miles; the upgrade works out to $2.8 million per mile. The cost to upgrade the Portland to Seattle line to Tier I status, including amounts already spent, is estimated at $1.1 billion or approximately $6.1 million per mile. This includes upgrading stations, parking lots, etc. as well as the purchase of new equipment.
Here in the UK, the Government has spent £8billion ($16 billion) upgrading the 400 mile West Coast Line from London to Glasgow, with more 4 tracking, new 125mph 'Pendolino' tilting trains and reduced journey times. As a result, the number of passengers on the London-Manchester (185 miles) section has increased by 40% since 2003 and the rail/air percentages which were 60/40% in favour of air in 2004 are now 63/37% in favour of rail.
As with all things you get what you pay for!
During the fiscal year that ended on 30 September 2007, the Sunset Limited lost $29.8 million before interest and depreciation. Assuming Amtrak's annual interest and depreciation charges attributable to the long distance trains add ten per cent to the operating costs, the estimated total loss incurred by the Sunset was $32.78 million. This would not build many miles of Tier I rail in a year. However, the future value (FV) of the annual savings over time would.
The FV of $32.78 million for 30 years, using the most recent U.S. Treasury long bond interest rate, is $2.4 billion. Moreover, if the Texas Eagle, which is also a lightly patronized long distance train, especially south of St. Louis, was discontinued, the annual savings would be $27.8 million per year or $1.8 billion over 30 years. The combined FV savings from these two trains would be $4.2 billion. If all the long distance trains were discontinued, the FV of the savings would be approximately $31.8 billion.
Projecting the FV of savings over 30 years is challenging. Hitting the targets shown above would be coincidental. But hitting a range of plus or minus ten per cent from the target is probable. So we can say with a reasonable degree of confidence that elimination of the long distance trains would produce FV savings of $28.6 billion to $35 billion.
High speed rail projects in France, Spain, and Taiwan, which have been built largely from scratch, have cost between $24 million and $47 million per mile. But as I have said, one does not need to start with high speed rail. One can get significant improvements by upgrading existing rail corridors to handle more trains, reduce or eliminate bottlenecks, improve facilities, and buy new equipment. These improvements can make passenger rail competitive with alternative transport modes in relatively short, high density corridors. High speed rail, which is often times as much about bragging rights as an optimum transport solution, is not necessary in most instances. It is the SST of passenger rail.
The FV of the savings from discontinuing the Sunset Limited could build approximately 390 miles of Tier I line, assuming the costs were similar to the costs incurred to upgrade the Portland to Seattle line. If the long distance trains were discontinued, 5,213 miles of Tier I or 895 miles of high speed rail could be built with the FV of the savings. The high speed estimate assumes an average construction cost of $35.5 million per mile.
Most people cannot afford to pay cash for a house. This is especially true for first time home buyers. That's why they go to the bank for a mortgage. They are not expected to payoff the loan in a year. The same concept applies to upgrading rail corridors. The financing would be paid off over time. Thirty years is a common period. This is why I used the U.S. Treasury long bond rate; in fact, the FV of the savings from discontinuing the long distance trains might generate a considerably higher return if the monies were invested in higher yielding albeit relatively safe investments, e.g. high grade equities, corporate bonds, etc.
Amtrak has tried a variety of marketing incentives to boost the number of riders on the Sunset and Texas Eagle as well as all of its long distance trains. They have met with only limited success. Most people do not want to travel long distances in a train. They prefer to fly.
Less than one half of one per cent of the people who travel by commercial carrier in the United States choose long distance trains. This is the major reason why the long distance trains, whilst carrying a little more than 14 per cent of the Amtrak passengers, rack up almost 48 per cent of Amtrak's losses.
Continental makes profits on its overseas long distanc flights and uses parts of that profit to subsidize its USA domestic flights. It believes it needs the USA domestic routes to act as feeders and vacation traffic generators for its overseas routes. (It promotes Israeli tourism to the USA very heavily.) It does provide meal service in economy on domestic flights. It does not want foreign visitors to the USA to get a bad impression of domestic travel.
It ownes its own ariline catering firm, hotels, and restaurants, and works with Israelil travel agents (as I am sure it works with travel agencies in other free-world countries) to sell packages that involve travling, eating, and sleeping "Continental" while seeing the USA.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
We already accept the part that passenger trains are not profitable, not here and not many other places in the world that have them. The question is, how unprofitable? What level of subsidy is justified by the social return? Whatever amount of money it takes?
Is discussion of the operational efficiency of Amtrak off-limits to the railfan/passenger train advocacy communities because it is disloyal to the cause or plays into the hands of the Highway Lobby?
The passenger advocacy community has been saying for over 30 years now that it is unreasonable for Amtrak to be profitable or even to be profitable according to some set of rules (allow for capital grants but break even in operating cost). The response from the larger society, by and large, has been, fine, we will trim Amtrak. Presidents with a more "free market" or "laissez-faire" or "highways-rule" approach have been more aggressive in hounding Amtrak, other Presidents who are more open to public funding social needs have been less aggressive, but the general trend line has been decline in Amtrak route miles over time.
The Vision for Passenger Trains report has appendices talking about the amount of money that our trading partners are spending on trains -- it does not get into the amount of results in terms of passenger miles or highway/train/air split. France and Germany are spending 10 and 8 billion a year on their trains. Scaling up to the US population, that means they are spending the equivalent of our entire highway budget on trains. There are people in the advocacy community who think that is what we should be doing too, and that we are not constitutes a national "shame" (this shame argument is remarkably ineffective in persuading people beyond the confines the already-committed), and that we should have European-level gas tax levies to pay for it. Not going to happen.
Then the discussion shifts to how "France has the political will" and "the U.S. lacks the political will." Well, France is France and does a lot of things in that kind of way, and the U.S. is the U.S. does other things in another kind of way. France has 80 percent of their electricity from nuclear power -- it does things like power TGV's among other uses. Don't see that happening here any time soon.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
I dont' think that advocates choose to talk about the negatives -- if the subject comes around to subsidies to Amtrak, many advocates are quick to argue "all modes receive subsidy", which a few of us believes misses the point that Amtrak might be expensive compared to what it produces in service.
If advocates talk about negatives, it is that Amtrak is "underfunded" relative to what our trading partners are doing with trains, or our threadbare trains are a "national shame." URPA famously has critiqued the view that "the glass is half empty" because Amtrak is starved for appropriation rather than "the glass is half full" in terms of what could or can be accomplished with the amount of appropriation in hand. Another negative is to place blame for delays on host railroads without considering what it would take to make it worth their while financially to have high priority trains run at high priority on their network.
As to the bottom-up approach, the advocacy community points to two deficiences. One is that if a train runs across state lines, it is notoriously hard to get coordination. At least for a highway, you can fund Illinois to build a highway up to the state line and not worry about what state the road is on when it crosses into Kentucky. So you have California and more recently Illinois doing in-state trains, but trains crossing a state line (Hiawatha) or perhaps even an international border (Cascades?) let alone the multi-state NEC are a different matter.
The other sticking point is the money, those "negatives" of pointing out the required expenditure that cannot be raised through private enterprise. States are somewhat limited in the money they can raise -- if they raise taxes too much business and people will migrate to other states -- but the Federal government is at least perceived to have limitless abilities to raise money. If the Federal government can't raise the money in taxes, it seems to have limitless powers of deficit financing and raising money through Treasury bonds. That too has limits and whether we have reached those limits is a topic of considerable political debate.
I don't want to talk about something to incur the Wrath of Bergie, but I cannot remember attending a single public or board meeting of the advocacy group I participate in where the "I" word that shall not be mentioned on this forum hasn't come up. "If we can put a man on the Moon, we can (fill in the blank)" These days its "If they can spend untold billions on you-know-what, why can't we have the train come to our city?" Personally, I think it is a grave mistake to tie passenger train advocacy into a much larger political issue that has the country very deeply divided, but I think the people who say these things are only thinking of the enormous amounts of money that can be spent at the Federal level and why are we only getting crumbs?
There is a mechanism for getting Federal gas tax money to pay for transit projects and numerous such projects have sprouted up. Whether they are a Good Thing is arguable as there are many critics of light rail, but at least a bunch of light rail projects have been implemented so the wonks can debate whether they are of value or if the money should have been spent on roads. There is no such mechanism to get Federal money for intercity rail, and with Amtrak getting enough money to creak by to do any expansion, you get the advocacy community complaining about underfunding of Amtrak.
I see your point about national studies. Senate Bill S-294 passed by an overwhelming majority to give Amtrak an extra 3 billion over 6 years or so to get some of these projects going -- I support this level of expansion and then evaluating what we got for the money. On another thread I talk about a National Study that is coming out and will get aired before Congress that "recommends" spending 350 billion over 40 years -- that to me sounds like a non-starter.
Samantha wrote: Showing the cost of a service may be perceived as a negative if the numbers run against the interests of the viewer. But I don't know a single business person or government official who ignores the cost of a service - government or otherwise - because they think discussing costs is negative. It may be unpleasant, but it is the real world.
Showing the cost of a service may be perceived as a negative if the numbers run against the interests of the viewer. But I don't know a single business person or government official who ignores the cost of a service - government or otherwise - because they think discussing costs is negative. It may be unpleasant, but it is the real world.
I am speaking to controlling the focus of the debate. And if the advocates start off talking about the negatives .... well .... you can imagine what the opponents will talk about. And given the attention span of the average legislator/representative, the debate is lost ...
Samantha wrote: Otherwise, you get a situation in which the "experts" cobble together a system that never pays for itself.
Otherwise, you get a situation in which the "experts" cobble together a system that never pays for itself.
That's why I think it works best at local initiative. Let the system build, bottom-up. I don't mind focus groups, but to attempt to use them to implement a national policy when, ultimately, each train has to respond to a regional or local need is where I can see the whole exercise screw up, since the focus groups are 1) invariably filtered through the experts, and 2) legislators still don't want to read Great Big Reports whether they are made big by focus group surveys or endless numbers.
I'm not disagreeing about focus groups, I am saying that the best ones are at that regional/state/local level.
Focus groups have provided useful information for many multi-national organizations, including my former employer. They have also been used by a variety of governments. The information that they generate is only one piece of the data needed to develop a policy, or as I pointed out previously, a framework. Knowing what is important to potential users is critical to knowing if they will pay to use the system. Otherwise, you get a situation in which the "experts" cobble together a system that never pays for itself.
Focus groups were used to help put together the Medicare prescription drug program. It is not a perfect program, but it is a good start.
Samantha wrote: Using focus groups to determine what people want and are willing to pay for is a bottom up technique.
Using focus groups to determine what people want and are willing to pay for is a bottom up technique.
Not if they go into a "national" report, particularly in a democracy where funding comes from representatives at all levels elected to represent relatively local concerns. These people just don't read "national" policy white papers. Big Reports lack "focus" and elected representatives are hard enough to get "focused" on anything, let alone big reports about national transportation needs. Even if they understood what any of it meant. "All politics is local" offered the genial, rotund, ruthless gentleman from Massachusetts, and I think he was right on matters like this one.
But that's also why I think Amtrak is a crucial focus, simply because it is there, it exists, it is a tangible entity, and they have something to focus on besides a big report filled with statistics about focus groups. It can tie the successful projects together -- the backbone -- and itself benefit from each such successful connecting project.
Congress needs to be urged to look at Amtrak as the necessary template for the future just like the Interstate Highways, a "build it and they will come" approach; rather than the endlessly draining subsidized "service" that never seems to be able to make the promises it is forced annually to make. Rail passenger advocates need to control the language of the discussion and they haven't; they measure in the negative -- losses per rider -- and that simply needs to be eliminated from the discussion because nobody talks about that regarding any other transportation mode. Those modes understand how to talk, and one rule is to eliminate a discussion denominated entirely in negative measurements.
The terms of the debate needs to be changed, and a "national policy" paper aimed at a very large subject would, I think, detract rather than strengthen the actual efforts that currently exist simply by both diluting the conversation in too many directions, but also simply creating what is really just one more contribution in an overwhelming deluge of yet another Big Report on Something.
I did not argue for a national transportation policy; I sugested a national transportation framework. There is a significant difference between them. Policies along with procedures tend to be rigid. Frameworks by their nature tend to be flexible.
The advantage of a national framework is that governments, i.e. federal, state, local, as well as private investors, could use a variety of incentives to promote the best transport option for the country's many diverse locales.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.