Sam1 In a nutshell the audit report is not pretty. It leads me to believe that Amtrak does not know how much it should charge the foreign carriers using its rights-of-way because it does not know the fully allocated costs of them. If it does not know, it is likely no one else knows.
Or perhaps they really don't want to know? One would hope in the future Amtrak would hire some accounting/info systems folks who produce reports revealing this info, rather than only producing what is requested or that the SAP system allows easy access to some bright managers.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Frankly, Sam, we are not only reading from the same page here; looking at your recent posts I think we are not even reading from the same book. I do admire your ability with statistics. Even more, I admire your energy and hard work in bringing to us material that we would not have otherwise. However, some of your recent comments suggest to me that you present subsidy as a two sided coin. When Amtrak needs subsidy you oppose it as an inappropriate use of taxpayer funds. That approach is rational and understandable to me even though I tend to disagree with. But as Amtrak's needs for subsidy diminishes you increase your opposition. That is more difficult to understand; it seems rooted in some kind of deeply felt opposition to..... well, I'm not sure. I really don't understand it.
On the positive side, you are unfailingly civil and I appreciate that. So while I have said all I can on this subject I am hopeful we can continue to communicate.
John
schlimm So let's keep it within the realm of railways, so there is no complaint about others questionable practices used to justify one's own. What about the freight railroads' rent to use Amtrak-owned NEC? Do they pay a contribution to fixed costs in proportion to the wear and tear their much heavier trains exert? Does anybody actually know the answer?
So let's keep it within the realm of railways, so there is no complaint about others questionable practices used to justify one's own. What about the freight railroads' rent to use Amtrak-owned NEC? Do they pay a contribution to fixed costs in proportion to the wear and tear their much heavier trains exert? Does anybody actually know the answer?
That's an excellent question!
In FY 12 Amtrak earned $52.6 million from freight carriers using its rights-of-way, most of which are in the NEC. This was up from $42.8 million in FY11 or an increase of 22.9 per cent. It also earned $147.1 million from the commuter railroads that accessed its rights-of-way, which was up from $138.0 million in FY11. This was a 6.6 per cent increase.
Whether the rents for foreign carriers accessing Amtrak's rights-of-way reflect the full cost of the access is unknown. And it is probably unknown to Amtrak.
Amtrak is in the process of implementing SAP. It is an enterprise wide financial management system that includes a variety of financial as well as other management modules. Amongst other things it contains a robust cost accounting module.
The FRA OIG issued an audit report on Amtrak's progress in implementing SAP. I read over it lightly; I am reading it again for understanding. In a nutshell the audit report is not pretty. It leads me to believe that Amtrak does not know how much it should charge the foreign carriers using its rights-of-way because it does not know the fully allocated costs of them. If it does not know, it is likely no one else knows.
John WR And that is the way Amtrak does report financial data, Sam. However, neither Amtrak nor any other organization reports every bit of financial data in every single item they publish. Alines, for example, often publish advertisements that show numbers--their fares--but give no further financial data. John
And that is the way Amtrak does report financial data, Sam. However, neither Amtrak nor any other organization reports every bit of financial data in every single item they publish. Alines, for example, often publish advertisements that show numbers--their fares--but give no further financial data.
Where in its financial reports does Amtrak acknowledge that it pays less than full cost rents to the freight railroads that hoist its trains?
What does airline reporting have to do with Amtrak's reporting?
The argument that the other guy is not reporting transparently and, therefore, I am justified in not doing so is predicated on the premise that if the other guy is not doing it it is okay for me to follow suite. Hardly what I would call robust logic or strong ethics.
Many organizations, including my former employer, do report this kind of data, although frequently one has to look at the 10Qs, 8Qs and other source documents for it. It is available to the public if they want it and know how to find it. In Amtrak's case, since it is a quasi-government agency, it does not have to file any of the SEC documents required of investor owner organizations. If it were not for Hamberger's testimony, I would not have known how to confirm this long suspected fact, other than to file a FOIA request.
"By statute, access fees that Amtrak pays to operate over the freight railroads’ tracks are only required to cover the “incremental” costs associated with Amtrak’s operations — that is, the additional costs that arise solely because of Amtrak’s presence. Amtrak is not required to contribute to the freight railroads’ fixed costs or to the shared costs for which Amtrak operations have a responsibility. Consequently, Amtrak’s “track rental fee” is low and is, for all intents and purposes, an indirect subsidy paid by freight railroads to Amtrak. This means that the current structure by which Amtrak “rents” freight tracks should not necessarily serve as a guidepost for the future."
This little tidbit was included in the testimony of Edward R. Hamberger, President and CEO of the Association of American Railroads, to the U.S. Congressional Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on June 27, 2013.
I have not seen any reference to below market rents in any of Amtrak's public reports for the space that it occupies on the freight railroads that hoist its trains.
Public corporations (businesses) should disclose fully the terms and conditions of their interactions with all their customers. Amtrak should not get a pass because it is a quasi-government agency.
John WR I don't want to be defensive about Amtrak or Joe Boardman, Sam. I worked too many years for the the government not to know that no agency is above criticism. But if by "trumpets" you mean Amtrak issues news releases about its successes, well every organization, private and public does that. In fact I think we should expect Amtrak to make an aggressive effort to recruit customers. Certainly, bus companies, airlines and every other kind of transportation does. If Amtrak didn't do the same it would be open to the criticism that management just wants to sit back, do nothing and let the government subsidies roll in. At the same time Amtrak does publish a lot of information that is just a few clicks away on the internet. Even you have commented about that. And you don't need to make a FOIA request to get it. Beyond that, a lot of information which is closely guarded and not released in the private sector is routinely released by government agencies. So I think Amtrak does does disclose the information you call for. When it comes to subsidy for rail transportation the anti subsidy movement has existed since the 1870's. Sometimes it has been stronger and sometimes weaker. Right now I think it is relatively strong. But the real issue is should we subsidize rail transportation. If we do we will keep it; if we don't we will loose all or almost all of it. The question has no really objective answer; it depends on the kind of society we wish to be and that is a value judgement. At least that is the way I see it. John
I don't want to be defensive about Amtrak or Joe Boardman, Sam. I worked too many years for the the government not to know that no agency is above criticism.
But if by "trumpets" you mean Amtrak issues news releases about its successes, well every organization, private and public does that. In fact I think we should expect Amtrak to make an aggressive effort to recruit customers. Certainly, bus companies, airlines and every other kind of transportation does. If Amtrak didn't do the same it would be open to the criticism that management just wants to sit back, do nothing and let the government subsidies roll in.
At the same time Amtrak does publish a lot of information that is just a few clicks away on the internet. Even you have commented about that. And you don't need to make a FOIA request to get it. Beyond that, a lot of information which is closely guarded and not released in the private sector is routinely released by government agencies. So I think Amtrak does does disclose the information you call for.
When it comes to subsidy for rail transportation the anti subsidy movement has existed since the 1870's. Sometimes it has been stronger and sometimes weaker. Right now I think it is relatively strong. But the real issue is should we subsidize rail transportation. If we do we will keep it; if we don't we will loose all or almost all of it. The question has no really objective answer; it depends on the kind of society we wish to be and that is a value judgement. At least that is the way I see it.
I disagree. People or organizations who report numbers should present the whole picture, i.e. ridership, revenues, costs, etc. I read the financial press every day. This is how financial data is presented; it is not just half of the equation.
blue streak 1Retirement states such as Folorida , Arizona may also have a large number of non driving licensed drivers??
You make a very good point, Streak. I would add a couple of things.
First of all, while many people who have a license drive that do not all drive an identical number of miles each year. Seniors often cut down on their milage drastically simply because they no longer have to drive to work.
Second, my state, New Jersey, has no Draconian voter id laws. But a lot of other areas do. To get into any government building for any reason except the post office and public library I have to show a picture ID. To buy an Amtrak ticket at the ticket window I need that picture ID and of course to take a plane anywhere I need it. When I go to a new doctor I need it. To open a bank account or apply for a credit card I need it. The list goes on and on and it is getting longer, not shorter. My uncle, God bless him, died a few years ago at 106. At age 100 he sold his home and moved into an old people's home and never again drove but the home told him to be sure to hold on to that license because as they applied for various government programs they needed to prove he was in the US legally. That's just the way it is in American today.
Sam1 [The DOT counts licensed motorists. One license, one motorist, although some license holders may not drive. But most of them do.
[The DOT counts licensed motorists. One license, one motorist, although some license holders may not drive. But most of them do.
That probably is true in your state however I know 30+ seniors that have licenses but do not drive. That is because of Ga's draconian voter ID laws. We do have maybe 500 seniors ( pop 4000 ) in our town but I do not know how many drive.
Retirement states such as Folorida , Arizona may also have a large number of non driving licensed drivers??
.
John WR Finally, while all of Amtrak's metrics are important I have not heard any suggestion of deliberately misrepresenting any statistics by Amtrak.
Finally, while all of Amtrak's metrics are important I have not heard any suggestion of deliberately misrepresenting any statistics by Amtrak.
Intentional misrepresentation of statistics by Amtrak's management? That's pretty harsh! Putting spin on the numbers or not telling the whole story. Happens all the time.
Amtrak trumpets the increase in ridership and revenues without addressing costs. It only presents one side of the financial ledger. Or Boardman has told the Congress that Amtak recovers 88 per cent of its operating costs through the fare box. But fails to mention the capital costs, which are part of the financial statements.
Failure to disclose the complete picture is misrepresentation in my book. Practically everyone, however, spins the numbers to make his or her cause look good. But it is not being honest!
I suspect Amtrak can run a report on the number of customers that it has. So too could the airlines, bus companies, cruise ship operators, etc., thanks in large part to the power of computers. These organizations report passengers, as opposed to customers, and therefore tend to imply that they have more customers than is the case.
I have submitted a FOIA request for NEC segment load factors and the number of Amtrak's customers. It will be interesting to see what I get and how much Amtrak will bill me for the information. Mercifully, they have to give me an estimate of the cost before digging out the information. If it is too much, I won't buy it.
The DOT counts licensed motorists. One license, one motorist, although some license holders may not drive. But most of them do. DOT reports vehicle miles traveled because it is difficult to know how many people are in the vehicle. There have been attempts to get a count of the average number of people in a vehicle, but it is a challenge to come up with an accurate number.
snarematt schlimm I will concede that some people ride Amtrak daily, in the NEC some people? Apparently, it's quite a few people (more every year). My point wasn't about syntax, that was your point. My point was about people increasingly choosing to live in urban areas and that choice being supported by Amtrak. Regardless of if people ride it every day, every week, or if they call it short distance or commuter service, these trains are making it easier to live in cities without the aid of an automobile. I'm going to guess that people who don't own a car tend to drive less (do I need a citation for that too?) and therefore are involved in less "passenger miles". So again, if we want an efficient system that reduces the total cost, we have to look at the total picture, and that includes the lifestyle of transit users.
schlimm I will concede that some people ride Amtrak daily, in the NEC
some people? Apparently, it's quite a few people (more every year).
My point wasn't about syntax, that was your point. My point was about people increasingly choosing to live in urban areas and that choice being supported by Amtrak.
Regardless of if people ride it every day, every week, or if they call it short distance or commuter service, these trains are making it easier to live in cities without the aid of an automobile. I'm going to guess that people who don't own a car tend to drive less (do I need a citation for that too?) and therefore are involved in less "passenger miles".
So again, if we want an efficient system that reduces the total cost, we have to look at the total picture, and that includes the lifestyle of transit users.
Schlimm,
I don't think it is possible to draw a sharp distinction between what is and is not commuter service. People will ride relatively long distance trains for short distances and do so repeatedly; there are those who do that with Amtrak between New York and Philadelphia. Other people will use New Jersey Transit and SEPTA for the same trip. And Joe Biden regularly commuted between Washington, DC and Wilmington, Delaware on the Acela.
At the same time a train some people think of as a commuter train can be simply one leg of a much longer journey. For example, many people take the Princeton Branch (commonly known as the Dinky), a 2.7 mile line, to connect with one of Amtrak's long distance trains. People who live along a "commuter" line often find it convenient to take that to transfer to Amtrak.
Individual people use trains according to their needs without paying attention to whether they ride a long distance train or commuter train. Amtrak sells monthly tickets between any two stations which are obviously aimed at commuters.
Thank you for your insight, Sam. I especially appreciate your observation that we don't know the extent to which passenger counts on trains (or any other kind of transportation) represent repeat passengers or new passengers. For Amtrak and airlines it would be possible to collect such information but I don't know whether it is collected or not.
And I agree that no single set of statistics can give the complete picture. However, to give all the relevant statistics in one or two posts is pretty daunting. I think it is an issue of seeing statistics for what they are and not more than they are.
Yes, because airlines carry so many more people than trains I would not expect the same proportionate increases in passenger numbers. Because planes go places trains cannot possibly go (such as across oceans) I think there is an aspect of apples and oranges in any comparison. Also, at least on the east coast, many planes operate with full loads of passengers so they really cannot take increased numbers of passengers.
snarematt schlimm I look at those reports most months. Do you also read them? The report clearly states that ridership on short distance trains is up and despite Sandy, ridership is expected to grow for the N.E. corridor as well. If you're confused about how the term "commuter" could relate short distance trains here's a wiki on the subject https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commuter_rail If you want evidence of urbanization, google 2010 census. If you want more info, i'd suggest hiring a research assistant.
schlimm I look at those reports most months.
Do you also read them?
The report clearly states that ridership on short distance trains is up and despite Sandy, ridership is expected to grow for the N.E. corridor as well.
If you're confused about how the term "commuter" could relate short distance trains here's a wiki on the subject https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commuter_rail
If you want evidence of urbanization, google 2010 census.
If you want more info, i'd suggest hiring a research assistant.
schlimmSimilar to my experience, but the Chicago suburbs.
If you will humor me for a little personal history, Schlimm, I grew up in the suburbs south of Providence, RI. Up until I was 10 years old or so all I knew was automobiles. Then a playmate, Ann Marie, told me about the bus to Providence. She explained I could go by myself any time I wanted and all I had to do was to take the bus to the end of the line in downtown Providence. I asked my Mom and, on a day off from school, went into "the city" where I met my Aunt. We had lunch and I came home. I was hooked. In junior high school I began going to the Providence Library from time to time and after high school I went to college in Providence for a while. By that time I had a few train trips to Boston. For about 15 years I did not have the money to even think about a car so public transportation was all I had. Then I got my first job and my wife and I bought a car but I left it home for her and continued to ride the bus to work. Almost all of my life I continued to ride a bus or a train to work. Now I'm retired and when I go somewhere alone I still ride the bus and train if it is at all possible.
I sometimes wonder what happened to Ann Marie. I wish I could go back and thank her for starting me on this path.
Information regarding Amtrak's ridership and revenues can be found in the Monthly Operating Reports. For 2012 and 2011 the keying page is A.3.0. Tables containing ridership and revenues by route begin on Page A3.4 or thereabouts. Be sure not to confuse the monthly statistics with the YTD stats, which in September represent the numbers for Amtrak's fiscal year.
Amtrak counts passengers by the number of tickets that it lifts. If a person buys a ticket and subsequently cancels the trip, he is not counted as a passenger. Amtrak has probably increased the accuracy of its passenger count recently because of the use of bar code scanners, which are less susceptible to error.
Amtrak's fact sheets report the number of passengers getting on and off its trains at its stations. Also, the number of passengers is not the number of customers. Accordingly, it is not possible from the numbers Amtrak gives us to know if the increase in riders was an increase in customers, or if existing customers took more trains trips, or a combination thereof.
Month to month increases in ridership are not helpful. As is the case with financial analysts, who use a variety of metrics to evaluate the financial health of a business, one should look for rider and revenue trends over at least one or two years. Five years is preferable. That is what financial analysts do.
Amtrak's total ridership increased 3.54 per cent in FY12 compared to FY11 and 5.1 per cent in FY11 compared to FY10. Revenues increased 6.8 per cent in FY12 compared to FY11 and 8.5 per cent in FY11 compared to FY10. One possibility for the variance may be that Amtrak's ticket price yields are higher, i.e. passengers are pay more for transport than was the case in prior years.
In FY12 ridersiip on the NEC increased by 4.8 per cent, compared to 3.8 per cent for the state supported trains and 5.1 per cent for the long distance trains. In FY11 the increases were 5.1, 6.5, and 1.1. According to the Brookings Institute's study A New Alignment.........the bulk of growth in Amtrak's ridership has occurred in the NEC and state support corridors. The growth rates can vary significantly from reporting period to reporting period.
A key factor in evaluating growth rates is to understand the starting or base point. If Amtrak, with roughly 31 million passengers, increases its ridership by 3 million passengers, it has realized a 9.7 per cent increase in ridership. If the airlines, which enplaned 731,124,287 passengers in FY12 (BTS Domestic Airport Boardings for Commercial......), had an increase of three million passengers, the increase would be .41 or 41/100s of one per cent. The commercial airline boardings increased by approximately 6 million in FY12 compared to FY11, but it was only an .86 per cent increase. So, a reader of the Brookings Institute Report, which claims that Amtrak has been growing at a faster rate than the nation's other commercial carriers, should keep the base line in mind.
If a person invested in a security because the company's sales and revenues had increased dramatically over the last decade, without looking at the other key indicators, he might be in for an ugly surprise. The company could be buying market share and be on the verge of bankruptcy. It is important to look at all of Amtrak's key metrics. Increases in riders and revenues is only a very small part of its operating and financial performance.
snarematt schlimmevidence in actual Amtrak reports? Links? http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/178/1001/Amtrak-Ridership-Growth-First-Six-Months-%20FY2013-ATK-13-031.pdf
schlimmevidence in actual Amtrak reports? Links?
http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/178/1001/Amtrak-Ridership-Growth-First-Six-Months-%20FY2013-ATK-13-031.pdf
John WRI grew up in the suburbs.
Similar to my experience, but the Chicago suburbs. The commuter rail (CA&E and later CNW) into the Loop, car to other towns, local malls, etc.
snaremattAs many have pointed out, Amtrak's growth has mostly come in the commuter area. [my emphasis] This is largely due to the increase in urban population over the last 10 years. Growth in this category feeds on itself- as mass transit becomes more available, more people move to urban areas and utilize the system.
I have seen several mentions of this, but as John WR also asks, what is the evidence in actual Amtrak reports? Links?
snaremattSo it's possible that even if Amtrak's passenger mile price is higher, their overall effectiveness per dollar is better (than roads) because of the fact that fixed rail transit tends to concentrate populations -thereby reducing total passenger miles while still serving the same population.
Your point goes beyond interesting.
I grew up in the suburbs. Every place we went my parents drove. The only exception I can think of is Boy Scouts where I walked. Then I grew up and for many years had no car. Living in the city I planned on public transit. Generally my wife and I walked to the supermarket and used transit for shopping. For longer trips we took the train or, for really long trips, we took a plane. Occasionally we rented a car. But we did much less traveling, especially long distance traveling, because we did not need to.
Then we bought a car. And we moved out. Now we had to drive to the supermarket when ever we went there and other shopping was at shopping centers because parking was easier. Even if down town was closer we drove out to a shopping center to park. And of course down towns withered a way. The whole thing was a self fulfilling prophecy.
My last house was the nicest one I ever owned. And it was 35 minutes from the closest bus stop--I still used transit for work. Walking was not impossible but almost always my wife met me with the car and drove me home. Our present home is smaller than our last one. But it is 3 blocks from the bus to get to a variety of places including the local commuter train to get into New York Penn Station to take Amtrak to Providence or Newark Penn Station to take Amtrak to Washington. The super market is 3 blocks away too but old habits die hard. We still drive.
oltmanndI am more interested in Amtrak's effectiveness - that is subsidy $ per passenger mile - in constant dollars. Anyone want to take a crack at that one?
While passenger miles are a useful metric for evaluating one mode of transportation against itself, it is not an appropriate standard for "effectiveness" when considering transportation spending overall. The reason for this is that different types of transportation investment equate to different outcomes both in cost and, separately, in the type lifestyles they sponsor.
As many have pointed out, Amtrak's growth has mostly come in the commuter area. This is largely due to the increase in urban population over the last 10 years. Growth in this category feeds on itself- as mass transit becomes more available, more people move to urban areas and utilize the system.
The critical part of this to consider is that these are people who previously would have lived in suburbs and used roads and highways for most of their transportation needs. As they begin to populate urban areas and switch from highway to rail, their personal "passenger miles" are reduced. This happens not just because their commute is shorter, but because city dwellers tend to drive a lot less generally.
So it's possible that even if Amtrak's passenger mile price is higher, their overall effectiveness per dollar is better (than roads) because of the fact that fixed rail transit tends to concentrate populations -thereby reducing total passenger miles while still serving the same population.
Alan F: Thank you for clarification/confirmation on the passenger stat and the comparative growth rates.
schlimm it would be great if we could have 20 years of figures to see where the growth is. Don Oltmann thinks mostly NEC and some of the shorter state corridors.
it would be great if we could have 20 years of figures to see where the growth is. Don Oltmann thinks mostly NEC and some of the shorter state corridors.
The largest growth in Amtrak ridership comes from the state and short/medium distance corridors. This includes the 3 CA corridors, Cascades, the Miwest corridors, and the eastern trains ranging from the Downeaster, Keystones, Empire Service, Virginia Regionals, Piedmonts, etc. The NEC has seen growth as well. The growth has been in the past 10 years after decades of stagnation with ridership growth from FY2002 (21.67 million) to FY2013 (31.24 million) ahead of US population growth.
The 31.24 million passengers in FY2012 is the total number of passengers that boarded an Amtrak train. The station stats show boarding plus alightings to count the total number going through the station. If one were to add up all the station passenger counts, the total would be twice 31.2 million.
The breakdown of the ridership stats is publicly available. Comparing fiscal years 2002 and 2012 in millions:
FY2002: NEC 9.14M, State & Short/medium distance corridors 8.91M, LD 3.62M; total 21.67M
FY2012: NEC 11.42M, State & Short/medium distance 15.08M, LD 4.74M
Growth on the LD trains the past several years is being held by lack of capacity for the peak travel periods. Also the problem with the Acela. That is why Amtrak is considering adding 4 coach seats in the upper level of each Superliner coach car to squeeze out a bit more capacity and revenue for the western LD trains. And planning to order Acela IIs to deal with the Acela capacity constraints.
it would be great if we could have 20 years of figures to see where the growth is. Don Oltmann thinks mostly NEC and some of the shorter state corridors. I believe that is true, but I've never actually seen those numbers: passengers carried, passenger miles and maybe train miles. I wonder how useful the latter is, however. i would prefer to see the trend lines on operating subsidy (or positive contribution) by segment and average occupancy numbers.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.