TheAntiGates wrote: 2.So is healthcare, but that doesn't mean it is the taxpayer's job to pay for the affluent to get poked, prodded, and probed 4 times per year
2.So is healthcare, but that doesn't mean it is the taxpayer's job to pay for the affluent to get poked, prodded, and probed 4 times per year
You would deny such necessary services to those in the income group ("affluent" -- however you define it) that provides a lion's share (let's say in excess of 70 percent) of the supportive tax dollars? Who has the right to draw an arbitrary line and determine "You already make enough money and therefore shall not share in necessary government services, even though your money pays for them?" In other words, "affluent" people should pay twice for health care? Would it not make sense for the government to provide health care to the affluent to safeguard the well-being of its largest contributors to the tax pool?
The main reason the government in a civilized society has to physically provide health care to the poor is because if we provided money for health services to the poor, it would in most cases be spent on other things.
TheAntiGates wrote:What about all the restaurants located away from rail destinations? does the taxpayer owe a subsidy to Greyhound, or is that a job for (subsidized) light rail?
What about all the restaurants located away from rail destinations? does the taxpayer owe a subsidy to Greyhound, or is that a job for (subsidized) light rail?
Another silly premise. To follow your thinking, what about all the able-bodied people who are just too lazy to work? Should the government subsidize them so they can possess the same things hard-working people own?
Metra gets a certain operating as well as capital budget subsidy. Metra replaces X lanes of freeway. Shutting down Metra and building X lanes of freeway would cost Y bazillion dollars because you would have to purchase property, which costs money even when you exercise eminent domain, or you have to do the Big Dig thing and tunnel at huge expense. The high value of the land is reflected in the acquisition cost. You do the math and you decide to subsidize Metra as a very sensible thing.
As to the lost tax revenue for the land under the freeway, you have to balance that against the added property value to surrounding properties to being served by a freeway. The light rail/streetcar people make the same argument.
Intercity rail is far from such a thing except for NEC and possibly LA-San Diego. If they would speed up the Hiawatha train from 1:36 (is it?) to "about an hour" (actually it would be more like 1:15), the Hiawatha train would act as a commuter train giving further reach to have commuter access to the congested Downtown Chicago (and Downtown Milwaukee is rush-hour congested as well).
The long-distance trains and many of the corridor trains are really not about congestion.
I have long commented in these parts that I believe that there is a National Heritage aspect to the long-distance trains -- the foreign tourism fits into this as well as domestic tourism. I have long argued that we have National Parks and that the scenic Western LD trains could follow a similar rationale. My understanding is that the Canadians went through this angst about subsidizing LD trains: they are down to the one cross-Canadian LD train, they offer a top-quality first-class service - at a price, they use F-40's and they use Heritage equipment they got cheap (from Amtrak), and they run long consists (the maximize the amount of train service for the slot on the railroad network).
I guess there is the accomodation aspect. If you are offering sleeping car service, by all means, you have to make it ADA compliant. The question is offering dining and sleeping car service an accomodation. You could argue that there are people sufficiently frail or with disabilities for whom airline, bus, or even rail coach travel without dining car meals, is an unreasonable burden. It is just that the multi-hundred dollar subsidy for a long-distance sleeping car passenger is a tough sell politically -- most people have made their peace with airline travel. We don't subsidize trans-Atlantic ships (anymore) because Aunt Hattie is too medically-impaired to board a 777 to visit cousin Alfred in London before he passes on.
Another argument is that the first-class service on the Empire Builder pays its own way (or at least reasonable direct costs) and that the subsidized coach service on the train serves as a lifeline to communities on the route without airlines or good roads. The I.G. Meade report uses Amtrak accounting to show that first-class passengers are getting a hefty subsidy. URPA argues that Amtrak accounting is all bogus and that first-class pays its way, but they are sketchy on numbers.
My take is that if first-class service on LD trains is to be part of the mix, we need to get a handle on cost accounting to demonstrate that it at least pays its incremental cost according to some metric or come up with a compelling social rationale for the subsidy.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Poppa_Zit wrote: Would it not make sense for the government to provide health care to the affluent to safeguard the well-being of its largest contributors to the tax pool?
Would it not make sense for the government to provide health care to the affluent to safeguard the well-being of its largest contributors to the tax pool?
No, not at all.
Poppa_Zit wrote: Another silly premise. To follow your thinking, what about all the able-bodied people who are just too lazy to work? Should the government subsidize them so they can possess the same things hard-working people own?
It was an intentionally facetious example (in rebuttal to the claim that there was a "duty" to seed tourism ), thank you for noticing
Suburban Station wrote:One wonders though, whether that moneywoudl be better spent funding multiple trains per day between sets of locations rather than one long train through all locations.
First of all, if one long distance train (LA to Chicago, say) a day is not making money, then I don't see how having multiple trains for each segment could possibly make any money. In addition, you then have to throw in the burden of getting luggage transferred, and the possibility of missed connections.
I personally would find a multiple train trip to be much less acceptable.
TheAntiGates wrote: It was an intentionally facetious example (in rebuttal to the claim that there was a "duty" to seed tourism ), thank you for noticing
Oh. So it must be my fault your thought-expressing is so grainy that it allows you to cry "satire" and "sarcasm" and now the newly-tooled 'I was just being "facetious" ' every time someone questions one of your nebulous statements.
Datafever wrote: I personally would find a multiple train trip to be much less acceptable.
I think that most people would agree. One of the reasons that the CA&E shut down was the loss of passengers due to the lack of a one seat ride. Once the CA&E was not allowed into downtown Chicago and the passengers where made to transfer to a CTA train, the passengers found other ways into the city rather quickly.
Bert
An "expensive model collector"
Datafever is correct. This was not only true of the CA&E but also of the Illinois Terminal streamliners, which due to a shocking design error, could not get to downtown Peoria but had to stop a streetcar ride across a bridge, and so the IT lost passenger business when they replaced conventional interurban cars with the streamliners. This was also true when the Red Arrow system decided the Lehigh Valley Transit Liberty Bell interurbans from Allentown could no longer access their high speed track to Upper Darby - 69th Street Market Street Elevated Terminal and forced passenger to make a simple same-platform change at Norristown. (Incidentally the much older freight box motors and trailers continued to run to the freight house near the 69th Street terminal!) A TRAINS article by Blossom in 1952 covered this situation. A one-seat ride is always preferred. And I am a skeptic on this use of a diesel railcar substitution for the Vermonter with change in New Haven. Not a good idea. Instead,I think Amtrak should look into an economical way of restoring the full Montrealer.
Handicapped access ramps and hard of hearing listening systems don't make money for theatre owners. Comparison with people who are lazy is insulting. There happens to be one Korean War Vet who lives near Alberguerque, NM. Once a year his relatives from Dallas drive up to visit him and once a year he uses an Amtrak sleeper to Chicago, one to Dallas, one back to Chicago, and one back to Alberquerque to return the visit. I think people like that deserve access to America.
As far as restaurants and tourist facilities somewhat removed from the Amtrak station, well there are local and connecting throughway buses, rental cars and taxis. But elderly and handicapped people shouldn't have to spend more than an hour or two in them to make the connections.
Poppa_Zit wrote: Oh. So it must be my fault your thought-expressing is so grainy that it allows you to cry "satire" and "sarcasm" and now the newly-tooled 'I was just being "facetious" ' every time someone questions one of your nebulous statements.
And it takes a big man to admit it, don't you feel better though?
I don't think that the statement in question was at all "nebulous", it was an obvious stab at the absurd. Just as absurd, in fact, as claiming the tax payer owes a duty to tourism .
daveklepper wrote:. There happens to be one Korean War Vet who lives near Alberguerque, NM. Once a year his relatives from Dallas drive up to visit him and once a year he uses an Amtrak sleeper to Chicago, one to Dallas, one back to Chicago, and one back to Alberquerque to return the visit. I think people like that deserve access to America.
. There happens to be one Korean War Vet who lives near Alberguerque, NM. Once a year his relatives from Dallas drive up to visit him and once a year he uses an Amtrak sleeper to Chicago, one to Dallas, one back to Chicago, and one back to Alberquerque to return the visit. I think people like that deserve access to America.
So, now you are claiming that the taxpayers have a duty to support Amtrak because some DAV's prefer passenger trains?
Often times I agree with you on issues, but this sure is not one of those times.
Datafever wrote: Suburban Station wrote:One wonders though, whether that moneywoudl be better spent funding multiple trains per day between sets of locations rather than one long train through all locations.First of all, if one long distance train (LA to Chicago, say) a day is not making money, then I don't see how having multiple trains for each segment could possibly make any money. In addition, you then have to throw in the burden of getting luggage transferred, and the possibility of missed connections.I personally would find a multiple train trip to be much less acceptable.
I'm not sure you understood the gist of what I said. the point wouldn't be to take someone to and from LA, but to and from KC...or KC to Denver...more than once a day. It might not make money but it surely would lose less than long distance trains which hardly anyone takes and are extremely labor intensive. The point was, if you broke up the routes, for the same money, you could serve many more riders but it would serve different functions. If you're going to keep these old routes, don't call it transportation, call it vacation. get carnival in there to put up a gambling car, unlimited tabs, dome cars, real chefs, etc. It's a land cruise.
Suburban Station wrote: Datafever wrote: Suburban Station wrote:One wonders though, whether that moneywoudl be better spent funding multiple trains per day between sets of locations rather than one long train through all locations.First of all, if one long distance train (LA to Chicago, say) a day is not making money, then I don't see how having multiple trains for each segment could possibly make any money. In addition, you then have to throw in the burden of getting luggage transferred, and the possibility of missed connections.I personally would find a multiple train trip to be much less acceptable. I'm not sure you understood the gist of what I said. the point wouldn't be to take someone to and from LA, but to and from KC...or KC to Denver...more than once a day. It might not make money but it surely would lose less than long distance trains which hardly anyone takes and are extremely labor intensive. The point was, if you broke up the routes, for the same money, you could serve many more riders but it would serve different functions. If you're going to keep these old routes, don't call it transportation, call it vacation. get carnival in there to put up a gambling car, unlimited tabs, dome cars, real chefs, etc. It's a land cruise.
Maybe I don't understand your point. Can we take the California Zephyr as an example? San Francisco to Chicago, one train a day, each way. As I understand it, you are advocating multiple trains between Chicago and Omaha, Omaha and Denver, Denver and Salt Lake City, and so on.
Let's take Omaha to Denver. Currently the CZ provides one train each direction between those two cities every day. What would be the benefit of having multiple trains providing passage between those two cities each day? If you run three trains a day, the operating cost will be three times what it costs CZ to operate once a day. Since I doubt that you would end up with three times the current ridership, the net result is that even more than three times the current amount of loss would occur.
Datafever wrote:Maybe I don't understand your point. Can we take the California Zephyr as an example? San Francisco to Chicago, one train a day, each way. As I understand it, you are advocating multiple trains between Chicago and Omaha, Omaha and Denver, Denver and Salt Lake City, and so on. Let's take Omaha to Denver. Currently the CZ provides one train each direction between those two cities every day. What would be the benefit of having multiple trains providing passage between those two cities each day? If you run three trains a day, the operating cost will be three times what it costs CZ to operate once a day. Since I doubt that you would end up with three times the current ridership, the net result is that even more than three times the current amount of loss would occur.
to build on the point that ridership build faster than costs, Equipment costs are much higher, labor costs lower as a % of revenue. I'd probably prefer to run Kc-Denver than Omaha-Denver. A daily Cincy-Chicago would be better then a three times a week NYP-Chicago via West Virginia in terms of providing what people want. I don't think that the Empire builder would do well split up though. The general idea is that instead of expensive long trains, you build ridership through shorter, more frequent service. more people ride the more frequent service and seats turn more often meaning more revenue. Ideally you have both, of course, but until the routes are all double tracked, they are going to continue to be poor peformers and hence...unreliable for shorter distances....thus much more expensive to operate. the GAO found the long distance trains to be what, 80% of the losses? 15% of the revenues?
Interesting, CG9602.
What if Amtrak's mission were to be just a LD train operation? In rough terms, operating trains twice a day (in each direction) sea-to-sea and border-to-border/coast, making stops 20-50 miles apart as needed. Would the political support necessary be there?
Do we know what the costs are of operating passenger trains? How much does it cost to maintain a Superliner car? How much fuel does it take (not system averages but by route segment)?
What are the on-train labor cost? The long-distance trains have much higher equipment utilization than corridor and especially commuter trains, but their labor must be more expensive because crews have to work odd ours far from home. What are the labor arrangements for the LD train crews (on time, off-duty time, layovers, deadheading) and how do they got paid for it, and how does that compare with corridor trains that seem more like 9-5 jobs?
I have said this before, but my dad has a neighbor, a truck driver turned farmer turned charter bus operator, and he has a barn full of shiny blue and white motor coachs. He advertises charters for various things. He must know what it costs to finance, maintain, pay for insurance and operate those buses, and as for the yuck factor of common-carrier buses, I am sure he has a well-mannered clientel who really enjoy those trips.
This charter bus operation doesn't need to pay track rights fees to the railroads, but the track rights fees are a small part of costs according the GAO and IG Meade and the lot.
What is so expensive of operating a train, both in capital and labor, compared with a charter bus operation? This charter bus operator must know the breakdown of his costs otherwise the bank wouldn't load him money for the buses -- how come Amtrak cost figures are so uncertain?
For October, 2006 (the last month for which data is available):
NEC Ticket revenue $69.9M NEC Operating expenses $46.1M
Corridor Ticket revenue $24.2M Corridor Operating expenses $41.1M
LD Ticket revenue $27.1M LD Operating expenses $66.5M
Paul M
Go to this page on the Amtrak site and check out the monthly reports.
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Copy/Title_Image_Copy_Page&c=am2Copy&cid=1081442674477&ssid=322
The first thing Dave Gunn did when he became Amtrak President was to get the bookkeeping straightened out. At the time it was so bad that there was not even an accurate tally of the cash on hand.
Now it is not a question of what is spent so much as it is an issue of how the expenditures are to be allocated to any given part of the service. As with any other railroad, Amtrak is faced with the issue of having to allocate a substantial portion of the total expense that can't be directly attributed to one given service. That is a problem caused by the costs for shared facilities such as stations and maintenance operations, and management salaries and expenses. A good cost accounting system will have a reasonable basis for allocating these cost back to each service, but it can be an area of controversy.
To illustrate the problem, say a certain train is reported to cost $1 million per year but only generates revenue of $800,000. A prudent business practise says that the service should be eliminated, but suppose the amount that would be saved, i.e, the direct cost, is only $500,000. By eliminating the train revenue drops $800,000 but cost only drops by $500,000. The action reduces company total profits (loss) by $300,000. Kind of the spot between a rock and a hard place.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
Datafever wrote: Suburban Station wrote: Datafever wrote: Suburban Station wrote:One wonders though, whether that moneywoudl be better spent funding multiple trains per day between sets of locations rather than one long train through all locations.First of all, if one long distance train (LA to Chicago, say) a day is not making money, then I don't see how having multiple trains for each segment could possibly make any money. In addition, you then have to throw in the burden of getting luggage transferred, and the possibility of missed connections.I personally would find a multiple train trip to be much less acceptable. I'm not sure you understood the gist of what I said. the point wouldn't be to take someone to and from LA, but to and from KC...or KC to Denver...more than once a day. It might not make money but it surely would lose less than long distance trains which hardly anyone takes and are extremely labor intensive. The point was, if you broke up the routes, for the same money, you could serve many more riders but it would serve different functions. If you're going to keep these old routes, don't call it transportation, call it vacation. get carnival in there to put up a gambling car, unlimited tabs, dome cars, real chefs, etc. It's a land cruise. Maybe I don't understand your point. Can we take the California Zephyr as an example? San Francisco to Chicago, one train a day, each way. As I understand it, you are advocating multiple trains between Chicago and Omaha, Omaha and Denver, Denver and Salt Lake City, and so on.Let's take Omaha to Denver. Currently the CZ provides one train each direction between those two cities every day. What would be the benefit of having multiple trains providing passage between those two cities each day? If you run three trains a day, the operating cost will be three times what it costs CZ to operate once a day. Since I doubt that you would end up with three times the current ridership, the net result is that even more than three times the current amount of loss would occur.
I think what he's talking about is the idea of eliminating LD trains but maintaining LD connectivity via a more hub and spoke system of intermediate distance trains. Use the 24 hour/overnight concept between cities via dedicated trains, and if someone is in it for the LD haul, they switch from the "Point A to Point B" train to the "Point B to Point C" train, etc.
Generally, the problem with the LD trains isn't the ridership, it's the performance and cost. On many of the routes, their is a need for more capacity, both host road trackage and, to a lesser extent, Amtrak equipment. Amtrak has zero dollars for any capacity expansion, so the question becomes where to find the money. Kummant seems to be of a mind that money should come from public/private and State/Amtrak partnerships and the target should be corridor travel where he believes there are major growth opportunities.
If there exist potential corridors along the existing LD routes, then these partnerships can be developed to fund the necessary investment. The midwest and southeast LD routes would seem to be ideal candidates as they connect lots of decent sized population centers.
An example: The Crecent connects the NEC with Charlotteville, Greensboro, Charlotte, Spartansburg, Greenville, Anderson (Clemson U), Atlanta, Birmingham and Tuscaloosa (U of Alabama) before trundling off into sticks on the way to New Orleans. NC is already trying to play connect the dots with Chartlotte, Greensboro and Raleigh, but south of there, SC, GA, and AL are not interested other than to study the living daylights out of it. I think that if the Fed would show up with money on the same basis as highway money, that would generate some traction something might happen.
If Amtrak can interest AL, GA and SC in joining in NC's (and VA's) fun, then there's the real chance of developing multiple freqency operation along the route. As it is now, GA can get 80% funding to do another lane on I-85 and not have to bother with cooperating with any other state gov'ts. To do pass rail development, they get far less federal money, it would only be available if they could coordinate with other states on the route and the capital savings from doing rail rather than road is not available in any form to offset the ongoing operating costs.
The Lott/Lautenberg bill and Kummants leadership might just change game.....or not. This is Amtrak we're talking about, after all.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
futuremodal wrote:I think what he's talking about is the idea of eliminating LD trains but maintaining LD connectivity via a more hub and spoke system of intermediate distance trains. Use the 24 hour/overnight concept between cities via dedicated trains, and if someone is in it for the LD haul, they switch from the "Point A to Point B" train to the "Point B to Point C" train, etc.
I'm sorry, but I just can't see anyone travelling from LA to Chicago if they have to make 5 different connections, each with multi-hour layovers and/or overnights. Such a system would probably be the end of long distance train travel.
CG9602 wrote:The GAO report has been accused of inaccurate cost statements. The total Amtrak "loss" last year was $ 1.3 billion, of which LD trains account for $ 350 million. The rest of the "loss" is generated by the shorter distance trains and the North East Corridor.
I'm not going to speak to the passenger mile traffic as the stat itself is rather meaningless. Operating losses are somewhat greater than $350 million and to some extent are understated be/c they use facilities that are largely paid for by the NEC (a good chunk of the rest of the loss is capital, LD accounts for 80% of the operating loss). It's also important to note that the NEC has it's riders managed. ever compare a fare for Was-NYP to NYP-Chicago? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out your revenue per mile is far higher on the NEC. Additionally, lucrative NYP slots are given to long distance trains.
CG9602 wrote:From a financial aspect, the 15 trains in the long distance network, on average each generate $23,868,066 in gross revenue (before any subsidy), and the 142 trains in the NEC and short distance networks only generate $7,035,810 each on average in gross revenue.
I'm not sure where this cam efrom but it's wrong.
CG9602 wrote: The average load factor on the 15 long distance network trains was 55.1%, on the 102 short distance trains, 40.7%, and 45.2% on NEC trains. Source: URPA and Amtrak.
assuming the load factors are accurate off course, it's comparing apples to oranges. the nec runs far more trains and charges far more per mile. It's load factors are also designed to be that way through pricing (otherwise the prices woudl be the same as other trains AFAIK).there's a lot of bad information out there and it's generally used by long distance train supporters.
Datafever wrote: futuremodal wrote: I think what he's talking about is the idea of eliminating LD trains but maintaining LD connectivity via a more hub and spoke system of intermediate distance trains. Use the 24 hour/overnight concept between cities via dedicated trains, and if someone is in it for the LD haul, they switch from the "Point A to Point B" train to the "Point B to Point C" train, etc.I'm sorry, but I just can't see anyone travelling from LA to Chicago if they have to make 5 different connections, each with multi-hour layovers and/or overnights. Such a system would probably be the end of long distance train travel.
futuremodal wrote: I think what he's talking about is the idea of eliminating LD trains but maintaining LD connectivity via a more hub and spoke system of intermediate distance trains. Use the 24 hour/overnight concept between cities via dedicated trains, and if someone is in it for the LD haul, they switch from the "Point A to Point B" train to the "Point B to Point C" train, etc.
Well, a hub and spoke system utilizing HSR would probably result in faster travel time overall than current LD's, even with changing trains and layovers. LD's don't exactly break any speed records, so my thought is that those who choose to travel by Amtrak's LD's aren't too concerned about keeping a tight schedule, more than likely it's leisure travel. What a hub and spoke HSR does is to capture the scheduled traveller from the airlines between those intermediate distances, while also allowing the sight see'ers to tag along on the same consists. E.g., you've doubled your prospective clientele.
Well, that's the problem right there -- the question of marginal costs vs allocated costs. The proper response to the I. G. Meade report is to say yes, based on fully-allocated costs, the first-class passengers are receiving hundreds of dollars in subsidy for every trip, but based on marginal costs, the first-class passengers with their sleeping cars and dining cars are contributing to the bottom line. The Empire Builder receives subsidy, yes, and it serves multiple purposes and multiple markets, including lifeline service to the small towns, and the high-fare paying first class passengers are covering their part of the incremental cost of providing that service plus a little bit extra, and therefore those passengers are not a public expenditure but are in a small way contributing to the operation of the Empire Builder which serves many other purposes.
At least that is what we should be saying it it were true, and if we could find such a thing to be true (that first-class passengers are covering their marginal costs), we need to be shouting this from every mountain top. But is it true? URPA famously claims it is and NARP believes it. But where are the numbers? I have looked at those Amtrak monthly reports and other statements, and I haven't found evidence of this (yet). I have looked at URPA's Web site, and I have yet to see hard numbers on their claims.
The I.G. Meade report argues that first-class passengers are carried at a loss, any way you crunch the numbers. The claim is that the revenue is lower than you might think (the figure is 20 cents/mile) on account of various forms of discounting from "full fare." The claim is that operating costs are higher than you might think, by allocating the direct operating costs of the baggage car, diner, lounge car, crew dorm, sleeping cars, and the second P42 locomotive to first class along with the wages of all of the crew members associated with this.
One of the way the Meade report comes up with its numbers is that it reports rather high numbers to the cost of owning and operating a Superliner car. You could argue that the marginal cost of operating a Superliner car is the cost of emptying the holding tanks and changing brake pads, but that argument is coy because a Superliner car released from sleeper service could be rebuilt (at some expense) to carry coach passengers, and even if the argument was operating sleepers vs selling them to Canada, it costs money (that Amtrak apparently doesn't have judging by the dead line at Beech Grove) to keep those sleeping cars in operation. So why does it cost so much money to keep Superliner cars out on the road? How come my dad's neighbor with the blue and white charter buses kept in his cow barn doesn't face the same level of expense? Is the hourly rate of operating a Superliner car padded with all manner of management and NEC capital expense, or does it really take buckets of money to keep one of those things rolling?
You are really making some serious assumptions about the viability of the neighbor's charter bus operation. However, one thing is certain. The his costs for wages, benefits and payroll taxes per employee will be nowhere near that faced by Amtrak. Unless the neighbor wants to send me a copy of his books, I have no way of trying to make any comparisons to his bus service and Amtrak sleeper service.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the Amtrak IG report said that sleeper service has a $100 million loss. FY 2006 reported sleeper revenue of $135 million. It follows that in order to cut the overall Amtrak deficit by the $100 million through elimination of sleeper service it would be necessary to cut costs by $235 million. Since I don't have any idea as to how the costs break out, I can't state for certain that the cost reduction could or could not be accomplished.
If the service had been eliminated for FY 2006 and the the $100 million savings had been realized, then the Federal Amtrak Grant operations could have been reduced to $385 million and the total grant would have dropped to $1.1 billion.
CG9602 wrote:Suburban Station, the source for my figures was Amtrak itself - their own numbers. As for operating losses being paid for by the NEC, I think it is the other way around. The operating cost of the NEC is/are what creates the losses for the entire system, combined with Amtrak's overhead "Administrative" costs.
Let's ignore, for the moment, Admin costs since we don't know how they break down. I'd appreciate a direct link because I see what datafever posted and it contradicts your assertions, as far as I can tell.
NEC Ticket revenue $69.9MNEC Operating expenses $46.1M
Gross Profit: $23.8
Annualized: $285.6
Corridor Ticket revenue $24.2MCorridor Operating expenses $41.1M
Gross Profit: -$16.9
Annualized: -$202.8
LD Ticket revenue $27.1MLD Operating expenses $66.5M
Gross Profit:$-39.4
Annualized: -$472.8
This assumes there is no seasonality to the revenues (which is obviously invalid) but the general gist of the numbers is clear. As I mentioned, I believe that long distance in the east is actually understated since it benefits from access to NYP which is paid for by the NEC. Moreover, station costs, where applicable, is largely borne by the corridor trains.
CG9602 wrote:As for the passenger mile traffic, how can you say that the stat is meaningiless when the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the STB, and the AAR all use Revenue Passenger Miles to measure profit or loss for passenger carriers?
Seems to me profit and loss can be measured with P&L statements.
CG9602 wrote:Ridership tells you nothing about how long each passenger rode, or how much the carrier is paid for transporting the passenger.
it's seems fairly obvious to me, and I may be missing something, that Amtrak receives more revenue per mile of operating cost on a $60 ticket for PHL-NYP than an $80 ticket from NYP-CHI. Heck, even if it's a $45 ticket.
CG9602 wrote:The Revenue Passenger Mile does, though. It is the ridership numbers which are meaningless, not the RPM numbers. The industry does not measure things in terms of "per passenger," because that figure is the inaccurate unit.
maybe we shouldn;t be taking cues form an industry that doesn't know how to measure profit. However, ridership is important, as it indicates how many people are using the service. It isn't useful is you're trying to compare routes though.
CG9602 wrote:The operating loss for all of NRPC, aka Amtrak, is $ 1.3 billion. Only $ 350 million of that is attributable to the LD network - the rest of the loss is from these shorter distance trains. Care to explain how $ 350 million is 80 percent of $ 1.3 billion?
It was my understandign that Amtrak's total subsidy was $1.3 bn. I'm not familiar with how much goes to Corp Admin, Capital, and Operating.
CG9602 wrote:Amtrak has been criticised before for cooking the books in favor of the shorter distance corridors, while others have argued that it is the LD trains and not the capital intensive NEC, which are the money makers for Amtrak. For the shorter distance trains, how many seat-miles could be generated by each train, versus the seat-miles for a longer distance train? How much potential revenue could be generated by the longer distance trains compared with the shorter distance trains?
criticized by whom? and what proof did they have?
CG9602 wrote:On a completely different tangent, if the Elected Representatives want to use federal money for the NEC, then those of us who live in fly over country want our train (s) as well.
which is why people in the NEC want it to be split off. There's even a private offer on the table. Peopel tire of hearing incorrect data about how the NEc shouldn't get this or that. Traffic congestion and population density make it somewhat of a unique market of which only California approaches. People take trains in Europe,but traffic is an absolute nightmare in many places there.
Summarized from Amtrak's monthly performance reports:
NEC State Corridor Long Distance Revenues 751.9 302.0 388.8 Expenses 550.9 538.8 843.3
For the period of twelve months ending October 2006
Revenues include ticket revenue + Food & Beverage revenue (higher for LD)
State Corridor receives about 65% of deficit from states, rest is from fed
Almost all LD deficit comes from fed (not counting that portion covered by NEC surplus)
While there is seasonal variation in revenues & expenses, the month to month percentages remain fairly constant
End point to end point travel is only a small piece of the total market of the western LD trains. As a % of total trips between LA and Chicago, the train has such a small % as to be meaningless.
The only way that LD train travel will be able to survive is by improving the labor and equipment productivity - that's where all the cost is.
Recognizing that there are corridors embedded within the current LD routes doesn't mean the end of through traffic. It might just mean that some small number of through coaches and sleepers may connect between trains on the route.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.