sam1 and Don: I realize the various per mile statistics have been used a long time, but it doesn't show as clearly how much it costs to transport one person in the different modes. Since we all should realize Amtrak is not able to cover capital costs, including depreciation on the NEC (which is mostly Amtrak-owned) distorts the expense. Better to use operating expense per passenger, gain or loss. So sam, since you have those numbers, what would the answers to the calculation be?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
DwightBranch I am a professor of political economy, do not try to (...) me with statistics.
I am a professor of political economy, do not try to (...) me with statistics.
I have a modest proposal. A person claiming authority based on academic credentials should disclose their name (and affiliation if needed to distinguish between multiple scholars with a more common name) in a form that is searchable on the bibliographic databases for their scholarly writings.
To see what a person has written gives a better sense of where "they are coming from" with regards to how arguments in a controversial discussion should be presented.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Sam1 schlimm Since the purpose of any means of passenger transportation is to provide an efficient method that people use to get from one place to another, a useful metric would be the revenue, expenses and net loss or surplus per passenger (not per passenger mile, since the mileage is largely irrelevant in examining the way people are being served) on long distance, the NEC, and other corridor services of Amtrak and compare. One advantage is it examines the issue within Amtrak alone and thus avoids the endless and fruitless arguments about subsidies for road, air and rail. Unfortunately, that is still (over one year and counting!!) not available b/c Amtrak is changing accounting methods. However, someone might have that data from the past. In FY10 the average losses per Amtrak passenger were $48.67 for the NEC, $21.68 for the short corridor trains, and $144.15 for the long distance trains. Amtrak does not publish this figure. To get there I assigned 80 per cent of the depreciation, interest, and management overheads to the NEC, with the remaining 20 per cent accuring equally to the short corridor and long distance trains. Using revenue, cost, and gains or losses per passenger mile, seat mile, vehicle mile traveled, etc. has been the basis for normalizing cross mode cost comparisons since I minored in transportation economics as an undergraduate student. No matter how one slices and dices the numbers, Amtrak's long distance trains are the biggest drag on its financial results.
schlimm Since the purpose of any means of passenger transportation is to provide an efficient method that people use to get from one place to another, a useful metric would be the revenue, expenses and net loss or surplus per passenger (not per passenger mile, since the mileage is largely irrelevant in examining the way people are being served) on long distance, the NEC, and other corridor services of Amtrak and compare. One advantage is it examines the issue within Amtrak alone and thus avoids the endless and fruitless arguments about subsidies for road, air and rail. Unfortunately, that is still (over one year and counting!!) not available b/c Amtrak is changing accounting methods. However, someone might have that data from the past.
Since the purpose of any means of passenger transportation is to provide an efficient method that people use to get from one place to another, a useful metric would be the revenue, expenses and net loss or surplus per passenger (not per passenger mile, since the mileage is largely irrelevant in examining the way people are being served) on long distance, the NEC, and other corridor services of Amtrak and compare. One advantage is it examines the issue within Amtrak alone and thus avoids the endless and fruitless arguments about subsidies for road, air and rail. Unfortunately, that is still (over one year and counting!!) not available b/c Amtrak is changing accounting methods. However, someone might have that data from the past.
In FY10 the average losses per Amtrak passenger were $48.67 for the NEC, $21.68 for the short corridor trains, and $144.15 for the long distance trains. Amtrak does not publish this figure. To get there I assigned 80 per cent of the depreciation, interest, and management overheads to the NEC, with the remaining 20 per cent accuring equally to the short corridor and long distance trains.
Using revenue, cost, and gains or losses per passenger mile, seat mile, vehicle mile traveled, etc. has been the basis for normalizing cross mode cost comparisons since I minored in transportation economics as an undergraduate student.
No matter how one slices and dices the numbers, Amtrak's long distance trains are the biggest drag on its financial results.
I like your 80/20 guestimate much better than Amtrak's "n/a".
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Phoebe Vet In medicine it is called triage. When you do not have enough resources to go around you assign priorities. Amtrak does not now, nor will it ever, have enough money to serve every community in the USA. They can serve many people with a useless system that doesn't fit anyone's needs, or they can serve some people with an effective transportation system. Logic dictates that the latter be implemented in high density population centers so that it will serve the largest number of people.
In medicine it is called triage. When you do not have enough resources to go around you assign priorities.
Amtrak does not now, nor will it ever, have enough money to serve every community in the USA. They can serve many people with a useless system that doesn't fit anyone's needs, or they can serve some people with an effective transportation system. Logic dictates that the latter be implemented in high density population centers so that it will serve the largest number of people.
To continue your metaphor, in medicine we don't force the doctors to operate using stone knives and bearskins, and when patients keep dying throw up our hands and give up. Our country is materially the richest in the world in terms of GDP, it can certainly afford more than the roughly $1b we spend on passenger rail transportation every year, in a country three thousand miles long by one thousand miles wide. We aren't dealing with scarce resources, we are dealing with misplaced priorities. We spend around $70b per year on highways, 15% of that would enable frequent arrivals and departures, economies of scale, etc. on the long distance routes. In the interim, maintaining the system the way it is, both for those who patronize it (who get short shrift on this board because they aren't professionals nor suburbanites) and as a framework for eventual expansion is the best alternative.
Paul Milenkovic DwightBranch I am a professor of political economy, do not try to (...) me with statistics. I have a modest proposal. A person claiming authority based on academic credentials should disclose their name (and affiliation if needed to distinguish between multiple scholars with a more common name) in a form that is searchable on the bibliographic databases for their scholarly writings. To see what a person has written gives a better sense of where "they are coming from" with regards to how arguments in a controversial discussion should be presented.
No way, I don't want stalkers, and I think you are crazy for putting your name out there, no one else here does. If I were you I wouldn't want people poking around on your ratemyprofessors.com profile.
DwightBranchNo way, I don't want stalkers, and I think you are crazy for putting your name out there, no one else here does. If I were you I wouldn't want people poking around on your ratemyprofessors.com profile.
You are not making any sense to me. You don't publish papers and put your name "out there"?
It your rating on ratemyprofessors that bad?
So, we just have to take your word on your credentials? Okay, then I better get back to my work confirming Higgs Boson. I've got the accelerator from 11 to midnight.
DwightBranch Paul Milenkovic DwightBranch I am a professor of political economy, do not try to (...) me with statistics. I have a modest proposal. A person claiming authority based on academic credentials should disclose their name (and affiliation if needed to distinguish between multiple scholars with a more common name) in a form that is searchable on the bibliographic databases for their scholarly writings. To see what a person has written gives a better sense of where "they are coming from" with regards to how arguments in a controversial discussion should be presented. No way, I don't want stalkers, and I think you are crazy for putting your name out there, no one else here does. If I were you I wouldn't want people poking around on your ratemyprofessors.com profile.
schlimm Perhaps those of us who prefer to use a pseudonym, whatever our occupational backgrounds, should therefore refrain from referencing anonymous credentials as a way to buttress our positions through an appeal to authority.
There are a few people on the main and locomotive boards whose opinions I respect that claim to be locomotive engineers, but I don't demand access to their personnel records as proof.
DwightBranchwe are dealing with misplaced priorities. We spend around $70b per year on highways, 15% of that would enable frequent arrivals and departures, economies of scale, etc. on the long distance routes. In the interim, maintaining the system the way it is, both for those who patronize it (who get short shrift on this board because they aren't professionals nor suburbanites) and as a framework for eventual e
Okay.
"misplaced priorities" is an opinion or a judgement, but fair enough. You are entitled and most of us here want to see more investment.
Investing 10B or so in passenger rail each year may not be a bad thing. What's the criteria for the investment or goal of the operation? Is this to be capital and operating subsidy? Or, all operating subsidy? All capital? Do we do this within the framework of Amtrak? Get state support? Subsidize private investors?
If we want this to happen, we have to get enough people to agree and push in that direction. You are using the "Amtrak as a placeholder" argument. What are the next steps? Lay it out there, man!
DwightBranch schlimm Perhaps those of us who prefer to use a pseudonym, whatever our occupational backgrounds, should therefore refrain from referencing anonymous credentials as a way to buttress our positions through an appeal to authority. There are a few people on the main and locomotive boards whose opinions I respect that claim to be locomotive engineers, but I don't demand access to their personnel records as proof.
You mean locomotive engineers, I presume. They have all posted who they work for and where they work, though.
Henry6 is right, these threads started by the anti-Amtrak types here are disingenuous and intended "to slam Amtrak and not giving it a defense", not a legitimate debate.
If you wish to continue to believe your delusions about the motivations of those who have the audacity to disagree with your ideas in regard to Amtrak, go ahead, but you are beginning to sound like you actually work for a PR agency that propagandizes for LD Amtrak.
DwightBranch Phoebe Vet In medicine it is called triage. When you do not have enough resources to go around you assign priorities. Amtrak does not now, nor will it ever, have enough money to serve every community in the USA. They can serve many people with a useless system that doesn't fit anyone's needs, or they can serve some people with an effective transportation system. Logic dictates that the latter be implemented in high density population centers so that it will serve the largest number of people. To continue your metaphor, in medicine we don't force the doctors to operate using stone knives and bearskins, and when patients keep dying throw up our hands and give up. Our country is materially the richest in the world in terms of GDP, it can certainly afford more than the roughly $1b we spend on passenger rail transportation every year, in a country three thousand miles long by one thousand miles wide. We aren't dealing with scarce resources, we are dealing with misplaced priorities. We spend around $70b per year on highways, 15% of that would enable frequent arrivals and departures, economies of scale, etc. on the long distance routes. In the interim, maintaining the system the way it is, both for those who patronize it (who get short shrift on this board because they aren't professionals nor suburbanites) and as a framework for eventual expansion is the best alternative.
The metaphor is not about what tools or meds the Dr. has available to him at the time. It is about prioritizing the resources you have available when you don't have enough for everyone.
That said, it is obvious your every reply is going to insist that Amtrak be better funded, so I'm out of here.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
This thread has drifted off the topic of discussing the future of passenger service and has landed only short of name calling. Better to move on ...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.