schlimm The ideas expressed should be able to stand on their own merit without the constant appeals to authority, i.e., credentials.
The ideas expressed should be able to stand on their own merit without the constant appeals to authority, i.e., credentials.
I am not seeking your support for my views. Accordingly, don't pay any attention to my credentials and experience.
Yeah I lie a lot and make up stories. Maybe I'm trying to break through your inpenetrable wall of knowing it all. Oh, I am checking out of this discussion with you because you've got all the answers and don't accept anybody elses answers or knowledge. So why bother. SUbsidies are bad, Amtrak is bad and I am bad.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
henry6 undoubtedly committed the 'cardinal sin' of referring to "all corporations" being subsidized [very little in the real world falls into the "all or none" or "always or never" dichotomies]. Nevertheless, through indirect subsidies and externalized costs (eg., environmental) that are not part of the cost of business but passed on to the government and us taxpayers, he may be not so far off the mark.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
If, as you say, private businesses do not receive subsidies to cover annual losses, Sam, perhaps the reason is that the subsidies are paid earlier which allows the businesses to show profits. At least the Cato Institute thinks so. Cato argues the Federal Government in 2001 subsidized businesses with $93 billion. And that is typical. Here is a link to a long list of Cato reports:
http://www.cato.org/search_results.php?q=subsidized+businesses&btnG.x=-581&btnG.y=-11&btnG=Search&site=cato_all&client=cato-org&filter=p&lr=lang_en&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=cato-org&proxyreload=1&getfields=summary
John WR If, as you say, private businesses do not receive subsidies to cover annual losses, Sam, perhaps the reason is that the subsidies are paid earlier which allows the businesses to show profits. At least the Cato Institute thinks so. Cato argues the Federal Government in 2001 subsidized businesses with $93 billion. And that is typical. Here is a link to a long list of Cato reports: http://www.cato.org/search_results.php?q=subsidized+businesses&btnG.x=-581&btnG.y=-11&btnG=Search&site=cato_all&client=cato-org&filter=p&lr=lang_en&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=cato-org&proxyreload=1&getfields=summary
I was pushing back on the argument that all businesses are subsidized. I also noted that in select instances businesses receive tax advantages that do not flow to other businesses and could be classified as a subsidy.
Moreover, as I noted in another post, one can argue that barge lines receive a subsidy in that the marine diesel taxes that they pay do not provide sufficient funds to cover the cost of maintaining the inland waterways locks. This would be a valid argument if one assumes that the dams that blocked navigation of the inland waterways were constructed purely for the benefit of the barge operators. That would be a difficult argument to support.
Frankly, if you find the Cato argument persuasive, please summarize it. If you cannot do that, don't expect me to chase it. Moreover, $93 billion in an economy of more than $15.1 trillion is hardly what one schooled in economics would call significant. Assuming the number is valid, it would be 62/100s of one per cent of GDP, which represents the value of the goods and services produced by commerce in the United States. Whoops, I overlooked the date. The year for your figures is 2001, which is my math is correct is 11 years ago. Makes for pretty stale data.
Now to the main point. What does this have to do with passenger trains? Or Amtrak? Its time to get back to focusing on Amtrak, since it is and is likely to remain the U.S. intercity passenger train operator.
I made a typo, Sam. The date is 2007, not 2001. But Cato reports there are similar amounts every year.
Frankly, I think we are a complex society and the entanglements of the public and private sectors taken as a whole do after all give us our $15.1 trillion economy so I find it hard to go to the mat to oppose these entanglements. That is why I refer to an organization like Cato.
You had rebuked Henry for his lack of facts. The Cato site is the closest I could come to add some facts to the discussion which is why I used it. But I can understand that you find it pretty tedious to go through.
If, as you suggest, 93 billion is pretty small potatoes compared to the whole economy it is hard for me to see a good reason to go after Amtrak.
John WR I made a typo, Sam. The date is 2007, not 2001. But Cato reports there are similar amounts every year. Frankly, I think we are a complex society and the entanglements of the public and private sectors taken as a whole do after all give us our $15.1 trillion economy so I find it hard to go to the mat to oppose these entanglements. That is why I refer to an organization like Cato. You had rebuked Henry for his lack of facts. The Cato site is the closest I could come to add some facts to the discussion which is why I used it. But I can understand that you find it pretty tedious to go through. If, as you suggest, 93 billion is pretty small potatoes compared to the whole economy it is hard for me to see a good reason to go after Amtrak.
The first post dealt with fuel taxes paid by truckers vs. the property taxes paid by the railroads.The author claimed that excluding the diesel burned by the nation's railroads did not constitute a subsidy. I don't recall saying anything about Amtrak.
Summarize what Cato said. Include an analysis of the statistical methodogy used to obtain the information. I don't find anything too tedious to go through as long as it is factual and based on relevant methodology; 2007 data is five years old. Less dated than 2001, but still getting long in the tooth.
I seldom rely on the data published by a partisan institution, i.e. Cato, Brookings, NARP, etc. I almost always go to the primary data base, i.e. IRS, Amtrak, FRA, DOT, Highway Trust Fund, etc., download the data into a spreadsheet, and slice and dice it. That way I get the data without having it filtered by a partisan organization.
The reason to question the subsidies paid to Amtrak is because of the amount per passenger mile. They are the highest transport subsidies by as much as 20 times those for other modes of transport. That's in my spread sheets.
In part, because of these subsidies, Amtrak runs long distance trains that carry less than one per cent of intercity travelers, which is not the best allocation of the country's resources. Moreover they add up. Since its inception Amtrak has lost more than $28 billion. This information can be found in the Amtrak FY11 financials if you want to verify it.
The key question is where does passenger rail make sense? What should it look like and how should it be funded?
"Include an analysis of the statistical methodogy used to obtain the information. I don't find anything too tedious to go through as long as it is factual and based on relevant methodology; 2007 data is five years old."
Yes, sam1, perhaps you might do the same thing with your information that you command others to do with theirs?
uuummmm...we ALL pay some sort of tax/subsidy whatever. Yes, even your necessary other...the business person. None are exempt...
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
schlimm "Include an analysis of the statistical methodogy used to obtain the information. I don't find anything too tedious to go through as long as it is factual and based on relevant methodology; 2007 data is five years old." Yes, sam1, perhaps you might do the same thing with your information that you command others to do with theirs?
The statistical information that I present speaks for itself and does not require further elaboration, i.e. the number of corporations in the U.S. with a tax liability is 3.5 million. If someone wants to verify that number, they can do so by going to the IRS statistics website. Or that 2.8 per cent of business start-ups receive some form of government funding. Again, the number speaks for itself. If someone wants to verify this fact or wants more information, they can find it on the SBA website.
JohnWR said wrongly that U.S. businesses received $93 billion in subsidies in 2001, which he then corrected to 2007. I'll take the number although it is out of date. I don't need to drill into it any further. It is a very small percentage of the U.S. economy. If he believes that it is sufficient information to support henry6's contention that all businesses in the U.S. are subsidized, that is his choice. If he believes that the Cato Institute is a better source of information than the BEA and SBA primary databases, that too is his choice. I disagree with him and you.
If you have any questions regarding the data and are unable to navigate the websites, feel free to ask them. I confess that it takes a background in accounting, finance and statistics to unravel some of the data.
Sam1 The reason to question the subsidies paid to Amtrak is because of the amount per passenger mile. They are the highest transport subsidies by as much as 20 times those for other modes of transport. That's in my spread sheets.
My first reaction was to doubt the 20 times figure but as I thought more about it, it began to pass my "smell test". Common sense suggests that there's a relationship between usage and the subsidy per passenger mile. The higher the usage, the lower the subsidy and conversely, as in the case of Amtrak, the lower the usage, the greater the subsidy per passenger mile.
Since you've already done the analysis, would you consider sharing with us what your spread sheets show to be the subsidy per passenger mile for the different modes of transport? These data should put to rest many of the arguments (my own included) presented on this and the other locked thread which are based on emotion and snippets of knowledge.
Sam1 Amtrak runs long distance trains that carry less than one per cent of intercity travelers, which is not the best allocation of the country's resources.
Amtrak runs long distance trains that carry less than one per cent of intercity travelers, which is not the best allocation of the country's resources.
Few passengers ride LD trains their entire route from from one end point terminal to the other (NEC excepted). The vast majority ride between intermediate stops or from an intermediate stop and an end point terminal. This suggest to me that perhaps we should think of LD trains as being akin to Essential Air Service (EAS). My knowledge of EAS is limited to its objective which I believe is to establish or maintain air transport to smaller cites that might otherwise be neglected by the airlines in favor of their more densely travelled and therefore more profitable routes. If the data is available it would be interesting to see a comparison of the subsidy per passenger mile paid for EAS vs that paid for LD Amtrak service.
Sam1 Since its inception Amtrak has lost more than $28 billion. This information can be found in the Amtrak FY11 financials if you want to verify it.
Since its inception Amtrak has lost more than $28 billion. This information can be found in the Amtrak FY11 financials if you want to verify it.
After adjustments for inflation doesn't the data show a reduction in yearly Amtrak losses that corresponds with the increases in ridership in recent years?
Sam1 The key question is where does passenger rail make sense? What should it look like and how should it be funded?
I totally agree!! This should be the basis for any further discussions.
As always, thank you, Sam, for your insightful comments and for the work you have done to develop the information on which they are based. Any comments on the points I have brought up in this reply would likewise be appreciated.
Mark
Just stepped in in a moment of boredom and read thru some ot the stuff here. I will take back my statement about Sam having all the answers. If everyone steps back and reads all arguements presented Sam it is apparent she does not have all the answers but the only answer...at least the only one she'll accept. The rest of you guys are wasting a lot of keyboard strokes trying to change her mind or win one single concession. There is a counter statement to everyone's statements and a refusal to accept anyone's observations or statements...That's why I got frustrated and gave up.
Henry; affter reading much of sam's posts it seems that the gist comes from the play book of the lobbying outfit of ALEC.
...and so the truth lies somewhere in the middle...and it just may be closer to Sam1's points than some like.....oh well, oops....
I still think city pairs would work. And only city pairs...one way...offer bonds....
henry6 Just stepped in in a moment of boredom and read thru some ot the stuff here. I will take back my statement about Sam having all the answers. If everyone steps back and reads all arguements presented Sam it is apparent she does not have all the answers but the only answer...at least the only one she'll accept. The rest of you guys are wasting a lot of keyboard strokes trying to change her mind or win one single concession. There is a counter statement to everyone's statements and a refusal to accept anyone's observations or statements...That's why I got frustrated and gave up.
The counter statement only comes when the presenting statement is wrong, i.e. wide sweeping generalizations without any supporting evidence. My arguments are almost always buttressed with verifiable financial data and statistics. That is not going to change.
blue streak 1 Henry; affter reading much of sam's posts it seems that the gist comes from the play book of the lobbiying outfit of ALEC.
Henry; affter reading much of sam's posts it seems that the gist comes from the play book of the lobbiying outfit of ALEC.
You don't have a clue about my politics. Now, just what factual evidence to do you have to refute which point?
Sam1 blue streak 1 Henry; affter reading much of sam's posts it seems that the gist comes from the play book of the lobbiying outfit of ALEC. You don't have a clue about my politics. Now, just what factual evidence to do you have to refute which point?
Can someone attempt to argue to the point instead of throwing what appears to be conspiracies around?
She has facts and figures here and still some seem hung up on her 'politics'...whatever that might be.
Sam1 Moreover, as I noted in another post, one can argue that barge lines receive a subsidy in that the marine diesel taxes that they pay do not provide sufficient funds to cover the cost of maintaining the inland waterways locks. This would be a valid argument if one assumes that the dams that blocked navigation of the inland waterways were constructed purely for the benefit of the barge operators. That would be a difficult argument to support.
No, it's a very easy argument to support. All you have to do is quote the US Army Corps of Engineers. They operate the locks and dams and keep the river dredged. The locks and dams are purely for the benefit of the barge operators. They are not for flood control.
"Dams are built on rivers to hold back water and form deeper navigation "pools." Most pools in the United States are maintained at a constant minimum water depth of 9 feet for safe navigation. Dams allow river vessels to use a series of locks to "step" up or down the river from one water level to another. The Corps operates the locks and dams on the Mississippi River for navigation, not flood control. The locks and dams create slack-water pools for navigation during periods of low- and moderate-level water. For each pool, there is a primary control point, where a predetermined water elevation must be kept for navigation to continue."
http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/navigation/default.asp?pageid=145
I think you would have a very hard time finding an economist, at least one who didn't work for the American Waterways Council, who believes it's a good economic policy to subsidize the barges like the government does.
Now, back to Amtrak.
blownout cylinder Can someone attempt to argue to the point instead of throwing what appears to be conspiracies around?
OK. As I said earlier, henry6 undoubtedly committed the 'cardinal sin' of referring to "all corporations" being subsidized. Nevertheless, through indirect subsidies and externalized costs (eg., environmental) that are not part of the cost of business but passed on eventually to the government and us taxpayers, he may be not so far off the mark. These hidden costs of doing business do not show up as line items in the various governmental budgets and thus not in the Cato reports. They may show up, in the case of some environmental issues, only after a considerable time delay. Some of the most egregious cases of hazard spills got picked up by the Superfund or by the consumer. But ongoing and increasing carbon emissions, for example, will cause all to suffer expensive consequences, including non-users. I realize there are some who choose to ignore this issue or contend it is made up, but that is at variance with the overwhelming evidence of actual research.
However, even the annual government subsidies identified in the 2002 Cato report of about $93 bil. are hardly chump change. Comparing that number with the entire US economy is an inappropriate comparison, given the object of all of this was an examination of the government subsidy for Amtrak, which runs about $1.5 bil. annually. So amid the forest of subsidies, many of which are essential, the one earmarked for Amtrak seems relatively small. I also realize that some folks object to any subsidies, i.e. services that are not covered by user fees. That, however, is by definition an ideological/political question, outside the parameters of this forum.
blownout cylinderShe has facts and figures here and still some seem hung up on her 'politics'...whatever that might be.
Except somehow we are never allowed to know the "facts and figures" except for some tossed out numbers. However, there is never a link to a source. I try to give links for my sources and when I do I am rebuked precisely because a do give the link.
The whole "politics" argument seems to me to be a red herring. None of us are politicians; we are people having a conversation. Nothing we say will bear on any policy decision. But the argument does get us away from wondering about the numbers we somehow must accept on faith.
blownout cylinder Sam1 blue streak 1 Henry; affter reading much of sam's posts it seems that the gist comes from the play book of the lobbiying outfit of ALEC. You don't have a clue about my politics. Now, just what factual evidence to do you have to refute which point? Can someone attempt to argue to the point instead of throwing what appears to be conspiracies around? She has facts and figures here and still some seem hung up on her 'politics'...whatever that might be.
greyhounds Sam1 Moreover, as I noted in another post, one can argue that barge lines receive a subsidy in that the marine diesel taxes that they pay do not provide sufficient funds to cover the cost of maintaining the inland waterways locks. This would be a valid argument if one assumes that the dams that blocked navigation of the inland waterways were constructed purely for the benefit of the barge operators. That would be a difficult argument to support. No, it's a very easy argument to support. All you have to do is quote the US Army Corps of Engineers. They operate the locks and dams and keep the river dredged. The locks and dams are purely for the benefit of the barge operators. They are not for flood control. "Dams are built on rivers to hold back water and form deeper navigation "pools." Most pools in the United States are maintained at a constant minimum water depth of 9 feet for safe navigation. Dams allow river vessels to use a series of locks to "step" up or down the river from one water level to another. The Corps operates the locks and dams on the Mississippi River for navigation, not flood control. The locks and dams create slack-water pools for navigation during periods of low- and moderate-level water. For each pool, there is a primary control point, where a predetermined water elevation must be kept for navigation to continue." http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/navigation/default.asp?pageid=145 I think you would have a very hard time finding an economist, at least one who didn't work for the American Waterways Council, who believes it's a good economic policy to subsidize the barges like the government does. Now, back to Amtrak.
Agreed, the locks are for navigation. Now, why were the dams in most instances built? In the case the TVA they were built for flood control. A secondary purpose was for power generation in an an area of the country that was devoid of adequate power generation. No dams; no need for locks!
To be sure, the dams improved navigation in many instances, but the rivers were navigable before the dams. During the American Civil War, Union gun boats, which were relatively large and heavy, moved up the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers to attack Confederate defenses. In the case the Tennessee they were able to go all the way to Knoxville and beyond. An idea of the size and weighty of these boats can be seen in the remnants of the USS Cairo at the Vicksburg National Military Park.
As I noted in my precious post, the barge operators don't pay the full cost of maintaining the locks. Whether they should is arguable. If it can be shown that they are the sole beneficiaries of the dams and lock systems, they should. That point, however, is contentious. To date the operators have prevailed against the argument that they should tote the whole note.
It should be noted that the operators pay 48 per cent of the cost of maintaining the locks, as per the end of FY11. It should also be noted that the operators are successful commercial operations. Accordingly, they pay federal, state, and local income taxes, as well as inventory taxes, property, and excise taxes. The federal income taxes flow into the U.S. Treasury. In turn a portion of the funds flow back to the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Accordingly, the operators contribute more than 48 per cent of the cost of maintaining the locks, etc. How much more would be very difficult to determine.
Sam1 blownout cylinder Sam1 blue streak 1 Henry; affter reading much of sam's posts it seems that the gist comes from the play book of the lobbiying outfit of ALEC. You don't have a clue about my politics. Now, just what factual evidence to do you have to refute which point? Can someone attempt to argue to the point instead of throwing what appears to be conspiracies around? She has facts and figures here and still some seem hung up on her 'politics'...whatever that might be. How can you claim that I am hung up on my politics when you don't know what they are by your own admission. Hardly a logical observation.
Quote wars...gotta love 'em.
It was not you that I was having issues with..it was Blue Streak's commentary about ALEC....
John WR blownout cylinderShe has facts and figures here and still some seem hung up on her 'politics'...whatever that might be. Except somehow we are never allowed to know the "facts and figures" except for some tossed out numbers. However, there is never a link to a source. I try to give links for my sources and when I do I am rebuked precisely because a do give the link. The whole "politics" argument seems to me to be a red herring. None of us are politicians; we are people having a conversation. Nothing we say will bear on any policy decision. But the argument does get us away from wondering about the numbers we somehow must accept on faith.
Which numbers are tossed out? When did I cite a financial number or statistic and not tell the reader where it could be found?
Your correct. I don't provide links. I use primary databases, as opposed to partisan databases or blogs. I tell the reader where to find the information, i.e. Amtrak, IRS, etc. Most of the numbers are calculated from several primary numbers. To link them would be tedious and would serve little purpose, especially given the fact that many of the readers of these forums are not accountants, financial analysts or economists.
Here is an example from the FY11 federal subsidies for Amtrak. Unlike those attributed to the airlines, highways, etc., Amtrak's subsidies are paid directly to the carrier in the form of operating and capital cash payments.
In FY11 Amtrak had a net loss from operations of $1,352,004,000. The loss was covered by the operating cash transfer from the federal government, i.e. taxpayers, and the depreciation or amortization of prior year capitalize projects. These numbers can be found in the Amtrak's FY11 Financial Statements, which I have cited consistently. If I just linked them, a reader would not be able to see the calculations required to determine the subsidy per passenger and passenger mile because they are not at one location.
In FY11 Amtrak carried 30,186,733 passengers. It's operations resulted in 6,532,250,000 passenger miles, i.e. one passenger carried one mile, and 12,530,314,000 seat miles, for an average load factor of 52.1 per cent. This is a calculated number based are the two inputs, which are found at different locations in the financials and monthly operating reports. Based on the aforementioned numbers, the average subsidy per passenger in FY11 was $44.46 and the average subsidy per passenger mile was 20.54 cents.
Amtrak's loss is ultimately covered by cash payments from the taxpayers. But in any one year the operating cash payments and the capital cash payments from the federal government will not add up the the numbers shown in the financial reports. This is because of the time lag associated with the depreciation and amortization of prior period capital payments.
Amtrak toutes the fact that its annual operating subsidy is around $500 million per year, which has been correct for the past few years. It acknowledges deeper in its press releases that it receives substantial funds from the federal government, i.e. the taxpayers, for capital projects. But the current year transfers don't add up to the current year losses as per above.
Accounting wise most of the operating funds flow through the accounting statements in the year that they are received, but the capital funds flow through in the form of depreciation and amortization in subsequent years. The FY11 depreciation and interest amortization numbers are a compilation of thousands of capital projects that were constructed and/or acquired in previous years and are being depreciated or amortized over periods ranging up to and sometimes beyond 40 years.
If you understanding accounting and finance, you could dig this information our of the numbers that Amtrak makes available to the public. But I don't believe that many of the people who visit these forums are accountants or financial analysts and, therefore, would know what they are looking at if I linked them to the financial statements.
If you think these are tossed out numbers, it is incumbent on you to show our readers where and how they are wrong.
blownout cylinder Sam1 blownout cylinder Sam1 blue streak 1 Henry; affter reading much of sam's posts it seems that the gist comes from the play book of the lobbiying outfit of ALEC. You don't have a clue about my politics. Now, just what factual evidence to do you have to refute which point? Can someone attempt to argue to the point instead of throwing what appears to be conspiracies around? She has facts and figures here and still some seem hung up on her 'politics'...whatever that might be. How can you claim that I am hung up on my politics when you don't know what they are by your own admission. Hardly a logical observation. Quote wars...gotta love 'em. It was not you that I was having issues with..it was Blue Streak's commentary about ALEC....
Your correct about the quote wars. I read you wrong. My apologies.
The opening post claimed that freight railroads not paying pay fuel taxes is not a subsidy and further posited that this tax advantage is more than offset by the property taxes paid by said railroads.
If a person prefers competitive markets for commercial activities they are a better way to allocate scarce resources, he is making a political statement. If a person argues that a taxpayer subsidized government run enterprise agency is a better way to allocate scarce resources, he is not making a political statement. Is that about the size of it?
Would you care to break out how much of the capital expenditure is really for commuter operations on the NEC? The problem in going from the financial statements is Amtrak keeps wildly swinging the unit output to which the capital cost is assigned.
My sense is the number crunchers keep trying to make the numbers fit the Volpe hypothesis without going back to check the hypothesis from the source documents.
There was a time around 1973 or 1974 where the USDOT recognized that some level of subsidy was equivalent to what was going on in the rest of the federally funded system. Back then the figure allowed was $0.02/PM, $0.09/PM in $2010, or about $0.125 per equivalent automobile VM at a 1.4 person average occupancy. This still holds true from the calculations in my paper on the other post. Here is a fun little article on the National Limited from that era, where the $0.02/PM is cited, apparently the train made a solely allocated profit in the summer.
http://bulk.resource.org/gao.gov/91-518/00005252.pdf
V.Payne Would you care to break out how much of the capital expenditure is really for commuter operations on the NEC? The problem in going from the financial statements is Amtrak keeps wildly swinging the unit output to which the capital cost is assigned. My sense is the number crunchers keep trying to make the numbers fit the Volpe hypothesis without going back to check the hypothesis from the source documents. There was a time around 1973 or 1974 where the USDOT recognized that some level of subsidy was equivalent to what was going on in the rest of the federally funded system. Back then the figure allowed was $0.02/PM, $0.09/PM in $2010, or about $0.125 per equivalent automobile VM at a 1.4 person average occupancy. This still holds true from the calculations in my paper on the other post. Here is a fun little article on the National Limited from that era, where the $0.02/PM is cited, apparently the train made a solely allocated profit in the summer. http://bulk.resource.org/gao.gov/91-518/00005252.pdf
As of the end of FY11 Amtrak showed under Property and Equipment on its Consolidated Balance sheet $9,971,446 for right-of-way and other properties before depreciation. This would include its investments in the NEC as well as its other rights-of-way, maintenance facilities, etc., to the extent that they were not leases, although it would depend on the nature of the lease. In a nutshell, without access to the company's property accounting records, it is not possible to know how much of this investment is attributable to the NEC, and it is clearly not possible to know how much of it is attributable to the NEC commuter operations.
Amtrak owns 363 of the 456 or 457 route miles between Boston and Washington. The other 94 miles are owned by commuter rail agencies. The federal government put up the money to upgrade Amtrak's portion of the NEC, I presume, and the cost of the investment is included somewhere in the number for right-of-way and other properties. How the capital cost for the upgrade of the portion of the NEC owned by the commuter rail agencies was accounted for is unknown. It is probably carried on the books of the commuter rail agency, but without access to those books, it is impossible to know for sure.
The commuter agencies bill Amtrak for its use of the portions of the NEC owned by the commuter rail agencies. By the same token Amtrak bills the foreign carriers that operate on its segments of the NEC. If Amtrak funded the capital improvements on the NEC owned by the commuter rail agencies, the agency would have to adjust its billing back to Amtrak to reflect this fact. Otherwise it would be double billing Amtrak.
You probably could get Amtrak's property accounting records under the Freedom of Information Act. The Amtrak Inspector General's website has a procedure for filing an FOIA request. To be successful you would have to tell Amtrak exactly what records you wanted. It would cost you $38 an hour to get them. To get the information you want would entail a considerable amount of work. You would probably be looking at thousands of dollars of fees to get the information.
First of all, Sam, my post was a comment on another poster's statement and was not directed to you so your defensive response seems a little overblown.
However, you do agree with me that you do not provide links. Of course, this is your decision and I respect your decision. However, I do think links are preferable to the somewhat vague response "primary sources." After all, one person's primary source may be another person's partisan data base. Beyond that, you also point out you do not provide the primary source data either; rather you perform calculations on it and present those calculations to us.
I do agree with you that accuracy is tedious. You say you prefer to avoid tedium and you do have every right to do that. I simply want to know how to understand your figures. You have explained them and now I do know how to understand them. I thank you for that.
Sam1The commuter agencies bill Amtrak for its use of the portions of the NEC owned by the commuter rail agencies. By the same token Amtrak bills the foreign carriers that operate on its segments of the NEC. If Amtrak funded the capital improvements on the NEC owned by the commuter rail agencies, the agency would have to adjust its billing back to Amtrak to reflect this fact. Otherwise it would be double billing Amtrak.
See current (November) Frailey column. According to him, Amtrak is not currently collecting from the commuter and freight line their share of capital improvements on track they use.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.