I agree, Dave. And a happy and safe 4th to you in Jerusalem.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I have given a lot of thought to this problem, and here is what I have come up with: Amtrak long distance is too small an operation to have economies of scale in good food service. The Airlines came to this conclusion long ago, and that is why there are firms that specialize in catering airline food. When I became more religious, I started ordering Kosher fish and vegetarian meals, and found the quality equal to the regular Amtrak food, despite the precooking and storage on the dining cars. There were times I had regular meals (no meat or seafood) so I continued to make the comparison. It seems to me that one of the better catering outfits that supplies first class and business class airline meals could do an adequate job for Amtrak with great cost savings and no real reduction in across-the-board quality. There can be special cases, like the Pacific Parlor car, but they should be priced appropriately and not loose money. And such a caterer has experienced with delayed flights and emergency restocking, etc.
I also believe that overnight coach travel should be made as comfortable as possible, with all the touches this requires, pillows, small toilet article kit giveaways. And sleepers must be priced so the subsidy is no greater than for coach passengers.
AND HAPPY 4TH OF JULY
Sam1 For the six years prior to 2012, Amtrak lost $526 million on food service or an average of $87.6 million per year. In FY11 the loss was $84.6 million, of which $73.9 million or 87 per cent was incurred by the long distance trains. In the same year the short corridor trains recovered 95 per cent of their food service costs, compared to 78 per cent on the NEC and 44 per cent for the long distance trains. A major culprit appears to be the lack of coordination and accountability between operations and marketing for on-board food services.
For the six years prior to 2012, Amtrak lost $526 million on food service or an average of $87.6 million per year. In FY11 the loss was $84.6 million, of which $73.9 million or 87 per cent was incurred by the long distance trains. In the same year the short corridor trains recovered 95 per cent of their food service costs, compared to 78 per cent on the NEC and 44 per cent for the long distance trains.
A major culprit appears to be the lack of coordination and accountability between operations and marketing for on-board food services.
So if I ride coach on the Empire Builder and order the Amtrak Signature steak dinner for $25.75, it sounds like it isn't that the food is underpriced compared to a middling restaurant, it is that the costs to prepare, etc. apparently are $58.52. Utterly absurd.
Without access to Amtrak's books, including its pricing and costing models for food service, it is impossible to know for certain how much money the company loses on its food service program. Moreover, without access to the Marketing Department's objectives for food service, it is difficult to compare Amtrak's food service strategies with other like kind providers.
The next best thing to access to the books would be an Audit Report on Food Service. Coming right up! How would you like it cooked?
Report No. OIG-A-2012-020 | September 7, 2012 contains a wealth of information regarding Amtrak's food and beverage program. Here are some of the key findings that struck me:
"As noted, two departments share responsibility for food and beverage service, but neither is accountable for improving service and/or reducing direct operating losses — let alone eliminating them. Moreover, initiatives to improve cost‐recovery are not well coordinated."
"According to Marketing and Product Development’s Chief of Food and Beverage Service, cost‐recovery is the most important metric for measuring food and beverage results. However, no cost‐recovery goal has been established for this metric in Amtrak’s five‐year financial plan."
"A key management best practice for helping reduce food and beverage service losses is a program‐wide plan for improving cost‐recovery while maintaining service levels. However, such a plan does not exist at this time."
schlimmAll things being equal with the food, whether on a train or your table or a restaurant, it is only in the train dining car where you do not fully pay. If I or you or anyone else eats in a restaurant, the food used to prepare got some small subsidy in the roads used, etc. But if they charge me $30 for a steak, I am paying their cost for the food, the labor, rent and utilities and a profit. But if I get a meal on Amtrak, what I pay (or what portion of my sleeper pays) does not come close to covering the meal's cost. And the same is true of the sleeper. So my question remains
But you are using the wrong analogy. A more appropriate comparison would be to hotels, and more specifically European-plan hotels.
Assigning a pro-rata share of the overall 'meal cost' as part of the expense of providing sleeper space -- if the meals are 'part' of that charge -- is legitimate in that context. This does presuppose that the pro-rata cost is not so great as to make sleeper service overall not cover the right percentage of its costs -- but even if it does, the argument is then properly established that meals that are intended as part of the sleeper 'experience' should have their cost allocated to the 'sleeper experience.'
To the extent that pro-rata expense for *coach* meals exceeds revenue from sales, there is an issue. But I would -- perhaps hesitantly -- note that almost all the 'sunk cost' outside of marginal expense is already required for the (subsidized) sleeper meals, and therefore need not be included in 'general' costing and therefore subject to general penny-pinching,
daveklepperI agree completely that my subsidy as a sleeping car passenger with food included going from point a to point b should not be greater than the coach passsenger buying a ticket under similar circumstances. If that is the point you are making, I must agree with you, and it is the only moral position. An exception would be if I were handicapped, because handicapped people traditionally have received special subsidies in the USA and most western democracies.
I agree. Challenged is a special case. The food service should pay its way as a separate concern from the sleeper. The room space charges do appear as though they should cover cost. [CHI-LAX roomette $707]. The actual train fare seems unrealistically low, only $169.
I agree completely that my subsidy as a sleeping car passenger with food included going from point a to point b should not be greater than the coach passsenger buying a ticket under similar circumstances. If that is the point you are making, I must agree with you, and it is the only moral position. An exception would be if I were handicapped, because handicapped people traditionally have received special subsidies in the USA and most western democracies.
If Amtrak's current fare structure does not reflect that moral position, it should indeed be changed. I stopped riding Amtrak in early 1996 and have not had the opportunity to do so since. My impression, from the huge difference in fares between sleeper and coach, at the time, was that the subsidy for both kinds of passengers was similar. Possibly the fare difference has narrowed since that time?
And there were times I rode coach overnight, including one LA - Chicago El Capitan trip before Amtrak.
schlimm On another thread you gave figures as to who rides LD. Sounds like it is a shrinking group because of age. They rode private rail passenger service when younger. But in 10-15 years, there will be very few left.
Interesting you should mention that Schlimm.
Today we have fewer younger drivers:
Age Per Cent with Drivers License
1983 2010
16 46 28
17 69 46
18 80 61
19 87 70
20 - 24 92 81
35 - 39 95 87 (sic) but I wonder if it is a misprint and should be 25 to 29.
From Elizabeth Rosenthal, The End of Car Culture, The New York Times Week in Review June 30, 2013 p 3.
Young people are not exactly abandoning cars but there is a marked decrease in the number of licenses being issued.
John
John WR schlimmWithin the realm of Amtrak, why should you feel entitled ("I demand") to get your food subsidized by both the general taxpayer and also the riders of Acela? But Schlimm, all of us, every single one of us who lives in the United States, get our food subsidized. That is because most food is delivered to supermarkets by truck over roads where the trucks do not pay their share of the costs. It is true food subsidy is not simple. In some cases price supports enacted by Congress add to the price of food and some producers are subsidized. I don't know who comes out ahead with price supported foodl However, much of the food we eat is subsidized. John
schlimmWithin the realm of Amtrak, why should you feel entitled ("I demand") to get your food subsidized by both the general taxpayer and also the riders of Acela?
But Schlimm, all of us, every single one of us who lives in the United States, get our food subsidized. That is because most food is delivered to supermarkets by truck over roads where the trucks do not pay their share of the costs.
It is true food subsidy is not simple. In some cases price supports enacted by Congress add to the price of food and some producers are subsidized. I don't know who comes out ahead with price supported foodl However, much of the food we eat is subsidized.
blue streak 1 schlimm 1. None of those are government corporations, so your comparisons are irrelevant. 2. Those entities largely have a net profit on operations, probably also on paying depreciation, etc. in their cases, a loss leader can be considered to increase business overall. In Amtrak's case, dining cars and sleepers add to the operating loss. But they can be government companes when the buy outs and bankruptcies for the likes of Crysler & Pen Central What net profit in the long run ? Since the beginning of airlines they have a net loss not profit. Every major airline has gone thru bankruptcy and the taxpayers subsidize them with tax write-offs. As well any bond holders , stockholdeers, loan holders all get that subsidity thru tax write offs.
schlimm 1. None of those are government corporations, so your comparisons are irrelevant. 2. Those entities largely have a net profit on operations, probably also on paying depreciation, etc. in their cases, a loss leader can be considered to increase business overall. In Amtrak's case, dining cars and sleepers add to the operating loss.
1. None of those are government corporations, so your comparisons are irrelevant.
2. Those entities largely have a net profit on operations, probably also on paying depreciation, etc. in their cases, a loss leader can be considered to increase business overall. In Amtrak's case, dining cars and sleepers add to the operating loss.
But they can be government companes when the buy outs and bankruptcies for the likes of Crysler & Pen Central
What net profit in the long run ? Since the beginning of airlines they have a net loss not profit. Every major airline has gone thru bankruptcy and the taxpayers subsidize them with tax write-offs. As well any bond holders , stockholdeers, loan holders all get that subsidity thru tax write offs.
The makers of aircraft engines. I am told that the engine makers extend the airlines lines of credit.
With regard to tax write-offs as a subsidy, there has to be some earnings against which to take the write-off. Would a passenger train company given "the same deal" as the airlines even be able to offer service?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
The relative subsidy (rails, roads and airways) issue has been debated here and elsewhere. The results seem pretty fuzzy. But you fail to answer the question and seem to have totally missed the essential part of the analogy. it wasn't a case of the road subsidy. It is the lodging and food. And unless one has a travel account, it is not subsidized at all. Within the realm of Amtrak, why should you feel entitled ("I demand") to get your food subsidized by both the general taxpayer and also the riders of Acela? If "bed and meals are an essential part of providing decent rail long distance transportation" then why can't you pay fully the cost for that portion above what the poor passengers in coach do? And I mean pay the full cost of your meals and bed. You are already getting a subsidy just riding the train.
In a private auto I have the freedom to choose where I can stop off an eat and where I can sleep. On a train, I have to eat what is provided and I demand it be decent, at least up to the quality of a New Haven grille car or a Great Northern Frontier Lounge (similar food). And I want a good nights sleep while traveling. And I claim that on a passenger mile basis with present Amtrak long distance service, my subsidy from the tax-payers, overall subsidy is LESS than the subsidy you are receiving by driving your pdrivate car over the same distance, because of the land your interstate highway is occupying wihout paying real-estate taxes, costs of medical care due to the far higher highway accident rate, police and highway patrol, motor vehical bureau offices and staff, and the fact that the highway trust fund has failed to cover maintenance and has needed infusion from general tax revenues.
The bed and the meals are simply essential parts of providing decent rail long-distance transportation.
That's why.
I will make an exception if you are driving a wife and a full car of kids!
Let's see. --- The OIG and congress are the cost accoountants that determine that Amtrak food service is a money loosing cost center so it should be discontinued, ?.
Now the Cruise industry cost accountants probably also determine that their ship food service is a money loosing cost center.
I guess the airline also have cost accountants that have determined their food service on long distance flights are a loosing cost center. And maybe $1.00 peanuts on the discount airlines ae also a loosing cost center.
The same for the the cruise river boats such as the Delta Queen ? Or the evening cruise boats ?
The same for long distance limo services ? I guess the ones I've been on do ?
schlimmJohn you frequently bring up Amtrak's mission in its charter (and also Boardman's comment) as a justification for Amtrak. But that cannot possibly be interpreted as a basis for providing meals far below the cost to the passengers.
Schlimm,
On the subject of food service I would like to yield the floor to my distinguished colleague Mr. Klepper. I realize that you are not fully persuaded by his arguments. However, I don't know of any better arguments than he makes.
daveklepperI think Schhlimm's posting above was thoroughly answered by my earlier post and by the one just previous to mione.. Decent food is absoluteley necessary for long distance travelers and cannot be considered a luxury.
The operative term here is "subsidized." If you want decent food (whatever that is in your opinion) then you should pay for the entire expense of it. If you were driving, you could pack food, eat fast food, or eat and sleep at the Ritz-Carlton and you would pay entirely for YOUR choice. Why should the taxpayer or the fare-paying patrons of Acela service or the riders of the coaches on your LD train be expected to partially pay for you to have a bedroom and meal in the diner?
Dave, I agree with you that the level of food service now available on the long distance trains is far below that of the service available on the trains you mention. It is also below that of the service available on the Amtrak long distance trains I traveled on in the first ten years of Amtrak existence. It is above that which I found when I traveled in the srping of 1982.
Johnny
I think Schhlimm's posting above was thoroughly answered by my earlier post and by the one just previous to mione.. Decent food is absoluteley necessary for long distance travelers and cannot be considered a luxury. Ditto for a decent sleep. I don't think Amtrak does provide the excellence of meal experience that we used to get on the Suuper Chief, El Capitan, 20th Century, Broadway Limited, Panama Limited, Rio Grande and California Zephyrs. It is more akin to what was served in the lower priced New Haven Grill Cars, rather than the Merchants limited dining car. But it is good enough to be an enjoyable experience, not like a Penn Central cafe car or a an SP Automat. And I think that is the way it should be, and that amount of subsidy is justified. If the existing level of quality can be maintained and greater efficiency and savings found, I am all for it.
The problem with outside catering is assured timelly delivary under all conditions.
The subject of this thread was Amtrak's subsidized food services. John you frequently bring up Amtrak's mission in its charter (and also Boardman's comment) as a justification for Amtrak. But that cannot possibly be interpreted as a basis for providing meals far below the cost to the passengers. Amtrak is for transportation. It is not a restaurant, nor should it provide subsidized food. That activity is legitimate for government to do, for those in need, through SNAP, school lunch programs, etc. Providing restaurant-quality food to folks who choose to ride an LD train, who may well be quite well-off is not . Nor, for that matter, is providing subsidized sleeping accommodations.
oltmanndWhat if she needs or wants to get to Mt. Rushmore?
As I understand your perspective, Don, you point out that Amtrak does not now serve many places in the US that people might want to travel to. One such place is Mount Rushmore. In fact, Amtrak does not enter any city in South Dakota. It is one of the few states without Amtrak.
But I don't recall seeing your conclusion to your observation.
oltmannd John WR V.Payne What of the people that can drive but just not at night or not can't make it a long time in the car without frequent stops for medical reasons. To what extent do we provide for people with impairments that make using other kinds of transportation difficult? Some years ago I knew a lady who rode Amtrak. She worked full time but had a back injury that made flying simply too confining for her. She had been on one flight that was so crowded that at the end she was unable to get up from her seat and had to be carried off the plane. For a few days she had do deal with a lot of pain. The ability to get up and walk around on a train and to move freely about was important to her. As we get older many of us loose certain abilities we once had. The extra room a train provides can be important. This can be particularly important on long trips. There are people who, if they can not take a train to a distant place, really cannot get there at all. What if she needs or wants to get to Mt. Rushmore?
John WR V.Payne What of the people that can drive but just not at night or not can't make it a long time in the car without frequent stops for medical reasons. To what extent do we provide for people with impairments that make using other kinds of transportation difficult? Some years ago I knew a lady who rode Amtrak. She worked full time but had a back injury that made flying simply too confining for her. She had been on one flight that was so crowded that at the end she was unable to get up from her seat and had to be carried off the plane. For a few days she had do deal with a lot of pain. The ability to get up and walk around on a train and to move freely about was important to her. As we get older many of us loose certain abilities we once had. The extra room a train provides can be important. This can be particularly important on long trips. There are people who, if they can not take a train to a distant place, really cannot get there at all.
V.Payne What of the people that can drive but just not at night or not can't make it a long time in the car without frequent stops for medical reasons.
To what extent do we provide for people with impairments that make using other kinds of transportation difficult? Some years ago I knew a lady who rode Amtrak. She worked full time but had a back injury that made flying simply too confining for her. She had been on one flight that was so crowded that at the end she was unable to get up from her seat and had to be carried off the plane. For a few days she had do deal with a lot of pain. The ability to get up and walk around on a train and to move freely about was important to her. As we get older many of us loose certain abilities we once had. The extra room a train provides can be important. This can be particularly important on long trips. There are people who, if they can not take a train to a distant place, really cannot get there at all.
What if she needs or wants to get to Mt. Rushmore?
Or Brownsville, Texas? Or the hundreds of Texas communities that don't have passenger train service? Because there is no viable market for it!
Some suburbs were "built" by streetcars, some by commuter railroads, and some by the auto. I there is great congestion, it is usually more economical to make the investment in some sort of rail transportation and subsidize it than taking the land for new or expanded roads. That is the situation today yewhere there is great congestion. Otherwise, even if streetcars or commuter railroads "built" the suburb, relying on the auto probably makes the most sense. But the congestion neet not be only in the suburb itself, but in the work-study-shopping-entertainment destination. And obvioiusly improved bus transportation can be an intermediate solution, in many cases.
But again, if government, uses taxes to subsidize the commuter in order aleviate congestion and allow the city to function, I think it is also fare to subsidize the woman who wishes to cross the country once a year without great backpains, the college student graduate who wants a lifetime trip to see the country, etc., and insure they have some decent food and even a place to sleep while doing so.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Paul MilenkovicWhere the Interstate highway is carrying a goodly amount of common carrier and private carrier intercity freight.
I would say that the vast majority of the US will not be served in the next one hundred years by a dedicated passenger main. So most of the lines will be mixed use intermodal freight and passenger trains. I can see the breakeven point for trailer based intermodal coming down to a bit less than 300 miles. The two would be a good fit together and give economies of scale with close to 24 hour use.
Now I still think that the two systems will coexist, if you want to haul a boat, your probably going to get a SUV (Like mine) and a trailer but if you are looking to make a one way trip or like me get tired of wasting 10 hours a week driving the exact same road you will look to intercity rail and figure out a way to get around on the other end. I still see intercity rail users being a minority of total people miles but a pretty good chunk of trips over 200 miles.
I would also like to make the counter argument to how will existing interstate users make use of a rail... for perspective. What of the people that can drive but just not at night or not can't make it a long time in the car without frequent stops for medical reasons. There is some evidence of frustrated demand that is not met. We have catered to one set of users only.
My solution to mediating the coexistence, is a per mile financial equivalency for the user cross-subsidy. If you have just a bit of users wanting to participate then you run a few trains over moderately upgraded existing infrastructure, yielding a higher ratio of operations to capital, same nominal dollar value. If you have a lot of users you build a mix of new and upgraded lines, more higher capital to operations.
oltmannd John WROnce out in the suburbs families that had found one car quite sufficient now found they needed two or more cars due to the lack of public transit. Why would you supply transit for something specifically built for automobile use? Suburbs were designed around automobiles. That wasn't a drawback, that was a selling point!
John WROnce out in the suburbs families that had found one car quite sufficient now found they needed two or more cars due to the lack of public transit.
Why would you supply transit for something specifically built for automobile use? Suburbs were designed around automobiles. That wasn't a drawback, that was a selling point!
oltmanndYes, and so things are not "fair"?
Basic to the idea of government services, Don, is the fact that some public necessities by their nature benefit some people much more than others but their costs cannot be allocated strictly based on use. Yet they are so important that the society as a whole needs them and so using tax monies to pay for them is justified.
During the snow storm I described there were people who were trapped in their cars and died there or died walking to try to get help. I do not begrudge my property taxes that were used and which, in some cases, saved lives simply because I was safe at home. Fairness does not necessarily mean each person will pay for what he or she uses and only for what he or she uses. Fairness means equal consideration of all people's needs.
However, we do need to know how much we spend for transportation, where we spend it and why we spend it.
oltmanndWhy would you supply transit for something specifically built for automobile use? Suburbs were designed around automobiles. That wasn't a drawback, that was a selling point!
Mainly, Don, because all suburbs are not the same. Some suburbs do have transit although not as much as cities do. Then there are the 5 acre lot suburbs.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.