dakotafred Excellent post! Recalling that the railroads, pre-Amtrak, really began to bleed money on passengers when their entries were whittled down to only a handful of trains that had to bear the expense of stations, commissaries, laundries, etc., all by themselves. The service had lost all economy of scale. Which is where Amtrak found itself on Day One on most routes -- exactly where the private railroads had left off! Little wonder it's been a slog.
Not quite. ATK was not so stupid as to believe theii own publicity. They cut about half the train miles perviously operated by the "evil" railroads on day one. Check your history.
Mac McCulloch
Most of us don't like to remember this fact, but a lot of railroads were willing to tolerate passenger losses since mail and express contracts made the losses tolerable and they didn't wish to expend the political capital and public relations nightmare that were inherent in public discontinuance proceedings.
While the growth of the passenger losses began to accelerate about 1958 (introduction of the DC-8 and 707), the mass cancellation of RPO contracts beginning in about 1967 went a long way in making passenger losses intolerable.
Dragoman If every Long Distance route had at least 2 daily trains, roughly 12 hours apart (so that every stop has at least one daytime departure), I believe usage would jump dramatically, encouraging even more service. And before someone says "Just more losses!", I would point out that with more trains on existing routes, all of the overhead expenses could be spread over more passengers, perhaps even getting to a breakeven (or better!) situation. (But that is another thread.)
If every Long Distance route had at least 2 daily trains, roughly 12 hours apart (so that every stop has at least one daytime departure), I believe usage would jump dramatically, encouraging even more service.
And before someone says "Just more losses!", I would point out that with more trains on existing routes, all of the overhead expenses could be spread over more passengers, perhaps even getting to a breakeven (or better!) situation. (But that is another thread.)
Sam1 ... They are a 1950s anachronism that should be discontinued because of their drag on Amtrak and, moreover, because they are used by less than 1/10 of one per cent of intercity travelers in the United States.
... They are a 1950s anachronism that should be discontinued because of their drag on Amtrak and, moreover, because they are used by less than 1/10 of one per cent of intercity travelers in the United States.
How can they be used by more than "1/10 of one per cent of intercity travelers", when more trains are not available? So, air and bus have so much more use.
But choose any 2 city-pairs you want -- if the only available flights (for example) were one flight, leaving or arriving in the middle of the night (well after midnight), maybe nightly, or maybe only three times per week, how high would the percentage of intercity travelers on that route be for air travel?
One can say that people choose the modes that they like best, but they can only choose from what's available. They can only "vote" from amongst the "candidates" on the "ballot".
Anachronism? Everywhere frequent, convenient rail service has been offered, it has been chosen! Look at California and the NEC. You can say "Ah, but those are corridors." But I believe that the only difference is that in certain corridors, states who care have stepped up to start the service.
dakotafred Sam1 dakotafred Paul Milenkovic And Essential Air Service, which gets a lot of love around here, is a kind of Amtrak in the air. This would be true if EAS boarded 31 million passengers a year, instead of the 959,867 it boarded in 2010 at a taxpayer cost for operations almost half of Amtrak's, or $235 million in FY 2013. (Sorry about the disagreeing years; best I could find.) In my state, North Dakota, this service subsidizes expense-account travelers in Devils Lake, Jamestown, Dickinson and Williston. Other travelers from those cities drive 100 miles, saving hundreds of dollars, to fly out of real airports in Bismarck, Minot, Fargo and Grand Forks. Alaska, the one state for which you could make a case for air service being "essential" for ordinary people, needed only $15 million for EAS in 2013. The Lower 48 required $220 million. Using your numbers, the average subsidy would be $244.83 per passenger. However, your numbers are mixing apples and oranges. According to Wikipedia, the EAS spend in 2011, which is the closest that I could find to 2010, was $131.5 million, which would make the average EAS subsidy $137 per passenger, assuming that the FY10 spend was not more than the FY11 spend. Comparatively, the average loss for Amtrak's long distance train passengers in FY13 was $147.14 per passenger. Assuming that the EAS spend in FY13 was $235 million, which is close to what Wikipeda shows, the total loss for the EAS program was considerably less than the total loss for Amtrak's long distance trains. No, "assuming that the EAS spend in FY13 was $235 million," the cost per passenger (if ridership was the same as in 2010) would be Sam's first figure of $245, not only considerably more than the $147 she finds for LD Amtrak passengers but FIFTEEN (15) TIMES the federal operating subsidy for all Amtrak riders (about $16, or $500 million divided by 31 million riders).
Sam1 dakotafred Paul Milenkovic And Essential Air Service, which gets a lot of love around here, is a kind of Amtrak in the air. This would be true if EAS boarded 31 million passengers a year, instead of the 959,867 it boarded in 2010 at a taxpayer cost for operations almost half of Amtrak's, or $235 million in FY 2013. (Sorry about the disagreeing years; best I could find.) In my state, North Dakota, this service subsidizes expense-account travelers in Devils Lake, Jamestown, Dickinson and Williston. Other travelers from those cities drive 100 miles, saving hundreds of dollars, to fly out of real airports in Bismarck, Minot, Fargo and Grand Forks. Alaska, the one state for which you could make a case for air service being "essential" for ordinary people, needed only $15 million for EAS in 2013. The Lower 48 required $220 million. Using your numbers, the average subsidy would be $244.83 per passenger. However, your numbers are mixing apples and oranges. According to Wikipedia, the EAS spend in 2011, which is the closest that I could find to 2010, was $131.5 million, which would make the average EAS subsidy $137 per passenger, assuming that the FY10 spend was not more than the FY11 spend. Comparatively, the average loss for Amtrak's long distance train passengers in FY13 was $147.14 per passenger. Assuming that the EAS spend in FY13 was $235 million, which is close to what Wikipeda shows, the total loss for the EAS program was considerably less than the total loss for Amtrak's long distance trains.
dakotafred Paul Milenkovic And Essential Air Service, which gets a lot of love around here, is a kind of Amtrak in the air. This would be true if EAS boarded 31 million passengers a year, instead of the 959,867 it boarded in 2010 at a taxpayer cost for operations almost half of Amtrak's, or $235 million in FY 2013. (Sorry about the disagreeing years; best I could find.) In my state, North Dakota, this service subsidizes expense-account travelers in Devils Lake, Jamestown, Dickinson and Williston. Other travelers from those cities drive 100 miles, saving hundreds of dollars, to fly out of real airports in Bismarck, Minot, Fargo and Grand Forks. Alaska, the one state for which you could make a case for air service being "essential" for ordinary people, needed only $15 million for EAS in 2013. The Lower 48 required $220 million.
Paul Milenkovic And Essential Air Service, which gets a lot of love around here, is a kind of Amtrak in the air.
And Essential Air Service, which gets a lot of love around here, is a kind of Amtrak in the air.
This would be true if EAS boarded 31 million passengers a year, instead of the 959,867 it boarded in 2010 at a taxpayer cost for operations almost half of Amtrak's, or $235 million in FY 2013. (Sorry about the disagreeing years; best I could find.)
In my state, North Dakota, this service subsidizes expense-account travelers in Devils Lake, Jamestown, Dickinson and Williston. Other travelers from those cities drive 100 miles, saving hundreds of dollars, to fly out of real airports in Bismarck, Minot, Fargo and Grand Forks.
Alaska, the one state for which you could make a case for air service being "essential" for ordinary people, needed only $15 million for EAS in 2013. The Lower 48 required $220 million.
Using your numbers, the average subsidy would be $244.83 per passenger. However, your numbers are mixing apples and oranges. According to Wikipedia, the EAS spend in 2011, which is the closest that I could find to 2010, was $131.5 million, which would make the average EAS subsidy $137 per passenger, assuming that the FY10 spend was not more than the FY11 spend.
Comparatively, the average loss for Amtrak's long distance train passengers in FY13 was $147.14 per passenger.
Assuming that the EAS spend in FY13 was $235 million, which is close to what Wikipeda shows, the total loss for the EAS program was considerably less than the total loss for Amtrak's long distance trains.
No, "assuming that the EAS spend in FY13 was $235 million," the cost per passenger (if ridership was the same as in 2010) would be Sam's first figure of $245, not only considerably more than the $147 she finds for LD Amtrak passengers but FIFTEEN (15) TIMES the federal operating subsidy for all Amtrak riders (about $16, or $500 million divided by 31 million riders).
The average federal operating subsidy for Amtrak's passengers in FY13 was $13.78 for all three product lines, i.e. NEC, State Supported and Other Short Distance Trains, and long distance trains. But the subsidies go beyond those to cover operations. They also cover the capital charges. Thus, after accounting for the capital charges, the average total subsidy per passenger was $36.72 before inclusion of state capital payments, which apply only to the state supported trains. These payments lowered the total average subsidy to $34.30.
The total average subsidies ranged from $11.66 for the state supported trains, $24.55 for the NEC, and $139.53 for long distance. These figures are based on an assumption that the NEC wears 90 per cent of Amtrak's depreciation and interest charges, which is just a guess. The $147 number for long distance was based on an assumption that the NEC wears 80 per cent of the capital charges and the other two product lines wear 10 per cent each. In fact, we don't know how Amtrak allocates depreciation and interest charges.
MidlandMike Sam1 Amtrak is a government sponsored, commercial enterprise. Its commercial competitors include intercity bus companies and commercial airlines. It also offers an alternative transportation option to motorists, although few of them appear to take advantage of it. National parks, wilderness areas, national monuments, libraries, etc. are a different category. They are not commercial entities, and they are not expected to cover their costs directly from the users. Every poll that I have read showing Americans want passenger trains is flawed. They only include the results from people who could be contacted and responded to the pollster's questions. They do not include the results of people who could not be contacted or people who refused to answer the questions. How many of those who say they are in favor of passenger trains understand how they are financed? If they did, would their responses be the same or would they change? If they understand the impact of continuing deficits on the national debt, would they still favor running deficits to support intercity passenger rail? As of today the national debt of the United States, including inter-government debt, is $17.6 trillion. Throw in state and local debt and the debt burden jumps to $20.1 trillion. It is approximately 120 per cent of GDP, which is one measure of the seriousness of the debt burden. How did we get here? Not because of Amtrak's deficits, although it is a factor. In part it is because every interest group in the U.S., i.e. public television, public radio, the arts, subsidized crop insurance, Tricare, etc. believes the federal government should support an activity that they are not willing to cover. Clearly, there are activities that the government must perform irrespective of the cost. But how many and how widely is a legitimate debate. Amtrak is part of the problem. It needs to be part of the solution. Eliminating the long distance trains would be a meaningful albeit small contribution to the solution. I don't believe the government should be in the passenger rail business, anymore than I believe it should be operating an intercity bus line, airline, or cruise line. These activities are best performed by private enterprise. I don't see any point in arguing about the national debt here, as the political process can't decide on how to handle it, and even economist debate whether or not it is out of line as compared to the total economy.
Sam1 Amtrak is a government sponsored, commercial enterprise. Its commercial competitors include intercity bus companies and commercial airlines. It also offers an alternative transportation option to motorists, although few of them appear to take advantage of it. National parks, wilderness areas, national monuments, libraries, etc. are a different category. They are not commercial entities, and they are not expected to cover their costs directly from the users. Every poll that I have read showing Americans want passenger trains is flawed. They only include the results from people who could be contacted and responded to the pollster's questions. They do not include the results of people who could not be contacted or people who refused to answer the questions. How many of those who say they are in favor of passenger trains understand how they are financed? If they did, would their responses be the same or would they change? If they understand the impact of continuing deficits on the national debt, would they still favor running deficits to support intercity passenger rail? As of today the national debt of the United States, including inter-government debt, is $17.6 trillion. Throw in state and local debt and the debt burden jumps to $20.1 trillion. It is approximately 120 per cent of GDP, which is one measure of the seriousness of the debt burden. How did we get here? Not because of Amtrak's deficits, although it is a factor. In part it is because every interest group in the U.S., i.e. public television, public radio, the arts, subsidized crop insurance, Tricare, etc. believes the federal government should support an activity that they are not willing to cover. Clearly, there are activities that the government must perform irrespective of the cost. But how many and how widely is a legitimate debate. Amtrak is part of the problem. It needs to be part of the solution. Eliminating the long distance trains would be a meaningful albeit small contribution to the solution. I don't believe the government should be in the passenger rail business, anymore than I believe it should be operating an intercity bus line, airline, or cruise line. These activities are best performed by private enterprise.
Amtrak is a government sponsored, commercial enterprise. Its commercial competitors include intercity bus companies and commercial airlines. It also offers an alternative transportation option to motorists, although few of them appear to take advantage of it.
National parks, wilderness areas, national monuments, libraries, etc. are a different category. They are not commercial entities, and they are not expected to cover their costs directly from the users.
Every poll that I have read showing Americans want passenger trains is flawed. They only include the results from people who could be contacted and responded to the pollster's questions. They do not include the results of people who could not be contacted or people who refused to answer the questions.
How many of those who say they are in favor of passenger trains understand how they are financed? If they did, would their responses be the same or would they change? If they understand the impact of continuing deficits on the national debt, would they still favor running deficits to support intercity passenger rail?
As of today the national debt of the United States, including inter-government debt, is $17.6 trillion. Throw in state and local debt and the debt burden jumps to $20.1 trillion. It is approximately 120 per cent of GDP, which is one measure of the seriousness of the debt burden. How did we get here?
Not because of Amtrak's deficits, although it is a factor. In part it is because every interest group in the U.S., i.e. public television, public radio, the arts, subsidized crop insurance, Tricare, etc. believes the federal government should support an activity that they are not willing to cover. Clearly, there are activities that the government must perform irrespective of the cost. But how many and how widely is a legitimate debate.
Amtrak is part of the problem. It needs to be part of the solution. Eliminating the long distance trains would be a meaningful albeit small contribution to the solution.
I don't believe the government should be in the passenger rail business, anymore than I believe it should be operating an intercity bus line, airline, or cruise line. These activities are best performed by private enterprise.
I don't see any point in arguing about the national debt here, as the political process can't decide on how to handle it, and even economist debate whether or not it is out of line as compared to the total economy.
You could do one thing to help the politicians deal with the national debt. Take pen in hand and write to your representative and senators. Tell them, as I do every six months, that you don't want any more money wasted on Amtrak's long distance passenger trains. I also tell them that passenger trains make sense in relatively short, high density corridors, where the cost to expand the airways and highways is prohibitive, and the federal government should facility the enhancement of the existing corridors and develop new ones where they make sense.
My uncle was an economics professor at Penn State. As he said on more than one occasion, put two economists in a room and lock the door. In half an hour you will get three opinions whatever economics subject is up for discussion.
The Congressional Budget Office recently issued a report saying that the national debt is a serious issue and is likely to become more so unless the country develops a realistic plan to deal with it. At the current rates of growth, according to the CBO, the public debt could reach 100 per cent of GDP by 2039. Check it out at CBO.gov.
In the early years of those natural areas before the became national parks, enterprising people tried to commercialize the scenic areas, but the citizens decided the parks should stay in the public domain. Nevertheless, they have in actuality become commercialized, as the lodges, restaurants, souvenir shops, etc. are run by for-profit concessionaires. I recently went to the Grand Canyon, and the Grand Canyon RR was run by the same company who had many national park concessions.
Your statement that you don't believe the government should be in the passenger rail business, is not shared by the public, at least in the political process (for now). I don't know if the poll cited earlier is flawed or not, but as they say, the only poll that counts is the voting booth, and the elected politicians either support, or otherwise have not been able to get rid of Amtrak.
Sam1 In FY13, the latest year for verifiable numbers, as per Amtrak's Statement of Cash Flows, it received $1.5 billion from the federal government and $130 million from federal and state capital payments. None of this, however, was the main point of my argument. Supporters of Amtrak claim that the federal support for the company is chump change.
In FY13, the latest year for verifiable numbers, as per Amtrak's Statement of Cash Flows, it received $1.5 billion from the federal government and $130 million from federal and state capital payments.
None of this, however, was the main point of my argument. Supporters of Amtrak claim that the federal support for the company is chump change.
Chump change, indeed. In the case of this boondoggle, an object that moves more slowly than the average freight train - stationary.
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/07/09/3458101/f35-boondoggle-fail/
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
BaltACD Sam1 Every poll that I have read showing Americans want passenger trains is flawed. They only include the results from people who could be contacted and responded to the pollster's questions. They do not include the results of people who could not be contacted or people who refused to answer the questions. ie. Every poll EVER conducted is flawed!
Sam1 Every poll that I have read showing Americans want passenger trains is flawed. They only include the results from people who could be contacted and responded to the pollster's questions. They do not include the results of people who could not be contacted or people who refused to answer the questions.
ie. Every poll EVER conducted is flawed!
Not so! Many polls are structured properly and the results are presented properly.
If by flawed you mean poll results are never absolute, although they are frequently presented that way, I agree. But if you are arguing that all polls are flawed, i.e. they don't use proper statistical research methodologies and fail to report the results properly, I disagree.
In one instance my team used the results of a properly structured statistical sampling study to show a large corporate vendor that he had over billed us to the tune of more than $8 million. The over billing had occurred over more than five years. We got the money back plus interest and penalties.
wanswheel The national debt is 17.6 trillion, Amtrak gets 1.3 billion (this year), and a trillion = a thousand billion. Therefore Amtrak will have to suspend train service for 135 centuries. (At least Mel Brooks will be around.) https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=17.6+trillion+divided+by+1.3+billion&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS401US402&q=17.6+trillion+divided+by+1.3+billion&gs_l=hp....0.0.0.1883...........0.hjNhVFoyRzg
The national debt is 17.6 trillion, Amtrak gets 1.3 billion (this year), and a trillion = a thousand billion. Therefore Amtrak will have to suspend train service for 135 centuries. (At least Mel Brooks will be around.)
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=17.6+trillion+divided+by+1.3+billion&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS401US402&q=17.6+trillion+divided+by+1.3+billion&gs_l=hp....0.0.0.1883...........0.hjNhVFoyRzg
You are mixing apples and oranges. The cumulative debt of the United States Federal Government is $17.6 trillion. Amtrak's cumulative losses since its inception in 1971, as of the end of FY13, was $30.5 billion. It is embedded in the total federal debt. If Amtrak's cumulative debt were stated in constant current dollars, it would be considerably higher than $30.5 billion.
As is the case for the total federal debt, one way or the other Amtrak's cumulative losses have fallen on the taxpayers.
None of this, however, was the main point of my argument. Supporters of Amtrak claim that the federal support for the company is chump change. And indeed, in many respects, it is, although chump change tends to add up over the years. This is the same argument used by supporters of public television, public radio, subsidies for crop insurance, Tricare, etc.The list goes on and on.
As long as people argue that their beneficiary, i.e. Amtrak, EAS, etc., is sacred, the nation will never get its fiscal house in order.
Sam1 dakotafred Paul Milenkovic And Essential Air Service, which gets a lot of love around here, is a kind of Amtrak in the air. This would be true if EAS boarded 31 million passengers a year, instead of the 959,867 it boarded in 2010 at a taxpayer cost for operations almost half of Amtrak's, or $235 million in FY 2013. (Sorry about the disagreeing years; best I could find.) In my state, North Dakota, this service subsidizes expense-account travelers in Devils Lake, Jamestown, Dickinson and Williston. Other travelers from those cities drive 100 miles, saving hundreds of dollars, to fly out of real airports in Bismarck, Minot, Fargo and Grand Forks. Alaska, the one state for which you could make a case for air service being "essential" for ordinary people, needed only $15 million for EAS in 2013. The Lower 48 required $220 million. What is the source for the number of Essential Air Services Program passengers boarded in 2010.
What is the source for the number of Essential Air Services Program passengers boarded in 2010.
I did my EAS "research" on May 1, and my notes show no source, beyond "one writer," for the 2010 enplanements -- my bad. My memory is it was from a newspaper column or news story in the list of hits summoned by my EAS command.
The 2013 subsidy figure is from USDOT's report for FY2013 dated November 2013. I could not find a figure for enplanements in that same report.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Sam1 ... At the end of the day, at least for a commercial enterprise, the only poll that counts is the market. I know lots of people who say that they support more passenger trains. But do they ride them? Nope! Would they ride them? Maybe! But I would not count on it.
...
At the end of the day, at least for a commercial enterprise, the only poll that counts is the market. I know lots of people who say that they support more passenger trains. But do they ride them? Nope! Would they ride them? Maybe! But I would not count on it.
If people support the continuation of public passenger trains, then whether they buy tickets is irrelevant. People support wilderness areas, though they might never visit one. Public institutions supported by the political process only needs the consent of the citizens.
Assuming that the EAS spend in FY13 was $235 million, which is close to what Wikipeda shows, the total loss for the EAS program was considerably less than the total loss for Amtrak's long distance trains. In FY13 the long distance trains had an operating loss of $627.1 million before depreciation and interest. If the long distance trains wear 10 per cent of Amtrak's depreciation and interest expense, the total loss for the long distance trains was $699.5 million. If one assumes that the long distance trains only attract five per cent of the company's depreciation and interest expenses, the loss was $663.3 million.
The EAS Program should be terminated. Having said that, I don't see how the EAS Program losses can be used as a justification - by implication - for continuing to run long distance trains that serve a minuscule portion of the population.
Sam1 How did you determine that the Silver Meteor is carrying a third sleeper many days?
How did you determine that the Silver Meteor is carrying a third sleeper many days?
adding cars lowers the subsidy by increasing revenue only if the demand is there. We really don't know how much demand there is.
blue streak 1 Deggesty . " Streak, according to Amtrak's public timetable, its route is 41 miles longer between Rocky Mount and Savannah, and 91 miles longer between Kissimmee and Winter Haven (going into Tampa from Auburndale and back adds this much)--for a total of 132 miles longer. Thanks have corrected post and here is editing to post that I posted. EDIT. If you look at the performance record for May you will find that Meteor is carrying a third sleeper many days
Deggesty . " Streak, according to Amtrak's public timetable, its route is 41 miles longer between Rocky Mount and Savannah, and 91 miles longer between Kissimmee and Winter Haven (going into Tampa from Auburndale and back adds this much)--for a total of 132 miles longer.
. " Streak, according to Amtrak's public timetable, its route is 41 miles longer between Rocky Mount and Savannah, and 91 miles longer between Kissimmee and Winter Haven (going into Tampa from Auburndale and back adds this much)--for a total of 132 miles longer.
Thanks have corrected post and here is editing to post that I posted.
EDIT. If you look at the performance record for May you will find that Meteor is carrying a third sleeper many days
EDIT. If you look at the performance record for May you will find that Meteor is carrying a third sleeper many days that has bumped the passengers ( not that important IMO ) and the revenue about 50% higher than the STAR.
Loses on Star were `` 20 cents per mile and Meteor 16 cents per mile. So if 5 more cars could be added and sold instead of one would Meteor break even ? ? ? Can this be applied to other routes ? Crescent NYP - ATL only ? Lakeshore ?
Quoting Blue Streak: "3. Star route approximately 180 miles longer. " Streak, according to Amtrak's public timetable, its route is 41 miles longer between Rocky Mount and Savannah, and 91 miles longer between Kissimmee and Winter Haven (going into Tampa from Auburndale and back adds this much)--for a total of 132 miles longer.
Johnny
schlimm You seem to be assuming the operating expenses are fixed, but we do not know the marginal numbers. Also, passenger loadings, revenue and sleeper numbers on LD trains are down. If an extra sleeping car is added, it will lose even more.
You seem to be assuming the operating expenses are fixed, but we do not know the marginal numbers. Also, passenger loadings, revenue and sleeper numbers on LD trains are down. If an extra sleeping car is added, it will lose even more.
Actually was using the PRIIA about the silver service. Granted that report is somewhat dated so metrics may have changed. It stated that extra coach on Meteor had a net gain ( smaller loss ) of $700,000. Unfortunately did not state time period of that number. Yes the Star's cost are higher. Some reasons
1. Meteor shares 4 stations with Palmetto that Star does not. + Meteor shares Florence station with Auto Train and Palmetto.
2. Star servers 8 stations not served by Meteor including Tampa. 9th -- Raleigh station is not as much due to sharing with Carolinian and Piedmonts.
3. Star route approximately 132 miles longer.
Since there is no breakdown on revenue passenger miles the reduction of passenger numbers is hard to define.
blue streak 1 Will not eliminate losses but if - if just present LD trains had all the equipment they need and could book accordingly the loses would be less. When the July & maybe the June performance figures come available the extra coach on the Meteor this summer shows up we will see less of a loss. The Meteor will show more passengers and loose less than the Star.. The star usually shows more passengers on a monthly basis due to the large number of passengers Tampa - SE Florida.
Will not eliminate losses but if - if just present LD trains had all the equipment they need and could book accordingly the loses would be less. When the July & maybe the June performance figures come available the extra coach on the Meteor this summer shows up we will see less of a loss. The Meteor will show more passengers and loose less than the Star..
The star usually shows more passengers on a monthly basis due to the large number of passengers Tampa - SE Florida.
If a coach is added, that is possibly true, although LD trains lost 22.6 cents PPM, YTD May. The Star lost 20.6, Meteor 15. You seem to be assuming the operating expenses are fixed, but we do not know the marginal numbers. Also, passenger loadings, revenue and sleeper numbers on LD trains are down. If an extra sleeping car is added, it will lose even more.
By postive contrast. the NE regionals have a profit of 14.3 cents PPM, Acela a whopping 47.2 cents profit and the state supported and other short corridors lost only 04.4 cents PPM. Obviously that is where Amtrak should be putting additional equipment, where the demand and profits are.
Paul Milenkovic Sam1 At the end of the day, at least for a commercial enterprise, the only poll that counts is the market. I know lots of people who say that they support more passenger trains. But do they ride them? Nope! Would they ride them? Maybe! But I would not count on it. I don't think the problem is getting people to ride passenger trains, at least judging by Amtrak load factors. If trains charge competitive fares, people will ride the trains. I think the problem is that fares are not covering the costs, with some qualified exceptions. Trains Magazine was on to this in the 1960's when they compared the operating cost of a 727 jetliner with the Denver Zephyr. It was pointed out recently that the airlines lose money or barely break even and there are all manners of hidden subsidies, but Essential Air Service aside, they are not being subsidized at, what is it, 20 cents/passenger-mile. And Essential Air Service, which gets a lot of love around here, is a kind of Amtrak in the air.
Sam1 At the end of the day, at least for a commercial enterprise, the only poll that counts is the market. I know lots of people who say that they support more passenger trains. But do they ride them? Nope! Would they ride them? Maybe! But I would not count on it.
I don't think the problem is getting people to ride passenger trains, at least judging by Amtrak load factors. If trains charge competitive fares, people will ride the trains.
I think the problem is that fares are not covering the costs, with some qualified exceptions. Trains Magazine was on to this in the 1960's when they compared the operating cost of a 727 jetliner with the Denver Zephyr. It was pointed out recently that the airlines lose money or barely break even and there are all manners of hidden subsidies, but Essential Air Service aside, they are not being subsidized at, what is it, 20 cents/passenger-mile. And Essential Air Service, which gets a lot of love around here, is a kind of Amtrak in the air.
I was attempting to show that people frequently say one thing, i.e. I would ride a passenger train if we had more of them, etc. especially when talking to a faceless, nameless pollster at the end of a telephone line, but whether they do as opposed to what they say they would do is frequently different.
Paul MilenkovicI think the problem is that fares are not covering the costs, with some qualified exceptions. Trains Magazine was on to this in the 1960's when they compared the operating cost of a 727 jetliner with the Denver Zephyr. It was pointed out recently that the airlines lose money or barely break even and there are all manners of hidden subsidies, but Essential Air Service aside, they are not being subsidized at, what is it, 20 cents/passenger-mile.
It is important to break the operating expense discrepancy down. Which Amtrak? LD services lose more than 20 cents per mile; NEC overall shows a surplus; Acela has a profit; state and short corridors have a loss, but far less than LD. LD should be treated as an ERS.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Some good points, but:
1. F2F follo up is becoming far less common.
2. More survey specs are given: response rate and error terms for the entire sample of 2000 and the smaller I 35.
3. UT-Austin's team that did the study seem pretty skilled, particularly Darron Shaw: National Election Studies Board of Overseers and the editorial board for American Politics Research.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.