States may not be paying 100% even with PRIIA 209

At least that's what Amtrak claims here, in comment 37

It's factually inaccurate to suggest CA or any state pays "100%" of a corridor trains' costs under Section 209. It's estimated that post Section 209, Amtrak's $$ contribution will be ~13%, which is less than today's 30%, but still, not 0% as the comment suggests. Recommend saying Section 209 requires states to pay a "larger share...," but 100% is incorrect.

Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure how that passes muster; even with the "proportionate share of costs benefitting more than one route," that proportion ought to match the costs.

That is probably because Amtrak has not still figured out how to allocate capital costs I suppose. Just a guess, since in Amtrak's published reports Capital Cost allocations are still not provided on a per route basis. It is further complicated in situations like LOSSAN where a mix of equipment is used, some Amtrak and some California. And of coruse at a pinch Amtrak even deploys an Amtrak California car on the Coast Starlight or such to fill a mkissing regular Amtrak car, and vice versa. So even that ~13% is probably a guesstimate at present.

The 13% figure came up in Amtrak's presentation at the northwest regional NARP meeting. The Amtrak rep said that the 13% covers such items as ARROW, the website and the call center, all of which benefit both LD and state-supported trains. The speaker from Oregon's rail office, however, said that Amtrak is apportioning station costs (assume he meant agents, overhead and such) between the LD and state-supported trains, and that this is already happening.

CHamilton said:

The 13% figure came up in Amtrak's presentation at the northwest regional NARP meeting. The Amtrak rep said that the 13% covers such items as ARROW, the website and the call center, all of which benefit both LD and state-supported trains. The speaker from Oregon's rail office, however, said that Amtrak is apportioning station costs (assume he meant agents, overhead and such) between the LD and state-supported trains, and that this is already happening.

Click to expand...

Now that is really weird, since I thought that those (ARROW, website, etc.) were exactly the things that were the overheads included in what some claim to be "bloated numbers" allocated to non NEC services. Needs some further checking on that one I think.

jis said:

CHamilton said:

The 13% figure came up in Amtrak's presentation at the northwest regional NARP meeting. The Amtrak rep said that the 13% covers such items as ARROW, the website and the call center, all of which benefit both LD and state-supported trains. The speaker from Oregon's rail office, however, said that Amtrak is apportioning station costs (assume he meant agents, overhead and such) between the LD and state-supported trains, and that this is already happening.

Click to expand...

Now that is really weird, since I thought that those (ARROW, website, etc.) were exactly the things that were the overheads included in what some claim to be "bloated numbers" allocated to non NEC services. Needs some further checking on that one I think.

Click to expand...

That is how I understood it also. In fact, the call center costs allocated to the Capitol Corridor were so high that the CCJPA elected to open their own call center and not use Amtrak's. Sometimes it seems the Amtrak "officials" who make presentations at groups like NARP are remarkably uninformed about the nuts and bolts of Amtrak operations.

Well, I'll be meeting a few senior Amtrak folks at TransAction in April. Also I am sure I will meet Brian Gallagher at the ESPA Annual Meeting next Saturday in Schenectady. I wonder if tehre will be anyone there from Amtrak marketing and product management, other than the usual suspects from Amtrak Empire Service. Must remember to pick their brains on this one.

I think 100% is an approximation, but it's never going to be perfect...there will be year-to-year variances no matter what. With that said, it should work out overall, since Amtrak is having to put not only overhead charges but also, from what I recall from the VA reports, some small "profit" adders (2-3% on a few items) to mimic private sector margins and/or to cover hard-to-peg overhead stuff.