amtrak funding article

[yarrow]

amtrak funding article

 

[rmgreenesq]

Interesting article. I suppose the Democratic House will bring it to the floor. I'm not sure what this bill means for long distance trains that serve many states but do not dominate any particular state. What state would want to invest in a train like the Southwest Chief?

Rick

 

[George Harris]

Some good, some bad, some nonsense.

Unfortunately, the article contains some of the same old nonsense of the empty long distnace trains and a quote from Vranich, which is the same as calling Dr. Kervorkian to consult on your cancer treatment.

 

[Bigval109]

I have yet to ride on a long distant train that was low on ridership. Most of the ones I have riden on were quite crowded. Once again you get someone who had not riden on the train offering an opinion.

 

[frj1983]

Ahhhhhhhhhh Mr. Vranich,

Who goes berserk when the very word "Amtrak" is mentioned in his presence.

So does he have anything new to add to the discussion?? Nothing, zip, nada!

So I yawn and ignore him.

 

[saxman]

Ahhhhhhhhhh Mr. Vranich,
Who goes berserk when the very word "Amtrak" is mentioned in his presence.

So does he have anything new to add to the discussion?? Nothing, zip, nada!

So I yawn and ignore him.

Yup, I think the same thing. Wasn't he fired from Amtrak? Plus who takes the time to write two books on everything wrong with Amtrak?

 

[AlanB]

Unfortunately, the article contains some of the same old nonsense of the empty long distnace trains and a quote from Vranich, which is the same as calling Dr. Kervorkian to consult on your cancer treatment.

Like most things, depending on just how one presents the info can make a world of difference. The quote that I'm sure you're refering to is this one:

They provide a stark-contrast to the railroad's long-distance trains, which many critics believe should be eliminated because they are costly and attract comparatively few riders.

Yet if one looks at Amtrak's own data, one finds that the long distance trains for Fiscal 2006 carried 1,063,082 passengers than Amtrak's vaunted Acela Express trains did. And while the State funded/Short distance corridors did carry more than 3 times the number of passengers that the long distance trains carried, it is interesting to note that the long distance trains pulled in $70,203,653 more than the State funded corridors in revenue. Or if one wants to make things look even better, Amtrak collected an average fare of $25.82 from each passenger who rode on a State funded or other short distance train and they collected an average of $95.95 from every passenger who rode on a long distance train.

 

[George Harris]

it is interesting to note that the long distance trains pulled in $70,203,653 more than the State funded corridors in revenue. Or if one wants to make things look even better, Amtrak collected an average fare of $25.82 from each passenger who rode on a State funded or other short distance train and they collected an average of $95.95 from every passenger who rode on a long distance train.

Since Amtrak counts the state contribution to running a state supported train as part of their income as if it were from fare paying passengers, the state supported trains are actually far worse in revenue than the numbers given by Amtak would indicate.

 

[WICT106]

The details are what matters here. IN order to provide better service, one thing that is required is Capital Funding. Say, for example, a certain state, such as Wisconsin, or Florida, wanted to have funding to fix up the tracks in that state. The State could then place a 10 percent tax on the tickets of every person disembarking in that state, similar to what airports do with landing fees. The collected taxes would then go into a Trust Fund - administered by the State - and the State could then approach railroads and say if they had Amtrak going over a route, the State would then match their maintenance expenditures dollar-for-dollar up to the 79 mph standard. The freight railroad would then have some additional compensation for the operation of Amtrak (interstate) trains over its tracks. If the RR does not run pasenger trains over the tracks, then no access to State matching funds for maintenance.

A State such as Florida might be able to pull this off, and it might pay for the additional capacity that freight RRs need in so many parts of the nation. I'm not so sure about Wisconsin, though (on my last trip over the MLK weekend, the CP rails were the smoothest rails on the trip) .

 

[mkellerm]

it is interesting to note that the long distance trains pulled in $70,203,653 more than the State funded corridors in revenue. Or if one wants to make things look even better, Amtrak collected an average fare of $25.82 from each passenger who rode on a State funded or other short distance train and they collected an average of $95.95 from every passenger who rode on a long distance train.

Since Amtrak counts the state contribution to running a state supported train as part of their income as if it were from fare paying passengers, the state supported trains are actually far worse in revenue than the numbers given by Amtak would indicate.

Yes and no. If you look at most of the financial reports, or the route profitability statements, then state subsidies are included in revenues (although often broken out in the financials). If you look at the revenue and ridership report in the Monthly Performance Report, which is the source of the $70,203,653 number, then it is just ticket revenue. Including the state subsidy (and food revenues, which are pretty small), you get revenue per passenger of about $41 per passenger.

 

[saxman]

it is interesting to note that the long distance trains pulled in $70,203,653 more than the State funded corridors in revenue. Or if one wants to make things look even better, Amtrak collected an average fare of $25.82 from each passenger who rode on a State funded or other short distance train and they collected an average of $95.95 from every passenger who rode on a long distance train.

Since Amtrak counts the state contribution to running a state supported train as part of their income as if it were from fare paying passengers, the state supported trains are actually far worse in revenue than the numbers given by Amtak would indicate.

Yes and no. If you look at most of the financial reports, or the route profitability statements, then state subsidies are included in revenues (although often broken out in the financials). If you look at the revenue and ridership report in the Monthly Performance Report, which is the source of the $70,203,653 number, then it is just ticket revenue. Including the state subsidy (and food revenues, which are pretty small), you get revenue per passenger of about $41 per passenger.

But we blame critics for using "cost per passenger" we should make sure we don't use the similar "revenue per passenger" either, since in my mind its pretty much the same thing. A better number would be "revenue per passenger mile."

 

[AlanB]

But we blame critics for using "cost per passenger" we should make sure we don't use the similar "revenue per passenger" either, since in my mind its pretty much the same thing. A better number would be "revenue per passenger mile."

Quite true, but the point of my post wasn't to promote Amtrak or show that the long distance trains were doing better, as much as it was to show that statistics can say anything you want them to, as long as you present them in the light you want.