In these discussions, someone always tries to use raw passenger numbers to marginalize LD. Look at the March issue of Trains at the chart on the bottom of page 25. While the LD trains carry 15% of passengers, that translates to 43% of the passenger miles. In other words they do almost half the work of ATK.
We have also had the discussion before on sleeper contribution to the LD trains. Because they pay so much more for the accommodations, they contribute about a third of the revenue of LD trains.
You can maintain LD number of passengers at 15% but we maintain that the number of LD passenger miles is a much greater percentage. Granted the 2011 PRIIA numbers are dated but for the Crescent average distance for passengers is 552, LSL -511, SS - 525, SM - 616, Palmetto - 480. Note SM sleeper average is 944 miles so no wonder it gets the most sleepers. That is even more than AutoTrain. Name me any NEC or state route that can even come close to those numbers.
Have no idea what the average NEC - State route might be but Capital corridor ( SAC - SJC ) at 133 miles might come close. Average passe****nger may go 100 miles. So we have the east coast LD trains carrying passengers 5 times farther. Did not have time to check other LD trains.
If other LD trains are similar that makes a very uncertain wag of about 38% LD passenger miles of total Amtrak PMs.
Based on ticket revenues as opposed to total revenues, in 2016 sleeping car passengers paid 37.7 percent of the long distance train’s ticket revenues. In 2012 it was 35.2 percent.
Revenues are only half of the story. The other half are the expenses of operating the sleeping cars plus the allocated capital charges. Amtrak does not make these numbers public.
In a 2005 study the DOT IG found that passengers in Amtrak’s sleeping cars got a greater subsidy than the coach passengers. Whether this is still true is unknown.
In 2016 the long distance ticket revenues were 22.5 percent of Amtrak’s total ticket revenues; in 2012 they were 25.5 percent. This is just half the story. How much did they lose per passenger mile and per ticket is equally important.
The use of passenger miles is misleading, as it inflates the value of LD service. The metrics that matter are number of passengers served, the revenue they generate and the actual cost to operate those trains, setting aside various fixed costs, overhead, etc.
So your contention is that whenever a LD train uses a State Corridor station, it shares no costs of that station, staffing, etc and no costs of that station are allocated to the LD route…your contention is the facility is entirely bought and paid for by the state, including all expenses and equipment.
I would be really surprised if that is how the accounting works because the State Corridors were mostly built on the backs of LD train routes already in place and that is why the states found them so financially attractive. They did not have to build from scratch…most of the infrastructure was there and a bonus was the LD routes were paying the costs already, they just had to sub-divide them out more.
Whenever someone starts a post with “So your contention is…” you’d better watch out because it is someone trying to put words in your mouth.
I never said what you alleged. Any station’s costs should be worn by all the routes that use it, using som method of cost allocation.
What I was saying was that calling shorter state corridors part of a National System is misleading because it inflates the size of ridership to make LD trains appear more significant than they actually are. LD train ridership is a minor part of Amtrak and a miniscule part of overall passenger transportation. Drop LD service tomorrow and very few Americans would notice it other than their small ridership (most of whom have alternatives), some readers on here and the NARP’s 24,000 me
Not 100% sure of that. I think some will notice and I think some shared costs will shift making state corridors more expensive to run without the cost sharing from LD trains . Likewise you will see a slight drop in ridership in state corridors as some state trains are used to complete LD train trips. I think that is what they meant when they said part of the National system, they are not completely independent. There is overlap. I think in Illinois especially you will see a jump in costs to the remaining state corridors due to the Chicago Union Station hub plus commissary plus staffing there for LD trains.
New York’s MTA commuter trains & subway (and bus) routes carry as many passengers in 3 days as Amtrak carries in a year. So I guess by your logic, all ATK should be shut down in favor of putting all the effort in the MTA since the only thing that counts is the overwhelming number of passengers served.
Agreed. I’d rather have 10 passengers traveling 200 miles between New York and DC vs. 1 passenger traveling 2,000 miles between Chicago and Seattle. You have a bigger audience and it costs a lot less to carry those 10 than that 1.
The metric used by the Department of Transportation back in the 70’s when they cut a bunch of trains was PM/TM (Passenger Miles Per Train Mile).
Back then one of the worst performing trains was the Cardinal which Amtrak did cancel but Sen. Byrd from West Virginia demanded it be brought back while other trains like the Floridian, National Limited, and Lone Star (all with higher PM/TM than the Cardinal) were canceled and later the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers (Pennsylvania’s main train to Chicago and the ability to transfer west) while the Cardinal who serves no one outside of West Virginia is still around (the train is worthless between New York/DC and Chicago since the Lake Shore Limited/Capitol Limited are a good 6-7 hours faster, Cincinnati is served in the middle of the night, and Indianapolis’s times aren’t ideal either). To this day Byrd Crap still has the worst PM/TM of any LD train.
I think plenty of LD routes contribute well to Amtrak but there are some dead weights like Byrd Crap that could be canceled and save us some money (or the money could be used for more useful routes like a new Three Rivers). Amtrak should decide to keep/cut trains based on performance and not who’s in charge of the Senate.
Not at all. But by your logic, one person who rides Amtrak once from NYC to LA (about 3000 miles) is equal in public service to transporting 36 people in NYC on the Acela to New Haven? LD travel by train in the US is neither competitive in time or efficiency with airlines because of the distance and true cost, as is obvious by the public preference.
Yes,Schlimm, you do keep making the point, and from and accountants point-of-view and from a transporation-efficiency point of you, you are correct.
But that is unfare.
Why should a Kansas farmer subsidize the commuter that travels Acela or Northeast regional four times a week between Philadelphia and New York, but his son cannot enjoy a high-school graduation once-in-lifetime train tour to see the USA safely by hijself (and meet the people). Or have his elderly and handicapped grandparents come for a visit?
The whole Amtrak subsidy is tiny compare do the civilization in brings the USA. Libraries and concert halls and symphony orchestras don’t exist on ticket sales either but require donations and in many cases government subsidies.
And then there is the very massive subsidy still existing, but hidden, to personal automobile transportion and over-the-road trucking.
Because there are literally millions of people living in New York and Philly and millions of people each year riding Amtrak boarding at those two cities alone (and that’s not counting Washington DC). Plus New York is the financial capital of the US and Washington is obviously our nation’s capital. Without millions of people traveling to NY/DC (and Philly’s no slouch) the country can’t function as well. You can’t say the same about Kansas. I personally have no problem with Kansas as it’s a medium sized state and it’s along the Southwest Chief which I have traveled to Los Angeles 3 times in the last 20 years. I think it’s important to have Chicago and LA connected and the train has to go through some states to get there. I have a problem with North Dakota. It’s the fourth least populous state but they have tons of stops on a route that connects Chicago to Seattle/Portland which are much less populated cities and to me less of tourist attractions than LA or San Fran (California Zephyr, also serving Denver and Salt Lake City). I think anything between Spokane and Minneapolis is worthless (Montana is way down on the population rank as well). I think it’s hugely unfair the third most popular Amtrak city does not have a daily train to Chicago (and the one we have tak
Just remember those percentages are daily operating costs covered by revenue and does not represent the total cost of the service. If a train covers 100% of operating cost…that is still below break even for the service.
Heartland Flyer is listed as covering 90% of operating costs in that report but it’s still $3-4 million short of it’s goal of break-even. Though Amtrak says it only costs $9.2 million to run and earned $7.3 million in revenue.
To compare Amtrak to other transportation modes/companies, the federal government subsidizes many federal roads and their maintenance as well as air traffic control and other “costs” of air travel. While no form of transportation is fully self sufficient without government subsidy, IMO the infrastructure should be the responsibility of the government while the operating costs shouldn’t be unless they are of national interest. It is of national interest for Amtrak to serve the major cities and states where people live and where people want to travel to. A train serving Orlando not only serves people who live in Orlando but people who wish to travel there and don’t want to fly/drive. Routes should exist if there are a lot of people who live there and/or
In 2016 every one of the long distance trains had an operating loss, which is the loss before allocation of depreciation, interest, etc. expenses.
Excluding the Auto Train, which had an operating loss of $1.8 million compared to an operating profit of $2.1 million in 2015, the losses ranged from $58.2 million for the Empire Builder to $4.3 million for the Palmetto. The Cardinal lost $16.4 million, which was the second lowest loss after the Palmetto.
Overall the long distance trains lost $492.4 million before allocation of capital expenses. If one assumes that they wear 10 percent of the capital expenses, the loss would have been $580.3 million.
Ticket revenues covered approximately 48 percent of the operating costs of the long distance trains, which is better than some of the State Supported trains.
Knowing how the long distance trains fit into Amtrak’s business model and their impact on its outcomes is interesting. Maybe even important! But the long distance trains are no
Philly Amtrak Fan
I think plenty of LD routes contribute well to Amtrak but there are some dead weights like Byrd Crap …
In 2016 every one of the long distance trains had an operating loss, which is the loss before allocation of depreciation, interest, etc. expenses.
Excluding the Auto Train, which had an operating loss of $1.8 million compared to an operating profit of $2.1 million in 2015, the losses ranged from $58.2 million for the Empire Builder to $4.3 million for the Palmetto. The Cardinal lost $16.4 million, which was the second lowest loss after the Palmetto.
Overall the long distance trains lost $492.4 million before allocation of capital expenses. If one assumes that they wear 10 percent of the capital expenses, the loss would have been $580.3 million.
Ticket revenues covered approximately 48 percent of the operating costs of the long distance trains, which is better than some of the State Supported trains.
Philly Amtrak fan: You are simply repeating the point that Schlimm made. No, I do not think it is unfare for a Kansas farmer to help subisidize the NEC
as long as the NEC is part of a NATIONAL SYSTEM that ATTEMPTS to provide services that any US Citizen or visitor can use.
To be fare, Amtrak must remain a national system, not one serving only one class of people and a few areas where bean counters say passenger trains are the most efficient passenger transportation mode.
Just like handicapped access and hard-of-hearing aids in theatres. The ticket price does not begin to cover the added cost of these facilities that are needed by a few but available to anyone.
I answered you before you posted your post, but apparently I have to repeat the point. And I will repeat it again if required.
I used to live in the New York area, and commuted on the NYC lines. To me my one trip on the SW Chief had as much value as 36 commuter trips on the old Central.
The LD trains I have travelled were well patronized, which tells me that there are enough people with a preference for rail travel to fill the trains that do run.</
I would suggest you look at the occupancy rates as well as the total number of long distance passenger train riders compared to that of other modes. The former is mostly low and the latter is barely a blip.