That is the sort of thinking we need. Ideally, that is what should be done. But if this forum is at all representative of opinion…
Autotrain loses 14.9¢ per passenger mile. Losses on all other trains are in the single digits, many in the low single digits except for the Lakeshore Limited which breaks even. In can conceive of a case being made to cut Autotrain.
But I still regard Amtrak as a transportation system. In any system some parts perform better than others but each contributes to the system as a whole. My little toe is less important to my body than my right hand but I am not inclined to cut off my little toe. I would look to strengthen the system rather than weaken it.
On the other hand, I can see arguing that we should abandon all long distance routes. I hope that does not happen but I think that is more logical than piecemeal cuts.
As an aside, I notice the Crescent loses the second highest amount of money, 9.1¢ per passenger mile. I think that strengthens Don’s argument that the Crescent should run as two daily trains each of which ends in Atlanta.
Amtrak has a wealth of data. And it makes more of its operating and financial data public than many if not most organizations. What’s missing, apparently, is management’s ability and willingness to tie the data analysis to its strategic planning. Boardman acknowledged as much in his response to the OIG’s report on Amtrak’s asset management policies, procedures, and practices. Hopefully, the relatively new Operations Research person will help fix the problem.
Amtrak has segment data re: revenues. It uses this data, amongst other things, for its Guest Rewards Program. This is just one data set that is not made directly available to the public. There may be others.
I’d keep the long distance trains because they provide a better quality of service to intermediate points (i.e. small towns) than other modes of transportation. An example is the Southwest Chief serving the Philmont Scout Ranch in New Mexico. Anyone going to Philmont has gear that they won’t (knives, axes) or can’t (camp stoves) check as airline baggage.
Next, I’d create an internal route analysis group. Their job would be to do the demand analysis on every reasonable city pair where improved passenger service is a reasonable possibility. As part of the demand analysis, they would determine where the stations should be to serve the traffic.
An example of station analysis would be the proposed Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison service. To serve the traffic, the Madison station should be within walking distance of the University of Wisconsin. Chicago stations should be at O’Hare Field, Union Station, and Midway Airport.
In FY12 the Lake Shore Limited lost $33.1 million or 16.2 cents per passenger mile before depreciation, interest and miscellaneous charges. These charges probably added another $3 million to the net loss. In FY11 the Lake Shore Limited lost $37.5 million or 18.5 cents per passenger mile before depreciation, interest and miscellaneous charges.
The Auto Train lost 15.4 cents per passenger mile in FY12, up from 14.1 cents per passenger mile in FY11. The best performing long distance train in FY12, i.e. with the lowest financial loss per passenger mile, was the Palmetto at 13.3 cents. The worst performer was the Sunset Limited at 49.9 cents per passenger mile. Overall the long distance trains lost $600.9 million in FY12, up slightly from $597.7 million in FY11. These numbers are before depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges.
[quote user=“Sam1”]
In FY12 the Lake Shore Limited lost $33.1 million or 16.2 cents per passenger mile before depreciation, interest and miscellaneous charges. These charges probably added another $3 million to the net loss. In FY11 the Lake Shore Limited lost $37.5 million or 18.5 cents per passenger mile before depreciation, interest and miscellaneous charges.
The Auto Train lost 15.4 cents per passenger mile in FY12, up from 14.1 cents per passenger mile in FY11. The best performing long distance train in FY12, i.e. with the lowest financial loss per passenger mile, was the Palmetto at 13.3 cents. The worst performer was the Sunset Limited at 49.9 cents per passenger mile. Overall the long distance trains lost $600.9 million in FY12, up slightly from $597.7 million in FY11. These numbers are before depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges.[/
Surprise, surprise! A day train! It’s also the stronges ridership growth in the the first part of the year.
Sam,
I stand corrected. As you point out, Amtrak has a wealth of data. I looked at a table that compared information from 2012 and 2013 rather than the table that show costs per passenger mile. The title was off the top of my screen and I should have scrolled up to double check it.
However, I still believe a logical case may be made to cut all long distance routes but to cut just one makes much less sense because Amtrak is a system.
John
I am not advocating cutting just one long distance passenger train. They all should be dropped as per my previous post. The reference to the Texas Eagle was just an example of how the equipment could be redeployed in Texas, as well as perhaps elsewhere, to provide a better service to a burgeoning market.
Sam,
I don’t want to go on and on arguing issues where we will never agree. And this certainly is one of those issues. But I can accept the logic of your position that we drop all long distance trains. If it does come to that far better that Amtrak should have a clear and clean ending than that it should just slowly be dismembered which would only prolong its death.
John
i don’t want to belabor the point either, but I do not agree with your premise/contention. Cutting off the most useless and biggest expense drains within Amtrak doesn’t kill it. If anything, those changes are to save Amtrak and convert/expand it into a real transportation alternative for the future. Running one nostalgia train per day or three times per week each way on a 2000 mile run is not a viable transportation service. Land cruises? Maybe, but not something Amtrak should be engaged in, anymore than the government should offer heavily subsidized (~25-60 cents on the dollar) river and ocean cruises.
To put it another way: if a properly conducted survey were done of Americans 16 and up, and you asked if they thought they would use a train service that takes 40+ hours to get somewhere, I’ll bet 98% would say no, and of the 2% who said yes, less than half of them would use it more than once a year. So you want a government program that might serve less than 2% of the public, at best?
Amtrak reports 31.2 million passengers rode its trains in 2012. The US population is about 313 million. So altogether about 10 per cent of the total population road Amtrak. I think that is pretty respectable.
However, it is well established that 85 per cent of all passengers ride on the north east corridor. That means about 4.7 million rode long distance services which is, as you say, less than 2 per cent of the whole public.
Of course some people are not really available to ride Amtrak because they are too infirm to travel or incarcerated or in the military and overseas and for similar reasons. Still, I think your “under 2 per cent” figure is pretty reasonable.
But the question I would ask is if there are people who genuinely need a service should the government as a matter of principal ignore that need because there are so few of them?
Approximately 72 per cent of the U.S. population is 18 or older. Most people over 18 determine how they will travel; many if not most people under 18 have that choice made for them by a guardian.
Amtrak’s 32.1 million passengers in FY12 is not comparable with the population. They are different data. The population is the projection of the estimated population generated by the results of a valid statistical sample. The population is every human body that can be counted in accordance with the Census Bureau guidelines. The number of passengers reported by Amtrak represents the number of tickets lift from customers (individuals).
Last year I made 11 trips on Amtrak. I was one person who used Amtrak 11 times and, therefore, I was counted as a passenger 11 times. I also made six trips on Southwest Airlines and, as was true for Amtrak, I was one person counted as six passengers.
Just reporting the number of passengers carried without disclosing the number of customers hoisted
In a nation of 81.8 million people, DB (German Railways) serves about 2 billion people. They provide good service to many people. Seems to me we might learn something from their examples, which include serving many towns with local services, but not burdening intercity services with routes that serve few. And they manage quite well without baggage cars, even on their overnight sleeper trains, which go beyond the German borders.
You fall into a statistical error here. Many of those 31.2 million rode multiple times. So it is simply not true to say 10% of Americans ride Amtrak. That is why I suggested a survey which would probably show very few ride Amtrak even once in their lifetime and even fewer ride the over 2000 mile/40 hour LD trains.
Sam,
I agree you have a valid point. The total number of Amtrak riders is some fraction of the total number of passengers because many passengers ride the train more than once. In fact some passengers ride the train a lot more than once. For example, commuters who typically ride 10 times a week.
But if the purpose of government is to do for people what people cannot do for themselves how do we decide when the number of people who need a service is so low that we will dismiss their needs?
If such a number does exist the fact that Amtrak carries more passengers than ever suggests that there is no consensus that we have reached that number.
Finally, if the purpose of government is not to do for people what they cannot do for themselves how then do we justify even expenditures for national defense?
John
Even more off base is your use of total ridership for Amtrak rather than long distance ridership. No one on these forums is talking about elimination of the entire system, except you. Boardman and others have politely suggested that the LD routes, if they perform some social need, should be funded separately, not drain money from the corridors, which are Amtrak’s future.
That is correct, Schlimm. And there is a reason for it. I believe the one essential element that must be maintained if Amtrak is to continue is a national consensus. Cutting back the long distance routes undermines that consensus and in my view ultimately is what would lead to abandoning Amtrak. No one here has come forth to agree with me and that is why no one except me talks about eliminating the entire system. However, I do believe that is what would happen.
Other people are free to disagree with me on this point. No where is it written that anyone must agree with me and I don’t expect anyone to. On the other hand, did you ever read Henrick Ibsen’s parable of the lone scout?
John
Well, if that is your view, it seems much like saying “If we can’t have long distance, then all of Amtrak will die, so let’s kill it now.” I searched for the Ibsen work (a poem?). I found nothing besides his plays, except his complete poetry, in Norwegian only, which I do not read.
A political wag told me JohnWR is correct. You cut here then cut there. Soon any program dies because it is very regional. “Try cutting the whole thing at once never”. He used the example of agriculture subsidies…