posted
The Don Phillips column, in the April issue of TRANS, is interesting. It has to do with the supposed myth of the Northeast Corridor as a money maker for Amtrak. You would think that with the ridership figures and revenue, from the NEC, it wouldn't be a myth. But, I find it hard to determine.
Phillips talks about "above the rail" costs and full costs. By "above the rail" he is talking about train operating costs (costs in running the train, cost of fuel, labor costs, etc). Full costs implies cost of track maintenance and infrastructure (tunnels and other structures) as well as the cost in running the trains. Phillips believes that NEC losses would be much greater if long distance trains didn't innervate the northeast corridor.
Phillips states that it isn't possible to quantify losses on Long distance trains, but he maintains the losses aren't massive. If he can't quantify the losses, how can he be sure they aren't massive?
I find points to both agree and disagree.
Richard
MargaretSPfan Member # 3632
posted
What about the cost of maintaining and replacing (when needed) all the overhead wires and their supports? That cost alone has to be huge! And what about the costs of maintaining the stations?
No overhead wires + no stations = no trains running
I am NOT an expert -- just someone who has been reading about this subject for a while, and who cares about seeing to it that people gets decent transportation. That said, I keep reading from people who seem to know what they are talking about that the NEC loses a lot of money, if you consider all the costs -- not just the salaries of the operators and dispatchers and MOW crews and administration (office) costs, and maintaining all those cars, and what has got to be the gigantic cost of all the electricity for running all those trains.
I have read that those who believe that the NEC "makes money" are not including all the costs.
yukon11 Member # 2997
posted
I agree, Margaret. Phillips maintains that the accounting, for the NEC, looks only at "above the rail" costs, not overall costs.
One thing that I don't understand, a number of years ago the subsidy to the NEC was about half the overall govt. Amtrak subsidy. It would seem to me they could, at least, not have a substantial NEC loss. But, what do I know.
Richard
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
The north east corridor is essentially a glorified commuter service with lots of terminal costs and other costs related to short distance passenger services. Not to mention, the entire alignment was developed for a maximum speed of 70 mph to 80 mph. About as much speed has been squeezed out of the alignment that can be, and this results in higher cost for all fixed facilities due to higher wear rates, and higher wear rates on the equipment as well.
It will require major work on the alignment, track, and electrification system to reduce the operating costs of these fixed facilities.
DonNadeau Member # 61606
posted
quote:What about the cost of maintaining and replacing (when needed) all the overhead wires and their supports? That cost alone has to be huge! And what about the costs of maintaining the stations?
It goes beyond that. Apparently the NEC needs new bridges, as well as a new tunnel into New York Penn once passenger loads grow.
Keep in mind that certain members of Congress want Amtrak to at least break even. Subsidies don't count toward that.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
At the beginning of Amtrak the thought on the NEC was essentially rebuild the whole thing, new track, new bridges, line changes for speed, etc., etc. After studies monetary reality began to soak in, in part, so it became, attempt to deal with the serious arrears in maintenance and pick at the worst and easiest to fix changes in line, etc. There was also a continuation by quite a few, particularly of those in politics that new equipment would somehow magically make the high speed operation a reality. That only works with airplanes, and even then only if the runways and such are available.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Richard, thank you for locating the "Trains and Travel" site, that is well written by an author who has a journalism background and is not some kind of "foamer kook".
Now like others around here, this author is clearly pro-LD. Like TRAINS columnist Don Phillips, he holds the common sense truth that even after the excess of revenues over the direct costs (out of pocket, avoidable cost, above the rails, whatever) from the Acelas and Regionals, the user fees from the four (or more) commuter agencies with Corridor operations, payments from three Class I's - third being SOO Line - for freight operations, the Corridor is still a money loser.
But the notion implied that for Amtrak to "foist" the Corridor off on another agency (with of course the trains operated by the private sector) and concentrate on the LD's is nonsense.
That "oh they really don't lose all that much money, and that their completely avoidable loss of (my estimate) of $400M is only a fraction of the $1.3B or so that Amtrak gets (and will keep getting regardless whether he or she raises their right on Jan 20), but with expansion of routes and frequencies, marketing, and 'beefing up' the quality of the on-board product, they'll lose less and maybe just become profitable." is also nonsense.
LD advocates have a way of overlooking the subsidies that the Class I industry throws in - access to their Systems, and for which (even if there is no public disclosure of such) is hardly the opportunity cost of what that "slot" is worth in a free marketplace.
DonNadeau Member # 61606
posted
quote:LD advocates have a way of overlooking the subsidies that the Class I industry throws in - access to their Systems, and for which (even if there is no public disclosure of such) is hardly the opportunity cost of what that "slot" is worth in a free marketplace.
These though of course do not appear on the accounting reports that Congress evaluates.
And, in fairness neither do the immense sums provided by taxpayers for such things as airports, air traffic control, etc. appear on the accounting reports of airlines.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Mr. Nadeau, you likely are correct, that no public document, such as the Monthly Performance Reports, include a line item identified as "railroad access fees". What Amtrak pays each road, as well as any performance based payments, for use of their rights of way, is contained within a bilateral agreement that is exempt from public disclosure.
But again, it is my understanding that this access is at "bargain basement" rates, and if Amtrak trains, absent wilful intent, are delayed, well Amtrak is simply "getting what they pay for".
Regarding highways, that the "Trust Fund" is broke certainly is indicative that somebody is getting a "reduced rate" ride there. The Federal level "gas tax" is a flat amount that has not been adjusted since 1983, and even an "eighth grader" (note I avoid the usual third grader) can understand the political pressures that any elected officeholder would get from the constituents with a vote to raise such at any level of government (wanna see a packed Village Hall around here? Come when the Politburu discusses raising the Street use tax - presently $40/yr for each vehicle).
It can be debated "till the cows come home" if any highway use tax is fairly allocated (as distinct from adequate) amongst the vehicles using such. One of many such examples (defer to Mr. Harris to identify others if he chooses); is an "eighteen wheeler" properly assessed for the additional structural cost of overpasses, or even the paving thickness, because they use it?
Now so far as air transport, some use fees are paid by the airline - and of course are reflected in the ticket price. Others are directly assessed against the passenger, so I question the extent of the "free ride", if any. Of course, anything a passenger voluntarily does, such as have a drink, rent an auto, hire a taxicab or livery, is making the airport authority rich. I'm sure they all "love" delayed flights and this three hour security time recommendation nowadays.
Finally, at least there is full disclosure to an airline passenger of the direct taxes and user fees being assessed (not certain if this is required disclosure or if United Airlines "out of the goodness of their heart" provides this to their passengers):
Fare Breakdown Airfare: 2,417.00 USD U.S. Customs User Fee: 5.50 U.S. Immigration User Fee: 7.00 U.S. APHIS User Fee: 3.96 U.S. Transportation Tax: 35.60 September 11th Security Fee: 5.60 Germany Airport Security Charge: 7.30 Germany Air Transportation Tax: 47.30 Germany Passenger Service Charge: 24.30 U.S. Passenger Facility Charge: 4.50 Per Person Total: 2,558.06 USD eTicket Total: 2,558.06 USD
Geoff Mayo Member # 153
posted
The UK charges Air Passenger Duty for adults which is based on the distance to the flight's destination capital city. Truly bizarre - and expensive. This results in the APD for LHR-JFK being the same as the APD for LHR-LAX despite being 40% further, while LHR-MEX is more expensive than LHR-LAX as the capital city is further from LHR, despite being slightly shorter overall... clear as mud?!
DonNadeau Member # 61606
posted
" . . . But again, it is my understanding that [Amtrak's] access is at 'bargain basement' rates, and if Amtrak trains, absent wilful intent, are delayed, well Amtrak is simply "getting what they pay for."
Fair enough. Thank you. Can't argue with that.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Now so far as air transport, some use fees are paid by the airline - and of course are reflected in the ticket price. Others are directly assessed against the passenger, so I question the extent of the "free ride", if any. Of course, anything a passenger voluntarily does, such as have a drink, rent an auto, hire a taxicab or livery, is making the airport authority rich. I'm sure they all "love" delayed flights and this three hour security time recommendation nowadays.
Finally, at least there is full disclosure to an airline passenger of the direct taxes and user fees being assessed (not certain if this is required disclosure or if United Airlines "out of the goodness of their heart" provides this to their passengers)
But when talking air travel subsidies we must not forget the huge areas of urban or near urban land that are no longer paying property taxes to the city/county in which they exist.
posted