Looks like the blue route is faster.
Posted on 09/02/2010 5:05:40 PM PDT by Willie Green
TOPEKA, Kan. - Transportation planners have narrowed their proposals for expanded Amtrak passenger rail service across Kansas to two possible routes, the Kansas Department of Transportation said Thursday.
Depending on which route is chosen, if either of them is, transportation department officials estimate the service will require either $154 million for infrastructure and equipment costs, plus a potential $3.2 million annual operating subsidy paid by Kansas taxpayers, or $476 million for infrastructure and equipment, plus $8 million annually in state support.
However, those cost estimates are extremely tentative. Officials are working on more detailed business plans for both routes during the next 12 months to present to Kansas legislators in the 2012 session, said Dennis Slimmer, a transportation department spokesman.
At least one independent study suggests the ultimate costs could be higher. Subsidyscope, a project of the Pew Charitable Trusts, in November recalculated losses Amtrak reported on its 44 lines across the U.S. and concluded that system-wide losses were as high as $32 a passenger, four times larger than what Amtrak originally calculated. The recalculated losses on lines closest to the expanded Kansas service ranged between $26.76 and $169.90 per passenger.
Both routes identified Thursday are among four plans for which federally-owned and railroad-supported Amtrak did feasibility studies earlier this year to examine choices for rail service between Kansas City and Fort Worth, Tex.
The cheaper of the two proposed routes would provide nighttime service for what Amtrak estimates would be 92,500 passengers a year between Newton, Kan., and Fort Worth, essentially linking Amtrak's Southwestern Chief, which passes through Newton on its Chicago-Los Angeles run, to the Heartland Flyer, which runs from Oklahoma City to Fort Worth.
The more expensive route would offer daytime service between Kansas City and Fort Worth for a projected 174,000 passengers annually over the same general route, requiring more equipment and additional improvements to track and facilities along the way.
Amtrak and industry consultants projected in March that the lower cost Newton to Fort Worth nighttime route would generate about $2.7 million operating revenues annually, compared to $6.1 million annually that the daytime Kansas City to Fort Worth service.
Kansas legislators in March tentatively okayed preparation of plans for potentially expanded passenger rail service in the state, but declined to provide funding. Legislators and governors in Kansas, Oklahoma and possibly Texas will need to approve final plans before any expansion begins.
Click here for a PDF of the letter.
December 11, 2009
Rebecca W. Rimel, President and CEO
Pew Charitable Trusts
One Commerce Square
2005 Market Street, Suite 1700
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7077
Dear Ms. Rimel:
Your “Subsidyscope” Amtrak report predictably led to a torrent of anti-passenger-train news coverage and badly misled the public. Fully 75% of your stated per-passenger subsidy is depreciation and overhead which was allocated improperly (my items 5-8).
I appreciated the October 29 phone call from Marcus Peacock and his comment that the media coverage “is not what we would have written,” but I am disappointed that I received no opportunity to comment on even an early draft of your report.
There is a fundamental inconsistency between publishing detailed (to the penny) subsidies per passenger-mile for each individual Amtrak route and relying exclusively on “publicly available data” to the exclusion of data essential to the calculations; data Amtrak would have willingly provided on request but which Pew chose not to request.
The following observations are relevant:
1. Any discussion of subsidies needs context, in this case acknowledging:
a. huge subsidies to other modes of transportation;
b. improvement in passenger train economic performance (see point 2);
c. the reasons why trains are important.
2. Your picture is largely a rear-view mirror look. The report was silent on improvement over the years. For example, the Amtrak Reform Council—using 2001 data—found a subsidy per passenger (when adjusted for inflation) 19% higher than you reported ($33.09 in 2001 dollars is $39.97 in current dollars, versus $32.21 in your report).
3. “Subsidy per passenger,” the only measure noted in your release, is not a good measure of an intercity train’s economic performance because it does not reflect vastly differing trip-lengths among passengers. Thus, airlines and media coverage of them normally use passenger-mile statistics; a passenger-mile is one passenger traveling one mile. An even better measure is the share of costs covered by revenues.
4. It is important to accompany any “route-by-route” chart with a disclaimer emphasizing that the system works as a network both as to revenues—due to passenger transfers (many trips involve two or more trains)—and costs, since trains share facilities where fixed costs are significant. In other words, discontinuing one route would not save anywhere near the amount you show for that route, and could have a net negative impact on other routes.
5. Over half—57%—of Amtrak’s deprecation is on property, mostly in the Northeast Corridor. Therefore, allocating these costs evenly to routes across the nation unfairly applies Northeast Corridor costs to routes outside the Northeast Corridor.
6. In 2001, Amtrak took a loan on Penn Station in order to meet payroll. Allocating these interest payments nationwide makes no sense; indeed, since the loan was not used for improvements at Penn Station (or anywhere else), it may not even be justifiable to allocate interest to any route.
7. Around the same time, also to meet payroll, Amtrak did sale-and-leaseback deals on most of its unencumbered rolling stock. These deals contribute significantly to Amtrak’s depreciation expense but, again, are unrelated to the on-going costs of running the railroad. It is not logical to represent this as a route-specific cost, whether across the board or on individual routes that happen to use the rolling stock involved.
8. Even within the context of your report, it is not logical to allocate all depreciation and overhead costs to the intercity passenger routes and none to Amtrak’s “profitable” other enterprises.
Under a federal mandate, Amtrak is working with U.S. DOT to develop a more accurate reporting method which likely will include a synthetic capital charge calculated for both routes and Amtrak’s other business lines, with overhead and capital properly allocated in part to the real estate and contract commuter operations.
The next time Pew looks at Amtrak, I would appreciate the opportunity to at least comment confidentially on the work before you put out something that creates the same kind of headlines that avowedly anti-train think tanks dream of.
Sincerely,
Ross B. Capon
President and CEO
Hilarious.
The guy SOUNDS like a capon all right.
Years ago we had train sevice through Wichita then they moved it north to newton and the rail service went down hill from there. Many in Wichita would not drive to Newton to catch a midnight train and I don’t blame them.
Why is Amtrak expanding service anywhere? Have they ever turned a profit?
Looks like the blue route is faster.
So, in other words, the new routes will not ever obtain fares/revenues to support their operations. And why should they, nothing else that Amtrak does is economically feasible, unless the legalized theft from the taxpayers foots the bill.
(1) to be divided as a corporation between (a)its rolling stock, and its routes and maintenance facilities and (b) its rail-beds and rights-of-way and the operations and switching systems related to them.
(2) All of item (1) - 100% - sold off to private corporations who also will be purchasing licenses for the routes. Some routes will obtain no bidders and those routes will end.
(3) For the first five years after privatization, "Amtrack" will continue to be responsible for the system of rails, rail beds, switching and safety operations, and it will charge fees to the private rail companies for that service.
(4) At the end of the five year change over period, the private rail companies will be given an anti-trust exemption to form a joint-partnership company to take over responsibility for the rail system, ending "Amtrack" at last.
At that time, private rail transport can begin planning its future, based on private investment and market economics, not politics and politicians.
I think most of Amtrak’s routes are over ROWs owned and maintained by freight RRs.
Amtrak needs:
(1) to be divided as a corporation between (a)its rolling stock, and its routes and maintenance facilities and (b) its rail-beds and rights-of-way and the operations and switching systems related to them.
Only if the freight RRs are similarly separated from their rail-beds and rights-of way.
Our railways should operate the same as our airways, roadways, highways and waterways. Government should own and maintain the right-of-way. Private firms should only own and operate the rolling stock.
They may wish to build the new Amtrak stations in Kansas adjacent to the new buggy whip plants.They would both have something in common. No demand for either.
We're talking Wichita - Oke City - Fort Worth here...interspersed by hundreds of miles of rural farmlands. A low density corridor, which is also served by I-35 (and numerous alternates) plus Southwest Airlines.
There is NO conceivable reason for taking the train...unless one wants to simply "ride the train"...and has the time and the money to do so.
This is an altogether useless venture which has absolutely no economic justifcation.
And I'm a big train fan...
We're talking Wichita - Oke City - Fort Worth here...
That's a 360 mile, 5½ hr trip by car with Oke City at the midpoint.
Long and monotonous by car, but very inefficient for short-hop air travel.
I bet high-speed rail connection between those cities will be very popular with business commuters.
A couple small communities along the route may benefit as well as professionals see them as residential "bedroom" communities with quick access to the larger cities.
Willie, I luv ya, but you're dreaming.
A couple small communities along the route may benefit as well as professionals see them as residential "bedroom" communities with quick access to the larger cities.
There is no rational reason for people in Guthrie to ride the train to Oke City. Nor for people in Ark City to ride the train to Wichita.
Note also that one schedule is a nighttime schedule. The other is a daytime schedule, meaning that these cities would be served in mid-day. Hardly convenient for commuting.
The only justification for using the service is as a hobbyist. And the federal government shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing hobbyists with taxpayer dollars.
This is an insane proposal.
There is no rational reason for people in Guthrie to ride the train to Oke City. Nor for people in Ark City to ride the train to Wichita.
But perhaps there are people in Oke City who will relocate TO Guthrie if they have a convenient way to commute to Oke City.
Ditto for people in Wichita who may wish to live in Ark City.
That is what makes it a "growth opportunity" for the smaller communities. Their wholesome environments attract young, affluent professionals who want to LIVE there, but still have a need to commute to the larger cities for employment.
. Note also that one schedule is a nighttime schedule. The other is a daytime schedule, meaning that these cities would be served in mid-day. Hardly convenient for commuting.
The most convenient scheduling implements BOTH alternatives!!!
Willie, what you're not grasping here is that getting from Guthrie to OKC and back on I-35 is no problem. It's 32 miles and 36 minutes downtown-to-downtown. In the rush hour.
And, in guthrie, nobody lives downtown. While, in Oke City, nobody works downtown.
The train is going to take a minimum of 45 minutes to negotiate that same distance. then, you're going to have to find your way from the station (downtown) to the capitol (uptown), Tinker AFB (Midwest City), the airport (well south) or any of the five or six business districts scattered about town.
Out here, since our cities were built around the car rather than the buggy, they sprawl. There isn't a compact convenient downtown district next to the station. And there isn't a mass transit system that doesn't involve a twenty minute wait, a leisurely trip (including a transfer)...and a surly driver.
Taxi service? You'll need to make an appointment.
Now, tell me one more time why somebody who works in Oke City would want to move to Guthrie...and ride the train to work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.