It is hilarious how the advocacy comminity, which be assured Mark Singer is part of, love to say how Amtrak accounting does not conform with GAAP. They would not have an Auditor's Opinion stating such does if it didn't.
Railroad Forums
Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman
Alex M wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2019 8:51 am Reading the attached white paper, Mr. Singer raises a topic that was brought up before about Amtrak shedding the NEC infrastructure to the FRA. If they were freed of this albatross, would the corridor trains then become truly profitable?Washington Union Station is already owned by USDOT, Connecticut and Massachusetts own their share of the corridor. Next would possibly the State of New Jersey owning Trenton to NYP?
Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2019 10:09 amEveryone is going to have to learn how to cooperate and be reasonable. I loath the idea of a regional authority, but maybe there should be some type of oversight board or such.There's already the NEC Commission, a joint federal-state commission established by Congress, though it is largely more advisory and planning that administrative or regulatory.
Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2019 10:09 am For the NEC, no one wants to relinquish control. Amtrak is the red-headed step child over the portion from New Rochelle to State St. at the whims of local dispatchers. Same with the Hudson Line. NJT is the red-headed step child on their NEC territory. Amtrak rules the roost for MNRR Penn Access, and is squeezing SEPTA. Then there's the freight railroads...A good solution would be that the entire NEC is owned by 1 infrastructure company, including land and stations. all employees of towers and maintenance teams are employed by that company. That company can be a public one (with the U.S. government as sole shareholder) or a federal agency in U.S. DOT or administratively placed with Amtrak. And every operator pays the new company a fee for using it's stations, track, workers, and maintenance.
Everyone is going to have to learn how to cooperate and be reasonable. I loath the idea of a regional authority, but maybe there should be some type of oversight board or such, although honestly I look at the MTA board and shudder. PATH too.
SRich wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2019 4:01 pm A good solution would be that the entire NEC is owned by 1 infrastructure company, including land and stations. all employees of towers and maintenance teams are employed by that company. That company can be a public one (with the U.S. government as sole shareholder) or a federal agency in U.S. DOT or administratively placed with Amtrak. And every operator pays the new company a fee for using it's stations, track, workers, and maintenance.the Us Government manages Independence Hall in Philadelphia and it is dilapidated, money is siphoned off based on politics (to places like yellowstone with far fewer visitors). the cure may be worse than the disease in this case
Then the NEC would
Tadman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:33 am Ergo the beef about states trains. It's a beef I share. $3m subsidy to yearly operate the 0.5x/day Hoosier when the 20x/day South Shore (including double track, wires, 12 stations, 85 cars, etc.. for $12m/year???? No way the state trains are billed fairly. But that's not a GAAP violation. That's no different than an airline charging higher prices to people with more inelastic demand, which they do all day.maybe the lesson is less about how it was billed than how services should be viewed. rather than train a 4 day a week train with zero capital investment, it is more cost effective to run several a day trains coupled with capital investments for improvements. as far as I can tell, the operating loss for south shore is $35 million in operating (and more than 20% of expenses are G&A)...and $32 million in capital (p 13). OTOH, the hoosier state was a hospital train that amtrak started selling tickets on before PRIIA existed. it was an unloved frankenstein that ran unreliably three days a week and never saw a dime of capital improvements. http://www.govwiki.info/pdfs/Special%20 ... 202017.pdf