Yup, I think the same thing. Wasn't he fired from Amtrak? Plus who takes the time to write two books on everything wrong with Amtrak?Ahhhhhhhhhh Mr. Vranich,
Who goes berserk when the very word "Amtrak" is mentioned in his presence.
So does he have anything new to add to the discussion?? Nothing, zip, nada!
So I yawn and ignore him.
Like most things, depending on just how one presents the info can make a world of difference. The quote that I'm sure you're refering to is this one:Unfortunately, the article contains some of the same old nonsense of the empty long distnace trains and a quote from Vranich, which is the same as calling Dr. Kervorkian to consult on your cancer treatment.
Yet if one looks at Amtrak's own data, one finds that the long distance trains for Fiscal 2006 carried 1,063,082 passengers than Amtrak's vaunted Acela Express trains did. And while the State funded/Short distance corridors did carry more than 3 times the number of passengers that the long distance trains carried, it is interesting to note that the long distance trains pulled in $70,203,653 more than the State funded corridors in revenue. Or if one wants to make things look even better, Amtrak collected an average fare of $25.82 from each passenger who rode on a State funded or other short distance train and they collected an average of $95.95 from every passenger who rode on a long distance train.They provide a stark-contrast to the railroad's long-distance trains, which many critics believe should be eliminated because they are costly and attract comparatively few riders.
Since Amtrak counts the state contribution to running a state supported train as part of their income as if it were from fare paying passengers, the state supported trains are actually far worse in revenue than the numbers given by Amtak would indicate.it is interesting to note that the long distance trains pulled in $70,203,653 more than the State funded corridors in revenue. Or if one wants to make things look even better, Amtrak collected an average fare of $25.82 from each passenger who rode on a State funded or other short distance train and they collected an average of $95.95 from every passenger who rode on a long distance train.
Yes and no. If you look at most of the financial reports, or the route profitability statements, then state subsidies are included in revenues (although often broken out in the financials). If you look at the revenue and ridership report in the Monthly Performance Report, which is the source of the $70,203,653 number, then it is just ticket revenue. Including the state subsidy (and food revenues, which are pretty small), you get revenue per passenger of about $41 per passenger.Since Amtrak counts the state contribution to running a state supported train as part of their income as if it were from fare paying passengers, the state supported trains are actually far worse in revenue than the numbers given by Amtak would indicate.it is interesting to note that the long distance trains pulled in $70,203,653 more than the State funded corridors in revenue. Or if one wants to make things look even better, Amtrak collected an average fare of $25.82 from each passenger who rode on a State funded or other short distance train and they collected an average of $95.95 from every passenger who rode on a long distance train.
But we blame critics for using "cost per passenger" we should make sure we don't use the similar "revenue per passenger" either, since in my mind its pretty much the same thing. A better number would be "revenue per passenger mile."Yes and no. If you look at most of the financial reports, or the route profitability statements, then state subsidies are included in revenues (although often broken out in the financials). If you look at the revenue and ridership report in the Monthly Performance Report, which is the source of the $70,203,653 number, then it is just ticket revenue. Including the state subsidy (and food revenues, which are pretty small), you get revenue per passenger of about $41 per passenger.Since Amtrak counts the state contribution to running a state supported train as part of their income as if it were from fare paying passengers, the state supported trains are actually far worse in revenue than the numbers given by Amtak would indicate.it is interesting to note that the long distance trains pulled in $70,203,653 more than the State funded corridors in revenue. Or if one wants to make things look even better, Amtrak collected an average fare of $25.82 from each passenger who rode on a State funded or other short distance train and they collected an average of $95.95 from every passenger who rode on a long distance train.
Quite true, but the point of my post wasn't to promote Amtrak or show that the long distance trains were doing better, as much as it was to show that statistics can say anything you want them to, as long as you present them in the light you want.But we blame critics for using "cost per passenger" we should make sure we don't use the similar "revenue per passenger" either, since in my mind its pretty much the same thing. A better number would be "revenue per passenger mile."
Enter your email address to join: