# Commuter Rail Losses



## TinCan782 (Jun 5, 2015)

I know Amtrak isn't strictly commuter rail but how would they fit in this ranking?

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-10-us-metro-rail-systems-that-lose-the-most-money-per-passenger-2015-6?&platform=bi-androidapp


----------



## jis (Jun 5, 2015)

None of the systems presented there are Commuter Railroads by FRA definition either.  They are all either Light Rail or Heavy Rail city systems (i.e. things that would normally be called Metro or some such)


----------



## Eric S (Jun 5, 2015)

Loss per passenger may be a useful statistic for intracity transportation (like metros, subways, light rail, etc.), but is not particularly useful for intercity transportation (like Amtrak), given the vastly different distances passengers may be traveling. For Amtrak, you'd want to look at per passenger-miles/kilometers, rather than just per passenger.

Also, keep in mind that it's likely the loss per passenger would decrease as more passengers ride (especially outside peak periods), so it's not as if each additional rider costs the system extra.


----------



## jis (Jun 5, 2015)

Oddly enough they also chose to ignore some of the better cost recovery systems. Seems like there is an agenda hidden there somewhere.


----------



## Eric S (Jun 5, 2015)

Yeah, it's a rather odd way to list things - only focusing on the 10 with the worst cost recovery, without also listing the 10 with the best cost recovery. Oddly enough it looks like the numbers were put together by the Brookings Institute, which isn't exactly an anti-transit group.

FWIW, using their numbers, it looks like the 10 systems with the best cost recovery are New York (NYCT), Boston (MBTA), Philadelphia (SEPTA), San Francisco (BART), Chicago (CTA), Washington (WMATA), San Diego (MTS), Phoenix (VMT), Houston (METRO), and Portland (TriMet).


----------



## jis (Jun 5, 2015)

Eric S said:


> Yeah, it's a rather odd way to list things - only focusing on the 10 with the worst cost recovery, without also listing the 10 with the best cost recovery. Oddly enough it looks like the numbers were put together by the Brookings Institute, which isn't exactly an anti-transit group.
> 
> FWIW, using their numbers, it looks like the 10 systems with the best cost recovery are New York (NYCT), Boston (MBTA), Philadelphia (SEPTA), San Francisco (BART), Chicago (CTA), Washington (WMATA), San Diego (MTS), Phoenix (VMT), Houston (METRO), and Portland (TriMet).


A friend of mine jokingly refers to the Brookings Institute types as the "Limo Liberals", i.e. liberals who have never used any mode of surface transport other than chauffeured limos.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Jun 5, 2015)

I am pretty sure the money spent includes repairs of tracks and infrastructures which airlines don't pay per se since airports are run by the government here.


----------



## jis (Jun 5, 2015)

Shawn Ryu said:


> I am pretty sure the money spent includes repairs of tracks and infrastructures which airlines don't pay per se since airports are run by the government here.


But airlines do pay fees to use said airports. The fact though is that such fees do not cover all costs.

And of course both airports and city rail and bus service get tax relief. So all in all it is not simple to figure out of what value a random metric like loss per passenger is anyway.

That is why I figure either Brookings is intelligent and has an agenda, or they are clueless, which is also par for the course.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jun 10, 2015)

Don't forget the cost recovery is on operating budget only, which includes crew/fuel/ maintenance. it is usually around 55% ticket/ 45 % subsidy (read taxpayer)

The second budget is 100% tax payer money, its capital budget, which includes stations/bridges/viaducts/rail and tie renewal/signal construction etc


----------



## seat38a (Jun 12, 2015)

How I see it, if there is a dedicated transportation tax stream that was voted for and passed, then I don't think it should really be considered a loss. Second, many of these system (Not specifically the ones listed) are setup to take the strain off the roads and freeways not earn a profit.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 13, 2015)

One thing that isn't clear from their numbers is whether they're separating out bus services from non-bus services (e.g. in Hampton Roads, the Tide from the rest of the HRT buses). One thing worth noting, though: In most cases, the biggest per-passenger losses were on smaller systems (i.e. The Tide, which was also only half-built, or PATCO which only has one line). Dallas is the one exception (and that may be due to how spread-out the system is, if I had to guess).


----------

