 |
Re: Amtrak: Throw Dubious Accounting of Cost Under the Train
Author: SPKid
Date: 11-30-2012 - 16:07
Bob2,
I don’t think we should focus on the cost of hamburgers, (and I realize you didn't) even though the cost is far higher than most anywhere else, and I suspect the food is prepared in advance off the train, not like the days of the dining car. But I’ve never travelled on an Amtrak train so I can’t speak from experience.
On a larger perspective and admitting I’m not an accountant, would it not be proper to include the burdened overhead, either aggregated across all segments, or to specific segments to reflect the true cost of operating the trains. I would tend to apply the cost to segments to give better visibility to what’s cost effective and what’s not, but regardless of how it’s applied; the burdened cost reflects the true cost of operating the trains, the cost being paid by fares and by taxpayers, or still more debt. What would we learn from marginal accounting? That sounds something like the self deception associated with base line budgeting.
I admit to being cynical since the local transit agency thinks they’re doing great when they get 18% of their operating costs out of the fare box. And I doubt their operating cost counts the cost of most fixed assets or amortization. Shall we guess who pays the other 82% of the cost to operate the busses?
I appreciate your comment and your insight.
And don't think I don't like trains. As a kid I probably rode more trains than the average adult today, but I'm tired of the government putting us all further in debt to subsidize everything under the sun.
I don’t think we should focus on the cost of hamburgers, (and I realize you didn't) even though the cost is far higher than most anywhere else, and I suspect the food is prepared in advance off the train, not like the days of the dining car. But I’ve never travelled on an Amtrak train so I can’t speak from experience.
On a larger perspective and admitting I’m not an accountant, would it not be proper to include the burdened overhead, either aggregated across all segments, or to specific segments to reflect the true cost of operating the trains. I would tend to apply the cost to segments to give better visibility to what’s cost effective and what’s not, but regardless of how it’s applied; the burdened cost reflects the true cost of operating the trains, the cost being paid by fares and by taxpayers, or still more debt. What would we learn from marginal accounting? That sounds something like the self deception associated with base line budgeting.
I admit to being cynical since the local transit agency thinks they’re doing great when they get 18% of their operating costs out of the fare box. And I doubt their operating cost counts the cost of most fixed assets or amortization. Shall we guess who pays the other 82% of the cost to operate the busses?
I appreciate your comment and your insight.
And don't think I don't like trains. As a kid I probably rode more trains than the average adult today, but I'm tired of the government putting us all further in debt to subsidize everything under the sun.
