Amtrak: Information on Subsidies in Thruway Bus Operations (Letter
Report, 05/09/95, GAO/RCED-95-138).

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed the National Rail
Passenger Corporation's (Amtrak) feeder bus service to its network of
intercity passenger trains, focusing on: (1) whether Amtrak is using its
federal operating grant to subsidize the bus service; and (2) bus
passengers' contributions to covering the cost of their train trips as
compared to other Amtrak passengers' contributions.

GAO found that: (1) Amtrak does not use federal funds to subsidize its
feeder bus operations; (2) 15 of the 30 charter bus routes are part of
California's state-supported system, which offsets the losses on 14 of
its routes; (3) the revenues generated by California bus passengers more
than cover the marginal costs of transporting those additional
passengers on Amtrak trains; (4) the 13 charter routes outside of the
California system earn more than enough to cover the full costs of the
bus contract and the marginal costs of the bus passengers' train trips;
(5) both bus and rail passengers benefit from the federal subsidy
supporting the rail portion of their trip; (6) for the non-California
bus routes, bus passengers pay about as much per mile for their train
trips as the rail-only passengers; (7) passengers from several bus
routes pay slightly less per mile for their train trip than other rail
passengers; and (8) bus passengers represent net revenue to Amtrak and
lessen the amount of the federal subsidy needed to operate Amtrak.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-95-138
     TITLE:  Amtrak: Information on Subsidies in Thruway Bus Operations
      DATE:  05/09/95
   SUBJECT:  Subsidies
             Railroad transportation operations
             Cost effectiveness analysis
             Federal aid to railroads
             Mass transit operations
             Transportation costs
             Transportation rates
             Financial management
             Federal grants
IDENTIFIER:  California
             Florida
             Virginia
             Michigan
             Washington
             Indiana
             Ohio
             Utah
             Vermont
             Wyoming
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed product.                                        *
*                                                                        *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure    *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble     *
* those in the printed version.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Committee on Appropriations, U.S.  Senate

May 1995

AMTRAK - INFORMATION ON SUBSIDIES
IN THRUWAY BUS OPERATIONS

GAO/RCED-95-138

Amtrak's Thruway Bus Service


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV


Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-259405

May 9, 1995

The Honorable Mark O.  Hatfield
Chairman
The Honorable Frank R.  Lautenberg
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate

Since 1976, the National Rail Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) has
contracted with bus companies to provide connecting feeder bus
service to its network of intercity passenger trains.  This feeder
bus service, referred to as Amtrak Thruway Bus, operates on 44 routes
in 23 states, carries about three-quarters of a million passengers
annually, and generates about 3.5 percent of the nearly $1 billion in
revenues that Amtrak takes in each year from intercity passenger
services. 

Because Amtrak does not generate enough revenues to cover the costs
of its rail passenger service, it receives a federal operating grant
to help offset its losses.  As requested in the Senate report
(103-150) supporting the Department of Transportation's
appropriations legislation for fiscal year 1994, we reviewed whether
and to what extent Amtrak might be using its federal operating grant
to subsidize its Thruway Bus services.\1 We also compared the
contribution of Thruway Bus passengers to covering the costs of their
train trip with that of other Amtrak passengers.  Our review included
the 30 Thruway Bus routes operated under charter agreements that
present an opportunity for subsidization.  We did not review the
remaining 14 routes because they are operated under marketing
agreements that preclude subsidization.  (App.  I contains a more
detailed discussion of our scope and methodology.)


--------------------
\1 See Intercity Passenger Rail:  Financial and Operating Conditions
Threaten Amtrak's Long-Term Viability (GAO/RCED-95-71, Feb.  6,
1995). 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

No federal funds are used to subsidize Amtrak's Thruway Bus
operations.  Fifteen of the 30 Thruway Bus charter routes are part of
a state-supported system in California.  All but one of these bus
routes operated at a loss, but the state of California--not
Amtrak--offset these losses.  Thirteen other Thruway Bus routes
outside the California-supported system earned more than enough to
cover both the full costs of the bus contract and the estimated
marginal costs of carrying the additional bus passengers on the
train.  Therefore, the bus portion of these routes required no
subsidy; in fact, the surplus revenue from the bus passengers helped
reduce the need for subsidy on the rail portion of these
routes--which, like all Amtrak train routes, operated at a loss.\2
Data were not available to assess the financial performance of the
two remaining Thruway Bus routes that are operated under charter
agreements. 

All of Amtrak's Thruway Bus passengers benefited, as all of Amtrak's
passengers do, from the federal operating grant supporting the rail
portion of their trip.  For the bus routes outside the
California-supported system, the Thruway Bus passengers paid, on
average, about as much per mile for the train portion of their trip
as the passengers who rode the train only.  Hence, the Thruway Bus
passengers did not benefit more than other passengers from the
federal grant supporting Amtrak's train operations.  However, for
several routes, the Thruway Bus passengers paid slightly less per
mile for the train portion of their trip than the other rail
passengers and therefore benefited slightly more from the federal
grant.  Nevertheless, because these bus passengers supply net revenue
to Amtrak, Amtrak would require a larger federal grant if these bus
routes were eliminated and the revenues from them were lost. 


--------------------
\2 The surplus revenue from bus passengers is not a profit because it
is not sufficient to cover the bus passengers' portion of the full
train costs. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

Amtrak's Thruway Bus services began in 1976 when the Congress
authorized Amtrak, in the Rail Transportation Improvement Act of 1976
(P.L.  94-555), to establish routes and joint fares with bus
operators.  The Congress determined that establishing these links
between rail and bus services was consistent with the public interest
and national transportation policy, and it encouraged Amtrak to enter
into such arrangements.  Amtrak contracted with charter and
regular-route bus operators to connect the intercity rail route
network to low-volume markets and to places no longer served by
passenger trains. 


      AMTRAK'S FEDERAL GRANTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.1

Although Amtrak was created by the Congress as a for-profit
corporation in 1970, it has always operated at a loss.  Since it
began operating in 1971, it has received over $13 billion in federal
operating and capital grants to help support its intercity passenger
rail service. 


      AMTRAK'S THRUWAY BUS ROUTES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.2

Amtrak operates Thruway Bus services on 44 routes, 15 of which are
part of a system operated at the request of the state of California. 
These California routes connect with state-supported 403(b) Amtrak
trains.\3 Under the agreement between California and Amtrak, Amtrak
credits a portion of each bus passenger's fare toward the costs of
the bus service.  If the revenues from the bus passengers are not
sufficient to cover the costs of the bus contract, the state finances
the shortfall.  One additional route in California, from San
Francisco to Oakland, is operated separately from the other
California routes and is designed primarily to connect San Francisco
to Amtrak's regular-system trains. 

Outside California, Amtrak operates Thruway Bus services most
extensively in Florida (four routes), Virginia (three routes),
Michigan (three routes), and Washington State (three routes). 
Fifteen other routes operate in 18 additional states.\4


--------------------
\3 Section 403(b) of the Rail Passenger Service Act allows Amtrak to
operate intercity rail service that is financially supported by state
agencies.  The California 403(b) system includes a number of trains
in three corridors:  San Diegans from Santa Barbara to San Diego; San
Joaquins from Oakland to Bakersfield; and Capitols from San Jose to
Roseville. 

\4 The other states with Thruway Bus services are Arizona, Idaho,
Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming.  Buses also operate to Vancouver, British
Columbia. 


      AMTRAK'S THRUWAY BUS SERVICE
      AGREEMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.3

Amtrak operates Thruway Bus services under two types of financial
agreements with bus operators:  marketing agreements and charter
agreements.  The charter agreement is the only type of agreement that
creates an opportunity for Amtrak to subsidize its Thruway Bus
services. 

Marketing agreements allow Amtrak passengers to connect with
regularly scheduled buses.\5 Under these agreements, Amtrak pays the
bus company a negotiated fare on a per- passenger basis for the bus
portion of the route.  Marketing agreements create no opportunity for
subsidization because they limit Amtrak's responsibility to
collecting the bus fare and forwarding the fare to the bus operator. 
Amtrak operates 14 bus routes under marketing agreements. 

Under charter agreements, Amtrak negotiates a fixed fee per bus trip
with the operator of the charter bus service.  This fee is
independent of the number of passengers per trip.  Only Amtrak
passengers with railroad tickets are eligible to ride the bus. 
Amtrak retains all revenues paid by passengers for travel on the
combined bus and rail ticket, bus and rail schedules are coordinated,
and connections are guaranteed.  Under these agreements, Amtrak is
responsible for any shortfall between revenues from the charter bus
service and its costs.  In the event of a shortfall, Amtrak would
have to offset the loss from other revenues or from the federal
operating grant. 

At the time of our review, Amtrak operated 30 routes under charter
agreements.  Sixteen of these routes were in California (15 of which
were in the state system); the remainder were in Florida, Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Utah, Vermont,\6 Virginia, and Wyoming. 


--------------------
\5 Two routes operating under marketing agreements are dedicated to
Amtrak passengers. 

\6 In 1995, Amtrak began to operate its route from Burlington,
Vermont, to Springfield, Massachusetts, under a marketing agreement
rather than a charter agreement. 


   IN CALIFORNIA, THE STATE
   SUBSIDIZES AMTRAK'S THRUWAY BUS
   SERVICES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

Although all but 1 of the 15 Thruway Bus routes in the California
system operated at a loss, Amtrak did not use the federal operating
grant to cover the shortfall.  Instead, the state, under the terms of
its agreement with Amtrak, paid the necessary subsidy, which amounted
to $5.9 million in fiscal year 1993.  Revenues covered costs only on
the Santa Barbara to San Luis Obispo route.  On the remaining 14
routes, the losses ranged from $153,642 on the Tulare County route to
$1,465,093 on the Los Angeles Basin route.  Appendix II shows the
revenues, costs, and required subsidies for Thruway Bus services on
the 15 routes in the California system.\7

California's Thruway Bus system fed 353,367 passengers into the
Amtrak rail system and generated nearly $9 million in revenues to
Amtrak--a sum that greatly exceeds the estimated marginal costs of
carrying these additional passengers on the train.  (See the next
section for more information about marginal costs.)


--------------------
\7 These data for the California system are for California's 1993
fiscal year ending June 30, 1993, the latest year for which data were
available when we conducted our analysis.  The data for Amtrak's rail
and other Thruway Bus routes are for Amtrak's 1992 fiscal year ending
September 30, 1992, the latest year for which detailed bus route data
are available. 


   AMTRAK'S THRUWAY BUS SERVICES
   SUPPLY ADDITIONAL REVENUES FOR
   TRAIN OPERATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

For 13 of the 15 Thruway Bus routes that operated under charter
agreements outside the California-supported system, the revenues from
bus passengers connecting to Amtrak trains were more than sufficient
to cover the costs of the bus service.  Therefore, Amtrak did not
subsidize these bus routes.  Data were not available to assess the
financial performance of the two remaining routes that operated under
charter agreements. 

To determine whether Amtrak's Thruway Bus services were subsidized,
we concluded that there would be no subsidy for the bus passengers
if, for each route, the revenues from these passengers were
sufficient to cover the full costs of the charter bus contract and
the marginal costs of adding the bus passengers to the train.\8
Amtrak estimates these marginal costs at between $2 and $7 per
passenger.  For the purposes of our analysis, we used a cost of $5
per passenger.\9

Thruway Bus services on the 13 charter routes for which data were
available outside the California system did not require any subsidy. 
In fact, the revenues from the bus passengers on all 13 routes
exceeded both the full charter bus costs and the marginal rail costs. 
This surplus revenue contributed to covering the costs of Amtrak's
train operations and lowered the amount of the federal grant needed
to offset the operating deficit that Amtrak incurs on its train
routes. 

Table 1 shows the extent to which revenues from the sale of tickets
to Thruway Bus passengers contributed to covering the costs of the
rail segment of their trip.  We calculated this contribution (the net
rail revenue) by subtracting the full costs of the charter bus
contract and the marginal costs of carrying additional passengers on
the train ($5 per person) from the ticket revenues supplied by the
Thruway bus passengers for each route.  For each route, the net rail
revenue was positive; for all of the routes, it totaled $14.2
million. 



                                     Table 1
                     
                      Thruway Bus Passenger Revenue and Cost
                              Data, Fiscal Year 1992

                                                 Charter
                                      Ticket         bus    Marginal    Net rail
Bus route                           revenues     costs\a  rail costs   revenue\a
--------------------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
Tampa-Clearwater, Sarasota,
 and Treasure Island, FL          $3,549,216    $481,780    $212,380  $2,855,056
Tampa-Winter Haven, FL               365,926     108,318      52,765     204,843
Charlottesville-Richmond, VA         292,214      33,052      24,320     234,842
Roanoke-Clifton Forge, VA            183,825      50,700      14,440     118,685
Newport News-Norfolk, VA           1,574,252     138,494     182,580   1,253,178
Ft. Wayne-Waterloo and Garrett,      518,940     149,550      67,135     302,255
 IN
Springfield, MA-Burlington, VT       574,672     263,684      68,080     242,908
Ogden-Salt Lake City, UT             559,772     109,500      83,255     367,017
Borie-Cheyenne, WY                   478,532     115,840      40,070     322,622
Oakland-San Francisco, CA          9,715,712     368,112   1,029,045   8,318,555
================================================================================
Total without CA route            $8,097,349  $1,450,918    $745,025  $5,901,406
================================================================================
Total with CA route               $17,813,06  $1,819,029  $1,774,070  $14,219,96
                                           1                                   2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Totals may not add because of rounding. 

Note:  Marginal rail costs are calculated at $5 per passenger on each
route.  Net rail revenue equals ticket revenues minus charter bus
costs minus marginal rail costs.  Table 1 covers 13, rather than 15,
routes because no data were available for two routes, from Galesburg
to Springfield, IL, and from Toledo, OH, to Detroit, MI. 
Furthermore, three Florida routes, from Clearwater, Sarasota, and
Treasure Island to Tampa, are operated under one bus contract, and
two Indiana routes, from Waterloo and Garrett to Ft.  Wayne, are
operated under one bus contract as well.  Therefore, the data for
these routes are combined, producing the 10 routes shown. 

Source:  GAO's presentation of data from Amtrak. 

Although the revenues from Amtrak's Thruway Bus passengers on these
13 charter routes were more than sufficient to cover the full costs
of the bus trip, they were not sufficient to cover the full costs of
the combined bus and rail trip.  The net rail revenue lowered the
need for Amtrak to subsidize the rail portion of the routes to which
the bus passengers connected but was not sufficient to make any of
these rail routes profitable.  Therefore, Amtrak's Thruway Bus
passengers benefited, as Amtrak's other rail passengers did, from the
federal subsidy supporting Amtrak's train operations. 


--------------------
\8 The marginal costs of train passengers are the train costs that
change with the addition of a single passenger.  In this case, they
are likely to be confined to the costs of handling reservations and
ticketing.  It is assumed that the additional passengers do not
require additional capacity (i.e., another car); if they did, their
marginal costs would be higher. 

\9 The results of the analysis would not change for any route if the
marginal costs were assumed to be $10, or even $20, per passenger;
both figures are well above Amtrak's estimate of these costs. 


   THRUWAY BUS PASSENGERS DID NOT
   BENEFIT MORE THAN OTHER RAIL
   PASSENGERS FROM AMTRAK'S
   FEDERAL SUBSIDY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

We calculated the average rail yields for the Thruway Bus passengers
and for the other Amtrak passengers who rode the train only (the
all-rail passengers) to gauge whether the Thruway Bus passengers
covered the costs of their rail trip to the same extent as the
all-rail passengers.  Rail yield is defined as the average revenue
from a passenger for each mile traveled on the train.  We compared
the rail yields for the passengers on each bus route with the yields
for the all-rail passengers on the train to which that bus route
connected.  Table 2 shows the results of our calculations. 



                           Table 2
           
             Yields for All-Rail and Thruway Bus
                 Passengers, Fiscal Year 1992

                                    All-       Bus       Bus
Bus route                           rail     (net)   (gross)
------------------------------  --------  --------  --------
Ogden-Salt Lake City, UT           $0.08     $0.15     $0.16
Tampa-Winter Haven, FL              0.10      0.13      0.14
Roanoke-Clifton Forge, VA           0.11      0.11      0.13
Charlottesville-Richmond, VA        0.11      0.10      0.10
Oakland-San Francisco, CA           0.11      0.10      0.10
Borie-Cheyenne, WY                  0.08      0.06      0.08
Tampa-Clearwater, Sarasota,         0.11      0.08      0.09
 and Treasure Island, FL
Ft. Wayne-Waterloo and              0.12      0.09      0.12
 Garrett, IN
Newport News-Norfolk, VA            0.18      0.13      0.13
Springfield, MA-Burlington, VT      0.17      0.08      0.10
============================================================
Average                            $0.11     $0.10     $0.10
------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Yield is defined as revenue per passenger mile. 

Source:  GAO's presentation of data from Amtrak. 

The second column in table 2 (All-rail) lists the average yields for
the all-rail passengers; it shows their contribution to covering the
costs of the train.  The third column (Bus [net]) shows the
contribution of the Thruway bus passengers to covering the costs of
the train.  We calculated the rail yields in this column by (1)
subtracting the costs of the charter bus service from the ticket
revenues paid by the Thruway Bus passengers and (2) dividing this
result by the number of miles that the Thruway Bus passengers rode on
the train. 

A comparison of the rail yields in the two columns shows that the
Thruway Bus passengers contributed as much as or more than the
all-rail passengers to covering the costs of the train on three
routes, slightly less than the all-rail passengers on five routes,
and significantly less than the all-rail passengers on two routes
(from Newport News to Norfolk and from Springfield to Burlington). 
These differences in yield depend, in part, on the relative length of
the average rail trip taken on each route by the Thruway Bus
passengers and by the all-rail passengers.  Appendix III compares the
average distance traveled on the train by the two groups of
passengers for the routes shown in table 2.\10

The fourth column in table 2 (Bus [gross]) shows the overall yields
for the Thruway Bus passengers.  These yields, which include both the
bus and the rail portion of the trip, are calculated without
subtracting the costs of the charter bus.  Fares on these routes are
such that the Thruway Bus passengers pay as much as or more than the
all-rail passengers per mile of travel on five of the routes,
slightly less than the all-rail passengers on three routes, and
significantly less than the all-rail passengers on two routes (from
Newport News to Norfolk and from Springfield to Burlington--28 and 41
percent less, respectively). 

For the routes where the Thruway Bus passengers paid less than the
all-rail passengers for the rail portion of their trip, the bus
passengers could be characterized as having benefited slightly more
than the all-rail passengers from the federal subsidy.  However, the
revenues supplied by the bus passengers actually reduced the amount
of the federal operating grant that Amtrak needed. 


--------------------
\10 Rail yields are affected by the average length of the rail trip
and tend to be higher for shorter distances.  The average length of
the rail trip for Thruway Bus passengers is comparable to that for
all-rail passengers except on two routes (from Ogden to Salt Lake
City, Utah, and from Tampa to Winter Haven, Florida).  On these
routes, the average length of the rail trip for the bus passengers is
much shorter (see app.  III), and, as expected, the rail yields are
higher for these passengers than for the all-rail passengers (see
table 2.)


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

We discussed this report with the East and West Coast Strategic
Business Managers in Amtrak's Marketing Department and with Amtrak's
Vice President for Government and Public Affairs; they agreed that it
accurately presented the facts. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

We conducted our review between February 1994 and March 1995 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing

We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with information on this
issue.  Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV. 
If you have any questions, please contact me at (202) 512-2834. 

Kenneth M.  Mead
Director, Transportation
 Issues


OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

Our assignment objectives were to determine whether and to what
extent Amtrak's Thruway Bus services might be federally subsidized. 
We focused on Amtrak's Thruway Bus charter routes because Amtrak is
committed to paying the cost of service on these routes regardless of
how many rail passengers ride the bus.  This arrangement creates a
potential for federal subsidy if the total revenue from travelers
using the bus to connect to the train is less than the cost of the
bus service.  Amtrak provides Thruway Bus services under charter
agreements on 16 routes in California and on 14 other routes
nationwide. 

To determine whether Amtrak's Thruway Bus services are subsidized, we
concluded that there would be no bus passenger subsidy if, for each
route, the revenues earned from the bus-rail passengers were
sufficient to cover (1) the full costs of the charter bus contract
and (2) any additional rail costs created by adding the bus-rail
passengers to the train they ride. 

We also calculated the rail revenue per passenger mile, or the rail
yield, from Thruway Bus passengers on the rail portion of their
combined bus-rail trip and compared this yield with the yield from
all-rail passengers.  We performed this calculation for each route to
measure the degree to which the bus passengers contribute to covering
the costs of the train relative to the all-rail passengers. 

To conduct our analysis, we obtained financial and operating data
from Amtrak and from CALTRANS for the California Thruway Bus service. 
The most recent year for which consistent data on Amtrak's rail and
bus operations were available was 1992.  We also obtained operating
data from Greyhound Lines, Inc., and Vermont Transit, Inc.,
Greyhound's Vermont subsidiary.  To help us more fully understand the
Thruway Bus service subsidy issue, we also interviewed Amtrak
officials and officials representing Greyhound and Vermont Transit. 
Mark R.  Dayton, a rail transportation consultant, helped us develop
our methodology and collect and analyze the data. 


CALIFORNIA THRUWAY BUS REVENUE AND
COST DATA, BY CORRIDOR, FISCAL
YEAR 1993
========================================================== Appendix II

                          Ticket        Rail         Bus     Charter     Net bus
Bus route               revenues    revenues    revenues   bus costs     revenue
--------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
#1Los Angeles Basin   $5,093,269  $3,815,596  $1,277,673  $2,742,766  ($1,465,09
                                                                              3)
#2Tulare County          101,599      90,230      11,369     165,011   (153,642)
#3Sacramento           1,947,904   1,526,622     421,282   1,061,854   (640,572)
#4Los Angeles-Santa      652,220     413,502     238,718     545,345   (306,627)
 Barbara
#5San Jose               439,738     361,251      78,487     299,862   (221,375)
#7North Bay              472,068     407,878      64,190     758,519   (694,329)
#9Las Vegas              225,303     132,201      93,102     403,395   (310,293)
#10Bakersfield-          454,272     328,972     125,300     354,026   (228,726)
 Santa Barbara
#12Bakersfield-          119,998      99,095      20,903     235,575   (214,672)
 Antelope
#14Los Angeles-           43,839      31,964      11,875     196,597   (184,722)
 Antelope
#17San Luis Obispo-      819,194     440,477     378,717     265,325     113,392
 South
#18San Luis Obispo-       67,958      43,573      24,385     250,401   (226,016)
 North
#19Inland Empire         984,858     671,408     313,450     784,385   (470,935)
#20Reno-Sparks           604,730     443,174     161,556     785,990   (624,434)
#21Monterey              207,413     163,458      43,955     268,387   (224,432)
================================================================================
Total                 $12,234,36  $8,969,401  $3,264,962  $9,117,438  ($5,852,47
                               3                                              6)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  GAO's presentation of data from CALTRANS. 


AVERAGE LENGTH OF RAIL TRIP FOR
ALL-RAIL PASSENGERS AND THRUWAY
BUS PASSENGERS, FISCAL YEAR 1992
========================================================= Appendix III

                (Length of rail trip in miles)

                                        All-rail         Bus
Bus route                             passengers  passengers
------------------------------------  ----------  ----------
Ogden-Salt Lake City, UT                     804         180
Tampa-Winter Haven, FL                       858         189
Roanoke-Clifton Forge, VA                    459         439
Charlottesville-Richmond, VA                 459         543
Oakland-San Francisco, CA                    441         443
Borie-Cheyenne, WY                           804         746
Tampa-Clearwater, Sarasota, and              713         881
 Treasure Island, FL
Ft. Wayne-Waterloo and Garrett, IN           547         296
Newport News-Norfolk, VA                     211         311
Springfield, MA-Burlington, VT               188         292
------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  GAO's presentation of data from Amtrak. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix IV

RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C. 

Francis P.  Mulvey, Assistant Director
Peter J.  Espada, Evaluator-in-Charge
Eric Stults
Cleve B.  Tyler

