…More on the budget. House Appropriations subcommittee approved an Amtrak budget of 580 million for the 2004 budget year starting Oct. 1…“As a practical matter, this is a shutdown scenario”, Amtrak official Cliff Black said of the amount. Now if this isn’t altered before then will that mean the total system shuts down and we have no more service, and…at the same time the NEC remains open…I believe we all know that has to remain open unless other plans are put in place and what would they be at this time…Interstate routes couldn’ t handle that much more traffic…So what are we looking at…? This could get interesting.
Either chop it up, and sell it to private companies to run as for profit railroads, or make it a wholey subsidised arm of the federal goverment, under the DOT jurisdiction. Fund it the way we fund highways, with a small nation wide tax.
If left alone, will it die? Most likley not, there is still enough political self interest involved in it to keep Amtrak limping along.
As a private company, you would see intercity routes between the major population centers grow, and long distance trains go away, no profit there.
As a goverment agency, most current routes would remain, and the cross country train would stay there, as a bare bones ride. But then again, do you see airlines advertise the quality of their “ride”? Of course not, there is no way to make sardines look comfortable.
But the plus side is that you wouldnt have to rely on fare box recovery of your operating cost. Add to that the facts of goverment employees running it, and you would see a constant level of service, maybe not the greatest, but still constant. Trust me, as a ex state employee, the one thing any goverment employee is really good at is making sure their jobs is still there tomorrow[:D]
The days of the streamlined passenger trains in Classic Trains is long gone, for the most part, they never made the carriers any money, but were great public relation tools, even if they were mandated by the feds. But railroads nowadays could care less what the general public thinks about them, its the shippers who count, and shippers could care less about Amtrak, or any other passenger train for that matter.
So we are left with three choices, sell it off and privatize it, make it a goverment agency, or leave it alone, and put up with it staying the same, unprofitable, unpleasent for the most part, and unrealiable.
Stay Frosty,
Ed[8D]
…Limping along [with funding], is one thing that has contributed to the just partial success of Amtrak. Politicians unable to fund the program in a proper manner. For 32 years the system has lived from hand to mouth and really just existed and just barely at that. Don’t we think if it was funded properly it would have a chance to have better success and build a viable system we wouldn’t have to be ashamed of.
I agree, the very fact the it survived this long means there is a need and a want for it.
My point was, if left alone, it would continue to function just as it has. But, if given to the private sector to run, what we view as passenger trains would dissappear, in favor of the city to city mass transit systems, because the amount of profit vs cost of those type of operations would outweigh the return any long distance train could generate.
The farebox recovery, plus the lesser cost of shorter infrastructure, and the built in return customer would make commuter railroading more attractive to the private sector.
But, if run by a goverment agency, or it’s own stand alone Federal agency, then the need to have any real farebox recovery is no longer there, as the need to profit dosnt figure into the operating structure. So as long as the only driving force is the need of the customer to go from New York to L.A., well, great. Making money would no longer be a factor in decisions as to where and when to run a train, only the needs of us, the general public, and our wants and need would determine that.
There are cities out there desperatly wanting passenger train to service their city, but Amtrak is cutting, or already has done away with service to them, because the trains dont generate enough money to even cover their operating cost. But shut down the Northeast corridor, and see how long Washington DC stays in business. The money there covers the cost, and then some.
Most European, Asian and South American countries realized, even pre WWII, that a profit from passenger trains no longer exsisted. They knew, even then, that it had to become a form of public transportation, subsidised by the goverment, for the service of the public. I think we should follow suite.
Stay Frosty,
Ed[8]
…Ed, I wish your message would be the message the Congress and Adminstration could soak up and do something about…Sadly, with the makeup of Washington now, I think our chances of having a decent passenger rail system in place to serve the public and not expect it to generate a profit…will not be seen. They just will not put that up as a priority.
Yeah, but you gotta keep trying.
I think the major hurdle is that this is not a very public issue.
Outside of the railroad press and magazine trade, and the railfan comunity, not to many folks even think about it.
But if you want a idea to mull over, go to the TDOT website, (texas dept of transportation)and look at the Trans Texas plan. Wi***hey would hurry up, I would love to see this happen in my lifetime.
Stay Frosty,
Ed
…I will keep trying from my corner of life.
I agree that public funding for Amtrak should emulate the model used to fund highway construction and maintenance. Since highway funding is collected as a gasoline tax, how do you propose collecting the funds for the Amtrak system? It seems to me that you can’t charge the ticket holders the fuel tax. So I guess you have to charge them a basic mileage tax.
What do y’all think about charging a mileage surcharge on Amtrak tickets to pay for capitol improvements and maintenance? - The other Ed
Ed —
With the exception of the Anglo-American countries, it is the rare railroad that is or was privately owned or operated. France and Germany are usually held as examples of how to run a passenger operation and in Germany, for example, the railroads were built by the King or Duke of the area and he funded not only the construction, but also the operations. All of the revenue, therefore, went back into his pocket. AND, the public mind set reflects that and considers passanger rail successful at a service level, not a fare-box recovery issue. In fact, they demand the service level.
As an example of DEMAND, in TRAINS News Wire a week or so ago, there was an item about the DB re-ordering more cars of its double-deck regional equipment, calling them elegant. I rode those cars in June, and elegent does not begin to cover it. And these are considered “long-distance-commuter” equipment for trains with 2 hours or less running times. It would work for long distance in the US today.
Even if the US passenger system (Amtrak) is to stay public, a mind set of “for-profit” that is centered on making each dollor go as far as possible and also to provide a service that will be supported by ridership is essential to public (read congress) confidence and support. Yes, it would be nice if Amtrak turned a profit, but it probably can’t, and the $200 per seat subsidy of some trains can not be politically maintained.
Congress, however, is not to blame for all of the problems with Amtrak. Monies were diverted between internal budgets to fund things how Amtrak wanted without approval of Congress, which made for bad blood between them. Managers simply did not manage to obtain the greatest return for the dollor in many highly visable areas.
When the on-time/ahead-of-time bonus paid to the freight railroads was cutoff by congress, timekeeping tanked, and this in turn caused a reduction in ridership due to non-dependableity. Trains that used to run 16-18 cars n
I’m sorry guys.
I know that right now as your rail system is suffering, it sounds like a great idea to privatize…but really, honestly, it would only work for the really busy city centres. Trains need to run to the other areas too. If you take the only trains that make any money away frrom the government, you will not see things getting better, it will only get worse. Further more, Ed was right. passenger transpertation has never been profitable. Infact, even in the hay day of train travel, it was the fright train money that payed for the passenger rail. CN and CP owned the passenger system in Canada, and they NEVER made money on passengers. That’s no great sales pitch to a privat company coming in to try and “rescue” the pax trains.
Sorry, I just don’t see it being successful.
I use England as a wonderful exsample of how UNsuccessful privatzation of railroads can be.
Let the government take care of it. It’s the only way to keep it.