Along with Amtrak’s new 14.9 billion, private companies are encouraged to take control in the northeast and even on less successful routes. How possible is it that the US passenger network will end up like Britan’s with operators such as Virgin, Southeast Trains, Cross Country etc.?
Slim to none.
Al - in - Stockton
When Pigs, without electronic special effects, fly!
I don’t anticipate a bunch of colorful passenger operating companies like in England or the European countries.
After all, Amtrak is Congress’s “billion dollar baby,” even though a billion doesn’t go nearly as far as it used to! - a.s.
If Amtrak was put up as a, “Sell or scrap,” proposition, everything south and west of the Northeast Corridor would go POOF and vanish.
The freight railroads got rid of passenger trains once, and consider Amcrap a nuisance. Also note that there doesn’t seem to be any mad rush of venture capital to the numerous suggested superspeed routes/options discussed on these forums. So, what private operator would want the losses and hassle?
The UK and Japan had, and have, railroad cultures. In the US, Henry Ford (and his competitors) did a very good job of killing that, and there’s not much chance of a resurrection, NARP or no NARP. (Note that the AAA has a LOT more members than NARP.)
Chuck
I agree that Amtrak would go kaput except for the NEC.
One big advantage to privatizing the NEC is that, since it has been shown to be profitable, a private company would have access to LOTS of capital in the form of equity (stock) and debt (bonds); and given the big demand on the NEC a firm tht calls its own shots might be able to satisfy more passengers by going double-deck, increasing HST runs, etc.
Amtrak acts very much like private industry in its “everything the traffic will allow” type of pricing on the NEC. Airplanes and private cars are becoming increasingly problematic and I don’t see them “stealing” any traffic off the NEC – far from it.
What Amtrak isn’t doing – probably what it hasn’t the funds to do – is buy such great amounts of capital equipment by itself. Not unless there were a Fannie Mae for rail infrastructure, spreading the debt around. Nobody seems to be interested.
IF you don’t count the capital cost of electrifying Hew Haven to Boston (a big IF I agree), Amtrak probably makes money out of the NEC, and probably the NEC alone. It is a pity they can’t fin
I’d say that the corridor service in California would stay around - much of the line the corridor trains run on is already owned by various commuter rail agencies - such as the entire LOSSAN corridor.
One problem with carrying passengers is that they usually don’t want to pay for the full cost of service for any mode. For example, how much venture capital is going into the airline industry?
How much venture capital is going NOW to the commercial airline companies? Very little, I’d wager. Airline after airline has unused aircraft; and given the contraction of service, the older ones that are also less fuel efficient get retired first.
Passengers don’t want to pay the full cost of rail travel, but I’ll wager they do when they have to. My partner and I paid $120 to go from Newark to Philly last fall (and there was one time-of-day slot that cost even more). Even though Milwaukee is a little farther away from Chicago than Newark is from Philly, we would have paid half as much to travel Chgo - Milw.
If the NEC considered to be Boston - Penn Station - D.C. loses money as a whole, something is terribly wrong. Perhaps in that case the NEC should indeed be privatized, even if the buyer is from another country. Belgians are good at running things and their Euro is so mighty compared to our dollar that they might buy something they couldn’t
California would only loose their long distance trains. I’d guess Washington State and Oregon would keep the Cascades as well.
There would be a movement in all 3 States to keep the Coast Starlight as well, but that would be difficult.
Surely Illinois and Michigan would also keep a few trains, and perhaps Wisconsin might want the Hiawathas.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t the named routes subsidized by the various States? I agree that they would probably survive - IF the States and municipalities were willing to pick up the whole tab. If not…[xx(]
FWIW, I wonder if the airlines would have ever left the ground if they had had to pay for their own airports, the ground-based nav systems and the air traffic control network.
Chuck
Pretty well, yes.
If private enterprise were to pick up a long distance train, I’d think something between the Northeast and Florida would be most likely. Autotrain, perhaps?
Rocky Mountain Railtours has been quite successful here in western Canada. There are a lot of similarities between Vancouver-Calgary and Salt Lake City-Denver.
Quick note:
The railway infrastructure in the UK is government owned (Network Rail)
The passenger operators are franchised - well management contracts run by private operators on behalf of the Dft, WAG and the Scots Govt. The franchise terms are very very tightly defined in terms of fare setting, timetabling and even calling patterns.
The rolling stock for these operators is increasingly being specified and ordered by the government.
Which leads one to ask; why not cut out the middle man directly (the franchisee)…?
From prior post: “well management contracts run by private operators on behalf of the Dft, WAG and the Scots Govt”
OK, my English friend, can you offer a couple of American translations?
I understand the abbreviation for “Scots Government” or “Scottish Government,” but what pray is a “Dft” or a “WAG?” (Actually the second term in this country has some currency as an acronymn meaning “Wild [#oops] Guess.”) “Dft,” other than an abbreviation for “draft,” must mean something else in British English, I suppose.
Amtrak is not the same as British Rail. The freight operators were not subsumed into Amtrak. Also, the big privatization experiment in Britain was not repeated in other countries (DB is not truly privatized by any means, nor is JR).
Frankly, the biggest problem the freight railroads have right now is the FRA. Staggers Act? The railroads are more regulated than ever, perhaps more than at any point in history. Certainly, the different track classes, buff strength requirements and signaling requirements are more draconian, and they bias operations towards slow drag freight and away from fast freight and fast passenger operations. What’s even worse, with the rising cost of motor fuel and jet fuel (it’s not going down, folks), rail continues to be de-emphasized, even more than ever at this point. (What’s wrong with that picture, folks?)
It’s important to remember that when the US government stop subsidizing the private passenger railroads in the 1960’s (by moving mail from trains to trucks) the US passenger train pretty much collapsed, with the end result of the railroads begging Congress to take the passenger trains off of their hands. Right now, a few lines would be profitable but many would not, and so would not interest a private company. Unfortunately, many lines would no longer see passenger service, just at a time when high gasoline prices might finally start people towards using rail again for medium to long distance travel.
Does this mean that the FRA’s safety requirements are TOO strict???
Dft (or Daft as it’s known) is the Department of Transport based in London. It decides rail policy for England and (partly) Wales as well as having an overview in Scotland. It does not however fund the railway in Scotland which is in the hands of the scots government. WAG is the Welsh Assembly Government based in Cardiff. They have less “powers” over railway policy in terms of funding and presently do not control the passenger franchise which covers Wales; but that is to change. However they can specify additional services and spend cash on where they think money should be spent.
Sort of a Quasi federal system which is slowy being introduced in the UK.
The freight operators are Open Access and are not franchised; however they are subbed by the passenger system over here (its the reverse to the US we regulate passenger trains in front of the “goods”) in terms of track access charges (one operator recives a grant) and both the operator and shipper can apply for grants in terms of new wagons, sidings and the like as it is recognised that commercially freight doesn’t make cash but there are other quantifiable benefits in not having the goods off the road onto the railway.
Most of the regs you describe have their roots 30-100 years ago. Are you referring to those or something more recent?
By and large the airlines have paid for the portion of the airports that they use. They have also paid for their portion of the air navigation infrastructure and air traffic control operations.
As I have pointed out in other posts, the airlines, as well as general aviation, which is the biggest user of the airways, as well as most airports, realize a marginal cost advantage because the country’s airports were funded with tax free municipal bonds. This has lowered the cost of building the airports, which is passed on to the airlines in slightly lower landing fees, hanger fees, etc., depending on the stance taken by the local airport authority. The lower cost also benefits the airport vendors, fixed base operators, etc.
The airways were funded with federal dollars, most of which were and are recouped through fuel taxes, ticket taxes, and fees. Theoretically, the interest associated with those dollars was the rate for the U.S. Treasury Ten Year Note. But the actual interest rate would have varied significantly and at times would have looked more like the Treasury long bond rate. Historically, these rates have been somewhat lower than the interest rates in the private capital markets.
Early in their history the airlines depended on mail contracts to survive. Whilst I was in college, I took several transport economics courses. I remember one professor who made a compelling case that the government paid more for the mail contracts as a means of subsidizing the budding airlines, but the practice was stopped by the early 1960s.
At a few of the major airports in the U.S., e.g. Kennedy, DFW, LAX, the airlines have the biggest presence. But they are not the only players. At these three airports, as well as the country’s other h
Keep looking up!
In 1994 the railways, trams, bus operations, electric and gas utilities, amongst others, in Victoria, Australia were owned by the state government. By 2004 all of them had been privatized. Because of the privatization movement in Victoria, I had an opportunity to move to Melbourne in 1999, which is the capital city of Victoria, where I lived for nearly five years. My company had bought one of the electric distribution companies in Victoria.
Equally impressive, at the federal level, numerous government owned or controlled entities were privatized. Telecommunications was opened to private investors; the national railway was opened to private operators (the government still owns the tracks); and nearly half of the country’s national airline was sold to private investors.
Will passenger rail in the U.S. be privatized? The probability is low. But had you asked a Victorian before 1994, except for those working behind the scenes to make it happen, if their major transport modes and utilities would be privatized, they too would have suggested keeping a sharp lookout for flying pigs.