After looking at what Amtrak has gone through with the national government, would it really be a good idea to privitize the passenger railroad? It worked with Conrail, so why not Amtrak? It would take a lot off of the goverments shoulders, and allow Amtrak to not worry about funding.[^o)]
So, what do you think about this possibility? Do you think that it could really help the system, or just send it into turmoil?
Two different legislative creations, not equal, not able to do with Amtrak what was done with CR.
Privatizing Amtrak is completely unworkable: no system of public transportation anywhere makes a profit, and so in the end it would cost more to support the private firms operating Amtrak AND their profits and executive bonuses than it does as a straight government entity. Pro-privatization types like to point to Germany as a success, but only after HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS were invested in right of way improvements from the seventies on. In the UK it cost a fortune for the government to privatize BR and then pay to fix up the tracks. And then you have the tendency for private operators to cut costs on labor, rotating and split shifts etc., as with Veolia Transportation, the operator of Metrolink in California, until one of their engineers crashed into a UP freight while texting: http://projects.latimes.com/metrolink-crash/ No thanks.
Dwight, it is the mechinisms of the legislation that makes it all but impossible for Amtrak to become a private corporation. As for the Metrolink engineer texting or on the cell phone, that’s indicative of too many working in all kinds of jobs be it transportation or factory or retail and even offices today; so that’s not a factor of private operation not being able to make it. Our economic and political systems do not allow a private operation to succeed if because of high expectations of rate of return for investors (prublc or private), demands of a labor intensive business, and the unwillingness of a public to accept the whole cost plus profit purchase price. The ICC held railroad passenger ticket pices at given rates, the government built roads for cars and buses and built airports and provided traffic management for airlines, and states like NY had legislatures which did not allow the cost of a subway ride to raise above a nickel for over 50 years. So the public has no idea of the actual cost of traveling because it is so hidden and confusing to figure out. With that in mind, who in his right mind wants to get into the business of running passenger trains? Especially if there is no promise of financeial support (subsidy) from any government?
As discussed in the latest issue of Trains, Nuovo Trasporto Viaggiatori, a private operator in Italy, is planning high speed (187.5 miles per hour) passenger rail service connecting Turin, Milan, Rome and Naples. Start-up is planned for later this year.
The article did not present any comprehensive financial details, i.e. fares, rentals for facilities use, etc., but the investors apparently believe that they can make money with a privately owned and operated rail service. The article indicates that they have raised the capital in public financial markets. I am keen to see how it works out. Hopefully, as the title of the article suggests, it could be a model for the U.S.
The Great Southern Railway in Australia is operated on a contract basis by a consortium of private investors. The Indian Pacific, The Gahn, and the Overland are its trains. The operators receive a subsidy from the Australian federal government. In turn they are required to meet stiff performance standards, or they run the risk of losing the contract. Having lived in Australia for five years, I have ridden all three trains on numerous occasions. I rode them when they were operated by the government and afterwards. The private operators improved the performance significantly.
The V Line in Victoria has been privatized along lines similar to the Great Southern Railway. Again the transition took place whilst I lived in Mel
Henry, you are right, but the sort of transparency of costs would actually dissuade anyone from privatizing Amtrak. I always ask: is this a total privatization, including the cost of rebuilding track." A few years back the states in the NE Corridor rebuffed an offer from Republicans to give them the NE Corridor, to quote a Don Phillips Trains article from June 2005: “Obviously private operators could not make money any more than Amtrak can make money. So would they be subsidized? … The Northeast Corridor states all but sniffed at the plan. Why would they want a half-crumbling railroad line that needs billions of dollars in work.”
And that is also another reason why “privatization” attempts are really only the privatization of operating profits but the socialization of losses in the form of upkeep of track. During the 2005 congressional hearings when the Republicans wanted to eliminate “money losing” long distance trains and keep the NE Corridor it was revealed that Amtrak loses more per rider in the NE Corridor than on long distance trains when you account for the upkeep Amtrak must pay for on track it owns. Long distance trains are on the other had a small incremental cost for the freight railroads. I saw a figure once that Amtrak pays the same to CSX and NS to send one train from NYC to Chicago as UPS does to send one piggyback trailer.
BTW, a little-advertised part of the Transport bill that made its way out of the Senate a few weeks back was a provision that would severely restrict the privatization of highways, I think they are waking up that privatization is more expensive:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/09/jeff-bingaman-senate-highway-bill-leases_n_1266385.html
Politicians not only want thier cake and eat it to, but they want the oven, the pan it was cooked in, the knife that cut it, the plate is was served on, the fork they used plus total amnisty all while telling you it doesn’t exist.
.
This is almost humorous. Everybody here thinks Amtrak is vital to the survival of the nation.This is simple. Do we need amtrak? No. If if falls of the face of the earth will it matter? No. So the answer is to privateize it. If it fails there is a reason. The US dosen’t need it. If it succeds all the better. These are the founding priciples of the US.
If that is so, gabeusmc, then why does the Constitution give the Congress right to regulate interstate commerce? Why is there copyright laws and a Patent Office? Why has the Federal and state governements from the beginning issued charters, legislated bonding, allowed for eminent domain, or otherwise help form the system…I am not talking just 20th or 21st Century, I am talking 18th and19th Century, too. I am not neccessarityly talking railroads either, I am talking roads and highways, canals, waterways, airports and air traffic controls.
**“**The US dosen’t need it.”
What do you envision our population corridors would be like without passenger rail service? What alternatives would you propose that wouldn’t be congested, used more land than in use now, and be non pollutant?
Overall your statement lacks a sense of history and the role the government has played in all our intercourse and economic (military?) growth nor considers the need for proper use of fuel, land, and air for practicality, safety and enviornmently sound choices.
It didn’t work with Conrail until they changed the game (Staggers Act). It won’t work with Amtrak unless they change the game there, too. But the change would have to be really drastic. REALLY drastic. Amtrak loses nearly 50 cents on the dollar. Conrail was much closer to breaking even, even before Staggers.
You could privatize in the sense that you bid out the operation in parts with the guy who needed the least subsidy winning. But that’s not really privatizing…
You are buying into a myth. Sam and others here have debunked it a couple of times. (maybe more). The LD trains are losers, Truly.
UPS pays about a grand to have a trailer moved 1000 miles. Amtrak pays about $10 a mile for a LD train. (Which isn’t even close to what it costs the frt RR to host it). So, the Amtrak rate is about 10x more per mile.
I really like the LD trains. I wish it wasn’t true that they are such losers. I also wish Amtrak would tighten up their leaky ship a good bit so that we have a chance of keeping some of them.
Well if we need the rail transportation some guy/s (like me but with more money) will buy it and make money on it, if it is indeed needed and is profitable. As for the regulation of interstate commerce,I am not saying that there should be none. I am just saying that if there is a need for transportation somthing will fill thae gap if Amtrak goes under. It could be that CSX (as an example) decides it can make money providing passenger transit between here and there they will do it. If they
Three issues:
One, polluting emissions are not only CO2, so we can’t take pollution lightly.
Two, no one can deny the role of governments in creating and maintaining our transportation system.
Three, is cash payback the only value of any endeavor especially when so much of society benefits? I know we’ve lost many valuable products and services over the years and lost quality of products and services, too, simply because cash payback was not enough to satisfy the investors. Look at what is happening to our drugs as profit margin drops, no matter how valuable the drug is for taking care of patients’ needs, the drug becomes scarce or not available anymore.
Yes, cash payback or payout is indeed the only value to any endeavor, especially if you want to maximize a social payout in the form of reduced imported oil, reduced Greenhouse gas emission, or any other metric.
Someone here please convince me that subsidizing Amtrak results in more quantifiable environmental savings then taking the same money and giving tax breaks on hybrid or electric cars.
By my reckoning, if Amtrak saves 1000 BTUs/passenger mile at 20 cents subsidy/passenger mile. If a hybrid or electric car saves 1000 BTUs/passenger mile, a $10,000 tax credit for a plug-in hybrid amounts to 7 cents/passenger mile. Hence the hybrid car subsidy is three times more effective than subsidizing Amtrak. Why are we giving money to Amtrak if saving the environment is a concern?
First, I don’t believe cash payback to only one or just a few people is good. In the cancer drug shortage, drug companies stopped supplying because there was no huge profit in it despite the life and death dependency of the drug, and the fact that only drug companies can make drugs…if you don’t want to make drugs, then open a pizza parlor or go to work for the railroad; you chose to make drugs, so take on the responsibility or is there no such thing as corporate responsiblity and patriotism or dedication? So if you want to get into the railroad business, then get in the railroad business. But if you want to make lots and lots money become a printer in the treasury department. In other words, yes, make as much money as you can, there is nothing wrong with that; but also try to be satisfied with what you can make or else get out.
Second, subsidies for Amtrak on dense corridors do make environmental impacts. Less land is used, less fuel is used, less pollutants are produced, roads and airways are less congested. NY to Boston or D.C. for instance. There is little land, if any, which can be turned over to more highway building. Both highways and airlanes are already dangerously croweded in plane physical congestion. AIr quality is bad and getting worse…and if you have so much congestion not only are people not moving or moving quickly, thus there is even more pollution. Putting money into a better Amtrak…be it high speed, renewed infrastructure, more trains…would work to reduce air pollutants in the densly populated area. Even if you had an all electric automobile with unlimited mileage and speed, there isn’t enough room many places to build more highways which would take space away from industry or homes.
The environmental costs of cars is more than just fuel burning. All those extra hybrid cars would need more highways and parking lots. All that paving leads to loss of habitable space, loss of vegetative cover, storm water issues, etc. Adding more airports would have similar consequences. Whether or not they can be quantified monetarily does not disqualify them as environmental problems.
LA once has an efficient rail transit system, but it was abandoned when thy thought it could be replaced by freeways. With the freeways clogged, and people commuting hours to work, they realized the limits of roadways, and are rebuilding the rail system at great costs. Amtrak and commuter rail have a place, at least in dense corridors.
I say privatize the trains, train service employees and ticket agents. Let Amtrak stay in place as the owner of the Northeast Corridor tracks, keep up with the maintenance and provide dispatching.
Another suggestion would be to do away with long distance service and instead offer corridor service where private passenger train companies negotiate trackage rights with private freight train companies. Who knows…maybe a private freight train company might offer passenger service if federal, state and local governments would be willing to pay for trainsets, stations and upgrades to mainlines to high speed standards.
By doing away with the non-competitive bureaucratic government run Amtrak, service would greatly improve and the US could catch up with the rest of the world in passenger train service.
Ditto. It makes sense.
Shouldn’t we therefore also privatize highways, waterways, canals, airports and air traffic control and any other transportation mode the governemtn underwrites? Or is it just trains?