The argument since day 2 of Amtrak.
Is Amtrak to provide a service to the country or is it to earn a profit. It cannot do both.
This is from Amtrak’s FY2018 Company Profile for the Period October 1, 2017 - September 30, 2018:
“Amtrak is a federally chartered corporation, with the federal government as majority stockholder. The Amtrak Board of Directors is appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Amtrak is operated as a for-profit company, rather than a public authority.”
Presumably, they know what they are about.
Some people probably didn’t have a choice, but the also might not have ridden it because it did not connect east of Salt Lake, it ran at a different time of day ,it had no food over its 23 hour run, and was generally not as comfortable as a full service train
[quote user=“7j43k”]
MidlandMike
Amtrak’s mission is to provide a service citizens will use.
Funny. I thought it was to turn a profit in national passenger service.
If it has to operate at a loss, perhaps subscriptions should be sold to support it. You, yourself, could buy in and do your part to support Amtrak. So could other people who want to ride it. And those who aren’t interested could d
[quote user=“CMStPnP”]
"alphas
No surprise, the greatest reason for LD rail & bus financal problems was the introduction of the discount airlines which brought air fares within reach of almost all the traveling public. "
"The biggest item that doomed the passenger train was loss of the mail contract and the head end Express business. "
CMStPnP:
You are correct of course as that was the most important reason the railroads wanted rid of all passenger service leading to Amtrak. The academic study I mentioned wasn’t that long ago and did not consider mail or Express at all as they are a settled matter. What they were looking at was how can government, assuming it wants to, best help provide rural areas with some form of non-local public transportation that doesn’t require overwhelming start-up costs, has the least subsidy, and is the most flexible in meeting rural population needs. Their answer was subsidized bus service. There was a lot more to their findings but that sums it up in a few words.
Again, I did not mean to doubt the figures, simply pointing out that the LDTs are far more useful than just subsidy per ride would indicate, that they benefit far more people than subsidiy per ride wouild indicate.
My station restaurant scheme would not remove food service from trains but convert loss into profit. The station restaurants would provide the food instead of Amtrak commissaries, as part of a wide take-out and home-and-business delivery service, with the economies of scale involved. Food in dining cars would both be brought onboard by some passengers boarding at stations where there are these restaurants, but mostly delivered by the restaurants. stored fozen or just refirgorated as appropriate, and microwaved and served by an attendant.
Food broght onboard by passengers would be allowed in dining cars, even including use of the microwave, only if brought from the Amtrak liscensed restaurant and brought onboard with the package unopened.
There is a separate thread devoted to this.
Providing RDC service with overnight hotel stays does not provide LD transportation for elderly and handicapped who cannot fly. I think the station restaurant scheme will solve the food-service cost problem. But reducing the subsidy for sleeping accomodations still needs some creative thinking. As a last resort, I’d go for business class plus one handicapped room in each car for the truly handicapped and his or her assistant. Lots of people who cannot fly are still able to walk without a wheelchair or walker. If the room is not taken, it would be auctioned off by the conductor to those already on the train.
I’m 87, and one morning I arrived at my desk in the Yeshiva’s study hall to find a walking stick across my desk. I still don’t use it.
I freuently get trip reports from people who do not post here, and one most frequent Amtrak user tells me not to distribute his reports. Charlie’s friend&
Error correction: 261 workdays per year did not allow for holidays. 250 per year is better. So the corridor passenger’s subsidy is reduced to $2500/year.
“In creating Amtrak, Congress sought to establish a single, FOR-PROFIT corporate entity that, with INITIAL Federal assistance…”
[my caps]
(“Initial”, by the way, means “at the beginning”. It does NOT mean “until a miracle happens”.)
and
“Amtrak was created by the RPSA as a private, for-profit, District of Columbia Corporation…”
Quoted from:
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/arc/materials/legsum.pdf
Ed
PS: The above material is not copyrighted.
Amtrak: Welfare for old-fart train-nuts living in the past.
Which is fine by me. I take a LD train once a year.
It just too bad this pathetic organization (Amtrak) is preventing any advancement of trains in the US.
Obviously, it’s going to be “fixed” by people other than us. But, until Amtrak STOPS operating trains and becomes a loot distribution system (which is what the “defense” industry, airport, highway, and waterway agencies are) this conversation will continue forever.
I wonder how long those Superliners will lasts?
Amtrak was also created “that it provide a balanced transportation system by developing, operating, and improving intercity rail passenger service. The Act also states that Amtrak will not be an agency or establishment of the United States Government. Amtrak thus is a corporation created by Congress to compete for the transportation business of the intercity traveller, to the end that the travelling public will have a choice of travel modes.”
The best description above was Amtrak was created as a private company with Congress as the majority stockholder. Private companies in receivership are allowed government subsidies under our Constitution as well as politically appointed board members and that basically is what we have with Amtrak. Amtrak was created in a state of recievership with Congress as the appointed Trustee…another way of looking at it. The NIXON administration did not want to “Nationalize” the rail passenger system at the time and that is why Amtrak is not a government agency and that participation in Amtrak by private railroads was voluntary and not forced. Idealogically, nationalization carries the tag Socialism along with it which was unpalitable to a Republican administration.
Further, Amtraks creation was viewed as both sides as only temporary. The Republicans at the time viewed Amtrak as a company would fall apart in a few years anyway and didn’t give it much thought beyond it being a placebo for the public at the time so that the Administration was not seen as standing by while the entire rail passenger system just collapsed into chaos. For the Northeast at least the NEC collapse would have led to a rather nasty recession for the Northeastern states. Democrats saw Amtrak as a stopgap until the company could figure out some kind of reorganization plan to put it’s finances in order and once again stand on it’s own feet. Thats how I remember the history.
To follow up on this point, if the Arab oil embargo had not occured, Amtrak would have been largley dead by 1980 except for the NEC and maybe one or two other corridors.
That’s pure speculation. I would agree that there would not have been the expansion, the Lake Shore, the Montrealer, the Hartland Flyer, the Sunset to Florida, the Desert Wind, the Pioneer, and others, The contraction that occured when Carter was President would have come earlier. But a national system would have remined. But that is also pure speculation, and your speculation may be right.
[quote user=“MidlandMike”]
7j43k
MidlandMike
Where was it ever stated that profit was an intent of Amtrak’s creation.
“In creating Amtrak, Congress sought to establish a single, FOR-PROFIT corporate entity that, with INITIAL Federal assistance…”
[my caps]
(“Initial”, by the way, means “at the beginning”. It does NOT mean “until a miracle happens”.)
and
“Amtrak was created by the RPSA as a private, for-profit, District of Columbia Corporation…”
Quoted from:
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/arc/materials/legsum.pdf
Ed
PS: The above material is not copyrighted.
Amtrak was also created "that it provide a balanced transportation system by developing, operating, and improving intercity rail passenger service. The Act also states that Amtrak will not be an agency or establishment of the United States Government. Amtrak thus is a corporation created by Congress to compete for t
[quote user=“7j43k”]
MidlandMike
7j43k
MidlandMike
Where was it ever stated that profit was an intent of Amtrak’s creation.
“In creating Amtrak, Congress sought to establish a single, FOR-PROFIT corporate entity that, with INITIAL Federal assistance…”
[my caps]
(“Initial”, by the way, means “at the beginning”. It does NOT mean “until a miracle happens”.)
and
“Amtrak was created by the RPSA as a private, for-profit, District of Columbia Corporation…”
Quoted from:
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/arc/materials/legsum.pdf
Ed
PS: The above material is not copyrighted.
Amtrak was also created "that it provide a balanced transportation system by developing, operating, and improving intercity rail passenger service. The Act also states that Amtrak will not be an agency or establishment of the United States Government. Amtrak thus is a corporation created by
And we have the factualy mutually exclusive aspects of Amtrak’s heritage.
Short?
He asked a question as if it were inconceivable that there could be an answer that he didn’t want:
“Where was it ever stated that profit was an intent of Amtak’s creation.”
I gave him the answer.
His next response was to ignore the answer and to find evidence that made it seem irrelevant.
It may well be. But that doesn’t mean that the answer to his question was in such error as to be ignored.
Ed
I was not specific enough in my follow-up question to this exchange. My context was how Amtrak operates now (and coincidencly, the last 40 years or so.) Originally Amtrak’s function was to operate a national passenger system, and its form was as a for-profit corperation. But there was obviously mission creep after a short time, as evidenced by the fact that it has required constant subsidy. So far Congress has considered its function was more important than its form.
Also I did not ingore or deny your answer, I simply pointed out how conditions had changed.
Neither of you intended hostility, so you both can let this matter rest. Yes and yes for both matters of information.
Well, regardless of what it’s intent WAS, NOW it ain’t workin.
And, it’s NEVER going to get better the way it’s organized now.
The only Federal “government agency” trying to OPERATE a customer service transportation business. Passenger trains running at 1920’s speeds, with 1950’s service model, serving (roughly) 2% of the incorporated areas of country, with Congress as the board of directors.
Yup, sounds like a REAL winnin’ combination there…
The first link that reads: “Wall Street Journal” takes me to Youtube. Which is a tad misleading… is this place turning into 4chan?