http://www.oregonlive.com/editorials/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1109249776123290.xml
From the Portland Oregonian
Seems pretty fair to me.
Hmmmm…sounds a little like the rhetoric that kept rural lines barely used open by the regulation that killed off the pre-Conrail roads.
I’d hate to see Amtrak go, because I ride it quite a bit. At the same time I’d really like to see some changes made to it if it sticks around.
I really do think that if Amtrak died, there would be public and private interests that would resurrect passenger service. It wouldn’t look anything like Amtrak does, and I think that’s the point that the Bush administration is trying to make. High speed rail, touristy routes, and rail “cruise” lines could be very profitable I think. Perhaps even a national passenger system that would learn how to run on time could compete.
Just my [2c] though.
Chris May
Denver, CO
Amtrak’s on time performance seldom is their fault. It is the freight railroads fault added to by a well entioned FRA rule about NEVER exceeding the speed limit. So there is never any chance of making up any time at all.
If a profit could be made operating passenger rail, Amtrak would be making it, and the freight railroads would be beating up on the Feds to get passenger rail back. You see neither one happening. The enabeling legislation restricted the NRPC so tightly that Amtraks attempt to carry express traffic failed (a big reason, one of many). In fact, that move so angered the UP, that to the best of my knowledge, they forced all passenger trains off their tracks for several years until they bought the SP.
The Oregonians comments were more centered around the Pacific Northwest than nationally, but your comments about the regulatory mindset is well taken. If the freight railroads were being required to operate and subsidize the trains, you would have a very valid point. But what is being promoted here is a service that has been deemed “necessary” by the “public authorities” and therefore any
I once read a Dave Riddell article that said if when he was an Amtrak engineer, they would not be able to make up even a minute because of strict speeding regulations. And i’m beting none of the numerous grade crossing accidnets were Amtraks fault. But they do need to get some high speed service, like Japan and France.
Sometimes. While riding on the CZ betwixt Denver and Chicago I’ve seen many hours lost to Amtrak equipment issues (spending an hour and a half in Ottumwa over a faulty toilet comes readily to mind).
True to a point. The comment about deemed necessity and the responsibility for that necessity rings true. I think that is part of the White House’s plan, though. It’s time to shake that necessity, and the idealism of decades outdated rail travel that no longer meets the requirement of the traveling public.
If there really was an interest in developing Nationwide Rail Travel into a profitable and necessary transportation option, one could rest assured that our priority of keeping oil prices low would not be such a priority. I don’t think there’s ever been an administration that’s attempted that political suicide (at least in this country).
[quote]
QUOTE: have no problem with the several states contributing to specific trains operations. Oregon and Washington cover all of the Cascades fare box shortfall to the tune of $13 million per year. California does the same for the Surfliners and the Central Cal trains to/from the Bay Area. We see much the same effort around Chicago and other places.
Montana and North Dakota could also, perhap
Whatever happened to the good old days of traveling down non-welded rail over less than perfect subgrade, behind a fire breathing monster at 110 mph+ in order to keep the schedule respectable? Oh to have lived in the days of steam streamliners!
Chris May
Denver, CO
I would like to expand on this point. I would disagree with the sentiment that if it were possible to make a profit running passengers, Amtrak would be making it. Government agencies are not constructed to be lean and mean, they are constructed to take as much taxpayer money as possible to do as little work as possible. I should know, until recently I worked for one, and in my situation it became apparent quite early in the process that what we were doing could be done much better by a private contractor, and for a lot less cost to the clients.
Therefore, if there is a way for passenger rail to be profitable (and it is not axiomatic that it can’t), Amtrak would be the last entity you’d want to prove the hypothesis.
Secondly, if it were possible to make money with passengers, that doesn’t automatically mean that the freight railroads would suddenly want a piece of the action. We’re talking about an industry that is geared to average train speeds of 25 mph, carrying the highest possible tonnage per slot, and is currently turning away business from UPS for crying out loud! It isn’t a question of if money can be made with passengers, it’s a question of how big the profit margins carrying passengers would be in determining what the freight railroads would do. The Class I’s today are not going to go after new business unless they can recover 200+% in revenue adequacy.
The op/ed piece alludes to a very interesting point - that the uncertainty about the Amtrak budget from year to year is doing as much damage as is the budget shortfall. I had not thought about that before but a long-range plan is essential to any organization’s success. With Amtrak’s budget uncertainty each year, “long-term planning” means thinking about the next 6 months, not the next 6 years. That stifles creativity, maintenance, investment, and marketing. Those limitations in turn strangle revenue growth and eliminte the opportunity to solve some of the myriad of problems.
dd
Check the “Entitlement” thread started by Mr. Schmitt for my comments, and you may get a surprise. Yes, I think long distance passengers who cannot fly or drive arre ENTITLED to decent train service, even at tax payer expense. By the Handicapped Access Act.