If I recall correctly, Chicago-Florida via Atlanta ended as a through route somewhere between 1965 and 1968.
I, also, do not remember just when the Dixie Flyer died north of Atlanta, but I do know that when I rode what was left of it in the spring of 1966, it was an Atlanta-Jacksonville train.
The Southern was out of the Midwest-Florida business several years before Amtrak began operation, and the South Wind became a Louisville-Florida train in early 1970.
Amtrak’s attempt to preserve a Chicago-Florida train certainly did not attract much traffic, and Amtrak had great difficulty in keeping a route out of/ into Chicago (how many routings were used north of Nashville? I did not keep up with them).
At present the carriers with Southbound routes that could be used for a Mid-West Auto Train do not have the track capacity to permit the timely handling of such a train in addition to the present level of freight that those lines are currently handling.
Profit is a term that applies to investor owned businesses and government sponsored commercial enterprises. Amtrak is a government sponsored commercial enterprise. It has issued stock (preferred and common), and was formed with the stated intention to covered its costs out of the fare box. It is subject to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and it is audited annually by an independent auditor. In FY11 it was BDO, which is a high caliber international accounting firm one tier down from the big four.
Federal, state, and local governments sponsor a variety of commercial activities. They are governed usually by Government Accepted Accounting Standards (GAAP). At the federal level they are usually audited by the GAO, although not always.
At the federal level the government sponsored agencies and/or corporations include amongst many the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Farm Credit Insurance Corporation (FCIC), etc. These organizations do not produce a profit in the sense that a private enterprise generates a profit and distributes some of it in the form of dividends. But they are expected to cover their operating expenses through fees, investment income, assessments, etc. so as to maintain a surplus in their general funds.
A reading of the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 does not state that the National Rail Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is to cover its costs out of the fare box. What it does say are two somewhat contradictory statements.
I am providing the link: http://bulk.resource.org/gao.gov/91-518/00005088.pdf
On page 4: “The Corporation shall be a for profit corporation, the purpose of which shall be to provide intercity rail passenger service.”
On page 7: “At the time of its annual report, the corporation shall submit such legislative recommendations as it deems desirable, including the amount of financial assistance needed for operations and for capital improvements”
IMO, there was a recognition that although ideally Amtrak should turn a profit, realistically it could not fulfill its clearly stated purpose without financial assistance from Congress annually.
A stock company is expected to earn a positive return, i.e. net income that closes to retained earnings as profit. That is the way Amtrak was set-up as you have noted. It is governed by GAAP as opposed to GAAS. Had the sponsors expected Amtrak to be a permanent ward of the state, they probably would have set it up as a government sponsored entity like the FDIC, Federal Home Loan Bank, etc. and subjected its accounting to GAAS.
The annual financial statements of the company look like those for a stock company; not like those for a government agency. Moreover, this statement from the auditors report lends credence to the notion that Amtrak was expected to function like a commercial enterprise: "The Company accounts for its
How might the financing of Amtrak relate to the way city and regional bus/commuter rail systems are financed? “Profits” are few and far between there, also, yet for the most part, they are viewed as essential as transportation choices.
The Rail Passenger Service Act was written the way it was because Amtrak wasn’t expected to last for more than a few years and would provide a somewhat graceful exit from the passenger business for the various railroads still operating passenger service. The “for profit” clause existed as an escape hatch for winding up operations in a few years after May 1, 1971.
Question: Is there a similar “for profit” clause in the statute which established that bastion of socialism known as the Tennessee Valley Authority?
What is the authoritative source for saying that Amtrak wasn’t expected to last for more than a few years and claiming that the for profit clause existed as an escape hatch for winding up operations in a few years after May 2, 1971? If that is true, then the sponsors committed an accounting fraud.
We have an organizational format that says otherwise. At the end of the day, however, it does not matter. Amtrak has never come close to covering its costs; it has racked up loses in excess of $28 billion. Add in the opportunity costs for that money, i.e. options, and the cost to the taxpayers is significantly higher.
The TVA was established as a not-for-profit commercial enterprise. It was expected to cover its costs through its rate structure. It has done that on a consistent basis, thanks in no small part to the fact that it is able to tap into tax free funding. In other words, the taxpayers are underwriting the TVA’s ability to offer its customers lower than competitive market rates.
While a organizational format was designed for perpetual operation - the political aura at the time Amtrak was created was ‘give the railroads a bone’ and in 5 years all this will go away. The fact that Amtrak still exists today after 40
Until the end of WWII many of America’s transit systems were for profit entities. For a variety of reasons they were forced to exit the business. Municipal governments concluded, rightly in my opinion, that transit is akin to a public service that cannot cover its costs through the fare box. Its mission is to provide essential transport services to everyone in the community irrespective of their ability to pay for it.
Most transit systems, including commuter rail systems, have been created as municipal departments or as separate authorities. As a rule they follow fund accounting principles, which means they are not expected to generate a distributable profit. They may be controlled by more than one government. Sometimes they cross state lines. The users are not expected to cover their costs. They depend on government support to sustain operations. In Texas, the last time I looked, the average fare box recovery rate was 18 per cent.
To come back to the question, Would you support a Chicago-Miami Autotrain that is not government supported, my answer is yes if it could cover its costs without government support. If it requires government support, my answer would be no. Unfortunately, I don’t believe there is a market for the service. Amtrak’s Auto Train from the populous northeast to Florida lost $36.2 million in FY11 before interest, depreciation, and ancillary charges. Its experience does not offer much hope for a private operator.
The original Auto-Train: Despite popularity of the service on its primary route, which paralleled I 95 along much of the eastern coast of the United States in 5 states, the company failed financially after operating almost 10 years. Lack of success from the failed Louisville expansion, high crew costs and several accidents put Auto-Train into bankruptcy.
The exisitng Lorton-Sanford Auto-Train operates on a 17 hour overnight schedule, which is pretty convenient. One of several problems with the Auto-Train Louisville-Sanford service was that the trip was too long. A Chicago-Florida routing would be even worse. I doubt that there would be much of a market for it.
Union Pacific in connection with a motor carrier was handling single auto’s a few years again, I don’t know if they are still doing it.
Can the owners ride in their automobiles on the auto rack cars? If so, you get rid of expensive passenger cars and the employees to staff them. Just modify the auto racks with a port-o-let and vending machines on each level. Might not be as comfy a ride but could lower costs to attract more users. Just trying to think out of the box.
A short trip, but something like this?
http://www.sbb.ch/en/station-services/car-bike/smart-combinations/autoverlad-simplon.html
It’s roll-on, roll-off by the driver. People ride in their cars.
Actually thinking inside the box, as for protection of the vehicles from vandals - enclosed auto racks would be required - aluminium sheeting is a great view for 1K miles, as well as heating the vehicles during winter and cooling them during the summer.
Surprised you didn’t recall this service, Don. More comparable, look at all the Autozug (Auto train) services (overnight) that are offered by DB within Germany and onward.
http://www.dbautozug.de/autozug-en/Transport_and_travelling/
I thought of it, but it’s quite a bit like our AutoTrain. I was looking for the Swiss RoRo example.
A hybrid might be something like the enclosed “unilevels” with some sort of glazing to provide a view for self-contained RVs. Lots of issues to be concerned with - propane tanks, ventilation for generators, whether to provide 120 VAC 50A “shore power”, wheel chocks or not, how to keep the people from wandering around (to relight the pilot on their water heater, for example.)