Funding

[Anonymous]

I have studied Amtrak for the last twenty years, and this I can tell you. The politics involved with public funding is almost an annual joke. It seems Republican administrations try and kill the system, then comes a Democrat who will fund it just enough to keep some air in its lungs (but still chained to a wheelchair).

Other posts have mentioned that the USA is unlike other countries, this is very true. Our economic system is very different. Other countries do fund near all costs, but folks that is called Socialism (not Communism, but Socialism). Have you ever made a complaint about the Post Office? Doesn't get anywhere does it. Our postal system is based on a Socialism concept, and it doesnt work very well either. Why is this? If it works in other places, why not here? One simple answer, you cannot blend Socialism and Capitalism together smoothly, at least here in the USA.

On the topic of private rail companies being forced to regain service is not a good idea, UNLESS, the government can provide tax incenties and not subsidies. If they are able to write off losses in frieght, you will have decent service, but being forced to regain service will result in horrible service. On April 30, 1970, the eve of Amtrak, the Federal governemt would have been better off to ensure private operations based on revenue per railroad class. Hence a Class I railroad would have to maintain three routes, a Class II would have to maintain two routes, etc , given the tax incentives and avoided the creation of Amtrak.

Thats hindsight now. What to do now to gain much needed self sufficient operations. Maintaining corridors of needed operations, for example NEC and So CAL among others. These can compete with passenger ticket revenues and traffic.

For long distance operations, there needs to be a way to generate more revenue, and this is one way to do it. Since Amtrak is a quasi-public corporation with its main holders being railroads such as BNSF, the Federal Government through votes can decide what can be done to change service. Cut costs, go where there is demand. Second, offer competing ticket pricing, why go by rail if an air ticket is 55% less? Third, offer in house gaming. People love to gamble and studies have shown that the average international air passenger gaming on international flights will gamble an amount almost equal to or more than their ticket cost. You can do this two ways, a gaming casino car per train, or in-seat video gaming. Swipe the card folks.

Subsidies are ok, but operation in a free market offers competition, better pricing, products or services customers WANT to buy. You must show a private operator why they should either invest or purchase the system. Simple put, you won't buy a broken item on a store shelf, neither will they.

Enjoy

Shipfitter

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Bringing up the Postal Service is a poor analogy, since post offices and mail have been considered a legitimate governmental function since at least 1000 BC. It's even mentioned in Article One of the Constitution of the United States. Consider that the Postal Service is expected to serve every address in the United States and charge the same rate for a domestic first class letter, regardless of destination.

[IRONROOSTER]

Actually, our postal system works very well. When you consider how poorly the free market provides health care, you realize that free market doesn't always work well. If you look at the railroads pricing strategy of the 1800's you realize why government regulation is needed. The hard trick is finding the proper balance between free market and socialism that works well for the whole country.

With respect to Amtrak, the real question is what should our transportation infrastructure look like and how is it to be funded. Currently, it's a mixture of private and public funding. This should probably continue as it is too important to our economy to leave it entirely to the private sector. I think that passenger rail is an important part of the picture especially for medium length trips, others disagree. We probably need a comprehensive study and debate on the issue.

Enjoy
Paul

[Tim Burton]

>>>>Actually, our postal system works very well. When you consider how poorly the free market provides health care, you realize that free market doesn't always work well.<<<<

No, that isn't the free market. Our healthcare has nearly all of it insuranced based. This isn't free market. Even worse the government pays for over 50% of healthcare, when you consider Medicare and Medicaid. It is the farthest thing from a free market system.

Rather, it is the elective branch of medicine that is free market based, and the prices drop on services constantly. Hair transplants, hair removal, teeth whittening, plastic surgery, bewbie jobs, lasik corrective eye surgeries and many others. They have all had the price go down, the reason is that insurance and the government does not get involved in the payments of this. Granted, the cost is still higher than it should be, but this is more from the gross payments for malpractice than anything. I am all for suing a guy who messes up, but just because you got a scar on your stomach from a tummy tuck due to the fact you didn't want to earn great abs, doesn't mean you are entitled to 14 million.

[cnw4001]

Just a clarifying point on the Postal Service. It is a corporation wholy owned by the United States but pays it's own way. Tax dollars do not cover the cost of the mail, it operates on money gained from postage. The law which took it off the budget in 1970 requires it to break even over time so when there's a rate increase it makes money for a year or so and then looses money again and in the end breaks even.

[Anonymous]

After reading some more into other posts and reading more on the net and various other resourses, I wanted to add the following too.

As was mentioned in a reply-post to my original post, the US Post Office can and does have the ability to raise the cost of postage to break even, or at minimum cover loses. This process is not possible for Amtrak. The prices are already higher than other forms of transportation. I live in San Diego and use rail transport to LA on a regular basis. The price is within reason, the time is decent, and the equipment is in decent shape. If I was to fly, the price is higher. If I take the bus, the travel time is longer. If I drive, I will be in traffic jams. Hence I have a motive to travel by rail. Having moved from the upper Midwest, it was the opposite. To catch the Empire Builder, I would have to be up and packed by 2am to be down at the station for a very early departure. I have done that trip so many times and only three times in 15 years had my train been on-time. The cost was higher than going by air, the departure time was horrible (but someplace on the line has to be at the middle of the night) and other issues as well.

Would it be more cost effective to lower the ticket price and fill every seat, or charge higher prices and make up for the seats not filled? Then there is motivation. What motivation does a passenger have to go through all the hoops to catch a train when other options are cheaper and available? Train buffs will always write off the inconviences for the joy of the trip, but what about the regular traveler? Then comes the fact of our society as a whole. We are moving faster and working more than ever before. Long distance travel by train is not an option for business travel. When a boss can send a worker to another city, have a meeting, then be home to the family for dinner, it makes economic sense to travel by air.

I like travel by train and think it should be expanded, but I also look at it a little differently. If I had 300 billion bucks, wanted to make an offer to the government to privatize the rail system through direct purchase, and it was available, I still would not. I would want some return on the money spent. If you are a private business owner you don't put your business in an area where your expenses exceed revenue. You advertise. You hire dependable people. You offer consistent service. And above all you offer a service or product people want to buy. Amtrak can be done, but the process needs to change. They have to offer a product that people crave or desire and be consistent doing it. Many routes are nothing but a pet project for certain government officials and make little or no sense other than historically that service was offered there. Like was mentioned above we are moving at a quick pace now. Our society loves technology. Walk into most Amtrak stations and it almost feels like you jumped back in time to the 70s-80s. Nothing caters to business travel. Things are out dated. Given these advancements take money, but that money spent draws a better crowd. If you offer upgraded service you can charge a higher price and get away with it, but the technology has to be there, so does the service. Why would you want to spend 2000 bucks on a first class ticket, and not get full first class service. Just a little food for thought and some general rambling, but I think people in general want the service, but want to see it be a good, on-time, higher quality service.