I wonder if they will spread now to the National Level or become part of the Electoral Debate?
I feel bringing in private money for the construction of roads and bridges is one way to significantly stretch the taxpayer dollar and I would like to see a more business like approach to large infrastructure road projects, such as what is the rate of return for buiding such and such a road, what is the public good, how much will it add to GDP growth, expedition of shipments, etc. I think Indiana is on the right track and so is Texas. Right now Texas is considering it's next batch of toll roads but it is also looking to buy back the old Toll Roads once they pay off the construction bonds and the private operator has reached their agreed upon rate of return returning the toll roads back to the people. I think Indiana intends to keep the roads in private hands and as toll roads vs a buyback in the future but I could be wrong there.
I think that if the Hoosier State train under Iowa Pacific becomes successful it will bode well for other Amtrak LD routes that perhaps could be sold or auctioned off to private operators that would hopefully charge more to what the market will bear and at the same time improve the quality of the service while reducing the LD subsidy that Amtrak needs. It's a hope.
Perhaps Amtraks long-term future role could be providing car standards to keep the fleet of long distance cars interchangeable between private operators (economies of scale with car construction) as well as provide the contracting structure to build new passenger cars with input of the private operators. Another hope.
I think the next major step of evolution though has not been tried before and that would be making airline reservation systems compatible with bus and rail so that passengers can more easily be diverted from one mode of travel to the other in case one mode of travel is particularly disrupted. I think this last hope is still quite a ways in the future unless the government steps in and makes it so.
Thanks for the chuckle:
First you argue for private money to step in and "save" Amtrak LD routes by the example of the Hoosier State as operated by Iowa Pacific. But of course that's not really private money. It's state funded. They just chose another operator than Amtrak. It's not Ed Ellis who's carrying the risk of the train running at a deficit. The risk is on the shoulders of the state of Indiana and local communities footing the bill. So not the "almighty market" rescuing anything.
But wait, it gets better: Then you want government to step into the airline reservations system and mandate that it also contain other modes of transportation, such as bus and trains. Surely if there was a market need for it, according to a popular political view, it would already have been done. So hence must be no need and after all, the government can't do anything right anyway.
Actually there is a great deal of risk on Iowa Pacific. Indiana doesn't give them everything they want. IP has agreed to a set and lower subsidy than Amtrak was being paid. This is based upon IP being able to attract more riders (more revenue) at potentially a lower cost. If IP can't do this, then they will certainly lose a great deal of their own money. If they do accomplish the goal, then they make money and pay more in taxes.
With Amtrak, what incentive did they have? Indiana had to cover the loses based upon a contract. Remember, it wasn't until IP added meal service and business class on the Hoosier State that Amtrak added business class on their days on the Cardinal. Sometimes competition does improve things.
Agree with the above on both matters. But regarding Amtrak requiring competition to move them, that is with the Boardman Amtrak administration. Claytor and Gunn would not have needed the competition to do the best thing possible in most situations.
And neither Clayton or Gunn would scrap AEM-7-ACs when they are sorely needed as switchers at Penn Station, NY, and in the future at Sunnyside once it is covered over.
In the Claytor years (or was it Gunn), I pointed out the rediciulousness of forcing people in the middle of winter at night to "experience" the Pittsburgh station ini making connections between the Capitol Limited and the Three Rivers, and a few months later a thru coach and sleeper appeard restoroing the one-seat Philadephia - Chicago service that had existed with the Broadway, even if not quite as nice nor as fast. But that lasted only as long as ex-El Capitan transition cars were in use by Amtrak. It remains a service needed and not provided today.
CJtrainguy Thanks for the chuckle: First you argue for private money to step in and "save" Amtrak LD routes by the example of the Hoosier State as operated by Iowa Pacific. But of course that's not really private money. It's state funded. They just chose another operator than Amtrak. It's not Ed Ellis who's carrying the risk of the train running at a deficit. The risk is on the shoulders of the state of Indiana and local communities footing the bill. So not the "almighty market" rescuing anything. But wait, it gets better: Then you want government to step into the airline reservations system and mandate that it also contain other modes of transportation, such as bus and trains. Surely if there was a market need for it, according to a popular political view, it would already have been done. So hence must be no need and after all, the government can't do anything right anyway.
No that is not what I said.
Actually if you reread the post I referenced private money only in regards to road, bridge and highway construction NOT LD Passenger trains. Opening LD Passenger Trains to competitive bid vs allowing Amtrak to run them as a monopoly without competition was my second point and will make them more efficient and over time keep costs down for the taxpayer. It also frees the trains from "Amtrak Accounting" to an extent so we can actually see via transparency more of the actual costs.
Also agree with the previous two readers your incorrect on the risk IP is taking on.
In regards to the Airline Industry, it's your take that government should not intervene..........though I have no idea beyond sarcasm where you get that idea from. Government is already regulating the airline industry and is already starting to make airline terminals intermodal (because it is primarily the rail and mass transit segment) and your presumption is incorrect, the government already regulates airline reservations systems. Proposing not much new here just a minor expansion of regulations that already exist. Which the airlines would not see a need to do themselves since they can charter buses when they need them and Amtrak represents the rail segment right now (ie: the government). So no I don't see a private company acting as a intermediary for government (Amtrak) to get Amtrak's HS and Corridor trains added to the airline industry reservations system. It would have to be Amtrak or the government and Amtrak isn't going to do it.
keep costs down to the taxpayer and improve service? Not when compared with a monopoly Amtrak run by a Claytor or Gunn. Ever hear of economies of scale?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.