Amtrak is supposed to be a real business. It is an incorporated entity, and it is a commercial activity, i.e. it provides intercity passenger rail service in competition with other commercial carriers, i.e. bus companies, airlines, etc. The federal government holds the stock. No one else wants it. Given these characteristics, as well as the nature of its competitors, it should be operated as a business.
The Department of Defense is not a commercial activity. To put it in the same category as a passenger railroad is mixing apples and oranges.
The nation's streets, roads, and highways are avenues for commercial activities, in part, but they are not commercial entities, unless once considers the toll roads to be commercial activities. They are not expected to make a profit, but the users are expected to pay for them, which for the most part they have, although sometimes in ways that cannot be seen clearly.
I have said on numerous occasions, not to be remembered by many it appears, it is appropriate for governments to support R&D, provide incentives for infrastructure, and regulate commercial activities. But it should not engage in commercial activities. It is notoriously poor at doing so.
The federal government is not in the intercity bus, airline, or trucking business. If these companies fail, as they do periodically, the government does not take their place. So why should it be in the intercity railroad passenger business?
Every electric power company in the United States is regulated. A discussion of the merits of public vs. investor owned electric energy or the regulation thereof is beyond the scope of these forums.
In many instances, when a commercial activity cannot stand on its merits, its advocates claim that it is in the public interest. Clearly, many activities are in the public interest, i.e. defense, education, medical care, housing, amongst others, come to mind. But it's in the public interest has been stretched to the breaking point. Where I live the argument for using public monies to build sports venues, concert halls, etc. is always couched as being in the public interest. In each case the proponents of these projects or activities have claimed passionately that they are in the public interest. They take monies away from people who frequently do not or cannot use them and, thus, rob them of their freedom of choice, i.e. to control how they spend their money. This argument is as old as the republic, and it is not likely to go away anytime soon.
Providing intercity passenger rail (Amtrak) is not in the public interest. It may be nice to have, but if the riders will not pay for it through the fare box, it should be allowed to die. The shareholders in Greyhound, Southwest Airlines, etc. probably don't see it as a public interest, given that Amtrak (a government sponsored competitor) does not have to pay attention to the bottom line and thereby diminishes the value of their shares.
I don't know any Libertarians. Nor do I know anyone who believes that everything should be run as a business. Just commercial activities should be run like a business, with all of the attendant consequences.
The Department of Defense may not be a commercial enterprise, but the defense industry that it supports is probably the largest commercial enterprise in the world.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Sam1 commented that Amtrak is supposed to be a real business. I'm not sure that her statement was ever true, it was just window dressing on the Rail Passenger Service Act to make it somwhat palatable to the GOP. When you consider all the tinkering and meddling from both sides of the aisle, it's obvious that Amtrak is always been more of a political creation than a business.
It doesn't matter what Amtrak is supposed to be by defninition. By existance it is a toy, a pawn, a buracracy, a political entity under the charge of the Congress of the United States. Thus, no matter what it is, it can't be efficient and profitable, only a punching bag.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
henry6 It doesn't matter what Amtrak is supposed to be by defninition. By existance it is a toy, a pawn, a buracracy, a political entity under the charge of the Congress of the United States. Thus, no matter what it is, it can't be efficient and profitable, only a punching bag.
This is the best argument that I have seen to date to eliminate Amtrak and replace it, where feasible, with privatized companies to operate passenger rail in corridors where they make sense. Even if the government has to subsidize the operators, as it surely would, it would be a better arrangement than a government run passenger rail system.
Sam1 henry6: It doesn't matter what Amtrak is supposed to be by defninition. By existance it is a toy, a pawn, a buracracy, a political entity under the charge of the Congress of the United States. Thus, no matter what it is, it can't be efficient and profitable, only a punching bag. This is the best argument that I have seen to date to eliminate Amtrak and replace it, where feasible, with privatized companies to operate passenger rail in corridors where they make sense. Even if the government has to subsidize the operators, as it surely would, it would be a better arrangement than a government run passenger rail system.
henry6:
It is probably the only thing George the Inept said that I agreed with: replace Amtrak with regional or other entities. Well, maybe not eliminate Amtrak so much as alter it. There are more and more interdependent city/markets or regions which need a sensible, comprehensive, and rational apporach to transportation matters. I have often thought that New Haven to probably Wilmington and west to Harrisburg and north to Albany might fit such a plan; also Milwaukee-Chicago-St.Louis and Detroit or Cleveland...regional needs, not flag stops on the way. Amtrak could be the "administrator", "overseeer", or "regulator" but not the operator. Getting it away from Congress is the trick....
henry6 It is probably the only thing George the Inept said that I agreed with: replace Amtrak with regional or other entities. Well, maybe not eliminate Amtrak so much as alter it. There are more and more interdependent city/markets or regions which need a sensible, comprehensive, and rational apporach to transportation matters. I have often thought that New Haven to probably Wilmington and west to Harrisburg and north to Albany might fit such a plan; also Milwaukee-Chicago-St.Louis and Detroit or Cleveland...regional needs, not flag stops on the way. Amtrak could be the "administrator", "overseeer", or "regulator" but not the operator. Getting it away from Congress is the trick....
George the Inept? Would that be George III or GW as in the founding father? Or are you referring to one of the prides of Texas?
By golly, it appears that we have common ground here. I agree wholly with your views on this issue. The Aussies, by the way, have done marvels by privatizing a significant portion of their intercity passenger rail system. Moreover, as if not to be outdone, in Melbourne, where I lived for nearly five years, they privatized the commuter rail system, trams (streetcars), and local bus routes. Whilst not perfect, they got a much better outcome than when the systems were run by a large, centralized government bureaucracy.
The two problems in the US are lack of integrity and need for accountability. Whether private or public there has to be total integrity of the operator for safety, reliabilty, and fair fares. To do this we need to hold one accountable with some kind of agency or bureau or whatever. Too often this all falls to pieces in a heap of graft and corruption at best, ineptitude or other non chalance and ignoring of property and service at worst with no reinvestment or maintenance.
henry6: It doesn't matter what Amtrak is supposed to be by defninition. By existance it is a toy, a pawn, a buracracy, a political entity under the charge of the Congress of the United States. Thus, no matter what it is, it can't be efficient and profitable, only a punching bag.
Yes, but you better leave them incentive to provide good service. Either give them a chunk (or all!) of the revenue or bonuses around some tightly woven and non-game-able performance measures.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd Sam1: henry6: It doesn't matter what Amtrak is supposed to be by defninition. By existance it is a toy, a pawn, a buracracy, a political entity under the charge of the Congress of the United States. Thus, no matter what it is, it can't be efficient and profitable, only a punching bag. This is the best argument that I have seen to date to eliminate Amtrak and replace it, where feasible, with privatized companies to operate passenger rail in corridors where they make sense. Even if the government has to subsidize the operators, as it surely would, it would be a better arrangement than a government run passenger rail system. Yes, but you better leave them incentive to provide good service. Either give them a chunk (or all!) of the revenue or bonuses around some tightly woven and non-game-able performance measures.
Sam1: henry6: It doesn't matter what Amtrak is supposed to be by defninition. By existance it is a toy, a pawn, a buracracy, a political entity under the charge of the Congress of the United States. Thus, no matter what it is, it can't be efficient and profitable, only a punching bag. This is the best argument that I have seen to date to eliminate Amtrak and replace it, where feasible, with privatized companies to operate passenger rail in corridors where they make sense. Even if the government has to subsidize the operators, as it surely would, it would be a better arrangement than a government run passenger rail system.
I agree! Whilst in Australia I became familiar with the contracts that were written by the relevant parties to govern the behavior of the contractors who were engaged to operate the trams and suburban rail. We supplied them with electric power and, therefore, needed to be familiar with the contracts. The contracts contained well defined performance standards; however, they were not perfect. That is beyond the capability of humans.
The performance standards appeared to be relatively straight forward, which tends to minimize the opportunities to game them, although there is no such thing as making them fool proof.
Following privatization of the trams, suburban rail, and V-Line, the size of the workforce was reduced significantly. Whereas the government had no incentive to better manage the workforce, a private contractor certainly did. Ultimately, if he stuffed it up, he would lose the contract. As a result of privatization, I believe the quality of the service improved significantly. This was my observation as well as that of many of by colleagues and friends.
As shown too often by Amtrak, which has many good people, government agencies don't have the same incentive as private business to perform at the top of their game. The drivers (motivators) are different.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.