I guess the chairman of the U.S. House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Introduced a bill that would privatise much, if not all, of Amtrak. I say go forth and do it. Amtrak doesn't make any money as is.
The concept that Amtrak make money was verbage put into the legislation to assure that it would be a failure and that the whole idea that people wanted to and would ride passenger trains would be done and over with within a year or two. So...should the Northeast Corridor...what, Boston to Newport News?...be sold off to a private entity? And if it fails should the government or Amtrak regain control? Or should the government as Amtrak or other entity, either retain control and ownership or work in concert with the new owner. If private enterprise, how should the trackage rights, operations, etc. of MARC, SEPTA, NJT, MNRR, CONNDOT-Shore LIne East, and MBTA be handled? Hand over those operations to the new owner? Be required to continue the existing agreements? Throw them off the tracks and tell them to get their own lives? It is not an easy toss, giving Amtrak to a private carrier...there are many private carriers who probably don't want to get involved with these operating authorities! There is no black or white, no private or public, no simple answer to Amtrak. Only outsiders to the area and to rail think this is just another Lionel set.
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.
Maybe it's good, maybe bad, but I think this proposal is part of a larger agenda posing as ideological which has way too much to do with politics to be allowed to discuss here.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
WHY?
Why do so many people on this Forum feel that if something does not make a profit it should not be done?
"promote the common good"
How much "profit" does the "Interstate Highway System" make? Or does it just make it posible for others to run businesses that makes a profit?
How much "profit" does the "Air Traffic Control System" make. The United States has been the leader in Aviation, yet, most aircraft designs were aided by Government research and support.
When the northeast Freight Railroads were bankrupt, it was the Government that formed "Conrail", made it profitable, and then turned into a stock company which was later taken over by NS/CSX.
We, us Amercans, have a passenger rail system that is third rate, we are not leaders, we are not even followers of Europe, China, or Japan.
Doesn't a country 3,000 miles wide REQUIRE long distance air travel (and i'm not talking Airlines that only make a profit by charging for Bags, Pillows, and Snacks) , High Speed Rail for shorter distances (500 miles or less), and the Automobile for local transport?
Don U. TCA 73-5735
DMUinCT you are raising the same questons many of us have raised in the past. As was explained in an NPR interview yesterday, the Tea Party is ensconced in the idea that government is spending too much money and should stop spending all money. They are doing this with the backing of some highly rich people. Some in the Party understand the stance and consequences, others are just along for the ride. There is some merit in what they say, but their unmovable stance, their inabiiity to compromise or come up with solutions, are causing problems in following through with their mandate. Amtrak is one of their targets but most don't understand, or seem to want to understand, that life is a cooperative effort between government and business working together to make things happen for the greater good. There may in fact be some merit in selling off the Corridor either to private enterprise or to the states enroute. Wholesale condemnation of either pose, at this point, doesn't seem to make sense, and niether is wholesale backing of the idea. The answers are not among railfans, but amogst the voters and their governors.
This measure, as introduced by two Republican Congressmen, is just a political gambit. It may have merit not by itself but as part of a wholesale restructuring, rationalization, and programming of an integrated, interdependent, transportation system. It may or may not fit or accomodate or achieve anything as a stand alone conecpt. But merged with other rail, highway, air, and waterway programs and projects, may be feasable. No, this is not a good transportation proposition but a political posturing. It may work, but has to work within the entire framework of transportation and not as a Tea Leaf pagent.
Mr. Railman I guess the chairman of the U.S. House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Introduced a bill that would privatise much, if not all, of Amtrak. I say go forth and do it. Amtrak doesn't make any money as is.
Neither does METRA...Of course there are many transit operations in the U.S that are "privatized" in the sense that they are operated by a private company but said company gets a hefty subsidy for the services provided..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
You mentioned "privatizing" which is the key element. The company gets a subsidy and there are new opportunities for kickbacks, etc. to get the contract. Pay to play. Check some of the outsourcing contracts done in Iraq for services that used to be handled directly by the quartermaster corps.
Let's see....what else doesn't make money in Washington....about the only thing I think does make money is the printing presses! The Defense Department doesn't, Nor the Highway Adminsitration nor the FAA or FCC...I don't think there is a government agency or department that does except the Treasury Department! So why pick on Amtrak? It is too much socialism for the Tea Party to bear?
henry6 Let's see....what else doesn't make money in Washington....about the only thing I think does make money is the printing presses! The Defense Department doesn't, Nor the Highway Adminsitration nor the FAA or FCC...I don't think there is a government agency or department that does except the Treasury Department! So why pick on Amtrak? It is too much socialism for the Tea Party to bear?
I think Amtrak loses the MOST money out of all of them, and that's why privatization is put on the table as ideas. That's how it was before 1972, but the RPOs went out of business in the sixties with the creation of the zip code, and train lines lost much of their revenue from it.
Mr. Railman I think Amtrak loses the MOST money out of all of them, and that's why privatization is put on the table as ideas.
I think Amtrak loses the MOST money out of all of them, and that's why privatization is put on the table as ideas.
You might want to take a look at the Federal budget and then reconsider your statement.
It is not because Amtrak loses the most money of all of them...in fact there is no reason to say that because non of the other are designed as profit centers...the real reason is political. Amtrak smacks of socialism and socialism is wrong in this country...just ask anybody sitting on the right side of the aisle or aligned with any right side political or social or religious organization. It's a "somebody gets to ride a choo choo and I don't so why should they on my dime?" mentality . Amtrak is a selected entity because of politics, that's all.
Mr. Railman henry6: Let's see....what else doesn't make money in Washington....about the only thing I think does make money is the printing presses! The Defense Department doesn't, Nor the Highway Adminsitration nor the FAA or FCC...I don't think there is a government agency or department that does except the Treasury Department! So why pick on Amtrak? It is too much socialism for the Tea Party to bear? I think Amtrak loses the MOST money out of all of them, and that's why privatization is put on the table as ideas. That's how it was before 1972, but the RPOs went out of business in the sixties with the creation of the zip code, and train lines lost much of their revenue from it.
henry6: Let's see....what else doesn't make money in Washington....about the only thing I think does make money is the printing presses! The Defense Department doesn't, Nor the Highway Adminsitration nor the FAA or FCC...I don't think there is a government agency or department that does except the Treasury Department! So why pick on Amtrak? It is too much socialism for the Tea Party to bear?
It depends on what is meant by loses money.
Amtrak is a federally sponsored commercial enterprise. It is in the business of transporting people from one point to another. Its operations are accounted for in an enterprise fund, which emulates the accounting for a private business. It generates an income statement (operations statement), statement of cash flows, balance sheet, and statement of retained earnings.
The federal government sponsors several commercial like enterprises, i.e. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), etc. These organizations are expected to cover their costs from fees, rates, etc., and therefore be run like a competitive business, although in most instances they don't have any direct competition.
In FY10, as examples, the FDIC earned $13.5 billion as compared to a loss of $38.1 billion in 2009, due largely to an increase in bank closures sparked by the recession; the PBGC had a loss of $1.084 billion, and the TVA earned $972 million. By comparison Amtrak had a net operating loss of $1.3 billion in FY10 and FY09. The loss in FY09 was slightly larger, but after rounding they both come in at $1.3 billion.
The FDIC generates most of its revenues from deposit fees, which are imposed by the nation's banks on their depositors. If you have a bank account, you are paying the fee, although you may not know it. The PBGC is an insurance company. It levies a fee on the employers that offer a legacy retirement program to their employees. It is designed to cover retirement benefits if the employer's plan fails, i.e. the employer goes out of business. The TVA charges electric and water rates to its customers just like any utility.
Some folks appear to confuse these enterprise funds with trust funds, i.e. the Highway Trust Fund, Aviation Trust Fund, etc. They are not the same animal. The trust funds were set up to collect monies to support the activity usually embodied in their name. They are not expected to earn a profit, whereas some of the federal enterprise funds are expected to earn a profit, e.g. the TVA.
Amtrak has lost money from day one. The amount of the loss, however, which has averaged $643 million per year since the beginning, is peanuts compared to the federal budget. However, if one looks at the loss per passenger mile, which is covered by federal and state supplemental payments (subsidies), Amtrak receives a higher subsidy per passenger and seat mile than other forms of transport, i.e. commercial airlines, bus companies, personal vehicles, etc.
In FY10 Amtrak's average loss or subsidy per passenger mile was 21.13 cents compared to .0099 cents per mile for the airlines and .0049 cents for highway users. The subsidies are in the numbers. For example, whilst Amtrak racked up 6.3 billion passenger miles in FY10, airline passengers chalked up 509.2 billion passenger miles and motorists came in with approximately 3 trillion vehicle miles traveled.
All transport subsidies should be eliminated. And the full cost of driving should be reflected at the pump, i.e. county and city road costs should be baked into the price of gasoline as opposed to being embedded in property taxes, as an example, and the subsidies for the airlines, buses, etc. should be eliminated. If this happened, there could be a viable market for intercity rail, at least in relatively short, high density corridors. The train could stand on its own. And Amtrak could be privatized or other operators could be enticed to enter the market. At the end of the day, the competitive, smartly regulated markets are a better way to allocate limited economic resources.
Sam, thank you for supporting my contention that most Americans really don't know much about our government and its operations, income and "dispursments" if you will. Likewise, thank you for also showing me the way toward reevaluating, reinventing, revamping, whatever you want to call it, transportation system by starting at scratch, from a point that all we know is that there is a powered vehicle that goes along the roads, another that goes on parallel steel rails, another that goes through the air, and another that floats on water. Then from there we design transportation system that utilizes and integrates the best of the three systems to economic and environmental advantage. Think like nothing exists now and build from that...no politics, no lobbyists, no pork barrels.
Sam1 At the end of the day, the competitive, smartly regulated markets [emphasis added] are a better way to allocate limited economic resources.
At the end of the day, the competitive, smartly regulated markets [emphasis added] are a better way to allocate limited economic resources.
I think I may go into anaphylactic shock!!
I agree....it is all politics and beyond the scope of this forum. We paid half a million for a painting of a fish on the tail of a plane....but Amtrak does not serve a purpose???
6000 miles on Amtrak in words and pictures www.currtail.com
schlimm Sam1: At the end of the day, the competitive, smartly regulated markets [emphasis added] are a better way to allocate limited economic resources. I think I may go into anaphylactic shock!!
Sam1: At the end of the day, the competitive, smartly regulated markets [emphasis added] are a better way to allocate limited economic resources.
I have never, to the best of my memory, supported unfettered capitalism. I don't know anyone who has.
I support properly regulated, robust, competitive markets. The role for the government, in a nutshell, is to ensure a level playing field, promote competition, and call balls and strikes. It should not pick winners and losers. And it should not be in the business of running an intercity passenger railroad that will not be paid for by the users.
Several years ago I did an analysis of where Amtrak, competing as a private entity, could be successful. That is to say cover all of its costs but not turn a profit for its owners. In other words, break even. I concluded that it could compete in the New York to Washington market, as well as LA to San Diego, by raising its fares an average of 15 per cent whilst reducing its labor costs by 30 to 40 per cent. Both would be doable, especially if motorists were made aware of the true cost of driving at the pump.
Don't worry. The politicians will never let it happen. That is to say, they won't privatize Amtrak, and they won't stop subsidizing or hiding the true cost of alternative modes of transportation.
On another note, my company (Fortune 250) outsourced as much as 80 per cent of our construction and maintenance work. The key to successful outsourcing is effective contractor management. In many of the instances where outsourcing has not worked well, it is because the entity doing the outsourcing did not have an effective contractor management team in place to keep tabs on the contractor. This is one of the reasons the Austin red line got into so much trouble.
Unfortunately Sam, there are many who are, or think they are, proponants of "unfettered capitalism". This is because they don't know and understand history, they don't know and understand what actually is how the US...and most of the world...actually operates, and they are just plain don't understand what they are talking about but are espousing views the picked up from talk radio. I am presently rereading (for at least the fourth time) William Helmer's RIP VAN WINKLE RAIROADS about the railraods proposed and built to conquor the Catskill Mountains of NY in the 19th and 20th Century. Capitalism was the catylist and promotor while government provided the surveys (US Army), the bonding, the authority, the loans, the permissions, the abilities so that private enterprise could have this privilige and real estate. If there hadn't been local, state, and federal activiies in these areas capitalism could never have accomplished the feat. Likewise if capitalism wasn't the catylist and promotor, the question could be would any progress have been made,would railroads have been built? After all this, the monopolistic hold railroads had led to organizations like the Grange to take thier plight to the government to create controls lke the ICC to reign in the powers of capitalism. Its all in our history, just read it.
And then there are "crony capitalism" and "pay to play" situations, where government is closely allied with favored corporate interests, through subsidies, tax breaks, sweetheart government contracts, some examples of privatization, elimination of competition, kickbacks, etc.
henry6 Unfortunately Sam, there are many who are, or think they are, proponants of "unfettered capitalism". This is because they don't know and understand history, they don't know and understand what actually is how the US...and most of the world...actually operates, and they are just plain don't understand what they are talking about but are espousing views the picked up from talk radio. I am presently rereading (for at least the fourth time) William Helmer's RIP VAN WINKLE RAIROADS about the railraods proposed and built to conquor the Catskill Mountains of NY in the 19th and 20th Century. Capitalism was the catylist and promotor while government provided the surveys (US Army), the bonding, the authority, the loans, the permissions, the abilities so that private enterprise could have this privilige and real estate. If there hadn't been local, state, and federal activiies in these areas capitalism could never have accomplished the feat. Likewise if capitalism wasn't the catylist and promotor, the question could be would any progress have been made,would railroads have been built? After all this, the monopolistic hold railroads had led to organizations like the Grange to take thier plight to the government to create controls lke the ICC to reign in the powers of capitalism. Its all in our history, just read it.
I graduated from Penn State with a degree in history and economics. I was an honor student and a member of Phi Alpha Theta, which is the history honor society. I have maintained my interest in history and have read an average of 25 to 30 serious history works every year since graduation.
I don't listen to talk radio. I don't have a television. I am reasonably familiar with the economic development of the United States.
At the end of the day, however, it does not matter. The question is where does it make sense to support passenger rail? And what role, if any, should the government play?
The yesa\nswer and its logical reasons have been noted on Forums ehre many times in the past. Should theses be repeated?
Such shallow thinking pervades these reponses. Just checked out the cost to ride from Portland OR to Chicago. $206. But for a compartment, add $694! Total (one-way): $900. Can't even remotely compete with an air flight at about $200 each way. 4 hours flying vs 44 hours by train. Still, I would like to see the country by train but no way could I do 44 hours in coach. (A bedroom for two adults would $1250!)
The only reason for these outlandish charges are the shortages of rail passenger equipment. Thus no new cars are available, the trains only run in two directions (two trainsets) and shorter segments are just almost impossible. It would be fun to do it in three day trips with overnight accomodations enroute. At $120 a night for a decent motel, that would still be much cheaper than Amtrak's high compartment and bedroom charges.
But successful privatization in scattered segments under a wide variety of ownerships will never happen.
dmikee Such shallow thinking pervades these reponses. Just checked out the cost to ride from Portland OR to Chicago. $206. But for a compartment, add $694! Total (one-way): $900. Can't even remotely compete with an air flight at about $200 each way. 4 hours flying vs 44 hours by train. Still, I would like to see the country by train but no way could I do 44 hours in coach. (A bedroom for two adults would $1250!) The only reason for these outlandish charges are the shortages of rail passenger equipment. Thus no new cars are available, the trains only run in two directions (two trainsets) and shorter segments are just almost impossible. It would be fun to do it in three day trips with overnight accomodations enroute. At $120 a night for a decent motel, that would still be much cheaper than Amtrak's high compartment and bedroom charges. But successful privatization in scattered segments under a wide variety of ownerships will never happen.
I am not sure what you are tryhing to say here dimkee, but that travel is expensive. $206 ticket for 44 hour ride plus $694 room or $900 buys tranportation plus at least two night accomodations (I am not sure if meals are included in that price or not) which would be comperable to the airplane ride sans accomodations! Two different modes of transportation, two different services, two entirely different experiences and services. But the cost of transit is still the same!
I'm not sure what you are saying, henry. Travel Portland to Chicago by train, if you want the experience on the way, but the price isn't close to air. Dimkee said $900 for the train and $200 for air. I see more like $160 to 450. Even worst case and adding 2 nights in a decent hotel in Chicago, $300-400, you are somewhat cheaper and more time to spend where you want to go. The cost is not the same.
I also fail to see how more sleeper cars would make the cost less. Much of the problem on LD sleepers is the high labor costs per passenger.
henry6 dmikee: The only reason for these outlandish charges are the shortages of rail passenger equipment. Thus no new cars are available, the trains only run in two directions (two trainsets) and shorter segments are just almost impossible. It would be fun to do it in three day trips with overnight accomodations enroute. At $120 a night for a decent motel, that would still be much cheaper than Amtrak's high compartment and bedroom charges. But successful privatization in scattered segments under a wide variety of ownerships will never happen. I am not sure what you are tryhing to say here dimkee, but that travel is expensive. $206 ticket for 44 hour ride plus $694 room or $900 buys tranportation plus at least two night accomodations (I am not sure if meals are included in that price or not) which would be comperable to the airplane ride sans accomodations! Two different modes of transportation, two different services, two entirely different experiences and services. But the cost of transit is still the same!
dmikee: The only reason for these outlandish charges are the shortages of rail passenger equipment. Thus no new cars are available, the trains only run in two directions (two trainsets) and shorter segments are just almost impossible. It would be fun to do it in three day trips with overnight accomodations enroute. At $120 a night for a decent motel, that would still be much cheaper than Amtrak's high compartment and bedroom charges. But successful privatization in scattered segments under a wide variety of ownerships will never happen.
I have not seen much discussion as to the rationale for the space charges (other than the increase in prices as demand increases), but I do not think that scarcity of equipment is the basis. Incidentally, it takes at least five trainsets to provide the daily service between Chicago and Seattle/Portland and between Chicago and Los Angeles; it takes at least six trainsets to provide the daily service between Chicago and Emeryville.
Johnny
While the Empire Builder is not the best example I could think of, there is, I believe, another consideration.
Namely, A Portland to Chicago plane trip will take up most of the day, counting downtown to downtown. And, not too much of that day is going to be very comfortable or productive. On the train, nearly all of the time is comfortable, and can be productive (computer use, etc.), especially if the EB has wi-fi and/or cellphone capabilities (and I don't know if it does or not), and you have a private room.
Thus, over the 44-hour period, you have more productive time, and certainly a more comfortable trip, than the day wasted at the airports and in the air, preceded or followed by a day on the ground (if you can spare the 2 days!).
"They are doing this with the backing of some highly rich people. "
Who want to get even richer at the expense of all of all the middle class folk, what there is left of us!
My point is that the difference between taking the train from Portland, OR to Chicago, IL and flying between the two cities is that we are talking two different things...something these pages too often don't understand. An airplane trip is done in several hours with no meals or rooms needed, and say it does consumer maybe 6-8 hours center city to center city if that makes a difference. A train trip takes almost two days if the schedule is met...and it includes maybe two nights in some kind of sleeping quarters plus meals. Two totally different products for two totally different markets and needs. But the transit cost...the cost of the transit ticket exclusive of accomodations...is the same in the example given. So if you add two night food and lodging in Chicago, as the example suggests, the cost is probably more than the total Amtrak costs. If you are buying a scenic trip across country, Amtrak is a bargain; if you need two days in Chicago to do business, air is a bargain. Two entirely different services for two entirely different market needs. And not so different in cost, just in time.
Clearly airplanes and trains offer a different kind of service. And they appeal to a different market. There is another key difference.
Commercial air travel is supported for the most part by the paying passengers, i.e. the market. Long distance trains, irrespective of whether they are seen as essential intercity transport or land cruises, are not supported by the market. They require a massive subsidy.
Whether Amtrak is a bargain depends on how many people are traveling, how much they spend in the dinning and lounge cars, whether they book coach or sleeper accommodations, etc. Moreover, when the subsidy is factored into the equation, Amtrak's long distance trains are not a bargain for the body politic. They are a wasteful drain on the public purse.
I recently priced a roomette from Austin to Chicago. Amtrak wanted $339 for it. I can get a pretty swanky hotel room in Chicago for that kind of money. It is a stretch to argue that traveling sleeper class on Amtrak is a bargain. Interestingly, according to the Inspector General's report, it requires a greater subsidy than coach travel.
Cruise ships don't get a massive government subsidy. They have to cut it in the market place or go out of business. This is the model that should be used for long distance train cruises. If there is a market for it, it should be required to stand on its own. The public does not have a vested interest in long distance train cruises any more than it has a public interest in ship borne cruises.
henry6 But the transit cost...the cost of the transit ticket exclusive of accomodations...is the same in the example given. So if you add two night food and lodging in Chicago, as the example suggests, the cost is probably more than the total Amtrak costs. And not so different in cost, just in time.
But the transit cost...the cost of the transit ticket exclusive of accomodations...is the same in the example given. So if you add two night food and lodging in Chicago, as the example suggests, the cost is probably more than the total Amtrak costs. And not so different in cost, just in time.
As in the example, the transit costs differ by $450-700. Not the same at all by any calculation. I understand how the train might be nice for those few people who are in no rush (not business travel), enjoy the train ride and scenery, mediocre free food, etc. But most travelers choose the airplane, even with some hassles and discomfort on the way, or else choose to drive (to see the same scenery, etc.) and probably sleep much better 2-3 nights.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.