Interesting that you picked two roads that were brought down in part by passenger service. NYC had a passenger service that was well-operated but lost so much money that the railroad had to gut the service to survive. PC was hopelessly mismanaged so no further dscussion is necessary.
I don't see any private firms champing at the bit to operate passenger service in competition with Amtrak.
For the past sixty-three years, I have continually read the reports that passenger service is (was) a losing part of the business on the part of the railroads that offered freight service, and that most of those which continued to offer service in the face of increasing deficits due to the service wanted out of the business.
A few (such as the KCS) kept passenger trains as a service to their freight customers (and I saw one anecdote wherein a passenger on the KCS told an MKT representative that he preferred giving his freight business to a full service road, and not to one that did not offer passenger service). It was only when the deficit became so large that there was absolutely no argument for continuing it that such roads ceased operating passenger trains.
Johnny
Lots of forces working against them now, although they aren't all identified as "competition".
Airlines; Busses; the Highway Lobby; Congress; Amtrak's own management, for starters.
Notice how effective these folks have been at improving Amtrak's performance and bottom line.
Tom
No. They loose over $1 Billion a year even while virtually stealing access from the freight carriers. The public would benefit from removing ATK from the throats of the freight carriers which would be the cheapest possible way to increase freight rail capacity.
Mac
ACYLots of forces working against them now, although they aren't all identified as "competition". Airlines
The US airlines at least aren't the huge money hole that Amtrak's long distance service is. They made a profit of $12.7 billion while carying 741 million passengers. Even including the NEC (11.4 million passengers), Amtrak carried only 31.6 million passsengerrs while requiring the taxpayers to pony up for ~$1.2 billion to cover the operations shortfall. $627 million of that was from long distance service. Your Auto-Train required a subsidy of ~$239.40 per one-way passenger in 2013.
Given that dismal performance (not including capital costs), perhaps some other operators could do better, providing better service for a lower subsidy. They could hardly do worse.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
PNWRMNM No. They loose over $1 Billion a year even while virtually stealing access from the freight carriers. The public would benefit from removing ATK from the throats of the freight carriers which would be the cheapest possible way to increase freight rail capacity. Mac
I tend to agree with you, with the exception of the NEC and the state-subsidized routes where the track has been upgraded by federal grants. Those routes need to be preserved for obvious reasons. Long distance trains should be dropped tomorrow. Few would miss their chronically late, unreliable service.
Mac, how ironic. Amtrak was created to remove the burden of passenger losses on american railroads. And it is suggested now that Amtrak should be removed to improve capacity. It should be clear to everyone that the biggest issue of the railroads are the railroads. Its been poor management, and the lack of investment in infrastructure, crews and motive power that has brought railroads to a near stand still in certain parts of the nation. Not Amtrak.
Except for some of the elderly and handicapped and those tourists, internal and foreign, who to see the
Except for the elderly, handicapped, and internal and foreign tourists who wish to see the USA at ground level in comfort, Amtrak has plenty of competition from the private car, bus, and plane.
u
daveklepperExcept for the elderly, handicapped, and internal and foreign tourists who wish to see the USA at ground level in comfort,
If there are so many internal and foreign tourists riding LD trains for the view, I am sure a private rail cruise service could be established. Most foreign tourists stick to the coasts, which would continue to have service and most of the national parks they go to do not have direct Amtrak rail service anyway. Ridiculous to subsidize that to the tune of over $600 million. As to the (physically only) disabled, it would be far cheaper to provide chauffers. The elderly? Some prefer riding paddlewheelers and steamships on our many internal waterways for cruises and there are companies that provide that service with no subsidy.
In the 1960's there were railroads that ran a creditable passenger service until they too saw the handwriting on the wall and got out of the passenger business. Amtrak has become a political animal created and fed by Congress. I honestly believe that right now commuter rail is a better way to spend tax dollar on than intercity passenger service. Today, no intercity passenger service can exist without either federal or state funding; Amtrak or otherwise and that includes HST. Taxpayers built the interstates and the airports and they will also have to fund both intercity and commuter rail service. They oftentimes see little if any benefit in passenger trains. It will be a hard sell.
So transportation by water isn't subsidized?
Just how much does it cost to run the Army Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard, anyway?
We are talking operational expenses. And most of those services are for the essential transportation of freight, flood control and defending our coast. Not even close. Apples and oranges. The combined budgets of the CG and Army Corps of Engineers are about $16 billion for fiscal 2015. But i guess you think subsidizing rail cruises for people who can mostly afford to pay something closer to covering operating expenses is on par with defense and national security? Dining service subsidy of millions is equal in your value system to managing entries to harbors??
Air lines are subsidized by the federal state and local levels. Its wasn't until the major carriers merged with the smaller carriers and virtually eliminated competition and any semblance of customer service did they make any money. Let's not forget air line bankruptcy been going Now for the best part of 4 decades.
How can we know passengers can afford to pay more? Possession of a train ticket isn't proof of wealth. Of course, if it's beside the point...never mind.
Mike
Since there are political reasons to keep some long distance services, drop the worst performers and keep the best. However, they should be contracted out to private bidder(s) to operate with some guarantees and bonuses contingent on performance after 1-2 years. Private operators should be able to lower costs through more competitive wages and benefits than Amtrak is locked into. That way, whatever expenses remain for LD services, they can be controlled to a lower, predictable amount annually.
What Amtrak needs is a steady stream of capital. Free of political haggling. If it is allowed to improve and modernize its operatio losses could be reduced. Amtrak is more than a railroad, it provides more and more services to areas abandoned by for profit companies, alternatives in highly successful markets on NEC, California and the northwest to name just a few.
but the expenses associated with forcing Amrak employees out of their jobs might more than wipe out the savings, and economies of scale and ability to shift equipment around for differrent demands would probabliy be lost.
Better to find another David Gunn to bring more efficiency into current operations.
Schlimm:
Your words were "....no subsidy."
I didn't suggest it was a bad idea to indirectly subsidize water transportation by paying the cost of operating the Army Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard. I made no value judgment. I only stated that the subsidy exists.
All transportation is subsidized in some way or another, and rail transportation probably takes a proportionately smaller share than the others. Why is it so shocking and scandalous that Amtrak is subsidized too?
zkr123Would Amtrak benefit from competition private rail companies? (Modern versions of Penn Central or New York Central)
They have plenty of competition! Autos, buses and airlines! It doesn't seem to motivate them much outside the NEC and some short haul corridors where the states are pushing them.
Now a question for you. Are LD trains really competitive with flying and driving? Or, do they occupy a very, very tiny niche in the market?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
ACYI didn't suggest it was a bad idea to indirectly subsidize water transportation by paying the cost of operating the Army Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard. I made no value judgment. I only stated that the subsidy exists. All transportation is subsidized in some way or another, and rail transportation probably takes a proportionately smaller share than the others. Why is it so shocking and scandalous that Amtrak is subsidized too?
It's a matterof degree. I seriously doubt if the airlines or river boat cruise operators receive anything close to the per passenger subsidy of $239.50 one way on the Auto-Train for a comparable service. That number is atrocious and indefensible. If the American public had any awareness of numbers like that, those services would be discontinued within a month.
So All Aboard Florida and Texas Central Railway are not competition? They're private funded companies creating high speed passenger rail service.
ACY So transportation by water isn't subsidized? Just how much does it cost to run the Army Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard, anyway?
The key point is how much of the so-called subsidies to the Army Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard benefits Amrak's competitors. The relevant metric is subsidy per passenger mile, although there are some other metrics worth considering. One of them is benefit per passenger mile.
One of the mistakes made frequently when comparing subsidies, i.e. aviation, highways, etc., is to assume that commercial transport is the only beneficiary of the subsidy. NARP makes this mistake. It implies that all of the transfers from the General Fund to the Aviation Trust Fund benefit the commercial airlines. Not true!
The commercial airlines use approximately 30 to 35 per cent of the air ways - includes airports - and air traffic control system outputs. The remainder is used by general aviation and military aircraft operating in civilian air space. So only the portion of the subsidy that directly benefits the airlines should be considered.
NARP also overlooks the benefits of the commercial air system when discussing aviation subsidies. It should talk about the cost/benefit ratio. This also applies to those who talk about subsidies to motorists - commercial and personal, etc. They winge about the subsidies but overlook the benefits to the nation as a whole.
Passenger rail makes sense in relatively short, high density corridors where the cost of expanding the airways and highways is prohibitive. Very few areas meet this criteria. This is where the nation should invest its scarce transport dollars. Whatever subsidies flow to other modes of transport are largely irrelevant to this decision.
Having worked for one of the great passenger railroads (CB&Q), in the passenger traffic department, and having been a part of an attempt to start up passenger rail service between Denver and Salt Lake City via Southern Wyoming in the 1980's. I feel that good passenger service can be accomplished by any carrier that sees the profit in such an operation. Scheduling and well maintained equipment can bring the passenger business back to the rail carriers. In the 50's and 60's the rail management of most railroads wanted out of the passenger rail business.As the airlines offered cheap and inexpensive fares. So they let the equipment fall apart (I always heard complaints about dirty, poor conditioned equipment on the Penn)but when the equipment was clean, the trains on time, I always heard positive comments (ATSF). The Santa Fe did not want to join Amtrak, but were forced to for any number of reasons.There is a way to operate at a profit.
So what are the benefits of the commercial air system that elevate the subsidies above reproach?
In my part of the world (SE USA) most city pairs are at least one connection away by a regional jet, which is very sub-optimal when you compare the flight cost, disutility of the passenger's time, number of transfers, and general harassment.
Our largest real estate corporation moved away as the connections had declined (the guys I know cited a lack of direct NYC flights as most important). Those direct flights that were left are often twice a days to the hubs only, with limited capacity airframes, to the point that 4 executives were loading up in a car and driving to Atlanta in one instance (6 hours) instead of flying. Part of their illustrative decision is also due to the pricing scheme used, where direct flights, when available, are priced in many instances higher than a two hop flight comprised of one part of the very same schedule (which fits with the time dis-utility model).
The operational cost, per passenger mile, of short stage (Less than 750 mile direct flights) are forcing major pullbacks in airline schedules, but the fixed cost of airports is still there for the US. It is getting to the point where the only real option for the middle class is driving, as we have practically no passenger rail network.
I would welcome a competitive rail environment for the rest of US, based on a passenger mile compensation scheme, where the operator had access to a large loss liability pool (for a PSGM fee) that shielded the host as well, some type of nationwide access agreement, and the station buildings were locally provided while the platform was owned by a trustfund.
The giant hole that is being left for 200 to 700 mile trips does need to be filled. Funny how the new NARP lead used to be the editor for Aviation Week Intelligence Network.
Midlandjim Having worked for one of the great passenger railroads (CB&Q), in the passenger traffic department, and having been a part of an attempt to start up passenger rail service between Denver and Salt Lake City via Southern Wyoming in the 1980's. I feel that good passenger service can be accomplished by any carrier that sees the profit in such an operation. Scheduling and well maintained equipment can bring the passenger business back to the rail carriers. In the 50's and 60's the rail management of most railroads wanted out of the passenger rail business.As the airlines offered cheap and inexpensive fares. So they let the equipment fall apart (I always heard complaints about dirty, poor conditioned equipment on the Penn)but when the equipment was clean, the trains on time, I always heard positive comments (ATSF). The Santa Fe did not want to join Amtrak, but were forced to for any number of reasons.There is a way to operate at a profit.
zkr123 So All Aboard Florida and Texas Central Railway are not competition? They're private funded companies creating high speed passenger rail service.
I'll bite.
AAF is spending $1.5B for service that will gross (not net, gross...) $150M a year. Even if they have an outstanding operating ratio, there's no way that revenue can service that debt.
So, why are they doing it? FEC owns lots of land for development along the route. They will make money developing their real estate.
Amtrak doesn't have this luxury.
Texas Central is really just a pipe dream. There is no funding in place or even a hope of a funding mechanism.
It is extremely unlikely that any entity in the US can create a truly profitable HSR operation. That is, where ticket revenue funds all operating costs, capital costs and has any left over for investors.
About the best we might hope for is sourcing capital from public funds and generating some positive cash flow above the railhead. Acela does this.
oltmannd Texas Central is really just a pipe dream. There is no funding in place or even a hope of a funding mechanism.
Midlandjim Having worked for one of the great passenger railroads (CB&Q), in the passenger traffic department, and having been a part of an attempt to start up passenger rail service between Denver and Salt Lake City via Southern Wyoming in the 1980's. I feel that good passenger service can be accomplished by any carrier that sees the profit in such an operation.
Having worked for one of the great passenger railroads (CB&Q), in the passenger traffic department, and having been a part of an attempt to start up passenger rail service between Denver and Salt Lake City via Southern Wyoming in the 1980's. I feel that good passenger service can be accomplished by any carrier that sees the profit in such an operation.
Tell me about the Q's passenger profits any time after WWII. I think it will be a very short story.
jclass oltmannd Texas Central is really just a pipe dream. There is no funding in place or even a hope of a funding mechanism. What about Japan's interest in gaining an entry (for their top-shelf system) into a friendly, big-time economy, the US? They seem to have the patience to give a market time to develop where American companies often don't. Witness, Prius. And what's the problem with seeing a transportation mode used as an integral ingredient in business development. Elevators and their shafts don't make any money on their own. It's about creating tomorrow's cities. Today's is history at midnite.
There's nothing wrong with AAF or what Texas Central wants to do.
It's just AAF's funding mechanism isn't available to Amtrak and Texas Central doesn't have a funding mechanism at all.
So, trolling around asking questions about these operations vis a vis Amtrak gets the answer it deserves.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.