Amtrak needs a compass

[Anonymous]

Amtrak is lost. it needs to be reorganized or eliminated by a competitor or be replaced. the name Amtrak suggests failure anyway.

[thirdrail1]

Amtrak has been lost since its inception, except possibly for a while when Graham Claytor ran it. But, who will provide the compass? Congress? Can the blind lead the blind?

[Anonymous]

I wish I knew who could make it profitable.

[thirdrail1]

No one can make Amtrak profitable. Run passenger trains better for less money, yes, but make a profit based on fully allocated costs has not been possible for 65 years!

[cbq9911a]

Given the current environment in this country, MOST passenger trains can't be profitable.

If you change the environment, passenger trains could make money. For example, let's suppose that nobody could buy tires for their car or truck. Then, passenger trains would get a larger share of intercity travel. (This is what actually happened during WW II.)

The best thing you could do is to admit that passenger trains are necessary, but that they don't make money. And that our country needs to support them for the good of the country. Like fire departments or libraries.

Make Amtrak a non-profit, turn it over to the professionals, and fund them properly. It'd make sense to put a national non-profit like Catholic Charities in charge.

[Anonymous]

You need someone who knows about railroads and trains.

Also, ensure that there is sufficient in-house expertise for maintenance etc.

I suppose you could, in certain circumstances, allow private firms to fund coaches etc. to add capacity. For example, if (say) IBM had a factory or office with 500 people working in it, it could pay for additional coaches so as to bring it's worforce in and out everyday.

Jason.

[Anonymous]

I like trains. I like trains alot. But I don't believe passenger rail transportation is necessary. Passenger rail transportation is not like the Fire Department or a library. There are other acceptable forms of transportation available. I agree with you that the only way to change the situation is to change the economic relationship between people, their cars and the highways they use. Why is it necessary for the country to support them?

[Anonymous]

Are you asking why a country should support individual car usage? It gives people freedom to do what they want. Over the last 50 or so years, people have come to expect to have a car - a 'right'.

However, they also feel that there should be alternatives (esp. for those who can't drive or who cannot afford to drive).

Having an integrated transport policy means having a range of modes of transport. Unfortunately, you or I can't afford to buy our own train. Also, there would be too few 'paths' to allow everyone to run their own train.

Hence, it is better to allow a few companies (or one) to run train services on our behalf. Unfortunately, not all train services will be profitable, but they are need to serve communities. A 'moral' obligation. Hence, profitable routes subsidise the non-profitable ones.

Jason.

[Anonymous]

My question, 'Why is it necessary for us to support them?' was about Amtrak not personal cars.

Your argument that we need a range of modes of transport is not convincing. There are other forms of transportation available, for example buses and taxis.

I read on the internet that Amtrak lost $545 million last year. Why should so many U.S. taxpayers support Amtrak when other forms of transport are available?

Finally, I do not see that I have a moral obligation to support the government's effort to give rail transportation to anyone. If Amtrak were the onlt practical means for many people to get to the hospital or the grocery store then there would be something to discuss, but even that would be better solved if they moved closer to the hospital and store.

I appologize if this upsets you. The continued operation of Amtrak defies free market economics. - Ed

[thirdrail1]

Ed, the continued subsidization of the air traffic control system and airports is also contrary to the so-called free market system. We do not have a "free market" in transportation in this country, it is grossly distorted by who gets the most bux from the government. For example, the government pays a 220 thousand dollars per barge subsidy to permit barges to operate on the Apalachicola River. The per ticket subsidy to the airlines exceeded that to Amtrak by about 5 dollars that last time anyone bothered to figure it out.

[Anonymous]

It was common knowledge over 50 years ago that if every seat on every car in a train was filled every trip, it would never pay for the cost of the car during it's lifetime. Figuring in present day cost of equipment and cost of maintenance, plus cost of labor and other expenses,(claims and lawsuits, just to name two) it is easy to see how passenger service will never pay for itself. I have a Pass and have not been on a passenger train in over 20 years. When I want to go to California, I either drive or fly. (I live near the east coast) The automobile is more convenient and airlines get you there quicker. I for one do not want my tax money going to pay for "joy rides". I don't mean to say that commuter rail traffic is not an almost necessity in some areas. In those areas, subsidies may be desirable. For the long hauls, forget it, it will never pay.

[cbq9911a]

How true! Especially with today's announcement that Amtrak is going to discontinue all long distance trains effective October 23. A threat to get the White Knights to ride to the rescue on their donkeys and elephants.

I wi***hat Amtrak would have more guts, and simply say "Unless the funding situation is resolved, we will be unable to continue operations. The cuts start February 28, with the elimination of all service serving Chicago."

Alas, that's quite illegal. But it would get Amtrak noticed.

[Anonymous]

Gregg,

Your comment, "so-called free market" leads me to believe you don't think there is a free market system in the US. Do you think there is a free market system in the US? Do you think the free market system is good?

I would like all the airline/airport subsidies eliminated as well. And I had no idea there were such subsidies paid to the companies that transport products by barge. I would like this discontinued as well. Finally, I would like the truck operators pay the appropriate amount for the construction and maintanence of the interstate and primary highway system.

In the end, all the costs will be paid by the consumer but it would allow all forms of transportation to compete on a level playing field. In this environment, I believe more freight will be transported by rail which will reduce congestion on the nations highway system, increase the life of the highway bridges and reduce air pollution.

Catch you later. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Budd(?),

It is hard for me to believe that you couldn't pay for the cost of a passenger car if it were filled every seat every day. It seems to me that there must be other costs involved. This just reinforces my position that passenger rail travel should be left to the free market (private companies) to pursue or avoid based on the economics of the situation.

Based on what you said in your post, it appears that you agree with me that Amtrak needs to be allowed to sink or swim on its own.

Finally, I would like to say that where commuter subsidies are justified, the subsidies must be paid by the local jurisdiction.

Catch you later. - Ed

[thirdrail1]

No, I don't think there is a free market system in the US. We are supposed to have a free market system, but there is constant government intervention in the market mechanism. In addition our tortious legal system has allowed every tree hugger and self-described "victim" to further distort market mechanisms.

If you think we have a free market, explain how a free market could have created Amtrak!

[thirdrail1]

The "common knowledge of 50 years ago" was NOT shared by those responsible for determining the costs of providing rail services and the prices to be charged for them. I spent nine years in railroad marketing for the largest passenger and freight hauler, PRR, and our figures showed that the only profit potential was in the long haul trains. Indeed, in the mid-1960's and advertising campaign for the "Broadway Limited" came very close to returning it to a profitable basis. Actually a couple more passengers a night would have done so!

I am not saying it is easy to operate passenger trains at a profit, but it can be done under certain circumstances. I find it interesting that many object to subsidizing Amtrak yet don't blink an eye over the huge subsidies paid to operate the air traffic control system that permits the airlines to operate and rich doctors and lawyers to fly their private jets.

[Anonymous]

Ed,
When I said it was common knowledge 50 years ago that filling every seat every trip would not pay for the cost of the car during it's lifetime, I was basing that on what I heard many times back then. I also heard two railroad presidents say the same thing. I have no other facts to go by.

Yes, I totally agree with you that Amtrak should be allowed to sink or swim on its own. I also agree that commuter subsidies must be paid by the local jurisdictions. I am not that familiar with commuter operations, but the population of every city I know anything about is moving farther and farther away from the center city. There appears to be a trend for corporations to do the same. Moving people within metropolitan areas is getting more and more complicated. One possible answer to traffic congestion may be for more places of employment to get away from the center city and go where the people are. Seems that I read or heard somewhere that a number of corporations are leaving Manhattan after 9/11.

[Anonymous]

Gregg,
I am not in favor of subsidizing any transportation system, air, highway, water or rail. With the exception of a few northeastern railroads, railroads have paid their own way for a very long time. It is true that most, if not all, were subsidized in the beginning. However the strong roads have paid their own way for many, many years. Only the weak have failed. It should be the same with other modes of transportation. If they can't pay their way, get off the pot. I do not travel nearly as much as I did before I retired 15 years ago, but I think there is no doubt that truck traffic has more than doubled since then. Just yesterday I counted 150 tractor-trailers in one 12 mile stretch of interstate highway. I remember, before I retired, not counting that many in 75 miles of interstate, in the same general area. Why would I want to count them? Working for a railroad I was very aware of the traffic that could possible be on the rails and off the highways. Trucks are not completely responsible for congestion around metropolitan areas, but they sure contribute greatly to it.

[Anonymous]

I THINK THAT AMTRAK HAS HAD LAX LEADERSHIP SINCE ITS CREATION. WHAT ELSE COULD YOU EXPECT FROM A GOVERNMENT AGENCY? NO BODY WANTS TO BAIL AMTRAK OUT. THE BEST THING WOULD BE TO LEAVE IT TO THE FOLKS WITH SOME GUMPTION, THE FREIGHT LINES. THEY HAVE THE MONEY AND THE TIME TO EXPERIMENT. IT IS POSSIBLE. SEPARATE THE FREIGHT AND PASSENGER LINES, AND MAYBE THEY COULD DO WELL AND BE SAFER, TOO!

[Anonymous]

Freight railroads make their money hauling freight. Passenger trains are just a very big pain in the rear end to them. Everyone that I know who has ever been involved in the operation of a freight railroad wants no part of passenger trains.

[Anonymous]

Sorry it took me some time to get back to you.

Well it sounds like you believe free market economics would be the best way to solve the problem if only the government would get out of the way. That is how I think anyway. And I agree the free market did not create Amtrak, the Congress did. It is my impression that most of the people involved here in this discussion want the government to be involved.

I would like the government to get out of the subsidy business and allow the free market to decide what should be done. I believe that the railroads would get a larger share of the freight moved in the country in a true free market system. I fear many would point out the substantial subsidies the railroad industry received when they were built in the 1800s. In my opinion the airlines have had their chance to become established and they should be expected to carry their own weight from now on.

Incidently, I had jury duty today so I am quite aware of our 'tortious legal system'. I was excused from serving. A fellow was suing the Food Lion company for damages and suffering as a result of a fall in a store in my city back in 1999. Nothing like a speedy trial.

[Anonymous]

Yea, my city sufferes from the flight of the affluent to the suburbs as well. The taxes in the city are higher and the schools are among the worst in the state. I'm looking for a home in the 'burbs myself.

I just have to believe the railroad presidents were including other costs in their assessment of passenger rail profit potential. I believe the other costs were probably legitimate too like maintanence of the locomotives, cars and track for example.

I have recently been wondering why cities don't build a commuter style railroad to take people from a city out to the airport. This would allow them to open an airport where few would be bothered by it and it would be far away from the other airports in the metro area which would help the density of the traffic in the air as well.

I got to go. My four year old has decided I have been here long enough.

[Anonymous]

Foul! Amtrak might be lost or whatsoever, but it is still a great (and much needed) concern, especially in a country where most inhabitants drive their cars to their restrooms and where long distance ground public transportation is scarcer than teeth in a hen's beak. Hooray for Amtrak!

Nicholas

[Anonymous]

>... PRR, and our figures showed that the only profit potential was in the long haul trains.

Interesting comment. There are a few people around making that claim today, while others claim the short hauls make money. I wish somebody would take an honest look beyond the creative accounting and settle this argument once and for all!

Erik