Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
Passenger
»
How about privatizing Amtrak sleepers or diners?

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
  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.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag