Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
<p>[quote user="henry6"]</p> <p> </p> <blockquote> <div><img src="/TRCCS/Themes/trc/images/icon-quote.gif" /> <strong>V.Payne:</strong></div> <div> <p> </p> <p>I am not going to argue that contracting out say car supply, including design, capital lease, maintenance, and operations, might be a cheaper way of doing things. But WHO would do it with our current arrangement of maybe 1-2 years of funding. It seems like so many capital projects on the long distance network have been differed as there is no real idea of what will be operated in the next few years.</p> <p>So if you could get a say 15-20 year guarantee that some level of passenger cross-subsidy will be provided to whoever operator is bidding on in say 5-year blocks then you might get some movement. But wasn't Amtrak itself directed by Congress to "in-source" operations for train crews and such on the long distance routes in the late 1970's or early 1980's, maybe the 1979 bill? Up until then it was a contracted operation with the investor owned railroads.</p> <p>As to the idea of splitting the long distance trains into daylight corridors, I see this destroying a massive amount of utility. For the non-hub airport folks a long distance train into major city is a pretty good way to compete.</p> <div style="clear:both;"></div> <p> </p> </div> </blockquote> <p> </p> <p>You've got the crux of the problem...short term financing and planning, all at the whim of Congress which changes its mind and direction with every session and Congress.   You hear the the business class in Congress saying it should be run like a business then choke off the funds so plans cannot be made in a business like fashion.  Setting Amtrak up lke the U.S. Postal service  or like the did Conrail (two entirely different things, I know, but niether are Amtrak) to get it out from under all the thumbs of Congress would be a good start.  Once Amtrak was set up like that, then it might be able to make business or operating decision which would bring progress if not success. [/quote]</p> <p>If Amtrak were out from under the sponsorship of Congress, it would be dead in the water in a heartbeat. It survives not because it is an effective business model but because it is a political animal.</p> <p>Business is a relatively simply proposition. Offer goods or services that people will buy in an arms length transaction.  Price them to cover the costs and provide a return to the shareholders.  If the users won't pay the price to cover the costs, the business fails.</p> <p>If the business provides a service that is critical to the well being of the nation, e.g. electric energy, and it cannot earn a return, one can make a viable argument that it should be run by the state or subsidized.</p> <p>Intercity passenger trains are not critical to the well being of the nation. They may become so in the future because of increased congestion and environmental reasons. If they went away, which I would not like to see, few people, with the possible of those living along the NEC and southern California, would not miss them.  In in those busy corridors there are viable alternatives.  Think Megabus.</p>
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