This whole conspiracy theory ignores the point that had the government done nothing the carriers would have pulled the off trains over the next 3-5 years. The 1950's era equipment was wearing out and there was no money to replace it. The operating losses were incontrovertable and the ICC could not force the carriers to run the trains while incurring demonstrable losses.
Why would the govt go through a charade to get to the same point that the carriers would get to without it? More plainly put, whose votes were Nixon or Congress buying with taxpayer money and why would those votes stay with the buyers if ATK went away? The only clear beneficiaries of the scheme were the operating unions.
Mac
Sam1: One things is crystal clear. Keep doing things the way they have always been done; don't try anything different; and in time an entity will wind up in the dust bin.
One things is crystal clear. Keep doing things the way they have always been done; don't try anything different; and in time an entity will wind up in the dust bin.
You are right, Sam 1. So Iet's do something before that happens so that we are prepared. I say scrap Amtrak. Right now. Dead in its tracks. But lets have a replacement ready to roll.
First, lets define and redsign the passenger train and the track system it operates on. Yes, keep the track the present Amtrak owns as part of the new Amtrak...lets call it NEWAM. And before we do anything lets define it as a company to own and operate passenger trains other than commuter trains. We do this as opposed to the present pre Amtrak definition of a company to relieve private railroads of the responsiblities of operating passenger trains. Next, lets identify and define the term service in relation to what is expected of a passenger train in any given situation. This as opposed to endearing our trans and services to politics and politician and to the whims of private freight railroads. At this point, lets assume there are no services, no trains, nothing in existance that is part of NEWAM.
Think about it and I'll meet you in a few panels. Or later.
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.
No one has commented, added, or defined anything so far. So let me propose a definition of NEWAM: to design, own and operate a rail passenger service in the United States.
DwightBranch The argument that you are making, that only quantitative analysis (in your case, prices of discrete moves on alternative modes are transport) is valid in determining social outcomes, is derisively referred to as "physics envy" within the social sciences (where I earned my PhD). It almost wrecked political science and made it a laughingstock when it was attempted in the 80s. I won't spend much time on this other than to point out that, for example, the concept "quality of life" is not quantifiable.
The argument that you are making, that only quantitative analysis (in your case, prices of discrete moves on alternative modes are transport) is valid in determining social outcomes, is derisively referred to as "physics envy" within the social sciences (where I earned my PhD). It almost wrecked political science and made it a laughingstock when it was attempted in the 80s. I won't spend much time on this other than to point out that, for example, the concept "quality of life" is not quantifiable.
If the claim is one of "trains reduce pollution", or "trains will reduce traffic congestion", or "trains will mitigate CO2 contributing to Climate Change" or "trains will reduce the need to import foreign oil", these are all quantifiable propositions. If one makes a sweeping claim such as "trains use 1/5th the energy of cars" as the head of WisPIRG did in a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel letter-to-the-editor, that too is a quantifiable proposition.
And if one asserts that the low rolling resistance of the steel wheel-steel rail contact means that passenger trains use very much less energy than other modes, one is very much entering the realm of a physics and engineering discussion, where one can entertain the engineering trades between lower rolling resistance and greater weight, braking and acceleration from stops, aerodynamic resistance, fuel requirements of head-end (also called "hotel") power for heating and AC, and so on.
If all of this is "not about quantifiable measures but about quality-of-life", then stop making unrealistic claims about the quantifiable measures and say what this is about is that some of us simply find trains more pleasant than driving or flying.
And there is denigration intended upon invoking the saying that figures don't lie, but liars can figure. Are you calling out anyone who doesn't share your level of enthusiasm for trains as a liar? I believe we could advance the cause of trains better if we stopped calling Amtrak critics liars, took seriously what they had to say, and better understood the nature of their objections.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic DwightBranch: The argument that you are making, that only quantitative analysis (in your case, prices of discrete moves on alternative modes are transport) is valid in determining social outcomes, is derisively referred to as "physics envy" within the social sciences (where I earned my PhD). It almost wrecked political science and made it a laughingstock when it was attempted in the 80s. I won't spend much time on this other than to point out that, for example, the concept "quality of life" is not quantifiable. If the claim is one of "trains reduce pollution", or "trains will reduce traffic congestion", or "trains will mitigate CO2 contributing to Climate Change" or "trains will reduce the need to import foreign oil", these are all quantifiable propositions. If one makes a sweeping claim such as "trains use 1/5th the energy of cars" as the head of WisPIRG did in a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel letter-to-the-editor, that too is a quantifiable proposition. And if one asserts that the low rolling resistance of the steel wheel-steel rail contact means that passenger trains use very much less energy than other modes, one is very much entering the realm of a physics and engineering discussion, where one can entertain the engineering trades between lower rolling resistance and greater weight, braking and acceleration from stops, aerodynamic resistance, fuel requirements of head-end (also called "hotel") power for heating and AC, and so on. If all of this is "not about quantifiable measures but about quality-of-life", then stop making unrealistic claims about the quantifiable measures and say what this is about is that some of us simply find trains more pleasant than driving or flying. And there is denigration intended upon invoking the saying that figures don't lie, but liars can figure. Are you calling out anyone who doesn't share your level of enthusiasm for trains as a liar? I believe we could advance the cause of trains better if we stopped calling Amtrak critics liars, took seriously what they had to say, and better understood the nature of their objections.
DwightBranch: The argument that you are making, that only quantitative analysis (in your case, prices of discrete moves on alternative modes are transport) is valid in determining social outcomes, is derisively referred to as "physics envy" within the social sciences (where I earned my PhD). It almost wrecked political science and made it a laughingstock when it was attempted in the 80s. I won't spend much time on this other than to point out that, for example, the concept "quality of life" is not quantifiable.
I actually meant it in regard to you in this discussion, meaning I am not calling you out, that this is a discussion about ways of explaining social outcomes, not a personal affront. I don't disagree with the examples you cite, about thermal efficiency etc.. in comparison, there I think mathematics is completely relevant. What I do disagree with is numbers regarding financials, the cost of building high speed rail versus just adding another lane to an interstate etc, there I think number are often misleading and out of context.
The one thing about Amtrak that doesn't make any sense to me is that it is more expensive than a airplane ticket and slower than a grey hound bus. It not a good option money wise and it's very slow unless you are traveling in the upper Eastern coast.
I wanted to take Amtrak from Denver to Dallas and it was going to cost over $600.00 round trip. To make things worse it has to take me all the way to Chicago and then back down to Dallas wasting lots of time.
I love riding on trains and have taken a Amtrak train from San diego to Richmond, Virginia before. But Amtrak is extremely unreliable at best. I have never been to my destination on time and once I arrived a full 26 hours late. When I was traveling by train in Canada they told me "we don't sell train tickets, we sell land cruises". That is how I view Amtrak. If you want to go on a land cruise with time to burn try Amtrak.
I don't support private ownership because it wouldn't last 6 months before it was totally bankrupt. Amtrak can't even make a profit with a extra billion a year from Congress. A private company would have to double current prices just to break even.
Lehigh Valley 2089 After looking at what Amtrak has gone through with the national government, would it really be a good idea to privitize the passenger railroad? It worked with Conrail, so why not Amtrak? It would take a lot off of the goverments shoulders, and allow Amtrak to not worry about funding. So, what do you think about this possibility? Do you think that it could really help the system, or just send it into turmoil?
After looking at what Amtrak has gone through with the national government, would it really be a good idea to privitize the passenger railroad? It worked with Conrail, so why not Amtrak? It would take a lot off of the goverments shoulders, and allow Amtrak to not worry about funding.
So, what do you think about this possibility? Do you think that it could really help the system, or just send it into turmoil?
That trip is just about impossible due to the skeletal route structure that poor financing causes. There is no direct Amtrak service between Denver and Dallas, about the only way to do it on an all rail route without some sort of long connecting bus trip would be to take the CZ to Chicago and then the Texas Eagle to Dallas, about 1k miles out of the way I would guess. Amtrak's bare bones route structure eliminates the sort of economy of scale possible due to connecting trains. But in fact when I in the past and my family now travel between Denver and the central Illinois area, 1k miles, it is the only economical way to do it, $75 one way coach, no airport parking, no one has to drive 130 miles to Chicago to pick us up at O'Hare. It is actually cheaper than gas and you don't have to risk falling asleep at the wheel or paying 75 extra for a motel.
schlimm dakota fred: Why do you believe you have more knowledge of the situation in 1970-71 than Menk would have had? As to the members of Congress, the true purpose of Amtrak would not need to have been revealed to them, and in fact, couldn't have been for the reasons you give. Do you actually believe Congress has never been deceived? I imagine our political scientist could give several examples of that!!
dakota fred: Why do you believe you have more knowledge of the situation in 1970-71 than Menk would have had? As to the members of Congress, the true purpose of Amtrak would not need to have been revealed to them, and in fact, couldn't have been for the reasons you give. Do you actually believe Congress has never been deceived? I imagine our political scientist could give several examples of that!!
Never claimed to have more knowledge, beyond the advantage of having been alive and reading a newspaper in 1971, which allows me to give the lie, for instance, to claims made on the forum months ago that "the press and everybody" was told back then that Amtrak would be defunded after five years.
The point, as I tried to make earlier, is that it doesn't matter what Menk thinks he understood. The only thing that matters is what Congress actually did, which contained no "sunset" arrangement for Amtrak. The only way for Amtrak to go away was for future Congresses to discontinue funding, which hasn't happened after 40 years.
Not a very effective "conspiracy." Menk didn't get his money's worth.
As far as it goes, I was reading in 1971 (at university) as well. Whoever suggested Menk's notion was in the press in 1971 is engaging in a retrospective cognitive fallacy. However, just because things turned out differently than the insiders' intentions does not disprove the thesis. The funding for ATK was supposed to have been the fees the RR's paid to exit the passenger business along with the original appropriation. Watergate, the Nixon resignation and a total change in the Congressional tone wiped out whatever plan there had been.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
To say that an Amtrak ticket is more expensive than an airplane ticket or vice versa is not a fair comparison if ony because a lot of fares are market demand based. I can get a $600 round trip ticket from my local airport in Bingahmton, to New York if I were to go up there right now and plunk my money down and go. If I plan on going 25 days or 58 days from now, I can get it for more than half that. Bus, as low as $10! usually, though, about $100. Amtrak tickets on some routes can be purchased right now for, say, $30 a week or more in advance but can be double that if you walk up to the window at train time. Marketing and fares for all modes of transportation make comparisons difficult and not even at worst, confusing at best.
The problem is that Amtrak's long distance trains provide a societal link that far out weighs any direct economic benefit.
One of the purposes of the government, Federal, State or Local is to do the things that don't make economic sense but that are to the benefit of society and are so governed by our laws. In the case of long distance passenger service, they provide a value to the small communities they serve that is intangible and invaluable. How will the people of LA be impacted by the loss of the Southwest chief or even the rerouting of the chief? Not that much, in fact most probably won't even read the article about it in the paper. How will the people of La Juanta Colorado be impacted? Every man woman and child in town will likely notice a change small or large.
And this is ultimately the problem with the discussion of Amtrak, it boils down to a question of economic viability, but part of the point of government is to do the things that need doing but that wouldn't be done otherwise.
As for budgets. I don't think upping Amtrak's budget indiscriminately would fix the problems, but I do believe that they would be far more successful if congress matched Amtrak's stated operational goals with a budget that could even begin to cover those goals.
Obviously, that's all politics and not much to talk about, but the practical issue is that Amtrak has a stated requirement for operations and is not given the budget or anything like the budget they need to meet those goals.
And then people wonder why they fail...
Personally, I think given the political realities Amtrak has faced since the beginning, they should and could be considered a success.
Corridor train services do reduce traffic and airport congestion' otherwise they would not be corridors. The whole NE economny would suffer a blow if the NEC passenger service stopped running. Milwaukees economy would suffer slightly, but still suffer, if Hiawatha service ceased. Etc.
Again, long distance service is worth subsidizing because it (1) promotes internal and oversees tourism, (2) provides the elderly, handicapped, and wounded with access to most of the country that they otherwise could not access, (3) ties the corridors together into a national system, with advantages politcally and equpment-wise, (4) is emergency transportation for a Katrina or airline shutdown, and (5) preserves an important USA heritage.
Denver - Dallas? Again the wounded USmy vet who travels yearly from Alberquegeu to Dallas and back to visit his extended family -via Amtrak sleeper handicapped room and Chicago.
And highway transportation is subsidized even greater than Amtrak, even on a passenger-mile and ton-mile basis, IF YOU INCLUDE LAND USE.
The United States federal debt stands at $15.2 trillion. Add another $3.7 trillion for state and local debt, and the debt burden, which one way or the other must be paid for by the people, is approximately $18.9 trillion. This is more than the GDP. And this is before considering unfunded liabilities. Add in the latest estimate for these liabilities and the total comes to approximately $65.9 trillion. How did we get to this point?
Many complex factors have loaded the U.S. with its current debt burden. One of them is the argument by numerous interest groups, including passenger rail supporters, that their cause is not bounded by economic constraints. The benefit to society is so great, so they argue, that the nation has to have it irrespective of the cost and whether the users will pay for it. The argument is not the exclusive prerogative of passenger rail supporters. Sport teams, symphony orchestras, you name it, all claim that their activity adds immeasurable value, beyond what their patrons are willing to pay, and therefore they need to be supported by the taxpayer.
If Amtrak's long distance trains meet a vital national need, then they should serve every community in the United States with a population of more than 25,000, which is admittedly an arbitrary cutoff. Of course, this notion is unworkable. Just in Texas it would cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year to subsidize long distance trains that very few people in the Lone Star State would use.
All modes of transport receive some subsidy, although the amount of it depends in part on how one defines subsidy. At the end of the day it does not matter. The same argument applies to the hidden agendas of those who sponsored and oversaw the transition of what remained of intercity passenger rail to Amtrak. Whether they thought that it would succeed or fail or did not know does not matter. It is history.
The key question is where does passenger rail make sense? What problem does it solve? Is it the optimum solution? What problems will the solution create? Do people really want it? Will they pay for it? For my money, outside of a few relatively high density corridors, passenger rail does not make any sense. But it does make sense, within reason, in a few of its existing, as well as some potential future corridors.
Most everyone here is condmening Amtrak as it is or supporting certain parts of it or complaining about government operation and wants to privatize it. I have posted the idea of starting a new rail passenger company and asked for definitions and input FORGETING THAT AMTRAK EXISTS. But no one has addressed any of my questions or comments. Do we want to talk about replacing Amtrak with something else or do we just want to complain about Amtrak as it sits in its tracks?
I am not, perhaps persuaded by the argument of a large national debt being a reason not to subsidize Amtrak. The big 4 in Federal spending are healthcare, defense, Social Security, and interest payments, and "discretionary spending" is a minority slice of the pie. Of that discretionary spending, a goodly amount goes to things that the Federal government has to have, say, funding the IRS so taxes get collected in a fair and orderly manner, so the amount of Federal money perhaps spent on various social concerns with intangible economic benefit, Amtrak, the Space Shuttle, etc., is of lesser importance.
But on the other hand, there is the famous saying from the one-time Senator from Illinois, "a billion dollars here, a billion dollars there, and pretty soon it adds up to real money." To the extent that we have a national debt concern, the 1 billion+/year on Amtrak doesn't amount to anything, but there are many competing social concerns with intangible economic benefit that "a billion dollars here, a billion dollars there", well, one gets the idea.
If Amtrak is a technological product (i.e. trains, and improved trains to achieve somewhat higher speeds if not quite yet full HSR) with diffuse, intangible, and difficult-to-quantify economic and social benefit, so is NASA. I once suggested this to a brick-and-morter advocacy colleague that passenger train advocates could look to see on what is going on with the space exploration advocacy community. My colleague bristled with the suggestion that Amtrak be compared to NASA because NASA was a (supported by then Republican Congressional leader Tom DeLay) boondoggle getting 10 times the funding of Amtrak, an underfunded and worthy cause.
Well, one person's boondoggle is another person's socially vital enterprise with intangible and unquantifiable benefit. But were my colleague to take off his politically partisan goggles, perhaps he could see that NASA and Amtrak are much the same thing: the government taking on activities that the free-enterprise system cannot or will not do, each having a dedicated advocacy community among "civilians" not involved in the day-to-day operations of these agencies or quasi-corporations, each having "anti's" who think that NASA is a big fat waste of money and those who think the same about Amtrak, and so on.
But to pursue the NASA analogy, one can be "for" having human space exploration for all the miriad of unquantifiable and intangible societal benefits (inspiring kids into careers in math, science, and engineering, the putative spin-offs of space tech into civilian life, satisfying the human desire to investigate the unknown and develop a new frontier, high-tech jobs to provide employment, possible resource exploitation -- solar beaming satellites, asteroid mining, disposal of atomic waste), one can be for all of those things and still think that the Space Shuttle was a particularly expensive way to do all of this.
It is possible to be critical of the Shuttle in the space advocacy community without being regarded as "anti-space." It is tolerated to heap criticism on the Shuttle without having a workable alternative in hand. It is tolerated to countenance private or public-private partnerships such as Elon Musks efforts without being beaten down with "Space exploration has always required the government and always will."
The overall passenger advocacy community, it seems, has a narrower view of what one has to be for and what one has to be against. The local brick-and-morter advocacy group is representative in having a particularly narrow point of view in this regard. This forum has a much broader set of views represented, although there is a core group in this forum that takes the standard NARP line and regards commentators deviating from that orthodoxy as being on the fringes. Hence the amount of heat and debate generated by posting "A Possible End to Amtrak." In the brick and morter advocacy group we wouldn't even have this discussion because someone would have ushered one out of the room before it got that far.
henry6 Most everyone here is condmening Amtrak as it is or supporting certain parts of it or complaining about government operation and wants to privatize it. I have posted the idea of starting a new rail passenger company and asked for definitions and input FORGETING THAT AMTRAK EXISTS. But no one has addressed any of my questions or comments. Do we want to talk about replacing Amtrak with something else or do we just want to complain about Amtrak as it sits in its tracks?
I would scrap Amtrak. I would invite private businesses to bid on operating trains in those corridors where passenger rail made some sense. I would provide transitional subsidies, as well as performance operating subsidies, as long as other modes of transport are subsidized, where it made sense to do so, which in my mind is in relatively short, high density corridors where the cost of expanding the highways and airways is prohibitive.
If someone wanted to have a go at running long distance trains as a tourist service, I would encourage them to go for it. But I would not subsidize it. If Kansas taxpayers wanted to subsidize a train from Kansas City to Garden City, as an example, they could do it, but I would not place the burden on the national taxpayers.
Where the rails are owned by Amtrak, I would solicit bids for an independent operator to manage the rights-of-way and separate operators to run the trains. Anyone who could meet the required performance and safety standards could run a train on the independently owned rights-of-way.
To the extent that it is needed, I would have an independent manage a reservation system to help ensure coordination between the corridors. Travelocity might be a good reservations manager. They have the facilities and the competitive business spirit to do so.
The DOT would be the primary regulator. Proper regulation, contrary to what some folks have said about this Texan's perspective on regulation, is necessary. It would also be responsible for ensuring planning for future rail corridors, operational coordination, performance evaluation, etc.
This just skims the surface of the issue, of course. A lengthy paper would be necessary for each critical aspect of a plan to unwind Amtrak in favor of private operators. It could be done if the political will to do so were to come forth. However, as I have said, don't count on it. Too many people have a vested interest in the existing arrangement. Overcoming their resistance would require a concerted effort.
Indeed, the big four are the major drivers of the federal debt. Having said that, however, a line item analysis of the federal budget, which I perform each year for an interest group that I participate in at the University of Texas, shows that the small stuff, much of which is discretionary, adds up.
Last year I went through the CBO's analysis of items it believed could be cut from the federal budget or reduced significantly without having a deleterious impact on the well being of society. Of course, the CBO's definition of impact is as subjective as yours or mine. Nevertheless, I came up with more than $590 billion, ranging from $93 billion just by cutting improper payments, i.e. errors to fraud, as per the GAO, to $1 million in subsidies for cotton seed storage.
No one item is driving the federal budget and deficits. But every little bit of unfunded activity, including the subsidies to Amtrak, adds to the problem. Just a little more gasoline will not put out a fire.
Ok..we're moving forward....we are not Amtrak...we are NEWPASS, lets say, for New Passenger Service. We are definining ourselves to own and operate rail passenger services (note, I said, services and not trains) and, unlke our predecessor we are not beholding to any political entities or politicians nor is our gaol to relieve private enterprise freight railroads of the burden of running passenger trains. Should we be a private for profit or private non profit corporation?
Henry,
You have to organize as a "for profit" corporation since you will fail the legal requirements to be a "nonprofit".
PNWRMNM Henry, You have to organize as a "for profit" corporation since you will fail the legal requirements to be a "nonprofit". Mac
I'm not sure Mac. If we are to claim to be operating as providing a service to the public which is also or can also be provided by government agencies, we just might try it to get certain tax benefits and open to grants, loans, and bonding priviliges not afforded a for profit corporation. Our aim is not to run trains, kow tow to politicians or stockholders. We can pay our staff and employees a given standard wage competitive with industry or government but instead of paying stockholders and investment bankers, we would put any "excess" money back into the operation in form of equpment and/or property to serve our purpose. We hear the terms for profit and non profit thrown around in political parlance but do we really understand the difference and the opportunities each gives and each takes away?
Sam1 The United States federal debt stands at $15.2 trillion. ....
The United States federal debt stands at $15.2 trillion. ....
This is a ridiculous canard. It isn't Amtrak, or passenger rail's fault that the US Government likes to fund things and then not raise the revenue to pay for them. The most recent example being deciding have 2 wars and then cutting taxes at the same time. A completely insane thing to do.
Of course if the Government aka the people don't want to pay for Amtrak, then Amtrak should not exist. We have a debt problem, because of situations like that, but at the same time, if we do want Amtrak, then the government ought to raise the revenues to pay for it. To do anything else is to be irresponsible.
As for the specific value of intercity trains and arbitrary cutoffs. I agree, there should be more, not fewer intercity trains. Your "should serve every community of 25,000 or more" is pretty meaningless and of course impossible not just from a fiduciary perspective. But whether or not there should be more trains if they serve a vital need does not impact whether existing trains serve a vital need. They clearly do as evidence by at least one poster on this thread.
What an excellent post.
Paul Milenkovic I am not, perhaps persuaded by the argument of a large national debt being a reason not to subsidize Amtrak. The big 4 in Federal spending are healthcare, defense, Social Security, and interest payments, and "discretionary spending" is a minority slice of the pie. Of that discretionary spending, a goodly amount goes to things that the Federal government has to have, say, funding the IRS so taxes get collected in a fair and orderly manner, so the amount of Federal money perhaps spent on various social concerns with intangible economic benefit, Amtrak, the Space Shuttle, etc., is of lesser importance. But on the other hand, there is the famous saying from the one-time Senator from Illinois, "a billion dollars here, a billion dollars there, and pretty soon it adds up to real money." To the extent that we have a national debt concern, the 1 billion+/year on Amtrak doesn't amount to anything, but there are many competing social concerns with intangible economic benefit that "a billion dollars here, a billion dollars there", well, one gets the idea. If Amtrak is a technological product (i.e. trains, and improved trains to achieve somewhat higher speeds if not quite yet full HSR) with diffuse, intangible, and difficult-to-quantify economic and social benefit, so is NASA. I once suggested this to a brick-and-morter advocacy colleague that passenger train advocates could look to see on what is going on with the space exploration advocacy community. My colleague bristled with the suggestion that Amtrak be compared to NASA because NASA was a (supported by then Republican Congressional leader Tom DeLay) boondoggle getting 10 times the funding of Amtrak, an underfunded and worthy cause. Well, one person's boondoggle is another person's socially vital enterprise with intangible and unquantifiable benefit. But were my colleague to take off his politically partisan goggles, perhaps he could see that NASA and Amtrak are much the same thing: the government taking on activities that the free-enterprise system cannot or will not do, each having a dedicated advocacy community among "civilians" not involved in the day-to-day operations of these agencies or quasi-corporations, each having "anti's" who think that NASA is a big fat waste of money and those who think the same about Amtrak, and so on. But to pursue the NASA analogy, one can be "for" having human space exploration for all the miriad of unquantifiable and intangible societal benefits (inspiring kids into careers in math, science, and engineering, the putative spin-offs of space tech into civilian life, satisfying the human desire to investigate the unknown and develop a new frontier, high-tech jobs to provide employment, possible resource exploitation -- solar beaming satellites, asteroid mining, disposal of atomic waste), one can be for all of those things and still think that the Space Shuttle was a particularly expensive way to do all of this. It is possible to be critical of the Shuttle in the space advocacy community without being regarded as "anti-space." It is tolerated to heap criticism on the Shuttle without having a workable alternative in hand. It is tolerated to countenance private or public-private partnerships such as Elon Musks efforts without being beaten down with "Space exploration has always required the government and always will." The overall passenger advocacy community, it seems, has a narrower view of what one has to be for and what one has to be against. The local brick-and-morter advocacy group is representative in having a particularly narrow point of view in this regard. This forum has a much broader set of views represented, although there is a core group in this forum that takes the standard NARP line and regards commentators deviating from that orthodoxy as being on the fringes. Hence the amount of heat and debate generated by posting "A Possible End to Amtrak." In the brick and morter advocacy group we wouldn't even have this discussion because someone would have ushered one out of the room before it got that far.
henry6 Ok..we're moving forward....we are not Amtrak...we are NEWPASS, lets say, for New Passenger Service. We are definining ourselves to own and operate rail passenger services (note, I said, services and not trains) and, unlke our predecessor we are not beholding to any political entities or politicians nor is our gaol to relieve private enterprise freight railroads of the burden of running passenger trains. Should we be a private for profit or private non profit corporation?
I see 3 separate organizations none of which would in my mind be "for profit." I don't see why they would have to be for profit.
Organization 1 is an operations and consulting group. Their role is to be the "bidder of last resort" for passenger rail operations of all sorts. They are also a consultant on any intercity passenger rail projects corridor or otherwise. Think of this group as being the part of Amtrak that currently is Amtrak California. They operate the trains, they help define the system, but the system itself is it's own entity.
This group may also provide and support a universal ticketing system.
This organization likely receives a small grant from the federal government for it's core operations and for the afformentioned ticketing system, but it is in general supported through it's consulting and operating contracts with the host systems.
Organization 2 is the NEC. It is an intergovernmental agency supported by the states/commuter agencies that the NEC runs in, the Federal Government and the Freight railroads that access the track. It's purpose is to operate the NEC. I think of this agency as being like Cablelabs. I assume none of you know what that is, but it's a non-profit organization that sets industry wide standards and does industry wide research. This organization is funded by Intercity train fairs and payments up from the states/local commuter agencies and freight railroads. This group would contract out operations to either the first organization or another provider. Their job is just to be over the entire system.
Organization 3 is a full on Federal government agency. Their job is to maintain long distance passenger rail on freight tracks that is considered vital to the national interests of the country. This agency would not be expected to turn a profit, but would rather be expected to provide a needed service at a competitive rate with cost differences being fully absorbed by the Federal government.
Organization 3 is of course a big money loser, but again, it is a vital interest to the nation and so it must go on. How routes are chosen, added, removed is of course an issue of politics. Presumably, in cases where the intercity service augments corridor service, then crossfunding may apply.
In general, I expect Federal funding to be converted to something similar to the Highway fund or even the way HSR funds have been awarded. There is a bucket of federal money to assist in the development of these transportation corridors that is distributed through some formula and it is up to the states to use it or not.
I see these 3 organizations as far leaner, and more focused on specific goals. I see organization 1 as being a sort of glue. It may be that they are in charge of say large servicing facilities like Beech Grove. A service they then contract out to the various corridor services. Perhaps the lease the rolling stock back to Org 3 and other agencies. Perhaps they own the non-NEC Amtrak assets like stations and collect rent.
The NEC agency is I think self explanitory as is the runt of Amtrak that I define as Org 3.
In this scenario, a state or group of states or private entity wants to define a corridor service. They likely would contact Organization 1 to do consulting work on new service for which they are paid. This new corridor service is approved by the local voters or in a for profit instance, the owners of the rail agree to the lease, all i's are dotted and T's crossed, then operations are bid on. Org 1. must bid on the service at a rate that would sustain the service. They may not be the lowest, but if no one else bids, they must. It is of course up to the corridor operator if that bid is sustainable. In either case, Org 1. would provide integrated ticketing services for this corridor to connect it to the national network. For which it is paid some fee.
In this way it is up to each individual corridor agency to define how it might be paid for. for profit, government supported, whatever. NewPass1 only concerns itself with providing a set of defined services at defined costs.
Stealing this link from the thread on moving the SW Chief
http://www.transportation.northwestern.edu/docs/2012/Iowa%20Pacific%20Sandhouse%20Gang%20presentation.pdf
I checked the pricing on their new york operation. It is price competitve though perhaps more expensive than driving. Dove tails into what I was suggesting. Let private companies develop their markets as they see fit along side government agencies.
YoHo1975 Sam1: The United States federal debt stands at $15.2 trillion. .... This is a ridiculous canard.
Sam1: The United States federal debt stands at $15.2 trillion. ....
This is a ridiculous canard.
Ridiculous? Canard? Just the sort of words that encourage discussion of differing points of view.
No where have I said that Amtrak is a major driver of the budget. A line item read of the federal budget, which very few people do, shows that there are thousands of items that contribute to the deficit and debt. Amtrak is one of them, which is what I was trying to say in my previous post. Again, to a key point from that post. Pouring just a little bit more gasoline on a fire will not put it out.
If the nation's airlines and intercity bus companies are expected to earn a profit, why is intercity passenger rail any different? What is it about Amtrak that says the nation has to have it? It is not a utility in the sense that local transit is a utility. Perhaps in a few corridors intercity passenger rail is important for a free flowing transport system, but there are not many of them. Outside of those corridors it is a nice to have. The users should pay for the system.
Likening NASA to intercity passenger rail is mixing apples and oranges. NASA was founded to further space exploration. In part it was designed to make sure that the United States did not fall behind the Soviet Union, especially with respect to the defense implications of being in space. Had the United States, which was the other super power at the time, not committed to space, it could have been at a serious disadvantage vs. the Soviets. On the other hand, had intercity passenger rail gone away in 1971, with the possible exception of one or two corridors, there would have been practically no impact on the U.S. transport system.
A for profit company is driven to do things better, faster, cheaper, with the operative term being better. To get there it has to focus on its customers, employees, lenders, stockholders, etc. Drop the ball on any key stakeholder group, and it goes out of business. A government agency, which in many instances has employees as good as any found in the private sector, does not have this driver. Clearly, there are some things that are vital for the body politic, and they need to be provided on a societal needs basis. Amtrak is not one of them. It or its derivatives should be operated as a for profit business. Or be allowed to die.
I've worked for plenty of companies that had no interest in doing things better. Only faster and cheaper. The notion that profit motive cures all ills is false. It is the best of a series of imperfect choices perhaps, but it is not itself perfect.
And I called it a canard, because as I said, Amtrak is only an unfunded liability insomuch as the Federal government refuses to raise taxes to cover it's expenditures. If the Federal government stopped doing that, then in fact Amtrak would not be contributing to the debt whether it was the most cost effective option or not. In fact, 12+ years ago when we were running fiscal surpluses, Amtrak did not contribute to the debt in any way.
In other words, Amtrak's portion of the federal debt is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, because the debt is a political problem, not an operational one.
Whether or not Amtrak in it's current form or Government funded rail services in any form can be revenue neutral or even profitable IS a valid question, but again is not the same as the current debt issues.
Non-governmental, non-profit corporations operate very successfully in the field of hospitals and healthcare, and they operate in an environment in which there are many for-profit and some government players. They end up being competitive on price, provide a competitive, often superb service, and pay their staffs at or (usually) above the prevailing rate. They do not pay dividends or issue stock. The model works quite well. Why not consider it for a quasi-utility such as a National Rail Service? Their motivation for cost containment and excellence does not depend on profit, but it can work.
Thank you, Schlimm, for seeing how and why it might work as a non profit corporation. People misunderstand the difference in not for profit and not profit in legal terms. As a public utility or public service, it would not be out of line to consider such an operation/corporation. What is most important is to understand that any earnings, after expenses, have to be reapplied to the goal of the company for the good of the company. So, there would be no Bentley's for the head cheese nor trips with Harems to exotic islands, etc. just a fair comesatory package. Money earned above and beyond costs of operations would be used to either improve any given operation, buy new or renovate existing equipment or ifrastructure, offer additional or expanded services, keep fares as low as possible. But the important thing is to keep your eye on what you say you are doing: provideing passenger rail service(s) (not running trains).
I think putting a non-profit in charge of passenger rail sounds like a good concept. My main question is who would provide oversight. Profit making corporations have boards and stockholders. Non-profits like hospitals are heavily regulated. Other non-profits like United Way rely on contributors who may with hold giving if they disapprove of the charity's actions. And non-profits are famously not immune to over priced CEOs and extravagant spending.
If this non-profit passenger agency received gov't subsidies, don't you think Congress would want to continue to micromanage as they have been doing for the last 40 years. This sounds like the quasi-public US Post Office which can't raise the price of a stamp a penny without an act of congress. We need more details of how this could work.
schlimm Non-governmental, non-profit corporations operate very successfully in the field of hospitals and healthcare, and they operate in an environment in which there are many for-profit and some government players. They end up being competitive on price, provide a competitive, often superb service, and pay their staffs at or (usually) above the prevailing rate. They do not pay dividends or issue stock. The model works quite well. Why not consider it for a quasi-utility such as a National Rail Service? Their motivation for cost containment and excellence does not depend on profit, but it can work.
But we are talking railroads or at least public transport companies. Case in point! Canada had a government owned railroad (Canadian National) and an investor owned railroad (Canadian Pacific) that operated over similar territories for years. Although not exactly alike, they were similar. For years the Canadian Pacific ran circles around the Canadian National. Then, low and behold, the Canadian government had a Thatcher moment. It spun off the Canadian National and privatized it. What has been the result? Today the Canadian National is one of the prime railroad players in North America, in large part because it was unshackled from government bureaucrats.
Again, I come back to a central question that no one wantsto address. What is it about intercity passenger rail that suggests that it should be a ward of the state, i.e. a government agency or a heavily subsidized non-profit? Why is it OK for the airlines to rise or fall on their ability to cover their costs or Greyhound to do the same, but we have to pour billions of dollars into subsidies for passenger rail?
Like another participante in our forums, I wish it weren't so. But it is!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.