a thought about privatizing Amtrak

[scott]

Just wanted to ask you all if privatizing "Amtrak" would be so bad after all.

I'm a fan of Amtrak. Of trains in general. Love em. Had lots of good experienced last summer on CZ, CS and EB. Been on great European trains too.

My German friends this morning talked to me about how the German National Railways went private (within the last few years) and how things are beginning now to come around financially, service improving, etc.

We all love trains. I don't think that it's the company Amtrak that we particularly love--unless you work for them--. I think what is important for Amtrak is to, yes, get the money they've been promised by the government, but also to fire surly workers, improve conditions (clean the damned bathrooms!) and eventually look--assuming the gov. starts investing--towards building the network.

Food for thought. What do you think?

Scott

 

[Amtrak Watcher]

As a long-time customer of the German Federal Railway, which has been known as “Die Bahn” since it “went private,” I can confirm that service, and things in general, have improved. But, the railway is not really a private entity in the sense we think of it. It’s something like a cross between the U.S. Postal Service and a consortium of private enterprise. Remembering that there are lots of government subsidies and control throughout Europe, some direct government subsidies remain plus a complicated set of guaranteed loans and corporate subsidies, such as employer-paid monthly passes for their employees. Large portions of the fixed infrastructure, especially in the east, are not part of “Die Bahn.” Also, the whole rail system is tiny by U.S. standards, very dense, new (everything was completely destroyed in WW II), uniform, and is operated and maintained in an environment of year-round agreeable weather, and what looks to me to be relatively short and light weight trains carefully controlled by an immense and elaborate control mechanism. Even with all of these advantages, massive subsidies are still required.

The health of passenger rail is a subject of intense interest to me, and one on which I continue to do lots of research. I’ve learned, for example, that rail infrastructure is very expensive and almost impossible to assign a value to, because of the odd right-of-way shapes (thin corridors all over the country) made possible only by governments, not private entities. It is so expensive and tied up in centuries-old land titles and grants. Nobody knows what rail infrastructure really costs. I’ve also learned that the cost of maintaining rail systems is a function of its age, size, and diversity. Railways are a prime example of so-called “invisible technologies.” An invisible technology, like a telephone, is one that works so well that the enormous details of its construction and maintenance are hidden from public view. I’ve also learned that there are parts of the rail infrastructure in the north east U.S. that date back almost to the Civil War; that Amtrak trains routinely go through tunnels more than 100 years old, and there are valves in those tunnels that are completely unknown in their function and too old to move.

I have never seen evidence that a national rail system, or a postal service with universal access, or a highway system, or a flood control system, or even an air network can operate without huge subsidies. All industrial societies since the Industrial Revolution have routinely paid for massive public projects, and continue to pay for their maintenance, because they benefit the public. Though only a portion of the population may ride the trains, the whole society benefits because those people are not doing something more destructive, e.g. driving their cars.

I don’t know how to fix Amtrak. Perhaps we should make it a management and coordinating facility for private operators (or states) operating profitable routes, as it operates unpopular routes and maintains the infrastructure.

I am also a long-time user of the British rail system, which has become all but unusable since it was “privatized.”

The way the U.S. government continues to deal with Amtrak, and the aging U.S. infrastructure generally, is a source of anxious amusement for me. It’s a complicated mess that needs the close and sustained attention of experts.

 

[EmpireBuilderFan]

As much as I like Amtrak (and I really do like Amtrak), I personally don't see a big problem with privatizing passenger train routes if done with a few things in mind. First, the private carrier must maintain current levels of service, both in number of trains on the route and amenities on the train, or improve service. Second, the carrier's ticketing system must be able to integrate with Amtrak's system, so a passenger can get on an Amtrak train and transfer to this other carrier's train, much like inter-airline transfers. Finally, if a private carrier doesn't want a route (like most long-distance trains), Amtrak will be allowed to keep running the route with enough money from the government to run it properly. Enough of this "gripe about every penny Congress gives Amtrak, but give the airlines and highways a blank check" garbage.

Oh, one more thing I just thought of: any carrier that wants to run on the Northeast Corridor will have to assume a percentage of the Corridor's operation and maintenance costs based on the number of trains they run on the Corridor versus Amtrak (or other carriers). How many private carriers are going to want that expense?

 

[Amtrak Watcher]

Seamless service is the key idea from EmpireBuilderFan, and suggests some kind of scheme where private passenger rail operators together with Amtrak could operate a regulated, seamless system similar to what the U.S. airlines had to endure before deregulation. Amtrak would become something like the U.S. Postal Service: a government corporation that provides “universal” services, and manages other entities like the USPS does with FedEx who provide the profitable services. Just as with everything else in which the general public benefits, the U.S. government and the states need to understand why passenger rail should be treated no differently from the airlines and the highways.

As one who is intensely interested in Amtrak’s survival (or whatever replaces it), I do more than my share of letter writing and phone calling to the Congress and the various states. Among the sea of computer generated responses and innocuous confirmations of “support” I receive, I get the occasional letter, written by an aid (a college student perhaps), disclosing a vague prejudice against passenger rail. Rail is seen by some in leadership as old-fashioned, slow, and quaint.

After what Amtrak did after September 11, 2001 to bail huge chunks of the U.S. economy out of the fire while the airlines flustered about, I remain astonished that Congress has not changed its attitudes. Lots of strange stuff goes on in Washington, and transportation policy is only on of them.

 

[tubaallen]

I don't have a huge problem with privatizing in general. However, I am concerned that in that privatization, when the private company can not make money, it will just end up dying. This is America, where we are overrun by stubborn republicans who don't want to support ANYTHING. Also, even if this were to work, I am afraid we would lose our long distance trains anyway. I am not sure what is best, but any changes concern me. I know that Mr. Gunn is working hard to save money. I have already seen many changes...including a PLS I had over the summer on the Empire Builder now working as an LSA between CHI and STL. Because of these changes, I didn't get to work over Christmas, which I was personally sad about, but glad for the company that it is trying to save money.

 

[Amfleet]

I think that in a way it may help Amtrak. Think about it. The airlines are privately run and seem to get money in a snap from congress. This could be true if Amtrak is privitized? It would allow Amtrak to file for bankruptcy and hopefully it's 30 years in the red ink would be erased during the process. If Amtrak did go into privitization it should be kept as a whole and not split up by routes or corridors. The company should also keep the name Amtrak along with its logo and paint scheme. We will se what happens, but it's an idea.

 

[jccollins]

Amtrak is and should remain a "government" agency. The only problem is it needs to be PROPERLY FUNDED like other government programs/agencies. Amtrak should be thought of as similar to highways in the sense that it is a PUBLIC SERVICE, it should not be a company expected to rake in profits. If Amtrak is expected to make a profit, why don't we expect the motor highways and motor freeways to make profits??? They "lose" a lot more money each year than Amtrak does! Why don't we just privatize highways and freeways too while we're busy trying to privatize Amtrak.

:blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink:

 

[AlanB]

While I’m not totally opposed to the idea of privatization, I don’t really think that it is the correct way to go. If America is to privatize, then there are many hurdles to overcome and we certainly can’t use the plan that England tried. Yet sadly many of those who are calling for privatization, are basically proposing that very same plan with only slight variations. They seem to think that just because we’re American’s, we can do better than England did, even with the same flawed plan.

Now here are some of the problems that would have to be overcome, if America were to privatize. First and foremost, as a few others have already mentioned, all current Amtrak routes need to be maintained. In fact we really need even more than we currently have. While there have been a few companies that have expressed interest in taking over some Amtrak routes, those companies only want the lucrative short haul routes. Routes like the NE Corridor, the California state runs, and some in the Chicago area.

They are not interested in the Empire Builder’s and California Zephyr’s of Amtrak. Yet those types of trains are essential to thousands of people. In addition to only wanting the lucrative routes, the companies don’t want to take over the infrastructure. They already know that maintaining the NE Corridor tracks is what keeps Amtrak from making a mint off of the Acela Express trains. Where Congress to fully pay for all infrastructure work on the NE Corridor, the profits off of the NE Corridor trains would probably allow Amtrak to come close to breaking even on all train operations in the country.

Yes, even Acela technically looses money when one factors in the cost of maintaining the infrastructure. Now while I would love to see Congress fully fund the NE Corridor infrastructure, I don’t think that someone else should be dispatching the corridor. Then we just get into the problems that Amtrak has in the rest of the country, always being late. This also brings us to the next problem with privatization.

Unlike England, the government does not own most of train tracks in this country. The tracks are privately owned. If you try to take them over, those companies will scream bloody murder. You would also have severe constitutional issues, with numerous legal challenges. If you don’t take over the tracks, then you encounter the following problems.

The freight RR’s expect to be paid for the use of their tracks. Right now, thanks to the agreement that the freight RR’s signed with Congress when Amtrak was created, Amtrak currently pays a pittance for that use. This is one reason that the freight RR’s don’t like Amtrak all that much, and frequently delay the passenger trains in favor of their moneymaking freight trains.

Any new private operators would most likely have to pay far more for the right to use the tracks. This would effectively price them right out of the market. Either that or the Federal Government would have to subsidize the private operators, and trust me that subsidy would be far greater than the 1.2 Billion that Congress is currently considering.

Finally, and this could really kill privatization, only Amtrak has the right to run trains on the Freight Railroad’s tracks. This was another concession that the freight companies gave to Congress. While Amtrak does negotiate and work with the freight RR’s when they want to start a new train up, the simple fact is that the freight RR’s must grant Amtrak the right to run the train.

If Amtrak and a freight company can’t decide on how or when to run a passenger train, then the FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) has the right to step in and order the freight company to comply. Case in point, the long running disputes between Amtrak and Guilford Freight over the Downeaster service. Guilford was ordered to allow Amtrak access to their tracks. Now they are fighting over the speeds that Amtrak can run at. Guilford will loose this battle too.

However, the FRA cannot order a freight company to allow a private operator to access the tracks. It is thanks to Amtrak’s right of passage that both California and Maine turned to Amtrak to run their trains. They didn’t call Amtrak because they thought that Amtrak would do a good job, they called because Amtrak could get time slots from the freight RR’s.

This right of passage is not transferable, at least not without the consent of the freight RR’s. That right is something that they are very unlikely to ever grant again. The freight companies prefer the devil they know, as opposed to a bunch of random operators.

So any privatization would have to contend with paying very large fees to the freight companies, in order to gain access to the tracks. Even then on some of the busiest freight routes, a private operator may never get access. Why would a freight company want to side track several of their lucrative freight trains, for just one passenger train? Unless of course that access fee is large enough to compensate their loss on the freight. No private operator can afford that fee.

Bottom line here is privatization will be very difficult if not impossible with the above circumstances.

 

[AlanB]

Amtrak is and should remain a "government" agency.  The only problem is it needs to be PROPERLY FUNDED like other government programs/agencies.  Amtrak should be thought of as similar to highways in the sense that it is a PUBLIC SERVICE, it should not be a company expected to rake in profits.  If Amtrak is expected to make a profit, why don't we expect the motor highways and motor freeways to make profits???  They "lose" a lot more money each year than Amtrak does!  Why don't we just privatize highways and freeways too while we're busy trying to privatize Amtrak.  :blink:   :blink:   :blink:   :blink:   :blink:   :blink:   :blink:   :blink:   :blink:   :blink:

I would also agree with JCCollins here, why don't we expect the highways to make a profit? For that matter why don't we expect the schools, police, and fire departments to make a profit? The answer is because those things are necessary services that the public needs. The government's responsibility is to provide its citizens the services they need.

For that matter why don't why expect our airlines to make a profit? If one factors in the cost of the Air Traffic Control system, the grants to build new airports and/or runways, the airlines don't make a profit. Despite all that help, plus over 15 billion dollars in direct grants after 9/11, we still have airlines filing for bankruptcy.

Yet Congress is crying over giving Amtrak 1.2 Billion. They are crying over having spent close to 25 Billion over 30 years on Amtrak. We just handed the airlines over 15B last year alone, why aren't they crying over that? It's money that went down the drain, since two of the airlines receiving money are now bankrupt.

 

[jccollins]

VERY well said, Alan! I learned quite a bit from your last two posts too - thank you.

 

[scott]

Thanks for all the info and opinions, guys. Hey Allen, you sure know your stuff!

I agree that following England's lead would be a disaster. The German or Canadian model would be possible to adopt, perhaps. Or some variant thereof.

Why does the government bail out the airlines? Because nearly everyone uses them, at some point or another. It's all about visibility. That's the way politicians work.

I had to chuckle at Tubaalen's comment about Republicans. How true. They only want to spend $80 Billion + on a war that will do nothing to stop Al Qaida but effectively stop our current friends from supporting us in the future.

But, no more politics. Despite the fact that we get those oh-so-personally written letters from our leaders aboout their support of Amtrak, the fact iis that Amtrak supporters are helping to keep it alive.

 

[tp49]

Looking at things from the aspect of Amtrak being run like a public agency or like a private business I think there should be aspects of both involved. There is a demonstrable need in certain localities where Amtrak is the only form of transportation available and in those places the service needs to be preserved.

However, privitization has one immediate difficulty and one difficulty that would come along at some point post-privitization.

The obvious difficulty of privitization is of course that if I were to run a buainess I would want to be able to cut what I felt were unprofitible services in order to meet my bottom line and placate my shareholders. Under any privitization scheme there are bound to be numerous federal regulations placed upon me in order to preserve some level of existing service and probably restrictions on what I could charge customers. Unless there are federal subsidies enticing me to operate a route why would any businessman in his right mind want to do so as a lot of the decision making he would have to make would be more or less out of his hands.

Next, at some point post-privitization some form of deregulation will happen (it did in the airline and power industries) which would allow private operators to operate under more capitalistic principles (supply and demand). Thus, an effect would be skyrocketing fares in places such as the Upper Midwest and Rocky Mountain region (Denver and Salt Lake City being possible exceptions due to some competition via air travel) or diminishing service or no service at all.

If this sounds farmiliar it is in the post-deregulation airline world. Many places that had airline service lost it after deregulation because fare controls in place for smaller markets were lifted and instead of having several airlines serving a city charging $200 they were now charging $500-600 for the same flight and those several airlines became only one and in some cases all the airlines pulled out leaving places with no service based on their lack or profitibility. For any of you who might live in Rent stabalized apartments the concept is similar.

Most likely privitization if implemented at all would have the most success in the corridors but even then to be truly successful there has to be some type of competition to make it viable. There would also have to be some sort of regulation or government subsidies in order to keep the new private operators from passing their increased costs for using the tracks along to the passengers.

 

[Amtrak Watcher]

For those interested in the issues, a good book to start with is Vranich, Joseph, "Derailed: what went wrong and what to do about America's passenger trains." It is a bit technical, but a good introduction to the pre-Amtrak era, how Amtrak got started, the agreements it has with the frieght railways, and some introductory matter on passenger service in other countries.

 

[AlanB]

I’ll be the first to admit that Amtrak does indeed have problems. Some of those problems are directly related to the deal that Congress cooked up with the Freight RR’s. Amtrak’s past presidents have created some of the problems, and some of the problems are the direct result of a fickle Congress that can never decide if they really want an Amtrak. Thankfully the current president David Gunn is trying to fix and work through some of those problems.

That said, I can only hope that Joseph Vranich has correctly stated the history of the formation of Amtrak. While I have not read the book, I find myself in disagreement with most of the views that Mr. Vranich’s has expressed in the media. Here and there I’ve seen a few ideas from him that may have some merit, but overall he has been very anti-Amtrak. Anyone reading his book needs to understand that this is a former disgruntled Amtrak employee. Mr. Vranich and Amtrak did not part under the best of circumstances.

When Amtrak made decisions and went in a different direction than Mr. Vranich thought it should, he didn’t stay and keep fighting to prevail. He resigned and left in a huff. Then instead of continuing to try to fix what is broken even from the outside, he decided that the whole company should just be dissolved. That to me is the definition of a disgruntled employee.

One thing that he constantly points out is the fact that Amtrak does not always put trains where the market is. Instead they put trains in places that please politicians. Is that Amtrak’s fault? I think not. That’s thanks to the whim of a fickle Congress. If you need to keep a politician happy, just to get your money, then that’s what you do. Adding routes to a Congressman’s home state is Amtrak’s only way of lobbying.

Amtrak doesn’t have the lobbyist’s that the airlines and trucking industries pay billions to each year. Those same lobbyists’s then grease the wheels of government. Since Amtrak has no lobbyist’s and no dedicated source of funding, like the airlines and highways, they do the only thing they can. They put trains where it buys votes. Amtrak should not be condemned for this, Congress should. Mr. Vranich should be out lobbying for Amtrak, not condemning them.

He should be fighting for a dedicated fund for trains. He should be fighting to get Congress to stop playing games with Amtrak. Along the way, if he’s worried about Amtrak wasting the money, then he can also fight to impose new fiscal controls within Amtrak. Perhaps even supervised by an outside agency. But above all he should be fighting to fix Amtrak. Tearing it down and making passenger trains a free market enterprise will either fail, or deprive hundreds of thousands of people the train service they need and deserve.

Well that’s my 2 cents on this. Or should I make it 3 cents for inflation?

Please note that the above reflects my personal views on Amtrak and Mr. Vranich. The fact that I am a moderator here on the Amtrak Unlimited BB does not mean that the above necessarily reflects the views of this website as a whole, nor it’s owner.

 

[Viewliner]

VERY well said, Alan! I learned quite a bit from your last two posts too - thank you.

Yes, Alan Thank You I learned a lot from your insightful opinions as well. B)

 

[tp49]

I just found a great cost cutting measure for Amtrak. Cutting the salaried people in their in house lobbying office. Since they are not doing a very good (or even a good) job they are dead weight. If anything with Amtrak should be privitized it should be their lobbyists.

 

[tubaallen]

Eh, I wouldn't assume that the lobbyists aren't doing a good job. I mean, well, I guess if your definition of good job is getting Amtrak all the money it needs. But I am willing to bet that it is them who have kept it alive this far. I do agree though that Gunn seems to be doing a lot of the political work himself now though.

Also, another thought.....

Privatizing Amtrak. Hmmmm. What does this make you think of? How about the days before Amtrak was created? And what was the status of passenger rail before Amtrak was created? No one made money, so everyone wanted out! I just don't think it will work. Government better just get their asses in gear and realize that we have to pay for things.

 

[Amtrak Watcher]

AlanB very clearly expresses the flavor of the Vranich book; he is clearly anti-Amtrak and comes across as a disgruntled former employee. Nevertheless, he offers a good tutorial on the technical and economic issues for people like me not familiar with railroads, and frightened over the prospects of a world without Amtrak. In the course of my research on this important and very complex matter, I have noted that most of the books, reports and references come from people with some kind of ax to grind. The discussion needs to be tempered by authors and researchers from the “other side” – the friendly side. Can anyone suggest some?

 

[AlanB]

Eh, I wouldn't assume that the lobbyists aren't doing a good job.  I mean, well, I guess if your definition of good job is getting Amtrak all the money it needs.  But I am willing to bet that it is them who have kept it alive this far.  I do agree though that Gunn seems to be doing a lot of the political work himself now though.

Tubaallen,

I agree to some extent that lobbyists have helped to keep Amtrak alive. However, there is a big distinction between Amtrak's lobbyists and the airlines and trucking industry.

Amtrak's lobbyists are grass routes organizations like NARP. They are organizations without tremendous sums of money. On the other hand, there is no grass routes organization for the airlines. These are paid lobbyists. These lobbyists are paid huge sums of money for their work. Plus a lot of that money, through one method or another, ends up in the hands of the politicians.

Just think of what NARP could do for Amtrak if they had half the budget that the airlines lobbyists do. David Gunn wouldn't be fighting for $1.2B right now; he'd be wallowing in $2B.

Also, another thought.....Privatizing Amtrak.  Hmmmm.  What does this make you think of?  How about the days before Amtrak was created?  And what was the status of passenger rail before Amtrak was created?  No one made money, so everyone wanted out!  I just don't think it will work.  Government better just get their asses in gear and realize that we have to pay for things.

You are correct about the reasons that led to the creation of Amtrak, and I still don't think that privatization will work nor is it a good idea. However, some of the conditions and climate around trains has changed from the late 60's. Back then the car was the hot new thing and everyone wanted one. Now I'm not saying that people still don't want cars today.

However thanks to the horribly over-crowded highways, people are once again starting to think of trains. Train ridership continues to increase, even during the past year when airline and car travel was down across the boards.

Now there still isn't enough of a base, and there never may be, to allow trains to make money. I think that in this country they will always require a subsidy. However given time, proper funding, and proper management it may be possible to reduce the overall subsidy. Amtrak will always need government help for major purchases, like new train cars.

Here in NYC, where there is probably the highest population density in the US, our trains still require a huge subsidy. Yes perhaps part of the problem is that we keep the price of a subway ride low enough so that most people can afford it. But what about the commuter RR's, they could be paying more of the share. Yet it is simply accepted that both the city and the state have to provide these services.

Just to add insult to injury, not only do my taxes as a New Yorker help to subsidize the MTA. Every time I cross one of the major NYC bridges or tunnels, close to half of my $3.50 one-way toll goes into the subway's budget.

My point being, that if we don't have enough population density here in NYC for our trains, this country will never have enough population density for Amtrak to make a profit.

 

[Bill Haithcoat]

As one who was already 27 years old when Amtrak began, let me ramble a little here..........I follow very closely the thoughts tuballen and AlanB have expressed.

I, too, am very , very skeptical about privitization....having lived through it. Times were really bad back then.....there was ZERO appreciation of trains by anybody.....

There finally is some interest in trains, they are a little more respected today.thanks in part to the grossly overcrowded highways and even of terrorism. In fact, respect for this mode of travel began going up a little higher even when Amtrak was formed.Many people did not know passenger trains even still existed. Many people had written off the trains by the mid-50's---I know---I heard them.

Private ownership was a disaster before, I can only think it would be so again...there were no national standards,no conception of overnight trains needing sleepers, all trains of any length needing a diner....I just cannot imagine going back to that, glorious as it was in various pockets here and there.

OF course, today, if anybody tried it I guess it would be understood they would have to do a better job of it than in the past...but it seems a fact that trains do not make money anywhere, even in the crowded density of NYC as Alan says.

With a national system we have the means to move equipment around all over the country as needed for special movements, special events, etc. In the "old days" it took a certain amount of red tape to borrow equipment from other lines, etc,etc. THIS IS A BIGGER ISSUE than one might realize---interline operations, moving equipment around when a lot more people rode the trains there were a lot more special movements than today. With one national corporation, we sort of take that for granted today.

 

[tubaallen]

Alan....I completely agree with everything you just said...wholeheartedly. I hope you didn't think I was disagreeing with those points...it sounds like you are just backing up what I said, for the most part.

The only other thing I would like to add is that nobody makes a profit on public rail service. The way you mentioned about "this country" made me think you are saying that some places make money on their rail service. To my knowledge, the closest to that is the bullet trains in Japan, which may or may not make money....the answer depends on your source.

 

[tp49]

tub,

Having worked with lobbiests in the past I view a lobbying effort as successful when you get what you ask for, they also serve the purpose of cultivating a positive image of their client to those they are lobbying. Amtrak has lobbyists on staff who are paid to do this job and it is obvious that they are not getting anywhere with the people they are supposed to be and it is also plainly evident from the words of key policitians on the Hill that they are not presenting the right image.

I think it would be unfair to completely blame Amtrak's paid lobbiests but currently Amtrak is the dog sitting under the table getting the scraps Congress is throwing at them. As late as October of last year Amtrak had the position of Governmental Affairs Director open. In layman's terms this is their Chief Lobbiest. That late in the budget game it is difficult for a new person to take a job and then fight for what is needed, there has to be some time for establishing contacts and schmoozing people.

The main reason Amtrak is surviving today besides David Gunn's hiring which gives the railroad credibility is political pressure from areas that should they lose service would not have many transportation options (included in this is NARP and people writing and calling their elected representatives). What I stated in a previous post about the airline industry and deregulation being the fuel for that argument. Some of this country's most rural areas have the most powerful people in Washington representing them.

 

[tubaallen]

Eh, okay...that makes sense. However, do you think we would be exactly where we are today if it weren't for the lobbyists? Do you think Amtrak would be here today? It sounds like you're saying yes. I don't know...maybe you're right...I just wasn't sure. If you are right, then you are definitely right....Amtrak should cut the dead weight of the paid lobbyists....either that or replace them with ones that will get something accomplished.

 

[AlanB]

The only other thing I would like to add is that nobody makes a profit on public rail service.  The way you mentioned about "this country" made me think you are saying that some places make money on their rail service.  To my knowledge, the closest to that is the bullet trains in Japan, which may or may not make money....the answer depends on your source.

Tubaallen,

No when I said this country, I was referring to the fact that there are those who do believe that we can make money on trains in this country. As for the bullet train, my understanding is that it covers its operating expenses, but not it's capital expenses.

If the airlines can't make a real profit, despite all of the subsides (even if we don't call them subsides), then there is no way that Amtrak can ever do so. There is also no way that a private company can do so. The best that we can ever hope for is that Amtrak one day might, just might, cover operating expenses.

However unless Congress and the White House are there every day of every month of every year, with the right amount of money for capital expenses, then Amtrak has no hope of ever covering it's operating expenses. The fleet, the roadbed, the signal systems must all be in tip top shape in order for Amtrak to ever have hope of fully covering it's operating expenses.

You can't put passengers in the seats, when trains are 8 hours late, they break down, they have no heat or a/c, and they look old & grungy. Scenery alone isn't going to sell tickets.

The biggest problem here in my mind, is that in an effort to save passenger trains, supporters of trains promised President Richard Nixon (who wanted nothing to do with trains), that in 5 years time Amtrak would make money so he would sign the bill. No government entity makes money; it was the biggest myth, the biggest lie ever told.

30 years latter that lie, that myth continues. It's time for it to die! No transportation industry in this world makes money. If buses had to pay for the full value of their use and damage to the roads, the companies would be out of business. If truckers had to pay for the full value of their use and damage of the road, they wouldn't exist. If airlines had to pay for the full value of the airports and the air traffic control system, they would not exist. The airlines can barely make it right now, even with all of their subsides and grants.

Heck, even the interstate highways that most of us take for granted, would not exist but for President Eisenhower and the federal government. Neither the states, nor the general unorganized public could afford to build the interstate highway system.

It's time for our politicians to bury the lie and have a funeral for the myth; public transportation will never ever make money!

 

[scott]

Just think how great it would be if the Bush Admin was willing to pump into our national rail system just a fragment of that 80 billion (or 100 billion, 120 billion...?) needed for the "war" against Iraq.