Amtrak Poll

Let's liven up this board with the new poll feature. The question is : Do you feel that Amtrak should be restructured or should it be broken up amongst private operators such as Guilford Rail?

Russ

 

Thank-you for your viewpoint, which I agree with. If Amtrak is a service then it will probably never make money. In the same breath, overhead must be cut so at least it may break even.

Russ

 

Hmmm, I'm kind of split here, privatisation in the UK was messed up from the start, rail operations were split too many ways and the giant "money-go-round" system was a farce.

And as for the idea of pulling the plug on the company that underpinned it all without apparently having much of a clue as to what to do afterwards? Hmmm, less said the better!
I don't think i'm overstating it by saying that if they held an election over here now then the present government would be out over their handling of the railways.

Having said that, there are some bright spots, where private initiative & investment has seen more trains running, on more routes, with a newer train fleet. All of which is good, and most of which would not have happened with the pre-privatisation setup.

That said, I'm not against contracting out running the trains to host railroads, I think that *could* lead to more pride in the trains themselves, better train pathing/handling/dispatching (as the railroad would be delaying one of "their" trains and not somebody elses) Small fleet sizes between railroads wouldn't be as much of a problem these days with larger operating railroads. But perhaps the biggest problem would be convincing the larger roads that it's in their interest!

Now having said that, (this is turning into an essay! ) a national identity is something good. Although i'm continually amazed at how often Amtrak changes it's corporate image! So my vote for the first question was to try & keep it all together.

As for subsidies, that's an easy question, decide if each operation is there as a public service or as a money making operation. Most American's I've talked too seem to (at least subconciously) regard subsidy as a Very Bad Thing, whereas roads & airports (where there is no *direct* subsidy of the service) slip past them.

I can see the logic there in splitting ownership/maintainence/investment in the infrastructure (which would remain government owned, as a public asset) and the trains that run on it, that would give an indirect subsidy which would be more politically defensible in the US. The big problem there is that much of Amtrak's mileage is over other railroads.

Sorry for the essay, I could go on but I don't want to bore you all to death!

 

Amtrak started with worn out equipment and insufficient funding and has been trying to catch up ever since. They have been trying to please both the public, the railroads and the politicians and it doesn't work. Perhaps this can be overcome through restructuring if the political interferance is eliminated.

 

If a new gov't group comes and takes over passenger services, they will have to deal with the same problems. BNSF will be good to them. Trains will be run well and dispatched well by them, while UP will not dispatch them as well as some may hope.

The equipment is pretty ratty now, and will only get worse with this hole "Reduced Maintance Cost" stuff that is floating around. Duct Tape. That is the the current future floating around AMTK. If duct tape won't fix it, send it to the Grove... How sad. I can already picture 2 year old P42DCs lined up, unservicable.

I would like to see a new gov't agency, but I do think some routes may need to be eliminated or seriously scaled back. As it is now, even if Amtrak doesn't eliminate some of its services soon, or scale back some of its services then they will just not be able to sustain them. This will be the same if a new organization takes over. It will always be underfunded, so serve what you can well, but areas with little to no ridership should be considered a lost cuase, for now. At least thats what I think...

 

Like others have already said, Amtrak needs to be operated by the govt - not for profit - but as a service to the general public just like Japan, France, and Germany - is class operations. The private sector (ie; NYC-ATSF-SP) tried but couldn't make a go of it so let the Feds operate the psgr trains.

 

Heres another take on this issue. I think we can all agree that intercity passenger rail will never again make a profit in this country, just as it doesn't elsewhere. It logically follows that if such service is to exist it must be subsidized by the government as a public service, just as municipal bus service is. Unlike most bus lines, Amtrak actually generates a significant chunk of revenue, at least half of it's expenses on most routes, as opposed to maybe a quarter for city buses. The question that seems to be floating around out there so often is who should pay the rest and I think that the states served by Amtrak may be the answer. Here in Washington the state Department of Transportation has paid millions of dollars to BNSF for track improvements to allow higher running speeds and increased capacity on the Cascade Corridor between Vancouver BN and Portland OR. The reason for the states willingness to fund these improvements is it will help relieve congestion on Interstate 5 and the other highways. In the Seattle area especially the freeways are full, but there is nowhere to build more. The urban sprawl extends all the way to the mountains and there is no place levt to build more roads, so an alternative is needed. There has recently been a new heavy rail commuter service (the "Sounder"), also largely funded by the state. Perhaps some of the other states can be convinced to pony up and maintain service to their areas.

 

There's nothing wrong with Amtrak as it is. Okay, now that I have all your attention, let me explain. Amtrak's shortfalls seem to have two main causes: 1) a Congress that brushes the issue aside and 2) leadership that believes the whole system lies between Washington D.C. and Boston. What needs to be done to correct this? First off, a government that is willing to help the sitation. Second, managment who will actually invest in long-distance trains. Everyone praised the Acela Express trainsets as Amtrak's savior. Bull****. They didn't run much faster than the old ones, they drained valuable resources from the rest of the system, and drew much negative publicity to the system. Amtrak hasn't invested in long-distance intercity trains since the purchased of the first, last, and only order of Viewliners nearly ten years ago. What Amtrak needs is a much expanded system with modernized equipment. Adding new services doesn't necessarily increase cost as much as one would think. On other words, most of the facilities are in place for a vastly more comprehensive network, and adding a second train on a route won't always double expenses. Get it? (I hope so, I think I just confused myself.... ) What we need is a cash infusion from Congress that will allow for the refurishment of all current equipment, the purchase of additional equipment to allow for suffience capacity on current routes, and the capital to invest in adding new routes. I think you'd be amazed, the route to a profitable Amtrak is expansion, not contraction.

 

What about this concept that has been suggested and ignored many times?

Separate Amtrak's "Operating" costs from its "Capital" costs.

Operating Costs - Allow Amtrak to merely Break-Even(!) at the bottom line for ALL operations. In other words, let profitable routes support marginal, but necessary routes. The operations budget would include personnel salaries, benefits, equipment maintenance, ROW maintenance (shared w/freight rail companies as required), facility leases, and daily operating expenses. Then allow Amtrak Management to make ALL the decisions on how to control this budget, not Congress or appointed Committees!

Capital Costs - Have Congress fund ALL capital expenses, including new equipment, "shared" route upgrades, "owned" route purchase, construction, and/or upgrades, and "owned" facility purchase and/or construction. However, Amtrak Management should present a sound short- and long-term business plan annually to Congress for all capital funds, as would be required of any large corporation by its Board of Directors.

This concept would permit Amtrak to operate as an internally managed corporation, but have its capital expenses publically funded as is done for the Airline Industry with airports, for the Trucking and Bus Industries with roads, and for the Barge Industry with waterways.

[ 07 February 2002, 14:47: Message edited by: Hank Coolidge ]