Amtrak from a conservative point of view

[neroden]

The present model of running LD passenger trains on the rails of totally uninterested freight railroads is fundamentally flawed. More than 30 years of history shows that it will never achieve any sort of reliability, preventing the trains from being an attractive alternative for large segments of the market.

This could be solved in a number of ways:

1) Seize them: A public take over of the infrastructure. I don't see any political will for that anytime in the next millenia, and it would quite possibly be unconstittutional too.

It's both legal and constitutional. And in fact *it's actually been done before*. Google USRA.
You do have to pay them current fair value for the infrastructure. Basic eminent domain. The lack of political will to do this is simply a sign of how degenerate, corrupt, and generally defective our government is these days. Clement Atlee nationalized the British railroads in the 1940s, and pretty much every other country in the world has taken control of the tracks since then, *because it works better*.

Heck, even Wick Moorman, while chairman of NS, has openly suggested having the government own the tracks, and having the freight haulers as tenants. It relieves the freight haulers of property taxes, for one thing -- probably improves their profits. NS is in this position on the North Carolina line quite comfortably.

But we have goofball privatization ideologues in too many positions of power.

2) Buy them off: User fees/incentives high enough that the host RR's actually put priority in the passenger trains. This seems to be feasible in high density corridors like the Capitol Corridor in California, but for the LD's it would further tank their economy, possibly beyond the realistic.

There is no amount high enough. The problem is a bad attitude by the host railroads. They're being paid more than enough right now.

3) Whip them: Strengthen the must carry mandate and the penalties for neglecting the passenger trains drastically. Aside from lack of political will you might run into the constitution again here.

Completely constitutional, obviously. But bad attitude would cause problems, again,

4) Make it their responsibility: Outsourcing LD's to the relevant host railroad, whose profits will then be dependent on how efficiently they can run the trains.

They had a bad attitude last time they did this, in the 1960s.
I should give another point of history: England used to have lots of private toll roads, owned by individual private operators. It ended up being such a disaster that they were nearly all nationalized *in the Victorian era*. The ground transportation routes -- whether they are roads, railroad tracks, rivers, or canals -- are a natural monopoly, and one with massive positive externalities for people who you can't toll -- for these two reasons, they work best when operated by democratically elected governments.

 

[siberianmo]

Chiming in with my 2-cents:


However, in the interests of Full Disclosure - I am firmly in the camp of Joseph Vranich through his books “Supertrains: Solutions to America’s Transportation Gridlock” -
“Derailed: What Went Wrong and What to Do About America’s Passenger Trains” - and - “End of the Line: The Failure of Amtrak Reform and the Future of America’s
Passenger Trains.” Also, add me to the list of those supporting Survival of the Fitttest (a term first used by Herbert Spencer after reading “On the Origins of Species,” by
Charles Darwin. (phew, done with that!)

Now to my thoughts:

As usually is the case with me, I have to read through lengthy articles at least twice in order to fully grasp the point(s) which greatly helps in keeping things in perspective.

Without making my comments a book report, I found the article of interest with some nostalgia thrown in, given that I am a “product” of pre-WWII and the passenger railroads
through the late 40’s and well into the 50’s. Of course as a youngster, mine was all thrill with no negatives that come to mind -hmmmm, perhaps the super warmth of those
heavyweight coaches of the long gone B&O and PRR would qualify for the latter.

I was particularly turned off by the political bent of the article - which of course was gist of it all. Conservatives vs Liberals vs Left handed vs Right handed vs Blue eyed vs . . .
ooooops, off on a siding. Sorry. My point? We are and have been so immersed in political this ’n that since Moby Dick was Minnow, that for me, things political become an
immediate turn-off. That probably explains a bit why I must read and re-read “things.”

Supporting passenger trains does not necessarily mean one is an Amtrak proponent. Amtrak could “go away” as far as I am concerned but only with a seamless move into
the world of private enterprise. Yeah, I got it - wishful thinking. But I am typing this, so gimme a break! Is there anyone who really believes Congress is a better “manager”
than those in the private world? Sure, sure - we all know Congress does not sit at the helm in the board (bored) room - but you really do not believe they have no say in the
seating scheme, do you?

While Mr. Vranich’s books may be dated, the relevance is still there. If rail travel is to be continue, privatization simply cannot be ignored. And of course there is a profit aspect
to it all. But what if - what if? - passenger rail could be made more efficient, more comfortable and priced accordingly? Then no matter the livery (paint scheme) of the
locomotives and cars I would bet my few remaining two dollar bills that most of us could care less regarding Amtrak and the unions with strangle holds on we the taxpayers.
Yeah, stranglehold. Read up on what it takes to fire someone - or hire - or to officially admonish an employee - or the benefits for being let go through this or that reason.
There is not sufficient space (or band width) to permit more on this! Read up on what it would take to start your own passenger railroad. I would entitle the book, "How to Gag
a Healthy Maggot."

You see, some of us still believe in “pay as you go,” that’s me. Have I always been in that position? Hardly. But the idea of earning one’s keep or paying for services really
does not upset me, especially if those services are really more along the lines of option as opposed to necessity. The travel portion of a trip is the fun of it all for me, whereas I
would think those who travel by air feel far differently. Sure, there are those who may truly depend upon rail travel. For those folks, help would be available. I know it would
not be that simple - just think of the folly going on with Voter ID. We need nineteen different types of ID in order to get on an airplane (well, maybe not nineteen . . . ) but just
one’s word at the voting booth? Really!?!

I try very hard not to paint with a broad brush, which the authors did quite well. If I am to be categorized, mine is along the lines of conservatism. But I am not a card-carrying
“anything” in the political scheme, but it would be a snowy day in hell before I would vote for . . . Oooooops. All conservatives and all Republicans and all pay as you go types
are not against Amtrak. What I am for has to do with spending taxpayer provided funds wisely, striving to turn a profit at every line item in the budget planning process, retaining
only those who demonstrate willingness to support the policies of the company and perhaps first and foremost, listening to those of us who pay the fares. Just follow the Amtrak
literature, including on-line promotions and ads. Oh, if only Amtrak could do as they advertise. "If wishes were horses (beggars would ride) . . . .”

For as long as I have the health and ability to pay, I will continue with my rail travels with hopes that the positives will outweigh the negatives. But mine is not “supporting Amtrak,”
it is all about supporting my desire to enjoy being on the rails - no matter who runs it.

Time out - I have to read what I have typed.

Okay - that’s it!

 

[jebr]

Moderator note: please keep political comments on topic to Amtrak/rail service. So far we're okay; this is just a preemptive warning to not have the discussion to go towards non-Amtrak political discussion.

 

[Ryan]

Voter ID is unrelated to Amtrak and you're dead wrong for obvious reasons that you should do some research on.

Also, forcing line breaks is a real pain in the neck to read:



On topic, what exactly do you mean by "pay as you go". You mean a balanced budget? That's a horrible idea for equally obvious and unrelated ideas, but it's also not important to the question at hand. The question at hand is (at least as I understand it) "Is passenger rail worthy of public subsidy money"?

The only obvious answer to that is yes. If we're going to subsidse roads, and we're going to subsidize air travel, we should be subsidizing passenger rail.

With that settled, the question becomes public or private? Again for me the answer is obvious. Whatever subsidy money (i.e. our tax dollars) gets poured into passenger rail should go towards providing that service, not towards profits to line the pockets of some private company.

Is the Amtrak model the perfect right way to do it? Maybe not, and there's space for a healthy debate there. If you do use the Amtrak model, can it be executed more efficiently as to be a good steward of the tax dollars it receives? Of course. The same could probably be said of anything that tax money is spent on. There's room for a healthy debate about how Amtrak could be better managed as well.

But the private industry fairy isn't going to make everything better. Sure, they'll be successful in some high-demand markets, and I wish them nothing but the best. But they'll be the FedEx to Amtrak's USPS, delivering a letter to the middle of nowhere for half a buck, because we've decided as a nation that being able to move paper to all corners of the nation at a reasonable fee is something worth investing our money in.

 

[Eric S]

Thank you, Ryan, you said it better than I would have.

 

[Ryan]

Typing on the iPad while on the train forces me to be brief.

 

[siberianmo]

For Ryan;

I have no intentions of elevating your blood pressure more than apparently it is.

However, "dead wrong," prove it? "Obvious" to whom? And I am educated. Context? Perhaps reading the entirety of my comments would enlighten you a bit regarding the analogy used.

Pay as you go? Self-explanatory to me. There's nary a mention of "balanced budget," quite an extrapolation there.

I could go on and on - but will not.

We all are entitled to our oh-pin-yuns, even me. I said what I meant and mean what I say; or something like that. Whether one agrees or not is certainly an indisputable

right in the USA.

Now for the comment from the forum moderator: A response to a political topic is somehow construed as being political? Amazing!

I am a rail advocate - just not an Amtrak excuse-maker.

Later . . .

 

[jis]

I think the issue of public sector vs. private sector is not as black and white, cut and dried as it is made out to be.

There is a case to be made for the mobilization of additional private investment in an activity that may still be primarily managed in the public sector. Indeed the entire defence establishment runs in this fashion Train operations have been successfully contracted out in many countries all voer the world. Can we find some cases where it did not work too well? Of course. But then again, can we find some amounts of waste, fraud and mismanagement in the public sector operations in some places? Of course to that too. But neither of those creates a cut and dried case against managing things with that as a component of the big picture. I believe there is room for enabling and mobilizing private investment in the operation of rail passenger service thus increasing the size of the voerall pie significantly. Will the private shareholders make a profit from all that? Maybe, maybe not. Depends. But on the whole it is likely that more resources will become available to throw at the problem of running more passenger trains.

Hey countries that have been labeled socialist like India and the Eastern Block are all doing this with some level of success. It is only in the home of the free that there seems to be this eternal urge to have the thing wholly government controlled these days. Fascinating to say the least.

 

[CHamilton]

Just a useful reminder : At this weekend's meeting in Indianapolis, Jim Mathews, NARP president, described his nationwide travels and summed it up by saying 'people of all political stripes want trains.'

 

[Ryan]

However, "dead wrong," prove it? "Obvious" to whom? And I am educated. Context? Perhaps reading the entirety of my comments would enlighten you a bit regarding the analogy used.

Obvious to anyone paying attention. When politicians openly admit that Voter ID rules are about voter suppression, it's a slam dunk that they're nothing more than un-American BS. I'll abandon the topic since it has no relevancy to Amtrak, but invite you to start a thread about it if you're genuinely interested in having a fact-based discussion about the issue.

Pay as you go? Self-explanatory to me. There's nary a mention of "balanced budget," quite an extrapolation there.

It's obviously not self-explanatory to me, which is why I asked you to clarify. Rather than clarify, you're rather give me a hard time about it, which tells me most of what I need to know about your desire for an honest conversation.

Now for the comment from the forum moderator: A response to a political topic is somehow construed as being political? Amazing!

It's not rocket surgery. Political topics as they relate to Amtrak are fine. Blathering on about Voter ID has nothing to do with Amtrak and isn't OK.

I think the issue of public sector vs. private sector is not as black and white, cut and dried as it is made out to be.

...

Hey countries that have been labeled socialist like India and the Eastern Block are all doing this with some level of success. It is only in the home of the free that there seems to be this eternal urge to have the thing wholly government controlled these days. Fascinating to say the least.

I agree completely with the former, and I did a poor job of letting my zeal for the perfect overshadow my recognition that we live here in the real world on the latter.

Here in the real world, there is definitely a space for private concerns to move in and provide rail service here in the US.

FEC is something of a special case, where they may not actually make money and instead use their railroad operations as something of a loss leader to make even more money in the real estate business in the grand Flaglerian tradition. They're doing something that the government would/could never do, and even if they do make something of a profit on the rail side of things, that's a fair reward for the rest that they're taking. I wholly support their efforts and wish them nothing but the best.

Ed Ellis and the Hoosier State is a better example of my thoughts that in a perfect world, the government would be doing exactly what he's doing and plowing the profits back into the overall rail service. Here in the real world, that just isn't going to happen. Amtrak just doesn't have the ability to pull off the kind of service that Ed is offering. They don't have the vision and the management to make it happen, and even if they did, Congress likely won't give them the money to do it. Rightly or wrongly (and I'm not sure which, to be honest), spending a little more to provide a true "first class" service that loses less money overall isn't in Congress' DNA. Should it be? Not sure. Either way, they don't now, and so we need people like Ed to step in and provide that service. Overall, it increases the profile of rail travel and gets more butts in seats, which is a net good.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

In my own experience here, I've learned that I'm not quite the know-it-all about Amtrak's problems and their solutions that I thought I was. And the obverse, that Amtrak ain't as stupid as they seemed when I was basically ignorant of their situation. So when I see posts alleging that private operators would be better, no if's or but's about it, I know it's either someone naive like I used to be, or an ideologue, or both -- there's no conflict between those two characterizations.

Anyway, why is this a good time to trash Amtrak? When it's doing better than it ever has in its 42 years?

It needs a lot more equipment and a lot more money to make BIG changes. But what has Boardman/Amtrak/FRA/the Stimulus done wrong?

Some of what they are doing right:

* Amtrak has been making solid ridership gains over 7 years, mostly thanks to salvaging 90+ cars from the wreck yard to increase capacity.

* Amtrak is standardizing electric locomotives on the NEC with one model of next generation efficient equipment.

* Replacing last of heritage rust bucket equipment and modestly (all it can afford) adding to fleet of sleepers.

* Getting new diesel locomotives and (thru state ownership) new bi-level equipment for the Midwest corridors, which will cascade a small supply of Horizon cars for use elsewhere.

* Gradually improving farebox return (revenues as share of costs) to more than 90%.

* Modestly improving the on-time performance.

* Steadily adding Wi-Fi to cover most passengers.

* Switching to electronic ticketing.

* Upgrading the reservation system.

* Working with states to improve various corridors -- the Vermonter route, the New Haven-Springfield shuttle, the Empire Corridor stretch from south of Albany to Schenectady (to improve 6 trains), the Piedmont route, the Wolverine route Detroit-Chicago, the Cascades Seattle-Portland route (and thru state ownership a 50% increase in the Talgo trains there), and most of all upgrading the Lincoln Service St Louis-Chicago to faster times and greater capacity.

* Expanding the system for the first time in many years, instead of shrinking it, by working with states of Maine, Virginia, and Illinois.

* Utilizing equipment better by adding late-night and weekend Acelas.

* Connecting more passengers with Thruway bus routes in North Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippi.

* Developing designs for next generation coaches for a possible future order.

* Preparing to order new lighter faster more efficient higher capacity Acela IIs and more of them.

* Working on upgrades and extensive plans for more upgrades on the NEC.

And Amtrak is doing a lot more things right that I'm forgetting here.

So why attack Amtrak now?

 

[WoodyinNYC]

What Amtrak needs is Stimulus level funding ($8 or 10 Billion would be good) for say two years, and then say $3 Billion a year thereafter to invest in all non-NEC corridors and the LD routes (which except for new equipment needs, are overlapping).

So that would mean:

* $2.5 Billion into South of the Lake and the rest of the Wolverine route to Detroit/Pontiac,

* A Billion or $2 Billion into the untouched Chicago-Joliet segment of the Lincoln Service St Louis-Chicago corridor, and double-tracking the rest. With a new bridge over the Mississippi at St Louis, add another half Billion or more,

* A Billion for a new Long Bridge over the Potomac and upgrades to Richmond,

* A Billion to the Richmond-Petersburg-Raleigh Southeast HSR route,

* $2 billion for hundreds of new single-level cars,

* More Chicago-corridor upgrades, depending on political realities they could be Cleveland-Chicago (or actually, Cleveland-South of the Lake once that crucial segment is finished) say $2 Billion, Louisville/Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Chicago say $1 Billion, Twin Cities-Milwaukee-Chicago say $1 Billion, and Chicago-Quad Cities-Iowa City-Des Moines-Omaha, $1 Billion. (Note how taking a couple of hours out of each of these routes would transform the LD trains that share the rails, the Lake Shore Limited and Capitol Limited on the Cleveland route, the Cardinal from Cincinnati, the Empire Builder from the Twin Cities, and the California Zephyr from Denver.

* Upgrading Chicago-Indianapolis-Louisville would be a giant step to a new LD train continuing Louisville-Frankfort-Lexington-Knoxville-Chattanooga-Atlanta-Miami or Chattanooga-Birmingham-New Orleans. Such a new LD route would cost, um, $1 Billion Louisville-Frankfort-Lexington-Knoxville, then half a Billion Knoxville-Chattanooga, and another half a Billion to Atlanta or Birmingham, and another $ Billion Atlanta-Macon-Savannah-Florida.

* Another Billion on the Cascades Corridor, with the Willamette Valley extension into Oregon,

* A Billion to build a corridor New Orleans-Baton Rouge-Lafayette-Beaumont-Houston-San Antonio (if melting icecaps don't drown too many of those cities).

* Sprinkle a few Billion around the country, like the Keystone Corridor in PA, Front Range in Pueblo-Colorado Springs-Denver-Cheyenne, and Tucson-Phoenix.

Damn, $20 Billion goes fast these days. But it's all good.

 

[neroden]

I think the issue of public sector vs. private sector is not as black and white, cut and dried as it is made out to be.

There is a case to be made for the mobilization of additional private investment in an activity that may still be primarily managed in the public sector.

I should be quite clear about my opinion on this: I believe that right-of-way and tracks are natural monopolies with network effects, and as such should be public property. I think it is pernicious whenever stuff like this has private ownership, including the current situation with the electric grid.
Now, contracting out operations is entirely another matter. Often that works just fine. Sometimes it doesn't work so well; you can always bring it back in house if the contractors demand too much money and provide terrible service.

Train operations have been successfully contracted out in many countries all voer the world.

Private track ownership, however, is trouble. There are a few places where it has worked, and if it's currently working I wouldn't mess with it until it becomes a problem; but in most places it has been a long-term failure, as the long history of nationalizations of railway track, toll roads, canals, etc. has shown. It also creates ill-will against the private monopolists who control the tracks, which cause a bad political situation which is bad for train service, just as hostility to the toll road owners creates a situation which is bad for road quality (as Britain discovered in the Victorian era).

Think of the different political situation between "Why should we spend any money on Warren Buffett's tracks to enrich this superrich man, who doesn't care about our communities" vs. "We should invest in the rail line which is our property owned by all of us to make a profit for us". I wish FEC the best luck in the world, but they have political headwinds which they will be fighting constantly -- accusations of profiteering, etc. -- which would not happen if the tracks were government-owned and contracted to them. There's a fundamentally hostile relationship between FEC and the municipalities it runs through, which is reversed if the municipalities actually own the line. If private ownership can unlock capital investment which we can't get from government, great, do what's pragmatic this year -- but make no mistake, this is an inferior choice which is happening because government is falling down on the job.

Heck, even government ownership with the line leased for a decade at a time to a private operator seems to be inherently superior to private ownership, politically speaking. And there seems to be no protective upside to private ownership: the tracks can be torn out just as easily under private ownership as under public ownership.

 

[Ryan]

^^^

Very well stated.