Legislation to Provide Permanent Funding for Amtrak

[tricia]

At the risk of feeding a troll, I repeat, Amtrak is a public service. Not a business. Despite the fact that too many politicians with ideological blinders insist that public services OUGHT to be businesses, they're really not--insisting that they masquerade as businesses is inconsistent with their mission and invites graft, privatizing profits while sticking taxpayers with costs, and a wide range of dysfunction.

I refer you to the current mess at the US Postal Service as an example of what happens when a public service is expected to behave like a business.

 

[railiner]

If that's the case, then Amtrak's 2020 annual report contains material misstatements. It says that the four private railroads still own common stock:

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/...nal-Control-Over-Financial-Reporting-FY20.pdf

Interesting...I had thought that ended, but apparently it still goes on...good catch!
My curiosity led me to find these articles telling more about it....

https://www.railwayage.com/news/fini-to-saga-of-amtraks-common-stock/
https://tonyseed.wordpress.com/2017/12/18/who-owns-amtrak/
So apparently the common stockholder's now, are the AIG insurance company, Berkshire Hathaway (BNSF), Canadian Pacific, and Canadian National....

 

[Devil's Advocate]

…moronic ideologues in Congress for funding…

…ideological morons in Congress, it has to cut…

…ideological morons in Congress, they can…

…idiotic ideologues in Congress for funds…

…like Congress and its crazies…

You seem to be driven by an agenda that is only incidentally related to passenger rail or Amtrak.

 

[TheCrescent]

At the risk of feeding a troll, I repeat, Amtrak is a public service. Not a business. Despite the fact that too many politicians with ideological blinders insist that public services OUGHT to be businesses, they're really not--insisting that they masquerade as businesses is inconsistent with their mission and invites graft, privatizing profits while sticking taxpayers with costs, and a wide range of dysfunction.

I refer you to the current mess at the US Postal Service as an example of what happens when a public service is expected to behave like a business.

That's your OPINION. Yes, many politicians share that view. By the terms of legislation, and corporate law, it's a for-profit business (but with some smoothing around the hard edges of "for-profit" due to varying mandates by Congress over the years). The for-profit requirement has not been eliminated from relevant legislation, although it's been toned down somewhat.

You seem to be driven by an agenda that is only incidentally related to passenger rail or Amtrak. If you want to keep this up can you create another thread instead of repeatedly derailing this one with more anti-government rhetoric?

I'm not anti-government. I'm opposed to the John Micas of the world, who micromanage a business that knows better than the micromanager how the business should run itself. And, as I'm sure you know, the ideological micromanaging morons in Congress who prevent Amtrak from being better are usually "small government" types.

I'm also opposed to micromanagement in the private sector, too.

 

[Ryan]

operated and managed as

Is not the same thing as "is".

CFR 49 doesn't say "Amtrak is a for-profit corporation". Because it doesn't, it isn't.

 

[TheVig]

Is there any threads left, that don't mention the food? Asking for a friend.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Is there any threads left, that don't mention the food? Asking for a friend.

What would you like to discuss?

 

[Ryan]

There's one left, but if I share the link, "they'll" show up.

 

[TheCrescent]

Is not the same thing as "is".

CFR 49 doesn't say "Amtrak is a for-profit corporation". Because it doesn't, it isn't.

Actually it does. Please see the second line at 49 CFR § 700.2 - Organization and functioning of Amtrak.

CFR is the Code of Federal Regulations- the rules that are implemented once a law (here, referred to as "the Act") is passed by Congress. The citation above is just the rules that put "the Act" into effect.

 

[jiml]

Redacted

 

[jiml]

So apparently the common stockholder's now, are the AIG insurance company, Berkshire Hathaway (BNSF), Canadian Pacific, and Canadian National....

Yikes! Foreign ownership.

 

[TheCrescent]

Everyone, I think I've come close--or perhaps crossed--the line of fighting and rudeness. I shouldn't do that, as I appreciate everyone in this thread and his/her views.

My only point is Amtrak ought to seek ADDITIONAL sources of funding from the private sector IN ADDITION to government funds, in part because Amtrak wouldn't be subject to the whims of whoever is in power then.

I'll step back and stand down, and again, I appreciate everyone's perspective, and sorry for how I've come across.

 

[me_little_me]

Everyone, I think I've come close--or perhaps crossed--the line of fighting and rudeness. I shouldn't do that, as I appreciate everyone in this thread and his/her views.

My only point is Amtrak ought to seek ADDITIONAL sources of funding from the private sector IN ADDITION to government funds, in part because Amtrak wouldn't be subject to the whims of whoever is in power then.

I'll step back and stand down, and again, I appreciate everyone's perspective, and sorry for how I've come across.

I, for one, don't disagree with you in principle but I see no reason for any private company to give money to Amtrak unless there is something in it for them. Then, I would think collusion between the private companies and the publicly funded Amtrak would become a problem.
Better would be a hands-off approach where, for example, private companies could make deals with Amtrak FOR WHICH THEY PAY A FEE and FOR WHICH THERE IS NO EXCLUSIVE GUARANTEE say, for example like Iowa Pacific and private varnish attempted to do by adding their cars onto Amtrak trains or a company is allowed to sell goods or food at stations or provide services which Amtrak has no interest in providing (and which would mean Amtrak truly "partners" with them instead of unilaterally pulling the rug as they did with private varnish). Also, that might include Amtrak contracting to pay companies for a service where Amtrak is unable to provide it. But for companies to invest in Amtrak would, IMHO, lead to problems.

 

[Ryan]

Everyone, I think I've come close--or perhaps crossed--the line of fighting and rudeness. I shouldn't do that, as I appreciate everyone in this thread and his/her views.

My only point is Amtrak ought to seek ADDITIONAL sources of funding from the private sector IN ADDITION to government funds, in part because Amtrak wouldn't be subject to the whims of whoever is in power then.

I'll step back and stand down, and again, I appreciate everyone's perspective, and sorry for how I've come across.

Thanks. I'm well acquainted with with the CFR is (both in general and 700.2 in particular) and didn't need that explanation.

While I understand your argument about seeking private sector funding, I'm not sure why you think a private concern would throw money at the problem. Suppose I'm sitting on a pile of cash and love trains. What's the value in throwing it at Amtrak? What do I get in return? How can Amtrak behave differently to facilitate that?

 

[Ziv]

I don't know about TheVig, but I am curious about what people on this site thought of Stobe the Hobo? Tangential, but the dude was an interesting guy. The piano playing in his video I link to below was all his. The guy rode locomotives, unlocked box cars, hopper cars and went all over the US with a Lite Beer and an attitude. The end of the video below is of him riding in an unmanned locomotive and it is intriguing. It may or may not be the last video he posted.
Not too surprisingly, given the Lite Beer and the attitude, he lost his life moving through a train yard in Baltimore (if memory serves) a few years back.

What would you like to discuss?

 

[Ryan]

More on him here: The Curious Case of Stobe the Hobo

 

[Ziv]

Thank you for the link. I hadn't seen that thread. Sorry for the thread jack but I find the guy and his exploits interesting. I was a traveler for a time and Stobe took traveling to a whole different place.

More on him here: The Curious Case of Stobe the Hobo

 

[Tlcooper44]

In terms of food and premium service, I was a regular user of airline business classes for my career and had a decent amount of miles with United and JetBlue. When I re-discovered Acela service on the BOS - WAS route, the fact that it offered a mildly premium first class service was very attractive to me, and part of the reason I switched to exclusively rail travel (under 500 miles) in the first place. The NEC has allowed me to abandon connecting flights altogether (Newark airport rail station is helpful).

I would love to see Amtrak use a hypothetical 5 billion surplus on improving their onboard experience. Yes, they are not in the buisness of a restaurant, but if they offered a better food experience, that could contribute to better ridership, especially with the younger generation. I consider improving rolling stock, on-time performance, and station upkeep to be step one. After those are taken care of however, I would love to see the premium (and non premium) product improved if there are leftover funds (there may not be).

 

[Cal]

I would love to see Amtrak use a hypothetical 5 billion surplus on improving their onboard experience. Yes, they are not in the buisness of a restaurant, but if they offered a better food experience, that could contribute to better ridership, especially with the younger generation. I consider improving rolling stock, on-time performance, and station upkeep to be step one. After those are taken care of however, I would love to see the premium (and non premium) product improved if there are leftover funds (there may not be).

And customer service improvement!

 

[jloewen]

All of the dining car issues are really about staffing.

No, some are about petty autocrats.

 

[TheCrescent]

To respond to some posts above, asking where private-sector dollars could be used:

1. Real estate: Amtrak already has partnered with private developers around 30th Street Station and Washington Union Station. Surely there is other real estate that could be redeveloped or otherwise commercialized with a private-sector developer. Perhaps this has already been fully explored; I don't know.

2. Fleet acquisition: could a private buyer buy new railcars for Amtrak and lease them to Amtrak? This has been done before (I believe).

3. Contracting out entire routes: legislation has provided for this, but to what extent has Amtrak aggressively pursued private operators? For example, if it costs Amtrak $10 million to run a route for a year, could Amtrak find a private operator who Amtrak could pay $9.5 million to take it over, saving Amtrak money? I may be wrong, but I understand that Amtrak has resisted contracting out its routes--but is that the best practice from a dollars-and-cents perspective?

4. Contracting out certain on-board services: if private railroads farmed out their sleeping and lounge cars to Pullman, has Amtrak looked at doing that? I know that Iowa Pacific has attached cars to Amtrak trains; that failed, but is it worth aggressively seeking partners to do that nationwide?

5. Contracting out infrastructure improvements: some highways are built or financed by private developers, which are repaid as the highways are used. Has Amtrak looked at having private partners fund track improvements, with Amtrak to pay them back over time as trains are run?

6. Total route re-dos: given how Brightline improved track and introduced new train services, linked to real estate development, why hasn't Amtrak done that?

All of these may have been looked at, and there may be other examples. So perhaps these are all stupid ideas, but given the range of private-sector participants who are taking part in passenger rail projects around the US, UK and EU, I'd think that there would be at least some things that Amtrak could do, but hasn't, to attract private capital IN ADDITION to financial support from government, which could lead to more and better service.

 

[Chatter163]

I would love to see Amtrak use a hypothetical 5 billion surplus on improving their onboard experience. Yes, they are not in the buisness of a restaurant, but if they offered a better food experience, that could contribute to better ridership, especially with the younger generation.

Oh, no. We were solemnly told that the new dining schema was designed to appeal to the younger generation, weren't we?

 

[Tlcooper44]

Oh, no. We were solemnly told that the new dining schema was designed to appeal to the younger generation, weren't we?

Pay no attention to anything I say. I love Amtrak's food. All hail the cafe car.

To respond to some posts above, asking where private-sector dollars could be used:

1. Real estate: Amtrak already has partnered with private developers around 30th Street Station and Washington Union Station. Surely there is other real estate that could be redeveloped or otherwise commercialized with a private-sector developer. Perhaps this has already been fully explored; I don't know.

This is essentially how the MTR works in Hong Kong. By putting almost all they have into development around the stations, people end up choosing public transit exclusively because it is actually the most convenient and cleanest (let alone cheapest) way to get somewhere. This would be much harder to replicate with Amtrak, but I think it would be worth doing more of.

I genuinely believe the primary reason that the NEC has the highest ridership is because the tracks are electrified and the stations provide downtown service. Take away those two things (getting rid of faster trains and convenient service) and we'd probably see something similar to midwest/west coast corridors. I could be wrong though.

 

[Mike G]

If they really wanted to bill to bill funded, it could be a Pork addition to another for sure passing bill during the “Mark Up” but right now it just a introduced bill on his score card of introduced legislation and press release rather if it passes or not.

 

[me_little_me]

To respond to some posts above, asking where private-sector dollars could be used:

1. Real estate:

2. Fleet acquisition:

3. Contracting out entire routes:

4. Contracting out certain on-board services:

5. Contracting out infrastructure improvements:

6. Total route re-dos:

1. I think that would be good but I don't think Amtrak owns much real estate around its building; probably dosn't own many of its buildings (often owned by the railroads); or its buildings outside of a few are not in nice areas or are surrounded by railroad property which Amtrak doesn't own. Given they had the money, they could use eminent domain to take land for the site of a new station plus the land around it and then partner with someone or develop it themselves with private help. However, Amtrak is a company known for its Amshacks so that idea looks bleak.

2. Leasing cars would be a good idea if economically feasible IF Amtrak could make more money than the lease and maintenance costs so e.g. leasing a sleeper car that brought in more additional bucks than it cost would work.

3. Given that Amtrak could write and enforce a contract that required better service, did not burden passengers with higher costs and protected employee rights, IMHO, is beyond them because there might be issues with host railroads, insurance and liability, and enough of a profit incentive for the lessee

4. As to services, this might also be a possibility if they could write a good contract but Amtrak seems to not want cooperation with third parties. Witness I.P. who apparently wanted a Chicago-NYP tie-in to get riders who would likely be willing to pay for higher level of amenities and Amtrak's crushing of Private Varnish.

5. Big projects are contracted out because Amtrak gets big bucks for them on a one-time basis. But with no guarantee that Amtrak would get long term funding to slowly pay off the bill, any kind of multi-year maintenance push onto private industry would probably be very risky for private industry as even floating bonds to pay a contractor to do the work instead of leasing it out.

6. Politics has always interfered with transit systems using this approach. Wouldn't it be great if a transit system were to secretly come up with a plan to expand a route, then buy up the property cheaply around its proposed stations before the announcement of where they would be, then lease/sell/develop that property to pay for the transit? Fat chance! Amtrak and transit systems get money from the government so the legislators want to enrich their friends instead of saving the taxpayers money. And government agencies including Amtrak can't keep secrets. Private companies can because they want to enrich the executives and they can squeeze local governments by promising or withholding stations to make them fight each other for the spoils.

If only it were a real possibility instead of a fancy.