Public ownership of railroads

[Bostontoallpoints]

The fundamental premise we have to decide before we think about ownership models is what we want the railroads to be, and understand that we, as a society, have a right to have the railroads be what we need them to be. They were built with massive land grants, charters and subsidies, and have been subsidized directly and indirectly since. The railroads can never be uber profitable like they are unless they only carry a fraction of the most profitable freight and continue practicing the downsizing model. If we want the railroads to carry more freight and passengers, we have to accept a lower level of profit for the public good produced. Public ownership of the railroads may seem enticing, but many national railways have ceased operations in the world, and British Rail was severely downsized in the Beeching cuts. An idea worth of study would be separating the infrastructure from the operating companies with the infrastructure companies open to all comers based on fees that would cover the infrastructure costs and a profit. Railroads could then serve anywhere in the country. Passenger services could as well. Food for thought.

The railroads will not part with profitable freight lines. Also, there are more miles of track that have been abandoned then being used. The U.S. government could take these abandoned lines for nothing and run government rail coast to coast. There is no need to seize private railroad tracks.

 

[jis]

The railroads will not part with profitable freight lines. Also, there are more miles of track that have been abandoned then being used. The U.S. government could take these abandoned lines for nothing and run government rail coast to coast. There is no need to seize private railroad tracks.

It depends on what the original deed was for that real estate. In case of many lines, once they are abandoned the real estate reverts to the land owners adjacent. So all of the abandoned RoWs may not be available just for the taking, even those that have not already been hijacked by the Trail builders.

 

[eldomtom2]

That the differences were primarily due to private control versus public control was the major point of the studies I read.

You don't remember what the studies were, or what mechanism they propose.

As to the subsidies since: What subsidies?

The US government pays large subsidies to railroads for capital projects. Plus there's the Railway Labor Act...

 

[nti1094]

Amtrak has from the start been a weird mix of public & private. As much of a small government person as I am, I do realize that it isn't sustainable as both and needs to be one or the other. I personally favor private, as there is very little that the government does better that the private sector. I am impressed to see what Brightline accomplishes, as the prevailing wisdom was that private passenger service was not a good business. The government need not concern itself with profits and instead could simply put trains where t thinks they are needed. On the one hand that is a plus, but on the other if there is not profit potential it probably means there isn't much need.

Years ago, during the debates on public healthcare, I saw a comedian doing a routine. He brought up public housing projects. His joke (which a good joke always has an element of truth in it) was that if you wouldn't live in public housing why would you seek treatment in a public hospital? The same could be said about public trains. Flex dining, dated interiors and chronic lateness are all symptoms of this.

Not that long ago NYC used a mix of public and private busses, with private companies running regular routes. They changed to an all-MTA bus system. Oddly enough to circle back to health care they have a three-tiered ambulance system. I think there is room for both public and private trains, but probably not in the same entity.

I don’t think of brightline as being a truly private railroad that just has great success because the private sector is somehow so much more efficient. About half the debt raised prior to the Orlando extension was done so through bonds issued by the state of Florida that offer tax free payouts to bondholders for one. Also, when things get tough, like when covid hit, they were quick to pull the plug entirely and offer zero service for those who needed to travel. That is a cautionary warning that makes it clear that they are not as interested in providing a transportation product people can rely on, but rather are just focused on profit. They further drive that point home in how they stopped selling monthly passes without warning to the hundreds of short distance commuters who came to rely on the train for their daily commute. One of the reasons the MTA ditched the outsourced busses outside manhattan and reintegrated them back into NYCT bus was accountability to the passengers, where the private operators were increasingly focused on making a profit and not being held accountable to any service standard.
Not that Amtrak is really all that transparent or accountable to their passengers, something that needs to be dramatically improved.

 

[nti1094]

I do believe that if brightline manages to get the Las Vegas line open prior to the Olympics in Los Angeles, they will push it front and center during the games and it will likely be one of the first big things that causes a mass change in the American public to start demanding more HSR! That would be great for everyone, not just Brightline.
I also feel that they should be allowed to extend the service south of Rancho Cucamonga to San Diego. It would directly link a huge population to Vegas and make the service that much more successful, and also bring forward by a minimum of 20 years the inland San Diego line that is planned for the second phase of CA HSR. It seems like a no brainer, San Diego gets high speed trains well before the 2050 timeframe currently planned.