Should we take the Long Distance Trains off of Amtrak's back

[RichardK]

Remember that Amtrak was formed in 1971 because no one else (freight companies or states) wanted to operate passenger trains.

So true. However, 42 years have elapsed and the landscape has changed several times. In 1971 the passenger railroads had been deteriorating for many years. Cars had become king of intercity travel and the airlines were emerging. The airlines, while still a costly form of transporation for the average person, would in few years become deregulated and open up this form of travel to a whole new customer base. Southwest Airlines helped seal the passenger railroad fate in 1971 with low cost intrastate service in Texas. Their business model for future expansion was now in place. Massive deregulation of the airline industry and Southwest would have sealed the fate of privately operated passenger service by 1978, anyway, if it had been allowed to continue past 1971.

Now, here we are in 2013. Gas prices are high, with travelers wanting to leave their cars behind. Airlines are in disorder and a hassle. People have been looking for other options. That is why Amtrak ridership has been increasing.

My point is, we need to look at all possible solutions for improving rail travel. State supported or owned LD trains, some privatization where feasible, etc.

I just do not see that Amtrak alone will ever have the proper funding to provide an efficient LD network.

I like hearing about any options.

 

[MikeM]

Before we all get too excited about the glory of the NE Corridor, suggest reading the article in this month's trains magazine (believe it is the Don Phillips column) discussing how Amtrak accounting is distorted by cost allocations, and that LD trains carry an inordinate share of the total overhead of the enterprise. If you split the NE corridor from the rest of the system, what happens is that the NE corridor becomes far less attractive, while the national network, although not wonderful, does lose less money.

 

[jis]

According to Don Philips in Trains Magazine, no passenger service except perhaps a few high speed corridors, make money in the world. If that is the case why would a private outfit which of necessity requires to make money, take on such a venture, unless they can find someone else to bear the part of the cost that makes all passenger rail money losers? So at best if someone can figure out a way of foisting all the losses on the taxpayer and the profits on the private outfit running the service, then a private outfit can run such a service, sort of like they do in the UK. but then the public is still stuck with funding the loss part of the whole thing. There being no free lunch, I don't see how else it would work.

now for politicians this private -public partnership becomes particularly attractive when their friends can reach into the public trough to pocket some of it as profit. So they would at least have some incentive to partake in such a scheme, specially if their own pockets are lined a bit on the side from the uptake. Am I being cynical?

 

[Paulus]

Before we all get too excited about the glory of the NE Corridor, suggest reading the article in this month's trains magazine (believe it is the Don Phillips column) discussing how Amtrak accounting is distorted by cost allocations, and that LD trains carry an inordinate share of the total overhead of the enterprise. If you split the NE corridor from the rest of the system, what happens is that the NE corridor becomes far less attractive, while the national network, although not wonderful, does lose less money.

The article, quite frankly, is a load of bull with the only named source being someone with a known reputation for ignoring or simply making up facts.

 

[jis]

It is interesting that Don states clearly that Selden was the only guy who was willing to go on record supporting Don's position. Apparently there were others who have looked at this issue and have studied it and who Don asked to support his position on record, and they refused? Or is it that he did not ask anyone else? Who knows? If the latter then he is just being Selden's mouthpiece, which is not really saying much in the way of credibility on this subject. Again just IMHO.

The piece is a prime example of "proof by repeated assertion", and just to make sure that it is not lost in the shuffle, the writer repeatedly urges the reader to reread specific paragraphs that make assertions that are otherwise unsupported in the article, except with an oblique reference to Selden agreeing with them. Selden of course has a long history of making these claims with not much supporting evidence at least as far as I have seen.

This in and of itself is not to say that the assertion may be right or wrong, but the technique just jumped out at me as I read the article.

 

[Anderson]

There's been a merry-go-round on overhead enough times that I don't want to re-fight it. Suffice it to say I don't buy it, either.

As to why nobody is lining up to take over the NEC:

(1) No state is likely to want sole responsibility for something involving three commuter agencies in a very large way and at least three others in passing (assuming WAS-NYP) or which has CT owning a random chunk smack in the middle (assuming WAS-BOS);

(2) There are likely to be strings out the wazoo to taking it on, and political pressures might well confound private sector operation;

(3) ROI is going to be low due to the overall cost, while ou have regular enough large maintenance bills (and "surprises") that any private operator is likely to be revisiting the government every-so-often for a cash infusion for that maintenance (which would likely prove difficult with a private company); and

(4) Amtrak's profits above-the-rail are almost assuredly there. Below the rail, however, there's not only high maintenance costs but a lot of long-term issues that need to be fixed. Even if the NEC made $500 million/year, nobody is likely to want to buy it if it's got $5 billion in bottlenecks and vulnerable parts (old bridges, century old tunnels, etc.) that could "go" in the short term.

 

[Nathanael]

The Coast Starlight might work as a JPA because all three states are supporters of rail transit. Good luck with coordinating any other long distance routes. Long distance trains should be a federal responsibility.

What Mike said.

Amtrak exists, fundamentally, because you cannot get Indiana to support the NY-Chicago, DC-Chicago, or Philadelphia-Chicago trains, and you can't get the other states to pay for the whole thing with Indiana freeloading. (Same with Boston-NY and Philadelphia-DC, for that matter; try to get Connecticut and New Jersey to pay for the through service and watch them not do so. Generating ill-will all around. When Amtrak stopped providing the Clockers, suddenly there was a forced transfer at Trenton.)

It's time for people to stop making stupid suggestions. The federal government exists for a purpose. If we redistricted the states, putting northern Indiana under the control of Illinois and Michigan, carving New Jersey up between New York and Pennsylvania, etc., then it might become possible to fund the vital inter-metropolitan corridors on a state basis. With our existing state borders, it's completely impossible.

RailPAC, like several other organizations which formerly promoted California passenger rail, has kind of lost its collective mind. I wonder if it's frustration, or desparation, or what. California is perhaps the only state whose borders make it a fairly self-contained economy, and perhaps this distorted their thinking.