Is It Time to Retire/Replace Amtrak?

I doubt that even the most savvy observers on the railroad scene back in 1971 could have envisioned the scenario that has unfolded during the 37+ years of Amtrak's existence. While some efforts have turned out as expected given the economic realities, there have been a number of pleasant suprises, not the least of which is the turnaround in general public opinion.

Nevertheless, we have to remember that Antrak was originally intended as an interim solution with a limited lifetime, and what was created back then is, by its own nature, not capable of full adaptation to societal changes.

And it should be noted that the single most basic change -- a complete about-face on public attitudes toward rail travel in the light of the changed energy picture -- was not even on the horizon in 1971.

So in that spirit, perhaps it's time to record a "mission accomplished" for Amtrak, and replace it with a network geared toi the concerns and realities of the present day. My personal choice would be to sort the often-incompatible mix of long-distance, corridor, and regional services into appropriate sub-groups, then to encourage more local control and participation in return for assuming more responsibility for funding.

My emphasis on local funding is not intended as a simplistic call for a return to the days of lazziez-faire; I sincerely believe that the man or woman in the street, particularly within urbnized areas, is capable of understanding that the simplest rules of profit-and-loss can no longer be applied to an enterprise as capital-intensive and immovable as railroading. And local control implies a closer, localized scrutiny.

And I will readily admit that I hope that reforms of this nature will help to bring about the demise of the most blatant pork-barreling; an end to expensive, overstaffed local agencies in sparsely settled areas and competitive wage levels for on-train auxillary services provided by an independent contractor, to cite two prominent examples.

My reasoning hire is based on simple fairness; the new energy picture is going to require adjustment and sacrifice from all of us. It simply isn't justifiable to guarantee protection to a favored few who got there first.

Lastly, I can still see the need for an agency charged with the redevelopment of rail passenger service on a national level, but I see that role as mostly advisory and intermedial in nature, perhaps developig plans for standardized equipment that can be more economically produced, co-ordinating the activities of the several local/regional operators and, nost important of all, developing a working relationship with the freight roads, who could gain large benefits in the form of infrastructural upgrades, but should expect to shoulder their share of the cost in return.

Given the magnitude and multi-faceted nature of the underlying issue, I cannot see how some degree of public/private sector co-ordination can be refused, but there are a lot of lessons to be learned from the original Amtrak, which can now be recognized as having served its purpose.

So you feel that if you create say 20 local agencies there won't be pork barreling, who would manage a fleet of 20 rag-tag outfits all favoring different equipment after a few years ???
How would you politicaly control those 20 agencies to standardize ????
How would you get for example , take states that already spend a fortune on rail to spend another fortune on some kind of long distance outfit /??
there use to be 20 or so agencies running Amerca's passenger trains, it was called the railroads and they got fed up, got broke , got tired and formed a federal agency called national passenger rail corporation.
You want to privatize or even pawn this off to states, go study the disaster called privatization in Britain and a few other countries who now are sorry they ever tried.
Anyone believing that this may work, smokes the same dope the clowns in Washington have been smoking.

I think Amtrak can function pretty well as a "umbrella" organisation , under which services may or may not be contracted out .
My view of the experience here in NZ is changing the organisations structure / ownership etc does not fix inbuilt problems . The provision and running of railroads is a century old industry , mired in tradition and archaic work and management practices . any new organisation won't be free of these ineffiecencies . it takes generations of retirements etc to change .
In short i believe what needs to change is the management / worker / union relationship ,into a more positive lets improve things for everyone enviroment .

In short i believe what needs to change is the management / worker / union relationship ,into a more positive lets improve things for everyone enviroment .

There is no substitute for more money. Changing ownership and management is "displacement activity" - an attempt to avoid recognising that fact. IN Britain more money was spent, but much of it went to lawyers and management consultants instead of to the track and trains.

2nd trick op wrote:So in that spirit, perhaps it's time to record a "mission accomplished" for Amtrak, and replace it with a network geared toi the concerns and realities of the present day. My personal choice would be to sort the often-incompatible mix of long-distance, corridor, and regional services into appropriate sub-groups, then to encourage more local control and participation in return for assuming more responsibility for funding.

In this age where commercial airlines are failing faster than you can blink, and commercial bus service is enemic at best, how to do suggest that this could be implemented? Combined with the shrinking tax base of many states, how do you predict that they will buy in to your idea?

Traveling is hard enough at present. I don't see the value added in completely changing the Amtrak system.

Those who would reinvent the Amtrak "wheel" should show that there IS a distinctly better replacement in economics, technology, etc. Haven't seen any real evidence here or elsewhere that they've done their homework. So I have to go with developing Amtrak.

With regard to those 20-or-so agencies you cited, Mr. Railnut, they already exist. The idea is to transfer both the usable assets, and the responsibility for their efficient operation, while retaining as little of the bureaucratc bloat as possible. This happens in the prvate sector on a daily basis; it hit home here in Allentown on Friday, when Mack Truck, which has a very convoluted history, announced it was transferring its corporate HQ, which apparently has developed a lot of dead wood, to North Carolina, while retaining the slimmed-down, now-lean-and-mean manufacturing facility nearby.

Like it or not, this is how a global economy operates. Public-secrtor status may allow retention of some of the benefits of a state monopoly to a fortunate minority, but in the long run, an inneficient, overbuilt system will always collapse under the weight of its own "protection". Don't blame the meesenger for the message.

But to return to a more positive note, the necesssity to re-orient our entire transportation system, both freight and passenger, is going to create a wealth of new opportunities. Again, like it or not, the freight roads, who control most of the asseets, but cannot control public opinion, have adopted a "bunker mentaility".

Unless some very stupid actions are taken on both sides, I'm hoping that there won't be a return to the polarization which impeded entrepreneurship in the years after World War II -- the number of mature, independent voters with a stronger grasp of basic economics has increased substantially.
As with the meltdown and subsequent redevelopment of several major industries during the 1980''s, there are going to be some hard choices, and some big losers But Amtrak as currently configured just isn't equipped to become a major player, and expansion along lines of the traditional bureaucratically-stuctued model will simply intensify the negative image already espoused by its opponents.most of whom operate on the fringes of the private sector that actually foots the bill.

There are admittedly lots of things private industry does better than the government. Transportation isn't one of them. Privatization invariably results in duplication as well as abandonment of essential, but not necessarily profitable, routes. Given that transportation is necessary for the economy to function, yet is generally unprofitable for a private entity, there is only one choice-place the burden on the government. The best model is the one we have-one government agency to handle long-distance interstate rail, and local government agencies for local commuter operations. The system undoubtedly needs to be improved, but privization would likely have the opposite effect. Carriers would charge whatever the market would bear while at the same time reducing the standard of service to a bare minimum. Realistically on many or most lines there could not be anything resembling competition. This requires parallel lines or sharing the same set of tracks. In the latter case it's easy to imagine the owner of the tracks giving their trains priority, effectively killing off the competition.

It's a long standing fact that passenger transport, whether via rail, bus, plane, or car, can't be profitable in isolation. At best a carrier will make a small profit over and above their operating expenses. They would never be able to make a profit if they also had to pay for the infrastructure (although some freight railroads might an exception). Nevertheless, transporation as a whole pays for itself many times over when one looks at its economic benefits. Along those lines, if we are going to have to subsidize all modes, then we may as well subsidize all modes equally. Or better yet, we should give those modes which are more environmentally sustainable more funding. Rail is obviously the first choice in that department as it uses less energy/land to move a given amount of tonnage. And rail has been largely underfunded for the last 50 years. It's no wonder it lost a large part of its market share. If we fund rail to the same extent we have funded air and auto travel, I have little doubt people will flock to the trains in droves. However, privitization would be a horrible mistake. No, it's not time to retire Amtrak, but rather to augment it.

DutchRailnut wrote:So you feel that if you create say 20 local agencies there won't be pork barreling, who would manage a fleet of 20 rag-tag outfits all favoring different equipment after a few years ??? How would you politicaly control those 20 agencies to standardize ????

I don't think equipment is an issue; Amtrak this very day has a pretty wide range of equipment - Acela Express, two variants of the Amfleets, and the Horizon cars in the NEC and surrounding area.

Amfleet II cars on eastern long distance trains, plus Viewliner sleepers and heritage baggage, crew/dorm and dining cars.
Superliner I and II cars on western, and a few eastern, long distance trains.
California cars (two variants) in California.
Talgos in Washington/Oregon.
Several different locomotive models.

Are the airlines failing because some airlines have chosen to go with Boeing equipment, while others have gone with Airbus, and still others have gone with Bombardier or Embrarer? Of course not, although it's well documented that standardization - if done well - does provide financial benefit (see Southwest Airlines).

Would Amtrak following SWA's model even make sense? Of course not, such an idea is laughable at best.

But if Washington/Oregon went its own way and went with the Talgos, how would Washington/Oregon's "baby Amtrak" be financially constrained compared to "Northeast baby Amtrak" with Acela and Amfleet equipment, or "California baby Amtrak" with its own fleet of bi-levels?

DutchRailnut wrote:How would you get for example , take states that already spend a fortune on rail to spend another fortune on some kind of long distance outfit??

That's assuming that the indivdiual states who have spent "a fortune on rail" feel that it's worth spending more for the long distance trains. Does California really care if the Starlight, Zephyr, Southwest Chief and Sunset Limited/Texas Eagle continue to exist? (California is talking about starting the Coast Daylight as a daylight, corridor train opposite the Starlight, but does CalTrans really see a need for the overnight train?)

Will Oregon really care if the Starlight gets discontinued, as it serves only one city and two station stops not served by the Cascades corridor (Chemult and Klamath Falls)? Chemult barely registers as a "wide spot in the road", however Klamath Falls warrants some type of service -- but does Amtrak/rail service make sense given its remote location from anywhere else but Medford?

DutchRailnut wrote:there use to be 20 or so agencies running Amerca's passenger trains, it was called the railroads and they got fed up, got broke , got tired and formed a federal agency called national passenger rail corporation. You want to privatize or even pawn this off to states, go study the disaster called privatization in Britain and a few other countries who now are sorry they ever tried.

My points said, I am not convinced either way whether privatization makes sense for Amtrak. The British example is showing signs of a turnaround after some early pains but is still hardly a perfect solution, nor is it the model that could even be employed here in the States (the existing railroad infrastructure is not nationalized to be privatized). We have yet to answer the fundamental question as to what we want in an intercity ground transportation network (note the absence of a "mode"). And with regards to the new thread I had started - what works in New York doesn't work in California and what works in Washington doesn't work in Florida.

wigwagfan wrote:The British example is showing signs of a turnaround after some early pains but is still hardly a perfect solution, nor is it the model that could even be employed here in the States (the existing railroad infrastructure is not nationalized to be privatized).

Agreed! See the .pdf document "Evaluation Report E-08-02, Funding Levels of European Passenger Railroads (April 22, 2008)" linked at http://www.amtrakoig.com/.

IMO, the best solution is to create more corridors like Amtrak California. That seems to be working very well. And use long distance trains to connect the corridors.

2nd trick op wrote:My emphasis on local funding is not intended as a simplistic call for a return to the days of lazziez-faire; I sincerely believe that the man or woman in the street, particularly within urbnized areas, is capable of understanding that the simplest rules of profit-and-loss can no longer be applied to an enterprise as capital-intensive and immovable as railroading.

Oh, well, I'll make that "simplistic" call, but I'll also make it for roads as well. Why should any taxes be spent on transportation of any kind? Only when people have to pay the full fare of their transportation can they make rational decisions about what kind of transportation is best. A subsidy is a kind of government censorship, which acts by suppressing the real cost of things. I'm an every-day railfan -- not a fair weather friend who thinks that rail can only survive if we force people (who would never consider riding a train) to pay a portion of our fare. I think that in a head-to-head, cost per person-mile, competition, rail will always come out ahead.

Now, that said, I fully appreciate the difficulty of funding any and all types of linear infrastructure: highways, local roads, pipelines (oil / gas / water / sewer), telephone, cable, internet, electric. I don't mean to minimize the problems, but I'm sure of one thing: that a politician whose prime expertise is in getting re-elected is NOT an appropriate person to ask to solve them.

DutchRailnut wrote:So you feel that if you create say 20 local agencies there won't be pork barreling, who would manage a fleet of 20 rag-tag outfits all favoring different equipment after a few years ???

Are you that much in love with the Acela? Maybe that's exactly what American rail transportation needs? More experimentation with different equipment? Standardization is a great idea, but only if you standardize on a great idea. Centralization and politics rarely work well together -- if it did, then we wouldn't be constantly complaining about Amtrak, now would we?

jtr1962 wrote:It's a long standing fact that passenger transport, whether via rail, bus, plane, or car, can't be profitable in isolation.

Yer making stuff up! In Istanbul, Turkey, there are a variety of bus companies. They all use the same payment system and bus stops, so that people choose the bus that's going their way, avoiding bus companies that aren't well-run. The city doesn't interfere with the private busses. They set up the routes, and if no private bus company feels a particular route will be profitable, the city runs that route.

jtr1962 wrote: It's a long standing fact that passenger transport, whether via rail, bus, plane, or car, can't be profitable in isolation.

It's not a long-standing fact but here's one: Southwest Airlines makes money every year. Now before we get 10 whines stating "they're subsidized!" keep in mind that the airlines don't keep the large tax amount and the security surcharges that go into every ticket, all for paying the government's cost of running the air system. There are also landing fees that are paid to the airports to support that part of the infrastructure.

It's a fact that transportation around the globe is moving away from state ownership, even rail such as in the UK, and especially airlines. Privatization may not be a panacea but it's narrow-minded to write it off without a more exhaustive examination.