GOP Seeks Bidders on Amtrak Rail Lines

if its anything like here , they'll spend $ 9 billion on it , then sell it to the private sector for $1 billion , based on thats what its worth for a return on investment .

David Benton wrote:if its anything like here , they'll spend $ 9 billion on it , then sell it to the private sector for $1 billion , based on thats what its worth for a return on investment .

Since 1976, Amtrak has spent about $16 billion on capital improvements. Most of those have been to the Northeast Corridor. (That doesn't count ARRA money.) Gil can tell you much better, but if most of that is depreciated over 7 years, and 10% of that was spent on bridges and other railway structures depreciated over 30 years, the value in 2012 is depreciated down to about $2.3 billion. Then you have to add in the value of the land for the 363 miles that Amtrak owns. Congress and the Congressional Budget Office could justify a present value of under $3 billion for the whole system.

As you say, a value of $1 billion or less could be justified based upon Return on Investment.

Then after it has been purchased and the contract expires, the system will cost $117 billion to replace. That will put the new owner in an excellent negotiating position.

Then after it has been purchased and the contract expires, the system will cost $117 billion to replace. That will put the new owner in an excellent negotiating position.

I believe in NZ the government took the railways back. I am not sure what they had to pay the company who had run them down.

All these "privatisers" should study carefully what happened in Britain where the new arrangements are MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE than British Rail was.

while possibly offtopic it is relevant to the subject matter .
Briefly ,The govt paid well over the market value to get the railways back . this was due to not wanting to discourage overseas investment , and also to having little choice , the private operator been able to shut down the nations railway system . it is now back to been totally govt owned , after trying just about every combination of govt / private ownership possible .
The land was never sold , due to been subject to treaty of Waitangi settlements with maori . it was leased for $1 .

The reality that's likely to occur if they ttried such a thing wouldn't be a positive.

But on paper it splitting the row from operations actually sounds like a wise idea to me. Just like the government takes care of highways, navigable waters, and the infrastructure for air transportation. And then whomever wants can operate on those systems. Here in NJ for instance there wouldn't be the friction that there is between nj transit and Amtrak over who pays for what/ deciding who's plan are better / etc.

Problem is for whatever reason most people and the government don't see tracks as something the government should take care of like roads and the like. So the new ROW maintainer would let it all go to pot anyway and no one would be veterans off.

Mica acknowledges that the plan is "controversial". Gee, ya think? This was at a meeting with the USHSRA. Here's a link and some quotes:

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/07/28/mi ... t-halfway/

The committee isn’t easing up on everything, though. The staffer also stated that the committee was giving inter-city and passenger rail “a temporary rest” while it focuses exclusively on high-speed rail. “It does not serve the two programs well to be ‘smooshed,’ or put together and consolidated the way they have been and then have most of the projects that receive funding not be high-speed rail in any way, shape, or form.”

...

Everyone is still trying to figure out exactly what the “pie” consists of, in any case, and Mica let the USHSR know that he had sent a letter to Joseph Boardman asking for an itemized inventory of all the assets on the NEC and their fair market value. Mica’s staffer says that “knowing what’s there and how leveraged it is and what are the encumbrances” would be a “building block of private sector financing participation.”

...

Kunz of the U.S. High-Speed Rail Association agreed that Amtrak “needs to show that they’re willing to bend a little bit,” if for no other reason than because “Amtrak needs funding from the federal government every year.”

In an interview with Streetsblog immediately after the Capitol Hill meetings, Kunz said, “Amtrak is just assuming they’re going to control everything and run everything, and that may not be in the interests of the whole country… it’s the country’s rail system. They need to do what’s best for the country, which may not always be what’s best for Amtrak.”

The chairman of the House Transportation Committee says he'll back off his proposal that the government privatize the Washington-to-Boston train line that is Amtrak's crown jewel.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financia ... SPT780.htm

Chairman Mica admits that it was all a bluff.

jstolberg wrote:

The chairman of the House Transportation Committee says he'll back off his proposal that the government privatize the Washington-to-Boston train line that is Amtrak's crown jewel.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financia ... SPT780.htm

Chairman Mica admits that it was all a bluff.

For the sake of his finances, I hope he's not a poker player.

michaelk wrote:The reality that's likely to occur if they ttried such a thing wouldn't be a positive.

But on paper it splitting the row from operations actually sounds like a wise idea to me. Just like the government takes care of highways, navigable waters, and the infrastructure for air transportation. And then whomever wants can operate on those systems. Here in NJ for instance there wouldn't be the friction that there is between nj transit and Amtrak over who pays for what/ deciding who's plan are better / etc.

Problem is for whatever reason most people and the government don't see tracks as something the government should take care of like roads and the like. So the new ROW maintainer would let it all go to pot anyway and no one would be veterans off.

not so sure about that, there'd still be plenty of friction over what should be built (for commuter or intercity, etc). some things work, some don't (levees have been under maintained for years, those in new Orleans are destroying the city by preventing silt buildup). I'm not sure it's about who's plans are better but about who has priority. njt wants everything built for njt.