Privatizing USA Passenger Rail

NO.

It is time for the US government to pull all of the Airline subsidies and hand it directly to Amtrak. If the government thinks we need to go "green" they need to put their money where their mouth is and pull those filthy birds out of the sky. We need multiple very high speed corridors cross country with relatively high speed connectors. If people had to actually pay the full amount for air travel no one would fly. Thus making rail travel that much MORE possible.
 
I'm all for high speed rail, problem is money is tight and a lot of money to affect a small portion of the country.

I would rather spend that money to expand current lines everywhere with the cooperation of the railroads. More bang for the buck and bring rail service to more people using current technology and equipment. Adding another track to existing lines for passenger service to more cities during the day and peak times, freight service during the evenings would make freight lines more profitable and ease rail congestion in urban areas. Dividing maintenance and upkeep costs with the railroads.

With the way the airlines are, more might opt to non stop rail between cities. Being groped at the airport and showing up several hours early negates the time differences for shorter flights like Chicago to St. Louis.

Once more people and freight start shifting to rails, then start high speed between cities. Making rail more attractive for freight also would ease highway maintenance costs. Money that could be shifted, along with profits, to building more rail lines. You also build more long term jobs across the country in the rail sector.

Throwing all your eggs in one basket for a few certain areas doesn't sound like a good idea at this time. Sharing the cost and improving capacity of what we already have seems more economical as it would affect freight also. Plus, we don't have experience with high speed rail. Use what we have and keep production here.

Dave.....
 
"Privatize" is what we had and the railroad dropped passenger trains as fast as they could. You can not make money with passengers.
 
plenty of other nations around the world make money off from passenger rail. It's the way we are handling transportation that makes us not able to make money off passenger rail.

peter

Additional: I think we should do one of three systems: make the whole system (frieght & passenger) public, privatize passenger rail, but make the rail networks public, keep it the way it is, but have stricter mandates as to passenger rail having right or way, more funding to passenger rail, etc.
 
Last edited:
Look at the population densities and Demographics of those countries. The NE Corridor is a good example of where it may work here. Amtrak is still a money drain though.

Whitepass is right, railroads dropped moving people as fast as they could. Not enough profit and quite often, a loss. Not enough infrastructure at your destination to make it worth while. More convenient to just drive.

I can drive to Chicago in 90 minutes. 45 minutes by the old South Shore. Problem is the 30 mile drive to the train. May as well keep driving. Cost is about the same and more convenient.

A viable rail system would be a logistical nightmare due to our sheer size. We are to spread out to make it economical. Expanding existing infrastructure for freight, sharing the cost of expansion and maintenance with the railroads, might get us closer. Sharing the lines at half the costs to build.

A plan was in place to build an intermodal yard and line about five miles from me. Split the cost with the railroad and run a local several times a day for passenger to the mainline into Chicago would make it a no brainer. A lot of people around here work in Chicago. Ridership on the old South Shore would probably double.

The government needs to sit down with the railroads in a no bull way. Instead of $10 million to build the line, $5 million each and half the maintenance costs would be a benefit for all. The railroads expand and make money, we get passenger service at half the cost and convenient enough to make it worth while. We also get the big rigs off the interstates saving wear and tear and fuel costs.
 
Update existing infastructure

Why not just add more tracks along freight lines instead of transforming the whole system for high speed traffic. It would mean building new right of way along existing lines. Amtrak would then have exclusive trackage rights on the new right of way.
 
Other nations that have successful HSR have achieved that through the imposition of high fees on the roadways that parallel the lines, or the neglect of the roadways themselves. Removing freight trucks from the interstate system is not feasible, and would sacrifice one industry to promote another. Until the train can stop at the local Piggly Wiggly and drop off a case of Twizzlers, the trucking industry is vital to business and our economy. If a business venture such as HSR was viable and could be profitable (and therefore sustainable) it would have already been pursued by private enterprise.

Subsidies for the air travel industry and for Amtrak should be discontinued, (and those for Ethanol as well), though it's true business is the lion's share of air travel.

I like the idea of high speed rail, just as I like the idea of butterflies and unicorns, but it's not feasible, needed, or likely to be profitable without artificial props by the Federal Government.
 
The problem isn't Amtrak (or to use it's proper name, Amcrash) It's a government who's in the pockets of Ford, Chevy, and Boeing. Amtrak has to fight for what is has, and many politicians want to kill it ouright and hand the money to their friends at Southwest Airlines (or whoever happens to have them in their pockets). in the 60's and 70's congress tried to strangle the railroads outright, now i think they're target is Amtrak itself.

In my view, several things have to happen for passenger rail to make a proper comeback:

1) passenger trains must return to being the hottest train on the railroad. It used to be that everything other than a train carrying perishables got into the siding for the passenger trains. That must happen again. now even lowly trip freights (or their modern equivalents) have right of way over passenger trains.

2) congress must take passenger rail traffic seriously. It's time to stop thinking of railways as "old fashioned" and "out of date" and build Amtrak up to what it can be. think of the downeaster or the NE Corridor.

3) Improvements must be made the the current rail network to enable faster running. the push should not be for dedicaded "high speed rail" corridors, but to improve current lines so that the P42s can hit 90 or 100, like the racing E and PA-units of the past.

4) Passenger trains must be heavily marketed, like the Airlines are.

That's just my opinion.
 
A true rail passenger system won't happen until gasoline costs $10.00 a gallon or more. We were hot on the heals when fuel went up over $5.00 a gallon a couple of years ago, but once it went down everyone forgot about it.
 
A true rail passenger system won't happen until gasoline costs $10.00 a gallon or more. We were hot on the heals when fuel went up over $5.00 a gallon a couple of years ago, but once it went down everyone forgot about it.


That won't take long, since the Federal Government is banning drilling and doing everything possible to avoid the use of fossil fuels to artificially drive up the cost of energy. Soon dirigibles will be more cost effective if they can figure out a way to power them with windmills...
 
Yeah, its going to be uphill.

The Governor here in Florida cancelled the High Speed Rail program here in Florida. Mostly to pander to a specific group of people(to keep it simple), but its more than that too.

The significant part was liability was set upon the private operator after grand opening, but opposition kept emphasizing government involvement. Maybe if the government wasn't involved at all it would have been easier, but I think those companies would want to be certain that the government was in demand for the rail line as well.

It was a depressing defeat indeed, but its not the end.

I think that we do need to re-establish a market for passengers. Amtrak is a good spring-pad for that, although it still needs tweaking I think that the past 5-10 years it has improved.

Rail in the US was brought down by the current transportation powers that be: namely the automobile, oil, and airline industries. They bought out transit companies, tore up rails, and screamed the death of the iron horse. I don't think that the reason for demise of trains in the US is emphasized enough. People say it was just popular change of mind, but I personally can't say that its solely that.

Anyhow, thats just my 5 cents(since 2 cents doesn't cut it anymore).
 
The problem isn't Amtrak (or to use it's proper name, Amcrash) It's a government who's in the pockets of Ford, Chevy, and Boeing. Amtrak has to fight for what is has, and many politicians want to kill it ouright and hand the money to their friends at Southwest Airlines (or whoever happens to have them in their pockets). in the 60's and 70's congress tried to strangle the railroads outright, now i think they're target is Amtrak itself.

In my view, several things have to happen for passenger rail to make a proper comeback:

1) passenger trains must return to being the hottest train on the railroad. It used to be that everything other than a train carrying perishables got into the siding for the passenger trains. That must happen again. now even lowly trip freights (or their modern equivalents) have right of way over passenger trains.

2) congress must take passenger rail traffic seriously. It's time to stop thinking of railways as "old fashioned" and "out of date" and build Amtrak up to what it can be. think of the downeaster or the NE Corridor.

3) Improvements must be made the the current rail network to enable faster running. the push should not be for dedicaded "high speed rail" corridors, but to improve current lines so that the P42s can hit 90 or 100, like the racing E and PA-units of the past.

4) Passenger trains must be heavily marketed, like the Airlines are.

That's just my opinion.

I agree...Let's get rid of the airlines. They're useless and should have been buried years ago. To be honest, I think that the airlines really want out of passenger service, but don't know how to do it gracefully. It's too bad they won't do it soon enough though. Last year I travelled between OKC and Boston via Chicago (Hi Ed). The flght to OKC was fine, but going home was a nightmare!

The OKC to O'Hare only takes 90 minutes if that. This leg was canceled supposedly due to rain. It's funny how all the other airlines except for United were flying to O'Hare, as United was the only one that canceled.

Now instead of notifying people as they were checking in, they let all the passengers go through the check-in process before they announced that the earlier flight was canceled, and now the current flight is delayed. Now the customer service clerk lied, and said it was a TSA issue at first, then it was a mechanical problem, then it was the weather. To add insult, they didn't tell anyone that the gate number changed until the plane was ready for bording. There were many people who were confused because the board wasn't even updated. I found out because I was talking to a flight attendant who was waiting for the plane herself. She was outlawed and was on her way home.

My take on the canceled flight is they wanted to save money so they cut the crew and the flight. This saves cash because they don't have to pay anyone for the flight and there's no fuel or plane operating costs to worry about. They know full well that the passengers will be forced to pay extra, and will do so as they scramble around trying to make connections. This might put an extra burden on the customer service department, but a few excuses and BS, will be quickly forgotten once people get home.

After waiting at OKC for 6 hours, we finally board and get to O'Hare at 8:00 local time. My scheduled flight was long gone, and was not delayed like the flight to O'Hare from Will Rodgers in OKC. Funny isn't that?. I now then had to bid for an open seat on another flight, or I could pay them for another ticket if I canceled the current one and flew the next day. That was complete BS! I could see if I deliberately delayed my trip, and then changed my mind, but heck they screwed with me.

Now I finally got home to Boston, but that was after a 14-hour day with most of the time waiting - like 10 hours sitting around getting pissed-off. I didn't get in until 3:00 am and had to go to work the next morning!

The next day I mailed a really nasty letter, not an email that would be deleted or forgotten, but a real letter that required a signed signature. I got a sorry for your convenience and a pin from UA. Big deal!

What's my take on this? The airlines are hurting, and are pulling things like the old railroads did in the 1960s and early 70s when they wanted out of the passenger service. The reason is passengers are expensive to ship. We have our extra needs like food, water, and comfortable seating (well mostly on an airplane). The railroads could get away with dirty cars, broken AC, etc. but the airlines are under a closer watch by the FAA so they can't do things like this. I'm sure if there was a way, they surely would.

If you think about it, freight doesn't require clean, comfy seats, water, bathrooms, and food, and they can squeaze more packages in the same space taken up by only a few passengers. This more than makes up for the cost of flying the plane, and there's less overhead costs with support personnel.

So getting to OKC is a good example of what it's like now to travel by train in America. There is no direct Amtrak trains from OKC from anywhere, even Chicago. If I were to do that, I would have to take the Lakeshore Limited overnight from Boston to Chicago, and then the Texas Eagle for Fort Worth, TX. Then it's an overnight bus back to OKC. The totaly trip would be 3 -4 days instead of 4 hours from Boston!

John
 
I would never even fly on an airplane any way. The idea of such freaky and evastating plane crashes that I hear about makes me paranoid of flying on a plane. :eek: :eek: :eek: ;)

Reagrds.
 
Last edited:
~~~~. Soon dirigibles will be more cost effective if they can figure out a way to power them with windmills...

Ed,

Simple solution..... the dirigibles crew will be required to eat BEANS before and during the flight......:)

Have fun,
 
You don't think the TSA will soon be on the platforms? Ha! Now that the Federal Government is in the business of growing Unions, it won't be too long! Then bus terminals, and pretty soon every taxi cab will have a driver and a TSA agent.
 
You don't think the TSA will soon be on the platforms? Ha! Now that the Federal Government is in the business of growing Unions, it won't be too long! Then bus terminals, and pretty soon every taxi cab will have a driver and a TSA agent.

LOL. How do you know they're not already there? They could be even though they look foreign. ;)
 
A true rail passenger system won't happen until gasoline costs $10.00 a gallon or more. We were hot on the heals when fuel went up over $5.00 a gallon a couple of years ago, but once it went down everyone forgot about it.

When gas is $10 a gallon, an ear of corn will be $5 at the supermarket. Milk will be $10 a gallon.

After 9/11, when gas was going towards $4 a gallon, it about shut us down. That price, in delivery and production, will be passed into the goods you buy, including food. When it is no longer economical to ship, who will grow it and send it to market? 1000 acre farms are all around where I live. You couldn't manage that with manual labor. Cities aren't coming to get the products. It has to be shipped.

Be careful what you wish for. It has ripple effects in places you never thought possible. There are a lot of other countries who receive our food exports at a reasonable price just to survive. A train ride would never cross their minds.
 
Last edited:
Simple face is that one way or another, passenger rail needs to be immensly expanded. You used to be able to hop on a train and go where ever you needed to go. Thats not true anymore, which is why the airlines have the edge. However, the sky is not getting bigger, expanding airports is very very expensive, and impossiable in some cases, and expanding the highways gets redundent after a while because all your doing is putting more cars on the roads without planning ahead, your just trying to match current traffic patterns rather then expand for future needs.

A good example was Denver when the T-Rex finished. I-25 went from 6 to 8 lanes, decreased commutes by a few seconds, and traffic is not different now then it was before. However Denver had one brilliant idea with T-Rex, they added the Southeast Light Rail along the highway when it was rebuilt. That line carry's about 75,000 people per day, 90,000 on opening day. With the new cars Denver just bought, trains can increase to 4 cars rather then 3, and capacity can expand even more!! In the near future, the light Rail may actually be able to carry more commuters then the highway.

Plus RTD still has the ability to add more trains into the existing schedule

Trains are the future. If you need to pack more people on a train, add another car. If you need to pack more people on a highway, you have to add more lanes and rebuild everything. If you need to add more people to a plane, you have to rebuild half the airport to accommodate bigger planes, or to handle more planes to carry the extra load

The disadvantage of Trains, is its considered old fashioned, and the infrastructure has been left to rot away. It needs to be expanded before it can become as practical as possible.

Fuel is another thing to consider, a passenger car weighs the same basically if its loaded or empty. And adding cars, unless you add lots of cars, does not really require much additional fuel on a per car basis. Now, if your adding 5 to 10 cars, that's different. Trains are far more efficiant then the personal automobile. And while I'll never ditch my nice old BMW, I'd much rather be able to park it, get on a train, go where I need to go, get off, get on public transportation, go where I need to go, and be done. I'll always have my car, but I would rather not use it unless I have to. That way, it will last another 25 years in addition to the 25 years that's already passed since it was built
 
Last edited:
Back
Top