Privatizing USA Passenger Rail

[sparky15]

Nothing scares me more than a politician who says he's here to help.

Best thing we can do is get the government out of it all together. The project in Florida may be a good idea. Stop sending dollars from individual states into the Transportation Department to begin with. Let each state keep it's money and build what they need without federal involvement. Only the individual state can address their transportation needs and knows how to raise funds for it without affecting someone else.

To many funds diverted from other states to help a project in another. Of course my senator will vote no on the Florida project if it means taking from our projects and improvements.. That is why he is there and I would vote him out if he didn't.

Cut the Transportation Department and it's overhead out completely and turn the money and power back over to the states. For every dollar my state has to pay in, we get back 85 cents or less. Bloated overhead is where the problem is. 15 cents doesn't seem like much but it could go along way.

Dave........

 

[JCitron]

On the Fox News webpage there is a taxpayer cost calculator for the current high speed rail proposal.....designed of course to get everybody to oppose it.....but when I ran it through for my wife and I, it ended up costing us a little less than $40.00 a year for six years. Somehow I think I could manage to scrape it together. Maybe they could take half of it out of the highway budget, which is many times as large, and then it would only cost me $20.00.

If there was a sensible and balanced plan then we would know what we should be spending, but no one in government plans anything anymore except of course the next election. Time to throw them all out.

Gotta love the Faux News Network. I too looked at the calculator and passed it by one of the finance people I know. I not number savvy, so I keep away from stuff like that.

Personally I wouldn't care if all the states chipped in and the money was spread out evenly for projects, but of course it's not.

@Ed There's no need to eat beans. Let the politicians do their job with all their hot air.

John

 

[gfisher]

The sad thing is that in the little poll that went with the "calculator", 85% of the respondents opposed the high speed rail spending plan, 5% didn't know, and only 10% were in favor of the plan. Of course, this is from viewers who look at the Fox website, so there is a bias against government spending of any kind there, but even so the lack of support is rather discouraging for people like myself who feel we need to do it for all kinds of good reasons.

 

[wholbr]

Hi Everybody.
I think the one thing we all agree on in this thread is the need wherever we live in the world for the rail network to be modernized and expanded after years of contraction and neglect.

Problem is, to upgrade existing railways costs enormous amounts of money and build new ones even more. Whether that is done by government or private enterprise it has to be paid for either through taxation or in fair charge to the passengers and freight that will travel on the network. People who never travel on railways will obviously object to paying taxes to subsidize those who do travel by rail.

Therefore I do believe after years of trial and error that the system here in Britain where the government owns and maintains the track system and where private enterprise runs the Trains on them is the best way forward. At this point in time the private companies still receive subsidies from government to run various routes. However, that subsidy is due to be phased out within the next five years. That may not be so difficult as it sounds, as with rapidly increasing passenger numbers balancing the income should certainly be possible.

Yes, fare prices are rapidly increasing. I regularly have to travel between Somerset and London which costs £180 (approximately US $240) for the 260 miles round-trip at peak times. However, most people traveling at peak times like myself have their fares paid for by the businesses they work for or represent.

At off-peak times you can make the same trip for as little as £30 (approximately US $45) as the private companies compete with various other forms of transport for your custom, and that is when many privately paying passengers travel. As stated, passenger numbers are rapidly increasing therefore the formula can't be that far wrong.

The original government that started privatization of the railways also tried to privatize the track system as well but that failed badly resulting in a number of accidents through bad maintenance and eventually railtrack the company owning the system going bankrupt. The network is now back in government hands through a holding company known as Network Rail. That now seems to be doing far better with promises of enormous upgrading projects. Whether that will all come about with the government spending cuts is yet to be seen.

Bill

 

[JCitron]

The sad thing is that in the little poll that went with the "calculator", 85% of the respondents opposed the high speed rail spending plan, 5% didn't know, and only 10% were in favor of the plan. Of course, this is from viewers who look at the Fox website, so there is a bias against government spending of any kind there, but even so the lack of support is rather discouraging for people like myself who feel we need to do it for all kinds of good reasons.

Yep. Fox has done a great job with spreading faux news. Unfortunately the people are too reliant on what the news has to tell them rather than think for themselves.

You're not the only one who would like to see highspeed rail. Imagine reopening the Eastern Railroad from Portland to Boston as a highspeed line! This is straight as an arrow line that I would think is perfect for this. The route is flat and nearly straight from Portsmouth all the way down to Beverly. It does a little twist in Salem, then it's more or less straight all the way then into Boston.

A few years ago there was a study done on reopening the old Northern Railroad from Concord, NH to Montreal as a highspeed line. I don't know what the results of that study are, but that would have made sense too. With the number of people that fly or drive to Montreal, this takes quite a number of vehicles off the highways. Yes there is service to Montreal already, but it's not directly out of Boston. You need to go to New York or Albany first, which is already 3 hours away, and that defeats the highspeed thing in my opinion.

John

 

[rjhowie]

I have visited the USA twice and I was amazed at what passed for intercity being used to a raft of daily trains here. a train a day etc? Certainly the size of the country must be taken into consideration but Russia is big and has a reasonable rail service for example. China is another one. In the genral picture americans have got used to the car but you cannot keep building motorways. America's switch to goods on rail rather than rail was due to the equal switch to the love of he car hence the obvious decline. Comparisons with us here in the UK are probably not fair but I must say that the suggestion that the massive increase in assengers would have happened anyway is not to my mind without returning to privatitisation is open to argument.

Personally I have seen a welcome improvement in the company that runs my railway and doesn't Railtrack have a private part too or am i wrong? Neither am i sure it is correct that being back to private is costing more? In Scotland we haqve had lines reopened that were closed back in the infamous beeching cuts well over half a century ago. This didn't happen when the state ran rail.

The US is missing out greatly regarding passenger rail and in that it falls way behind the rest of the industrial world.

 

[StorkNest]

All I wanted was to discuss and hear commentary on the original issue.
Should passenger rail get privatized like freight still is.
What the hell?
Beginning to look like a bad idea posting on the Bayonne Bridge and light rail.

 

[wholbr]

Hi Everybody.

I have visited the USA twice and I was amazed at what passed for intercity being used to a raft of daily trains here. a train a day etc? Certainly the size of the country must be taken into consideration but Russia is big and has a reasonable rail service for example. China is another one. In the genral picture americans have got used to the car but you cannot keep building motorways. America's switch to goods on rail rather than rail was due to the equal switch to the love of he car hence the obvious decline. Comparisons with us here in the UK are probably not fair but I must say that the suggestion that the massive increase in assengers would have happened anyway is not to my mind without returning to privatitisation is open to argument.

Personally I have seen a welcome improvement in the company that runs my railway and doesn't Railtrack have a private part too or am i wrong? Neither am i sure it is correct that being back to private is costing more? In Scotland we haqve had lines reopened that were closed back in the infamous beeching cuts well over half a century ago. This didn't happen when the state ran rail.

The US is missing out greatly regarding passenger rail and in that it falls way behind the rest of the industrial world.

I think you are most definitely right rjhowie2 in what you state there regarding the performance of the private companies.

Only a few years ago the frequency of Trains between Bristol and London was less than one per hour. Now there is one every 15 minutes departing equally between Bristol Temple Mead's and Bristol Parkway throughout the day. At peak times the trains are absolutely packed with many passengers having to stand and so upgrading the stations and length of Trains ( presently 10 car) would to me be the priority I feel rather than increasing the speed.

It was sometime ago announced that London Paddington which receives all trains does not have any more free time slots to receive extra Trains. Therefore it means that the line for the first time since it was built in the 19th century by Brunel is operating at maximum capacity (with all the problems that presents)

However,that said it is a great success story for the railways and that story is being repeated in cities throughout the country. I think the message to the world from France, Germany and Britain is that it can be done if the vision and determination is there to really get cars off the road and the polluting aircraft out of the skies

Bill

 

[paulzmay]

I have visited the USA twice and I was amazed at what passed for intercity being used to a raft of daily trains here. a train a day etc? Certainly the size of the country must be taken into consideration but Russia is big and has a reasonable rail service for example. China is another one. In the genral picture americans have got used to the car but you cannot keep building motorways. America's switch to goods on rail rather than rail was due to the equal switch to the love of he car hence the obvious decline. Comparisons with us here in the UK are probably not fair but I must say that the suggestion that the massive increase in assengers would have happened anyway is not to my mind without returning to privatitisation is open to argument.

Personally I have seen a welcome improvement in the company that runs my railway and doesn't Railtrack have a private part too or am i wrong? Neither am i sure it is correct that being back to private is costing more? In Scotland we haqve had lines reopened that were closed back in the infamous beeching cuts well over half a century ago. This didn't happen when the state ran rail.

The US is missing out greatly regarding passenger rail and in that it falls way behind the rest of the industrial world.

No, the cost of running the railway in the UK really is over double what it was (in real terms). The problem is that the government of the day assumed that the publicly owned railway was badly run - it wasn't, it was simply underfunded. Managers had spent decades making the most of the lowest proportional level of subsidy of any railway in Europe. The savings that had been made in the other privatised UK utilities, that lead to increased utility profits after privatisation just weren't there. Of course the new owners tried, and the results were mass cancellations in the North East due to lack of drivers, and serious issues with maintenance. Interesting artice here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_of_British_Rail

It certainly seems true that Britain's railway is providing a better service for most of an increasing number of passengers, but what could BR have done with double the money (and perhaps the ability to raise its own capital outside treasury constraints)?

And the only way that the railway will break even (let's face it - that's pretty unlikley) is to put fares up to levels that will ensure that the railways don't take the extra part of the UK's transport burden that they need to.

Paul

 

[wholbr]

Hi Again Everybody.

And the only way that the railway will break even (let's face it - that's pretty unlikley) is to put fares up to levels that will ensure that the railways don't take the extra part of the UK's transport burden that they need to.
Paul

sorry for once I have to disagree with you Paul. It has been decided that within five years the railways in Britain will have no subsidies paid to them whatsoever (no if's or buts). Even the opposition Labour Party did not oppose that statement when it was made.

Governments have far bigger problems than railways in these times of budget cuts. Maintaining the pensions, health service and local services have far more priority than putting money into railways, and that's how it should be.

The large upgrade projects such as the East Coast mainline at the moment will be paid for by the government. However, there are arguments over whether it is really necessary and the new route it should take.

Whether British rail would've done better we will never know. There s an old adage which advises " we are where we are" that certainly is the case with the railways.

Even if the track system remains in government hands it will be paid for by the train operating companies in operating charges paid to the government. Sorry, but that's the way will be and I agree with it.

As stated I would much rather see government spending money supporting people in their old age, a health service which is free at the point of delivery and local services such as waste collection etc have sufficient money to maintain the hygiene of the community than to see that money being given to railways.

It's a question of priorities
Bill

From the good night side of somerset

 

[sparky15]

Gotta love the Faux News Network. I too looked at the calculator and passed it by one of the finance people I know. I not number savvy, so I keep away from stuff like that.

Personally I wouldn't care if all the states chipped in and the money was spread out evenly for projects, but of course it's not.

@Ed There's no need to eat beans. Let the politicians do their job with all their hot air.

John

Careful John, your liberal side is showing.
A small pun but what you and gfisher say is right. All news media is geared towards their subscribers, beliefs and more importantly, the revenue. They aren't in it for free and circulation, along with advertisement, play into what they support. They're just making a buck misinforming us all. I'm a republitard, but the last news I watch is FOX, same with MSNBC and all the others. They all spin to their audience. And these polls, yeah right, are not skewed one bit.

Until we break out of this federal oversight, there never will be a chance for high speed rail. I was born and raised in Chicago, been just about everywhere so able to form my own opinions. New York was great and I can see where an initiative like this would help. Lived in Florida for a while, makes sense there. Lived in Arizona, wide open spaces, but compacted urban areas, I could see it there as well.

Fact is, sitting here in cornfield corners, no way. A waste. I see a raise in my gas prices to fund what I will never see or be able to take advantage of. Not fair to me or you. You take the train, I have to cut back something to afford the gas hike or be snowed in because funds were diverted.

It really needs to go past ideology of conservative and liberal and who is pandering for votes. The only way is to dump it on the individual states to address their needs. Once it starts their, let it grow to interstate if it takes off. Then the feds can get involved to tie them together.

It's going to take a break down in the current political climate before we can do anything. I don't agree with the left and right coast policies, but I do realize how something like this could be a benefit. I have seen it. Take a moment to understand why I don't agree by coming here and accept there is a negative effect on me, then we will start moving in the right direction.

Dave......

 

[Tokkyu40]

...You can not make money with passengers.

In Japan the passenger service turns a profit because the service is built around passengers. Freight trains use the passenger tracks, but they have real trouble turning a profit. Whoever owns the track has a huge advantage. Here the freight companies own the track, so they get the priority.

Look at the population densities and Demographics of those countries. The NE Corridor is a good example of where it may work here...

We don't need population density; we need traffic density. There's a lot of money to be made on long open stretches of empty country with a high traffic flow. We're more spread out than other countries, so we travel farther.
Out here in the west, the I-10 has heavy traffic from L.A. to Tucson, Arizona, where I turn off to visit the folks. I think there's enough traffic on that corridor to support a train as far east as New Orleans.
I think Saint Paul to the east coast is similar., then Chicago down through Kansas City and south. Once the high density traffic corridors are supplied, connect them with through corridors to allow customers to cross the open areas between. After they've tried high speed rail, people aren't going to want to subject themselves to the misery of airline seats.

Claude

 

[sparky15]

Without a population, where would the density come from?
I was stationed at Davis Monthan and know I-10 quite well. I was also stationed at Holloman in New Mexico before then so know the area very well.
Without population on a regular basis using it, no ridership. No ridership, no fares. No fares, a loss.
Dave.......

 

[Euphod]

After they've tried high speed rail, people aren't going to want to subject themselves to the misery of airline seats.

You are so right... they're going to want to drive next time.

 

[JCitron]

You are so right... they're going to want to drive next time.

With highspeed at 15-55 mph.

The max speed will be 55, and there will be the keeper's of the speedlimit not allowing anyone to go faster in all 3 or 4 lanes. These are usually old farts who feel they need to do the rightious thing.

Then there will be those that will dial cell phones and stop dead at random intervals causing the ripple effect. Speed will go from 55-15, 55-15 and cause what could be a two hour trip to take 6 hours. Been there and done that. It really sucks!

And finally we'll have different state police forces out along the road keeping the speeders from trying to pass the creeps doing 15 mph. Now everyone whose doing 15mph already, will stop dead and then do 4-5 mph when they see a cop with someone pulled over.

If had to deal with this on a so-called highspeed road, I'd definitely go back to flying if there was no alternative!

John

 

[StorkNest]

Whoever owns the track has a huge advantage.

True, that is why the NE Corridor works, Amtrak owns the rail. Other Amtrak trains run over freight rail.

Once the high density traffic corridors are supplied, connect them with through corridors to allow customers to cross the open areas between. After they've tried high speed rail, people aren't going to want to subject themselves to the misery of airline seats.

Not always. Despite the NE Corridor, there are still people flying between cities plus driving the I95 corridor along the same route as Amtrak.

Can't catch all the Pokemons.

 

[jeffmorris]

I think that in USA, people would rather drive than to take buses and trains. They don't want to wake up early, get dressed, eat breakfast, walk to bus stop or train station, wait for bus or train to come, get on bus or train, "enjoy" the ride while the bus or train picks up and drops off other passengers, get off the bus or train, and walk to their destination. They want to sleep late, get dressed, don't eat breakfast, jump into their cars, and do reckless driving to their destinations. What if airlines start putting "horse saddles" into airplanes to put more people into airplanes?

 

[wholbr]

Hi Everybody.
It would seem reading the thread that American railways are perhaps at the same juncture as the British railway system was in the 1980s prior to privatization. The British system has to a large degree come through that and now there are grounds for optimism as to the future.

However, with all subsidies due to be withdrawn the future is in no way guaranteed. As Paul May so rightly advises the network has to prove it can under the foregoing conditions continue to play a leading role or any role at all in the future of transportation in Britain.

As stated, reading the thread the challenges to the American railroads would seem to be even greater. Having said that I believe that the demand for change within the general public is powerful for a move away from the car. In Britain, France and Germany meeting that demand has at least started and being undertaken through the railways. However with tight fiscal policies in all Western governments being the main factor for the next few years no country I believe can feel that the future of its railways can be guaranteed.

As one truly Great Britain may well have put it:-
The battle for subsidies is over. The battle for the future of our railways is about to begin. Competitors know that they must break us in our sidings and stations or lose the war.If we can stand up to them then rail travellers throughout the world may move forward into broad sunlit uplands. But, if we should fail then the world will enter a new period of transportation darkness perpetuated perhaps by the evils of perverted taxation.

Let us therefore bear ourselves to our task knowing that should the British and American railway systems last for thousand years, travellers will still say….. This Was Their Finest Hour.

Basically written by Winston Spencer Churchill, May 1940. Slightly edited by WJH, February 2011

Just thought I would inject a bit of humour. Hope those of you as Americans don't mind us Brits And others joining in such a great thread, as it started as your thread after all.

Really enjoying it
Bill

 

[sparky15]

Don't forget one major factor here. The government makes a bundle off the taxes on gas. It accounts for a major portion of money collected. Right after 9/11, the Indy Star had a report on how gas consumption dropped by less than 5%. It also went on to describe the need to raise taxes to make up the difference or face major budget short falls.

Kind of a balancing act. We quit driving, tax revenues fall.

Dave......

 

[wholbr]

Hi Sparky and Everybody.

Don't forget one major factor here. The government makes a bundle off the taxes on gas. It accounts for a major portion of money collected. Right after 9/11, the Indy Star had a report on how gas consumption dropped by less than 5%. It also went on to describe the need to raise taxes to make up the difference or face major budget short falls.

Kind of a balancing act. We quit driving, tax revenues fall.

Dave......

Sparky I think the one thing you are forgetting there is that when purchasing train tickets, bus or coach tickets and even paying for taxis in Britain you pay a tax known as vat ( value added tax). Therefore it does not matter which way you travel whether it be in the car or on public transport you will pay Tax either for the fuel or for the ticket.

I have not been to America for a few years now but I believe similar taxes apply there.

Bill