Privatizing USA Passenger Rail
- Thread starter StorkNest
- Start date
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I heard that the rail systems in the UK are subsidized by the government.
Is that correct?
Not looking to start a great debate, just looking for a simple answer.
Thanks,
Yes - much more now than pre-privatisation. Most countries' passenger rail systems are subsidised to some degree - typically high speed / inter city services cover their operating costs, but commuter and rural services usually require some kind of subsidy. There are exceptions to this (Hong Kong's metro runs at a profit IIRC), but it's a fair generalisation.
Paul
Hear ye, Hear ye! Read all about it, you doubting Thomases!
QUOTED:
HOUSE REJECTS FY11 AMTRAK BUDGET CUTS
The house of reps Feb 17 approved cuts of varois sizes for varoius gov programs as part of drive to cut 61$ bil and up to 100$ bil in current fiscal year 2011. Suprising many, rejected proposal to cut 446.9$ mil from Amtrak for 2011.
The vote was 250-176, 60 GOP joining 190 dems, indicating more repuiblican suppoport for passenger service than observers anticitpated.
Durring congessional manuvering on 2011-12 budgets, Amtrak relaesed ridership figs showning growth and 15 months of increases. "best January on record wiht 2,126,429 passengers. Strong prfomance is part of long term trend" that has set new annual records " in seven of past eight years, including 28.7 mil riders in 2010". Only recessionary 2009 saw decline.
Amtrak Jan ridership was up 4.6% compared with Jan 2010, and ridrship increses for 15 months beginning Nov 2009 average 6%.
END QUOTED; badly butchered from Railway Age, March 2011, page 13.
Personally, at this point, we are trying to start the train one notch ahead of center.
QUOTED:
HOUSE REJECTS FY11 AMTRAK BUDGET CUTS
The house of reps Feb 17 approved cuts of varois sizes for varoius gov programs as part of drive to cut 61$ bil and up to 100$ bil in current fiscal year 2011. Suprising many, rejected proposal to cut 446.9$ mil from Amtrak for 2011.
The vote was 250-176, 60 GOP joining 190 dems, indicating more repuiblican suppoport for passenger service than observers anticitpated.
Durring congessional manuvering on 2011-12 budgets, Amtrak relaesed ridership figs showning growth and 15 months of increases. "best January on record wiht 2,126,429 passengers. Strong prfomance is part of long term trend" that has set new annual records " in seven of past eight years, including 28.7 mil riders in 2010". Only recessionary 2009 saw decline.
Amtrak Jan ridership was up 4.6% compared with Jan 2010, and ridrship increses for 15 months beginning Nov 2009 average 6%.
END QUOTED; badly butchered from Railway Age, March 2011, page 13.
Personally, at this point, we are trying to start the train one notch ahead of center.
Amtrak has been doing very well over the last 2 years. They are planning on ordering new passenger cars, replacing 60 year old baggage cars and diners with new viewliner cars.
Its going to be a good few years, hopefully, America can catch up to the rest of the world. Trains are also far greener then air travel
Its going to be a good few years, hopefully, America can catch up to the rest of the world. Trains are also far greener then air travel
Hi Everybody
All government subsidies to the British rail industry are to be withdrawn in the next four and a half years. When the announcement was made several months ago no party in the House of Commons opposed it.
However, with the rapid rise in the number of people using the railways it is generally felt that the subsidies will not be needed possibly even before that time. The only exception would be the electrification upgrades to the London to Birmingham track and the London to Cardiff and Bristol line.
That said, there is now developing a strong argument that the upgrades are not really needed and money should be spent on longer Trains, upgrades to stations and schedules
Bill
All government subsidies to the British rail industry are to be withdrawn in the next four and a half years. When the announcement was made several months ago no party in the House of Commons opposed it.
However, with the rapid rise in the number of people using the railways it is generally felt that the subsidies will not be needed possibly even before that time. The only exception would be the electrification upgrades to the London to Birmingham track and the London to Cardiff and Bristol line.
That said, there is now developing a strong argument that the upgrades are not really needed and money should be spent on longer Trains, upgrades to stations and schedules
Bill
There will always be a debate about the pros and cons of State or privately run. Very few systems actually do straight profits in the world. It is also a debating point as to what is spent on railways here. If the State had the whole lot then the public would be paying the lot through their taxes. Anyway, we do have a proper national rail system whereas the US doesn't having lost out on that a time ago now and Amtrak produced by the government stopped the passenger system going virtually completely down the plug hole. In GB as has been pointed out by myself and others here passenger numbers continue to soar. There is only one permanent State railway in Great Britain and unlike the rest of the system it has to upkeep the track too.
I think Dr Beeching was the last to promise that...
It sounds like a politician's promise to me. How are they going to acheive it? Since privatisation fares, ridership, services and subsidies have all increased. Can fares really be increased enough to make the railways run at a profit without subsidy, with fares that make train travel an affordable prospect for a large proportion of the population? Or are the savings to be made by cutting back on investment?
Paul
Hi Paul and Everybody.
Paul, I think that there are three things that (hopefully) will enable the British rail system to be able to succeed and grow without subsidies.
The first would be the ever-increasing congestion of the UK road system. Commuting into large towns and cities has in recent years become increasingly difficult especially if you wish to arrive at a set time. I regularly travel to London often having to be there before 10 AM. This is now virtually impossible to do by road unless you leave before 5 AM in the morning for the 130 mile trip.
After 7:30 AM the motorway network around Reading becomes completely clogged and is " stop, go" all the way into London. Therefore there is no alternative other than rail if you wish to arrive at anything like a scheduled time. The same examples could be stated for travel in and out of any major city in Britain.
The second reason would be the ever-increasing cost of running a car in the UK. With petrol costs now approaching six pounds per gallon (British sterling) very few people can afford to sit in traffic jams while commuting for hours on end. Recent figures show that the use of the car in the UK is rapidly dropping purely because of cost.
Finally, With rail travel since the introduction of Wi-Fi and G3 systems into passenger coaches enable people to work and communicate while traveling by rail. The foregoing cuts out the " downtime" while commuting and passengers can be as productive as being in the office. I believe that the three above reasons are why the British and European passenger rail systems can achieve financial independence and continue to grow without government subsidy.
However, I am no great enthusiast of this government, but no system which has to rely on handouts can ever be secure. Governments should the involved in such things as education, health and pensions etc, not running rail systems where the financial tap can be turned on and off at the will of whatever party is in power (as past experience has shown).
Bill
Paul, I think that there are three things that (hopefully) will enable the British rail system to be able to succeed and grow without subsidies.
The first would be the ever-increasing congestion of the UK road system. Commuting into large towns and cities has in recent years become increasingly difficult especially if you wish to arrive at a set time. I regularly travel to London often having to be there before 10 AM. This is now virtually impossible to do by road unless you leave before 5 AM in the morning for the 130 mile trip.
After 7:30 AM the motorway network around Reading becomes completely clogged and is " stop, go" all the way into London. Therefore there is no alternative other than rail if you wish to arrive at anything like a scheduled time. The same examples could be stated for travel in and out of any major city in Britain.
The second reason would be the ever-increasing cost of running a car in the UK. With petrol costs now approaching six pounds per gallon (British sterling) very few people can afford to sit in traffic jams while commuting for hours on end. Recent figures show that the use of the car in the UK is rapidly dropping purely because of cost.
Finally, With rail travel since the introduction of Wi-Fi and G3 systems into passenger coaches enable people to work and communicate while traveling by rail. The foregoing cuts out the " downtime" while commuting and passengers can be as productive as being in the office. I believe that the three above reasons are why the British and European passenger rail systems can achieve financial independence and continue to grow without government subsidy.
However, I am no great enthusiast of this government, but no system which has to rely on handouts can ever be secure. Governments should the involved in such things as education, health and pensions etc, not running rail systems where the financial tap can be turned on and off at the will of whatever party is in power (as past experience has shown).
Bill
Last edited:
IsambardKingdomBrunel
Joined June 2001
But the government is involved in running the privatised railway, Bill.
It gets more tax payers money pumped into it, than BR could ever dream of.
Privatisation was purely a political decision, it had nothing to do with what was best for the public, tax payer or industry itself.
cheers,
Mike.
It gets more tax payers money pumped into it, than BR could ever dream of.
Privatisation was purely a political decision, it had nothing to do with what was best for the public, tax payer or industry itself.
cheers,
Mike.
Hi Mike and Everybody.
I could not agree with you more Mike that privatization was a political decision of which the ramifications of that decision has turned out to be very different from what the Thatcher government envisaged at the time.
Thatcher believed that privatizing the railways would be just another "Beaching" by the back door. It would only leave the big commuter routes in being, with the rest slowly but surely going to the wall at the hands of the privatized rail operators doing their " cherry picking"
However, things have turned out very differently due to external factors not least the cost of running cars. That said I still feel that the train operators are cherry picking in a different way.
Now they are looking at the ever-growing number of passengers and cherry picking from among those passengers. It is the corporate passenger that they are after who is prepared to pay the very high ticket prices required for peak time travel due to the fact that they can be as productive while traveling as they are in their offices.
The above was shown only the other day when it was announced that rail services between Glasgow, Edinburgh and London where to be dramatically increased while BMI announced that it was reducing its air services on the same route. Therefore, if the number of corporate rail passengers keeps on increasing and paying the high cost required the subsidies could be withdrawn leaving the railways paying for their selves.
As for the rest of the general public I am not sure if the rail operators are that interested. Off-peak rail travel is still relatively affordable for those who do not have their fares reimbursed by their employers, whether that will continue is yet to be seen.
At off-peak times there are many consists running that need passengers, and so hopefully the cheap fares for rail card holders will continue unless the operators can find full fare paying passengers to fill the seats in some way.
Bill
But the government is involved in running the privatised railway, Bill.
It gets more tax payers money pumped into it, than BR could ever dream of.
Privatisation was purely a political decision, it had nothing to do with what was best for the public, tax payer or industry itself.
cheers,
Mike.
I could not agree with you more Mike that privatization was a political decision of which the ramifications of that decision has turned out to be very different from what the Thatcher government envisaged at the time.
Thatcher believed that privatizing the railways would be just another "Beaching" by the back door. It would only leave the big commuter routes in being, with the rest slowly but surely going to the wall at the hands of the privatized rail operators doing their " cherry picking"
However, things have turned out very differently due to external factors not least the cost of running cars. That said I still feel that the train operators are cherry picking in a different way.
Now they are looking at the ever-growing number of passengers and cherry picking from among those passengers. It is the corporate passenger that they are after who is prepared to pay the very high ticket prices required for peak time travel due to the fact that they can be as productive while traveling as they are in their offices.
The above was shown only the other day when it was announced that rail services between Glasgow, Edinburgh and London where to be dramatically increased while BMI announced that it was reducing its air services on the same route. Therefore, if the number of corporate rail passengers keeps on increasing and paying the high cost required the subsidies could be withdrawn leaving the railways paying for their selves.
As for the rest of the general public I am not sure if the rail operators are that interested. Off-peak rail travel is still relatively affordable for those who do not have their fares reimbursed by their employers, whether that will continue is yet to be seen.
At off-peak times there are many consists running that need passengers, and so hopefully the cheap fares for rail card holders will continue unless the operators can find full fare paying passengers to fill the seats in some way.
Bill
IsambardKingdomBrunel
Joined June 2001
I must be honest Bill, i pay next to no attention to or have any interest in the privatised railways. Reading what you have said though, sounds pretty much spot on. In regards to the little i have bothered to read up on.
Tories created the same mess when they dis-assembled the national bus companies. They all ended up fighting tooth and nail for the more lucrative routes, after privatisation. Leaving the rest of the UK, particularly the rural areas, without any viable bus services.
This situation has only been stopped from reaching rock bottom, by the natural increase in passenger numbers. In the same instance as the railways, these passenger numbers have risen and keep on rising, due to socio-economic reasons.
It has nothing to do with either industry being taken out of public ownership. In fact passenger numbers and revenue, were already rising under BR in the late 1980`s. Regardless of how much the tories would like to convince us otherwise.
regards,
Mike.
Tories created the same mess when they dis-assembled the national bus companies. They all ended up fighting tooth and nail for the more lucrative routes, after privatisation. Leaving the rest of the UK, particularly the rural areas, without any viable bus services.
This situation has only been stopped from reaching rock bottom, by the natural increase in passenger numbers. In the same instance as the railways, these passenger numbers have risen and keep on rising, due to socio-economic reasons.
It has nothing to do with either industry being taken out of public ownership. In fact passenger numbers and revenue, were already rising under BR in the late 1980`s. Regardless of how much the tories would like to convince us otherwise.
regards,
Mike.
Hopefully, that is because officials realized certain things said here that I had a debate on at another site.
I had started this thread partly because someone at a local site talked about cutting funds including Amtrak with no regard for details. I figured starting this here where there is less virtolic politics (the, "I hate you because you are from the other party," stuff) would provide information I could use there and did.
After I posted there, the people talking about Amtrak cuts went silent.
It was in fact the Major government who first proposed and implemented rail privatisation. Thatcher, wisely, considered it a step too far (that and the post office). It also was never conceived as a stealth Beeching, though it was intended as a way to make the railways independent from government and treasury. It was also hoped that the private sector would bring new efficiencies and innovation to the industry, though the structure implemented was not really designed for growth.
It turned out that the expected improvements in efficiency were simply not possible, as BR managers had become very adept at getting a quart from a pint pot for many years. At the same time the huge numbers of companies set up in the privatised industry, and the massive numbers of contractual relationships caused additional inefficiencies, and took profits out of the railway at several levels. Economies of scale in purchasing and provision of services once shared also evaporated overnight.
There have certainly been some brighter moments - BR was never able to take a truly strategic commercial policy on freight. Some passenger operators have gone beyond what could have been expected of BR (e.g. Chiltern). But there have also been massive failures in safety and service, and fares that have gone from the most expensive in Europe to being by far the most expensive in Europe.
Bill, I think your argument is that rail fares can continue to increase to cover lost subsidy because road travel is becoming untenable in many areas. The problem with this is eventually only the rich can afford to travel, which is neither equitable, nor is it good for the economy.
Paul
I know of one place in Great Britain where rail travel has mushroomed by 60% since 2002. It is the only long term State operator operating and also has the added burden of being responsible for the track and stations as well which isn't the usual pattern here in Britain. What I think is unfair on the operator concerned. Obviously whether the State or private runs our railways will be a fascinating and acceptable discussion and argument point.
Generally speaking as long as we have rails and trains I am happy whoever is responsible to keeping them there! In my part of the Kingdom I have noticed considerable improvements in my rail travel We can all quote negatives but they did happen in BR days too let's not forget that. My local trains are now better for keeping on time and I well use the service. With a Senior Citizen free bus pass (for the whole of Scotland!) you can travel by train over the greater part of southwest Scotland with that and get a train ticket costing only 60 pence single or £1 return up to 10 miles. After that you get a discounted. Thenn there are Youth Cards, Senior Citizen railcards giving a third of over all Britain except Ulster (odd). There are other special offers re discounts.
I have to unfortunately admit that something had to be done about the railways back in the 1960's hence the infamous Dr Beeching. I knew of one local line here in Glasgow that had virtually no-one travelling on it and there were others elsewhere However there was no thought for the future and population growth and movement and some flawed closures made. Where we have reopened lines in Scotland they have broke targets and were lines shut by Beeching. Even the present day heavily used Argyle suburban route under the Glasgow Central Station was closed by him only to be opened quite a time ago now with all the benefits. A typical silly decision.
Generally speaking as long as we have rails and trains I am happy whoever is responsible to keeping them there! In my part of the Kingdom I have noticed considerable improvements in my rail travel We can all quote negatives but they did happen in BR days too let's not forget that. My local trains are now better for keeping on time and I well use the service. With a Senior Citizen free bus pass (for the whole of Scotland!) you can travel by train over the greater part of southwest Scotland with that and get a train ticket costing only 60 pence single or £1 return up to 10 miles. After that you get a discounted. Thenn there are Youth Cards, Senior Citizen railcards giving a third of over all Britain except Ulster (odd). There are other special offers re discounts.
I have to unfortunately admit that something had to be done about the railways back in the 1960's hence the infamous Dr Beeching. I knew of one local line here in Glasgow that had virtually no-one travelling on it and there were others elsewhere However there was no thought for the future and population growth and movement and some flawed closures made. Where we have reopened lines in Scotland they have broke targets and were lines shut by Beeching. Even the present day heavily used Argyle suburban route under the Glasgow Central Station was closed by him only to be opened quite a time ago now with all the benefits. A typical silly decision.