AmtrakerBx
Train Attendant
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2002
- Messages
- 44
When altering Amtrak, don't follow Britain's lead
Equal time:
• Nation's passenger rail system needs a new business model
"Parlous" is not a word heard often in the United States, except maybe among ardent Scrabble players. But the adjective, which means "dangerous," has popped up in British newspapers lately to describe the disastrous state of that country's railway system ever since it was privatized nearly a decade ago.
In time, more Americans may get acquainted with the term if Congress goes along with a plan being circulated by the Bush administration that would, in effect, do the same for Amtrak.
Although nothing's final, the administration has suggested closely copying the British model by splitting up Amtrak into two entities. One would be a joint, federal-state compact to operate trains running in the popular Northeast Corridor between Washington and Boston. The other would be a for-profit company that would operate long-distance, intercity trains outside that corridor with states that desired the service and were willing to pay for it.
Under the administration's draft plan, state transportation agencies could also contract with private companies to operate their train service, a provision that has run the British rail system into serious trouble.
Britain's privatization scheme has divided rail operation among dozens of companies, 25 of which run trains and another that runs the tracks. But instead of increasing efficiency, on-time reliability has been dismal. Tracks are in bad repair and, as a result, several high-profile rail accidents have killed and injured scores of passengers.
Part of the problem seems to be that the private companies saw fit to cut corners by putting off needed track repairs and costly improvements. With a focus on achieving short-term financial targets in order to please shareholders, long-term planning goals were sacrificed, and as a result there's even talk of renationalizing rail service.
The push to reform Amtrak is driven by the fact that it hasn't turned a profit since its creation in 1971, losing more than $25 billion in taxpayers' money. However, no passenger rail service in the world survives without government help. Federal funding for Amtrak is dwarfed by the massive subsidies that flow to highways and the commercial airline network every year.
Those who envision a windfall from splitting up Amtrak are also dreaming. Under the scenario proposed by the administration, the federal government would continue to pay for capital expenses for at least six years until the states gradually provided up to 50 percent of that funding. For the foreseeable future, it would cost American taxpayers more to run rail service, not less.
After the Sept. 11 attacks shut down commercial air traffic, we can no longer afford to be naive about dispensing with Amtrak or some reasonable facsimile. Intercity rail -- along with highways and air travel -- is part of a three-legged stool forming our national transportation strategy. But the Bush plan could wind up cutting rail service now available in 46 states to about 20.
A more promising solution may lie in a bill sponsored by U.S. Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.) that calls for $4.6 billion in annual federal funding for Amtrak's reconstruction and operating needs over the next five years. Amtrak President and CEO David Gunn has asked for $8 billion during the same time frame to maintain existing routes and to make much-needed train and track repairs.
Certainly, there's a better way to run a national railroad. It might include opportunities for more private sector involvement, a requirement for states to pick up more of the tab and eliminating some of the least-traveled routes.
But repeating Britain's mistakes would be foolish.
Not to mention parlous.
Equal time:
• Nation's passenger rail system needs a new business model
"Parlous" is not a word heard often in the United States, except maybe among ardent Scrabble players. But the adjective, which means "dangerous," has popped up in British newspapers lately to describe the disastrous state of that country's railway system ever since it was privatized nearly a decade ago.
In time, more Americans may get acquainted with the term if Congress goes along with a plan being circulated by the Bush administration that would, in effect, do the same for Amtrak.
Although nothing's final, the administration has suggested closely copying the British model by splitting up Amtrak into two entities. One would be a joint, federal-state compact to operate trains running in the popular Northeast Corridor between Washington and Boston. The other would be a for-profit company that would operate long-distance, intercity trains outside that corridor with states that desired the service and were willing to pay for it.
Under the administration's draft plan, state transportation agencies could also contract with private companies to operate their train service, a provision that has run the British rail system into serious trouble.
Britain's privatization scheme has divided rail operation among dozens of companies, 25 of which run trains and another that runs the tracks. But instead of increasing efficiency, on-time reliability has been dismal. Tracks are in bad repair and, as a result, several high-profile rail accidents have killed and injured scores of passengers.
Part of the problem seems to be that the private companies saw fit to cut corners by putting off needed track repairs and costly improvements. With a focus on achieving short-term financial targets in order to please shareholders, long-term planning goals were sacrificed, and as a result there's even talk of renationalizing rail service.
The push to reform Amtrak is driven by the fact that it hasn't turned a profit since its creation in 1971, losing more than $25 billion in taxpayers' money. However, no passenger rail service in the world survives without government help. Federal funding for Amtrak is dwarfed by the massive subsidies that flow to highways and the commercial airline network every year.
Those who envision a windfall from splitting up Amtrak are also dreaming. Under the scenario proposed by the administration, the federal government would continue to pay for capital expenses for at least six years until the states gradually provided up to 50 percent of that funding. For the foreseeable future, it would cost American taxpayers more to run rail service, not less.
After the Sept. 11 attacks shut down commercial air traffic, we can no longer afford to be naive about dispensing with Amtrak or some reasonable facsimile. Intercity rail -- along with highways and air travel -- is part of a three-legged stool forming our national transportation strategy. But the Bush plan could wind up cutting rail service now available in 46 states to about 20.
A more promising solution may lie in a bill sponsored by U.S. Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.) that calls for $4.6 billion in annual federal funding for Amtrak's reconstruction and operating needs over the next five years. Amtrak President and CEO David Gunn has asked for $8 billion during the same time frame to maintain existing routes and to make much-needed train and track repairs.
Certainly, there's a better way to run a national railroad. It might include opportunities for more private sector involvement, a requirement for states to pick up more of the tab and eliminating some of the least-traveled routes.
But repeating Britain's mistakes would be foolish.
Not to mention parlous.
