It is no suprise to anyone here in the forums to know that I am staunchly conservative. That being said, I have always maintained that the Government (State or Federal) shouldn't be charged with playing trains.
As an avid train fan, I do enjoy the fact that Amtrak is still in service and I try to ride whenever I can - even if it's just for 30 minutes a year (which is about what my wife allows me to spend). Sure, I would love to see the Gov eliminate everything else before Amtrak, but I'm sure that all those food stamp recipients don't want their services cut either.
A typical conservative argument. You like to pit one tiny program against another, while ignoring the massive financial black holes that currently eat up our federal budget. For example, military spending for FY10 was estimated at something north of $700 billion.
Why should Amtrak's money have to come from "food stamps"?
That all being said, I think that the whole Amtrak theology needs to be reinvented. Amtrak should not be a gift from God or Government, but a product of sound planning and fiscal responsibility.
Who is calling Amtrak a gift from god? Further, why single out Amtrak? If you're going to go after Amtrak, you should go after all transportation.
It is true that just running trains is too expensive for any private enterprise to consider. However, a company can have a loss leader and still turn a profit if there are many profiting facets to the business model.
First focus on the NEC. Yes, that hurts me because I don't live on the NEC and I would not be a part of this. But hang on. EVERY station on the NEC, already owned and operated by Amtrak, should be chock full of rented retail space. There should be bulletin boards full of revenue advertising on the platforms and in the trains. The trains, ie: Acela, should be lengthened to meet a 90% occupancy demand rate so revenue isn't lost.
If you've visited any NEC station recently (apparently you haven't), you'd see that this is already the case.
Then it gets tricky. Amtrak should own its own powerplants to power the Amtrak grid at wholesale cost. It should operate a surplus of energy and sell the rest.
So, you're advocating one of two things here. Either, the government get into the power plant business (socialism), or Amtrak is its own private company, who happens to own power plants and all sorts of everything else. If Amtrak ran as a private company, then the shareholders would want Amtrak to get rid of the passenger trains and focus on the money-making businesses. What have we accomplished, then? As far as I can tell, we've just created another energy company, and still need someone to pay for the losses on passenger trains.
The unions have got to get under control. Eliminate the pension. Establish a Roth or Traditional 401(k) retirement package. Cross train each employee within thier discipline. Align salaries with similar airline peers.
Please cite examples of unions being "out of control." As for the "pension," as you call it, it's really Railroad Retirement, which is the railroad version of social security. It's not an Amtrak pension. Amtrak management employees already have 401(k) options in addition to Railroad Retirement. It's no difference than any other company offering 4019k) contributions plus Social Security.
Thanks for playing, though.
Reduce management to essentials. Demand outside contractors to perform to get paid.
Define "essential." Also, please provide examples of outside contractors not performing.
Provide excellent customer service. Ridership may be up, but growth cannot be sustained if new riders only ride once because they hate the experience.
When this is successfully accomplished, then revenue should begin to outpace expenses.
Long distance routes should be accounted for with a proper overhead proration and should offer various levels of service that are consistent and established.
I don't know where you're going with this (overhead proration and whatnot). But, you seem to be of the assumption that the average rider hates the Amtrak experience. My impression is different. Amtrak is not perfect, but then again, neither is any private, for-profit corporation.
As far as consistency in service, one of the things that has hurt Amtrak has been the constant threat of elimination, combined with the inability to plan for more than a few months to one year out (which is a direct result of said threat). Amtrak has had five different presidents over the past decade, which makes it difficult to fully carry out any major programs from start to finish.
Quite frankly, I don't think Amtrak will get past the first step. Amtrak philosophy is more like a Theology - it can't ever seem to change. They keep trying and trying and trying the same thing and expecting different results. That is the definition of insanity.
Amtrak has continuously attempted to change. The problem is that, whenever we're almost getting somewhere, some bulls*** Congressional mandate comes down (generally inserted by some conservative politician) that micromanages some aspect of Amtrak's operation and stops the plan. For example, in the mid-2000s, Amtrak was in the process of enhancing service on its long-distance trains, starting with the Empire Builder. Shortly afterward came an edict from Congress that said Amtrak must reduce its *food-service* losses. Not overall losses, mind you. No, they singled out food-service. So, these "good-business sense fiscally responsible conservatives" didn't give a damn whether an increase in food-service losses might actually generate more revenue elsewhere to more than offset the cost of food. (You see, people who actually understood business and economics would realize that some things have to be loss leaders in order to support the business as a whole. Unfortunately, many of those in Congress, both past and present, don't understand business and economics.)
As a result, Amtrak had to put a stop to the program and instead implement a cut in food service. In subsequent years, those restrictions have been lifted and Amtrak has been able to enhance food service again, and overall system ridership and revenues have grown. Amtrak has been able to increase ticket prices on certain trains concurrent with an increase in the quality of food service. The net for Amtrak has been a win, no thanks to the conservatives in Congress which set Amtrak back about five years in getting to this point.
Right now, Amtrak is performing long-distance route reviews as required by the PRIIA law, and is recommending enhancements to the service. Unfortunately, so much is outside of Amtrak's control, that it may be years (if ever) before some of the most major enhancements (improved frequency) are realized.
Amtrak has been woefully undercapitalized for its entire existence. Many of the changes that you have been suggesting above (those that are in any way realistic and haven't already been done, that is), require a massive infusion of initial capital. Who would provide it?
Back during the last round of "Amtrak should be self-sufficient (but we won't worry about subsidies to airlines or highways)" nonsense, which was in the late 1990s (the last ARRA, or the "Amtrak Reform and Reauthorization Act," which also created the Amtrak Reform Council), Congress authorized $5 billion to help Amtrak on its way towards self-sufficiency. Over the life of the authorization (I want to say it was 1998-2002, or roughly equivalent to George Warrington's tenure), Amtrak only received half that amount. If Amtrak was ever going to grow itself into a better financial situation, that other $2.5 billion would have gone a long way.
Instead, Amtrak was so short of cash that they had to park equipment instead of rehabbing it, and wound up mortgaging New York Penn Station just to make payroll. Some of the fault lay with George Warrington, but even he had a plan that would have grown the long-distance network, as well as corridors. It didn't happen, in part, because of the lack of equipment, which could have been addressed had the full authorization been appropriated ($2.5 billion today would be the equivalent of about 1000 passenger cars).
With a greatly expanded system, average overhead would go down (spread across more service), and increased connectivity would lead to much greater revenue. Amtrak understood this then, and Amtrak understands this now. What Amtrak doesn't have is the money needed to make that initial investment. The conservatives in Congress seem hell bent on ensuring Amtrak will never have it.
To say that Amtrak never changes is to ignore reality. What doesn't change is the political view of Amtrak.
As for the money going to Highways, I don't care if they want to reduce those and charge me tolls. But I-95 is in major need of some repair in this area and I travel it every single day. That's where I'd rather see my money spent.
Great. Because more of my tax money goes to subsidize your highways than your tax money goes to subsidize my transit. Amtrak's cost recovery is north of 70%, whereas highways are around 50%. Maybe it's the highways that you should be attacking, and not Amtrak.
Lets move to canada at least they have some rail left.
