if they charge fares they are not fulloy government.only partially false - Amtrak is supposed to be gov't funded ... it is part of the Gov't, not a private business. Are you sure the CDC does not compete with any other research/medical labs?
if they charge fares they are not fulloy government.only partially false - Amtrak is supposed to be gov't funded ... it is part of the Gov't, not a private business. Are you sure the CDC does not compete with any other research/medical labs?
Amtrak is owned by the government but is not really part of it in the sense that the Department of Transportation is. It is only partially funded by the federal government. A vast majority of it is really funded by its users and state governments. The chartering instrument of Amtrak explicitly says that it should be run as a for profit business, which contrary to the best wishes and fantasies of some railfans, sounds way more like a private business than a government department.only partially false - Amtrak is supposed to be gov't funded ... it is part of the Gov't, not a private business. Are you sure the CDC does not compete with any other research/medical labs?
“... the 1970 law that created Amtrak says it’s supposed to operate like a for-profit company,” you say. Yes, it did say that. But at the time, the folks who wrote that measure acknowledged that it was more aspirational than anything else. And in 1978, lawmakers recognized their error. And they changed the law.
Section 301 of the Rail Passengers Service Act, which was amended to insert the words “operated and managed as” to introduce the term “a for profit corporation.” You’ll find that clause in the Amtrak Improvement Act of 1978. This wording was deliberate, and intended to recognize the reality that the objective was for Amtrak to do its best to run a tight ship, but not necessarily to make a profit.
“Section 9 amends section 301 of the RPSA…to conform the law to reality, providing that Amtrak shall be ‘operated and managed as’ a for-profit corporation. This amendment recognizes that Amtrak is not a for-profit corporation.”
... since 1978, Congress has not required Amtrak to make a profit
if they charge fares they are not fulloy government.
I don't know what the phrase "in business" might mean. But the USG is able to own corporations, and has done so for over a hundred years, each created by an act of Congress, and in said act Congress can stipulate that it be for profit, if it so chooses. Conrail was created in that form too. Amtrak is one of the current 17 such entities.as I understand it, the Gov't is not allowed to be "in business"
I'll take the bait. The Interstates lose money because they don't charge tolls. The toll roads are profitable.
"For profit" can mean a lot of things. For example, it could simply mean that the Amtrak's revenues should exceed its expenses only to the point that no further taxpayer subsidy is needed, which is I think is what Congress was thinking when they created the company in the first place. Or it could mean that it should be managed to infinitely maximize its profit and value to the shareholders, as most private corporations do nowadays.Amtrak is owned by the government but is not really part of it in the sense that the Department of Transportation is. It is only partially funded by the federal government. A vast majority of it is really funded by its users and state governments. The chartering instrument of Amtrak explicitly says that it should be run as a for profit business, which contrary to the best wishes and fantasies of some railfans, sounds way more like a private business than a government department.
That's the thing ...
Why are the Post Office and Amtrak singled out and expected to make a profit when they are also Government Services?
- The Secret Service does not make a profit
- The Military does not make a profit
- The US Highway System does not make a profit
- The Senate does not make a profit
- Congress does not make a profit
- The White House does not make a profit
- Many Government Programs (like those for the poor) do not make a profit
There are specific classes of passenger rail systems that do not require subsidy. They are mostly high end parts of larger systems. But the same systems quite often also run a lot of, so called, "social service" trains, which are explicitly subsidized to keep fares lower - sometimes much lower, than would be required for them to be self standing profitable.Is there anywhere in the world where passenger rail service doesn't require a subsidy? (Aside from excursion rail, like Mt. Washington)
I used to take the American-European Express pulled by Amtrak DC-Chicago. At the cost, I assumed IT wasn't subsidized (?). After morphing a few times, went OOB in 2008.Is there anywhere in the world where passenger rail service doesn't require a subsidy? (Aside from excursion rail, like Mt. Washington)
They intend to be profitable. They certainly are not at present.Brightline seems like a profitable company, AFAIK....or why would they bother?
Brightline (Virgin USA, or whatever they brand themselves now) hopes to be a profitable company, but I don't think it is right now, and probably has no chance of being so until they start running trains to Orlando, at least. Of course, the investors realize that, so they're patient right now, but eventually they will want to see a return for their investment.Brightline seems like a profitable company, AFAIK....or why would they bother?
which is I think is what Congress was thinking when they created the company in the first place.
When a service doesn't serve many people at all and doesn't serve many others except for graveyard shift service, people don't want to pay taxes for it so other people can get it and they can't.
Because (as far as I know) Amtrak is owned 100% by the U.S. government, and its not traded on any stock market anyway, "maximizing its value" seems to be sort of silly, unless the government want to sell it for a short term cash windfall. (But every instance I've heard about when the government sells a public asset, they usually sell it cheap to a politically well-connected buyer, and the government doesn't make the financial windfall it should get.)
Meh. I live in a rural state with three Interstate highways. There is no public transit (outside of a few municipalities which sponsor very limited bus service) and you'd see torches and pitchforks when the legislature is in session protesting tolls before you'd see support for any reliable transit option, even if fully funded by a non-state entity.If all interstates charged tolls that actually covered the entire expense, I think we’d see a lot more public transit operations.
At the same time, Interstate 80 [the USA's only coast-to-coast continuous highway] is heavily traveled with cross-country traffic
https://www.factmonster.com/math-science/numbering-the-highway-systemThree highways run from coast to coast: I-10, I-80, and I-90. Seven highways run from border to border: I-5, I-15, I-35, I-55, I-65, I-75, and I-95
At the same time, Interstate 80 is heavily traveled with cross-country traffic, mostly commercial trucks, and proposals have been floated to add a toll on a portion of that Interstate in order to 'make the trucks pay for the wear and tear they do'. But it has run into legal and logistical obstacles, and so it's just easier to increase the fuel tax and make everyone suffer and cross fingers that long distance trucks will stop and buy fuel in-state.
Meh. I live in a rural state with three Interstate highways. There is no public transit (outside of a few municipalities which sponsor very limited bus service) and you'd see torches and pitchforks when the legislature is in session protesting tolls before you'd see support for any reliable transit option, even if fully funded by a non-state entity.
The last Republican governor happily signed a 20-cent/gallon fuel tax increase in order to fund the backlog for highway reconstruction. Yet, people won't see any observable benefit for years because of the backlog, and by that time, construction costs will have risen to the point where I expect another fuel tax increase will become necessary, all at the same time fuel consumption is decreasing overall. So it's a constant Catch-22 situation.
At the same time, Interstate 80 [the USA's only coast-to-coast continuous highway] is heavily traveled with cross-country traffic, mostly commercial trucks (and pharmaceutical couriers), and proposals have been floated to add a toll on a portion of that Interstate in order to 'make the trucks pay for the wear and tear they do'. But it has run into legal and logistical obstacles (as well as heavy lobbying by the trucking industry) and so it's just easier to increase the fuel tax and make everyone suffer and cross fingers that long distance trucks will stop and buy fuel in-state.
There is no magic bullet to keeping the vast national highway system maintained and in proper working order. It may be time to reevaluate the value of the network in a cost-benefit analysis manner and make some adjustments. However, like many other elements of modern-day life, any changes that prevent the average citizen from seeing the USA in their Chevrolet will be met with heavy resistance.
Enter your email address to join: