Posted on 08/05/2017 6:49:33 AM PDT by buckalfa
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has published a final rule for a new pilot program that would seek competitive bids from "eligible petitioners" to replace Amtrak as the operator of up to three long-distance routes.
The rules fall under a provision of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act that requires the FRA to implement the pilot program.
Published in the Federal Register last month, the final rule takes effect Sept. 5 and establishes a petition, notification and bid process by which the FRA will evaluate and select bids to provide passenger-rail service over particular long-distance routes.
The rule also establishes deadlines for filing petitions and bids and the execution of contracts with winning bidders.
Under the FAST Act, an entity may be an "eligible petitioner" for the pilot program only if it owns the relevant rail infrastructure on the route or has a "written agreement" with the rail infrastructure owner. Additionally, a winning bidder who doesn't own the infrastructure must obtain from the owner a written agreement that governs access issues.
At least it’s a first step in breaking the Amtrak monopoly and there horrendous offerings. When done properly train travel is a great way to travel and if Musk’s hyperloop proves technically feasible there’s no reason why it can’t also be adapted to run along some current train track corridors.
I’ve taken Amtrak NY-Florida about 5 times in my life and its really disappointing today. There should be satellite TV at the seats and full, WORKING wi-fi everywhere on the train. They advertise that but in my experience it doesn’t always hold up.
A pleasant train experience would give so many of us some sort of possible option to that madness of Greyhound in the sky, affectionately known as Delta, American, TSA, etc.
And some competition could help lower the outrageous passenger fees.
That is a good question. We could also ask why governments at all levels are so involved with subsidizing air travel. Do trucks pay their fair share of highway expenses?
I’ve ridden a lot in Germany via the rail system, and in 2013....I finally had a chance to ride from DC down to Birmingham, Alabama. Private cabin...the works.
For the cost, I could have flown first-class, and stayed at a Hyatt. The dinner for the evening was OK, nothing to brag about. Entertainment? Basically sipping beer and looking out the window. It just isn’t the same experience as you’d have in Germany. Toss in the lousy maintenance issue of the rails, and the railway station both at DC and Birmingham....and I’d suggest to most people to forget about the experience. If you want real rail experiences....go to France or Germany.
I hope Dagny Taggart puts in a bid.
No and No and No again to any “pilot” program.
Strict federal supervision for routes actually sill owned by Amtrak but to be run by a private company under contract with Amtrak merely continues the federal political and bureaucratic overhead that will interfere with and run up the costs of “privatization”.
Amtrak should be privatized and the process of full privatization should offer for sale, to eligible bidders (most likely existing rail companies in partnerships with others), the option to bid on however much or little they want to bid on.
Amtrak should then close any routes that did not get any bids, close up the rest of any remaining operations and go out of business.
If some politician wants to keep an unprofitable route going, they can form their own company and bid on it themselves.
Any government entity in the U.S. should be excluded from bidding on any part of Amtrak. Otherwise, the taxpayer props will merely move from the federal tax ledger to the states and localities. Privatization should cut off that option.
It is hard for me to imagine how long-distance rail can work anymore. Yes, back in the day they were a pleasant, and for some luxurious way to travel. But by the 50s the railroads themselves were fighting to rid themselves of passenger service. The simple reason—cost. Think of how many employees were needed on a first-rate transcontinental passenger train. And compare that to the number of employees (four—engineer, fireman, brakeman, conductor) on a 100-car freight train that brought in far more revenue.
The railroads had to get government permission to abandon lines (ICC?) and the government was usually very reluctant to grant it for political reasons. So the railroads actively degraded the service and even went so far as to tell customers that nearly empty trains were fully booked.
What made passenger train service so pleasant was the level of personal service you received while on board. Pullman porters were famous for being helpful. I doubt that it can be recreated except for very high end luxury specials. It’s a shame, really, because there are parts of the West that can only be seen from a train window.
Because without the Federal Governments use of taxpayer dollars to subsidize it, there would be no passenger trains running?
Her railroad I’d trust.
I’d pay extra for the Comet.
When I'm not in a hurry I enjoy train travel. There is a lot of leg room and freedom to get up and walk around, or even step off the train during stops. The people you meet are always very interesting and nice. You can bring your own snacks and drinks, and there is plenty of room for luggage.
But it would take a genius smarter than Einstein to figure out how to turn a profit under current conditions.
I was friends with an accountant for the Norfolk and Western railroad. He told me that passenger service actually made a profit, but for whatever reasons management didn't want to be involved anymore.
So the accountants were instructed to charge as much infrastructure costs to passenger service. If there was a washout, or bridge work were needed, if possible the accountants were supposed to enter the costs as part of passenger service. When it came time to get rid of passenger service, the books showed a loss.
Here in Iowa, there were too many miles of railroad and not enough local passengers (none of the granger lines went all the way to either coast, and north-south traffic has always been problematic). The general consensus was that they operated passenger trains as long as they did just to give their freight shippers a way to visit the big city without using someone else's rails. Profit was nonexistent (supposedly).
On a more personal level, I know that my elders thought travel by rail was nifty as long as you could afford the best, but if they had the choice between coach on Iowa branch lines and the Model A on a muddy road, they would take the latter. Too many of the less pleasant attributes of other humans in confined spaces had them embracing the motor car that they didn't really need at the time. They weren't overly fastidious, being people to whom the outhouse, root cellar, coal-burning furnace and Saturday night bath were still the rule rather than the exception.
Now me, I would have enjoyed the mixed train and loved the "caboose only" accommodations to some of the more remote Podunks... but I am a train nut.
Mr. niteowl77
Suggestion: If you’re going to stick a station in a crime infested, major metro area, schedule stops for sometime other than/in addition to the frickin’ middle of the night. AAAAARGH.
Thank you for your insight.
If anybody can turn this around, it’s Trump. Here’s to a solution. Am enjoying an adult beverage, so I lift my glass.
Because all the private passenger rail went bankrupt and Nixon thought that would be a shame. AmTrak was supposed to be a temporary thing until somebody figured out how to do passenger rail profitably.
Amtrak has worse customer service than any airline.
When we were in Spain, we took several trips by train, their train system is top-notch, puts ours to shame.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.