At least a dozen companies, including the operator of the Paris Metro, are interested in running parts of America's passenger rail network if Congress ends Amtrak's monopoly, a transportation consultant said Thursday. ``There is a wide range of robust and well-run companies that could step in and be private operators,'' William Rennicke, vice president of Mercer Management Consulting, said at a hearing on Amtrak's future. Some members of the House Transportation subcommittee on railroads said Congress should not waste time talking about shifting passenger rail service from Amtrak's control. ``We ought to stop kidding ourselves that we're going to shut (Amtrak) down,'' said Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore. Congress is to vote this year on Amtrak's future. Lawmakers have proposed a range of ideas, from dramatically increasing Amtrak's federal aid to breaking up Amtrak and letting money-losing routes die. Allan Rutter, administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration, was expected to be the star witness at the hearing as the bearer of the Bush administration's long-awaited proposals for Amtrak and passenger rail. The administration canceled his appearance Wednesday, however, saying it needs additional time to draft a plan. Several subcommittee members urged the chairman, Rep. Jack Quinn, R-N.Y., to hold another hearing once the Bush administration is ready to lay out its policy. Administration officials are said to be at odds over whether to let Amtrak continue to monopolize intercity passenger rail or allow franchising of at least some Amtrak services. Talk of breaking Amtrak's monopoly on intercity passenger service got a boost in February when the congressionally created Amtrak Reform Council recommended franchising routes to introduce competition into passenger rail. Critics immediately questioned whether private companies would be interested in passenger rail travel, which was a money-losing operation for primarily freight-carrying railroads and continues to lose money under Amtrak. Several witnesses at Thursday's hearing supported some form of private participation in passenger rail. Rennicke, a consultant to transport operators, said the last decade has seen a marked increase in private-sector involvement in train operations, maintenance and financing. Rennicke said he recently drafted a blueprint for possible private participation in U.S. passenger rail service and distributed it to major transportation companies. He said 10 to 12 companies responded within 48 hours to express interest. Among them, he said, were RATP, the Paris transit authority; France's Alstom Ltd., which helped build Amtrak's high-speed Acela Express trains; and Britain's Great North Eastern Railway. Rennicke also named Continental Airlines, but a company spokesman disputed that. ``Any suggestion that Continental Airlines is interested in being in the railroad business is incorrect,'' said spokesman Jeff Awalt.
The only way private operators would be interested in taking over Amtrak routes is if there was a potential for profit. This would involve continued federal or state subsidies and or higher fares. Any routes that had a potential for profit would be taken first leaving the rest of the system to be dropped. I don't believe this is a workable alternative. Reggie
Maybe Congress should let a private company take over the Postal Service, allowing that company to shut down all non-profitable Post Offices throughout the Country. OK, I said that with tongue firmly planted in cheek! But this is exactly what Congress is trying to do with Amtrak!
Good analogy Hank. Surely the US must soon realise that a national rail passenger network must be continued, particularly as road congestion continues to rise. A TINY proportion of fuel tax could fund and improve Amtrak, the US has some of the cheapest fuel in the world, so surely a little of the revenue could go to passenger rail.
Hank, What you said is exactly what would happen to Amtrak, private companies would only want the profitable routes and closedown the rest. When are governments going to accept that rail travel provides a service to the community. Yes it does come at a price but so do Police forces, Public hospitals and the road network
Alan, Paul ... Thanks. I don't want to start a Flame War, but 99% of my fellow citizens do NOT have a Clue ... and those that do, do NOT want to get INVOLVED!!!! Send e-mail, letters, phone calls, etc. to your elected Representatives in the Federal and State Senate and House ... GET INVOLVED - DAMMIT!!! SORRY
Do not appologize Hank, you are 100% correct. People do not care about trains because there is no reason for them to care. Until gas prices become too expensive and air travel becomes too inconvenient, people will not shift their views on train travel. One piece of good news , however, is that the Acela is now in competition with the air shuttles as it takes the same amount of time to get to the airport, get screened through security several times and sit on the tarmac as it does to take the train! Russ
Russ, how right you are. In 1970, gas prices in France were around $4/Gal, and I assume it was similar for the neighboring countries. This made it very expensive for most Europeans to own and/or use an automobile. Consequently, Western Europe has continuously maintained a complex passenger rail network that serves and is supported by the population.
Well, Russ you answered my question as to whom will take over if Amtrak goes bust. I'm not in favor of losing Amtrak, but someone has to be there to step in should it really happen. If it does happen.....well it will be interesting to see new passenger rail lines emerge from the carnage. There might be some nice new paint schemes to chase out there......... Imagine if an airline took over: "I'm sorry Miss, your luggage went to Chicago by mistake!" "Sir, your luggage went to Boston". "Would you like some peanuts?" My family did their small part by my daughter taking Amtrak to Montreal. I sure am hoping to take a trip myself before the summer is out.
Here's your answer, no one's going to take over Amtrak routes if they are discontinued, Period. If we lose any routes they will be gone, Bye-Bye, never to be seen again. The agreements made between the fright (intentional mispelling) lines are with Amtrak & not with anyone else. They don't cover fully allocated costs associated with running Amtrak trains over their ROW. Anyone else looking to operate trains would pay much more for that right. Ain't gonna happen, Period. That's why it is so important that we convince the people holding the purse strings that we need and deserve an expanded and improved Amtrak, with more trains to more places & the people will come. Reggie
Everybody is so right here, I have been a loyal supporter opf Amtrak since I even knewe what Amtrak was. I have made several long distance trips to Seattle, Vancouver BC Canada, Toronot, Chicago, New York and Boston, not to mention Orlando Florida. But if Amtrak dies, whose going to run Amtrak's trains, surely not the states and not the railroads like BNSF or for what else matters, Union Pacific Anyone who lives in California needs to send e mails to Governeor Dvis and say that passenger rail should not die, even if Caltrans, (Amtrak California) still chooses to operate Amtrak's trains in California That is why Amtrak has been making the money here in the West Coast also the West Coast Amtrak trains (California Zephyr,Coast Starlight, and Southwest Chief were all owned by SP, ATSF and UP,BN, WP get out there and show your support for our Amtrak
Everybody is right with this. Amtrak must be preserved as it is now, except MORE trains need to be put on. Try booking a sleeper on a train from Chicago heading west for a summer vacation, unless you make reservations months in advance, you ain't gonna get a ticket - trains are that booked. Even more people would try to ride the train if train times were a little more convient, too many cities have the one & only train pass thru at some ungodly hour in the middle of the night, the time plus a possible LONG ride to the station are reasons many people fly so that their trip starts out at a more reasonable time. If Amtrak had lets say 2 Calif Zephyrs the dep't times from Chicago / Oakland could be 12 hours apart so that psgrs in Salt Lake wouldn't be getting on/off the train in the middle of the night, or people in Toledo, Ohio could board the Lakeshore Ltd / Capitol Ltd at other than 100am! More long distance trains will result in more psgrs, problem is, no money for the needed equipment.
