Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023
The problem with a completely government funded and operated rail system, in this country anyway, is that it is subject to our system of appropriating funds. Amtrak doesn't work partly because it has to operate too many unprofitable routes in places that don't really need passenger rail, because these places are represented by Congressmen that will vote against funding unless their district gets a piece of the pie.
But as long as Amtrak has to fund regional rail service in places like Alabama and Nebraska, it won't be able to leverage infrastructure investments adequately.
|
The first idea I would like to point out is that Alabama and Nebraska don't have "regional" rail services. What they have is "long distance" or "national" train services, sometimes very late at night or very early in the morning.
Omaha > California Zephyr > EB 0500 >WB 2300
Birmingham > Crescent > NB 1435 > SB 1155
I'll agree that as long as Amtrak receives funding from a tax charged nationally, that Amtrak is
politically obligated to provide a "national" service.
You're idea that States should fund regional services is a good one. If that were to occur, then Amtrak would be redundant. Long distance services could be allowed to fade away. But, those very same States organized to provide "regional" services would need a "national" law on the books that grants them
very cheap access rights to privately owned freight railroad corridors that Amtrak enjoys now. Without it, many of your State organized regional corridors couldn't form, much less survive long. The freight railroad companies could, if not would, extort passenger rail agencies completely out of business with higher access right fees, demanding more track improvements than necessary, demanding higher prices for those track improvements than they actually cost, and demanding the States pick up their insurance fees, or demanding no fault indemnities with passenger rail operations. All of these had been sought by the freight railroad companies with commuter rail agencies in the past. Why would the States organizing "regional" services, without similar protections given Amtrak, be treated any differently?
So, if we're going to have "regional" intercity rail services, whatever and however that service is financed, we're going to need to give it "legal" powers Amtrak holds today. Why do so when Amtrak already exists? Instead, I propose we need to change how Amtrak is funded. Every Amtrak train should be funded from 50% federal and 50% local funds, whether that train requires a subsidy or not for operating profits. Any operating profits a train earns should be used to lower the Federal subsidy, not the local subsidy. In this way, NEC States pay their share for dozens of "regional" trains a day while Nebraska and Alabama pay their share for a daily "national" train service. If Nebraska or Alabama refuse to pay their fair share, Amtrak would be allowed to kill their daily train.