Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Privatized Passenger Rail - Possible or Pipe Dream?

I've said lots in this blog about how Passenger Rail will never make a profit on its own.  It is always going to need a subsidy.  I have also pointed out that there are other modes of transportation business, and other businesses in general, that are subsidized by the government in various ways that are not as overt as, for example, Amtrak.

So I started thinking about this question:  Under what circumstances would privatized Passenger Rail work and not work?

The first thing you have to do is define "privatized."  For my thought experiment, "privatized" does not mean take what you have now and throw it into the hands of private enterprise and try to make it work.  "Privatized" does, however, allow for the possibility of private enterprise buying existing assets for the purpose of running passenger trains under new and/or different business plans.  Okay now, we've already started the list of what will and will not work.  So let's step back and start with the rest of what will not work.

What Will Not Work - Item 1:  If you didn't get my drift from the last paragraph, let me spell it out.  Do not take an existing Passenger Rail service - Amtrak or Chicago's Metra, for examples - throw it's system into the hands of private enterprise by some means - sale or lease contract, for other examples - and demand that service continue as is while the private operator struggles to run what was already a losing proposition while, at the same time, trying to make changes that will bring the system into profitability.

What Will Not Work - Item 2:  Do not expect freight railroads to jump in and start operating Passenger Rail of a robust nature using existing freight rail infrastructure.  The freight railroads are in the business of moving goods and commodities.  Sure, they'll take a look at a proposal that throws money their way, but their hearts will not be in it.  We who love Passenger Rail will rue the day we try this one.

What Will Not Work - Item 3:  Do not wait until private investors get all goo-goo-eyed over High Speed Rail. At least not in our venue (USA and/or North America).  The HSR project now underway on "The Continent" involves lots and lots of investor's money and that's just for trains and routes over infrastructure that already exists or has already been approved and passed environmental muster.  (Perhaps a key to what will work.)  With the stranglehold that greens have over is, don't expect to see anything get approved economically unless it is by fiat.  And the Fiatster In Chief does not like corporations and investors making a profit.

More next time.

©2012 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com



2 comments:

Christopher Parker said...

Passenger rail's need for a subsidy is directly related to:
1. the subsidy competing modes get
2. Legacy costs
3. Requirements (as you note) that prevent responding to the market.

If the government stopped subsidizing roads and airports, trains could easily stand on their own with no problem.

One aspect of the Florida situation is that the competing route is a toll road, changing the economics somewhat.

Unknown said...

Hey there! Keep it up! I will be looking forward to visit your page again and for your other posts as well. Thank you for sharing your thoughts about california by train. I'm glad to stop by your site and know more about california by train. This is a good read.
One issue initially debated was the crossing of the Diablo Range via either the Altamont Pass or the Pacheco Pass to link the Bay Area to the Central Valley. On November 15, 2007, CHSRA staff recommended that the High Speed Rail follow the Pacheco Pass route because it is more direct and serves both San Jose and San Francisco on the same route, while the Altamont route poses several major engineering obstacles, including crossing San Francisco Bay. Some cities along the Altamont route, such as Pleasanton and Fremont, opposed the Altamont route option, citing concerns over possible property taking and increase in traffic congestion. However, environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, have opposed the Pacheco route because the area is less developed and more environmentally sensitive than Altamont.
Where do I want to go? Check out our list of California locations and then see some of the great packages we’ve already put together. You can pick one city or multiple cities over several days.