BOB2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All Aboard Florida and the FEC are proposing
> privately operated passenger service between Miami
> and Orlando.

My reply was specifically in response to tax-incentives for privately-owned and operated passenger rail, not privately-operated passenger rail, in general. If AAF succeeds, bless them. However, it is not necessarily an arrangement which can be replicated elsewhere in the US as a major factor in this effort is the owning railroad welcoming passenger rail operations on its line - a condition which does not exist in most of the US.

That said, I wouldn't even cite AAF as an example, until it has been operational for several years.

There have been several privately-operated passenger rail services since Amtrak's creation, none of which are running as privately-operated services now. These range from the Southern Railway, South Shore and Rio Grande trains which were present at Amtrak's creation to the original Auto Train to the Montana Rockies Rail Tours.

>
> LA-LV is proposed to be a privately operated High
> Speed Rail project.

Another case of don't count your locomotives until they leave the roundhouse.
>
> Both projects may be eligible for "federal" loan
> guarantee's, which reduces risks to lenders.
>
> I have seen no real evidence that tax credits
> would be more or less efficient than direct grants
> in providing rail passenger services. If there is
> some evidence to support that, then post a link,
> I'd like to see it.

Sorry, this is something I read in print many years ago which referenced general government programs. I don't save all of my newspapers and other print material.
>
> Amtrak is nothing to write home about when it
> comes to economic "efficiency" in its operating
> practices, which is why local corridors are being
> taken over in CA.

I've heard that Amtrak covers 80 - 85% of expenses from fare revenues (a higher percentage was used in a recent Amtrak press release, but state support was included with those revenues). This is higher than most other nations' railroads. However, if regional rail authorities can more effectively provide the service than Amtrak, more power to them. However, it is still government, not the private sector assuming responsibility for the service.
>
> We have never really tried the "tax credit"
> subsidies that I know of, so criticizing an idea
> we've never really tried, without any evidence,
> would seem to be an expression of your belief
> about this method of financing rail service,
> rather than facts.

That's correct, it's my belief. However, nothing I've read leads me to believe that any of the Class 1 railroads would have an interest in being directly responsible for passenger trains. As for a private entity other than the railroads operating long-distance passenger trains, I am of the understanding that the railroads only want Amtrak to run such service.
>
> And, Bus services have thrived and are thriving
> today. Some are very low cost carriers with a
> fairly poor clientele, but that does not make them
> a necessarily less "efficient" or worse form of
> transport, than rail for many users.

There's a huge difference between "thriving" and being a quality operation. McDonald's has thrived, in the United States, but any guy believing that this represents high quality food will not have a pleasant time if he takes a gal to McDonald's on a first date.

I even challenge your claim that intercity buses are "thriving." Where I live, Megabus came in with a blast, rapidly expanded services and was the darling among many. However, over time, Megabus has eliminated all service west of my city, reduced frequencies on most remaining routes and lengthen running times to add more communities to the routes.

As for Trailways affiliates and Greyhound, many of its routes are supported through the federal 5311 program to preserve intercity bus services to rural communities.