 |
Re: What we have to show for the
Author: FUD
Date: 06-21-2020 - 12:07
Major Rant Warning!!!
wick/prop dick show Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The National Railroad Passenger Corporation
> (better known as Amtrak) is a for-profit
> corporation that operates intercity passenger rail
> services in 46 states and the District of
> Columbia, in addition to serving as a contractor
> in various capacities for several commuter rail
> agencies.
Technically, that's true. Of course, it's never made a profit. It's similar in some respects to a Crown Corporation in the British Empire, or the Alaska Railroad in its early days. It's *intended* to make a profit, and to run trains without subsidies, but in practice the best it can do is an operating ratio above 80, and even that only by counting state-provided public subsidies as passenger revenue. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with that, if the fiction of "for profit" were not always thrown around, because Amtrak overall does far better than typical transit operations at providing public service for a reasonable subsidy (arguably less subsidy than highway users get). Think of Amtrak as minimal public rail transit on a national scale.
> Amtrak was created by Congress in the Rail
> Passenger Service Act of 1970 and incorporated in
> the District of Columbia in 1971, assuming the
> common carrier obligations of the private
> railroads in exchange for the right to priority
> access of their tracks for incremental cost.
That incremental cost thing is the key for keeping Amtrak's costs in check, and why the railroads really don't want any more Amtrak trains (and are privately doing happy dances about having fewer Amtrak trains, with triweekly everywhere, to mess with their operations).
> Amtrak's Board of Directors sets corporate policy
> and oversees the management of the company.
Technically, that may be true. The Amtrak BOD has a long record, though, of failure to do exactly that leaving the CEO to do what he (has always been a he) wants to do. The Board is loaded with appointees who toe political lines that usually are aimed at quietly (rather than by a Congressional vote) dismantling the company. There's some history showing that Amtrak was never intended to survive, so there was no need to institute a Board with any independence, guts, or direction to actually run things.
> The board is made up of 10 members, including the
> USDOT Secretary or her designee.
Just one of the appointees.
> Amtrak’s President serves as a non-voting member.
That's nice. More corporate CEOs should be non-voting if on the Board. But it has what to do with the price of tea? Or an Amtrak ticket?
> FRA provides analytical support to the Secretary
> or her designee and is also responsible for
> administering federal grants to Amtrak , which has
> led to increased FRA oversight of Amtrak spending
> since Fiscal Year 2003.
That's nice. So the public pays for an Amtrak Board member's staff, but off the Amtrak budget. Check.
> The Amtrak Board is responsible for everything,
> not the CEO.
In principle, yes. In practice, they get to take the blame but have none of the power. Sort of the opposite of the current collection of politicians, really.
> The Board is made up of the same old dead track
> last stop politically connected "management" swamp
> types.
>
> Everything we have to "show" for it at Amtrak is a
> result of that.
That's the case with almost every political creation. Amtrak was created as a "for profit" corporation under the control of Congress and USDOT. It was never intended to survive, or to actually make a profit. The railroads that originally got "stock" in Amtrak were happy to sell it all back to the government so they wouldn't have to carry worthless stock (because they knew how and why the company was set up) on their balance sheets.
A few more thoughts triggered by the above:
* We.Need.Amtrak. As with Interstate Highways, there is a societal need for a national passenger railroad providing service between major population centers as well as to smaller towns along the way. The current Amtrak network is about as minimal as it can get to provide a basic national service, and that's only with states subsidizing substantial chunks of it.
* Amtrak.Will.Never.Make.Money. It should be reconstituted as a nonprofit corporation. The Alaska Railroad model of making money from running freight is not applicable to Amtrak. It is impossible for any passenger railroad to make money from fares over the long term and still offer affordable service to the majority of the public. There's a tendency to call the long-distance trains "cruise trains" but they're not: much if not most of the boardings are to and from intermediate points that have little to do with how scenic the route is. True cruise trains IMO should be private operations (like the cruise trains on Alaska, WP&Y, and in the Canadian Rockies) and should not operate with the implicit subsidy of the Amtrak incremental cost rule even if they aren't explicitly subsidized.
* Still, Amtrak is a railroad, and should be run like one. Some of the CEOs tried to do that, and the operation improved during their reign. Unfortunately, with a Board for whose members the primary qualification is political reliability, as also with the CEO in recent times, it's not really a railroad, it's a government commission.
* Government Commissions are places where politicians go once they can no longer do their real jobs but don't want to (or can't, for some reason) go lobbying. Those should be places where they can't do much harm. The Board of a company running trains is not such a place.
* Perhaps, since it's a government-owned corporation, the voters of the US should be given the opportunity to vote on Amtrak board members much like stockholders do for regular corporations? And that some experience in corporate finance and railroading should be a required qualification for at least a majority of the Board?
Chances of any of that happening? Approximately zero, so live with what we've got and try to preserve as much of it as we can.
The lawyer is the larval form of the politician. The politician is the adolescent form of the lobbyist. Most lobbyists are also lawyers. Think about how that works.
wick/prop dick show Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The National Railroad Passenger Corporation
> (better known as Amtrak) is a for-profit
> corporation that operates intercity passenger rail
> services in 46 states and the District of
> Columbia, in addition to serving as a contractor
> in various capacities for several commuter rail
> agencies.
Technically, that's true. Of course, it's never made a profit. It's similar in some respects to a Crown Corporation in the British Empire, or the Alaska Railroad in its early days. It's *intended* to make a profit, and to run trains without subsidies, but in practice the best it can do is an operating ratio above 80, and even that only by counting state-provided public subsidies as passenger revenue. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with that, if the fiction of "for profit" were not always thrown around, because Amtrak overall does far better than typical transit operations at providing public service for a reasonable subsidy (arguably less subsidy than highway users get). Think of Amtrak as minimal public rail transit on a national scale.
> Amtrak was created by Congress in the Rail
> Passenger Service Act of 1970 and incorporated in
> the District of Columbia in 1971, assuming the
> common carrier obligations of the private
> railroads in exchange for the right to priority
> access of their tracks for incremental cost.
That incremental cost thing is the key for keeping Amtrak's costs in check, and why the railroads really don't want any more Amtrak trains (and are privately doing happy dances about having fewer Amtrak trains, with triweekly everywhere, to mess with their operations).
> Amtrak's Board of Directors sets corporate policy
> and oversees the management of the company.
Technically, that may be true. The Amtrak BOD has a long record, though, of failure to do exactly that leaving the CEO to do what he (has always been a he) wants to do. The Board is loaded with appointees who toe political lines that usually are aimed at quietly (rather than by a Congressional vote) dismantling the company. There's some history showing that Amtrak was never intended to survive, so there was no need to institute a Board with any independence, guts, or direction to actually run things.
> The board is made up of 10 members, including the
> USDOT Secretary or her designee.
Just one of the appointees.
> Amtrak’s President serves as a non-voting member.
That's nice. More corporate CEOs should be non-voting if on the Board. But it has what to do with the price of tea? Or an Amtrak ticket?
> FRA provides analytical support to the Secretary
> or her designee and is also responsible for
> administering federal grants to Amtrak , which has
> led to increased FRA oversight of Amtrak spending
> since Fiscal Year 2003.
That's nice. So the public pays for an Amtrak Board member's staff, but off the Amtrak budget. Check.
> The Amtrak Board is responsible for everything,
> not the CEO.
In principle, yes. In practice, they get to take the blame but have none of the power. Sort of the opposite of the current collection of politicians, really.
> The Board is made up of the same old dead track
> last stop politically connected "management" swamp
> types.
>
> Everything we have to "show" for it at Amtrak is a
> result of that.
That's the case with almost every political creation. Amtrak was created as a "for profit" corporation under the control of Congress and USDOT. It was never intended to survive, or to actually make a profit. The railroads that originally got "stock" in Amtrak were happy to sell it all back to the government so they wouldn't have to carry worthless stock (because they knew how and why the company was set up) on their balance sheets.
A few more thoughts triggered by the above:
* We.Need.Amtrak. As with Interstate Highways, there is a societal need for a national passenger railroad providing service between major population centers as well as to smaller towns along the way. The current Amtrak network is about as minimal as it can get to provide a basic national service, and that's only with states subsidizing substantial chunks of it.
* Amtrak.Will.Never.Make.Money. It should be reconstituted as a nonprofit corporation. The Alaska Railroad model of making money from running freight is not applicable to Amtrak. It is impossible for any passenger railroad to make money from fares over the long term and still offer affordable service to the majority of the public. There's a tendency to call the long-distance trains "cruise trains" but they're not: much if not most of the boardings are to and from intermediate points that have little to do with how scenic the route is. True cruise trains IMO should be private operations (like the cruise trains on Alaska, WP&Y, and in the Canadian Rockies) and should not operate with the implicit subsidy of the Amtrak incremental cost rule even if they aren't explicitly subsidized.
* Still, Amtrak is a railroad, and should be run like one. Some of the CEOs tried to do that, and the operation improved during their reign. Unfortunately, with a Board for whose members the primary qualification is political reliability, as also with the CEO in recent times, it's not really a railroad, it's a government commission.
* Government Commissions are places where politicians go once they can no longer do their real jobs but don't want to (or can't, for some reason) go lobbying. Those should be places where they can't do much harm. The Board of a company running trains is not such a place.
* Perhaps, since it's a government-owned corporation, the voters of the US should be given the opportunity to vote on Amtrak board members much like stockholders do for regular corporations? And that some experience in corporate finance and railroading should be a required qualification for at least a majority of the Board?
Chances of any of that happening? Approximately zero, so live with what we've got and try to preserve as much of it as we can.
The lawyer is the larval form of the politician. The politician is the adolescent form of the lobbyist. Most lobbyists are also lawyers. Think about how that works.
