 |
Re: Cal Zeph(y)rer incident at Elko last night?
Author: OldPoleBurner
Date: 05-22-2011 - 12:30
> Amtrak is more worried about micromanaging their employees and pleasing whatever
> government agencies/customers (CCJPA/Caltrans for example) they deal with than
>producing a solid, reliable, and attractive product for riders.
True enough, but what do you expect from any agency, public or private; except that they cowtow to who ever gives them money. And since it usually a gov't agency, whether it be Congress, or CalTrain, Caltrans, MetroLink, or whatever; Amtrak cannot help but take on the attributes of these organizations - micromanagement and all. And considering that the largest chunk of cash comes from an unstable schizoid Congress; Amtrak manager's attitudes about budgeting that you point out, are not surprising at all.
That's how you do business with a micromanaging Congress. You waste as much money as possible, in order to get more. That pleases politicians! After all, the more you waste, the more dependent upon them you will become. And we Americans are still easily sucked in by such trickery - and will continue to be. So I do not believe there is any real solution, except that Amtrak become more independent of Congress.
And that can happen only if it is Amtrak's own actual customers (passengers) end up giving them the biggest chunk of their money. . . . . .So to really be more independent, thus viable in the long run, Amtrak needs to find ways to at least operate within the farebox. That is quite doable. as a few services already achieve that, such as the San Joaquins, and parts of the NEC - no daily subsidy required to pay wages, fuel, maintenance, etc.
That mostly leaves only capital funding for most routes at the purview of congress; and perhaps one or two hopeless routes operated only because a schizoid Congress paid for them that year. But capital grants do not need to be as consistent as operating grants. Skipping a year or two here and there because a schizoid Congress can't make up it's mind, won't hurt so much.
But in Amtrak's case, too many routes have limited single train service that is not economically practical nor attractive to customers. Whereas, it has been well documented by past experience that in many cases, doubling or tripling service frequencies improves ridership and revenue by the square of the increase, while increasing costs only linearly (often much less). California's Capital Corridor, Surfliners, San Joaquins, and parts of the NEC; have clearly demonstrated that this 'economy of scale' actually works - if you pick the right service level.
Of course, to get there will require a more than doubling of available equipment. And seemingly a more than doubling of capital grants. But maybe not - as there is now so much waste involved. When compared with the last price paid by private enterprise for passenger cars in the late fifties, adjusted for inflation; modern cars should be gold plated to justify their current cost. Same with locomotives; with public agencies paying 5-6 million each, verses a bit over 2 million for private locos.
There is no rational explanation for most of this, other than they see us coming! And contract laws often put public agencies at a disadvantage. Some have claimed the problem is caused by new retooling costs each time a gov't contract is let; whereas, stuff sold off the shelf to a private outfit does not involve such, as the vendor stockholders provided the tooling.
I have often asked my superiors this - if a public agency has to pay retooling costs for each contract, why do they not end up owning that tooling. And then just set up that same tooling next time for whoever got the contract next.
Of course, I never get a straight answer! - if any answer at all!
> government agencies/customers (CCJPA/Caltrans for example) they deal with than
>producing a solid, reliable, and attractive product for riders.
True enough, but what do you expect from any agency, public or private; except that they cowtow to who ever gives them money. And since it usually a gov't agency, whether it be Congress, or CalTrain, Caltrans, MetroLink, or whatever; Amtrak cannot help but take on the attributes of these organizations - micromanagement and all. And considering that the largest chunk of cash comes from an unstable schizoid Congress; Amtrak manager's attitudes about budgeting that you point out, are not surprising at all.
That's how you do business with a micromanaging Congress. You waste as much money as possible, in order to get more. That pleases politicians! After all, the more you waste, the more dependent upon them you will become. And we Americans are still easily sucked in by such trickery - and will continue to be. So I do not believe there is any real solution, except that Amtrak become more independent of Congress.
And that can happen only if it is Amtrak's own actual customers (passengers) end up giving them the biggest chunk of their money. . . . . .So to really be more independent, thus viable in the long run, Amtrak needs to find ways to at least operate within the farebox. That is quite doable. as a few services already achieve that, such as the San Joaquins, and parts of the NEC - no daily subsidy required to pay wages, fuel, maintenance, etc.
That mostly leaves only capital funding for most routes at the purview of congress; and perhaps one or two hopeless routes operated only because a schizoid Congress paid for them that year. But capital grants do not need to be as consistent as operating grants. Skipping a year or two here and there because a schizoid Congress can't make up it's mind, won't hurt so much.
But in Amtrak's case, too many routes have limited single train service that is not economically practical nor attractive to customers. Whereas, it has been well documented by past experience that in many cases, doubling or tripling service frequencies improves ridership and revenue by the square of the increase, while increasing costs only linearly (often much less). California's Capital Corridor, Surfliners, San Joaquins, and parts of the NEC; have clearly demonstrated that this 'economy of scale' actually works - if you pick the right service level.
Of course, to get there will require a more than doubling of available equipment. And seemingly a more than doubling of capital grants. But maybe not - as there is now so much waste involved. When compared with the last price paid by private enterprise for passenger cars in the late fifties, adjusted for inflation; modern cars should be gold plated to justify their current cost. Same with locomotives; with public agencies paying 5-6 million each, verses a bit over 2 million for private locos.
There is no rational explanation for most of this, other than they see us coming! And contract laws often put public agencies at a disadvantage. Some have claimed the problem is caused by new retooling costs each time a gov't contract is let; whereas, stuff sold off the shelf to a private outfit does not involve such, as the vendor stockholders provided the tooling.
I have often asked my superiors this - if a public agency has to pay retooling costs for each contract, why do they not end up owning that tooling. And then just set up that same tooling next time for whoever got the contract next.
Of course, I never get a straight answer! - if any answer at all!
