15 ms·

The U.S. needs a lot more rail. The government should go the EU way. Build the tracks but lease out the actual operations to private companies that can bid for

The U.S. needs a lot more rail. The government should go the EU way. Build the tracks but lease out the actual operations to private companies that can bid for track and station time. For example, I suspect if Amtrak was forced to compete with private firms for track time in the NorthEast corridor you’d see an explosion of service and a dramatic drop in prices. I suspect flights like Boston-NYC and DC-NYC would reduce dramatically. And maybe even more importantly there would be greater lobbying efforts from private firms to upgrade the tracks and improve the routes. Currently it’s very difficult for Amtrak to push for that because it’s quasi public nature means there is limited profit incentive and no opportunity to raise capital from the private sector. That would change if at least a couple of private firms could get going in the NorthEast corridor.

t0mas88 3y ago
In most of Europe flying is still nearly always cheaper than taking the train, even with good high speed rail connections. And short EU flights with low cost carriers are a lot cheaper than US domestic flights. The US doesn't have these ultra low cost carriers.
panick21_ 3y ago
No. The only way Europe is doing it that way is because all the national train companies exist and are simply not going away politically. So now they make it somewhat easier to operate train in the other countries. For the US, it makes sense to have a single main carrier for much of the core system. > For example, I suspect if Amtrak was forced to compete with private firms for track time in the NorthEast corridor you’d see an explosion of service and a dramatic drop in prices. That is most probably wrong. Train operations cost once all the infrastructure is paid for is really not that different government vs private. There is simply not that much to compete on. In fact some of the things that can be improved most, like ticketing and scheduling can be improve more for the costumer if there are less options. Europe has seen very little actual private companies that compete very well and make a significant difference. There are a few things you can differentiate on. Some budget trains just use shit old rolling stock for example. Just finding creative ways of paying people less. The reality is, most of the cost is in setting up infrastructure including signaling, maintaining that, then buying nice trains and training good people. Some private train companies have gotten some investment to buy some nice train sets, but nothing about that is all that amazing. If the government operator had the funds, they could do the same and run the same route. The reality is that competition on fixed rail infrastructure might be worth doing but its not some magical cost cutting tool. Politicians who want to offer their constituents good train service should the the ones lobbying. The reality is, if you have private rail companies, they will mostly lobby for ways to reduce work pay because that where they can compete against Amtrak.
dagw 3y ago
My understanding is that the big difference between the US and the EU is that in the US rail prioritises cargo over passengers. Amtrak is already competing against a lots of other companies for track time, it's just that those companies are moving cargo rather than people, since that is apparently where the money is.

t0mas88 3y ago

In most of Europe flying is still nearly always cheaper than taking the train, even with good high speed rail connections. And short EU flights with low cost carriers are a lot cheaper than US domestic flights. The US doesn't have these ultra low cost carriers.

panick21_ 3y ago

No. The only way Europe is doing it that way is because all the national train companies exist and are simply not going away politically. So now they make it somewhat easier to operate train in the other countries. For the US, it makes sense to have a single main carrier for much of the core system. > For example, I suspect if Amtrak was forced to compete with private firms for track time in the NorthEast corridor you’d see an explosion of service and a dramatic drop in prices. That is most probably wrong. Train operations cost once all the infrastructure is paid for is really not that different government vs private. There is simply not that much to compete on. In fact some of the things that can be improved most, like ticketing and scheduling can be improve more for the costumer if there are less options. Europe has seen very little actual private companies that compete very well and make a significant difference. There are a few things you can differentiate on. Some budget trains just use shit old rolling stock for example. Just finding creative ways of paying people less. The reality is, most of the cost is in setting up infrastructure including signaling, maintaining that, then buying nice trains and training good people. Some private train companies have gotten some investment to buy some nice train sets, but nothing about that is all that amazing. If the government operator had the funds, they could do the same and run the same route. The reality is that competition on fixed rail infrastructure might be worth doing but its not some magical cost cutting tool. Politicians who want to offer their constituents good train service should the the ones lobbying. The reality is, if you have private rail companies, they will mostly lobby for ways to reduce work pay because that where they can compete against Amtrak.

dagw 3y ago

My understanding is that the big difference between the US and the EU is that in the US rail prioritises cargo over passengers. Amtrak is already competing against a lots of other companies for track time, it's just that those companies are moving cargo rather than people, since that is apparently where the money is.