posted
It seems like a good idea to seperate the nec from the rest of the system. However some has said this is just a divide and conquer plan. your thoughts?
Posts: 562 | From: Beaumont Texas | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing that I noticed was that this plan was to make the NEC separate into a wholly owned amtrak subsidiary. While this means a certan amount of corporate duplication at corporate HQ, it would be informative to find out just how much the NEC actually costs, and how much the "rest of the system" is charged for NEC expenses. On a side note: The Minnesota legislature killed off the North Star (Saint Paul - Twin Ports) in part ecause the overhead charges from Amtrak were a lot.
One way this NEC separation could be done is to get together with the other tenants of the NEC (the various state DOT's, as well as MARC and the VA rail service, SEPTA, NJT, Metro-North, etc. ) and form a terminal railroad. This would be the old RR practice of forming an agreement where the several operators would get access rights in return for a negotiated compensation. Each DOT or commuter service provider would get a share in the "ownership" of the NEC, representation at the NEC "shareholder's meetings," and the agreement to access the NEC would include an accurate charge for the amount of use each service provider would incur. Still another way of doing this has been suggested on URPA's website, where the varius state DOT's and Amtrak (the NRPC, to be more formally correct) would form a limited partnership, where the NRPC would be the managing general partner, and the costs associated with NEC maintenance and "rent" (for lack of a better term) and the benefits of ownership, would be shared as per the Limited Partnership Agreement.
Sounds like a fine idea on paper. Where I would begin to object would be if they were to discontinue, or discuss the sale of, the routes across country. Simply put, if those members of the board who live near the coasts want to spend my taxpayer money on their trains, I want a train too. It would be a good idea if we could free up enough money so that those of us here in "Fly over" country could get an increase in service for our taxpayer dollars.
-------------------- "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one corner of the Earth all one's life." Posts: 506 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although in a lot of ways it sounds like a good idea so that the costs can be clearly separated, the source makes me suspicious. On the other hand, some of the noisier objectors have their own axe to grind, and their objective is not to help us out in the boondocks keep the pathetically few trains we do have. Then by this time I really don't trust hardly anyone involved in this issue.
I do lean toward having the costs associated with the NEC clearly separated from the rest of the system and apportioned amongst the various operators by some method similar to the various trackage rights agreements. Basically everyone involved is trying to dump costs onto other parties and using all kinds of Enron style accounting to do it.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I haven't had time to study the plan in detail, it is important to emphasize that the NEC would still be owned by Amtrak, so allegations of a "breakup" are grossly misleading.
Personally, I think separating the NEC as a sub-unit of Amtrak is a good idea. For too long the NEC has been the focus of Amtrak's operations, while the rest of us get the crumbs. The national network has been treated as a subsidiary of the NEC, when it really should be the other way around.
With Amtrak's quirky accounting, it really has been difficult to know where the money is really going. Hopefully ths move would help keep regional costs separate from the national network.
And as one who lives in a state that gets almost no federal funding for our rail services, I think its high time the NEC states start paying at least some of their expenses. Rather than this being the beginning of the end for Amtrak, I see it as a start towards leveling the playing field.
Posts: 2649 | From: California's Monterey Peninsula | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you improve the speed and confort of the commuter lines and expand them to cities and suburbs that are growing. i.e the commuter lines in Washington DC should be expanded to Richmond VA its 2 hour drive.
Posts: 516 | From: New Haven, CT USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amtrak is not and is not supposed to be a commuter railroad. It is the operator of some of the commuter systems, but that is a contractual arrangement with some of the commuter agencies. These systems are not operated under the Amtrak name, but under the name of the commuter system.
Amtrak is supposed to be the operator of intercity trains. As said by Mr. Toy: The main point of separating the northeast corridor should be to clearly assign costs where they belong, instead of sneaking northeast corridor expenses into the ovehead of trains that never get anywhere near it.
Several other states are putting money into trains, why should Massachusetts through Maryland, who get the best services be getting a free ride?
Goerge
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
