Dismantling AMTRAK
There are certain things citizens expect of their federal government: national defense and a national transportation system are two that come to mind. Neither endeavor should be approached from a standpoint of profitability in the delivery of a goal. Government is, after all, not supposed to be a business. Although wasteful spending should be avoided, the bottom line in government is effective delivery of the service, and that is different than the bottom line of a business.
Unfortunately, the current regime obviously prefers the business model. Nothing makes this clearer than its stance on AMTRAK. The Resident actually proposed zero funding for AMTRAK in his current budget. Congress didn't agree, fortunately. However, the regime is still pushing for privatization, and the Washington Post apparently agrees.
AMTRAK PRESIDENT David L. Gunn was abruptly fired last month by a board of directors that is operating with just four of seven members. Only one board member, Chairman David M. Laney, was actually confirmed by the Senate; two others were given recess appointments by President Bush, including one who had never ridden an Amtrak train before taking the job. The fourth is a Transportation Department representative.
So when the board suddenly booted Mr. Gunn, an experienced railroad manager who helped fix the New York City subway system during the 1980s and oversaw the Washington area's Metro system during the early 1990s, there was ample reason to question what was going on at Amtrak. After all, it was just a few months earlier that Mr. Laney, the chairman, had praised Mr. Gunn for doing a "splendid job," having "righted a ship that was listing and about to spill over."
...Mr. Gunn and his congressional supporters say that the Bush administration, which proposed zero funding for Amtrak in its 2006 budget, wants to privatize, and thereby destroy, Amtrak. The administration denies any such plan, but it indeed envisions a far different arrangement than the current system, with a shared role for federal and state governments in owning and maintaining rail infrastructure but private-sector competition in providing service on those routes. This could be a more logical model, but, as Mr. Gunn argues, dividing infrastructure from operations can pose more difficulties for railroads than for highways or even airlines.
The Amtrak board, though it does not go as far as the Bush administration, is taking some steps in that direction, over Mr. Gunn's vehement objections -- hence his departure. The obvious place to start is the Northeast Corridor, as the board is doing by moving to establish a subsidiary that would own and maintain the infrastructure. [Emphasis added]
What BushCo is proposing ultimately boils down to giving back the rail service to the very same companies who left the business becausing hauling passengers just wasn't as lucrative as hauling freight. The only difference now is that maintaining the infrastructure would still be a government function (surely also to be privatized or shoved back on the states) so that the private sector has a clearer shot at profitability.
Mass transportation is more important than ever now that oil is selling at between $55 and $60 per barrel. While longer routes have never been profitable, they may be the only affordable alternative for those who live far from major urban centers. Making certain areas of the country inaccessible and hence isolated from the rest of the nation is not supposed to be the goal of a federal government. Neither is enriching the private sector on the back of the citizenry.
David Gunn had made some important strides during his tenure with AMTRAK, which was apparently something the regime didn't appreciate. Given his impressive track record with the New York subway system and the Washington, DC transportation system, he should have been given more of a chance.
What's next, George, outsourcing the Pentagon?
Unfortunately, the current regime obviously prefers the business model. Nothing makes this clearer than its stance on AMTRAK. The Resident actually proposed zero funding for AMTRAK in his current budget. Congress didn't agree, fortunately. However, the regime is still pushing for privatization, and the Washington Post apparently agrees.
AMTRAK PRESIDENT David L. Gunn was abruptly fired last month by a board of directors that is operating with just four of seven members. Only one board member, Chairman David M. Laney, was actually confirmed by the Senate; two others were given recess appointments by President Bush, including one who had never ridden an Amtrak train before taking the job. The fourth is a Transportation Department representative.
So when the board suddenly booted Mr. Gunn, an experienced railroad manager who helped fix the New York City subway system during the 1980s and oversaw the Washington area's Metro system during the early 1990s, there was ample reason to question what was going on at Amtrak. After all, it was just a few months earlier that Mr. Laney, the chairman, had praised Mr. Gunn for doing a "splendid job," having "righted a ship that was listing and about to spill over."
...Mr. Gunn and his congressional supporters say that the Bush administration, which proposed zero funding for Amtrak in its 2006 budget, wants to privatize, and thereby destroy, Amtrak. The administration denies any such plan, but it indeed envisions a far different arrangement than the current system, with a shared role for federal and state governments in owning and maintaining rail infrastructure but private-sector competition in providing service on those routes. This could be a more logical model, but, as Mr. Gunn argues, dividing infrastructure from operations can pose more difficulties for railroads than for highways or even airlines.
The Amtrak board, though it does not go as far as the Bush administration, is taking some steps in that direction, over Mr. Gunn's vehement objections -- hence his departure. The obvious place to start is the Northeast Corridor, as the board is doing by moving to establish a subsidiary that would own and maintain the infrastructure. [Emphasis added]
What BushCo is proposing ultimately boils down to giving back the rail service to the very same companies who left the business becausing hauling passengers just wasn't as lucrative as hauling freight. The only difference now is that maintaining the infrastructure would still be a government function (surely also to be privatized or shoved back on the states) so that the private sector has a clearer shot at profitability.
Mass transportation is more important than ever now that oil is selling at between $55 and $60 per barrel. While longer routes have never been profitable, they may be the only affordable alternative for those who live far from major urban centers. Making certain areas of the country inaccessible and hence isolated from the rest of the nation is not supposed to be the goal of a federal government. Neither is enriching the private sector on the back of the citizenry.
David Gunn had made some important strides during his tenure with AMTRAK, which was apparently something the regime didn't appreciate. Given his impressive track record with the New York subway system and the Washington, DC transportation system, he should have been given more of a chance.
What's next, George, outsourcing the Pentagon?
posted by Diane at 5:12 AM
1 Comments:
When British Rail was privatised it is now generally accepted that the biggest mistake was separating responsibility for track and operations. It looks like people can't learn from others experiences!
Post a Comment
<< Home