WI: Ronald Reagan Privatizes Amtrak

Alon, you mentioned the turf battles between Amtrak and local agencies. I'd just like to ask do you have any ideas on how to solve that issue? Because getting rid of this animosity could do a lot to benefit both Amtrak and the local agencies. For example with better relations maybe MARC wouldn't have been forced to go back to diesel trains.

...I don't. In some cases, pro-reform sentiment from above would help: for example, the MBTA and SEPTA could pressure their commuter rail divisions into accepting mode-neutral fares. SEPTA made that effort in the early 1980s, but it led to a protracted strike, in which the railroad workers simply refused to be treated like lowly city transit workers; but it won concessions, which it hasn't made much use of. The MTA could likewise pressure the LIRR and Metro-North to cooperate better.

There's already political cooperation between New York and New Jersey when it comes to building $20 billion tunnels, so it's not ASB to posit that there could be political cooperation regarding operations. But it does require someone to make the first move, and so far, nobody is interested. The source of the problem is that the people most capable of exercising reform pressure are heavyweight politicians, who gain a lot of kudos from being able to push through big-ticket spending, but not from reforms to operations that would take some time to prove their success.

It would help a lot if Amtrak made the first move on various things. For example, Amtrak's plan for incremental improvements in the Northeast, the NEC Master Plan, calls for three-tracking most of the Boston-Providence segment, to provide more capacity for fast intercity trains to overtake slow commuter trains. This is expensive and unnecessary: were the MBTA to electrify, no overtakes would be required at current Acela speed, and even at full HSR speed, doubling the average Boston-Providence speed, it would be possible to just four-track short, strategic overtake segments. The MBTA is of course not interested in electrifying, but Amtrak could, instead of proposing extra infrastructure spending, propose to partly federally fund electric trains on the Providence Line so that the MBTA would not need to be overtaken at first.

The problem is that Amtrak is the worst of all the agencies. While the commuter rail agencies are making noises about better local cooperation, Amtrak doubles down on its most exclusionary operating practices, leading to much higher proposed budgets for HSR because of frills like dedicated HSR tracks.
 
Would consolidating commuter rail make much difference? IIUC NYC has 2 commuter rail systems and New Jersey has another that goes into NY, so perhaps these could be merged into a single unit. I think Chicago has 2 commuter rail operators and other cities also have more than 1, so maybe there's scope for improvement there.
 
Would consolidating commuter rail make much difference? IIUC NYC has 2 commuter rail systems and New Jersey has another that goes into NY, so perhaps these could be merged into a single unit. I think Chicago has 2 commuter rail operators and other cities also have more than 1, so maybe there's scope for improvement there.

Well, both the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) and Metro-North are under the same agency (Metropolitan Transit Authority). I would say considering how the Port Authority turned out, that it might not be in the best interests of New York State and New Jersey to combine New Jersey Transit and the Metropolitan Transit Authority together.
 

Devvy

Donor
I do wonder if in certain areas (ie. New England), whether a combined passenger rail operator could do a better job, with all states combining on maybe a per-head basis. I'm not saying it definitely would, but it's a thought.
- No problems with state boundaries which chop existing services short (ie. the B&M line from Boston would still serve Portsmouth, NH if it was economical).
- Running the northern half of the NEC, running into Grand Central again - I have no idea how many passengers travel through New York rather then to it to know if this is a hindrance or not. Also including the Connecticut portions of Metro-North running to GCT (so basically only calling at Harlem/GCT after leaving CT).
- Less operator conflict on the NEC north of New York as it's a single operator.
- Improved economies of scale.
- More trains operating along the track, increasing incentives for electrification or the like.

Having said that, PATH, as a bi-state rail organisation hasn't exactly flourished. Despite increased numbers, and a system that looks ripe (on paper, political reasons aside) for a little extension here and there, it seems to struggle.
 
Would consolidating commuter rail make much difference? IIUC NYC has 2 commuter rail systems and New Jersey has another that goes into NY, so perhaps these could be merged into a single unit. I think Chicago has 2 commuter rail operators and other cities also have more than 1, so maybe there's scope for improvement there.

Not only are the LIRR and Metro-North part of the same agency, but also the MBTA and SEPTA control both commuter rail and urban transit. They still run commuter rail based on the standards of the 1930s. What, we work together with mere buses, light rail trains, and subways? The sky will fall!

I'll note that in Switzerland, Austria, France, and Germany, it's standard to have multiple operators in the same region. They plan schedules together and integrate fares in what's called a transport association, or Verkehrsverbund. There are mechanisms for sharing revenue, and for sharing local subsidies when several municipal systems are in the same transport association (e.g. in the Rhine-Ruhr area).

I do wonder if in certain areas (ie. New England), whether a combined passenger rail operator could do a better job, with all states combining on maybe a per-head basis. I'm not saying it definitely would, but it's a thought.
- No problems with state boundaries which chop existing services short (ie. the B&M line from Boston would still serve Portsmouth, NH if it was economical).
- Running the northern half of the NEC, running into Grand Central again - I have no idea how many passengers travel through New York rather then to it to know if this is a hindrance or not. Also including the Connecticut portions of Metro-North running to GCT (so basically only calling at Harlem/GCT after leaving CT).
- Less operator conflict on the NEC north of New York as it's a single operator.
- Improved economies of scale.
- More trains operating along the track, increasing incentives for electrification or the like.

Problems:

1. There is a fair amount of intercity traffic through New York. There's also a lot of demand for regional traffic through New York, which is not being met because the LIRR, Metro-North, and New Jersey Transit want to keep their separate turfs (good luck finding LIRR ticket machines on the upper concourse of Penn Station).

2. The New Haven Line already makes too few stops in the Bronx. By agreement between the New Haven Railroad and the New York Central, the New Haven Line trains are only allowed to make one stop in the Bronx, which is currently Fordham; even though both lines are part of Metro-North, this practice does not change. Integrated planning could lead to usable tickets and schedules between Stamford and White Plains. The line also gets a lot of ridership out of New Rochelle and Larchmont - right now the mainline is funded 35% by New York and 65% by Connecticut.

The Northeast is not a good place to try to chop the network into different turfs. It's doable in other states, like California, or Washington+Oregon, or Texas, but in the Northeast, there's too much overlap between routes.
 

Devvy

Donor
There is a fair amount of intercity traffic through New York. There's also a lot of demand for regional traffic through New York, which is not being met because the LIRR, Metro-North, and New Jersey Transit want to keep their separate turfs (good luck finding LIRR ticket machines on the upper concourse of Penn Station).

It baffles me to no end as an outsider to no end how you can have one major city / urban area, and split it almost down the middle with each half in a completely separate state, resulting in these kind of turf war issues (although granted I don't know why LIRR and M-N are operated independently given they are both owned by the MTA - thoughts?). That's a whole other debate though! :)
 
What if during the 1980's, one of the means which President Reagan sought to downsize the Federal government of the United States through privatization was to do so with Amtrak as well? How does this effect passenger rail service in America?

Hmmmmmm, much improved passenger rail 1990's and beyond.
 
It baffles me to no end as an outsider to no end how you can have one major city / urban area, and split it almost down the middle with each half in a completely separate state, resulting in these kind of turf war issues (although granted I don't know why LIRR and M-N are operated independently given they are both owned by the MTA - thoughts?). That's a whole other debate though! :)

It's because history. The LIRR was an 'independent' railroad since the 1880s, and from the 1900s to 1960s was controlled by the Pennsylvania RR. Rockefeller then bought the LIRR from the Pennsylvania, and it went under the MTA in the 70s. When the MTA was created, you also had the Metro-North created to manage the ex-commuter rail operations of Conrail (New York Central+Pennsylvania RR) north and east of NYC (but not Long Island).

It can also be described for the differences in operation, with Metro-North leaving the Bronx and going 'north' of the City, while the LIRR leaves via Brooklyn/Queens and goes 'east' of the City.
 
Top