Amtrak: A monopoly?

Question

In the United States we've worked to break up monopolies, yet our only rail service provider is Amtrak. I don't understand why we have multiple airlines, but just one train service. I think the creation of new rail service providers and maybe even some type of high speed monorail that travels across the country would be very beneficial. Amtrak has really been going downhill in the last couple of years. Does anyone else agree?

Answer 1

Well, for one, Amtrak is not the only passenger rail provider. There is a myriad of many other passenger services.

Amtrak is owned by the government, and simply put it exists because passenger rail is not profitable, and the private railroads didn't want to continue operating a money losing service, when they could profit off of running strictly freight. The government stepped in, created Amtrak and runs it to provide national rail service. Its hardly a monopoly - at the very least monopolies have to be profitable!

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

Amtrak is operated by the government, which probably explains a great deal. However there is quite a bit more to this situation than meets the eye.

In the late 1960's, when Amtrak was created, most railroad operators were trying to discontinue passenger service, and Amtrak was intended to free the railroads of a service which lost them money and interfered with the freight operations that paid the bills.

The problem was largely declining ridership, but it was also competition from airlines, who attracted passengers by offering faster trips at a competitive cost. Amtrak was created to save rail passenger service.

If you look at the problems facing the airlines, they currently aren't doing that much better. We have seen three major carriers--Pan Am, Eastern and Braniff--fail. We have seen others absorbed by larger carriers. We have seen others struggling in and out of bankruptcy and hanging on by a thread.

I don't think monorail will happen, partly because it offers no real advantage over conventional rails, but we could see high speed TGV-type trains at some point in the future. This could be competitive with airlines, and that would cause airlines with political clout--such as Southwest--to fight government support of them.

I would favor improvement of passenger rail service for a number of reasons, partly because the airlines probably can't meet the long term needs of passengers and because private railroads will not go back to the old system and they are only minimally supporting Amtrak.

The major problem is cost. Who would pay for such a system? The state of Texas has proposed high speed rail service but its cost has made it a political target, as has the inherent monopoly of rail passenger service.

The answer is not something as simple as breaking up a monopoly. Amtrak could, with funding and direction, provide much better and more frequent service and could build new rail lines, including the TGV type systems, but both funding and direction are political targets.

What you propose is a great idea, but it probably can't happen unless it has government support from the federal, state and local governments involved. If you like the idea, write your Senators and Congressman and tell them you support better passenger service.

That would be a good start.

Answer 4

You've just now spotted that? --im not gong for points on this answer.

Amtrak is what is left over from all the smaller passenger and freight train railroads. Also, highly federally funded. The railroads have merged into a mesh of a handful of Class One railroads and... Class two is basically non-existent. and Class Three is... there but not in the big cash as the Class Ones'(Their is a large gap.) Moving China's freight is the more lucractive cash-cow.

To conclude that Amtrak is a monopoly is like pointing fingers at Walmart... yeah, and what are you going to do?
Other examples: Ma Bell was broken up but they are basically back together. Microsoft has just bought their way throughout their troubles.. theirs that word again: money.

Their are dozens of local/commuter passenger trains. Their needs to be more of them, with ideal stations and better advertisement/endorsement to the general public, not just the poor. Chicago has done a great job with the Metra.

Answer 5

Amtrak does NOT have a monopoly! Several other long-haul passenger railroads did compete with Amtrak:
- The Southern Railway, DC-New Orleans
- The Rio Grande, Denver-Salt Lake
- The Auto-Train Corp, DC-Orlando and Chicago-Orlando
This was 100% legal and still is.
http://www.americanorientexpress.com/

You are totally allowed to form your own passenger railroad to compete with Amtrak. In fact, please do!

The problem is, in every western country, passenger railroads are a money-losing proposition. In Europe, their excellent trains have about a 50% farebox ratio - passenger fares cover only 50% of operating costs. Here in America, Amtrak has an 80-90% farebox ratio, so much better :)

Anyway, you don't want a monorail, you want regular high-speed rail, which can use special tracks or also regular tracks for access to downtown terminals. That's not a problem, we already have Acela and LRC, we just need to expand it a bit.

Answer 6

Amtrak A

Answer 7

There would be no Amtrak or passenger service it the government did not fund it.
Most RR wish Amtrak would go away, they make money on freight, and Amtrak slow down shipping due to penalty's they are charge it they cause Amtrak to be late. They will hold a freight train so Amtrak can run.
The only other trains that take priority is the UPS train and the orange juice train.

Answer 8

Between New York and Philadelphia (Pa), there is an alternative to Amtrak: the local services of New Jersey Transport and SEPTA. The journey time is slightly longer, and there is a change of train at Trenton, but the fare is considerably cheaper.
As I said in another post, Amtrak proposed a high-speed service between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, but this was vetoed by President Clinton because doubling the track would disturb the habitat of the desert tortoise.
The West Coast operation has improved greatly in the past two years (Capitol and San Joaquin routes) - very modern trains usually on time, modernised stations (e.g., Martinez Junction).

Answer 9

I have never ridden Amtrak outside of the Northeast Corridor. In the NEC, service is great. From DC-NY in 2.5-3 hours depending on if you take the express which stops less. Compared to travelling by car which takes at the minimum 4 hours and almost always closer to 5 due to traffic. However, it could be faster and hopefully improvements will be made.

The problem is the demand for rail travel over longer distances is very low. There will never be high speed rail service that can take you from California to NY because not many people would take it unless it was priced similar to airfare and was capable of going over 300mph like that French train just did. But thats impossible because the costs of making that track would be exorbitant.

Shorter routes is where this could succeed. California is currently studying to create a high speed rail service. They want to go from LA to SF in 2.5 hours which compared to flying which takes about an hour not including time spent with security and at the airport, it'd be a great idea. However it will cost CA billions of dollars to implement and will be a long time before and if it happens. Go to http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/ for more info.

Answer 10

Amtrak does have a monopoly, but it is not illegal. Similar to Microsoft. The courts agreed they had a monopoly, but did not find the monopoly to be illegal. The problem with new train services is their cost. Presently I can fly from Washington DC to San Diego for $350. Compared to bus and train, this is an extremely attractive price, which makes it that more difficult for anyone to fund a venture for competitive trains or newer technology for trains.