Comments on: HSR: Public or Private? http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2008/12/22/hsr-public-or-private/ Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:27:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Ocean Railroader http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2008/12/22/hsr-public-or-private/#comment-13121 Ocean Railroader Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:25:42 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.wordpress.com/?p=378#comment-13121 I don't like the idea of Amtrack being in privet hands they would turn it into something like the Hotlanes on the Beltway with demand pricing meaning they would jack up ticket prices and charge big bucks for suitcases when they find a excuse to do so. At least right now you can go to Amtrack and understand what your ticket price will be in 20 weeks and along with that they seem to keep the most stable ticket prices though the recession and the oil price shocks. Amtrack is simply suffering from secound hand track while the interstates get full unquestioned funding all the way. I don’t like the idea of Amtrack being in privet hands they would turn it into something like the Hotlanes on the Beltway with demand pricing meaning they would jack up ticket prices and charge big bucks for suitcases when they find a excuse to do so. At least right now you can go to Amtrack and understand what your ticket price will be in 20 weeks and along with that they seem to keep the most stable ticket prices though the recession and the oil price shocks. Amtrack is simply suffering from secound hand track while the interstates get full unquestioned funding all the way.

]]> By: Yonah Freemark http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2008/12/22/hsr-public-or-private/#comment-13057 Yonah Freemark Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:54:31 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.wordpress.com/?p=378#comment-13057 tettyan - Japan is indeed an interesting case; however, each of the companies there operate as railway monopolies in their individual zones; there is no competing service on any of the lines. It should also be noted that because of the cost of constructing the Shinkansen, Japan National Railways was in a <a href="http://www.jrtr.net/jrtr22/F23_Kakumoto.html" rel="nofollow">debt of ¥28 trillion</a> when privatization occurred... yet the new private companies were able to buy the tracks for <a href="http://www.jrtr.net/jrtr03/f09_oka.html" rel="nofollow">¥9.2 trillion</a>, leaving taxpayers to make up for the rest. Yes, the private companies have done well -- but only after a massive, unassumed expenditure by the public sector. tettyan -

Japan is indeed an interesting case; however, each of the companies there operate as railway monopolies in their individual zones; there is no competing service on any of the lines.

It should also be noted that because of the cost of constructing the Shinkansen, Japan National Railways was in a debt of ¥28 trillion when privatization occurred… yet the new private companies were able to buy the tracks for ¥9.2 trillion, leaving taxpayers to make up for the rest.

Yes, the private companies have done well — but only after a massive, unassumed expenditure by the public sector.

]]> By: tettyan http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2008/12/22/hsr-public-or-private/#comment-13037 tettyan Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:23:37 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.wordpress.com/?p=378#comment-13037 All the arguments here conveniently ignore the fact that privatization has worked out very well in Japan. Service has vastly increased and improved since the railways were privatized 20 years ago. And HSR there does face very stiff competition from the airline shuttles linking major cities - competition that's only increased since the airline industry itself was deregulated in the 1990s. Privatization can increase investment and improve service on rail and transit lines. I do accept the argument though that it's not fair to expect the private sector to take the lead in transit projects when the government unfairly subsidizes highways. To make it a level playing field, I believe interstate highways should be privatized too (which would also achieve results similar to congestion pricing). All the arguments here conveniently ignore the fact that privatization has worked out very well in Japan. Service has vastly increased and improved since the railways were privatized 20 years ago. And HSR there does face very stiff competition from the airline shuttles linking major cities – competition that’s only increased since the airline industry itself was deregulated in the 1990s.

Privatization can increase investment and improve service on rail and transit lines. I do accept the argument though that it’s not fair to expect the private sector to take the lead in transit projects when the government unfairly subsidizes highways. To make it a level playing field, I believe interstate highways should be privatized too (which would also achieve results similar to congestion pricing).

]]> By: Andrew S http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2008/12/22/hsr-public-or-private/#comment-10251 Andrew S Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:57:42 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.wordpress.com/?p=378#comment-10251 I think the argument for keeping the infrastructure in public hands makes sense, but I think you go a little too far in dismissing competition "for the market" - ie private competition to operate the service in an environment that is not competitive on a day to day basis. Services that operate this way do have advantages - private operators genearlly have lower labor expenses and, ideally, are more independent from political pressure to modify service (which you identify as a negative but can certainly also be a positive). London's excellent bus services, for example, are currently operated by privately contracted companies. Even though several different companies run different bundles of routes, consumers are unaware and the system operates fairly seamlessly. The important thing is to have a well staffed, competent, powerful public regulator who is able to enforce contracts and effectively control the private operators. I think the argument for keeping the infrastructure in public hands makes sense, but I think you go a little too far in dismissing competition “for the market” – ie private competition to operate the service in an environment that is not competitive on a day to day basis.

Services that operate this way do have advantages – private operators genearlly have lower labor expenses and, ideally, are more independent from political pressure to modify service (which you identify as a negative but can certainly also be a positive). London’s excellent bus services, for example, are currently operated by privately contracted companies. Even though several different companies run different bundles of routes, consumers are unaware and the system operates fairly seamlessly. The important thing is to have a well staffed, competent, powerful public regulator who is able to enforce contracts and effectively control the private operators.

]]> By: UK Mortgages http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2008/12/22/hsr-public-or-private/#comment-7945 UK Mortgages Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:47:25 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.wordpress.com/?p=378#comment-7945 Yep UK Trains terrible! I think privatization is the way forward competition can only be good thing! Looking forward to cheap seats and a buffet car back! Steve Yep UK Trains terrible! I think privatization is the way forward competition can only be good thing!

Looking forward to cheap seats and a buffet car back!

Steve

]]> By: Peter http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2008/12/22/hsr-public-or-private/#comment-7944 Peter Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:45:20 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.wordpress.com/?p=378#comment-7944 Here is the UK we are all debating just the same thing and I have to say I love the Virgin trains I get - clean, fast, and more modern and yes actually cheaper I think. I resent paying expensive prices and standing of cource the tube they have us over a barrel when they turn up for work and not striking! Pete Here is the UK we are all debating just the same thing and I have to say I love the Virgin trains I get – clean, fast, and more modern and yes actually cheaper I think. I resent paying expensive prices and standing of cource the tube they have us over a barrel when they turn up for work and not striking!

Pete

]]> By: Larry M http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2008/12/22/hsr-public-or-private/#comment-88 Larry M Mon, 02 Mar 2009 14:57:50 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.wordpress.com/?p=378#comment-88 The essence of the free market is competition. What would HSR ever compete with? There are one set of tracks. Would a competitor build a second, parallel set? Transportation infrastructure is a public good. Private companies do not usually supply public goods. That is the legitimate function of government. The essence of the free market is competition. What would HSR ever compete with? There are one set of tracks. Would a competitor build a second, parallel set? Transportation infrastructure is a public good. Private companies do not usually supply public goods. That is the legitimate function of government.

]]> By: Yonah Freemark http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2008/12/22/hsr-public-or-private/#comment-87 Yonah Freemark Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:29:36 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.wordpress.com/?p=378#comment-87 The corridor is already profitable - Amtrak makes money on Acela and Northeast Regional trains. There is no reason why Amtrak - provided sufficient money to build new high-speed track - couldn't make a new NEC profitable as well. The corridor is already profitable – Amtrak makes money on Acela and Northeast Regional trains. There is no reason why Amtrak – provided sufficient money to build new high-speed track – couldn’t make a new NEC profitable as well.

]]> By: keith in dc http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2008/12/22/hsr-public-or-private/#comment-86 keith in dc Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:25:09 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.wordpress.com/?p=378#comment-86 They would like to privatize the DC - NY- Boston corridor because studies show that if the corridor was separate from Amtrak it would be making a profit. Amtrak is bogged down with providing service to places like Peoria IL and Albany NY that need train service but can't be justified solely on a profit making basis. They would like to privatize the DC – NY- Boston corridor because studies show that if the corridor was separate from Amtrak it would be making a profit. Amtrak is bogged down with providing service to places like Peoria IL and Albany NY that need train service but can’t be justified solely on a profit making basis.

]]> By: ka http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2008/12/22/hsr-public-or-private/#comment-85 ka Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:20:12 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.wordpress.com/?p=378#comment-85 Regarding the North east corridor, they want a private company to build and operate a high speed line because they think Amtrak can't do it. Or maybe by ideology they don't want to develop a public sector in the US (public sector=left=communism=bad=lazy people +strikes). In its current situation Amtrak is unable to handle a project that cost more than $200mios. It is really a shame to see that rail operators like DB in Germany or SNCF in France have each more than 200,000 employees when Amtrak doesn't even have 20,000 employees. BTW this article published last year in USA today is interesting http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2007-07-11-amtrak-high-speed_n.htm Regarding the North east corridor, they want a private company to build and operate a high speed line because they think Amtrak can’t do it. Or maybe by ideology they don’t want to develop a public sector in the US (public sector=left=communism=bad=lazy people +strikes). In its current situation Amtrak is unable to handle a project that cost more than $200mios.
It is really a shame to see that rail operators like DB in Germany or SNCF in France have each more than 200,000 employees when Amtrak doesn’t even have 20,000 employees.

BTW this article published last year in USA today is interesting

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2007-07-11-amtrak-high-speed_n.htm

]]>