Amtrak Privatization Bill

[MasterJedi]

Amtrak Privatization Bill


1. All rail subsidies are abolished effective FY 2007.
2. The Amtrak rail system is to be privatized through an auction.
3. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to make necessary rules and regulations relating to the process of privatization.
4. The privatization of the Amtrak system shall be completed before the year 2007.
5. The person or corporation who purchases the Amtrak system will be authorized to terminate unprofitable routes at their discretion.
___________________________________________________________

Sponsor: Sen. MasterJedi

[jerusalemcar5]

Amtrak Privatization Bill


1. All rail subsidies are abolished effective FY 2007.
2. The Amtrak rail system is to be privatized through an auction.
3. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to make necessary rules and regulations relating to the process of privatization.
4. The privatization of the Amtrak system shall be completed before the year 2007.
5. The person or corporation who purchases the Amtrak system will be authorized to terminate unprofitable routes at their discretion.
___________________________________________________________

Sponsor: Sen. MasterJedi

No.  It will simply lead to raised rates and reduced routes at a time when we should be lowering rates and expanding routes to help the gasoline crisis.  I disagree with every clause in this bill and will be voting against.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As a private citizen I would like to point out what happend to the railways in the U.K post-privatisation in the late 1990's.

And, bearing in mind the fact that we should really be trying to get more people to use public transport, is abolishing railway subsidies really a good idea?

[Bono]

As a private citizen I would like to point out what happend to the railways in the U.K post-privatisation in the late 1990's.

The ameridcan situation is entirely different. THe tracks are owned by the respective companies, the ones that operate freight traffic, unlike it was in the UK, where they were owned by the state. AMTRAK simply has rights of way in them--except for the north atlantic route that they actually own the tracks, but that's AMTRAK's only profitable route. If passenger services are profitable, the companies that explore freight would simply open passenger routes there, like they had before AMTRAK.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is simply in this bill for convenience's sake, but of course is a part of my transport liberalization plan that is ocompleted with the other bill that eliminated air and road(I'm not too sure on this one, I'll have to check with Ebowed if he included it) subsidies. Aliminating rail subsides only would be a bad thing, but eliminating all transportation subsidies will eliminate a great deal of waste and inneficient structures.

[Bono]

Amtrak Privatization Bill


1. All rail subsidies are abolished effective FY 2007.
2. The Amtrak rail system is to be privatized through an auction.
3. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to make necessary rules and regulations relating to the process of privatization.
4. The privatization of the Amtrak system shall be completed before the year 2007.
5. The person or corporation who purchases the Amtrak system will be authorized to terminate unprofitable routes at their discretion.
___________________________________________________________

Sponsor: Sen. MasterJedi

No.  It will simply lead to raised rates and reduced routes at a time when we should be lowering rates and expanding routes to help the gasoline crisis.  I disagree with every clause in this bill and will be voting against.

So you mean we should be supporting a totally inneficient system with taxpayer money?

[ilikeverin]

We either have to amend the bill or amend the name of it, because as the bill stands its text goes far beyond its name.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The ameridcan situation is entirely different. THe tracks are owned by the respective companies, the ones that operate freight traffic, unlike it was in the UK, where they were owned by the state. AMTRAK simply has rights of way in them--except for the north atlantic route that they actually own the tracks, but that's AMTRAK's only profitable route. If passenger services are profitable, the companies that explore freight would simply open passenger routes there, like they had before AMTRAK.

Oh, I know that. I just don't think that the private train companies here have done a good job either.

(speaks the voice of a disgruntled user of Arriva trains. Whoever runs that company has got a special place reserved in hell, alongside Hitler, Stalin and so on).

[Democratic Hawk]

I, hereby, propose the following amendment (changes in green ):

Partial Amtrak Privatization and Phased Withdrawal of Rail Subsidies Bill

1. All rail subsidies are reduced by 25% each FY commencing FY 2007, and by 25% each FY thereafter, until such time as subsidies are eliminated in FY 2011.
2. The Amtrak rail system is to be partially privatized [i.e. 50%] through an auction.
3. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to make necessary rules and regulations relating to the process of partial privatization.
4. The partial privatization of the Amtrak system shall be completed before the year 2007.
5. The joint-owners (i.e. the federal government and private shareholders) of the Amtrak rail system shall undertake a review of all routes as to determine their profitability and, if necessary, terminate, excessively, non-profitable routes with effect from FY 2007.
6. The federal government shall retain 51% of Amtrak voting rights.

Amtrak provides a vital transport service for millions of Atlasians, and I for one would oppose the original Bill. It is too sweeping and I feel that we ought to be treading more cautiously. In proceeding with caution, I hope that the pain caused by the withdrawal of such services can be minimalised. It is for this reason, I support partial as opposed to full privatization and a phased (i.e. 25% each FY over 4 years) reduction in rail subsidies

Public and private partnership in service delivery is the way forward for Atlasia's rail network. It shouldn't  just be about profit alone, it's about providing millions of Atlasians with a much needed service too

'Hawk'

[Virginian87]

With all due respect to my colleagues Hawk and MasterJedi, I must announce my opposition to both the original bill and the amendment. 

Amtrak is an institution that simply cannot be privatized for the foreseeable future.  Why?  Because if Amtrak were to be privatized now, it would fail within four years.  Currently Amtrak struggles to break even each year.  This is not because Atlasians are averse to intercity railroad travel, but more due to much-needed improvements in equipment and infrastructure.  The "infrastructure" I am referring to here is the Northeast Corridor, an electrified stretch of track between Washington, D.C. and Boston that Amtrak acquired in the 1970s from Conrail.  Most of this trackage, excluding the newly-electrified stretch between New Haven, Conn. and Boston, was built to the highest standards in the 1930s  by the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York, New Haven, and Hartford Railroad.  Although Amtrak has made sporadic improvements to the catenary and trackwork over the years, most of the infrastructure has seen little improvement since the 1950s.  This stretch of track also happens to be the closest thing Atlasia has to a European-style high-speed rail system.  Efficient high-speed rail service between the population centers of the Northeast will never be a reality if trains continue to run on a 70-year old system.  The costs to improve this infrastructure would be expensive, and only the Atlasian government can fully fund this.  Currently, Amtrak carries more passengers between Washington and New York than the airlines and buses.  Imagine how it will be if the Atlasian government can fund these improvements. 

In this age of rising gas prices, congestion on the highways and at the airports, and environmental awareness, I believe the railroad offers the most effective form of passenger transportation for the future.  In the past, the government turned its back on the railroads, subsidizing construction of new airports and the interstate highways while doing nothing to further passenger rail.  California, New York, and North Carolina are just a few states that have booming state-sponsored rail services.  Many other states, including Virginia and Illinois, are beginning to realize the potential of rail service.  There are some great projects out there, including upgrading trackage (co-sponsored by companies such as CSX and Union Pacific) to create new high-speed corridors between Chicago, Bloomington, Springfield, and St. Louis and Washington, Raleigh-Durham, Charlotte, and Atlanta. 

The future is bright for passenger rail, and there is more potential for growth in this industry than in any other form of passenger transportation.  But if we want to realize these goals, we must commit to Amtrak and perhaps even increase its funding. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If I was still a Senator, I'd suggest nationalising the entire railways industry.

Not that I would actually expect anyone here to support that.

[Bono]

If I was still a Senator, I'd suggest nationalising the entire railways industry.

Not that I would actually expect anyone here to support that.

Do your ealize the compensations involved there?
Anyways, the only reason rail industry is in a bad state is because of the obscene subsidies to air transport and highways.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh yes, of course. Could be paid for by cutting other things.

[Bono]

I, hereby, propose the following amendment (changes in green ):

Partial Amtrak Privatization and Phased Withdrawal of Rail Subsidies Bill

1. All rail subsidies are reduced by 25% each FY commencing FY 2007, and by 25% each FY thereafter, until such time as subsidies are eliminated in FY 2011.
2. The Amtrak rail system is to be partially privatized [i.e. 50%] through an auction.
3. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to make necessary rules and regulations relating to the process of partial privatization.
4. The partial privatization of the Amtrak system shall be completed before the year 2007.
5. The joint-owners (i.e. the federal government and private shareholders) of the Amtrak rail system shall undertake a review of all routes as to determine their profitability and, if necessary, terminate, excessively, non-profitable routes with effect from FY 2007.
6. The federal government shall retain 51% of Amtrak voting rights.

Amtrak provides a vital transport service for millions of Atlasians, and I for one would oppose the original Bill. It is too sweeping and I feel that we ought to be treading more cautiously. In proceeding with caution, I hope that the pain caused by the withdrawal of such services can be minimalised. It is for this reason, I support partial as opposed to full privatization and a phased (i.e. 25% each FY over 4 years) reduction in rail subsidies

Public and private partnership in service delivery is the way forward for Atlasia's rail network. It shouldn't  just be about profit alone, it's about providing millions of Atlasians with a much needed service too

'Hawk'

Tell me something: who would want to buy 49% of a practically bankrupt company, and then have absolutely no say in how it's ran, since the federal government still controls a majority of it?

[Democratic Hawk]

quote author=Bono link=topic=43250.msg955558#msg955558 date=1154678845]

I, hereby, propose the following amendment (changes in green ):

Partial Amtrak Privatization and Phased Withdrawal of Rail Subsidies Bill

1. All rail subsidies are reduced by 25% each FY commencing FY 2007, and by 25% each FY thereafter, until such time as subsidies are eliminated in FY 2011.
2. The Amtrak rail system is to be partially privatized [i.e. 50%] through an auction.
3. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to make necessary rules and regulations relating to the process of partial privatization.
4. The partial privatization of the Amtrak system shall be completed before the year 2007.
5. The joint-owners (i.e. the federal government and private shareholders) of the Amtrak rail system shall undertake a review of all routes as to determine their profitability and, if necessary, terminate, excessively, non-profitable routes with effect from FY 2007.
6. The federal government shall retain 51% of Amtrak voting rights.

Amtrak provides a vital transport service for millions of Atlasians, and I for one would oppose the original Bill. It is too sweeping and I feel that we ought to be treading more cautiously. In proceeding with caution, I hope that the pain caused by the withdrawal of such services can be minimalised. It is for this reason, I support partial as opposed to full privatization and a phased (i.e. 25% each FY over 4 years) reduction in rail subsidies

Public and private partnership in service delivery is the way forward for Atlasia's rail network. It shouldn't  just be about profit alone, it's about providing millions of Atlasians with a much needed service too

'Hawk'

Tell me something: who would want to buy 49% of a practically bankrupt company, and then have absolutely no say in how it's ran, since the federal government still controls a majority of it?
[/quote]

I think my vision of a public-private partnership as having the potential to secure the future of Atlasia's rail network is an admirable one. The monies raised could be invested in the infrastructure but that's a matter for the Board to decide

It's mute, however, because given the sentiments expressed thus far I don't see this Bill passing with or without my amendment. We'll just have to wait and see

'Hawk'

[Bono]

I, hereby, propose the following amendment (changes in green ):

Partial Amtrak Privatization and Phased Withdrawal of Rail Subsidies Bill

1. All rail subsidies are reduced by 25% each FY commencing FY 2007, and by 25% each FY thereafter, until such time as subsidies are eliminated in FY 2011.
2. The Amtrak rail system is to be partially privatized [i.e. 50%] through an auction.
3. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to make necessary rules and regulations relating to the process of partial privatization.
4. The partial privatization of the Amtrak system shall be completed before the year 2007.
5. The joint-owners (i.e. the federal government and private shareholders) of the Amtrak rail system shall undertake a review of all routes as to determine their profitability and, if necessary, terminate, excessively, non-profitable routes with effect from FY 2007.
6. The federal government shall retain 51% of Amtrak voting rights.

Amtrak provides a vital transport service for millions of Atlasians, and I for one would oppose the original Bill. It is too sweeping and I feel that we ought to be treading more cautiously. In proceeding with caution, I hope that the pain caused by the withdrawal of such services can be minimalised. It is for this reason, I support partial as opposed to full privatization and a phased (i.e. 25% each FY over 4 years) reduction in rail subsidies

Public and private partnership in service delivery is the way forward for Atlasia's rail network. It shouldn't  just be about profit alone, it's about providing millions of Atlasians with a much needed service too

'Hawk'

Tell me something: who would want to buy 49% of a practically bankrupt company, and then have absolutely no say in how it's ran, since the federal government still controls a majority of it?

I think my vision of a public-private partnership as having the potential to secure the future of Atlasia's rail network is an admirable one. The monies raised could be invested in the infrastructure but that's a matter for the Board to decide

It's mute, however, because given the sentiments expressed thus far I don't see this Bill passing with or without my amendment. We'll just have to wait and see

'Hawk'

How does that answer what I asked?
My question is simple--what would be the appeal of any private entity to enter AMTRAK capital on those circumstances?
You avoid it and instead give some hearty speech about partnership. My only conclusion is that you don't have any grasp of reality.

[Bono]

However, I will propose an alternative that makes sense, though it does not give us any revenue. Split the shares of AMTRAK to the people, equally. That way, it is in the true sense of the word a public company.

[MasterJedi]

I hereby open up the vote on this amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Partial Amtrak Privatization and Phased Withdrawal of Rail Subsidies Bill

1. All rail subsidies are reduced by 25% each FY commencing FY 2007, and by 25% each FY thereafter, until such time as subsidies are eliminated in FY 2011.
2. The Amtrak rail system is to be partially privatized [i.e. 50%] through an auction.
3. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to make necessary rules and regulations relating to the process of partial privatization.
4. The partial privatization of the Amtrak system shall be completed before the year 2007.
5. The joint-owners (i.e. the federal government and private shareholders) of the Amtrak rail system shall undertake a review of all routes as to determine their profitability and, if necessary, terminate, excessively, non-profitable routes with effect from FY 2007.
6. The federal government shall retain 51% of Amtrak voting rights.

[Jake]

Nay

[Democratic Hawk]

Aye

'Hawk'

[bgwah]

nay

[jerusalemcar5]

Aye.

[Democratic Hawk]

You avoid it and instead give some hearty speech about partnership. My only conclusion is that you don't have any grasp of reality.

It has an ethical appeal about it. Not all private companies are purely motivated by self-interest. At the end of the day, AMTRAK provides a vital service. Is it not feasible that a public-private partnership could work together in the mutual interest when it comes to providing transport services? I might not be an ideologue but I'd like to think I am to some extent an idealist

'Hawk'

[WMS]

Aye.

[Ebowed]

I would just like to state that I will be vetoing this legislation should the amendment currently before the Senate pass.  This amended version will allow any willing bidders to buy 49% of a bankrupt company and then have absolutely no say in its management.  Obviously this is plainly stupid policy, crafted under the guise of well-intentioned but thoughtless compromise.  I cannot support it.

[Democratic Hawk]

I would just like to state that I will be vetoing this legislation should the amendment currently before the Senate pass.  This amended version will allow any willing bidders to buy 49% of a bankrupt company and then have absolutely no say in its management.  Obviously this is plainly stupid policy, crafted under the guise of well-intentioned but thoughtless compromise.  I cannot support it.

Well, I appreciate you advising the Senate of your intentions. This is how things should be done . Nevertheless, I raise a number of issues

Would private investors necessarily not have a say in the management of Amtrak? Would federal appointees automatically close ranks to block any proposed intiatives from those representing private investors? Would federal appointees to the Board and those respresenting private investors not reach agreement as to its future?

My amendment is about realising a public-private partnership as being the way forward for rail transport. Of course, should this amendment pass, I'm open to a straight 50-50 split in ownership and voting rights. That way they'd have to work together , which is what they should be doing. On reflection, perhaps, I should have proposed this in the first instance

As for my amendment, it is well intentioned and under no guise. Everything I've done in my political life is, has been, and always will be with the best of intentions

I won't under any circumstances be supporting the full privatization of Amtrak because I don't think it's in the public interest to do so. "Selling off the family silver" slither by slither is short-sighted and being a visionary I'm not comfortable with that

'Hawk'