Maybe We Could Learn Something About Privatizing Rail from the Brits.
Way back when Amtrak was still a new undertaking, a couple of the railroad’s higher-ups were “invited” to appear before Congress.
So … how’s it going?
Everyone knew that Amtrak was operating hand-to-mouth and in serious need of a continuing supply of federal dollars to keep the trains running. So of course they smiled and said that profitability was just around the corner. There was even “study” floating around – Amtrak’s “Roadmap to Self-Sufficiency”.
As one pro-rail observer said later, “Congress put a gun to Amtrak’s head and said ‘Lie to us!’ ”
And the pro-rail people used the promise of eventual profitability to keep the federal dollars flowing. And the anti-rail people have been beating Amtrak over the head with that ever since.
Here’s the thing: Everyone knows that it’s impossible to run a national passenger rail system without a subsidy. Sure, specific routes could perhaps be run at a profit, but the entire system? No possible way. Not here. Not anywhere.
They took a shot at privatization in the U.K. back not quite 20 years ago. Want to know how it’s working out?
Well, 30,000 passengers in Great Britain were just surveyed as to their satisfaction on a variety of rail-related issues. One of the questions asked about “delays”. Result? Down four points from last year … to 40 percent. (One of the railroads “scored” 23 percent.)
The survey company also tallied the number of complaints and requests for compensation the various railroad companies had received. There were a little more than 14,138 such complaints in 2012. Last year? Over 43,282.
Jot those numbers down in case you should run into one of those anti-rail, anti-subsidy ideologues. Not that it will do any good.
Jim, there is a cultural difference at work here: the Brits love to complain and especially love to complain about train service.
The bottom line is that patronage since privatization has doubled. Brits are voting with their feet and their dollars, even if their emotions are elsewhere.
I have some experience with the old British Rail and some experience with the service now. I say it’s a considerable improvement. Not perfect, but many things are better and there is the sense that operators are trying to make improvements, rather than the British Rail sense of things decaying.
Well, damn! I can’t find the link, but I believe it was the Passenger Focus survey. And isn’t the real issue in the UK that the state still owns the infrastructure. Profitability really becomes a stretch when a railroad owns and must maintain the track and the bridges and all the rest in addition to the day-to-day operation of actually running trains.
You’re talking about the Eurobarometer survey, ordered by the European Commission? Or Passenger Focus’ National Rail Passenger Survey?
Punctuality is quite good in the UK, better then in Belgium and in France. From the first survey, I understand that the French and the Germans are less happy about their railways then the Brits. The second survey says that Brits are generally quite satisfied, but value for money (which is mainly due to political choices to let “the passengers pay their share”) and how companies dealt with delays where not satisfying for most passengers. But again, on the Continent, I hear exactly the same complaints about the government owned companies.
I have my doubts about privatisation, in the UK, but in Belgium, too. Still, not all is bad, and not all that goes wrong is because of it. But I am convinced that, to make either privatisation or direct government ownership work, governments have to stay involved, with subsidies, rules and a clear vision where to go. Governments that lose their interest in rail, wil lose their rail altogether, private or government owned.