{
  "id": "RL31442",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL31442",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 101271,
      "date": "2002-06-07",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:09:14.817941",
      "title": "Foreign Intercity Passenger Rail: Lessons for Amtrak?",
      "summary": "Congress is debating the federal government's role in providing intercity passenger rail service. \nMany believe that Amtrak's future is now at a crossroads. Amtrak's worsening financial situation\nand its relatively small overall share of the intercity passenger market have led some policymakers\nto consider other models of passenger rail regulation. The experience of other countries is often\ncited in debates about passenger rail regulatory regimes. \n  The foreign experience can provide some perspective and some insight in the debate on U.S.\nintercity passenger rail. Many countries have dramatically reorganized the regulatory framework\nof their railroads. Market forces and political pressures were the underlying causes of railway\nreform. The objectives of rail reform was to reverse declining market shares due to competition\nfrom the automobile and airplane, to make the railroads more responsive to customers, and to reduce\nthe railroads' dependence on government subsidies.\n  In order to accomplish these objectives, governments have reorganized their railways along\nseveral dimensions. Some national railroads were divided geographically into separate entities by\nregion. In some cases, national railroads were also divided by business sector, such as freight\nseparated from passenger services. Vertical integration, where one entity controlled both train\noperations and track infrastructure, versus vertical separation, where train operations and track\ninfrastructure were controlled by separate entities, was another choice offered by rail policymakers. \nRail policymakers also faced a choice between public versus private ownership. Levels of\nprivatization can be distinguished among several foreign railroads. A final important element of\nrailway regulation is the role of competition. Theoretically, competition in passenger rail service can\ntake the form of multiple train operating companies competing on the same track. However, in\npractice, competition more readily takes the form of franchises bidding for government contracts to\nperform rail services and/or competition from other modes, such as automobile, bus, and airplane. \nThe regulatory framework of passenger rail in seven countries is profiled: Argentina, Canada,\nFrance, Germany, Japan, Mexico, and the United Kingdom.\n  The level of government support for passenger rail in Japan and European countries far exceeds\nthe level of government support in the United States. In many cases, at the initial stage of\nrestructuring, foreign governments absorbed the large debt that the previous national railroad had\naccumulated. Even the most market-oriented governments have accepted some kind of public\nsupport for new (high speed) track construction. Federal governments also provide direct operating\nsubsidies to their railroads in most cases. In Japan, a few lines are able to cover their operating\nexpenses without government operating subsidies. Although restructuring may provide opportunities\nfor increasing productivity and efficiency, many rail analysts contend that a more critical issue facing\nCongress is the high level of government spending a viable intercity passenger rail system requires.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL31442",
          "sha1": "d502d5931f689f5acaa03cd1a859fed2ddf729eb",
          "filename": "files/20020607_RL31442_d502d5931f689f5acaa03cd1a859fed2ddf729eb.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20020607_RL31442_d502d5931f689f5acaa03cd1a859fed2ddf729eb.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "National Defense"
  ]
}