(Photo of Amtrak train in Virginia from Flickr and photographer Andrew Deci)
When I was a kid we often took the overnight train from New York to Toledo to see my grandparents. I loved climbing into my upper birth and looking out at the dark night as the train rattled along.
When I was a teen, our family went to the Canadian Rockies and down the West Coast to LA (Hollywood!) and back across the continent – all by train.
So I was shocked to learn that only 2-3% of Americans living today have been on an inter-city train, and only 3% commute by train. Living in Chicago, I would have guessed more like 20% commute by rail. But many (most) parts of the country don’t have train service.
Fifty years ago our railroads were the envy of all the world. Now they are the laughingstock.
How did that happen?
I bring this up after attending the annual meeting Saturday of the Midwest High Speed Rail Association, a large, active group (mostly men) that celebrated the fact we finally have a president who is pro-train and the Midwest has won a sizeable chunk of the $8 billion in stimulus money, in addition to part of $2.5B granted by Congress this year.
The keynote speaker was James McCommons, author of “Waiting on a Train.” He talked about the decline of trains in America at a time other countries (mostly Europe and Japan, but now increasingly other Asian nations) were advancing to high-speed “bullet” trains.
The decline of passenger rail
The book recounts what happened to trains after Amtrak was created in 1971 but not given enough money to prosper. Freight railroads, bleeding red ink because of their passenger service, were allowed to shed them so they could be profitable. (Note the U.S. is the only industrialized country with private railroads.) Since then, half the country’s rail infrastructure has been abandoned or torn up.
The result was an under-funded passenger network where trains were infrequent, in decay, filthy and usually late (as much as 15 hours cross-country). Some way to run a railroad!
General Motors, which made the diesel engines, encouraged railroads (the tracks were still owned by the freight-rail companies) to tear out the overhead electrical lines, which then made it more difficult for them to ever start running high-speed electrified trains.
Amtrak, whose passenger population has grown since gasoline got more expensive, has uneven service across the country. The best and fastest is in the Northeast Corridor, the electrified Acela line from Washington to New York and Boston, is capable of 200 mph but rarely reaches 150 and averages about 88 mph.
In most places, Amtrak hasn’t put in safety equipment required for running 80mph, so they average 79. The Obama Administration’s goal for “high speed” is 125 mph. The Midwest High Speed Rail Association’s is 220, like the bullet trains in Europe and Asia.
Amtrak owns the tracks in the Northeast Corridor, which is doing very well, thank you. Elsewhere, passenger trains are frequently sidelined for hours to let the more profitable freight trains go through.
Some in Washington have argued that if trains can’t make a profit, they should be allowed to die. But highways are built and maintained by government. And it also builds airports and provides them with air traffic control and security.
And you may have noticed airlines are now running into the same financial problems trains did, and are cutting service and dropping routes.
Still a place for trains
There’s new interest in trains because they produce less greenhouse gases than the other modes of transportation. Trains have other advantages too:
• They’re safer.
• They can run in bad weather.
• They don’t require security checks (though maybe they should).
• You can use wifi and cell phones.
• You can go to the lounge car and chat with other passengers if you want (you can even drink and not drive)
By comparison, highways are getting increasingly congested and airline travel is no longer fun. With the population continuing to grow, all three modes of travel will be needed to carry the traffic.
But until and unless trains become more frequent, reliable and well maintained, not many people will want to climb aboard. Passenger numbers relate strongly to frequency. And on most routes there simply aren’t enough trains available to provide frequent service.
Next: Plans for a resurgence.
(Sources: “Waiting on the Train” by James McCommons, Midwest High Speed Rail Assn.)
4 comments:
I read your post with interest. Last summer I spent a weekend in Lake Geneva. I wanted to take the train but rail service was not available. At their history museum I learned they once had rail service and a station heavily used by Chicagoans. And I asked the same question - how did it get off track?
I wonder if the attrition in rail here has to do with our oil industry's promotion of cars as the premiere form of transportation. I just watched Who Killed the Electric Car. Apparently the oil industry undermined the (then successful) introduction of electric vehicles in California in the 1990's. They used tactics such as creating grassroots "consumer" groups to create a climate in which California's electric vehicle mandate would be repealed. It's possible the industry has influenced consumers' and government's support for rail travel as well.
A very good article. Yet, I must point out just a couple errors. America is not the only nation with private railways companies, not by a stretch. In fact, almost all nations have private companies. In Europe, Virgin Rail, National Express, Network Rail, Southeastern Railways, and so on. Australia has many freight and passenger providers. These nations are just a couple examples. Next, almost all high speed rail companies are owned by private firms. Example, Deustche Bundesbahn is 40% government and 60% private. My last pointer is that all high speed rail systems make positive returns in terms of cash flow and do not require operating subsidies. Most do not yet make a full profit because the systems are too young. But SNCF, which also owns Eurostar and Thalys, reprots high profits. Japan Central Railways was able to completely break away from the government and tax money and privatize in 1986 because of high-speed rails profitability. This past year (FY2009), even America's Acela Express reported $41 per passenger profits.
agibble - Thanks for your comments. My information for these posts came from McCommons' book. I did misspeak in one place and should have said that in Europe and Japan the tracks are publicly owned. As far as Acela, it is Amtrak's flagship and does very well, but according to the book there is some argument over whether or not it is really self-supporting. It may make an operational profit, but the government is putting many millions into construction and maintenance of infrastructure.
Anonymous - Thanks for writing. I'm sure the auto industry and oil lobby had a lot to do with money going into highways instead of rail. I have not seen Who Killed the Electric Car but want to. Thanks for reminding me to get it from Netflix.
Post a Comment