Are Americans finally discovering rail transport?

A new article that I stumbled on this week talks about America’s beleaguered national passenger rail provider, Amtrak.  (This is not the typical article one reads about Amtrak, which almost always involves collisions with freight trains and automobile passenger deaths at rail crossings.)   The shocking thing about the article is exactly how bad the finances for Amtrak are; they have not been in the black since the early 1970s and are heavily subsidized.   I don’t know how this compares with the UK’s national rail, although I do note that it is interesting to me that the UK rail system is so much more heavily populated with regular riders.   There are a few places in the US where public transport is common and there are well-developed networks of subways and trains.  New York City, Boston, and Washington DC on the east coast are all part of this, and on my recent trip I used the systems in both Boston and DC.   In Minneapolis, where I am from, there were only ever some pretty frightening buses until recently, when the hugely successful light rail line went in.

I am not against government subsidies for rail or light rail transit, and I wish that as America moves into the mid-sized cities from the rural areas that more and more of these types of train lines are considered as part of the urban infrastructure.  The experience in Minneapolis would be that “if you build it, they will come”… ridership was about double the expectations almost immediately, and there is quite a bit of new development along the light rail corridor.   Plans are moving ahead for a new section through the University and connecting Minneapolis to downtown St. Paul, and I think this is really exciting.    I can make a real case for continued subsidies of light rail in cities.

I also believe one of the Amtrak success stories is the Acela high-speed connection between Boston and DC (that goes through NYC of course, as well as Philly), in which you’ve got short (Britain-like) distances to travel through densely populated areas.   You’ve also got people in those cities that are used to riding the subways and local trains, so the interstate trains make sense.  What makes less sense to me is a huge investment of continued subsidy dollars in the cross-country rail lines.  The passenger rail system just might not be competitive on the 3-time zone hike from NYC to SF or LA.  The people in the heartland are no longer much accustomed to transport that does not involve cars.  There’s so much rail to maintain, so much rough terrain to cross, so much difficult weather, and such a large passenger time commitment to deal with.

So I’m not sure that I agree with the spirit of the Aussie quoted at the start of the article  in terms of the general usefulness for trains in America, and thus I’m not sure I support a continuing full subsidy for Amtrak.  I don’t think they will ever grab hold for cross-country sightseeing (except perhaps for visiting commonwealth types) but I do believe an investment in infrastructure in high population density regions like Chicago and the Northeast should be encouraged.  So should Americans discover rail transport?  Absolutely, if they live somewhere where it makes sense to do so.  Otherwise, perhaps it’s better to drive or fly and stop supporting Amtrak’s bleeding dollars in the middle of nowhere.


3 responses to “Are Americans finally discovering rail transport?

  1. I both agree and disagree. I agree that the cross-country subsidies should be eliminated; there will always be a market for some train travel because of the leisure luxury of the experience (I far preferred my cool stateroom on the Nanjing-Beijing overnight run to the plane transit of the same route), and the subsidies are just stopping the system from doing what it needs to do- which is: 1) split the self-supporting and self-sustaining urban corridor routes into a separate company and let the rest of it go bankrupt; 2) thus restructure the labor costs for the unprofitable portion and discharge the debt; 3) merge it with other flexible travel modes in an integrated company. For example, look at how awful bus service was for years, and look now at the Minneapolis preferred route to Chicago- jump onto the Megabus in front of the University of Minnesota McNamara Alumni Center, and 6 hours later after a clean and comfortable ride, you are there at a cost of about $40.

    In cities, though, you can’t do what Minneapolis did. Hiawatha line is a novelty that runs to the airport. It was sited and built to try to save downtown, not as a response to the traffic patterns that the market supports. Such ventures will never be useful unless they actually supplement people-moving capacity instead of making it worse. Hiawatha blocks the streets, as opposed to systems like the Washington DC Metro system, which, because it has its own right of way, moves traffic in a positive manner, and if it wasn’t saddled with the usual horrible legacy labor costs, could actually be cost-effective instead of bleeding cash. I don’t know of a LR system in the country that has met its goals or lost less money than anticipated.

    For example, the Minneapolis light rail should have run on an elevated track down the median of 35W from downtown across the Minnesota River to Bloomington and Eden Prairie, taking stress off the freeway. Then hire Virgin to run it.

    Some day, the “anti-sprawl” urban planners will get their comeuppance and some city will build a modern “El” that uses smaller vehicles traveling everywhere there are currently buses. I’d take that choice myself.

  2. I like riding trains. It’s peaceful. If there were more trains around here, I would rather do that than drive, especially when going on vacations.

  3. America has been created along railtracks, and might now revive this historical way of moving (not only goods) but also people.

    The United States need more efficient passenger rail systems, either on intercity travel (short and medium distances) and for commuter trains. The problem with the intercity networks is they are not efficient mainly because Amtrak trains run on freight railroad tracks… bad condition, no priority to passenger trains, etc.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s