As a taxpayer,
at this time, I would like those tax dollars that wind up in transportation to be bolted securely to measures that move us away from dependence on OPEC oil and gas.
I’m not holding my breath.
As a taxpayer and a sometime Amtrak patron (NEC and Capitol Corridor on biz), I find the treatment of Amtrak by the pols over the past 30 years to be a national disgrace. Several commenters have noted the lack of defined mission, which I can tell you, as an ex-Federal employee, is a sure ticket to inefficient bureaucracy and waste. Congress needs to get over the “earmark” mentality with Amtrak (remember “Harley’s Hornet”?) and the Bushies need to get over the false notion that non-rail modes aren’t subsidized.
We need effective corridor trains tomorrow, not 10 years from now. Since the Feds can’t do it, the states need to step in (yeah, they’re hurting for money and can’t print any) and take the lead via consortiums and/or screaming loudly at Congresspeople.
A start is to eliminate Amtrak’s monopoly status. Privately funded trains won’t suddenly appear, but that would open space for some creative thinking by state and public-private partnerships.
As for Amtrak, it ought to get the capital it needs to place itself in a “state of good repair”, while the subsidy is adjusted over a period of years to where it matches the seat-mile subsidy to air and auto travel. Congress and whatever administration is in the White House should cease the annual “death” dance that precludes any possibility of financial improvement.
Trains are a valuable asset when they take people off roads, out of the air, and can serve as an effective biz tool. Amtrak, as presently constituted and especially outside of the E and W coast corridors, doesn’t accompli***hat.
I know that many reading this forum, not to mention the editorial folks at Trains, support the long distance services. Perhaps a “reinvention” of them in another form could generate greater ridership. I, for one, would rather sleep stationary than moving. Would a train that stops overnight (say, 9P - 7A) en route attract passengers that might otherwise drive? Well, only those who have the time, as the rest
Trains that ‘stop’ overnight aren’t really necessary, and if they were they wouldn’t be sleepers – you’d be better served by stopping at a 21st-Century equivalent of a Logan House or Fred Harvey, perhaps with transfer to a first-class hotel, and devoting the space aboard the train to better en-route amenities.
Very, very few people who are actually taking the train to ‘get’ somewhere are going to countenance stopping all night, and if you wonder about the fate of ‘cruise’ trains … look at what has succeeded and failed in the marketplace. I find it incredible that the California Zephyr didn’t make it, and more incredible still that it hasn’t been effectively re-created in kind – but while there’s clearly a market for cruise trains, there isn’t nearly as much market for cruise trains that have to keep a daily (or more frequent!!!) schedule to be useful for general transportation…
Trains that slow down at night, of course, are nothing new – the California Zephyr being the first I know of that explicitly did that for comfort (IIRC 40mph max at night). One might strongly argue that the ‘future’ of Amtrak long-distance services may be to run them consistently with freight-train speeds and fleeting practices as much as possible, which easily implies slower operation BUT WITH A MINIMUM OF STARTS,STOPS, AND REQUIRED SPEED CHANGES overnight.
I would not put too much money on rapid State finance of the 110mph corridors in the old FRA deployment plans, or on Congressional fast-track approval of Amtrak funding ‘on parity’ with that given via external mechanisms to other transportation modes. I’m tempted to note that, just as ‘people elect the democracy they deserve’, voters have long had the opportunity to support expen$ive high-speed corridor projects with additional bond issues and taxes. If “we actually need[ed] corridor trains tomorrow” enough to matter, the incentives to voters would be there. But essentially none of the corridor projects are ‘long distance’ in most sen
The American interurban industry enjoyed an enormous period of investment and development just as it’s successor, the automobile, enjoyed in the post war period. The interurban industry failed to anticipate future trends that were obvious, and vanished overnight. Now the automobile in its current form is an endangered species and no one is anticipating future trends in terms of going back to square one.
- Provide low cost federally backed loans to Class ones for infrastructure improvements ( capacity) in exchange for a consortium of same to operate intercity trains.
- Have this consortium do an independant study of corridors where increases in capacity would match public utility. Prioritize this short list.
- Do one corridor on a trial basis and report on results. If viable, do a phased transfer in other corridors.
- Do a real world study of cost benefit analysis of secondary benefits of increased development along corridors, increased real estate values, cost savings in reducing congestion on highways, oil consumption, reduce pollution, land conservation etc. A stand alone analysis of subsidy versus operating cost is absurd.
It would be irresponsible to recommend the ceased operation of Amtrak
and liquidation of its assets. Over 25 million people utilized Amtrak
services in 2005 a 23% increase from 2004 despite natural disasters and
the temporary halt of the Acela Express system. Besides being an
affordable means (and sometimes the only means in cases of commuters in
major city centers) of transportation for millions of people, relying on
the airlines as the only mode of express intercontinental transportation
is a dangerous proposition.
Additionally, the U.S. markets are slowly evolving and a niche for rail
systems is developing due to rising fuel costs, increasingly
inconvenient and timely security measures at airports, and high real
estate costs in major urban areas that are pushing a large percentage of
the U.S. workforce farther from their jobs in major city centers. A
rapid rise in tourism worldwide also provides impetus to improve upon
transportation options that will make the U.S. a competitive and
desirable destination among global competition. Amtrak and the U.S.
government must revamp policies and invest in improvements that will
allow them to capitalize on the growing market potential.
The reform initiatives proposed by Amtrak in the 2006 Grant Proposal and
Business Plan seem viable and measures already implemented have proven
to be effective in that they have lowered operational costs and
increased ridership in 2005.
Amtrak has three major obstacles it must overcome through clever
negotiations, hard lobbying, and good management. First is the
difficulty they have reaching agreement with freight railroads when they
attempt to expand business in areas that are operating at or near
capacity or when the expansion appears to pose competition for freight
railroads. Second are unrealistic demands on the part of legislators who
are