There is no evidence that there is any quote trouble with trains.
3
My wife and I are senior citizens who still like to travel. We love getting around Europe on their splendid state-owned systems, which so many comments have mentioned. However, we also love long-distance travel on Amtrak, despite its many well-documented deficiencies. Passenger trains are perfect for seniors who don't like to drive long distances, except for the unfortunate fact that you have to be able-bodied to get up onto the upper level of Amtrak trains. You must negotiate a steep, narrow twisting staircase to get to where almost all the seats, and especially sleeping accommodations are located. This leaves a great many seniors out of the picture, as the number of seats on the entry level is very small and quickly booked up. If Amtrak could engineer a fix for this, I would expect that they'd find a lot more seniors buying tickets.
18
You can file this story under Our Failure to Modernized due to our "Current Political Climate". Perhaps we should welcome some Climate Change. Then at least those responsible for the political climate will no longer need to proclaim "I'm not a scientist".
15
Freight and passenger service just don't run at the same speeds, so neither works well when both are run on the same tracks.
8
One consistent point made in these opinions is that the long haul lines should be discontinued and emphasis placed on short haul high density areas. But it is the medium to long haul lines that make the most sense for improvement of the rail system. The Airport system fails these areas most of all.
High speed rail from say Boston to Albany to Buffalo to Chicago one track express and another local running every hour or half hour would not only take cars off the road but planes from the sky and provide a much more pleasant travel experience for all concerned. It would have the added benefit of revitalizing declining urban areas as they value of building near the train station becomes valuable.
High speed rail from say Boston to Albany to Buffalo to Chicago one track express and another local running every hour or half hour would not only take cars off the road but planes from the sky and provide a much more pleasant travel experience for all concerned. It would have the added benefit of revitalizing declining urban areas as they value of building near the train station becomes valuable.
14
Just as in the news of the bridge collapse in Minneapolis 7 years ago, which killed 13 commuters, highlighted the miserable and unsafe conditions of our nation's bridges and highways, I anticipate that this latest commuter train disaster which took the lives of eight passengers in Philadelphia may also finally get the attention of our do nothing Congress about the sad and deteriorating condition of our nation's rail system. I note however that following the bridge collapse in Minnesota, as early as 2007, the nation's leadership was repeatedly warned by structural engineers and transportation experts that not only were our bridges and highways at risk but that our system of railroads(which were once the envy of the world) were in equally appalling shape. I also note though that since the bridge collapse in Minneapolis that Congress has given no more than lip service to attempting a permanent fix to our infrastructure woes, and has instead spent most of its time and energy on endless intercine debate as to who is to blame for our countries multiplying problems. I'am sure that the families and friends of the victims of this latest infrastructure failure do not in fact give a fig who is to blame, but would find at least a measure of comfort in knowing that this kind of tragedy will not be repeated.
13
Thanks for this. As you know, though, it is not just the Northeast that has people wanting and willing to take the train. If they build them, they will come. More and more people are biking, defying the logic that Americans only want cars. Trains can also work, especially for short, commuter distances. As for longer distances, they are not always late. I took a train a few years ago from Savannah to DC; it was on time and a great ride. It wasn't like on airplanes where you mostly see the same types--the train draws all types of people. I also visited Rice Yard in Waycross, GA and the funnel in Folkston. Fascinating history and fascinating present.
5
Some good points, but why focus only on railroads in the devil's bargain between the illusion that "free enterprise" ever created anything solely without aid from the government and the political chicanery that so many who decry such necessary public investments in a safe present and better future also profit from their close relationship with that same government?
Airlines are an obvious example of another transportation mode that exists and (mostly) works because of public investment and subsidy. Moreover, those who do actually expect to profit from this arrangement. All rail passenger asks is to break even.
Plenty of other examples exist where private profit is propped up by public funding. The entire effort over the last few decades to contract out much of essential government operations to private firms, even including much of the capacity to make war, amounts to not much more than the privatization of government for profit. It has certainly not proven cheaper or better at delivering services to the public.
Yes, it is a toxic political climate, but to be fair choices are being made that clearly favor some sectors of the economy over others at the expense of the public interest and in support of private profit. We should not pretend it is an inevitability, as it is depicted here, but part of a reason to begin a national conversation that assesses and funds infrastructure, education, science, and basic human needs to create decent society in the world's richest nation.
Airlines are an obvious example of another transportation mode that exists and (mostly) works because of public investment and subsidy. Moreover, those who do actually expect to profit from this arrangement. All rail passenger asks is to break even.
Plenty of other examples exist where private profit is propped up by public funding. The entire effort over the last few decades to contract out much of essential government operations to private firms, even including much of the capacity to make war, amounts to not much more than the privatization of government for profit. It has certainly not proven cheaper or better at delivering services to the public.
Yes, it is a toxic political climate, but to be fair choices are being made that clearly favor some sectors of the economy over others at the expense of the public interest and in support of private profit. We should not pretend it is an inevitability, as it is depicted here, but part of a reason to begin a national conversation that assesses and funds infrastructure, education, science, and basic human needs to create decent society in the world's richest nation.
12
Clearly, Richard White has his own very particular axe to grind involving the freight railroads getting the better end of the freight/passenger breakup. It should be obvious Prof. White has his own tunnel vision about Amtrak's problems, as opposed to solutions, when nowhere in his piece does he mention "high-speed rail."
So let's take a step back, focus on the bigger picture, and admit the obvious. The Acela corridor from DC to Boston needs its own high-speed rail line with its own dedicated right-of-way. Yes, that will require a massive investment in the tens of billions of dollars, and our nation only appears capable of making that kind of investment on foreign invasions, but what's the alternative? Oh, I know, a nation in perpetual decline, which so much of our political leadership appears just fine with anymore.
So let's take a step back, focus on the bigger picture, and admit the obvious. The Acela corridor from DC to Boston needs its own high-speed rail line with its own dedicated right-of-way. Yes, that will require a massive investment in the tens of billions of dollars, and our nation only appears capable of making that kind of investment on foreign invasions, but what's the alternative? Oh, I know, a nation in perpetual decline, which so much of our political leadership appears just fine with anymore.
12
Congress is controlled by Red state Republicans whose constituents do not use rail and who harbor resentment to the northeastern urban centers that rely on passenger rail. The fact that the Washington to Boston corridor generates a surplus of federal tax dollars net of what they receive in federal funds (versus most Red states which generate less federal taxes than they receive) is ignored. We need to be creative and find a regional financial and regulatory solution that does not rely on the federal government to fund critical infrastructure in the northeast.
11
Actually, European trains also have accidents. There was a similar one only a couple of years ago in Spain, a curve taken too fast and a derailment. No technology had bee in place to slow down the train automatically (driver had been playing at going fast). Actually, Amtrak has a pretty good.Better than airplanes probably. And than car accidents.
4
Maybe so, maybe no, but how come the rest of the world has efficient, popular and safe railroads? The poor condition of American railroading couldn't have any connection to the predominant role the gas&oil industry has played in US transportation history, could it? It takes a lot more refined petroleum to move the nation's trucks, automobiles and airplanes than it does its railroads.
Just thinkin' out loud...
Just thinkin' out loud...
23
Our train system has a lot - way too much - in common with our health care system. They are both a disgrace, and they are both reviled by the GOP and their ilk (tea party, etc.) I spent a week in Hong Kong and took the new subway system everywhere, and when I was ready to leave, I took a cab to a central train station, where I walked into the terminal, went through a turnstile, checked my bag through to NYC at the Cathay Pacific desk, and a few minutes later took a bullet train to the gorgeous brand new airport, all for a fraction of what a taxi would cost. I kept thinking: If only the idiots in the US Congress could do this - not that they ever would open their minds enough - If only - well, no need to finish that sentence. Now people are dying on our miserable trains, just like we're dying because we can't get the health care we need. And we keep talking to the walls.
34
If we simply renamed America's railroad system and called it, "America's Defense Railroad Network," there would be plenty of funding.
29
Amen. This is a long standing problem. Anyone unfamiliar with the problematic government/private industry history of the American railroad can read Joseph R. Daughen, The Wreck of the Penn Central (1971) and any history of the Credit Mobilier scandal of 1872 arising from the construction of the Union Pacific Railroad.
2
I do not believe the "train situation" is the fault of the trains or their organizations. Look to where the real trouble lays: at the feet of all our politicians - local, state, national - who will not fund a basically sensible way to move people and goods.
9
The whole article is wrong. The Amtrak Northeast Corridor, where the accident occurred, has dedicated passenger tracks that aren't shared with freight. How could the author not know this?
7
During WW I the railroads were not operating inefficiently. They were operating to charge as much as the traffic could bear. They were trying to maximize profits. Maximum physical efficiency and maximum profit only occur at the same point on the total cost verse total cost curves when the firm is in a competitive market.
1
So the Government provides subsidies and grants and an Air Traffic Control system to support private and commercial aviation in the US. Including spending on airport construction and runway enhancements.
The Government provides subsidy for road and bridge building and highway maintainance and lighting and road clearing.
Joe taxpayer is ok with both of the above but chokes on his pretzels when passenger rail comes into this. Why, just why?
The Government provides subsidy for road and bridge building and highway maintainance and lighting and road clearing.
Joe taxpayer is ok with both of the above but chokes on his pretzels when passenger rail comes into this. Why, just why?
27
I love AMTRAK, Septa, the Metro in Washington and all forms of public transportation. But one reader makes a good point. Recently I wanted to take the train from Philadelphia to Chicago via Cleveland. Amtrak gave me a 5 hour layover in Pittsburgh, a 3 am arrival in Cleveland, and catching the next part of the trip to Chicago also would have required a middle of the night trip to the train station. Needless to say we took a pass on Amtrak. As long as taking the train is hard it is going to be difficult for Amtrak to expand the Northeast Corridor popularity to the rest of the country. And if the rest of the country doesn't feel it needs Amtrak it will not back the funding that is required.
Too bad because the log jams and danger of the interstate highway system is fast making it obsolete. Believe it or not, funding the rails is a quality of life issue.
Too bad because the log jams and danger of the interstate highway system is fast making it obsolete. Believe it or not, funding the rails is a quality of life issue.
14
"Public subsidies" may be somehow logical, however they must not be given without strict conditions. The crumbling rail infrastructure doesn't seem to get much press, even with what seems like weekly oil train derailments and fires, unless passenger deaths occur.
Our entire nation's infrastructure has been allowed to crumble, roads, bridges, rail systems are all in a similarly neglected state. Meanwhile we spend exorbitant, insane and totally unjustified tax dollars on war, "defense" and the enrichment of those corporations reaping the benefits. In return we get nothing. No accounting of the dollars is produced, no justification for vast cost overruns on "development", but we get weekly, slickly produced commercials for our armed forces, the most ludicrously expensive force in world history. This is should be our shame. We've allowed our country to crumble, in the name of faceless "fear", and illogical reasoning, all "lubricated" by the corporations that extract most of our tax dollars.
There is no honest representation in our government against this folly.
Our entire nation's infrastructure has been allowed to crumble, roads, bridges, rail systems are all in a similarly neglected state. Meanwhile we spend exorbitant, insane and totally unjustified tax dollars on war, "defense" and the enrichment of those corporations reaping the benefits. In return we get nothing. No accounting of the dollars is produced, no justification for vast cost overruns on "development", but we get weekly, slickly produced commercials for our armed forces, the most ludicrously expensive force in world history. This is should be our shame. We've allowed our country to crumble, in the name of faceless "fear", and illogical reasoning, all "lubricated" by the corporations that extract most of our tax dollars.
There is no honest representation in our government against this folly.
34
Evidently we simply are incapable of looking abroad to understand what might be useful and workable here. So failing to understand the importance of Japan's high-speed rail system we have barely even begun such a system.
11
Rail service in the Midwest is a joke. The cities here are far apart and there are plenty of alternatives - buses, cars, and planes. The population density is far too low. Take a train from Chicago to St. Louis - Once you get 40 miles out it is all farms till St. Louis. Very different than the East Coast where the population density is probably 10x higher.
Why would I ever take a train more than 200 miles - it takes too long. From Chicago to St. Louis it is 5 1/2 hours versus 4 3/4 by car. When I get to St. Louis I'm downtown. Most businesses are in the suburbs. Need to rent a car or I guess I could take a bus. Then again if you are travelling for business time is money. Most Amtrak trains are dirty, slow and late. Try one out here and see how you feel about it. Other than the NE Corridor the whole thing should give up the ghost - Imagine a train from Des Moines to DC - Probably take 24 hours if you are lucky, run at an inconvenient time, and be more costly.
Why would I ever take a train more than 200 miles - it takes too long. From Chicago to St. Louis it is 5 1/2 hours versus 4 3/4 by car. When I get to St. Louis I'm downtown. Most businesses are in the suburbs. Need to rent a car or I guess I could take a bus. Then again if you are travelling for business time is money. Most Amtrak trains are dirty, slow and late. Try one out here and see how you feel about it. Other than the NE Corridor the whole thing should give up the ghost - Imagine a train from Des Moines to DC - Probably take 24 hours if you are lucky, run at an inconvenient time, and be more costly.
4
During the 5 1/2 hours in the train from Chicago to St. Louis you could read, work or relax. During the 4 3/4 hours by car, you have to drive. And please, focus on the driving... (some may see the drive as relaxing, though).
5
"Imagine a train from Des Moines to DC"
Very funny. But imagine one from Denver to DC, with a stop in Des Moines, and you might be on to something.
Very funny. But imagine one from Denver to DC, with a stop in Des Moines, and you might be on to something.
3
Once the train is away from the city, rights of way are easier to assemble, tracks can be easily maintained, and trains can travel faster. A route like Chicago to St Louis, connecting 2 population centers by way of rural areas would be the ideal type of route for high speed rail.
3
This is the most biased, irrational analysis of American railroads I've ever seen. Using the author's thinking we should require FedEx to carry passengers in addition to freight, and United should have freight aircraft in addition to passenger planes. I don't know of any bus line that also runs trucks or any trucking company that operates buses. Why should rail be the only mode of transportation where freight is required to subsidize passengers?
The comparison to Europe is also faulty. Europe is much more densely populated, making passenger rail more viable. In fact the one area where passenger rail in the US is profitable is the Northeast Corridor, where population densities are comparable to those of Europe.
The primary reason for the decline of passenger rail in the US was the convenience of the automobile, combined with counterproductive regulation and antiquated union work rules. I'm guessing the author would like to bring back the ICC along with all the extra costs and inefficiencies that agency created.
The comparison to Europe is also faulty. Europe is much more densely populated, making passenger rail more viable. In fact the one area where passenger rail in the US is profitable is the Northeast Corridor, where population densities are comparable to those of Europe.
The primary reason for the decline of passenger rail in the US was the convenience of the automobile, combined with counterproductive regulation and antiquated union work rules. I'm guessing the author would like to bring back the ICC along with all the extra costs and inefficiencies that agency created.
5
Let us not forget the government subsidy of the roads including the interstate system.
Actually, the roads that FedEx uses are already also used to carry passengers. And the federal government paid to build those roads.
Before I extol the virtues of train travel I'd like to suggest the use of seat belts on passenger trains and busses. When I was in France awhile ago, we did some traveling by tour bus. We were instructed to use the seat belts, and the bus wouldn't start until the driver passed an incorporated breathalizer test. If people in the recent train crash had been wearing seat belts they might not have been thrown about causing injury or death.
I live near Santa Barbara and have relatives in San Diego. When I travel to see them I take the train in order to avoid the morass of traffic in the LA and Orange County area. I have traveled across country on Amtrak and have always enjoyed the comfort of the seats or sleeping cars, the very interesting people I have met, and the wonderful scenery that is our beautiful country. Over the past few years when I took a plane, the seating was so cramped I could hardly wait to get off. I could go on about the virtues of train travel, but I would just be echoing the many comments on this site. Please, congress, give us better and safer train travel!
I live near Santa Barbara and have relatives in San Diego. When I travel to see them I take the train in order to avoid the morass of traffic in the LA and Orange County area. I have traveled across country on Amtrak and have always enjoyed the comfort of the seats or sleeping cars, the very interesting people I have met, and the wonderful scenery that is our beautiful country. Over the past few years when I took a plane, the seating was so cramped I could hardly wait to get off. I could go on about the virtues of train travel, but I would just be echoing the many comments on this site. Please, congress, give us better and safer train travel!
11
Scott Walker derailed high-speed rail in Wisconsin destroying thousands of jobs and making the state party to a breach of contract lawsuit. Thanks to the Koch brothers and their inherited concentrated wealth for purchasing this candidate to protect their petroleum-industrial complex. Great return on investment, plutocrats! I can't wait for Scott Walker to get into the GOP clown-car and drive off a cliff.
20
European rail works because of population density. Density increases demand, thereby revenues, and so lowers per capita subsidies. In the USA, the required density exists in only a few areas. For low-density areas to be served subsidies are required. Low density, combined with the split of passenger and freight trains, makes passenger rail in the USA unprofitable, freight marginal, and creates no incentives for upgrading.
Rail has not been served by a public-private partnership. Rail is part of our economic infrastructure as it enhances labor mobility and communication efficiency. Currently, these effects are minimized by the state of our rail.
Enhanced rail maintenance, safety upgrades, and investment are important but no more so than affordable rates. Passenger rail is often more expensive than flying! Households in the lower demographic quintiles are priced out of the market. Better, faster service and low rates would increase access to jobs, freedom of travel and everyone’s standard-of-living. Small, struggling cities and towns would become players by becoming railroad bedroom communities, like those on Philadelphia’s old Main Line.
Only government ownership can provide these benefits., but federalization would only work if Congress acknowledges that not all of rail’s many benefits (such as network externalities) are found on spreadsheets, and red ink is the price of providing access to all.
Rail has not been served by a public-private partnership. Rail is part of our economic infrastructure as it enhances labor mobility and communication efficiency. Currently, these effects are minimized by the state of our rail.
Enhanced rail maintenance, safety upgrades, and investment are important but no more so than affordable rates. Passenger rail is often more expensive than flying! Households in the lower demographic quintiles are priced out of the market. Better, faster service and low rates would increase access to jobs, freedom of travel and everyone’s standard-of-living. Small, struggling cities and towns would become players by becoming railroad bedroom communities, like those on Philadelphia’s old Main Line.
Only government ownership can provide these benefits., but federalization would only work if Congress acknowledges that not all of rail’s many benefits (such as network externalities) are found on spreadsheets, and red ink is the price of providing access to all.
5
According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety website: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/state... there are some very dramatic figures for motor vehicle crash deaths in 2013. Two states with very similar populations, yet very different passenger rail infrastuctures are worth comparing; New York and Florida. New York suffered 1,121 fatal crashes that year while Florida endured a more appalling number, 2,228. Indirectly, Florida's limited offerings for passenger rail travel contributed to at least some of the additional 1,107 highway deaths. How do we measure the costs to society for these as well as the greater number of non-fatal car crashes?
Florida as a territory in 1835 boasted one of the country's first railroads, made of wood and powered by mule teams, from Tallahassee to St. Mark's near the Gulf coast. Yet today, there is no train service to the capital of our nation's third most populated state. Rails to Trails programs have removed access to public transportation and are popular for providing safe biking opportunities, free of autos and trucks. What an ironic form of "progress" we live with after 180 years of evolving passenger service.
Florida as a territory in 1835 boasted one of the country's first railroads, made of wood and powered by mule teams, from Tallahassee to St. Mark's near the Gulf coast. Yet today, there is no train service to the capital of our nation's third most populated state. Rails to Trails programs have removed access to public transportation and are popular for providing safe biking opportunities, free of autos and trucks. What an ironic form of "progress" we live with after 180 years of evolving passenger service.
10
Rail trails also preserve the rights of way so that rail lines can easily be built without first having to assemble routes owned by thousands of property owners along the way. Rail trails, far from being ironic, are the way rail travel can be restored.
1
Without huge government subsidies, not an automobile would travel nor an airplane fly. Why not provide public support for passenger railroad service.
40
Let me say up front, I love train travel. As a child growing up in Los Angeles, my mother and I would, on occasion, took the Pacific Daylight to Burlingame to visit relatives. What a ride?!?! Coastal views were spectacular. Even when I take a plane, I still prefer a window seat. I like trains in America because the view is not a blur. I take trains because I love not being in a hurry. I am not pleading for high speed rail. If it comes before I die, I will give it a go.
What's happened to train travel in America has become all too common: the greed factor of privatized essential goods and services including rail service, electricity, water, communications ... Profiteers infect every level of governments from cities, states and all three branches of the federal government. Special interests use elected and appointed politicians to worship excessive executive compensation considered more important than solving our country's problems. Is it any wonder railroad operators are reluctant to spend money on maintenance and technology upgrades? Rail maintenance is expensive, sure.
But we all know this is not about available capital. It is about the lack of political will to do the right thing. Those "shovel-ready" projects to upgrade our nation's infrastructure can be financed with near-zero interests rates. Wages paid will pay taxes, spend money locally, support local farmers, create other jobs. That lack of political will is appalling as our nation implodes at our peril.
What's happened to train travel in America has become all too common: the greed factor of privatized essential goods and services including rail service, electricity, water, communications ... Profiteers infect every level of governments from cities, states and all three branches of the federal government. Special interests use elected and appointed politicians to worship excessive executive compensation considered more important than solving our country's problems. Is it any wonder railroad operators are reluctant to spend money on maintenance and technology upgrades? Rail maintenance is expensive, sure.
But we all know this is not about available capital. It is about the lack of political will to do the right thing. Those "shovel-ready" projects to upgrade our nation's infrastructure can be financed with near-zero interests rates. Wages paid will pay taxes, spend money locally, support local farmers, create other jobs. That lack of political will is appalling as our nation implodes at our peril.
11
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Trains don't kill people, Congress kills people.
Trains don't kill people, Congress kills people.
4
Hard to conceive that tourists actually come to this country! Any type of travel, but trains in particular, which should/could be a pleasant experience, involve depressing, dirty waiting areas and dingy, depressing cars, buses, planes. Even the private accommodations on trains in the sleeping cars are not pleasant if you have to spend many hours, even nights, and the restaurant food, which is an automatic part of your fare on a long haul trip, is substandard.
My father loved trains. And passed that love along to his offspring. But, honestly, I'm DONE with them! Give me train travel in Europe instead! Fast. Clean. Efficient. Best way to travel there!
My father loved trains. And passed that love along to his offspring. But, honestly, I'm DONE with them! Give me train travel in Europe instead! Fast. Clean. Efficient. Best way to travel there!
7
It must be pleasant to be paid to write nihilistic little pieces about our infrastructure issues without even the glimmer of a suggestion as to how to address them. I ride a train every single day. It's called a subway. It is linked to passenger rail trains, and the combination of a rail mass transit system in two urban aresa and an intercity rail system can take a traveler almost from door to door. No crowded skies, no costly rides to airports. What does Mr. White think about this? What does he want done to preserve or enhance it? Does he want Amtrak done away with? Sounds like it, since he speaks with scorn of subsidies. Well, urban mass transit is subsidized, too, from the taxes of the people and businesses that benefit from a workforce being able to get to and from work. What's wrong with subsidies? Is freight rail not taxed? Truck transport? Move some money around! Or does he want the freight railroads mandated to provide passenger rail again? Seems like he'd say so if he did. Or does he want intercity travel to all take place by air? By bus? Basically the Times has printed a knowledgeable rant by a well-informed curmudgeon to the effect that everything is terrible. Such people seem to have one solution to everything: we should all die soon. I sometimes have to listen to them when I'm thrown together with them in a subway car or on a train. Better there than on a plane, though, where you can't move around.
8
While this article is about our lack of investment in our infrastucture, I've yet to read anything about how this accident appears to be caused 100% by pilot error. Even the high tech train control system is just used to warn the engineer that he is going to fast, and to put on the brakes. He was the engineer, shouldn't he have known that he was going twice the speed limit for that area? Shouldn't he be charged with criminal negligencee?
4
The states of the Northeast Corridor should form a regional entity that could take over operation of the Northeast Corridor from Amtrak and relieve the Corridor of its dependence on hostile Republicans in the Capitol. Recognizing how vital rail service is to the regional economy, they could provide the funding necessary for Amtrak to compete more successfully with air and car travel within the region.
4
Nationalized initiatives rarely serve as models for quality and efficiency. One need only look at the US Postal Service versus UPS and FedEx. But we continue to try and make it work.
I have met too many postal workers who retired at 50 with a full lifetime pension to believe that nationalizing more transportation or services is an absolute good. And with the Democrats' love affair with unionization, I will never be comfortable with government unions which essentially vote their own benefits without recourse or accountability.
You can blame the Republicans for Amtrak, but we all know that such charges are sleazy half-truths. In standing up to Socialists, they must take a hard line or sell the country down the river, er, rails.
I have met too many postal workers who retired at 50 with a full lifetime pension to believe that nationalizing more transportation or services is an absolute good. And with the Democrats' love affair with unionization, I will never be comfortable with government unions which essentially vote their own benefits without recourse or accountability.
You can blame the Republicans for Amtrak, but we all know that such charges are sleazy half-truths. In standing up to Socialists, they must take a hard line or sell the country down the river, er, rails.
3
A recent article I read showed that around 90% of Amtrak revenues go into paying salaries, benefits, pensions, etc. That is unsustainable in most real world operations.
Other nations can provide nationalized public transportation for the people, but USA cannot. Other nations can sustain living wages (union jobs), but USA cannot. Other nations also have nationalized health care, but USA cannot.
In the USA anything that benefits the people is called "Socialism" and that's bad. Tax cuts for the 1% -- that's good.
In the USA anything that benefits the people is called "Socialism" and that's bad. Tax cuts for the 1% -- that's good.
1
OK, Let's look at the US Post Office compared to UPS and FedEx. The post office loses about 7 cents on each item it delivers, at a rate of 49 cents per item. That means it costs the Post Office about 56 cents to deliver each item. UPS and FedEx charge a minimum of $10.00 to deliver anything at all. Assuming that it costs UPS and FedEx 56 cents for each delivery, that means they each have a profit margin of 17,800%. Wow! That's efficiency!
3
I disagree with professor White on both the problem and the solution. The railroads are literally "awash in cash" these days due to massive use of their tracks for transporting freight as well as all the mergers and acquisitions which have reduced many major railroads down to a precious few. In addition they have many fewer employees and retirees than they did a few years ago to pay wages, pensions and benefits to. What needs to happen is Amtrak needs to be privatized. The railroads should be required to take over and assume all passenger trains running today. Passenger fares should be set by an independent board and any subsidies that need to be paid to keep them running need to be paid directly from the railroads' overflowing coffers. Like most big businesses nowadays their federal and state corporate taxes are pathetically low. This would at least force them to cough up some cash that would benefit the public both by maintaining and even requiring considerable expansion of passenger service and modernization of "rolling stock".
1
With complete respect and sympathy for the victims of last week's crash, we should remember that rail travel is still far, far safer than driving. Automobile travel is so dangerous, in fact, that traffic fatalities rarely even make front-page news.
13
I believe that the Amtrak Northeast Corridor (Boston to Washington) does in fact pay for itself, but in that it is an anomaly. The rest of the system does not.
ITEM: Although air carriers pay a landing fee (which is passed on to the customer in the ticket cost) it is my understanding that this landing fee does not cover the actual cost of the event. The result is a subsidy to the air carriers.
ITEM: Public highways are free for all to use. The cost of these highways is not (completely) borne by user fees but by the general revenue stream. The result is a subsidy to road traffic.
ITEM: Railroads pay property taxes on their rights-of-way. Local jurisdictions have used their taxation authority to place prohibitive tariffs on railroads in order to drive out unpopular or unwanted services (I believe this is now illegal). This is a COST to all rail traffic.
ITEM: In North America I am aware of no municipal transit system which operates in the black. It just doesn't happen.
ITEM: Flying is still an adventure but not the same kind of adventure it was fifty years ago. It is now an adventure to be avoided if possible.
ITEM: Railroads were (until 1971) required to provide passenger service as a public good. In return for this they got to run freight traffic. They lost money on passenger, made money on freight.
We need passenger rail as a public good, not replaceable by air or by highway. Passenger rail in turn needs a level playing field. Good luck with that.
ITEM: Although air carriers pay a landing fee (which is passed on to the customer in the ticket cost) it is my understanding that this landing fee does not cover the actual cost of the event. The result is a subsidy to the air carriers.
ITEM: Public highways are free for all to use. The cost of these highways is not (completely) borne by user fees but by the general revenue stream. The result is a subsidy to road traffic.
ITEM: Railroads pay property taxes on their rights-of-way. Local jurisdictions have used their taxation authority to place prohibitive tariffs on railroads in order to drive out unpopular or unwanted services (I believe this is now illegal). This is a COST to all rail traffic.
ITEM: In North America I am aware of no municipal transit system which operates in the black. It just doesn't happen.
ITEM: Flying is still an adventure but not the same kind of adventure it was fifty years ago. It is now an adventure to be avoided if possible.
ITEM: Railroads were (until 1971) required to provide passenger service as a public good. In return for this they got to run freight traffic. They lost money on passenger, made money on freight.
We need passenger rail as a public good, not replaceable by air or by highway. Passenger rail in turn needs a level playing field. Good luck with that.
14
People keep talking like airlines get all kind of public subsidy. Landing fees for example - these are charges an airline pays to an airport for each landing/takeoff, based on the airport, aircraft weight, etc. and which can amount to thousands of dollars for large planes like a 747. This is in addition to slot fees (airlines have paid hundreds of millions to airports to buy gates and time slot access), fuel,ml ease of terminal space, etc. additionally passengers pay fees in their tickets for "facility charges" and various taxes. The airlines also pay corporate income tax that funds things like the FAA as well. In short, the airlines are not getting some free ride at taxpayer expense.
Do we the pubic pay for things like the FAA and air traffic control? Yes, but we also pay for police and fire service too, for example...do you say a NY resident is getting a free ride by calling the police or fire departments because they receive public funds? Some of this talk of subsidy is really misplaced and serves more of a purpose rather than a practical one.
Do we the pubic pay for things like the FAA and air traffic control? Yes, but we also pay for police and fire service too, for example...do you say a NY resident is getting a free ride by calling the police or fire departments because they receive public funds? Some of this talk of subsidy is really misplaced and serves more of a purpose rather than a practical one.
I traveled from Jacksonville to Boston and back last fall. I traveled round trip from Paris to Montpelier last month on the TGV ("very high speed") train. The average speed on Amtrak was probably about 60 mph. About an hour and a half late into NYC. Plenty of noisy clickety-clack. Plenty of jostling and swaying. The average speed on the TGV was about 140 mph. A very comfortable, smooth, quiet ride that arrived on time.
Vive la France!
Vive la France!
19
"Danger and bad service caused passengers to flee to automobiles and, later, airlines whenever they could...."
This is patently false. In fact the US Green transit infrastructure was deliberately destroyed by the collusion of GM, Chevron, Firestone and others to buy up and put of business trolley lines all over the US.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
Also see http://www.lovearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm
Rail Mail service in fact already supported overnight mail but the Federal government chose to subsidize Airmail with the Post Office in order to help incubate the airline industry. "Train Time" explains how the US Railway Mail Service very efficiently and effectively used the Rail system to pick up and drop off mailbags without even stopping with hooks at stations and clerks who sorted the mail as the trains traveled all over the US over the US 233,000 miles of Rail.
During WW II the US elite decided to temporarily halt the support of Auto Addiction and in just 3 years quadrupled all public train, bus and transit ridership. But afterwards deliberately chose to support vast expansion with 90% Federal subsidies for Interstate highways of the Auto Addiction we suffer today because of the huge profits of the Auto/Oil industries.
This is patently false. In fact the US Green transit infrastructure was deliberately destroyed by the collusion of GM, Chevron, Firestone and others to buy up and put of business trolley lines all over the US.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
Also see http://www.lovearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm
Rail Mail service in fact already supported overnight mail but the Federal government chose to subsidize Airmail with the Post Office in order to help incubate the airline industry. "Train Time" explains how the US Railway Mail Service very efficiently and effectively used the Rail system to pick up and drop off mailbags without even stopping with hooks at stations and clerks who sorted the mail as the trains traveled all over the US over the US 233,000 miles of Rail.
During WW II the US elite decided to temporarily halt the support of Auto Addiction and in just 3 years quadrupled all public train, bus and transit ridership. But afterwards deliberately chose to support vast expansion with 90% Federal subsidies for Interstate highways of the Auto Addiction we suffer today because of the huge profits of the Auto/Oil industries.
6
Every decade or so studies are done on HSR feasibility on high-travel-density routes in the northeast (and related corridors; the "Empire corridor," from NYC to Buffalo, and then potential routes from Albany or Boston to Montreal).
If HSR can work anywhere in the US, it's the northeast corridor: high traffic volume already exists and is growing.
Here's the most recent study for a 220 MPH system from Washington DC to Boston, competitive with fast European and Asian trains:
http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/453/325/Amtrak-Vision-for-the-Northeast-Corr...
The "bottom line" is capital costs over 150 B$, spread out until 2040. These costs stem from the need to realign a substantial portion of the route to get trackage straight enough to allow these speeds, new bridges, tunnels, stations.
By 2030 the plan provides 1.5 service from New York City to Washington DC. By 2040 1.5 hr service from NYC to Boston, along a new route.
So by 2040 this plan gets the Northeast corridor to where many nations were in 2010 along their high-speed rail lines. And this is just a plan, so far.
If HSR can work anywhere in the US, it's the northeast corridor: high traffic volume already exists and is growing.
Here's the most recent study for a 220 MPH system from Washington DC to Boston, competitive with fast European and Asian trains:
http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/453/325/Amtrak-Vision-for-the-Northeast-Corr...
The "bottom line" is capital costs over 150 B$, spread out until 2040. These costs stem from the need to realign a substantial portion of the route to get trackage straight enough to allow these speeds, new bridges, tunnels, stations.
By 2030 the plan provides 1.5 service from New York City to Washington DC. By 2040 1.5 hr service from NYC to Boston, along a new route.
So by 2040 this plan gets the Northeast corridor to where many nations were in 2010 along their high-speed rail lines. And this is just a plan, so far.
6
Since 2003 the US has spent $3 trillion on Iraq, while China has spent a similar amount on building a nationwide high-speed rail system which is decades, not years, ahead of ours.
Who made the smarter choice, China or the US?
Even if we started a program today to build modern railways in the US - and there's no sign of that - it would take the US 30 years to catch up with China.
Who made the smarter choice, China or the US?
Even if we started a program today to build modern railways in the US - and there's no sign of that - it would take the US 30 years to catch up with China.
14
The underlying disconnect in Congress is that somehow rail travel should pay for itself. Yet it is a fundamental principle in our economy that whatever is profitable is provided by the public sector, and everything else is provided by government.
The military does not turn a profit, nor does highway transportation. By the logic of Congress, then, both these undertakings should be scrapped. This would free sufficient resources to lift Amtrak from its present third world status.
It is idiotic that the world's largest economy has such shamefully poor train service. Building high speed rails down the medians of interstate highways would solve unemployment and carbon emission problems in one fell swoop. But that would make sense.
The military does not turn a profit, nor does highway transportation. By the logic of Congress, then, both these undertakings should be scrapped. This would free sufficient resources to lift Amtrak from its present third world status.
It is idiotic that the world's largest economy has such shamefully poor train service. Building high speed rails down the medians of interstate highways would solve unemployment and carbon emission problems in one fell swoop. But that would make sense.
12
All sorts of objections have been raised as to why upgrading the Amtrak NE Corridor line will never happen. Times change, of course. Nevertheless, I wonder if the agreements by which the Washington Metro was/is funded can be adapted to improve the Washington -- Boston route. In that instance, if I remember correctly, the costs of building Metro were covered by the federal government, approximately 65%, and by the parties (DC, MD, VA) involved, approximately 35%.
Should ungrading of the NE Corridor line and its passenger cars come to pass, one of the obstacles to using Metro will be overcome: fares that depend on the distance travelled with tickets obtained from machines that many cannot operate unassisted.
Should ungrading of the NE Corridor line and its passenger cars come to pass, one of the obstacles to using Metro will be overcome: fares that depend on the distance travelled with tickets obtained from machines that many cannot operate unassisted.
1
The freight lines who have benefited greatly from Amtrak's creation should ALL be required to forward some of the money necessary to bring Amtrack up to modern standards.
Second, the Congress needs to get out of the way and allow Amtrack to DUMP stops and stations that are money losers, and there are many.
Third: there will never be a truly private passenger rail system in the U.S. It is imperative that it be set up as a private/public corporation, and it's goal should be to operate at a break even cost, as minimum, and at a profit if possible.
Second, the Congress needs to get out of the way and allow Amtrack to DUMP stops and stations that are money losers, and there are many.
Third: there will never be a truly private passenger rail system in the U.S. It is imperative that it be set up as a private/public corporation, and it's goal should be to operate at a break even cost, as minimum, and at a profit if possible.
4
Hmm, another public service that's purpose is to enrich private corporations. Why does the taxpayer have to subside the moneyed interests? Why not turn that on its head?
6
When I was a child in the mid-1950’s-60’s we’d take the train from Poughkeepsie, NY, to visit family in Columbus, Ohio. Twice we took the train from Poughkeepsie to Chicago, switched trains, and then went on to Los Angeles. We loved those trips. And yes, the trains “ran efficiently, safely, and dependably” – not like now.
The reality is that Amtrak is like a sharecropper who has to pay the landlord to use the land. The freight rail, CXS, owns 2800 miles of track in New York State. Amtrak owns 150 miles. CXS has the right of way on the tracks. As a result, Amtrak is late in upstate New York most of the time.
The United States has one of the worst passenger train systems in the industrial world. If China, which has a land mass that’s 1,933,018 square kilometers more than that of the continental U.S., can have the world’s longest high speed rail system, why can’t we have high-speed passenger trains? Japan has had the bullet train since 1964. France has had the TGV (Train à Grande Vitesse) since 1981. Spain has high-speed rail. So do other European countries. By contrast, we have high-speed passenger railroad derailment by politicians and corporations whose only thought is their bottom line. Shame on them, and shame on us for just standing by as freight trains that move commodities monopolize the tracks and we American citizens are left stranded with a regressive passenger railroad system that does not meet our needs. This is a national disgrace.
The reality is that Amtrak is like a sharecropper who has to pay the landlord to use the land. The freight rail, CXS, owns 2800 miles of track in New York State. Amtrak owns 150 miles. CXS has the right of way on the tracks. As a result, Amtrak is late in upstate New York most of the time.
The United States has one of the worst passenger train systems in the industrial world. If China, which has a land mass that’s 1,933,018 square kilometers more than that of the continental U.S., can have the world’s longest high speed rail system, why can’t we have high-speed passenger trains? Japan has had the bullet train since 1964. France has had the TGV (Train à Grande Vitesse) since 1981. Spain has high-speed rail. So do other European countries. By contrast, we have high-speed passenger railroad derailment by politicians and corporations whose only thought is their bottom line. Shame on them, and shame on us for just standing by as freight trains that move commodities monopolize the tracks and we American citizens are left stranded with a regressive passenger railroad system that does not meet our needs. This is a national disgrace.
17
I first stated training in 1953, I took the El Capitan Santa Fe train from Chicago to visit my aunt in Los Angeles . By the way I was a ten year old boy riding alone. Fred Harvey food, cooked from scratch. 39 hours and on time. Of course this was a great way to travel. This was the start of a lifetime of train travel both in the USA and Europe. The reason we don't still have great passenger trains is very simple. As a nation we let a congress controlled by large corps make laws that line their pockets the people be damned. Yes this is a disgrace! I hate flying taking a bus is better.
Others have mentioned this, but it's worth emphasizing:
Trains start and end in the center of a city. No need to spend an hour or more at each end going between an airport and a city center. 9 times out of 10, that will shorten overall travel time.
That said, trains have their limits. Boston-NYC, NYC-Washington, even Boston-Washington, Chicago-Milwaukee, Chicago-Detroit, Miami-Orlando -- all make sense. Here in CA, not so clear that SF-LA makes sense. $38 billion to build (assuming project stays on-budget), all-day each way (despite claims of 2 hours for the 400-mile run, recent NIMBY battles make clear it will be more like 6 hours, with an automobile probably needed at the LA end, possibly at both ends).
Bottom line: Makes sense to encourage train travel on shorter runs, but not waste money on longer runs that very few will use.
Trains start and end in the center of a city. No need to spend an hour or more at each end going between an airport and a city center. 9 times out of 10, that will shorten overall travel time.
That said, trains have their limits. Boston-NYC, NYC-Washington, even Boston-Washington, Chicago-Milwaukee, Chicago-Detroit, Miami-Orlando -- all make sense. Here in CA, not so clear that SF-LA makes sense. $38 billion to build (assuming project stays on-budget), all-day each way (despite claims of 2 hours for the 400-mile run, recent NIMBY battles make clear it will be more like 6 hours, with an automobile probably needed at the LA end, possibly at both ends).
Bottom line: Makes sense to encourage train travel on shorter runs, but not waste money on longer runs that very few will use.
7
What's missing from this article is any acknowledgment of the subsidies to other forms of transportation, notably highways. The US has crummy trains because it has invested in road and air travel, and made taking the train expensive, inconvenient, and perhaps dangerous as well. That is a policy choice, and we could make a different choice. Europe and Japan have done so.
28
Exactly. All transportation systems in this country have been subsidized by the government at some point in their history. Now it is the trucking companies and airlines turn. How many trucking firms or alliances of firms could afford to build their own one-lane highways between the cities they serve? What would happen to airfares and air safety if the airlines had to build their own airports on land they purchased, install electronic nav aids for bad weather flying, etc.? We have a poor passenger rail system because we have invested very little in it during the last century as compared to other forms of transportation.
1
There are major problems with railroads not mentioned in this article.
Railroads own their right of way. They pay property taxes on all real estate. Compare that to the roads used by truckers or the air ways used by airlines.
Railroads are heavily unionized. They deal with numerous union contracts with restrictive work rules.
Consider the vandalism along the railroad right of way. That is private property with no public responsibility to police.
Consider how trains operate. They have a scheduled time to occupy a segment of track. They vary their speed to make up time or delay based on their schedule. Then there is the safe speed limit for particular sections of track.
Consider what we know about the latest Amtrak wreck. The train was hit by some ob
Railroads own their right of way. They pay property taxes on all real estate. Compare that to the roads used by truckers or the air ways used by airlines.
Railroads are heavily unionized. They deal with numerous union contracts with restrictive work rules.
Consider the vandalism along the railroad right of way. That is private property with no public responsibility to police.
Consider how trains operate. They have a scheduled time to occupy a segment of track. They vary their speed to make up time or delay based on their schedule. Then there is the safe speed limit for particular sections of track.
Consider what we know about the latest Amtrak wreck. The train was hit by some ob
Sorry, my comment was sent for some reason before complete.
The train was hit by some object shortly before the curve.
The train was accelerating into the curve.
The engineer had spoken about other trains being hit about the same time.
The engineer had been on the route only 2 weeks and was late in his previous arrival before boarding this train.
These trains can run well over 100 MPH.
The console tells the engineer when it is time to slow down and the speed limit.
The engineer hit the emergency stop just before the crash.
Imagine you are in that engine cab and something with enough force shatters the window in front of you with a loud noise. Do you hit the brakes or accelerate to get away from the bombardment. Do you call the base to advise what just happened and ask what to do? Are you just confused for 45 seconds?
We have never been told what actually happened during those 60 seconds. Do the authorities know? Was the train late and accelerating to make up time before the window was shattered? Don't alarms go off when the console tells you it is time to brake and you are above the speed limit but haven't? Was there communications between the engineer and the Amtrak track controller? How was this engineer made aware of other train's window being shattered by something? Is there no video in the train engine cab or no voice recording?
Amtrak has a lot of questions to answer besides those regarding automatic train control installation.
The train was hit by some object shortly before the curve.
The train was accelerating into the curve.
The engineer had spoken about other trains being hit about the same time.
The engineer had been on the route only 2 weeks and was late in his previous arrival before boarding this train.
These trains can run well over 100 MPH.
The console tells the engineer when it is time to slow down and the speed limit.
The engineer hit the emergency stop just before the crash.
Imagine you are in that engine cab and something with enough force shatters the window in front of you with a loud noise. Do you hit the brakes or accelerate to get away from the bombardment. Do you call the base to advise what just happened and ask what to do? Are you just confused for 45 seconds?
We have never been told what actually happened during those 60 seconds. Do the authorities know? Was the train late and accelerating to make up time before the window was shattered? Don't alarms go off when the console tells you it is time to brake and you are above the speed limit but haven't? Was there communications between the engineer and the Amtrak track controller? How was this engineer made aware of other train's window being shattered by something? Is there no video in the train engine cab or no voice recording?
Amtrak has a lot of questions to answer besides those regarding automatic train control installation.
I believe train 188 was deliberately derailed by the engineer. The engineer was a critic of the railroads and the government for not doing more to improve safety and was a prolific blogger on the subject. I wonder if he has had any history of depression or other mental illness. A rock or whatever hitting train 188 should not have caused the derailment. The only explanation I can think of is that he was trying to make train safety into a national story by causing this accident.
1
We who have memories of rail travel in the WWII era definitely feel nostalgia for the grace and comfort of the time. For that matter, the earliest days of jet travel provided spacious comfort and, indeed, truly good in-flight dining at no extra charge. Imagine: somehow, boarding the train from a concourse of a thousand or so passengers still never left us feeling like herded cattle, as indeed we do in today's airports.
The emphasis on the bottom line as top concern inevitably leaves the service aspect at the bottom of priorities.
The emphasis on the bottom line as top concern inevitably leaves the service aspect at the bottom of priorities.
5
There is some truth in what you write, but you forget the "bottom line" for consumers as well, not just those "greedy" corporations. Airfares, for example, are about the lowest ever, when adjusted for inflation. People often decide on an airline solely on price, not service, comfort or amenities, though they might still complain about it later. You get what you pay for. So yes, air travel in the 60's was much more comfortable but it was also much more expensive, an expense people today do not want to pay. (For those who say "it's too expensive" to fly, just got to any airport and see how crowded they are, not to mention the planes with every seat filled, including by people with families. Obviously it's not cost prohibitive for a huge swath of the population.).
The constant repetition of 'Money-losing trains' ignores the fact that the US highway system, which competes with Amtrak and the freight railroads, is a 'money-losing' highway system, whose losses subsidized by taxpayers dwarf any losses by Amtrak. Readers who download the excellent 'Highway Statistics' published by the Federal Highway Administration will find that expenditures on highways by all levels of government, Federal, State and local, exceed payments by motorists in the form of tolls, Federal and State gasoline taxes, by over $100 billion annually. Our 'money-losing' highway system loses taxpayers over $100 billion annually (versus about $1.5 billion for Amtrak) - especially since Congress refuses to raise the laughably low Federal gasoline tax, which should be at least quadrupled if motorists were to pay the cost to taxpayers of providing them with highways.
In New York State alone, the highway system 'loses' over $4 billion annually, (mainly borne by local property taxes) as highway costs far exceed State gasoline taxes - while Governor Andrew Cuomo complains that the MTA Capital Program is 'bloated' while he tries to use environmental funds for the Tappan Zee Bridge.
So it's no wonder that Amtrrak trains are lightly loaded, and barely economical, when travelers can use lavishly subsidized, money-losing highways.
In New York State alone, the highway system 'loses' over $4 billion annually, (mainly borne by local property taxes) as highway costs far exceed State gasoline taxes - while Governor Andrew Cuomo complains that the MTA Capital Program is 'bloated' while he tries to use environmental funds for the Tappan Zee Bridge.
So it's no wonder that Amtrrak trains are lightly loaded, and barely economical, when travelers can use lavishly subsidized, money-losing highways.
12
Most in Congress do not really oppose public subsidies -- it all depends on who is getting them. If it the general public that benefits, then expect rabid Republican opposition. But if it big energy, big pharma, big agribusiness, or the well-connected parts of the military-industrial complex who benefit, then those same Republicans are vociferous supporters!
Follow the money and see who owns the various members of Congress.
Follow the money and see who owns the various members of Congress.
7
When the government begins to run the passenger railroads, or cedes them to someone who will, run them as a transportation business in competition with other transportation modes instead of a political slush fund. payoff tool and anything but we may see some progress.
As long as the California Jerry Browns and such politicians nationally are willfully blind or uncaring of the real needs of the constituency they should serve, all the citizens of their states, instead of political gain and self service transportation of people by road, rail and air will always suffer.
As long as the California Jerry Browns and such politicians nationally are willfully blind or uncaring of the real needs of the constituency they should serve, all the citizens of their states, instead of political gain and self service transportation of people by road, rail and air will always suffer.
1
Might Professor White comment on the "All Aboard Florida" proposed high speed passenger trains to be run on existing freight track between Miami and Orlando.....The proposal if approved seems to involve the commitment of 1.5 billion taxpayer funds/guarantees to ferry Tourists from point A to B in sunny Florida along a now , nicely functioning rail line.
As America continues to sink to the level of the third let us remember that the public continues to reelect the politicians that allow this to happen. The enemy is us.
5
Our passenger train system, compared to Europe and Japan is nothing more than a joke. We can point fingers all we want, but the fact is there is NO ONE with the guts in the public or private sector with enough clout that will push for effective passenger rail travel. The fact is there have been a number of opportunities to start up regional high speed rail in many corridors in the United States (including here in Ohio), but small-minded politicians, who curry the favor of the automobile related industries (petroleum companies, road builders, etc.), have effectively shot those opportunities down. As stated in the many comments, as compared to air travel, regional (true) high speed trains make the most sense. Unfortunately, there is no one willing to stake their reputation to push for it.
8
The Amtrak experience has been tried. The first time from Minnesota to Chicago where the train was 6 hours late because it was picking up a carload of apples in Washington state. The second experience was Seattle to Minnesota. We left 7 hours late, due to a bad locomotive. We were sidetracked in North Dakota for several hours because freight trains has route priority over passenger trains. We stopped at every Podunk Center to pickup minimal amount of passengers. Our upgraded accommodations were less than ideal. We were without power (lights) for inordinate amount of time sidetracked in Spokane. The beds had duct tape holding them in place. The recliner reminded me of a electric chair from death row. The only saving factor, the food was superb, and an outstanding staff. They were upbeat and pleased that their new CEO was making steps to improve the system. I see later he was forced out by those greedy pro-Northeastern Amtrak advocates that feel that the rail system should operate only on the Atlantic Seaboard. The professor hit the nail on the head. The commercial rail industry passed a wooden nickel to our geniuses in the Congress. Given the state of the U.S. air carriers lackluster service in this country, there could be a better nationwide alternative, using fast trains that run nonstop to major metropolitan areas. It's too simple a solution.
4
Passenger trains didn't pick up freight. A carload of apples indeed. I don't believe itl
It's not just Amtrak. Here's my grade report, hot off the press
- Deregulation airlines: Mid-term: A, Final: F
- Deregulation telecom utilities: Mid-term: A, Final: F
- Deregulation rail: Mid-term: B-, Final: F
- Deregulation post: Mid-term A, Final: A
- Deregulation power utilities: Mid-term C, Final F
- Deregulation banking: Mid-term B, Final C
SeewhatImean? Management of Infrastructure is a vital government function for management and protection of precious national assets. Privatization devalues the asset and trivializes the role of government. Worse, it licenses incompetent management on the part of government. No accountability, no nuthin'. Has any candidate for president ever won or lost the election because of infrastructure?
BUT, if re-nationalized, a whole new ball game.
- Deregulation airlines: Mid-term: A, Final: F
- Deregulation telecom utilities: Mid-term: A, Final: F
- Deregulation rail: Mid-term: B-, Final: F
- Deregulation post: Mid-term A, Final: A
- Deregulation power utilities: Mid-term C, Final F
- Deregulation banking: Mid-term B, Final C
SeewhatImean? Management of Infrastructure is a vital government function for management and protection of precious national assets. Privatization devalues the asset and trivializes the role of government. Worse, it licenses incompetent management on the part of government. No accountability, no nuthin'. Has any candidate for president ever won or lost the election because of infrastructure?
BUT, if re-nationalized, a whole new ball game.
10
I remember taking airline rides prior to deregulation. The prices were generally 2-3 times what they are now in un inflation adjusted dollars! Railroads were basket cases before deregulation. Telecom - remember the ATT Bell telephone days - no answering machines, monthly telephone rentals, little or no innovation, VERY expensive long distance. AMTRAK is government run...how's its performance lately??
There is a huge difference between nationalization and regulation. The airlines, for example were regulated as to fares, routes, etc. but they were still private companies. They were were not nationalized, i.e., owned by the government. While a good case can be made for re-regulation of airlines, for examples that is a far cry from operating government airways, which would be an utter, unmitigated disaster.
"A nation divided against itself cannot stand." So true.
One of our political parties decided in the 80s that divide and conquer was their way to power, and they did it mostly through emotional social issues. It worked for them for awhile, but not for the country. We are so divided on every issue now that we find it difficult to put all our energy into any project to see it through to success. Half-way measures are expensive and get us further and further behind.
When will all our representatives see the necessity of being united, as our founding fathers hoped for when they named us the United States? I hope it will happen before it's too late.
One of our political parties decided in the 80s that divide and conquer was their way to power, and they did it mostly through emotional social issues. It worked for them for awhile, but not for the country. We are so divided on every issue now that we find it difficult to put all our energy into any project to see it through to success. Half-way measures are expensive and get us further and further behind.
When will all our representatives see the necessity of being united, as our founding fathers hoped for when they named us the United States? I hope it will happen before it's too late.
6
Amtrak can't operate profitably because, unlike airlines, it's forced to provide service on money-losing routes it would like to abandon. Northeast corridor service would be profitable if it were detached from the rest of Amtrak operations. So here's a simple suggestion: Let Amtrak continue service where it can operate profitably and move the other service to government. Of course, that won't be done because in the current political environment, no politician will favor more government responsibility for anything.
1
Name me one route that Mister Amtrak would "like to abandon." Show me anything, anywhere on the record. I'll wait right here.
Amtrak: public trains on private rails. Exactly backwards.
2
Increasing the Federal gasoline tax by 1 cent a month for the next 20 years to an additional $2.40 and using that revenue to invest in rail, bridges, mass transit and all of the necessary infrastructure that this nation needs would be one approach to reduce this nation's over-reliance on the car as well as contribute to less greenhouse gases.
4
Good efficient railway and transportation system create jobs and improve communities. Instead of castigating the poor for looking for hand outs we should be providing opportunities by developing our railways and improving the roads. The republicans do the opposite. They castigate the poor over looking for handouts while they simultaneously destroy their opportunities to be successful by gutting programs that will put them back to work.
4
The wealthy don't take the train in the U.S. Therefore, who cares what happens to them? If only all the commuters could organize and refuse to ride on decrepit railroads and drive on neglected roads perhaps they could shut business down in the city. Our government "leaders" have forgotten that their world cannot exist without the hard work of the every day citizen.
5
We have very low interest rates at present.as we have had for several years. This is an ideal time to finance a massive infrastructure revitalization program to include a comprehensive countrywide passenger rail system. The only budget increase of any note lately is in Defense spending for more glitzy weapons. Yet, it is infrastructure that wins wars and secures the defense of a country. Ours is crumbling. We need to divert massive amounts of money and effort into infrastructure and rail. Have we heard one viable candidate step up and advocate for the true needs of our country? All the political rhetoric seems to center around who would have gone to war with Iraq and who will answer reporters questions. In the meantime the country keeps crumbling. Nero fiddled and our politicians blather on .
2
High speed rail provides for a green way to provide an alternative to short range aircraft trips. I am not sure of the overall economics, but when one considers the ability to use renewable power in the long run, and avoid petroleum fuel, and its significant emissions, there may be a good case for it. The significant "overhead" costs, no pun intended, with flights is significant too - ground crew, airport security and high frequency maintenance for aircraft.
There are effective economic tools out there to provide ways to measure social infrastructure, such things as time savings for commuters with the construction of a new bridge, that are well documented. I have never seen such for the case for rail contrasted with highway or air travel. It should be done.
By nature, social infrastructure is a case for that hated term "big government". Many who despise this, see it as a socialist intrusion, easily forget that so many public supported parts of our social and economic infrastructure, that we now take for granted, at one time could have been considered socialist. Everything from canals to county roads to public schools.
There are effective economic tools out there to provide ways to measure social infrastructure, such things as time savings for commuters with the construction of a new bridge, that are well documented. I have never seen such for the case for rail contrasted with highway or air travel. It should be done.
By nature, social infrastructure is a case for that hated term "big government". Many who despise this, see it as a socialist intrusion, easily forget that so many public supported parts of our social and economic infrastructure, that we now take for granted, at one time could have been considered socialist. Everything from canals to county roads to public schools.
2
"Very few of us are old enough to remember a supposed time when trains ran efficiently, safely and dependably — which is convenient, because there was no such golden age"
Professor, I will defer to your expertise and assume that at the aggregate that you comment above is accurate.
That said, I rode a train from the Bay Area to Reno a few times when I was a kid with my mother. Just before and after Amtrak came into being. The difference in service was profound.
My wife and I many years later took Amtrak around the USA. What a disappointment compared to trains in Europe.
Back in the not so golden age of rail I could get on a Train in downtown San Francisco, and travel to places like Chico, CA, Guerneville, CA, Santa Cruz, CA and the like all by train. If you check the old schedules, you will see that today you would be hard pressed to drive to those places in the same amount of time.
Even the Bay Area Rapid Transit cannot put trains through the Transbay Tunnel at the same rate that the Key System could but trains over the lower deck of the Bay Bridge and into the recently torn down Transbay Terminal. They did it with 1937 technology!
There are many facets to the rail problem. But it is all in politics and will. Not trains themselves.
On subsidies...The SRI did a report in the late 1970's. The upshot, one big truck does the same damage to highway as 20,000 cars. They don't pay 20,000 cars worth of gas tax to fix them.
Regulatory capture. Greed.
Professor, I will defer to your expertise and assume that at the aggregate that you comment above is accurate.
That said, I rode a train from the Bay Area to Reno a few times when I was a kid with my mother. Just before and after Amtrak came into being. The difference in service was profound.
My wife and I many years later took Amtrak around the USA. What a disappointment compared to trains in Europe.
Back in the not so golden age of rail I could get on a Train in downtown San Francisco, and travel to places like Chico, CA, Guerneville, CA, Santa Cruz, CA and the like all by train. If you check the old schedules, you will see that today you would be hard pressed to drive to those places in the same amount of time.
Even the Bay Area Rapid Transit cannot put trains through the Transbay Tunnel at the same rate that the Key System could but trains over the lower deck of the Bay Bridge and into the recently torn down Transbay Terminal. They did it with 1937 technology!
There are many facets to the rail problem. But it is all in politics and will. Not trains themselves.
On subsidies...The SRI did a report in the late 1970's. The upshot, one big truck does the same damage to highway as 20,000 cars. They don't pay 20,000 cars worth of gas tax to fix them.
Regulatory capture. Greed.
5
Back in the mid 1970's when I was working on designs for the Second Avenue subway I worked with a couple of seasoned civil engineers who had surveyed the Penn Central and new Haven tracks and bridges in Connecticut for safety. One told me that he had walked out on a few bridge structures that, after he realized the condition, he was fearful to walk BACK over them to his car.
The problem is not new, it is persistent, and curiously American, with our strange attitudes on Public Works and public benefit.
The problem is not new, it is persistent, and curiously American, with our strange attitudes on Public Works and public benefit.
8
Great piece. Thank you Dr. White! This essay really captures the essence of our history with American railroads and the current state of affairs.
Mr. White, your writing is not an example of objective analysis. First, railroad passengers didn't flee to airlines due to safety issues on railroads - they fled because airplanes are much faster at reaching your destination. Second, you make it sound like Amtrak accidents are common when in fact they are quite rare. Third, we really don't know why that train accelerated, but pinning this accident on equipment is still ridiculous. The "it wouldn't have happened if Amtrak was a viable business model" is self-serving rubbish. That very train has passed through that section of tracks thousands of times without incident. It was only an accident waiting to happen in the sense that every train is left in the hands of the engineer. I don't know if Amtrak is worth the government subsidy, but I do know that what your narrative is convenient, and that's all.
7
Railroads are a technology from the 1800's. The car is a technology from the 1900's. It's time for something new. High density cities like Manhattan require different solutions than low density areas like Long Island.
1
Public-Private "Partnership" is sheer folly. What it really means is that we'll try to let Private Industry run something...but when the business savvy doesn't work, the Public will bail it out...but the Public doesn't have the authority to make the right management decisions. This has proven itself over and over and over again with airlines (how many pension bailouts does it take to pay retirement for 1 pilot?), FFRDCs (aka Mitre, IDA, etc, where we pay increased salary for less work than, private industry), USPS, etc... At some point, if the Gov't is going to hold the bag at the end, the Gov't needs some degree of authority in the middle.
5
As Adam Gopnik in THE NEW YORKER writes, "the failure to run trains where we need them is made from conviction, not from ignorance". It's not a technology issue but a will issue. We are so afraid of centralized management we decline to make the investment. The ideology of the individual trumps the common good yet again in the land of the free.
8
I'd rather the government spend my money I pay to taxes on something positive, like the railroads, than on destructive things like waging wars to keep defense contractors rolling in dough.
16
Watching 60 minutes last night, I learned about the bridge in New Jersey, that if shut down could stop all traffic from Boaton to Washington instantly.
There is one person who has a VERY big microphone and spent many many hours traveling from Boston to Washington. Her name is Elizabeth Warren, and she has every ingredient to make it happen. We spend money to build supersonic planes to fly 2000 miles an hour that we may never use.
Does not make any sense to me. Elon Musk may also have some interest and capacity to be helpful
There is one person who has a VERY big microphone and spent many many hours traveling from Boston to Washington. Her name is Elizabeth Warren, and she has every ingredient to make it happen. We spend money to build supersonic planes to fly 2000 miles an hour that we may never use.
Does not make any sense to me. Elon Musk may also have some interest and capacity to be helpful
4
Mr White misleads readers by failing to mention the creation of commuter agencies and Conrail at the same time as Amtrak, to preserve service against disastrous industrywide red ink. There was no "lucrative freight." He implies 19th century railroads were smoothly profitable, when few escaped multiple bankruptcies with widespread shareholder losses. His statement about rejecting technologies is simply false, proven so by air brakes, steel cars, modern couplers and electric signals. He misrepresents the USRA of World War I -- a thoroughly bad solution to an admittedly bad problem. He never mentions the American system of multiple competing lines, where European lines were consolidated from the beginning. As far as accidents, please note the 1943 Congressional crash at Frankford Junction killed ten times as many people as the recent disaster at the same spot, and at a much lower speed.
If this is expertise, no wonder so many citizen commentators on railroad issues have so little clue what is really happening. American freight railroads (there only seven Class I) are the envy of the world, moving enormous quantities of goods remarkably efficiently and with an accident rate that is low and going lower. American passenger service is awful, but our government did that. They did it because we let them do it or told them to do it. It is on us to change.
If this is expertise, no wonder so many citizen commentators on railroad issues have so little clue what is really happening. American freight railroads (there only seven Class I) are the envy of the world, moving enormous quantities of goods remarkably efficiently and with an accident rate that is low and going lower. American passenger service is awful, but our government did that. They did it because we let them do it or told them to do it. It is on us to change.
11
When it comes to public transportation, the US is a third world country. Politicos, and their corporate cronies, want to strangle us with cars and oil, while never investing in roads or infrastructure. It's really their way of waging war on us, using OUR money, just as they do in the Middle East. Congress just voted not to increase expenditures on this form of transportation, when they should be building more rails all across the country.
7
Last October, we took the train from Venice to Florence (Italy). It was reasonably priced, comfortable, and clean. It left Venice punctually, but arrived in Florence two minute late. I've never had that kind of experience on AMTRAK.
4
These comments that US train system should be more like Europe or Asia, ignores the fact that our government structure, tax base, and culture is nothing like those countries. Canada's management of its rail systems is quite different, with a higher tax base and more government involvement, but it appears that the result is no better. Given the similarity of geography and, to a lesser extent, culture and history, maybe that comparison may be more fruitful in understanding the sorry state of US railroads. Tthe issue of crumbling infrastructure goes well past our railroads to our power gird, our highways, dams, and water supply, sewage, and wastewater treatment systems. It also shows up in the private sector, where plants are run quarter by quarter, instead of for the long term, and maintenance is skipped to save $50k in the current period, even though it will cause structural deterioration costing tens of times that in future periods. So, the question of how we end up in this situation seems to have more to do with the competitive corner we find ourselves in, where the only way to deliver "expected" profits is to cut costs beyond the minimum, even if it means de-funding required maintenance, discontinuing investments and other programs that build our future as a nation, and courting the risk of disasters, such as this horrendous accident, because the money to properly manage risk just isn't there.
4
The nation is being run - and run into the ground - by radical nihilists. Until that changes, nothing changes. Well-written, thoughtful, informed articles by people who have actually studied the subject such as this one mean absolutely zero to our "leaders" in the Republican party and their .001% masters - people who won't rest until they've systematically destroyed the country and hauled off the spoils.
13
Outside of the NE corridor, and some of California, does America really need a nationwide passenger rail system? For better or worse we built a great interstate highway system. The stimulus of 2009 was an opportunity for rail, instead it was used by the states for the highways and 2009 was the year the orange barrel became the national flower.
What we do need is more light commuter rail to ease the traffic into cities. Unfortunately, acquiring the land to built these lines is almost impossible since suburban development has made that prohibitively expensive.
What we do need is more light commuter rail to ease the traffic into cities. Unfortunately, acquiring the land to built these lines is almost impossible since suburban development has made that prohibitively expensive.
1
The actual point of this article eludes me.
2
Subsidized railroads are demonized, like the Postal Service, while subsidized highways are the last bastion of conservative economic support, stronger even than schools.
9
The number of people who die in car accidents massively dwarfs those killed on trains. Trains remain one of the safest forms of travel. Also, "public" highways are supported by, yes, taxpayers. Why should roads be taxpayer supported but not rails?
7
The premise of this piece is deeply flawed in that it suggests that the recent tragedy in Philadelphia is somehow reflective of deeper problems inherent in the system; in actuality, it's looking more and more like an act of sabotage was responsible for the accident. Be that as it may, as with many other issues--healthcare, education, tourism, to name a few--the Europeans are decades ahead of us when it comes to rail travel. As a result, they are also decades ahead of us when it comes to limiting carbon emissions since it has been shown, time and time again, that rail travel is far less harmful to the environment than other modes of transportation. The author suggests that "in our current political climate, we are not going to get a fully nationalized railroad system". That may be an excuse for today, but what about the preceding decades? Once again, short-sighted greed, the life's blood of capitalism, has trumped common sense. Otherwise, to take one case in point, we would have long ago had high-speed rail that would transport passengers from downtown San Francisco to downtown Los Angeles in less time than it takes to drive to the airport, check in, go through security, fly with delays, and wait for baggage. Damn socialists!
2
I think part of the trouble with trains and Amtrak is that they make a lot of sense in the northeast and not much sense in many other places. Nevertheless, the politicians of states like my hold onto Amtrak, sucking money from where it is needed. This comes from someone who loves trains. My grandfather was a conductor on the Empire Builder. But, hanging on to a few trains a day that are always late just bleeds money and builds cynicism.
3
Mr. White shows all the vacuousness of history "teachers".
No, Jay Gould and Cornelius Vanderbilt et al didn't "reject new [safety] technologies" -- they built America. Mr. White, how is it we have "Standard Time"? Did you know it was because the railroads needed something better than local "high noon" to schedule their trains (often over single tracks)? Do you have any idea how many tragedies were thus averted?
Railroads became sclerotic because of government intervention (like mandates to maintain passenger traffic). Lyndon Johnson famously explained government (read Democrat) philosophy (and methodology), "If it moves, tax it; if it keeps on moving, regulate it; when it stops moving, subsidize it."
And to answer the oft stated question, "why do they have advanced passenger rail service in Europe and we don't here in America", Because we don't need it. We have automobiles. We have airplanes. We don't want to be crammed into railcars by progressives.
No, Jay Gould and Cornelius Vanderbilt et al didn't "reject new [safety] technologies" -- they built America. Mr. White, how is it we have "Standard Time"? Did you know it was because the railroads needed something better than local "high noon" to schedule their trains (often over single tracks)? Do you have any idea how many tragedies were thus averted?
Railroads became sclerotic because of government intervention (like mandates to maintain passenger traffic). Lyndon Johnson famously explained government (read Democrat) philosophy (and methodology), "If it moves, tax it; if it keeps on moving, regulate it; when it stops moving, subsidize it."
And to answer the oft stated question, "why do they have advanced passenger rail service in Europe and we don't here in America", Because we don't need it. We have automobiles. We have airplanes. We don't want to be crammed into railcars by progressives.
@Norman Rogers
As if you aren't crammed into aircraft? How do you like waiting in long lines to be groped by the TSA?
Travel abroad for once, and experience rail travel as it can be . I have been to Europe, France, Germany, Switzerland recently and enjoyed seamless travel between these countries in Europe. Comfortable travel, in clean, roomy coaches with wiFi. You can catch a train right at Zurich Airport.
And their on time performance is probably better than the airlines too. Swiss precision.
As if you aren't crammed into aircraft? How do you like waiting in long lines to be groped by the TSA?
Travel abroad for once, and experience rail travel as it can be . I have been to Europe, France, Germany, Switzerland recently and enjoyed seamless travel between these countries in Europe. Comfortable travel, in clean, roomy coaches with wiFi. You can catch a train right at Zurich Airport.
And their on time performance is probably better than the airlines too. Swiss precision.
Mr Rogers, you seem to have a profound myopia when it comes to American history. The railroad tycoons didn't build America - but they sure did exploit it.
If I may add, the vast majority of Amtrack passangers live on the East/West coasts in blue states. The Republican red states are more sparsely populated and far fewer of their residents use rail transportation. Don't suppose that has anything to do with Republican opposition, does it?
5
In 1971, the railroads were regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission--freight railroads were not allowed to set prices as they saw fit. In 1971, there was considerable doubt whether freight railroads could survive as privately owned enterprises. A few year before occurred the "wreck of the Penn Central" at that time the largest corporate bankruptcty ever. It is unfair of the author to compare the freight railroads of 2015--now deregulated and profitable-- to hold them accountable for Amtrak in 1971. It is also unfair to ignore the pecularities of FELA's impact on freight railroads allowing passenger trains on their railroads. If the Philly accident had occurred to an Amtrak train traveling on CSX, for example, not just Amtrak but CSX would be liable, and under FELA, CSX would bear the burden of proof that it had not been negligent. In most every other civil suit the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Not under FELA, an act that needs to be reformed in any discussion of Amtrak's prospects.
1
I guess I'm officially old: I remember taking the "Beaver" from Duluth to Minneapolis, the Empire Builder from MSP to Chicago, and the Monon from Chicago to Bloomington, Indiana. I live in NJ, use Amtrak North/South frequently, but also, from time to time, take the Capitol Limited to Cleveland, Chicago, Milwaukee or Minneapolis. Love the sleeper cars, the quite good dinners, and the fact that I just walk on a train with as much luggage as I want and with no long lines. I only wish that the last link, from MSP north to Duluth or even further north, with stops, still existed. In my early childhood, there was a train that actually ran from all the little villages on the Iron Range to Duluth. A quick train would be such a blessing for these remote areas. The track is still there, for the iron ore cars. It would we wonderful for someone to piggyback passenger service on top of existing industrial rail.
2
Prof. White, how I wish that your fine article was inaccurate, it was indeed, spot on. Might I encourage you to write a followup article about what our rail system needs to profit and thrive?
I might add that when Amtrak talks about getting into the high speed business, I cringe. How can they ever manage such a "bullet" on tracks with crossings, drawbridges, and poor access control?
I might add that when Amtrak talks about getting into the high speed business, I cringe. How can they ever manage such a "bullet" on tracks with crossings, drawbridges, and poor access control?
1
Extrapolating European rail systems to the US ignores the much greater distances involved here. In Europe there is a pivot point where rail loses its advantages over car and airplane travel.
For example, in France a car journey that involves tolls and high fuel prices tends to break even at the 2 passenger level, so that for 3+ people traveling together the road trip is less expensive. With many budget airlines in Europe flying becomes the preference when train travel exceeds 3 hours or so.
European high speed trains do not share tracks with freight other than close to rail stations, so freight subsidies are a false comparison as well. All these systems receive government subsidies.
For example, in France a car journey that involves tolls and high fuel prices tends to break even at the 2 passenger level, so that for 3+ people traveling together the road trip is less expensive. With many budget airlines in Europe flying becomes the preference when train travel exceeds 3 hours or so.
European high speed trains do not share tracks with freight other than close to rail stations, so freight subsidies are a false comparison as well. All these systems receive government subsidies.
3
And what of China? Do you see the greater distances there?
the trouble lies not in our trains, but in our tracks...
or rather the private ownership of said same.
Eminent Domain them all to make a government network similar to the Interstate highways. Then, like the "I"s charge the freight carriers by weight, creating the funds to subsidize better passenger trains and better rail upkeep.
or rather the private ownership of said same.
Eminent Domain them all to make a government network similar to the Interstate highways. Then, like the "I"s charge the freight carriers by weight, creating the funds to subsidize better passenger trains and better rail upkeep.
4
I will go through any inconvenience to take an intercity train. I stopped flying domestic airlines years ago and now take Amtrak everywhere. Who wants to get into an argument over how much a seat should recline? Or sit on a tarmac without any information. The airlines just want you to sit down & be quiet. Amtrak is generally OK though when compared to Japan, China and Europe it is a pre-historic transportation institution.
If Amtrak underwent a thorough modernization and expansion it would be a catalyst for economic development and tourism. America is a country to see and the railroad is the least intrusive and most comfortable way to see it. The high speed train is ideal for the business traveler who can work, think, and even close agreements on the train as was done in the days before the airplane while leaving and arriving downtown to downtown.
As for me, I love train travel including the stations, the boarding, the chance encounter, the slow acceleration as the Limited pulls out of the station, the sleeping cars, the culture and language of railroads. How and why I don't know but I only wish I could have lived in the day when the train was king.
Finally, China built a high speed rail network in 20 years and it is still building. Japan launched its first bullet train in 1964. Europe has a network of high speed and higher speed trains through several nations. The United States? The trains outside the Northeast corrider are slower now than they were in 1900.
If Amtrak underwent a thorough modernization and expansion it would be a catalyst for economic development and tourism. America is a country to see and the railroad is the least intrusive and most comfortable way to see it. The high speed train is ideal for the business traveler who can work, think, and even close agreements on the train as was done in the days before the airplane while leaving and arriving downtown to downtown.
As for me, I love train travel including the stations, the boarding, the chance encounter, the slow acceleration as the Limited pulls out of the station, the sleeping cars, the culture and language of railroads. How and why I don't know but I only wish I could have lived in the day when the train was king.
Finally, China built a high speed rail network in 20 years and it is still building. Japan launched its first bullet train in 1964. Europe has a network of high speed and higher speed trains through several nations. The United States? The trains outside the Northeast corrider are slower now than they were in 1900.
24
The author sounds like a shill for automobile dealers and big oil. I refuse to believe what can be done in Europe, China and Japan cannot be done here. This article is a lot of conservative hooey. If these people were in charge in the 1960s we would never have landed a man on the moon.
3
Privatizing profits and socializing costs; the very essence of capitalism.
3
Levy property taxes on religious organizations. That alone would pay to subsidize Amtrak. Plus it's long overdue.
7
Technology will make the railroads fool proof. The question should be, "why is the railroad hiring fool that can't slow a train nearing a dangerous curve?"
1
As a train enthusiast, I love riding. But it's pointless to compare Europe to the US. We have the critical population density necessary only in certain corridors: Washington to Boston, LA to San Francisco, and a few other limited runs. Amtrak becomes economically feasible only if one runs passenger service in those corridors. Long distance hauls through low population areas should become excursion trains and charge accordingly for limited runs providing that kind of service.
Even when a private company tries to offer service in a logical way (Florida East Coast wants to run 32 trains a day between Miami and Orlando on a three-hour schedule), the public rebels: too much noise, intersection closings, waterway closings, not enough stops.
The final irony about subsidizing passenger service comes in the fact that we subsidize travel by air constantly with government support of air traffic control, the building of airports, inspection of planes. They are the best way to travel from New York to Chicago or LA.
Even when a private company tries to offer service in a logical way (Florida East Coast wants to run 32 trains a day between Miami and Orlando on a three-hour schedule), the public rebels: too much noise, intersection closings, waterway closings, not enough stops.
The final irony about subsidizing passenger service comes in the fact that we subsidize travel by air constantly with government support of air traffic control, the building of airports, inspection of planes. They are the best way to travel from New York to Chicago or LA.
5
Nobody asks whether the "long hauls" of I-90 - minimum four-lane divided highway, all grade separated - are "economically feasible."
That is not entirely fair. Countries like Norway, Sweden, Finland, Scotland do not
have serious population densities. In your list you forget Chicago-Minneapolis, Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati/Louisville, Chicago-St. Louis, Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati. Even Chicago-Kansas City could support serious service. For trips of 400 miles or less, trains should be very competitive with airlines and automobile. The trans-siberian railroad does not run very often, and I doubt there is a need for frequent service New York-Chicago any more. But even a trip like that breaks into smaller corridors where there is population. And in fact what happens is that in the absence of regular service, these corridors lose a lot of travel. That is, to drive 100-200 miles to Chicago for a day or meeting, park the car and return is a serious effort. For families, young independent travel, business people, the possibility of these being day-tips with time to work could greatly increase mobility. When I grew up in Philadelphia, as a high school student I could go for a day in New York. It made a big difference in my outlet.
have serious population densities. In your list you forget Chicago-Minneapolis, Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati/Louisville, Chicago-St. Louis, Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati. Even Chicago-Kansas City could support serious service. For trips of 400 miles or less, trains should be very competitive with airlines and automobile. The trans-siberian railroad does not run very often, and I doubt there is a need for frequent service New York-Chicago any more. But even a trip like that breaks into smaller corridors where there is population. And in fact what happens is that in the absence of regular service, these corridors lose a lot of travel. That is, to drive 100-200 miles to Chicago for a day or meeting, park the car and return is a serious effort. For families, young independent travel, business people, the possibility of these being day-tips with time to work could greatly increase mobility. When I grew up in Philadelphia, as a high school student I could go for a day in New York. It made a big difference in my outlet.
1
Prof. White, thank you for your excellent and informative piece on a little-known and even-less-discussed chapter of American transportation history.
1
Writing "Danger and bad service caused passengers to flee to automobiles..." is a gross oversimplification of how the government stacked the deck against passenger rail travel in the United States and the writer should know better.
12
You should know better than to make such a statement without backing it up with facts.
IKR. Did he really dismiss the role of the automobile in that one sweeping generalization?
The interstate highway system... price controls on gasoline... tax-deducted interest on car loans... the mortgage interest deduction which fueled suburban growth and depleted cities of tax base and middle-class public-transit users.
The interstate highway system... price controls on gasoline... tax-deducted interest on car loans... the mortgage interest deduction which fueled suburban growth and depleted cities of tax base and middle-class public-transit users.
1
Here we go again with the usual litany about the GOP "hating" [fill in the blank] or even "want to see people die" (can we get any more over the top?). Then follows lists of how great rail is, for example, in China (which can do what the heck it wants and the people, environment, etc., be damned) or Switzerland which is the size of a fraction of some of our states.
Yes, historically many Republicans have voted against Amtrak subsidies. But Democrats aren't blameless either. Look right here at home, where we have problems with Metro North, our own MTA, etc. We hardly live in a Republican territory and you don't see those states or local jurisdictions stepping up to the plate either.
Yes, historically many Republicans have voted against Amtrak subsidies. But Democrats aren't blameless either. Look right here at home, where we have problems with Metro North, our own MTA, etc. We hardly live in a Republican territory and you don't see those states or local jurisdictions stepping up to the plate either.
1
Good point. I remember when Acelas had to slow to fifteen miles per hour through Metro-North's "Shell" interlocking. Now there's a "high-speed" turnout at that point, and the Acelas fly through at . . . 45 mph.
New York is a great example, since although the state as a whole is Democratic, one chamber of the legislature is and has historically been dominated by Republicans from more rural areas. Guess who the loudest voices against additional investment in the MTA are?
The article ignores the number of fatalities from individual driving. Or the fact that most European countries and Japan run efficient railroads with fewer accidents per passenger than cars. It is true that no railroad can operate without subsidies but neither can cars and trucks, they depend on vast sums invested on freeways and roads. The main issue with railroads is lack of flexibility, they only make sense for major trunks. An efficient system would rely on cars and plenty of parking for accessing major stations. For very long distances air travel is the way to go, but for distances of up to 500 km railroads are way more efficient than planes and faster than cars.
28
"The main issue with railroads is lack of flexibility, they only make sense for major trunks. An efficient system would rely on cars and plenty of parking for accessing major stations." Railroads are excellent in connecting city or major population centers. The lack of flexibility is not a huge issue as the city centers never change quickly. No need for cars to access major stations. Cars within the city don't make more sense. We need light rail, subway or bus to feed the major railroad stations.
and a lot more comfortable too.
Our free market is failing us in many ways. So is our government. Traveling by train can be a very nice way to see a country as large and scenic as ours. Yet we prefer to have people take cars, go by smelly, crowded airplanes, and also risk their lives and limbs on trains and track that are not properly maintained. And why are they not maintained, upgraded, or profitable: because the government won't allow them to be. It's as if our thrifty GOP members want to see people die, trains run off their tracks, disgusting airports, deficient roads and bridges so they can rail against the government they cripple. They can't have it both ways. Either we improve the travel, communications, and public places of America or we don't and pay the price. If we don't we will get much less money from tourism, we will have a less productive economy, and we will have large areas of America that will be inaccessible.
But that's fine because the only ones who deserve a decent country to live in are our elected officials, the ultra rich and those who court them for campaign funds. The rest of us are the little people who get in the way when we need assistance for anything. We're moochers while the rich and big businesses are job creators to whom we the lazy should be forever grateful.
But that's fine because the only ones who deserve a decent country to live in are our elected officials, the ultra rich and those who court them for campaign funds. The rest of us are the little people who get in the way when we need assistance for anything. We're moochers while the rich and big businesses are job creators to whom we the lazy should be forever grateful.
56
It takes 2:15 hours to go from Madrid to Seville and it takes 5 hours to go from Detroit to Chicago, with the nearly same distance to cover. By the way, if the train has more than five minutes delay in arriving, you get all of your money refunded.
That's what we consider a "poor" country can do.
That's what we consider a "poor" country can do.
87
Well, yes, but that's on AVE, the high-speed (and -priced) service.
Meanwhile, speeds are coming up on the Chicago-Detroit corridor. The stretch between Porter, IN, and Kalamazoo is now good for 110 mph running. Guess who owns it?
Meanwhile, speeds are coming up on the Chicago-Detroit corridor. The stretch between Porter, IN, and Kalamazoo is now good for 110 mph running. Guess who owns it?
Where do you get the money refunded?
Good point Frank. Even worse, it takes over 7 hours to get from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh. Heaven forbid you are waiting for the Broadway Limited to take you on to Chicago. It is almost never on time.
1
If cities and counties across the country that oversee and regulate the monorails at their large amusement parks (i.e., Disney World/Land) with the technology and innovation of private industry upgrades, why not take a ride into the 21st Century?
3
All major developed countries in the world have high speed passenger rail. The arguments here only show the absurdity of the failure of American ideology to accommodate the real needs to real people.
22
There's no option but passenger rail for the Northeast. Highways from DC to Boston are at or beyond capacity. Population is increasing. New highways and even airports require vast acquisition of real estate which in many places is excessively costly. One of three things will happen: flying cars, good trains, or civilization falls. The Republicans hope for the last, the Libertarians hope for the first. The sane know our best future is on track.
23
I see no reason why we have to subsidize rail travel for the NE corridor. If it's that important pay for it yourselves.
Having the good fortune to have experienced superior rail travel in a number of countries, I'd love for it to be available in the USA. But it wont' happen, for a number of reasons, not all of them easily tied to a lack of political will. The biggest obstacle trumps all the others by such a big margin that it makes a discussion of the others irrelevant, as I see it.
Let's posit that any rail system we admire serves a wider geographical percentage of the host country than in America, i.e., more stops, especially in smaller towns. Accepting that, does anyone really believe we're ready to pay for the land acquisition required, or that the owners of the needed real estate will *ever* sell all the land that's needed to match the standard of the world's best train systems? Neither our politicians nor our citizenry will step up to the plate and deliver the money necessary, and we're not about to hand over enough of our privately owned land to make extensive rail service a reality.
The quality of rail service where it currently exists can be much, much better. There's no doubt of that, and I firmly believe we should make that happen. But it's unrealistic to think that rail travel in America will ever rival the best of other countries, as measured by how well it penetrates the everyday life of all our citizens.
Let's posit that any rail system we admire serves a wider geographical percentage of the host country than in America, i.e., more stops, especially in smaller towns. Accepting that, does anyone really believe we're ready to pay for the land acquisition required, or that the owners of the needed real estate will *ever* sell all the land that's needed to match the standard of the world's best train systems? Neither our politicians nor our citizenry will step up to the plate and deliver the money necessary, and we're not about to hand over enough of our privately owned land to make extensive rail service a reality.
The quality of rail service where it currently exists can be much, much better. There's no doubt of that, and I firmly believe we should make that happen. But it's unrealistic to think that rail travel in America will ever rival the best of other countries, as measured by how well it penetrates the everyday life of all our citizens.
3
The article states that "Our current system will never produce safe and reliable passenger travel without large public subsidies." but this is true of roads, bridges, airports, stadia, etc. Maybe it's time for all to realize that the fabled invisible hand cannot get these public works built (or, of course, maintained) and actually plan ahead a bit. America has become widely reactive and we need to once again become proactive.
29
Based on content from the Amtrak website it appears that Amtrak owns 623.5 miles of rail line. 623.5 miles of rail line is a drop in the bucket, and could be upgraded to any speed desired with minimal investment.
Rocks in the windows do NOT offer any explanation as to why the train was running 106 mph. Did the crash take place on Amtrak own line? If not, will upgrading the Amtrak rail serve any purpose beyond improving their funding stream?
Is it clear, I do not trust any of this, given the way the fourth estate has reported it.
Rocks in the windows do NOT offer any explanation as to why the train was running 106 mph. Did the crash take place on Amtrak own line? If not, will upgrading the Amtrak rail serve any purpose beyond improving their funding stream?
Is it clear, I do not trust any of this, given the way the fourth estate has reported it.
4
Yes, the accident did occur on track owned by Amtrak.
I seem to remember that the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House for nearly two years from 2009-2011. Many of the ideas expressed in these comments about railroads and infrastructure could have been implemented. Why weren't they?
I also seem to remember a comment from the President about "shovel-ready" jobs. What happened to those? Oh, that's right: according to President Obama, speaking at a Jobs Council meeting in Durham, N.C., in June 2011, "shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected."
Both sides of the aisle need to get serious about our crumbling infrastructure in this country. I suspect the temperature in Hell will go below 32 degrees before that happens.
I also seem to remember a comment from the President about "shovel-ready" jobs. What happened to those? Oh, that's right: according to President Obama, speaking at a Jobs Council meeting in Durham, N.C., in June 2011, "shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected."
Both sides of the aisle need to get serious about our crumbling infrastructure in this country. I suspect the temperature in Hell will go below 32 degrees before that happens.
8
Two years is not much of a window to get major projects started, and Obama was just learning the job at that point. I am beginning to believe the problem is with the Founders' separation of powers. In a parliamentary system, the executive is automatically the same party as the legislative majority, and things can more feasibly get done. Maybe this is why our allies, mostly with parliaments, can function better. In their overwhelming concern to avoid the fate of the Roman Republic sliding into dictatorship, Madison and his colleagues may have paralyzed our system.
7
Pssst. There was a certain Republican faction of the Congress that refused to cooperate with anything that the president proposed. It was in the papers. By the way, Dems did not "control" both Houses. There was something called the fillibuster and 2/3 majority.
6
You forgot one thing, many GOP Governors threw the shovels back at Washington with a primal scream of "no socialist works" for my State. (And some even quietly asked for the shovels back.)
4
As with many things and technologies, America is decades behind and remains complacent. There is no reason why a person should not be able to travel from Boston to NYC in 1.5 -2 hours. On a real high speed rail system that would be easily possible.
America doesn't need to reinvent the wheel. Call upon the great modernized countries of the world to assist in the engineering. China has amazing rail. So does Korea, Japan and Europe.
It seems we hear a lot of talk by the politicians to build America's infrastructure and create jobs. Well guess what......building a new rail system ( not band aid fixing the one in place ) will create a 21st century transportation system that is efficient usable. In the process thousands of jobs will be created.
I personally loathe driving and hope and dream of a day when I no longer need to rely on a car.
And on a side note......lets bring back SuperSonic flights on a global level. But that's a discussion for another day. Have a great week fellow NY Times Comments readers.
America doesn't need to reinvent the wheel. Call upon the great modernized countries of the world to assist in the engineering. China has amazing rail. So does Korea, Japan and Europe.
It seems we hear a lot of talk by the politicians to build America's infrastructure and create jobs. Well guess what......building a new rail system ( not band aid fixing the one in place ) will create a 21st century transportation system that is efficient usable. In the process thousands of jobs will be created.
I personally loathe driving and hope and dream of a day when I no longer need to rely on a car.
And on a side note......lets bring back SuperSonic flights on a global level. But that's a discussion for another day. Have a great week fellow NY Times Comments readers.
18
the United States is geographically vast. As a result, in much of the country, cities are far enough apart that air travel provides significant time savings, even compared to some of the fastest trains.
The layout of cities matters, too. When you arrive in Tokyo, Paris or Barcelona, it's often convenient (and even pleasant) to walk to your final destination. When it's not, a fast and frequent mass transportation system awaits to whisk you away. This is not the case in many American cities, where arriving by train typically means jumping into a cab or renting a car for the last leg of your journey. Simply put, in many sprawling U.S. cities, getting to your destination by train can still mean you've got quite a way yet to get home.
The Department of Transportation’s Inspector General (IG) recent analysis of HSR in the Northeast Corridor. The IG examined cutting 30 minutes from journey times between Boston and New York, a to 3 hours the second option cut journey time by 60 minutes. The IG found that the improvements reduced automobile ridership along the NEC by less than 1%. Consequently, rail travel must be extremely competitive in other dimensions, such as speed or cost, to attract automobile travelers. Several of the previous high-speed rail studies have overestimated the number of automobile users who choose rail over highway or air by a factor of 10. High Speed rail has a long way to go.
The layout of cities matters, too. When you arrive in Tokyo, Paris or Barcelona, it's often convenient (and even pleasant) to walk to your final destination. When it's not, a fast and frequent mass transportation system awaits to whisk you away. This is not the case in many American cities, where arriving by train typically means jumping into a cab or renting a car for the last leg of your journey. Simply put, in many sprawling U.S. cities, getting to your destination by train can still mean you've got quite a way yet to get home.
The Department of Transportation’s Inspector General (IG) recent analysis of HSR in the Northeast Corridor. The IG examined cutting 30 minutes from journey times between Boston and New York, a to 3 hours the second option cut journey time by 60 minutes. The IG found that the improvements reduced automobile ridership along the NEC by less than 1%. Consequently, rail travel must be extremely competitive in other dimensions, such as speed or cost, to attract automobile travelers. Several of the previous high-speed rail studies have overestimated the number of automobile users who choose rail over highway or air by a factor of 10. High Speed rail has a long way to go.
China has "amazing" rail because they can tear down whole villages or rip down a hillside to install train tracks and no one is going to sue them or stop them.
Much of the European systems were laid in after WWII when those countries were virtually destroyed y bombing and fighting, so laying in new rights of way and new lines didn't require dealing with existing buildings, structures, etc. Yes, they did a good job, but it was a different situation. Add to that the size of the countries involved, much smaller than here in the US.
When the US government put in the interstate highway system in the 1950's - and that was in large part for military reasons, not for tourism - people realized that the preferred to be in their own cars to travel and didn't have to buy train tickets, only go where the tracks were and on the timetable of the railroads. Planes were also able to start flying across the continent non-stop and in a few hours. When the jets came along it got even better. The railroads languished; yes, they "hated" passengers (hey, freight doesn't complain about their bed or dinner) but people voted with their feet and chose other means of travel, especially outside of the denser, primarily east coast metro areas. In short, it's a complex problem and we can't just plop down high speed rail anywhere.
P.S.: The Concorde was never for the masses, was hated by environmentalists, and lost money by the bucket full. No replacement is likely for decades.
Much of the European systems were laid in after WWII when those countries were virtually destroyed y bombing and fighting, so laying in new rights of way and new lines didn't require dealing with existing buildings, structures, etc. Yes, they did a good job, but it was a different situation. Add to that the size of the countries involved, much smaller than here in the US.
When the US government put in the interstate highway system in the 1950's - and that was in large part for military reasons, not for tourism - people realized that the preferred to be in their own cars to travel and didn't have to buy train tickets, only go where the tracks were and on the timetable of the railroads. Planes were also able to start flying across the continent non-stop and in a few hours. When the jets came along it got even better. The railroads languished; yes, they "hated" passengers (hey, freight doesn't complain about their bed or dinner) but people voted with their feet and chose other means of travel, especially outside of the denser, primarily east coast metro areas. In short, it's a complex problem and we can't just plop down high speed rail anywhere.
P.S.: The Concorde was never for the masses, was hated by environmentalists, and lost money by the bucket full. No replacement is likely for decades.
1
Passengers and freight ought to go hand in hand to cover the costs...and the benefits. But for that to occur, either we improve the infrastructure or we make the drive automatic and severely restrict the speed. Railway accidents have become so common, so frequent, they have left car accidents in the dust. Europeans and japanese, to name a few, are far ahead of the U.S.; it didn't have to be that way however, if political infighting could be averted, and necessary funds made available for a 21st century technology.
4
Train fatalities in the U.S. are way fewer than car fatalities, even on a fatality per passenger mile basis.
I was in China a month ago. I was amazed at the rail systems: Underground subways and above ground trains... High speed above ground trains average over 150 mph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China. They are much more safe, being mostly elevated, like our super highways in congested areas... The subways are superior to ours: They have barrier walls made of glass, so riders never have any access to the tracts... the passengers can only enter or exit a subway car.. The subway car's doors open with a precise stop when the barrier doors open... The subway ride was amazingly smooth, really fast and shudder free... But our GOP never wants to spend a nickle on infrastructure, so forget about it...
69
You are comparing apples to oranges by your anecdotal experience. By the way the Bejing Subway System operated at a $558 Million year lost. As can be seen that is not sustainable and in the end will either have to cut services, maintenance or raise ticket prices.
Here are some programs you Dems could defund to support new bridges and roads: http://posey.house.gov/wasteful-spending/
I always enjoy Dems praising China. How many people were just shoved out of the way, with nothing like the protections enjoyed in non-communist countries? Think that Chinese HSR is safe? How about Wenzhou? Enjoy your ride this summer.
I always enjoy Dems praising China. How many people were just shoved out of the way, with nothing like the protections enjoyed in non-communist countries? Think that Chinese HSR is safe? How about Wenzhou? Enjoy your ride this summer.
Face it--the USA is now a "third world" country-- due to anti-government Republican ideology--as though investors promote the public good, as if "guided by an invisible hand."
Adam Smith's point was that the local economy benefits because foreign investment is too risky. Look what happens when that risk is diminished.
Adam Smith's point was that the local economy benefits because foreign investment is too risky. Look what happens when that risk is diminished.
2
Our "free market" mentality continues to build these bastardized arrangements for common good services ---like transportation and health care. Our lawmakers refuse to go "all in" on services that, yes, need to be nationalized. Instead we end up with transportation systems and a health care system that gives us the worse of capitalism and worse of socialism.
63
Have you kept up with the VAH health care? This care is limited to chronic care of mostly adult males . No pediactric OB care or real ER care. And still fails.
We live about 100 yards from a freight line. Those trains (except for oil) roar. The trackage is impressive. This bird doesn't know what he's talking about.
4
A myopic anecdote is not the same thing as data.
I have just bought Japan Rail Passes for myself , my daughter and her 3 daughters. We will "ride the rails" in Japan for 3 weeks in July. What fun to show these kids these super fast trains not available in the USA.
17
How much did it cost you? I've ridden the trains in Europe, it was very eXpensive.
Yes, JR passes are a convenient was to crisscross Japan. But be carefull, the pass doesn't allow you to ride the fastest Shinkansen, the NOZOMI kind without paying a supplement ! The Japanese fast train is different from the European fast trains in that they had to build a totally new set of traks that never merge with the old, narrow gauge one. The aceleration and deceleration are thus abrupt, a little like on a plane. The inside layout with small port-hole type windows contribute also to that sensation...
I'm not so sure.
With shifting demographics and a younger urban mindset I can imagine good safe reliable trains connecting a number of major American cities once again, and maybe sooner than we think, with people willing to cough up the subsidy.
Cars are somewhat yesterday, really, for a lot of younger people and if the numbers are right, seventy percent of the U.S. will be living in cities in a generation. And flying, which is now just Greyhound with wings, is almost silly given its exhausting hassle on shorter distances.
So don't rule it out. Perfect would be state-owned rails as you suggest, with private companies leasing rights-of-way. And yes, there's just plain romance with rails.
Consider Europe, where trains touch the smallest towns -- as they once did here -- and ridership on the rails is high, and some of the trains are luxurious at a price which doesn't maim. Leaving the middle of a city for the middle of another city? And some landscape out the big window and a walk to the bar car in the bargain? Get off the train and Uber a cab, or as far as that goes just walk to my hotel? Sign me Up.
And Golden Age of trains? Actually, there surely was one in the U.S., mid-century. Talk to your grandparents.
With shifting demographics and a younger urban mindset I can imagine good safe reliable trains connecting a number of major American cities once again, and maybe sooner than we think, with people willing to cough up the subsidy.
Cars are somewhat yesterday, really, for a lot of younger people and if the numbers are right, seventy percent of the U.S. will be living in cities in a generation. And flying, which is now just Greyhound with wings, is almost silly given its exhausting hassle on shorter distances.
So don't rule it out. Perfect would be state-owned rails as you suggest, with private companies leasing rights-of-way. And yes, there's just plain romance with rails.
Consider Europe, where trains touch the smallest towns -- as they once did here -- and ridership on the rails is high, and some of the trains are luxurious at a price which doesn't maim. Leaving the middle of a city for the middle of another city? And some landscape out the big window and a walk to the bar car in the bargain? Get off the train and Uber a cab, or as far as that goes just walk to my hotel? Sign me Up.
And Golden Age of trains? Actually, there surely was one in the U.S., mid-century. Talk to your grandparents.
72
The cost to ride the trains in Europe is very high. I've done it. They are also massively subsidized. This is not a a 21st century idea, it's archaic wishful thinking. Once, we were planning a trip to Budapest from Germany. To fly there was almost the same price of the train, but instead of 17 hours overnight it was 2 hours. Of course we've made flying awful, thanks TSA and Homeland Security!
Great comment! I am old enough to remember when passenger trains were still private and a pleasure to ride. I agree with Ken, I think a lot of people might be more interest in this type of travel than in more recent years.
All in all, I think AMTRAK, hamstrung as it is by congress and it's never ending four and a half decades of funding hassles does a pretty decent job. It needs to be properly funded so it can do a great job. We need efficient, safe, reliable rail service in the US.
All in all, I think AMTRAK, hamstrung as it is by congress and it's never ending four and a half decades of funding hassles does a pretty decent job. It needs to be properly funded so it can do a great job. We need efficient, safe, reliable rail service in the US.
train travel in the NE costs the train is as expensive as flying. jetblue can fly to buffalo for a round trip cost of, at the lowest, $218. the cheapest amtrak is $126 and the next rate is $244. but the flight is 1.5 hours and the train is close to 8 hours. a flight to washington d.c., also jetblue is 338, the acela is 300.
especially for the short hops, like boston, baltimore and dc, you'd think amtrak could get many more passengers if they lowered their prices. and unlike europe where one can hop on and off, the same is not true here -- as far as i know. and if it is, they sure don't advertise it.
especially for the short hops, like boston, baltimore and dc, you'd think amtrak could get many more passengers if they lowered their prices. and unlike europe where one can hop on and off, the same is not true here -- as far as i know. and if it is, they sure don't advertise it.
1
Guess what? As someone who rides Amtrak I don't care about it's history, I don't care about the politics, I should't need to know if it is private or public, I just want it to be maintained and safe.
Every country that has rail subsidizes it to some extent to protect both public safety, and in the knowledge that transportation is good for the economy.
That our Congress would vote to cut funding hours after this disaster is all you need to know.. they do not care for your safety. They do not care for your safety. Possibly because the Northeast corridor serves the Northeast; a blue area, though I;d hate to think they are that craven.
They do not care of your rails are safe, if the bridges fail, if the roads have gone to mush, nor if your air is clean and your water uncontaminated. Don't listen to what they say, pay attention to how they vote and who donated to them. They do not care for our safety.
Every country that has rail subsidizes it to some extent to protect both public safety, and in the knowledge that transportation is good for the economy.
That our Congress would vote to cut funding hours after this disaster is all you need to know.. they do not care for your safety. They do not care for your safety. Possibly because the Northeast corridor serves the Northeast; a blue area, though I;d hate to think they are that craven.
They do not care of your rails are safe, if the bridges fail, if the roads have gone to mush, nor if your air is clean and your water uncontaminated. Don't listen to what they say, pay attention to how they vote and who donated to them. They do not care for our safety.
153
I hate to tell you what you hate to think: they are that craven.
17
America is pathetic in so many ways, epitomized by the refusal of our Congress to invest in our infrastructure, and the right wing antipathy to anything publicly(ie "socialist") supported. (Of course, many conservative elderly just love their Medicare and Social Security).
We are like a third world country and I would move to Europe in a heartbeat except my dog wouldn't like it (not enough open space).
We are like a third world country and I would move to Europe in a heartbeat except my dog wouldn't like it (not enough open space).
1
Craven means cowardly but that only refers to the lackeys in congress when it comes to to their handlers. The word immoral comes to mind when those congressional lackeys deal with their constituents.
5
Trains are the most civilized way to travel, now that highways are congested with monster trucks and planes have become overloaded sardine cans whose ventilation system passes germs from one passenger to another. You may arrive at a train station a few minutes before departure, park your car free of charge, relax in a comfortable seat and watch the passing landscape, read a book, snooze, chat with fellow passengers, walk to the snack bar and dining room, play poker in the club car, arrive in the center of your destination, disembark and go about your business without wasting time on commute to an airport. I've ridden trains all my life (in fact, my new book is titled "Waystations" with drawings of train stations I have known and loved) and even now ride Amtrak to DC, NYC, Florida, New Orleans, California, Chicago. Whatever it takes to keep our trains running safely, let's do it, and relieve road and air traffic. Keep going, Amtrak!
193
Ms. Russell, Thank you for your comments. I look forward to reading your new book. I applaud the convenience and free parking you receive in Wilmington. Color me green with envy. Keep riding the rails, we need all the friends we can muster. In the Northeast corridor (where I'm located) with more expensive real estate costs, parking costs, maintenance on 120+ year old roadbeds and access with rails running directly through suburban and urban communities, passenger service is a bit more expensive and complicated. High speed rail requires protection from the public access..not so easy in the urban NE. Most NE rail service is commuter service, too. Fortunately, we didn't have destructive war damages nearly 70 years ago to destroy our infrastructure. But, RR haven't upgraded conscientiously, either. Older RR lines and rights-of-way may not reflect changing locations and needs. I look forward to "Waystations" and your recommendations. I have my own ideas, but I suspect your ideas are more thoroughly researched, thought out, and sensible. I'll write you a note c/o your publisher after I read your book. Cheers, Ted
Anne Russell Wilmington NC
Opinions are not facts., but thank you for your post.
Opinions are not facts., but thank you for your post.
American rail ridership is low because fast, efficient service does not exist. Europeans enjoy fast (150 mph), clean, comfortable, frequent, city center to city center service subsidized by the state. It is attractive not to have to fight traffic get to the airport 2 hours ahead of your flight and arrive at your destination in much less time than flying. An added bonus is that trains produce much less pollution than air or automobile travel. Sometimes the government has to step in with subsidies for the good of the public and the environment. If Americans were given a taste of the kind of rail travel the Europeans, Japanese, and Chinese enjoy they might be persuaded to leave traffic congested roads and sit back and relax with their electronic devices or a meal in the comfort of a spacious seat on a train.
143
Let's not forget that ridership is not low in the Northeast. A woman was kicked off my train from Boston last night because she assumed she could just get on a train that ran an hour earlier and change her reservation on the train. Nope, the train was full.
11
Maybe the solution is to raise the prices in the NE and not eXpect the rest of the country to subsidize it for you.
But the men and women in government with vested interest in oil will yell, "Socialism!" while we continue our descent into the realm of a banana republic. How can we have so much yet never really reap the benefit of anything? We are a crumbling house, which is about to collapse on our heads, yet we are sound asleep in an upstairs bedroom, oblivious to the creaking and moaning of the infrastructure.
1
Nothing like whipping up support for your opinion when you position it like Wall Street vs. the public today.
Much private capital was risked, and in some (many) cases lost in the early development of the railroads. Even when public money was involved, the public often benefited immensely.
Professor White leaves one with the impression that if only the railroads were forced to cross-subsidize passenger service with their freight revenues everything would be just fine. That completely ignores the situation that by the 1970's, as Amtrak was formed, the entire railroad system on the northeastern U.S. lied prostate from a combination of rate regulation and cross-subsidization by the railroads themselves of long-distance and commuter rail passenger services from freight revenues due to government regulation. This was of course at a time when government at various levels had invested heavily in competing highway, water and air transport infrastructure. Where's his knowledge of history here?
Professor White is also apparently oblivious to the world today. Our entire system of transport: air, inland water, highway, and passenger rail (freight railroads are OK), is in deep trouble due to politicians who keep talking about lower taxes while our infrastructure crumbles around us. We need to elect those with the honesty to tell us what needs to be done and not what we want to hear.
We need to have an intelligent opinion piece from someone not restricted to 1500 characters.
Much private capital was risked, and in some (many) cases lost in the early development of the railroads. Even when public money was involved, the public often benefited immensely.
Professor White leaves one with the impression that if only the railroads were forced to cross-subsidize passenger service with their freight revenues everything would be just fine. That completely ignores the situation that by the 1970's, as Amtrak was formed, the entire railroad system on the northeastern U.S. lied prostate from a combination of rate regulation and cross-subsidization by the railroads themselves of long-distance and commuter rail passenger services from freight revenues due to government regulation. This was of course at a time when government at various levels had invested heavily in competing highway, water and air transport infrastructure. Where's his knowledge of history here?
Professor White is also apparently oblivious to the world today. Our entire system of transport: air, inland water, highway, and passenger rail (freight railroads are OK), is in deep trouble due to politicians who keep talking about lower taxes while our infrastructure crumbles around us. We need to elect those with the honesty to tell us what needs to be done and not what we want to hear.
We need to have an intelligent opinion piece from someone not restricted to 1500 characters.
5
Do you not remember the "incentive" Congress gave the RR's to cross the prairies and mountains? (Stolen, of course, from the natives.) Alternating one mile stretches along the tracks to sell for farms and ranches.
Would they have crossed the continent without that "give away?" I'm guessing no more than private enterprise brought telephone and electricity to our rural citizens. Until users were taxed to supply funds for those purposes, no capitalist in sight.
Would they have crossed the continent without that "give away?" I'm guessing no more than private enterprise brought telephone and electricity to our rural citizens. Until users were taxed to supply funds for those purposes, no capitalist in sight.
1
They say even a dictator can have the trains run on time. Our current system is no better than a third world's country and we should be embarrassed. when I was stationed in Germany I rode the Inner City Express from Mannheim Germany to Paris, France in comfort and style which is unheard of here in the U.S. Taking the train in Europe was a night and day experience from the travesty that is known as Amtrak. It will take more train accidents before congress realizes that Amtrak needs to be fixed now not later.
26
No, it will require a different Congress with a different thinking process to reach the realization you describe. The current group have an anti-Amtrak bias that is beyond comprehension.
THE FAILURE OF PRIVATIZATION Corporations, as we all know, in addition to having the rights of people (though the former exist on ly on paper, while the latter exist in the real world), exist for the sole purpose of their bottom line. So it is not surprising that, given a chance, private corporations should dump passenger rail lines on the government, thereby ensuring themselves free train infrastructure at taxpayer expense, while leaving the debt-ridden commuter trains in the public sector. The hypocrisy of the rail corporations pointing a finger of blame at the government for failure to earn money by providing commuter trains while maintaining the infrastructure for both commuters and freight is typical of corporate "morality," whose philosophy is, Take money and run. Something as simple as maintaining barriers around railways so that people, likely kids, will not throw rocks at them would be an imposition on the profits of the corporations and impossible due to the red ink of the commuter lines. Once again, we see the rapacious behavior of corporations bleeding the taxpayers dry while using up the infrastructure and skimming the profits off the top. Privatization was supposed to provide more competition and better prices. But in fact, this is what it provides: a free lunch to the greedy at taxpayer expense. European countries have clearly prevailed in running profitable, excellent rail lines. We can do it here too. But we won't! Since the corporations own us.
28
Profitable? You need to show me some citations for that. Also, do you mean profitable without massive subsidies?
Golden Age? I don't remember.
I *do* remember in the early 60s, two sets of elderly grandparents coming from NY to LA via railroad. Easily. No problem, no jet lag, not expensive. 2.5 days. Today - it takes 1.5 - 3 days to go from NY to Florida. And costs more, not including food, than most flights that take 3 - 4 hours.
I *do* remember in the early 60s, two sets of elderly grandparents coming from NY to LA via railroad. Easily. No problem, no jet lag, not expensive. 2.5 days. Today - it takes 1.5 - 3 days to go from NY to Florida. And costs more, not including food, than most flights that take 3 - 4 hours.
12
Yeah, and I remember it was pretty good in the late forties, and my mother loved the trains she rode to work in the twenties. If she was running late, the engineer would look up the hill toward her house, and if he saw her running downhill, would hold the train for her. Then on to Boston, usually on time.
The streamliners of the '30s thru the '50s were a Golden Age, beautiful cars, perfect service with much faster schedules than today. They were safe too. They started losing money in the '60s which is why Amtrak was formed in 1971. Amtrak has never run a train as well as Santa Fe Railway did prior to 1971 (SUPER CHIEF anyone?), ever. Professor White should know that but has put a bunch of "facts" into a cement mixer and created a meaningless amalgam. The money's out there to have a world class system, especially in Monetarily Sovereign government, but it's going to take a populace that actually votes, instead of the 36% that do now.
Yes, our railroads need better and more reliable funding. We cannot have people continue fleeing to automobiles which have a much more dismal safety record. In fact there is hardly another daily activity that has such a high death rate as automobile travel. Our love-hate relationship with railroads has less to do with their safety record than the fact that they don't come to our doorstep.
12
Anything with the word "public" or "government" associated with it will remain under-funded and in a state of risky disrepair, except our military and police forces. The right-winged marketing machine aligned with the military-industrial complex has embedded in the psyche of the American electorate that any other way is socialist and un-American.
So we can expect more deaths, injuries and distraught families from collapsed bridges and train wrecks, and massive losses in economic productivity from traffic nightmares and irregular train schedules.
Reminds me of living in Mexico City 35 years ago.
So we can expect more deaths, injuries and distraught families from collapsed bridges and train wrecks, and massive losses in economic productivity from traffic nightmares and irregular train schedules.
Reminds me of living in Mexico City 35 years ago.
84
Don't think this crash had anything to do with underfunding, but a lot to do with human error.
The rail system debacle in this country is just one symptom of an ideologically-driven political mentality.
78
Make that two devil's bargains.
The second was the creation of Conrail, which stuck Amtrak with the Northeast Corridor. This deal did make Amtrak a vertically integrated railroad over the densest part of its network, but it also set up an Northeast-v.-national, rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul conflict that plays out even today.
The second was the creation of Conrail, which stuck Amtrak with the Northeast Corridor. This deal did make Amtrak a vertically integrated railroad over the densest part of its network, but it also set up an Northeast-v.-national, rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul conflict that plays out even today.
21
One of the greatest pleasures while visiting Europe is to travel by train. I wish the same could be said of the US. A national rail system ties a nation together in ways that air travel simply cannot do. Flying between the two coasts simply ignores everything inbetween.
Civilized people truly travel by train. A pity that the US has allowed a once great railway system to deteriorate. Taking the train from Penn Station to Boston was actually quicker than taking a plane considering the time wasted going to and from the Newark Airport, having to wait at least an hour before boarding said plane. and having to sit immobile with one's kness under one's chin. A free bag of peanuts is hardly adequate compensation for hese indignities..
Civilized people truly travel by train. A pity that the US has allowed a once great railway system to deteriorate. Taking the train from Penn Station to Boston was actually quicker than taking a plane considering the time wasted going to and from the Newark Airport, having to wait at least an hour before boarding said plane. and having to sit immobile with one's kness under one's chin. A free bag of peanuts is hardly adequate compensation for hese indignities..
139
@ Cristino
"Civilized people truly travel by train."
Nothing better captures the nonsense of the NYTimes reader than your opening line.
We are not running a Liberal country club. Europe runs on trains because the rails were installed years earlier and it reflects their historical development.
Ever ridden on a train in Africa or India? Please put it on your bucket list.
And go back to the Style section. There is an article on Prada bags.
"Civilized people truly travel by train."
Nothing better captures the nonsense of the NYTimes reader than your opening line.
We are not running a Liberal country club. Europe runs on trains because the rails were installed years earlier and it reflects their historical development.
Ever ridden on a train in Africa or India? Please put it on your bucket list.
And go back to the Style section. There is an article on Prada bags.
Some forty or more years ago, my wife and I travelled across Australia from Melbourne to Perth in a 'silver bullet' looking train. It was an adventure, with excellent food and this wonderful sleeping cabin, all stainless. We'd been used to steam trains in our youth in England, and marveled whenever we saw The Flying Scotsman, a 100mph train running the length of England.
A few years ago, we visited China and rode a 200 mph train, our glasses of wine had not one ripple on their surface as we sped effortlessly through the countryside.
Recently we took a train from Penn St, New York, to New Orleans. The trip took almost 30 hours, at approx 40 mph. The Steward explained that if we went faster, we'd pound the tracks into the swampy areas.
The sleeper cabin was identical to the one we marveled at some 40 years prior in Australia. Perhaps the restaurant car held culinary delights like our Australian trip across the Nullabor Plain? But no only Burgers and Hot Dogs. A huge disappointment.
Even if the NY to New Orleans trip travelled at 100 mph, (Britain's Flying Scotsman of yore) customers could expect the trip to take 15 hours, not 30.
But lets aim for China and Japan's train speeds of 200mph, my journey could take 7-8 hours. I'd pay more for a sleeping cabin and an 8 hour ride, than tolerate being treated like cattle on an airline.
I can only dream of the day America wakes up to the potential of train travel.
A few years ago, we visited China and rode a 200 mph train, our glasses of wine had not one ripple on their surface as we sped effortlessly through the countryside.
Recently we took a train from Penn St, New York, to New Orleans. The trip took almost 30 hours, at approx 40 mph. The Steward explained that if we went faster, we'd pound the tracks into the swampy areas.
The sleeper cabin was identical to the one we marveled at some 40 years prior in Australia. Perhaps the restaurant car held culinary delights like our Australian trip across the Nullabor Plain? But no only Burgers and Hot Dogs. A huge disappointment.
Even if the NY to New Orleans trip travelled at 100 mph, (Britain's Flying Scotsman of yore) customers could expect the trip to take 15 hours, not 30.
But lets aim for China and Japan's train speeds of 200mph, my journey could take 7-8 hours. I'd pay more for a sleeping cabin and an 8 hour ride, than tolerate being treated like cattle on an airline.
I can only dream of the day America wakes up to the potential of train travel.
30
It's unfair to blame the problems on anything other than inattention, and lack of effort. There are always ways to improve the system.
People like Christie who blocked the rail tunnel, which would've alleviated congestion, and allowed for improvements generally, should definitely be voted out of office.
People like Christie who blocked the rail tunnel, which would've alleviated congestion, and allowed for improvements generally, should definitely be voted out of office.
20
There seems to be a misconception train travel is cheap and subsidized. I find that to be far from the truth. We travel from NYC to Miami from time to time. A very busy route. The train costs from 144$ to 549$ and takes 30 hours while a plane takes 3 hours and costs 160$ The whole trip is just 1300 miles. After you leave DC there is just one track that all train's, both passenger and fright going both directions share. We need to decide if we want long distance rail travel or not. The GOP wants to defund Amtrak along with the highway trust fund and has and is cutting the FAA budget. How do they expect the average American to get from one city to another?
21
Since when did the GOP care about the average American?
How many politicians outside of the NE corridor have voted or will vote to provide more $ for Amtrak?
How many politicians outside of the NE corridor have voted or will vote to provide more $ for Amtrak?
11
A long shot guess, mind you, but wasn't the probable cause for the accident last week an engineer driving the train at better than twice the normal speed?
I'm certain our rail system is decrepit and dysfunctional but shouldn't the discussion here center on the 'background' of the guys who drive the trains?
106 mph sounds pretty fast even for the "Acela" much less a standard commuter rig.
I'm certain our rail system is decrepit and dysfunctional but shouldn't the discussion here center on the 'background' of the guys who drive the trains?
106 mph sounds pretty fast even for the "Acela" much less a standard commuter rig.
3
A better question is, why was the engineer alone in the cab? You are witnessing the result of running the system right to the edge where it is no problem if everything goes as planned. But throw a bit of distraction (like getting hit by a rock) into the mix and the workload becomes too much for one person.
3
It might be wise to hold off until the facts emerge. According to several news stories, the engineer had come off a long and technically plagued trip with only a two-hour break to recover before driving this trip. Another account indicates that trains normally get up to top speed when leaving 30th Street station, then slow down before the infamous curve north of the city. We hear from other engineers that the impact of a missile thrown at a train can temporarily but significantly disorient a driver. If these accounts are valid, it's not hard to create a scenario that differs widely from hiring an unvetted engineer. Let's wait for verification and more information.
2
An informative and timely commentary.
Other countries, which spend a fraction of what America does on transportation, have consistently, over many many decades, invested in maintaining and upgrading quality public transport as matter of significant public interest.
Americans would rather sit alone in a huge and mostly empty SUV, stuck in gridlock, and blame their problems on someone else.
Other countries, which spend a fraction of what America does on transportation, have consistently, over many many decades, invested in maintaining and upgrading quality public transport as matter of significant public interest.
Americans would rather sit alone in a huge and mostly empty SUV, stuck in gridlock, and blame their problems on someone else.
28
We can take comfort in the fact that Amtrak is better than the Indian Railways. In case India goes the way of China, there should be other countries out there. So what if we devolve into a third world country in rail infrastructure, our corporations which are really people and the plutocrats will outspend Amtrak every four years to guard our first amendment rights and keep us a first world democracy.
Nothing will change until the politics changes.
Nothing will change until the politics changes.
12
We should learn a lot from Indian railways. You can travel LYING DOWN SLEEPING all night and most long-distance trains are night trains so you save on hotel bills. Three-tier bunks, and the middle one folds down for seating. No fancy stuff- bring your sheet or pillow if you want one. Food sold on trays if you want it. Luggage under the seats, All very convenient, and REALLY CHEAP unless you want air conditioning or first class. The US should copy all this from Indian railways.
Love/hate????? What hate? I. and everyone I know (except Republicans in Congress) LOVE trains. We mourn the sorry state of trains in this country - as compared to every other major industrialized country in the world - and wish that our government would recognize both the efficacy and green value of train transport - and properly FUND it. In my 53 years of living in Manhattan, I must have taken that NY/Philadelphia train route a thousand times.
23
If it's so great and you guys love it so much, why not pay for it yourselves? I see no reason to subsidize more things for the richest part of the country. Raise your own taXes, pay for it yourselves. Then we'll see how many people really want it.
Good point. Most people are enthralled with the lore of trains. My ex and I lived in several locations with the tracks no more than 100 feet away from those homes. We loved it! And take the little girls out by the tracks to wave at the engineers, the latter blasting their horns for our benefit.
One such location even let us watch the twice a year circus train from Sarasota to Venice.
One such location even let us watch the twice a year circus train from Sarasota to Venice.
1
Fifty years of high speed passenger rail service in Japan without a single passenger fatality. But, it does take national commitment and as President Eisenhower convinced the nation that for national security reasons we needed an integrated national super highway system, we now need a political articulator who can "package" in just such terms the very real need for a safe, accessible, efficient rail passenger national system as part of a national transportation plan based on long term national needs funded as an integral part of our national "common good."
23
It is hard to see any real connection between this article and the accident in Philadelphia. The author instead seems to be repeating in summary form the argument of his book about 19th century railroad-building. That is fair enough; all authors (including myself) like to draw attention to their books, but one might have wished for something more relevant.
Amtrak's northeast corridor is an attempt to create a European-style passenger railroad in the one part of the United States where population density resembles that of Europe. It has succeeded fairly well, considering the limited funds that Congress has made available to it over the years, and considering the national infatuation with air travel, even for short distances. It is important to remember that Europe's high-speed trains also lose a lot of money, and have been funded much more generously by their governments than Amtrak. I wish Amtrak well, but it is unlikely that reminiscing about the Gilded Age of the late 19th century will help to solve its problems.
Amtrak's northeast corridor is an attempt to create a European-style passenger railroad in the one part of the United States where population density resembles that of Europe. It has succeeded fairly well, considering the limited funds that Congress has made available to it over the years, and considering the national infatuation with air travel, even for short distances. It is important to remember that Europe's high-speed trains also lose a lot of money, and have been funded much more generously by their governments than Amtrak. I wish Amtrak well, but it is unlikely that reminiscing about the Gilded Age of the late 19th century will help to solve its problems.
7
Railroads are NOT important or a major source of travel for most of the country. I guess they are important in the Northeast. The 7-8 states there are some of the most richest in the US. They have several options: Raise ticket prices to pay for the service and/or subsidize the commuters by their own state taxes. Most of the rest of the country has NO interest in subsidizing some of the richest americans to live in Connecticut and New Jersey to work in New York or Washington
3
Yes, let's let the rich Connecticut guys pay for the railroads in the Northeast. Also the not-so-rich. Also the poor. Since I have no children in the schools, by your reasoning I should be against paying school taxes. Let somebody else pay for everything--the airlines for their airports, the people whose houses burn down for their fire departments, the oil companies for their drilling, the coal companies for their mining--oh, wait.
2
Not a single house on my block burned last year. Yet I still have to pay for the hydrant at the corner. And the fire station. Oh, the outrage!
2
And yet "most of the country" has a lot of interest in having us pay for your infrastructure in the form of the taxes that we pay into the federal government and don't get back, while you get more than you pay in. Guess where that comes from.
4
By 2020 China will have 12,000 miles of high speed rail.
By 2020 the US will have none.
But, we have invaded, occupied and "rebuilt" Afghanistan.
We have invaded and disastrously occupied Iraq.
Should any republican win in '16 we will be in Adelsons War with Iran.
By 2020 the US will have none.
But, we have invaded, occupied and "rebuilt" Afghanistan.
We have invaded and disastrously occupied Iraq.
Should any republican win in '16 we will be in Adelsons War with Iran.
89
Don't forget Vietnam, Panama, Libya, Bosnia, Grenada(wow, we won that one).
The perpetual war machine is not limited to other countries but targets Americans as well, in ways described by this article.
The perpetual war machine is not limited to other countries but targets Americans as well, in ways described by this article.
The government runs the Airports runways, security including Sky Marshalls, the FAA, radars etc. Amtrak does all of this on it's own with subsidies from the government that were just cut. If the Airlines had to totally support all of the airports and the FAA and the security no Airline would be profitable and the public would not be able to afford a ticket. We need to fully fund a modern rail system and we need to hold our legislators feet to the fire until they fund the rebuilding of infrastructure in this country. I didi not hear them complaining about the deficit when they spent 3 trillion dollars on the Iraq war. We the people deserve our 3 trillion dollar update on our infrastructure which includes trains. My life is more important than deficit reduction.
44
Further, the government used the power of eminent domain to assemble those airport-sized parcels of land. Ask the folks in Bridgeton, Missouri, about Runway W-1W at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport.
I wouldn't mind seeing eminent domain used to acquire the relatively small amounts of land needed to mitigate curves like the one at Frankford Junction.
I wouldn't mind seeing eminent domain used to acquire the relatively small amounts of land needed to mitigate curves like the one at Frankford Junction.
1
Certainly there was no excuse for a train to travel 100mph in an area with a sharp curve and speed limit of 50 mph.
However, it is absolutely absurd that when Asia and Europe have operated high speed *bullet* trains that travel over 150mph, the US doesn't even have a good quality high speed rail corridor between Boston NYC and Washington.
It's not only rail passengers who benefit from good rail service in high density areas. We all benefit by reducing the load on highways.
And seriously, trying to use Boston's subway system or commuter rail in last winter's snow was like living in a third world country. (Sweden, Norway, and Switzerland all manage to operate excellent systems in winter.)
And for those who do travel by air, many cities have rail stations at the airport -- at Frankfurt, Zurich, Amsterdam, Oslo, Tokyo, Osaka one can not only get fast trains into the city center, but direct trains to many smaller cities within 100-200 miles.
However, it is absolutely absurd that when Asia and Europe have operated high speed *bullet* trains that travel over 150mph, the US doesn't even have a good quality high speed rail corridor between Boston NYC and Washington.
It's not only rail passengers who benefit from good rail service in high density areas. We all benefit by reducing the load on highways.
And seriously, trying to use Boston's subway system or commuter rail in last winter's snow was like living in a third world country. (Sweden, Norway, and Switzerland all manage to operate excellent systems in winter.)
And for those who do travel by air, many cities have rail stations at the airport -- at Frankfurt, Zurich, Amsterdam, Oslo, Tokyo, Osaka one can not only get fast trains into the city center, but direct trains to many smaller cities within 100-200 miles.
91
"with a sharp curve"
That's the problem.
Why sharp curves? Why crossings?
Build a straight high-speed line with no curve and no crossing.
There is no other way to get safe high-speed rail.
That's the problem.
Why sharp curves? Why crossings?
Build a straight high-speed line with no curve and no crossing.
There is no other way to get safe high-speed rail.
1
We are living now " in a third world country" , if you look at transport. Modern countries of E and Asia, realized that without new infrastructure, decay is inevitable in society.
We funded foreign wars ( $ trillions) but forgot about home, and now the collapse is all around us. It will take bold leadership from Congress, which has been missing for a long time, to turn the ship around.
We are behind the "modern" world now , only new bold leaders will admit the truth and deal with it. We need to start over.
We funded foreign wars ( $ trillions) but forgot about home, and now the collapse is all around us. It will take bold leadership from Congress, which has been missing for a long time, to turn the ship around.
We are behind the "modern" world now , only new bold leaders will admit the truth and deal with it. We need to start over.
4
"our long love-hate relationship with the railroads"
I've notice a lot of the hate, not much of the love.
"as with so many things, we sometimes forget that our troubles are of our own making."
Well, yeah. Sorry, is anyone claiming that the sorry state of American railroads is the fault of the Russians?
I've notice a lot of the hate, not much of the love.
"as with so many things, we sometimes forget that our troubles are of our own making."
Well, yeah. Sorry, is anyone claiming that the sorry state of American railroads is the fault of the Russians?
14
Right. We could have a public discussion over the proper funding and ownership structure for our passenger trains and then fully fund them. It's pretty disappointing to travel on trains all over Europe and then lumber along on an Amtrak here in the US when one returns.
Our government was OK with spending enormous amounts of money and countless lives on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq with no visible result but destruction and carnage but we can't "afford" a train system? You're right, it is a matter of political will. I'd also suppose that corporations that have stakes in the auto or plane industries have done their best to lobby against supporting trains. It's incredibly short-sighted.
Want a great stimulus plan and decent paying real work especially suitable for all those guys whose manufacturing jobs went overseas? Rebuild the railroads to European standards here in the US. And most of those jobs won't take a college degree either!
Our government was OK with spending enormous amounts of money and countless lives on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq with no visible result but destruction and carnage but we can't "afford" a train system? You're right, it is a matter of political will. I'd also suppose that corporations that have stakes in the auto or plane industries have done their best to lobby against supporting trains. It's incredibly short-sighted.
Want a great stimulus plan and decent paying real work especially suitable for all those guys whose manufacturing jobs went overseas? Rebuild the railroads to European standards here in the US. And most of those jobs won't take a college degree either!
117
As long as people vote for Republicans, our railroads will continue to fare poorly compared to those in Europe.
130
In the DENSE-ly populated NE, commuter RR or rail makes sense. Begin traveling south of DC or west of Philly and whatever black ink there is quickly becomes red based solely on distance.
1
As with health care, the federal government should take over the railroads, and pay for the takeover with higher taxes on the rich.
The private sector is terrible at doing military defense, education, health care and railroads. (The actual list is longer.) So far, we only have government ownership of the military defense and education (for the most part). So, we have a lot of work ahead of us. We are dragging our feet in getting the job done.
Future historians will excoriate all those politicians who put the personal greed of the plutocrats ahead of the common good.
The private sector is terrible at doing military defense, education, health care and railroads. (The actual list is longer.) So far, we only have government ownership of the military defense and education (for the most part). So, we have a lot of work ahead of us. We are dragging our feet in getting the job done.
Future historians will excoriate all those politicians who put the personal greed of the plutocrats ahead of the common good.
77
The federal government has to work along side of the private sector. After all, it's giving the private sector large bonus checks to keep the economy afloat after the financial crisis.
Seeing the last two Russian rocket crashes reminds us that the private sector has to be forced to work alongside of the federal government to provide safe transportation (and space travel). The private sector now has the funds for it, and some motivation is required.
Seeing the last two Russian rocket crashes reminds us that the private sector has to be forced to work alongside of the federal government to provide safe transportation (and space travel). The private sector now has the funds for it, and some motivation is required.
2
Sorry, Cass, but that train has left the station.
Twenty years ago the combined market capitalization of all the Class I freight railroads was less than $30 billion. Today the stock market says Union Pacific alone is worth triple that - $90 billion.
Twenty years ago the combined market capitalization of all the Class I freight railroads was less than $30 billion. Today the stock market says Union Pacific alone is worth triple that - $90 billion.
3
@Cassandra: In case you haven't noticed, the trend (and the Republican MO is to PRIVATIZE, not FEDERALIZE assets. In the case of Amtrak, the Railroads (Corporations) kept the lucrative assets (freight) stuck the tax payer with the money-loser (passenger service).
5
I sounds like he supports public funding for passenger rail... perhaps he shouldn't have used the word "monster" when describing Amtrak. Plus given the safety record of Amtrak on the NEC and other places it goes up to 110-mph or more... I don't think its fair to say... "When they go faster, disaster can ensue". Most serious Amtrak accidents are due to grade crossings or sabotage... not to poor maintenance of track or equipment by Amtrak. Look at the UK, which has had far more serious accidents involving high speed intercity services.
3
"Look at the UK, which has had far more serious accidents involving high speed intercity services. "
Sure enough. The passenger service in the UK is a crazy-quilt mix of various private and semi-private companies -- just try to read a timetable. Look instead to France or Germany with one company (highly subsidized) service, high speed trains and an impeccable safety record.
Sure enough. The passenger service in the UK is a crazy-quilt mix of various private and semi-private companies -- just try to read a timetable. Look instead to France or Germany with one company (highly subsidized) service, high speed trains and an impeccable safety record.
6
I live in Switzerland, where rail travel is fast, safe, and convenient. In fact, ridership is up considerably over the last ten years due to the improvements in service. My daughter went to Paris last weekend, by rail because it is effectively faster than flying. Good rail service is possible - it just takes the goodwill to make it happen.
161
Ditto a recent trip to Barcelona, Spain. Their Metro system is a charm..clean, efficient, orderly, and quite extensive for a city of its size.
2
Sally, Switzerland is about the size of New Jersey and is relatively densely populated. I now live in the Northeast Corridor and sometimes take Amtrak for business and pleasure travel. However, I used to live in Austin, Texas. It would have been inconceivable for me to take a train to Chicago (according to Amtrak this is a 28 hour 21 minute trek). A "roomette" would cost $538.00 and a coach seat would cost either $209.00 or $261.00 one way. Trains make sense in the Northeast Corridor, but not so much elsewhere in the US. And, yes I know people all over the US take trains, but how many people have time for a 28 hour trip?
Not goodwill, heavy subsidies. There is a big difference.
There's something pathetic about the state of transportation in this country. It's not just the rails. Our roads are in terrible shape as well, and then there are airports like LaGuardia -- our own "third world country".
Yet many of us go around talking as if we're the example for the rest of the world. How silly we must look to the Germans with their autobahn, the Japanese and Chinese with their high speed trains, and people in Singapore and Dubai with clean, efficient airports.
Who do we think we are, anyway? Oh yes, the world's policeman. Swagger and arrogance without meaning.
We should take the money we spend screwing up the rest of the world and spend it here, so the people who earn the money and pay the taxes that run the country can efficiently and safely get where they need to go to do so...
Yet many of us go around talking as if we're the example for the rest of the world. How silly we must look to the Germans with their autobahn, the Japanese and Chinese with their high speed trains, and people in Singapore and Dubai with clean, efficient airports.
Who do we think we are, anyway? Oh yes, the world's policeman. Swagger and arrogance without meaning.
We should take the money we spend screwing up the rest of the world and spend it here, so the people who earn the money and pay the taxes that run the country can efficiently and safely get where they need to go to do so...
235
Maybe we could also make it possible to engage in public works projects without years if not decades of environmental reviews and legal challenges by localities.
The "trouble" is that apparently there is a "terrorist" loose in Philadelphia. Where is the massive hunt to find the person who broke the windshield and caused those deaths?
3
There would most likely have been no deaths if the automatic systems that the NTSB has mandated were in place. Those systems would not have allowed the train to exceed the speed limits. But Congress continues to fail to fund Amtrak adequately.
Your "terrorist" may well be a couple of teenagers having "fun" and not thinking of possible consequences. That is not unknown.
Your "terrorist" may well be a couple of teenagers having "fun" and not thinking of possible consequences. That is not unknown.
20
The 'terrorist' would be the lack of rail protection. The fences were dilapidated and people easily enter the track area.
The 'terrorist' is those who do not adequately fund the infrastructure.
The 'terrorist' is those who do not adequately fund the infrastructure.
10
Amtrak receives immense subsidies every year, many, MANY billions over the years, and should have the capacity to upgrade and maintain safety features on its most heavily-used passenger lines. It doesn’t, or at least it doesn’t do so timely, largely because those subsidies are vitiated in an over-compensated and probably over-staffed labor pool, and in boondoggle projects that serve parochial political interests but not the interests of passengers.
Governor Brown’s high-speed California train to nowhere is the most visible example today of how vast subsidies can be wasted for highly questionable political purposes, but it’s hardly the only example. Countless tracks-and-trains are kept operating across the country when their ridership simply doesn’t justify the drain on available resources – they should have been mothballed years ago, but aren’t because some important vote is traded in Congress for irrationally directed subsidies that are then argued in political campaigns as effectively “bringing home the bacon”.
Our trouble with trains is political, not directly financial.
Governor Brown’s high-speed California train to nowhere is the most visible example today of how vast subsidies can be wasted for highly questionable political purposes, but it’s hardly the only example. Countless tracks-and-trains are kept operating across the country when their ridership simply doesn’t justify the drain on available resources – they should have been mothballed years ago, but aren’t because some important vote is traded in Congress for irrationally directed subsidies that are then argued in political campaigns as effectively “bringing home the bacon”.
Our trouble with trains is political, not directly financial.
13
The Honolulu passanger light rail system is a similar political boondoggle but it does not get national news attention.
1
Of course our trouble with infrastructure is also political more than financial. Sometimes it just comes down to the old "guns vs. butter".
The diversity and individualism of our country keeps us form thinking of the collective good. Having visited Switzerland recently I can attest first hand to their excellent rail system. We could never muster the support for such a system. No one here wants to pay for anything that doesn't directly benefit them.
Some things are too important to be left to the vagaries of the marketplace such as healthcare, education and infrastructure.
The diversity and individualism of our country keeps us form thinking of the collective good. Having visited Switzerland recently I can attest first hand to their excellent rail system. We could never muster the support for such a system. No one here wants to pay for anything that doesn't directly benefit them.
Some things are too important to be left to the vagaries of the marketplace such as healthcare, education and infrastructure.
7
"train to nowhere"? Go to the official site. The high-speed rail will run from SanFrancisco to LA with eventual service to San Diego and Sacramento. Train to nowhere indeed.
14
I am on the 8:00 a.m. Acela to NYC from Washington this morning. It is the best and fastest way to get there, and oh, the feeling of walking out of Penn Station and onto the City's sidewalks. My heart jumps every time.
Saying the Government should get out off passenger rail is not much different than saying it should not support the highway system.
Saying the Government should get out off passenger rail is not much different than saying it should not support the highway system.
187
Absolutely! Riding the rails as a commuter, no matter how inconvenient and prone to delays, is a great alternative to driving. Period.
Those who would allow the transportation systems to crumble are low human beings, and poor citizens.
Those who would allow the transportation systems to crumble are low human beings, and poor citizens.
7
Yes, it is indeed a thrill to get out of Penn Station....
2
Certainly the United States, with all its technological capabilities, should be ashamed that our trains are so far behind other countries.
But I do NOT understand why the passenger side of rail operations is a money loser. Any other industry charges it customers more if it's not meeting its costs and making a little money (or finds a way to cut its costs); if customers won't pay the increased charge, or if cost-cutting makes the product / service unsafe or undesirable, the company is not viable and goes out of business. If patrons of rail travel will not pay enough for Amtrak to meet its costs, to me this means that we simply should not have passenger rail services.
The alternative is to stop pretending this is a business, if we think it's a necessary public service like the interstate highway system. If that's the case, we need to fund it adequately. But in case anyone has not been paying attention, almost all of our country's infrastructure has been crumbling and is in an unsatisfactory state of repair; the will to spend public funds to adequately maintain our infrastructure (rails, roads, bridges, the electrical grid, and other) does not seem to be there.
So we should not get our hopes up...
But I do NOT understand why the passenger side of rail operations is a money loser. Any other industry charges it customers more if it's not meeting its costs and making a little money (or finds a way to cut its costs); if customers won't pay the increased charge, or if cost-cutting makes the product / service unsafe or undesirable, the company is not viable and goes out of business. If patrons of rail travel will not pay enough for Amtrak to meet its costs, to me this means that we simply should not have passenger rail services.
The alternative is to stop pretending this is a business, if we think it's a necessary public service like the interstate highway system. If that's the case, we need to fund it adequately. But in case anyone has not been paying attention, almost all of our country's infrastructure has been crumbling and is in an unsatisfactory state of repair; the will to spend public funds to adequately maintain our infrastructure (rails, roads, bridges, the electrical grid, and other) does not seem to be there.
So we should not get our hopes up...
34
I'm with you there, Barry ... IF patrons of highways were required to pay enough to meet the costs of roadways, too. Bottom line, trains, like highways, like airports, are a necessary public service. Can we talk about the public subsidy of "infrastructure" like sports stadiums now?
48
Amtrak's biggest financial problem, by far, is that it is required to provide services to podunk Republican territories that absolutely hate Amtrak.
Freed of that obligation, it could run a nice, profitable railroad on the heavily-traveled Northeast Corridor and a relatively-profitable railroad on the West Coast. It could probabky even make substantial capital investments in those areas, perhaps eventually providing true high-speed rail service. But as with so much else in this country, the Republicans ensure that the pork flows to their voters who hate, hate, hate government pork while starving the donor areas that actually pay the taxes.
Freed of that obligation, it could run a nice, profitable railroad on the heavily-traveled Northeast Corridor and a relatively-profitable railroad on the West Coast. It could probabky even make substantial capital investments in those areas, perhaps eventually providing true high-speed rail service. But as with so much else in this country, the Republicans ensure that the pork flows to their voters who hate, hate, hate government pork while starving the donor areas that actually pay the taxes.
6
Trains are not planes, Atlant. The economics are completely different.
It costs comparatively little to stop a train at a "podunk" town if it's en route to a, well, nonpodunk place. That's how Amtrak can bring its best equipment to Garden City, Kansas - where the only air service is a 50-seat regional jet, to DFW.
It costs comparatively little to stop a train at a "podunk" town if it's en route to a, well, nonpodunk place. That's how Amtrak can bring its best equipment to Garden City, Kansas - where the only air service is a 50-seat regional jet, to DFW.
3
Time to stop funding Amtrak. Either there is a market for passenger train service, or there isn't.
2
Agreed, stop the patching up with petty cash. Scale the investments to chinese dimensions (see below). Then your market (today 31 Miliion passengers or so) will grow exponentionally. And when it comes to fatalities per mile or passenger, the railway, even the antiquated US version, beats any other form of transportation.
17
There obviously is a market if 31 million people take the trains. Would you rather have us on line ahead of you at the ( subsidized) airport? Or coming up to a toll plaza together on the (subsidized) roads?
49
Yeah, and while we are at at it let stop funding roads. Either there is a market for auto transportation, or there is not.
21
Having used trains in a lot of different countries, there is one thing to be said about US railway systems.
They are hopelessly outdated.
No single rock thrown at the cockpit will make a train speed up and derail.
But there is hope as the ease and cost of flying will make air travel less interesting in the future.
So deterioration of air travel will create a market for improvement of train services in the coming decades.
The only question is if the US will learn from European and Chinese examples who are already switching mid range travel from air to rail with very fast trains that run on modern tracks and offer the same if not better services and comfort as aircraft did in their heyday.
Outside the US, a few years back, one had to fly distances beyond 300 km in order to get there fast.
These days, especially in China and quite a few parts of Europe, one goes from city centre to city centre on fast, modern and nearly completely computerized trains even if the distance is way beyond 1,000 km.
But that is the 21st century and not the US, which still not understands that the role of a modern state these days - again -includes the building and operation of transportation infrastructure such as modern high speed rail tracks.
A state who keeps transportation costs high and ease of use in the 19th century will rather sooner than later have to learn that is will lose out on economic competitiveness towards other countries as this is one of the backbones of every local economy.
They are hopelessly outdated.
No single rock thrown at the cockpit will make a train speed up and derail.
But there is hope as the ease and cost of flying will make air travel less interesting in the future.
So deterioration of air travel will create a market for improvement of train services in the coming decades.
The only question is if the US will learn from European and Chinese examples who are already switching mid range travel from air to rail with very fast trains that run on modern tracks and offer the same if not better services and comfort as aircraft did in their heyday.
Outside the US, a few years back, one had to fly distances beyond 300 km in order to get there fast.
These days, especially in China and quite a few parts of Europe, one goes from city centre to city centre on fast, modern and nearly completely computerized trains even if the distance is way beyond 1,000 km.
But that is the 21st century and not the US, which still not understands that the role of a modern state these days - again -includes the building and operation of transportation infrastructure such as modern high speed rail tracks.
A state who keeps transportation costs high and ease of use in the 19th century will rather sooner than later have to learn that is will lose out on economic competitiveness towards other countries as this is one of the backbones of every local economy.
99
Would create many living wage jobs as well, especially while constructing the system. Maintaining the system would need, not as many, but also a goodly number of well paying jobs.
4
Deaths don't seem to hurt the extremist view of the need for freely available firearms.
The United States needs efficient passenger rail - and so much more. The Republicans' anti-government propaganda keep us all in the dark ages.
The United States needs efficient passenger rail - and so much more. The Republicans' anti-government propaganda keep us all in the dark ages.
176
Thanks for giving us the historical background on our love hate relationship with railroads. But let's jump into the present where the fossil fuel industry hates mass transit and they have purchased half our elected representatives to do their bidding.
236
I think you have the right of it here, the fossil fuel industry has so pervaded our culture that the passenger rail system in the US will never be what it is in Europe and Japan. After all, we should take "a full tank of freedom and drive the American road."
This mindset only changes when the price of gas becomes completely unreasonable (or some progressive politicos tax it like in Europe and Japan".
This mindset only changes when the price of gas becomes completely unreasonable (or some progressive politicos tax it like in Europe and Japan".
3
Again Congress refuses to properly fund infrastructure, too busy doing nothing for the country while loudly proclaiming American exceptionalism. They don't, of course, use public transportation, but if they did and during one of their overseas junkets took a train from Paris to Strasbourg or Frankfort to Berlin the comparison might shame them into doing something about the sorry state of our rail system.
123
Congressmen do so use public transportation. They fly home to their districts every Thursday using government-built, -owned, and -run airports, on planes guided by the federal government's air traffic control system, whose safety is ensured by the FAA and NTSB. Congressmen ride or drive on Interstate Highways, paid for by federal and state governments. Only Superman can travel without using a government-operated system.
5
'American exceptionalism'? If it existed at all, it is certainly crumbling. No funding for transportation and other infrastructure, no funding for science, dismal health care delivery system, generally poor public education, increasingly out-of-reach higher education, increasing income inequality. Perhaps when elected officials drop their mantras and start seriously work on addressing the issues there may be substance to talking of 'American exceprtonalism'.
3
This year Congress allots 1.4 billion to passenger rail. China spends 129 billion.
Tell me again how we are "exceptional"? Exceptionally stupid I say.
Tell me again how we are "exceptional"? Exceptionally stupid I say.
284
well said. The issue is not to determine what needs to be done with the rail system. That is a fairly easy job. A railway network is always a public thing which then becomes a political issue. As long as the politicians are chain linked to the automotive industry you'll get those ignorant recommendations to mandate seat belts in trains. As if this would better anything. Smoke and mirrors in order to choke the railways to death.
18
This year Congress allots 1.4 billion to passenger rail and if I read the Wikipedia article on Yankee Stadium it states the $2.3 billion stadium, built with $1.2 billion in public subsidies.
Wow, just WOW.
Wow, just WOW.
5
The US has for decades ignored the success of rail systems in Europe, Japan and now China that are easily 50 years ahead in technology and construction. A crash program would inject billions of demand producing money and jobs into the economy and the results could be a truly impressive and uniquely American technological achievement. Moreover, it would show people that government has a role in the provision of public goods.
Which is why it will never happen.
Which is why it will never happen.
254
"A crash program ..."
We already have a crash program.
We already have a crash program.
2
With an efficient train system, the airlines could stop making seats smaller, with less leg room. I feel many,many travelers would prefer traveling by train than in the airlines cattle cars.
10
Contrary to the author's assertion, if we oblige railroads to handle both freight and passengers, the will do exactly what the airlines have done.
1
In this country we still think of the railroads in terms of 1890s images. I still remember during the TV coverage of the RFK funeral train in 1968, one of the anchors remarking about "this anachronism, spewing ashes along the track ..." - this about a train pulled by two streamlined 100-mph ELECTRIC locomotives. At least nothing said about choo-choo sounds.