Fast Train to Nowhere

The New York Times ^ | August 16, 2002 | editorial

[Willie Green]

For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.

David Gunn, the man credited with turning around the New York City subway system in the 1980's, has found an equally daunting challenge. Amtrak, which he has led since May, seems to have cornered the market on self-inflicted debacles this year. Just as passenger rail traffic was soaring in the wake of the Sept. 11 airliner hijackings, Amtrak suffered two nasty derailments and the sidelining of its brand-new fleet of high-speed trains. The setbacks, coming at a time when the railroad's future hinges on an upcoming budget showdown in Congress, are serious, and sorely test the patience of even the most fervent supporters of rail travel. But it would be a mistake for the country to give up on the development of a smoothly running passenger rail system to relieve transportation congestion on the East and West Coasts.

Cracks that were discovered this week in the suspension systems of high-speed Acela Express locomotives forced Amtrak to suspend use of its newest trains in the Northeast Corridor. The popularity of the Acela, which debuted in late 2000, has shown that there is a strong demand for competitive passenger rail. Even though antiquated tracks along the Washington-Boston run rarely allow the Acela to reach its optimal speed of 150 m.p.h., the sleek trains, for which passengers pay a hefty premium, helped Amtrak gain market share from airline shuttles while earning an operating profit in the Northeast Corridor.

Unhappily, the Acela, developed for Amtrak by Bombardier Transportation of Canada, has been plagued by production delays and design flaws. The first of 20 sets of trains ordered by Amtrak in 1996 for $700 million was delivered more than a year behind schedule. Since then, recurring mechanical problems have afflicted everything from electrical systems to bathroom doors.

It is not yet clear whether temporary repairs to the cracks on the Acela locomotives' wheel sets being proposed by Bombardier will allow the trains to resume service in a matter of days, or weeks. What is clear is that Amtrak and Bombardier should work together to address all design flaws, and do so quickly.

As the Acela's problems rekindle questions about the competence of Amtrak, they also underscore important truths for Congress to consider as it grapples with the future of passenger rail operations in America. The first is that we are seeing the consequences of inadequate investment in rail infrastructure. Congress and Amtrak's previous management subscribed to the fiction that unlike any other railroad in the world, or any other form of transportation in this country, passenger train service in the United States could become self-sufficient.

Congress withheld needed capital investment as Amtrak hustled to meet its 2003 operating deadline to attain self-sufficiency. The Acela project was Amtrak's great last hope in this illusory quest. Although consumers viewed it as an improvement over existing trains, there was always a make-believe quality to the notion that high-speed train service could be delivered on a sustained basis with an aging track bed and other outdated equipment.

Mr. Gunn is making necessary changes at Amtrak, and he should be given a chance to make the railroad more efficient. He will be unable to do so if he has to beg Congress for money every few months. An organization whose near-term future is constantly in doubt, and is held hostage to the political tides, cannot possibly flourish. Congress and the White House need to provide Amtrak with an adequate operating budget.

They must also establish a permanent, dedicated source of funding for rail infrastructure — principally to build designated high-speed corridors across the country — akin to the trust funds that pay for highways and aviation projects. Once that is accomplished, passenger rail need not be synonymous with Amtrak. Private train operators may eventually be allowed to compete on certain routes, a scenario that will become increasingly attractive if Amtrak cannot improve its record.

[Willie Green]

What is High Speed Ground Transportation?

High-speed ground transportation (HSGT)-- a family of technologies ranging from upgraded existing railroads to magnetically levitated vehicles-- is a passenger transportation option that can best link cities lying about 100-500 miles apart. Common in Europe ( The European Railway Server) and Japan (Japan Railways),HSGT in the United States already exists in the Northeast Corridor (Amtrak) between New York and Washington, D.C. and will soon serve travelers between New York and Boston. 

HSGT is self-guided intercity passenger ground transportation that is time competitive with air and/or auto on a door-to-door basis for trips in the approximate range of 100 to 500 miles. This is market-based, not a speed based definition. It recognizes that the opportunities and requirements for HSGT differ markedly among different pairs of cities. High-speed ground transportation (HSGT) is a family of technologies ranging from upgraded steel-wheel-on-rail railroads to magnetically levitated vehicles.

The Federal Railroad Administration has designated a variety of high density transportation corridors within our nation for development of HSGT:

.

For more information, please visit the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA’s) High Speed Ground Transportation Website

[Willie Green]

index bump

[Publius]

An excellent case was made for the idea of a Rail Trust Fund -- by Gil Carmichael, former (Republican) mayor of Meridian, Mississippi and Chairman of the Amtrak Reform Council. Click Rail: The Case for "Interstate II" for text.

[Willie Green]

Thanks for the link.
A rail trust fund, similar to the highway trust fund, makes good sense to me!

[Sam Cree]

Hi Willie,

I suppose congress will continue underfunding Amtrak indefinitely, letting it operate in its usual haphazard and inefficient manner, rather than let it die.

What do you think lies in its future?

[Publius]

There was a passenger rail thread last night that went into detail about how the Class I's could take back passenger service by buying out Amtrak and running it themselves. I got into a brawl with yet another FReeper who thinks that highways pay for themselves via gas taxes. Click here for my long pedantic response.

[Publius]

Sam, click here for an article about how the Class I railroads could run Amtrak on their own. It's a keeper.

[arthurus]

The government should get out of the business and

Let the Market Decide !

[GaltMeister]

Where's Dagny Taggert when we need her?

[Sam Cree]

Okay, I read the article, thank you (and your response to the other freeper). Am I understanding correctly that the tax credits, combined with the "trailer train" model are supposed to allow the railroad companies to make money?

And do you really think there is a possibility for profit with this model? If so, it would be a great thing because, IMO, one of Amtrak's main problems is that they repond to politics instead of the market. I truly love riding Amtrak's long distance trains, though I think they make a hash out of most aspects of their business.

I have a guess (though Willie disagrees with me here I think) that unions are one of the main obstacles to profitable passenger train operation. However I'm not optomistic about solving that particular problem, as in the past, unions have often preferred to see the demise of the employers (and all the jobs with them) rather than change their demands.

[Publius]

Up until 1968, the long distance passenger trains made a (small) profit because they were supported by carrying the US Mail and something known as "express", which is railroad-speak for "less than carload freight". In that fateful year, the Post Office put mail on airplanes, thus subsidizing them, and the railroads began to agitate seriously for shutting down the passenger trains.

In 1997, Amtrak got some mail service back and launched an effort to get express business, which failed ignominiously except for a few cases. In a meeting with Amtrak Mail & Express people early in 2000 I told them up front that they weren't going to make it because they were bureaucrats being told to act like entrepreneurs, and they didn't know the first thing about entrepreneurship. I got a lot of black looks that day, but I was right.

One thing that worked was the Washington Fruit Express. Growers in Eastern Washington couldn't get enough trucks to haul apples, pears, potatoes and onions back East. So the Washington State Dept. of Transportation, courtesy of the state legislature, came up with some seed capital to permit the growers to buy old refrigerator cars, and those cars are now hauled on the back of the Empire Builder to Chicago. From there the Three Rivers carries them to New York where they end up at the Hunts Point produce terminal in Brooklyn.

(The Union Pacific took notice and started a produce train that runs from the San Joaquin Valley of California to Hunts Point in an arrangement with the CSX. At Chicago, the transfer is made rapidly because the CSX crew takes the whole train with UP locomotives to Brooklyn. Now the BNSF is getting interested.)

From the growers' perspective, the two Amtrak trains are now just "hot freights". This is a model for a successful free-market passenger train system. The new Amtrak, owned by the Class I's, makes its money carrying mail and express by operating "hot freights" with passenger cars attached. Certainly, the Class I's know how to solicit business properly, something government-Amtrak never figured out.

And you can be sure the Class I's would treat passengers better.

[Sam Cree]

"The new Amtrak, owned by the Class I's, makes its money carrying mail and express by operating "hot freights" with passenger cars attached. "

But where is the motivation for attaching the passenger cars? Will tax credits actually be enough? Forgive me if I'm being dense.

And you can be sure the Class I's would treat passengers better."

That would be a pleasant change. Amtrak personnel sometimes act like the passengers are beside the point, although many of them are very nice.

How do you happen to meet with these folks, if I'm allowed to ask?

[Publius]

Tax credits will suffice, although if you got the presidents of the Class I's in the same room, they'd probably prefer cash and a lot more deregulation. But it can be negotiated.

Most of the Class I's have a philosophy that goes, "We'll give you anything you want as long as we don't have to pay for it."

[Publius]

Did the market decide when Presidents Madison and Jackson spent federal largesse on building roads and canals?

Did the market decide when Presidents Lincoln and Grant subsidized railroads?

Did the market decide when President Eisenhower launched the greatest socialist project of the 20th Century -- the interstate highways?

Government has subsidized transportation almost since the Founding of the Republic. The market has never decided anything in the world of American transportation. First it was roads and canals, then railroads, then highways and airports. Now it's rail's turn again.