Poll: Is Passenger Rail Service Important To America’s Future?
Passenger rail service, Amtrak, is a topic in the 2012 elections. Republican candidates vow to remove federal funding from Amtrak as ridership is increasing and stimulus funding is updating infrastructure. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 has invested billions in our national railroad infrastructure, working toward improved rail service for passengers and transporting goods.
Between New York and Washington, Amtrak said, 75 percent of travelers go by train, a huge share that has been building steadily since the Acela was introduced in 2000 and airport security was tightened after 2001. Before that, Amtrak had just over a third of the business between New York and Washington.
In the same period, Amtrak said, its market share between New York and Boston grew to 54 percent from 20 percent.
Nationally, Amtrak ridership is at a record 30 million people; the Northeast accounts for more than a third of that and is virtually the only portion of Amtrak’s system that makes money. (Frustrations of Air Travel Push Passengers to Amtrak)
I’ve taken numerous trips via Amtrak in the last few years and think it’s a great way to travel. No form of transit is without subsidy, we subsidize all other forms of travel.
Which brings us to the poll question this week: is passenger rail service important to America’s future? The poll is located in the right sidebar.
— Steve Patterson
Trains are great in or between dense regions, and terrible in rural regions. That is inevitable because tracks and stations are expensive (buses/cars travel on preexisting roads) and a multi-carriage train uses more fuel than a single road vehicle, but the train has much higher capacity than any road vehicle, and (with HSR) can be much more convenient.
There is absolutely no reason Amtrak should run trains from Chicago to Williston, North Dakota – that is simply a gigantic waste of taxpayer money. All transportation is subsidized a little (except some HSR systems which make a profit, like Amtrak in the Northeast) but not this much. The train to Williston is no more justified than Sarah Palin’s bridge to nowhere.
However, in regions like the Northeast, California, and Midwest, the train should be by far the best method for intercity travel. Should be, because it has received little investment and is therefore inferior (typically less reliable, more expensive, and not much faster) to buses in all three regions. It needs heavy investment but the returns will be even higher.
Normal IL is good for rail despite being rural because: 1) It is on the preexisting CHI-STL route, its passengers go to major urban centers 2) it has a large university and college students are highly disproportionate longer-distance commuters.
For me (and probably many others) intercity passenger rail, especially as it is currently configured (Amtrak), is not a very attractive option. For shorter trips, like the one my wife and I just took to Kansas City, driving was/is a much more attractive option, since we didn’t/don’t need to need to buy two separate tickets, deal with the TSA, worry about schedules or missed connections, have to arrange for a rental car or public transit once we arrive(d) and the door-to-door travel times were/are similar (assuming a direct rail routing or non-stop fight is even available). For longer trips, like from here to Tampa (gateway to one of our favorite vacation spots), flying is a much, much more attractive option – less than 3 hours on Southwest Airlines versus 54+ hours (!) via Amtrak (STL>CHI>WAS>ORL by train, then by bus to TPA!) Why would we want to leave here at 8 am on a Saturday and not get to Tampa until 3:30 on a Monday afternoon?! Leave Tampa at 10:40 am on a Friday to arrive back here at 7:30 pm on a Sunday?! 4 nights on the beach (via train) versus 8 nights (via air)?! Yes, IN THEORY, we could create a nationwide web of high speed rail lines. The question is why? With the exception of the northeast (and especially in the Midwest heartland), the interstates, the airlines and Greyhound seem to have things very well covered. And just because it makes sense between Washington and Boston, doesn’t mean that it makes any sense, at all, elsewhere in the country . . .
Amtrak is great for short trips, I’ve done two to Kansas City. No need to rent a car, no need to be concerned with the price of gas, no need to worry about traffic congestion, no need to worry about raking. I arrive. In KC, go out the door of their Union Station, catch the bus which takes me to my hotel. I’ve driven to KC many times over the years but I’ve seen so much more the last two trips because I didn’t drive.
One size does not fit all. Traveling solo (one ticket) is different than traveling as a couple (two tickets, twice the cost) or a family (three or more tickets). It doesn’t matter if it’s by bus, train or airplane, but it does matter if you’re driving your own vehicle. Time is also an issue. If you’re independently wealthy, retired and/or have some other form(s) of non-employment income, time is less of an issue. If you work for someone else, time off is usually limited and precious. Life is full of choices, some clear cut, some not. What works best for you is not necessarily the best or only answer.
Trains have a place in America’s transportation ecosystem, especially in the northeast. Still, the question is not how to maximize expenditures on rail, the question is how to best allocate limited resources, among all modes of travel. We know that taxpayers are paying for 2/3 of Metro’s operating costs, on top of paying for the roads that their buses operate on. What level of subsidy does Amtrak receive in Missouri? (I know there’s a state subsidy in addition to the federal subsidies.) Based on some quick research, from wikipedia, the federal subsidies are already significantly higher for Amtrak than other modes of travel:
“Until 1966, most U.S. Postal Service mail was transported on passenger trains. The mail contracts kept most passenger trains economically viable. In 1966, the U.S. Postal Service switched to trucks and airplanes, and passenger trains no longer had mail as a source of revenue.”
“According to the DOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics, rail and mass transit are considerably more subsidized on a per passenger-mile basis by the federal government than other forms of transportation; the subsidy varies year to year, but exceeds $100 dollars (in 2000 dollars) per thousand passenger-miles, compared to subsidies around $10 per thousand passenger-miles for aviation (with general aviation subsidized considerably more per passenger-mile than commercial aviation), subsidies around $4 per thousand passenger-miles for intercity buses, and automobiles being a small net contributor through the gas tax and other user fees rather than being subsidized. On a total subsidy basis, aviation, with many more passenger-miles per year, is subsidized at a similar level to Amtrak.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2009-10-27-amtrak-passenger-subsidies_N.htm
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/transportation/amtrak/subsidies
With regard to a more “immediate future” I think passenger rail is still important, even though I myself have never had an opportunity to use it in the states (though I’ve used high-speed rail in other countries).
However, while I’d still vote “YES” on anything that supports passenger rail, with regard to a future defined by trends in technology and what’s expected to emerge in the next few years – I have this suspicion that autonomous vehicle technology is going to fundamentally change the way we travel both locally and abroad. When the majority of vehicles on the road are autonomous (whether those take the form of single passenger pods, or larger capacity units), and the majority of us no longer have the need to “OWN” a vehcile – autonomous vehicles will be able to travel as fast ( or faster) and more efficiently than almost any present form of transportation.
I don’t know how long it will take for autonomous vehicles to replace the majority of vehicles on the road, but I suspect it will be faster than we think. At that point – I see passenger rail’s relevance (unless it can be offered at incredibly competitive rates) waining. Had we not fallen so far behind the rest of the world with regard to high-speed passenger rail, this may not be the case. But if we fail to develop high-speed rail networks – I can’t see passenger rail remaining relavent in the age of vehicle autonomy.
High speed rail will still be relevant. Downtown Chicago to Downtown St Louis will always take 5+ hours by car (self-driven or human-driven) and 3+ hours by plane. It could easily take under two hours by rail.
I agree that high-speed rail would continue to be relavent, and at 250+ mph will for the foreseeable future be significantly faster than speeds capable in commercially available vehicles. But I still believe that depends on it getting built in the first place, and whether or not its construction preempts the day when non-commercial drivers licences are no longer available to average citizens. And I should add that I am in every way a supporter of high-speed rail.
I’d disagree, however, regarding long-distance transportation times. 60-70mph speed limits exist on freeways because of human limitations and congestion, not mechanical limitations. When the human factor is eliminated entirely (and eventually it will be), and congestion is no longer an issue (which will be the byproduct of vehicle autonomy), speed can increase dramatically on non-urban roadways. At 120mph, a reasonable speed to achieve in autonomous vehicles, the trip between St. Louis and Chicago could easily take under 2 1/2 hours.
When you consider that, especially if it comes prior to the construction of a high-speed rial line between pointA and pointB, I think the relevance and benefit of high-speed rail will come into question.
I ride Amtrak often, mostly to Central Illinois. The Normal station pictured above was just moved to a much improved building across the tracks.
Oil won’t last us forever, and even while supply remains, much of the petroleum left is unfeasible to extract, as it would take more energy to drill than the oil itself would produce. We need an alternative infrastructure in place for when fuel prices make widespread, long distance auto and air travel too costly, or if Americans wake up, we decide that driving isn’t worth a continued increase in the rate of climate change. Rail is it.
Amtrak is slow largely because it shares trackage with the freight companies, who own the track but are required to give Amtrak precedence over their own trains as a condition of having allowed them to discontinue their own passenger service in the seventies. Union Pacific owns the tracks to Chicago and KC; their attitude seems to be that holding up Amtrak so freight trains can pass, then paying Amtrak a fee (when caught) is more profitable than yielding. The 2009 Recovery Act paid UP to upgrade their tracks through Illinois to facilitate high speed rail, yet when I traveled from Alton to STL and back last week, my train crawled along the slow tracks with wooden ties. On the way back my train stopped to wait for clearance to change tracks because, we were told, of a malfunctioning signal. We remained stuck for nearly a half hour.
Simply put, we need to invest in our own trackage. Plenty of derelict ROW exists that could be rebuilt to high speed standards. The freight companies have spent years abandoning some lines, not maintaining others (limiting train speeds), even sometimes converting double trackage to single, as the Illinois Central did in the late eighties. Now we have heavier freight traffic than we’ve seen in years, combined with a reduced infrastructure. Amtrak gets crimped.
If we build and improve the service, passenger loads will follow, especially as gas prices increase. Problem is, this holds for freight as well. When rail companies ran their own passenger service, they had incentives to run their trains on time. Amtrak needs dedicated lines to maintain efficiency. That means funding.
The short answer is of course America must develop its passenger rail service, and also its mass transit in cities and regions to complement that rail service.
We are kidding ourselves it seems. No matter what everyone thinks, oil is almost gone, we are into deep water drilling and extracting oil from tar sands right now. (Nothing left for our great grand children).
Then there is global warming, which is very real and ongoing. Yet Steve you have to ask the question if rail service is important. That is what I find to be unbelievable.
Building a higher quality of life is one reason to invest in rail and transit. Anyone who has been to transit friendly cities, countries or regions understands that using transit can be a joy, or at least a very useful and a practical alternative to the auto.
JZ suggests he needs an auto in KC. That is the exact problem, regional and urban transit are spotty and often ineffective. All of this is due to policy decisions and media propaganda that push Americans away from using transit.
No doubt it is to a large degree auto companies and especially oil interests that keep American policy at odds, rejecting transit solutions that have been so effective in Europe, Japan and many other parts of the world.
The real question is whether oil interests will succeed in their complete snow job of the American people. At least until catastrophe is inevitable.
The reason why I and most other people “need” a car in Kansas City, here and pretty much anywhere else in America is not directly related to transit (or a lack thereof), it’s directly related to a lack of density. As a nation, we have chosen, and continue, to choose low-density development, for the vast majority of our residential, employment, education and entertainment uses. We like our space, and the only effective way to serve that space is with individual vehicles. Transit, especially one that employs fixed guideways, only works well when there is density to support it. We can build high-speed rail between here and Chicago, here and Kansas City, here and Memphis and/or here and Branson, but at what cost? We can extend Metrolink down to South County Mall or Arnold, out to Chesterfield or Florissant or Ferguson, but how many riders will we attract? I don’t mind walking or biking or using public transit WHEN IT WORKS, but I’m not going to accept door-to-door travel times that are 3 or 4 (or 10) times longer (and many times, more expensive) just because “it’s the right thing to do”. I’m not going to limit my ability to explore a different city or area to just those areas served by public transit. Life is full of choices. I choose whichever option works best for any particular situation.
Spoken like a true American, I got mine so screw the planet and the future of humanity.
I guess you have never been to a city with a transit system that is as effective as automobile travel.
Density does not preclude a high quality lifestyle It is the policy snow job foisted on the American people that turns transit into an either/or decision.
I agree, “Density does not preclude a high-quality lifestyle.” But when it comes down to which comes first, density or transit, density is more important. We can spend a bunch of money on transit in a highly auto-centric region or we can spend money on creating denser developments around our existing, limited transit system. My vote would be to create (and invest in) density first.
We must do both, rebuilding denser around existing transit infrastructure AND rebuilding autocentric areas denser with better transit.
Poll: 3 of 4 Americans want more public transit options: http://www.metro-magazine.com/News/Story/2012/09/Poll-3-of-4-Americans-want-more-public-transit-options.aspx?ref=Express-Thursday-20120913&utm_source=Email&utm_medium=Enewsletter
Proof we need to step up our investment in transit with improved bus & rail options rather than continually subsidizing the private auto.