The Public Gets It: Trains are Underfunded

Written By Malcolm Kenton

The New York Times published a positive story yesterday on how Amtrak has overtaken airline shuttles as the preferred method of travel between New York and Boston, Philadelphia and Washington over the past decade, thanks to “high [air]fares, slow airport security and frequent flight delays — along with Amtrak’s high-speed Acela trains, online ticketing and workstation amenities.”

It also noted that the Northeast’s growing population means that rail capacity will need to expand in order for the region to remain the most prosperous in the country. But the challenge ahead for train advocates, in the face of strong political opposition, is clearly laid before us:

But success is taking a toll. Most days, trains in the Northeast are full. Several locomotives and railcars are 30 years old or more. Aging rails, bridges and tunnels hold down top speeds and limit expansion of the network.

Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), a long-time champion of passenger trains (he won NARP’s Golden Spike Award in 1988), made a statement yesterday that shows that he understands what the real issues are. Romney “clearly doesn’t understand” the role passenger trains play in keeping the Northeast a livable region, Lautenberg said. He also criticized his own state’s Governor, Chris Christie (R), for cancelling a planned rail tunnel under the Hudson River (NARP had serious concerns with how the original tunnel project was carried out, but we remain committed to expanding and enhancing trans-Hudson rail capacity that benefits both intercity and commuter train passengers.)

We at NARP were heartened by the many thoughtful comments readers posted to the Times article, many of which praised Amtrak, even in its undercapitalized state, in comparison with the decidedly unpleasant experience that is air travel these days. We were disappointed, though, to see a fair number of commenters with a misunderstanding of Amtrak’s overnight national-network trains and the role they play in connecting our country and providing a key travel choice to areas that have few others. Here is a sampling of particularly insightful comments:

Dave from Atlanta: If we are going to have a decent rail system we must spend some money. The alternative is more travel agony and increasing dependence on fossil fuels, with all its trappings and more of the same...is there somebody in Washington with the vision and foresight to get a reliable rail system built in this country?

LT: I hate reading a story about the money spent by the federal government on rail programs without seeing similar statistics about what we spend on airports and roads. The way the data are presented in this story are misleading and make it seem like air and car travel aren't also heavily subsidized, to an even greater degree than rail travel, by the federal government. The under-investment in rail relative to air and car travel is ludicrous, bad for the economy, and bad for the environment.

Eric: Turning a profit is not the only way to judge whether an enterprise is a success, especially one that is for the common good - like health-chare [sp] and transportation. Amtrak ridership is way up in the Northeast - hardly sounds like a failure.

Carlo from Miami: Not only would [high-speed rail] revolutionize the way we travel, it would create thousands of jobs. We have the ability to fast track this means of travel, so much so that within a few years we could have a nationwide system similar to our interstate highway system. This should be a priority item with enormous economic benefits.

Lonely Pedant from Dallas/Fort Worth: It doesn't take a [business] school case study to understand that aging trains, broken seats and frequent track repairs are all signs of severe undercapitalization, which naturally results in high operating expenses. Clear the $6 billion backlog mentioned in the article, and you make a huge dent in those expenses.

Matt Nousak from Geneva, OH: AMTRAK lost $1.2 billion last year? Yes they did, but they also spent billions on maintenance and repair of their roadway that the trucking, air and shipping businesses don't have to bother with.

RDG from Cincinnati: Part of their argument against passenger rail is that we don’t have the density that Europe does. Actually we do. Draw a line from Milwaukee to St. Louis and then draw lines form those towns to the Atlantic Coast. There's your European density. (let's also not forget the Florida, Texas and Californian possibilities).

Zartan from Washington, DC: The most infuriating argument against government investment in rail is that it will never be profitable. How profitable is the Interstate highway system? According to the Congressional Budget Office, we spend about $150B a year on highway maintenance! I cannot fathom why reasonable people don't immediately recognize the parallel between spending on rail and road infrastructure, demanding "profit" from rail but never noting how wildly "unprofitable" roads are.

June from Seattle: I ride Amtrak trains frequently between Seattle and Portland, OR - the "Cascades" route. It's a beautiful ride, convenient, downtown to downtown train stations. Wifi and good cell phone coverage virtually the entire route. Flying is a big hassle and not much of a time saver door to door.

Judy from New York City: Door to door, [the train] takes pretty much the same amount of time as flying, but it is cheaper and much more pleasant. It is not a humiliating ordeal like flying has become. There should be a much wider network of trains transporting people in this country. It is a much healthier alternative, both for the environment and for mental sanity.

Howard from Iowa: How about Amtrack [sp] for the rest of the country. We need high speed travel from New Orleans to Mpls and from Mpls to Chicago and from Denver to Kansas City to Desmoines and ......

Dave from Longmont, CO: At one time this country had a very efficient passenger rail system. All one had to do is get to the nearest train station; they had access to the whole nation. Trains, then, were like rolling hotels, and offer opportunities to meet new people along the way. Not to mention watching the the world go by right out your window. One would think, as we exhaust fossil fuels, an electrified national train system would be a priority. ... So much for a nation of visionaries.