Posted on 09/12/2009 7:19:53 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Passenger rail, Amtrak in particular, has been a conservative whipping boy for decades. This point of view needs serious re-examination, because national transportation strategy is an issue of US national competitiveness, and passenger rail has a significant role to play.
In short, the US has no transportation strategy, while the fragile air transportation network, decaying roads and bridges, crushing highway congestion, and wobbly urban transit systems only add cost and dysfunction to an already struggling economy. A major federal government role in building and maintaining significant national assets that make the country competitive is entirely consistent with conservative philosophy.
The 250-year economic miracle of the United States has been enabled, in no small part, by the unparalleled transportation capability first found and then built on this continent. It began with the remarkable St. Lawrence Seaway and the harbor-rich East Coast, without which the coastal colony system and its robust trade would have developed very differently. This was followed by the western expansion powered first by the Ohio River system and then by the Mississippi and Missouri river systems. Technical development linked with geography (river banks and plains) then drove the railroad economy, followed by highway and air, always in the international vanguard. Today we falter, as we idle in traffic on the way to the local home building supply store, and have little or no transportation advantage over other nations and geographies.
In the passenger transportation world, conservatives have lost their way with the libertarian mantra of "let the free market work," as though this absolves them of wrestling with the real details of real problems. Witness the chaos of the commercial airlines in the last 25 years, the 150-year boom-bust history of the railroads, and the gradual unwinding of major elements of the troubled British rail privatization.
There is something different about large-scale networks, their construction, and their maintenance. Another network example, outside of transportation, is the national power grid, which is a mess. Imagine trying to crunch a discounted cash flow justification, as a business analyst in one of our modern corporations, of a little project like the 100-year-old tunnels under the Hudson River, without which the East Coast couldn't function today. You would be laughed out of your first big-boss review meeting, because modern economic analysis can't recognize value past about 25 years.
Few realize that on a per-passenger basis, Amtrak has had less capital input than auto transportation nationally. All of the original equipment was made up of cast-off fleets from the commercial railroads -- much of the operation barely had a chance with poorly supported routes and aging railcars. Imagine what a huge Eisenhower-like build out, the hardly liberal highway program of the 1950's and 1960's, would have done for passenger rail at any point in the last 30 years. Any systems analyst will tell you that initial conditions make all the difference in the outcome of complex system performance -- serious early capital input would have changed everything for passenger rail in this country.
And for all the ubiquitous Amtrak bashing from the right, today the Northeast Corridor has captured over 60% of the combined air/rail market between New York and Washington, while gaining over 45% share of the Boston to New York corridor. The overall passenger transportation lane between San Diego and LA could not function today without Amtrak, at times rivaling the Northeast Corridor in total passengers, for short periods of time. And all of the demands for system profitability, historically made by Republicans, are nonsense -- the Amtrak network as a whole actually generates revenue relative to costs quite comparable to most other international passenger rail systems, and its overhead costs are some of the lowest in the passenger rail world, not something one would ever hear from the right. And the international passenger rail systems that claim profitability do so without including infrastructure maintenance costs, which is a political shell game set off two decades ago by the attempt to effectively privatize British Rail.
It is time to ask what has gone right with passenger rail, rather than just to dwell on what has gone wrong. William F. Buckley had some wonderful words that can be applied to conservative views on transportation issues.
"Conservatives pride themselves on resisting change, which is as it should be. But intelligent deference to tradition and stability can evolve into intellectual sloth and moral fanaticism, as when conservatives simply decline to look up from dogma because the effort to raise their heads and reconsider is too great."
With enormous stimulus funds flowing to transportation infrastructure and with 30% of the nation's energy spending driven by transportation, it is time that the Department of Transportation be appropriately organized and be held responsible for a genuine national transportation strategy. The DOT organization still exists in silos by modes -- the air people don't talk to the rail people; the rail people don't talk to the highway people, etc. There isn't even a passenger transportation model that can evaluate a key lane, say, DC to New York, and create a balanced air-rail-highway view.
There is much to be done. Too many airports still support massive airline travel, to their detriment, in 100- to 200-mile hops that should be rail-based. Major freight railroad lanes have capacity and could be used for 110 mph passenger rail travel -- several lanes between major Midwestern cities could be expanded for less than $1 billion each, a drop in the bucket relative to highway construction costs.
Financing and dedicated funding approaches need to be developed and politically progressed. A national pooled approach for equipment procurement needs to be developed, combining transit and inter-city passenger rail needs. A national approach to decaying passenger train stations needs to be developed. The list goes on.
While a tremendous amount of thoughtful work needs to be done, philosophically this is not difficult. We know where the passengers are; we don't need free market magic to tell us this. We also know where existing rail beds, mountain passes, riverbanks, remaining open urban corridors, bridges, appropriate grades, remaining tunnel opportunities, bumper-to-bumper highways, jammed-up airports, and all the other current transportation congestion points are, regardless of mode.
It is entirely appropriate for the federal government to create a detailed national passenger transportation plan and then to work with local, state, federal, and private sector entities to realize the proposed networks.
Conservatives should make this issue theirs. There are, no doubt, large political pitfalls with earmarks and bridges-to- nowhere, but that can always be an excuse to do nothing. The current approach of the right, basically ignoring the national competitiveness implications of transportation and the related energy issues, is an abdication of responsibility.
-- Alex Kummant was formerly president of Amtrak.
Does he not get we want a new tax system (Flat or fair, let the debate begin) that won't have time for national rale? Please so many programs and Dept will have to be cut by 30% or eliminated just to get us back to balance let alone make the entitlements whole.
I would do one R& D program only. Revisit Dr. Byrik's oil-free/Un-Cooled Adiabatic engine (yes the early 80's TACOM in MI, 48% thermal efficiencies). Do your homework, way cool stuff....
And when there's a megalopolis from New York to Rio Linda, CA and from Houston to Bismark, ND that demands it, we can talk. Otherwise it's just another taxpayer funded, gubmin't mismanaged money pit. Besides, if it had such profitable potential, it would have be privately capitalized again by now.
be = been
They already are,AMTRAC,hows that going?
On a different but related note — Do you favor Federal funding for NASA ?
Should it have been the government’s role to fund a project that sent man to the moon ( remember the space race with Russia ?).
It was argued that with the moon landing project, several technologies that benefited humanity became available.
Here is just a list :
http://www.spacecoalition.com/products.cfm
I've ridden many European railways more times than I can count, and by and large, they are nice, especially in France. However, everyone gets taxed a lot at the pump to pay for it. I remember some years back, I could take a train in Spain for some embarrassingly small amount of money. I just took some trains this spring, and they're not cheap now. The gas taxes are still outrageous, though. So what happened? Well, near as I can figure, gas taxes subsidized rail, but the politicians figured out that people were willing to pay a competitive rate to ride the train.
If you're a European not living in a big city, you really get hosed. You pay $7 per gallon for gas, and you can't use the public transportation much. The same thing would happen here.
This author is like a lot of know-it-alls. He thinks it's a good idea, and therefore it is. He needs to learn a lot more.
Used to be the Alaska railroad was Federal.
Lost money big time
So, the TStae bought, dumped lot of folls and ran it.
It lost a lot of money, so the State made it a sorta-public, sorta private (like the postal service) - it broke even by selling gravel from the right of way and hauling fuel from Squarebanks to anchorage in long tanker car trains.
Still loosing money, but not that much. They just announced another 20% layoff of the work force.
No conductors, no fireman, just an engineer and brakeman.
Maybe 200 years of history (and Union featherbedding) might be part of the problem.
Or not.
Use the railroads to move freight. Take trucks off the roads.
Cal coast and NE corridor are dedicated lines and densely populated enough to succeed.
Less trucks would also improve safety with the new lighter smaller cars.
In other words, Amtrak loses money, but not at the same rate as some passenger rail systems.
Apparently the author believes that passenger rail systems are incapable of earning a profit. That is not a ringing endorsement of the concept.
Let’s not forget that the government centalized the jobs in DC when spreading them out would have been cheaper and continues to do so, and that the NE Corridor was built 150 years ago and can’t afford to maintain its own infrastucture as it is. The obvious answer is to disperse these centers of office employment to cheaper locals rather than to continually pour money from the wealth creators into them.
NASA is pure experimental research. It’s not expected to generate cash flow to cover costs. If there are commercial benefits, then all to the good, but if not, then there is no disappointment. Supplying services to the general public is much different. If it can’t make money, it must not be the most efficient use of resources. I understand the distortions of the market caused by subsidies for road and airport construction and rail right-of-ways, but would more people fly or take the train if everything was market-based?
Yes, with limits.
Break the railroad unions and get back to me!
Nice try, but no stogie. The highway system is self-funded through fuel taxes. The Amtrak funding comes from outside rail revenues.
Are trains protected against an EMP attack? If not, let’s fix that problem first.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.