Why is that a Democratic ideal? Republicans have pushed to expand highway and air subsidies for years

In fact, I’ve gotta drive up to Charlottesville from Virginia Beach tomorrow morning. Won’t THAT be fun.

For some reason (probably to go against his father, the raging green liberal), he was a Republican, but would speak his mind in support of Dems if they supported Amtrak and regional railroad, and trash Reps if they were against funding for RR.

He also, with 2 friends at the time, bought abandoned trolley track and several trolleys in the late 40’s and founded the CT Trolley Museum (www.cera.org), and I was fortunate enough to ride with him some days when he was a volunteer conductor.

I also took many long “rail and tie inspection” walks with him on stretches of rail in Bristol, Terryville, Southington and Plainville, CT. There is a great tunnel in Terryville that seemed like a mile long to me as a kid, but is probably more like .2 miles. It was very exciting to walk through that, and “the light at the end of a long tunnel” is very visual to me from those memories.

I also had a great experience (and a great deal) riding Amtrak from New Haven to Gainesville, GA to start the AT in 1994. We had two unanticipated stops in the Carolinas to drop off heart-attack victims. Less dramatic than an airplane diversion, but still interesting.

I was never into trains like my grandfather, although several of my cousins share his enthusiasm. I feel somewhat guilty about that lack of shared interest. I do, however, know that mass transit by rail is the best way to go for the environment and for the good of responsible urban planning. How cool are the French and the Japanese for having mag-lev and bullet trains!

We need to lay more track.

Expanding passenger service on existing lines without ramping up carrying capacity (i.e., dropping more rail) will do two things:

1. Clog up the system, same as any infrastructural system that suddenly sees a substantial boost in usage without a reciprocal expansion of capacity.

2. Make every interstate in the country into I-81.

Waldo, you mention the Europe comparison, but that’s what brings me to my point. In Germany, where I now live, there is far more truck traffic on the highways, because so much of the rail capacity is dedicated to passenger rail. Don’t get me wrong, the passenger rail is generally pretty good, and hey, you can now get from Mannheim to Koeln in 1.5hrs., if all goes as it should — none too shabby. Still, as justified as the image of the “anal-retentive, detail-oriented, fastidious, efficient German” may be, it doesn’t really apply to the trains, esp. not since Deutsche Bahn has been privatized (which was supposed to solve the efficiency problems; all it did was make the same problems more expensive). Trains are frequently delayed, there are all-too-frequent problems, and more than once have I gotten the dreaded “Faellt Aus” with no explanation.

Here, meaning VA, by comparison, there is substantially less truck traffic on the interstates relative to the Autobahn because the rail network is almost exclusively dedicated to cargo.

I love commuting by rail in Germany, and I don’t mind traveling by rail there, either. I’ve done some rail travel here — an up-and-back from Virginia Beach to New York for a concert, a weekend trip from East Lansing to Charlottesville and back via Amtrak, that sort of thing — and it’s … not comparable.

I love the idea of rail, but if it’s going to work, it’s going to take a real commitment — because the first step is unjustifiable: you have to lay more track before even thinking about adding more trains.

When you consider that passenger rail can get its customers from downtown-to-downtown, while those who fly must get to an airport on the fringes of a metro area, arrive hours early to go through security, fly to a destination, wait around for luggage, and then possibly be transported to a city or suburb far from the airport–rail often wins any real-world speed competition in the 300-miles-or-less range.

As for further distances, passenger rail has an appeal not measured in speed, but in civility. There is a market for long-distance train travel, and it can co-exist nicely with the short- and medium-distance markets.

The key is frequency and reliability. The path to that is a dedicated 1.5 to 2 cents per gallon from the Federal gas tax that now goes to the Highway Trust Lobby, er, Fund. That, would provide a constant, reliable source for supplementing a robust passenger rail infrastructure.

While we lament the fact that Amtrak carries a tiny fraction of the ridership of European rail, we should take some solace in the fact that our freight carriers (CSX and Norfolk Southern here in Virginia) are (a) profitable, (b) highly efficient, and (c) willing to invest in expanded capacity. Our freight railroads take a lot of tractor-trailers off our highways.

The downsize of a super-efficient freight railroad system is that U.S. freight trains generally have priority over passenger trains and commuter rail. No question, that’s a problem for passenger rail. It would be really nice if we could build parallel rail lines so the two modes didn’t conflict. But the cost does have to be considered. Right-of-way acquisition would be enormously expensive, as would be the cost of building and maintaining new rail beds, tracks and stations.

As I understand it, there are additional challenges. Our railroads are built for slower speeds than European/Japanese rail lines. We can’t run Bullet trains in the U.S. — passenger rail would never be as fast as in Europe/Japan. In theory, we could straighten out the lines so the passenger trains could run faster, but that, too, would be enormously expensive.

As air routes become increasingly congested and air fares escalate due to higher costs for aviation fuel, people will look increasingly to the inter-city rail option. We need to keep the rail option on the table, but we also have to be realistic about the costs involved.

The key will be fast, frequent reliable service. Many states have tried putting together similar intrastate routes but almost all made one big mistake–they only offered one or at most two trains per day in each direction. That’s not the way to change public behavior in any meaningful way. The train needs to run at least six times per day, each way, at user-friendly times–and be reliable and affordable.

When this happens, people see the train as a real travel option. They need the ability to catch that train morning, mid-day, late day, and evening.

OK, since that is unreasonable, how about subsidizing rail just as much as we already subsidize roads?

There are some pretty good books out there about how the US Auto Industry bought up and destroyed many light rail and trolley car systems around the country to make private cars sell better. We need to effectively reverse that predatory marketing today.

Another way is to simply insist on environmental impact studies for every parking lot.
When parking becomes so outrageously expensive that taking your car along is not an option, rail becomes economically viable. Took a recent trip into New York City for the a long weekend and overnight parking rates inspired us to take the train; which turned out to be a pretty good deal. Cost of gas was no big deal (I have a Prius), but the hassles of parking and the cost of parking were the proverbial straws…

I rarely drive into DC anymore because the local police use parking fines as an auxiliary revenue generator. So we park way out and Metrobus or Metrorail in. Saves hassles, pollutes less, and we get to meet people besides. In DC private parking is affordable, but traffic tickets and parking tickets (for street parking) cover a whole lot of Metro bus/rail rides.

The plan is heavy on freight improvements and intermodal to get trucks off the road. There are passenger rail plans but mostly for the NoVa and HR regions. There is little here for rural drivers paying high fuel prices.

Passenger rail, when operated with modern, efficient rolling stock over well maintained tracks not overloaded with freight trains can and has proven to be the best method of moving people between cities while serving smaller markets in between. Amtrak has had brief periods throughout its 37-year history when it has done this well enough to earn a grade of B on many days and even an occasional A.

But most of its history has been mired in robbing Peter to pay Paul, not focusing on a solid business plan or serving the public adequately. Sometimes the blame can be shared between poor Amtrak managers and the legislative and/or executive branches of government. Sometimes even the best Amtrak management couldn’t get the job done because of obstinate politicians hell-bent on destroying Amtrak to further their own careers. George W. Bush and John McCain are two of the worst offenders in this regard.

Amtrak had its best President ever in David Gunn in the early part of this decade. Following a relentless agenda to kill Amtrak, the Bush braintrust gradually took over the Amtrak board and fired him in 2005, replacing him with David Hughes, an interim political hack most akin to “Brownie” of Katrina fame. The current Amtrak President, Alexander Kummant, is not nearly as qualified as Gunn was nor as dedicated to the long-term success of passenger rail but he is an improvement over Hughes.

The biggest hinderances to Amtrak succeeding like railroads in most other nations are:

1) Deferred mainenance of rolling stock (contributes to breakdowns and late trains)
2) Inadequate trackage (typically owned and maintained by freight railroads)
3) Insufficient train frequencies (once per day, or as little as three times a week, for most long-distance routes)
4) Lack of equipment to expand frequencies

Items 1-4 can never improve unless Amtrak has a reliable, predictable, and sufficient funding source free of ongoing political demagoguery. The 1.5 to 2-penny reassignment from highways to passenger rail—out of the Federal gasoline tax—would do exactly what is needed long-term, with perhaps a one-time capital improvement grant to kick it off. The oil and highway-building lobbies, and their dependants, crush such thought by getting into the pockets of legislators and presidents.

To be a mode of transit that large numbers of people will willingly use, passenger rail needs to traverse a given route at least six times per day in each direction, at user-friendly times, at a cost people can compare favorably to other transit alternatives. Many people will choose rail over air or private auto for trips of 300 miles or so, if given a good rail product. Others will choose rail for longer trips for aesthetic and safety reasons, but again, the rail product has to compare favorably.

Every other mode of transportation–even the private auto–receives government subsidy in some form. Only with Amtrak do we actually call it a subsidy.

AIR: The infrastructure is paid for by local, regional, state, and federal governments and/or their authorities. User fees only partially reimburse the cost of providing airports, traffic control, safety agencies, and marketing.

INTERCITY BUS: The highways buses travel are paid for with tax dollars. These dollars are partially derived from gasoline taxes in a never-ending perpetual source of funding for both new highways and maintenance of existing highways. Bus company taxes don’t begin to cover the real apportioned costs of providing the highways.

METROPOLITAN MASS TRANSIT: There are very few privately operated local or regional transit systems remaining today. The economies of providing this very necessary infrastructure have demanded that they be operated with government money, often by quasi-governmental agencies similar to Amtrak. The farebox only partially pays for the cost of operating most of these systems. The rest is subsidy.

PRIVATE AUTO: If anyone believes the taxes we pay on gasoline or on our vehicles actually pays for all the costs associated with the roads we drive on he or she is delusional. Additional tax dollars pay the rest, only we don’t refer to those dollars as subsidies.

You can move at least 500 people on a modern intercity passenger train in a more environmentally friendly manner than any other mode. By contrast, most intercity buses carry 45 to 60 people, less comfortably, while adding to the road congestion and pollution. Airliners hold a lot more people than buses, but most carriers are now in the same position as the private railroads were pre-Amtrak; we have already seen $20 billion subsidies going to airlines. The infrastructure of the air system is a lot more costly to maintain, and planes are fuel hogs and big polluters. The worst offender on a cost-per-passenger and pollution basis is the private auto.

The ability to move people between cities and serve smaller markets in the process is as necessary to infrastructure as the electric grid, water systems, and trash collection. As fuel costs increase, even more important.

Passenger rail will only ascend to its rightful place as an efficient, comfortable method of moving people as part of the overall transportation infrastructure when we as a nation make a real, ongoing commitment to seeing it happen. We do that by dedicating a sufficient, dependable source of funding. We take Amtrak’s existence, survival, and expansion away from the politicians and give it to competent, experienced professionals who are enthusiastic about passenger rail.