Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.


Expand Messages
  • John Bredin
    I was surprised and disappointed at the anti-Amtrak stance expressed in Issues 36 and 37 of Carfree Times. First, I am puzzled that an advocate of
    Message 1 of 33 , Jan 5, 2005
      I was surprised and disappointed at the anti-Amtrak stance expressed
      in Issues 36 and 37 of Carfree Times.

      First, I am puzzled that an advocate of completely-subsidized ransit
      describes Amtrak as "heavily-subsidized." The Federal subsidy to
      Amtrak is a mere $1.2 billion annually. That's one-point-two
      billion. By contrast:
      (a) the highway system receives over $30 billion each year from the
      Federal treasury.
      (b) most European passenger rail systems receive a multiple of this
      amount of tax funding to serve nations only a fraction of the size
      of the US. For example, the UK government plans to invest the Euro
      equivalent of $74 billion over 10 years in the national railways
      (admittedly, freight as well as passenger). That's $7.4 billion a
      year, compared with $1.2 billion here.

      Of particular importance in light of your advocacy of fareless
      transit is the fact that Amtrak's farebox recovery is much higher
      than most (if not all) North American transit agencies. To state
      that in layman's terms for other readers, a greater percentage of
      Amtrak's budget comes from passengers in the form of fares, and a
      smaller percentage from taxpayers, than almost any American urban or
      commuter transit system.

      In short, Amtrak is hardly as "heavily-subsidized" as you describe.

      What really knocked my socks off was the following passage:
      "I suspect that a new operator will keep the more sensible parts of
      the system running, in particular the heavily-traveled Northeast
      Corridor route between Boston and Washington. Some of the long-haul
      service in the western part of the country simply makes no economic
      sense and is pulling down the whole system."

      With all due respect, it is an old canard that the NEC and other
      corridors are a success and the long-distance routes are a failure.
      It's a position routinely taken by the supporters of a car-and-plane-
      only intercity travel system that I wouldn't expect an intelligent
      advocate of carfree living to swallow.

      First and foremost, not even the NEC is profitable, if that's what
      you mean by "makes economic sense". Almost no nation on Earth
      operates intercity passenger trains at a profit, even high-speed
      trains like the French TGVs or the German ICEs.

      The "long-haul service in the western part of the country" you
      blithely condemn makes perfect sense because a long-distance route
      is essentially a series of corridor operations laid end to end. A
      Chicago-San Francisco train is not like a Chicago-San Francisco
      flight: by making stops at cities along the tracks, it is also a
      Chicago-Omaha, Omaha-Denver, Denver-Salt Lake City, etc. train. Long-
      distance trains also stop at the smaller communities inbetween the
      cities, where air travel is either ridiculously expensive or non-
      existent. Without rail service to these communities, most non-
      wealthy travelers from such communities would be forced to drive or
      take a bus, either of which add to the road congestion and pollution
      that you rightly condemn elsewhere on your website.

      Population density is not the prerequisite to effective rail service
      that it would first seem to be. For example, Amtrak's daily Empire
      Builder train is the only alternative to driving along much of its
      rural route through North Dakota and Montana. As a result, its
      ridership from many of these rural stations is actually higher than
      from cities along the route like Minneapolis or Spokane that have
      decent air and freeway service.

      Nobody is advocating the same level of service for the long-distance
      routes as for the great corridors. Of course New York-Washington
      would have more ridership, and support more trains, than longer
      routes like New York-Chicago or Chicago-Los Angeles. But serving
      these longer routes with two or three round-trips a day (the service
      now, with the present stingy level of funding, is only one train a
      day on most long-distance routes) is both a viable and necessary
      alternative to forcing intercity travelers along these routes to

      "Amtrak's operations have often been so inept," as you say, because
      Amtrak is grossly underfunded and cannot afford either the equipment
      or the expert personnel that allow a commuter operation like
      Chicago's famously efficient Metra to run like clockwork. Metra,
      like Amtrak, has to operate many of its routes on the rails of
      freight railway companies, but because it is adequately funded, it
      can pay the freight railway a sufficient rent with sufficiently
      attractive on-time-based incentives and penalties for the host
      freight railway.

      This brings me to the unspoken heart of your article "Amtrak
      Subsidizes Rail Deaths": that Amtrak is gleefully extending the perq
      of indemnification to their partners-in-crime, the freight railways.

      First and foremost, it is my understanding that the indemnification
      provisions were NOT secret but were readily-available knowledge.
      The mere fact that the Times publicizes something to the general
      public doesn't mean that it was **hidden** before they published.

      Secondly, Amtrak did not freely choose to put such admittedly
      onerous indemnification provisions in their contracts. As stated
      above, Amtrak doesn't have the money to negotiate toe-to-toe as
      equals with the freight railways for the use of their tracks. Not
      being able to pay the freights what it actually costs them (or what
      they perceive it costs them) in delays to their own trains to carry
      Amtrak trains, Amtrak pretty much had to "take it or leave it" with
      anything the freights insisted on putting in the trackage contracts.

      The proof that Amtrak was dragooned into these provisions is that
      where Amtrak has had a real choice in its contracting -- where
      Amtrak was a potential bidder to operate commuter rail systems under
      contract to the local transit agency -- it has patently refused to
      include such provisions. The MBTA in Boston, and Metrolink in Los
      Angeles IIRC, insisted like the freights that the operator be liable
      and hold the agency harmless regardless of whether the operator was
      at fault, and Amtrak simply refused to enter a bid on those terms.

      I apologize for my exasperation in portions of this message, but I
      am still surprised that a clear supporter of rail and opponent of
      dependence on the automobile could take the anti-Amtrak position
      that you have. I urge you, as a clearly intelligent person capable
      of thinking "outside the box" (to use a cliche), to do a little
      research on the Amtrak question. An excellent place to begin would
      be the website of the National Association of Rail Passengers:

      Thank you for your time and patience,

      John B. Bredin
    • Doug Salzmann
      OK, one more time -- then I m finished with this one. ... Well, that s two ;^) I have no problem with competitive rail service in the west. Indeed, I m a fan
      Message 33 of 33 , Jan 7, 2005
        OK, one more time -- then I'm finished with this one.

        On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, emccaughrin wrote:

        > > Yes, but we were talking about rail service in vast, unpopulated
        > > rural places.
        > Um, no. The discussion is about rail service to cities in the west,
        > not to some cattle ranch way out in the plains somewhere. There are
        > large metropolitan areas in the west -- Denver, Salt Lake City, to
        > name a few -- with populations large enough to justify rail service,
        > and not so far apart that rail cannot be competitive.

        Well, that's two ;^)

        I have no problem with competitive rail service in the west. Indeed, I'm a fan and have ridden many of the long-haul trains in the region. I'd simply rather spend the subsidy money in more productive ways (I have a list).

        Of course, if passenger service between those city pairs really is competitive, the railroads will be eager to provide it.

        > Norway has 300k km^2 and a population of 4.5 million. If one were to
        > go by a naive interpretation of its 15 persons/km^2 density, Norway
        > has no business running passenger rail because at it isn't "dense"
        > enough -- and yet it runs comprehensive, 140mph rail service that is
        > far better than anything you will find in even the most heavily
        > populated US metropolitan area.

        Come on, now. Norway's rail system is heavily concentrated in the more-populated southern part of the country. To the extent that it does serve the northern portions (does it extend beyond Bodo?), let's remember that we're talking about a long, very narrow corridor.

        To put things in perspective (again), the Norwegian national rail network totals about 2,500 miles of track -- just a little more than the route of our oft-cited, lonely American long-haul, the Empire Builder.

        Not to let this end without further (perhaps naive) reference to population density, the state of Montana, alone, is larger than Norway and, at 2.39 persons per square kilometer, is about *one-sixth* as densely populated.

        I just don't think the arguments for subsidizing rural passenger rail service in the US are persuasive, definitely not in a resource-constrained world. Certainly, there are many other subsidies on which I'd merrily pull the plug, also (autos, airlines, ranchers and loggers, warmongers and arms merchants...), but, if given the chance to divert the handout from Amtrak to a really useful urban project, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

        I suppose I should close by confessing that it would be fine with me if *all* long-distance travel was relatively difficult and (at least) moderately expensive. In a world of six-plus billion humans with an emerging permanent energy crunch, it is dangerous folly to encourage casual gallivanting around the globe.



        Doug Salzmann
        P.O. Box 307
        Corte Madera, CA
        94976-0307 USA

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.