I don’t get a paper version of the Dispatch at home in Evanston, so I typically just check the headlines on the website and rarely click on the links to individual sections. I’m in Worthington for Thanksgiving though and I noticed this editorial that I normally would not have seen. Maybe some of you are online-only readers like me and also would have normally missed this:
Editorial: Transportation remix
Nation needs to consider public’s changing attitude about travel preferences
Saturday, November 24, 2007 2:54 AM
The nation’s transportation networks aren’t entirely in step with travelers’ needs and tastes.
…Congress and the president, as they consider federal subsidies for various modes of transportation and their infrastructure, have a duty to analyze whether the spending priorities of 10 years ago, before the terrorist attacks of 9/11, should remain in the same order. The systems that Americans used most often to travel from here to there in the last 30 to 40 years of the 20th century might not be their best choices for this century.
As Americans deal with yet another gasoline-price spike, the costs of overdependence on highways and the personal convenience of cars keep rising. Mass transportation, which spreads the expense over more people per vehicle, has become more appealing. On a per-passenger basis, trains use 20 percent less energy than planes and 27 percent less than cars.
…Federal subsidies over the past 30 years or more have favored air and highway travel while relegating passenger-train service to a side rail. Amtrak’s federal funding has remained virtually flat; its annual subsidy was $1.3 billion last year compared with federal funding of about $34 billion for highways and more than $14 billion for air travel. Even mass transit, primarily aimed at helping people get around within cities, drew about $8 billion in federal money.
…Instead of just stumbling along with temporary funding and make-do measures, Congress and the president should be designing long-term solutions that will ensure that America’s people and businesses have efficient means of travel, regardless of their destination.
The editorial seems to imply that Amtrak should receive the same number of dollars for operating funding as highways or air travel. This isn’t reasonable given the number of passengers served by each of the modes, but the point is well-taken. We need more transportation funding, particularly capital funding for new facilities and services. The funding for transportation isn’t enough to keep up with maintenance needs, let alone new capital projects. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) estimates we need $60 Billion over 20 years to develop intercity corridor passenger rail service, which would be a great way to reduce the demand on highways and rail, especially through the holiday travel season.
With record deficits, dwindling gas tax revenues, and a weakening dollar, I don’t think additional funding is going to come from the federal government. I think it’s going to have to come from the private sector. Like the Chicago Skyway and the Indiana Toll Road, Amtrak routes may be opportunities for public-private partnerships to attract new investment.
Nice article!!! I’d like to think that sites like this had a little impact on how the Dispatch formulates their opinions, but I think it’s much more common sense than that. Right now we invest nearly all of our transportation dollars into subsidizing a single, expensive system. With $3 gas becoming the norm, and peak oil looming, it makes all too much sense that we should think about spreading those dollars around to more efficient alternatives.
Also, I’m not sure what a public-private partnership involving Amtrak would look like. One of their biggest problems right now is that they don’t even own their own rail lines and get pushed aside by the private companies that they lease from. On-time rates are as low as 5% of some lines out west where trains are routinely told to wait on the sidelines while freight trains keep rolling buy. Amtrak can’t really turn to easy funding sources like leasing a toll road, or converting free highways to toll roads.
I can only think of two ways that Amtrak can become the beautiful system that exists in Europe: 1) A commitment to rail travel as a vital service that the government provides (like roads and sewers), or 2) Peak oil hits and causes $10 gas and/or fuel rationing. If #2 happens, they’ll be able to charge whatever they want for tickets.
I’m not sure what a partnership would look like either.
It could be absolutely anything that we could dream up. One possibility would be to follow the English model, where I believe (correct me if I’m wrong), the government owns the track and leases the passenger (and freight?) operations to private companies.
Another model common in some parts of the world is called Build-Operate-Transfer. A private company builds new infrastructure, operates it for a long-term lease like the Chicago Skyway, and then transfers it back to government ownership after something like 100 years. It may be hard to find companies that think they can build a rail line and operate it for profit. In such a case, you would select the qualified company which requires the least subsidy.
A third option is to do it like the old days, when railroads like Union Pacific and Burlington Northern ran both freight and passenger services, so they can schedule around the freight interference. This actually still exists in some places. Although I ride Metra commuter rail to work every day, I write my monthly check for $82.35 to the Union Pacific Railroad, which dresses up conductors in Metra uniforms on Metra trains going to Metra stations on three different Metra lines.
Fortunately, there is a plan that creates a public-private partnership for upgrading infrasturcture and providing fast, reliable freight and passenger rail service in Ohio.
I urge you to check out the Ohio Hub Plan at:
http://www.ohiohub.org
And if you like the plan and want to see it implemented in our life time:
http://www.allaboardohio.org
Needless to say the Dispatch didn’t realize that we were in their back yard and thus did not get mentioned.
I didn’t realize that the Ohio Hub was proposing to share the lines with freight. I’m actually a little less enthusiastic about it now though. Is there any evidence, say in Europe, that the two can coexist with speeds over 100 mph? With the issues Amtrak is having related to sharing corridors, i’d be pretty hesitant to propose the same thing. 5% on-time rates won’t get many people to ride.
Also, The Dispatch definitely knows about the Ohio Hub, and I wouldn’t take the non-mention to be a snub in any way. This is a very high-level position statement that is a great thing for the future of rail travel in Ohio. I wouldn’t be surprised to see future articles begin to mention the plan by name. It’s a shame they missed the opportunity here… http://xingcolumbus.wordpress.com/2007/11/19/quit-cher-whinin/
Eric, nearly ALL European railroads operate with a mix of intrecity, commuter, local and freight traffic at speeds exceeding 100 mph for passenger trains. Over there, thy call that conventional service.
The only lines that are competely dedicated to high speed passenger only service are the TGV and such and they comprise a small percentage of total rail trackage.
The problem with Amtrak in freight corridors is more an issue of inadequate infrastructure. Sharing tracks works all over the world and it can work here, but only is we make the investment.
I don’t know why the CD missed All Aboard Ohio, but I am very thankful they wrote such an outstanding editorial.
[...] like the direction that the paper is heading, both in stories like this one, and editorials like this [...]
[...] follow up to the Dispatch editorial titled “Transportation Remix” that was discussed here. U.S. transportation system in need of an overhaul Saturday, December 8, [...]