|
A L S O+T O D A Y
Gun smoke
T A B L E+T A L K School reform is gaining momentum, but is privatizing education taking things a step too far? Take your side in the Education area of Table Talk
R E C E N T L Y Who says women never lie about rape? Where have we gone? $400 million and a mule? Genocide, and
drug-trafficking too Let the sexual healing
begin - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Browse the - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|
![[ 21st: Amazon vs. the ants ]](/news/1999/03/src/11newslinks.gif) |
||
|
CAN AMTRAK SURVIVE? | PAGE 1, 2
I recently took the train from Boston to New York. The imposing grandeur of Boston's South Station, with its high, sculpted ceilings, evoked the era of railroad supremacy. With Logan Airport closed due to inclement weather, the station was packed with sopping-wet travelers. I purchased the tickets I'd reserved over the Web and stood with a mob of people I figured were going to New York. After several minutes the Amtrak employees let drop the barrier, and as if they'd heard the starting gun at a track meet, everyone sprinted ahead. Happily, I found a seat without a tussle. My seat was wide and comfortable, much better than flying coach class. I asked my neighbor, a graying man probably in his mid-50s, if he rode the train regularly. No, he said, the last time he was on a train he was in Switzerland. What did he think it would take to get more people to ride the train? "You can't have them stopping at every dinky town," he replied, adding that you would also need rental car offices at the train station, since so many businesspeople are headed for the highway "loops" that encircle cities. His points were valid. But Amtrak's real problem, and the main reason it's in such a fiscal pickle, is that it mostly operates long-distance trains. While these scenic routes may hold an allure for rail enthusiasts, adventurous travelers and those with a lot of time on their hands, they simply aren't pulling their weight. A couple of years ago I took the Lake Shore Limited from Boston to Toledo, Ohio (it continues on to Chicago). During the sluggish 19-hour trek, I was little surprised that a neighbor implored me to accept Jesus as my personal savior, but I found it hard to believe that we hardly appeared to accelerate beyond 60 mph. Maybe that's why the Limited is one of the few Amtrak trains whose passenger base declined in 1998, to 333,886. According to the conservative Wendell Cox Consultancy, this train in 1997 was subsidized to the tune of $89.58 per passenger. Most of Amtrak's long-distance trains fare worse. The City of New Orleans (Chicago-New Orleans) carried 198,251; Kansas City-St. Louis, 179,040; Pennsylvanian (New York-Pittsburgh), 144,227; Three Rivers (New York-Chicago), 120,643 and so on. When compared with the 2.1 million people who rode 125-mph Metroliners between Washington and New York, or the 5.9 million who took the Northeast Direct trains (Washington-Boston and Vermont), it's clear that the long-distance train, as a competitive mode of transport, is an anachronism. But trains themselves are by no means obsolete -- as proved by the success of commuter rail. The Long Island Railroad carried 75.8 million passengers in 1997, and claims an on-time performance of 92.2 percent. Metro-North, which serves northern New York and Connecticut, provides 62 million trips per year. Both of these railroads leave Amtrak's numbers in the dust. And new trains are popping up. In California, a company called the Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) began providing much-needed commuter service nine months ago between Stockton, in the booming Central Valley, and the Silicon Valley jobs in San Jose, and already claims 1,800 passenger trips per day (a project of three counties, it derives a portion of its funding from CMAQ federal monies). But despite commuter rail's success, it is not a money-making venture. "It's an inherently unprofitable operation which is expensive to provide," says Vranich. "I don't have any problem with those subsidies either because I think there's a social good." The issue is who will run the subsidized rail lines -- Amtrak or private entities. The only trains that make a profit are high-speed trains, like the bullet train Amtrak hopes to run between Boston and Washington starting in October. Most of the French, Japanese and German high-speed trains, which zip passengers along at 186 mph, are competitive with both air and car travel. Some net between $100 million and $300 million a year. Amtrak is hoping to balance its books on the success of its Acela line, which is expected to bring in between $151 million and $180 million in annual revenue. "I think people are going to be enormously impressed with it, but it's taken 20 years," says former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, now a visiting professor at UCLA and vice chairman of Amtrak. "There are at least six, seven, eight, nine different sections of this country where high-speed rail is absolutely essential." Dukakis' support for a genuine national high-speed rail system isn't reflected in Amtrak's actual policy (supported by both the NARP and the High Speed Ground Transportation Association), which is to implement "incremental" upgrades that the system then markets as high-speed rail. "Amtrak invests $25 million in High Speed Rail Service for the Midwest" reads a recent Amtrak press release, touting trains that will be capable of going 110 mph. "I think it's worth it to improve the Midwest trains, but I object to them calling it a high-speed rail program," says an exasperated Vranich. "There's not one train that will be competitive with air service. I think Amtrak is going to so tarnish the name of high-speed rail that it's going to become a late-night comedian's joke. You don't serve someone a hot dog and tell them it's a steak." For the moment, Amtrak appears safe from being dismantled. The Clinton administration, encouraged by a letter from 43 senators, recommended $571 million in capital funding in its 2000 budget request. And Congress seems prepared to give Amtrak a chance, having fully funded it last year ($609 million). It helps that Amtrak is supported on both sides of the aisle. Republican Sen. Bill Roth of Delaware secured $2.2 billion in capital funding for Amtrak in 1997 and Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson just attended the grand opening of a new San Antonio train station. Nevertheless, Vranich contends that subsidies are masking an actual deterioration at Amtrak. He believes that we will soon see "more serious discussion of not just privatization, but devolvement of Amtrak to states, or segmentation of Amtrak. We ought to start raising the question, What is a national system? Can it be a series of corridors that are really serving America's travel needs? In reality it would be making far more of a national contribution." With auto congestion growing and air travel often unreliable (American airline companies' on-time performance was an unimpressive 74.5 percent in 1996), Americans might turn to intercity train routes if they were faster. My trip to New York was quite comfortable, though I was fortunate
to have a seat. The train was so packed that people were reclining in the
aisles and transformed the roomy handicapped bathrooms into lounges. But
the atmosphere was affable. Groups of strangers engaged in conversation,
something you rarely see on planes. It was so enjoyable and interesting
that I didn't even notice we were a half hour late.
David Fine is the manager of The Electronic Policy Network. |
||