Amtrak Needs More Federal Backing, Not Privatizati

[Save Our Trains Michigan]

Published On Wednesday, May 17, 2006 2:34 AM

By MICHAEL S. DUKAKIS

To the editors:

Re “Plane Pain,” op-ed, May 10,

Emily Ingram tells us that the answer to inadequate rail passenger service in the United States is to privatize Amtrak just the way the British privatized their national rail system.

Unfortunately, Ingram didn’t do her homework. If she had, she would have discovered that British rail privatization has been a disaster, that, in fact, the British system has been substantially “deprivatized” after dozens of passengers were killed or maimed on the system, and that today, Britain is spending a lot more public money on its national rail passenger system than it was prior to privatization.

Moreover, Ingram doesn’t seem to understand that the American rail passenger system was privatized, and it went bankrupt. That’s why the Nixon administration created Amtrak. And the private freight railroads, which are doing well these days, want no part of a return to passenger service. They couldn’t make money on it when they ran it, and they would require massive public subsidies to return to the passenger business.

There is nothing wrong with Amtrak that a modest but consistent amount of capital investment couldn’t cure. Virtually every region of the country has detailed plans for major improvements in the Amtrak system if the Bush administration would wake up and understand that we desperately need a first-class rail passenger system in this country.

Story

The writer, a former vice chair of the Amtrak Board of Directors, is a former governor of Massachusetts and a former Democratic presidential nominee.

 

[TransAtlantic]

I agree with what Gov. D. said in the letter; also, I have ridden on the British rail system a few times in recent years, and it gave me new respect for Amtrak. A train from Bath to London didn't even show (so the following train an hour later was standing-room-only in First Class), EVERY train was significantly late, and the prices were outrageous. A better example of how to make a rail system work is seen in continental Europe, where most of the rights-of-way are owned by the central government, and trains are a mixture of public and privately owned, granting access to freight systems and passenger systems, and by having a centralized dispatching and maintenance system, the European railways cut costs while simultaneously improving efficiency. I even get a little bit of extra insider information from time to time, since once of my best friends has worked for the SFF/CFF/FFS (Swiss Railway) for almost 20 years.

 

[Guggles]

I agree completey. As a resident of the UK, privatisation has been a disaster. The only thing that works in the private sector is freight, and that was the thing that made British Rail the most money. It is good that we got some new tilting trains, but the rail network needs a lot of money spent on it, not shareholder's profits paid out! Also British train stations tend to be shopping complexes nowadays with the trains, and information screens after thoughts.

I will be travelling in the US this autumn and hopefully get to go on the Acelia.

As a way of competing with Airlines would a concept like the Vacuumm Train be a good idea, for going coast to coast in the US? See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain

I know it would cost a lot, but so does high speed rail.

 

[AmtrakWPK]

Something like that might be doable after they have successfully developed true fusion power sources. That's the only way enough energy would be available to tunnel through solid rock quickly enough that if wouldn't take three generations of contruction engineers to get it done. Some of the other problems would be earthquake fault zones. One tectonic plate shift a few inches would probably be enough to derail a 3000 mph rail vehicle, and the result would be like the bug on the windshield, except worse. I would almost expect to see magnetically-accelerated suborbital "buses", or something along those lines, like a space shuttle when re-entering except not with quite the velocity and heat dissipation problems, before we would have something like that transcontinental hypersonic subway system.

 

[PRR 60]

As a way of competing with Airlines would a concept like the Vacuumm Train be a good idea, for going coast to coast in the US? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain

I know it would cost a lot, but so does high speed rail.

After spending several hundred billion dollars to build this 2500 mile tunnel, how would that be better than just getting on a plane and taking a six hour flight?

 

[AmtrakWPK]

1.MUCH less pollution. Jet engines are NOT clean.

2. No direct use of fossil-fuel. Aircraft are ALL direct consumers of fossil-fuel.

3. MUCH more efficient. Aircraft are NOT efficient.

4. NO weather delays. No de-icing required of runways or vehicle, no storms to dodge, no micro-bursts, no clear-air turbulence..

5. In theory, at least, weight restrictions could be engineered to whatever levels they were desired to be. Weight limits would not be dependent on trip length. Aircraft have strict limits, and as the flight-leg length goes up, payload goes down because more fuel has to be loaded into the tanks.

6. Could be powered at least partly by renewable resources like hydro, wind, etc., Aircraft? NOT!

7. As and when practical and safe nuclear Fusion is achieved (rather than nuclear Fission, which is what all current power reactors are), this and any other devices that require electrical power rather than combustible fuel will be the primary machines of the age. Aircraft? NOT!

8. Until Fusion is a reality, additional Fission reactors could provide the power needed without adding to global warming or running us out of oil. Aircraft? NOT!

 

[PRR 60]

7. As and when practical and safe nuclear Fusion is achieved (rather than nuclear Fission, which is what all current power reactors are),  this and any other devices that require electrical power rather than combustible fuel will be the primary machines of the age.  Aircraft? NOT!8.  Until Fusion is a reality, additional Fission reactors could provide the power needed without adding to global warming or running us out of oil.  Aircraft? NOT!

I'll tell you what. As soon as commercially practical fusion energy is available, you be sure to let me know. I am not holding my breath on that one.

But seriously now, wouldn't concentrating on short and medium length high speed rail corridors be a better way to achieve your commendable goals rather than sinking hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars into a 2500 mile tunnel? I bet 25% of today's commercial aircraft operations could be taken over by rail if there were a real effort to develop corridors. There is no reason anyone should be flying on trips of 400 miles or less. Yet, excluding cars, most (including me) do.

This could be accomplished in ten to twenty years. Instead, time, effort, and resources get flushed down toilets like mag-lev and this vacuum tube nonsense while real world, commercially practical solutions are passed by.

 

[AmtrakWPK]

I think we're on the same page about what needs to be done NOW. Two posts back my comment basically was that a subterranean transcon system would not be practicable until fusion was a reality. IF and WHEN that happens, it would THEN be a superior transportation option to flying. Upgrading the existing rail infrastructure is indeed the only rational way to go until that happens. My other comment in that earlier post was to the effect that the first earthquake that produced even a small tectonic plate shift would turn one of those high speed underground vehicles into a "bug on the windshield".

As to whether hopping on an airplane even now is better than the train, here are a few snippets from a NYTimes online this morning:

[ Planes are expected to be packed fuller than at anytime since World War II ... Logjams at airport security checkpoints loom as the federal government strains to keep screener jobs filled.

The usual violent summer storms are expected to send the air traffic control system into chaos at times, with flight delays and cancellations cascading across the country. .. .

Everybody's stressed. ... Easy days are rare ...

One passenger intervewed said that if it's less than 500 miles it's easier to drive. His earlier limit was 100 miles. ...

Delta will have 81,692 fewer domestic seats to sell each day this July compared to the same month in 2005. ]

Now, when you consider all that AND the oil shortage, with the constantly escalating prices we are paying for gas, which SHOULD have had the reverse effect on that passenger's decision about driving, you realize that all of this SHOULD (if the administration was rational and was really interested in serving the needs of the citizenry) create an unstoppable push to upgrade and expand passenger rail, especially for short to medium stage lengths. Of course, it also SHOULD have led to the administration, and congress, mandating AT LEAST a 50% increase in fuel efficiency for all passenger vehicles on the roads, especially including Hummers, monster pickups, SUVs, etc. Since NONE of that appears to be even remotely likely, what all this does is just lead to a feeling of despair for all citizens who aren't millionaires, and who therefore are not the beneficiaries of the administration's and congress' largess in tax breaks.

 

[Treckie]

With due respect WPK what you propose is close to fantasy due to our capabilities of today or near future. Why not go all the way and propose building teleports? A good ole "BEAM me up Scotty" would be fast, efficient,

and easier on the environment.

PRR60 is correct. What we need now is a viable solution to the problem not a pipe dream.

I say Double track the entire country. One for high speed rail and the other for freight only. Make all grade crossings either overpasses or underpasses.

Expensive? Sure but not as expensive as a underground tunnel across the ocean that doesn't solve the problem of domestic high speed passenger rail service. Also double tracking can be done today not in what maybe 50 to 100 years. In that length of time, who knows what forms of transportation will be available?

Just my opinion and no more valid than yours.......Treckie

 

[AmtrakWPK]

You didn't read everything I said. I also said:

"Upgrading the existing rail infrastructure is indeed the only rational way to go until that" [future power sources like fusion] "happens. "

So exactly how does that differ from what you proposed? What's the fantasy in THAT, other than the fact that pigs will fly before this administration does any of it?

 

[Guggles]

Obivously this is something to think about for the future, and it would be a massive engineering project both in terms of money and time. However for the present day building more high speed lines (possibly just using the TGV technology as it is readily available) on the East coast and the West Coast and in places like Florida, and Texas, so as rail can start to compete with air more effectively, would be worthwhile.

 

[Treckie]

You didn't read everything I said.  I also said:
"Upgrading the existing rail infrastructure is indeed the only rational way to go until that"  [future power sources like fusion] "happens. "    

So exactly how does that differ from what you proposed?  What's the fantasy in THAT, other than the fact that pigs will fly before this administration does any of it?

The fantasy part I refurred to was 2500 miles of tunneling and your Hypersonic subway system.

The upgrading you mentioned I can agree with. This administration doing nothing to improve it I can also agree with. Just general current administration bashing will not help. Can't you just see all the uproar if a 50% increase in fuel efficiency on vehicles or even a 25% increase was even suggested. If I remember my history correctly the Democrats controlled Congress close to 23 years of Amtrak's 35 year existence. Why has Amtrak had to beg like an ugly stepchild for funding it's entire existence? Had the proper funding for all aspects of maintaining and running a railroad and building routes

been provided by both parties of Congress the ridership

at the present day would be much larger and the amount of subsidy would be much less.

I don't know about all you poor people but I'm going to take all those millions I made and buy myself a case of beer.