60 million would benefit from funding AmtrakFebruary 10, 2012
By
Jean-Paul Honegger
Columnist
A few years ago, I took the night train between two cities 1,038 miles apart. It was meant to be a fairly quick journey, but the train arrived late at our departure point and left nearly an hour behind schedule. Its delay then added up through the night and we arrived at our destination almost three hours later than we had expected. There were no mechanical issues, and on paper, this was nothing more than a simple journey from Denver to Chicago, delayed even before the train entered the station.
And this was not an isolated incident. In 2011, the California Zephyr (which connects Emeryville, California to Chicago) had an on-time performance of 34.5 percent, comparable with that of many other train services across the country. Of the 33 routes operated by Amtrak, 23 were punctual less than 80 percent of the time in 2011. With such low reliability, it is no small wonder that people have little faith or interest in using their national railway company. It is relatively expensive for the time that it takes to travel that distance—flying from Portland to New York can cost as little as $80 roundtrip, whereas the same journey by train takes three times as long and costs $70 more.
Amtrak could easily be a fast, efficient and comfortable way to travel, but it is hampered by various factors. The most apparent of these is seen on the tracks of the Acela Express in the Northeast Corridor, which connects Washington, D.C. to Boston, via New York.
Though it is often considered a high-speed train, the Acela is far from that. It rarely reaches its top speed of 150 mph, averaging at just under half that. Certainly, the particularly curvy nature of the line does affect the performance of trains, but this could be easily remedied by building a new line dedicated solely to high-speed rail services.
Many Republican members of Congress and various special interest groups denounce this as "wasteful spending" but compared to other transportation methods, the federal government spends very little on railways. Indeed, between 1971 and 2008, the federal government spent $36 billion on Amtrak, compared to $421 billion on aviation and railways in the same period.
To say that investing in high-speed railway is "too costly for America" is a preposterous idea, especially considering that a real high-speed line (that is, one where trains could reach 250 mph) in the Northeast corridor would service nearly 50 million people, nearly 16 percent of this country's population.
What's more, some estimates calculate that 60 million people will live in the "Northeast mega-region" by 2025. With regular, fast service, the immediate cost of building such a rail line would be outweighed by long-term profits.
But let's return to the present. According to Rail.co, a website that covers developments in the railway industry, Amtrak had 53 percent of the market on the lucrative New York-Boston route in 2010, which should have increased in 2011, if the trend of the last decade were to continue. If the market share is so high now, in spite of Acela's drawbacks, then imagine how high it would be if the trains took just over an hour and a half to cover the 240 miles from Boston to New York, as opposed to the three and a half hours it takes now.
There is no excuse for a country that wants to be economically competitive, attract business, and stand as an example to the rest of the world to squander so much potential. According to USHSR, an advocacy group for high-speed rail, the nationwide development of a high-speed rail network would create hundreds of thousands of jobs, make billions for the U.S. economy, and overall make this a far more productive country. So, what are we waiting for?
