EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Published on Sunday, September 19, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
Passenger Trains: Our Hope for a More Sustainable Future
President Obama's proposal to spend $50 billion on transportation
infrastructure—including 4,000 miles of rail lines—couldn't be a better
expenditure of our federal tax dollars.
After spending two days on the Empire Builder, the long-haul Amtrak line from Chicago to Seattle/Portland, I quickly realized that our investment in trains should be readily and heartily embraced. And, if more Americans were to take such trips, I’m sure they, too, would choose trains as an alternative mode of travel.
Amtrak staff was courteous and responsive to passengers, a bit quirky as train people can be, but absolutely delightful while we all traveled the miles and hours together across the country. Riding the train, especially on an overnight, was romantic and adventurous and we kept to our schedule despite the numerous times we had to yield to freight trains.
Actually, it’s a miracle that Amtrak has lasted these past 40 years since President Richard Nixon deliberately designed it for failure. Different administrations—both Democratic and Republican—have either ignored passenger rail or, like President George W. Bush, actively sought to scuttle it.
James McCommons, author of Waiting on a Train: The Embattled Future of Passenger Rail Service tells the story about Amtrak and America’s relationship with trains along with some great travelogues of his year-long train trips around the country.
He points out that most legislators who vote on appropriations for passenger trains have never ridden a train, which severely works against Amtrak. Others have been adamant that Amtrak make a profit.
Truth is, there is no public transportation system in the world that earns a profit.
What is clear is that train networks serve as a means to an end, namely, they contribute to an area’s economic development, an idea that is capturing the attention of more and more mayors across the country, especially in this weak economy.
Actually, highways and airports are not money-makers either and the federal government subsidizes them to the tune of $180 billion per year. Amtrak only gets $1 billion. Unfortunately, many Americans don’t realize that a transportation network is one of the benefits of their taxes.
The reason that Amtrak has been short-sheeted is that passenger rail has simply not been a government priority.
After 100 years of moving people within our cities and around the country, trains lost favor because people were sick of the rapacious and corrupt conduct of the railroad corporations. The vehicles were dirty and staff was rude or mean. Ridership had been steadily declining since 1920. After World War II, the nation made a dramatic switch to invest in highways because our roads were poor and lacked connectivity and, well, people liked driving their cars. It didn’t help that the automobile, oil and tire companies conspired—or at least lobbied—against the public transportation system for their own interests as depicted in the 1996 PBS film, “Taken for a Ride” and its 2008 Part II version.
Promoted by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 required citizens to finance the Interstates by paying 15 to 20 percent of the price of a gallon of gas. The 46,876-mile Interstate system took 35 years to complete and cost $128.9 billion. The feds paid 90 percent of the cost or about $114 billion—$425 billion in 2006 dollars— even though the Interstates were under the control of the states. Governors and mayors signed onto this massive public works plan without hesitation because they saw it as an economic development tool for their cities. They would be proved wrong within a couple decades.
As more and more people needed and bought cars, they found themselves stuck in more traffic jams and having to contend with endless road repair. Operating an automobile amounted to $6,000 to $7,000 per year (outside its purchase) and the accident and death rates related to cars—at least 40,000 deaths per year—were overwhelming.
Building the Interstates in the cities also drastically changed urban life, something Eisenhower never intended and experts never foresaw. Neighborhoods were torn up to make way for the highways. Social stratification and racial discrimination intensified as middle class white people migrated to the suburbs and left poor people and minority groups behind in the cities. Downtowns that were designed for pedestrians became congested places and the influx of cars made them frustrating to navigate. Old buildings were demolished to create surface parking, which then created gaping, ugly holes in the cityscape. People felt unsafe and increasingly reluctant to go downtown. Retail moved out to the suburbs and the companies eventually followed. Of course, all of this out-migration ended up depleting the tax base and making ghost towns out of our once vibrant and prosperous downtowns.
By the late 1990s transportation engineers and analysts began questioning the Interstate’s “externalities” as they costed out pollution, energy waste, land disruption, accidents, time wasted in traffic jams. They also learned that spending hundreds of millions of dollars to add highway lanes and interchanges didn’t relieve congestion.
The airlines tried to make up for their operational costs with reduced legroom, poorer air quality and overcrowding. Greater demand for air travel also necessitated building or expanding airports, which all takes up a lot of tax dollars.
With the 1990s came new attitudes toward cities and toward the environment. Young people and empty nesters found cities a “hip” place to live and began moving back. They reduced their car usage and demanded more public transportation options. People started a movement to restore historic buildings and revitalize their downtowns.
Meanwhile, rail advocates were keeping Amtrak alive, albeit by a thread. Among them was Gil Carmichael, a former highway lobbyist, owner of five car dealerships and an airport charter service. He later founded the Intermodal Transportation Institute at the University of Denver where he advocates for what he calls Interstate II.
Interstate II (http://www.
“We have this incredible railroad network that goes out all over this land from city center to city center. That's what is so amazing. It's already there,” said Carmichael (in McCommons).
Another idea train advocates promote is the re-establishment of a combined freight and passenger rail system through private-public partnerships that work with state transportation departments. Dedicated passenger lines have a multiplier effect that can relieve traffic congestion, reduce freight bottlenecks, diminish flight delays, reduce this country's carbon footprint and accommodate people without cars or the means or desire to fly.
When Amtrak was created, politicians, lobbyists and fiscal conservatives really wanted to deep-six passenger rail altogether within two years. It was only through political wrangling and arm-twisting that train advocates were able to save passenger rail by separating it from freight and calling it Amtrak, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. That did not mean, however, that it would be efficient, well-funded or make a profit despite Nixon’s caveat that the new railroad be off the government dole as soon as possible.
The United States has never had a vision for an integrated railroad network nor has it adequately funded one, says John Gibson, vice president of Operations Research and Planning at CSX (quoted in McCommons). Instead, passenger rail has been a hit and miss enterprise as Amtrak has tried to put its trains on networks owned and managed by the freight companies.
Could there be a renaissance in trains? Yes, says McCommons, because as the nation’s population increases, as more people decide to lead urban lives and as cities increase in density, it makes sense to use rail—especially with energy costs expected to climb.
“In terms of efficiency—fuel savings, lower carbon outputs, smaller footprint on the landscape—the advantage is really rail,” said Anthony Carbonell of the Lincoln institute of Land Policy in Cambridge (quoted in McCommons). “It has been significantly underinvested in and disadvantaged against the other modes. We once had good train service in this country. We need to recover that capacity.”
The Obama administration clearly sees the possibilities of rail and so it gave Amtrak $8 billion in the stimulus package and another $1.3 billion for car rehabilitation and infrastructure repair on the Northeast Corridor. Vice President Joe Biden, a well-known train buff and consistent passenger during his senatorial days, obviously had a lot to do with this boost for Amtrak.
This is all a good start but we still have a long way to go.
So, ride the train if you haven’t already, and encourage others to ride also, including your congressional representatives. It's a great way to get this country back on track!
After spending two days on the Empire Builder, the long-haul Amtrak line from Chicago to Seattle/Portland, I quickly realized that our investment in trains should be readily and heartily embraced. And, if more Americans were to take such trips, I’m sure they, too, would choose trains as an alternative mode of travel.
Amtrak staff was courteous and responsive to passengers, a bit quirky as train people can be, but absolutely delightful while we all traveled the miles and hours together across the country. Riding the train, especially on an overnight, was romantic and adventurous and we kept to our schedule despite the numerous times we had to yield to freight trains.
Actually, it’s a miracle that Amtrak has lasted these past 40 years since President Richard Nixon deliberately designed it for failure. Different administrations—both Democratic and Republican—have either ignored passenger rail or, like President George W. Bush, actively sought to scuttle it.
James McCommons, author of Waiting on a Train: The Embattled Future of Passenger Rail Service tells the story about Amtrak and America’s relationship with trains along with some great travelogues of his year-long train trips around the country.
He points out that most legislators who vote on appropriations for passenger trains have never ridden a train, which severely works against Amtrak. Others have been adamant that Amtrak make a profit.
Truth is, there is no public transportation system in the world that earns a profit.
What is clear is that train networks serve as a means to an end, namely, they contribute to an area’s economic development, an idea that is capturing the attention of more and more mayors across the country, especially in this weak economy.
Actually, highways and airports are not money-makers either and the federal government subsidizes them to the tune of $180 billion per year. Amtrak only gets $1 billion. Unfortunately, many Americans don’t realize that a transportation network is one of the benefits of their taxes.
The reason that Amtrak has been short-sheeted is that passenger rail has simply not been a government priority.
After 100 years of moving people within our cities and around the country, trains lost favor because people were sick of the rapacious and corrupt conduct of the railroad corporations. The vehicles were dirty and staff was rude or mean. Ridership had been steadily declining since 1920. After World War II, the nation made a dramatic switch to invest in highways because our roads were poor and lacked connectivity and, well, people liked driving their cars. It didn’t help that the automobile, oil and tire companies conspired—or at least lobbied—against the public transportation system for their own interests as depicted in the 1996 PBS film, “Taken for a Ride” and its 2008 Part II version.
Promoted by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 required citizens to finance the Interstates by paying 15 to 20 percent of the price of a gallon of gas. The 46,876-mile Interstate system took 35 years to complete and cost $128.9 billion. The feds paid 90 percent of the cost or about $114 billion—$425 billion in 2006 dollars— even though the Interstates were under the control of the states. Governors and mayors signed onto this massive public works plan without hesitation because they saw it as an economic development tool for their cities. They would be proved wrong within a couple decades.
As more and more people needed and bought cars, they found themselves stuck in more traffic jams and having to contend with endless road repair. Operating an automobile amounted to $6,000 to $7,000 per year (outside its purchase) and the accident and death rates related to cars—at least 40,000 deaths per year—were overwhelming.
Building the Interstates in the cities also drastically changed urban life, something Eisenhower never intended and experts never foresaw. Neighborhoods were torn up to make way for the highways. Social stratification and racial discrimination intensified as middle class white people migrated to the suburbs and left poor people and minority groups behind in the cities. Downtowns that were designed for pedestrians became congested places and the influx of cars made them frustrating to navigate. Old buildings were demolished to create surface parking, which then created gaping, ugly holes in the cityscape. People felt unsafe and increasingly reluctant to go downtown. Retail moved out to the suburbs and the companies eventually followed. Of course, all of this out-migration ended up depleting the tax base and making ghost towns out of our once vibrant and prosperous downtowns.
By the late 1990s transportation engineers and analysts began questioning the Interstate’s “externalities” as they costed out pollution, energy waste, land disruption, accidents, time wasted in traffic jams. They also learned that spending hundreds of millions of dollars to add highway lanes and interchanges didn’t relieve congestion.
The airlines tried to make up for their operational costs with reduced legroom, poorer air quality and overcrowding. Greater demand for air travel also necessitated building or expanding airports, which all takes up a lot of tax dollars.
With the 1990s came new attitudes toward cities and toward the environment. Young people and empty nesters found cities a “hip” place to live and began moving back. They reduced their car usage and demanded more public transportation options. People started a movement to restore historic buildings and revitalize their downtowns.
Meanwhile, rail advocates were keeping Amtrak alive, albeit by a thread. Among them was Gil Carmichael, a former highway lobbyist, owner of five car dealerships and an airport charter service. He later founded the Intermodal Transportation Institute at the University of Denver where he advocates for what he calls Interstate II.
Interstate II (http://www.
“We have this incredible railroad network that goes out all over this land from city center to city center. That's what is so amazing. It's already there,” said Carmichael (in McCommons).
Another idea train advocates promote is the re-establishment of a combined freight and passenger rail system through private-public partnerships that work with state transportation departments. Dedicated passenger lines have a multiplier effect that can relieve traffic congestion, reduce freight bottlenecks, diminish flight delays, reduce this country's carbon footprint and accommodate people without cars or the means or desire to fly.
When Amtrak was created, politicians, lobbyists and fiscal conservatives really wanted to deep-six passenger rail altogether within two years. It was only through political wrangling and arm-twisting that train advocates were able to save passenger rail by separating it from freight and calling it Amtrak, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. That did not mean, however, that it would be efficient, well-funded or make a profit despite Nixon’s caveat that the new railroad be off the government dole as soon as possible.
The United States has never had a vision for an integrated railroad network nor has it adequately funded one, says John Gibson, vice president of Operations Research and Planning at CSX (quoted in McCommons). Instead, passenger rail has been a hit and miss enterprise as Amtrak has tried to put its trains on networks owned and managed by the freight companies.
Could there be a renaissance in trains? Yes, says McCommons, because as the nation’s population increases, as more people decide to lead urban lives and as cities increase in density, it makes sense to use rail—especially with energy costs expected to climb.
“In terms of efficiency—fuel savings, lower carbon outputs, smaller footprint on the landscape—the advantage is really rail,” said Anthony Carbonell of the Lincoln institute of Land Policy in Cambridge (quoted in McCommons). “It has been significantly underinvested in and disadvantaged against the other modes. We once had good train service in this country. We need to recover that capacity.”
The Obama administration clearly sees the possibilities of rail and so it gave Amtrak $8 billion in the stimulus package and another $1.3 billion for car rehabilitation and infrastructure repair on the Northeast Corridor. Vice President Joe Biden, a well-known train buff and consistent passenger during his senatorial days, obviously had a lot to do with this boost for Amtrak.
This is all a good start but we still have a long way to go.
So, ride the train if you haven’t already, and encourage others to ride also, including your congressional representatives. It's a great way to get this country back on track!
- Posted in
Comments are closed
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
33 Comments so far
Show AllThere have even been ideas of bulding a tunnel and bridge over the Bering Strait to connect the two continents. This could allow fast trains to connect almost every part of the world except for the Pacific Area. This could be the answer to declining oil and increasing cost of airline travel.
We spend billions yearly trying without much success to keep the interstate highway system maintained. We could, for probably much less money, simply use the existing routes and lay down rails right on top of the existing roadways which would most likely be maintained at a much lower cost. Park the cars and use the rails. Yeah, I know. I'm a dreamer. But just think how much employment that would create. We could power the the whole system with windmills dedicated to the train system.
Actually this is where the $50 Billion proposed by Obama is the typical quarter of a loaf - we already HAVE 233,000 miles of rail in this country!
And 140,000 miles of rail actively used for freight!
Yet Obama proposes spending $$$ on 150,000 miles of roads vs 4,000 miles of Rail...
The same obscene imbalance which is bankrupting us and crippling rail and public transit.
Walk down from your own street in any direction and chances are within a few miles
you will find a rail, either abandoned or hardly used.
Moreover it is time to reclaim the acres and acres of land wasted on highways
and put rails on it. The original purpose of the median strip down Interstate Highways was not only road separation but explicitly for the purpose of running
rails and transit down the middle of the highway.
Of course with endless and fruitless lane expansion, the "median" has become whittled
down to concrete bunkers.
Even more ironically most Interstates pretty much followed existing rail routes - in
too many tragic cases uprooting existing rail and dividing once thriving communities
with impassable land-gobbling highways. (see East Orange, NJ for an example)
It is time to reclaim those rights of way for the Green transit of the future!
Thank you for following up and adding some info of which I was not aware, 233,000 miles of rail in this country for example. There are also lots of rights of way where rails have been removed, but the underlying infrastructure still exists and the railbeds could be reinstalled. Refurbishing/rebuilding the nationwide rail system would put SO MANY people back to work and we'd end up with a transportation system that uses so much less energy. Plus, I LIKE TRAINS!! I hate flying, and I hate driving, and would much rather travel coast to coast, or state to state, or city to city on efficient, comfortable, fast trains.
Amtrak's not alone and they that government funded corporation should not exist anyway. Instead, money should be given to local rail services across the nation such as the upcoming light rail service in Norfolk, VA so that we won't be put under another fking delay as if 2011 wasn't bad enough ! But now here comes the "worry" !
Light-rail bills due soon, but Norfolk unsure how to pay
http://www.norfolk.com/2010/09
/lightrail-bills-due-soon-norfolk-unsure-how-pay?cid=mr
Here's my "favorite" line from the goon Thelma Drake:
"It would only be prudent on their part to be out looking for other sources of funding," she said.
I don't suppose this former Congresswoman might wanna take back her support of all that war spending now would she?
Amtrak could have been better had the government funded it well and extended their routes so that it could have been affordable and convenient for Americans to choose the train over the car. The light rail system in your area needs funding and cooperation from your state and city government. McDonnell doesn't even plan on funding Metro extensions up here in Loudoun County so I would be surprised if he lifted a finger for Norfolk.
These projects make a fortune for developers just as the original Railroads did
for Railroad Robber Barons in the US first Rail buildout.
However developers should not be allowed to be the primary profiteers at the
expense of the public. See the following by Michael Hudson warning of the
"Private-Public Infrastructure Bank" idea championed by Obama Neoliberals:
http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson09132010.html
"London’s extension of the Jubilee Tube Line to the city’s financial district in Canary Wharf recently demonstrated this principle. The line’s extension cost £3.5 billion but increased property values by an estimated £13 billion along the route. A political protest movement arose over London’s failure to finance its transport system by taxing the higher rent-of-location and site values it created. Failure to do so gave landlords a windfall – one that the city could have recaptured by a windfall tax to cover the cost of what it spent. For instance, it could have issued bonds secured by a windfall property-rent tax."
In New Jersey taxpayers built the Hudson_Bergen Light Rail at a cost of $2.2 Billion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson%E2%80%93Bergen_Light_Rail
All along the Light Rail major redevelopment worth many billions has occurred
as NYC goliaths like JPMorganChase, Goldman Sachs, and just about every major
Wall Street Corporation built major offices there, especially after 9/11 when
it was obvious they needed redundant facilities in case of disaster.
The Hudson-Bergen Light Rail has been so successful in ridership it now is second
to the Northeast Corridor main line for ridership and is the preferred means of travel along its route for many people.
Yet ironically, NJ Transit itself is broke and our Republican slash and burn Governor, Chris Christie, axed its $1.8 Billion budget by $300 Million.
Even though Developers and major Corporations have gained billions in property
wealth along the Hudson-Bergen Lighr Rail route.
A windfall profits tax on rents along transit routes could easily pay to
build and maintain these routes.
Great ideas orbit7er -- when he's not making fun of progressives Obama could pick up on these and finance some REAL rail progress.
"Riding the train...was romantic and adventurous." "[Railroad cars] were dirty and staff was rude or mean." There was definite truth in these statements. I rode the Empire Builder in 1967 on my way home from college. The lovely school teacher I met on the train had a flask. I bought the pop and we warmed to each other. Right in the middle of our raptures, the mean conductor separated us. I never saw that gal again.
That's a sad story. We don't have conductors anymore on our trains but nobody pays attention to other people thanks to Ipods and Blackberrys to keep attention away and limited. I've some good in taking the car over the train and some good in taking the train over the car. Traffic congestion in my area makes me prefer riding the train over the car.
In Australia we have long distance trains where you can take your car with you. Is this the case in the US?
Even in the metro areas in most major US cities, there are restrictions for taking bikes with you. Taking cars with you would look pointless since more coal would have to be burned to keep those trains up to speed what with the weight of the vehicles themselves. People would much prefer to drive long distance themselves instead of going through all that trouble. The purpose of a train should be to let go of your usage of the car.
Amtrak has one train - called the Auto-Train, that carries cars and passengers, on a nonstop overnight trip between Lorton, VA (just south of Washington, DC) to Sanford, Florida. Only passengers with cars are allowed to use it. Ordinary passengers most used the regular slower service with many stops.
If you look further into the details of transportation in American history, you would find out that even before the automobile was invented, stage coaches were preferred over trains unless you were rich. Trains were used for carrying mass cargo across the country on longer distances while people would still prefer horses and stage coaches. All that happened was replacing the horse with autos for individual transportation needs which brings me to its relationship with capitalism. Capitalism gives each individual the feeling of ownership and if that's the system we're hooked to, cars and highways fit while trains don't. Unless trains can be molded to fit the capitalist system aside from carrying cargo and goods for materialist purposes, they'll be restricted to limited freedom in the US market.
"even before the automobile was invented, stage coaches were preferred over trains unless you were rich."
That is nonsense.
Even AFTER the car - all the way into the 1940's - 50's, trains were preferred. Even Pittsburgh had trains every hour on the Pennsylvania Railroad or the P&LERR to major cities throughout the eastern half of the US, they ran on time and got you to Chicago, St Louis, Buffalo or New York much faster than you could drive and probably still faster than driving on current-day interstate highways.
You didn't mention Washington DC on your list of cities. I drive as fast as I can with caution. When I-66 is not as congested, I notice myself beating the trains all the to and from Vienna to Balston when I'm driving at 60-70 mph like everyone else. Speaking of I-66, I had a chance to explore all of I-66 all the way to the I-81 junction. Where it's not congested, it's 65 mph and higher but into Prince William County, the speed limit is 55 mph which I think is stupid. The HOV exclusion restriction after Exit 64 is also stupid and needs to be removed at least up to Exit 69 so people can also get on the train at West Falls Church and East Falls Church instead of having to wait until after 9 AM going eastbound or after 6:30 PM going westbound.
One note about horses, they were pretty good in suburban places and even in the old days, public transportation was limited to urban areas.
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/archstories/suburbs/publictransportation.asp
When was public transportation ever made available to rural and suburban places? I wished it were so I could get some extra sleep on my way to work on days I would be using metro to get to work in DC/Arlington.
Public transportation was available to just about all rural and suburban places in my lifetime. The 50's and 60's saw massive discontinuations of service. Powerful lobbies - the auto companies and oil companies - made sure that public transportation was dismantled.
That never got mentioned in any of my history books in school and no teacher ever went into discussing it. Instead, I had to mug up and write bullshit about "industrial revolution". We were taught about horses and locomotive trains but mysteriously, we never heard much about trains being the norm in the 1930s or after that. I heard about cars getting nifty but until this year I never heard about a 1960s automobile getting twice the gas mileage of this car. I hate when I hear too much about great public transportation in Europe and Australia but nothing here. Didn't Joe Biden talk about enjoying Amtrak in his VP debate? How come he won't push for improving Amtrak? But I'm still itching to know one thing. If public transportation was available in all rural and suburban areas, then how did they succeed in dismantling it? Wouldn't there have been a massive revolt? I didn't know it really existed. All I've been hearing about were horses and cars for individuals to ride into the sunset. And how could public transportation that exists in Europe and Australia but isn't possible in the US because it wouldn't fit our capitalist system have existed back then?
Yes, there was a massive revolt, but the big money players steam-rolled over public needs and desires with the cooperation and collaboration of elected officials.
How did they succeed in dismantling it?
The corporations and the right wingers always wanted to crush the railroad labor unions, and also to get people into automobiles so that more development could happen, and so more oil and cars could be sold, more fast food chains and malls built and on and on. Public transportation was an obstacle to Wall Street, a barrier to the suburbanization and commercialization of the country, a barrier to the destruction of organized labor, to the dispersal and isolation of people so they could be turned into consumers. There was an all-out war against public transportation in the 50's and 60's. People did not choose automobiles, they were forced into them. All of the corporate propaganda about "America's love affair with the automobile" is a lie.
The railroads, as a public transportation common carrier, were at one time strictly regulated and required to provide service to the public, in exchange for various subsidies and other favors and exemptions, etc. Many railroads deliberately let equipment get run down and dirty and ran trains late to discourage ridership so as to be able to make a case to the ICC that "no one wants to ride the train" so they could then discontinue service. Throughout the 60's I was involved in many protests, meetings and other actions to fight back against the dismantling of the system.
The heavily subsidized Interstate highway system, built in parallel to all of the railroad mainlines hurt ridership, of course, but more importantly allowed trucks to compete for freight - especially less than carload (UPS and FedEx) and mail.
Until 1969 railroad passenger trains carried the mail. It was sorted in special Railway Post Office cars while the trains were moving. Bags of mail were picked up and dropped off "on the fly" - while the trains were moving, so every little town had fast and reliable mail service. The mail would then be sorted once it was on the train. This was an extremely economical, energy efficient, with very low environmental impact and was an efficient system, especially when compared to moving mail around by trucks as is done today. Mail was a significant source of revenue for passenger trains. When The Nixon administration moved the mail to trucks, it was a significant blow to public transportation.
The plans for Amtrak were all done in secrecy by the Nixon administration, in consultation with the corporate CEOs, and people were shocked when suddenly one day 99% of the passenger rail service in the country was eliminated.
Here is another interesting story about the dismantling of public transportation.
"The StreetCar Conspiracy"
How General Motors Deliberately Destroyed Public Transit
excerpt:
The electric streetcar, contrary to Van Wilkin's incredible naïve whitewash, did not die a natural death: General Motors killed it. GM killed it by employing a host of anti-competitive devices which, like National City Lines, debased rail transit and promoted auto sales.
This is not about a "plot" hatch by wild-eyed corporate rogues, but rather about a consummate business strategy crafted by Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., the MIT-trained genius behind General Motors, to expand auto sales and maximize profits by eliminating streetcars. In 1922, according to GM's own files, Sloan established a special unit within the corporation which was charged, among other things, with the task of replacing America's electric railways with cars, trucks and buses.
A year earlier, in 1921, GM lost $65 million, leading Sloan to conclude that the auto market was saturated, that those who desired cars already owned them, and that the only way to increase GM's sales and restore its profitability was by eliminating its principal rival: electric railways.
At the time, 90 percent of all trips were by rail, chiefly electric rail; only one in 10 Americans owned an automobile. There were 1,200 separate electric street and interurban railways, a thriving and profitable industry with 44,000 miles of track, 300,000 employees, 15 billion annual passengers, and $1 billion in income. Virtually every city and town in America of more than 2,500 people had its own electric rail system.
General Motors sought to reduce competition from electric railways through a variety of measures, including the use of freight leverage. GM, for decades, was the nation's largest shipper of freight over railroads, which controlled some of America's most extensive railways. By wielding freight traffic as a club, GM persuaded railroads to abandon their electric rail subsidiaries.
http://www.lovearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm
I have ridden the Empire builder, the California Zephyr, and the California Coast Starlight and I can attest to the enjoyability of the Amtrak long distance cross country trains - if you get a sleeper compartment, which isn't very cheap. All meals are provided, plus there are showers. The big deluxe sleepers have their own bathroom and shower - _very_ expensive though.
Except for the Empire Builder which can often run on time, you should not expect the the long distance trains to be punctual. The Coast starlight is usually running 2 hours behind by the time it reaches Sacramento, but the good thing about this is that it will be daylight the next morning when the train in on a scenic segment around the base of Mount Shasta. If you are planning to connect with the eastbound Empire Builder to Chicago, they will take you off the train, and put you on a bus with this rather surly woman driver, from north of Klamath Falls to Pasco, WA. This diagonal route allows you to still catch the train (although you miss the scenic Columbia river gorge stretch). Even in the third-world the railroads don't have to do such stuff. Consider the trip as part of the vacation, and it is a lot of fun.
".....we kept to our schedule despite the numerous times we had to yield to freight trains."
This yielding to freight trains bit is mentioned like a minor detail when in fact its one of the most important ones when considering while people in US dont want to bother with the trains(I dont know for a fact but imagine it contributes a lot). How can one expect people rely on the train to go long distances if it stops every 30 mins or so for 5 - 15 mins to let the freight ones pass ? And that is in addition to stopping on every little station along the way like its some sort of long distance subway or suburban commuter train even when its a city to city train...
In Europe and other places I've rarely seen a passenger train to wait for cargo ones to pass and there are special short distance trains that stop everywhere and there are city to city trains that only stop in major towns which makes the travel by train worth it...
Before Amtrak, passenger trains always had priority. Nationalizing the roadbed, the fixed plant, would have been the better solution - as with canals and waterways, airports, and highways, all publicly managed.
They just need to change the name of that "empirre bilder" line. Well actually they need to do a lot more. Amtrak is about 1/4 as efficient as high speed rail. The physics were well understood 150 years ago before the railroads were built across North America. Straight flat tracks could have been laid in anticipation of more efficient electric propulsion. Basically, the wisdom of the ages, and of the people, is not being impressed upon the infrastructure decisions in the USA. This is a serious oppression of the people. When the people achieve their popular revolution, one of the many concessions we will extract from the elites is full popular control over infrastructure decisions. There's really nothing we can trust to the elites. There's really nothing the elites can do better than the people. This is why we can cage the elites, politically/economically, without concern.
With the limited funds we dedicate to rail, we need to be putting them where population centers and high traffic corridors are so they will be kept full and actually pull regular commuting travellers off the highways.
harvey wasserman:
the highway lobby hates trains and therefore we don't have them. there's been no passenger rail service for columbus, ohio, since 1979. opponents say it won't work unless it's high-speed, which is utter nonsense. we have the tracks in place but the freight haulers and car junkies don't want them used for passengers. it's patently insane, death of empire stuff.
not to mention, of course, that the system was consciously killed by alfred sloan & general moters after 1923 in THE GREAT TROLLEY CAR CONSPIRACY.
the murder of american mass transit was the largest eco-disaster of the 20th century, followed in tandem by the construction of the interstate highways. they are the death of this nation....and maybe the planet.
With superconductors approaching room temperature, any forward thinking passenger rail planning should consider maglevs. Currently the main energy cost is keeping the superconductors cool. As the operable temperature for superconducting is brought up, the energy cost drops drastically. It is quite likely that in 10-15 years, a maglev train system could lay solar powers along the tracks, as a roof to the trains, and actually end up producing more energy than they consume. While moving people around at speeds up to the same speeds that passenger planes typically fly at.
Everyone is ignoring the powerful lobbies of the International Hijackers Association.
In the opening episode of NOVA, Carl Sagan wanted to demonstrate the Doppler Effect. He seated a uniformed, high school band upon a railroad flatcar. The job of the band was to belt out =middle C= for as long as it took for a small locomotive to tow the flat car past the stationary microphone where Carl stood. The train was moving circa 30 mph. By natural law, the pitch rose as the train approached and dropped as the train receded. It is called the Doppler Shift. Carl then showed how this pertains to proving the expansion of the universe.
But my mind ruminated upon the idea of occupying one of 40 La-Z-Boy recliners on the open flatcar, and moseying across the country in a convertible on rails. Gondola cars could also be used. Anyone want to ride with me?
"Anyone want to ride with me?"
I'm in!!
I'm going to Reno NV from a location in Northern CA. I take an amtrak BUS to Martinez, where I change to a TRAIN for a whole 55 minutes. At Sacramento we are loaded on a BUS and driven over the Rockies to Reno.
I'd love to go over the Rockies by rail, but unless I spend more money, drive a long distance, I can't catch the train that would let me do this.
I've not flown since 911, and will never fly again if I can help it. I've seen the crap people have to go thru at check-in, and thanks, but no thanks.
When I calculate the cost of driving the same distance, I find that AMTRAK costs me about the same and is much less stressful. I support any efforts to improve our rail system. If more people use rail, rail travel will become more convenient and reasonable.
Here in Pittsburgh we have Maglev Inc trying to build the first 30 miles of a high speed Maglev most likely to the East and we have Urban Maglev coalition for interurban Maglev. They both require high initial investment but the metrics in terms of performance and maintenance do show a pay off. I remember in 2002, just before the Iraq war talk about the possibility of Pittsburgh being a high speed maglev hub with spurs to the North, (Buffalo and Cleveland, West to Chicago, East to Philadelphia and South to Charlotte. The cost was then pegged at $80 billion. Maybe that was conservative, maybe it would be $200 billion today. "What a waste of money., the opponents, mostly Republicans, said. The cost of the Iraq war-- $ 1 Trillion (1000 Billion) and counting. Now that's money well spent.
Want to help fight for improved passenger rail?
Join NARP: http://www.narprail.org
The 10% Amtrak discount for members pays for itself if you ride cross-country just once a year.
Full disclosure: I'm a member but otherwise unaffiliated.
I just love me some train.