The case for Amtrak

A position paper

June, 2002

By Ernest H. Robl

Copyright © 2002 Ernest H. Robl
All rights reserved

Introduction

The future role of passenger trains has important implications for the United States in a number of areas outside of travel and transportation, including basic issues of mobility, environmental quality, and general quality of life.

At the same time, the debate about the future of passenger trains is filled with misunderstandings and well-intentioned proposals that are unlikely to work in a real-world environment.

This paper makes the case for

• Why the United States needs passenger trains
• Why those trains should be provided in the form of a national passenger train system
• Why Amtrak is the best and perhaps only realistic way to provide a future for passenger trains in the U.S.

Both passenger trains in general and Amtrak, the national passenger railroad, are in a state of crisis. The reasons for the crisis and the possible solutions are complex. A reasonable understanding of the situation and future options requires a willingness to devote time, thought, and even some patience to this subject.

The purpose of this paper is to outline why American passenger trains arrived in the current crisis—and a reasoned approach for getting out of this crisis. The information contained in the following paragraphs is neither new nor original. However, placing the information in context may help others better understand the issues involved—and why these issues are and should be important to them.

The paper is not written on behalf of any organization—though some will likely agree with its conclusions—nor for any particular publication. If you are interested in publishing or quoting this paper, please see the notes at the end.

My background

While the focus of this paper is on transportation policy issues, understanding the background of its author may be helpful. As a journalist—both writer and photographer—I have covered transportation issues for more than 30 years.

As part of that coverage and while doing location photography in the United States and Europe, I have talked with railroad employees and officials at many levels. I have traveled by train in both the U.S. and Europe, including engine rides on both the French TGV and German ICE high-speed passenger trains.

My railroad photography has been used by major railroads and has appeared in textbooks, magazines, and calendars. I have written about railroad safety preparedness for Railway Age, the leading U.S. railroad trade magazine—and about a variety of subjects for other railroad publications.

I've produced three self-published books with background information on railroads and their operations.

In both my writing and photography, my goal has always been not to just cover a particular subject, but to understand the context in which that subject exists or operates.

Amtrak's background

From their very beginnings nearly two centuries ago, railroads have always been seen as means of moving both people and goods.

Railroads have inherent efficiencies for certain types of transportation, and the movement is people is clearly among those types.

However, while early trains carried both passengers and freight, most railroads quickly realized that in most circumstances, it made more sense to operate separate freight and passenger trains because:

• Passenger service
  • Needs to be operated on a predictable schedule
  • Requires frequent stops
  • Requires equipment with high acceleration and braking power to allow fast movement between stops
  • Requires infrequent changes in the consist of a train along its route
• Freight service
  • Works most efficiently for long-distance transportation
  • Typically requires switching cars in and out of trains
  • Requires equipment whose pulling power is more important than its acceleration or top speed

Amtrak's beginnings

Amtrak was founded in early 1971—and set up to fail. The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak's corporate name) was founded at a time that many of America's railroads—then operating both freight and passenger trains—were in deep financial trouble.

Many of these troubled railroads blamed a large portion of their problems on being forced by the federal government to operate unprofitable passenger trains. (In that day's regulatory climate, most railroads found it inordinately difficult to stop unprofitable passenger services—as well as to abandon unprofitable freight routes.)

While unprofitable passenger trains certainly contributed to the dire economic situation of many railroads, some of which subsequently went into bankruptcy, the truth is (and was) that passenger trains had seldom made a profit.

First, determining the profitability of passenger trains operated over the same infrastructure as freight trains is not an exact science. Apportioning the relative costs of passenger and freight trains in wear and tear on the infrastructure is partly a judgement call.

Second, in an era where train travel was the predominant (and often only available) form of long-distance passenger transportation—an era that lasted past WW II—railroads often saw the operation of passenger trains as both an obligation and an opportunity to promote their freight businesses. (Keep in mind that during America's westward expansion, railroads were offered substantial government incentives to build new lines and to move settlers westward.)

What Congress did

In forming the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Congress attempted to address both the railroads' desire to shed themselves of having to operate passenger trains and the public's desire for continued passenger service. The resulting solution, adopted with only half-hearted support from both major railroads and many members of Congress, was, like many compromises, far from ideal.

It was no secret that both politicians and freight railroads saw Amtrak as a transitional solution—that they hoped would ultimately go away and stop annoying them.

Congress did not truly address most of the regulatory problems which were hobbling railroads until the passage of the Staggers Act of 1980—which then took several more years to truly take effect.

Today, most of America's freight railroads are relatively healthy—at least compared to the circumstances under which they were forced to operate in the 1970s. They still suffer disadvantages, however, from a national transportation policy (or perhaps lack of a national transportation policy) that offers other modes of transportation disproportionate support by supplying most of the infrastructure for those other modes, while railroads still have to build and maintain their own tracks.

How was Amtrak set up to fail?

When the National Railroad Passenger Corporation—I'll use its shorter trade name Amtrak from now on, just for convenience—was formed, it was also given a long list of severe handicaps:

• Amtrak inherited a hodge-podge of passenger equipment—both engines and other rolling stock—from railroads which agreed to the conditions for no longer having to operate their own passenger trains.
  • This equipment was built over a range of many years to many different specifications, with a range of different interior fittings.
  • Much of this equipment was both old and worn out—and had received only minimal maintenance in later years as the railroads tried to cut corners where they could.
• Amtrak inherited staff—and union contracts—from the railroads that wanted to shed their passenger service. The formative legislation gave Amtrak little leeway in cutting staff or altering its internal structure.
  • If Amtrak did decide to lay off staff, it had to continue to pay benefits to the laid-off workers.
  • Having to work with existing union contracts also gave Amtrak little incentive to try for operating efficiencies in its personnel areas.

These factors have gradually been mitigated, but badly hurt Amtrak in its early years, where major reforms would have helped the most.

The two biggest problems, however, were that

• Amtrak was given the conflicting goals of being operated as a business (though with the above-mentioned problems that few businesses have to face) and of providing a "public service." Many passenger routes were shut down at Amtrak's founding. But, then, just as the freight railroads had been unable to shed unprofitable and even illogical passenger services, Amtrak now found itself unable to rapidly adapt to changing business conditions.

Not only were specific requirements imposed for altering service, but being dependent on the whims of politicians for funding, Amtrak could not risk making changes which offended any one particular powerful legislator, lest he decide to withdrew even his meager support for the system.

• Amtrak was not provided sufficient funds at start-up and continually starved for funding ever since. It has never really had enough money to dig itself out of the hole in which it began.

Even in 2002, Amtrak is still operating some equipment that predates its formation in 1971. This so-called "heritage" equipment has gradually decreased to a smaller and smaller percentage of the rolling stock. Yes, railroad equipment has both a long useful life and can often be upgraded and rebuilt to keep it in operation. But Amtrak's heritage equipment is certainly no longer state of the art.

This old equipment

• Is more prone to break down
• Is more expensive to maintain and repair
• Imposes limitations on train operations, including the fact that some of this equipment cannot be operated at high speeds

Why passenger trains?

Why do we still need passenger trains in the era of jetliners and the automobile? There are a multitude of reasons.

Each mode of transportation (yes even passenger trains) has inherent limitations.

• Aviation, while well-suited for long-distance transportation, makes little sense for most trips under 400 miles, because, by the time you factor in travel to an airport, waiting for a flight, making the actual plane trip (which may involve a less than direct routing), and returning to a city center at the other end, the air trip may take the same time as fast surface travel, particularly on a high-speed passenger train.
• At the same time, both aviation and driving are highly sensitive to severe weather—particularly in winter. Passenger trains are still able to operate in much more difficult conditions.
• Not everyone is able to or wants to drive extended distances. Highway travel, particularly in vehicles with a single occupant, is highly inefficient, both in terms of energy consumption and efficient use of time.
• Both highways and aviation require vast amounts of ground space for their infrastructure, relative to rail lines of the same capacity.

Passenger trains have always made sense, but they are now being rediscovered as the limitations of other modes of transportation become more obvious.

• In many areas, highways are at capacity and building additional lanes is neither a realistic option nor cost-effective.
• Building new airports (or even making major expansions to ones already surrounded by urban or suburban development) is both prohibitively expensive and also has extreme social consequences.

At the same time, advances in railroad technology have made it possible to safely operate much faster passenger trains—some European and Japanese equipment is now designed for top speeds in the 180 mile per hour range—on closer headways and with greater passenger capacity per train than ever before.

Passenger trains provide unequalled passenger comfort, compared with both highway and air travel. Depending on the equipment used on a given train, passengers can read, work, relax (and even sleep), and eat while traveling. In Europe, many passenger trains frequented by business travelers now even include conference rooms for on-board meetings and rooms specially equipped with business machines such as fax machines and photocopiers.

Seldom mentioned is the fact that in a major emergency, railroads provide the most efficient means for moving large volumes of people. It was not coincidental that after the attacks of Sept. 11, most legislators and other government officials, as well as many rescuers and other emergency responders, arrived in New York City by train. (Amtrak provided free transportation in many of these cases.)

Elsewhere

In part, Amtrak is still around—if financially emaciated—because other countries around the world saw the importance of a transportation future that included modern passenger trains. Passenger trains never really went away. But, particularly in Europe and Japan, governments decided that a network of high-speed passenger trains that linked major urban centers was a good investment.

These governments concluded that spending on improved passenger trains provided economic, social, and even financial benefits.

Sometimes governments made direct investments. At other times, the governments simply provided guarantees or incentives for private investments in projects that could not have been undertaken otherwise. The Channel Tunnel ("Chunnel") between France and England is probably the most significant civil engineering accomplishment of the 20^th century and a prime example of the latter type of project.

Americans who traveled to these countries saw and understood the possibilities of modern passenger trains.

Of course the fast intercity trains of Europe and Japan are not the only passenger trains of those countries. Much wider and far-reaching networks of more basic passenger trains act as feeders to the high-speed networks as well as simply providing regional and local connections, including carrying daily commuters.

The "S" word

At the same time, in the United States, Amtrak is continually tarred with the "S" word. Hardly a story appears about Amtrak that does not include the word "subsidy" or the indication that Amtrak is America's government-subsidized passenger railroad.

Strangely, the word subsidy almost never appears in discussions of the interstate highway system, air traffic control, or coastal port and inland waterway projects. Yet, these other modes of transportation all receive tax moneys in support of projects deemed in the public interest—just as is the case with Amtrak.

Yes, other modes collect so-called "user fees" including taxes on gasoline, but these fees never pay the full costs of the projects.

Why a national passenger train system

Having established that passenger trains provide a useful service, the next question becomes "What type of passenger train system does the United States need?"

Various schemes have advocated breaking up Amtrak into regional organizations, either with or without some type of national coordinating group. Many of these proposals are thinly veiled attempts to dismantle Amtrak once and for all—proposals advocated by enemies of passenger rail. Others are well intentioned but lacking in understanding of both Amtrak's current problems and its future possibilities.

Some proposals have advocated turning the operation of passenger trains back over to the freight railroads. These railroads did not want passenger trains in the 1970s; they do not want them now.

Other, often well intentioned, proposals suggest turning passenger trains over to states. While many states have provided substantial support to Amtrak, states are really not interested in getting into such areas as ticket sales and crew management. In addition, cross-state operations—very few of Amtrak's current trains operate entirely within a single state, and even these connect with trains that cross state borders—would require a huge bureaucracy for each state.

Economies of scale

A national system—a single system with a single centralized management—makes sense on many levels.

Not only does such a system have many economies of scale, but it has much greater flexibility and ability to respond to changing conditions and emergencies.

For a railroad passenger system, or any transportation system, to operate reliably, it needs spare equipment for periods of high demand and to replace equipment damaged in accidents. A national pool of equipment allows a much quicker response in such situations. Asking or requiring each of dozens of smaller systems to have excess equipment, even if they operate only a handful of trains would be prohibitively costly.

A large system not only has more purchasing clout but can also space out its acquisitions, providing a steady source of work for suppliers. Compare this to the freight car sector, where builders face huge peaks and valleys, which have put some suppliers out of business. When the economy picks up, all major freight railroads suddenly order equipment; when the economy slows, all orders stop.

A national pool of equipment also assures consistency with equipment built to the same standards and configurations. It took Amtrak years to gradually standardize its fleet. At its startup, Amtrak couldn't even predict the capacity of a given train, as replacing one or two coaches with coaches of a different type or design could substantially alter the number of available seats and other amenities.

Marketing

At the same time, a national system is able to offer maximize its investment in marketing efforts and creating recognition for passenger train travel. Sadly, though passenger trains provide many advantages and a viable alternative to many of today's transportation problems, they hardly register on the radar screen of the average American citizen.

Yes, passenger trains will continue to need to be marketed. A national system can gain recognition that a hodge-podge of smaller systems cannot.

The Northeast Corridor

The Northeast Corridor, stretching from Washington, D.C., to Boston, is the major route segment in which Amtrak owns its own tracks and is not at the whim of a host railroad, whose primary interest is moving freight trains. Yet, the Bush administration's proposal—in a June, 2002 speech by the transportation secretary—for fixing the complex problems facing Amtrak is to take away the Northeast Corridor.

This proposal simply does not make sense, particularly in view of the absolute disaster that resulted in Great Britain when responsibility for infrastructure was split from responsibility for running trains. In Britain, the corporation responsible for track and other infrastructure, also vastly underfunded at start, had absolutely no incentive to achieve punctual train operation. That was somebody else's responsibility.

So, that corporation dealt with its funding shortfall by cutting maintenance. The results were growing delays and a series of major accidents. That corporation is now essentially bankrupt and the British government is struggling desperately to find a fix for its problems.

Yes, other entities do use tracks on the Northeast Corridor, including several state-funded regional commuter agencies and even a few freight trains operated by freight railroads that need to move through parts of the corridor in order to reach the freight railroads' customers or terminals. But, by far, Amtrak is the major originator of traffic on the corridor and should therefore have control of its infrastructure.

Imagine a factory in which all the machinery is owned by someone other than the business that uses the factory—and that business has no control over how that machinery is maintained, when it is upgraded, or even whether it is suitable for the products being manufactured. While it may be possible to work in such an environment, it is certainly not a logical arrangement.

To a railroad, the infrastructure is its factory. If anything, Amtrak needs to move toward an environment where it has more control over the infrastructure on which it operates. For example, on some routes in California where passenger trains from both Amtrak and commuter agencies greatly outnumber freight trains, Amtrak has assumed dispatching responsibilities. The freight railroads still have access to the routes but essentially operate as tenants—much the same as Amtrak does in the rest of the country.

Future routes

High-speed passenger rail works best on dedicated routes that have been built for that purpose. These high-speed routes, free of grade crossings ard built on alignments with gentle curves and grades, make fast trains truly competitive with other modes. Yet, moving at slower speeds on existing trackage at their origins and destinations, these trains can provide seamless city center to city center connections—without forcing passengers to change modes of transportation.

If the United States follows the sensible precedent of other countries around the world that are building and expanding their high-speed passenger networks, at some point it will need to not just upgrade existing railroad infrastructure but to build entirely new routes. When these are built, they should logically belong to the corporation that operates the national railroad passenger system.

Why Amtrak

A now-retired official of the North Carolina Department of Transportation—an organization that has put its own money on the line for expanded passenger train service within the state—once told me that the state has a "love-hate" relationship with Amtrak, but that if Amtrak went away, "Someone would have to immediately re-invent it."

No one denies that Amtrak has problems. But, to suggest, as some reporters have done, that, because he or she has had an encounter with a less than highly motivated Amtrak employee, Amtrak should be allowed to die, is simply absurd.

Each of Amtrak's problems can be addressed and fixed. For example, new CEO David Gunn has begun by streamlining the overly complicated management structure set up by his predecessor.

The fundamental problem

The fundamental problem, however, is financial. Without reliable financing, that is seen as an investment, not a subsidy, none of the other reforms will change anything.

For now, however, Amtrak is the national passenger rail system:

• Amtrak owns the preponderance of passenger equipment available within the U.S.
• Amtrak has in place contracts with the freight railroads that own the vast majority of America's railroad routes.
• Amtrak has the staff and expertise capable of operating a national passenger rail system.

Trying to bring in a new organization or splitting up the existing organization would only get in the way of fixing the true problems.

The freight railroads have reluctantly accepted passenger trains and have learned how to cope with running them on their system—even if that relationship has not always been optimal. If anything, the freight railroads are likely to be even more reluctant to deal with any new entity or entities.

The "cruise train" myth

An often heard argument against Amtrak's long distance trains is that they are simply "cruise trains" for vacationers with lots of idle time. What's the answer to this accusation? It comes in two parts:

• First, it's simply not true for the majority of passengers. While these trains may cover thousands of miles, not all passengers ride them the entire distance. In many parts of the country, long-distance trains provide the best travel option for people who do not want to or cannot drive and for whom flying is not a good alternative.
• And, second, even if it were, in what way is it anyone's business to inquire for what reason passengers are traveling? Airlines and bus companies do not ask why a passenger is purchasing a ticket—for business or personal travel.

Yes, passengers on these trains may see spectacular scenery that is not accessible by other means and they may learn a little about the history of the country that they are traveling through. But, there is nothing wrong with that.

The passengers on Amtrak's long-distance trains are a mix of vacationers, business travelers, and those attending to family business—just as are travelers on all other modes of transportation. Tourism is an important business for America. Yet, one of the major disappointments for Europeans visiting America is the state of its national passenger train system.

A business

Amtrak has to be able to operate as a business. Under its present conflicting demands to both make money and to provide services that are unlikely to make money, the system has never been able to make true long-range plans.

If Amtrak is able to operate as a business, with an assured level of investment in equipment and infrastructure, operations can cover their own costs. No one asks the Interstate highway system to make a profit, yet the Interstate system is still being expanded and upgraded to meet current needs.

Few people remember that a major justification for the initial investment in the Interstate highway system was defense. In fact, that was part of its initial name. A viable passenger rail system is no less a national asset.

Implications

If Amtrak is allowed to operate as a business, it will inevitably make changes in its routes. Some routes will see less service or may be eliminated, just as airline management continually re-evaluates the points and routes that are served.

But, just as other businesses expand when opportunities present themselves, Amtrak should also be in a position to expand into new areas and to open new routes—even to build new routes—where these make sense.

New routes would require additional financing, in part from the affected states. However, if a state carefully examines the options available, it may find that building a high-speed passenger rail line may be a far better investment than adding additional lanes to Interstate highways.

One way for the Federal government to recognize the strategic importance and future potential of passenger rail would be to give states greater flexibility in applying Federal transportation dollars. Given the option, states may well opt for rail.

The bottom line

Make no mistake: Operating passenger trains on the tracks of freight railroads imposes a significant (but not insurmountable) burden on those railroads. These burdens go beyond simple wear-and-tear on the infrastructure.

At the same time, operating scheduled passenger trains on single-track lines with only widely spaced passing sidings is exceedingly difficult. And, such lines, reasonably well suited to the operation of the freight railroads which own them, constitute a major part of Amtrak's route structure. The freight railroad's dispatchers usually do their best to move passenger trains on these routes, but, when something goes wrong (either with the passenger train or with a freight train on the same route), there are usually no options that do not result in substantial delays to the passenger train.

Win-win situations

Conflict between passenger and freight rail is not inevitable. Win-win situations can be found that benefit both passenger and freight service. Most infrastructure improvements on freight railroads, such as adding sidings or improving signaling, also help the freight railroad move its own trains more efficiently.

Long-term, a more efficient transportation system is in the national interest, both in normal times and in times of national emergency.

Several states—and to a very limited degree, the Federal government—have already made moves to fund upgrades to freight railroad infrastructure —with the aim of providing more efficient passenger service.

Limitations

However, there are limitations as to what improvements can be made to existing trackage—if it is still expected to carry a substantial amount of freight traffic. Very high speed passenger trains need dedicated corridors—though these corridors could still handle some fast freights during off-peak periods.

Even the freight railroads would benefit by being able to separate their most urgent intermodal movements, capable of running at speeds of 80 miles per hour or more—RoadRailer equipment is a good example—from slower-moving coal and mixed-freight trains.

Getting left behind

Unless the United States deals with its current Amtrak crisis, it risks getting left behind in world transportation. While Japan, France, and Germany have received much publicity for their extensive high-speed passenger rail systems, even such countries as Spain, the Czech Republic, and South Korea have invested in high-speed passenger rail.

An even more telling factor, virtually unnoticed in the United States, is that while the U.S. once had the longest railroad tunnels in the world, this is no longer the case. While the longest American railroad tunnels were bold projects at the time of their construction, mostly in the early part of the 20^th century, they've dropped way down in the worldwide rankings.

Why? Is the need for bold construction projects so much greater in Europe and Japan? No. But, in the U.S., where freight railroads own their own infrastructure, no single railroad would be able to finance a new multi-billion dollar project like the Chunnel or the new link new being dug under the Alps between France and Italy.

Japan and European countries have decided that these investments were worth while. In some cases, these massive infrastructure projects received direct government investment; in other cases, the governments simply facilitated private investments.

While the Chunnel and the new France-Italy tunnel are being touted primarily for their fast passenger service, both—as well as numerous somewhat smaller projects—provide efficient routes for both passengers and freight.

If these much smaller countries can afford to invest billions in new railroad projects, the United States can certainly afford to establish a sound passenger railroad system.

Yes, new base tunnels under some American mountain ranges would add immeasurably to the country's transportation system, saving time and fuel. The technology for digging such tunnels is available and proven—but, first things first.

What Amtrak needs

Amtrak needs a few fundamentals:

• Amtrak needs a consistent and dependable level of investment that will allow it to make long-range plans.
• Amtrak needs to be allowed to manage its own destiny, on a businesslike basis, with a minimum of political interference.

But, most of all Amtrak needs a change of attitude from the country's leadership—from being seen as a recipient of a "subsidy" to being a valuable target of investment to provide transportation capacity and efficiency. With that change of attitude, the other fundamentals should logically follow.

If you are interested in reprinting this paper in a publication, please contact me. While I am interested in having as many people as possible gain a better understanding of Amtrak's situation, please keep in mind that this paper is protected by copyright and is not in the public domain. In part, maintaining ownership to the copyright to this work helps to control how and where this work is reproduced—and to keep excerpts from being used out of context.

[rev. 2002/06/25]

### EHR ###

Ernest H. Robl, Durham, NC, USA +1 (919) 401-9480; fax +1 (919) 402-0721
ehr@mindspring.com

[Ernest H. Robl Home Page]
[Intermodal container FAQ]
[Transportation data main page] [Book sales]
[Business] [Pictures by category]