Last week, the Senate passed a measure that would provide $10 billion for Amtrak over the next six years. The legislation, if passed, would not only go a long way towards helping Amtrak get out of its financial hole, but the infusion of cash would provide a major boost of investment in our rail infrastructure at a time when demand for passenger trains is growing.

Contrary to popular opinion, since the mid 1990s, we have seen an explosion in rail demand and service, primarily focused among commuter and short to medium intercity routes. From 1995 to 2005, commuter rail usage grew over 20 percent, from 352 to 423 million passenger trips. Over the same period, 421 miles of new commuter and light rail track has been built.

Nearly half of the 21 commuter railroads in North America did not exist 15 years ago. Most of those new systems are based in Chicago and several Northeastern cities, including New York, Philadelphia, and Boston. Today commuter railroads are located in metropolitan areas across the nation, including Miami, Los Angeles, Nashville, the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C., and Dallas. And many more are on the way.

But commuter rail is only part of the story. In eight of the last nine years, Amtrak has seen ridership explode, driving passenger revenue up 23.23% between 1995 to 2005 (By the way, these figures also jumped significantly for commuter rail [23.5%] and light rail [52.2%])

These increases have been primarily driven by a few key, short to medium intercity routes, such as the Northeast Corridor, the Chicago-anchored Midwest corridor, and trains that run along the Pacific Coast.

In fact, where there is a strong passenger rail presence in densely populated areas, with trains that are modern and fast (by U.S. standards), rail is more than competitive with the airlines (Amtrak handles about 50% of all New York-Washington airline/railroad traffic).

But the demand for passenger rail is only part of the story. An investment in a national rail system makes economic sense as well. A single railroad track, just 6 feet across, has the capacity of a superhighway 10 times wider. And just like highway spending, the jobs created by rail construction will more than pay for the original investment. As for energy savings, even the most conservative studies give trains an advantage of 4 to 1 over cars and airplanes.

Unfortunately, the debate over the future of passenger rail in America has largely been driven by two extremes; on the one side are the supporters of a national network of long distance trains. This group is primarily made up of the “rail romantics” who long for a return to great passenger trains of the 1930s and 1940s, elected officials in rural areas who view Amtrak as the way to safeguard rail service for their constituents, and those who prefer not to fly.

On the other side are Amtrak’s opponents. They believe passenger rail is redundant in the age of the jet plane and the automobile and see public subsidies for Amtrak as a form of “rail” welfare.

Like so many issues that are driven by ideology rather than good policy, the result has been a political stalemate that has left America with a rail system designed for the 20^th century, not the new millennium. To get us on the right track, Congress and the President should do the following:

Target investment in commuter and regional rail corridors. We need to make a national investment in rail where it makes sense - densely populated corridors. While some rail advocates argue that the cost of long-distance trains is comparable to that of short distance routes, the fact is they carry far less passengers, especially if you take into account commuter traffic. That’s why we should dump the long-distance trains and target funding to start building rail stations at our nation’s busiest airports. This would not only increase rail traffic, but would decrease congestion and pressure on our already overly utilized airports by reducing the need for commuter air service.

High-speed rail is a key to increasing ridership. High-speed rail is a key to increasing ridership. Presently, the Acela route between Boston and Washington, D.C., is the only true high-speed system in the nation (trains that can at least reach 150 mph). While Acela has had its problems, its ridership levels have proven that faster speeds means more passengers. It’s time for the Federal government to invest in additional high speed corridors in places like Florida, the Midwest, California, and elsewhere. The federal government should also work with states (like they are in Pennsylvania), to increase the speed of existing trains.

Create a direct source of financing. Roads and airports have direct sources of financing, the gas tax and the ticket tax. If passenger rail is going to succeed, it needs its own direct source of funds. That’s why officials should establish a Rail Trust Fund (RTF) that would finance the construction and maintenance of our national passenger rail system. The RTF would receive its funding from three sources, the 4.3-cent gas tax paid by the railroad industry on diesel fuel, a ticket surcharge on all passenger rail systems (including commuter rail systems), and a match contribution from states in which the rail system operates. In return for the state contribution, governors would receive seats on the board of the RTF and would help decide passenger rail policy. Other potential sources of direct funding could come from carbon auctions or other pollution fees if Congress moves ahead on such legislation.

If we choose to live in the past, passenger rail will just keep creaking along. But if we take a regional approach to rail, high-speed trains can serve an important transportation role in the 21^st century.

This entry was posted on 11.13.2007 at 7:18 am and is filed under Economic Opportunity, Government Reform, Hybrid Economy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response.