Having to pay $120 for a barrel of oil or $4 for a gallon of gas will make people do strange things. Like vote to increase subsidies for Amtrak, in the case of majorities of the US House and Senate. Those majorities, it should be noted, included a number of Republicans, a group not generally known for throwing money at the money-losing intercity passenger railroad. Enough Republicans, in fact, to sustain a threatened presidential veto.
So does this mean American business travelers can look forward to zipping from city center to city center on safe, spiffy, speedy trains of the kind seen in places like France, Germany, and Japan? In three words, not so fast.
For one thing, the funding increase isn’t that big. What is expected to emerge from a House-Senate conference committee is more likely to be a boost from the current fiscal year’s $1.2 billion to about $2 billion. Not chicken feed, but nothing like what countries like, oh, France, Germany, and Japan have had to invest in passenger rail infrastructure in order to support high-speed rail service.
And the US is too big, its major cities too far-flung, for a nationwide high-speed rail network to be anything but a pipe dream. Nevertheless, the prospect of increased investment in Amtrak should raise hopes among business travelers eager to leave their cars at home but not so excited about jumping into the troubled air travel system. Depending, of course, on where those travelers aim to do business.
Where Amtrak performs best is in the densely populated Boston-to-Washington, DC, corridor, where — not coincidentally — Amtrak owns much of the track that its trains travel on. Some of the new money would go to infrastructure improvements designed to help Amtrak’s high-speed (by US standards) Acela service better achieve its promise and gain a larger share of the market in the northeastern US. The Amtrak funding legislation also would encourage states to help pay for regional service improvements by providing matching grants. Northern California is among the candidates for a regional rail upgrade, and in Texas officials have studied prospects for an Austin-to-San Antonio commuter rail connection that could involve Amtrak trains.
The smooth, efficient alternative to the airport and the highway is still a long way down the track. But continued high fuel prices — and enhanced government investment — could hasten its arrival.
Comments
Spokker Says:
August 9th, 2008 at 1:15 am
“And the US is too big, its major cities too far-flung, for a nationwide high-speed rail network to be anything but a pipe dream.”
Probably true, since cross country trips would be better served by air travel (not that long distance rail travel isn’t enticing in its own right, for some).
But there is no reason for this country not to invest in regional high speed rail systems. Such networks could thrive in California, Texas and Florida to name a few. The Northeast Corridor is also in need of upgrades.
Ven Says:
August 9th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Agreed, Spokker. There’s no need to have a transcontinental HSR system. Flying is more than adequate for that. Regional hubs is what’s important. Amtrak would be better served to use lighter weight trainsets as they use in Europe as well.
TexasCollin Says:
August 10th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
At least you’re putting rail back in the news, David! Indeed, the U.S. is far too large to feasibly Mag-Lev our nation at $60M per mile. But thinking about Cal and Texas, this option may prove to be a perfect solution to transport problems. Texas, for instance, is roughly the size of France, which has a superb HSR system (TGV, i believe), and a comprable population that would make HSR highly lucrative. If only the state and federal beauracracies (spelling?) could unite with Texas’ High Speed Rail Corp. and give us, at least, a study and tell us how much money it would cost.
Leave a Comment