Is Passenger Rail Doomed?

[mtuandrew]

The problem is the added competition is being added to already congested and soon to be over-congested private freight rail lines. It's one thing to add competition on an entirely new rail line, but another when it directly impacts the host railroad that is allowing the competition. What we're saying is that we have no problem with competition, provided the government doesn't burden the private carriers by requiring them to host that competition.

Burdening the private carriers will ultimately bring freight traffic to a near standstill, take Chicago as a prime example here. I'm sure you've most likely read the NY times article, that describes how a freight train average 3 mph ( and takes almost a full day to enter and exit the city of Chicago ) through the course of it's travels through the city of Chicago. Once out of Chicago that average picks up to about 30 mph. This isn't good for any business, and this is precisely what we'll see more of if the government gets their way.

(Emphasis mine)

What you say might echo the feelings of some members of government (and definitely not all liberal), but the same government is attempting to speed up freight railroads' transit of Chicago by investing in the CREATE initiatives. I don't think it's worth generalizing.

In regards to the European model of railroading, I think the current passenger service model of split ownership and franchising does a disservice to the European Union, though I can't speak to the success of the freight model. In either case, it is entirely unsuited to America. American railroads have never been nationalized in the same sense as those of Europe, since even the nationalization during World War One used a different, temporary mechanism. Though the US government could have used Amtrak, a proposed Conrail - MILW - RI, and the Federal Highway System to make them submit to nationalization, three presidents and their Congresses had no interest in trying. And, forcing open access to private property would be a major pain. It's been difficult enough to ensure single-party competitive access (see BNSF access to the UP-owned Rio Grande and Western Pacific) during railroad mergers, and even the government has failed to keep several parallel freight routes intact, such is the power of holding property privately.

For that matter, I'd like to explore whether Class 1s would be interested in regaining passenger rights over their own lines (to be shared with, or subcontracted to, Amtrak - they do too good of a job to ignore) but that's an entirely different post.

[David Benton]

The owner of the railroad line should be properly compensated for any enforced sharing of their line . the govt also needs to invest heavily in rail , no doubt about that .
But i just dont understand the support for monopoly lines in a country as big as the USA , supposedly the home of the free market . Even if it takes alot of investment by the govt , or private companies , the current lines and speeds should be seen as the starting point , not what has to be preserved .
Here in New Zealand , the govt paid well over market value , when it brought the railway operating company back off an Australian company .they were criticised for it , but the reality is , no government can do without private enterprise , and no government is going to risk that by unfair taking of private assets .

[wigwagfan]

My biggest issue with rail - speaking both broadly (Amtrak) and locally (Portland, Oregon) is that rail is often sold not as a part of a complete toolbox of transportation, but rather rail - "because it's a train!"

Case in point #1: Amtrak Cascades. Sure, from Portland-Seattle-Vancouver it's had some modest success. But aside from the I-5 corridor - that's it. There's very little integrated transportation away from I-5. Look at Salem, Oregon - there's no local transit on the weekends; no coordination between the local services to Dallas or Stayton. McMinnville is all but isolated from the corridor via public transit; yet it's a town of 35,000 residents, home to a college. Throw in Newberg and it's 25,000 residents and another college...you'd think that they could have some hourly (or even 4x or 5x daily) service smack to Union Station without needing to make two transfers (Tigard, and somewhere in downtown Portland.)

Case in point #2: WES. A commuter rail corridor along a suburban route. Stations are not located near employment centers and have lackluster connections to transit - the Wilsonville transit system makes the best attempt to connect with other routes; but the Tualatin station has just one bus route which doesn't serve most of the city's population base or employment base), Tigard has seen much of its local bus service disappear, and those Tigard residents who work in Beaverton work well removed from the WES terminus in Beaverton that one or two transfers is needed to complete the trip. The Hall/Nimbus stop offers a miserable transfer experience to the 76/78 bus (it took two years to improve the northbound bus stop, and the southbound bus stop is just a sign on a post - no shelter or bus arrival information), and no service to the various nearby business parks.

Transit isn't just a route - it's an experience that starts at the beginning of the trip, and ends at the end of the trip. Not everyone's trip starts and ends at a rail station. In fact - almost nobody's trip starts and ends at a rail station. By forcing investment decisions based upon the ill-advised logic of "it's a train" there is little to no attention given to the entire system. The result is disinvestment away from the other modes of transport which are necessary; a failure to coordinate transfers between modes; a failure to serve off-corridor towns. I experience a perfect example at the south end of the recently rebuilt Portland Transit Mall - a bus stop that placed landscaping right at the position of the rear door of a bus (and a nice little sign admonishing pedestrians from trampling the landscaping; as if they have a choice in the matter); buses that must now make a convoluted route and some very dangerous turns in their routing - forcing buses to make prohibited turns on red because of heavy pedestrian traffic using a crosswalk. All - to make way for that wonderful train.

Rail transport is a very vital tool in the toolbox of public transportation. But like any tool it must be used correctly, or it can cause harm. Trains shouldn't be built for the sake of trains - they should be built because the travel demand warrants a train. It shouldn't be built at the whim of a railfan, or because some guy brings over a demonstrator and says "you have to buy this!" like a sleazy used-car dealer. In the end - what good is a rail transport system, if it only serves 1/4th of the destinations - and there's no public transit because we blew all the money on the few trains? Build trains - but build them responsibly. Sometimes, it's better to wait a decade or so, and use buses or other investments to build up demand and provide a service. I've said in local transit forums - buses lead to larger buses which lead to trolleybuses which lead to streetcars which lead to light rail, subway, etc. Not "let's build a streetcar because it's cool" and explain to the bus riders in other parts of town not served by the streetcar why they are no longer important to warrant bus service.

[Patrick Boylan]

south end of the recently rebuilt Portland Transit Mall - a bus stop that placed landscaping right at the position of the rear door of a bus (and a nice little sign admonishing pedestrians from trampling the landscaping; as if they have a choice in the matter); buses that must now make a convoluted route and some very dangerous turns in their routing - forcing buses to make prohibited turns on red because of heavy pedestrian traffic using a crosswalk. All - to make way for that wonderful train.

you can't be a railfan if you believe anything other than light rail should meet all trains. ok, I'll let you slide if it's trackless trolley, but you write about buses as if they're the enemy of my enemy

some guy brings over a demonstrator and says "you have to buy this!" like a sleazy used-car dealer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marge_vs._the_Monorail

a sleazy, silver-tongued, fast-talking gentleman named Lyle Lanley suggests that the town construct a city monorail.