On May 1, 1971, the private railroads ceased passenger service and it was taken over by Amtrak, the government-owned National Railroad Passenger Corporation. Dozens of trains that ran on April 30th ceased to exist. Hundreds of cities lost their trains. What remained is largely the bare-bones operation, outside of the Northeast Corridor, that still exists today. This even though the nation has added 100 million people, become much more densely populated, and oil prices will make the car- and airline-based future seen as inevitable in 1971 increasingly difficult to sustain.
Amtrak was created because of a massive grassroots campaign. It was also an effort to help save the bankrupt Penn-Central and the freight railroads in general. But it was also born in sin as a deeply flawed political compromise, dependent on a federal subsidy that few lawmakers would or will admit is necessary, and a political plaything depending on who controls Congress and the White House. Something had to be done. Whether Amtrak was the answer is open to debate. America once enjoyed the best and fastest passenger rail system in the world. It was killed by automobiles and airlines that were heavily subsidized by the federal government (and continue to be), even as the private railroads were taxed and regulated heavily. Nor were the externalities priced in: Pollution, energy consumption and the resulting geopolitical instability, sprawl and its environmental consequences, etc. After spending heavily on new streamliners after World War II, railroads saw passenger business steadily fall off to this subsidized competition. Some fought on with top-notch service, notable the Santa Fe. Others couldn't wait to kill their trains, notoriously the Southern Pacific.
Both served Phoenix in the 1960s. The Santa Fe ran a classy little train from Union Station to Williams Junction, where it connected with the road's premier transcontinental streamliners, including the Super Chief, El Capitan, Chief, San Francisco Chief and Grand Canyon Limited. The SP operated three trains in each direction until the mid-1960s: the crack Sunset Limited, the Golden State and the remnant of the once grand Imperial. By 1970, only the Sunset survived, a raggedy thing that usually had a couple of coaches and a vending-machine car (a decade before, the Sunset routinely had 14 cars, including sleepers and full-service diner). Cities such as Cincinnati and St. Louis had dozens of trains, right up to the eve of Amtrak. After Amtrak, cities usually had one train, often at inconvenient hours (Phoenix had service until the mid-1990s, when the state government refused to help upgrade the northern main line of the SP).
Short-sightedness ruled. One reason for the massive number of "train offs" after 1967 was because the federal government canceled most mail contracts with railroads. Mail and express were major money makers that helped absorb costs from passenger service (the Imperial was mostly a mail train; the Santa Fe canceled its Phoenix train without the mail contract). That seems pretty stupid today, with semis crowding congested roads and freeways, adding to pollution. On a larger scale, no major common carrier operates a real system without a subsidy in any nation. It might have been better to simply subsidize the private railroads to continue passenger service. It would be ever more advantageous in the future to have a balanced way of moving people: cars, airplanes, transit and trains. As it is, Amtrak lives on a starvation diet of between $1 billion and $1.5 billion a year (current cost of the wars since 2001: $1.2 trillion on the way to $3 trillion or more, and not including externalities). The result is that service is always challenged. Still, the trains are wildly popular.
Our elites and the media are generally clueless about rail and greatly influenced by the anti-rail campaigns waged by right-wing "think tanks" and the oil, automobile, airline and trucking industries. One Stanford professor is gaining a platform by arguing the transcontinental railroad was a bad idea, hence high-speed rail is another boondoggle. Amtrak receives scrutiny and hostility never given to freeways or airlines, even though both receive much higher shadow subsidies, have much greater consequences for energy use and the environment, and in the case of airlines are in constant financial straits. No wonder President Obama's hopes to give a modest boost to higher-speed rail (while the world builds and expands true high-speed rail) are fading. Even expanding Amtrak seems a lost hope.
It seems no coincidence that Amtrak came into being just as Project Apollo was reaching its fulfillment. After that, a long ride into a nation of financial looting, offshored jobs, loss of legitimacy in our institutions and permanent war. A nation that can't do great things any more.
I read the above blog. I then started having a variety of thoughts bounce around in my head. That's when the whole thing derailed.
We need mass transit. We need rail.
The money we need for such infrastructure is currently being flushed down the toilet of corrupt contractors and corrupt politicians in Iraq, Afganistan and Pakistan. Just about enough money to give every family in America their own private rail car.
I'm not even going to get into the headwind from the opposing interests you already mentioned, oil, car, trucking, etc.
As those thoughts bounced around my head,a big open space by the way, the complications are overwhelming.
The model train industry is doing very well. We may need to leave it at that.
Posted by: azrebel | May 12, 2011 at 12:59 PM
If you've ever been on the Grand Canyon railroad or the Camp Verde railroad, then you noticed the average age of the passengers is approximately 83. Could a younger A.D.D. generation sit on a train for very long? It might kill them.
Posted by: azrebel | May 12, 2011 at 01:06 PM
Liberals love trains and conservatives hate them (except when they ride them, or fetishize them as in the new movie Atlas Shrugged). I don't think any of this is a mystery. Trains are superior transportation in densely populated areas where cars are often inconvenient. Ergo, if liberals love density, cities, and sustainability, they will, in the words of George Will, make it part of "their goal of diminishing Americans' individualism in order to make them amenable to collectivism". Who woulda thunk! Cars, on the other hand, are individualized pods of freedom, sticking it to the liberals who want to collectivize people by taking away their guns and herding them into cities where they'll be forced to watch gay sex on PBS. http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/27/high-speed-to-insolvency.html#
How did George Will, a man sensitized to exquisite distinctions by years of reading Leo Strauss, evolve into the kind of zealot one finds at The Club for Growth or The Arizona Republic editorial board?
Shortly after Will's Newsweek screed, Paul Krugman was traveling to Washington DC via the Amtrak 161 when he noted among his fellow passengers, one George Will. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/diminished-individualism-watch/
"Picking winners" is the conservative denunciation about doing useful things in the name of progress, something we used to do regularly. We now know this is very wrong since only the marketplace should decide things. Therefore, if people want to drive cars all day from one end of nowhere to the other, not only should we not criticize their choices, we should also facilitate them by building freeways (e.g., Loop 303) before they're even needed! You see, the public already loves freeways so we're just validating the winner in advance, not picking it.
For a nation at war with reality, logic, the environment, and "liberalism", Amtrak is bad news. Much better to let the market decide everything and if we don't like it, we can buy our own railroad. Brother, can you spare a dime?
Posted by: soleri | May 12, 2011 at 01:36 PM
Interesting that a Stanford prof. would be arguing that the transcontinental railroad was a bad idea considering that the place he works probably wouldn't be there if the transcontinental railroad hadn't been built. I wonder if he rode the CalTrain to work this morning. (Probably not.) I'd love to see a link to some of what he's written.
Personally, I think that vastly improved rail service is the only thing that will save us from the transportation melt-down we're facing in the not at all distant future.
Azrebel, the Grand Canyon and Camp Verde routes are lovely runs that should be leisurely, but trains can go faster. Much faster. It's just a matter of spending enough money on it to make it happen. It needs to happen.
Posted by: doYourMath | May 12, 2011 at 01:44 PM
The Recipe for Conservative Government:
Step 1: Politicians starve, privatize, and sabotage the government.
Step 2: When government programs inevitably disappoint, politicians point out how government is inherently awful.
Step 3: The electorate votes for anti-government candidates.
Repeat steps 1-3. Add right-wing media machine, if desired.
Posted by: Jacob Hughes | May 12, 2011 at 02:33 PM
I agree, doMyMath, however are you talking about building rail here in the lower 48 or are you talking about rail in the 51st and 52st states? Iraq and Afghanistan?
Speaking of doing my math, $3 trillion would build 12,000,000 miles of rail line. Bridges and tunnels would be extra.
Posted by: azrebel | May 12, 2011 at 02:41 PM
My Dad was a railroader and I grew up riding the Rocky Mountain Rocket. With those memories, I've put a Canadian rail trip on my bucket list and wonder if their system has any best (or better) practice examples in the package?
During my retail years, I rode Amtrak between NY and DC from the 70's through the 90's . . talk about "wildly successful"! Hard to believe the body politic can be so myopic and easily led on stuff like what Jon calls "the externalities of sprawl".
Posted by: morecleanair | May 12, 2011 at 04:53 PM
Happy Birthday, Amtrak.
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/pr/article.asp?id=26584
""They shouldn't be providing any commuter service; that should be provided by the private sector," says Mica, who serves as chairman of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee. "Amtrak should give up the Northeast Corridor and let someone else do the construction, development, financing and operating. In fact, all the routes should be operated by a private operator.""
Dream on. The privatization fetish persists, especially if it involves selling off vital public infrastructure and getting fleeced.
"But from a Republican perspective, it's important to note that Amtrak covers 76 percent of its operating costs through farebox revenue, something "no other railroad in the United States does," says Boardman. In addition, Amtrak's operating subsidy is used for its 15 long-distance routes, and that subsidy — $434 million in FY2010 — is lower now than it's been in years, he says.
"And where do we operate? Through red states. It's the isolated, rural areas that no longer have aviation services or bus services, and Amtrak is the only lifeline to transportation they have," he says. "Whether you're a Republican or Democrat, you have to understand that this is the United States and Amtrak is a critical element.""
Over $400m/year to basically connect Republican hinterlands. And I thought this was all socialism.
Posted by: AWinter | May 13, 2011 at 09:09 AM
On a rail trip through Colorado to CA a few years ago, a very attractive acquaintance shared her body-length tattoo with me. I don't think that I could have enjoyed that experience on American Airlines. :)
Vive le chemin de fer!
Posted by: Rate Crimes | May 13, 2011 at 09:15 AM
"Personally, I think that vastly improved rail service is the only thing that will save us from the transportation melt-down we're facing in the not at all distant future." - doYourMath
Obviously, you are unfamiliar with the Pony Express! :)
Posted by: Rate Crimes | May 13, 2011 at 09:20 AM
Well ... I have played the ponies, but I guess that's not quite the same thing.
Posted by: doYourMath | May 13, 2011 at 09:50 AM
That George Will is a money-grubbing hypocrit is old news. He should stick to baseball commentary. He's lost it on everything else.
Posted by: eclecticdog | May 13, 2011 at 10:29 AM
There is some irony in the history of railroad political power. The railroads were the industry to hate in the 1800's and their influence over local governments was tremendous and sometimes corrupt. It would be interesting to study how the oil, auto and airline industries eclipsed the political power of the railroads.
Posted by: jmav | May 13, 2011 at 11:10 AM
"Obviously, you are unfamiliar with the Pony Express!"
In 10 years, we'll all be riding horses to work, and mustangs will be the new Mustangs.
Posted by: Jacob Hughes | May 13, 2011 at 12:35 PM
@jmav:
Awesome point, and worth exploring.
Posted by: Petro | May 13, 2011 at 06:28 PM
Just for the record, I agree with Jon and others about the vast difference in externalities between rail and air/freeway. All transportation is subsidized, and rail is by far the best buy for the commons.
Posted by: Petro | May 13, 2011 at 06:31 PM
Regarding horses, Mustangs!
Before the religious nuts, enforcing god at spear point and that brought domesticated animals,got here, the folks that were already here got along just fine on foot.You know, Jared Diamond's Ancestors. Time to watch one of my favorite movies, "Quest For Fire" a great movie with lots of sex and violence.
Posted by: cal Lash | May 14, 2011 at 10:28 AM
I guess the fact that even a blog about railroads is sucking the air out of the room is not a good sign for railroading's future.
Looks like we're back to flying cars, cars that drive themselves, bio-fuel cars, solar cars, natural gas cars, coal powered cars, hydrogen cars, compressed air cars, in other words, cars, cars, cars, cars, cars.
I've always enjoyed cars that have horns that sound like train whistles. (That's progress, right?)
Posted by: azrebel | May 15, 2011 at 10:41 AM
Azrebel, the future of railroads awaits a couple of developments. One is Peak Oil's definitive arrival, and the other is the demographic revolution that will force the Republican Party to compete in the area of ideas instead of race baiting and culture-war drivel. I think we're about 10 years out from the latter and I suspect we're closer than that for Peak Oil.
It's frustrating to know that the future of this nation is being held hostage by extremists and nihilists. I talk to friends about this and wonder whether we shouldn't simply say it out loud. I know Republicans personally and they don't see themselves as bad people or wacky. But that doesn't relieve them of responsibility. Either you hold your party accountable for its irresponsible rhetoric and policy nonsense or you're simply abetting them.
As it stands, the code of conduct for political discussions demands that we take crazy people seriously. And in so doing, we further shift the fulcrum of our debate away from the center to an extreme. When I read a Doug MacEachern in The Arizona Republic, I know that he's smarter than his painfully stupid opinions. But he's part of a system that rewards extremism and marginalizes pragmatism. His team is currently winning for the reason that its narrative is easy to understand. And in 10 years, there may not be enough time or remaining resources to rescue this nation. We're not going to tax-cut our way to paradise or let the marketplace substitute its "solutions" for honest public-policy debate. But as long as we believe in those shibboleths, we're politically disabled.
Posted by: soleri | May 15, 2011 at 12:07 PM
I agree with all you say soleri.
Do you think the FOX republicans will pull their party back in line on the same day the "moderate" Muslims pull their radical brothers back in line?
That would be quite a day !!!!
I'm realy afraid to guess what a "shibboleth" is. Is it one of those big mammals that roamed the southwest more than 10,000 years ago?
I vaguely remember a joke that started out, "A shibboleth, a giant sloth and a caveman walked into a bar......".
Posted by: azrebel | May 15, 2011 at 01:15 PM
"We're not going to tax-cut our way to paradise" - soleri
The cravat crowd with the 4-story super yachts across the bay here disagree with you. They're sipping vintage champagne, smoking cigars, and laughing while they toast Rush.
Posted by: Captain Ahab | May 15, 2011 at 03:27 PM
Can we learn anything useful from the Canadian rail system?
Posted by: morecleanair | May 15, 2011 at 09:01 PM
Via Rail Canada has done little better than Amtrak. Some provincial governments have done ok at funding commuter service. But Canada is sparsely populated and not the best example for the US. Western Europe is better, with proven systems and technology.
Posted by: Rogue Columnist | May 15, 2011 at 10:55 PM