May 17, 2009
What ails rail?
Slate has an interesting article about the plight of passenger rail in 21st Century America, wherein the author asks, "Can you think of a technology that has regressed since the early 20th century?"
The answer is, obviously, passenger rail, not just in terms of the sheer number of trains available, or the precipitous decline in the luxury or level of service, but in the most basic measurable metric: how long it takes to get to your destination.
And what of those timetables?
I have recently been poring over a number of prewar train timetables—not surprisingly, available on eBay. They are fascinating, filled with evocations of that fabled "golden era" of train travel.
"You travel with friends on The Milwaukee Road," reads an ad in one, showing an avuncular conductor genially conversing with a jaunty, smartly dressed couple, the man on the verge of lighting a pipe. The brochure for the Montreal Limited, from an era when "de luxe" was still two words, assures travelers that "modern air-conditioning scientifically controls temperature, humidity and purity of air at all seasons."
But the most striking aspect of these antiquated documents is found in the tiny agate columns of arrivals and destinations. It is here that one sees the wheels of progress actually running backward.
The aforementioned Montreal Limited, for example, circa 1942, would pull out of New York's Grand Central Station at 11:15 p.m., arriving at Montreal's (now defunct) Windsor Station at 8:25 a.m., a little more than nine hours later. To make that journey today, from New York's Penn Station on the Adirondack, requires a nearly 12-hour ride.
The trip from Chicago to Minneapolis via the Olympian Hiawatha in the 1950s took about four and a half hours; today, via Amtrak's Empire Builder, the journey is more than eight hours.
Going from Brattleboro, Vt., to New York City on the Boston and Maine Railroad's Washingtonian took less than five hours in 1938; today, Amtrak's Vermonter (the only option) takes six hours—if it's on time, which it isn't, nearly 75 percent of the time.
When it comes to the actual experience of riding the rails, the author notes, "Where the Twentieth Century Limited had once touted its trains as having a 'barber, fresh and salt water baths, valet, ladies' maid, manicurist, stock and market reports, telephone at terminal [and] stenographer,' Amtrak is now scrambling to simply equip itself with Wi-Fi—a technology already available on the bare-bones Bolt bus."
There are a myriad of reasons for the wholesale abandonment of rail for roads, many detailed in the article, but the biggest problem is that passenger trains have to share the rails with freight trains, which results in numerous delays as Amtrak has to pull into sidings to allow the heavily-laden freight trains by, as well as a rough ride on rail beds battered by the sheer tonnage of the miles-long freight trains.
It's also the reason why Obama's plans for high-speed passenger rail is doomed to failure: without dedicated passenger lines -- guaranteeing safe, smooth travel and reliable schedules -- there's no compelling reason to take the train.
It seems that when it comes to riding the rails, things really were better back in the day.
Posted by Mike Lief at May 17, 2009 02:29 PM
| TrackBack
Comments
The feds have been trying to eliminate passenger rail service by starving it to death, ever since it created Amtrak in 1971. It is against my general principles to suggest that either the federal or state government should financially support long-distance passenger trains that are not profitable. However, it is worth noting that governments have supported the trucking industry, and the bus industry, by paying for a network of roads for them to use; and the air transportation industry by paying for airports and support services; and the shipping industry by paying for seaports. But Amtrak is required to piggy-back on tracks owned by private business, except in a few areas where high-density commuter lines exist. When Amtrak trains are running on Union Pacific tracks, for example, they have to get out of the way of some of the Union Pacific trains. Ergo, delays.
Suppose FedEx and UPS owned LAX, and the passenger airlines had to circle LAX waiting for the private owner to clear them for landing. How long would that last? Or suppose Maersk owned the port of Los Angeles, and Princess Cruise liners had to wait for clearance from Maersk before entering the port. Or suppose Navajo Freight owned the 101 and passenger cars were limited to one lane? Each of those theoretical (but ridiculous) situations is exactly analagous to the real-life (but equally ridiculous) situation faced by Amtrak.
My point is that the governments made the decision to support those other transportation industries, on the theory they were necessary to the economic system, while at the same time failing to support passenger train service. The public has voted to support long-distance passenger service by consistently filling the trains despite Amtrak's service deficiencies. If the other transportation industries are subsidized, I do not see the justification for not adequately subsidizing Amtrak.
Finally, changing the subject just a little bit, the people who bitch so much about the quality of Amtrak service ought to realize that it is typical of the quality of service that they can expect whenever the government runs what ought to be a private business. Think health care, for example, or the DMV.
Posted by: The Little Coach at May 19, 2009 10:13 AM