Last year's Amtrak reauthorization and rail safety legislation contains a provision requiring DOT to request proposals from private firms interested in building and operating high-speed rail (HSR) lines, particularly between Boston and Washington, cities already connected by Amtrak's Northeast Corridor. Acela Express trains currently make it from New York to Washington in 2 hours and 40 minutes. But Rep. John Mica (R-FL), the bill's primary co-sponsor, wants to see that run reduced to two hours flat. Doing that would require an entirely new line to be built through some of the country's most populous areas, as various aspects of the century-old route limit speeds by half of what Acela trains are capable. Many passenger rail advocates, myself included, were skeptical that any company would want to compete with Amtrak. After all, Amtrak was created nearly 40 years ago primarily because private railroad companies wanted out of the unprofitable passenger train business.
That's why many of us were surprised by Mica's recent announcement that 80 companies have already expressed interest in bidding to operate HSR lines across the country. These include train manufacturers and state DOTs, as well as architectural, engineering and construction firms. Foreign operators like Britain's Virgin Trains (owned by Warren Buffett) and France's national railway, SNCF have also shown interest. At first glance, this would seem to bode well for the future of a robust HSR service in the US, but it's worth taking a second look at the consequences of private rail service operation. Trains for America points out that in Britain, where passenger lines were privatized in 1997, there is discontinuity in service between different companies. Ticket prices are among the highest in the world, and operators remain dependent on government subsidy. American passenger rail suffers a similar predicament, the difference being that service discontinuities explained by state-level neglect resulting from the absence of a comprehensive federal policy for non-highway transportation.
Railroading is a business characterized by the high fixed costs of building and maintaining tracks, signals, rights-of-way and other infrastructure. It is thus nearly impossible for passenger-hauling railroads to make enough revenue from ticket sales to cover these costs -- let alone turn a profit -- without raising fares to the point of discouraging ridership. American history has shown that major advancements in transportation are almost never made without government leadership to establish and fund a cohesive national plan. The federal government granted vast amounts of land and resources to railroads in the 19th century, helping them unite the nation as never before; trains became the engines of our economic prowess. Uncle Sam also generated the Interstate Highway System and established a dedicated funding apparatus (the Highway Trust Fund) to pay 90 percent of its construction costs. Now, with a strained and congested transportation network too reliant on a single mode with a myriad of negative impacts, federal leadership is needed once again to revitalize rail and guide the country towards efficient, green mobility. Public ownership of railroad infrastructure, an idea scarcely uttered in recent history, may be gaining traction. The Transport Politic summarizes various proposals and offers an appealing scheme.
Trains for America puts it bluntly: "You can either pay for a train system or you can not have one." Building a 21st-century transportation network that provides greener and more enjoyable travel options, relieves congestion, and that the public wants, is a smart investment, especially in the current economic climate.
-- Malcolm Kenton
