Amtraking the progress made

As I expect long-time readers know, I am a big fan of Amtrak and of train travel in general. So I found this from columnist Derrick Jackson, writing in the Boston Globe earlier this week, a happy observation:

Train travel is finally becoming a third rail of politics. ...

Suddenly, the traveling public is demanding the development of commuter and high-speed intercity rail. According to the American Public Transportation Association, light rail (streetcars) was up 10 percent in the first quarter of this year, commuter rail was up by 6 percent, and subways were up 4 percent (Boston subway travel was up by 9 percent).

And Amtrak, perpetual whipping boy of the "government can't do anything right" crowd, has seen its ridership up 11% over this point last year, a year that saw a ridership of nearly 26 million, an all-time record for the service - in fact, the fifth straight all-time record. Demand was so high over the July 4 travel period that people in Washington DC had trouble getting seats because the trains were all booked.

Meanwhile, travel writers are starting to have nice things to say about long-distance train travel.

Things are up enough that the New York Times has suggested that Amtrak's biggest problem may be an inability to expand fast enough to meet the rising demand. While that may well be true in the short term, in the slightly longer term, say five years, there is reason for optimism: Last October the Senate passed an $11.4 billion authorization over five years for passenger rail projects, including Amtrak, by a veto-proof 70-22. The House followed up in mid-June with a $14.4 billion, five-year, authorization package, passed by another veto-proof majority of 311-104. The portion of each directed to Amtrak would be double to almost triple the funding rate it has received the past several years, enabling significant investment in both new rolling stock and infrastructure improvements.

These of course are authorizations, not appropriations, so there may still be a fight ahead. Still, the overwhelming majority in each house of Congress has declared a willingness to make a sufficient commitment to passenger rail such that this very efficient means of transportation will do more than just squeak by in the face of yearly attempts to kill it altogether. There are good odds that a final appropriations bill will be passed this year that will contain a significant increase in funding for passenger rail. As Derrick Jackson said, "The luster of austerity is gone." And that is a very good thing.

Footnote: That New York Times article contained two bits that serve to point out the continuing political (as opposed to financial or operational) difficulties facing Amtrak.

This is one:

H. Glenn Scammel, a former head of staff of the rail subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said the railroad should give up on some of its cross-country trains and redeploy the equipment on relatively short intercity trips, where it could provide enough frequency to attract new business. (Providing one train a day in each direction will not draw many new business travelers.)

Let's leave aside the fact that Scammel is not a member of Congress, he's a staffer - indeed, as near as I can tell, a former staffer. All of which makes him someone who in normal circumstances would be unlikely to be quoted. Let's also skip the fact that the National Association of Rail Passengers says "Scammel spent much of his House career badmouthing the long-distance trains." Let's just consider what he said. First, as the NARP notes, long-distance cars are not designed for short-distance travel and so can't just be "redirected." Second, Scammel's proposal is one of the old ones repeatedly offered up, essentially, for the purpose of dismantling Amtrak by envisioning rail travel as a series of disconnected hubs linking local cities - that is, seeing it in the same way that air travel is largely thought of now: as a means of moving business people around, just in this case between points too close to be convenient for flying.

Third, consider how odd it was for the Times to include this argument, presented as a means to achieve the apparently it goes without saying necessary end of "attract[ing] new business," in particular, new business travelers, in an article mainly about how demand for rail travel is already increasing so rapidly that Amtrak may have trouble meeting it. I can't help but suspect this is a rather revealing non sequitur, considering that the article was part of the Times' business coverage.

This is the other:

When Amtrak began operating 37 years ago, the plan was for it to eventually break even.

That is complete bunk. In fact, the plan was for it to fail, to last just long enough to justify pulling the plug without making it too obvious that the intent was to for all practical purposes shut down the system. It was demanded of Amtrak that it do what almost no other passenger rail system in the world had ever done, and I mean that literally: make a profit on intercity passenger rail travel. It would have been helpful if in writing about Amtrak the reporter knew what he was talking about.