CHICAGO — For years, proponents of high-speed rail projects in the United States have depicted a future where business travelers could zip from city to city
by train over many of the short hops now done by air, a wire service reports.
But the fiscal and political turmoil currently enveloping Amtrak may make some wonder about that future, amid proposals that the debt-ridden rail passenger system be broken up and privatized, with some of its long-distance routes perhaps history.
Is high-speed rail wedded to Amtrak’s future?
There is no clear answer — and no shortage of strongly held opinions. Right now Amtrak is the only real player. Its Acela service in the profitable Washington, D.C. to Boston route can reach 150 miles per hour (241 kph) but track conditions limit that pace to only one section at the northern end of that route.
By contrast, high-speed trains in Europe and Japan can hit speeds of 186 mph (300 kph).
Of the various projects and proposals in the United States beyond the Northeast, those in California and Florida appear to be the most advanced.
“We’re very anxious for Amtrak to continue and thrive,” says Rod Diridon, chairman of the California High-Speed Rail Authority. “Its absolutely vital for the economic success of America.”
A CALIFORNIA QUICKIE
Amtrak would be a “very important feeder” for the $25 billion, 700-mile high-speed system California hopes to build, he said in an interview. The system, linking California’s major cities, envisions trains operating at 200 mph making runs between Los Angeles and San Francisco in 2-1/2 hours.
Diridon said the debate over Amtrak’s future has not had an impact so far on the California project.
Amtrak said recently it would halt its long distance routes in October if Congress did not approve a $1.2 billion aid plan. The carrier lost $1.1 billion last year, currently receives $521 million in federal subsidies and is roughly $3 billion in debt.
In 1997, Congress ordered Amtrak to be free of federal subsidies by the end of this year and created a reform council to help facilitate that. That advisory panel recently recommended Amtrak be split into three parts and that its routes eventually be opened to private competition.
“We’re going to have to wait to see what happens,” says Mike Rivera, director of government affairs for the High Speed Ground Transportation Association. “But the first thing is that Amtrak is not going to disappear. It is and has been too vital to our transportation system.”
Those running the California and Florida projects, along with those behind a compact of Midwestern states promoting a high speed network there, “may be looking at alternatives” to Amtrak down the road, he said, but much depends on how the current situation shakes out.
SOME DIFFERENCES
One difference is that Florida and California are looking at building new rights of way, instead of sharing existing freight tracks, he said, “and what happens with Amtrak will impact those projects less.”
Amtrak at the same time “is in an interesting position. They have the right (by law) to use freight railroads. If Amtrak goes away or is modified in some significant way private operators (who might want to compete with new service) do not have a legal right to use freight tracks, and there’s no guarantee the freights would offer them access,” he said.
For a high-speed rail line to work, he added, it would have to be competitive with air service over a run of 400 or 500 miles.
A different view comes from Joe Vranich, a former member of the Amtrak Reform Council who has written extensively on high-speed rail topics and is the author of the book “Derailed.”
He says he has backed high-speed projects in the past and could still see government funding for them; but he thinks Amtrak is the wrong model, promoting the wrong trains on routes that are sometimes too long and too lightly populated to be viable high-speed rail alternatives to air travel.
One major problem with the current rail network, he says, is a lack of airport connections. A traveler arriving at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport, for instance, might consider a quick rail trip to Milwaukee but the nearest Amtrak rail station today is downtown, miles from the airport.
ADVOCATES LIQUIDATION
“A true high-speed bullet train from Detroit to O’Hare and back is what’s required, not some warmed-over Amtrak,” Vranich said. In the meantime, he thinks Amtrak should be put into bankruptcy and liquidated.
Richard Harnish, executive director of the Midwest High Speed Rail Coalition, disagrees, saying Amtrak needs a substantial increase in funding “and there needs to be an agency, just like the Federal Highway Administration, to deal solely with funding and overseeing the structure.”
He believes fast, affordable high-speed service is practical in the region on four or five routes, initially at speeds of 70 to 80 mph, to make the trips competitive with car travel.
George Hoffer, an economics professor at Virginia Commonwealth University and an admitted fan of rail travel, suggests that those who will shape Amtrak’s future need to look at the system in a different way.
“We should see it the same way we do the National Park Service — part heritage and secondarily, transportation. We don’t expect the Park Service to make money,” he said.
But, that said, the advent of the regional jet, which has made short puddle-jumping flights faster and more comfortable, has made it all the harder for high-speed rail to grow beyond a few limited areas, he adds.