Editorial, William Lindley
I was recently asked whether I am an Incrementalist. Well…
If we’re talking about technology, what I see in our Nation’s future is commuter trains, regional rail trains, and intercity trains. High-speed rail is sensible only where existing conventional train lines are at capacity.
If we’re talking about policy, I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. Passenger trains can save us money (by reducing expenditures on expanded highway and airway systems), improve our economy (by enabling people of all walks of life to get to work without having to own or drive an automobile), and improve our environment. These are all conservative goals.
Private enterprise can and should run trains. Government should only do what private enterprise cannot; in the rail passenger arena, this means providing legislation and trust funds (just like highways, waterways, and airports) which would allow operators to be profitable even if the system as a whole is not (just as highways, waterways and airways require huge Federal subsidies).
Amtrak is still in a precarious position and may not survive. Even if Amtrak fails, we as rail advocates want the passenger trains to continue.
I see a unique opportunity to work with both traditional Amtrak supporters and opponents to build on existing Amtrak Reform legislation, and change the system to:
- minimize or eliminate Federal operating subsidies;
- create a Passenger Rail Trust Fund like the highways, airways, and waterways have;
- privatize passenger train operations: to States, regional authorities, private operators - even bus and airline corporations, and perhaps an Amtrak “morphed” into just operations.
Why would such a system change accomplish our goals?
- Conservatives get reduced government;
- Traditional Amtrak supporters get more trains;
- Rail passenger funds taken “off-budget” into a trust fund;
- Cities and states get funds to improve their stations and transportation systems.
Who would oppose this? Anyone who is not willing to risk what little we’ve got to gain much more.
Spending. This change does not mean Federal spending on passenger rail would cease. In fact it needs to increase… there is much infrastructure which needs rebuilding or improvement. We might retain a national agency (somewhat like Amtrak Headquarters) as an agent for liability insurance, equipment purchasing, and reservations. Dr. Adrian Herzog’s 1996 paper, “Towards An Amtrak Free National Rail Network,” sets forth some ideas in this direction.
Privatization. Some say privatization cannot work; but this country was built on free enterprise, which thrives when given incentives. Susquehanna (NYS&W) operates the OnTrack commuter train “without a subsidy in exchange for real property relief” and Walter Rich, President and CEO, says “OnTrack loses less money than what the taxes would be if we had to pay them.” [January 1998 TRAINS]. Let’s build on that.
Risk. Airlines come and go. Eastern, Pan Am, Branniff, National Air, and others have come and gone. But the airline system continues. Continental Trailways is gone, but Greyhound is doing well. This should be true of passenger trains as well. We must be willing to let companies be born, grow, and die.
I am reminded of my grandfather’s story of the Wisconsin woods. When he was a boy he would hunt deer. But in the 1920’s they erected ranger stations and doused the forest fires. Without forest fires, the berry bushes (which thrive in the spaces cleared by fires, and which bear fruit only on new growth) produced few berries. Without berries, the deer could not make it through to springtime.
The rangers thought they were protecting the forest. But they were killing it by preserving the Status Quo. After sixty years, they began to allow forest fires again. In Wisconsin the ranger stations concentrate on controlling, not eliminating, fires - and the deer have returned.
Do you see how preserving the Status Quo - not allowing forest fires - kills the ecosystem? This is what has happened with Amtrak. An artificially supported “things as they are” in the past quarter-century has crippled passenger rail’s ability to thrive.
There is no growth without the danger of loss.
