Arizona Rail Passenger Association

by Garl Latham

If I may, please allow me to delve into this subject of ‘trains and names.’

This may not be taken by all as the definitive word on the issue, but it’s coming from someone who: 1) rode the “Super” before and after Amtrak’s birth; 2) has traveled on its lineal descendants; 3) makes a concerted effort to study in detail ALL available subject matter relating to that train and its operations; 4) describes the journey with his Father on # 17 as the “ultimate train trip,” against which all others are compared (and who still commemorates that event’s anniversary every year); and, 5) has spoken personally to many a Santa Fe alum over the years, including Mr. John Reed (on more than one occasion) about the service – covering (among other things) this very topic.Before you might ask: yes, I have considered writing a book! It is a daunting task, but I’ve done a great deal of work toward that goal. It is just SUCH a personal thing to me! This might sound a bit “weird” (although I’m sure many of you can understand), but its emotionally draining to call these things to mind! What I HAVE been able to do over the years is to provide others with historical information necessary to complete projects related to the “Super“. One of the nicest was the BRIO Wooden Railway System “Santa Fe Train” (catalogue number 33423) which was officially introduced throughout the U.S. market in 1994. It was the first North American prototype that the Swedish company had ever attempted. I wrote an informational insert that was included in every package sold for the first couple of years. Read the rest of this entry »

(1998 Commentary by William Lindley)

With Amtrak’s 1998 Business Plan discussing primarily Corridors, rather than long-distance trains, it may be instructive to look at the “corridor” and long-distance services which Southern Pacific offered along the Sunset Route in 1951. Read the rest of this entry »

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.

Guest Editorial by Dr. Adrian Herzog, Vice President, URPA, December 1997

Agreed, we as rail passenger advocates are all in this together, but what now? The loss of service on the Desert Wind and Pioneer is an inconvenience for rail advocates but a complete catastrophe in those communities where we asked the local community to invest in station improvements. The loss of some frequency will, of course, undermine support for Amtrak anywhere; the complete removal of service has the effect of turning off support and making neutral observers actively hostile to Amtrak funding.

This is the situation in the Southwest, where the political support for Amtrak is essentially ZERO, but the interests of states like Arizona in regional rail are rapidly growing. Now, should Arizona RPA ally itself with an Amtrak that has no political support, or with the emerging local forces that are in favor of regional rail? This is not an easy decision to make since we all were part of the creation of Amtrak, but politics being what they are, and Associations needing to work with local politics, the result has been a rapidly emerging alliance with local politics in support of regional rail in which Amtrak has actively taken itself out of the picture by:

1. Indicating that they don’t do these things in places like Arizona while bidding against the UP for the contract to run Metrolink trains in L.A.
2. Taking the only train they had out of Phoenix just before the next local pro-rail ballot attempt to pass a regional sales tax initiative similar to the ones in California.

In California, Amtrak has never been supportive of efforts to improve service. At no time have they made any significant dollar investments in our corridors. Infrastructure work on the LA-San Diego line, essentially double tracking 80+ miles of the line, is now in full swing with only extremely marginal and reluctant Amtrak participation. The bulk of the investment is from the State and from our local sales tax initiatives. The situation is even more stacked politically against Amtrak here. Due to Amtrak’s constant lack of cooperation with the cities and counties that own the corridor, the local political powers are eager to “get rid of Amtrak ASAP.” The UP and BNSF have already indicated that they will submit operating proposals to compete against Amtrak for the contract to operate Metrolink. Now, should we at RailPAC ally ourselves with Amtrak in this situation?

Amtrak has wasted the last 25 years during which they should have built a strong national political base. Asking rail passenger supporters to build this base, when at the same time they undermine it, is a bit difficult. Western rail passenger associations are in open revolt for a simple reason. We have gotten nothing from Amtrak except hostility and outright sabotage of our efforts. Amtrak must therefore be either reformed or replaced so that we have an institution that realizes that the game is not only to run a few trains, but to constantly work with local advocates and each and every community served so that politically every community from Boston to Laramie and L.A. feels that these trains belong to them and that they should support them with ridership, with political and financial support. It is the neglect of this fundamental rule of politics that has brought Amtrak to the present crisis.

Attacking Arizona RPA or URPA or RailPAC for distancing themselves from Amtrak without knowing the political reasons is counterproductive. Asking us to blindly support the current system is a waste of time.

– Bill Lindley

In 11 August’s USA Today, a cover story appeared titled “Airline service bailout grounds midsized cities.” The article detailed how the airline industry is concentrating on its strongest segments, while smaller cities see their  air service reduced from jets to commuter planes, or eliminated altogether. Airlines are delaying the purchase of new jets, and putting their existing jet fleets where they make the most money. For instance, according to the article, “American Airlines has eliminated jet service to 29 cities since 1992, replacing it with American Eagle commuter service… But most frequent travelers complain about the noisier, less spacious commuter plans that have a reputation — disputed — for being less safe than jets.”

Dozens of cities are subsidizing air service to keep the airlines in town: “Amarillo pays $1.2 million a year to American Airlines for three jet flights daily to Dallas-Fort Worth. The money comes from a 1/2 cent sales tax.” Meanwhile, the capital cities of Trenton, New Jersey and Salem, Oregon have lost all air service since 1991.

As airlines diminish or abandon their roles in such cities, the transportation needs of the citizens must be met by other modes. Readers of this newsletter will note, Trenton is well served by Amtrak’s Northeast corridor services, while the state of Oregon has been funding additional passenger rail services. The ability to serve smaller cities and towns is one of the rail mode’s strong points. Indeed, it is because of the railroad that many of these communities exist today.

Airlines are continuing their struggle to regain profitability, in spite of government owned and operated airports and the totally federally subsidized air traffic control system; the passenger rail transportation in this country is also in upheaval. Is there not a way to balance the advantages of all modes? Airlines seem to have discovered it is not economical for them to serve small cities: this is where trains excel. Yet for long distances, business travelers demand speed: this is where airplanes excel. For flexibility, automobiles and buses are best, although congestion, urban sprawl, and communities where it is impossible to walk anywhere have resulted from the elevation of the automobile above all else.

Transportation in this country should take advantage of the capabilities of each mode and ensure they are integrated into one system. Perhaps current events are already moving us toward a balanced system. I hope that our government, through its trust funds, subsidies, and regulations, will speed, not inhibit, the creation of a balanced transportation system.