Again, a view of the political economy in addition to the economics would be useful. Amtrak is to a degree a victim of its government ownership. Because Congress has a role in determing Amtrak's fate, large numbers of non-NEC members must be persuaded to support any legislation. Too much support for the NEC reads in the flyover country as a subsidy by good Christian Midwesterners of those rich, liberal Eastern cities. Those uneconomic routes in the Midwest and coast to coast are a political ploy to obtain Congressional support. Amtrak management trims it's sails to garner that support. An effective solution would be to spin out the NEC services to a multi-state compact with limited federal support. The politics would be messy, but at least all parties would have incentives to run an effective HSR system.
I would propose something different: Privatize Amtrak. Almost all of Matt's complaints with Amtrak would benefit from the efficiency gains a for-profit enterprise brings. Cost escalation, wasteful consultants, silly labor rules and bloated management would all be reduced. Doing this work is hard and we should incentivize talented people to tackle that work.
To get private-enterprise benefits, the government should provide a Revenue support guarantee. The government could look back at the previous 5 years, determine how much revenue support ($/rider) would have been needed to ensure a modest return (or even to break-even), then guarantee that amount in $/rider for the next 5 year period. Then, management and ownership of Amtrak would be incentivized to increase the number of riders, increase revenue and lower costs so they could keep the profits. After 5 years, re-evaluate the support level to re-set the performance bar and repeat.
The profit motive is a powerful force. Our government should use that force to improve rail service.
Cuban healthcare. Amtrak expansion plans. Look, I know that Slow Boring subscriptions have slipped a bit, but is it necessary to go so totally clickbait? It's like reading Buzzfeed.
Boston to DC in 1 hour 40 minutes is more delusional than the 3 hours 40 minute figure MY published a couple weeks ago. Where does this number come from? Itâs faster than Italian or even French trains. Hereâs some basic numbers.
Rome to Milan: 571km 3:10 181km/hr
Paris Marseilles 775km 3:12 242km/hr
Madrid Barcelona 628km 2:56 214 km/hr
Washington to Boston is 733 km. At French speeds that would be 3 hours 2 minutes. At Italian speeds it would be 4 hours 7 minutes. Achieving French speeds while passing through greater NYC, not to mention Philly and Baltimore is a pipe dream. From an engineering standpoint, it would be cheapest to bypass the intermediate cities, but that would hurt ridership and wouldnât work politically. The goal should be NYC to DC in 2:15. That is achievable. It would require upgrading the catenaries on the non-urban stretches, expanding the radius of the 50mph Franklin Junction curve in North Philly and building a new tunnel to eliminate a 30mph curve just South of Penn Station in Baltimore. DC to NYC is easier to upgrade because, other than the cities, the line has gentle curves and the limiting factor is the catenaries. NY to Boston is harder to upgrade because the line has many speed limiting curves and they are spread throughout the route. It might be best to follow I-84 to the Mass Pike and abandon the existing coastal route
Interesting couple of articles on this theme. Living in the NEC, I agree that itâs a prime candidate to have a working HSR line as opposed to whatever Acela is.
But the heart of the matter is the issue of state capacity. American public-sector engineering and transportation authorities have atrophied completely under the influence of outsourcing.
So thoroughly that they are no longer able to even *ride herd on* major projects effectively, let alone *conduct* them. This is why every mega-project goes over-budget, from bridges to highways to rail work.
Itâs why Californiaâs HSR project was a catastrophe from which a single consultant (WSP) was able to extract $2 billion in rents- erm, âdesign feesâ for a design that ended up over-budget by a factor of 5 (and counting).
Itâs why Gateway is mooted to cost several times what comparable complex boring projects cost elsewhere.
Itâs why PennDOTâs last attempt to spam out 500-odd similar small bridges through consultants was still a massive clusterfluffle. Not because it was a failure, but because the consultants have spent every moment since whining incessantly in the hopes of having the Legislature prevent them from ever doing something similar and eating into their design fees.
Weâre so far from having the state capacity to leverage these sorts of capital investments that I donât even know where to start, really,
Isn't this a federalism issue? Stuff that urban people like is constantly in danger of being defunded due to our Cubist constitution and the culture war preferences of Republicans, so agencies like Amtrak have to show they appeal to people outside the coasts. For transit within one urban area, I think you could have some political success saying "fund this train line so the city slickers stop getting lost in your exurban town and backing up your streets on their commute" but I'm not sure that works at a federal level.
It seems like Amtrak is doing old school politics, drawing lines through as many states or districts as it can to ensure broad support. Politics has become so polarized and national, maybe they can make the switch to focusing on the NEC and get liberal support from areas they are leaving or ignoring just bc liberals like trains. Amtrak funding does seem to be a bit of a âsecret Congressâ type issue so maybe the old pork barrel style should still rule the day.
But if we are moving into a new era where trains become the kind of nationalized culture war type issue (it already seems this way on Twitter), it seems to me like that could go badly wrong. With conservatives, even members whose districts still do benefit, opposing funding and liberals taking a âno enemies on the leftâ approach to defending Amtrak from the neoliberal scourge of numbers, analysis, and efficiency.
Anyway keep fighting the good fight Matt! We probably need to get to a politics where environmental groups support things like reducing unnecessary staff on trains because that will eventually allow for more trains. We feel along way away from that to me.
From Baltimore, Southwest flies into Hartford, Providence, Boston, and Manchester with a combined 17 nonstops a day. Those are all less 90 minutes gate to gate. Even accounting for security, it is less than four hours door to door. That is what Amtrak needs to compete with.
Southwest also makes three flights a day into Long Island. However, it has no direct flights from DC or Baltimore to Philadelphia, Newark, or LaGuardia. It knows it can't compete on those routes.
There are a lot of other airlines that do go DC/Baltimore into greater NYC but those are all regional jets feeding a hub. Nobody would do those on a stand-alone basis.
That is also the reason there is a Madison to Chicago route. Nobody takes a plane if those are both of their endpoints. That route is only in service of longer multistop trips.
The DC to Boston route is a great example of a bad example that everybody keeps using and it is very apt. It is really DC to NYC and NYC to Boston with a common terminus. In both directions the trains empty out at NYC which just feeds into Matt's other tirade about how bad the people handling at Penn Station is.
The current president is, like, the country's single biggest Amtrak fan. Why isn't he twisting some arms to get some cool shit done along the lines of what Matthew is proposing?
Iâm confused about the Madison to Chicago discussion. Three hours from Madison to Chicago seems like it would win out over a plane for most people, even if most would still drive. Flying from Madison isnât going to get you to Chicago any faster than that - the point of flying is to connect to anywhere else that United flies.
I've spoken at length to an Amtrak employee (some kind of planner) about the northeast corridor, and he said the limitation on speed is about track location, not money. To get faster trains, you need straighter tracks, to limit turning; and to get straighter tracks, you need to move tracks from where they are, to where they ideally should be; that means lots and lots of eminent domain, lawsuits, and petty local political controversies. Getting Acela on the NEC was a political process much more than an engineering process. Other countries have their own political complexities, but generally speaking they either have stronger central planning (China, Korea), they built their tracks at a point in their development where infrastructure and property were "reset" because of being bombed (Japan, Germany), or other particular combinations of events.
I think what this piece (and a lot of thinking around HSR and transit in general) fails to grapple with is that the GOPâs base would rather die than spend a nickel on projects that they see as primarily benefiting cities, particularly urbanites in the NE corridor.
There is one element missing from the discussion. That is the element of trains as cruise ships. Other countries that are endowed with the kind of spectacular scenery that the United States has have luxury trains that operate at slow to moderate speeds over good to poor tracks and attract people who pay bazillions of dollars for the privilege.
I don't see why (prohibitive laws or regulations aside) America shouldn't have trains like this. They could be private. They could make money. They could pay some amount of money (perhaps not huge but nonzero) toward maintaining rail as transportation.
I have ridden these trains; other than that, I have no answers, only questions. Would anyone who knows more about this like to comment on why we don't have luxury trains of this kind, and if we did, whether they could contribute positively to the picture Matt paints?
Again, a view of the political economy in addition to the economics would be useful. Amtrak is to a degree a victim of its government ownership. Because Congress has a role in determing Amtrak's fate, large numbers of non-NEC members must be persuaded to support any legislation. Too much support for the NEC reads in the flyover country as a subsidy by good Christian Midwesterners of those rich, liberal Eastern cities. Those uneconomic routes in the Midwest and coast to coast are a political ploy to obtain Congressional support. Amtrak management trims it's sails to garner that support. An effective solution would be to spin out the NEC services to a multi-state compact with limited federal support. The politics would be messy, but at least all parties would have incentives to run an effective HSR system.
I would propose something different: Privatize Amtrak. Almost all of Matt's complaints with Amtrak would benefit from the efficiency gains a for-profit enterprise brings. Cost escalation, wasteful consultants, silly labor rules and bloated management would all be reduced. Doing this work is hard and we should incentivize talented people to tackle that work.
To get private-enterprise benefits, the government should provide a Revenue support guarantee. The government could look back at the previous 5 years, determine how much revenue support ($/rider) would have been needed to ensure a modest return (or even to break-even), then guarantee that amount in $/rider for the next 5 year period. Then, management and ownership of Amtrak would be incentivized to increase the number of riders, increase revenue and lower costs so they could keep the profits. After 5 years, re-evaluate the support level to re-set the performance bar and repeat.
The profit motive is a powerful force. Our government should use that force to improve rail service.
Cuban healthcare. Amtrak expansion plans. Look, I know that Slow Boring subscriptions have slipped a bit, but is it necessary to go so totally clickbait? It's like reading Buzzfeed.
Boston to DC in 1 hour 40 minutes is more delusional than the 3 hours 40 minute figure MY published a couple weeks ago. Where does this number come from? Itâs faster than Italian or even French trains. Hereâs some basic numbers.
Rome to Milan: 571km 3:10 181km/hr
Paris Marseilles 775km 3:12 242km/hr
Madrid Barcelona 628km 2:56 214 km/hr
Washington to Boston is 733 km. At French speeds that would be 3 hours 2 minutes. At Italian speeds it would be 4 hours 7 minutes. Achieving French speeds while passing through greater NYC, not to mention Philly and Baltimore is a pipe dream. From an engineering standpoint, it would be cheapest to bypass the intermediate cities, but that would hurt ridership and wouldnât work politically. The goal should be NYC to DC in 2:15. That is achievable. It would require upgrading the catenaries on the non-urban stretches, expanding the radius of the 50mph Franklin Junction curve in North Philly and building a new tunnel to eliminate a 30mph curve just South of Penn Station in Baltimore. DC to NYC is easier to upgrade because, other than the cities, the line has gentle curves and the limiting factor is the catenaries. NY to Boston is harder to upgrade because the line has many speed limiting curves and they are spread throughout the route. It might be best to follow I-84 to the Mass Pike and abandon the existing coastal route
Interesting couple of articles on this theme. Living in the NEC, I agree that itâs a prime candidate to have a working HSR line as opposed to whatever Acela is.
But the heart of the matter is the issue of state capacity. American public-sector engineering and transportation authorities have atrophied completely under the influence of outsourcing.
So thoroughly that they are no longer able to even *ride herd on* major projects effectively, let alone *conduct* them. This is why every mega-project goes over-budget, from bridges to highways to rail work.
Itâs why Californiaâs HSR project was a catastrophe from which a single consultant (WSP) was able to extract $2 billion in rents- erm, âdesign feesâ for a design that ended up over-budget by a factor of 5 (and counting).
Itâs why Gateway is mooted to cost several times what comparable complex boring projects cost elsewhere.
Itâs why PennDOTâs last attempt to spam out 500-odd similar small bridges through consultants was still a massive clusterfluffle. Not because it was a failure, but because the consultants have spent every moment since whining incessantly in the hopes of having the Legislature prevent them from ever doing something similar and eating into their design fees.
Weâre so far from having the state capacity to leverage these sorts of capital investments that I donât even know where to start, really,
We need La to SF HSR
Isn't this a federalism issue? Stuff that urban people like is constantly in danger of being defunded due to our Cubist constitution and the culture war preferences of Republicans, so agencies like Amtrak have to show they appeal to people outside the coasts. For transit within one urban area, I think you could have some political success saying "fund this train line so the city slickers stop getting lost in your exurban town and backing up your streets on their commute" but I'm not sure that works at a federal level.
It seems like Amtrak is doing old school politics, drawing lines through as many states or districts as it can to ensure broad support. Politics has become so polarized and national, maybe they can make the switch to focusing on the NEC and get liberal support from areas they are leaving or ignoring just bc liberals like trains. Amtrak funding does seem to be a bit of a âsecret Congressâ type issue so maybe the old pork barrel style should still rule the day.
But if we are moving into a new era where trains become the kind of nationalized culture war type issue (it already seems this way on Twitter), it seems to me like that could go badly wrong. With conservatives, even members whose districts still do benefit, opposing funding and liberals taking a âno enemies on the leftâ approach to defending Amtrak from the neoliberal scourge of numbers, analysis, and efficiency.
Anyway keep fighting the good fight Matt! We probably need to get to a politics where environmental groups support things like reducing unnecessary staff on trains because that will eventually allow for more trains. We feel along way away from that to me.
From Baltimore, Southwest flies into Hartford, Providence, Boston, and Manchester with a combined 17 nonstops a day. Those are all less 90 minutes gate to gate. Even accounting for security, it is less than four hours door to door. That is what Amtrak needs to compete with.
Southwest also makes three flights a day into Long Island. However, it has no direct flights from DC or Baltimore to Philadelphia, Newark, or LaGuardia. It knows it can't compete on those routes.
There are a lot of other airlines that do go DC/Baltimore into greater NYC but those are all regional jets feeding a hub. Nobody would do those on a stand-alone basis.
That is also the reason there is a Madison to Chicago route. Nobody takes a plane if those are both of their endpoints. That route is only in service of longer multistop trips.
The DC to Boston route is a great example of a bad example that everybody keeps using and it is very apt. It is really DC to NYC and NYC to Boston with a common terminus. In both directions the trains empty out at NYC which just feeds into Matt's other tirade about how bad the people handling at Penn Station is.
"state of Philadelphia"
Is MY an Always Sunny Fan?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdaolcn5k00
The current president is, like, the country's single biggest Amtrak fan. Why isn't he twisting some arms to get some cool shit done along the lines of what Matthew is proposing?
Iâm confused about the Madison to Chicago discussion. Three hours from Madison to Chicago seems like it would win out over a plane for most people, even if most would still drive. Flying from Madison isnât going to get you to Chicago any faster than that - the point of flying is to connect to anywhere else that United flies.
I've spoken at length to an Amtrak employee (some kind of planner) about the northeast corridor, and he said the limitation on speed is about track location, not money. To get faster trains, you need straighter tracks, to limit turning; and to get straighter tracks, you need to move tracks from where they are, to where they ideally should be; that means lots and lots of eminent domain, lawsuits, and petty local political controversies. Getting Acela on the NEC was a political process much more than an engineering process. Other countries have their own political complexities, but generally speaking they either have stronger central planning (China, Korea), they built their tracks at a point in their development where infrastructure and property were "reset" because of being bombed (Japan, Germany), or other particular combinations of events.
I think what this piece (and a lot of thinking around HSR and transit in general) fails to grapple with is that the GOPâs base would rather die than spend a nickel on projects that they see as primarily benefiting cities, particularly urbanites in the NE corridor.
There is one element missing from the discussion. That is the element of trains as cruise ships. Other countries that are endowed with the kind of spectacular scenery that the United States has have luxury trains that operate at slow to moderate speeds over good to poor tracks and attract people who pay bazillions of dollars for the privilege.
Check out the Indian Pacific in Australia: https://journeybeyondrail.com.au/journeys/indian-pacific/
Check out Rovos Rail in South Africa https://rovos.com/
I don't see why (prohibitive laws or regulations aside) America shouldn't have trains like this. They could be private. They could make money. They could pay some amount of money (perhaps not huge but nonzero) toward maintaining rail as transportation.
I have ridden these trains; other than that, I have no answers, only questions. Would anyone who knows more about this like to comment on why we don't have luxury trains of this kind, and if we did, whether they could contribute positively to the picture Matt paints?