Rail Nationalization and transport infrastructure funding discussion

[Tod]

I am absolutely a newbie, please forgive my ignorance and excuse me if there was another posting for this already (I didn't find it). I'm getting prepared for our first Amtrak trip this fall ... AZ to TX (an overnighter) ... to attend a wedding. In my preparation I've been watching and reading a ton of blogs and YT videos from a variety of avid Amtrakers.

I came across the following video that recommends nationalizing the class 1 rails.

I don't necessarily think the government is all that good at much, but the video does make a good case for the current companies not investing enough in the current rail infrastructure.

And Amtrak obviously blames freight prioritized traffic for their schedule challenges:

Freight Delays and Your Amtrak Service
https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/...rts/Amtrak-2022-Host-Railroad-Report-Card.pdf

Proposals.

• Rails. Nationalize the rails, putting the infrastructure in the hands of the government. For the most part the government does a good job on the Interstate freeway system.
• Control. Create an FAA type ground control for the rails in the hands of the government. For the most part the government does a good job of controlling the three dimensional skies for air traffic.

What are your thoughts?

 

[George Harris]

Tried during World War 1. Some good standards were developed, but it general the results were on the order of, sounded good but let's not do this again. During WW2, the railroads stayed in the hands of the private sector and carried significantly higher levels of both freight and passengers with fewer cars and engines. Yes, there was a 25 year advancement in technology, but that did not come close to being the entire reason for the greater efficiency.

Generally the government operated systems in Europe cost more to operate per unit of traffic than those in the US.

 

[cirdan]

I don't necessarily think the government is all that good at much, but the video does make a good case for the current companies not investing enough in the current rail infrastructure.

I think Amtrak is the living proof that government is not very good at investing as much in the future as is needed either. So nationalizing railroads will probably not change much overall, but will just lead to us blaming underinvestment and underperformance on the evil government rather than on evil corporations.

Experience across the world shows that in countries in which you have pro rail policies and pro rail administrations, that railroads do well regardless of whether they are private or government owned. In countries that don't care about railroads, they do baldly regardless of whether they are private or government owned. Meddling with ownership structures is just re-arranging the deckchairs on a sinking ship and an unnecessary diversion in my opinion. The real focus should be on getting the word out there that policies and politics need to be pro rail.

The reason the interstate system is well run is that almost everybody drives and the consequences would be enormous if this system was badly managed. Hardly anybody rides on trains and as long as this does not change, the government can get away with managing the system badly. The same is true for private companies, as private companies operate within the framework that the government creates.

 

[rs9]

This conversation would be remiss if it didn't mention the success of government-owned Conrail - but in fairness, that is generations ago.

The idea of an FAA-type rail dispatch makes a lot of sense to me (as someone hardly qualified to address the topic lol). The demands of Wall Street will never foster passenger rail in this country.

 

[JWM]

A few thoughts on this after decades spent riding on European trains. The quality and punctuality are unmatched. New sleeping car services by at least two private firms are in the works, with one, European Sleeper, operating. Austria's "Railjet" and "Nightjet" are operating at close to full capacity with new equipment on the way. Population density is much greater and distances, in general, are shorter. The "Eurostar" is so overpriced that ferries are booming.

Amtrak has been given no power to really enforce priority of passenger trains over freight so outside of the NEC, punctuality is a joke, Management can't see past the end of their hands and get the backlog of Superliners repaired and running again, opening up dining cars to paying coach passengers and ordering new long-distance equipment. So called "Flexible Dining" is nowhere near the quality that Newrest provides on "Nightjet" trains heated up and served by the car attendant. We can do better, but is the will and the money there to do it right? I wish I knew. Finally, there is very little "flight shaming" here as well.

 

[Bostontoallpoints]

As long as we have the interstate and government owned and operated airports the railroads can never really compete with passenger rail whether it be private or government operated. Just look at travel from Philadelphia to Pittsburg. All other modes of travel are cheaper and faster than rail. The only thing that rail could provide better is comfort and ease of travel service. Amtrak would need to update their dining service and retrain staff to achieve that level.

 

[user 29398]

I like the idea and it's absolutely clear that the big railroads in this country have been prioritizing cutring costs and returning dividends over investing in their infrastructure and customer service, to the detriment of the country as a whole.

That said, Mexico's experiment with rail nationalization from ~1940-1995 wasn't exactly a smashing success; only re-privatization stopped the Mexican railways from going the way of so many central american state railways and shutting down altogether due to dilapidated infrastructure. Deferred maintenance on the railroads could easily become another accounting trick for politicians to keep up unsustainable spending, like borrowing from the social security trust fund. Or it could be a success government-controlled airports and air traffic control have been.

A better middle ground might forcing the railroad operators to spin off the ownership and maintenance, and dispatching on their tracks, forcing the track owners to compete for the business of train operators - and then revisit regularion as needed.

Oh, and actually enforce the law tiving priority to passenger trains over freight.

 

[MARC Rider]

The reason the interstate system is well run is that almost everybody drives and the consequences would be enormous if this system was badly managed. Hardly anybody rides on trains and as long as this does not change, the government can get away with managing the system badly. The same is true for private companies, as private companies operate within the framework that the government creates.

A large part of the freight in this country is moved by trains, and the freight railroads seem to be as badly managed as the passenger systems, as anyone living in East Palestine, Ohio can tell you, not to mention countless shippers whose cargos are delayed or lost.

 

[tgstubbs1]

Maybe just nationalize enough for Amtrak. It seems that somehow the situation must change for things to improve.

 

[jis]

I am somewhat dubious about the underlying belief that a government bureaucracy would run the railways and specifically passenger rail any better than the current situation while the general social alignments of transport choice remains the same. The parts that will per force be run better by whoever is charged to run it would be the parts that have significant impact on national economy. Unfortunately long distance passenger rail does not fit that description, and when push comes to shove, irrespective of who is running things, freight will be prioritized over passenger unless there is a chance that a huge number of people will rise in rebellion in support of passenger rail. Absent that only thing that is likely to happen is a few gains in the fringes, irrespective of who is running it.

And the bottom line issue remains that unless someone has a viable plan on how one will go about taking property away from their owners absent a significant crisis to require such, all of this discussion is just talk.

This conversation would be remiss if it didn't mention the success of government-owned Conrail - but in fairness, that is generations ago.

One of the reasons that Conrail succeeded is because it was allowed to behave about as ruthlessly as any private company would be allowed to and then some, in terms of tearing down infrastructure that was unnecessary for its mission. A lot of Amtrak's problems in the East can be traced back to the Conrail driven restructuring, when it was government owned.

 

[George Harris]

This conversation would be remiss if it didn't mention the success of government-owned Conrail - but in fairness, that is generations ago..

One of the reasons that Conrail succeeded is because it was allowed to behave about as ruthlessly as any private company would be allowed to and then some, in terms of tearing down infrastructure that was unnecessary for its mission. A lot of Amtrak's problems in the East can be traced back to the Conrail driven restructuring, when it was government owned.

A huge factor in Conrail's "success" was the major change in federal and other regulations that constrained changes and increased costs for the various predecessors that disappeared with or shortly after the formation of Conrail. Also, the NEC lines and some of the other northeastern commuter lines were taken over by various and sundry governments with associated transfer of massive costs. These NEC lines were, and still are major sinkholes for money. The Pennsylvania Railroad in particular did not modernize in many ways they could have. I recall seeing the NEC lines just north of DC in the early 70's and thinking, "suddenly it is 1920." 24 hours per day manned towers about every 10 miles, among other things. (I had worked for the L&N for about a year before getting drafted, and could say, they had two manned towers in the entire 210 miles between Birmingham and Nashville, one at the south end of Boyles Yard, and the other joint with the Southern Railway at Decatur that also served as bridge operator for the Tennessee River drawbridge.) Conrail went into massive spasms of track abandonment and second main removal, much of it is locations which seemed to defy logic. Conrail as an example of successful government operation, it was not.

 

[MARC Rider]

Generally the government operated systems in Europe cost more to operate per unit of traffic than those in the US.

On the other hand, I suspect that the utility of the system to the people of the countries involved is much greater than here, however "profitable" the railroads are to the owners.



This is the main southern US transcontinental rail line. (Union Pacific at Alpine, Texas.) As jis pointed out when I originally posted this, it looks like an industrial spur. Sort of sad for a major piece of transportation infrastructure in one of the wealthiest and most powerful countries in the world. This line is pretty busy too. In addition to the 3 times a week Sunset Limited, UP runs lots of double-stack container trains. But if the infrastructure were owned by the government and not expected to be an asset that the UP management uses to squeeze maximum short-term profit for its investors, it might be a lot more useful to the people in this part of Texas and to the nation as a whole. Imagine if this line were to be double tracked in its entirely, electrified, with numerous sidings long enough to deal with the trains the rail operators want to run. Oh yes, all the grade crossings eliminated, and extra trackage at passenger stations to keep things moving smoothly. With all this stuff some minor derailment won't cause a days-long backup of both freight and passenger traffic. High-class infrastructure would enable more traffic to run on the line. On nearby Interstate 10, millions and millions of tons of cargo are being moved in little 80,000-pound pods, each with a driver who has to stop and rest every 10 hours or so. More of this stuff should be put on the rails for efficiency, safety and emissions reductions. Improved infrastructure paid by the people would make it cheaper to run passenger trains, too, not that this part of Texas needs NEC style service, but a couple of trains a day between San Antonio and El Paso would probably provide useful transportation services locally, not to mention at least a daily Sunset Limited.

Let's look at Interstate 10, and for that matter, all of the interstate highways. They're engineered so that even the largest trucks can negotiate curves and grades at 70-80 miles per hour. It was built and is currently being maintained entirely by tax money, and no one complains that it's not "profitable." When vehicles break down or crash the road is usually not closed (although there can be some big traffic slowdowns), and even when it is, the government works pretty damn fast (with tax money) to fix it. The same applies to our waterways and aviation facilities. All paid for by government money, and I suspect that most aren't "profitable." But this system allows the rest of our economy to functions and connects all of us to each other. Why railroads should be the only mode of transportation that is forced to be "profitable" is a mystery to me. Yeah, maybe the private railroads are cheper, but you get what you pay for.

 

[Bostontoallpoints]

On the other hand, I suspect that the utility of the system to the people of the countries involved is much greater than here, however "profitable" the railroads are to the owners.

View attachment 33072

This is the main southern US transcontinental rail line. (Union Pacific at Alpine, Texas.) As jis pointed out when I originally posted this, it looks like an industrial spur. Sort of sad for a major piece of transportation infrastructure in one of the wealthiest and most powerful countries in the world. This line is pretty busy too. In addition to the 3 times a week Sunset Limited, UP runs lots of double-stack container trains. But if the infrastructure were owned by the government and not expected to be an asset that the UP management uses to squeeze maximum short-term profit for its investors, it might be a lot more useful to the people in this part of Texas and to the nation as a whole. Imagine if this line were to be double tracked in its entirely, electrified, with numerous sidings long enough to deal with the trains the rail operators want to run. Oh yes, all the grade crossings eliminated, and extra trackage at passenger stations to keep things moving smoothly. With all this stuff some minor derailment won't cause a days-long backup of both freight and passenger traffic. High-class infrastructure would enable more traffic to run on the line. On nearby Interstate 10, millions and millions of tons of cargo are being moved in little 80,000-pound pods, each with a driver who has to stop and rest every 10 hours or so. More of this stuff should be put on the rails for efficiency, safety and emissions reductions. Improved infrastructure paid by the people would make it cheaper to run passenger trains, too, not that this part of Texas needs NEC style service, but a couple of trains a day between San Antonio and El Paso would probably provide useful transportation services locally, not to mention at least a daily Sunset Limited.

Let's look at Interstate 10, and for that matter, all of the interstate highways. They're engineered so that even the largest trucks can negotiate curves and grades at 70-80 miles per hour. It was built and is currently being maintained entirely by tax money, and no one complains that it's not "profitable." When vehicles break down or crash the road is usually not closed (although there can be some big traffic slowdowns), and even when it is, the government works pretty damn fast (with tax money) to fix it. The same applies to our waterways and aviation facilities. All paid for by government money, and I suspect that most aren't "profitable." But this system allows the rest of our economy to functions and connects all of us to each other. Why railroads should be the only mode of transportation that is forced to be "profitable" is a mystery to me. Yeah, maybe the private railroads are cheper, but you get what you pay for.

I think the federal interstate highway system was a mistake. And if the passenger vehicle internal combustion engine is outlawed it will prove to be a major costly mistake. Most electric vehicles are just not practical for long distance inter city travel and never will be. Once E.V.'s over take the market the financing of the interstate through the gas tax will be its demise. Some highways will obviously still be needed around major cities but out in the less densely populated areas their continued maintenance will be hard to justify. Once passenger vehicles are all electric it will be only a matter of time before the government outlaws truck I.C.E.'s Thus you will see a lot of intercity travel and shipping return back to the rails. Private railroads will be sitting pretty waiting for the future.

 

[jis]

I think the federal interstate highway system was a mistake. And if the passenger vehicle internal combustion engine is outlawed it will prove to be a major costly mistake. Most electric vehicles are just not practical for long distance inter city travel and never will be. Once E.V.'s over take the market the financing of the interstate through the gas tax will be its demise. Some highways will obviously still be needed around major cities but out in the less densely populated areas their continued maintenance will be hard to justify. Once passenger vehicles are all electric it will be only a matter of time before the government outlaws truck I.C.E.'s Thus you will see a lot of intercity travel and shipping return back to the rails. Private railroads will be sitting pretty waiting for the future.

I don't think that will happen without major overhaul of land use patterns. They will just figure out another way of funding highway construction and maintenance. Already a significant contribution is made to the Highway Trust Fund from General funds. Oddly though, it is the Highway Trust Fund that funds all of the federal contribution to Transit systems too. So if the Highway Trust Fund withers, so will funding for Transit, rail and otherwise. Transit funding supporting operating budgets for passenger rail transit is much larger than Amtrak funding. So that will be real bad news.

 

[George Harris]

A far higher proportion of freight movement in the US is by rail compared to that in Europe and much of the rest of the world, so that government ownership of rail would increase the proportion of freight moved by rail is a fallacy. In general, the ton-mile cost of movement by truck is something like 3+ times that of movement on rails. By the way, trucks do not move up the grades on the interstates at 70 mph plus. There are plenty of locations where the up grade speed is more on the order of 20 to 30 mph.

I don't think the people that think electrifying everything is wonderful have a grasp on what that would mean for this nation's power generation and transmission infrastructure. It would probably make sense in Hawaii where there can be no such thing as long distance driving and they are sitting on the world's most available source of geothermal heat for power generation and "fossil fuels" of any sort take a long ride on a ship to get there. As to the rest of the country, with the possible exception of the crowded northeast and certain other concentrated blobs of people, electric vehicles are far more trouble than they are worth.

 

[Touchdowntom9]

I don't support nationalizing the rail network at all. The concept is quite dangerous in IMO, the cost would be enormous, and it would turn into a giant sinkhole for future government spending that could be used more effectively elsewhere.

On the other hand, I would absolutely support the mandate of offloading the dispatch responsibilities to a government run org, especially in areas that run freight trains and amtrak. I don't blame the class 1 freight carriers for ignoring amtrak priority at all, since its clear there is no punishment for them doing so and they have a business to run. But this gets resolved if dispatch is taken out of their hands.

In addition, I would also support the government seizing/buying tracks that are currently unused. Making use of ROW that is currently unused in single tracked territory is an exponentially better use of funding than giving it to freight networks that will 'upgrade' the track at a huge cost but keep it single tracked and bottlenecked. And in a pinch the private corps can use the trackage for a fee. Implement a use it or lose it system with ROW that lets the government build next to the existing tracks. That, in conjunction with a federal dispatch system, is how you solve the amtrak issue in my opinion without wasting trillions and trillions of dollars.

Lastly, we should default to building viaducts above existing freight tracks in circumstances where the track is critical but also has heavy freight traffic (ie entering/exiting Chicago). Flattening a neighborhood of homes or digging a tunnel is far too costly and risks NIMBYism. Often times the ROW is quite straight depending on the route and a viaduct gives you a chance to smooth some of the curves out with engineering. Lastly, you don't have to buy the land from them, you buy the small circles of land where you stick the concrete pillars and use eminent domain for it. Would save you trillions.

The Amtrak Hudson line is an example of why this would work. Amtrak is leasing the track from CSX north of poughkeepsie for a decent amount of money, and paying for upgrades on it while still being subject to specific restrictions that allow CSX to run freight on the tracks when needed. In 30 or so years when the lease is up, how much more do you think CSX will demand to continue that lease given the enormous amount of capital that was invested in improving the line? They need to buy that trackage outright, maybe set up an agreement that lets CSX use it in certain circumstances, but give themselves the freedom to make huge investments without concern of losing the track in a few decades. That entire route should be electrified, and have significantly increased superelevation on the curves to get the MOS as high as possible. But no one will push for that unless you actually own the track.

 

[MARC Rider]

I think the federal interstate highway system was a mistake. And if the passenger vehicle internal combustion engine is outlawed it will prove to be a major costly mistake. Most electric vehicles are just not practical for long distance inter city travel and never will be. Once E.V.'s over take the market the financing of the interstate through the gas tax will be its demise. Some highways will obviously still be needed around major cities but out in the less densely populated areas their continued maintenance will be hard to justify. Once passenger vehicles are all electric it will be only a matter of time before the government outlaws truck I.C.E.'s Thus you will see a lot of intercity travel and shipping return back to the rails. Private railroads will be sitting pretty waiting for the future.

They're already taking about replacing fuel taxes for highway funding with some sort of VMT (vehicle miles traveled) charge. Uding technology similar to the toll transponders that most people are using right now, it should be pretty easy for Big Brother to figure out how many miles you drive each month. We can only hope that Big Brother collects information on the numbers of miles you drive, not where you're driving. Of course, they should probably keep fuel taxes, at least for fossil fuels, just to encourage people to either save fuel or switch to electric.

 

[Bob Dylan]

They're already taking about replacing fuel taxes for highway funding with some sort of VMT (vehicle miles traveled) charge. Uding technology similar to the toll transponders that most people are using right now, it should be pretty easy for Big Brother to figure out how many miles you drive each month. We can only hope that Big Brother collects information on the numbers of miles you drive, not where you're driving. Of course, they should probably keep fuel taxes, at least for fossil fuels, just to encourage people to either save fuel or switch to electric.

Texas just passed a Law that will charge Electric Vehicle Owners $400 a Year to Register their Vehicles since they don't pay Gasoline Taxes which help fund the Roads in the State!

 

[tgstubbs1]

Texas just passed a Law that will charge Electric Vehicle Owners $400 a Year to Register their Vehicles since they don't pay Gasoline Taxes which help fund the Roads in the State!

Politicians know all about how to extract taxes and they are bound to do something if they think somebody's getting off without paying.

 

[MARC Rider]

Texas just passed a Law that will charge Electric Vehicle Owners $400 a Year to Register their Vehicles since they don't pay Gasoline Taxes which help fund the Roads in the State!

They didn't have the guts to make it a charge per mile so that those who drove more paid more.

 

[cirdan]

Texas just passed a Law that will charge Electric Vehicle Owners $400 a Year to Register their Vehicles since they don't pay Gasoline Taxes which help fund the Roads in the State!

It may sound cruel and dumb at first, but I think we will be seeing much more of this in the future.

Initially governments did everything in their power to get the ball rolling on EVs and to encourage manufacturers to develop them etc. This included letting them off the hook on taxes and duties. But it should be obvious that as EVs gain momentum and become more widespread that this cannot continue and that they will at some point have to contribute towards the infrastructure they use.

A flat tax may not be the smartest thing, but you've got to start somewhere.

As far as I am concerned EVs are only a halfway house. In an ideal world public transportation should be so good that most people (at least in cities and metro areas, rural areas are different) shouldn't need a car.

 

[Touchdowntom9]

As far as I am concerned EVs are only a halfway house. In an ideal world public transportation should be so good that most people (at least in cities and metro areas, rural areas are different) shouldn't need a car.

Ok, but unless you live in nyc, it’s likely brutal to live without a car. If you live in major cities like LA and SF, you’re very likely to call Ubers or Lyfts at a high frequency to fill that gap getting around.

Taking another look at it, if trains Evs and subways all get their power from a coal plant while we shut down our nuclear power plants, it makes me wonder why I wouldn’t want to buy a car.

Lastly, the idea of raising taxes for something specific, unless it is legally required to be allocated to a single purpose (which generally isn’t the case or is often ignored) is a bad idea. The money just ends up in a federal or state slush fund and doesn’t actually go where it’s needed. It just helps plug the deficit. If you need an example, look at the port authority and try to find out where the toll fees for the bridges go toward….. it’s not being saved up for the next bridge replacement fund, they will be begging for a fresh federal grant when that need arises… It just pays for bureaucracy until they learn how to waste that new funding as well.

 

[jpakala]

One person focused on this (as of July 8), but I would emphasize that air, road, and water transportation is funded over time by trillions of tax dollars. E.g., the Army Corps of Engineers handles ports, dredging, locks & dams, levees, etc.; the FAA has 72,000 government-paid employees and the airports are provided as well; local, state & federal taxes build and maintain the roads including many incidentals such as lighting, snow removal, highway patrol--and the damage from heavy trucks results in huge & constant costs. Meanwhile railroads had to build, maintain & manage everything and pay property taxes on all their stations, rights of way and other real estate.

 

[GDRRiley]

Ok, but unless you live in nyc, it’s likely brutal to live without a car. If you live in major cities like LA and SF, you’re very likely to call Ubers or Lyfts at a high frequency to fill that gap getting around.

The bay area is easier to live car free than LA but it can be done in both. Bike +transit is really the key to urban mobility

Taking another look at it, if trains Evs and subways all get their power from a coal plant while we shut down our nuclear power plants, it makes me wonder why I wouldn’t want to buy a car.

That is not close to the grid makeup in most places and there is still the efficiency aspect of centralized production. Its better to burn NG in a power plant and use an efficient heat pump than it is to burn it inside your home even if you have a 98% efficient furnace.

Lastly, the idea of raising taxes for something specific, unless it is legally required to be allocated to a single purpose (which generally isn’t the case or is often ignored) is a bad idea. The money just ends up in a federal or state slush fund and doesn’t actually go where it’s needed. It just helps plug the deficit. If you need an example, look at the port authority and try to find out where the toll fees for the bridges go toward….. it’s not being saved up for the next bridge replacement fund, they will be begging for a fresh federal grant when that need arises… It just pays for bureaucracy until they learn how to waste that new funding as well.

That is a state by state issue though. California has very set funding locations for fuel taxes most of which goes towards one form of transportation or another. Some weird cross things for sure like much of the diesel tax goes to support intercity rail. Bay area bridge tolls all go towards transportation.

I suspect we will see nationalization happen over time, state by state buying up as many tracks as they can and selling back access.

 

[allanorn]

They didn't have the guts to make it a charge per mile so that those who drove more paid more.

The Executive Director of SANDAG (SAN's association of local governments) really wanted to do a VMT but the mere proposal of such was shot down and almost got him fired. It was so unpopular it would have probably caused a revolt in rural areas.

Ok, but unless you live in nyc, it’s likely brutal to live without a car. If you live in major cities like LA and SF, you’re very likely to call Ubers or Lyfts at a high frequency to fill that gap getting around.

I'm car-free in San Diego. It's not easy, but it's doable if you live in the right areas that also have well-supported transit and/or safe bike infrastructure. The City of SF is easier to do this; I wouldn't want to try it in a number of places in the LA Basin.