Post by acptulsa on Apr 7, 2016 18:34:24 GMT -8
'What does the experience of the railroads tell us about the American way of competition and regulation? Obviously it suggests that the usual time lag between policy and reality has grown steadily worse over the years. Regulatory policy, like old generals, seems doomed always to fight the last war, partly because in our system it takes so long to recognize new problems and then to build a concensus for change. At bottom regulation involves a quest for some viable equation reconciling economic efficiency, social justice, and political acceptability. The more complex regulatory mechanisms become, the more difficult it is to adjust them or get rid of them when necessary, let alone tie them to these objectives.
'Since the pace of change wrought by new technology continues to gain speed, the gap between policy and reality widens daily despite all efforts to close it. In the modern world policy cannot possibly keep pace with change of all kinds.'--Maury Kline
'Since the pace of change wrought by new technology continues to gain speed, the gap between policy and reality widens daily despite all efforts to close it. In the modern world policy cannot possibly keep pace with change of all kinds.'--Maury Kline
So Bernie Sanders says he wants to set up a modern rail network in the U.S. He says there's a crying need. That's an arrogant enough statement. The United States of America has the single most efficient, effective and safe rail network in the entire world. No nation on the face of the earth does a better job of moving freight by rail than we do.
Passenger rail is another story. And Bernie's answer is not the only answer. The case can be made that our passenger rail service is not in the pitiful shape it's in because the federal government isn't active enough in the field, but because it's way, way too active. The continual message we get from the media is, if the federal government weren't involved, we wouldn't have trains at all. This is a lie. Let's see where that lie came from.
Once upon a time, there was a thing called the Interstate Commerce Commission. It was founded to prevent kamikaze capitalism amongst railroads in a day when their efficiencies and primitive technology pretty much guaranteed them a monopoly in viable transportation.
The best thing Reagan did, in my opinion, and the one time I felt some hope for a moment that he would prove to be the libertarian he claimed to be, was when he abolished this bureau. But it was a decade too late to save the passenger train.
In 1970, the Santa Fe was voluntarily running very high quality passenger services between Chicago and Los Angeles, Chicago and San Francisco, Chicago and Houston via Ft. Worth and with a connecting train to Dallas, and Los Angeles to San Diego. All were daily; the San Diegan featured three daily round trips.
The ICC was also forcing the corporation to operate daily between La Junta, Co. and Denver, and between Kansas City and Tulsa. These services were losing the railroad considerable money. But the ICC refused to let the railroad drop these unpopular services. Montana was the worst, thanks to Sen. Mike Mansfield. The Burlington Northern was forced to maintain six round trips a day between St. Paul and Seattle.
So, rather than beat Reagan to the punch and declare the ICC redundant in a world of Interstate highways and air freight services, Nixon and his henchman Erlichman found a way to expand government instead. They bought rail from the New Haven and the collapsed Penn Central, and created Amtrak out of it. This rail runs through Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and into the District of Columbia.
They also took over all passenger services, and reserved unto itself the authority to run on privately owned rail. This was voluntary; 'joining up' required a massive payoff (payable at the government's option in locomotives and passenger cars) and agreement to trackage rights and such. Those that didn't join were to keep running their current schedules for ten years. No cooperation in routing, scheduling or ticketing was to be forthcoming between the holdouts and Amtrak.
Most railroads joined. Then came the insult added to the injury. It turned out that the government wasn't willing to run many of the 'vital' services that the government wouldn't let private enterprise discontinue. So, after the Amtrak takeover, the national passenger rail network looked much as it would have looked had the government let the railroads run what was popular and drop what wasn't. But with a difference. Amtrak sucked from the first.
So, would there be high-speed rail if Amtrak were never created? Well, Amtrak would have been created, even if the eight states that benefit most had to create it themselves. But it wouldn't have spread beyond that corridor. And I haven't heard of high-speed rail being created without government involvement in recent years. So, who knows? But it wouldn't have and won't happen(ed) out West, where medium sized cities are hundreds of miles apart. The economics aren't there.
But what we would have, had Nixon acted like a conservative for once, and in my opinion, are a select few, very nice trains much like hotels on wheels. They would have come back into style by now, they would not only be helpful but really pleasant, and we'd like them. And I think the process could be reversed, if public interest could be kindled. The way Amtrak was equipped in the beginning could be reversed at it's end. This would allow private enterprise to resume their traditions with minimal risk.
This would not result in the new breed of hi speed rail seen in Europe and Japan, at least not at first. It could be seen in certain busy corridors, like the trackage Amtrak actually owns between Boston and Washington, and between Los Angeles and San Diego, before too awfully long. It will probably never happen all across the country; you'd have to build a line all the way around Japan several times in a big spiral to build the three thousand miles of track which are needed to connect New York City and Los Angeles. But speed is not the only way to get people on trains.
Another way is to make trains worth riding. Private, competitive companies make cruise ships worth spending time on, and private competitive companies used to make trains that were such a pleasure to ride. The U.S. government never has. The trip from New York City to Chicago takes twenty-five percent longer--four more hours--than it did in 1937 when the run was made by steam power.
The new 1937 version of the New York Central Twentieth Century Limited, making a test run of the new sixteen hour schedule. Styling by Henry Dreyfus.
We don't need Bernie to steal more money from us to make our trains great again. What we need is to pry the federal government's fingers OUT of that industry.