Will segmented train routes work?

   An issue that is bound to be heavily debated in coming months is the idea of breaking up long distance Amtrak routes into segments
that involve a series of day trains covering the same routes. 

   The idea originated with anti-Amtrak sources in the Administration, but actually dates back further, having been proposed by various think tanks with anti-rail orientations. 

   The apparent money- saving idea is that there would no longer be a need for sleeping cars and the crews to man them. The day trains would cover the same route, but there would be no overnight operation, so that travelers whose routes included an overnight portion would have to occupy hotel rooms between train segments. 

   The National Association of Railroad Passengers has been performing comparison analyses of existing long distance routes and the segmented routes that would most likely substitute for them. The results are so weighted in favor of the long distance routes that no logical justification could be made for the segments.

   Rather than creating cost saving for Amtrak, the segmenting would actually either yield no savings or raise costs, while reducing patronage to such an extent that the segmented route would fail altogether. 

   Of course, creating a route failure might be the ultimate aim of the anti-rail originators of this scheme. 

   Amtrak President Kummant and other company officials continue to mention this plan while being fairly noncommital and saying it would be evaluated carefully. If the evaluation is indeed done carefully and rationally, it would seem that no possible case could be made for segmenting. 

   Watch for this debate to continue in the near future within Amtrak and the Administration.
 

   Ever since the creation of Amtrak in 1970-1971, the opponents of  passenger trains, primarily those involved in the competing highway and air modes, have tried almost every possible tactic to kill or at least diminish the Amtrak system.

   One of the earliest tactics, and one that continues to the present day, is the political attack upon long distance trains, representing them as an expensive anachronism that no normal person would choose to use when faster modes are available.

   The arguments are specious. Their artificiality is highlighted when one examines the basis in reality of travelers’ trip length selections.

   If it were possible to record the trip lengths of all trips within the U.S. taken by everyone, regardless of travel mode used, in a given time span, the distribution of these trip lengths would show many more short than long trips. 

   Short intra-urban trips would number the highest, long cross-country trips would be the fewest, and medium-length trips would be somewhere in between those extremes.

   One of the traveler’s first considerations in planning a trip is selecting the transportation mode. Some modes are better suited to different lengths than others. The airplane would not be used to get across town, for example. 

   For those wanting to travel by train, because of its comfort and safety for example, the first step in planning a trip is to determine what train or trains cover the desired route. The traveler does not need to know whether the trains to be used are classified as long distance, medium distance or short distance. For many, perhaps a majority of trips, a traveler will use two or more connecting trains, since the destination is not likely to fall on the route of one particular train.

   From the user’s standpoint, the distinctions among trains classified by distance are irrelevant. The user simply wants to reach a certain destination, and if the route requires overnight travel, may opt to use sleeping car service. 

   Except for the person wanting the experience of dining in a moving train or lying in bed while the train thunders through the night, most travelers by train choose that mode because of its convenience, comfort, safety, or because due to medical conditions they cannot drive or fly.

   Because Amtrak was established to serve the public who wanted train travel, the first criterion for judging passenger train service must be how well it serves the public with regard to frequency of service, flexibility, comfort, safety and other amenities.

   The approach of train-hating politicians is to put the cart before the horse—to eye budgets in order to cut them, rather than to examine how well the traveling public is being served. In fact, by improving and enlarging the passenger train system and serving the public better, budgets would improve; Amtrak’s financial picture would brighten.

   Not only that, but pressure upon the nation’s highway system would be lightened and the tax burden associated with the myriad problems of highway usage reduced.

   By hitting on long distance trains, these politicians attempt to drive a wedge into the Amtrak system and its supporters. They know that breaking up the long distance services would eventually kill Amtrak altogether, which is their ultimate aim.

   Those responsible for Amtrak oversight must take a citizen-service view rather than that of a hostile bean-counter. There are small signs that such a change may be in the offing, which would bode well for the future of passenger trains in America.
 

Subscribe today!
For new subscribers
Renewing subscribers
To subscribe by US Mail
Request sample copy

Join or donate to the National Association of Railroad Passengers.

 Visit our rail gift shop