This is by James Coston, who seemed to me one of the more thoughtful members of the now defunct Amtrak Reform Council (a paper tiger if there ever was one). However, I think his commentary here falls short. He doesn't explain how we get past the freight railroads' reluctance to accept government money, and their complete unwillinness to deal with any passenger operator except Amtrak.

Actually, freight railroads are beginning to realize that taking money from the big, bad Feds is not altogether a bad thing.

In California, UP has realized that all those improvements paid for by Caltrans also benefit its freight service. And UP is probably the least progressive of the "big four".

NS has been actively looking for government $ for freight improvements for close to a decade. They've gotten some small $, but there's bigger stuff on the horizon. Last October, at the "Passenger Trains on Freight Railroads" conference, David Goode was the keynote speaker, and he indicated that NS not only would accept money for passenger improvements but would consider operating the trains. So the world is changing.

The biggest problem in putting together some sort of rail funding mechanism is that typically states and localities have to raise a "matching share" that, in air and highway modes, is paid for either by "user fees" such as gas taxes or taxes on air tickets, or by sale of bonds that are repaid from earnings on airport concessions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rresor:
Actually, freight railroads are beginning to realize that taking money from the big, bad Feds is not altogether a bad thing.

---

I am familiar with some of these glimmers of hope, but I'm not sure how close the railroads are to making it a national thing. It is my understanding that California's relationship with UP is still a little uneasy. The Capitols have had some timekeeping troubles, despite the state investment in the tracks. The state has a little "talk" with UP, and things improve temporarily, but after awhile service deteriorates again.

And Coston still doesn't explain how to make the railroads receptive to multiple, competing passenger operators.

I'm in agreement with much of his theory, I'm just not sure how it would work in the real world. There have been a number of reform ideas bandied about over the years, but none of them have gone into sufficient detail to convince me they would work any better than what we have now.