Rail: Stimulus where we need it

Crossposted at DailyKos here. Recs greatly appreciated, of course, but I wanted to mention that while I'm speaking nationally here, everything I say is doubly true for NC. North Carolina went from being one of the least populous and developed states in the south to being an economic powerhouse largely starting with the construction of rail networks throughout the state.

The outbreak of huffing and puffing about economic stimulus in the face of recession should surprise no one, and of course the President's plan is nothing but tax breaks. (Can we take a guess who they'll benefit?) Depressingly, Democrats are chirping in with "me too!" when there's very sound alternative means of providing stimulus that could, you know, improve the country in addition to just getting out the economic defibrillator.

Lots of things to chose from here, but I want to focus on one. It's an option that could help people move about the country better, shore up the collapsing manufacturing sector, and decrease our carbon emissions all in one swoop.

I'm talking about our union's rail infrastructure.

A bit of background on the theory here. First of all, if you haven't read Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus's essay, The Death of Environmentalism, you should. No, it's not a right-wing screed against pinkos and hippies; it's a call for environmentalism to move out of the habits of the past 40 years and into a new political direction, as a response to the movements failure to effectively tackle global warming. The authors cover a lot of ground in the relatively short essay, but one of their primary points is that environmentalism, rather than taking a reflexively defensive position towards economic development, needs to get out in front and promote a direction of positive economic development that leads to a more environmentally sound society.

And that's where the railroads come in.

History

Just about anyone who's ever visited Europe can affirm that America's rail networks, in particular passenger rail, pale in comparison to Europe's highways of steel. How this came to be, however, gets talked about considerably less. The fundamental difference lies, as with so many things American, in who owned the rails and how we moved forward.

In the early 19th century, rail mania started to hit the US, as it did the rest of the world. The difference in the course America has taken in comparison to the other industrialized nations rests, quite simply, on the fact that US rails have, with a few notable exceptions, been held by private firms for the entire history of railroading in this country. The UK nationalized its rails shortly after World War II, whereas in Germany and France, rail construction was either largely or completely a public affair from the get-go.

In particular, US rail was the province of a range of private firms, from the massive rail trusts to relatively small private lines linking local centers. (For more information on rails than you could possibly read, see this site.) Through the course of industrialization and progression into the modern era, some of these thrived, some failed, some merged or split, leading to the somewhat fractured rail system we have today, where five major "Class I" railroads dominate the system. At the same time, of course, freight and passenger transport have largely fled the rail system to auto and air travel.

All fine and good, say the free marketeers. That's just the market providing guidance, no need for the government to interfere, right? Well, I probably don't need to tell you that the government hasn't exactly been passive in this transition. First, and most obviously, there's the massive federal investment in automobile infrastructure, most notably in the US Highway and US Interstate systems under Eisenhower, but naturally also in trillions in assistance for oil exploration, automotive engineering research, job subsidies, well, you get the picture. On the flip side, there's the massive amount we've invested in major airlines, bailouts of failing airlines, and now, of course, the massive TSA security infrastructure. In the meantime, what have we done for rail transport? Basically, the Federal Government subsidizes Amtrak, and some states, such as North Carolina, have gotten involved in propping up some freight rail. That's about it.

Why we want a good rail system

In the past few years, there's been a strong call for improved passenger rail. The reasons are pretty obvious -- air travel today pretty much sucks, and some folks have gone to Europe and experienced how convenient and pleasant passenger rail travel can be. There's many more good reasons to add to it, though.

• Passenger energy efficiency: Fundamentally, railroads trade off the flexibility of more flexible vehicles (originally horse-drawn carts, now cars and trucks) for massive gains in energy efficiency. By providing a dedicated track, a centralized traction system, very low rolling resistance, and allowing for slow acceleration and sustained speeds, trains provide a much more energy efficient platform. Unfortunately, at this point, heavy Amtrak trains are only about as efficient per passenger as a high mileage car, largely because fewer research dollars have been available for rail efficiency.
• Freight energy efficiency: Here lies the true unseen energy benefits of rail. The Congressional Budget Office puts the estimates, based on ton-miles per gallon, at rail being roughly twice as efficient as large trucks at hauling freight, with some other sites putting the number as high as a factor of eight.
• Geographic target: I hopefully don't need to explain how the massive road build-up of the last 50 years has contributed to suburban land use patterns, and the negative effects that can have, in addition to the collapse of inner city economies and neighborhoods. Well, it so happens that many of our cities that have been hit the hardest by the manufacturing downturn sit on top of major rail lines. Improvements for those lines would mean on the one hand greater viability for manufacturing in those cities, frequently in the most blighted areas, as well as turning them into foci of passenger travel, which would improve the commercial and retail sectors.

How the system is broken

So given that our rail system is over 150 years old in places, why is it not performing its job already?

For starters, there's the fractured ownership of the system. With five Class I freight railroads owning the majority of the system, you've got a multitude of problems. First of all, each manages their set of tracks and rolling stock for maximum financial gain for their company, rather than for the overall efficiency of the system and its benefits to local economies. This leads to a lot of inefficiencies in the way the system is managed, with redundant lines. Each freight operator obviously gives their trains priority on their own tracks, which means that other operators have to wait for openings when they lease out those lines. For Amtrak or other passenger services, it gets even worse. Most of Amtrak operates on lines leased from the major freight networks, which is why you can spend 45 minutes sitting still on an Amtrak train in Emporia, VA, while three coal trains that are obviously in much more of a hurry than you go past.

But more imporantly, as I've indicated repeatedly above, there's the core issue of equity in state and federal funds for the transportation network. The rail firms, some of which went through some very lean times, have been primarily focused on maintain profitability on tracks while investing in infrastructure only where there's a clear and immediate economic gain. To their credit, some have been forward looking enough to try to secure right of way for future expansion, but unfortunately, much of that has come at the cost of passenger rail lines. Here in Durham, a regional rail project from the Triangle Transit Authority was, well, derailed by intransigence by Norfolk-Southern in sharing a moderately used right of way between Durham and Raleigh. This scenario has played out over and over again throughout the country, particularly with Amtrak trying to improve its service, and has spurred some public relations battles between passenger rail and freight rail interests, when the real need remains better public investment in rail in general.

The Stimulus: Where we go from here

So all this said, here's what we need, now, to help improve the energy efficiency of our freight network, provide better passenger service, and help stimulate the economy: substantial state and federal investment in our country's rail infrastructure. There are a lot of ways this could happen, so here's two:

• Nationalize the rail infrastructure: In truth, "nationalize" could either fall under control of the federal government, but more likely would involve a standardized state-by-state program like the Interstate Highway system. Ultimately, the goal would be to get the Class I railways out of the business of maintaining infrastructure and just let them focus on scheduling, lading, and rolling stock. Some of this has already begun on a localized level -- the North Carolina Railroad (NCRR) is a state-held corporation which now owns the main rail spur through the heart of North Carolina, and leases it to Norfolk-Southern.
• Embark on an infrastructure improvement program: This isn't going to be cheap, but one of the biggest things holding American rail back is the poor conditions of the rail beds we travel on, as well as old or faulty switches, limited rail yards for transfers, and so on. We continue to spend trillions, between all levels of government, on roadway construction, expansion, and maintenance, it's time to do the same for our rail infrastructure.

Economic stimulus should do more than just get the stock market back on its feet. It should direct our economy in a positive way. Investing in America's rails is stimulus that helps us fight global warming while restoring a backbone of economic development which we've allowed to deteriorate for too long. It's good for the economy, it's good for the environment, and it's good for America's cities.