Editorial: All aboard ending train service to Harrisburg

Trains hold a special place in the hearts of western Pennsylvanians. George Westinghouse built his industrial empire around his railroad innovations cultivated in the Strip District. Hundreds of miles of converted rail lines today form the basis of a large recreational trail network. A minor league baseball team is named after a bend in the tracks near Altoona.

But while we love trains with our hearts, we need to think about them with our heads. When the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 takes effect, and PennDOT has to begin covering rail subsidies previously covered by Amtrak, it will have a $5.7 million bill to cover the Pittsburgh-to-Harrisburg service provided by the Pennsylvanian rail route.

PennDOT should not pay that bill. Passenger rail service between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg should be eliminated.

The line has been losing riders even as other portions of the national rail network have been gaining ridership. A ticket is just barely competitive with the cost of gas and tolls, costing $40 one way, but requires an additional $88 in subsidy to remain in operation, according to an estimate by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Part of the reason the line is performing poorly is a lack of investment. While the Harrisburg-Pittsburgh portion of the Pennsylvanian chugs along for five and-a-half hours at an average velocity of less than 30 miles per hour, the Harrisburg-Philadelphia portion, which features multiple lines and $150 million in electricity upgrades, moves at speeds up to 110 miles per hour.

It just doesn’t make sense to take a train from Pittsburgh to Harrisburg. And with Megabus and Greyhound offering more rides and often cheaper rates, it doesn’t make sense to maintain a subsidy that is likely to only become more irrelevant.

Of course, in a perfect world, the western portion of the rail line would receive more investment. We would rather rail service go from lousy to great than lousy to none.

But without the higher population of eastern Pennsylvania, and with hundreds of miles of difficult mountains and valleys, improvements would impose costs unlikely to be recovered. While there is no exact estimate — a $1.5 million study of possible improvements for the corridor is not yet complete — we need only remember that the cost to dig a single light-rail tunnel under the Allegheny River for the T cost $523.4 million.

And while $5.7 million isn’t a lot, if it’s going toward a service that is uneconomical with many viable alternatives available, it is difficult to justify the continued expense when the state leads the nation in number of bridges classified as “structurally deficient.” If $5.7 million could retrofit just a few more bridges a year, it would bring the state closer to closing the gap and improving the reliability of our infrastructure.

We can’t let emotions run this debate. Trains can be really cool; anybody who has been to Europe knows how fast and efficient they can be. But the American rail system is so far from this that paying for a line such as the Pennsylvanian isn’t an investment in the future, but a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Plus, if the line is removed, a train-loving Pittsburgher would still be able to take the Capitol Limited to Chicago or Washington, D.C.