Solving America’s infrastructure issue, one rail at a time

Infrastructure isn’t supposed to be sexy.

But, ever since my first trip to New York City ended in the glory of Grand Central Terminal, I’ve thought otherwise — infrastructure is sexy.

It’s expensive, long-term and so politically useless, but bridges, tunnels, highways, airports and rails are all vital to a country’s economy and its citizens.

My dad is a rail traffic controller for New York’s commuter rail system, Metro-North, and so, from my dad’s pride in his work, I was introduced to all the little intricacies of how Metro-North works and the importance of having rail service.

But rail infrastructure has been placed in the spotlight recently for more negative reasons, after a recent accident outside Philadelphia, where a speeding train derailed, killing eight, on a stretch of track many Pitt students, including myself, have taken many times on the way home during school breaks.

NPR, CNN and other news organizations have all mentioned the lack of positive train control (PTC) on the tracks where the accident happened. PTC is a system that automatically slows down trains by tracking their position on the tracks, accounting for curves and other hazards. The system is in place on most of the Northeast Corridor — the stretch of Amtrak’s rail from Washington D.C. to Boston — but not all. 

The federal government has required the implementation of PTC since the passage of the Rail Safety Improvement Act in 2008. The act offers funds through the Federal Railroad Administration to all railroads to help implement the plan, but it is still very expensive. And railroads always have expensive things to repair.

Just look at the Northeast Corridor — most of the infrastructure was built in the early 1900s, and only has to be updated as time goes on. While Amtrak allows for more than 100-mph travel on many parts of the line, others have 104-year-old bridges or grade-level crossings — like the ones in the Kalimari Desert level of Mario Kart 64 — except the trains are real and won’t flip you harmlessly into the air.

Add in that the Northeast Corridor — which had an operational surplus of $496.7 million in 2014 — is used to cover the expenses of the rest of Amtrak’s long distance service, which lost $507.5 million — and you can start to see the problem. 

Infrastructure is a massively expensive field, one that rarely ends in a profit. Initial spending is high for new projects, with expenses that only pile up due to repairs on old projects. According to a study from the American Society of Civil Engineers in 2013, America has an overall grade of a D+ for its total infrastructure — I’m sure any pre-meds reading this article just fainted.

To be fair, America’s rail transportation had a C+ overall. But, that was including freight railroads run by private companies. For Amtrak — run by the U.S. government — and other state-run passenger rail services in the U.S., many challenges exist. Though ridership has been steadily increasing, the swelling of traffic only increases wear and tear. And, as most U.S. passenger service is in public hands — not private — increasing fares is out of the question. What’s the point of running a public utility if it’s too expensive for the public? 

The solution, if you asked the right-leaning folks at the Cato Institute, seems to be that well-worn libertarian credo: privatise and deregulate. To quote their report, “Let’s take government out of passenger rail, and allow America’s entrepreneurs [to] take another crack at it.”  

Deregulate what, exactly? Maybe get rid of the Rail Safety Improvement Act, the law that made the expensive PTC system a requirement? Well, that could save private investors money if it wasn’t made to protect commuters. The law was preempted by a crash in California that killed 25, which positive train control could have prevented. Not to mention, two of the last three deadly train crashes in the US — including the recent one in Philly and one on Metro-North — occurred in areas yet to be equipped with the system.

The solution is simple, and it’s one that even my parsimonious father would agree with. I’ve written about him before. Last January, I wrote “‘Papa Bear’: Or, how I learned to stop hating and respect Bill O’Reilly.” Have a conversation with my father and you’d think he was the inspiration for Ron Swanson. He’s of the “all government is a waste of taxpayer money” school of thought — but ask my dad if the government should be spending more on infrastructure, and he’d enthusiastically agree.

So much for libertarianism.

Spending on infrastructure is more than the typical government waste. It improves people’s lives in a concrete way — literally. Repairing roads, replacing bridges and installing safety systems means people travel more safely and quickly, whether for a business meeting or just to spend time with their family.

In this modern eco-conscious age, rail infrastructure is green, highly efficient and low stress — plus, pretty cool. Amtrak beats air and car traffic by 17 percent in energy efficiency, a gap that has only been increasing since the mid 2000s. For freight traffic, it isn’t even close — a train can move a ton of freight 480 miles on a gallon of gasoline, four times better then a truck. If we are striving to be environmentally conscious, rail travel is the most eco-friendly choice and should be treated as such by policy makers.

However, it requires a steep initial cost. And as Amtrak’s recent fiscal report for 2014 shows, while ridership on the Northeast Corridor has increased 3.3 percent, long-distance routes, such as the Empire Builder from Chicago to Seattle, have lost 4.5 percent of their ridership.

The solution is simple — relieve Amtrak of its obligations outside of the Northeast U.S. Long range service between Chicago and New Orleans or from New York to Miami. Amtrak can’t compete with cars and planes — declining ridership numbers show this. 

Instead, reinvest in the Northeast Corridor. Replace 100-year-old bridges and level crossings, so the whole line can be high-speed. Then, slowly, using future government spending and saved profits, expand new, high-speed tracks across the country. Encourage states to take on projects of their own, with the promise of connecting them to the grid later on. 

If such a plan can be implemented, then maybe the U.S. will have a system worthy of it’s perceived place in the world.

That’s a goal even Ron Swanson could get behind.

Stephen Caruso is a columnist who writes on social and economic issues for The Pitt News. He is also the Layout Editor.

Write to Stephen at stephencaruso23@gmail.com.