I was contacted by an American journalist the other day who asked me why there is so much investment in passenger railways in Europe but not in the USA. It is a good question and my answer, necessarily, delved deep into history.
Of course, it was not always thus. At the beginning of the 20th century, America had an extensive rail network serving both freight and passengers. Its 250,000 route miles was by far the longest in the world and given that just under half still survives it still remains the most extensive global system, albeit China may catch it up. However, most of those lines today never see a passenger train or perhaps they get a weekly Amtrak service that caters for tourists ‘doing’ America rather than local people.
The passenger network that existed in the early 1900s has all but disappeared apart from on the Eastern Seabord, and in a few fortunate cities. While the invention of the motor car and, in particular, its spread after World War One was always going to pose a challenge for the railways the decline of passenger rail was not inevitable. Passenger rail in the US was killed off so quickly and brutally because of a combination of regulatory, legislative and cultural factors.
Railways are particularly strong in three key markets where they have an obvious advantage : local suburban services where they are faster and more reliable than the alternatives; regional intercity travel up to, say 300 miles, where again they have a natural advantage especially with the advent of high speed rail; and the carriage of freight over medium and long distances.
America has enormously profitable freight services that are an absolutely vital part of the economy. But the other two types of service have been all but lost. While cars attracted people away from the railways, they were only able to dominate the suburban market thanks to a series of legislative and regulatory decisions that favoured motor vehicles over railways. Planning decisions meant suburban sprawl into areas not served by railways, or made existing lines uneconomic. City authorities built hugely subsidised urban highways, rippling through and dividing neighbourhoods with no hesitation but refused to spend anything on ‘subsidising’ rail travel, even though they helped keep traffic off the roads and would have obviated the need for many of these new highways.
The US railway companies had been tightly – too tightly – regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission for decades and suddenly in the 1950s, the rules were relaxed, allowing the rail companies to focus entirely on freight and abandon passenger railways completely. This process was sometimes so fast that as I relate in my book, The Great Railroad Revolution, in several cases passengers were abandoned halfway through their journey because the Commission had allowed a company to withdraw from passenger rail services. They were delighted to do so as passenger rail was not only loss making, but the poor state of much of the rolling stock meant that it was in need of massive cash injections. Many of these services could have been salvaged with local support and a federal government engaged in the process. But the focus on motor transport which seemed to fit better with the American ethos of individualism and ‘making your own way’ was almost universal. The construction of the Interstate highway network which started in the 1950s The surviving passenger services were dumped io a heavily subsidised federal agency, Amtrak, that was not empowered to seek out new opportunities and business for rail.
This could have happened in Europe. There were widespread closures in many countries in the postwar period, most notably, but by no means uniquely, in Britain where the infamous Dr Beeching set about decimating the railway system in the early 1960s. However, gradually the realisation that not all transport needs could be met by the motor car dawned on transport planners and belatedly politicians. While there are still who remain to be convinced, the zeitgeist in Europe changed as a whole series of measures, from congestion charging and cycle lanes to pedestrianisation and parking restraints were introduced. Moreover, trains have a particular attraction amongst the public in many European countries which helped them survive and now enables them to thrive.
The American reporter asked me if the situation could be reversed and America could learn to embrace the railways once again. I’m afraid I answered in the negative. Even if a few high speed lines were built – and America has its own HS2 disaster in California – were built, the culture of the railways has been lost, probably irredeemably. While some intrepid city or state authorities may restore railways on particularly profitable corridors and a few new subway lines will sadly be built, there will be no second age of the passenger railway in America especially while the fervently anti-rail president remains in the White House.
I have just been to the Great Gathering in Derby, a celebration of the 200th anniversary of the opening of the Stockton and Darlington Railway. There is unlikely to be a parallel celebration in US when the Baltimore & Ohio has its 200th birthday in 2030 but I hope I am wrong.