The sheer size of the United States dictates many aspects of the country’s culture, politics and day-to-day events. Everything from TV schedules to travel times are the byproducts of this massive country. Indeed, federalism seems to make the most sense for a country of this scale. When there is a distance of almost 4800 km coast to coast it’s no wonder governing powers need to be shared by state government’s and centralized powers can easily come off as distant and unrepresentative. Unfortunately, the federal government has a decently firm grip on intercity and regional passenger rail; if passenger rail is going improve in the United States it should start with the top, that is by having the top dissolved. Passenger rail would be better run if regional entities took control with limited federal engagement.
The system of checks and balances between the states and the federal government works decently well and the system has been designed well enough that the states can act as incubators for change before they reach the federal level while the federal government does the important job of making sure states stay in line. And this is great, except the problem is the lack of any sort of governing power or cohesive planning at a regional level that overlooks the sometimes arbitrary state-boarders. Some limited regional governance could do a wealth of good in some realms, one of them certainly is transportation and passenger rail transportation. In fact, instead of one national passenger rail service, there should be a collection of regional rail services with funding and governance shared between the states and jurisdictions served with limited oversight and service coordination at a national level. Such a system gives greater power to regions to plan and implement services relevant to them.
A key to creating such a system is killing Amtrak. On multiple occasions I’ve come across opinions outlining how one impediment to improving passenger rail services in the United States is the negative image the public has of Amtrak. It is not a service to be proud of nor does is it something people can identify with, rely on or conveniently use. Disbanding Amtrak and moving to a system of regional rail services removes a dysfunctional and unpopular rail service from our public consciousness while allowing regions to develop systems, which they can claim as their own. Something like this can be branded and identified with particular parts of the country and turned into a source of regional pride and unity; it’s a regional version of the national rail systems in Europe, which are so often identified with a country as a whole.
The results of changing to this type of organization would be a collection of tiered systems at the national, regional, and local levels. At the top would be a national rail organization with the express goal of coordinating services, acting as a liaison between passenger rail services and freight services, distributing federal funds to passenger services and operating a selection of national interregional passenger rail services.* Rail standards would be organized by the federal government and the responsibility for enforcing standards would also be the prerogative of the federal government/national level rail organization.
Below national/federal level operations would be the regional services. These services would be operated with a regional hub or multiple hubs with connections between regional services made in select cities. The regional services would have more power to invest in and operate their own services at the regional level with efforts to coordinate connections between regional systems, air transportation and local transportation services. Although federal level operations would be necessary the primary operations would be carried out by the regional systems. The systems would be: New England/Mid-Atlantic, the South, Florida, the Midwest, the Great Plains, Texas and the south central states, the Pacific Northwest, California and the Southwest, the Mountain States (see below for more detailed thoughts on size/scope of such regional systems).
The regional systems would then be broken down into local operations. These would resemble the regional and suburban rail systems in Germany operated by Deutsche Bahn. These operations divide the national system into smaller regions usually concentrated around major cities and urban areas. Such districts would extend well beyond the core urban areas in such regions to facilitate overall rail and other mass transportation connections in more localized regions. The services would resemble the S-Bahn suburban rail services in most German cities (those are operated by Deutsche Bahn) and the DB Regio trains, which service larger regions around urban cores.
These regional districts would in some instances overlap with even more localized transportation districts operating public transportation services in concentrated urban areas. Regional transportation authorities organized by local and state governments would operate transit at the most local levels; these would also be independent of the larger regional operations. The larger districts operated by the regional organizations would work with regional transportation authorities to coordinate services.
Major hubs would be located at the center of regional systems (such as Chicago or New York City), while secondary hubs would connect regional and local services to the larger regional systems (think lower speed regional trains connection larger communities in New England to Boston, where transfers to the larger New England/Mid-Atlantic system would take place). Key transfer points would be located in cities at or near the boarders of regional systems, some of these cities serviced exclusively by one or potentially by operations for both regional systems. Examples of such transfer cities would be Pittsburgh (Midwest and New England/Mid-Atlantic systems) or Louisville (The South and Midwest systems). Some routes could even include international connections to the Canadian and possibly Mexican passenger rail systems. Detroit could easily become a minor hub within the Midwest system as well as a major transfer point between a Canadian high-speed rail Windsor-Toronto-Ottawa-Montréal-Québec corridor and the Chicago-Detroit high-speed rail corridor(s).
The overall goal of this model is to afford region’s greater ability to make transportation decisions for themselves and invest in services appropriate to their needs. Great autonomy from the government would be necessary as well to free sources of funding from political wrangling. This is just the beginning though; over the course of the next few weeks I will try to examine other details of how such a system would look if implemented, including the Midwest specifically, financing etc…
National rail operations
|Regional Services||States served||Districts||Hub(s)||Pop. served|
|New England & Mid-Atlantic||ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT, NJ, NY, PA, DL, MD, DC, VA, WV||Greater New York City (Long Island, Connecticut, and the Hudson Valley)||Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Washington||72 mil.|
|Greater Boston and New England (Massachusetts, Rhode Island, southern Main and New Hampshire)|
|Chesapeake and Capital Region (Maryland; Washington, D.C.;|
|Pittsburgh and Western Pennsylvania|
|Central New York State|
|Delaware River (Philadelphia, Delaware, eastern Pennsylvania)|
|The South||KY, TN, GA, SC, NC, AL, MS, LA||Greater Atlanta (Northern Georgia, Southern Tennessee)||Atlanta, New Orleans, Charlotte, Nashville||47.3 mil.|
|Carolina Coast (Atlantic Coast of Georgia and the Carolinas)|
|Central Carolinas (Central North and South Carolina)|
|Gulf Coast (Gulf Coast including New Orleans, Beloxi, Mobile and Pensacola)|
|Birmingham a& Alabama (Northern Alabama)|
|Florida||FL||Central and West Coast||Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, Jacksonville||19.5 mil.|
|The Midwest||IL, WI, MN, MI, IN, MO, IA, OH||Greater Chicago (Northern Illinois; northern Indiana; southwestern Michigan; Kenosha County, WI)||Chicago, Indianapolis, Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland||65 mil.|
|Greater Detroit & East-Central Michigan (Greater Detroit, Lansing/East Lansing, Ann Arbor, Toledo)|
|St. Louis and Central Illinois|
|Southwest Ohio (Cleveland, Akron, Youngstown and far western and Pennsylvania)|
|Twin Cities and Mississippi Valley (Mississippi Valley, Greater Twin Cities, western Wisconsin)|
|Central Iowa and Quad Cities|
|Texas & South Central US||TX, AR, OK||Central Texas (Austin, San Antonio and Corpus Christi)||Dallas, San Antonio, Oklahoma City||33.2 mil.|
|Houston and Gulf Coast (southeastern Texas and the Gulf Coast)|
|Northeast Texas (Dallas-Fort Worth and northwestern Louisiana)|
|Oklahoma (Oklahoma City and Tulsa, Joplin and Fort Smith)|
|The Great Plaines||KS, NE, SD, ND||Kansas City, Omaha||6.2 mil.|
|Mountains||CO, NM, WY, MT, UT||Front Range (Fort Collins to Pueblo)||Denver, Albuquerque||10.5 mil.|
|Greater Salt Lake Region (Logan to Provo)|
|Pacific Northwest||WA, OR, ID||Willamette Valley (Astoria to Ashland)||Seattle, Portland, Boise||5.7 mil.|
|Puget Sound Regoin (Clearbrook to Centralia)|
|California||CA, AZ, NV||Southern California (San Luis Obispo to San Diego)||Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Francisco||47.4 mil.|
|Central Valley (Sacramento to Bakersfield)|
|Arizona (Phoenix to Tuscon)|
|Greater Bay Area (Santa Rosa to Monterey and Stockton and Sacramento)|
*Most of these services would probably be long-distance overnight trains. Such operations would likely resemble Europe’s CityNightLine and EuroNight train systems with slower, but cheaper overnight transportation options.