Connectivity means prosperity

A recent New York Times opinion column by Singaporean public policy professor Parag Khanna echoes what many experts and observers have been saying — that in the current age, the US and other countries are increasingly being organized along the lines of mega-regions and multi-city clusters that disregard state lines and other pre-determined political boundaries. Our political system has yet to catch up with facts on the ground, Khanna argues. If we fail to invest in connecting our mega-regions — and linking surrounding smaller communities and rural areas in with those mega-regions — with modern railways, along with highways and fiber-optic cables, the US will no longer be the world’s superpower, regardless of the billions we continue to lavish upon our military.

It seems obvious that America’s transportation and infrastructure decisions need to be made on a scale that transcends state lines, as was done when Congress directed the construction of the first transcontinental railroads and the Interstate Highway System. Yet, thanks largely to Section 209 of the 2008 Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act, we are in a situation where state governments are very much in the driver’s seat when it comes to developing passenger train corridors. Under this law, any intercity passenger rail route that is 750 miles or less (outside of the Boston-Washington spine of the Northeast Corridor, which remains a federal responsibility) must be overseen by, and receive its entire operating subsidy from, one or more state governments.

Some states are investing in developing regional corridors and have visions for their future flourishing. Others are content to provide the bare minimum needed to keep existing service running, and still others lack any passenger rail program. Meanwhile, the federal government retains responsibility for routes exceeding 750 miles in length (currently, Amtrak’s fifteen National Network routes), but also lacks any sort of comprehensive vision for their expansion or improvement.

Part of the rationale for Section 209 seems to make sense on its face — that each state should use the same method of determining the costs associated with supporting the train service it pays for. In other words, there should be a uniform accounting formula agreed upon by the states and Amtrak, rather than however many separate formulas, one for each state. However, while the previous regime was unequal, resulting in some states paying much more for similar levels of service than others, each state reached its own agreement with Amtrak with which it was satisfied. As long as one state is comfortable paying x dollars for y level of train service, why should it matter if another state is paying z dollars (which could be a much greater or much smaller number) for the same y level of service?

The 2008 law has not been without its positive consequences. Chief among these is that it has allowed states to experiment with novel approaches to providing greater customer service and amenities than Amtrak’s mediocre standard. Since states have complete direction over all aspects of the service, they can opt to contract with non-Amtrak food vendors (as do Maine and North Carolina), use their own specialized train equipment (as do California, Washington/Oregon and North Carolina), and even hire a company other than Amtrak to manage the equipment and on-board service (as has Indiana) or even take over the entire operation (as no state has yet done, but some have signaled that they are considering).

However, Section 209 makes state boundaries impediments to regional cooperation in major economic corridors, such as the Midwest, where Ohio has opted out of regional cooperation on rail development ever since Gov. John Kasich’s election in 2010. And, as exemplified by the current fight to save the Fort Worth-Oklahoma City Heartland Flyer from coming under Oklahoma’s budget axe, Section 209 requires passenger train advocates to lobby each state legislature during each year’s budget cycle. Instead, advocates could be focusing their energies on building a coalition in Congress that can pass major increases in investments in the federal competitive grant programs that all states and regional authorities rely on.

Ultimately — and sooner, rather than later — Congress must modify Section 209’s regime to preserve the ability for states to innovate and to exceed basic minimum service levels while breaking down the barriers between states and encouraging regional and national-scale corridor planning. There should be some mechanism for the federal government to overcome the roadblocks of recalcitrant state leaders (governors and legislative majorities) if it impedes the development of a key multi-state route, as identified in the still-under-development National Rail Plan. And the federal government should be able to step in and pay for the continuance of existing routes that one or more states refuse to fully fund. 

In other words, states should have some control over passenger train service, but not a complete stranglehold over their life support. States get formula grants to maintain their portions of the national highway network (Interstates and US Highways) and are required to maintain linkages across state lines — why not do the same for trains?

The rail mode (as part of an interconnected, multi-modal transportation system) is ideally suited for being a transportation backbone within the mega-regions identified in Khanna’s piece, in the form of high-speed, high-capacity mainlines for passenger and freight trains. Trains should also be used to provide the smaller communities in the surrounding hinterlands with linkages into the mega-regions, maintaining a national web that literally unites the states. Not only do these connections give people in outlying communities access to jobs and resources in the mega-regions, but they also allow people to come to previously distressed areas (which usually have lower costs of living) and bring businesses, investment and cultural capital. 

A locality’s degree of physical correspondence with its nearest economic hubs makes or breaks its economic fortunes, and the US won’t remain a superpower unless our entire population is given access to activity centers.