Another conjecture -- the ICC and some state PUC's (like California's) would have continued to force the railroads to fulfill their historical (and in some cases legal) responsibility as a regulated carrier, to carry passengers as well as freight. Some RR's committed to providing quality passenger service (such as Santa Fe, Rio Grande, Southern) would have continued to do so with vigor.
And, maybe, as capitalist companies being forced to continue such services, they would have found ways of doing so with less losses, or even a profit. And passenger rail might again be thriving in the US, under private ownership!
Yes, yes, I know -- that has not happened anywhere else. But neither did the (highly-subsidized)growth of air travel -- nearly everywhere outside of the US, early air service was government owned, only recently being privatised. Only here has the passenger air industry grown up totally on a commercial basis.
This might have happened, even though they may have generated some losses for some time. It seems to me that with technological advances, rationalization of labor laws, some liberalisation of regulation -- and a commitment to providing fast, efficient, friendly service, as opposed to pushing customers away, as the SP did -- some RR's might have been able to make it happen.
Also, don't forget that there have always been -- and always will be -- a percentage of the populace that will not or cannot fly or drive. As the overall population grows, so does the absolute number represented by that percentage. And as flying lost its mystique, and became more like an airborne bus, more people might have gone back to the "good old" train. Yes, PSA and Southwest revolutionized air travel, but there are still significant business-class and first-class services available.
And maybe, rail services to smaller communities might have been subsidized as "essential", just as their is subsidised commercial air service to subsidised small-town airports under the "Essential Air Service" program.
Just a thought ...
strictly conjecture: if the passenger train industry had been allowed to die off in the early 70s, most people today would have little or no knowledge of 'taking the train', and driving on even wider and busier interstates would be endured, but would be considered 'normal'. quite probably the various NEC rail commuter systems would extend to interconnect with each other and the air lanes would be even more crowded there. the quick 'buy ticket-hop on' eastern air shuttle flights of the '60s would have been hugely popular without a rail alternative, but would have come to be a major hassle post 9/11. it is truly a shame that most americans only see the country from 30,000 ft. or from an interstate highway. it is also quite possible that greyhound and trailways would both be prosperous and have comfortable and 'european' style buses. remember, in the mid '60s there was a movement in congress to tear down union station in D.C. and replace it with a parking garage. (and probably a small commuter station). by now, most people would have long forgotten what a beautiful building it once was. (a la old penn station in new york)
Another postulation: would certain metropolitan commuter rail agencies realize the need to interconnect or the importance or possible income of becoming more regional with intermetropolitan services?
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Highly rhetorical...all answers conjecture, but, interesting. I wonder if Amtrak wasn't crafted then if it would have been later and be even stronger since there would have been a chance that we would have seen how bad people travel could be, how costly it could be, how non responsive to people needs things would be, how much more devesating to the economy it would have been. Communities without rail service do not prosper as well as those which do have rail service. There is even proof that communities with no passenger rail service are not as well off as those that do. These facts apply universally and not just in the USA. The flip side of course, would be that moving people would have become so difficult, there might actually have been a railroad or two, while being overwhelmed with freight and unable to make money at it while the bigger guy next door took all his traffic, might have restorted to carrying people to pay his bills. Forget including politicians, especially Republican and Conservative free markerters, they wouldn't understand.
The political and social climate surrounding Amtrak that has been so rough for the past forty years is now beginning to change towards acceptance and optimism. But the shifting winds beg the question, what would happen without the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970? Would we even know passenger rail today with the exception of tourist and excursion lines? Things have changed so much since the midpoint of construction of the interstate system and the rising airline traffic. We have witnessed more in the past decade like the rise in security issues with airlines, as well as rising gas prices, congestion and environmental questions.
Would railroads be even less willing to share their ROW's with developing higher-speed projects?
Another question is, would there be any difference between developing HSR in the U.S. with Amtrak in the picture now versus if Amtrak had never even existed?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.