The unsung success story of rail transport in the United States

A common lament among Americans who have traveled to places like Europe or Japan is that the United States does not have a rail system on par with what exists in those parts of the world. But they're missing part of the story. The United States actually has one of the best rail systems in the world... for moving freight.

Often there is the perception that the U.S. lags behind other countries when it comes to rail, but in many cases that is not true. The country has, arguably, the best freight rail system in the world, which is owned, operated, and financed by private companies. Passenger service in specific corridors is comparable with the European counterparts: for example, in the Northeast. On long-distance routes and in less densely populated areas, however, there are often empty seats on Amtrak trains.

The primary difference between Europe and North America could be summarized like this: In America there is a freight rail system with some passenger, while in Europe there is a passenger rail system with some freight—the emphasis is different.

A further difference is that the rail network is private in the U.S. and operated to yield a profit, while in most other countries the rail infrastructure is owned by the government (similar to the freeway system in the U.S.) and heavily subsidized.

A given rail network can either move passengers well or move freight well, but it doesn't do a good job moving both well. This is why Amtrak's cross-country lines are so slow and erratic: they are running on systems designed to move freight, not people.

Running passenger and freight trains on the same lines is possible but poses many challenges, as the characteristics of the two train types are very different; freight trains tend to be long, heavy, and comparatively slow, while passenger trains are short, fast, and comparatively light. If there are not too many trains on a line, this mixed traffic can be managed, but if there are a lot of trains, then separate infrastructure is the way forward.

When journey times are less than four hours, people usually prefer to travel by train instead of alternative options, such as air or road. For many corridors in the U.S. it would be necessary to upgrade existing lines or to build new infrastructure to achieve competitive journey times.

This is why suggestions that involve increased passenger service on existing Class I freight railroad networks (i.e. those operated by Union Pacific, Norfolk Southern, BNSF, CSX and KCS), such as increasing frequency of Amtrak services or implementing new commuter rail service, are typically non-starters. They are in the business of moving freight, not people, and their networks and capacities are designed to move the former at the expense of the latter.

As the article notes, rail is an extremely efficient mode of transportation, for people as well as freight; a freight railroad can, on average, move a ton of freight for the equivalent of almost 480 miles per gallon of fuel, which is a level of efficiency that semi trucks can't touch. The US rail system excels at moving freight and should be recognized as such.

Passenger rail could be similarly effective and efficient, especially in the too-far-to-drive, too-short-to-fly "sweet spot." But it will require completely new -and costly - infrastructure to do so. Kinda like what some folks are trying to do here in Texas.