Changes for the future

Two interesting developments were in the works just as I was writing last week’s blog about infrastructure.

The first of these involves the Hoosier State passenger service supported by Indiana and online towns. Iowa Pacific Holdings has provided equipment, on-board services and marketing for this train and is withdrawing from the venture beginning March 1, 2017. These tasks will revert to Amtrak, which still provided the track agreements, scheduling and ticketing, for the time being.

Iowa Pacific began operating this state-subsidized train in 2015 after Indiana almost shut it down over a dispute with the FRA. The feds had an idiotic rule that, taken to its extreme, would require that Indiana take on the role of rail carrier despite the fact it owned no trains or tracks. Indiana tapped Iowa Pacific when, upon resolution of the dispute in favor of the state, another contractor failed to meet a contractual deadline.

At the time, it appeared that Iowa Pacific relished the role, and took on the challenge of showing that enhanced amenities and on-board service could increase ridership with no additional cost to the state. Reports by riders at the time were quite favorable, but the train continued to experience delays similar to those always experienced by Amtrak due to track conditions, freight trains, and other problems common to all of Amtrak’s routes.

According to current reports, this doesn’t mean that Iowa Pacific blew it when it comes to enhanced service or on-time performance, or even increased ridership. An unforeseen quirk in the contract is said to have penalized Iowa Pacific whenever service improved due to Indiana’s requirement to pay Amtrak before Iowa Pacific. When the latter was unable to negotiate a floor to revenue with Indiana, the change became inevitable.

Whose fault is it? I’d say all three parties. Amtrak, Indiana and Iowa Pacific. The state just wants somebody to run its trains without turning the route, a well-traveled one by residents of the state, into a political football. Amtrak, used to being a political beast, is also becoming a “mature” railroad, meaning that, in my opinion, it doesn’t really want to operate trains if it can’t control the whole football. But it will take what revenue it can siphon off any train bearing the Amtrak name. Iowa Pacific wasn’t careful with the contract, and should have realized that few companies since the 1920s have obtained greater rewards for operating a passenger train with enhanced amenities.

Stay tuned for whether or not the Hoosier State will survive—Amtrak and Indiana do not often see eye to eye despite Amtrak’s major service and rebuilding facility in Beech Grove providing a lot of Indiana jobs.

The second development involves Colorado’s Southwest Chief Commission. Created a few years ago to assure that Amtrak’s Southwest Chief would not be pulled from southeastern Colorado because of much needed and expensive track repairs, the commission now finds its mission largely completed with the Southwest Chief on what is described by the Denver Post as “solid footing.” The commission has asked that its role be expanded to include establishment of passenger service north and south along Colorado’s Front Range.

This is a bit of a favorite of mine. Several years ago, when I was criticizing the (then) New Mexico Governor Richardson administration for buying us a pig in a poke with the Rail Runner Express train, I was also opining that New Mexico should get serious about partnering with Colorado for a true intercity train between Albuquerque and Denver (or better: between El Paso, TX, and Cheyenne, Wyoming.) If New Mexico were going to buy the entire BNSF line (old Santa Fe) through Raton Pass, I reasoned, what better way to monetize the investment than to provide a better way to access the entire Interstate 25 corridor than by driving it?

Though under a different administration New Mexico eventually returned the line to BNSF, and though the Rail Runner is a now-established though costly (to the taxpayer) short intercity route between Albuquerque and Santa Fe (the highest and oldest seat of government in the continental United States, blah, blah, blah), and though New Mexico is essentially flat broke on account of oil and gas production being one of its few sources of revenue—that’s a lot of “though”s—I still think it would behoove New Mexico to at least explore the possibility with Colorado’s commission.

One good argument would be that New Mexico, with its abundant sunshine, could easily e-green electrify the whole route through the state. The investment would be high, but the payoff in zero fuel costs would be a huge—maybe even Donald Trump yuge—plus. Another argument is connecting a significant number of high-tech, high-science centers along the route with efficient public transportation that would encourage collaboration on new tech and new jobs. These are El Paso (Texas Tech), Socorro (New Mexico Tech), Albuquerque (UNM, Sandia Laboratories), Los Alamos (via Santa Fe), Pueblo, Colorado Springs, Denver, and Fort Collins (all CSU), and others.

New Mexico never had the savvy to appoint a commission to support new routes, despite my suggestions. Alas, most of the legislature and Republican Governor Martinez have lost their taste for railroading due to the looming fiscal crisis and the amount of money Rail Runner is due to suck out of the budget in a few years as a consequence of balloon payments and replacement of aging equipment.

Would Texas like to have more than one train to El Paso? Maybe. Texas is flush and has a number of rail projects on the docket, so it couldn’t hurt to ask. Without New Mexico’s participation, however, I can envision Texas telling travelers from Colorado to El Paso to skip New Mexico and take a fly... Just fly there.

©2017 – C. A. Turek – mistertrains@gmail.com

(Charles A. Turek is a writer and novelist based in Albuquerque, NM. After four decades working in areas of the insurance industry related to transportation, he now writes on all aspects of American railroading. Charles is a political conservative but believes in public funding of passenger rail as a part of the federal government’s constitutionally conservative obligation to provide for defense and public infrastructure so that private enterprise may flourish.)