Who decided that the sound of a train whistle should be described as “lonesome?” I’ve been on a number of trains and in several stations, and there are plenty of people around. Yet the word “lonesome” has long been associated with train whistles. Maybe it was because Jimmie Rodgers recorded “Waitin’ for a Train” and “I’m Lonely and Blue” on the same day in 1928. Hank Williams sang “I Heard That Lonesome Whistle Blow” on the Grand Ole Opry in 1951, and four years later Johnny Cash “let that lonesome whistle blow my blues away.” The same words were used by artists by from Ricky Nelson to Bobby Darrin, and when Dee Brown published his epic story of the trans-continental railroad, it was titled “Hear That Lonesome Whistle Blow.” Today, “Lonesome Whistle” is the name of a farm in Oregon, a beer in Maine, and dozens of other businesses across America.
Despite such widespread nostalgia, it is remarkable how quickly Americans abandoned trains as a primary means of transportation as soon as there were other choices, especially cars and planes. Passenger trains dominated interstate travel from the Civil War through World War II, but despite free land and millions in subsidies, by the mid-1930s they were almost all unprofitable. By the late 1950s most passenger service in America was abandoned. Technology had consigned passenger trains to history, like covered wagons and steamboats. But politicians have been trying to save passenger trains ever since.
In 1970 Congress formed the National Rail Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), intending to help pay off the debts of failing rail lines around the country, so the new government-run railroad could become self-supporting. As if a government agency could run a railroad better than… railroad companies. Congress paid half of Amtrak’s 1971 bills, $24 million, but within a decade Amtrak was costing taxpayers over $800 million, though service was scaled back 14 percent. Subsidies have steadily increased since then.
Supporters argue that civilized countries must have passenger rail service. In Europe, economic development agencies view modern rail infrastructure as an indicator a country’s “economic advancement.” They even publish a “Basic Rail Transportation Infrastructure Index,” rating various countries by the number and speed of their passenger trains. So European governments – not passengers – pay for train systems.
In the U.S., that isn’t limited to intercity Amtrak trains. Americans also subsidize local mass transit systems in cities like New York, LA, and Chicago, more than $10 billion annually. And that does not include California’s infamous high-speed rail project. You may recall, in 2008 the proposed bullet train from LA to San Francisco was sold to California voters, who approved its projected $33 billion cost. That projected cost is now between $80 and $98 billion, although now it will probably only serve a portion of the Central Valley. And whether it ever gets built or not, State leaders fully expect the national taxpayers to bail out their outrageous cost over-runs, mismanagement, and phony promises (some federal transit funds have already been used).
Patrick Gleason recently penned a Forbes article comparing the California boondoggle to the “Texas Central’s” proposed high-speed rail system connecting Houston and Dallas. Unlike California, Texas officials have promised since the project was envisioned a decade ago, that there would be no federal or state taxpayer dollars involved. But now, in a letter to the President Pro Tem of the State Senate, Texas Central’s chairman laments that the project’s cost has tripled (from $10 to $30 billion), and says they will be seeking taxpayer funding. Several Congressmen, even a couple from Texas, are gearing up to oppose federal funding, because they already see that writing on the wall. Texas Central already sought a share of the federal “stimulus” money.
I think the high-speed trains in both California and Texas are great ideas, and they should build them. The operable word being “they.” People who ride these trains should pay the fare.
The Biden-Harris campaign’s “Clean Energy and Environmental Justice” plan proposes to “spark the second great railroad revolution.” A worthy vision perhaps, but how will they make people want to ride trains?
Colorado Senator Bill Armstrong argued against continued subsidies for Amtrak in 1980. He was concerned that the subsidy had risen to $975 million for 1981. Today it is over $1.4 billion annually, and every route outside the northeast corridor still loses money – because trains are simply not the way modern Americans travel. Armstrong wrote at the time, “That’s too much to pay just to hear an occasional lonesome whistle blow.”
Comments on this entry are closed.