TONIGHT'S RAILROAD READING. Ezra Klein commends Congress for funding Amtrak.

It's true that America doesn't have the density to support a train infrastructure like that of Europe's, but parts of America certainly do, and in those areas, Amtrak just isn't funded well enough to be a competitive option. This, of course, creates a rough cycle in which a poor reputation drives away customers, which in turn increases fares and lowers service quality, which in turn harms the reputation, which in turn drives away customers, which...

Much of the United States east of the Mississippi River has a population density comparable to France, and there are a number of corridors which could be brought up to a respectable 110 mph service at a relatively low cost, particularly if policymakers drop those cartel-era speed limits compelling trains to plod along at 60-80 mph. Increased frequencies, even on passenger-unfriendly Guilford (or is it Pan Am Rail) and on the inefficiently-downsized Main Line of Mid America, not to mention on the Hiawatha service, which in my view is capable of setting the pace for economical upgrades of corridors without the folly of electrification and 180 mph running, have been bringing in the riders. More reliable timekeeping would help.

The reader comments are instructive (there are no comment links, just scroll. Hand-fired commentary, forsooth.)

It would help Amtrack [c.q] a lot if the railsystem would become independent from the company owning the rolling stock and providing the actual service. Decades of neglect have turned the rails into a state beyond repair, and its [c.q] totally illusionary to run something like a modern rail service on them. In Europe, railway compaqnies [c.q] had to rebuilt most of the tracks connecting cities from scratch, too. This is a multi-billion-dollar endeavor, but it will be an attractive alternative for flying,if finished. It's quite an ironic fact that Amtrack's [c.q.] engines are dewsigned [c.q.] for speeds of 150 mph and more, but that it's impossible to actually drive that fast most of the time. The explanation is, of course, that politicians wanted Amtrack [c.q.] trains to look like TGVs or ICEs, but shied away from the costs that it would have taken to really bring the system up to that standard. Let's hope this scrooge attitude will change soon.

Demsetz auctions for train operating franchises, British-style? The British are still learning some of the difficulties with the approach. Designed for speeds of 150 mph? True of the latest power on the Northeast Corridor, but neither the New Haven nor the Pennsy really have the speed potential of the Great Western or the Milwaukee Road or the old Big Four lines from Chicago to Cincinnati or Cleveland to Cincinnati (to consider a couple of neglected corridors).

We should build out the infrastructure for rails for both freight and passenger services. These need to designed to allow each type of service to operate well.

Then we can let various operators compete to run on the rails. This is somewhat like trucking which uses the highways.

We know that freight hauling by rail is competitive and if subsidized as the roads are would be huge. We can see this becuase [c.q.] trucking is forced to build trains on the roads with triple trailer trucks. This system is silly.

I would agree that a clear transportation road map and investment to build strong long haul freight rail and local region rail passenger service infrastructure is long over due.

The problem, dear reader, is that freight and passenger rail are really two different technologies. The day will come when the BNSF will do all in its power to keep the intermodals on the Transcontinental and the coal on the Burlington Route. But to argue that the freight infrastructure is deficient is to have missed the Track Renewal Train in action or news of that 70 mph bridge across the Des Moines River.