Trains: The Next Big Thing… Again!
A brief on the most important thread between history, migration, and the economy since the invention of the wheel.
My best weekends are nothing if not two-day-long searches for cool coffee table books. I’ve been fortunate enough to find some gems. A complete collection of cartoons from The New Yorker. An architectural survey of modern building styles in my hometown of Dallas. Yet, my favorite book must be Design Vignelli, if only for one page depicting an unsuccessful reimagining of the subway system in New York City. In fact, the book is open to that exact page for all my guests to know one thing — I love trains.
Hey Siri, Define Trains
I categorize trains in two methods. The first method is probably how you learned about trains in school: steam, diesel, and electric. There’s a bit more to the list — notably the slug locomotive, hybrid locomotive, and the most recently invented fuel cell-electric locomotive — but I reckon you’re not looking for a technical essay. Yawn!
The second method categorizes trains based on their use case. What are they transporting? Where are they going? For how long? These are more helpful understandings, and I hope it reinforces the idea that they’re simply useful for modern life— even if most of America doesn’t believe so.
- Commuter trains transport people on their commutes to and from work, as the name implies, spreading outwards to the suburbs.
- Freight trains transport goods and materials across long distances.
- Inter-city trains travel between cities, usually with limited stops.
- High-speed trains travel at high speeds, usually over long distances, using specialized tracks and equipment.
- Tourist trains offer scenic tours and/or a leisure-focused experience to all passengers — not just tourists.
- Rapid transit (metro) trains provide fast, frequent service within urban areas — think the MTA, Metro, or BART
- Monorail trains run on a single loop, including anything from rollercoasters to the Plane Train at Hartsfield-Jackson International.
- Maglev trains use magic — sorry — magnetic levitation to lift the train off the tracks, reducing friction and allowing for high-speed travel.
- Trams, or streetcars, run on tracks in urban areas and often share the roads with cars which lead to slower speeds
- Light rail vehicles (LRVs) are similar to trams, but often with dedicated lanes or tracks and more modern equipment.
- Heavy rail vehicles (HRVs) are larger and more powerful than LRVs, often used for inter-city or commuter service.
- Cable cars are pulled along a cable by a large, motorized machine in an engine house at the end of the track to ascend or descend hilly areas.
- Funiculars are essentially two cable cars on opposite ends of the same cable so that — rather than an engine house — as one goes up, the other goes down. It’s like a game of tug-of-war, but on really steep mountains.
A Selected History of Trains
For an overwhelming majority of humankind, migration policies were nonexistent. We will still find this true if we start with the founding of the first states in human history some five thousand years ago. Maps were rough estimates of land and water mass. Borders were vague and imprecise. And perhaps most importantly, boundaries were not easily enforced. This was life well into the 1800s. As Rutger Bregman writes in Utopia for Realists, “borders existed mostly as lines on papers… passports were rare.” And with the invention of the steam engine in the 1804, it’s no wonder the World Economic Forum describes the 19th century as a time when long-distance mass migration was “largely peaceful, voluntary, and propelled by market incentives.”
I wouldn’t say that’s the most apt description, at least not for BIPOC migrants. There were plenty of oppressed migrants who did not reap the same freedom and benefits of the locomotive as white people. African Americans that moved westward worked on railroads far more than any other industry at the time — coalmining, logging, steelwork. For those in the south, it was the best alternative to escaping sharecropping and domestic service. Still, Black migrants were not the main source of labor. The majority of the workforce was infamously comprised of more than 15,000 Chinese migrants, who were recruited to fill labor shortages throughout the United States. These workers would shovel 20 pounds of rock upwards of 400 times each day, all while (unsuccessfully) avoiding accidental explosions and avalanches. And of course, the building of the railroad displaced many Indigenous communities of the west, including Lakota, Shoshone, and Cheyenne peoples.
However, to the WEF’s point, it’s easy to see why people were moving so much voluntarily. If you lived in New York City in the 1800s, you saw the population double every decade. You were living in close quarters with millions of people but also horses, pigs, sheep, and cattle — and all of their droppings. Life was dirty, chaotic, and unsanitary. As a result, the middle class moved outwards to the boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens. This was not just to get away from the city but to take advantage of the latest American innovation in urban planning: streetcar suburbs. Indeed, residential communities were developed around transit nodes. Middle-class workers lived farther away while still being able to quickly get to and from work. In New York, people moved to Yonkers, White Plains, and New Rochelle. Near Boston, people moved to Somerville. Down in Atlanta, Joel Hurt developed Inman Park. For the first time, the middle class could experience city life without living in its mayhem. Why wouldn’t they move?
Not to mention the economic boom. By the end of the century, America saw the transcontinental railroad transport $50 million worth of commerce each year. The locomotive brought down the cost of traveling coast to coast by 85% and was a heck of a lot faster. And the amount of wheat delivered along the Erie Canal rose from less than four thousand bushels to more than one million. In Europe, the story was quite similar. Much of the western world could travel freely — country to country, state to state — with no more than a train fare. Even the poor could scrape some money for a ticket to a new state for a new life. It was the dream. That is, until 1914.
World War 1 marked the beginning of a new era — the one we’re currently in. An era where borders are synonymous with security or lack thereof. Countries require and enforce visas, which now take years to get. And mass migration signals disaster, oppression, and war — all of which are awful but not so awful that rich countries open their gates to migrants. This new era was concerned with defense. It catalyzed new technologies to transport weapons and soldiers. Trains weren’t enough. Thus, the new domain became the sky. Planes began their upward trajectory as a major long-distance mode of transport. And by 1955, more people in the United States traveled by air than by train.
The train was once the crown jewel of transportation, but its swift decline came at the hands of the automobile industry and their powerful lobbying efforts. In the early 20th century, General Motors, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California, and other companies formed National City Lines (NCL), which bought up streetcar systems in many cities and replaced them with buses. The companies wanted to sell more cars and tires, and they saw streetcars as competition. They were convicted of conspiring to monopolize mass transit in 1949. With defunded public transit and lowering car prices, the perfect formula for suburban sprawl was created. Gone was the need for transit-oriented development thanks to the unlimited freedom of car. Car-dependent suburbs became the dominant way to live and as long as you were near a highway, life would be alright. What’s left of the once mighty train industry in America is primarily freight transportation.
Contention in the Modern Era
In a recent economic report, the Biden administration called out the federal government’s role in encouraging poor climate decisions by subsidizing what should be risky business. For example, since 1968, the federal government has provided subsidized insurance for homeowners who live in flood-prone areas —AKA the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). While this was certainly a response to how expensive private flood insurance can be, the program lowers the risk (otherwise known as cost) of living in climate vulnerable areas.
Similarly, the risk of driving a car is heavily subsidized by the government, especially when, in 2021, global public subsidies for fossil fuels nearly doubled to $700bn. We need only to look at the price of a gallon of gasoline, currently sitting at a national average of $3.44 per gallon. Taking into account external factors like climate disruption, oil spills, and health effects caused by air pollution, the International Center for Technology Assessment calculates that the actual cost of a gallon of gasoline is over $15. Clearly, there is a need for a more financially and environmentally sustainable solution to transit.
And it’s not just transit. Freight transportation also relies heavily on subsidized gas prices. According to the Federal Bureau of Transportation Statistics, trucks carry about 65% of freight tonnage and about 70% of freight value. Trucks are responsible for 80% of the global increase in diesel consumption.
In contrast, railroads are the most eco-friendly way to transport ground freight, being 3–4 times more fuel-efficient than trucks on average. Rail freight is also six times less energy-consuming than road transport and can achieve climate neutrality without additional infrastructure. There is a qualifier. Diesel still accounts for 90% of the rail sector’s total energy consumption. That being said, according to Union Pacific Corporation, railroads are the most environmentally responsible way to transport ground freight.
Both passenger transit and freight transport advocates would agree that rail is the most sustainable solution. They would not, however, be on the same page for what matters most. Of the 21,400 miles of track that Amtrak operates on, about 70% of it is owned by freight companies. This means that freight companies have priority over passenger trains which can lead to an increase in delays, congestion, and wait times between trains. And it’s easy to see why this power dynamic exists. Amtrak’s $2bn in revenue pales in comparison to the annual value of $187bn in freight transport.
Freight transportation is so valuable to the American economy that the very public battle between rail unions and freight companies — one in which workers were demanding for sick leave and safer working conditions — was intervened by the federal government. In a resounding defeat, rail workers were denied their demands by not just the freight companies but the Biden administration and US Senate.
Freight as the primary purpose of trains has largely been unchanged for decades — even systematically encouraged, as we’ve seen. Despite a 24% increase in airfare since 2019 (reminder: wages have only grown 9% in the same timespan), travelers continue to pass on long-distance travel by Amtrak. Perhaps that’s why there are some newcomers hoping to shake things up.
Brightline, a rail company based in south Florida, is the first private rail company to exist in America in a long time. It offers rapid transit services linking Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach, with upcoming plans to extend its services to Orlando. A ticket is as little as $10. The duration of the trip is roughly 24 minutes about half the time it takes to drive into Miami during peak hours. A successful, small-scale endeavor!
On the other hand, we have more of a Glass Onion-type disruptor when it comes to high-speed rail — Elon Musk and the Boring Company. In 2013, Musk proposed the Hyperloop system, which promised to transport passengers from Los Angeles to San Francisco at 760 mph through a vacuum tube at a fraction of the cost of the state’s high speed rail project. Musk’s estimate for a hyperloop system was $6 billion for passengers, significantly lower than the projected $64 billion cost for high-speed rail. However, Musk never intended to complete the hyperloop and instead sought to stop construction of what he considered an outdated system, despite receiving significant taxpayer subsidies. He was also mistaken about the true cost and feasibility of building a hyperloop system. The only successful “hyperloop” to date is a 1.7-mile tunnel where passengers ride in human-driven Teslas to a convention center — a crude imitation of rail. Indeed, a coordinated traffic system with cars moving at the same time and with the ability to move up and down in “3D” would avoid traffic . It would also be a train system.
If passenger rail is not awakened by private disruptors, it will at least improve from public support. A majority of the $66bn in rail support from the bipartisan infrastructure bill will be dedicated to passenger rail. And while some remain skeptical about whether the passenger rail experience will actually improve, such a large cash infusion will surely support maintenance and expansion endeavors — even for doomed-from-the-start Amtrak.
Whoever Controls Trains Controls the Future
What this all means that trains remain one of humanity’s greatest innovations. They will be key to our path towards a sustainable future in more ways than one. First and foremost, we must address the warming planet while maintaining our right to mobility. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), transportation accounts for about 27% of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, with cars and trucks making up close to 90% of transportation emissions. Trains, even if they are not electric, can and will drive us towards greater efficiency and lower emissions in a time when environmental sustainability is paramount.
Financial sustainability is equally important. Public dollars are hesitant to commit to expanding and innovating upon passenger rail, which puts long distance travel at risk of privatization. Though we may have effective projects like Brightline, we are equally likely, if not more likely, to have more Elon Musk-like solutions to the incoming transportation problem. With inflation, a banking crisis, and the threat of US dollar devaluation, we do not have time for short-term, self-gratifying financial solutions (i.e., cars, hyperloops, and planes).
Moreover, we must begin to prepare for the transportation needs of migrants. This is especially true when the UN International Organization for Migration cites estimates of as many as 1 billion climate refugees over the next 30 years. With an influx of people coming into America, a country where more than half of its inhabitants live in suburbia, there will surely be a demand for cars. Affordable cars. Gasoline cars. Even if we were to subsidize electric cars for consumers as we do gasoline prices, we would only further be burdening our future immigrants by pillaging the global south for our coveted lithium. Thus, the sustainable solution is one that enables safe, efficient, and high-quality public transit.
Ultimately, trains are but a part of the solution to environmental and financial sustainability. A true multi-modal transit system — one with trains and buses and trolleys and bike lanes — will be key to transporting our ever-diverse commuters. A robust, electrified railway to move our freight and cargo will maintain a resilient economy. And a cooperative rail network will better balance the needs for long distance travel. However, these long-term solutions will only bloom when the automotive industry is down on its knees — cut off from subsidies, political kickbacks, and public support. And stop buying Tesla cars. It is legitimately, unmistakably, indubitably not the vibe.
