Travail in the Northeast Corridor

The year 1968 came and went with no market test of high-speed train service in the Northeast corridor but with new evidence of strong demand for air travel along the Washington-New York-Boston axis.

While technical difficulties continue to delay the start of the Department of Transportation's program to test demand for fast, reliable train service between the three cities, another arm of DOT—the Federal Aviation Administration—was forced to announce ceilings on the number of flights in and out of John F. Kennedy, La Guardia, and Newark airports in the New York area, and Washington National Airport in the nation's capital. The announcement followed a period of increasing congestion at these airports, a congestion emphasized in by by the action of flight controllers "working to rule" in order to highlight the potential hazards that further traffic could cause. Time lost in "holding" (i.e., circling aloft while waiting in turn to land) rose dramatically, sometimes equaling the flight time between New York and Washington.

Not all transport experts see the provision of demonstration (market-testing) runs of newer, faster trains as checking the rapid growth in air travel. The FAA, for example, continues to focus on its demand projections, which see a continuous rise in aircraft operations from airports serviced by FAA traffic control: from 47.6 million in 1967 to 167.4 million in 1979. Much of that expected increase would take place in the Northeast Corridor. These projections take no account of possible shifts in mode of travel and assume airport capacity is not a constraint.

Some economists note that peak-hour scheduling results, in part, from airline competition for scheduling convenience. They ask whether freer price competition might help smooth out the peaks, with airport landing fees, in particular, used to ration scarce space at certain hours. Airport operators note, however, that capacity at the airports listed is taxed from 6:00 AM to 11:00 PM, so bad is the congestion.

Introduction of much larger capacity planes can hold down the rate of increase in number of flights. At the same time there will be a much larger problem in handling the passengers from airport to final destination. Since fewer passengers want to go downtown, increasing use of buses rather than of fixed rails seems indicated.

The question remains in many people's minds: Can some of this demand be channelled to the railroad? The DOT Office of High Speed Ground Transportation was set up to answer that question. Working with private railroads and railroad suppliers, OHSGT is helping to fund a New York-Washington demonstration by the Penn Central and a New York-Boston run to be operated by the New Haven Railroad (now Penn Central). The latter run will use two turbo trains built by United Aircraft and will feature lightweight cars, a unique suspension system allowing faster speeds on curves, and jet engines. The New York—Boston run is scheduled to take 3 hr. 15 min. (the rail time now is 4 hr. 15 min.). The present standard New York-Washington run (of 3 hr. 50 min.) could be made in under 3 hours.

In neither case will the result be as technologically advanced as the Japanese National Railroad's Tokyo-Osaka run, a fact that has exasperated some railroad boosters. But as Robert A. Nelson, head of OHSGT, points out, the Japanese had to build new capacity to meet growing demand. The United States is trying to find out if any demand exists, and so an investment of $3 billion to $5 billion could hardly be justified.

There are those who say that all that will be learned is already known; present railroad management simply is unwilling or unable to manage a modern passenger service. As one such person puts it, "If the railroad companies have anything to do with it, on the second day the toilets won't work." Others, less pessimistic, are concerned that the system aspects of the proposed service (involving decisions the potential rider must make—when, for example, he reserves a seat, buys a ticket, parks his car, leaves his luggage, wants to eat) have not been thought through to airline management standards.

Recognition of at least one of these problems, however, is implicit in the decision to develop suburban parking and loading points in the Washington and New York areas. If well designed, these stations should prove attractive to commuters weary of fighting for airport parking space.

The airlines and aircraft manufacturers will not be idle while the OHSGT demonstrations go on. Pressures will mount for air technologies that deliver the passenger closer to his destination with fewer delays. In the face of this, a test of demand for a rail system under adverse circumstances is likely to be inconclusive; what seems to be needed is a policy decision that the service will be provided in such measure and of such quality that it will be used. Recognition of the economic cost and environmental results of not providing such a service may, in the long run, tip the balance in its favor.