Connect with us

Economics

Amtrak’s ridership is touching record highs

Published

on

Listen to this story.
Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

Your browser does not support the <audio> element.

At 7pm on a Friday night, the Illini service, a train that runs from southern Illinois to Chicago, ought to be pulling into the college city of Champaign. When your correspondent was on it in early March, it stopped short after the train coming in the opposite direction broke down. For three hours, passengers were trapped roughly 200 yards south of the station. At some point a student who had been loudly complaining to the conductor quietly opened the door and walked off into the night. A little after 10pm the train finally shunted its way to the platform and the rest of the passengers alighted. The next morning your by now rather grumpy correspondent proceeded to Chicago by bus.

Such stories of travelling by train in America are sadly common. The world’s biggest economy has fewer miles of electrified railway than Iran. Only in the North East Corridor (NEC) between Boston and Washington, DC, do intercity trains run even vaguely like trains in other rich countries. Elsewhere, Mennonites, who do not use cars or fly, make up a remarkable share of passengers. And yet as bleak as it can seem, Amtrak, the national rail carrier, is in fact recovering well from the pandemic. In the latter half of last year, ridership was just 3% below its levels in 2019—previously the firm’s best-ever year. And through his infrastructure law of 2021 President Joe Biden, an Amtrak superuser as a senator, has put aside $66bn for investment in passenger-rail infrastructure. Is a new golden age of train travel down the tracks?

The biggest recovery at the moment is on the NEC, an electrified track largely-owned and maintained by Amtrak directly. In 2023 trains there carried 12.7m people, a record high, and about 43% of all Amtrak passengers in total. The trains are well used in the north-east because they connect dense city centres and are nicer than the alternatives. “It’s more enjoyable and more comfortable” than flying, says Miles Stanley, a regular passenger between Boston, New York and Washington. Ticket revenues on the corridor easily cover the cost of operating the trains, and generate a surplus used for maintenance.

Elsewhere, rail is either directly subsidised by Congress (for the long-distance lines) or by state governments (for the rest), and trains travel on tracks owned by freight companies, all too infrequently. Passenger numbers are recovering on those trains too, but far less fast than on the NEC. It does not help that ageing rolling stock means those journeys are often getting worse. Derailments are absurdly common, as are crashes at level crossings. Your correspondent was once delayed several hours on the City of New Orleans, a long-distance train, by a frozen whistle.

If Amtrak were a normal company, it would pour money into the NEC and run fewer loss-making long-distance trains. Yet as Jim Mathews, the president of the Rail Passengers Association, a lobby group for riders, is keen to point out, Amtrak is more like a government agency than a company. Its bosses are appointed by the president and each year it has to be funded by Congress. And so the firm has generally tended to spread money around the country to win political support. Already it operates in 46 of the lower 48 states, and in 251 congressional districts. “It is a little cynical,” Mr Mathews admits.

For now, there is so much money around that the firm can invest in both. On the NEC, a civil-war-era tunnel near Baltimore where trains have to slow to a crawl is being rebuilt, something that ought to have happened decades ago. On the long-distance lines, new trains are being procured. But investment spending must be re-authorised in 2026, notes Yonah Freemark, of the Urban Institute, a think-tank. Another risk is that infrastructure-act money by law can be spent only on investment, not operational costs. Last year House Republicans proposed a 64% cut to Amtrak’s day-to-day budget—which if carried out would make investment pointless.

Some rail boosters have bigger ideas. On March 8th Seth Moulton, a congressman from Massachusetts, filed a bill proposing $205bn in investment in high-speed rail. He worries that Amtrak is “trying to recreate services from the 1930s”. Instead, he says it ought to build a brand-new fast train line, of the sort the Japanese or French have. This, he says, should be in Texas. “Showing that high-speed rail can succeed in a red state and get a lot of Republican support would change the conversation,” he says. Indeed Amtrak is working on a proposal to do just that, in partnership with a firm Mr Moulton used to work for. It’s certainly a platform.

Stay on top of American politics with The US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important electoral stories, and Checks and Balance, a weekly note from our Lexington columnist that examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.

Economics

‘He should bring them down’

Published

on

U.S. President Donald Trump and U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.

Win McNamee | Annabelle Gordon | Reuters

President Donald Trump on Friday lobbed his latest criticism at Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, as the White House’s discontent for the economic policy leader hits a fever pitch.

During a Friday afternoon question-and-answer session with reporters, Trump pointed to examples of prices going down.

“If we had a Fed Chairman that understood what he was doing, interest rates would be coming down, too,” Trump said. “He should bring them down.”

Trump has long argued that the Fed, which sets monetary policy in the U.S., should cut down interest rates. His latest comments come as the White House has ratcheted up its attacks on Powell in recent days.

White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett said Friday that Trump and his team are assessing whether they can remove the Fed chair. Powell has said previously that he cannot be fired under law and intends to serve through the end of his term as chair in May 2026.

“The president and his team will continue to study that matter,” Hassett said at the White House after a reporter questioned if firing Powell “is an option in a way that it wasn’t before,” according to Reuters.

Trump posted on Truth Social on Thursday that “Powell’s termination cannot come fast enough.” His post included the nickname of “Too Late” for Powell, a continuation of Trump’s habit of giving satirical titles to political rivals.

His use of the word “termination” raised questions around if Trump was referring to Powell’s potential removal from his post ahead of schedule. Hassett said on Friday the administration will look at if there’s “new legal analysis” that would allow for Powell’s firing.

Powell appeared to irk Trump after saying Wednesday that the president’s contentious tariff plan could drive up inflation in the near-term and create challenges for the central bank in managing goals of high employment rates and price stability. Powell said Trump’s levies — many of which are currently on pause — are “likely to move us further away from our goals.”

“We may find ourselves in the challenging scenario in which our dual-mandate goals are in tension,” Powell said in prepared remarks before the Economic Club of Chicago. “If that were to occur, we would consider how far the economy is from each goal, and the potentially different time horizons over which those respective gaps would be anticipated to close.”

Powell also said that the Fed was “well positioned to wait for greater clarity before considering any adjustments to our policy stance.”

The Federal Open Market Committee has its borrowing rate currently targeted in a range between 4.25% and 4.5%, where it has sat since December. Fed funds futures are pricing in a more than 90% likelihood that the central bank holds rates steady again at its policy meeting next month, according to CME’s FedWatch tool.

As Trump’s team has scaled up criticisms, some Democrats have gone on defense. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., warned on Thursday that a president firing the Fed chief would be dire for U.S. financial markets.

“Understand this: If Chairman Powell can be fired by the president of the United States, it will crash markets in the United States,” Warren said on CNBC.

Continue Reading

Economics

China targets U.S. services and other areas after decrying ‘meaningless’ tariff hikes on goods

Published

on

Dilara Irem Sancar | Anadolu | Getty Images

China last week announced it was done retaliating against U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs, saying any further increases by the U.S. would be a “joke,” and Beijing would “ignore” them.

Instead of continuing to focus on tariffing goods, however, China has chosen to resort to other measures, including steps targeting the American services sector.

Trump has jacked up U.S. levies on select goods from China by up to 245% after several rounds of tit-for-tat measures with Beijing in recent weeks. Before calling it a “meaningless numbers game,” China last week imposed additional duties on imports from the U.S. of up to 125%.

While the Trump administration has largely focused on pressing ahead on his tariff plans, Beijing has rolled out a series of non-tariff restrictive measures including widening export controls of rare-earth minerals and opening antitrust probes into American companies, such as pharmaceutical giant DuPont and IT major Google.

Before the latest escalation, in February Beijing had put dozens of U.S. businesses on a so-called “unreliable entity” list, which would restrict or ban firms from trading with or investing in China. American firms such as PVH, the parent company of Tommy Hilfiger, and Illumina, a gene-sequencing equipment provider, were among those added to the list.

Its tightening of exports of critical mineral elements will require Chinese companies to secure special licenses for exporting these resources, effectively restricting U.S. access to the key minerals needed for semiconductors, missile-defense systems and solar cells.

In its latest move on Tuesday, Beijing went after Boeing — America’s largest exporter — by ordering Chinese airlines not to take any further deliveries for its jets and requested carriers to halt any purchases of aircraft-related equipment and parts from U.S. companies, according to Bloomberg.

Having deliveries to China cut off will add to the cash-strapped plane maker’s troubles, as it struggles with a lingering quality-control crisis.

In another sign of growing hostilities, Chinese police issued notices for apprehending three people they claimed to have engaged in cyberattacks against China on behalf of the U.S. National Security Agency.

Chinese state media, which published the notice, urged domestic users and companies to avoid using American technology and replace them with domestic alternatives.

“Beijing is clearly signaling to Washington that two can play in this retaliation game and that it has many levers to pull, all creating different levels of pain for U.S. companies,” said Wendy Cutler, vice president at Asia Society Policy Institute.

“With high tariffs and other restrictions in place, the decoupling of the two economies is at full steam,” Cutler said.

Targeting trade in services

China is seen by some as seeking to broaden the trade war to encompass services trade — which covers travel, legal, consulting and financial services — where the U.S. has been running a significant surplus with China for years.

China Beige Book CEO: U.S. needs to articulate what they want from China

Earlier this month, a social media account affiliated with Chinese state media Xinhua News Agency, suggested Beijing could impose curbs on U.S. legal consultancy firms and consider a probe into U.S. companies’ China operations for the huge “monopoly benefits” they have gained from intellectual-property rights.

China’s imports of U.S. services surged more than 10-fold to $55 billion in 2024 over the past two decades, according to Nomura estimates, driving U.S. services trade surplus with China to $32 billion last year.

Last week, China said it would reduce imports of U.S. films and warned its citizens against traveling or studying in the U.S., in a sign of Beijing’s intent to put pressure on the U.S. entertainment, tourism and education sectors.

“These measures target high-visibility sectors — aviation, media, and education — that resonate politically in the U.S.,” said Jing Qian, managing director at Center for China Analysis.

While they might be low on actual dollar impact given the smaller scale of these sectors, “reputational effects — such as fewer Chinese students or more cautious Chinese employees — could ripple through academia and the tech talent ecosystem,” he added.

Nomura estimates $24 billion could be at stake if Beijing significantly step up restrictions on travel to the U.S.

Weekly analysis and insights from Asia’s largest economy in your inbox
Subscribe now

Travel dominated U.S. services exports to China, reflecting expenditure by millions of Chinese tourists in the U.S., according to Nomura. Within travel, education-related spending leads at 71%, it estimates, mostly coming from tuition and living expenses for the more than 270,000 Chinese students studying in the U.S.

Entertainment exports, encompassing films, music and television programs, accounted for just 6% of U.S. exports within this sector, the investment firm said, noting that Beijing’s latest move on film imports “carries more symbolic heft than economic bite.”

“We could see deeper decoupling — not only in supply chains, but in people-to-people ties, knowledge exchange, and regulatory frameworks. This may signal a shift from transactional tension to systemic divergence,” said Qian.

Can Beijing get more aggressive?

Analysts largely expect Beijing to continue deploying its arsenal of non-tariff policy tools in an effort to raise its leverage ahead of any potential negotiation with the Trump administration.

“From the Chinese government’s perspective, the U.S. companies’ operations in China are the biggest remaining target for inflicting pain on the U.S .side,” said Gabriel Wildau, managing director at risk advisory firm Teneo.

Apple, Tesla, pharmaceutical and medical device companies are among the businesses that could be targeted as Beijing presses ahead with non-tariff measures, including sanction, regulatory harassment and export controls, Wildau added.

Shoppers and staff are seen inside the Apple Store, with its sleek modern interior design and prominent Apple logo, in Chongqing, China, on Sept. 10, 2024.

Cheng Xin | Getty Images

While a deal may allow both sides to unwind some of the retaliatory measures, hopes for near-term talks between the two leaders are fading fast.

Chinese officials have repeatedly condemned the “unilateral tariffs” imposed by Trump as “bullying” and vowed to “fight to the end.” Still, Beijing has left the door open for negotiations but they must be on “an equal footing.”

On Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump is open to making a deal with China but Beijing needs to make the first move.

“In the end, only when a country experiences sufficient self-inflicted harm might it consider softening its stance and truly returning to the negotiation table,” said Jianwei Xu, economist at Natixis.

Continue Reading

Economics

Donald Trump’s approval rating is dropping

Published

on

EVEN WHEN Donald Trump does something well, he exaggerates. He won the popular vote last November for the first time in three tries, by a 1.5 point margin. “The mandate was massive,” he told Time. In fact it was the slimmest margin since 2000, but it was an improvement on Mr Trump’s two previous popular-vote losses, by 2.1 points in 2016 and 4.5 points in 2020. (He was elected in 2016 through the vagaries of the Electoral College.)

Continue Reading

Trending