 | NARP blogTRAINS: A travel choice Americans want |
All Things Not Considered
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Before the Memorial Day holiday, National Public Radio ran a story entitled, “Family Road Trip: The Cheapest Way to Travel” during its morning program “All Things Considered.” Well, it’s too bad that NPR did not “consider all things” in putting this piece together.
The reporter compared the prices of a Washington-to-Boston trip for four people, but unfortunately compared apples to oranges.
Relying on a round-trip Washington-Boston airfare of $520, the reporter divided by two to produce a one-way “fare” of $260 for four people. But airlines charge well over half a round trip for a one way fare. In fact, a check today on the website of an air shuttle operator showed $1,449.60 as the non-advance purchase, one-way fare for four people from Washington to Boston.
When it came to trains, the reporter did price out one way trips but elected to pick the highest option coach non-Acela fare for three adults and one child ($472.50). The lowest Amtrak advance purchase fare for this itinerary is actually far less, at $283.50.
Finally, concluding that the $96 for travel by automobile is the cheapest option, the reporter simply reflected the cost of gas and tolls, and ignoring the other very real costs a family faces, including interest payments on car loans or leases, insurance, and wear and tear on the car. Given that numerous other ancillary costs were factored in for airfare and trains (including taxi fares to and from airports and train stations), this omission is curious.
This sloppy, biased reporting is unworthy of NPR.
—Dave Johnson
Posted by NARP
Climate Change, Airlines and Trains
Friday, May 18, 2007
We’ve reported that public opinion on climate change moved with surprising speed in the U.K., but surprising (if not equal) speed is also showing up here.
Here is Federal Aviation Administrator Marion Blakey warning the U.S. airline executives at a Phoenix conference, “The fact of the matter in Europe is more and more often environmentalists are calling aviation a ‘rogue industry’, lumped together alongside Big Tobacco.” The London-based Financial Times (only source where I’ve seen this reported), in a May 14 article headlined “US airlines warned of emissions backlash”, reported: “She noted that the change in consumer sentiment had happened almost overnight…’It’s presumptious to assume it won’t happen here [so fast]…I think it’s fair to say that along with congested airspace, aircraft emissions may be the most serious barrier to aviation growth, at least in the long term.’”
The U.S. airline industry suffered a p.r. black eye with this banner headline on FT’s May 14 Global Traveller Special Report section: “The Atlantic gulf on global warming: Why US airlines are more worried about profit than melting icecaps.” The article connected availability of rail options to pressure from European business travelers for airlines to be environmentally responsible, and included this: “One reason that tempers the debate in the US is that unlike many of their counterparts in Europe, US business travelers do not have other alternatives to fall back on. The train does not stack up as a practical alternative for US domestic business travelers. [Prince] Charles said evidence of European consumers taking trains as an alternative to flying was becoming more than just anecdotal. ‘Where there is a train alternative, customers are taking it. On long haul, customers want to know about offsetting their flights and how we can contribute in other ways,’ he says.”
The Air Transport Association testified May 16 before a House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing on climate change. Their news release said U.S. airlines are “extremely carbon efficient…the industry has improved fuel efficiency by 35% since 2001.” Astoundingly, ATA President and CEO James C. May concluded, “We are the greenest form of mass transportation,” then of course asked for more federal funding “for a modernized air traffic control system that will permit more direct aircraft routes and reduce fuel emissions by 10% to 15% per flight” and to support further research.
He of course did not mention that undercapitalized Amtrak was 18% more energy efficient (BTUs per passenger-mile) in 2003, according to Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and that’s before taking into account the support that rail (including Amtrak) gives to transit- and pedestrian-friendly development, and to local transit ridership (connecting passengers and shared facility costs). Moreover, “because the gases [from flying] are emitted at a high altitude they are estimated to have at least twice as much warming effect on the climate than if they were at ground level.” That’s from an article by Fiona Harvey in today’s Financial Times Rail Industry Special Report section. Her article, “The Environment: Consumer consciousness tops the agenda,” has a photo caption which notes the claim by Eurostar, which operates London-Paris/Brussels trains, that “a [Eurostar] journey is 10 times less polluting than flying.” She reports that The-Trainline “has set up a carbon emissions reporting service, through which business customers can calculate the emissions generated by their journeys.”
Here in the USA you can calculate your carbon footprint (all modes of transportation including train, plus household energy usage). There is also a link to this from Amtrak’s website but it’s fairly hard to find and Amtrak tells us they plan to fix that in the future.
The thinking is that, as climate change issues intenstify, more and more people will be interested in calculating their carbon footprint and that this information will lead more people to take the train.
But U.S. DOT Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, in Atlanta on Monday, urged airport expansion on key cities where rail expansion is both a practical and necessary alternative. The latest version of FAA’s study, “Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System,” identified these airports as needing immediate expansion: LaGuardia, Newark, O’Hare and Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International. At O’Hare, for example, one of three flights has a destination under 350 miles away.
Announcing a one million dollar grant to study further capacity expansion in Atlanta, Peters said, “Atlanta’s leaders will have to embrace new airports and new ways of thinking.” NARP enthusiastically endorses “new ways of thinking,” and will have more to say on that soon.
—Ross B. Capon
Posted by NARP
Region 3 Meeting Presentation
Thursday, May 17, 2007
As I promised to meeting attendees, here is a copy of the Power Point presentation that I gave to Region 3 NARP members at the meeting in Harrisburg last Saturday. You can download the Full version (3.8 MB) or condensed version (650K) (both in PDF format). Everyone is welcome to read them, of course!
-Dave Johnson