Few would defend America’s current transport policy. Each year congestion costs more than $78 billion in wasted hours and petrol. Washington’s main transport strategy has been not to have one. The Department of Transportation (DoT) runs 108 different programmes. But an integrated system for planning—one that includes passenger rail, freight, highways and mass transport—does not exist. Full analyses of projects’ costs or benefits are rare. —The Economist, June 20-26

As we head into one of the busiest travel holidays of the year, when many will face slow going on the roads and crowded flights, it is a good time to remind ourselves just how much work is needed to make our society as mobile as it could be. Despite a small drop in gas prices, USA Today reports in a cover story that the country is in the midst of “the longest and steepest decline in driving since the invention of the automobile.” Since last November, the drop in vehicle miles traveled on American thoroughfares is akin to “taking between 8 million and 10 million drivers off the road.” Much of this may be due to the state of the economy, which is forcing many to forego travel or adjust their plans, but the article also notes the increasing number of Americans opting for less car-dependent lifestyles. It makes one wonder if we would be better able to weather this recession if we did have a sensible, balanced transportation strategy that provided a plethora of affordable and enjoyable ways to get around, and if we’ll be able to deliver the non-highway transportation choices people are demanding once the storm is over.

Fortunately, the woeful state of American mobility is receiving long-overdue attention in Washington. But, as The Economist notes (and NARP has been pointing out for some time), the main well of money for transportation improvements is about to run dry, and we don’t have a viable plan for replenishing it. A set of worthy goals has been written, but the Obama Administration wants to borrow from the General Fund to pay for them, a desire confirmed in a document released by DOT this week (see Hotline #611, 3rd story). Tapping into the Treasury for such consistent expenditures is highly unsustainable in the long run as it adds to the defecit and relies on the whims of Congressional appropriators. The Administration says it needs more time to figure out a sustainable long-term funding mechanism that will also repay the loans from the General Fund.

Congress has given us ”cash for clunkers,” yet we struggle to find the cash to overhaul our ‘clunker’ of a transportation system. If we don’t get on track (literally and figuratively) to a robust and sustainable system now, all Americans will continue to pay a higher price: as travelers, consumers and taxpayers. It’s up to all of us as citizens and voters to give our leaders the political will to do what needs to be done. We must pay a little more now to build the safe, efficient, multi-modal mobility network we deserve in order to avoid a great deal of pain later.

-- Malcolm Kenton

Since we’ve given out a lot of certificates the past few days, pretend that I’m reading from another certificate, although it’s a little verbose because it’s only a virtual certificate.

The Hard Working Passenger Train Advocacy Award is presented to:

David Johnson

To thank him for five and a half years of tireless work for the members of NARP and for rail passengers in general and to tell the world that MARC Train Service’s gain is NARP’s loss.

David is the ultimate self-starter. I’d be a rich man if I had a dollar for every time I asked him to do something and he responded, “I’m three steps ahead of you. It’s already done.”

He is the energizer bunny. He reviews incredible volumes of incoming e-mail and exercises great judgment about which ones need my attention. He taught himself how to do layout for the newsletters, the posters you see displayed at Board and now Council meetings, the use of Constant Contact the handsome messages that now go to our members, and acquired countless other technical skills that you might not associate with a “Vice President,” but in a small organization everyone pitches in.

Thanks to his outgoing personality he knows and is respected by more front-line railroaders than you could imagine, including the conductors who have known him riding the Newport News line since he was a child. So he has an impressive knowledge of what is actually going on out there.

I always try to think of a silver lining. As a Maryland taxpayer, I’m happy that MARC with David is about to get a pretty big bang for the buck. And we all should be proud of the growing number of passenger train professionals—going back to Dr. Anthony Perl and Amtrak’s Jonathan Hutchison (Government Affairs/West)—who have done part of their learning about the industry while working for NARP.

But I really did not look forward to losing David. David, thank you for all you have done, for your work and your friendship.

Given this 21st Day of April, 2009 at the NARP Council of Representatives Meeting, Washington, DC.

-- Ross B. Capon

-- Malcolm Kenton

-- Malcolm Kenton and Ross Capon

My experience getting home from NARP’s Washington office yesterday, while harrowing, made me count my blessings. My plan was to take the 5:35 PM MARC Brunswick Line commuter train from Union Station. After almost half an hour waiting at the station hearing only that the track ahead was blocked, I learned via my mobile phone of the accident and determined that my train was not going to depart. I informed my fellow passengers and proceeded to find other means of transport. It took me two and a half hours, two bus rides and a lift from a kind stranger, but I made it home. Had I decided to leave only 15 minutes earlier, though, it could have been a lot worse, and I was lucky to be alive and unharmed.

Yesterday, I saw firsthand just how much a large city relies on its transit network. With a key segment of Metrorail and commuter service out of commission, the number of people forced into buses, cars and taxis, created huge traffic jams. If Metro’s trains and buses did not exist, there is no way the city of Washington would be able to function as it does. The subway network has only been around for three decades, but it literally consitutes the arteries that keep the city’s lifeblood flowing. When one of those arteries gets clogged or fails, the entire body is thrown into disarray.

This should serve a reminder of how indespensible our work is at NARP and throughout the rail and transit industries. We must continue our work to make trains—intercity, commuter and metro—a reliable, convenient, comfortable, and above all, safe travel method available to all Americans.

-- Malcolm Kenton

We are still working to gain cosponsors for two bills that set good policy objectives, and you can help!

* * *

From Southern Pines, North Carolina’s daily newspaper, The Pilot, comes a sympathetic op-ed on Amtrak from the former editor of Passenger Train Journal, also a former Federal Railroad Administration economist. He explains why the national passenger railroad hasn’t been able to satisfy the expectations of politicians and the public, and why we now have an opportunity to get it right. “Expecting great things from Amtrak,” he aptly observes, “is like expecting a Triple Crown win from a horse that has not been fed,” but “with adequate and intelligent investment,” Amtrak can redeem itself.

Also advocating the aggressive pursuit of high-speed passenger & freight rail: the man who headed the Federal Railroad Administration under George H.W. Bush. Gilbert E. Carmichael calls the next-generation rail network “Interstate 2.0.” Steps Carmichael would like to see taken first include a 25-percent tax credit for private railroads to build new capacity, state construction or leasing of high-speed track on existing rights-of-way, and upgrading the electric grid in preparation for railroad electrification.

A detailed, behind-the-scenes report in yesterday’s New York Times Magazine underscores just how much the success of passenger rail in the near future, in the eyes of politicians and much of the traveling public, will ride on the degree to which the Golden State achieves its desired outcomes. The head of Alstom Transport told the autor, “If California is a success, ... I believe it will be the showcase [of next-generation passenger rail in the US]. But if it’s not working well? In the end it could be a failure for many years for this idea in the U.S. So it has to be very carefully done.” Our friends at TFA rightly point out that the author seems uninterested in incrementally improving existing service, essentially asking travelers (like himself) to bear with Amtrak as it is until CAHSR is complete.

* * *

A Wisconsin newspaper editorializes against the reestablishment of Amtrak service between Milwaukee and Green Bay. Their objections (and our responses):

If gas prices tripled and quadrupled, train travel might make sense. (Such increases are almost inevitable, so why not be prepared?)

If traffic and congestion were stifling, train travel might make sense. (It is in many areas, and will only get worse at the rate we’re going.)

If we could easily get to wherever we wanted to go after getting off a train, train travel might make sense. (Which is why we are pushing for better transit connections within cities as well. Besides, most Amtrak stations have rental cars and taxi services on call.)

If trains were fast enough to overcome all their other inconveniences, train travel might make sense. (110 mph train operation is imminently achievable with existing infrastructure, considerably faster than one can safely and legally drive.)

If we somehow no longer cared about the freedom to drive wherever and whenever we wanted to, train travel might make sense. (Our definition of freedom includes the right to travel to more places without having to drive there or worry about parking. As the population ages, and as more people become interested in reducing their driving for a myriad of good reasons, more people are looking at transportation this way. There’s also the freedom to enjoy the trip and arrive recharged.)

Finally, once you average out all the expenses of owning, maintaining and insuring a car, plus the costs to society from traffic accidents and tailpipe emissions, it becomes difficult to say that driving is “easy, convenient and cheap.”

* * *

Richard Florida, a writer on economic geography warns that the current economic crisis means “the end of a whole way of life.” He argues that the United States’ ability to maintain its economic prowess in the years to come will depend on the ability of its urban megaregions to attract a “creative class” of professionals doing high value-added work that cannot be outsourced or done by machines, who “generate and transport ideas” instead of goods. “Positioning the economy to grow strongly in the coming decades will require not just fiscal stimulus or industrial reform; it will require a new kind of geography as well, a new spatial fix for the next chapter of American economic history.” This new geography will be built off of an efficient transportation system that will allow these megaregions to provide a high quality of life for large numbers of people. Building and operating the rail and transit networks that will drive the new economy will mean even more jobs to be had.

Today, we need to begin making smarter use of both our urban spaces and the suburban rings that surround them—packing in more people, more affordably, while at the same time improving their quality of life. That means liberal zoning and building codes within cities to allow more residential development, more mixed-use development in suburbs and cities alike, the in-filling of suburban cores near rail links, new investment in rail, and congestion pricing for travel on our roads.

One traffic-clogged American boomburg is looking towards a more livable future, staking its hopes for manageable growth on a soon-to-come subway line. On the other side of the Atlantic, new rail lines anchor French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s vision for a more integrated, sustainable Paris metro area.

* * *

George Will is at it again. This time, he is citing Amtrak’s red ink as a reason why the government would be a poor manager for bankrupt General Motors. Let’see. Amtrak’s federal grant last year was $1.3 billion, of which roughly 2/3 was capital investment and debt service. Last year, GM alone lost $31 billion—that’s the subsidy from shareholders. Then there’s the various government subsidies to auto makers and users, ongoing and emergency, and to highways and aviation. The total federal grant to Amtrak buys (on average) about 10 miles of highway. Furthermore, Will’s assertion that “Legislators treat [Amtrak] as their toy train set?” is an insult to those of us who actually use those “toy” trains to get to real places.

* * *

LCL: A Canadian economic development forum touts intercity rail as a solution to traffic woes and a “more civilized” way to travel, yet also “a tall political order;” despite some setbacks, the taxpayer money invested in Orlando-area commuter rail has not been wasted, as critics claim; city leaders in Dubuque, Iowa, get a can-do attitude towards Amtrak service to Chicago, which seems to be only a few years away; and Oklahoma hopes to get its piece of the Obama high-speed rail pie.

-- Malcolm Kenton

-- Malcolm Kenton

Now, the stories of General Motors and Chrysler have made clear fly-drive’s financial unsustainability. Government subsidies and loans to GM and Chrysler now total over $50 billion, including loans which GM and Chrysler may not repay, and the forms government aid has taken have been varied.

Even today, some still say NARP should apologize for the fact that Amtrak requires government funding. Would airlines be profitable if governments did not maintain airports and air-traffic-control systems? Would bus companies be profitable and driving be affordable if government did not maintain the roads? Would the making of the very vehicles that carry the bulk of American travelers have been profitable without repeated help from Uncle Sam? The transportation system upon which our economy is built requires public funding and is one of the best investments we make as a society. The impact of these investments would be maximized if we had a proper balance between the modes to achieve the most efficient outcomes.

The billions that the government is ready to spend to bail out bankrupt GM are only the latest in a series of large public subsidies to automakers. GM has already received $13.4 billion in taxpayer funds, with Chrysler getting another $4 billion, and both companies’ suppliers got a total of $5 billion. The government guarantees manufacturers’ warranties for GM & Chrysler cars, and the Recovery Act provided a tax credit of $49,500 to consumers who purchase new autos. Furthermore, the climate change bill recently passed by the House Energy & Commerce Committee includes a “cash for clunkers” program, which offers tax credits encouraging drivers to trade in existing cars for more fuel-efficient models. This latter program—which, though sold as promoting energy efficiency, does not take into account the energy costs associated with prematurely scrapping useful cars—has been described as a subsidy to manufacturers, their workers and car buyers.

Some incentives for the production and consumption of more fuel-efficient vehicles are necessary to address our energy problems as long as most Americans continue to live in communities planned in such a way as to make driving a virtual necessity. It is also important for the government to help struggling communities that are dependent on auto manufacturing to get back on their feet. But we need strong efforts to minimize the worsening consequences of increased congestion and urban sprawl. More attention should be paid to the goals set forth in S. 1036, the Federal Surface Transportation Policy and Planning Act of 2009—increased use of freight and passenger trains and mass transit and reduced, and reductions in national per capita motor vehicle miles traveled on an annual basis, in national motor vehicle-related fatalities (50 percent by 2030), in national surface transportation-generated carbon dioxide levels (40 percent by 2030) and in national surface transportation delays per capita.

We need a stronger focus on investing in the infrastructure that support those goals and would give Americans more travel choices. Many forward-thinking commentators have envisioned Midwestern factories retooled to produce wind turbines and solar panels. To that list we should add locomotives, railcars, light-rail vehicles, streetcars, subways, and other rail infrastructure. Surely federal investments to correct transportation priorities are at least as worthy as efforts to maintain specific automobile companies. The “priority-correction efforts” would support more quickly achieving President Obama’s vision of an enhanced role for trains in our mobility network. Such spending would yield dividends for years to come, perpetually benefiting people, our economy, and the environment.

-- Ross B. Capon and Malcolm Kenton

-- Malcolm Kenton