NARP

NARP blog

TRAINS: A travel choice Americans want

» Visit the Official NARP Website

Connecting the Dots for Sustainable Transportation

Friday, May 22, 2009

Tuesday’s much-anticipated presidential announcement of higher nationwide fuel economy standards for automobiles was nearly universally praised by auto manufacturers, organized labor, environmentalists and consumer groups, and is indeed a step in the right direction. However, the new rules may have unintended negative consequences, particularly for those interested in a future where Americans are less reliant on the car, and these should not be overlooked.

Safe Climate Campaign director Daniel Becker pointed out on NPR’s Diane Rehm Show Wednesday morning that the new standards apply to cars that are actually bought, not just to those that are in showrooms. Therefore, in order to comply with the law, the auto industry must sell more new cars, potentially with help from a provision in the climate bill that would give consumers incentives to trade in their current vehicles.  Becker also noted (as does USA Today’s Open Road blog) that the laws of economics generally dictate that when the cost of an activity goes down, people tend to do marginally more of it. Therefore, by making it cheaper to drive on a per-mile basis, a gas-sipping auto fleet may lead to an increase in driving, which, while it may not have the same impact on carbon emissions, would certainly worsen the many other consequences of auto dependence: congestion, sprawl, and parking problems, to name a few.  Plus, the new line of fuel-efficient cars may actually be less safe, and when people buy less gas, the key source of revenue for highway maintenance (and some rail and transit services) is further depleted.

Higher gas prices (which will inevitably return) and greater awareness about global warming have led not only to increased demand for fuel-efficient vehicles, but also for more travel alternatives.  If public policy were to promote one without simultaneously addressing the other, it would be a step in the opposite direction from one that would lead to an energy-secure and livable future. Luckily, federal leaders have taken steps towards improving the automobile alternatives for which Americans are clamoring, but a guaranteed long-term source of funding for these projects is still missing. Congress will eventually have to either increase the gas tax (a move that is sure to be resisted mightily) or find other sources of funding for our transportation infrastructure.

Continued after the jump.

—Malcolm Kenton

» read more...

Posted by NARP

Tags: auto industry, climate, congress, highways, obama, transit,

Lessons from GM’s Bankruptcy on the Consequences of a Fly-Drive Transportation System

Thursday, June 04, 2009

For decades, NARP has argued that America’s “fly-drive” system, that is, a transportation system over-reliant on highways and aviation and neglecting trains, was bad policy. We focused heavily on the importance of giving citizens more choices, on environmental impact and—as the opportunity opened—on energy supply issues. We also argued that highways and aviation enjoyed significant public subsidies even as many politicians kept telling themselves and the public that such subsidies did not exist, mistakenly believing that user-funded trust funds completely supported those systems. The fly-drive mentality also contributed to the nation’s overall economic problems, to the extent that the housing bubble encouraged construction and purchase of exurban homes in pedestrian-unfriendly surroundings—actions that would not have taken place if people had known where the price of oil was headed. Finally, we said one of the biggest subsidies in transportation was from airline shareholders to passengers enjoying cheap, non-compensatory fares.

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

Posted by NARP

Tags: auto industry, bankruptcy, chrysler, congress, detroit, energy, gm, highways, mobility, oil, transportation,

Flag Stops: Signs of Change

Tuesday, June 09, 2009

Highway Trust Fund woes, models for industry nationalization, lessons from Europe, and more in this week’s roundup of rail-related reports and ruminations.

  • As worries mount that Highway Trust Fund, the main source of federal outlays for road and transit construction & maintenance, is on pace to run out of cash this summer, lawmakers are scrambling to find other ways to plug the hole, running into political obstacles at every turn. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood rejects the idea of increasing the gas tax, or introducing any new system of charging highway users (such as a vehicle miles traveled tax) during the recession. LaHood is concerned about the impact of such taxes on low-income populations, despite that some of the revenue can be used to give rebates to those most impacted.

    •  

  • Meanwhile, the Congressional Democratic leadership’s push for increased transit use and to reduce miles traveled by car (endorsed by NARP) has a key highway lobby worried. Balanced transportation advocates counter by pointing out that there isn’t, nor should there be, an either-or choice between improved roads and world-class rail and transit networks. Existing roads need to be kept in shape, but decisions about building new roads or adding lanes ought to be judged in the context of the greater public expense they necessitate in the long run, both in terms of maintenance and in terms of the impacts of increased congestion, pollution, sprawl, etc. Highway users should certainly be included in the discussion as we chart a future of improved mobility for all, but they shouldn’t expect to maintain their position in the center of the transportation universe.

    •  

  • From Burlington, Iowa’s daily newspaper, The Hawk Eye, comes a forceful pro-passenger rail op-ed. Mike Sweet writes, “At a minimum, the mere idea of exploring possibilities like fast, efficient and environmentally sound train travel is provoking what America badly needs—a lasting economic, political and intellectual renaissance.” That’s the kind of thinking NARP is working to encourage: thinking that generates an image of an America renewed by greater mobility at a low cost to the planet and our quality of life.
  • As Americans wonder what impending nationalization of banks and auto companies may mean for their future, some are pointing to Amtrak as an example of a once-private operation that has endured after major government intervention. While Congress’s historically poor treatment of Amtrak makes it an unlikely model for future nationalizations, it has resulted in the continued provision of an essential service upon which more and more Americans are depending, despite that it is not profitable (and should not be expected to be). The government-led reorganization of the freight railroads in the 1970s is also instructive, as it resulted in the return of the freight business to the private sector and to profitability. In that same vein, a New York Times piece warns of the pitfalls of privatizing transportation infrastructure.
  • The recession has slowed new car sales, following the pattern that most retail sectors are experiencing. While some expect sales to bounce back when the economy rebounds, many observers say the decline in auto sales could be a lasting trend as people rethink their lifestyles and transportation needs. Greater numbers of Americans are downsizing, moving closer to city centers, and trading multiple cars for shared rides and public transit. As we commented last week, shouldn’t the Administration pay attention to these shifts when debating further giveaways to auto companies? (Thanks to NARP Vice Chair Jim Churchill for the tip)
  • You’ve read our report on Secretary LaHood’s trip to Europe and his roundtable discussion with Vice President Biden and several governors and state DOT heads (Hotline #607); now you can get it straight from the horse’s mouth. On his blog, LaHood shares his reflections on riding France and Spain’s high-speed systems and enumerates the public benefits of rail and transit. Meanwhile, The Transport Politic questions Biden’s analogy of Obama’s HSR vision to Eisenhower’s jumpstarting the Interstate Highway System. Inaccurate as it may be, the comparison is still a useful rhetorical tool to describe the kind of commitment that is needed, if not the actual policy as it is. Remember, it’s only a down payment.
  • LCL: Michigan’s Governor talks of converting auto plants to makers of rail equipment (thanks to former NARP Communications Director Matt Melzer for the tip); our partners at Transportation for America gear up to push national Complete Streets legislation; a policy analyst says in order to promote economic development, government should invest in strategic transportation planning instead of subsidizing automakers; advocates push for experimental Amtrak route Chicago to Green Bay, Wis.; the Union of Concerned Scientists claims buses are the greenest travel mode, with trains being a close second (without factoring in rail’s unparalleled ability to foster condensed, walkable development around stations); the world’s largest public transportation organization convenes in Vienna to take advantage of the moment; the US editor at-large of a major British newspaper reflects [VIDEO] on the fact that the Beatles got to Washington from New York in 1964 faster than the Acela makes the same trip today (thanks to Michigan NARP member Dietrich Bergmann for the tip); and Disney is set to launch 6-month national train tour to promote a new 3D movie version of A Christmas Carol.

    • —Malcolm Kenton

    Posted by NARP

    Tags: auto industry, europe, green, highways, mobility, nationalization, rail, taxes, transit, transportation, urban development,

    Flag Stops: Limited Resources Edition

    Tuesday, July 07, 2009

    Good news from Washington and Oregon, not-so-good news from New York and Florida, and more subsidies for automobile use, both explicit and disguised.

  • Good news: The Canadian customs agency has cleared the way for the long-awaited second daily Amtrak round-trip from Seattle to Vancouver, a route with high ridership potential.
  • Bad news: Due to New York State’s severe budget shortfall, Amtrak’s Adirondack, one of the most scenic routes in the US, may be in jeopardy. Despite Amtrak’s stated interest in maintaining the service, the state (which provides $5 million each year for its operation) has only guaranteed enough funds to operate the train until Sept. 30 of this year. The Adirondack represents a crucial link in the national system, connecting one of Canada’s largest cities to Albany and New York City, and by connection, to Boston, Chicago, Washington and other points. It also shows a great potential for higher ridership with modest trip-time improvements. If you live in New York State, be sure that your legislators and Governor Paterson’s office know that keeping the Adirondack running is a priority, even with limited resources.
  • Vermont journalist Caroline Abels would like to take the train from Vermont to Florida, but the schedules don’t quite work for her, a sad condition experienced by even the staunchest rail advocates. But she remains hopeful: “Vice President Joe Biden, who used to commute ... on Amtrak, could be a real advocate for trains in Congress. But so must we.” She calls on readers to become activists and organize for expanded service, which is precisely NARP’s raison d’etre.

  • The United States isn’t the first country to offer its residents incentives to trade in older cars for new ones. European and Asian predecessors to our “cash-for-clunkers” program have given a significant boost to car markets (French new-car registrations went up by 7.1% in June), and many are pushing their respective governments to continue the incentive. Meanwhile, the US car scrappage plans amounts to a very generous subsidy to automakers (and, by extension, to car travel) with very little impact on overall fuel economy and emissions, given that an improvement of as little as 2 miles per gallon qualifies a consumer for $3,500 in taxpayer money. At least some of the other countries with such schemes are balancing them with significant outlays for alternatives to the automobile.
  • Another, largely-unreported, auto-related general-taxpayer subsidy looms, according to “independent pension consultant” John Ralfe. GM’s restructuring has left in place pension plans for both hourly workers and salaried employees. Thus, the “new [GM] is still liable to fund the huge pension deficit, so its pension problems will continue,” Ralfe writes in the Financial Times. “As long as GM’s pension plans continue, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) remains on the hook to insure them.” He calls GM’s government-backed pension plans “a hidden transfer of $3.5 billion a year from the federal government, backing the PBGC, to GM’s 670,000 plan members.”

  • While we mourn the loss of the monorail engineer who died on Sunday, it’s a good time to think about what it means that the Walt Disney World monorail is the ninth most-used “rapid transit system” in the country and how experience with it shapes people’s expectations about public transportation.
  • LCL: Transportation for America (and NARP) applaud the completion of the first rail transit vehicle in decades to be assembled in the US by an American-owned company and hope that the continued growth of rail and transit networks keeps generating American jobs; British Prime Minister Gordon Brown makes electrifying rail lines a key point in his green initiative; the sale of Amtrak’s 30-year-old Turboliners is symbolic of the company’s handicapped condition; and as Amtrak moves towards paperless ticketing, a reminder to be careful with your tickets.

    • —Malcolm Kenton and Ross Capon

    Posted by NARP

    Tags: adirondack, advocacy, amtrak, auto industry, budget, cars, disney, monorail, new york, oregon, rail, seattle, shortfall, streetcar, subsidies, trains, vancouver, vermont,

    ©2010 National Association of Railroad Passengers | » NARP website

    » Recent Entries

    » Blogroll

    » Terms of Service for Comments

    You may register to post comments in response to NARP-generated postings on the Blog. By registering you agree 1) that all comments will be relevant to the respective posting and 2) not to post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, or that violate any laws. We reserve the right to permanently block postings from any user who does not abide by the above terms. NARP reserves the right to remove, edit, or move any messages for any reason.

    » Monthly Archives


    RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom
    What is RSS?

    Add to Technorati Favorites