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: Get Those Shovels (and Calculators) Ready

    Monday, August 31, 2009

    Anticipating an NPR series on high-speed rail, getting a beat on state applications for stimulus funds, countering Robert Samuelson’s flimsy anti-rail case, and more in this week’s roundup of revelations and ruminations along the line.

  • All Things Considered, National Public Radio’s evening newsmagazine, has begun a multi-part series on high-speed rail with a report this evening. You can find out when and where to listen in your area here.

  • For those following the spending of the Recovery Act’s $8 billion for passenger rail upgrades, now is when the wheels begin to hit the steel. States are starting to make known the nitty-gritty of their applications, among them Pennsylvania, Virginia and Oklahoma. See Friday’s Hotline for a more complete listing.

  • The St. Louis Urban Workshop does a spectacular rewrite of Robert J. Samuelson’s recent train-bashing Washington Post column, turning his argument into a case against runaway highway spending. See also Paul Krugman’s pithy rebuke of Samuelson’s misconceived notion of US population density, and Ryan Avent’s critique.

  • While almost every state is facing a budget shortfall, Transportation for America’s nifty state fact sheets show that some are handling it better than others. Another revelation: there is high demand for expanded public transportation and for transit-accessible homes in nearly every state.

  • Secretary LaHood tours eastern Pennsylvania by rail, stopping in Elizabethtown to commemorate the stimulus-funded rehabilitation of the town’s Amtrak station. While certainly needed, the project was far from a major buildout, giving the station such necessities as an adequate platform, parking, and restrooms. That a station along such a well-traveled corridor was wanting such basics speaks to the subpar condition of funding for our passenger rail system.

  • A feature report (via YouTube) on CBS’s Sunday Morning casts US high-speed rail in a positive light, though it neglects to present the best arguments in its favor. Among the final points made is the illusory and beside-the-point claim that high-speed lines will be profitable, as opposed to “heavily-subsidized” Amtrak. Yet we seem to accept that the federally-subsidized airlines can’t make money.

  • Worth a read (or a listen): Trains for America sits down with Midwest High Speed Rail Association Executive Director (and NARP Council member) Rick Harnish to discuss the language he thinks rail advocates should be using. *** The Transport Politic recommends that the Federal Railroad Administration model the Federal Transit Administration’s “New Starts” funding mechanism for financing intercity rail improvements, so that money isn’t spent on projects that may not reach completion. *** A public radio interview with Smart Growth America CEO Geoff Anderson about why we need to fix our sights on rapid rail for the long haul. *** A new policy paper (summarized) envisions the creation of frequent interurban service to serve smaller communities and suburbs that would be bypassed by future high-speed and intercity passenger trains.

  • LCL: Georgia may miss out on federal funds already allocated for commuter rail from Atlanta to Griffin if there continues to be no sign of activity on its planning and construction. *** A Montgomery newspaper applauds Alabama’s initial overtures of interest in bringing back the Gulf Breeze, which connected Mobile, Montgomery and Birmingham until 1995. *** Studies of the effects of stimulus spending confirm that each job created on a road-building project comes at a higher price than each transit construction job. *** The politics behind Louisiana’s sudden about-face on requesting stimulus funds for a New Orleans-Baton Rouge link. *** When it comes to making smooth connections, Europeans are (not surprisingly) outdoing us. *** We can dream, can’t we? A fictional press release in 2051 from the Association of High-Speed American Railroads.

    • —Malcolm Kenton

    Posted by Malcolm Kenton

    Tags: high-speed rail, highways, news, passenger trains, profitability, radio, ray lahood, robert samuelson, ryan avent, stimulus, subsidies, transportation,

    Flag Stops: Who’s Gonna Pay For It

    Wednesday, December 02, 2009

  • The Pew Charitable Trusts’ Subsidyscope project—which put out an misleading look at Amtrak’s finances a month ago [top story]—last week unveiled a report we can add to the volumes of literature that debunk the myth that U.S. roads “pay for themselves.” Over the past 25 years, they found, the percentage of highway costs funded by means other than user fees (gas taxes and tolls) doubled. They point to two leading factors influencing this trend: the lack of a change in the gas tax since 1993 (combined with inflation) and the increased reliance on bonds to pay for new highways. Sadly, I doubt this report will gain as much media attention as its predecessor.
  • Along similar lines, the Texas DOT posits that, in order to pay the full cost of a 15-mile stretch of Interstate highway ($1 billion), the statewide gas tax would have to be $2.22 per gallon—not including the price of the gas itself. Yet that highway was built and is being maintained, with general US and Texas taxpayers paying the lion’s share. That same $1 billion could have paid for the construction of 333 miles of railroad track, according to California estimates.
  • Another example of the consequences of chronic underinvestment: The New York Post learns that a number of Amtrak-owned bridges in New York City are “in crumbling condition,” scoring “poor” or worse in internal inspections. Ironically, an effort to fix recent, delay-causing problems with the swing bridge carrying Amtrak’s Empire Corridor trains over the Harlem River wound up closing the bridge from Tuesday night until about 1:00 pm on the day before Thanksgiving. The Wednesday morning trains to Montreal and Toronto were combined and detoured via the Hell Gate Bridge, while passengers on the other trains had to use Metro-North’s Grand Central service for part of their journeys.
  • Fortune magazine documents recent high-speed rail advancements on the other side of the Atlantic, including the extension of TGV service from Paris to Strasbourg—and how trains are beating airlines on certain segments.
  • Office buildings in the Washington, DC area are sitting largely empty—except in the city center. In a region with the second-worst traffic congestion in the nation, employers are locating in areas more easily reached by transit. Downtown Washington’s offices are 10% vacant, while fringe area workspaces are around 30% empty.
  • “We are on the verge of jumpstarting ... [a] game-changing endeavor,” Secretary LaHood remarked, referring to the Recovery Act grant announcements coming within the next few months. LaHood is also throwing his weight behind making subway and light-rail safety a responsibility of his Department.
  • Two more newspaper columnists join the call for a passenger rail renaissance: the Philadelphia Inquirer‘s Tom Belden, American Reporter correspondent Rudolph Holhut.
  • LCL: More high-speed rail rumblings from the Middle East. * * * Political leaders want to spend more money on transportation infrastructure—but there’s none to spend. * * * The Midwest High Speed Rail Association gets good vibes from Thanksgiving travel numbers, including a 6.7% decrease in the number of air travelers.

    • —Malcolm Kenton

    Posted by Malcolm Kenton

    Tags: congestion, costs, high-speed rail, highway, highways, infrastructure, railroad, ray lahood, subsidies, trains, transit, transportation, underinvestment, user fees,

    Trains: Enhancing Freedom of Mobility

    Friday, August 13, 2010

    Washington Examiner editorial page editor Mark Tapscott claims that we train and transit advocates want to use “government power to force the rest of us to accept less mobility and convenience.” On the contrary, expanding train and transit service gives people more mobility and convenience by not tethering them to one mode of transportation. Many prefer not to have to worry about where to park or having to go get gas when out on errands or taking a leisure trip across town or across the country. Taking public transportation also saves money, and may even save your life—over 42,500 people are killed in car accidents each year, 50 times more than die on railroads and 180 times more than die on transit annually. But those of us who would rather leave the driving up to someone else are left with less mobility and less convenience because public funding priorities are so overwhelmingly skewed towards highways.

    Tapscott also compares the “freedom” the car offers to that afforded by smartphones. But what good is a smartphone when you have to spend all your travel time keeping your eyes on the road? When you use trains and transit, you have the freedom to spend your travel time however you choose, including by using your smartphone, without posing a safety hazard. Mobile devices can also increasingly help you get around without a car just as easily as they can give you driving directions.

    Balancing out the U.S. transportation funding scale to provide frequent, dependable train (and bus) service would give people the freedom to choose not only when and where to travel, but also how to travel, and the freedom to choose a mode of travel that takes a lighter toll on the pocketbook and the planet. It’s advocates of the highway-happy status quo who want to limit your freedom of mobility.

    —Malcolm Kenton

    Posted by Malcolm Kenton

    Tags: automobiles, cost savings, freedom, highways, mark tapscott, mobile devices, mobility, safety, smartphones, trains, transit, washington examiner,

    NARP’s Capon appears on CNBC to promote investment in passenger rail

    Friday, February 18, 2011

    NARP’s President Ross Capon debates the Cato’s Daniel Mitchell about investment in high-speed rail.

    Posted by NARP

    Tags: airlines, cnbc, congestion, gas tax, highways, passenger trains, price of oil, public investment, ross capon, transportation funding,

    Public Backing of Passenger Train Investment Remains High

    Tuesday, March 01, 2011

    Passenger train critics often claim that very few people will use faster trains, and even fewer want their tax dollars to support their construction, operation and maintenance. Two recent polls confirm that these critics could not be more out of touch with public sentiment.

    A Harris poll conducted in January finds that nearly two-thirds of the random sampling of 2,566 American adults polled support both federal and state funding for high-speed intercity passenger trains. In addition, more than a third want high-speed rail projects in their states.

    However, almost half of the respondents said they were unaware or unsure of whether there are any active High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) projects in their states. This highlights the need for continued public education to bridge the gap between the idea of fast, frequent, modern train service (which most people like) and the real projects going on all across the country that are making such service possible.

    Interestingly, after having the concept of high-speed rail explained to them, 66% of respondents say they are likely to use high-speed trains for pleasure travel, but only half that number say they will travel for business by fast train. Regardless of whether one is traveling for business or pleasure, more train riders mean fewer cars on the road, less pollution, and more relaxed or productive travelers.

    » read more...

    Posted by Malcolm Kenton

    Tags: harris poll, high-speed rail, highways, opinion polls, passenger trains, taxpayers, texas,

    How many of your tax dollars went to passenger trains?

    Monday, April 18, 2011

    Today was the deadline for filing your income taxes.  If you’ve ever wondered exactly where your money went, you’ll be interested in a new tool available online.

    Where Did My Tax Dollars Go? helps you to get an exact breakdown of how your taxes are spent by providing information extrapolated based on your net income.  Since there is a lag in the budgetary process, the website can only tell you how your money was spent last year.  But it’s certainly a helpful tool for passenger train advocates, given the furor over the “large” amount of money that has been invested in high-speed rail.

    For instance, if you made $50,000 in 2009, over fiscal year 2010 you would have contribute about $222 to transportation.  Of that figure, you would have spent:

    • $102 Federal-aid Highways
    • $6 Capital Assistance for High Speed Rail Corridors and Intercity Passenger Rail Service, Recovery Act
    • $2 Capital and Debt Service Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)

    That’s only $8 spent on modern trains!  And with the zeroing out of the high- and higher-speed intercity passenger train program in FY 2011, that figure will drop to about $2.

    This figure is somewhat complicated by the fact that the majority of highway money comes from a tax on gasoline rather than income.  However, given the almost $35 billion in general treasury funds spent since 2007 to cover the highway trust fund deficit, and the looming deficit predicted at the end of 2012, it’s worth comparing and contrasting.

    So ask yourself… is a modern, high- and higher-speed passenger train system worth the price of a single day’s lunch?

    Posted by NARP

    Tags: amtrak, high-speed rail, highways, taxes,

    Federal investment must precede private investment

    Friday, June 24, 2011

    Say you’re a looking to buy a home in a medium-sized city, and your choice is between two neighborhoods. Neighborhood A is a well-established, thriving, middle-class neighborhood with a stock of postwar-era homes that are generally in good shape. Its streets and sidewalks are well-maintained, its crime rate is low and it’s in a high-ranking school district. Yet there are no stores within walking distance, a fact that concerns you as the city has bad traffic congestion and gas prices are constantly rising.

    Photo by TCDavis on Flickr.

    Neighborhood B is an historically working-class neighborhood of modest Victorian homes, many of which are in need of major repairs. It has had some crime issues, and its schools are ranked slightly below average. Yet there is a diversity of retail within walking distance, recent city government investments have fixed up the streets, crime is starting to go down thanks to a greater police presence, and a light rail line is planned to be built within blocks of the house you’re considering.

    The city is offering mortgage assistance to homebuyers in neighborhood B, but not enough to make the decision a no-brainer. Meanwhile, a budget crunch is forcing the City Council to consider making cuts in public education, safety and infrastructure maintenance, making it highly uncertain whether neighborhood B will continue to improve.

    Extrapolate this analogy to the national level, where Neighborhood A is the United States’ road and highway network and the many thriving car-oriented places it has generated, and neighborhood B is its passenger train network, and the walkable inner cities and small towns that once thrived on their rail connections but have fallen on hard times. Like a city trying to encourage people to buy homes in disadvantaged neighborhoods, Congressional leaders want to spur private investment in passenger rail. Yet most are unwilling to make the substantial public investments that any private contractor would require in order to enter the business. House leaders are even threatening to make devastating cuts to passenger rail just at a time when it is beginning to revive thanks to earlier federal investment (the Recovery Act and subsequent appropriations for High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail).

    » read more...

    Posted by Malcolm Kenton

    Tags: economic development, highways, neighborhoods, passenger rail, public-private, transportation investments, us infrastructure, walkability,

    ©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