"Re-Training" America - Part II

Infrastructure Budgets

The U.S. government subsidizes highways, airports, and ports directly; and gasoline and electricity indirectly via foreign policy and support of the oil and gas industry; so there's no surprise that trains need subsidies as well to compete.

Passenger rail is not just a Federal responsibility. States did not stand aside during the building of airports and interstate. For many states, investing in rail for passenger transport is the fiscally conservative choice. Instead of the usual short-sighted sacrifice of land for the costly widening of highways, etc.; railroads offer a much greater "bang for the buck" with greater fuel efficiency and the inevitable long-term decrease in sprawl.

America has had a history of government support for transportation. In the early Nineteenth Century governments built canals to link natural waterways. In the second half of that century, government support took the form of land grants to and bond purchases from railroads. In the 1950s, Eisenhower launched the interstate highway system.

But sadly, increased regulation of the railroads and subsidies for highways and air transportation heavily tipped the playing field against trains of all types. Now—more than ever—a balanced transportation/energy policy would include and coordinate all modes of transportation, making it easier to continue a journey on bus or car, train or air or, in the case of cargo, by truck, rail or air freight.

Did you know United States infrastructure spending that is less than half of that in Europe and a third of that in China in terms of GDP? Far too few funds are dedicated to the maintenance of existing infrastructure and yet we have very low gas prices compared to just about everywhere else. Our continued dependence on the congestion-causing, sprawl-inducing, pollution-generating private automobile has resulted in very high traffic fatality rates and some of the longest commute times in the developed world.

In transportation, we are shying away from supporting our rail network because it does not fit in with contemporary American commuting trends. We spent massively to create the highway network, and the result is that it is now the backbone of most Americans’ daily commutes.

There was nothing natural about that process. We are adding population at such a quick rate that we need to encourage different commuting trends but in order to do so, we must change our mindset and invest the resources required.

If President Eisenhower had waited until (1) he had all the cash on hand, (2) all the lines drawn on a map and (3) all the naysayers on board; America would not boast the state-of-the-art interstate highway system we have today. With our population expected to swell by 70 million over the next 25 years, continuing to rely on congested highways and overburdened airports is simply unsustainable and would constrain America’s economic growth.

When it comes to upgrading our woefully inadequate railroad system, we stand at a moment similar to that in the 1950s when President Eisenhower pressed for a network of American highways. If we fail to prepare for the decades ahead by taking similarly innovative steps by adding energy efficient alternatives to our infrastructure, we will shortchange future generations and deprive them of the tools they will need to compete in a global economy.

State Governments and Local Communities must work together with the Federal government to redefine national policies for intercity travel. Megaregions will be the epicenter for change, creating financially-stable interconnected networks for long distance travel. Cooperation among various mode of transport should result in more centralized ""travelports", where travelers can make convenient connections to air, higher-speed rail or high-quality bus service to complete their journeys. The development of such a coordinated system approach will help to solve the financial crisis plaguing the airline, rail and travel industries in a way that improves economic and environmental efficiency and promotes consumer choice.

The Emergence of Megaregions - Staying Competitive

As current urban areas of America grow into each other, they create hundreds of miles of dense settlement commonly referred to as megaregions.

Examples of megaregions are the Northeast Megaregion, from Boston to Washington, or Southern California, from Los Angeles to Tijuana, Mexico. They comprise multiple, adjacent metropolitan areas connected by overlapping commuting patterns, business travel, environmental landscapes and watersheds, linked economies, and social networks. At least ten megaregions have been identified in the United States.

In Europe and Southeast Asia, governments are investing tens of billions of dollars in high-speed rail and goods movement systems to connect networks of cities in what are termed "global integration zones." These counterparts to America's megaregions are increasingly being viewed as the new competitive units in the global economy, where knowledge workers can move freely among urban hubs. Economic regeneration strategies are also being deployed at this scale, to transition former industrial regions to the new information economy.

The demands of these new megaregion communities will necessitate the expansion of advanced rail systems as an alternative to massive new highway building. Upgrading the current railroad infrastructure to support higher-speed trains and a greater separation of passenger from freight transport should be a high priority. The longer we wait, the more expensive it will become and the farther we will fall behind other countries with already-established high-speed rail (i.e., France, China, Japan, etc.).

In addition—on an even more local level—we should consider incentives to create more walkable communities inter-connected by public transit. Less need to jump in an automobile to pick up a quart of milk, get your kids to school or commute to work means huge savings on energy and reduced stress for all.

Trains Make Sense...

Railroads, unlike highways, generally respected landscape, following the contours of the land, creating smaller footprints and as a result, offering travelers more intimacy with nature and place.

"To ride across America enjoying the privacy of your own sleeper-car room, and also the sociability of dinner in the diner with strangers who often become friends (as well as all the electricity you need to keep your laptop and cell phone charged and actually get some work done), is a civilized experience more and more Americans are seeking out.

College students, retirees, and small-town residents still make up the bulk of Amtrak’s long-distance riders, but more and more these days I meet worldly scriptwriters, computer programmers, and other professionals who have had it with airports and interstates and welcome the opportunity for either the concentrated work or the deep relaxation that train travel offers.

With proper funding, and faster, more frequent service, passenger trains can regain their storied place in American life—and you don’t have to be a rail nut anymore to see that."
- Phillip Longman

Many states, from Maine to Michigan and California, are spending their own money to fund passenger trains and, in some instances, such as Virginia, are investing in freight rail as well, to get trucks off the road.

Although most State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) are still dominated by highway builders, under the leadership of strong personalities, key government employees in a few states (such as California, Washington, Wisconsin, and North Carolina) have changed the culture and mindset of the state DOT to focusing more on rail.

California has big transportation problems: it contains three of the nation’s most congested urban areas, transportation accounts for 40 percent of its air-quality problems, congestion costs $20 billion a year in fuel consumption and lost productivity, and the state may add another 20 million people over the next twenty years, reaching 50 million. These statistics have staggering implications. If the trains system is not built, studies show the government will have to build 3,000 additional miles of freeways and expand all major airports at a cost of $82 billion.

< previous