Garl B. Latham : energy, support, Amtrak

Bravo!

Garl B. Latham — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 22:18:00 GMT

"Every man has a right to his own opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts."

Bernard Baruch

It often seems that proper, respectful public discourse is a thing of the past. If nothing else, our society now sits at a cyclical low point.

Perhaps technology makes it far too easy to mouth off. After all, prior to the internet's rise, it was quite unusual to hear someone being publicly labeled a "Nazi" simply because they held to a different set of values or a unique system of belief.

Now, anyone with a keyboard and time on his hands can play the fool.

Conversely, someone who is thoughtful and articulate is often overlooked or, worse yet, excluded from public debate because they dare to broach subjects deemed unsuitable.

Obviously, this might include any discussion regarding things like religion and politics.

Thankfully, our own Larry Kaufman ignored this standard protocol. With the support of others willing to publish his thoughts, he penned a profound review of the G.O.P.'s recently approved platform and its blatant attack against high speed railway development, Amtrak and intercity passenger service in general.

The piece is entitled RNC: A little hypocrisy goes too far. For those who've not yet read his essay, it can be found on-line, courtesy of the Railway Age magazine:

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/blogs/larry-kaufman/rnc-a-little-hypocrisy-goes-too-far.html

Solidly accurate and faultlessly logical, it's a pleasure to read.

In a few short paragraphs, Larry touches on at least five principals which every serious and sincere voter needs to know, and everyone involved in the railroad industry on any level should firmly grasp.

1. Eliminating Amtrak subsidies means eliminating Amtrak, period.

Now, I'll admit, there are many on the freight side of things who might see no problem with such an outcome. Less governmental involvement in day-to-day operations and no interference from passenger train services would probably rank among the most popular reasons given.

Still, it's a fact that blows a hole right through oft-stated arguments supporting "privatisation" of the N.R.P.C.

Even Acela, Amtrak's Northeast Corridor flagship, isn't "profitable" in the classic sense. Sure, that specific service covers what is known (among other things) as "above-the-rail" costs; however, the remaining cash doesn't even begin to support infrastructure maintenance, station facilities and administrative budgets. And what of passenger ticketing and reservations, rolling stock improvements, marketing and advertising, and the like?

Cut Amtrak's taxpayer-supported financial lifeline and it'll not only be trains like the Empire Builder and Coast Starlight that will die; it will also be every one of the many trains the company fields along the N.E.C.

That leads us to the next point:

2. Killing Amtrak will essentially mean the death of domestic intercity passenger train service.

Once Amtrak is out of the way, is there anyone with a knowledge of the industry who honestly believes some other organisation will be in a position to fill the void?

More to the point, even if there was another entity standing at the ready, do you think our Class Is would allow it to happen? [If you have any questions regarding that possibility, I dare you to mention the phrase "open access" in an executive suite!]

Of course, along the Northeast Corridor, some independent operators might step into the breach; however, that presumes a few things up front, including the formation of a new-and-improved governmental agency to take Amtrak's place as owner/operator of the N.E.C. and a greater (not lesser) need for taxpayer support of that infrastructure. After all, any "for profit" companies which run the Acela, Metroliner or TurboTrain of tomorrow will want to take the word "profit" seriously. To presume private financial involvement in the corridor beyond simple user fees is preposterous.

In addition, we'll see no substantial reduction in administrative costs, a sizeable chunk of operating subsidy will remain in need of forgiveness, and the new entity will serve less than half of Amtrak's current annual ridership and find itself supported by far fewer influential politicians.

Oh, well; one thing is certain. Without Amtrak at the helm, whatever might happen will be made all the more difficult due to an oft' cited fact:

3. The U.S. still has no uniform, comprehensive national transportation policy in place (and we've been given no reason to believe one might be forthcoming).

Larry's composition makes it crystal clear: what this nation does (or does not do) with passenger train services, or any other alternative modes of mass transportation, is a matter of public policy. The way we spend our money, design our cities, respond to our energy needs or environmental concerns or increasing levels of congestion...all these things, ultimately, involve policy decisions.

We reject (or ignore) this truth at our own peril.

Our federal government could, after long and meaningful deliberation, decide we do not need intercity passenger trains. They might, with a straight face, declare that the "drive-or-fly" society we've so carefully crafted remains sustainable over the long-term.

There's no question I'd vehemently disagree and strongly oppose any action taken upon the basis of those decisions; but, I would have greater respect for that approach than I do with what passes for national transport "planning" today: throwing a few (million) bucks at something which looks good and generates some votes while completely disregarding multimodalism, much less true intermodalism.

It's that sort of rudderless conceptualisation which helped create a continent-wide system of taxpayer-owned, controlled access roadways running parallel to privately-owned railroad lines - roadways that could not survive without a dedicated place at the public feeding trough.

You know, this is one thing the highway lobby and trucking industry loves to deny:

4. A subsidy is a subsidy is a subsidy.

Use whatever euphemisms you might wish: fuel tax or user fee or trust fund. We're still discussing taxes, coming out of our pockets, aiding private concerns. These private companies are then in a advantageous position to compete directly against other firms which, for whatever reason(s), don't rate a stipend.

Furthermore, ignoring for a moment the specious argument that, somehow, a tax only upon those who benefit from a service isn't really a "tax," the fees collected still don't even begin to cover current roadway maintenance budgets, much less any infrastructure expansion, replacement or improvement.

Naturally, that reality doesn't slow down our pave-and-pollute friends. Three of the most often cited possibilities for the future of U.S. roads involve the construction of toll facilities alongside existing highways, separate roadways for automobiles and trucks, and intelligent transportation systems, allowing driverless vehicular control.

All of these proposals are being marketed under the umbrella of "safety."

They also will require major infusions of public cash - and do absolutely nothing to address the energy, environmental and congestion issues mentioned previously.

Ah; but, that's reality and, to the ideologue, reality only serves to get in the way. You see...

5. Generally speaking, the world as presented by the professional politicians does not exist.

Paul Ryan's convention speech notwithstanding, the G.O.P. does not possess a monopoly on this malady. Few elected officials allow truth to get in the way of a good yarn. [We'll get to Barack Obama's convention speech in just a moment.] There are many examples where significant divergence persists between a political party's platform and what the facts indicate or common sense demands.

The Republican Party's stated belief that a free marketplace in transportation literally exists or that Amtrak would be healthier if its access to the U.S. treasury was cut off is the stuff of dreams.

Why constantly attack Amtrak for its need of operating subsidy, yet give users of taxpayer-owned-and-operated infrastructure a pass? Pouring money into other modes while not requiring fair compensation will never lead to lower taxes or a shrinking bureaucracy. It'll only create (and sustain) the critical imbalance from which we now suffer.

Is it really that difficult to make fair comparisons or at least attempt to understand the complexity of these issues? Perhaps some of the players have vested interests. Maybe others just know our railroads would likely win a fair fight.

President Obama had a chance to illuminate one of the substantial differences between himself and Romney as he delivered his own acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. Unfortunately, it seems as though passenger train service (of any sort) has slipped off centre stage.

As he asked for citizens to "rally around" his goals for a second term, Obama specifically mentioned "manufacturing, energy, education, national security, and the deficit." At least the manufacturing, energy and national security goals might have been tied to some sort of railroad transportation imperative. Sadly, it was not to be.

No, Obama was too busy reminding us how our "dying auto industry" is now "back on top of the world." He was anxious to declare his plan to "use the money we're no longer spending on war to pay down our debt and put more people back to work rebuilding roads and bridges and schools and runways."

Out of fairness, I left in the phrase about paying down debt. What I can't figure is how schools became part of that list.

Of course, I should also mention the way this champion of roads, bridges and the motor vehicles which use them accused Republicans of doing nothing while companies release "toxic pollution into the air your children breathe" because that's "just the price of progress" - even though, statistically, the greatest source of petroleum-based air pollution (both gaseous and particulate) is transportation and the biggest chunk of that comes from automobiles and commercial trucks.

If I had but one wish for November of 2016, it would be for someone to have a serious chance of winning the Presidency who really gets it!

In the meantime, I'm glad to see a few politically oriented pieces out there. It never hurts to study the issues and go beyond a candidate's sound bites and photo ops.

Larry Kaufman deserves kudos for saying what needed to be said - and doing so with candor. William Vantuono and the Railway Age magazine deserve our sincere appreciation for their willingness to publish his work.

Bravo!

The Grid and Gateway proposition

Garl B. Latham — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:57:00 GMT

I don't set out to be negative (honestly!) and I've never wished to concentrate upon what I conclude may be wrong in the world of railroading while ignoring possible solutions. No matter how badly things may be going, it's not right or fair to continually pick on others if I'm unwilling to share a few of my own proposals in a public forum.

Regarding the design and implementation of new and restored passenger services, I have developed several ideas which revolve around a central proposition I believe to be the most logical and cost-effective way of reintroducing the concept of intercity train travel to our modern society.

I call this the Grid and Gateway system, mainly because the phrase is so descriptive - and because I've always enjoyed alliterations!

I began working on this plan during the waning days of the 20th century, first offering a basic outline to railway passenger supporters through a post on the All-Aboard electronic mailing list (now part of Yahoo! Groups) in the year 2000. An article entitled "Wordplay and Passenger Trains" appeared in the January 2001 edition of the Western Rail Passenger Review and was subsequently picked up by various advocacy organisations, including the Arizona Rail Passenger Association, the Southwest Railroad Historical Society and MobilityDallas.

Eventually, the National Association of Railroad Passengers embraced this general notion. With my permission, NARP adopted the phrase "Grid and Gateway" (occasionally hyphenated thusly: "grid-and-gateway") to use in conjunction with the release of their 40th anniversary "Vision for the Future" proposal in 2007. Groups such as the Kentucky Public Transportation Association and the North Carolina Alliance for Transportation Reform endorsed the scheme.

Unfortunately, my recommendation of a Grid and Gateway system has never really captured the public's imagination. Maybe it sounds too technical. I certainly wouldn't hesitate to re-brand the overall strategy, presuming a satisfactory marketing term could be developed. In the meantime, High Speed Rail and Higher Speed Rail (followed, naturally, by Almost High Speed Rail and Nearly Sort-of High Speed Rail) have commanded centre stage.

Oh, well. "What's in a name? That which we call a rose / By any other word would smell as sweet." I sincerely appreciate Shakespeare's genius, and would like to think my idea might retain some sort of "that dear perfection" by any other name.

I feel that might be the case. After all, I'm not necessarily original; I just know a bit about history and have been blessed with a (usually) reliable ability to accurately judge a good plan. Ofttimes, it is only a predisposition to be supportive of rail-based initiatives which undermines my objectivity!

The Grid and Gateway is simply a modern day adaptation of what once was - and what, with the proper support (both by the general public and our industry), could be once again. It also builds upon the work of the late Dr. Adrian Herzog of the United Rail Passenger Alliance. URPA's Route Matrix theory (another barely marketable designation!), based upon Dr. Herzog's brilliant work, is a classic example of the beauty of pure and straightforward mathematical logic, as appiled to our transport mode of choice.

Today, we often hear of airline-styled hub-and-spoke services as an approach worth emulating in the railway passenger field - especially when discussing tomorrow's systems; however, historically, it was quite unusual to see a hub-and-spoke operational pattern in the railroad world outside of local city streetcar lines and a handful of interurban roads.

Instead, common carriers perfected another routine which served (and could once again serve) the public much more efficiently, exploiting the train’s strong points and accepting its limitations. Rather than forcing customers to rely upon hub-and-spoke traffic configurations, long distance trains were run as part of a grid-type route matrix, interchanging passengers not only at their terminal points, but also at certain intermediate stations. The places where these interchange points were located became collectively known as "Gateway Cities". These gateways, from Cincinnati and Denver to Manly, Iowa and Effingham, Illinois, provided railroad travelers, many times by way of true "Union Station" facilities, the opportunity to transfer from one train - and one company - to another.

The railroad’s proven "grid-and-gateway" pattern is infinitely more logical for today’s passenger train operators to have as a guide. If long distance trains are to truly work as a viable means of public transport - and they can indeed do so - then a railroad-minded scheme must needs be applied to their operation, which demands the traditional Grid and Gateway approach!

In lieu of high-dollar, new-from-the-ground-up corridors designed to impersonate earth-bound airlines, railway passenger services of the next generation must be reliant upon existing infrastructure, remain operationally self-sufficient (or effectively so) and share guideway space with other (commuter/intermodal/freight) traffic. They need to be planned and executed in order to offer a viable alternative to the de-facto monopolies inherent in today’s travel world (due to the United States’s lack of an overriding energy/environmental/transportation policy).

It is also imperative that we embrace a multiple number of inter-corridor, long distance routes as an integral part of any railway system developed for the North American continent. That's the only possible way to achieve a fair and equitable distribution of transportation services.

For a "reasonable" (read: "minimal") financial commitment - tied to an esoteric understanding of railroad operations - a rebuilt, revitalized system of intercity passenger trains could once again exist; trains that would effectively serve a diverse passenger base with safe, comfortable, reliable, cost-effective transportation. The railway alternative, far from being outmoded and unnecessary, should be considered a foundational part of our total transportation network - a true 21st century solution to a contemporary need!

End of sermonette.

What I'd like to do, in an occasional series over the next couple of months, is delve into the Grid and Gateway concept and review a few of the reasons why it WOULD work - presuming our nation ever gets to the point where the reestablishment of a comprehensive network of efficient and saleable intercity passenger train services is an honest desire and not simply a campaign promise.

With your support, I will do so.