Garl B. Latham : environment, roadways, commuter

The invisible imperative

Garl B. Latham — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 22:15:00 GMT

I must admit, it's hard to be in two places at once.

When a business (such as mine) essentially exists as a one man band, how can the opening of a satellite office be justified? Yet, here I am in San Antonio, rationalising my decision to do just that.

I have a wonderful sister who's willing to keep the Dallas fires burning. Concurrently, I'm chasing some contracts down south and, all to often, traveling back and forth along the Texas Triangle's western edge.

Those journeys (usually by train or automobile) are sometimes fun, sometimes monotonous and sometimes terrifically frustrating. They also, sometimes, provide a respite where my mind can safely wander - a brief interval I tend to call "contemplating the universe." It was during a recent contemplation that my mind focused on alternative transport futures - a brief interval I tend to call "a busman's holiday of the brain."

No matter the day or date, travelers of every sort join me in my quest to move. They crowd airfields, stretch out in coaches and hit the road, with impunity. Their frantic pace, especially along Interstate 35, is never-ending. My fellow man and I race along toward myriad destinations and, once achieved, race back home again. The more complex itineraries may see several intermediate points, but the general purpose remains the same: a sort of great circle, representing life in miniature, powered by hydrocarbons, courtesy of various public agencies.

Impressive, to be sure; but, why consciously acknowledge something so complex when it can be so easily taken for granted?

The roadways, for example, are just...there. They exist solely for our use, with little but a few pennies of tax requested in return. Oh, we may complain - incessantly - concerning our plight ("it'd be fine if they'd just widen the thing"); but, seemingly, nothing substantive ever gets done. I suppose streets are a lot like the weather in that regard.

When I first arrived in San Antonio and began to set up shop, I researched local media to gain a better feel for the way Bexar County transportation plans are being viewed by the citizenry. VIA Metropolitan Transit is discussing a starter streetcar service downtown, along with "Bus Rapid Transit" and other initiatives. The Texas D.O.T. is paving here and there (as is their wont), while openly proposing toll facilities. Every discussion, every idea - train, bus, auto - includes the word "controversial," presumably because the taxpayer's money is involved.

Just the other day, I stumbled across a newcomer's guide to Dallas. The same sort of controversies were being outlined. Once traffic congestion levels were recognised and air quality issues admitted, the inevitable call came for continued low taxes. Finally, the seeds of fear - These are unproven concepts! What if they really don't work? How can I live without my car?! - were firmly planted. A nod was made toward the future and its new-and-improved personal vehicles, which will evidently be powered by good intentions and emit only warm fuzzys. Status quo was nicely illustrated by a four-colour freeway map. A turn of the page, then on to shopping and fine dining.

Dallas' magazine went one step too far, however; tipping its hand with a brief but telling series of mini-interviews. New transplants were asked to ennumerate the most important things which influenced their move to north central Texas. They talked about what they liked best and their sources of greatest displeasure. A total of 28 individuals were queried.

The usual suspects found their way into the respondant's overviews: good schools, low crime, nice parks, classic stores and great restaurants. The downtown and inner-city residents mentioned walkable destinations; otherwise, transportation (of any sort - even the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport) was never broached. BUT, asked to list their disappointments, 21 of the 28 - a clean 75% - referenced the metro-region's traffic troubles. Interestingly, most of the interviewees had chosen a suburban lifestyle; in fact, only eight were living within the DART service area.

Apparently, in this 21st century world, transportation is not meant to be enjoyed; rather, it is to be endured, as a necessary evil. There is no reasonable alternative to the motorway. Rail-based options are idealistic, unproven and prohibitively expensive. Ozone alert days mean nothing more than "get your children inside, since they can't safely play and breathe at the same time." A low property tax rate is of paramount concern. An individual's vehicle defines who that person really is, deep down inside.

The safe and efficient movement of people and products is an undeniable imperative within any industrialised society. Unfortunately, it tends to blend into the scenery so well that it becomes practically invisible - only of concern when it ends up not working at all.

So, we continue along the same pathway, as if we know what we're doing. All the while, frustration mounts. Including mine.

By the way, according to a recent study, the most oft' used action verb in a typical drive-time radio traffic report is "avoid."

I just thought y'all might like to know.

Intermodal madness

Garl B. Latham — Tue, 31 May 2011 22:28:00 GMT

Recently, a pro-H.S.R. piece appeared in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Long-time columnist Bob Ray Sanders indicated his strong support for a "bullet train" project, linking various metropolitan regions along the "Texas Triangle," including Houston, San Antonio, Austin and "Dallas/Fort Worth" (however that location is eventually defined).

Certainly, my general opinions concerning this type of issue (institute a national policy first, followed by conventional services, prior to developing true H.S.R.) have often been discussed here. Occasionally a new wrinkle is added to the mix, however, and must needs be addressed.

Responding to the column, one on-line commenter went straight to the Wendell Cox playbook for his information. [Save possibly for Randal O'Toole, where else might one go for the best in anti-passenger train propaganda?!]

Back in 2001, Mr. Cox wrote a paper entitled "Freight Rail's Potential to Alleviate Traffic Congestion," published for the Texas Public Policy Foundation. The study's basic idea was that commercial truck traffic appears to increase overall freeway congestion more than the presence of parallel railroad passenger service reduces it; therefore, the most cost effective approach to traffic reduction would be to concentrate on infrastructure improvements which lessen the presence of tractor/trailer rigs on existing highways, leaving more lane-miles open (especially during rush hours) for personal motor vehicle use.

With that in mind, one alternative proposal would create an inland port near Dallas and operate dedicated intermodal freight trains between the Port of Houston and the north central Texas region in lieu of any new passenger trains - either the restoration of conventional service or the establishment of a true, dedicated high-speed line.

Now, U.S. railroad freight operations are among the world's best. In fact, considering North America as a whole, we arguably have the world's best freight train services, anywhere, period!

So, what's wrong with taking freight off the public highways and placing it on trains, leaving automobile drivers where they are? As with many of Cox's ideas, the concept seems pretty logical at face value.

Unfortunately, his plan ultimately serves only to eliminate rail-based passenger alternatives. It would do nothing to reduce urban traffic congestion (ostensibly its primary goal), nor would it improve the lot of either the commuter or the shipper.

I must admit: based upon his report, Mr. Cox and I agree that "all potential passenger and freight alternatives" should be "routinely" considered when planners begin their assessment of future needs. I also support his idea that funding for improvements "should be equally available to passenger and freight projects based upon their comparative effectiveness."

Of course, one reason for those feelings may simply be my insistence that, often, the distinction between "freight" and "passenger" railroading is an arbitrary one. Furthermore, even though the presence of passenger trains can undermine the efficiency of freight service along a given route (at least when the union is handled poorly), railroading should never be perceived as an "either/or" proposition. The successful operation of modern freight service over main line routes should in no way preclude the addition/expansion of fast, frequent, marketable passenger train service.

At any rate, Cox quickly begins to lose me when he speaks in terms of a quantifiable reduction in automobile traffic congestion. Even new freeway construction cannot guarantee that! "Congestion relief" is a gift given those who choose to ride the train, not those who choose to remain on the road.

Cox's report is quite clear: "While trucks carry a large volume of shipments between cities, their impact on traffic congestion is greatest within urban areas." Even if intermodal container trains were helping to reduce over-the-road truck traffic, "recurring traffic congestion is largely an urban phenomenon."

Even worse, "trucks consume considerably more roadway capacity in urban areas [when compared to private motor vehicles] because of their larger size and slower acceleration characteristics."

Any intermodal containers carried by train will still need to be trans-loaded onto truck trailers for final delivery - and added to the urban traffic mix, thereby increasing congestion in the areas where its negative effects are already most acutely felt! Furthermore, it is in these same urban areas where a disproportionate number of tractor/trailer collisions occur in relation to miles traveled (approximately one-third of all wrecks involving large commercial motor vehicles).

So, in the example given, how can intermodal freight trains help alleviate roadway congestion in urban areas, the location of Texas' worst traffic nightmares?

That's just it. They can't.

Truck traffic will not go away in our lifetimes; we've already backed ourselves into a corner whereby the majority of warehouses and large businesses are completely highway dependent. The only way to physically reduce the number of motor vehicles is to completely eliminate their use for certain journeys...and that will happen only with expanded PASSENGER train service!

Even today, an Amtrak traveler arriving at Dallas' Union Terminal can make direct connections with DART services to reach his final destination, never once adding a motor vehicle to the city's already crowded roadways. Conversely, an intermodal container arriving in Dallas on a freight train will be transferred to a truck for final delivery, every time. Which alternative offers the best chance for "congestion relief"?!

The greatest public gain for the least public investment can be derived through incremental improvements to conventional passenger service along existing rights-of-way, developing routes which offer a reasonable alternative to the private automobile - at least for certain trips.

A practical alternative to motor vehicles, of all sorts, is desperately needed to help address energy, environmental and economic issues, safety concerns, land use patterns, the transportation requirements of an aging population and the like. Instead of doing whatever is necessary to preserve the status quo just a little while longer, we should be investing in our future. Autocentrism should be relegated to the second half of the twentieth century where it belongs. ALL forms of transportation - even passenger trains! - should be part of the mix when making our plans for tomorrow.

Facing the future

Garl B. Latham — Tue, 24 May 2011 22:05:00 GMT

I'm really not much on doomsday scenarios.

Having been born and reared in Dallas, Texas - and living through the death of John F. Kennedy - I've heard enough conspiracy theories to last a lifetime.

I'm also not a prophet "nor the son of a prophet" (ref.: Amos 7:14), so I claim no prognosticative abilities.

So, why should I tend to side with those who are concerned that "Peak Oil" is now here with us (or, even worse, that we're already on the downward slope)?

Perhaps because it's logical to assume a finite resource can eventually be exhausted (or so nearly so that its economic use is no longer possible).

Right now, my biggest worry is not the literal end of oil, but the end of "easy oil" - the point where most of the world's known petroleum reserves will have given up their (relatively) simple to obtain and inexpensive to process, high quality, light sweet crude oil. You know; the good stuff.

What will remain, for the most part, is an estimated three trillion barrels of heavy oil, which, at current consumption levels, might last the world another century.

Granted, Rice University's chief of the Energy Forum in Houston, Amy Myers Jaffe (for whom I have a great deal of respect), tends to see this as a ray of hope. Quoted in today's Wall Street Journal, she said that "when people talk about how we're 'running out of oil,' they're not counting the heavy oil." She emphasised the "huge amount of resource" remaining, and is convinced that "it's just a question of developing the technology" to get it. And, I might add, to do so economically.

Unfortunately, that's the rub. This molasses-styled goop is not easy to collect, nor is it easy to process. In fact, based upon our current abilities, we'll be able to recover only about 400 billion barrels (of that three trillion total) for less energy than it takes to acquire and refine the raw material. Beyond that point, we'd be (shall I say) permanently "out of gas." Our resource will have become a "sink." Frustrating, to be sure; but, the first law of thermodynamics is fairly unforgiving.

This is one reason why several of the middle eastern nations, led by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, are now experimenting with various technologies, including steam injection, to enable profitable extraction of the heavy crude. Of course, steam production requires two main ingredients: fuel (which is already an isssue, or we wouldn't be fretting about our sources of petroleum) and water (which, in case anyone's forgotten, isn't very abundant in desert settings!). To be sure, the Persian Gulf is full of water, but it's pretty salty - and to prepare it for use in a boiler will take (wait for it...) additional ENERGY!

(sigh)

In the meantime, global oil consumption jumped almost 3% last year, primarily due to increasing demands from China and India.

This is the future we need to face, soberly and with steely determination.

Surely, it all seems a bit overwhelming; however, railroad technology can offer some solace. Trains should certainly play a central role when developing tomorrow's plans.

Ours is a technology that deserves its reputation for energy efficiency. If it was possible to replace 10% of all personal, non-commutation motor vehicle trips with rail-based passenger service (of every stripe) and 10% of existing interstate truck traffic with intermodal freight trains, we could theoretically save in the neighbourhood of 400 million barrels of oil every year - the approximate amount we import from Saudi Arabia (our second largest source).

Naturally, dumping any sizeable number of passenger miles onto the existing national network would completely overwhelm it. In the same way, there isn't enough room on the freight side for such a traffic influx. Therefore, it would take a concerted effort, including a serious financial investment, to make a real dent in roadway traffic levels.

If that investment is based upon government policy (either proactive or reactive), then public money should be involved. That's because our railroads are in business to earn a profit. If they can remain profitable given the current set of circumstances, then any change in their operational realities should either be based upon sound economic principals or include adequate capital from the public coffers.

Many question the cost; but, to me, the ultimate question is not one of affordability. After all, even if money was no object, it wouldn't make sense to expand the system - either with conventional, dual-purpose (freight and passenger) infrastructure or with dedicated, high-speed, passenger only lines (or both!) - if such an expansion failed to accomplish its stated goals. On the other hand, if - based upon LOGIC and REASON (in the political arena?!) - our national aspiration was to make railway alternatives honest-to-goodness players, perhaps something along the 10% figure previously mentioned, then it should be relatively easy to isolate adequate sources of funding.

If things like energy efficiency and environmental stewardship are real issues, we have a responsibility to seriously consider public investment to address them - beyond throwing Amtrak a few bones here and there and designing transit systems in a vacuum. If those things amount to little more than warm, fuzzy, feel-good sound bites, then we need to grow up (for once!) and give it all a rest!

We can ignore the facts and just hope all our problems go away. We can adopt the attitude of those whom columnist Paul Krugman decries: people who are willing to deny responsibility and "eat the future." We can continue looking toward the recent past for our answers. We can refuse to think...or at least refuse to think beyond the next quarter or the next election cycle.

I'd rather face the future knowing I did everything in my power to adequately prepare for it.

My wish list

Garl B. Latham — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 23:23:00 GMT

As we begin the 21st century's second decade and enter destinations unknown (tempus fugit, man!), I though it might be sobering to create a wish list of sorts: a compilation of, say, the top ten things I'd enjoy adding to our society's growing catalogue of concerns.

It's a depressing thought, but this piece could have just as easily been written ten years ago. Worse yet is the realisation that my list may end up being resurrected once again, ten years from now!

We, as a people, are nearing a junction point - one where we'll face an historic choice concerning our approach to domestic transportation (especially that of the passenger kind). We will be standing in the midst of Robert Frost's "yellow wood," wondering which road we should take.

In this case, "the one less traveled by" may be the one ultimately sustainable!

At any rate, we'll need to make a decision. Therefore, my first wish would be for the U.S. federal government to finally develop a comprehensive, national transportation/energy/environmental policy. I believe this is the most important wish of all. Through it, we'd be able to see where we are (and how we came to this point), then decide where we want to go and how we'd like to get there. The patented U.S. "drive or fly" approach was never logical, but it was supportable - at great cost - for more than three score years. We might even be able to go yet another 20...but, eventually, we will have reached our own "future." Then what will we do?!

Without such a policy in place, future-minded decisions will be far more difficult (if not impossible). That's especially true when considering transportation's relationship to our ecological health and the availability of affordable energy. It would be shameful, but I'd much rather us be honest and publicly state that we don't care about the environment and that we're ready to do anything for our next petroleum "fix" than to continue talking a good game, then doing absolutely nothing about it. My second wish would be for us to either take all of this seriously, or completely drop the pretence.

Along those same lines, I wish the feds would stop blindly throwing money at problems! Amtrak, bless it's pointed head, is a prime example of how NOT to operate a governmental bureaucracy. The N.R.P.C., essentially from day one, has received just enough cash to survive, but never enough to really accomplish anything - at least not on a national scale. "You can't get there from here" remains far more than a simple catch phrase, would-be riders are left behind for want of available space, and the company is so rudderless that it just sat back and allowed others to plan its future during the past two years - a time when the phrase "railroad renaissance" wasn't necessarily tinged with irony.

My fourth wish would be for us to more effectively utilise existing assets, such as extant general system trackage, when planning for increased passenger service. Such an approach will require conventional "mixed-use" operations along existing rights-of-way...which, in turn, presumes the full, uncoerced cooperation of the infrastructure owners (remember them?). If ever there was an opportunity for both sides of the table to win, this is it! Our industry will ultimately receive additional capacity at low cost and the public will get an option for traveling that's not only reasonable, safe and affordable, but fun! Increases in traffic congestion and gasoline prices will only serve to enhance the train's appeal.

I would like to see this system improvement be planned from a user's perspective, too. That means political realities wouldn't override the very real requirements of current and future freight operations on the one hand, or the literal needs (not just wants) of the railroad passenger on the other. For example, even if the political will to create a true U.S. high-speed railway network was already present, we'd still need our conventional passenger trains - transit and regional services, moderate-frequency corridors, long haul routes - to supplement and interconnect with H.S.R. I wish some of the otherwise supportive planners, dreamers and political soothsayers could see this!

I also wish we'd take the concept of intermodalism seriously. Surely, it's an impressive word; but, it's one with little meaning in the U.S. outside of the freight world. In fact, for most domestic travelers, the promise of seamless intermodalism has no basis in reality. We're actually living in a weird sort of autocentric multi-modal culture: a "system" (in name only) where one drives his private motor vehicle to an airfield, then leaves it behind - only to rent another automobile at his destination. Even the few train/'plane transfers which are currently available usually involve inconvenient shuttles, multiple connections and self-service baggage handling. There IS a better way!

I think my seventh wish is fairly simple: an absolute national moratorium on all future railroad abandonments! We shouldn't allow any more railway mileage to be lost or compromised. Oklahoma sets a good example (and it's not the only state to do so): if a common carrier wishes to cease operation over a given route, the taxpayer is given an opportunity to purchase those assets for the same amount of money the original company would have received by scrapping the line. The state becomes the proud new owner of that right-of-way and infrastructure - and immediately contracts operations to a private, for-profit concern. What few miles go without a bid are held, intact, for future use.

Next, I wish our elected officials (read: "leaders") would spend the taxpayer's money respectfully, planning and building as if public projects were private-sector endeavours. For instance, as we develop new-start rail transit systems (which are basically an attempt to restore the streetcar and interurban lines we foolishly allowed to die so many years ago), why are concrete crossties being used instead of wood (or some other material)? Why do we always see complex catenary overhead and pantographs on the cars rather than simple contact wire and trolley poles? I presume one reason is because capital for construction is easier to secure than ongoing cash for maintenance and operations. Still, there must be some way to lower the initial investment without sacrificing quality.

Wish number nine? That advocates on all levels remain constantly vigilant, prepared to inform, instruct, and thoughtfully answer critics. Naturally, the citizenry deserves factual information; yet, we can never take for granted they truly understand it. Ohio's scuttled 3C project and its infamous "39 m.p.h. speed" statistic should provide a poignant reminder as to the various ways some people will purposefully distort the truth in order to undermine the public's trust. The United States has gone far too long without a thriving passenger train system for most people to really grasp what they're now missing and what they could be enjoying - for a quite reasonable investment. Regrettably, without adequate public support, what just happened in places like Ohio and Wisconsin could become the norm.

Finally, we should never lose sight of the ultimate goal, nor forget what might happen if we fail. I understand many among us maintain the belief that things will never substantively change; that we'll always be able to exist, comfortably, as part of a "drive or fly" nation. This assumption may be true. It may also be an example of an extreme mental state called "normalcy bias": the idea that, since a given disaster (or, in this case, a potentially disastrous societal change) has never occurred, it will never occur. We have our automobiles, a system of roadways upon which to drive them, and the relatively inexpensive supply of fuel necessary to make them all work. What else could we need?

What else, indeed!

The North American continent could be standing on the brink of greatness. It could also effectively be perched on the verge of collapse.

Truly, the choice is ours.

It's a depressing thought, but this piece could have just as easily been written ten years ago. Worse yet is the realisation that my list may end up being resurrected once again, ten years from now!

In this case, "the one less traveled by" may be the one ultimately sustainable!

What else, indeed!

The North American continent could be standing on the brink of greatness. It could also effectively be perched on the verge of collapse.

Truly, the choice is ours.