Garl B. Latham : roadways

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 definition of insanity

Garl B. Latham — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:52:00 GMT

In the business world, one of the classic "oops" moments of recent memory has to be the fact that, during MF Global's death throes, the financial giant seemingly "lost" (misplaced?) 1.2 billion dollars.

Yes, that's $1,200,000,000.00.

According to the verb du jour, those assets simply "vaporized."

Most of us can't even imagine seeing such a stash of money in the form of good ol' American greenbacks. We simply have to accept its existence by faith.

Granted, federal regulators are digging through reams of physical and electronic records (and, presumably, coat pockets and brief cases). So far, they've reportedly recovered approximately 72% of the money which existed in U.S. customer's accounts at the time of MF Global's bankruptcy filing. Still, as one trader recently said, even though he tries "to be optimistic, ...as it drags on longer, you become leery."

Former Governor of New Jersey Jon Corzine, erstwhile C.E.O. of MF Global, is not surviving unscathed; however, I'm wondering if his failures will eventually be attributed to ignorance rather than misconduct.

Does it really matter? I mean, from a purely business perspective, should it?!

Often, I've lamented how most folks who hold the power over federal transportation issues seem to be either idiots or liars - or both. Amongst those three choices, if any one is answered in the affirmative, that should be enough to cost them their job.

Today, Congressional Transportation Committee Chairman John Mica formally unveiled an anticipated measure to double the size of many controlled access roadways, begin charging tolls for express (H.O.T.) lanes and allow for longer, larger and heavier commercial trucks to operate along those routes. His proposed legislation, entitled the "American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act," is a five-year, $260 billion transportation bill - one which he says will fund "road, bridge, and rail improvements."

I guess that officially makes it "multi-modal"...although I'm not quite sure where the "rail" part comes in.

Mica's office pointed out that "transportation and engineering experts" (gotta love those experts) are saying "the United States is woefully behind on infrastructure spending, especially on [highway] bridge repair." Therefore, he has developed a proposition which would increase the size of the vehicles causing the majority of road damage while reducing the percentage those operators pay to cover maintenance costs.

At the same time, he's naturally refusing to address (or even consider) an increase in gasoline taxes.

According to Mica, individual states, which rely on federal reimbursements to satiate their thirst, have been "clamoring for direction from Washington on how to plan and pay for big-ticket projects."

Read: "big-ticket road projects."

This action seems to dovetail quite nicely with last week's State of the Union address by Barack Obama. The administration suggested that a portion of money which has been used for military spending be reallocated toward infrastructure development. Regrettably (but, sadly, not surprisingly), Obama made no specific mention of passenger train services of any kind, much less true H.S.R., during that speech.

It's both interesting and encouraging that Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois issued a statement following the release of Mica's proposal. "Unfortunately, the House of Representatives is pursuing a transportation bill that will cut passenger rail programs. These policies will make it harder for our nation to achieve a truly multimodal transportation network and I urge you to reject all House attempts to cut passenger, freight and multimodal programs."

So...is our national "infrastructure" still little more than concrete and asphalt?

Seemingly so. The future is still on hold; nothing has changed.

You know, the general public would like to trust its "leaders." They'd love to believe elected officials have the "common man's" best interests in mind.

When they observe these same "leaders" - time and time again - refusing to alter their approach regarding transportation issues, most citizens will think it's because those in power have considered the various alternatives and are still confident they've made the best overall choice.

And why wouldn't people make that conclusion? What reasonable options to the status quo might there be? How else would our society function?

All they've ever seen is America as an autocentric nation. What could be done differently?

All they're told is that our country's "infrastructure" needs can be adequately supported without raising taxes on gasoline. Why shouldn't they believe that?

All they witness is more sprawl and more pavement and more traffic. Why wouldn't they consider this normal?

And, all the while, they're indoctrinated from an early age with the claptrap concerning our "love affair" with the automobile and how "trains won't work here." What are they to think?!

After all, the people saying all these things wear impressive titles and are addressed as "honourable."

In their corner, we see all the "experts" who have long strings of initials after their names.

These are our wondrous "leaders." The ones who make the big bucks. Acting as if they're idiots or liars - or both.

Doing the same thing over and over and over again.

But, hey...this time, it'll work!

And that, my friends, is the definition of insanity.

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.

Do roads pay for themselves?

Garl B. Latham — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 20:18:00 GMT

Recently, the Texas Department of Transportation, a.k.a. "TXDOT," republished a three year old study which confirms what most of us have known all along: our system of roadways costs us plenty!

These highways and byways not only cost us in the form of lost time due to traffic congestion and personal injury. They're not only costly because of increased dependence on foreign oil and inefficient land use patterns. It's not just the fact that auto-centrism is the largest single cause of environmental pollution and decreased productivity.

No; we've finally had an avidly pro-pavement D.O.T. publicly admit that the most basic form of societal cost - the capital requirements for design, construction and maintenance of these facilities - far exceeds the total tax receipts allocated toward these highway systems!

In fact, the subsidy ratio (or, in the case of roads, the "Asset Value Index") for TXDOT's infrastructure makes Amtrak's taxpayer-supported needs absolutely pale in comparison! It is estimated that gasoline taxes would need to be six times higher than they are today just to bring revenue in line with expenditures.

In other words, the average cost of one gallon of gasoline in Dallas would instantly jump from today's approximate of $2.50 (for regular grade) to an outrageous $4.35!

Even then, there are several assumptions being made, chief among them the idea that folks would be willing to pay any amount just to get another fix of petrol. But, that assumption was blown to bits the last time gas hit four dollars! It's as if our transportation "leaders" had never heard of the price elasticity of demand!

Still worse economically is the concept of "green" automobiles. Lower the need for petroleum products through hybrid technology (or eliminate it with all-electric cars) and see what happens to our highway budgets! Yet, many in Austin and Washington continue to pretend that, since people "love" to drive, everything in our power needs to be done to maintain the rubber-and-concrete status quo.

So, what else can be done?

Are our elected officials correct when they intimate that nothing else can be done?

Conversely, is it possible to develop a completely different approach to the game whilst maintaining public support?

I sincerely believe I know the answer! Unfortunately, things will need to get a lot worse before they begin to get any better, 'cause governments tend to address symptoms over root causes.

In the meantime, read it and weep!

So far, the current study hasn't been posted to the internet; however, the original blurb can be accessed at this U.R.L.:

http://www.keeptexasmoving.com/index.php/enews/57?theme=print

...and a Houston article regarding TXDOT's work can be found at:

http://www.houstontomorrow.org/livability/story/txdot-no-road-pays-for-itself/

I transcribed the following from the "Keep Texas Moving 'e-Newsletter'." No attempts were made to correct grammatical errors.

Published by the Government and Business Enterprises Division at the Texas Department of Transportation

20 November 2009 issue

Article title: "Do Roads Pay for Themselves?"

A major feature in the public debate about toll roads has been the issue of when or whether a road has been "paid for." To better understand this discussion, it is helpful to ask two questions:

1. What is a traveler paying for when he or she pays state gas tax at the pump?

State motor fuel tax is collected from all over the state and goes into a single pool of revenue - about one quarter of which goes to fund education, and about three-quarters of which goes to the state’s highway fund, where it is spent on transportation uses and some non-transportation functions of government.

Then the state receives federal funds as the state’s share of the federal fuel tax; about 70 cents of every gas tax dollar Texans send to Washington comes back for road use.

The significant point here is that historically the fuel tax paid in any locality of the state is unrelated to the road projects in that locality. Every fuel taxpayer in the state paid something for any given road - which leads to the next issue.

2. When is a given road actually "paid for?"

Just like your car, it never is. You may have paid the note, but maintenance and fuel costs go on as long as you own the vehicle. Once a road is built, maintenance and rehabilitation costs last its entire life, generally about 40 years.

The decision to build a road is a permanent commitment to the traveling public. Not only will a road be built, but it must also be routinely maintained and reconstructed when necessary, meaning no road is ever truly "paid for."

Until recently, when TxDOT built or expanded a road, no methodology existed to determine the extent to which this work would be paid off through revenues.

The Asset Value Index, was developed to compare the full 40-year life-cycle costs to the revenues attributable to a given road corridor or section. The shorthand version calculates how much gasoline is consumed on a roadway and how much gas tax revenue that generates.

The Asset Value Index is the ratio of the total expected revenues divided by the total expected costs. If the ratio is 0.60, the road will produce revenues to meet 60 percent of its costs; it would be "paid for" only if the ratio were 1.00, when the revenues met 100 percent of costs. Another way of describing this is to do a "tax gap" analysis, which shows how much the state fuel tax would have to be on that given corridor for the ratio for revenues to match costs.

Applying this methodology, revealed that no road pays for itself in gas taxes and fees. For example, in Houston, the 15 miles of SH 99 from I-10 to US 290 will cost $1 billion to build and maintain over its lifetime, while only generating $162 million in gas taxes. That gives a tax gap ratio of .16, which means that the real gas tax rate people would need to pay on this segment of road to completely pay for it would be $2.22 per gallon.

This is just one example, but there is not one road in Texas that pays for itself based on the tax system of today. Some roads pay for about half their true cost, but most roads we have analyzed pay for considerably less.

To conclude, in the SH 99 example, since the traffic volume for that road doesn't generate enough fuel tax revenue to pay for it, revenues from other parts of the state must be used to build and maintain this corridor segment. The same is true across the state, meaning that, as revealed by the tax gap analysis, overall revenues are not sufficient to meet the state's transportation needs.

-30-