Rail: The Case for "Interstate II"

People identify me with railroad issues and advocacy. They forget that I came out of the highway lobby. As late as 1987 I was active in promoting a $1.6 billion, 1077-mile, 4-lane highway development program for my home state of Mississippi. During my business career I have owned five auto dealerships and an air charter service. My first involvement at the federal level was in highway safety. President Nixon named me to the National Highway Safety Advisory Committee. In 1975 President Ford appointed me to the National Transportation Policy Study Commission which was chaired by Bud Shuster. I led the subcommittee on advanced technology.

I went into this process a strong believer in highway transportation. After three years I was transformed into a believer in inter-modal transportation. Those sentiments were confirmed by my later work as Federal Railroad Administrator under President Bush, which also brought me into contact with leaders in aviation and transit. My comments reflect nearly thirty years of hands-on experience.

Forty years ago America embarked upon the Interstate Highway System. We built 46,000 miles of multi-lane routes without stoplights or grade crossings. It was a grand achievement. But if you think about it, the interstate system was not designed for high-speed travel. In most states the top speed limits are only five miles an hour above those posted on the conventional numbered roadways of the 1950’s. The great benefit of the interstates was that we increased capacity by a large factor, and avoided the stoplights, traffic jams, and slow-downs that held average speeds to 50 miles an hour or less.

The interstate system had dramatic impacts upon mobility, economic growth and transportation efficiency. But its development created problems that we did not consider important at that time. Some urban areas experienced economic growth, which was spurred by their access to modern highway corridors. Others confronted more disruptive consequences. Urban interstates also became commuter routes, which fragmented downtowns and helped spread residential and commercial development to widely scattered suburbs. Many city centers were devastated, and many small towns withered as the new routes chose green-field rights-of-way.

Few people worried about air pollution in the 1950’s. In one respect our air had become cleaner because Americans of that era had switched from coal furnaces and coal-fired industrial boilers to cleaner units which used natural gas or electricity. Meanwhile, our modern highways stimulated the explosion of personal transportation by automobile, instead of public transportation by transit or rail. By the 1970’s, vehicle emissions represented the primary source of urban pollutants.

For a time, Detroit built smaller cars, but the growth in overall numbers of trucks and automobiles soon offset the pollution savings. Local governments chose to pursue industrial polluters instead of confronting the tricky problem of restricting autos and trucks. The result was to drive manufacturing out of urban counties.

Today, commuters coming to the city to work in service industries pass outbound commuters headed for factories, which have relocated to the urban fringe. City governments are losing the battle against air pollution, and have resorted to such strategies as urging residents not to run their lawn mowers on high-ozone days or avoid fueling their autos until after dark. Yet most large cities will flunk the new EPA air-quality standards.

Interstates are regarded as safer than conventional highways, but higher vehicle counts, rush-hour traffic jams, and rising driver frustration are degrading the safety performance. Highway fatalities remain at an unacceptable 40,000+ per year. We would not tolerate this situation in air or rail service.

Only in recent years have transportation engineers and analysts begun to focus on these impacts. They commonly are referred to as "externalities" -- the costs of pollution, energy waste, land disruption, accidents and time wasted in traffic jams. These costs sometimes are hidden, but they are real. More to the point, highway user fees do not cover them. A study conducted for the American Trucking Association concluded that the trucking industry alone was responsible for $30 billion in annual costs which exceed the user fees it pays. Those costs have been transferred to the general taxpayer and to the consumer in the form of higher prices. And that's only part of the true cost of these external impacts.

Right now, our highway and airway-based passenger system is ailing. Highway and airport gridlock is getting worse, and we have found that we cannot afford to build our way out of this gridlock. Hundred-million-dollar interchanges only move traffic jams to new locations. Highway engineers now recognize in most cases that adding lanes to urban interstates won't solve the problem. Congestion is worse. Rush hour in Chicago now covers eight hours per day. Average speeds in big-city downtowns are slower than they were 100 years ago, and the true cost of operating a new automobile is in the 40-cents-a-mile range and rising. It's currently about $6,000 a year. That works out to 500 after-tax dollars per month to move you an average of 1,200 miles a month. That's pretty expensive to move your body in your car 15,000 miles a year.

Aviation's ability to expand is on a par with the problem of legroom in its passenger seats. The cabin can be reconfigured to add an inch or two, but that's about all. Load factors are at record levels. Passengers are furious over delays and overcrowding. With Herculean effort we are able to add an airport like Denver International once every 20 years. Alternatives such as VTOL aircraft have stalled out. Airport managers' visions now are limited to their existing property boundaries. A few airport commissions, like those in New Orleans and Miami, are trying to bring high-speed rail to their terminal escalators, but most airports are not.

It has become clear that we cannot solve our transportation needs of the 21st Century just by adding ever-more-costly highway lanes. This approach simply is not sustainable. When I use the term "sustainable", I intend it to mean a system that we can afford to build, and a system whose adverse impacts upon safety, land use, energy consumption and air quality are held to acceptable limits.

As I thought about how to overcome these challenges, I was drawn to our recent experience in inter-modal transportation. What has taken place during the past 20 years is nothing short of revolutionary. Inter-modal transportation has become the global standard for moving freight -- using a system, which is sharply focused on speed, safety, reliable scheduling and economic efficiency. Today, that network emphasizes moving freight in North America and passengers in Europe and Asia. It is beginning to include passenger service in the United States.

The global high-speed inter-modal freight system builds on the strengths of each mode that have become partners in offering service. It also makes use of the versatility of the cargo container. Cargo ships and airplanes span the oceans. The freight railroad is the high-speed, long-distance transportation artery on the land. The truck provides local feeder service at origins and destinations. Cargo airplanes deliver high-value specialized freight. This system works -- but it urgently needs dramatic improvements to its land component in order to handle growing volumes of containers delivered by ship and airplane.

Modern, high-efficiency, high-capacity inter-modal terminals are key to the system, providing almost seamless interchange. Secondary rail and highway routes support the inter-modal system and connect cities, rural regions and individual freight customers to the main-line corridors. Today, a double-stack train leaving a coastal port can replace 280 trucks, run at speeds up to 90 miles an hour on the western railroads and afford as much as nine times the fuel efficiency of container transport by highway. Overall, the operational and economic efficiency of freight's inter-modal network conserves fuel, reduces other environmental impacts and is significantly safer. It represents the most economically and environmentally "sustainable" approach to transportation services.

Meanwhile, this new inter-modal science is redrawing the railroad map of North America, linking the populations and economies of the United States, Canada, and Mexico in a true "North American Rail System." Our continental network serves 90 states and provinces with 240,000 miles of routes and almost 400 million people. Most of its main lines are in excellent shape.

Over $60 billion in private funds has been spent for upgrading to heavy-duty welded rail. Another key point is this -- customers are driving the inter-modal freight network. North American customers suffer when it comes to moving people. Passengers take what the modes have to offer, shuffle between terminals, wait at the curb for the hourly bus downtown, or head for the latest addition to the airport parking garage, where we fork over above-market rates for the "privilege" of being an airline customer. Or we find ourselves at the mercy of higher rental car prices.

One could make the case that the worst defect of our passenger transportation system is the limited number of choices it offers. Residents of cities under 100,000 population often have only one practical option for inter-city travel -- the private automobile. Where bus and Amtrak service exist, the frequencies often are insufficient to meet the customer's needs. Airlines have retreated from short-haul markets. Where air service remains, the fare levels have driven people back to their automobiles.

It seems to me that our success in freight inter-modal points the way to the most promising strategy for transportation improvements in the years ahead. I call it "Interstate II." It is a new vision of truly high-speed inter-city travel that is based upon steel, not pavement. The concept is not radical. It combines the proven efficiency of rail transportation with the strengths of the inter-modal system. Interstate II can take advantage of rights-of-way that already exist -- both rail and highways.

Interstate II already is under way. The New York-Washington Northeast Corridor has been in place since the 1970’s. [Publius note: Actually since 1910.] High-speed trains will serve Boston later this year. Turbo-trains now operate on the Empire Corridor in New York State. Washington, Oregon and British Columbia are developing a high-speed route in the Pacific Northwest. Eight years ago Congress authorized five new high-speed rail corridors. Today, with the TEA-21 Act, thirteen have been approved for development. When Congress voted $2.3 billion in capital funds for Amtrak, it sent a message that inter-city rail passenger service is here to stay. It is interesting to note that Amtrak's package express business is booming, because express companies cannot expand if they are limited to clogged highways. Interstate II will attract mail and package express business away from highways and airways, adding to the new system's revenues, and helping to share the increased traffic loads that the other modes confront.

The evolution of Interstate II reminds me of the conditions that prevailed during the decade prior to our construction of the first interstate routes. The old two-lane roads were not adequate for traffic volumes. Several states took the lead in building toll roads -- Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas and Oklahoma. Important segments of "Interstate I" already were in operation before Congress voted to launch that project.

The same thing is happening in the 1990’s. These state and regional initiatives represent the beginning of a network of high-speed rail lines. Many of them will parallel interstate highways. During the first quarter of the 21st Century, I believe that we can build about 20,000 miles of corridors capable of running trains at 90 to 150 miles per hour. As much as another 10,000 miles of high-quality conventional rail routings will augment that network.

Often, we will be able to use the same right of way that freight railroad now occupy, if we deal with a number of key issues, including grade separation and liability. An important element of Interstate II is the requirement to eliminate at-grade highway-rail crossings. Many of them can be closed, because they are unnecessary. Others will require separation. The remainder can be fitted with high-tech crossing devices. We cannot have efficient rail corridors, conventional or high-speed, if trains encounter grade crossings every mile in the country and every block in town. Some people will shy away from the crossing-closure issue as too controversial. But think back to the 1950’s. We closed tens of thousands of road intersections when the Interstate highways were built.

For Interstate II to function properly, we also must create terminals to transfer passengers and freight among modes and routes. Fast, modern and highly efficient inter-modal terminals and yards are essential to freight's inter-modal system, providing "seamless" service. Get off an airplane at Dulles or Denver airports and you are reminded that seamless service hasn’t arrived. The seams are ripped apart just on the other side of the baggage claim.

Another important element of Interstate II will be the city center terminal. The city center terminal serves the inter-modal passenger network. It also serves cities both large and small and helps to revitalize the downtown. These facilities should be developed by local governments, just as they built and financed airports. City center terminals can be hubs for people and retailing. In larger cities they can provide a financial contribution to the overall corridor development project.

Amtrak will have a key role in the inter-city passenger component of Interstate II. But we need to start thinking about Amtrak in a more realistic context. Amtrak should be in the business of moving people inter-modally, in partnership with inter-city bus companies and local transit, but not owning track or terminals. Amtrak should operate and be treated like an airline. Airlines don't build airports. They don't carry those debt costs on their books. If airlines had been compelled to finance airports, they would not have had the capability to undertake the remarkable expansion of fleets and service that has occurred during the past forty years. What's fair for airlines ought to be fair for Amtrak, which today is burdened with aging station facilities that in many cases are an embarrassment, which discourages use.

For the equivalent of two cents on the motor fuel tax, one penny at the federal level and a second penny from the states, America could have within twenty years' time a network of high-speed rail corridors that approaches the scale of the Interstate Highway system. That commitment of fuel tax dollars would offer a powerful incentive to additional private investment as well. States and cities should be partners in the process, bringing additional revenues to the table. Again, we are talking about the equivalent of one cent on each state's motor fuel tax. Some people will argue that motor fuel taxes should only go to highway projects. But highway construction is not solving the gridlock problem. More important, the existing level of highway user fees doesn't even come close to covering the costs that highway transportation now inflicts upon our economy and society. More to the point, it is not building the system we need, one that captures the safety and capacity of the 21st Century inter-modal passenger and freight network. Cities, towns, counties and citizens already are paying for that funding gap in many indirect ways. Law enforcement costs. Emergency services costs. Land lost to highway rights-of-way that goes off the tax rolls. Pollution rules that drive industrial jobs out of urban counties despite the fact that most of the emissions are highway-related.

Aside from the obvious benefits from Interstate II, I favor it because there are no alternatives. If trends of the 1980’s and 1990’s persist into the new century -- and there is no reason to believe that they will not -- conventional solutions based upon individual modes simply cannot cope with the growth. Does anyone here seriously believe that we can double the capacity of our urban highway system within the next 15 years? The price tag for just a 10 percent increase would be staggering. And does anyone think that we will add eight or nine airports on the scale of Denver International? I would be surprised if we completed even one of them.

We are long overdue in coming to grips with the huge costs of trying to make the highways and airways solve all of our transportation needs, especially since there are efficient alternatives. It is our job to convince the American people and their opinion leaders that Interstate II is possible and is the obvious solution to our mobility needs for a new century. Rail corridors will prove to be cheaper than hundred-million-dollar interchanges that only relocate traffic jams. They will be safer than 43,000 deaths per year on America’s roadways.

This new ethical inter-modal transportation system will conserve fuel, reduce pollution and be less disruptive in using land. And just as America's toll roads used private money to finance construction, Interstate II can attract major private investment cost sharing. Private money can be applied to construction, operations, station development and equipment -- especially modern passenger, mail-and-express train-sets.

How many times have you heard people ask, "Why can't we have trains like those in Europe?" The answer is, We can. It's a question of priorities, strategy, partnerships, leadership and policy. We need to explain to the people of America that they can have a customer-driven passenger system. They can have choice within that system, and it doesn't have to cost 40 cents a mile to get anywhere. Americans also can obtain an even more efficient, low-cost freight and express network that will reap even more benefits through its inter-modal design. Americans can have interstates of steel for less cost than interstates of concrete and asphalt. And Interstate II will provide plenty of work for the traditional highway-builders.

Building this very safe, 20,000-mile, grade-separated, high-speed inter-city rail network is the key to the quality of transportation services during the next century. The money is there to do the job. The "road gang's" next goal should be to build it. It is up to you. I believe that the concept makes sense. I hope that you will agree.

Not my electricity, nor the raw corn syrup in my pepsi, nor the steak in my bicycle, nor the coal used to process it, nor everything else hauled by rail. Only most final products get to stores by truck but if most of the steps in the process were on rail, your point becomes kind of meaningless doesn't it.

Alright, ill give you electricity, but how did the components of the plant get there? I am sure trucks were involved a great deal.

How did the Pepsi get to the store you bought it at? Why do you have a steak in your bicycle? And how did the bicycle get to the bike store and the steak to the supermarket or butcher?

And since you only mentioned industrial rail, is that what you plan on having us ride?

Everything you buy got to where you bought it by truck. Build all the rail you want, but eventually every product you purchase still got to the store in a truck.

But there is a difference between long-haul and short-haul trucking. The author of this piece understands that a higher-speed freight rail system can free the interstates of many long-haul trucks. Virginia and Tennessee are both looking at funding rail expansion in lieu of building more lanes on I-81 and I-40.

Only most final products get to stores by truck but if most of the steps in the process were on rail

It is not the case that most of the raw materials that go into all products got the the assembly plant by rail. It just is not the case.

For something like this be effective, it needs to be done in a few prime corridors to prove it can be successful. For instance a highspeed line connecting Vegas and LA. Once people see it can work, people will use it. Building a nationwide system that is unproven in American terms would truly be a boondoogle.

I've always liked the idea of something like this LA to Vegas idea. This would work because between LA and Vegas are only maybe 3 stops (somewhere near San Bernardino, Victorville, and Barstow). But one thing I haven't seen mentioned is setting it up so you could load your car onto the train cheaper than you can drive. Without stopping much you could do the trip in about 2 hours and have your own car on either end. I think then it would work. It might even be faster than flying, when you count the checkin and checkout.

I think that this is where the article goes wrong. He mentions intermodal, but doesn't make it clear about what he is intermodal with. I think he is thinking airports and buses. Why not cars/interstates also?

So do we need light rail? No, we don't need it, but what makes more sense -- 3000 automobiles or, say, 50 train cars? Anyone who drives that route on a daily basis -- including my wife -- would tell you in the most graphic terms imaginable just how badly some alternative is needed.

Is the train going to pick you up at the door? Is the train going to drop you off at your office door? Won't you still need your automobile to take to the station, take you around town, or to take you anywhere else the train doesn't go? Are you going to carry your groceries home from the train-accessable grocery store every day in your backpack?

Or are you going to continue to do things the way that is most efficient for you?

Just face it. Commuter and light rail is a pipedream. It is not a viable alternative. Outside of large cities where you do not need a car, like NY, it is not a good idea and is a sure money loser.

If it was such a good idea, it would have taken hold when Trains were the masses way of travel. But it didn't and Henry Ford became Americas first Billionaire. And if it was such a good idea and the publics demand for it was so great PRIVATE BUSINESS would be competing with eachother in the market place. But private business is not competing with eachother because they know it is a loser. And I will say, that MOST of the people who support rail and want more people riding rail are leftists and socialists. And their main driving force behind it all is their uncontrollable urge to control our lives, tell us where to live, how to live, how to get around and what to do. It is about power and controlling the way people live.

higher-speed freight rail system can free the interstates of many long-haul trucks

Really? How do you know what the fianl cost tradeoff analysis will be? Especially, when there are NO REAL EXAMPLES of a high-speed freight rail operating anywhere in the world.

Apparently you've never lived in a city or an older rail-connected suburb where you can walk from home to the station and walk from the station to the job. There is no need for us to be slaves to our cars if a meaningful public transportation alternative is available.

The Caltrain station is used for mass transit, though. The idea for SF is to use the old transit building at Spear and Market since the Caltrain Station is already in use, though the TransBay terminal would be a logical alternative as it truly does connect rather pain-free to BART, MUNI, AC Transit, SAM Trans and Golden Gate.

Jack London Square is where the Amtrak station is, and would be logical, but in order to get into the City, people have to hop onto a bus and cross the Bridge to get to their final destination.

These is a Amtrak route that runs (from and to city centers) between Milwaukee and Chicago. I-94 also runs directly in between those two cities. The train is probably somewhat faster, but it costs $50 roundtrip while my cost of gas is about $10. $50 + massive ferderal subsidy and Amtrak is still losing money each time I ride it. Every day thousands of people make the trip to Chicago on I94 while hundreds take the train.

I've thought much about this. Almost everytime you fly from Milwaukee you fly to Chicago or Minneapolis or Detroit. How about setting up a system of short haul and long haul airports. Say, Chicago for long haul and Milwaukee for short routes. Set up a high speed train between the two. You could probably get the round trip to about 30-40 minutes. This could help with the problem of airport congestion as well.

Do it right, and many folks would book a "flight" on the train. You might even be able to set up the car-loading idea I posted above for these routes.

LAX long haul, Burbank and Long Beach short. San Fran long, San Jose short. This just might work...

Apparently you've never lived in a city or an older rail-connected suburb where you can walk from home to the station and walk from the station to the job.

And that is the ONLY places where rail is a viable option and works because you dont need a car in those places. But unless that is the case, you NEED a car.

Your ignorance of transportation history astounds me. Every American city, major and small, had electric interurban rail transportation until after WW2. These companies were capitalistically run and made profits. Many cities had steam-powered commuter rail in competition with the electric interurbans.

The Depression killed many of these systems, and the government's highway-building program killed off the rest. Then a consortium involving GM and a number of others bought up the remainder and converted them to buses.

In cities today where diesel commuter rail has been recently instituted, it is a success.

The discussion of costs is totally absurb; suburban right-of-ways, urban comdemnations, union contracting and workers, and the supporting infrastructures for subsidiary transportation, cargo-moving, and people-handling would be enormous, disruptive, expensive, and never-ending.

Exactly right! This is a chance to recreate the Boston "Big Dig" fiasco (where a $2 billion dollar project becomes a $15 billion dollar hole in the ground with no end in sight) on a national scale.

Apparently you've never lived in a city or an older rail-connected suburb where you can walk from home to the station and walk from the station to the job.

You describe a situation that includes less than 10% of the taxpaying population. Even less when you consider that only a small percentage of New Yorkers, Chicagoans, or BART-area people use their systems.

There is no need for us to be slaves to our cars if a meaningful public transportation alternative is available.

The point is public transportation isn't available, isn't useful, or isn't cost effective in 99% of the USA.

High(er)-speed freight rail operates in Europe. At least it's higher when you compare it to travel on their roads.

A piss-poor comparison - turtles are fast compared to the snails in the swamp, so what. It isn't high-speed, it isn't efficient on an intracity basis, and it is totally taxpayer subsidized. All high-speed rail systems are highend commuter or expensive passenger systems - that's the only way they are cost effective.

OK, I'll bite. I used to live in Simi Valley and work in Chatsworth, CA. About a 12 mile ride. In Simi Valley it was about 3 miles to the only commuter station in town. In Chatsworth it was about 1 mile by track, and 2 miles by road between my work and the only commuter station in town. On the Simi Valley end it was about a one mile walk and one bus to the station. On the Chatsworth end it was about 1/2 mile walk and 2 buses (with a transfer).

Sure, the train ticket allowed you on the bus for free. But since they set up Simi and Chatsworth in two different zones, the ticket was something like $20 a day (this one I am not sure about. I do remember doing the math and finding out it was cheaper to buy the car, gas and insurance).

Is this what you had in mind by "meaningful public transportation?" If so, sorry, no go. If not, then almost all of southern CA is out.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.