A rail plan by another name could smell sweeter

Shakespeare mused that a rose would smell just as sweet by any other name. Not so for a public-works program. President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s highway plan received instant public comprehension when he branded it the “National System of Interstate and Defense Highways.” This name implies a national building program in which all states would be linked and troops and military equipment could move swiftly from coast to coast and border to border. It also has sticking power. While “defense” may have been dropped along the way, everybody still refers to it as “The Interstate.” We’ve had 10 presidents since Eisenhower and many party-in-power swings, yet the Interstate has survived them all.

President Obama’s high-speed rail plan is noble but sounds like and is today just a way to speed trips between certain cities (10 corridors at the moment). That’s just too short-sighted. We need a vision that links the country, all the major urban centers, together with high-speed rail. It must be a network plan; not just a corridor plan. And it must have a name. Here’s our candidate: The Interstate Rail Defense Network. To build the constituency for such a network it is worth looking at how “Ike” did it.

The Interstate Genesis: A cross-country trip in 1919

The Interstate Highway System as we know it today was the product of a vision. In 1919 Lieutenant Dwight D. Eisenhower crossed the country from Washington to San Francisco in a military truck convoy. The trip was extremely slow, taking 62 days. In his memoirs he wrote that the journey “had started me thinking about good, two-lane highways.” As Supreme Allied Commander during World War II, Eisenhower experienced firsthand Germany’s autobahn network of superhighways. At that time the German autobahn network was known to include some of the best roads in the world. He had noted that even after heavy bombing of German roads during World War II military convoys managed to get through because of the design of the autobahn. Sparked by these two experiences, and with the backdrop of a Cold War that led to specters of mass evacuations of cities after nuclear bombings, President Eisenhower urged Congress to enact the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, creating the interstate system, which is today called the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. In President Eisenhower’s words, “This was one of the things that I felt deeply about, and I made a personal and absolute decision to see that the nation would benefit by it.” For this reason, President Eisenhower is known as the “Father of the Interstate System.”

The development of the Interstate Highway System revolutionized transportation in the United States. It allowed people to travel more freely than ever before, while also stimulating commerce and bolstering national security. But, after fifty years of thriving, the success of the highway system is at last beginning to falter. Commerce is foundering as traffic congestion impedes goods from moving freely. The safety of the public is at risk as auto accidents continue to increase (there were 41,059 traffic fatalities in 2007). Finally, our environment is suffering for the astonishing quantity of greenhouse gases emitted by cars and planes each year. Now it’s time for a second revolution – one that addresses and improves upon all of President Eisenhower’s visionary goals plus those newly pertinent to today’s world. It’s time to stop thinking superhighway and start thinking superrailway!

A National Train Network is a win (less congestion)-win (fewer greenhouse gases)-win (safer)-win (less reliance on foreign oil).

One passenger train has the potential to remove 500-600 cars from the road and one freight train can eliminate up to 200 trucks. By decongesting the highway system, goods can be transported more easily both by truck and by rail. This could effectively improve commerce which, in turn, would aid our ailing economy.

A national rail network can also aid the military transport of freight and people, in the event of a national defense crisis or natural disaster, with its high-speed trains crisscrossing the country, and by decongesting highways for military vehicles.

Rail is also proven to be a far safer mode of transportation than the automobile. According to the American Public Transportation Association, in 2008 the fatality rate for traveling by rail was .03 per 100 million passenger miles, while the fatality rate for traveling by car was .74 per 100 million passenger miles. By shifting a large portion of our population to rail, we also significantly improve public safety.

In terms of the environment, air and auto travel consume about fifty percent more energy per passenger-mile than rail. It has been said that a 60 percent reduction in flights is what is necessary to stabilize CO2 levels. However, most travelers consider time and cost over environmental impacts when choosing their mode of transport. Thus, travelers almost always opt for air or auto. In the busy northeast corridor, planes are the fastest mode of travel while cars are the cheapest. Even between New York City and Philadelphia, where rail is the fastest mode, it is so much cheaper to travel by car that most travelers end up driving. For short- and mid-distance trips (of up to say, 500 miles), for the sake of commerce, public safety, and the environment, we really need to do whatever possible to make rail the most attractive option.

It is clear that a real U.S. rail system could have the ability to re-revolutionize transportation as well as reduce our impact on the environment. Thankfully, the Obama administration has taken the first steps toward implementing a network of national high-speed rail. President Obama has set forth a high-speed rail plan and has allocated $8 billion to begin construction. In his words, “high-speed rail is long overdue, and this plan lets American travelers know that they are not doomed to a future of long lines at the airports or jammed cars on the highways.” We applaud this statement and are delighted that rail is finally getting the attention it deserves. Now we need specific, quantifiable goals.

A plan for 2050

Today, rail in the U.S. accounts for approximately 5.6 billion passenger miles of travel each year (as compared with 516 billion on airlines and 2.5 trillion in private automobiles). Let’s look to a ten-fold increase. That means that by 2050 we should be able to achieve about 56 billion miles of passenger travel by rail annually. Given the relative fatality rates of each mode (discussed earlier), by shifting 56 billion miles of passenger travel to rail by 2050, we can expect to save approximately 400 lives each year. Likewise, the energy savings could be tremendous. Given the relative energy savings of rail, we can reduce energy consumption by trillions of BTU’s annually.

Financing the plan

So how do we think this can be done? President Obama’s $8 billion is a good start. Indeed, one of the intentions of committing those funds was to capitalize on the economic engine of building rail. We think the federal government needs to increase its investment. Construction of tracks should be 100% subsidized by the federal government. After all, roads (the equivalent of tracks for rail) are almost always fully subsidized. In our opinion, there should be little or no capacity increases on the Interstate Highway System over the next four decades; what money would have been spent on capacity increases should be shifted to the Interstate Rail Network. We suggest shifting just $10 billion per year from highways to high-speed rail for the next 40 years.

The federal government should also seek to establish public-private partnerships (PPP’s). By leveraging investment from the private sector, infrastructure projects nationwide are being built and operated with widespread success in returns. And PPP’s are beginning to pop up for rail as well. The California High-Speed Rail Authority currently anticipates $4.5 to $7 billion in public-private partnership investment for the state’s planned high-speed rail system. Such a model should be incorporated into national thinking and for inclusion into an Infrastructure Investment Bank, as proposed by Senators Dodd (D) and Hagel (R) and supported by candidate Obama, as it could prove critical to the success of national rail. We suggest aiming for $100 billion in private investment funds for a total spending on high-speed rail of $500 million by 2050.

Trains are Romantic

But beyond investment and faster trains, we need to change the public’s perception of rail travel. Trains used to be romantic. The vision was of a candlelit dinner with a good bottle of wine and white linen tablecloths, rolling alongside a river at sunset, and arriving at your destination calm and refreshed.“There was a romance to train travel then,” said Carl Erskine, who pitched two no-hitters with the Brooklyn Dodgers . “When you walked into the dining car, you could smell the steaks. There was heavy silver, good china and white linen tablecloths as you went out of Grand Central along the Hudson River and across upstate New York. (Sports of the Times: The Romance of Teams Traveling by Train, by Dave Anderson, May 10, 2009)
Perhaps this image is not quite realistic anymore. But maybe we can at least bring back some of the romanticism once associated with trains. Amtrak uses vintage posters to create a feeling of nostalgia. This is the right idea. We should start thinking about spreading this image even further or even creating newer, more modern images of rail that are equally as quixotic.

President Obama’s Legacy: “The Father of the Interstate Rail Network”

Let’s finally make rail work. As President Eisenhower was the “Father of the Interstate System,” so President Obama has the potential to become the “Father of the Interstate Rail Network.” It really takes a visionary to enact such major infrastructural changes in our country. But President Obama is a visionary and the seed is already beginning to sprout. We urge this administration to think huge because it’s time to prepare our nation for its next step: a new system of superrailways.

A note of thanks to Dan McNichol, author of The Roads That Built America. My inspiration for the connection to Dwight D. Eisenhower’s 1919 trek came after I heard Mr. McNichol speak recently.

Last April, chagrined transportation professionals from New York were aghast to find their L.A. compatriots wearing “I Love NY” buttons.  The Angelinos were enamored of the Big Apple because we had just forked over our $354 million in federal funds for congestion pricing after the New York State Assembly failed to even hold a vote on the matter.  The City of Angels (as well as Chicago, St. Louis and others) is hoping for a repeat as New York struggles in planning for stimulus money.

The infrastructure portion of the stimulus bill (don’t call it that to the administration; they are very sensitive and it must be called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) is aimed at “shovel-ready” projects, meaning that funds must be allocated almost immediately with at least half the money obligated within 180 days of the bill’s February 17th enactment. Unobligated funds would be redistributed presumably to states that met or exceeded the 50% threshold. The rest of the money must be obligated within one year. But, there’s one pot of money that has a much longer window — in fact, longer than 10 years.  In a “squeaker,” the high-speed rail initiative went from zero to $2 Billion to $8 Billion in the final version.  And there’s more where that came from.  All expectations are on the new federal transportation bill (the old one expires in September 2009) to include billions more.

A real rail network, as what is seen today in Europe and parts of Asia, is what this country’s transportation system truly lacks. Rail has the potential to seriously improve the environment by reducing the large carbon footprint produced by short-haul air or motor vehicle travel. A high-speed rail line for trips of less than 500 miles can easily compete and should beat air travel. So, if we are looking for opportunities to make transport more sustainable and connect and revitalize major cities, why not start at home?

We are pleased that Governor Paterson and the New York State Department of Transportation recently released their New York State Rail Plan 2009 – Strategies for a New Age, the state’s first comprehensive rail plan in 22 years. The Plan creates a 2020 vision for a statewide high-speed (we think medium-speed is more like it with top speeds of 110 mph vs. Asian and European high speeds of 200+ mph) rail network. Such an aggressive target year is laudable for the changes that the Plan proposes: reliable and frequent service between New York City and Albany; increased and improved service between Albany, Buffalo, Syracuse, Utica, and Rochester (the Empire Line); a 6½ hour trip between Albany and Montreal (the Adirondack Line); a modernization and improvement in the state’s freight rail system; and a host of other improvements.

However, we want the state to begin thinking on an even grander scale. While medium-speed rail may be achievable by 2020, high-speed is certainly within reach by 2030.  Here’s New York State’s chance to step up to the plate and take what’s rightfully ours. By the way, we also call for upgrades of the Northeast Corridor – but we’re less worried about that because of strong advocacy by our Veep and a cadre of U.S. senators and congress people. We want to speed up service on the Empire and Adirondack Lines, beyond the 110mph laid out in the Plan, to run competitively with systems in China, Japan, and soon California so let’s aim for 250mph or NY to Buffalo in less than 3 hours and to Albany in an hour.  Montreal and Toronto could be just 3 and 5 hours away, respectively, even with customs checks on the train!

Upstate New York cities are dying – they started experiencing their own recession decades before the rest of the country fell into the recession we live with today. Frankly, while the country is catching a cold now or even the flu, we’re worried upstate will catch pneumonia. Bringing them hours closer to New York City — the world’s capital — will give them an enormous boost. Linking them with Toronto and Montreal will create a cosmopolitan opportunity to Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo and Albany. And by revitalizing our cities, New York State can really begin promoting compact, urban development – another huge plus for the environment.

Another major issue affecting our state’s economic well-being is the transport of freight. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey faces fierce competition with the Port of Baltimore. By strengthening our freight rail network, we may be able to capture some of the freight which is currently directed to Baltimore. Also, by providing a reliable freight rail link into Canada, we can make New York Harbor into a faster, more economical gateway for trans-shipment to the Canadian and upper Mid-West markets that are currently served by slow ships on the St. Lawrence Seaway and Great Lakes. Heck, throw in Congressman Jerry Nadler’s freight tunnel, link it with an upstate freight line and we will be on our way toward restoring New York Harbor as the Port of Entry to the U.S. east of The Mississippi and reestablishing New York City as the world’s port.

But we can’t rely solely on federal dollars to see our vision through. We must come up with a long term funding plan to assist a new rail system.  We look to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) model created by Governor Nelson Rockefeller over 40 years ago.  Today, the MTA Bridges and Tunnels (née Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority (TBTA)) hands over its excess revenue to its parent, the MTA. This money, in turn, helps fund New York City Transit, MTA Bus, and the commuter rail lines. We propose a similar model to help subsidize rail initiatives and operations throughout the state. In this case, we would recommend using the tolls on the New York State Thruway and introducing tolls on roads which parallel the rail system.  Toll rates would be set to include a subsidy for the rail.  This would also have the effect of shifting some freight and passenger traffic from the Thruway to the railways.  That means faster travel for motorists and less need to widen the Thruway as the upstate economy recovers.

High-speed rail for New York State already has its champions. Senator Chuck Schumer (D) called the plan a “great first step” towards a European-style system. Representative Louise Slaughter (D) has suggested aiming for electric trains that run at 150mph or faster which would develop the economy of Upstate New York. Representative Jerrold Nadler (D) and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D) have also voiced support. We need to rally our champions to think even one step further. And perhaps we should also go beyond state lines to consider connecting our fast service with other cities and another country, Canada, to garner even more support.

We are at an exciting, but critical point in United States rail history. Rail is finally getting the attention it deserves and the dollars are beginning to flow in. But if we don’t think like visionaries now, we risk giving up our potential, and ending up with a good (yes, it will be good!) rail system that results in impressive – but not extraordinary – change.

THE BIRTH OF RAIL
1873	Main Street Railroad Company The Los Angeles City Council authorized the maintenance of two railroad tracks. The Main Street Railroad Company began, but nothing ever came of the project.
1874	Spring and West 6th Street Railroad The Spring and 6th Street franchise started, serving the downtown Los Angeles area. This single track horse car line began public transit in Los Angeles.
1874-1875	Main Street & Agricultural Railroad The Main Street and Agricultural Railroad was the first suburban line in Los Angeles.
1875	East Los Angeles & San Pedro Railway Company Due to low patronage, the railway company went under in just four years.
RAIL EXPANSION and MODERNIZATION
1875-1899	Los Angeles & Aliso Street Railroad Company Regular service began in 1877 and as ridership increased a second line, the East First Street line, was built. In 1899, it became a cable railway.
1883	City Railroad Company The first line dedicated exclusively to public transit; other lines had been largely focused on real estate promotion.
1885	Second Street Cable Railroad Company Operated on a single track system.
1886	The Central Railroad Company Developed in 1883 to be a part of the Los Angeles & Aliso Railroad. It eventually merged with City Railroad.
1886-1888	Temple Street Cable Railway Company Carried more passengers than any of the other lines at the time.
1896-1897	Many of the major horse and cable cars operating in Los Angeles converted to electrical power.
back to top
DEATH OF THE TROLLEY
1911	Pacific Electric Railway Company Eight separate companies merged into the Pacific Electric Railway Company.
1925-1955	Pacific Electric Subway The Subway opened on November 30, 1925, running 1,045 feet underground. In 1955, the last line using the subway was converted to buses. By 1933, Pacific Electric and Los Angeles Railway also began bus passenger service, but patronage of both rail and bus had been hurt by the wide-spread use of the automobile.
1945	Los Angeles Transit Lines The controlling interest in the Los Angeles Railway was purchased by National City Lines, which was run by the five Fitzgerald brothers and had support from the oil industry. They renamed it the Los Angeles Transit Lines, substituting buses on most of the street car lines. Further reading on the death of the trolley in L.A.: “Did Auto, Oil Conspiracy Put the Brakes on Trolleys?” (Los Angeles Times, March 23, 2003) “The Fitzgeralds Go. West.” (Time, December 18, 1944)
back to top
FROM PRIVATE TO PUBLIC TO TODAY
1953-1958	Metropolitan Coach Lines Pacific Electric sold its passenger rail cars and buses to the Metropolitan Coach Lines bus company.
1951-1964	Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority This agency was created by the California Legislature to develop a monorail system along the Los Angeles River. In 1958, the Transit Authority purchased Metropolitan Coach Lines and Los Angeles Transit Lines. Paid for with state dollars, operation of transportation in Los Angeles was public for the first time.
1964-1993	Southern Rapid Transit District Mandated by the legislature to improve bus systems, and design and build a transit system for Los Angeles.
1976-1993	Los Angeles County Transportation Commission The California legislature created the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC) to oversee public transit and highway policy in the nation’s largest county.
1992-present	Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Metrolink operations began. The new MTA was created by Legislature, merging the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission and the Southern California Rapid Transit District.
back to top

Sources: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Electric Railway Historical Association of Southern California

Photos: Courtesy of Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Archive