Now that you have survived the “air travel summer from hell,” is it time to rethink your choice of travel mode? Even flying first class does not shield you from long security checks, an hour on the tarmac waiting for corporate jets to take off, delays from the weather or enraged passengers. An equal opportunity hazard is the inability of the Federal Aviation Administration to get all the parties involved with the airline industry to agree on a way to upgrade the antiquated traffic control system. Near misses are a common occurrence.
In spite of this air travel is soaring and is the fastest-growing contributor to global warming. According to studies, plane travel per passenger is between seven and eight times more polluting than train travel per passenger. Airlines emit CO2 directly into the upper atmosphere where it does more than twice the damage (in fact, an estimated 2.7 times) of the same quantity of CO2 emitted at ground level. Most countries, while being gung-ho about reducing greenhouse gases (GHG), are generally reluctant to acknowledge air travel”™s impact on GHG.
Meanwhile, Amtrak has been enjoying its fifth year of record ridership, bolstered by higher gas prices, disaffected air travelers and those aware of the environmental negatives of air travel.
Â
Train of thought
The difference between the stress levels of plane and train travel can hardly be more pronounced. Plane travel is becoming more like the modern version of traveling in steerage, the way your great-grandparents might have arrived in this country in the hold of an overcrowded ship. A bit harsh? Maybe, but not by much. If you were on a packed plane that got stuck on the tarmac for four hours with no food and overflowing toilets you would understand the comparison.
Now picture a train trip, say, from Penn Station to Union Station in Washington, D.C., on the Acela ”“ Internet access, phone connection, room to move around and excellent work conditions. You arrive in the middle of the city, just a taxi away from your destination. Since traveling by train contributes the least GHG into the atmosphere, unless you were biking or walking, why isn”™t the federal government eager to make it our first choice by supporting it adequately? The four-year bill before Congress has $15.4 billion designated for airport grants. For fiscal 2008 a $1.4 funding bill for Amtrak has passed the House with a similar bill in the works in the Senate. So much for getting our priorities right.
Railroads have been the stepchild of the national transportation network for decades, with road expansion and airport improvement always at the top, leaving a pittance for rail. In fact, there has been a strong push to break up the national rail system in order to put the cost of maintenance on the states. The Northeast Corridor, the most heavily used route, got special attention in this plan. However, the steady increase in Amtrak”™s ridership has quieted those voices for now but it hasn”™t increased the funding.
No railroad in the world makes money. Therefore, government subsidy should not be regarded as an indication of failure but essential to maintaining the system and the development of new routes. Rail accidents in recent years are largely an indication of the financial starvation of the rail system.
Â
Â
What a drag
Short train trips can easily be substituted for air travel, but what about cross-country travel? It takes too long? Consider this: If you boarded Amtrak at 5 p.m. on Friday in Croton you would be in Seattle or Portland by 10:30 a.m. Monday. You may also have enjoyed an unforgettable weekend, experienced the real USA and met many new people with the mixed seating in the dining car. To be sure, it is not the Orient Express but it”™s a whole lot more civilized than almost any plane trip.
That train trip could be shortened by 12 hours or more if the government paid the railroads to add more sidings on parts of the route. The lack of speed on the train has to do with freight trains that have the right-of-way because they own the tracks, requiring the passenger train to wait on a siding for as long as two hours for the freight train to show up. This is a solvable problem with extraordinarily positive implications for the mobility of the country as well as the effort to control GHG.
Another drag on the system is that the railroad companies have to pay property taxes to the towns through which they pass. In many areas with double tracks one of the tracks has been systematically pulled up on underperforming routes just to save money for the perpetually cash-strapped freight railroads. A further dilemma is that old railroad rights-of-way are being sold and developed in certain areas. Not a good direction.
Policymakers who are paying attention to the renewed interest in rail, however, are going for the glamour solution ”“ high-speed rail or “maglev” (magnetic levitation). Sounds wonderful except it would seem wiser to get the entire system up to a state of good repair, update the rail stations to the glitz of the airports and, of course, upgrade the rolling stock. Then we would be ready to move to the next century with truly high-speed rail. But as David Gunn, former president of Amtrak, has said, “If you really want a super-zippy train from Washington to New York, you have to build another railroad.”
Â
Surviving the Future explores a wide range of subjects to assist businesses in adapting to a new energy age. Maureen Morgan, a transit advocate, is on the board of directors of the Federated Conservationists of Westchester. Reach her at mmmorgan10@optonline.net.
Â
Â
