THE VINE JANUARY 26, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
In a column over at Grist on the paucity of transit funding in the stimulus package, Ryan Avent makes a crucial point. Over the past three months, during the economic slump, real wages have actually gone up 23 percent—in part because gas prices have nosedived. (By some estimates, the collapse in gas prices since the summer have provided a nearly $300 billion stimulus to the economy.) But at some point the global economy will recover and get jogging again, at which point oil demand will pick up, and gas prices will skyrocket. Not only will the uptick at the pump start whittling away at household budgets, but the rise in oil prices will act like a stealth tax increase, putting a major crimp in the recovery.
So one solution, then, is to use some of the stimulus spending to improve the energy-intensity of the economy—to make it so that the United States uses less oil (and gas, and coal) per dollar of GDP, and hence, are less vulnerable to the inevitable rise in fossil-fuel prices down the road. That's a relatively straightforward concept. As Avent suggests, we need to "cut commuting times, reduce driving, reduce congestion, green intercity travel and green freight shipping (so that rising oil prices don't feed through to prices for other goods, including food)." That's why it's unwise for Congress to dole out tens of billions of dollars for new roads out to the exurbs—they'll make the rise of oil prices accompanying any future recovery that much harder to weather.
By the way, while high-speed passenger rail gets a disproportionate share of the attention, Avent's right in that there are huge gains to be had by converting much of our freight shipping to rail. As Phillip Longman recently explained in a superb Washington Monthly piece on this subject, an investment of $250 billion to $500 billion over the next 20 years could get 85 percent of the nation's long-haul trucks off the road, save on road-infrastructure costs, and reduce the nation's oil consumption by 22 percent (our economy would also be 13 percent larger in 2030 than it otherwise would be). Shifting goods transport to rail clearly can't all be done in a stimulus package, but if we're thinking about how to get ourselves off the oil-price rollercoaster, that's one place to look.
Fortunately, some members of Congress are thinking along these lines. In the House, Peter DeFazio is trying to augment aid for transit-operating costs in the stimulus bill, though his amendment is currently in limbo in the Rules Committee. (By the way, I'm not sure DeFazio's correct to blame Larry Summers for the relatively short shrift rail got in the stimulus bill; I believe that decision was largely influenced by OMB officials, who were concerned that there weren't enough "shovel-ready" projects.) Relatedly, Matt Yglesias notes that a new pro-rail coalition, OneRail, is coalescing on the Hill, helping to ensure that the issue doesn't atrophy once the stimulus mania has passed.
Update: DeFazio's amendment just got pinged down. That leaves Jerrold Nadler's proposal to add $3 billion for new transit capital projects to the stimulus bill.
--Bradford Plumer
9 comments
Freight rail, and probably high-speed passenger rail as well, can pay their own way, given the appropriate regulatory environment. That means making it as easy to get right of way for rail as it is to expand the road network, and making carbon users pay for the damage they cause with a carbon tax. What the government should be doing is identifying priority rail corridors, using their muscle to get the rights of way, but letting private enterprise build and operate.
Just cam back from Europe - less than four hours in Thalys Rail from Amsterdam to Paris (downtown to downtown), with room, power, wireless, and food at my discretion the whole way. That's medium speed rail in Europe, Paris to London is almost as far, but only 2h 20 minutes.
- sdemuth
January 26, 2009 at 2:04pm
"What the government should be doing is identifying priority rail corridors, using their muscle to get the rights of way, but letting private enterprise build and operate."
Rights of way for who? Mass transit or freight? Won't this piss off some private shipping firms and lead to lengthy litigation?
- dylanposer
January 26, 2009 at 3:27pm
dylan :Probably. Most things worthwhile do piss of somebody. But if the government identifies a need (high speed transit in the LA - SF corridor, say), expedites acquisition of right of way, and sells it to a fairly selected bidder, who assumes the cost of construction and operation, I don't see what they've got to complain about. We have to move ahead somehow, and somebody is going to lose (airlines for high speed intercity rail; truckers for priority freight corridors).
- sdemuth
January 26, 2009 at 4:49pm
Now, are you suggesting that we stick to our existing infrastructure (e.g. train lines already in place), or that we build new infrastructure?
"Most things worthwhile do piss off somebody." I am framing this quote.
- dylanposer
January 26, 2009 at 5:29pm
Brad,
Thanks for the update...
- jet
January 26, 2009 at 11:51pm
There is no conflict between the expansion of rail lines and the interests of freight carriers. Today, freight carriers (i.e., truckers) share local roads and highways with passenger vehicles. And today, at least where I live (Northeast) freight carriers (box cars, flat beds, liquid carriers) share rail with commuter and intercity passenger trains. In fact, if rail is more efficient than road, the freight carriers should applaud an expansion of railroads.
In any event, reducing the number of trucks and cars on the highways, by replacing them with high speed trains powered by alternate energy sources, is in the national interest -- good for us all.
- PeteBeck
January 27, 2009 at 9:11am
There is no conflict between improved rail and the existing truck-based carriers. Several of those carriers have already started using rail extensively for long-distance haulage of their trailers.
UPS is already the railroad industry's single biggest customer. Ship a box via UPS from New York to the west coast via "UPS Ground" and the chances are it will be carried to a local lift facility in New Jersey, placed on a flat car, and transported by rail to a similar lift facility on the west coast.
JB Hunt, a giant in the trucking industry, is a major customer as well. Many JB Hunt "truck trailers" that you see on the road are actually 53 foot domestic containers, riding the highways on a separate interchangeable chassis. The container is nothing but a box, which can be lifted onto a train, stacked on top of other boxes, and hauled away. Two hundred containers on a single train is routine. BNSFs "transcon" line from Chicago to LA handles dozens of these trains every day.
The major limitations on the growth of "intermodal" rail freight are the costs of the lift facilities, and the lack of excess capacity on the nations RR network. That network was pared back by over 30 percent in the 70s and 80s (including wholesale abandonment of several main line carriers) to the point where it is tough to add additional traffic without delaying the traffic that's already there.
Currently, intermodal is only viable for hauls of at least 500 miles. Change the economics a little and that number could come down significantly.
- gwcross
January 27, 2009 at 2:00pm
Thank you gwcross for bringing specific information to the discussion.
Here are some ways to change the economics a little: Gradually raise taxes on gasoline, have the federal and state governments subsidize the rail networks to the same extent they subsidize highways, have the federal government build lift facilities financed by the increased taxes on gasoline, expand enforcement of speed limits and other rules of highway safety (with the fines to go to the alternative transportation fund)..
The abandoned main lines can be rebuilt without any need to acquire rights of way, which cuts down delay. And there may be other benefits of rebuilding the main lines, such as land conservation and reduced sprawl.
I wonder -- no idea -- if domestic/domestic transport of containers by water is something that can be expanded.
New commuter lines (equivalent of NYC subways) could incorporate freight transportation facilities.
Beyond the reduction in use of imported fossil fuel, a benefit of increased rail (and water?) transport would be increased highway safety. At least where I live, the big trucks drive too fast and often recklessly -- resulting in many accidents.
- PeteBeck
January 28, 2009 at 1:43am
Norfolk Southern's Triple Crown Road-Railer service obviates the need for lifting containers from 18-wheeler flatbeds to railroad flatcars, although it does require some paved surfaces with rails to allow the railroad wheels to be slipped under the trailers.
Positive Train Control will permit the use of the "rolling block" concept rather than the current fixed block system. A rolling block is an artificial block that accompanies each train and gives it enough space in front to come to a stop before hitting something else occupying the tracks ahead. The system also protects the train from the rear. Computer technology at railroad dispatching centers do the rest of the work.
"Rolling blocks" enable more trains to use the same set of track or tracks. Whe freight trains are dispatched on a scheduled system like the Canadian National uses (coast to coast in Canada and down to the Gulf in the United States), computers can also determine whether passenger trains operating at much higher speeds can be fitted into the rail traffic on a given line. Relatively short passenger trains--like the Amtrak Cascades in the Pacific northwest--do not need nearly the siding length as do typical freight trains.
Long range passenger trains operating outside the Northeast Corridor probably ought to have sleeping accomodations like European couchettes. Passenger car widths in North America permit the use of berths running length wise instread of transverse bunks used in Europe. By having a system of "overlapping feet" more uppers and lowers can be fitted to a passenger car than those that were traditional on old-fashioned Pullmans. People who can sleep in such semi-public conditions--lying down rather than sitting in a half-way reclined seat--may find traveling by rail cheaper than flying or driving. Flying is not goint to get cheaper. Couchette berths are much cheaper than hotels or motels.
Light rail and standard rail are kept separate today bacause federal regulations require passenger equipment on standard rail to have extraordinary crash protection. The way to prevent collisions between trains is by good signaling and automatic train control rather than by carting around tons of extra steel. Certainly train crews should be composed of people who can remain alert. Seniority practices sometimes prevent that by making age an inevitable condition of employment as a passenger engineer. Current U.S. rules, in force since 1948, prevent trains from traveling more than 79 m.p.h. unless some form of automatic train control or train stop backs up engineers.
Neither Greyhound nor Continental Trailways have such requirements nor do they have more than one person operating the bus. Many, perhaps most, Swiss trains operate with but one person in the cab.
The way to help railroad labor is to increase the number of trains instead of restricting the speed and increasing the back seat drivers.
A federal insurance program that pays the medical bills and out-of-pocket costs of people injured or killed by being in the way of trains on railroad tracks coupled with federal law prohibiting lawsuits against railroads for such personal injuries or deaths would put the onus of avoiding collisions with trains on people who get in their way. If cities and states want to fence tracks, let them do so. Let motor vehicles and their operators pay for crossing protection. Of course relocating crossings to those not at grade is the best solution.
Quaere. Will Vice-President Biden or Senator Durbin really want to reduce the opportunities for personal injury and death lawsuits against railroads? Obviously, they DO want to reduce deaths and injuries associated with railroads (and in general); nevertheless, that is not the same as getting rid of a lucrative niche of lawyering.
- Nate Lord
January 29, 2009 at 6:17pm