Shock-Resistant Transportation: How Do We Get There?

Neal Peirce

A half-century ago, the interstate highway system was sold to Americans as an emergency evacuation network, a national security measure.

Now, for the 21st century, we need a national transportation system that's truly shock-resistant, argues David Burwell, president of the reform-minded Surface Transportation Policy Project. Our national objective, he suggests, must be "redundancy"--backup or alternative systems when we face emergencies like the total airline shutdown that followed the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Burwell uses a new phrase--"metropolitan economic security"--to emphasize how heavily dependent is the nation on guaranteed movement of people and goods among its great urban centers. "We don't have that security now," he notes, "because we're so dependent on cars and airlines."

Fortuitously, Amtrak, especially in its Northeast Corridor, was able to pick up the post-September 11 slack, running extra trains, honoring airline tickets, even transporting members of Congress to New York City to witness for themselves the devastation at the World Trade Center site.

But the Northeast Corridor itself is hampered by outdated electric propulsion systems and antique infrastructure including tunnels at New York (built 1911-1933) and Baltimore (1866). Lack of escape routes and fire protection at New York are a major concern.

It's more apparent than ever, says Ross Capon of the National Association of Railroad Passengers, that the nation's "transportation system and economy would be far stronger and more resilient if we had a world-class passenger rail system."

Until recently, rail system advocates, among them the U.S. Conference of Mayors, got blown off by an indifferent Congress. Even today, with Congress providing a massive bailout for struggling airlines, no one's sure whether an accompanying $3.1-billion Amtrak emergency request, focused on safety improvements and the Northeast Corridor needs, will get a green light. Last week Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), normally a strong Amtrak supporter, complained that the package was tilted inordinately to the Northeast at the expense of other regions.

The good news, however, is that even before September 11, a Great American Train Debate was brewing.

The big breakthrough was the emergence of mainstream Republican support in a $71-billion Rail Infrastructure and Development and Expansion Act for the 21st Century--"RIDE 21"--prepared by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

And there were already 56 Senate and 183 House co-sponsors for a bipartisan $12-billion High Speed Rail Investment Act.

Rail advocates are concerned the House bill, which simply permits states to use tax-exempt bonds and loan guarantees to finance high-speed rail systems, lacks sufficient incentives to get new systems started--especially with the prospects of ballooning state deficits in the current economic downturn. With a requirement that loan principal be paid over time from revenues, it's a far cry from the 90-percent federal and 10-percent state funding formula of the low-speed interstate highway program.

Eventually there may be a merger of RIDE 21 with the bipartisan measure, which permits more attractive tax-credit bonds and involves less financial exposure for the states.

No matter what, it will take years to build the world-class system we ought to have. Practically everyone agrees the focus should be on regional systems (Midwest, South, California, Pacific Northwest, etc.). Fifty percent of all air flights are 400 miles or less, 25 percent under 200 miles--the kinds of short distances that Europe and Japan have demonstrated are so ideal for high-speed trains, freeing airports for longer-distance connections.

Common sense also says rail lines should connect extensively with airports--an innovation the airlines have failed to support in the past. Actually cooperation makes sense--airlines focusing more on high-yield long-distance and international routes, while freeing up valuable slots at crowded hubs by shifting feeder traffic to the rails.

What's clear is that security issues will pervade transportation debates from now on--safety of equipment and systems against terrorist attack, redundancy if one system fails, and the immense peril posed by our dependence on foreign oil. Fifty percent of U.S. oil is now imported, half of that from the Persian Gulf. Our transportation sector is 98 percent oil dependent.

The military fact, says Burwell: "You can't bomb conservation." What we can do--along with long-overdue regional rapid-rail networks--is raise fuel efficiency standards, develop fuel cells and other non fossil-fuel technologies, focus on "smart growth" connecting more compact land uses with transit, and work to make communities friendlier to pedestrians and cyclists.

Americans, notes Burwell, consume 24 barrels of oil per person, compared to two barrels a person in India. "Our energy profligacy is not a lifestyle choice, it is a security risk. Let's treat it as such."

Indeed--how often must it be said?--America desperately needs transportation systems that make us more, not less, secure.

Neal Peirce's e-mail address is nrp@citistates.com.