High Speed Rail - What Does It Really Mean for Communities?

Ok – so I don’t want to be “downer Debbie” on the topic of High Speed Rail (HSR), but I have my concerns. High Speed Rail – the $8 billion buzz term of the year, is likely to be coming to a town near you. The idea is at first great. We upgrade existing rail, add connections, stations and near passenger trains to our system to the benefit of those seeking regional train travel. But what do you do when you arrive in St. Louis? Indianapolis? Cincinnati? Getting to any of these destinations by comfortable, speedy and affordable transit is wonderful, but my concern comes in the idea of getting around once you are there.

Sure, Chicago has a good transit system and is very walkable once a traveler arrives at Union Station. But what about those other cities? Sure they are nice cities but walking and transit aren’t really serious options. I admit that I don’t know the HSR spending proposals inside and out, but I do know that little has been said about the completeness of these plans. What seems to be missing is a complete plan for transit options at train stations and a general interest in the cities these trains will travel to. For example, Cincinnati, a city continuously challenged by urban decay, transit failures and overall disinvestment (with a few exceptions), has a beautiful, historic train station located just outside of the downtown area. The challenge is bifold. Decades ago, this underutilized train station (Amtrak operates very few trains through this station and the Amtrak entrance is at the lower level), was converted to a museum center. Additionally, getting to and from this station is particularly challenging since it is not centrally located downtown and few transit options are available. If car rental options are available, I’m not aware of them.
And what about freight operations? For high speed rail to succeed, passenger trains must assume right-of-way, unlike the current arrangement in most of the US. This means that through an agreement, freight trains will either yield to passenger rail or set certain times for freight usage. I wonder what the impact on the freight industry will be. Since we are in economic downtown, freight rail numbers are lower than peak economy. So when things turn around and freight rail hits its max again, will there be room for both passenger and freight rail trains on our limited rail system.
This certainly makes me wonder if HSR has moved too hastily. Many cities aren’t really ready for it and the rail industry may not be either. I would love to have a complete regional rail system in the US as much as the next planner, but I want to hear more about the options, the realities and the extended plans to accommodate this system. I commend the Obama Administration for putting the money into the HSR idea, but I hope it’s not just a giant waste of money. It’s up to the cities and regions to make HSR work best for them, but nearly every city can barely keep the city operating in these times.

What is the future of HSR and out communities? I’m not sure and I can’t just blindly support the HSR initiatives. There are so many wants and needs for cities today and I’m not sure if our priorities are set correctly. I would love to see the money go toward improved local transit, infrastructure improvements and community improvements.
For more information on HSR, visit: www.fra.dot.gov

It's been awhile, it's a new year

Ok, so I haven't written in quite some time. I can blame the holidays. Ah yes, the holidays: when Americans ramp up their consumption to massive rates. "Black Friday" is called black Friday for a reason. So how do all of those toys, ipods, Starbucks mugs and baby Gap outfits get from their port of origin (likely China but could be South America, Mexico or Taiwan) to a spot on the shelf for your eyes to feast upon. It's a long journey for the items we consume. Many make multiple trips across oceans - yes multiple.

Do people ever stop to think about how these items really make it into our hands? I admit, I never used to. But now when I get frustrated at a truck in my neighborhood, I remind myself that he is serving us and our economy. Of course, American spending has been down in recent years, but we still consume more goods per capita that any other country.

I recently attended the TRB Annual Meeting in DC. For anyone now familiar with this conference, let me just say it is the single largest collection of transportation professionals, researchers and policy makers all together in DC for nearly one week. I'm talking everything from pavement analysis geeks to bicycle safety designers and of course, freight professionals. As always, the conference was packed with interesting sessions from morning till late evening, lots of good discussions about current trends, issues and policies and naturally, what the future holds with the upcoming transportation authorization. I am always humbled to be in a room with most of these folks. And I always come home excited and charged to do more for freight and transportation.

Now if the Obama administration would just do one major thing, I am confident that many jobs and many changes to our infrastructure and transportation system would ensue - pass the renewal of the transportation authorization bill that is a major source of funding for transportation projects. More importantly, this bill sets the tone for policies, design and emphasis for all transportation projects. This has a major impact on Americans. ISTEA, passed in 1991, was the first of these such bills and really for the first time in the US, emphasized non-motorized transportation (e.g. bicycling, walking, etc) and set a tone for bills that have followed. ISTEA arguably led to more focus on safety, energy usage, transit improvements and enhancements, context sensitive design and preservation.

Most in the transportation field are anxiously awaiting the passage of the next transportation authorization. Until then, most cities, states and MPOs must make do with the limited funds they have and just keep things operating. Hopefully, with a significant focus on freight transportation, the new bill with bring needed changes to freight infrastructure, new policies and new freight jobs.

Climate Change – How Far Should It Go?

Climate change legislation is a top priority for President Obama and this administration. But striking the proper balance of incentives, penalties and costs to consumers is difficult. The American Trucking Association (ATA) recently posted commentary to a report by the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. The report itself expressed concern about the taxes to the public and businesses as a result of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 proposed by Congressmen Waxman and Markey (aka Waxman-Markey bill) earlier this year.

Creating climate change legislation is challenging to say the least. This type of legislation impacts everyone both with environmental improvements and the direct and indirect costs to achieve these improvements.

I’m not an expert on environmental science or politics, but the debate about this legislation brings up many questions related to my profession. First of all, as expected, climate change legislation will target motorists in attempt to reduce VMTs (vehicle miles traveled) with high gas taxes, congestion tolls and other fees. But for the already over-tolled trucking freight industry, these costs just pinch struggling profit margins, raise costs and have other indirect impacts such as deferred fleet maintenance. So naturally, the trucking industry must pass at least some of the costs to consumers. That’s us, everyday Americans who like fresh produce, lots of retail choices and nearly every other product. Even locally grown produce or locally made items must be transported. I love bicycling as much as anyone but I recognize the carrying capacity limits of a bicycles. So back to my point, everything is carried by freight and it impacts everyone.

I could get into a lengthy debate about the merits of climate change efforts in other countries, some notable, some disappointing. But I want to look at another side of this issue, the importance of investment in public transit and use of non-motorized transportation (e.g. walking, bicycling, roller-blading, etc).

I spent the summer of 2003 in London. The Central Area Congestion Fee has recently been instituted. That didn’t impact me much as I didn’t have a car but I did ride the Underground (Tube) and couldn’t help but notice and be delayed by significant construction on the transit lines. It turns out that the congestion fees collected funded this construction. What a fabulous idea!

While the Waxman-Markey bill’s primary feature is “Cap and Trade”, it does address the relationship to public transit. But why aren’t Americans talking about this more? This is the one of the worst economic situations we’ve seen. There is no better time to adopt cost-effective (and environmentally friendly) changes. I know that I’ve noticed differences in my habits. If I can ride my bike, I will. If I can avoid refilling the gas tank, I will. So are other Americans doing the same and I am just missing it? I can’t help but notice the high percentage of passenger vehicles in the “SUV” category. Did these people just not get the memo about fuel efficiency and the cost of fuel?

Now back to climate change legislation. As I mentioned earlier, the ATA has expressed concerns of the trucking industry. Higher costs trickle to all Americans and even in a good economy, these costs are painfully felt. The ATA has supported other sustainable practices such as speed limit reductions and the use of idling reduction equipment. But climate change legislation has effectively been on a 30-year hiatus. Now is the time. Much of the world is far ahead of the U.S. in this arena.

Climate change legislation is the perfect opportunity to marry the benefits of public transit and environmental improvements. The challenge is finding a mechanism to get Americans onto public transportation, which is dreary if not disgusting in many places, and off the roads. This will allow more capacity for freight vehicles with no alternative to driving.

I’m not saying that the legislation should miss the freight industry entirely. I do believe that a comprehensive and progressive approach should be adopted. Since congestion is a major cost burden for all roadway users, clearly congestion reduction measures are needed. I think these measures can be more innovative than ever before. Perhaps incentives such as tax breaks for riding public transit, working off-set hours or living within 5 miles of work are a start. Utilizing ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems) to their full potential should be another goal.

This bill has passed the House. We’ll have to wait and see what revisions are made but I would like to see a truly comprehensive approach to a delicate issue that impacts everyone and every business.

To view the text of H.R.2454 - American Clean Energy And Security Act of 2009 visit:


American Trucking Association:

Freight Gate is official!

Welcome! This is the first official post for Freight Gate. Freight affects the lives of everyone, whether they like it or not.

Freight Gate is intended to investigate various freight issues including policy, design, economics, safety and competition. Look for opinions, news stories and links to other groups involved in freight engineering and planning. I will try my best to post informed opinions, but they are opinions. I might be right, I might be wrong or I might just get you thinking. These issues affect each of us everyday - sometimes directly and often indirectly.

Comments are welcome but please keep it helpful.

Check back often.