Come on ride the train

Sept. 11 didn’t push the aviation industry to the brink of a collapse as much as it exposed our almost complete dependence on airlines. But instead of rethinking our transportation infrastructure, the government reflexively propped up these mismanaged businesses with $15 billion in federal aid. The money would have been better spent on other forms of mass transit that are less vulnerable to acts of terror.

Granted, there are many who believe alternative transportation – light-rail systems, high-speed trains, buses and ferries – would never fly in a country as vast as the United States. Tell that to 14 million people use public transportation on a typical weekday, according to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), a trade group for the mass transit industry. A total of 9.4 billion trips were taken on U.S. mass transit in 2000, which is a healthy 21 percent increase from 1995.

These travelers know that Amtrak’s high-speed Acela is the most convenient and cost-effective way to get from Washington to New York. They know the difference between Dart and Bart (Dart is in Dallas, Bart in San Francisco, in case you were wondering). And they can’t wait for Very High Speed Rail service – trains that can reach speeds of up to 220 mph – to begin operating between San Diego, Calif., and the state capital, Sacramento.

So what’s wrong with the train? Critics insist that publicly-funded mass transit won’t work here because it isn’t in our nature and because of its dubious track record. They point to our own underperforming national rail carrier and when the subject turns to Europe, they gleefully cite England’s troubled privatized train system. Yet these naysayers conveniently forget that the federal government allocated only $6.3 billion to mass transportation projects during the last fiscal year, or less than half of what it spent to bail out the airlines.

That’s not public funding; it’s peanuts.

England’s privatized rail system is something of an aberration, anyway. Just cross the channel and you’ll find plenty of countries within the European Union that run successful mass transit systems. When their airports close, people aren’t stranded for days as they were in the U.S. last September. They just take a train or bus.

And what about cars? If the planes stop flying, won’t we just drive to our destinations? Not necessarily. Mass transit ridership levels are now at their highest levels since the Eisenhower administration, and what an oil crisis couldn’t do, a recession appears to have accomplished. Taking the train or bus is simply less expensive. The annual cost of driving a midsize car 20,000 miles is $8,219, according to APTA; comparable mass transit costs no more than $2,076. Now more than ever, people are willing to consider leaving their cars at home in favor of the train, particularly over short and medium distances.

To be sure, aviation will continue to play an important role in the American transportation infrastructure. No one wants to turn the clock back to a time when it took days to get from coast to coast by train. But we have to ensure that there’s adequate redundancy in our system, even on the transcontinental routes where airlines currently have no competition. That’s where the money should be going – not to subsidizing our failing airlines.

This fall’s terrorist attacks offered us a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix a badly broken national transportation system. The federal government could have allowed market forces to weed out the most ineptly-managed airlines while lending a helping hand to the kinds of mass transportation projects that are in the public interest. It’s not too late.

Sept. 11 didn’t push the aviation industry to the brink of a collapse as much as it exposed our almost complete dependence on airlines. But instead of rethinking our transportation infrastructure, the government reflexively propped up these mismanaged businesses with $15 billion in federal aid. The money would have been better spent on other forms of mass transit that are less vulnerable to acts of terror.

Granted, there are many who believe alternative transportation – light-rail systems, high-speed trains, buses and ferries – would never fly in a country as vast as the United States. Tell that to 14 million people use public transportation on a typical weekday, according to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), a trade group for the mass transit industry. A total of 9.4 billion trips were taken on U.S. mass transit in 2000, which is a healthy 21 percent increase from 1995.

These travelers know that Amtrak’s high-speed Acela is the most convenient and cost-effective way to get from Washington to New York. They know the difference between Dart and Bart (Dart is in Dallas, Bart in San Francisco, in case you were wondering). And they can’t wait for Very High Speed Rail service – trains that can reach speeds of up to 220 mph – to begin operating between San Diego, Calif., and the state capital, Sacramento.

So what’s wrong with the train? Critics insist that publicly-funded mass transit won’t work here because it isn’t in our nature and because of its dubious track record. They point to our own underperforming national rail carrier and when the subject turns to Europe, they gleefully cite England’s troubled privatized train system. Yet these naysayers conveniently forget that the federal government allocated only $6.3 billion to mass transportation projects during the last fiscal year, or less than half of what it spent to bail out the airlines.

That’s not public funding; it’s peanuts.

England’s privatized rail system is something of an aberration, anyway. Just cross the channel and you’ll find plenty of countries within the European Union that run successful mass transit systems. When their airports close, people aren’t stranded for days as they were in the U.S. last September. They just take a train or bus.

And what about cars? If the planes stop flying, won’t we just drive to our destinations? Not necessarily. Mass transit ridership levels are now at their highest levels since the Eisenhower administration, and what an oil crisis couldn’t do, a recession appears to have accomplished. Taking the train or bus is simply less expensive. The annual cost of driving a midsize car 20,000 miles is $8,219, according to APTA; comparable mass transit costs no more than $2,076. Now more than ever, people are willing to consider leaving their cars at home in favor of the train, particularly over short and medium distances.

To be sure, aviation will continue to play an important role in the American transportation infrastructure. No one wants to turn the clock back to a time when it took days to get from coast to coast by train. But we have to ensure that there’s adequate redundancy in our system, even on the transcontinental routes where airlines currently have no competition on. That’s where the money should be going – not to subsidizing our failing airlines.

This fall’s terrorist attacks offered us a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix a badly broken national transportation system. The federal government could have allowed market forces to weed out the most ineptly-managed airlines while lending a helping hand to the kinds of mass transportation projects that are in the public interest. It’s not too late.

Christopher Elliott is the author of Scammed: How to Save Your Money and Find Better Service in a World of Schemes, Swindles, and Shady Deals. Critics have called it “eye-opening” and “inspiring” — it’ll “grab your attention and won’t let go.” Order your copy now on Amazon, Barnes & Noble or iTunes.

Be the first to comment