posted
Open Letter from Dr. Vukan R. Vuchic to Secretary Mineta
Honorable Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary Department of Transportation 400 South 7th Street Washington, DC 20590
22 March 2006
Dear Secretary Mineta,
I have been a professor and consultant to cities in many countries, published books and testified before the U. S. Congress on transportation policy for over 40 years. You may remember that we met at some transportation meetings many years ago. I am writing this letter to comment on your recent transportation policies and actions.
In your Guest Editorial in the latest issue of the "Public Roads" journal you pointed out the increasing problem of mobility for our senior citizens. As their number grows, our country faces an increasing social and economic problem of inadequate mobility for a large segment of our population. Your presented an excellent description of this situation, but failed to identify its primary causes. The condition of our national transportation system is largely responsible for the problems facing not only seniors, but many other population groups also. Moreover, some of the policies you advocate work against the solutions we need to provide adequate transportation for all affected population groups.
As people age, driving becomes not only more difficult for them, but also dangerous for them and for others. Statistics of increasing highway accidents by persons over 70 clearly show that. It is therefore well known that senior citizens increasingly use public transportation in cities and Amtrak, planes and buses for intercity travel. In our cities, as well as in most of our peer countries, seniors use transit extensively whenever a decent service is provided.
Automobile dependency - transportation based on private cars which leaves large segments of population without any reasonable alternative, represents a very serious
national problem. Without attractive and efficient public transportation, senior citizens together with the young, non-drivers and non-auto-owners, are second-class citizens with respect to mobility.
It is quite surprising and illogical that you discuss the problem of transportation for senior citizens without addressing the problem of auto dependency. Similarly, President Bush talks (correctly) about our "addiction to cheap oil," but he seems to believe there is a single solution-alternate energy sources. Actually, the problem requires multiple solutions, particularly reducing our auto dependency through a genuinely intermodal transportation system, the concept endorsed in principle by all federal transportation acts since the ISTEA of 1991.
This analysis leads to another, related set of your activities that must be challenged: your personal and the Bush Administration's extremely hostile policy toward Amtrak. You have succeeded to divert the entire discussion about Amtrak from the basic issue-our nation's need for a modern, efficient passenger rail system-to the current financial problems of Amtrak. These problems are mostly the result of Federal Government's national transportation policy.
The situation with Amtrak must be seen in perspective as follows. Ever since its founding, Amtrak has been financed mostly at the level of year-to-year survival. Federal funding was never adequate to allow investment for developing a modern passenger railroad system. Amtrak has managed to resolve a substantial part of its inherited excess costs and labor inefficiencies, and continues to do so. However, no organization can find the means and employee morale to vigorously develop a long-range plan when it has to fight for immediate survival. Inadequately funded, Amtrak is then continuously criticized for its operating deficits!
Both the Administration and Congress made things only worse by requiring Amtrak to achieve "self-sufficiency," the requirement no passenger transportation mode could achieve! As you certainly know, our air transportation system obtains extensive federal support, but through less direct and well hidden forms (general fund contributions to air traffic control, tax exempt bonds to assist airport construction, research and development, etc.). Should we mention highways, where well over 40% of the roughly $165 billion per year from all levels of government comes from non-user payments?
By comparison, this makes federal assistance to Amtrak of molecular size. Yet, highway subsidies are quoted in annual amounts and referred to as "federal investments," while Amtrak subsidies are always compounded for its entire life of 35 years. Although this 35-year sum is still much smaller than annual highway subsidies, Amtrak is continuously criticized as "near-bankrupt," "inefficient" and "heavily subsidized by tax-payers."
In this day and age, most of our peer industrialized countries see passenger railroads as an increasingly important transportation system to provide an attractive alternative for large volumes of travel in ranges from 50 to 300 or 500 miles, as well as across the country. That has led to large investments in construction of high-speed rail networks in no less than 14 countries! With increasing highway travel and oil consumption, passenger rail has acquired steadily growing importance in reducing congestion and in decreasing the serious socio-economic problem of auto dependency.
Our country, which has the most serious problem of auto dependency, does not show awareness of this problem. Nor does it have any vision of what the role of passenger rail should be. Our Federal policy consists of vicious attacks and propaganda against Amtrak focusing on its current financial crisis, which is the result of federal policies imposed on Amtrak. It was not confidence-inspiring to see David Gunn fired. He was recognized by transportation professionals, as well as by political leaders, as the most capable person to lead Amtrak. Moreover, the fact that for the second consecutive year you have eliminated the Next Generation High Speed Rail Development Program suggests that your rhetoric against Amtrak's long-distance trains masks contempt for all forms of intercity passenger rail.
Many of your recent speeches about Amtrak have contained numerous factual and conceptual inaccuracies and distortions, as has been richly documented by the National Association of Railroad Passengers - NARP. That organization has also produced the only document with vision about our national needs for an efficient rail passenger system.
May I respectfully suggest that as the Secretary of Transportation, you should cease your destructive actions against Amtrak and produce a positive, constructive and realistic plan for creation of a sound national passenger rail system. Such a plan should be based on the following 10 facts:
1. In all corridors which passenger rail serves, shift of trips from freeways to Amtrak has benefits on both sides: it justifies improving the rail service, making it more attractive, and decreases highway congestion, reducing wasted time, oil consumption and environmental deterioration.
2. For trips up to 250 miles (with high-speed rail up to 400 miles) rail center-to-center city travel is superior to air and bus travel, and it can attract many trips from the automobile, which the other modes cannot. Most heavily traveled corridors are in that distance range. With fares structured to maximize ridership, this diversion to rail would support improved Amtrak services. The present extremely high fares are counterproductive because they decrease Amtrak competitiveness and divert many potential train riders to parallel, often overloaded freeways.
3. Long-distance travel on the national rail network, if convenient and reasonably priced, has multiple important roles, such as service to many smaller cities without bus service, travel by persons who do not want to or cannot fly, families, students and tourists, domestic and foreign.
4. Amtrak's ability to attract passengers in both dense corridors and across the country is clearly demonstrated by increasing ridership despite the extremely high fares which Congress forced Amtrak to charge in recent years.
5. The U.S. rail system is by its nature, function and geography interstate, and therefore even more in the domain of the federal government than highways.
6. You are correct that further efforts on increasing Amtrak's operating efficiency and passenger-friendly policies and attitudes should continue to be vigorously pursued.
7. Financing: the amount of $1.5 to $2.0 billion annually for Amtrak operations is minute compared to federal financing of other modes of transportation. Different options can be considered for providing several billion dollars annually to finance development of an efficient and attractive national rail system. For example, a very logical solution would be to earmark a "nickel for Amtrak" added to the federal tax on gasoline. Public opposition to increased price of gasoline is undermined by the fact that fluctuations of up to 50 cents/gallon have been accepted by auto drivers with very little reduction of driving - which would be a national goal anyway. Federal tax on gasoline is lower than it was ever since 1956, and each cent per gallon brings $1.1 billion per year. Thus, 2 cents per gallon would provide adequate funding for Amtrak, while a nickel would provide for the development of a truly modern national passenger rail system.
Alternatively or in addition, serious consideration should be given to bonding proposals, such as those proposed by Senators Lott and Lautenberg in connection with their rail passenger reauthorization proposal.
8. Rail offers unique travel that allows walking around, talking to fellow passengers, using food services and often enjoying superb views of the surroundings - features greatly superior to traveling strapped in seats on airplanes and in buses.
9. Extensive records show that improved service quality and reasonable prices would result in major increases in ridership, greater mobility of population and increased competitiveness of our cities with their foreign peers.
10. Our tourism industry is also hampered by its excessive car-dependency. In that respect, we are not competitive with our peers, such as Europe, Japan and Australia. An efficient national rail network would greatly increase attraction of tourists because they would be totally car-dependent.
On a broader scale, I suggest that you, as well as the entire Administration including President Bush, recognize that the "addiction of Americans to cheap oil (foreign or domestic)" is not a set of frivolous habits, but a result of federal and state policies that
have led to the present auto dependency, affecting the majority of our population. Although we need alternate energy sources, they will not increase mobility of the elderly nor decrease the problems of auto dependency, highway congestion and environmental degradation.
Development of a financially sound national passenger rail system, a properly financed Amtrak without obstacles by the Administration, would be a major step forward.
Respectfully yours,
Vukan R. Vuchic, Ph.D. UPS Foundation Professor of Transportation Systems Engineering Professor of City & Regional Planning University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 19104-6315
-------------------- Matt Marderosian Director Of Save Our Trains Michigan www.saveourtrainsmichigan
posted
what a great letter.It says it all. I sent a copy of it to my senator, John Warner. Maybe if enough of us send it to our congress people it would make a difference.
Posts: 1577 | From: virginia | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
At another topic here at the Forum Mr Gart (jgart56) noted in a perfectly respectful manner the following:
Quote: Gilbert B Norman: "The LD's should simply be discontinued, not so much because no one wants to ride them but rather anyone who does has transport alternatives at hand"
Well said Mr. Norman...for one who can hop Metra into Chicago and then take the Blue Line to O'Hare or the Orange Line to Midway. I wonder if you would have more empathy towards those who do NOT HAVE what you do living here. If one lives in Podunk Montana (and there are many such towns across that state)and you have no airport (or must drive 4-5 hours to get there)and Greyhound no longer stops in your city, what transport alternatives do you have? I believe the answer here is easy: ZERO!
Unfortunately, as we all know, life is a series of compromises. If one wants auto free access to the necessities and luxuries, including access to intercity transport, you must be prepared to live in or near an urban area. The same would apply if one wants access to a world-class symphony orchestra, such as I do.
In short if living auto-free is either a choice or necessity (I expect I will have to entirely give up driving in about five years' I only did 3696 miles of such 12 months ending April 06) best accept living in a city or along a mass transit line offering ready access to such.
In my opinion, the goals set forth in Dr. Vuchic's letter are simply unreasonable. As a taxpayer, I don't feel like paying for such. If I were a rail shipper, I would not want my shipments to be interfered with any more than necessary - and expansion (and as I hold even continuation) of the existing LD passenger system over Class I roads would only result in such.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the sideways compliment Mr.Norman:
You do realize, that even living here in Chicagoland there are some communities where there is no Metra Service or even Pace Bus Service to speak of??? Should they all move to Clarendon Hills?? Perhaps I should suggest it to people...watch your property taxes rise into the stratosphere to handle the influx of new Hillites! After all they have to "accept living in a city or along a mass transit line offering ready access to such."
You do have to admit, that Dr. Vuchic makes some salient points. The feds never have really planned transportation policy (in a proactive sense)they simply react, throw out more money and add more concrete when there is a problem.
Where is the vision for the future for any type of transportation???
Posts: 171 | From: Aurora, Illinois | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the sideways compliment Mr.Norman
You are welcome, Mr. Gart.
You do realize, that even living here in Chicagoland there are some communities where there is no Metra Service or even Pace Bus Service to speak of???
I agree completely; not all of Chicagoland is "mass transit minded'. I believe we had discussion at this forum regarding the current Dan Ryan construction how this lady (non-academic staff) working at Univ of Chicago and residing in Homer Glen simply "couldn't give up her car". If not, both Railroad Net and Trainorders did.
While New York unquestionably has "the most', I think Boston gets the award for most mass transit units of measure per capita of any US city.
Should they all move to Clarendon Hills?? Perhaps I should suggest it to people...watch your property taxes rise into the stratosphere to handle the influx of new Hillites!
There are few sales of existing homes today in Clarendon Hills. When I must leave account age, my 1942 vintage 1400sq ft Sears home, there is only one place it is going...and that is down to a pile of rubble. The standard here today is a McMansion of 2500' or more - and priced not less than "the Ones". Since Illinois does not permit "best use' assessments i.e. I would have to pay the same tax as would a McMansion, the Village simply must wait until us squatters die off or become wards of Sunrise et al. I would think for a young family with kids expecting everything to move to this town and choosing to occupy anything other than an McM would be "traumatic'.
After all they have to "accept living in a city or along a mass transit line offering ready access to such.
School Districts 86 and 181 as well as the BNSF is what it is all about.
You do have to admit, that Dr. Vuchic makes some salient points. The feds never have really planned transportation policy (in a proactive sense) they simply react, throw out more money and add more concrete when there is a problem.
This all boils down to the value of planning in our society. Drawing on the above, if our "Politburu' (oh excuse me; Village Trustees) here had their way, I would be evicted and maybe offered the chance to buy into the "condo canyon' that possibly you have noted riding into town on the BNSF. But Dr. Vuchic seems to be of thought that the USA should be prepared to have a public transport network similar to that found in Switzerland where one apparently can use public surface transportation "from anywhere to anywhere".
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
We'll never have a system like Switzerland, it would take will power and money (neither of which Americans have). None-the less, do we wait until it's too late to do something about transportation??
Many railroads are capacity starved (much of it their own fault), airlines can't get off the ground in a timely manner (far too many flights scheduled for too little airport capacity), and of course highways becoming national "truckways" with the rest of us scrunched in and not moving.
I wonder how long it will be before the economy will truly begin to suffer? Oh well, I'm done with this argument, we are obviously of different minds on this issue.
Take heart Mr. Norman, I actually believe that the LD 's will go away, not because there is no need for them, but because the passenger cars will soon be worn out and there will be no money to place orders for new or companies to build them.
Posts: 171 | From: Aurora, Illinois | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll gladly pay the nickel. The notion that the public won't tolerate a 5 cent gas tax increase is completely incomprehensible when people recently willingly accepted nearly a dollar of increase in gas prices with only modest complaint. Personally, I think a 5 cent increase, or even more, would be an easy sell today if it would provide for credible options to driving.
Posts: 2649 | From: California's Monterey Peninsula | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or Congress could take half {or all of it} of the 4.5 cent increase in gas taxes imposed on us in 1993 and dedicate that to passenger rail. Right now, that entire 4.5 cent increase just goes into the general revenue fund. That tax increase on gasoline does not benefit our transportation system at all.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
