 |
 |
 |
|||
 |
|||||
 |
|||||
 |
 |
||||
 |
|||||
 |
|||||
The opinion leaders and voters of the United States confront a fundamental transportation policy decision. Will it be "business as usual" - or are we willing to try something different and perhaps better? "Business as usual" has led us to over-reliance upon highway expansion and in recent years our return-on-investment in highway projects has been deteriorating. Some experts now believe that the cost-benefit ratio has turned negative. Yet highway gridlock is getting worse. It's time for a new vision. I call it "Interstate II." During the next few minutes I will explain my logic for developing a second interstate network built around our railroad system. Average highway speeds are declining. Interstate II is built upon the economic value of increasing the speed at which people and goods are transported. Interstate II is Taking Shape Interstate II is not some fanciful notion. The network is beginning to take shape. The Northeast Corridor is being expanded. California is spending $70 to $80 million annually to upgrade four railroad corridors for high-density commuter service. That state is planning for population growth of 10 million, and these corridors are expected to become the core of a high-speed network. Rail passengers in the Pacific Northwest already are benefiting from faster trips and new equipment in the process of creating a high-speed corridor between Eugene, Oregon, Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver, B.C. Nine states in the Midwest have banded together to plan a system of high-speed rail routes hubbing at Chicago. Georgia planners are moving beyond concepts and now are identifying specific routes, because they recognize that Atlanta is positioned to be connected to a regional high-speed system linking that state to the Northeast, Florida to the south - and westward to New Orleans and Houston. States along the Gulf Coast are getting the first increment of planning money to develop a high-speed route between the Florida panhandle and Houston. Amtrak has received $2.3 billion for capital investment and is expanding its national route system. Congress now has authorized 13 regional high-speed corridors around the country. The momentum is building. These plans are not limited to passenger service, because there is tremendous interest in utilizing them for freight, package express and mail. Freight railroads are warming to the concept. I find it especially significant that the CEO of Norfolk Southern "David Goode" has proposed that Virginia consider sharing the cost of upgrading his company's route paralleling Interstate 81, because it is far cheaper to divert container and trailer traffic to the railroad instead of paying the huge costs of adding lanes to a hopelessly-congested highway. Our Highways and Airways are Ailing. More than 40 years ago America embarked upon the Interstate Highway System. We built 46,000 miles of multi-lane routes without stoplights or grade crossings. It was a grand achievement. But the Interstate system was not designed for high-speed travel. In most states the top speed limits are only five miles an hour above those posted on the conventional federally-numbered roadways of the 1950s. The Interstate system had dramatic impacts upon mobility, economic growth, and transportation efficiency. But its development created problems that we did not consider important at that time. Only in recent years have transportation engineers and analysts begun to focus on these impacts. They commonly are referred to as "externalities"---the costs of pollution, energy waste, land disruption, accidents, and time wasted in traffic jams. These costs sometimes are hidden-but they are real. More to the point, they are not covered by highway user fees. Right now, our highway and airway-based passenger system is ailing. Highway and airport gridlock is getting worse-and we have found that we cannot afford to build our way out of this gridlock. Hundred-million-dollar interchanges only move traffic jams to new locations. It has become clear that we cannot solve our transportation needs of the 21st Century just by adding ever-more-costly highway lanes. This approach simply is not sustainable. I use the term "sustainable" to mean a system that we can afford to build and a system whose adverse impacts upon safety, land use, energy consumption, and air quality are held to acceptable limits. The Intermodal Network Shows the Way As I thought about how to overcome these challenges, I was drawn to our recent experience in intermodal transportation. What has taken place during the past 20 years is nothing short of revolutionary. Intermodal transportation has become the global standard for moving freight. The global, high-speed, ship-train-truck intermodal freight system builds on the strengths of each mode-who have become partners in offering service. It also makes use of the versatility of the cargo container and trailer. Huge container ships and cargo airplanes span the oceans. The freight railroad is becoming the high-speed, long-distance, transportation artery on the land. The truck provides local feeder service at origins and destinations. Cargo airplanes deliver high-value, specialized freight. Today, a doublestack train leaving a coastal port can replace 280 trucks, run at speeds up to 90 miles an hour on the western railroads, and afford as much as nine times the fuel efficiency of container transport by highway. Meanwhile, this new intermodal science is redrawing the railroad map of North America, linking the populations and economies of the United States, Canada, and Mexico in a true "North American Rail System." This North American network of railroad right-of-way possesses the capacity to haul greater volumes and the capability to operate at higher speeds. A huge increment of capacity can be added by restoring the second track to the thousands of route-miles which have been downsized to single-track status during the past four decades. Our success in freight intermodal points the way to the most promising strategy for transportation improvements in the years ahead - "Interstate II." It is a new vision of truly high-speed intercity travel that is based upon steel, not pavement. The concept is not radical. It combines the proven efficiency of rail transportation with the strengths of the intermodal system-and it reaches into the downtowns of nearly all of our major cities. Regional Corridors are the Starting Point Just as several states launched turnpike projects in the 1940s and 1950s - in advance of the Interstate high way system - today's state and regional initiatives represent the beginning of a network of high-speed rail lines. Many of them will parallel Interstate highways. During the first quarter of the 21st Century, I believe that we can build about 20,000 miles of corridors capable of running intermodal and passenger trains at 90 to 150 miles per hour. That network will be augmented by as much as another 10,000 miles of high-performance conventional rail routings. Often, we will be able to use the same right of way that freight railroads now occupy-if we deal with a number of key issues- including grade separation, double-and triple-tracking, and liability. An important element of Interstate II is the requirement to eliminate at-grade highway-rail crossings. Many of them can be closed, because they are unnecessary. Others will require separation. The remainder can be fitted with high-tech crossing devices. We cannot have efficient rail corridors-conventional or high-speed, if trains encounter grade crossing every mile in the country and every block in town. Some people will shy away from the crossing-closure issue as too controversial. But think back to the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. We closed tens of thousands of road intersections when the Interstate highways were built. For Interstate II to function properly, we also must create terminals to transfer passengers, mail, package express and freight among modes and routes. Fast, modern and highly efficient intermodal terminals and yards are essential to freight's intermodal system-providing "seamless" service. Another important element of Interstate II is the city center terminal. The city center terminal serves the intermodal passenger network. It also serves cities both large and small and helps to revitalize the downtown. These facilities should be developed by local government-just as they built and financed airports. City center terminals can be hubs for people and retailing. In larger cities they can make a financial contribution to the overall corridor development project. Amtrak will have a key role in the intercity passenger component of Interstate II. But we need to start thinking about Amtrak in a more realistic context. Amtrak should be in the business of moving people intermodally-in partnership with intercity bus companies and local transit-but not owning track or terminals. Amtrak should operate and be treated like an airline. Airlines don't build airports. It is interesting to note that Amtrak's package express business is booming, because express companies cannot expand if they are limited to clogged highways. Interstate II will attract mail and package express business away from highways and airways-adding to the new system's revenues, and helping to share the increased traffic loads that the other modes confront. Interstate II is the Affordable Option I also favor Interstate II because it represents the option we can afford. For the equivalent of two cents on the motor fuel tax -one penny at the federal level and a second penny from the states-America could have within twenty years' time a network of high-speed rail corridors that approaches the scale of the Interstate highway system. That commitment of fuel tax dollars would offer a powerful incentive to additional private investment as well. Some people will argue that motor fuel taxes should only go to highway projects. But highway construction is not solving the gridlock problem or building the system we need to ensure the safety and capacity of the 21st-Century intermodal passenger and freight network. Aside from the obvious benefits from Interstate II, I favor it because there are no alternatives. Based upon present trends, conventional solutions built around individual modes simply cannot cope with the growth. Does anyone here seriously believe that we can double the capacity of our urban highway system within the next 15 years? The price tag for just a 10 percent increase would be staggering. And does anyone think that we will add eight or nine airports on the scale of Denver International? I would be surprised if we completed even one of them. This new ethical intermodal transportation system will conserve fuel, reduce pollution, and be less disruptive in using land. And just as America's toll roads used private money to finance construction, Interstate II can attract major private investment cost-sharing. Private money can be applied to construction, operations, station development, and equipment-especially modern passenger, mail and express train-sets. Americans can have interstates of steel for less cost than interstates of concrete and asphalt. And Interstate II will provide plenty of work for the traditional highway-builders. It is the missing piece of the transportation puzzle, as we try to achieve a balanced system early in the 21st Century. Building this very safe, 20,000-mile, grade-separated, high-speed intercity passenger, mail and express rail network is the key to the quality of transportation services during the next century. The money is there to do the job. The process already is under way in the form of the 13 regional corridors now being planned and developed. It's our job to persuade Congress and the states that Interstate II deserves priority attention. The faster we build it, the sooner we will enjoy its many benefits. Thank you. |
|||||