AMERICA MISTAKENLY KICKED PASSENGER TRAINS AND STREETCARS TO THE CURB

Building a lot more Rapid Transit and buses can eliminate 0.8-0.9 billion barrels of oil/year. Here's how we can do it. But first, historical perspective will explain why its more expensive that it could have been, followed by an explanation of Rapid Transit's symbiotic relationship with HSR.

Anyone born 1950 or earlier remembers our cities having busy train stations and streetcar systems. Then America's Baby Boom after World War II continued through the 1950s. America's Commercial Jet Age began in 1958, when pressurized cabins enabled jets to fly higher, faster and smoother to attract more passengers. People could drive up to the airport parking lot and 15-20 minutes later be seated on a plane for on-time take-off. With convenience and speed traveling over 200 miles, increasingly more passengers switched to planes.

Middle class population expanded from cities to nearby suburbs for larger homes and new malls. Instead of upgrading Streetcar routes by changing stops every 1-2 blocks to every 4-5 blocks and extending lines to the suburbs, our leaders removed tracks for boulevards.

Beginning 1956, construction of the Interstate Highway System and beltways enabled sprawl even deeper into virgin land outside the suburbs, where demand for 2-car and 3-car households, larger malls and new business parks skyrocketed. The public fell in love with personal mobility and the car as a status symbol.

Public and political sentiment changed in lockstep with those demographic changes. State Department of Transportations and the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) shifted to fund national/international airports, super-highways and boulevards as we kicked streetcars and intercity passenger trains to the curb.

Among the unintended consequences for older cities was a decline in housing density and population. Most Streetcars went extinct and regular bus service could not compete with the speed or personal convenience of cars. Residents dispersed many miles away from destinations, forcing more single drivers to commute longer distances. Simultaneously, Interstate Highways enabling drivers to average 70-80 mph for 3 hours, killed intercity passenger train demand in the early 1960s. America's use of rail transit and buses crippled to percentages seen on the Major U.S. City Commute Patterns 2008 chart.


Since we did not upgrade train routes to 130 mph like Japan and France, American passenger trains got squeezed from both ends. Unable to compete with door-to-door trop time of planes traveling over 250 miles or the personal mobility of cars traveling 70-80 mph for under 250 miles, passenger train demand quickly evaporated and many classic architecture train stations were torn down.

The Northeast Corridor (Boston-Providence-New Haven-NYC-Newark-Philadelphia-Wilmington-Baltimore-Washington) train route only survived due to an extraordinary set of circumstances. That 437-mile corridor has the nation's highest population density and major cities located only 40 to 75 miles apart on its route - a perfect distance range to attract train patronage. It has the nation's largest collection of college students, who patronize trains more than the average worker. Metro systems in NYC, Boston, Philadelphia and Washington funnel many passengers directly from downtown train stations to colleges. Toll booths limit average driving speed in New York, New Jersey and Delaware. Also, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and DC built under/overpasses so trains don't have to slow down for autos.

Of all our big cities, only New York City withstood the highway challenge to stay above 50% transit usage. It won by having America's largest concentration of skyscrapers, largest subway system, expensive parking, tunnel and bridge tolls. Most of all, its a real pain driving in Manhattan.

Now, negative consequences are hitting drivers nationwide. Traffic congestion has skyrocketed on metro area super-highways and boulevards. Drivers who clamored for more freeway lanes the last 10-20 years got their wish, but now see traffic congestion getting worse. Freeways in the Top 25 Metro Areas are slowing to a crawl during commute hours. Moreover, our largest metro areas are running out of space to add freeway lanes. No community wants homes and businesses removed to widen maxed-out urban freeways, nor do they want double-decked freeways. That growing sentiment against freeway expansion will intensify by 2030, as the Top 35 Metro Areas hit 2 million population for longer traffic congestion and gasoline prices rise.

RAPID TRANSIT AND HIGH SPEED RAIL, A GREEN SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIP

Electric-powered Rail Transit and HSR take less land than super-highways, while transporting far more passengers per ton of CO2 and ozone emissions. As more electric power plants transition from coal to clean energy sources, we'll double-down on CO2, ozone and nitrous oxide emissions reduction. Those promising green traits and others are leading cities and states to enhance train stations into what's called a "Multimodal Transportation Center" that interconnects different modes of transportation. Grand Central Terminal in NYC is one the best examples for commuters, business travelers, students and retirees to conveniently change from one mode and route of travel to another.


By 2035, America can take a significant step towards cutting 1.0 billion barrels of oil/year from non-North American oil and prevent freeways from getting slower by building up Transit. But there are even more oil and traffic congestion savings to had by implementing the Rail Transit-HSR-Multimodal Transportation Center model nationwide.

If you've read Part 2 of this article, you understand that all other leading and emerging nations are convinced that benefits-to-costs of HSR are justifiable. When connecting HSR, Rail Transit, shuttles, limos, taxis, buses, rental cars and bikes, the benefits-to-costs of Multimodal Transportation Centers are also a no-brainer. But what are the benefits-to-costs of Transit applications? Here are some "rule-of-thumb" costs per mile, speeds, passenger cabin capacity and service frequency traits of Transit in America:

Heavy Rail Transit (HRT or Metro): $250-500 million/mile, 45-86 mph, 70 seats/car, 4-8 cars
Light Rail Transit (LRT): $60-200 million/mile, 35-55 mph, 70 seats/car, 2-4 cars
Commuter Rail Transit (CRT): $25-100 million/mile, 40-110 mph, 70-110 seats/car, 3-8 cars
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT): $25-40 million/mile, 35-45 mph, 50-75 seats/bus
Streetcars: $5-20 million/mile, 7-20 mph, 40-50 seats/car

The cost and speed of each transit route depends on existing trackage and how many tunnels, bridges, dedicated guideway, electrical wires, adjacent real estate, fencing and trains must be purchased or built. Given the high cost to taxpayers, transit applications must be carefully matched with the patronage potential of each route to maximize ratio of benefits-to-costs per project:

(a) highest patronage per dollar of construction cost
(b) highest average speed
(c) highest passenger capacity
(d) lowest oil consumption, ozone and CO2 emissions per passenger mile
(e) adjacent Transit Oriented Development

Well-planned HRT, also called "Metro" or "Subway", involves the most expensive construction factors and takes longest to build, but delivers the highest (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) benefits.


A HRT called BART runs 10-cabin trains up to 86 mph every 3 minutes for 7 miles under the bay from San Francisco to Oakland during rush-hour. If BART did not exist, a second San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge would be needed. Here's another example. Most Washington Metro cars have 68 seats, a standing capacity of 175 passengers per car. If Metro runs at 26 trains per hour (tph) capacity on a single line through downtown DC (175 x 8 cars x 26 tph), it can transport 36,500 passengers. That's more passengers than a 14-lane freeway during rush hour with no accidents. Given their huge cost, HRT systems are only suitable in routes that have high population density as present in NYC, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, Boston, San Francisco, Philadelphia and Baltimore.

LRT service level varies depending on how its built. The highest service level has dedicated guideway and overpasses at all intersections to deliver the 2nd highest benefit bundle. At 60-75% the cost of HRT, the highest service-level 4-car LRT can transport as many passengers as a 6-lane freeway during rush hour. But most LRT is built at 25-33% the cost of HRT and permit autos to cross tracks in many places, forcing trains to run slower and transport 1/8th to 1/5th the capacity of HRT. LRT systems are suitable in metro areas above 1.5 million residents.

CRT systems are a favorite among metro areas because they can use existing tracks to implement lower cost service. World-class CRT systems have train control systems, overpasses for all road crossings, electric-engines for faster acceleration and high frequency to transport nearly the same passenger capacity as HRT. Long Island Railroad in NYC comes closest to this trait. But for lower costs, most CRT utilize crossing arms at roads, diesel-engines and lower frequency. A typical CRT system transports 1/8th to 1/6th the passenger capacity of HRT.


BRT delivers the 4th highest benefit bundle. It runs as fast as LRT on a dedicated guideway and is cheaper to build than LRT because it does not require rails and electric wires (catenaries) suspended overhead. But BRT has only 20-25% the passenger capacity of LRT and if you add drivers to meet increasing patronage, higher operational costs. Thus, BRT is a good application in less dense routes not anticipated to require additional commuter demand.

Streetcars are not Rapid Transit, but their low-cost connections to all modes of transit and promotion of "Transit Oriented Development" are leading to a resurgence in both old and new flavors. Vintage Streetcars from 50 to over 100 years old average 7-10 mph and attract tourists who pay a premium to ride them for nostalgia and views.

STATES AND METRO AREAS SPARKING RAPID TRANSIT MOMENTUM

Last decade, Rapid Transit projects only received modest funding from the USDOT. States and cities, trying to prevent auto traffic congestion from worsening, dramatically increased funds of those Rapid Transit projects and reclaimed many dormant train stations to anchor them. Consequently, states and cities led the transformation of train stations into Multimodal Transportation Centers in our Top 50 Metro Areas in ways unthinkable only 10 years ago.


Showcase Multimodal Transportation Centers include any combination of dazzling architecture, restaurants, shops and business services that bubble with activity from dawn to midnight. One even has a cineplex. Fed a massive number of patrons by rail transit systems, Grand Central Terminal in New York City, South Station in Boston, 30th Street Station in Philadelphia, and Union Station in Washington are America's best Multimodal Transportation Centers. They won't be alone for long.

California, which has the world's greatest freeway system and busiest sub-500-mile flight corridor (San Francisco-Los Angeles), awakened to the Big Sticks named in Part 3 and Part 4. Plans to add new runways to SFO and LAX airports and add lanes to I-5 Freeway ground to a halt. Instead, Californians passed a $10 billion bond measure to help fund a California HSR system that will feature 2 hour 38 minute Los Angeles-San Francisco trip times. Both cities will feature spectacular new Multimodal Transportation Centers.

Los Angeles, our nation's 2nd most populous and 3rd densest metro area, historically requested less than its share of Federal Transit funding and it wasn't the USDOT's fault. In the 1990s, Los Angeles became so averse to rail transit that its politicians outlawed subway construction and requested less transit funding than metro areas 1/3rd its size, in part to spend more money on freeways. As a result, only 12% of LA commuters used transit in 2008. LA has the world's best freeway system, yet suffers the nation's worst air pollution (due to autos) and traffic congestion. Los Angeles' race to "Freeway End Game" is a cautionary tale for the rest of the nation. No matter how many lanes are added to 10 and 12-lane freeways, average speed during commute hours will sink below 20 mph. Yet

Recognizing the futility of "freeway congestion relief" projects, Los Angeles County finally saw the light in 2008, when voters approved a tax for vastly more Rapid Transit projects than Highway projects. Los Angeles Union Station, now a Multimodal Transportation Center, is a beehive of activity for Amtrak, HRT, LRT, CRT and BRT patrons. In fact, Metrorail and MetroLink rail transit have boosted to over 340,000 daily commuters, 6th highest in the nation. LA's appetite for Rapid Transit is just warming up. Recently, the LA mayor added federal, state and regional support for his proposal to add 30 years of Rapid Transit projects in 10 years.


Decades earlier than Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area, our nation's 4th most populous combined metro area (San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose-Santa Rosa-Vallejo), chose a transit-friendly path. It now transports over 610,000 rapid transit commuters daily -- 5th highest in the nation. And that's before Multimodal Transit Center, HSR, HRT, CRT, LRT and BRT projects complete. By 2017, Transbay Transit Center will interconnect Caltrain commute rail, Greyhound, regional buses, city buses, hotel shuttle buses, taxis, car rentals, streetcars and BART subway (one block away). San Francisco Ferry Terminal will only be three blocks away. By 2022, California HSR service will initiate from Transbay Transit Center. California HSR and Caltrain will have convenient Transbay Transit Center to SFO International Airport stops for travelers. Hence, locals are already giving the Transbay Transit Center a nickname, "Grand Central Station of the West."

Chicago, our nation's 3rd most populous metro area, stands to significantly increase Rapid Transit and HSR patronage by 2020-25. HSR lines will extend from Chicago in a fan-like pattern connecting with Milwaukee, St. Louis, Detroit, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Louisville, Cleveland and Pittsburgh. Chicago plans to connect Union Station with an existing transit center to form a multimodal transportation center in the West Loop of downtown. When complete, West Loop Transportation Center will host HSR, HRT, CRT, LRT or BRT, Megabus, shuttle buses, regular buses, taxis and river taxis -- triggering more transit oriented development in the area.

By 2020, freeway-sprawled Dallas-Ft. Worth, Atlanta and Houston will become our 5th, 6th and 7th most populous combined metro areas, respectively. All three are on the U.S. High Speed Rail Corridors map for additional federal funding. Dallas opened its first rail transit line in 1996, converted its train station into a Multimodal Transportation Center and more LRT routes are opening in the next 8 years, including a Downtown-DFW Airport Line. To its Metro system, Atlanta is adding a Streetcar, CRT lines and a LRT line that circles the metro area. Momentum is also building to break ground on Atlanta Intermodal Transportation Center in downtown. Houston built its first LRT line just a few years ago. Actual patronage blew away forecasts when it hit 40,000 riders/day -- 2nd highest in the nation for a single LRT line. Houston voters were so impressed, they authorized 5 more LRT lines. As several new LRT lines open in 2013-15, anticipate Houston leaders proposing a Multimodal Transportation Center interconnecting Amtrak with their Rapid Transit.

Miami & Ft. Lauderdale, Phoenix, Baltimore, San Diego, Portland, Detroit, Seattle, Minneapolis, Tampa, Denver, Orlando, Las Vegas, St. Louis, Kansas City, Charlotte, Raleigh & Durham, Richmond, Memphis, Norfolk, Buffalo, Austin, San Antonio, Portland, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Salt Lake City and Sacramento metro areas are building Multimodal Transportation Centers in conjunction with Rapid Transit projects under construction or awaiting funding.

HIGH SPEED RAIL CAN AND MUST SUCCEED ELSEWHERE IN AMERICA

Cities in the Northeast Corridor are proof points that Rapid Transit and Multimodal Transportation Centers help transform HSR (Amtrak Acela) into a patronage success. Though population has increased in the Northeast Corridor since 1970, Acela trains reduced congestion growth on I-95 and New Jersey Turnpike.

America has many other dense population corridors with over-burdened super-highways and airports. The more Rapid Transit and Multimodal Transportation Centers we build, the easier for our Interstate HSR System to eliminate 50% of long drives and 80% of short flights between corridors of major metro areas. That is how Interstate HSR can cut another 0.4-0.5 billion barrels of oil/year from Transportation and get us to 3.5 billion barrels of oil/year, all from North American sources by 2035.

I've explained why HSR should be complimented with beefier Rapid Transit and Multimodal Transportation Centers. Read the next part to see how new political leadership and a supporting cast are increasing the likelihood of HSR success across America.

Tags: fast trains, High Speed Rail, High Speed Rail in America, Interstate High Speed Rail, Interstate HSR Network, TGV