RSS
Home
Mode split disparity: How it happened and what to do about it
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
.jpg)
METRO lightrail in downtown Phoenix contrasts with car (right) and mural (upper left)
What’s the greatest land transportation mode of all time? This should cause some debate.
The automobile, motorized bicycle, motor scooter, moped, motorcycle – motor vehicles of one sort or another – provide relative freedom when it comes to mobility. One is not constrained by schedules that passenger trains and transit buses must adhere to. And it is probably for this reason more than anything else, that motor vehicles are, hands down, the most preferred land transportation mode. But being the most preferred doesn’t necessarily coincide with being the greatest. The railway train, which predated the invention of the motor vehicle, is perhaps the single best means for moving vast amounts of freight and people on land, because, when compared to other modes, trains are far superior in terms of energy, goods-moving and people-moving efficiency.
According to the Association of American Railroads (AAR), by 1916, railroad trackage in the U.S. had hit a zenith. There were approximately 254,000 track-route-miles in the U.S. then. Cars, often considered the passenger train’s nemesis, meanwhile, made a stronger and stronger showing, for their numbers were steadily increasing.
Fast-forward to 2006 and railroad track route mileage according to Wikipedia, had decreased by over 100,000 route miles to its present 140,490. This, no doubt, can be attributed, if not wholly, then partly, to the proliferation of motor vehicle (and also barge and air) transport and the various infrastructure needed to accommodate it. That the railroads were losing market share resulted in their being downsized. Whereas in the late 1920s railroads were responsible for handling 75 percent of intercity freight tonnage, by the late ‘70s the railroads’ share was just 36 percent. Today that figure is holding fairly steady at around 38 percent.
On the other hand, in the mid-to-late sixties and early-to-mid seventies, what was evident within industry circles was a railway infrastructure of excess. Losing money on lightly or non-used trackage made little sense. As a way for railroads to trim the excess fat as it were, track was embargoed as well as yanked out. That was part of the remedy. Another part involved mergers, acquisitions and consolidations. And still another part involved streamlining operations as best they could be streamlined in order to make railroading as efficient as could be expected at the time. Why? The industry’s very survival depended on it. Passenger traffic, meanwhile, essentially dried up, and for all intents and purposes became an anachronism.
As for motor vehicles, on the other hand, as their numbers grew, there became a growing inadequacy of the nation’s roads and highways to efficiently accommodate that burgeoning motor vehicle growth. As a consequence, more and more thoroughfares were being built, but were hard pressed to keep pace. I believe, ultimately, a point of diminishing returns was reached and not enough highway asphalt and not enough trackage was available, especially after the U.S. railroad industry began to experience a resurgence starting in the mid-to-late 1980s and, in my opinion, it’s been a “catch-up” game ever since.
Where to go from here
At this point, does it make more sense to seek greater investment in railways and less in highways?
Parade magazine posed this question in “More Money for Public Transit?,” in the “Intelligence Report” feature in the June 14, 2009 issue.
“Congress is readying a sweeping six-year, multibillion-dollar plan that may mean more money for public transit and less for new roads and highways,” the Parade article noted. “…The new legislation could drastically alter historic funding ratios, which have favored highways and bridges over mass-transit projects 80% to 20%.”
But critics are leery. “…[G]roups like the American Highway Users Alliance say that funding for mass transit shouldn't come at the expense of roads and bridges, noting that the government’s transportation trust fund comes largely from taxes on motor fuels,” the Parade report pointed out.
However, without drastic increases in funding for public transit, systems will continue to feel the pinch and service as a whole could suffer. It’s either this or significant fare increases could result just so current levels of service can be maintained.
According to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) in its “Nine out of Ten Public Transit Systems Forced to Raise Fares or Cut Service in Cities Where Transit Revenue is Declining,” news release, “Public transit riders across the country are paying higher fares and face reduced service due to revenue shortfalls experienced by many public transit systems. More than 80 percent of public transit systems have seen flat or decreased funding from local, regional, and state funding. Among transit systems facing this decreased funding, nine out of ten transit systems (89 percent) were forced to raise fares or cut service…,” the news release indicated.
Regarding the mode split, ideally what should be wanted is the best of both worlds, and if that should mean a 50/50 funding split, then so be it.
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
.jpg)
