Universally, the two main types of land-based transport and travel infrastructure are: road and rail (which includes aerial cable- or tramways). Of course, it wasn’t always this way, but that’s the state currently. A related construct? Yeah, it’s called mode shift. And, what it all gets distilled down to is the relationship or juxtaposition of one to the other and how, over time, that’s changed. It’s roadways, by the way, that see the majority of use.
Okay, but is that the best approach?
Understand this. The train, more so than any other mode, crosses the finish line first in terms of the sizes of their environmental footprints.
It’s helpful to know how much the different modes consume. Once that information is established, then comparisons can be made between them.
A close friend, in an unpublished paper, did just this very thing. Davis, Stacy C. Transportation Energy Book, Edition 15.* was the source referenced at the time.
Okay, so measured in British Thermal Units, the modes were broken down thusly:
a. Intercity bus 954
b. Intercity Amtrak train 2,610
c. Rail transit train 3,575
d. Automobile 3,586
e. Transit bus 3,970
f. Certified air carrier 4,482
So, in knowing this, why is it in America, trains aren’t being utilized more than what already is the case?
Based on what I know about human behavior, it all comes down to preference and accessibility and convenience and flexibility (and probably in that order) the primary (if not the key) considerations that a household looks at when it comes to the mode choice that is made in deciding on which mode is best for meeting that household’s mobility needs. Cost is most likely less an influencing factor in terms of the mode-choice decision being made. This is evident in the fact that motor vehicles, to own and operate, eat up a considerable amount of the household budget, what with the cost of vehicle ownership and fuel and maintenance, etc. being as “costly” as these are. Annual per-household transportation expenses can be considerable. On average, 20 percent or more of a household’s income can be designated for just this very thing. In some households, that capital outlay can be as high as 50 percent.
To me, that thinking is backwards. In my way of thinking, the modes of the road are so last-century. I mean, look at New York City. It had exactly the right idea when it instituted its congestion-pricing scheme. Not only has such resulted in less traffic descending on the city’s central business district below 60th Street during the workweek, but in affected areas, there has been improvement in air quality.
And, as the term congestion-pricing would imply, the main thrust of this scheme is traffic control having the singular purpose of reducing traffic congestion. Moreover, regarding the pricing part of this scheme, of the fees collected, there are monies being allocated to efforts like making improvements to railway-transit infrastructure inside the city. Exactly the kind of thing that will help bring even more relief to congested Manhattan streets.
This all being said, and as can plainly be seen, trains bring value in certain regards where motor vehicles simply can’t. As far as lessons learned are concerned, why we’re not building more passenger-railway networks, that’s something I just can’t wrap my head around. It’s mind-boggling, in other words.
* Prepared for the Office of Transportation Technologies, U.S. Department of Energy. May 1995. See Tables 2.15 and 2.16 for fuel efficiency data
