For decades, NARP has argued that America’s “fly-drive” system, that
is, a transportation system over-reliant on highways and aviation and
neglecting trains, was bad policy. We focused heavily on the importance
of giving citizens more choices, on environmental impact and—as the
opportunity opened—on energy supply issues. We also argued that
highways and aviation enjoyed significant public subsidies even as many
politicians kept telling themselves and the public that such subsidies
did not exist, mistakenly believing that user-funded trust funds
completely supported those systems. The fly-drive mentality also
contributed to the nation’s overall economic problems, to the extent
that the housing bubble encouraged construction and purchase of exurban
homes in pedestrian-unfriendly surroundings—actions that would not have
taken place if people had known where the price of oil was headed.
Finally, we said one of the biggest subsidies in transportation was
from airline shareholders to passengers enjoying cheap,
non-compensatory fares.
Now, the stories of General Motors and Chrysler have made clear
fly-drive’s financial unsustainability. Government subsidies and loans
to GM and Chrysler now total over $50 billion, including loans which GM
and Chrysler may not repay, and the forms government aid has taken have
been varied.
Even today, some still say NARP should apologize for the fact that
Amtrak requires government funding. Would airlines be profitable if
governments did not maintain airports and air-traffic-control systems?
Would bus companies be profitable and driving be affordable if
government did not maintain the roads? Would the making of the very
vehicles that carry the bulk of American travelers have been profitable
without repeated help from Uncle Sam? The transportation system upon
which our economy is built requires public funding and is one of the
best investments we make as a society. The impact of these investments
would be maximized if we had a proper balance between the modes to
achieve the most efficient outcomes.
The billions that the government is ready to spend to bail out
bankrupt GM are only the latest in a series of large public subsidies
to automakers. GM has already received $13.4 billion in taxpayer funds,
with Chrysler getting another $4 billion, and both companies’ suppliers
got a total of $5 billion. The government guarantees manufacturers’
warranties for GM & Chrysler cars, and the Recovery Act provided a
tax credit of $49,500 to consumers who purchase new autos. Furthermore,
the climate change bill recently passed by the House Energy &
Commerce Committee includes a “cash for clunkers” program, which offers
tax credits encouraging drivers to trade in existing cars for more
fuel-efficient models. This latter program—which, though sold as
promoting energy efficiency, does not take into account the energy
costs associated with prematurely scrapping useful cars—has been
described as a subsidy to manufacturers, their workers and car buyers.
Some incentives for the production and consumption of more
fuel-efficient vehicles are necessary to address our energy problems as
long as most Americans continue to live in communities planned in such
a way as to make driving a virtual necessity. It is also important for
the government to help struggling communities that are dependent on
auto manufacturing to get back on their feet. But we need strong
efforts to minimize the worsening consequences of increased congestion
and urban sprawl. More attention should be paid to the goals set forth in S. 1036,
the Federal Surface Transportation Policy and Planning Act of
2009—increased use of freight and passenger trains and mass transit and
reduced, and reductions in national per capita motor vehicle miles
traveled on an annual basis, in national motor vehicle-related
fatalities (50 percent by 2030), in national surface
transportation-generated carbon dioxide levels (40 percent by 2030) and
in national surface transportation delays per capita.
We need a stronger focus on investing in the infrastructure that
support those goals and would give Americans more travel choices. Many
forward-thinking commentators have envisioned Midwestern factories
retooled to produce wind turbines and solar panels. To that list we
should add locomotives, railcars, light-rail vehicles, streetcars,
subways, and other rail infrastructure. Surely federal investments to
correct transportation priorities are at least as worthy as efforts to
maintain specific automobile companies. The “priority-correction
efforts” would support more quickly achieving President Obama’s vision
of an enhanced role for trains in our mobility network. Such spending
would yield dividends for years to come, perpetually benefiting people,
our economy, and the environment.
-- Ross B. Capon and Malcolm Kenton