Use the Detroit bailout to transform US transit

The Democrats’ campaign to win a quick bailout of the US’s Big Three, Detroit-based automakers seems to have stalled. That’s a good thing, since the only kind of substantive conditionality they’ve been mentioning so far is that the car companies should retool more of their production lines to produce “hybrid” or “flex-fuel” private cars.
That is ways too incremental and tiny of a change! These companies should undergo a much deeper transformation– so that between them they can become a hub for innovation and production related to a new, nation-spanning network of high-speed trains and other visionary transit solutions.
Thinking that turning to a mildly re-engineered version of the privately owned automobile will provide any kind of a longterm solution to the country’s transportation woes is short-term thinking indeed. The nation that is economically and politically successful in 2050 will be one that has an efficient, multi-layered mass transit system that produces the minimal level of greenhouse gas emissions and offers a rich quality of life to all citizens.
There is no way that any version of privately owned automobiles can do that. The reliance that this country has long had on privately owned cars– and the concomitant degradation of its mass-transit structure over many decades– has resulted not only in unacceptably high levels of emissions of noxious chemicals and reliance on foreign oil, but also in massive economic inefficiencies and the active exclusion of all non-owners and non-drivers of cars from full economic and social inclusion. These latter costs are hard to quantify, but they are certainly substantial.
We need a strong and compelling vision of what a fully “inclusive” and efficient national transit system would look like– and we also need a huge amount of investment to be poured into realizing it. Exactly similar to what Pres. Eisenhower did with the “interstate highway system” back in the 1950s– but this time a vision based on mass transit, not on the private auto.
Luckily, much of the technology for a national high-speed train (HST) system already exists, since such systems have been well developed in both Japan and Western Europe.
Some people have argued that the US population is too widely dispersed to allow a national passenger rail system ever to become profitable. Perhaps that is so. But taxpayer subsidies of a state-of-the-art national HST system would be a very worthwhile investment, bringing dividends in many areas of national life… Including, if this system is linked to significantly upgraded transit systems in all major urban areas, a great improvement in the quality of life of all citizens, whether they currently own and rely on cars or not, and in the general parameters of their social, economic, and political inclusion.
Such a system would also, if well designed, do a lot to revive areas of the middle of the country that have become economically depressed due to the seemingly irresistible pull of investment and people to the two coasts.
Regarding the “quality of life” question, here are some quick vignettes from me:

    1. A couple of years ago, we invited an Indian friend who was doing a term as a visiting professor in Winchester, Virginia, to come eat Thanksgiving dinner with us in Charlottesville, some 100 miles away. Dr. Prasad had no car and does not drive. I blithely suggested he check out the long-distance bus options to get to us. Winchester is the county seat of Frederick County and has a population of 24,000. But it has no long-distance bus service to anywhere else! No wonder if Prasad was feeling a little isolated and trapped there. But how about the thousands of longterm local residents who also, for whatever reason (epilepsy, vision problems, other disabilities, low income), do not drive? How isolated must they feel?
    2. Just yesterday, I was able to get great long-distance bus service from New York to Washington DC. I sat on a comfortable bus, worked online for five hours using its wireless internet, and arrived near my apartment in Washington DC, feeling quite refreshed.
    3. In 2000, four members of our family paid a three-week visit to a family of Japanese friends who over the years have scattered themselves into various different cities around Japan. We traveled nearly wholly by train, using ‘bullet’ inter-city trains that connected handily with the very well-run (and bilingually signed) local train systems in all the cities we visited. One day, our Japanese friend Masaru, a big-league tech entrepreneur, was going to play golf: He went to the golf course by train having previously sent his clubs ahead of him via one of the many companies that provide just exactly this service…
    4. When my daughter and her partner (now spouse) were living in Detroit I went to visit and we decided to all go to Chicago for a short weekend break. I booked us tickets on the Amtrak inter-city service. The train was the usual run-down, out-dated rolling-stock that’s all that Amtrak can afford, and I recall it took the train seven or eight hours to trundle slowly along the 280 miles that separate the two cities…
    5. Over the past 18 months, I’ve been trying to live as car-free a life as possible. Having exchanged the car I previously owned for a scooter back in 2006, earlier this year I gave that away, too. Now I come and go between Washington DC and Charlottesville using either Amtrak, the Greyhound buses, or car-pooling with friends; and in each city I have a bike. I know I’m lucky because I have a few back-ups when I absolutely need one. Bill the spouse still has his car, mainly in C’ville, and I use that with some frequency instead of always biking or bussing round town there; and I’ve rented a car maybe four times over the past year for the inter-city travel, when the Greyhound/Amtrak schedules didn’t work well for me. But still, being car-free has been a real pleasure. No need to worry about and pay for all those things car-owners worry about! Connected to a vibrant urban lifestyle instead of sitting in traffic unable to work and getting frustrated!

All of which is to say that re-imagining (and then rebuilding) the US transportation system as one that is based overwhelmingly on a speedy, efficient, and inclusive mass transit system is a project that can bring tremendous quality-of-life gains to most Americans and need not be looked at in terms of the “loss” of the “personal freedom” that car-ownership allegedly brings.
Freedom??? Freedom to do what? To sit stewing in a traffic jam tied to the task of driving but umnable to get anywhere for a good portion of each day? To emit unequaled amounts of pollutants into the air that everyone around the whole world breathes? To live a life of privilege insulated by the automakers’ glass and chrome from the reality of the lives of others– including those others who are excluded from the car-ownership “dream'”
No, I prefer the freedom of sitting in a mass-transit vehicle being driven by a professional while I read, write, work on the internet, or (if I choose) chat to my fellow-citizens. And yes, there would still be private vehicle “back-ups” for this lifestyle. But they need not be privately owned: Taxis, car rental companies, paratransit systems for the differently abled, and car-share companies like Zipcar should all be part of what is planned for. And yes, these supplementary car-based systems should all use be using the most fuel-efficient and emissions-free technology available.
But if the collections of talented and hard-working engineers, production people, and planners who form the backbone of “Detroit” are to be bailed out massively by the US taxpayers at this time, then surely we should do that on the basis of a National Transit Plan for 2050 that is visionary, far-reaching, inspiring, and attainable– and that doesn’t keep Americans still hog-tied to the socially divisive shibboleth of the private automobile.

9 thoughts on “Use the Detroit bailout to transform US transit”

  1. “The socially divisive shibboleth of the private automobile?” Ah, how soon we forget our youth. We do need small cars and more mass transit, but the US has some important aspects (besides the teen-age urge to make out in a roomy car) that limit the benefits of mass transit and sustain the need for private cars.
    Families need mommy-mobiles because of child restraint laws and suburban living. You can’t carry ten bags of groceries or carpool in a SmartCar, and if you have three kids you may need three rows of seats.
    Those who own pick-ups (including me) love them for their utility. I can carry lots of stuff and sleep in it on long trips, and the size of the US means long trips for many.
    The country itself is unique. Most of Japan and India has more than 130 people per square mile whereas most of the United States has less than 100 people per square mile and a third of it has less than twenty. The Northeast, the Southwest coast, Florida and the rust belt are exceptions but even in these areas there has been exurban, car-centered development.
    Regarding Big Three bailout a failure to keep these corporations alive and provide credit for the purchase of their products will mean the loss of as many as 3 million jobs, simple as that.

  2. It is interesting to note that the UK, having rejected high-speed rail lines for a long time, now that the high-speed connection to the Channel Tunnel has been finished, is talking about the construction of HS lines further into the UK.
    It is said that the limit of tolerability, before people start thinking of flying, is 2-3 hours. In the US that means that high-speed lines on the East Coast, and in California could be profitable. NY-Chicago would be 5 hours or more, at the best speeds of the French TGV (230 KM/H).
    Paris-Toulouse you take the plane, if you have business. Paris-Marseilles, you can take the train.
    So on the east coast and in California, high-speed lines might be viable. For local transport, there’s not hope. Even here in France, where there’s local public support, it’s one or two buses a day in rural areas.

  3. Alex, the social norms and preferences on the issue of ground transit vs. flying much more variable than the “2-3 hour” cutoff you mention. I have British friends who’ve sworn off flying altogether because of the environmental effects…
    But there are also a lot of conveniences associated with ground transit as opposed to flying, including: traveling easily from city center to city center, rather than airport to airport, and lower financial and time costs from the ground connections involved with that; no hassle with airport security lines, parking issues at airports, etc; and generally a more pleasant in-travel environment with more space to stretch out, do work, or walk around, and (sometimes) with wireless internet connections. All those externalities can be manipulated/improved to enhance a ground transit experience considerably. On Japanese bullet trains they have fabulous little food carts coming round with bento boxes…
    When I was in Spain last year, I was really impressed with their inter-city bus system, which is supported by generally clean and well-run bus terminals in all cities of any size. Israel does well with inter-city buses, too. That might be a good first transition-point into a US National Transit System as of course we do already have the roads needed for this, no conversion to rail lines needed.
    But I would definitely relish taking a 15-hour train trip across the US that would include use of a Russian-style sleeper berth: what fun! And a whole lot less stressful than taking a red-eye plane….

  4. One thing I think you’re missing is that the auto makers are in the shape they’re in today in great measure because of the UAW and the collective bargaining that’s had them over a barrel for years. Most of the union workers are on production lines, and the type of changes you’re talking about wouldn’t have any prodcution lines for probably a decade, if you take into account all the design, planning and massive retooling required. Heck, back in the ’70s when GM tried to automate to compete with the Japanese by opening the Vega plant, the union had a fit.
    Reminds me of back in the 50s and 60s in the US when the railroads completed the move from steam to diesel. The unions insisted on retaining a “fireman” in the engine, even though there was no fire to tend.
    It’s the unions who gave the Democrats the upper Midwest, and now this is the payback. A lot of the $25 billion is going directly to the UAW pension fund, and much of any additional funding will go to maintaining jobs in non-competitive plants building what they’re already tooled for – Don’s pickup truck.

  5. JES:
    Sure, just blame everything on the unions. The management is fine, it is just those spoiled, overpaid autoworkers…
    German and French unions are probably more militant than their American counterparts, but that doesn’t stop Mercedes, VW, Peugeot, etc. from producing cars people want to buy.

  6. Colin, the UAW is interested in maintaining its relatively high-paid jobs and benefits. They are not interested in the type of program that Helena is suggesting. Even the head of the UAW refuses to blame management:
    The president of the United Auto Workers union said the dire financial troubles of the three U.S. auto makers is the result this year’s spike in gasoline prices and the meltdown on Wall Street, not missteps by management or high labor costs.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122679146976431189.html?mod=testMod
    The article goes on to say that:
    Many analysts believe the concessions will eliminate the labor cost advantage foreign auto makers have had in their non-union plants in the U.S.

  7. Is this your New Wealthy Socialist presdent with promisses of CHANGE!!

    Obama wants to avoid all delicate foreign affairs matters at the moment. His team was shocked, according to the New York Times, when a polite five-minute telephone conversation with the Polish president provoked wild speculation of statements about the United States’ planned missile defense system in the region.

    Obama Leaves Stage to Bogeyman Bush

Comments are closed.