You are here

On Jobs And The Environment: An Inaugural Memo To Donald Trump — And Us

Share

Will passenger trains play a role in the Trump administration's infrastructure overhaul?

Greetings, Mr. Trump, and congratulations. On Friday, you take the oath of office as the 45th president of the United States. If perhaps you have been following the National Parks Traveler, you know that many people have already made up their minds. You will be a disaster for the national parks. As a businessman, you will demand that the parks “make money,” and if they don’t help, give them away.

Contrast that attitude with how the preservation community thought of Stephen T. Mather a century ago. You may know of him, but let’s review. A successful millionaire from marketing borax, he was picked as the first director of the National Park Service precisely because of his business ties.

Preservationists were indeed desperate to match his talents against government bureaucrats bent on dismantling the parks. Led by the U.S. Forest Service, resource specialists in the federal bureaucracy considered preserving nature an indefensible waste.

I just don’t believe that is what you believe. For one thing, you live in New York City, America’s original headquarters for the park idea. Trump Tower overlooks Central Park, and surely the Palisades and the Hudson. They must have rubbed off on you at some point, along with Theodore Roosevelt and FDR.

If none of it did, I must concur: The parks may be in trouble. But I am betting — or should I say hoping — that what follows you already know. The way to good jobs and a better environment begins by restoring the nation’s railroads.

Certainly, the moment we turned our back on railroads, all of us forgot the history. We forgot their philanthropists, names like Vanderbilt and Harriman, let alone Cooke, Billings, Gray, and Hill. We forgot that wealth was the backbone of the environmental movement, finally to disparage wealth itself.

As radically, the United States — in going full bore for the automobile — staked its future on the promotion of self. Please, no more of a railroad’s restrictions. On the radio, it should be “your” station instead of “theirs.” Worse, a passenger train demands that you “obey” a schedule, and why should any red-blooded American be obeying that?

Togetherness

You see it; you feel it; you hear it. Our country has split apart. We accept that now as reality, forgetting how that reality in fact began.

The worst splits were made; they didn’t just happen, and yes, how we traveled played an enormous role.

Before the automobile, Americans accepted that travel meant togetherness. Aboard 20,000 intercity trains, lounge cars, dining cars, and parlor cars put a premium on togetherness. Today we crowd onto airplanes, but it has nothing to do with togetherness.

For the environment, the best part about railroads was preserving space itself. Most needed only a modest right-of-way. Reducing costs, they carefully followed the rivers and tunneled the mountains. Railroads did not simply go charging through.

Because we have lost our ability to see how railroads protected the landscape, we protest they ever did. History? Give us a break. Every American is “born” to drive!

Talk about a problem with consistency. Across the country, despite our hand-wringing over climate change, the sale of SUVs remains through the roof.

Officially established in 1832 as a "reservation," Hot Springs was later credited as the first national park, principally by promoters hoping to upstage Yellowstone. In 1880, Congress clarified that Hot Springs was a public park, and in 1921 made it a national park. The author here may be stretching the facts, but certainly not the meaning of national parks/Runte Collection

Either way, the more we fell under the spell of highways, the more we disparaged railroads. That dirty railroad! Who wants them around? Gasoline is America’s future.

2 Million Jobs

It is no wonder, as the railroads downsized, the nation further sacrificed 2 million jobs. Sure, we replaced some of those jobs in other industries, but few with a comparable respect for the land.

This is to help explain, as part of our national forgetfulness, some of the disparaging comments about your wealth. You, another businessman, cannot possibly respect the land. Why did you run for president? Only to enhance your “brand.”

No doubt, by touting their ability to protect the environment the railroads hoped to promote their brands. But were they using us? Were they insincere? If so, why did they agree to invest in the national parks, most with seasons barely three months long?

Because they did. As to motive, it is only we — now in the backwash of our disconnect — who insist on thinking the worst.

Consider the first two images accompanying this memo, the cover and page six of “Hot Springs National Park, Arkansas.” Meant for prospective passengers, the brochure, printed in 1929, is by the Illinois Central Railroad.

Does page six not capture the essence of what it means to have public parks? Not only did the railroad write these words, it stood behind them. And the painting, too.

Once upon a time, trains brought most visitors to Yellowstone, where they boarded buses at Gardiner to tour the park/NPS

The Myth and the Play

In coming to deny that the railroads could be philanthropic, we ultimately sold ourselves on a myth. The interstate highway system would be better than railroads. No stoplights from coast to coast!

As for the trucks, what trucks? Freight would still be taking the railroads. When and if we needed trucks, they would be military vehicles for national defense.

Only, it didn’t turn out that way. Intercity freight, not just intercity passengers, abandoned the railroads for the interstates. The railroads went bankrupt, or merged, or both.

All but three finally relinquished their passenger trains to Amtrak in 1971. By then, the nation had just a skeleton of trains, and Amtrak halved even that.

Can anyone imagine a system more out of touch with the environment — and our need for jobs? As for driverless cars and electric cars, how will they escape the need for asphalt?

That part of it, the coup de grace for landscape, has always been ignored. Self and asphalt are the sacred marriage. This is not to deny what highways have also achieved, but it is to explain how their lobby operates. We’re not supposed to connect the dots.

Here are the two for you to consider. How can we pretend to be serious about climate change while remaining a nation so committed to roads?

From history, I see national transportation as a three-act play. In Act One, the American railroad treated the landscape with respect. Granted, railroad engineering helped force the respect. Overcoming distance and terrain, railroads needed to minimize grades by following natural contours. Again, they simply couldn’t go charging through.

It made for a picturesque, even stunning, right-of-way. To take a train was to celebrate America the Beautiful in everything the railroads built, published, or sold.

Late in Act One, we meet Henry Ford. It’s the beginning of the 20th century, and the railroads are still riding high. Despite Mr. Ford’s assembly line, he has a problem. Most roads in the United States (motorists hardly called them highways) are still a rutted, muddy mess.

In Act Two, the Highway Lobby gets the ruts removed, next to call on the federal government and the states to provide more paved highways, even if they run parallel to the railroads themselves.

The railroads object, but to little avail. The Highway Lobby has perfected its labels. Railroads are backward and overbearing. In Congress, especially, it works like a charm.

Some leaders object, of course. Franklin D. Roosevelt, campaigning for president in 1932, called highway subsidies a bum deal for railroads. No matter, the disconnect continued to widen, now on the strength of the government’s ability to tax.

Keep taxing the railroads, that is. Most highways, as public property, escape and never pay a dime.

World War II temporarily saved the railroads, but then comes the deepening of Act Three. Shopping centers! Strip malls! Suburbs! Billboards! The landscape? What is that?  

Would this view of the New River Gorge be as bucolic if an interstate highway replaced the train tracks?/NPS

The Vernacular Landscape

Intellectuals become loath to admit the truth, as well. In university circles, the bandwagon continues to insist that railroads are “evil.” The automobile allows a “vernacular” landscape. Railroads force “conformity” on everyone.

It is no wonder, by abandoning railroads, we ensured the worst outcomes for the environment. From gutting the countryside to global warming, it all began with that vernacular landscape, the one based on asphalt, sprawl, and a lack of discipline.

In brief, there is your challenge. Someone in government finally must break the marriage between self and asphalt if the environment is not to be overrun.

During the campaign, I believe I heard you say it once. A country committed to business common sense — and environmental common sense — would want to have high-speed rail.

Up to now, high-speed rail has been a trap, frankly an excuse for doing nothing. While itself decrying railroads, the Highway Lobby helped “invent” high-speed rail. When trains become perfect, i.e., faster than Superman, you can have them back. Until then (and it’s been a very long then), stay in your cars where you belong.

The environment simply needs railroads, period. Trees, wildflowers, grass, and bushes know how to reclaim railroad rights-of-way. We still need the beauty, not just the speed.

Financially, it’s another well-kept secret. The cash cows at Amtrak are its long-distance trains, the ones people still want for seeing the country. Only false accounting, meant to secure Amtrak’s bureaucracy in the Northeast Corridor, denies that fiscal truth.

Of course, the Highway Lobby doesn’t want you fixing Amtrak, either. Bring down the curtain and close the play.

After all, in Act Four, we would come to our senses and finally get it right. Cars, yes. Planes, yes. But also great railroads, too.

National Clarity

To be sure, our dependence on automobiles will not end overnight, because again, the disconnect is total. But if you really believe in jobs and the environment, yes, “shovel-ready” for once would mean more than asphalt. The country would spend every bit as much on rail.

Where should it be spent — and how? First, by reconnecting every landlocked city in the country, i.e., cities like Binghamton, New York. The bus service and airline service is terrible. And to think Binghamton used to have a dozen trains.

And yes, let’s reconnect the national parks, beginning with the branch lines to Yellowstone. They never should have been torn up in the first place, but that’s exactly what our disconnect encouraged.

There, your background offers hope. You have built golf courses. You like open space. In Scotland, you are disturbed that wind farms may destroy the scenery. You must love the national parks.

The point is to honor the conviction, and apply it consistently, that the greater landscape is a public good. If you do that, and really believe in doing it, you are exactly what the country needs.

Trump Tower? Okay, you have an ego. But so did Rockefeller, Ford, Edison, and Westinghouse. Nor does the list end there.

Speaking of the Rockefellers, what exactly is Rockefeller Center? It’s a real estate development, just like yours. No matter, the family, led by John D. Rockefeller, Jr., invested $1 billion in our national parks and public history. Granted, I have adjusted that figure for inflation, but think what a legacy it remains.

As earlier suggested, I hope you’re reading the Traveler. Now to offer this final piece of historical advice. China didn’t steal our railroads, and certainly not our railroad jobs. We stood by and let it happen. Bringing those jobs back — and our railroads back — is entirely up to us — and you.

Undoubtedly, your distinguished predecessors from New York would agree. On taking office, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt made the prosperity of America Job One.

In the end, what distinguished their place in history was their determination not to let prosperity overwhelm the environment. Rather, intuitively following the heritage of New York, they insisted the nation couple prosperity with beauty. Also millionaires, they never thought the worst of wealth. But then, they were closer to the history — and in fact lived the history — when corporate philanthropy helped save the environment.

There, I suggest you start with the national parks. Visit them often, and yes, bring railroad executives along. How can we do this? How can we get the trains back? Don’t say no. Tell me what you need to say yes.

Jobs will follow, and they will be good jobs. And what is more, they will be inspirational. So, Mr. President — and now that you are the president — when might we resume that path?

_________

Suggestions for the White House Library

John R. Stilgoe, Metropolitan Corridor: Railroads and the American Scene. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983. 

_______. Train Time: Railroads and the Imminent Reshaping of the United States Landscape. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2007.

 Alfred Runte, Allies of the Earth: Railroads and the Soul of Preservation. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2006.

 _______. Trains of Discovery: Railroads and the Legacy of Our National Parks. 5th ed. Lanham, MD, and New York: Roberts Rinehart, 2011.

Richard J. Orsi, Sunset Limited: The Southern Pacific Railroad and the Development of the American West, 1850-1930. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005.

James Howard Kunstler, The Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of America's Man-Made Landscape. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1993.

Joseph P. Schwieterman, When the Railroad Leaves Town: American Communities in the Age of Rail Line Abandonment—Eastern United States. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2001.

_______. When the Railroad Leaves Town: American Communities in the Age of Rail Line Abandonment—Western United States. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2004.

Featured Article

Comments

No, EC, that's just not the history--or the economics. Take Uber, for example. What are the drivers here in Seattle complaining about? They're only averaging $3 an hour shuttling people back and forth in town. They want to go to the airport, just like everyone else, only they don't want to pay for the privilege, i.e, pay the airport tax cabbies pay.  

Yes, the Northeast Corridor gets "far more usage," but no, its tracks are not less expensive to maintain. In fact, they're far more expensive to maintain, because they are allegedly "high-speed rail." If you fly off the tracks at 150 mph, you kill people. If you tumble them down the embankment in Glacier National Park, they still have a chance. Actually, Amtrak rents its tracks outside the Northeast Corridor, but yes, then assigns ALL maintenace costs of the Corridor to the system at large.

Remember, EC, this is YOUR complaint. Government spins the truth but never tells it. You say: "If the economics were more favorable as [I] suggest, the railroads would be offering more passenger service. You would not need government interference to make it happen." Exactly. The Highway Lobby convinced the government to fund highways and forget "the old-fashioned" railroad. If the government had not "interfered" and built the highways, the railroads would be doing just fine. Highways, in effect, would be toll roads. We would see more of the direct costs up front.

The Highway Lobby insisted government shield those costs. Indeed, who do you think first called them "freeways?" The more the lobby said it, the more Americans tuned out the truth. The highways were never "free" to anyone simply because most charged no toll.

Secretary Clinton tried it one last time--and lost. If you vote for me, it's free. Whatever you want, it's free. Finally, Americans are starting to get it. When the government says free, I pay.

As I said, it's your complaint, EC. Why should governmnt be picking "winners" and "losers" simply on its ability to tax and spend?

Testifying on the subject in Congress during the Carter Administration, that's what I was told. Why do you people "in the rail groups" complain about cutting Amtrak? It's not as if we were cutting highways.

So we cut Amtrak--to the bone, further on the argument from the good Congressman from Nevada that passenger trains were frivolous. Your entire state is frivolous, we reminded him. If you agree to close the airports in Reno and Las Vegas, then you can call Amtrak frivolous.

But they never want to close airports and highways, do they? Nor do they care what those cost. That' not economics; it is rather politics. Politics cost us good railroads, just as politics, not global warming, is about to cost us what remains of our common sense.

Your complaint again. We can't go on picking winners and losers simply because government demands we pick. We could pick wrong, as we did in 1956, when we allowed the interstate highway system to sound the deathknell on our railroads.

Now we're stuck, left to protest that our choice was somehow right, no, INEVITABLE. The choice was God's. After all, he gave us economics. Unfortunately, he probably never intended that economics be practiced by lobbyists, and now the transportation system we really need is on life-support.


Siglin, I just noticed your excellent comment. I've taken the train to Alpine, Texas, when I first hiked Big Bend National Park. A friend still lives there, retired from Sul Ross State.

You're right. We need to restore the rest of the infrastructure, and yes, insist that Amtrak trains have priority again over freights.. Returning to Los Angeles, my train was eight hours late!

More to come in The Traveler--our solutions for the parks. Kurt and I are working on it, and for now will leave you with this thought. Yellowstone in the 1930s had 706 yellow buses, the kind in the illustration here. You could then carry virtually the entire population visiting Yellowstone around the park by open-air, yellow bus, meeting the trains at the gateway communities, and then taking the visitors back to the trains.

Now, who do you think "sold" the Park Service on getting rid of that?


Alfred, you ignore the reality that the highways are primarily funded by those that use them through federal and local gas taxes, tolls and registration and licensing fees, a considerable amount of which gets diverted to mass transportation. 

Here is an interesting analysis comparing the modes of long distance travel.  http://airfare.michaelbluejay.com/modes.html

The automobile comes out last in a all catagories ( Speed, confort, safety, environmental & cost) except comfort where it is next to last.  Yet, according to the Federal DOT, autombiles (and derivatives there of) account for 89% of trips over 100 miles while trains account for 1%.  Obviously there is something other that the cost of the trip that is pushing people to cars rather than trains.  

But whether federal road building subsidized the car or not, what is your remedy?  I agree, the government shouldn't be picking favorites.  Get make the rail passangers cover their cost and raise the gas tax to cover all highway construction and maintainance. Federal gas tax is currently $.18 and generates about $52 billion.   My bet,the share of rail transport would go down, not up. 

 


EC, if only this were true: "the reality that the highways are primarily funded by those that use them through federal and local gas taxes, tolls and registration and licensing fees, a considerable amount of which gets diverted to mass transportation." 

Years ago, I sat on the plane with a highway engineer, a contractor, on his way to Boise, Idaho. He had just done a report for his company on the impact of trucks on highways. Yes, they paid on average $4,000 a year in registation, and another $4,000 in diesel taxes, but racked up on average a whopping $36,000 EACH in damage to the highways. His company was trying to explain to the bureaucrats in Idado why construction costs were soaring. At the time, Idaho was short on weighing stations, too, allowing trucks to overload.

It's spin, EC, spin. Every highway bridge on the interstates was built for 40-ton trucks. Now the tandem rigs are often triple that, and all of the bridges are getting rebuilt. The trucks are paying for it? Ha! Now you sound like Hillary Clinton.

What's getting "diverted" to mass transportation? Here in Seattle, we just voted $54 billion to complete "light" rail. Oh, the spin again--"light" rail. Yes, about 3 billion is coming from the feds, but that $51 billion still feels heavy on my wallet.

I believe I covered the spin why we stay in our automobiles despite their despicable performance. Because we are told to love them, not told to criticize them. Come to think of it, have you EVER seen one advertised in a traffic jam? No, they're somewhere in the desert, or on Pike's Peak. You're not supposed to think where you REALLY will be driving, or else you might not buy the car.

But yes, I do blame the railroads, too. They should have hired more lobbyists, and spread more money around, instead of going to war against their passengers, which they did in hopes of winning approval from the Interstate Commerce Commission to drop their passenger trains. Now that the airlines have been "deregulated," too, well, they're treating us just the same. Here's your middle seat. Take it or leave it. What do you expect for "cheap?"

In the first place, I don't expect it to be cheap. I expect it to be safe and efficient, and yes, offer me options when airports and highways snow in. Money doesn't settle every argument. It's time we learned to live again, as well.

 

 


You do have a point, at the federal level some 25% of the Highway fund is diverted to non-highway projects.  In Colorado, only about 8% of the funding for state raods and interstate highways comes from the general fund the rest is auto/truck related taxes and fees. And we receive less back from the feds than we pay to them.  Some of the spending however goes to rail, buses bike paths and the airport so its accounting for that and for what we don't get back from the feds we are  pretty close to 100% coverage.  But raise the gas tax .  Total federal gas tax reciepts are about $40 billion at 18.4c per gallon.  and the state tax receipts are about the same.  Simple average for the states is around 48c.  Total road and highway spending accorded to the St Louis fed is about $90 billion.  So we are about $10 billion short now - largely due to higher mileage standards.  An increase in the federal and state taxes of 10 cents each would generate $40 billion more in revenues and more than cover the shortfall.  I was paying $4.50 a gallon a few years ago, that higher tax would put me at $2.45 now.  That certainly would not send me to the trains.  So indeed the cars pay the vast majority of the costs and with only a small increase in the tax rate (in absolute terms) could easily cover 100% +


It's a well known fact that Donald does not read, so why write such a silly article to him?


It's a well known fact that Donald does not read,

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/slideshows/10-books-donald-trump-loves.  Well known to whom?  Certainly not anyone that knows how to read.  


Perhaps, Eric, it would help if you would publish visual evidence that he reads, rather than what he or others say he reads. You know - the sort of evidence you like to demand from others.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.