Passenger Rail and September 11th

Since September 12, 2001, an array of advocates, experts, and media commentators have repeatedly referenced the September 11th terrorist attack as evidence of the need for America to invest in high speed rail, or a reinvigorated intercity passenger rail service.

"The threat of terrorism since September 11 clearly points to the need for reduced dependency on air travel, and shows the advantages of using different modes for intercity travel."

- Vukan Vuchic, Road or Track: Which Way to Travel? Commentary, The Philadelphia Inquirer, August 26, 2002

"Amtrak supporters in Washington argue that the grounding of all flights after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks showed the need for alternative means of transportation."

- Editorial Desk, Putting Rail Back on Track, The New York Times, July 15, 2002

"After a four-day halt of air travel a year ago, this country's need for an efficient high-speed ground transportation system became even more obvious in the wake of Sept. 11."

-J. Christopher Brady, Viewpoint: Don't Believe Maglev's Critics, Engineering News-Record, August 19, 2002

"In light of the continuing terrorist threat, we cannot afford to increase crowding at our airports, adding additional costs, stresses and concentration on top of that system."

- David R. Lampe, Community Voices: Amtrak support a patriotic duty, The Bakersfield Californian, Monday, July 08, 2002

"SECTION 1. (a) In light of the events of September 11, 2001, it is very clear that a high-speed passenger train network as described in the High Speed Rail Authority's Business Plan is essential for the transportation needs of the growing population and economic activity of this state."

- California State Senate Bill 1856, passed and sent to the Governor in August 2002

Accepting this hypothesis is scary. Will the presence of a network of intercity rail somehow play a role in preventing air terrorism? Does this mean America should invest billions and decades to build a new nationwide rail system to use in case subsequent terrorist attacks shut down the air travel system? The passenger rail system will keep the economy running? This massive investment is a contingency plan in case we are unable to otherwise effectively remove the threat of terrorist attacks that shut down the air travel system? Does it imply we are resigning ourselves to an unsafe or unreliable air travel system so suspect that we should invest billions for intercity passenger alternatives -- but continue to fly for the next few decades while we implement this alternative?

The current Amtrak passenger rail system carries approximately 1% of the number of person miles of travel that are carried by air travel (USDOT, Bureau of Transportation Statistics). If, with a historically unprecedented shift in travel behavior, the country was able to increased rail passenger travel ten fold and all those trips were shifted from air travel (in reality most forecasts for domestic high speed rail services expect new rail passengers to come predominately from autos with the remainder from a combination of air travel, intercity bus lines and new induced trips that would not otherwise have been made), we would still have roughly 90 percent of the current air travel levels plus growth that is predicted to occur. So there would still be plenty of air travel opportunities for terrorists and plenty of crowded airports.

Most experts envision intercity rail as most competitive for short to medium distance trips. The terrorists choose long distance trips with fully fueled planes – trips that no one is proposing would be shifted to rail travel. The number of opportunities for aircraft terrorism would certainly remain ample. Is there a basis for presuming that the presence of a rail travel option would minimize the opportunity for air-based terrorist attacks?

The alternative logic argument is that rail investment is intended as a post terrorist incident recovery aid. Even if we did have a significant rail system, if it was operating at anywhere near an efficient level of utilization on a daily basis it would not have available capacity to play a major roll in relief to a shut down air travel system. Train crews and multimillion-dollar rail cars would not be sitting around waiting for the air travel system to be shut down. Trains would simply not have the empty seat capacity to meet the extraordinary increase in demand that might result from an unanticipated and unscheduled shutdown of air travel. The air system would arguably still carry approximately ten times the passenger miles as the rail system and this volume of passengers wouldn't all fit in the few empty rail system seats. A contingency or back up system is one that has adequate capacity to replace lost capacity or at least has a substantial increment of available capacity that could be used. An intercity rail system would not have this level of available capacity and if it did, it would bankrupt the country's transportation resources to build this much infrastructure that was not well utilized on a daily basis.

Everyone I know that got stranded on a trip in the aftermath of September 11th rented a car and drove home. Our roadway system with its ubiquitous nature and massive overall capacity provided a reasonable capacity contingency for an extraordinary event like September 11th. How much is another contingency mode worth?

Hopefully, the paradigm of using large passenger aircraft as uniquely catastrophic weapons of terrorism ended in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania within a few hours of the first September 11th hijacking. While there is certainly no guarantee that a subsequent similar event will never happen, the prospect that it will ever again have as debilitating an effect on the total air travel system is very low. The element of uncertainty and surprise is forever gone and the prospect of shutting down the air travel system for an extended period of time is certainly very small. If, however, the levels of terrorism reach points where there were numerous or repeated events threatening air travel, in all probability rail services would not remain exempt from terrorist interest. Might a train with 500 passengers hurdling down the track at 150 miles per hour be a tempting target? How much physical damage to ribbons of steel rail 54 inches apart would be necessary to send a speeding train askew. The vision of a train exploding on a major bridge, or in a critical tunnel, or a crowded downtown station with the inevitable dramatic personal, financial, and emotional impact, is something that might appeal to the sick mind of a terrorist. Trains and rail right-of-way, which is inherently more accessible to the public, might well be tempting targets.

So building intercity passenger rail to reduce the probability or lessen the impact of possible future air terrorist incidents is not a logical argument. Rail's role in either reducing the threat of terrorism, or providing a meaningful alternative in the aftermath of a debilitating terrorist incident to our air travel system, is spurious or at best insignificant. The apparent logic of investing in passenger rail in response to September 11th appears to be either poorly thought through or an emotional appeal for rail funding.

If this country chooses to invest in a passenger rail system, in selected high volume corridors, or as a massive national system, let it be because it makes sense. These decisions should be made based on costs, economic and environmental considerations, quality of life considerations and other impacts including travel safety, and a rich understanding of travelers' needs and desires. The emotions of the September 11th incident should not replace sound reasoning and thoughtful analysis in the nation's deliberations regarding intercity rail passenger investments.

Dr. Polzin worked for transit agencies in Chicago, Cleveland, and Dallas before joining the University of South Florida's Center for Urban Transportation Research in 1988. The opinions expressed are solely those of the author. He can be contacted by phone at (813) 974-9849 or via email at [email protected].