I saw this article and thought it was worth posting here for others to see.  Those of us in the transit business often complain about the disadvantages we face relative to highways and airports, and the bias that exists towards “subsidized” transportation modes.  The following article really sums up quite well the stark difference in funding that exists between highways and transit systems.  It also seems to suggest that highways might also be subsidized by the government.  Gasp!

It would be interesting to see if and/or how much the curves have changed in the last few years.  I’m guessing that the relationship is probably identical.  For all the hype over the amount of money in the stimulus funding for high speed rail, it still pales in comparison to the amount that was provided for highways.  We are still a car culture, but things do seem to be shifting ever so slightly. 

If you care about transit funding, you should contact your representatives and let them know.  The next multi-year transportation funding bill is still being worked on, and you should let your voice be heard.  You could also consider joining APTA, which is a great organization that helps promote transit in the US.

I have to say that I also really like the title of the article, which is probably much more apropos than the title I chose for this post!

If you are not currently a member of Womens Transportation Seminar (WTS), I strongly urge you to join!  Now, don’t let the name fool you, it is not just for women.  It’s for anyone in any aspect of the Transportation Industry: financing, marketing, construction, planning, engineering, maintenance, state, city, federal, or private sector.  This blog is not to try to recruit you, dear reader, but to tell you about my experiences with WTS.  First, it is important that you know that I may be biased, since I believe my WTS Chapter, the Central Virginia Chapter, to be the best.  Many may say things like this, but I believe it of this chapter.   I have been a member in the chapter since 2009, and the Diversity Chair of my chapter since December.  This role has given me one of the most rewarding professional experiences I have ever had. 

I have moved around a bit, and have been associated with other WTS chapters, but none quite like the CVC chapter.  At first, I was skeptical of going to the luncheons.  Other WTS luncheons I have attended have been very big and impersonal – like finding a spot to sit in a big high school cafeteria.  But after my first luncheon with WTS CVC I was hooked.  The luncheons are small, around 30 people or so, and the whole Board is very approachable and easy to talk to.  I met with the chapter president, vice-president, membership chair, and plenty of other people involved with the board that were just as excited in their roles with the chapter as I am now.  I received follow-up calls and emails from the chapter, checking up on me and seeing if I wanted to join.  It is a wonderful thing in this fast-paced society for people to take the time to do such small niceties.   

Enthusiasm is contagious.   So was the thought that this young chapter,  not even 4 years old when I joined, could use my help and I could contribute to shaping something so influential.   It didn’t take much convincing that I should take a leadership position and work with the board.  The position of Diversity Chair was open, so I snagged it.  The appeal was not only that I could get involved, but also that this particular role had not been filled before, so I could help to form it.  Although that sentence sounds like it should have ended with evil laughter, it is not so maniacal a sentiment.  It is also more challenging not to have a predecessor or predefined role to help me to determine where to take this committee.  I admit, I have floundered a bit so far in the role, but I am getting my sea legs, if you will.    

I will end by saying again that if you are not a member of WTS you should definitely become one!  And soon!  You don’t want to miss out on your chance to help shape things to your own will.  Evil laugher (mwahahaha) is intended there.

I attended the Annual ACC-FAA Summer Workshop last week.  It’s one of my favorite conferences, and I’m not just saying that because I’m the Vice Chair of the Workshop this year (and likely Chair for 2011).  I think the thing that makes the workshop so valuable is its focus on informal, collaborative discussion, rather than presentations.  In fact, we have a “no-PowerPoint” rule, which I think is key to the quality of the discussions.  [While we’re on the subject, for an interesting rant against PowerPoint, see Edward Tufte’s article in Wired.]

Source: Edward Tufte, The Cognitive Style of Powerpoint

The conference has a number of general discussions to open, followed by four concurrent workshops: Planning, Environment, Security and Safety, and Engineering.  I’ve tried to briefly summarize below.

The Hot Topics with FAA and TSA focused on updating attendees on recent happenings in Washington, from which I learned:

• Robin Kane, TSA Assistant Administrator/Chief Technology Officer indicated that although TSA checkpoint screening throughput is significantly lower than desired, it is not because of advanced imaging technology, but more a result of all the extra bags folks are carrying on because of checked baggage fees.
•  Ben DeLeon, FAA Acting Deputy Associate Administrator for Airports reported that FAA obligated the last ARRA grant by December 30, 2009.  To date the FAA has exceeded other DOT agencies in outlays, with close to 68% of the funding already spent. Most other agencies have spent only 30 to 40% of their ARRA funding.

 There was also a general session on Airport Sustainability, moderated by Suzanne Geckle of CH2M HILL.  Speakers included:

• Ben DeLeon of FAA updated attendees on FAA’s sustainability pilot program, which will shortly announce a number of airports that will undertake Sustainable Master Plans or “traditional” master plans with sustainability elements.
• Matt Harris of San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, described San Diego’s participation in the Global Reporting Initiative’s Airport Sector Supplement, which will allow airports to develop consistent techniques for providing transparent sustainability reporting.
• Cyle Cantrell of the City of Chicago’s Department of Aviation described their sustainability efforts, including its Sustainable Airport Manual and Airports Going Green Conference. 
• Eric Dillinger of Jacobs provided some provocative insights, and emphasized that the industry will embrace sustainability only when it sees significant cost savings.  He focused on the need to identify an airport’s “Sustainability Investment Profile”, which defines the airport’s or airline’s expectation for return on investment for sustainability initiatives. 

The ACC Agency Best Practices Award for 2011 was given to FAA for its handling of ARRA.  Ben DeLeon accepted the award on behalf of the agency.

As you can imagine, I spent most of my time in the Environmental Workshop, which was organized and facilitated by Tom Klin of CH2M HILL, the ACC Environmental Committee Chair for 2010.  We had five productive sessions, including:

• SMS: This joint session with the Planning Committee focused on the need for airports and consultants to develop Safety Management Systems – The bulk of the discussion revolved around the differences between the internal FAA SMS and the external or airport-specific SMS requirements.  There seems to be a fair amount of confusion amongst airport sponsors about the differences between these two types of SMSs and their consequences to the airport community.  Here is my attempt at clarifying this issue: the internal FAA SMS is already in the implementation phase and is required from all FAA lines of business.  The FAA Airports division is currently working on identifying how the SMS will be implemented throughout their day-to-day operations and how, if at all, it will impact existing requirements and guidance for airport sponsors.  The airport- specific SMS is a concept that was introduced by ICAO and the FAA is currently working through a pilot program to identify the extent to which airport-specific SMS are effective and useful at various airport types and sizes.  The FAA has not yet decided whether airport specific SMSs will be required, recommended or remain voluntary. 
• NEPA Streamlining Lessons Learned:  Marla Engel of VHB facilitated an interesting discussion of the two streamlining projects conducted at Philadelphia International Airport.  Panelists included Sue McDonald (FAA Eastern Region/Harrisburg ADO), Mike Kenney (KB Environmental), and David Full (RS&H).  My takeaway:  every project can benefit from a strategic communication plan, and it is critical for high profile projects, even in the absence of streamlining requirements.
• NEPA Document Quality Control: TJ Schultz (Executive VP, ACC) and Ralph Thompson (FAA Office of Airports) facilitated this discussion, apparently in response to feedback from FAA reviewers in regions regarding inconsistencies in quality of NEPA documents.  Of primary concern was the quality of documents prepared by firms that do not specialize in aviation environmental issues, and may produce only one NEPA document in several years.  TJ recommended all ACC members review the AASHTO report Improving the Quality of Environmental Documents.
• NextGen Initiatives and Near-term Environmental Consequences:  Our own Bob Miller facilitated this discussion, and I will refrain from talking about how great a job he did (though a non-HMMH participant declared the session “Best Ever!”), except to say that there was a lot of lively discussion.  Lynn Ray (FAA ATO) discussed FAA’s plans to conduct a systematic analysis of NextGen implementation across the NAS, with focus on 20+ metroplex areas over the next five years.  Tom Cuddy (FAA AEE) and Fred Bankert (MITRE) discussed efforts to develop NEPA guidance for evaluating NextGen initiatives.
• Hot Topics:  This last session provides a general review and update on a number of issues, and was led by Ed Melisky of FAA.  Topics included: migratory bird MOA and wildlife hazard issues, AC 1050 Update Status, Catex Guidance, ELG Update, and recent CEQ guidance on greenhouse gases.

I’m looking forward to planning the conference for 2011.  If you have any suggestions, please let me know!

Last night, via webinar, I attended the two-hour live in-person event/webinar hosted by the New England Wind Energy Education Project. The meeting was held in Bourne, MA, and the featured speaker was Robert McCunney, MD. Dr. McCunney was a member of the expert panel that in Dec. 2009 came out with a reporton the health effects of wind turbine sound. Dr. McCunney is an expert on the effects of noise on public health, relating to hearing loss in particular. He is a research scientist at the MIT Dept of Biological Engineering, a staff physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, and affiliated with Harvard Medical School.

Dr. McCunney spoke for about an hour, presenting the findings of his investigation on the health effects of sound from wind turbines.  First off, he stated that while the research was funded by the American and Canadian Wind Energy Associations, those organizations had absolutely no influence on the research approach or findings.  The foundation of the research was to survey and evaluate only peer-reviewed publications on the effects of sound from wind turbines, so that he could be more certain that he was reviewing science of high quality.  He said he did a very thorough literature review through Pub MEDto find all pertinent studies.  Much of the published literature is from Europe – Sweden and Denmark in particular.  Dr. Eja Pederson and colleagues in Sweden have published a number of articles that summarize scientifically valid surveys of human response to wind turbine noise, upon which Dr. McCunney based many of his conclusions.

Cutting to the chase – here are the primary conclusions on Dr. McCunney’s last slide:

1. Wind turbine noise poses no risk of hearing loss
2. Some people may be annoyed, but that is not a disease
3. The major issue is the fluctuating nature of the noise, and some find it annoying
4. Sub-audible noise poses no risk to health
5. “Wind Turbine Syndrome” is not a new disease or an accepted medical diagnosis – the symptoms reflect noise annoyance.

I agree with Dr. McCunney’s and the expert panel’s conclusions, from all that I’ve read and the numerous talks I’ve attended on the subject.

At the end, I asked Dr. McCunney if he had an opinion as to why wind turbine sound can cause annoyance at levels less than 40 dBA, while noise at such levels from other sources, such as road traffic, does not. He responded that he believes it is the repetitive swish-swish nature of the sound. I agree with this contention, since I’ve heard some people say the repetitive swishing can make sleeping difficult.

The entire recorded webinar, text transcript, presentations, bibliography and reference materials can be downloaded at this link by July 27^th.

by Lance Meister

I attended a one-day conference  here in Boston on the future of transit a couple of weeks ago.  There was a lot of discussion focused on transit funding, both for the current systems and the future.  There was a lot of sobering information, some bright spots, some interesting tidbits, and one very depressing speech from the head of the US Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 

The sobering information is this:  The seven largest rail transit agencies in the US have a combined $50 billion backlog of maintenance to get to a state of good repair.  Unfortunately, a state of good repair is defined as 2.5 on a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best) for maintenance.  Basically a C.  A soon to be released study says that there is a total of $78 billion for all transit agencies around the country.  That’s a lot of deferred maintenance. 

The basic problem is that we are drastically underfunding our public transit and transportation systems.  These are vital pieces of our lives and country, and we treat them like the ugly stepchild.  Here’s one of the interesting tidbits to mull over a bit.  Doug Foy, who has been a key player in the transportation field in Massachusetts for many years, brought up some very interesting statistics.  I’ll paraphrase him as best I can, but this is his analysis and information. 

Think about your cell phone.  How much do you pay to use your cell phone and support the network each year?  $1,000 seems like a reasonable number for many people.  What about electricity?  Or water?  How about your cable TV and internet?  Each of those is probably around $1,000 or more each per year.  Now think about how much you pay to use the transportation system (transit and roads), which is basically supported by the gas tax.  The average person who drives pays about $300 per year.  That’s less than a third of what you spend each year to support and maintain other vital networks and systems you rely on each year.

There’s a huge funding gap for such a vital network, and much of the conference was focused on thinking about ways to address that.  One of the bright spots is that transit is in demand.  People really want to use it.  The trouble is mobilizing the people who care about it, and making it a priority.  Unfortunately, we’re a country that responds really well to a crisis, but long term planning and maintenance is a challenge. 

Transit isn’t sexy.  It isn’t exciting.  It’s hard to communicate its importance to the average person.  It’s also hard to communicate just what it costs to run a transit system.  If the average fare to take a bus or train is $2, the actual cost is between $7 and $9.  That’s a big gap that’s made up through taxes.   We’re not paying what it really costs, and we’re unwilling to fund the system.  Right now, transit systems across the country are cutting back service.  One of my favorite moments during the day was the description of what the people at MARTA (Atlanta’s transit system) did when facing cutbacks.  They went out and painted a big red X on each bus that would be eliminated.  When people saw this, they were mobilized, and the legislature managed to find some money to keep the buses running.

For those of you who live in Boston, think back just a few weeks to the MWRA water crisis.  How often do you think about water?  If you’re like me, not very often.  Probably not until you can’t use it.  The same is true for transit.  Imagine the chaos in Boston if the MBTA shut down.  You may think “I don’t use it anyway, I drive a car and I’ll be fine.”  Sorry to burst that bubble.  Over 50% of all workers in Boston use the T.  There would be mass gridlock without the T.  All those people would have to find another way to get to work.  It’s a vital part of our city, even if you rarely use it.

Now on to the speech by Peter Rogoff, the head of the FTA and the reason why there’s a question mark in the title of the post.  Mr. Rogoff spoke toward the end of the day, and I was really hoping for a rousing speech.  Something to inspire the troops, point to a bold plan from our administration, a great “The Future of Transit” moment.  Instead, what we were treated to was really quite depressing, and truly disappointing.  

I won’t go into detail on the speech.  You can read it if you want.  However, the tone was very distressing.  He basically said we should hunker down, fix what we have, and not expand transit at all.  Oh, and if we do, paint a bus a different color, call it a special bus, paint a line on a road and call it a special lane, and now you have transit.  That’s transit?  As anyone who has taken the Silver Line in Boston knows, a car can instantly defeat that mode of transit.  Also, with the big push into transit-oriented development, who is going to buy a house or open a business next to a line on a road that could be gone tomorrow?

We should be looking at transit as an investment in our future.  It should be a way to meet our greenhouse gas requirements, lead the move to sustainability, and provide mobility, jobs and opportunities.  That’s why I, and many others, work in this field.  I know that my part is very small, but I feel like I’m working toward something that matters and actually helps people.  As silly as that sounds, it actually matters to me, and makes me feel like I contribute something valuable.  Mr. Rogoff’s speech was so disheartening to me that I thought about becoming a hedge-fund manager.  At least that way, while I flail about in a semi-pointless job, at least I’d make some money.

Hopefully that isn’t the future of transit.  I’m still optimistic that we can recognize the value of transit and begin to invest in it at a sustainable level.  While everyone may not see it, or want to acknowledge it, I think the era of the car is starting it’s early stages of ending, and we need to be prepared to meet the needs of transportation in the future.

What an amazing experience Mom Congress turned out to be.  With a packed agenda, the time at Georgetown was indeed hectic.

The event started with an evening reception in the University’s beautiful library.  I met some of the most amazing women ever assembled in one place.  We all had two things in common; we are all Moms and we have all worked to affect a change in education.  I met Moms who are publishers, legislative aids, State PTA Presidents and elected officials.  I was struck by the work being done across our country to help students with special needs and learning disabilities.  I was encouraged by Moms from inner city districts who have fought just to make a safe route for local kids to walk to school.  I was impressed by the diversity in age, social status, race and political savvy.  Most of all, I found 50 Moms who, together as the Mom Congress, represent one of the most powerful grassroots networks I have ever been involved with.

Part of the Mom Congress experience included a town hall meeting with the Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan.  The event was enlightening but too short for the many people who attended from the surrounding communities of Washington, DC and Maryland who had hoped to learn what the Federal Budget plans for education would hold for their schools and programs.  The Secretary did indicate that he had recommended an increase in the proposed Federal Education Budget from 1% to 2% of the budget to fund parent engagement programs.  These funds will be limited to Title 1 schools and will only be disbursed for evidenced-based grant funded programs.  It was interesting to hear this commitment after his statement that we know, through research, how influential parental involvement is to student success, but that we have absolutely no research that tells us how to get parents involved.  Parents and education organizations will have a lot of work ahead of them if they hope to obtain a piece of that 2% pie.

One particular highlight of the Mom Congress was the keynote address by National PTA CEO, Byron V. Garrett.  Prior to this event, I had only heard of Garrett and was impressed by what I had heard.  After meeting him, I am even more impressed.  Garrett is the author of “The ABCs of Life” which he so eloquently recited during his address.  It is an alphabet that is worth reading… and repeating.

As for my marching orders; I am more committed than ever to helping students stay engaged and encouraged at school and to remaining an advocate for effective education in California.

*Laura is Administrative Assistant to HMMH’s Sacramento Office.  HMMH congratulates Laura on her ongoing participation in Mom Congress! 

Steve Barrett and I just returned from the three day American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) annual conference held in Dallas, Texas.  This was my fourth AWEA conference and each year I am amazed by the magnitude of the event with 20,000 attendees and a record 1400 exhibitors! The exhibitors range from developers, consultants, transportation, and turbine manufactures right down to the nuts and bolts of the industry (literally!).   It is truly amazing to see the diverse industry required to support wind energy.

Background

For background, the U.S. is the world leader in wind energy generation with 35,000 MW installed to date.  China is a close second, and will probably pass the U.S. this year in total wind capacity.  For perspective, in 2009 the U.S. installed over 10,000 MW of wind capacity which is equivalent to powering about 2.4 million homes.  The U.S. has been an industry leader, however, initial estimates for the first half of 2010 show a slowdown in new generation, and without a national renewable policy, the outlook is uncertain. 

National RES

The conference highlighted the need for a national renewable electricity standard (RES) to provide certainty for developers, create jobs, and ensure the U.S. continues to be the leader in the wind industry. Some of the factors attributing to the slowdown are:

• Reduced power demand;
• Cheaper natural gas prices;
• Transmission challenges; and
• A lack of a national RES

A slowdown in new energy projects also casts a dark shadow on future job growth in the sector.  A recent study conducted by Navigant Consulting showed that if a national portfolio standard of 25 percent renewables by 2025 was enacted, a total of 266,000 new jobs could be generated.  Many states have adopted state specific renewable portfolio standards (RPS) which require utilities to purchase a certain amount of their power from renewable sources.  The problem with state RPS’s are some states have already met or will meet their requirements; therefore state requirements will not be enough to drive the industry in the future. 

Speakers

One of the highlights of the conference was a candid talk by former President George W. Bush who now resides in Dallas.  The president spoke about his energy policies while in office and governor of Texas.  He highlighted the progress the state has made since 1999 when he signed a state renewable portfolio standard setting the stage for Texas leading the way in wind generation.  He also spoke very candidly about his time in office reliving some of the memorable events of his terms such as 9/11, Katrina, and the Iraq war.  The former president also talked about his personal commitment to sustainability where he has installed geothermal heating at his home in Crawford, and his new library at Southern Methodist University will be LEED certified.    He looked very relaxed and comfortable in his life away from politics and gave us a glimpse of his new memoir coming out in the fall detailing some of the major decisions he made in office.

North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan discussed the great strides wind energy has made through the years and the need for a national RES standard to enable the wind industry to maintain momentum into the future.  The senator believes in a diverse generating portfolio including fossil fuels, natural gas, coal and renewable energy.  He feels renewable energy is part of our national interest and we should start divesting from foreign sources of energy.  The senator is hoping to vote this summer on an energy bill which contains a national RES.  The senator also spoke of his frustration over the state of our transmission system and the need to modernize it. Transmission is one of the siting constraints developers face to deliver power generated in rural areas to the load centers. An example he gave was over the last decade, the country has built 11,000 miles of natural gas pipeline but only 660 miles of high voltage electricity lines. 

There was also an interesting roundtable discussion with Governors Chet Culver of Iowa, Bill Ritter of Colorado, and Ted Strickland of Ohio.  The governors highlighted the success stories of renewable energy projects in their state and the benefits of the wind industry in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and bringing jobs to their states.  They also reinforced the need for a national RES to maintain renewable energy development which in turn creates more jobs.

That’s about it from Big D and look forward to seeing everyone next year in Anaheim, California.

A little less than a year ago, I joined the HMMH team to provide clean energy services to existing clients and expand services in new areas.  Given HMMH’s long-standing and strong relationships in the aviation community, a key element of the plan was finding a way to marry aviation and energy; we thought the best prospects were in solar.  With solar technology expanding in markets throughout the world and public policy incentives increasing under the Obama Administration combined with Airports’ perfect blend of high electricity consumption and unobstructed southern exposures for capturing sunlight, our thinking seemed cogent.  But other than some knowledge of what Denver had done at the Airport’s entrance road at the Democratic Convention in 2008, we weren’t sure if we were seeing a clear future for solar at airports or just a mirage in the distance.

Now I am working with the FAA to write a Solar Guidance Document for Airports that, in part, reviews existing solar projects and provides lessons learned on what has made these projects successful and how they might be replicated by others.  Phil DeVita and I have had the opportunity to meet with five airports (with a sixth coming up) to touch the panels, hear them rotate, and meet the people who championed the projects and continue monitoring their progress.  We have collected information on siting decisions, economics, regulatory process, and operational experience.  We have gathered data to dispel myths and identified steps that were critical to success.  The paths taken have not been the same, but the results have been.  All projects have been an unequivocal success for the Airports providing cost-effective electricity and positive community relations while remaining compatible with the Airports fundamental mission. Here is a bit of what I saw (and heard).

Denver is the leader of the solar-airport movement with two projects built and operating, and a third under development.  Denver has all of the elements that make solar a “no-brainer”: cheap land, state solar incentives, a strong political commitment from the City, and lots of sun.  Each project has delivered cheaper and cheaper electricity while giving the airport deserved recognition as a leader in the field.  There is no reason Denver won’t continue to build solar projects over the next 10 years.  And despite the installation of almost 17,000 solar panels on airport property, there have been no complaints about glare.

Denver International Airport

The City of Albuquerque sits in the gold zone for solar energy and has taken a leadership position in the Southwest, including the installation of panels at the Airport.  Its first project, located on an existing car parking structure, is relatively small but it has recently received partial funding from the FAA to expand that system four-fold.  This project will put more panels on four more structures.  Without the land Denver has, the near-term goal at Albuquerque will be to fill up the remaining seven parking structures and generate a substantial amount of on-site electricity from the sun.

The Golden State has been the hub of the US solar industry and many of the major airports have seized the opportunity of sun and state incentives to build projects.

San Francisco International responded to a request sent out by the City to host solar panels.  It would be a good deal for the host – receive solar electricity for the cost of the typical customer rate paid for other electricity sources.  SFO had a new terminal with a flat roof-top tailored made for solar.  The location, being highly visible from the terminal train, also would demonstrate the Airport and City’s commitment to an alternative energy future.  With that project constructed in 2007, the City utility now wants to build a second project on the rental car parking facility and the initial design is underway with construction planned for the fall.

San Francisco International Airport

Anthony Kekeluwela, a veteran engineer with the Port of Oakland, started talking about a solar facility for the airport in 2005.  His approach was a bit different from the others – why not build solar along the Airports runways in lands that can’t be used for other purposes.  The logic made sense – solar is physically low in profile and can be placed close to Part 77 imaginary surfaces without physically impeding airspace.  He worked with a solar developer who leased the land, built the project, and sells electricity to the Airport.  Today it operates with minimal maintenance and maximum benefit.  And is a working example of a solar system built near a runway causing no impacts.

Oakland International Airport

Fresno’s success story is just as remarkable.  It decided that the Runway Approach Zone, a large area subject to high noise levels from arriving and departing aircraft, was the perfect location for a large solar array.  Because no human occupied land uses could occur in the runway approach zone, airport personnel decided that solar panels would go there.  Fresno worked with the FAA to get the project approved.  Nearly two years after its construction, there have been zero complaints about its placement and Fresno would like to construct a second project.  By the way, the solar facility provides approximately 60% of the annual electricity demand of the airport.

While not all of these projects have been simple, the economic and public relations payback have been substantial.  And all of the airports that we spoke with said they would build another project if they could line up the same economic deal.  Because energy is a secondary purpose, most have not put the time in to construct a follow-on project.  Having this group of projects built and operating, does demonstrate solar at airports is more than a mirage – its good business.

That’s right – three new books that explore noise and its impact on society:  The Unwanted Sound of Everything We Want: A Book About Noise (PublicAffairs) by Garrett Keizer, Zero Decibels: The Quest for Absolute Silence(Scribner), by George Michelsen Foy; and In Pursuit of Silence: Listening for Meaning in a World of Noise(Doubleday), by George Prochnik.  We at HMMH have agreed to read and review all three, but I’ve just read a review in the New York Times – no doubt a more authoritative source.

I read the Prochnik book last week – ironically, on an airplane, with my Bosenoise-cancelling headphones masking the interior cabin noise.  Prochnik’s goal seems not to be to educate us about how noisy the world is, but to advocate for more places of silence.  He’s got a great blog, too, that explores all kinds of issues related to noise and silence – historical campaigns against noise, videos, poetry, and one of my favorite authors, Anaïs Nin. 

Prochnik’s work reminds me of a story my grandmother once told at a public meeting on noise in the neighborhood where she lived her entire 90 years.  It goes something like this:  “When I was a little girl, the street was cobbled, and the horses and milk trucks would clomp up and down all day.  Then came the cars and the coal trucks, with no mufflers.  And “the Elevated” was only a few blocks away, not to mention the noise from the brewery around the corner (Haffenreffers, now the home of Sam Adams).  Eventually, cars got rubber tires, and the El went underground.  If you ask me, things are just getting quieter all the time.”

But I digress – and thanks for indulging me this week after Mother’s Day.

I’m now halfway through the Keizer book, and find I agree with Dwight Garner of the Times – Keizer is ruthless in his examination of the cultural baggage around noisy places, and uses noise as a metaphor for many of society’s larger problems.  He interviewed several of us at HMMH while he was researching the book, and we found it to be a fascinating way to spend an afternoon – for us noise geeks, anyway.  As Andrew Sullivan would say, here’s the ‘money quote’:  “whenever you have ten noise experts in a room you have something like a renaissance”.  Love it!  But then, I’m biased.  And here’s where I’ll sign off, as Nick Miller plans to wax much more poetically on this book. 

I’ll check back in when I’ve finished all three.

A recent article got me thinking about traveling by train and by plane and how we see and use each mode of travel.  Planes are the get you there quick, long distance mode of travel.  Fast and glamorous.  Trains are the slow, leisurely, short distance mode of travel.  Utilitarian and functional.  At least, that’s the way many people see them.  Now, I am admittedly a bit of a train fan, but it’s clear that high speed rail (HSR) is changing those perceptions of travel around the world, even in the US. 

The article from China is a dramatic example of this phenomenon of trains competing equally with planes on time.  In Spain the traffic between Madrid and Barcelona (once the busiest air corridor in the world) has gone from 90% of the passengers on planes to over 50% of the passengers now on trains.  In the US, the Acela service on the Northeast Corridor between Boston and New York and New York and Washington has 37% and 50% of the market share, respectively.  That’s in the US!  My own anecdotal experience is that when I am going to Manhattan for work, I take the train every time.  It just makes sense. 

When traveling from Boston to New York, the train does take 3:15 minutes and the plane only 45 minutes, but that’s not the entire story.  You have to be at the airport at least an hour early.  There’s security, boarding, taxing, etc. to be taken into account.  In addition, you arrive in New York at either JFK or LaGuardia, and have to get into the city from there, which can add significant time.  The total travel time is equivalent, and at times, the HSR even has an edge.  Imagine if the Acela could go 150 mph on the entire corridor!

Some people see this as a competition, but in reality, the two modes of travel have different purposes.  For city pairs within a few hundred miles, true HSR makes sense and can be significantly shorter than air travel.  For longer distances, such as Boston to Chicago, or Boston to Los Angeles, the plane makes sense every time. 

An example of this is in Spain. The airlines not only didn’t fight the train over price and service between Madrid and Barcelona, but actually welcomed the trains.  The introduction of service allowed them to free up a significant number of landing slots for much more profitable international flights and use the trains to get people to the airports for the flights.  It was the proverbial “win-win” situation for all. 

We have to realize that we can only pave so many roads, or create so many new runways, much less airports.  HSR can be a great option at shorter distances, and can be an excellent form of travel.  Each mode has its advantages and disadvantages, and its own primary purpose.  In many countries, this is already a reality.  There’s a lot of hope that HSR in the US will come into its own and be a real travel mode, not just in the Northeast Corridor.