I have to say it’s stunning just how dim the outlook for the future of air travel seems to have become in such a short amount of time. And current skepticism about the industry doesn’t even take into account the potential effects of a carbon price. Barring some major technological and organization innovation, the ground seems set for alternatives to capture a significant share of the market for intercity travel.

Along those lines, here’s Bruce Reed and Paul Weinstein:

That’s why the next president and the new Congress should commit to building five new high-speed rail corridors in the next 10 years. The corridors would be selected based on three key criteria: geography (the flatter the terrain, the faster the train); a high probability of use (densely populated corridors with significant levels of highway and airborne traffic); and a commitment by the private sector, states and localities to share in the cost of construction. Wherever possible, the high-speed rail corridors should connect to major air hubs.

Roads and airports have direct sources of financing - namely, taxes on gasoline and ticket purchases. If high-speed rail is going to become a reality, it will need a similarly robust stream of income. That’s why policymakers should establish a trust fund that would finance construction and maintenance. We could pay for this investment in a number of ways: carbon-offset purchases; a 4.3-cent diesel gas tax on the railroad industry that would raise about $200 million a year; ticket surcharges; and/or matching contributions from states served by the new rail lines.

A major investment in high-speed rail could dramatically decrease congestion at airports and on highways as well. A single railroad track, just 6 feet across, would provide the same capacity as expanding the Long Island Expressway by six lanes. Amtrak’s high-speed Acela Express trains have already captured a significant portion of travelers between New York and Washington, competing with shuttle flights for passengers.

As for energy savings, even the most conservative studies give trains an advantage of 4 to 1 over cars and airplanes. According to studies done in Japan, high-speed trains produce one-tenth the carbon-dioxide emissions of airplanes.

With our economy most likely headed into a recession, another compelling argument for a major investment in high-speed rail is that it will help produce millions of new jobs and promote economic growth. A $20 billion investment in high-speed rail will create more than 300,000 jobs nationally. That ratio of investment to job creation compares quite favorably to the recently enacted federal stimulus package. According to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, the $150 billion stimulus will create only 500,000 jobs this year (a cost of $300,000 per job).

It certainly seems to me as though a political message emphasizing that rail and transit investments would cut consumer costs and create jobs would be a potent one in the current economic climate. Obama has nodded in this direction, but it will be interesting to see whether Congressional races also sign on.

(H/T)