Trains Are Freedom
Does that look like freedom to you?
Apparently it does to the far right. This completely ridiculous and insane George Will column attacking trains as somehow being antithetical to freedom has been making the rounds today:
So why is America’s “win the future” administration so fixated on railroads, a technology that was the future two centuries ago? Because progressivism’s aim is the modification of (other people’s) behavior.
Forever seeking Archimedean levers for prying the world in directions they prefer, progressives say they embrace high-speed rail for many reasons—to improve the climate, increase competitiveness, enhance national security, reduce congestion, and rationalize land use. The length of the list of reasons, and the flimsiness of each, points to this conclusion: the real reason for progressives’ passion for trains is their goal of diminishing Americans’ individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism.
To progressives, the best thing about railroads is that people riding them are not in automobiles, which are subversive of the deference on which progressivism depends. Automobiles go hither and yon, wherever and whenever the driver desires, without timetables. Automobiles encourage people to think they—unsupervised, untutored, and unscripted—are masters of their fates. The automobile encourages people in delusions of adequacy, which make them resistant to government by experts who know what choices people should make.
There are any number of reasons why this argument is so stupid as to cause one to wonder whether George Will should be allowed to write about anything other than baseball. First of all, trains and cars are not exclusive. People can drive a car to a train station. Or, as more people use trains, it creates more savings and more room on roads to allow folks to use cars as well. It’s not an either/or.
But there are even better arguments against this nonsense. Paul Krugman mentions some of them:
Anyway, my experience is that of the three modes of mechanized transport I use, trains are by far the most liberating. Planes are awful: waiting to clear security, then having to sit with your electronics turned off during takeoff and landing, no place to go if you want to get up in any case. Cars — well, even aside from traffic jams (tell me how much freedom you experience waiting for an hour in line at the entrance to the Lincoln Tunnel), the thing about cars is that you have to drive them, which kind of limits other stuff.
But on a train I can read, listen to music, use my aircard to surf the web, get up and walk to the cafe car for some Amfood; oh, and I’m not restricted by the War on Liquids. When I can, I prefer to take the train even if it takes a couple of hours more, say to get to Boston, because it’s much higher-quality time.
Let’s develop this a bit. I used to commute fairly regularly between Sacramento and San José on the Capitol Corridor. It took about 4 hours each way (including the hour or so from Diridon Station to my home in Monterey), whereas the car took only three. But it was worth it. On the train, I could sit back, relax, do work on my laptop or my iPad. I could get up and walk around. I could use the bathroom. I could buy a bottle of beer or a bloody mary.
In short, I was a LOT freer on the train than sitting behind the wheel of car. As a driver, I am very restricted in what I can do, for very good reason. I can’t use a laptop or an iPad. Even a cell phone is risky. I can’t drink booze. I can’t get up and walk around. And if I’m stuck in traffic, I am not free. Whereas on a train, flying by the traffic at 79 mph (or at 220 mph as on a high speed train) I am much freer in my mobility.
Similar points were also made by Noahpinion:
Contrast this with trains. I lived for over two years in a country with one of the world’s best rail systems (Japan), and I relished the freedom that it gave me -any time I liked, I could walk to a train station, wait no more than a few minutes for a train to arrive, and be sure that I’d reach my destination in a set amount of time. Not only this, but any time I liked I could hop on a bullet train to another city and travel around that city in exactly the same manner.
Now, if you live in the suburbs or the country, you need a car (or some equivalent). No government infrastructure program will ever be able to change that. But in the places where trains are feasible – and in the places where progressives want to build them – rail increases personal freedom of movement.
That’s what support for rail is all about. We support it because it makes people freer. It liberates people from being shacked to their cars, from being helpless in the face of rising oil prices. Sure, cars provide great mobility – away from heavily congested corridors. I love a nice remote drive along Highway 1 in Big Sur, for example. But there’s nothing free about spending 9 hours on Interstate 5 in the Central Valley getting back to the Bay Area from a weekend visit to Los Angeles, as has happened to me on several occasions.
Noahpinion also pushed back – hard – on Will’s assumptions, rooted as they are in class and racial privilege:
Finally, two can play at Will’s game. I could easily claim that conservatives hate trains not because of a love of freedom, but because of racism. Cars are the main enabler of white flight; without trains and walkable streets, white suburbanites need never see a black person from close up. Conservatives, I could argue, are throwing a thin and shoddy veneer of libertarianism over the thick, unshakable bedrock of racial nationalism that is the true heart of their movement. Trains threaten their comfortable status quo of voluntary apartheid.
He says that “it is a part of what is going on” and I agree that it’s not the whole story – but it surely is a part of the story. It’s also about the belief on the right that passenger trains are subsidized, and that building any rail represents a shift in money out of their pockets and to people they don’t like. And it’s also about the belief on the right that the mid-20th century model of America is The Greatest Thing Ever and that anyone who criticizes it or opposes it is a Communist who hates freedom.
Think I exaggerate? Look at how Will ends his column:
Time was, the progressive cry was “Workers of the world unite!” or “Power to the people!” Now it is less resonant: “All aboard!”
Right, because trains are Communist. Surely Will missed the last 180 years of history, where railroads played a central role to American prosperity and, yes, freedom.
But it’s even more than his misreading of history and of present day reality. Progressives don’t like trains because of ideology. We like them because they work. Because they make money (at least, HSR trains do). Because they efficiently move people and goods. Because they give people more choices.
It wasn’t all that long ago – the 1980s, the age of Reagan – that those values were conservative values, Republican values. It helps explain why many Republicans in California support high speed rail. They understand that trains provide freedom. Unfortunately, way too many Republican and conservative ideologues refuse to accept those realities, and instead want to distort the truth in support of their bizarre war on trains. It’s really sad to see that happen. And it’s up to us to push back against it.
Trains tend to be used by those with higher income actually (Metrolink’s average household income is around 73K iirc), so charges of racism really don’t apply to those opposing trains. Additionally, speaking as a conservative, playing the whole “You/they are a bigot/racist/misogynist/soup of the day!” card is one of the fastest ways to make us simply not care about anything you have to say. It is just a touch overused and usually has nothing to do with the argument at hand, as Noahopinion demonstrates.
A couple of additional points regarding trains and freedom:
1. Not everyone is a fan of driving. I don’t really enjoy it myself, and I outright detest highway driving here in SoCal. This is amplified for those who cannot drive for whatever reason, such as a friend of mine whose vision impairments prevent her from driving at night.
2. Schedules are not something binding unless done fairly badly with limited service. Having taken the train to LA a few times recently for a job interview, I found it far more freeing to have a reliable guaranteed arrival without the hassle of worrying whether traffic, parking, or an accident upon the way would interfere (although granted, the train isn’t immune from such incidents).
3. However, it should be noted that unless something funky is done with the pricing, the high speed rail system isn’t going to be doing much for commuters (although Caltrain and Metrolink will be taking advantage of the upgrades for themselves, they should probably be considered separately). It certainly won’t be breaking down class or racial barriers.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 12:39 am
I disagree with your initial premise. Commuter trains, i.e. the type of rail transit that transit supporters are typically least excited about, are often used by the wealthy. Urban trains are not, and urban buses even less so. What’s more, within mass transit, there’s tension between suburban supporters of the status quo in which trains are supposed to come with huge park-and-rides and effectively extend the car into downtown, and urbanists who want trains to look more like traditional urban rail and extend pedestrianism to outer-urban neighborhoods and the suburbs. In New York, subway proponents criticize the high subsidies given to the commuter railroads; in cities where urban rail is only really urban in gentrified neighborhoods, such as the Bay Area, the class issues morph into bus/rail mode wars.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 1:01 am
If, by urban you are referring to intraurban rail such as the various metro systems, that may very well be so, but contextually I thought it obvious I and those quoted by Robert were referring to intercity trains, which high speed rail falls into. In the United States, at least, intercity rail is predominantly wealthy rather than poor and I would be extraordinarily surprised were CAHSR to have a significant number of low income riders.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 2:35 pm
You’re right that HSR riders tend to be wealthier, and this causes some right-wingers to support HSR while neglecting urban transit. But for the most part, right-wing views are colored by the association of trains with urban rail and the buses, or with Europe and Japan. The main set of exceptions is people in the Northeast, who are used to Amtrak, but outside the Northeast, the “What, me ride something like light rail?” line resonates with some people.
Dan S. Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 6:49 pm
Perhaps one reason why public transit, including rail, is seen in such a negative light in this country is because gas is so cheap here. Using gas as fuel clearly has many negative externalities (foreign wars, support of foreign dictators, environmental probs, traffic congestion, economic dependence on a single type of energy) but these are not priced into the cost of gas in America. Other countries do much better. (Not only in taxing gas but also in tolling roads.) I think if our gas tax was in line with other countries, the use of all modes of public transit would be much more popular among all class lines.
I remember calculating the relative cost of driving my car to work vs. taking Caltrain plus the VTA trolley at one point, and realizing how much more I’d have to pay to abandon my car! I never did it! I had to switch jobs and be able to commute solely on Caltrain for it to become worthwhile for me.
That said, it’s always a good question to wonder why conservatives in general are so against transit and trains in particular. They like to claim it’s because that subsidies are required for Amtrak. But we’ve seen here that roads and driving are subsidized as much and more. I have a thought for consideration. I think conservatives dislike transit because it means that you have to see and actually be next to your fellow citizens. The poor ones. The ones who are suffering because of the inherent unfairness built into the free-market economy and the politics of austerity that conservatives love. The failure of the conservative economic system is that it doesn’t serve the needs of society well. It only serves the needs of the top income earners. If this was the system that fed you well, then you’d want to hide in your car too.
How’s that for a cynical take?
Alon Levy Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 9:57 pm
What you’re saying is partly true. But still, although nowadays other developed countries have high gas taxes, historically this wasn’t always the case. Some, like Britain, have had high gas taxes from the start; others, like Japan, had gas taxes barely higher than the US until the 1990s or 2000s.
There’s nothing inherent to conservatism that’s anti-transit. Hong Kong and Singapore are the most capitalistic as well as the most pro-transit states in the world. Things work remarkably differently in countries where the primary industry isn’t pollution.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 10:24 am
“Trains tend to be used by those with higher income actually (Metrolink’s average household income is around 73K iirc), so charges of racism really don’t apply to those opposing trains.”
Which set of people opposing trains? The small group of oil billionaires and other so-called “conservative” propaganda mill funders who generate the public arguments, or those who they are targeting with the public arguments?
There is nothing small-c conservative about handing the decision on the nature of our nation’s transportation system to Big Oil ~ its more a big-C “Conservative Movement” thing, which is to say more about going after where the money is to continue funding the Movement.
Big Oil does not oppose trains for racist reasons ~ they oppose trains in general and electric trains in particular due to the threat of large segments of the population losing their dependence on oil to meet their transport needs.
On the other hand, the public arguments that are crafted are built on the “whatever works” principle, so whatever suburbanite fears it is possible to tap will be tapped.
That is also why it is so critical to stop the HSR program, since if HSR becomes established, experience with the systems in practice will substantially undermine the ability to generate fear abut their consequences.
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 9:50 pm
Yeah that’s what George Lakoff calls “framing”. If someone has to use your terminology, you have ceded the issue to them.
Sorry to say but Noahpinion and Robert always soft pedal the race card on transportation. Cars weren’t just about being able to get away from dark, swarthy masses filling America’s cities. It was also about crushing union power in groups like the Pullman Porters.
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 9:51 pm
!!!!Framing is when you have to use someone’s else terminology, and cede the issue to them as a result !!!
Alon Levy Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 9:57 pm
UAW?
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 10:13 pm
Bwa-huh? None of the profit killing restrictions on railroads had anything to do with their unions to my knowledge and Roosevelt and Eisenhower, the major players for the highways, were supportive of unions.
That Newsweek article was posted over the weekend. I came across it then after a random HSR News Google search.
I tried to post a comment then. I would have been the first poster.
Agreed, it is a stupid article. It does not make sense. The guy must be an idiot.
Riding a train provides gobs of freedom. Commuting by car is being trapped. It’s like jail.
A train ride allows people time to read, catch up on news, talk with others. And, if you have WiFi available, you can surf the net like I do. Okay okay, I get a dropped signal in some tunnels and trenches. But, surfing makes the commute sooooo much more enjoyable. My 25 minute ride… before I know it, it is over with. Actually, sometimes I wish it were longer.
This does not occur while commuting by car. In fact, driving is a chore. Washing dirty dishes at home is more enjoyable – at least you can clean your fingernails.
Occaisionally I drive. But, I need to leave home before 6am to match my travel time by train. Then, I pay for parking. On the way home, it is nail biting and hair raising fight to get back home, and takes no less than 45 minutes.
I have a disclaimer… I am posting early in the morning right now. This is not from a train, but it could have been. No, this is from home… I couldn’t sleep as a result of expecting a big day ahead.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 8:24 am
Actually no he is sneaky and shrewd… I can’t believe he believes any of this stupid crap… well hope he doesn’t…No this a propaganda piece once again written to stir up and scare all of the naïvely duped Americans that think like him.. maybe a rebuttal showing the beautiful German autobahn and the very nice cars , since of course they have high-speed rail and they have no freedom.
I’m amazed at George Will writing that. It’s like he lives in a grove of birch trees.
Of course George Will has it right. It would really be great if he and others would realize that the current $43 Billion cost projection fabrication is really over $65 billion and we have yet to put a shovel in the ground.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgPdqX1ZPVY
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 6:08 am
It would also be great if opponents realized that the estimate for comparable expansion of highways and roadways to accommodate statewide travel were 3 times higher than HSR. And, that that estimate is probably under-estimated.
Can you do us a favor and admit to that? That highway and airport expansions to accommodate statewide travel will be $120 to $200 billion???
morris brown Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 7:56 am
You can argue all you want about alternatives, but let us agree that what the Authority is currently saying about “the cost to build this project” is simply not truthful.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 10:16 am
You can argue all you want about the cost to build this project, but let us agree that in any event it is cheaper than the alternatives, and the question is simply how much cheaper.
PeakVT Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 10:23 am
Let’s admit that avoiding the discussion of alternatives and their costs and focusing on the plan at project at hand is disingenuous
Victor Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 2:48 pm
Do You have even the slightest shred of proof on this? Unless You do and I doubt You’ll ever have anything credible, Then Yer simply another Tool and a Fool to boot. but then a fool and His/Her money is soon parted.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 11:46 pm
I recognize that voice from another slide show; it’s Wendell Cox.
http://www.demographia.com/photo5.jpg
Some source.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 11:55 pm
At least I think it is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZCOqBr8qs8
Hmm, that’s curious, normally Cox has a credit line or announcement identifying himself, but it’s not here. Is this part of a longer presentation with a missing segment, or is Cox realizing he is an embarrassment to his cause?
Alon Levy Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 10:51 pm
Ever noticed how the trolls he pays to deface blogs never quote Demographia or the Antiplanner? (Other highway shills do, or else use arguments that aren’t replicas of what Cox and O’Toole say.)
MGimbel Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 7:18 am
Morris, you’ve got to be growing desperate with the constant posting of anti-HSR rhetoric on a PRO-HSR blog. Frankly, just form your own blog where you can yell and scream all you want about how the California project is a “$100 billion boondoggle” and a “train to nowhere.”
Victor Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 2:49 pm
He’s have to have two brain cells for that, Someone once said “I pity the fool”.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 8:28 am
You agree with every right-wing kook or anybone else just because they write an anti-HSR article… geez… AND like anybody here agree with that stupid crap from those articles.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 10:00 am
Go look at the cost overruns on the Interstate Highway System and then get back to us, ok?
Freedom is exactly what runs through my mind as I ride my bike to work. Poor suckers stuck in cars.
Having spent more time in trains than I have in cars I definitely do value the time I have for myself, which I can use for reading or preparing for work or just daydreaming, all things That I can’t do while driving.
It is true that you can drive wherever you like and whenever you like. But how many people do that and how often? The vast majority of car trips are just the boring chores of commuting or shopping. And trains will not mean the end of cars so trains are not going to stop anybody from driving where they want. This is an absolute non-argument. Trains will not take freedom away. on the contrary: Besides being free where you want to drive, you will be free whether or not you want to drive.
M Brennan Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 8:57 am
Exactly! This is not an end to cars at all.. just an end to lots of dreadful intercity driving. I have not owned a car for years now and use primarily my bicycle and transit for personal transportation. Being a business owner I do need the flexibility of using a car to get to meetings and such, that’s why I am a Zipcar member. Carsharing is a perfect compliment to HSR. We can have the best of both worlds while allowing freeways to be used more for delivering goods and services than for commuting.
Unfortunately Will’s garbage shows just how much to the right the GOP has gone in recent years. Moderates stand no chance in the GOP, now dominated by the Tea Partiers and racists. I don’t know about you all, but Reagan is looking better day after day (GOP speaking of course).
HSR will do nothing to eliminate the prime issue the photo at the top of the page illustrates. Commute hour traffic. I don’t think removing the daily drivers from SF to LA will remove many commute hour drivers.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 10:06 am
George Will’s comment was a broad-based attack on passenger rail. This post is intended as a broad-based defense of passenger rail. You will note that when it came to specific examples, I did mention Interstate 5 in the Central Valley, which at times looks exactly like that photo.
That being said, HSR will provide *some* help to commute hour traffic on freeways in the Bay Area and Southern California. How much help? Hard to say. For long-distance commuters it’ll be a significantly better option and will take some of those cars off the roads, from places like Gilroy and Palmdale.
It’s true that commuter rail services like Metrolink and Caltrain would do even more to reduce that traffic. But Proud Palo Alto NIMBYs like yourself are fighting bitterly against improving capacity on the Caltrain corridor, so it’s pretty difficult to take your comment seriously. You need to admit to yourself – and to us – that your proud NIMBYism means you want to see this sort of thing on Highway 101 every commute, because it’s better that 101 be jammed than your precious aesthetic principles be undermined by adding some more tracks within the existing ROW on a passenger railroad that was in service LONG before you were born.
joe Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 10:34 am
NIMBY’s are destroying their cities.
With the proposed S County cuts to Caltrain, we’d have to carpool to Stanford. They offer free passes to discourage traffic. There would be a hundreds of additional cars on 101 and more PA backups on the metered ramps.
The proposed Cargill development off 101 will add 12,000 homes, 60,000 to 70,000 daily car trips from the site, which is just east of U.S. Highway 101 and south of Seaport Boulevard. That traffic includes 6,000 to 7,000 trips during peak morning and afternoon commute periods. The peak-hour flow on Highway 101 is 13,000 vehicles, according to Caltrans data.
Menlo Park proposes adding 26 condo development to El Camino – that’s probably 52 additional cars given a 1 car per adult rule of thumb.
So NIMBY’s can kill HSR and cripple Caltrain.
Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/bay-area/2011/02/concern-grows-over-traffic-impact-cargill-development#ixzz1FT3LUyDl
Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/bay-area/2011/02/concern-grows-over-traffic-impact-cargill-development#ixzz1FT3GZcpe
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/bay-area/2011/02/concern-grows-over-traffic-impact-cargill-development
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 12:01 pm
Well, that’s amazing.
How exactly are these “NIMBY’s” (sic) crippling Caltrain, again? Please, let us know.
In reality, it is SamTrans/SMCTA’s worse than catastrophic prior encounter with the last PBQD/Bechtel designed and promoted rail line (BART to Millbrae) that has crippled the finances of the agency, put back Caltrain capital funding by 30 or more yars, and has now blown such a huge hole in the SMCTA budget that it can’t fund Caltrain operations.
How this has anything to do with “NIMBY’s” rather than with, say, grotesque levels of institutional corruption, fronted and actively enabled by individuals such as Quentin “PB’s bestest friend eva” Kopp, is something that you’ll need to resolve with the spiritual or mental health advisor.of your choice.
joe Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 2:44 pm
NIMBY oppose Caltrain funding and rail improvements along the ROW.
Sadly NIMBY heaven San Mateo’s SamTrans is the cause of the Caltrain shortfall and the other counties don’t want to pay San Mateo’s share.
You claim bad decisions motivated the SamTrans shortfall and hurt Caltrain. Caltrain is highest cost recovery service SamTrans supports so cutting Caltrain, is another bad economic decision.
At the Gilroy presentation, the Caltrain Rep showed Caltrain’s fare recovery well over twice what SamTrans or VTA gets per rider for their buses. The operational overhead is low. It’s the worse place to cut in short fall. Least gain in savings per rider but the cuts feed the NIMBY’s desire to halt rail improvements.
My selfish preference is to close as many of the San Mateo stops as possible which would obviously increase traffic and operating costs for local companies – that shock might wake-up the majority of citizens who support rail and are not aware a vocal minority have taken over.
Spokker Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Investing in transit of all types will not improve freeway or road traffic in the way that you think. The Westside Subway Extension was recently slammed in the press because its environmental reports show little to no traffic relief in 2020 or 2030 I think it was. Translation: with the subway extension, traffic will be just as bad as it is today for West Los Angeles.
The counterargument is that transit offers a choice to avoid the congestion and use a tool other than a personal vehicle for the job. Also, we can imagine what traffic would be like without the subway.
So essentially, bumper to bumper traffic won’t go away, it just won’t get worse. The traffic you have today is the traffic you are stuck with. Widening the freeway offers temporary relief, but it will never go away in the long run.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Widening the freeway offers temporary relief, at the expense of making the problem worse over the long term. Congestion pricing offers permanent relief, but is likely to only be viable in environments where there are alternatives to driving available.
Spokker Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 10:51 pm
Aside from there simply being too many cars, how do traffic jams develop anyway?
Some drivers seem to have this notion that if they all pressed on the gas at the same time they would eradicate traffic. I think the opposite is true. If they all lay off the gas and suddenly become the most generous drivers in the world it would make traffic jams less likely to develop.
Many people say that traffic (and accidents) are caused by speed differentials and I find that to be very true. The problem is that few can agree what exactly the proper speed should be at any given moment. It seems counterintuitive but I think we could all get home faster if we just slowed down.
Like carpooling, however, that is an impossible task.
Peter Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 11:27 pm
In Germany they progressively lower the speed limits as traffic increases on certain freeways with digital displays.
Will’s comments are a joke! I am conservative in my views. Yet I still believe high speed rail will be an easier, more efficient way to travel. I commute to work everyday aboard the train so I don’t have to pay for parking and higher gas prices. Call it freedom if you will.
“Automobiles go hither and yon, wherever and whenever the driver desires, without timetables. Automobiles encourage people to think they—unsupervised, untutored, and unscripted—are masters of their fates.” Certainly Will’s comment does not take into mind those who must carpool. Trapped in a car with others who are dependent on a timetable to get where they are going. Sounds pretty “free” to me.
Will’s very next statement is even more obsurd. He says, “The automobile encourages people in delusions of adequacy, which make them resistant to government by experts who know what choices people should make.” Let’s see . . . gas taxes collected by the government, car registration fees paid to the government, fines for moving violations collected by the government, our tax money which pays for improvements to the roads we drive on . . . car drivers certainly seem resistant to government. This doesn’t take into account that traffic signals and signs impede our movement in automobiles – certainly “freeing” us when we drive in our cars.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 4:35 pm
I long ago came to the conclusion that the talk of “cars are freedom!(tm)” was a joke. Sure, maybe you don’t deal with a railroad or bus timetable, but you usually have another timetable to deal with, run by a fellow called a boss. Want to just take the day off for hunting, fishing, shopping or anything else? Try to do it without the approval of the boss, and find out how much really “free” time you have on your hands!
I recall, years ago when my office was in a different location, and my residence was in a different place as well, how I would drive out of the development I was in, and every day, I would see the same other three vehicles coming down the road, with the same drivers. The drivers were all men in this time, one in a green Dodge, another a commercial driver in a white and silver milk tanker, another fellow in a white Chevrolet, and me in another white Chevrolet. We would all be driving down the same road at the same time, very often in the same order. We might as well been on a bus, streetcar, or local commuter train, specifically a milk train.
Of course, Will, being something of a freelance writer, doesn’t have to go to an office, a shop, or a store every day; he can work when he feels like it, as long as he makes his deadlines, and much of the time he is doing research on the great love of his writing life, baseball!
Hey, how do I get a job like that?
OT: this is old news (one week) but in case it hasn’t been posted here:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/feb/21/desert-xpress-going-after-tax-dollars-after-all/
Victor Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Yep, It’s old, But I’m glad their still around, If they do build out to Palmdale, They could have a maintenance facility in Llano CA or at least somewhere nearby, As Llano is between Palmdale and Victorville along CA SR138.
Photo 1: a French freeway on a normal day (trains running normally).
Photo 2: another freeway when only 50% of trains running (one SNCF union on strike).
Conclusion: without trains, driving is hell.
Victor Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Nimbys would say photo 2 is the reality and that Photo 1 never happens, But then none of them have ridden on Amtrak, Let alone the TGV or the Eurostar HSR train under the channel.
thatbruce Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 4:15 pm
@Andre:
I was hoping that the source blog post referencing photo #2 would indicate that it was taken during a train strike; unfortunately that’s not the case.
Victor Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 6:05 pm
Yeah, Both just say their from France, Rut, Roh.
Andre Peretti Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 7:42 pm
That’s what all Paris suburban highways look like when regional trains are on strike.
A personal experience: driving from Montrouge to Bagnolet (12km) usually took me 10 minutes, but it took me over 1 hour during a train+metro strike. And I could find nowhere to park.
To prevent total paralysis the unions have now accepted to operate at least 1/3 of the trains when on strike. A TGV stoppage would probably congest intercity highways more than regional ones but that can’t be tested because TGVs are little affected by strikes.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 8:30 pm
One of the anti-transit/rail fear tactics is showing the French transit worker strikes and how they shut everything down.. and why we do not want this in United States because they take away our freedom these arrogant union workers… they forgot to show how nice it is to have a great transit system and high-speed rail the other 95% of the time.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Hmmm…. in metro New York when the transit system is on strike automobile traffic evaporates…sorta kinda… People don’t venture out. They know there is distinct possibility of it all gridlocking. Alternate transit on the other hand becomes distinctly unpleasant.
joe Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 4:48 pm
I guess if not going to work and canceling business proves highways don’t congest.
12/21/2005 (time of year near xmas)
“Mayor Bloomberg again joined the thousands of New Yorkers making the trek across the Brooklyn Bridge by foot Wednesday morning. On Tuesday, he said if he’s going to ask the city’s people to do it, than he’s got to do it, too.
Most of the impacts of a strike come from cancellations of economic activity that can’t be replaced, such as ticket sales to entertainment events and restaurant meals. Corporations may relocate employees to satellite offices during the strike, conferences may be cancelled, and people who do make it to work may work shorter hours or be preoccupied with making transportation arrangements, leading to lost productivity.”
YesonHSR Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 8:40 pm
Oh my God!!! those “real Americannns” would be so shocked to see that the French and Europeans actually have freeways… they think everybody is so unhappy because they have no cars/ freedom and have to take public transit/ trains in Europe!!
Krugman opining further on HSR
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/trains-planes-and-automobiles/
Train gives us freedom from imported oil.
Car shackles us to a rapidly dwindling resource, contributes to our trade imbalance, depreciates our dollars, and forces our government to support despots (taking freedom away from a whole generation of people in the Middle East and North Africa).
tell me again how Car == freedom?
Victor Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 6:23 pm
By Horse or on Your own two Feet or by Wheelchair(Electric or Manual) or by Bus or by Rail is Freedom, A Car though is very handy for trips to the store or If one can’t Walk or use a Wheelchair or ride an animal for some reason. Of course for those with No access to any rail transit or even Bus Transit, A Car is at least still practical, Even when the cost of Gasoline/Diesel is high.
And yes a Car means taking care of It by making repairs, Buying fuel, paying fees(which some don’t like paying), paying for(Subsidizing) Paved Roads which comes from a lot of sources(Gas Tax, Special County Gas Taxes, Property Taxes, Income Taxes, Etc) and are not by any means Free, As Roads are not cheap to build or to expand as land is needed to expand roads/highways/freeways and that can and does cost a small fortune today, Where as Tracks for HSR/Transit(Rails) along an existing corridor(Hwy, Fwy, Abandoned Rail or Active Rail) costs less per mile than any roadway ever would.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 8:36 pm
They still want their cars… they just want them to be electric or something that doesn’t use much gas or oil.. they really don’t care about sprawl and their answer to the freeway traffic and gridlock is just to build more.. not transit/ rail
I lived in the valley with and had to use a car for everything. I was a slave to the car.
I live in the city with no car. I am freer than ever and I’m saving hundreds of dollars a month.
no tickets
no parking costs
no making time to go to the gas station twice a week do give my hard earned money to oil companies
no bridge tolls
no bad back
no traffic stress
no cramping leg on the gas pedal
no tires to buy
no unexpected repair costs that always hit in the month when you are broke
no DMV
no CHP
no theft or vandalism
no flat tires, running out of gas, or otherwise being stranded anywhere.
I am free of all those things.
And I go wherever I want whenever I want.
jimsf Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 6:52 pm
oh and my commute is about 8 minutes away or I can walk the 12 blocks if I want.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 8:03 pm
Good for you! You don’t know how much I wish I could join you in that lifestyle, but the local powers-that-be would suggest rather strongly that I was a dirty Communist, and in fact, they did!
In other comments, some thoughts on light rail–including one system that has a operating profit, and it’s in North America!
http://transitsleuth.com/2011/03/02/light-rail-primary-arterial-transport/
Not quite certain it qualifies as what most of us would consider a light rail line, though.
Spokker Reply:
March 2nd, 2011 at 11:45 pm
Skytrain reminds me of Tiger Woods. Light rail advocates and heavy rail advocates alike want to claim the system as an example of their preferred method of rail transport.
Tigers Woods used to have claims made by Asians and blacks, now nobody wants him.