Using Envy To Build American High Speed Rail
The Economist takes a look at the argument that appeared in the Washington Monthly recently calling for a “compromise” solution to the high speed rail debate that would simply abandon true high speed rail. This blog called that a failed effort to find moderate ground, and The Economist appears to agree. Instead of scaling back our ambitions, however, The Economist believes the solution is to appeal to Americans’ sense of envy:
The best way to get high-speed rail to succeed in America is to actually build it somewhere, and then to wait for the other states to say “I want that!” The Obama administration doesn’t have to “settle” for incremental improvements. The places that are objectively the best candidates for high-speed rail (California and the Northeast corridor) also happen to be the places that want to invest in it. The federal government should spend its limited high-speed rail money in those places instead of worrying about convincing GOP governors in Ohio and Wisconsin and Florida to accept hundreds of millions of dollars to build “fast-enough” lines. And if there isn’t the political will to appropriate the money, then at the very least the feds should make it easier for states that want to work together on high-speed rail to do so and get out of the way.
In fact, this is somewhat analogous to how the Interstate Highway System was built. The first freeways came from the Great Depression, back when Americans actually understood the value of investing in infrastructure to meet the needs of the next few decades and produce lasting economic growth. From California’s Arroyo Seco Freeway (1940) to the Pennsylvania Turnpike (also 1940 – its first segment was a freeway to nowhere from Irwin to Carlisle) states took the lead in developing the system. And once other states saw the benefits of both those initial segments and superhighways around the globe, it generated momentum that led to the 1956 Interstate Highways Act.
State budgets were as stressed in the 1930s as they are now, although states did not have virulent anti-tax politics or structural impediments to generating new revenue the way California does now. But it increasingly may make sense for California to pioneer true HSR in America, with whatever help the feds can provide, and use it as a lever to break up the anti-HSR politics that currently dominate the US Congress.
I took a look at the comments that followed the editorial in The Economist, and I again say I am greatly disappointed in my fellow Americans. How did we become a country with so much ignorance?
We have, besides those with the usual money worries, those who argue we should upgrade with welded rail (done on all major freight lines), have more legroom and headroom (check for Amtrak Superliners), wireless internet, etc., etc., (yep, Amtrak has that, at least in places if not the entire system), others who call it a “boondoggle (man, that’s getting old, can’t the opponents come up with anything different?), others who claim America is too big (hmm, that seems to argue for the comfort and speed of rail), others who say what do you do for transport at the end of the trip (so, what do you do at an airport?), and of course the arguments that Americans love their cars to much because they represent Freedom(tm), because Real Americans(tm) drive cars, and cars are Real America(tm). Only a handful who commented there seemed to understand the technology and history (i.e., the last commentator who recalled high-speed operations of the 30s and 40s prior to the ICC order for cab signals and automatic train stop).
How did my country turn so dumb?
political_incorrectness Reply:
July 5th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
The ill informed apparently have the time and bigger mouths from what I see.
swing hanger Reply:
July 5th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
I would have expected a higher caliber of comment from Economist readers than your run-of-the-mill local fishwrap, but alas, no…
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 5th, 2011 at 11:08 pm
“The ill informed apparently have the time and bigger mouths from what I see.”–political_incorrectness
This helps to illustrate what I’ve been saying about the need for a handful of professional boosters. I don’t think you would need more than two or three people who could work at this full time. You certainly wouldn’t need $4 million per year to do it.
With the right people, it would be a huge improvement over relying on grossly underfunded volunteers who have plenty of spirit, but not enough time or money, and who essentially have to catch as catch can.
Professionals are what the opposition has–and they have us badly outgunned.
Sounds like the situation from “The Magnificent Seven” (and its original inspiration, “Seven Samurai”).
political_incorrectness Reply:
July 6th, 2011 at 12:27 am
Exactly, the PR war is a different animal which the Authority isn’t winning, creating a negative perception of the project and the Authority itself. The people behind the PR are what will make or break the project. People with poor outreach and information communication are doing the project no justice.
joe Reply:
July 6th, 2011 at 1:28 pm
Winning ARRA funding and the Central Valley start were massive – real victories that put the detractors and vultures on the defensive. The Negative Press is a result of the HSR victoroes.
The LAO was called on to attack and free up the ARRA funds. FAIL.
CARRD got their Congress and State reps to explicitly down scope the HSR Peninsula system at the Menlo Park press gaggle. FAIL again.
Brown Veto’s the Prop 1A giveaway to BART and Caltrain for not coordinating with CAHSRA. FAIL one more time.
So HSR has done well despite not having an interested PR firm to help.
Andy M. Reply:
July 6th, 2011 at 2:17 am
“I took a look at the comments that followed the editorial in The Economist, and I again say I am greatly disappointed in my fellow Americans. How did we become a country with so much ignorance?”
… or rather that’s the Economist for you. The journalism is very good and they always manage to come up with interesting new perspectives and solidly researched articles. But I guess a large part of the readership is totally off its rocker. You only need to look at the letters column to see the mouth foaming, tin-foil hat stuff many of them are spouting.
Miles Bader Reply:
July 6th, 2011 at 4:00 am
Ergh, yes… I’ve been reading through some other stories on economist.com, and see exactly the same thing in many — a well-reasoned and thoughtful article, followed by a comment section filled with barely coherent dogma-driven ranting by assorted nutcases/loons/etc…
political_incorrectness Reply:
July 6th, 2011 at 11:54 am
There is a significant difference between the knowledge of a majority of Internet commenters versus those of the voters, otherwise, Prop 1a would have most definitely failed.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
July 6th, 2011 at 1:26 pm
I’d be rather surprised if the average voter knew all that much about Prop 1A prior to getting to the voting booth; I think that was my first time hearing of it.
Robert, I’m not sure you want to portray the Interstates as the era “back when Americans actually understood the value of investing in infrastructure to meet the needs of the next few decades.” More like a continuous program of subsidizing pollution and sprawl for the sole reason that its proponents are organized and can act like victims despite being solidly upper middle-class and have powerful polluting industries on their side.
You know how in Seattle some people want to squander public money on burying a freeway that needs to be demolished? Those are the people who created the Interstate network. People who aren’t concerned about prudent investment, who think overspending on shiny infrastructure is progress, and who have no trouble allying with corporations to sponsor essay contests such as “How good roads help the religious life of my community.”
On the fiction that gas taxes collected from all roads are really user fees of the mainline road network, the US road network still burns about $70 billion a year on construction and maintenance. And that’s if you believe that local streets are funded by the tooth fairy. It’s a black hole of public money of size that dwarfs everything else in the US other than the military ($3 trillion on finding Saddam didn’t have WMD the hard way) and health care (twice the cost of everyone else in the first world, worse results). It should be an example to avoid for future HSR construction, rather than an example to emulate.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
July 5th, 2011 at 10:32 pm
I don’t disagree with this criticism of the Interstate Highway System. My point wasn’t to say that investment was the best one we could have made – it brought some short-term benefits but huge long-term costs. The bigger point was that the states led on that investment during the 1930s and 1940s and it led to demand for a national system. The same can happen with HSR, which has few if any of the cost externalities of the Interstates.
I’m not sure it’s really appropriate to say that PA Turnpike’s first segment was originally a freeway to nowhere when those towns simply represented where it interchanged with the existing highways (US 11 and US 30) and that was the original full extent of the system (with the Philly extension being due to the success of the route). It was basically a high speed bypass of the existing roads, not really comparable to the “train to nowhere” meme.
Andy M. Reply:
July 6th, 2011 at 2:22 am
Where’s the difference? Won’t the San Joaquin’s also share the tracks of the initial segment of California HSR, so by-passing a slower section of line and reducing overall journey times?
Paulus Magnus Reply:
July 6th, 2011 at 9:19 am
Only as part of the ARRA funding and if the HSR project turns into a complete failure and isn’t extended. Furthermore, from the viewpoint of most of California, the area of the first construction segment is nowhere whereas Pittsburgh and Harrisburg were and are rather more important, plus through journeys from Philadelphia could also make use of it once they reached Harrisburg (while there are no through journeys that might be able to speed up except the San Joaquins). It would be more directly comparable if the train to nowhere meme had been about an HSR line that connected to LOSSAN at Solana Beach and Commerce and that represented the full planned extent of the line.
joe Reply:
July 6th, 2011 at 11:03 am
I missed that polling result – maybe after redistricting shifts congressional representation form the coasts to the central valley, the view will change. I frankly think it’s a lame talking point, not a grassroots perspective.
VBobier Reply:
July 6th, 2011 at 11:30 am
I didn’t know the 1st HSR segment was going to be built in Antarctica. I thought it was going to be built in the Central Valley, not exactly nowhere really, but then I’ve lived in Los Angeles County, San Bernardino County and yes Tulare County too once upon a time. But then the CV has more population than the whole Peninsula, to some they may still say Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Atherton? They say huh? Never heard of them before. Me I’ve only heard of them as I’d passed through there on My way to San Fran with My parents back in 1971…
But then some need to read a dictionary, As their in need of it, badly.
Andy M. Reply:
July 7th, 2011 at 1:28 am
“Only as part of the ARRA funding and if the HSR project turns into a complete failure and isn’t extended. ”
…errrr…
what arguments are there for NOT running the San Joaquins over that line? Of course at some point I guess the San Joaquins will cease to operate as continuous HSR will make them superfluous. But before we get there, I don’t see the point of NOT using a faster section of line when there is one.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 7th, 2011 at 7:50 am
The heavy, slow trains would reduce HSR capacity and demolish the tracks.
Andy M. Reply:
July 7th, 2011 at 8:06 am
Why?
On the initial segment and at first there probably won’t be that many trains anyway so I’m sure they can thread in some slower ones in between.
The NEC also gets slower trains and freights and some European HSRs get freights. Surely a San Joaquin doesn’t batter the tracks more than a European freight train?
Alon Levy Reply:
July 7th, 2011 at 8:18 am
The axle load of the GE Genesis is 33 tons; that of a European freight train is 22.5-25 tons.
European HSR lines get freight at night sometimes. The ones that mix regular (i.e. non-high-speed) freight with passenger traffic during the day tend to be horrific nightmares of scheduling. There’s no point in doing this just so that Wasco can get rail service.
OT: HSRA pushes phased approach for Peninsula HSR
Peter Reply:
July 7th, 2011 at 9:48 am
“Since voters passed Proposition 1A, a $9 billion bond, in November 2008, sentiment regarding the project has grown negative based on false ridership projections, a broken business plan and threats of eminent domain.”
Wow, that’s not slanted whatsoever.
Arthur Dent Reply:
July 7th, 2011 at 11:31 am
Which part is not factual? That the ridership projections came into question? That the business plan was found inadequate by the legislature, LAO, peer review group, (who am I missing)? That people became concerned about eminent domain? All those things did in fact occur since 2008. The sentiment has in fact changed. You’d have to be blind or something not to see it.
Peter Reply:
July 7th, 2011 at 1:06 pm
Dude, claiming that the ridership projections are “false” is not the same as questioning their validity. Similarly, alleging “threats of eminent domain” is not the same as people being concerned about eminent domain. Anyone recall the people in PAMPA who were claiming they had gotten notices from the Authority that their houses were being seized by the Authority? Talk about making shit up…
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 7th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
Or people who purport to be from the Central Valley and claim it’s going right through their living room when an alignment hasn’t even been selected.
Peter Reply:
July 7th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
My basic point is that that particular paragraph was extremely slanted. The rest of the article was quite objective. The author would have done better if he had stuck to the facts, the way he did for the rest.
I’ve been crying for my American friends to look to that solution.
Sort out the most needed corridor first (clearly it’s the northeast corridor, but considering the expense of just buying what’s in the way, better do the californian HSR first, second only in importance and certainly much less costly), build it and build it right, without too much intermediary stops, monitor closely the costs and avoid unnecessary and COSTLY complications like elevated tracks for just the sake of them, tunnels under rich NIMBY properties etc., then you’ll have a functioning system which will be tremendously successfull and the rest will just go by itself ; just like in France, every city will want its high speed rail station.
Once again avoid unnecessary costs like plague and price it right! pricing is what has made all the difference between the TGV and the other systems in Europe, be it AVE or ICE or TAV ; have a look at those passenger.kilometres 2009 figures from the EU statistical pocketbook :
- France : 52 bn (50% of total EU)
- Germany : 22.56 bn
- Spain : 11.51 bn
- Italy : 10.75 bn
The lesson here is clear : Say yes to high speed rail, and NO to luxury.
Off topic, but of interest:
MEDIA ADVISORY
BTS Releases March Airline Fuel Cost and Consumption Data
The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), a part of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), today updated its Airline Fuel Cost and Consumption web page with preliminary March data.
Cost per gallon for U.S. airlines’ scheduled services:
March 2010 $2.19
February 2011 $2.77
March 2011 $2.80
The page provides scheduled service cost and consumption numbers. Use the “Select a Service” dropdown to see all services or non-scheduled.
The Fuel Cost and Consumption page: http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/fuel_cost_and_consumption/
Preliminary fuel cost and consumption numbers are industry summaries only. Airline fuel costs may be affected by hedging. The next web update is scheduled for June 14.
Individual airline numbers are available through September on the BTS website. Individual airline numbers for October, November, December will be available with the BTS fourth-quarter financial release, release date to be determined. Individual airline numbers for January, February and March will be available with the BTS first-quarter financial release scheduled for June 20.
You are subscribed to Research & Innovative Technology Administration & Bureau of Transportation Statistics News for Department of Transportation. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
Update your subscriptions, modify your password or e-mail address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page. You will need to use your e-mail address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please contact support@govdelivery.com. All other inquires can be directed to dot.comments@ost.dot.gov.
This service is provided to you at no charge by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
U.S. Department of Transportation · 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE · Washington DC 20590 · 202-385-HELP (4357)
While the Economist is good at reporting, it often takes stances that are a little less nuanced that you would expect. The whole idea of putting HSR in Orlando, you see, was to appeal travelers curiosity over the technology.
Still, the gist is a good one: if Obama’s ideas are so great…why not build them where they are well received and get finished? Easily, because American electoral calculus isn’t like Great Britain’s Parliament, where a strong showing in Congressional districts translates into Presidential victory.
Obama and the Democrats know they don’t need any more votes from the blue states. They need the purple ones. And that, per se, is the problem here. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid don’t want the Democratic foothoold to be smaller in 2013 than it was for Congress and the the Electoral Congress than it was in 2008…but that could conceivably happen.
Therefore, Obama is cursed to try his “over the top” battle plan using programs that are national in scope and not very unique to regions in the country. The Republicans have taken to this like junkyard dogs, blasting “ObamaCare”, Clash for Clunkers, the Stimulus….but it’s not as if the GOP has offered much substance from the “laboratory of the states” lately, either.
joe Reply:
July 6th, 2011 at 8:25 am
CA won a disproportionate amount of HSR funding. Dems do need votes in the Blue states. The most ridiculous calculation is to assume when you win, you can ignore your base.
Building HSR isn’t radical, the GOP made it appear that way. Take FL. FL investments were calculated to help win the critical state and help FL.
FL’s HSR line was bipartisan popular and Scott’s attack unpopular – it will probably cost Scott reelection. SunRail isn’t going to fix the problem with the his base in Central FL.
FL also needs help. The President he knows the loss of the Shuttle operations along the Space Coast is devastating the economy and HSR is low cost way, relative to continuing the Shuttle, is to off set the job losses with infrastructure.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 6th, 2011 at 10:38 am
I agree with you. The Economist skipped over the fact that the real “swing-state” HSR effort was in Florida, not Wisconsin nor Ohio. What they are trying to say, but again, sometimes its hard to parse out…is that they think many of Obama’s mistakes are not letting the states effectively differentiate themselves more…not less. If the blue states want HSR, the public option…etc…let them have it and allow the red states to rot….
On paper, this is the most effective political strategy. The reason it doesn’t work in practice is that the American electorate isn’t divided like Britain (or Canada or…) The President and Congress are inherently reliant on those voters who live in states that aren’t going to be receptive to this stuff.
The “Let Them Eat Cake” strategy of the Economist would make the Democrats a regional party…something no one wants to concede.
A couple of thoughts: HSR is best sold as intercity transportation infrastructure fitting into a transportation network, not as HSR itself. We have too many transit advocates, HSR advocates and highway haters–the point is what infrastructure works for the transportation needed: metropolitan, intercity, national or international? In California and the NEC we need alternatives to highways and aviation but we also need all of them to work together. It is the latter insight that will lead to the development of a coalition that builds what makes sense (the WDC policy community is way too fragmented already).
PR is pr. The authority needs a credible message to sell then a PR firm can sell it.
GOP needs FL and needs OH to win. Wi is a nice to have state. FL is being devastated with Shuttle retirement. very good paying, high skilled jobs are gone.
” If the blue states want HSR, the public option…etc…let them have it and allow the red states to rot….”
Insurance requires universal participation or it will be gamed.
I agree with political consequences – it is the incentive to negotiate. Brown stuck it to Orange County. He rescinded the annual 48M payment CA gives OC for their bankruptcy. They wanted the budget cut and sat out the negotiations – he gave it to them.
Rail was once popular with the GOP but they are driven by tactics, not strategy, so they now oppose rail.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
July 6th, 2011 at 11:08 am
I suspect it’s more of a case of dropping support for passenger rail and promoting freight rail interests in its stead (I don’t recall any major opposition to government investment in the Crescent Corridor, CREATE, National Gateway, etc.). Certainly a major portion of that is going to be due to the libertarian takeover of the GOP and resulting big business focus, but at the same time, it must also be acknowledged that freight has a far higher benefit:cost ratio than passenger rail investments, which makes it a generally better investment if cash is limited (as GOP pundits tend to believe government spending ought to be).
joe Reply:
July 6th, 2011 at 11:47 am
The GOP’s strategy is best explained by the Bizzaro Superman character: They do the opposite.
Add it that Nihilism, with a side of local Pork to get reelected.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 6th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
At least in the Electoral College, the Democrats don’t actually need Ohio or Florida:
http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=GZ
They need to maintain their footholds in the Southwest and Midwest: (Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico; Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan ( and retain New Hampshire and Maine).
The wrinkle in this would be the Senate. To keep a majority, the Democrats have to campaign hard for seats in places that are either in Florida, Ohio, Montana, Missouri, or Virginia. That’s the problem: waste too much time and energy in one of those five and it could take Obama and the House down with it. Ignore them all, and Mitch McConnell becomes Senate Majority Leader….
Alon Levy Reply:
July 6th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
The Democrats need to keep the pressure in all of these – to concede would give the Republicans a free state. It’s similar to how Obama made serious jabs in North Dakota and Montana, which kept them mildly competitive until McCain chose Palin as his running mate (which instead gave Obama a shot at Florida, where Biden is popular and Palin isn’t).
joe Reply:
July 6th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
I loath the election calculus about conceding states. When spending money in an election, it makes sense – dollars are limited. For building a national party, it is a losing strategy and short term tactic.
And of course being GOP Lite doesn’t work when appealing to the “red state” voters and frankly most consultants are DC based and work from the most inane stereotypes. Montana: The first miner union was in Montana. Janette Rankin voted no for WWI – a female Montana Rep before women’s suffrage.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 6th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
Women in Montana got the franchise in 1914.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 6th, 2011 at 11:58 pm
It’s not about conceding states. It’s about understanding that 2008 and 2006 were flukes. The Democrats are still a viable, national party that has a very bright future. But the reality is hard to ignore:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Election-state-04-08.png
Obama is going to the first president in a long while to win election for a second term by a smaller margin than his first. But, he’s still likely to win.
Florida, Ohio, Montana, Missouri, and Virginia aren’t necessarily hostile to Obama, but they wouldn’t work as part of the Economist’s “Let Them Eat Cake” strategy. With unlimited corporate donations, the issue is going to be attrition. If the President and Dems pick the right battlefields, they win, if they allow one particular state, issue, district, to become a quagmire, they lost.
Peer review group report on the LAO’s analysis of the High Speed Rail project. This report was requested after the May 11, 2011 meeting of Lowenthal’s select committee on High Speed Rail.
(video of that meeting on YouTube at: ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUXcmS_ZI7g )
You can view this report at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/59472351 (9 pages)
Robert can now try knocking down the peer review group, just as he has tried to berate the LAO.
Eric M Reply:
July 6th, 2011 at 2:01 pm
How about posting the whole report, not just the summary?
morris brown Reply:
July 6th, 2011 at 2:32 pm
This is as far as I know the full report, 9 pages.
joe Reply:
July 6th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
Well if NIMBYs would drop opposition to HSR, the State could go back to the plan to upgrade the Caltrain ROW. Hilarious that stopping the ARRA CV segment is contingent on getting Peninsula NIMBY’s to STFU.
CARRD would love to place Lucy and ask the CAHSRA to build SF-SJ responsibly and then pull out the football to stop any obligation of funds by 2012 deadline.
I think NIMBYs have forced CA to start with the CV segment.
J. Wong Reply:
July 6th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
I think NIMBYs have forced CA to start with the CV segment.
Yes, they did, but they also recognize that they have to stop it in the CV otherwise once the CV segment is built, overwhelming pressure will be brought to bear to build it up the Peninsula to SF.
joe Reply:
July 6th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Kings county NIMBYs want the system moved out of Kings county and work to start on the Peninsula.
They argue a HSR station in Hanford will cost King’s county jobs.
#1 source of Jobs in Kings County is Government and it’s not even close when measured in income.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 6th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
A pure text documents, encoded as PDF, then fucked up into Flash on a site with more spam ads than content: just what the world was screaming for.
Please, Scribd does not even resemble a good idea, let alone a usable one. Not remotely. Get yourself a web site for $5/year (or wordpress.com for free) and just post the documents there. Please.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 6th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
at least no one told them about {blink} or animated GIFs.
morris brown Reply:
July 7th, 2011 at 8:24 pm
Richard:
Here is a new link to the Peer Group report
http://voiceofoc.org/pdf_573212d0-a8a9-11e0-a024-001cc4c002e0.html
I used the Scribd site because Robert had been using it. They seem to have changed their display because I agree it is not acceptable to put commercials in the middle of the document. I won’t be using them again.
The Senate Transportation and Housing committee meeting of July 5, 2011, had dearing on AB-145 and AB-615.
These can be viewed on YouTube at:
Link to AB-145 (Galgiani) HSR governance and more.(24 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRl3gO3CJGY
LInk to AB-615 (B. Lowenthal) — concerning Lack takings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CzNvWl9ZKM
I drove up and down the Central Valley last week – Let’s be honest – it’s about the best terrain and weather in which to build a high-speed “starter rail line”. Mostly flat and mostly devoid of buildings. If we Californians can’t build this then we should all learn how to repair bicycles because we would be seen as being technological Neanderthals if we don’t. ( I heard they bought their stuff in Germany too!)
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 6th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Step 1. Aim laser beam down the Central Valley.
Step 2. Activate laser-guided bulldozers.
Step 3. Profit!
Atleast Los Angeles continues with its rail expansion
http://thesource.metro.net/2011/07/06/westside-subway-extension-receives-640-million-federal-loan/
Alon Levy Reply:
July 6th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Yes… and thankfully it’s the Westside Subway that got a federal loan, too.