Trains and partisanship

I'm a Republican, but I think high-speed rail is a great idea. Trade relies on the quick and cheap movement of people, knowledge, and capital. High-speed rail in the northeast is an easy solution to that. There are literally hundreds of flights a day between cities in the northeast and it uses up too much passenger time and too many airport time slots.
I say full speed ahead on the northeast high-speed rail.

Friend Gulliver, methinks thou (and Mr Bouie) doth protest too much.

Why is it so important to construct elaborate, contorted theories instead of just saying the obvious: most of the American right has locked itself into a mindset of knee-jerk opposition to whatever is or even seems like a Democrat (or liberal, or "French") idea.

Romneycare. Tradeable pollution permits. Unions (see Ronald Reagan's comments on unions and compare).

Republicans' adamant opposition to trains, even when the federal government is offering large sums of money to states with high unemployment, fits into this pattern seamlessly. I can't see what's wrong with this as an explanation.

(Aside from the fact that it doesn't seem "fair and balanced," but last I checked The Economist was not a Rupert Murdoch publication.)

hey CJ, what if I gave you 5000 dollars to purchase an f-16, but if you took it you were legally obligated to maintain it for the next 30 years.

and then when you said no I screamed that you were some moron for not taking a "free" 5000 dollars. then I started producing elaborate supremacist theories about how inferior you were.

man that'd be sweet.

what the right will say against HSR when the "Atlas Shrugged" movie hits the cinemas?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W07bFa4TzM

Good post, Gulliver.

Could it be American exceptionalism at play here? Something along the lines of "America did not invent it, or does not have leadership on it, therefore it must be inherently bad/socialist/French/secular/whatever slur is en vogue with Fox News at the moment" could perhaps explain the reluctance to diversify the transport offering a bit.

As for the "try catching a train between NY and LA"-type stuff, it has been debunked enough to greet people who spout such nonsense with a heartfelt "you ignorant, partisan d1ckhead" comment.

I guess we will have to wait until JFK, LAX, ORD, ATL, PHL or SFO reach full capacity, and the friendly discussions about new airports that will accompany the inexorable progression toward total air transport gridlock, to see whether or not it would have been smart to free up capacity by reducing very-short-haul flights...

See you in 2018.

So much political sturm und drang over stupid things.

Whether we get high speed rail, or don't get high speed rail, I don't care.

I would be satisfied with just plain old vanilla rail so I can go to Chicago or New York without having to go through the idiocy that is airport security.

I don't care if its slower, it's much more comfortable, and you can work or read the whole way, if you want.

Just get all this homeland security nonsense out of my face.

With proposals out of Washington talking about spending money on HSR and super fast trains the crux of what kind of people movers do we need has yet to be addressed. I'm troubled by the assumption that faster versions of the heavy trains of old and the tracks that support them are the only option before us.

We need to totally rethink what is needed. The technology is available to design something completely different that will cost far less to build and be more flexible to operate. The weight and size of the train is a major factor. Anyone with an engineering background will testify that the weight of a train drives the huge cost of laying a roadbed and track for its support.

Imagine a super-light small remotely controlled train that could adjust its wheels in and out using existing tracks as well as newer lighter narrower tracks. Sitting lower and being much narrower by wrapping the lip of the rails a sophisticated suspension would allow them to safely travel existing tracks far faster then currently possible.

The most exciting thought is that this would allow for the possibility of running new tracks between and along, over and under the interstate highway system. This is feasible only if they are light and smaller then existing trains. The cost would be far less then laying the heavy tracks that freight trains require and that we currently envision as our only option.

My favorite retort to the right's sudden aversion to HSR is when Governor Gregoire of Washington recently said her state would be happy to take the funding for HSR which Gov. Scott of Florida had sent back to DC.

She said, to paraphrase: "We're gonna need it. We need to get people out of cars and off our crowded freeways. If anybody else wants to send their money back, we'll take that too."

Or something to that effect.

Like, duh.

Faedrus,

As the great Tip O'Neill once said, "All politics is local."

Here in a state with 1,200 miles of coastline and 14 ports, the governor this week reallocated $77 million in state transportation funds to upgrade one of those ports.

As you point out, he also rejected $2.4 billion in federal money for a high-speed rail line (that was expected to create at least 24,000 jobs). Does what Gregoire said matter?

In this state, though, obviously the port improvement is a better investment today than the unproven benefit of HSR (from Tampa to Orlando) tomorrow.

Personally, I couldn't care less what Krugman said in his "The Conscience of a Liberal" blog post on March 2nd, 2011.

Viewed from across the Pacific, I can see about 5 factors that turned the US HSR debate into a farce:

1. Wrong routes: Routes should be where the passenger demands are greatest, and NOT where route acquisition is the easiest.
2. Wrong speed: HSR is not quite fast enough for many of the high-demand routes within the US. US shoould really look for something 350mph or faster, which today means either a MagLev or an Aerotrain. (The latter is probably uniquely suited for US)
3. Urban Sprawl: Unlike more compact European or Japanese cities, most US cities are so sprawled that for many people the journey time to central Station is nearly the same as the one to their local Airport.
4. Dysfunctional and disinterested operator: In all successful HSR projects, the rail operators themselves (SNCF, DB, JNR -> JR, Eurostar etc.) took the driving seat. This is simply not happening with Amtrak.
5. Total lack of public experience: Majority of US voters have had NO experience on high-speed rail, so voters on both sides rely on partisan hearsays rather than first-hand experience regarding HSR.

foresize,

This is not about my understanding of ayn rand, but about the contradiction that might arise from the average right leaning American that will go to watch the movie to see that govmn't doesn't want a fast train built in the US, when the fox news is saying the opposite.

So please check the message first before launching yourself in unwarranted verbal attacks.

@Anjin-San,

I guess your point #5 is the most important: it is just unbelievable how mostly right-wing media pundits will instantly turn any policy issue into a shouting match in today's US.

Will's insane equation (cars = individual freedom, trains = collectivism and no freedom) is just a sample of how low can get the debate in this climate.

Maybe we shouldn't expect anything different, really: even the unreadable Ayn Rand is now taken as a serious political "thinker" in the US.

Another uniquely US factor: 40% of US citizens never travel further than 100 miles away from their homes in their lifetimes. Therefore, 40% of US citizens need no HSR or Air Travel, fullstop.

Why does the discussion above appear to be missing the obvious. Old-fashioned economics. Is an investment in HSR or for that matter any additional rail warranted on simple economic grounds or not. If government has to shell out a billion dollars to have a thousand people/day travel from A to B, saving an hour time per person, does that make sense. At what point does it make sense.

Scott simply felt it was wasted money for the expenditure and expected benefits, and further was honest enough to reject a gift, funded by Chinese lenders to the feds as we have none left on our own.He should be applauded!!!!

The Atlas Shrugged message was that rail may make sense for an entrepeneur or company willing to risk his or shareholder money for profit. That is their choice to make!!!!

BTW whenever I travel to the NYC area, I do rely on trains for short distances, ranging from Boston to Washington DC. Saves me time and hassle, and the added comfort is a bonus. My wife uses the train to get from South Florida to Tampa to see our grandkids. Lower cost than driving, less hassle, and greater comfort. About the same time in transit.

A South Floridian.

I've taken the train from LA to DC and it's not that great an experience. It starts out with a bus ride, for one thing, as the train actually leaves from Oakland. The trip is certainly scenic and for a tourist isn't a bad deal, if you've the time--2.5-3 days.

Now, I live in Florida. I can take a train (and several buses!) to get from my city to DC. It takes 28 hours--I drive the distance in 15. It costs more than the airfare which is more than driving. Driving, I can schedule whenever I want; by plane, I can sort of schedule when, after noon, I want to arrive. By train, I have to schedule by the day of the week. Convenience is not something I expect from train service.

But I do like trains. In Europe, I was more than happy with the TGV and Eurostar. I use them between DC and points north often and with pleasure. They're relatively cheap and relatively convenient. I'd like them much more if they cut travel time through high speed, of course. Free tickets is a winner, too.

The real issue is, 'Who will pay for new rights of way and million-dollar-a-mile roadbed construction?' The next question is, 'Who will pay for maintenance?' If trains will eternally require subsidies from taxes, they're simply not a good deal.

Though I lean Democratic, I am on the Republican side of this debate. The simple reason is that while HSR is a great experience (I've used it in Europe) and could be beneficial for many, it still may not be financially viable. Further, with the poor state of our infrastructure currently, it seems to me that money would be better spent on repairing and upgrading infrastructure that currently exists than to build more infrastructure that doesn't get maintained well enough.

The discussion around HSR is preposterous. The republican ideological opposition to it is keeping America behind Europe, Japan end even China is this regard. The most compelling rationale for opposing HSR is that it's an Obama initiative, and as such -in this recalcitrant republican mindset- it must be opposed as the health care reform, the states budgets and so on. HSR not only makes sense for the North East corridor, bust also, as it has been proposed, for the Midwest, the Pacific northwest, and even Florida, where I reside, and where our con artist-turned-governor has been one of the most vocal dissenters with this initiative. Shame on all of them

Why oh why does Gulliver/the Economist keep flogging this dead horse? As Mr. Krugman points out we already have high speed technology, it is called the jet airliner. What's more it doesn't require rails to ride on and can be flexible when markets change. Other than the NE corridor the low population density of North America will not support a viable train service. People who keep yammering on about Japan and Europe always ignore this.
The cost of building a true high speed rail service (electrified, grade separated track) between, say, Chicago and New York would be astronomical, and at a time of already massive Federal deficits is totally unrealistic. Please note that most of Obama's current money is going towards medium speed rail.
As for the downtown/less security argument, how many prospective customers live downtown (except NYC)? Most wealthy people live in the suburbs. The TSA, like any bureaucracy, is always looking for ways to expand its empire. All it would take is one fanatical nut-case to attempt to blow up a train and all the airport security theater, with its groping and porno scanners, would be installed in train stations.
Sorry to all you train buffs out there, but this is a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem. If a profitable high speed service were feasible then why have the rail companies, who already own the tracks, not invested in one? This argument has nothing to do with right vs left, rather it is wishful dreaming vs economic reality.

I have taken HSR in Europe many times, and it can be a superb way to travel, but...
US plans start with a route in Florida that makes no sense. It works downtown to downtown over a set distance, usually 500 miles or less. The NE corridor has always made the most sense, but these lines lose money on operations almost everywhere they are used. It is an investment that will probably have a negative cashflow. If the argument is that it is cheaper than expanding airports, make it on that basis.
One of the other plus points is the security is less of an issue on trains, should that change, the advantage over flying tends to zero on certain routes.
In a well equipped train, one can work more easily and be more comfortable, but on economics, it is very hard to make a positive case, and if routes are picked for political reasons (FL) it is no wonder there are cries of foul.
The debate, like many these days, does not seem to be logical, and the advocates are as bad as the foes, which does not help their case.

Here's another approach -- Low-speed rail upgrading the existing network. If we were to move more goods by container over rail, we'd be removing a lot of very slow trucks from the highways and relieving considerable traffic congestions. What we need are upgraded container terminals sufficiently close to cities, higher bridges so that trains could double-stack their containers and a few other less expensive innovations. So in addition to reducing congestion, we'd also have savings in lower logistical costs for products.