Obama gets aboard high-speed rail

President Obama has pledged $13 billion to begin high-speed rail in America. I don't want to be a cynic and ask, does anyone believe we'll see this in our lifetimes (or at all, as American continues its whacko-driven, debt-laden decline)? I'll say the action is a good start. And the sensibility -- actually acknowledging the importance of rail to the 21st century -- is first rate.

It's important to note a few essentials to understanding the situation. 1) Rail is essential to a sustainable future, using less fuel and having a smaller negative environmental impact that airlines or freeways. 2) It's essential to improving productivity and competitiveness, as workers and semis are stuck in gridlock, and face steadily rising fuel costs anyway. 3) Modern rail systems are thriving around the world, and China sees this as essential to its leapfrog to world supremacy -- note to Americans who don't get out much: We're the country that's behind, far behind. 4) The nation's only passenger rail system, Amtrak, has been starved of funding for years, so it has much catching up to do, just on refitting equipment, etc.

With Obama's plan, the devil will be in the details, of course. Yet we're still not thinking holistically about the issue -- and we'd better get our act together toot sweet.

I worry about the potential for mischief and inefficiency with states bidding against each other for this relatively small sum. The worst outcome would be to spend billions and only end up with more studies. The federal government should pick two city pairs with high congestion and build two high-speed rail systems. If this cost $200 billion or more -- what's that compared to the trillions laid out or committed to the banksters, or the way these rail systems would be infrastructure that would repay the investment on a variety of fronts. Americans need to see how this works, and they will embrace it. In Europe, several city pairs have such efficient train service that the airlines have been made obsolete.

I wonder why we don't try our own leapfrogging. Will this be real high-speed rail, or just higher-speed rail? There's an argument for using off-the-shelf technology, which has been perfected in Europe, and of course we should use world best practices. But what happened to Yankee ingenuity? In the 19th century, we took the British-invented locomotive and perfected it. Maybe that's beyond us now. Too bad. In any event, there should be a bias for action. So studies should be limited and inexpensive (sorry, consulting industry); environmental impact reports and opposition should be balanced by the environmental benefits of these projects. We should be building, now.

We should also be shifting more money into making Amtrak faster, more convenient, more frequent, more reliable -- especially on popular routes. Amtrak California and the Cascades service in the Northwest already shows how this can work. Illinois is running promising service several times a day between Chicago and St. Louis, but it is hampered by capacity limitations on the freight railroads on which the passenger trains travel (Amtrak only owns its rails on the Northeast Corridor).

The capacity improvements should also involve public-private partnerships with the private railroads (which is how we built the system in the first place, ye rugged, but history deprived, individualists). America's freight railroads badly need to upgrade their capacity, but have in some cases lacked enough capital, and in one case had a big shareholder making threats about using capital to improve the railroad (gotta love Wall Street). This will be a win-win for freight and passenger. And it will be essential to getting more trucks off congested, polluting roads.

Finally, there needs to be a bias for action on building more rail transit -- light rail and heavy commuter rail -- and providing stable funding streams. Also, there should be incentives for American companies to build better, safer and less expensive systems. Again, we've done this throughout our history -- until we were reduced to a nation of banksters, consultants, struggling call-center workers and unemployed realtors and contractors.

So, perhaps a good start. But rail advocates can't let up.

(Here's Slate's take).

Comments

[soleri]

Libertarians understand the threat of rail. Anything that allows an escape from the one-car/one-driver transportation system also permits density and citizens who understand interdependence. In other words, liberals. It's why the single-family housing economy has been so essential to right-wing power. Demography doesn't lie. Decentralize cities, disconnect and isolate citizens, and make anonymous malls, workplaces, and megachurches the primary facilitators of social interaction. It's not an accident that cities vote Democratic and outer-ring suburbs are hard-core Republican.

I predict the demonization of HSR will make Cindy Sheehan look like Nancy Reagan. These people understand how and where their power resides. We should, too. But unless we bring similar decibel levels to our arguments, we're going to lose.

[vera powers]

No, you're not going to lose. More people like me are starting to realize that we are all citizens first, not Democrats, Republicans, or Libertarians. Our money needs to go projects that will help our country, and not to make the rich and powerful more so. When the people rise up it will be with a roar! And we are very grateful to all those people, like Jon, and Elizabeth Warren, who have worked hard for many years to open our eyes to what has been happening in our country. l'm not one of the smartest people around and l'm not articulate, but l can read and think critically. Most of all l can give my vote and support to people who show some common sense. There are many, many others just like me.

[Emil Pulsifer]

Regarding the push to the suburbs, part of it is simply population growth, part of it lies in the fact that suburban populations are more likely to be non-unionized, and part of it involves the fact that (at least initially) commercial real estate is less expensive in outer suburbs than in the city core.

So, aside from the simple need for more space (though admitedly, core space could be utilized more efficiently), the motive force behind suburbanization comes from businesses looking to lower capital and operating costs.

Individuals go where the jobs are, and if most new job opportunities are increasingly on the outer fringes, they will either have to commute there from the city center, or move their residences there and commute into the city.

This doesn't alter the need for mass transit -- on the contrary -- but perhaps it clarifies the context, at least where local commuter rail is concerned.

The question to be addressed by those seeking to expand commuter mass transit, is where the funding will come from: who will provide it, and why?

[Emil Pulsifer]

Another point to be considered is the distinct possibility that, in the time it would take to approve, fund, and build an expanded commuter mass transit network, even assuming that the political will for this exists or can be inspired, improvements in electric cars or other "green" alternatives will eliminate the internal combustion engine in private road transportation.

That doesn't make mass transit a bad argument by any means, since all that electricity must be generated somehow, and to the extent that electrical production isn't equally green, the pollution will simply be shifted from one sector to another. Furthermore, mass transit makes more efficient use of whatever energy source is used to power commuting vehicles. And gridlock will occur more often as populations with private vehicles grow, or else require local roadbuilding investments exceeding those required to create proper mass transit systems, especially over the long term.

Still, without the obvious problem of polluting vehicle emissions, political support for vastly expanded mass transit options may be even more difficult to swing than at present.

Furthermore, governments, like businesses and individuals, often seem to have difficulty making big investments NOW that will save them money LATER, preferring instead to save money now, then squander even more in installments over time (e.g., on road construction).