Downfall of a Poster Child

I've never made apologies for characterizing myself as a conservative, mostly on economic rather than social issues, but the natural broadening of horizons that come with advancing age has also turned me into more of a pragmatist. I can understand why entrepreneurship alone isn't always a guarantee of economic success, why the rail industry usually accepts and co-operates with a unionized labor force because the high concentration of capital can guarantee both generous pay scales and a well-disciplined work force, and why the entire transportation sector cannot escape a high degree of public-sector coopertion and oversight.

And I'm not particularly enthused with Rush Limbaugh. While his arguments can demonstrate themselves to be quite logical once the bluster is removed, he represents a "rough edge" which, for better or worse, did galvanize and strengthen a segment of the conservative coalition more given to simple, rough answers, simply beacuse their role as small enetrepreneurs and businessmen draws them much closer to the street than the educational, philanthropic and entertainment sectors who form a large component of the liberal/progressive opposition. In doing so, some of his followers have ceded a portion of the "high ground" of civility (although nobody seemed to worry about this back in 2008, when the opposition was the target).

But to get to the point, I paid one of my visits to the "ditto-heads' paradise" (which average about 15 minutes, once or twice a week) and found Marc Steyn filling in for Limbaugh and skewering the State of the Union address earlier this week. And just as the Obama coalition attempted to use High Speed rail as its centerpiece two winters ago, every few minutes Steyn would return to the High Speed rail projects as a crowning example of the unworkability of a large-scale, high-cost, and above all, centrally managed and co-ordinated boondoggle.

And the regrettable fact is, that for that portion of the economy that lives outside the urban areas and works at jobs which either require travel to less-accessible locations, or at non-traditional hours, or requires the transport of tools or goods, that assesment is correct, and those groups are often at the center of the conservative/Tea Party revolt.

The younger and more enthusiastic at this site can ballyhoo foreign HSR success stories as much as they wish; the fact remains that much of this growth is sustained by class-struggle-rooted tax structures designed to penalize automobile ownership. The praise of the repressive Chinese regime isn't likely to win too many friends outside the left side of the aisle either.

But I'm not offering this post as a conservative rant. The fact remains that long-term difficultes with the extraction and development of easily-handled fossil fuel will continue to push the price higher (and with the current price within about $.20 of that in the spring of 2008, I wouldn't be too suprised if both George Soros and those oh-so-socially-conscious folks at the helm of the endowments for Harvard, Yale et al are positioning themselves to ride the next speculative wave). Or that those trends will argue for further concentration of our population within the urban corridors where mass transit is a more feasible alternative.

And finally, it should be recognized that current trends within California, if nowhere else, woud seem to favor the establisment of a serious HSR pilot project within the Central Valley, where the start-up cost would be relatively low. Getting that system over both the legal and physical obstacles at either end is likely to take at least another generation. But this is the only market, and political environment, of which I can concieve where the extremes are so far apart that a centrist's sense of pragmatism might be allowed to rule.

Most of the younger and/or more recent followers of this forum aren't going to like most of what I've posted; some of the most conservative on the othr side of the fence are likely to dismiss it just as readily. But the dispute isn't so much about "civility" as it is the search for something that works (and admittedly, the nature of politics is going to make the path to that first step both much more roundabout and much more expensive). But otherwise, the cycle will simply repeat itself.

"The younger and more enthusiastic at this site can ballyhoo foreign HSR success stories as much as they wish; the fact remains that much of this growth is sustained by class-struggle-rooted tax structures designed to penalize automobile ownership. The praise of the repressive Chinese regime isn't likley to win too many friends outside the left side of the aisle either."

An honest post. I think none on the left who are credible would praise the Chicom Party either- actually nobody really likes the Chinese regime, even I think the posters here who regularly spam with bits on Chinese HSR, identical to what I see on numerous other forums. They are youngsters confusing their sino-centric national pride and cultural consciousness with support for the communist party. The selection of Liu Xiaobo for the Nobel Peace Prize was, outside of China (and client states) universally lauded. As for the class struggle bit, it doesn't seem to have kept China from becoming the world's largest automobile market, and becoming one of GM's prime areas for market growth (Buick anyone?) But then again, China's system is "communism with Chinese characteristics" (sarcasm...)

I don't want to get into politics, because that would take us in directions that would be inappropriate for this site.

However, correlations between demographics and political leanings is an interesting subject, and it can explain a lot.

Understanding the Republican Party’s Reluctance to Invest in Transit Infrastructure « The Transport Politic

Yonah Freemark has discovered a correlation between political leanings and Congressional-district density. The more dense districts tend to vote Democratic, while the less dense ones tend to vote Republican. This is not an absolute correlation; there is plenty of scatter. Some Republicans are relatively supportive of public transit, while some Democrats aren't. But as YF notes, many Republicans come from districts where public transit has only limited value, so that's not a very high priority with them.

How might high-speed rail fit into this picture? The ones who benefit the most are the inhabitants of high-density areas, so it's natural that they should support HSR the most. But here also, there are some Republicans who are supportive of HSR plans, like Florida Representative John Mica.

Furthermore, President Obama has not exactly given up on HSR, if his recent State of the Union message is any guide.

Density of population is heavily influenced by the price of energy - which is going to rise.

Well, Mr. matthwes, this is another of those unusual moments where we find ourselves in basic agreement, but with widely divergent views as both the rationale and the remedy.

It should be clear to just about anyone with an interest in economics that the emergence of the hybrid vehicle, (which has a long way to go in development) was driven by that segment of the automotive market both far-sighted enough and ego-centric enough to put the retention of the mobility offered by a personal vehicle at the top of the list of their wants; other words, precisely the kind of people who drive an emerging market in an open economy.

Human want is only superficially-stifled by any form of government repression or censorship, and seldom redirected by appeals to other values. That is why I believe any serious attempt to re-direct more of our personal pursuit of mobility onto more "concentrated" options can only succeed if it's offered in response to an obstacle (such as both increasing highway congestion and the diminishing personal comfort afforded in samller vehicles). Safety concerns, and continuing subsidy of infrastructure-destroying highway freight vehicles might also grow into an argument powerful enough to drive more freight back on the rails, but that development is also a very long way off.

As to craving for cars and driving, there's been a decline in that over the last decade or so:

California High Speed Rail Blog » The Great Shift Away From Driving
quoting
Is Digital Revolution Driving Decline in U.S. Car Culture? - Advertising Age - Digital

NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- The internet has wreaked havoc on the music industry, airlines and media, but it just may be doing the same thing to automobiles.

It's a rarely acknowledged transformational shift that's been going on under the noses of marketers for as long as 15 years: The automobile, once a rite of passage for American youth, is becoming less relevant to a growing number of people under 30. And that could have broad implications for marketers in industries far beyond insurance, gasoline and retail. ...

It's not just new drivers driving less. The share of automobile miles driven by people aged 21 to 30 in the U.S. fell to 13.7% in 2009 from 18.3% in 2001 and 20.8% in 1995, according to data from the Federal Highway Administration's National Household Travel Survey released earlier this year.

The rest of that article was full of speculations on why that is the case. Speculations from a slumping economy to increased Internet use. The latter I think is especially plausible for reasons listed in the article. Time spent driving is time that one cannot use for much else. Texting while driving is dangerous and increasingly illegal. One can keep track of one's friends very efficiently with social media. But urban-rail systems increasingly offer wi-fi access, meaning that one can do such things as one rides.

2nd trick op wrote: And the regrettable fact is, that for that portion of the economy that lives outside the urban areas and works at jobs which either require travel to less-accessible locations, or at non-traditional hours, or requires the transport of tools or goods, that assesment is correct,

True, but the non-urban is an ever-shrinking fraction of the population, and jobs which *require* travel to locations which *cannot* be accessed by mass transportation are also shrinking, permanently; even the jobs which require the transport of substantial amounts of tools and goods are shrinking in number (over the long term, not just during the recession). Non-traditional hours is no real obstacle.

and those groups are often at the center of the conservative/Tea Party revolt.

I'll take your word for it.

But the dispute isn't so much about "civility" as it is the search for something that works (and admittedly, the nature of politics is going to make the path to that first step both much more roundabout and much more expensive). But otherwise, the cycle will simply repeat itself.

At the moment, there is a large and fairly powerful bloc in this country which is not trying to find something that works, but which is instead engaging in fantasies like abiotic oil, the return of the gold standard, and the Rapture. I question whether you are in fact correct about what the dispute is about. Comparably loony views on the "left" are marginalized.

If it's any help, I didn't find your comment to be a rant at all; it doesn't even come off as particularly "conservative" by modern, post-2000 standards, apart from the curious "class struggle" comment.

That is why I believe any serious attempt to re-direct more of our personal pursuit of mobility onto more "concentrated" options can only succeed if it's offered in response to an obstacle (such as both increasing highway congestion and the diminishing personal comfort afforded in samller vehicles)

No argument there. Another "obstacle" which passenger rail responds to is the ever-increasing expense of private cars. You touched on the trend in oil prices. Although I am buying a battery-electric car myself (being in a small city surrounded by rural area an hour from the nearest train station), it is clear that one with even the 160-mile range I am getting will be much too expensive for the vast majority of current car owners, and most likely even projected technological improvements will change that only over the course of decades. Shorter-range cars can make long trips with recharging, but recharging times are even less likely to go down quickly.

I actually anticipate a resurgence in demand for rural intercity rail service as oil prices rise. To the extent the service is not supplied I expect even more accelerated depopulation of rural areas -- I would actually expect growth in oddities like "urban farming" simply due to poor transportation provision in rural areas, as would-be farmers reject the isolation of trainless rural areas.

The inability to engage in activities such as using the Internet and cellphones while driving also ends up being an "obstacle" which train service can address. So can chauffeurs, but the decline of the middle and working classes in this country hasn't quite opened up to the point where anyone who can afford a train ticket can afford a chauffeur.

Of course high speed rail, to bring us back on topic, is only really designed for intercity trips (not local trips) -- the sort of trip which most in the US now take by airplane and relatively few take by car. Appropriate-speed intercity rail offers a response to the impressively awful obstacles of airplane travel today, which we all know, and to the obstacles of long-distance car travel, which is particularly unpleasant even for people who like driving.

Thanks for a reply that's both thought-provoking and respectful. The ebb and flow of realpolitik has been an interest of mine for over 40 years. My take on this is that while the disparities between social and economic orientation among the major parties has intensified in recent years, when one of the two parties allows one idelogical faction within it to become dominant, as in both the Goldwater candidacy of 1964, or the Obama candidacy of 2008, that turn toward an overly-simplistic orientation both provokes a backlash and allows the opposing party to close ranks. And therefore, that the decision by the movement for "change" to embrace the HSR concept as a centerpiece might now retard the development of the concept itself.

At the moment, there is a large and fairly powerful bloc in this country which is not trying to find something that works, but which is instead engaging in fantasies like abiotic oil, the return of the gold standard, and the Rapture. I question whether you are in fact correct about what the dispute is about. Comparably loony views on the "left" are marginalized.

We don't move in the same circles, so your exposure to the "other side" is likely much different from mine. But one very-unsettling counterpart I've noticed is that the "hard core" of some of the opposition I deal with at another site is raising much more of an alarm about Bilderbergers, Trilateralists, the Council on Foreign Relations, etc. --- just the sort of conspiracy-theory stuff I used to hear from the "sons-of-Birchers" whom most better-educated conservatives disowned years ago. One trend that very much disturbs me is that some of these guys are embracing higher tarrifs, mercantilism, etc --- Nobody, conservative or liberal, saw that as anything but a passage back to the Dark Days when I was growing up.

Another "obstacle" which passenger rail responds to is the ever-increasing expense of private cars. You touched on the trend in oil prices. Although I am buying a battery-electric car myself (being in a small city surrounded by rural area an hour from the nearest train station), it is clear that one with even the 160-mile range I am getting will be much too expensive for the vast majority of current car owners, and most likely even projected technological improvements will change that only over the course of decades. Shorter-range cars can make long trips with recharging, but recharging times are even less likely to go down quickly.

I actually anticipate a resurgence in demand for rural intercity rail service as oil prices rise. To the extent the service is not supplied I expect even more accelerated depopulation of rural areas -- I would actually expect growth in oddities like "urban farming" simply due to poor transportation provision in rural areas, as would-be farmers reject the isolation of trainless rural areas.

We're in agreement on much of the first paragraph, but not the second. I view long distance intercity rail is simply too capital-intensive to be suited to a diminishing rural population. But all the other factors inveigh toward the creation of a stronger ex-urban and short-to-medium distance network of corridors.

Which, from my viewpoint, leads to the principal question of the moment. Can this apparent impasse leave enough room for the creation of a West Coast counterpart to the NEC? ... hopefully, with enough foresight to allow improvement in speeds to, perhaps, a 200-250 MPHn range. If California can generate enough co-operation to get something in place for the "wide open spaces" in which it's practical within a relatively short time, the rest can take care of itself, and the hard-core Libertarian in me can look the other way, However, filling in all the gaps is likely to take as long as did the development of the original NEC.

Half a loaf is (usually) better than none, and this is about the only "ground-breaking" scenario which I view as within the realm of possibility

I think the way forward is forward, to a 21st century technology, rather than backwards to a 19th century technology (steam trains regularly ran at 100MPH on track that could support it - HSR is not a new technology). http://www.ruf.dk/ could be implemented as an overlay rather than replacement of existing roads. Some places, like Mumbai, or Kolkata, have no room for more rail lines, and no practical political method for gaining such (embedded in Indian politics; trust me on this).

RussNelson wrote:I think the way forward is forward, to a 21st century technology, rather than backwards to a 19th century technology (steam trains regularly ran at 100MPH on track that could support it - HSR is not a new technology). http://www.ruf.dk/ could be implemented as an overlay rather than replacement of existing roads. Some places, like Mumbai, or Kolkata, have no room for more rail lines, and no practical political method for gaining such (embedded in Indian politics; trust me on this).

19th Century Technology
Trains = 100 mph
Horse drawn carriages = 10 mph
20th Century Technology
Trains = 200 mph
Autos (on public streets) = 80 mph
Airplanes = 500+ mph
21st Century Technology
Trains = 300 mph?
Autos = ?
Airplanes = ?
Spacecraft = ?

This pretty well debunks the fallacy that our highway system is a self-sufficient product of free-market, laissez-faire policy:

What’s so conservative about federal highways?

Thanks, Mr. Johnson, for a reminder that some times, the people on the speaker's right are as guilty of pushing the path of expediency as are their opposiion.

I'm aware of a libertarian/conservative "think tank" which bases its policies almost entirely on the free market approach rather than the culture clash which has, regrettably, appropriated most of "center stage" in the current polarized atmosphere. Here's a small sample of their thinking which, I readily admit, has been prone to getting into a doctrinal "straight jacket".

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=553

No endorsement is implied .... I'm just trying to point out that the naure of what are sometimes called "internal improvements" makes them harder to adapt to the natural forces of supply and demand.

Matt Johnson wrote:This pretty well debunks the fallacy that our highway system is a self-sufficient product of free-market, laissez-faire policy:

What’s so conservative about federal highways?

That's a great article, even though I don't agree with all its points, thanks for the link. It would be nice if conservatives were all as sensible as Mr. Lind, instead of pursuing us-vs-them zero-sum tactics at any expense. It's hard to have a legitimately enlightening discussion with a person who believes in the propaganda being spewed by talk-radio screamers and the like.

Selective history can prove anything. I notice that these "free market" champions have yet to point to any large networks of general-access flat roads that are completely built and run by their heroes without any assistance from their villains. Completely built including buying the land. So the roads that we drive on are all socialist roads. I also think that if anyone pointed out all the privately-financed infrastructure projects that went broke, they'd say that that's what makes capitalism good.

Then may I suggest that a closer study of the Thies/Mises article is also in order.

The point I'm trying to raise is: Major transportation breakthroughs, whether the Erie Canal or HSR's like France's TGV, require such large amounts of capital that public-sector participation is inevitable.

A handful, such as the Erie Canal, (built by the state of New York after President Madison vetoed Federal assistance) went on to become huge successes, precisely because the pent-up demand for low-cost transportation created so much opportunity. But, as is illustrated in the link I posted, that tends to inspire the dreamers, who tend to be more detached from an understanding of economic realities.

The politicians in Pennsylvania and Virginia who tried to copy the Erie's success were woefully ignorant of the fact that a canal system that had to surmount a rise of 2500 feet or more couldn't compete with an established system which had to rise only 500, nearly half of that in "natural slackwater' (the Hudson). The Beltway functionaries who propose HSR's from El Paso to Billings or Houston to Tulsa are subscribing to another strain of the same delusion.

There is one market, and only one, California, in which the current factors inveigh in favor of putting something in place which could evolve into a comprehensive system offering the potential to serve most of the state's population at some point along its projected path. And once the principal Central Valley "spine-line" is in place, the economic argument for completion of the necessary, but costlier and more-controversial feeders gains strength.

The free-marketer in me still isn't completely comfortable with that approach. But the people most affected have tenuously approved it, the current powers-that-be are in agreement, and the market is of sufficient size that longer planning horizons seem justifiable.

There won't be another opportunity like this for a long time. If it works, permanent and expandable systems, albeit not measuring up to the fantasies, will be in place on both coasts, and continued development of a hub-and-spoke system centered on Chicago will be a fleabite by comparison. If not, the HSR dream was allowed its best opportunity.