Economist article

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/th ... work/8973/

US infrastructure needs investment. High Speed Rail is one item urgently needed.

This just in from across the pond: “America, despite its wealth and strength, often seems to be falling apart.” Not news really. But somehow it’s seems more pathetic when written by people who take high speed rail service for granted.

In a long take-out, The Economist details just how far behind the United States is when it comes to infrastructure investment, describing in great detail our debilitating traffic congestion, dysfunctional rail service, and antiquated air traffic control system. Turns out that a recent World Economic Forum study found the United States now ranks 23rd in the world for overall infrastructure quality.

Excellent Article. It's a shame that politics has allowed the infrastructure(roads, airports, railroads) in this country to crumble so much.

Anytime public funds are spent on anything in a democracy it becomes political.

The places it is not political are in dictatorships.

Why are you so surprised?

I have to digress a little into personal circumstances and observations to illustrate my point; I'll thank the memebership in advance for its indulgence.

I recently returned to work after a hiatus of nearly four months ... longest by far in the 40+ years over which I've been in the work force. I'm working for $9/Hr in a call-center environment, and with one other exception, everyone else in my team is under the age of thirty -- most of them have no other options.

But the vast majority of people in my age group do --- they're "trailing spouses", or held a previous job paying well enough that the Unemployment check is a better deal. Many of them aren't that far away from qualifying for Social Security.

And as evidenced by the link below, there's a wide disparity of opinion over what comes next, and lot of people to share those opinions.

http://dawu.forumotion.com/

In short, too many Americans are, to borrow a phrase from a John Kneiling column of many years gone by, "running things short term". But even the strongest safety net has its limits. The Great Depression of the 1930's was so devastaing precisely because it was a combination punch ... the Crash of 1929 followed by a general meltdown two years later. I remain convinced that we're not out of the woods on that possibility as yet, mostly because of the guaranteed damper on growth imposed by fuel-driven limitationss.

The popularity of the current Administration continues to deteriorate, but not too many of the prospective opposition candidates seem interested in taking up the cudgel, likley because they know thy're likly to be blamed when the malaise continues.

As David Kennedy pointed out in his work, "Freedom from Fear", the recovery from the Great Depression began in the winter of 1934-35, driven by heavy industry; it really took off after the invalidation of the National Recovery Act sent a clear, politics-free signal.

I expect thr rail industry to play a prominent role when the next Great Recovery likewise arrives, but it will be the freight carriers who lead it; they have many areas with excess capacity which can be easily revived, and innovations in both technology and entrprenurial options could offer the gains in raw productivity which drive all progress.

Within that scenario, passenger rail operations should be appropriate in a larger number of venues, but they will remain a sideshow, The guys and gals in the back-row seats can't relate to the shiny and expensive HSR some people would like to see at center stage.

It's America at it's parochial best. They (we) just don't know what we're missing. I found out first-hand for the first time last year.

electricron wrote:Anytime public funds are spent on anything in a democracy it becomes political.

The places it is not political are in dictatorships.

Why are you so surprised?

As the Economist article pointed out , some kind of method for sharing avaliable funds fairly reduces the chances of politicans pork barreling it . pork barrel projects are not democracy , they are a politican abusing the power entrusted to them . likewise , any kind of methodic or central planning is not Dictatorship , unless of course those instituting it were not democratically elected .
The HSR fiascos in WI , FLA , and Ohio are not a product of democracy working , they are a product of the sytem been abused for political gain .There would be absoulte outrage if that kind of thing happened here .

Sorry for bumping an old thread, but there is an important issue mentioned at in this article that no one seemed to pick up on yet.

The article mentions that 70% of infrastructure funding is based an set formulas that give a disproportionate amount of money to those states with the most highway miles. (Big empty Western ones.) This can largely be acredited to America's federalist system, which (thanks to the Senate) is immensly biased towards rural, car-oriented states. As the article says, an infrastructure bank would be the best way to deal with this problem. If all investment is weighted in terms of cost-benefit, I think you would see a lot more money going to denser, urbanized regions. That means more money going to things like high-speed rail and transit. Investment in these areas, while costing more per mile, produces more benefits for more people than widening rural interstates, and thus would be favored by the Bank.

Just my two cents.

Metzger wrote:Sorry for bumping an old thread, but there is an important issue mentioned at in this article that no one seemed to pick up on yet.

The article mentions that 70% of infrastructure funding is based an set formulas that give a disproportionate amount of money to those states with the most highway miles. (Big empty Western ones.) This can largely be acredited to America's federalist system, which (thanks to the Senate) is immensly biased towards rural, car-oriented states. As the article says, an infrastructure bank would be the best way to deal with this problem. If all investment is weighted in terms of cost-benefit, I think you would see a lot more money going to denser, urbanized regions. That means more money going to things like high-speed rail and transit. Investment in these areas, while costing more per mile, produces more benefits for more people than widening rural interstates, and thus would be favored by the Bank.

Just my two cents.

But who chooses which projects to build? Federal, State, or Regional planners? Today, its the Regional Transportation Authorities that decide where that formula sets (70%) highway gas tax funds are spent - with both Federal and State oversight. The 30% funding arising from earmarks, either State or Federal funds -must also get Regional planners to buy in - or the project is never built.

The formula isn't based upon population nor taxes collected, that's why you have so much disparity with states receiving more or less than what they contribute in taxes. People out west drive far more miles per capital than people down east. It's the old argument over highway funding distribution again, should it be by the number of vehicles or by vehicle-miles? That decision was made over 50 years ago, and I see no reason to change it.

I do see a reason to change it. By basing federal funding on VMT, you reward those states and regions that encourage the most people to drive the furthest distances. In other words, the system subsidizes suburban sprawl by encouraging wider highways going to the furthest away places. You're right. The decision was made in the 50s and America has become more dependent on the car ever since. I think that with rising oil prices, environmental concerns, and health problems, we want to discourage sprawl as much as possible. That means changing the funding formulas, but there are alternatives to total vehicles. I like the idea of a merit-based infrastructure bank, but if you don't, perhaps a more eqitable method would be returning to states the same amount they send to Washington. But like anything worth doing, I doubt that would be politically palatable.
~Mike

Mr. Metzger wrote:

In other words, the system subsidizes suburban sprawl by encouraging wider highways going to the furthest away places. You're right. The decision was made in the 50s and America has become more dependent on the car ever since. I think that with rising oil prices, environmental concerns, and health problems, we want to discourage sprawl as much as possible

it's a disturbomg point, but somewhat of a double-edged sword. There is plenty of evidence to support the contention that recent expansion of suburban/exurban rail service continus to drive the growth of "sprawl"; consider the boom in development in New Jersey exurbs like Wrightstown, Browns Mills, etc. since the upgrading of NJT services on the NEC.

But one could also agrue the point that increased personal mobilty has contributed to the growth and development of both urbanization and democratic institutions since the invention of the modern bicycle. And the region in which I came of age, the 'hard coal" country of Pennsylvania, is a much cleaner place than when I was growing up.

In the end, the packaging of political priorities can only affect things to some degree; the sum total of our wants and choices wil determine the rest. And someimes, those forces operate at crossed purposes.

There is plenty of evidence to support the contention that recent expansion of suburban/exurban rail service continus to drive the growth of "sprawl"; consider the boom in development in New Jersey exurbs like Wrightstown, Browns Mills, etc. since the upgrading of NJT services on the NEC

What upgrading? The only thing that has happened on NJT's section of that corridor is downgrading. During the 1980s, the average speed of loca trains was 47 mph; nowadays, you'd be lucky if an express travels that fast nowadays (which they do not, apart from a few non-stops between Princeton and Newark which hit overall average speeds of over 50 mph per the timetable); local trains are down to an average speed of 36 mph. This sounds like a mischaracterization: much of new development and hence people moving out of the cities was driven by high property taxes within those cities coupled with increasing crime rates. Neither Wrightstown nor Browns Mills are served by rail; the nearest railroad (former CNJ Southern Division) is quite inactive for passenger service and not very active for freight. (In the cases of those two towns, perhaps BRAC had something to do with their redevelopment as well.)

one could also agrue the point that increased personal mobilty has contributed to the growth and development of both urbanization and democratic institutions since the invention of the modern bicycle

Nope. Certainly not with the liberals being the best friend to the interstate highway and biggest enemy of the railroads since WWII.

And given that there is no shortage of automobiles in countries that have extensive passenger rail, it's not a forced choice between "personal mobility" and anything else; the liberal politicians in the USA took away much of the choice.

amtrakowitz wrote:

2nd trick op wrote:There is plenty of evidence to support the contention that recent expansion of suburban/exurban rail service continus to drive the growth of "sprawl"; consider the boom in development in New Jersey exurbs like Wrightstown, Browns Mills, etc. since the upgrading of NJT services on the NEC

What upgrading? The only thing that has happened on NJT's section of that corridor is downgrading. During the 1980s, the average speed of loca trains was 47 mph; nowadays, you'd be lucky if an express travels that fast nowadays (which they do not, apart from a few non-stops between Princeton and Newark which hit overall average speeds of over 50 mph per the timetable); local trains are down to an average speed of 36 mph. This sounds like a mischaracterization: much of new development and hence people moving out of the cities was driven by high property taxes within those cities coupled with increasing crime rates. Neither Wrightstown nor Browns Mills are served by rail; the nearest railroad (former CNJ Southern Division) is quite inactive for passenger service and not very active for freight

The communities cited above didn't acutally have to be situated on NJT's lines to benefit from them. When I worked in the area fifteen years ago, I met several people, including two Amtrak employees, who used the park-and-ride facilities at Jersey Avenue in New Brunswick, Edison, and other locations, to sustain commutes to New York and Newark.

That's just one example of emerging "exurban" center that would benefit from a well-coordinated rail service, if it could justifiy and sustain higher speed. The Pocono region around Stroudsburg, Penna, where the realtors have been promsing "The train will be here in two .. no, make that five .. no, ten years." is another.

The Lehigh Valley has had zero promises of rail service and population growth occurred there too, turning them into bedroom communities. I'd regard them as being similar to Wrightstown and Browns Mills, both of which are fed by road arteries (GSP, I-295, I-195, NJTP) and are most likely bedroom communities of Philly rather than NYC. And the point is not lost that car usage is still necessary to get to/from these locations even if used en route to passenger rail (not too likely once a driver reaches a highway).

The same could be said about Scranton/Wilkes-Barre and the Lehigh Valey as about the Poconos. But unfortunately, there is the little matter of a couple of state boundaries between these areas and the "anchor" cities with which they are economically linked.

Because of its population density and geographic location, New Jersey might be characterized as the most rail-transit-friendly state in the nation, and its leadership has taken full advantage of that. The question now moght be whether the new service to Andover (and possibly Phililpsburg someday) might lead a few more savvy Pennsylvanians to drive a few mmore miles to a park-and-ride. That might be viewed as a new take-off on the tem "voting with one's feet".