THE ECONOMIST HSR article July 22

Interesting position, Spacecadet: So societal benefit trumps all? And your position on all property rights must reflect this? And as such, you must feel pretty passionately that patent and trademark protection should be eliminated, because such protection creates artificial barriers to competition and, as a result, artificially high profits that go into the pockets of vision-less cowards and hurts consumers.

Obviously you couldn't ask the question. But thanks for playing.

4266, I look forward to future paraphrasing!

Cowford wrote:Interesting position, Spacecadet: So societal benefit trumps all? And your position on all property rights must reflect this? And as such, you must feel pretty passionately that patent and trademark protection should be eliminated, because such protection creates artificial barriers to competition and, as a result, artificially high profits that go into the pockets of vision-less cowards and hurts consumers.

Obviously you couldn't ask the question. But thanks for playing.

4266, I look forward to future paraphrasing!

I think I'm doing just fine on my own thank you very much
And as a documentary filmmaker I certainly wouldn't mind seeing certain patent and trademark protections eliminated! Though I really don't see what that has to do with anything mr Spacecadet was saying... If you really wanna play the red baiting game then look no further than me Mr.McCarthy! I'll wear that badge proudly! I mean I ain't a communist necessarily but I've been in the red all my life. how's that for a paraphrase?

Spacecadet wrote:

Free market people are inherently skittish. They're really a bunch of visionless cowards, if you want the honest truth, because their entire goal is protecting profits in the particular industry for which they have an interest, not increasing the overall profit potential but spreading it around to many industries. Anything that rocks the boat sends them running for the trees. Status quo is their mantra.

I'm not sure what you mean by "free market people". Without further clarification, it seems to lump all those who don't subcribe wholesale to the collection of special interests which took power in Washington last year as one monolithic group.

There's a lot of difference between the individual trving to run a modest-sized business in a small communty and the academic comparing the beliefs of Rand vs Mises vs Friedman. And that doesn't include the wide disparity in the agendae of corporate and institutional players, many of which have access to the levers of power (strengthened by the state's monoploy on the use of coercion) and don't want to give it up.

It was a Democrat, Governor Alfred E. Smith, who voiced the opinion that "There are no evils of democracy that cannot be cured by the application of more democracy." So let it be with the transporation/infrastuctural issue. The concept of a centrally-coordinated and -managed network of HSR's planned within the insulation of the Beltway, is losing ground for the same reason as all the other fantasies sold to us two summers ago. But the beginnings, however small, of upgraded rail systems within individual states are under way, and will continue to advance, if for no other reason than that the limitations of both the air and highway competitors are becoming more evident.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in California, where Amtrak has developed a number of intermediate-distance markets, one of them (the San Joaquins) built upon a mixed-mode concept occasioned by the same Tehachapi bottleneck which frustrated Santa Fe over half a century ago. The state probably could, within a few years, establish an HSR route from a BART connection at Concord to a Metrolink connection at Lancaster. Not pretty, not loaded with dreams and pork, but proven and workable.

To those who claim that our American pseudo-culture doesn't represent a free market, I heartliy add my voice. But the culprit is Madison Avenue rather than Wall Street, and the real villain is the faceless, security- and conformity-obsessed suburbanite who has become so gullible that we cannot watch a weather report without being bombarded with the message that one more purchase, one more service contract, will guarantee absolute security.

And power remains an addictive drug:

The fact is if you want to make an omelet, you've gotta break a few eggs. Just the way it is. Sometimes, short-term disruption is necessary for the long-term common good.

The most dangerous idea of all: The quote has been fallsely attributed to both Lenin and Robespierre, but I'm sure either would have felt comforable with it.

Far better to let the bloated juggernaut collapse under its own weight, as happened with the City of New York three decades ago. Despite the turmoil in our financial markets and the increasing interference in industries like automobiles where the desire for raw political power is greatest, we retain the know-how to feed and sustain ourselves mostly at the local level, and despite the attempts to impress the kiddies, telecommunication also lends itself to decentralized functionality; the Internet itself was built with that in mind.

here we go again , lets just scrap all the labelling , freemarket and socialist etc , and just look at the ideas on their own merit .

there is no truly freemarket country , nor is there a truly socialist one . All are a mixture of both ( to varying degrees ) .
Lets get back to the trains before Otto locks this thread . ( and he would be justified if this continues , in my opinion ).

David Benton wrote:here we go again , lets just scrap all the labelling , freemarket and socialist etc , and just look at the ideas on their own merit .

there is no truly freemarket country , nor is there a truly socialist one . All are a mixture of both ( to varying degrees ) .
Lets get back to the trains before Otto locks this thread . ( and he would be justified if this continues , in my opinion ).

The real question is whether the various political systems used in the US are capable of developing a high speed rail system, which other countries have managed to do. It is not whether the existing railways can participate.
Personally, I think the current arrangements will make it impossible to evolve a High Speed network, which is a pity. As oil prices rise that will be a problem for people in the US.
I disagree with the Economist article. The Economist magazine has its strengths. I value (or used to) its worldwide coverage. I don't value its ideological stance.

You disagree with the article or with the opinions of the railroads? Interestingly, The Economist makes no ideological stance. It gives NO opinion, pro or con, as to the benefits of HSR (or the position the railroads are taking on rereg, etc for that matter) because that is not point of the article. The point the article makes is, that unless HSR corridors are built on separate, dedicated rights-of-way, development will be complicated as it necessarily requires the participation of a very reluctant freight rail industry. And their position (quite justified, IMO, or at least understandable) is that there's nothing good that can come out of it for them.

And for those of you who think this doesn't matter, because it's what's in (whatever you interpret as) society's best interest...

I'd like to raise free range chickens and hogs to support the organic, locavore movement. Unfortunately, I don't have a back yard, so I'm going to sequester a section of your back yard. Don't worry, I'll leave you space for your BBQs and I'll build the coop and pens. Heck, I'll even pay you a nominal rent for the use of your property. I'm certain you'll not object as it's in the local community's best interest.

It never ceases to amaze me, the anti-railroad industry sentiment on RAILROAD.net.

I'd like to raise free range chickens and hogs to support the organic, locavore movement. Unfortunately, I don't have a back yard, so I'm going to sequester a section of your back yard. Don't worry, I'll leave you space for your BBQs and I'll build the coop and pens. Heck, I'll even pay you a nominal rent for the use of your property. I'm certain you'll not object as it's in the local community's best interest.

What has that got to do with trains, or anything I have posted?

It never ceases to amaze me, the anti-railroad industry sentiment on RAILROAD.net.

Your opposition to the Downeaster is a case in point.

Mr Matthews, I only asked you to clarify your disagreement with the article. The analogy wasn't directed at you (separate paragraph, stating "those of you"). To explain: The railroads are "you" (not you, Mr Matthews; I mean in the general sense, as in "those of you") and "I" is the HSR advocate. Using the rationale provided by some in this thread, the HSR folks have the right to confiscate railroad property (more specifically, the capacity for the "production" of freight ton-miles) because it's in the community's/society's best interest.

So how is my position on the DE service a case-in-point against the rail industry? Perhaps I should have clarified by saying "freight" rail industry.

So how is my position on the DE service a case-in-point against the rail industry? Perhaps I should have clarified by saying "freight" rail industry.

I don't think there should be separate industries. And I do think the track should be controlled and owned by the government, with slots to each user allocated by the track owner. That is EU policy.

Using the rationale provided by some in this thread, the HSR folks have the right to confiscate railroad property (more specifically, the capacity for the "production" of freight ton-miles) because it's in the community's/society's best interest.

That is a function of government in most countries. In France they make sure that they pay above the market rate which prevents a lot of opposition for new LGV routes.
If private property cannot be purchased compulsorily you will never get any big project done and will continue to decline economically. It's a choice.

No mature industrialized society can function without some recognition of the principle of eminent domain, but the (ab)use of this practice has drawn increasing scrutiny in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo Vs. City of New London, in 2005, as referenced below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

The decision drew strong criticism from civil libertarians (small "l" emphasized) on both sides of the economic issue, but its strongest support clearly comes from those embroiled in the contoversies over development in a highly politicized environment .... a description which clearly fits the HSR advocacy. And the central reasoning behind the concerns of those of us with a strong belief in individual rights is that the property win question was seized for private, rather than public purposes.

As always, power becomes an addictive drug.

With regard to Mr. Cowford's (hopefully) light-hearted commentary on "getting a chicken ranch". I do have to point out that a "freedom to farm" bill, intended to shield long-established family farms from the esthetic objections (often nasal in nature) of sheltered suburbanites in nearby developments genereated quite a bit of controversy here in Pennsylvania on several occasions in recent years.

And that a bill designed to prevent the sale of no-longer-wanted horses for horsemeat strongly supported by the animal-rights movement a few years ago led to the sale of many of these same amnimals to the Amish ....who were exempted to dispose of their own property as they saw fit. (There are a couple of places in the hinterlands of the Keystone state where the locals work very hard at controlling the smell of rotting horseflesh).

My point here is mostly the same as emphasized in the previous post. We have becomes so litigation-conscious, so obsessed with the protection of our own idyllic lifestyle, that any pragmatic solution is likely to spend years in the courts. Allowing the system to collapse, then to reformulate itself free of the loudest (and often least-rational) concerns is not only the least-painful solution .... it is the one impelled by sheer weight of numbers .... just another form of supply and demand at work.

2nd trick op wrote:Allowing the system to collapse, then to reformulate itself free of the loudest (and often least-rational) concerns is not only the least-painful solution .... it is the one impelled by sheer weight of numbers .... just another form of supply and demand at work.

This might not be a horrible idea, either. I'm personally tired of NIMBYs opposing things we really need on mostly frivolous grounds ( i.e. we can't electrify such and such line because the wires are "ugly" ). Maybe we really need to reach the point where transportation practically grinds to a halt because NIMBY concerns prevented any solutions. When that occurs, fingers will indeed be pointing at the loudest and least rational voices as the reason. End result will be those voices will have a lot less weight in future decision-making processes.

And incidentally, I tend to disagree with the article. The reason is simple. We've tried running mixed freight and passenger service since the inception of Amtrak. It largely doesn't work all that well. If we want true HSR, not politicized "higher-speed" rail, then we need separate freight and passenger rights-of-way. The sooner we come to this recognition, the better. This isn't to say that in some cases, especially those of low ridership, we can't run a few passenger trains on freight lines. However, the idea that we can build a viable passenger network which serves more than a niche function without building many brand new rights-of-way is fantasy. Sure, it still may be worthwhile using some public monies to upgrade the freight railroads, but with the goal of helping them move mainly freight more efficiently. For example, electrification of the freight RRs would provide enormous operational benefits, but it's something which most won't even consider until oil prices are high enough to give a payback period within the term of a CEO. Using government monies to pay for this, perhaps in return for allowing a few fast electrified passenger trains where needed, would benefit both parties.

It is seriously time to think outside the box. Nothing should be off the table, especially if the sole reason for opposition is frivolous NIMBY concerns.

jtr1962 wrote:

2nd trick op wrote:Allowing the system to collapse, then to reformulate itself free of the loudest (and often least-rational) concerns is not only the least-painful solution .... it is the one impelled by sheer weight of numbers .... just another form of supply and demand at work.

This might not be a horrible idea, either. I'm personally tired of NIMBYs opposing things we really need on mostly frivolous grounds ( i.e. we can't electrify such and such line because the wires are "ugly" ). Maybe we really need to reach the point where transportation practically grinds to a halt because NIMBY concerns prevented any solutions. When that occurs, fingers will indeed be pointing at the loudest and least rational voices as the reason. End result will be those voices will have a lot less weight in future decision-making processes.

And incidentally, I tend to disagree with the article. The reason is simple. We've tried running mixed freight and passenger service since the inception of Amtrak. It largely doesn't work all that well. If we want true HSR, not politicized "higher-speed" rail, then we need separate freight and passenger rights-of-way. The sooner we come to this recognition, the better. This isn't to say that in some cases, especially those of low ridership, we can't run a few passenger trains on freight lines. However, the idea that we can build a viable passenger network which serves more than a niche function without building many brand new rights-of-way is fantasy. Sure, it still may be worthwhile using some public monies to upgrade the freight railroads, but with the goal of helping them move mainly freight more efficiently. For example, electrification of the freight RRs would provide enormous operational benefits, but it's something which most won't even consider until oil prices are high enough to give a payback period within the term of a CEO. Using government monies to pay for this, perhaps in return for allowing a few fast electrified passenger trains where needed, would benefit both parties.

It is seriously time to think outside the box. Nothing should be off the table, especially if the sole reason for opposition is frivolous NIMBY concerns.

The NIMBY's should know that today's catenary structures aren't as scary looking as the PRR ones on the NEC, Keystone, and other lines.

Cowford wrote: The point the article makes is, that unless HSR corridors are built on separate, dedicated rights-of-way, development will be complicated as it necessarily requires the participation of a very reluctant freight rail industry. And their position (quite justified, IMO, or at least understandable) is that there's nothing good that can come out of it for them.

I think you accurately summarize the article in the first part of your above quoted statement that unless HSR is on separate ROW development will be "complicated" by the inevitable conflicts with the freight companies. But your assertion that it is the position of the freight railroads that "nothing good can come out of it for them" is a bit of an oversimplification.
Even if one were predisposed to the argument that "The Economist" solely reflects the interests of Capital and ignores other perspectives, they would still have to admit that the article accurately reflects the position of the freight industry. If I want to read something from the point of view of the freight industry I will read "The Economist" and if I want to read something from the point of view of public transportation advocates I will a read planetizen.com or whatever. The article made clear that there are definitely going to be issues with the freight companies, but these issues weren't heavily examined nor were there any solutions proposed. Obviously, if you run more passenger trains on freight lines, they will inevitably conflict! I don't really see anything new here. I don't believe as Cowford states, "that nothing good can come out of it for" the freight companies. The article only really pertains to those "higher-speed" 100mph intercity routes that would see diesel-electric passenger trains share the ROW with freight traffic, which according to the articles' own map graphic pertains to the existing LSL Route, the Keystone Corridor, the Hiawatha, the Bakersfield line, the NEC from NY (extended to NC) and a few short spurs to Detroit and Miami. Of course, as proposed by the USDOT HSR Plan this would only be the first step and would eventually lead to separate dedicated ROWs anyway. So the problem really is the modesty of the plan.
As I said before, I think the best solution for all parties would be to model the HSR system after the interstate highway network. In fact, the vast majority of new ROW could be INSIDE the highway system medians. The track would be electrified and would contain dedicated lines for freight and passenger (or express and local in urban areas).

4266, you've stated that my take on the railroads' position was an "oversimplification" and that you didn't believe that "nothing good can come out of it for them." Then could you possibly answer the question I earlier asked: If HSR projects are foisted upon freight rail corridors, what good will come of it for the freight carriers?

Funding for track, signal, heavier rail, double tracking, drainage, bridges, grade crossing protection, communications, and perhaps eventually electricifation... To name a few off the top of my head.