youtube anti-high speed rail video

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:The real problem here is that HSR advocates, with the worst offenders being those in California, keep on confusing the HSR with commuter rail, when the two are entirely distinct. There are some very real misrepresentations by CHSR, and I'm inclined to say that the blatant "errors" go beyond simple ignorance.

I would say that Oregon is even a worse offender than California; although California is certainly much further along in planning for HSR than Oregon is.

Oregon is currently focused on their Portland-Eugene HSR proposal under all the same guises - it'll reduce traffic congestion, offer commute-to-work opportunities, create jobs, yada yada yada.

The problem: Nobody commutes to work from Eugene to Portland, or vice-versa. In fact, Portland-Eugene travel is a tiny fraction of what Portland-Seattle travel is.

HSR in Europe doesn't create commuting opportunities, it gets short-haul 737s and A320s out of the sky. The turboprop short-haul flight in Europe is almost a memory save for flights to islands and across large bodies of water, and certain routes that connect remote towns to airline hubs. California's air travel market could certainly qualify for HSR on that merit alone; there is a huge Bay Area-SoCal air market that could be vastly reduced or eliminated with true (180 MPH+) HSR. But Portland-Eugene wouldn't qualify with just a handful of flights - and most of those will be eliminated next year with the largest carrier, SkyWest, eliminating its EMB-120 turboprop fleet with no replacement. That'll leave just a couple of Horizon Air flights.

HSR also is not a primary mode of transportation in Europe, Japan or China - the majority of folks use ordinary, working day trains. Here in America, we're pinning our hopes that HSR will be a magical solution to every problem. That's why Oregon's HSR proposal includes stops in Lake Oswego and Tualatin - two towns of about 35,000 folks each (which wouldn't even register as a high speed rail stop in Japan or Europe) just four miles apart; a stop in West Woodburn (located in an exclusive farm use zone three miles from Woodburn's city center), and is routed on a right-of-way that was actually intended for a 1910 era trolley - complete with unsuitable ROW widths and very sharp curves in Salem, and due to Albany's demand to remove the Oregon Electric Railway line through downtown Albany (which isn't suitable for HSR anyways) the line will have to use the Union Pacific mainline in Albany as well as from Milwaukie to Portland, likely through Salem, possibly from Salem to Albany, and in Eugene. The net result would be just two true high speed stretches - South Albany to Junction City, and North Salem to Wilsonville.

Washington is a bit more realistic than the other two; focusing on building up its current product and making incremental improvements (such as the Lakewood cutoff and rerouting Amtrak Cascades trains off of a congested, curvy, landslide prone stretch from Olympia to Tacoma onto a dedicated route almost entirely alongside I-5); allowing for compatibility between the short-haul intercity Cascades trains and the Sounder commuter trains; and ensuring continued freight mobility with BNSF and UP trains. The Washington approach has already demonstrated huge success both in ridership, acceptance (by the public and by the host railroad, BNSF) and also financial success in receiving both state and federal funding. Oregon's plan appears to be D.O.A. because of a lack of acceptance by anyone but the pundits and engineers - even the Portland & Western Railroad which hosts WES is becoming less receptive to passenger rail and has all but shut off the possibilty of expansion or new WES trains. Union Pacific is playing its usual card game which it has gotten very good at, and Oregon is in a financial crisis (close to California's) whereas Washington is, while not out of the woods, much better off than Oregon is.

Hehe, very funny, Erik, "not out of the woods", very funny. Yes, I have to agree with you about those HSR routes. Not much sense there.

When they move the State Capitol to Yakima, THEN Washington will be out-of-the-woods, quite literally

BiZzAro wrote:

I did some research on Reason Magazine. It's run by the Reason Foundation, a non-profit libertarian think tank organization. Guess who has supported and funded them? Exxon Mobil and Chevron to name a few. Also, numerous airlines. No wonder...

Well, I happen to be one of those libertarians (small 'l" emphasized, please) and have been for over forty years.

The libertrian philosophy emphasises the dignity, and protection of the individual from the power of the state which, like prgnancy or malignancy, just can't seem to stay small and live within its means. As such. most of us believe that what one or more consenting adults do in the privacy of their own quarters is no one's business but their own.

But you can't have personal freedom without economic freedom. The proper role of the markets, through the workings of supply and demand, is to reglate how resourses are used. But power, especially when manifested in the absolute monopoly of force held bythe state, is an addictive drug. Tamper with one set of rights, and the other is invariably compromised.

But I also want to emphasize that a doctrine of "pure" laissez-faire, while ultimately desirable, isn't workable in a society where entrepreneurs aren't willing to risk private funds on projects which can easily be de facto confiscated for political pipe dreams. so we have to agree on a hybrid form that will work.

But the key difference is this; As advocates of economic freedom, we view government participation/interference as, at best, a pernicious necessity, held in check by a reasonable man's natural suspicion of the encroachment of government power. 6000 years of history demonstrates, on the other hand, that as Acton observed over a century ago "Power tends to corrupt. and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

So I'm not about to endorse a concept embraced by the heirs of Mao tse-Tung, creator of one of the Twentieth Century's worst butcher-states, suddenly rendered "respectable" by a few cheap suits.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:You don't need to undermine highway and air travel to make passenger rail succeed

Absolutely not. However, due to outstanding government support of highway and air, and the legacy private ownership of the general railway network plus the passenger trains that said private owners used to operate, there is still the perception that the government felt it necessary to undermine passenger rail to make air and highway travel succeed. So how to eliminate that long-standing market distortion?

As to goodnightjohnwayne's concerns about disconnected corridors, there is some truth in that, especially in the western half of the contiguous US. It would be hard to justify a HSR line connecting Sacramento and Portland OR, for instance.

That half is thinly populated with lots of mountains, making only scattered HSR systems viable.

However, the eastern half is much more populous, especially in the valleys and flatlands, and the proposals I've seen can be connected into some mega systems, which I've named the Atlantic-Gulf Belt and Greater Chicagoland.

The Atlantic-Gulf Belt is a long line, Portland ME - Boston - NYC - Philly - DC - Richmond - Raleigh - Charlotte - Atlanta - Birmingham - Meridian - New Orleans - Houston - Austin - San Antonio, with several branches to northern New England, upstate New York, western Pennsylvania, Florida, and northern Texas.

Greater Chicagoland is several lines that radiate outward from Chicago -- Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Minneapolis, etc.

So one would have a well-connected system in the eastern half.

The relative remoteness of the western half of the USA may in one sense provide an opportunity for successful HSR. City pairs that are reasonably close (Seattle-Portland, San Diego-Los Angeles, Sacramento-Bay Area, Phoenix-Tucson), but distant from other large population centers, develop social and economic ties that are very tight. And those ties create a lot of travel between those endpoints. Portland and Pittsburgh are about the same size, but due to the proximity of many other large population bases close to Pittsburgh (Cleveland, Detroit, Philadelphia, DC, Chicago, Cincinnati) the travel patterns to and from Pittsburgh may not concentrate as many travelers on a single corridor as might be found on the corridor between Portland and Seattle.

There are plenty of physical barriers that will likely limit HSR in the Pacific Northwest to a relatively pedestrian 110 mph, but highway travel will never exceed 70 mph and air travel will only become more difficult and more expensive--especially on short hauls like Seattle to Portland.

amtrakowitz wrote:

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:You don't need to undermine highway and air travel to make passenger rail succeed

Absolutely not. However, due to outstanding government support of highway and air, and the legacy private ownership of the general railway network plus the passenger trains that said private owners used to operate, there is still the perception that the government felt it necessary to undermine passenger rail to make air and highway travel succeed. So how to eliminate that long-standing market distortion?

What market distortion? If anything, the real "market distortions" disappeared with the deregulation of the airline, trucking and railroad sectors some 30 years ago. People like to insist that air travel killed long distance passenger rail, but the reality is that most of the contraction of passenger rail occurred long before the airline were deregulated. Airline fares were once kept artificially high, through various anti-competitive means. Similarly, the construction of the Interstate Highway System occurred over 25 years after Weimar Germany had planned the Autobahns. Contrary to the ill-informed popular opinion, America embraced the automobile long before there were suitable long distance highways.

What market distortion?

Government support of infrastructure. Thought I already said that. Let the free market dictate how infrastructure is built, not the government, and let the free market be paid per use.

If anything, the real "market distortions" disappeared with the deregulation of the airline, trucking and railroad sectors some 30 years ago

Disappeared? Where was the railroad sector deregulated, may I ask? All I see is some regulation disappearing and being replaced by a host of new, different regulation. (For example, this...not exactly conducive to the continued competitiveness of the railroad sector.) As I understand things, deregulation is supposed to lead to an explosion of investment and competition in a particular sector. The railroads have not been deregulated.

Contrary to the ill-informed popular opinion, America embraced the automobile long before there were suitable long distance highways

Nothing wrong with embracing the automobile per se. Some of the highest passenger rail usage has coincided with "embrace" of the alternative to the horse-drawn "car".

And frankly, the increase in automobile ownership and use has been quite marked over the past two decades, all over the industrialized (and so-called post-industrial) world. I once lived on a city street where automobile ownership was perhaps at the 50-percent level, and on-street parking was plentiful even at night; that increased to perhaps 400 percent, with no room for on-street parking at any time of day (four cars per household in a lower-middle-class area).

But none of this really relates to the high-speed rail concept, does it? or even what I said? so why did you mention it at all?

Amtrakowitz wrote:

Where was the railroad sector deregulated, may I ask? All I see is some regulation disappearing and being replaced by a host of new, different regulation.

I think it should be explained here that when those of us whose primary concern is economic freedom speak of this issue, we are refering to economic regulation, under which entry and exit from the markets and pricing are overseen by autorities such as a Public Utility Commission. This practice began in the late Nineteenth century, and was increased in scope until the end of the Great Depression, but largely removed in the 1980's, so if we assume that the basic underatanding of econmics forms around age 10, those here under age 40 aren't likely to remember a time when markets were strongly overseen.

Safety regulation is an entirely different matter.

Interesting take on the outrageous costs of building HSR in the U.S., something of concern regardless of your political views:

http://blogs.reuters.com/columns/2010/1 ... oondoggle/

($274 million a mile for an improved NEC- oy vey!- though some have said this is a deliberate proposal to make a less ambitious scheme seem reasonable)

2nd trick op wrote:

amtrakowitz wrote:Where was the railroad sector deregulated, may I ask? All I see is some regulation disappearing and being replaced by a host of new, different regulation.

I think it should be explained here that when those of us whose primary concern is economic freedom speak of this issue, we are refer(r)ing to economic regulation, under which entry and exit from the markets and pricing are overseen by aut(h)orities such as a Public Utility Commission. This practice began in the late Nineteenth century, and was increased in scope until the end of the Great Depression, but largely removed in the 1980's, so if we assume that the basic under(s)tanding of econ(o)mics forms around age 10, those here under age 40 aren't likely to remember a time when markets were strongly overseen.

Safety regulation is an entirely different matter.

No, not when it comes to cost of doing business. The alleged "safety" regulation was one of the chief attacks on said cost. State and federal governments relented on property taxes, more safety regulation walked in. Rate deregulation was countered with yet more safety regulation. Every accident brought more government interference upon the industry. I've heard similar arguments against CAFE standards for road vehicles, which mirrors the FRA's Tier I through III for diesel locomotives (which are not safety regs whatsoever). So yes, these are big factors in the suppression of economic freedom.

amtrakowitz wrote:

2nd trick op wrote:

amtrakowitz wrote:Where was the railroad sector deregulated, may I ask? All I see is some regulation disappearing and being replaced by a host of new, different regulation.

I think it should be explained here that when those of us whose primary concern is economic freedom speak of this issue, we are refer(r)ing to economic regulation, under which entry and exit from the markets and pricing are overseen by aut(h)orities such as a Public Utility Commission. This practice began in the late Nineteenth century, and was increased in scope until the end of the Great Depression, but largely removed in the 1980's, so if we assume that the basic under(s)tanding of econ(o)mics forms around age 10, those here under age 40 aren't likely to remember a time when markets were strongly overseen.

Safety regulation is an entirely different matter.

No, not when it comes to cost of doing business. The alleged "safety" regulation was one of the chief attacks on said cost. State and federal governments relented on property taxes, more safety regulation walked in. Rate deregulation was countered with yet more safety regulation. Every accident brought more government interference upon the industry. I've heard similar arguments against CAFE standards for road vehicles, which mirrors the FRA's Tier I through III for diesel locomotives (which are not safety regs whatsoever). So yes, these are big factors in the suppression of economic freedom.

Are you arguing that safety regulations should be relaxed so as to remove the "suppression of economic freedom"? If so, you mention FRA Tier I-III and CAFE. Should this relaxation extend, for instance, to FDA regulation of food and drug safety? Or to OSHA regulations for worker safety? How about to to automobile crash-worthiness?

Note that a potential consequence of relaxed safety regulations is an increase in fatal and near-fatal accidents -- which could in turn lead to higher costs to business due to legal claims of negligence, etc. Businesses may in the end want to go back to a more regulatory rich environment, just so that they know what they must do to avoid liability...

spidey3 wrote:Note that a potential consequence of relaxed safety regulations is an increase in fatal and near-fatal accidents -- which could in turn lead to higher costs to business due to legal claims of negligence, etc. Businesses may in the end want to go back to a more regulatory rich environment, just so that they know what they must do to avoid liability...

The problem is that when businesses do the math and figure out the cost of complying with some new safety edict from the government vs the cost of the accidents that they would have without compliance the cost of compliance is MORE that what they are saving in liability. The whole push for "PTC" by 2015 will cost railroads more than the accidents PTC will prevent.

justalurker66 wrote:

spidey3 wrote:Note that a potential consequence of relaxed safety regulations is an increase in fatal and near-fatal accidents -- which could in turn lead to higher costs to business due to legal claims of negligence, etc. Businesses may in the end want to go back to a more regulatory rich environment, just so that they know what they must do to avoid liability...

The problem is that when businesses do the math and figure out the cost of complying with some new safety edict from the government vs the cost of the accidents that they would have without compliance the cost of compliance is MORE that what they are saving in liability. The whole push for "PTC" by 2015 will cost railroads more than the accidents PTC will prevent.

Really? They are going to be willing to trade a limited, known, cost of compliance with regulations, vs. potentially unlimited liability to compensatory and punitive damages when passengers or employees die in accidents? If this is so, then we ought to be regulating for safety on purely moral grounds...