Interesting.
Seems like the [Zardoz’s] OP’s YouTube posting pretty well lays it out…It all starts with ‘Capitalism’ (?)…Then came the Buggymaker’s; They figured out the ‘Better Buggy’; replace the horse with an ‘engine’.
Speed up transportation ! Trains and trolley’s were imited by those darn tracks! So invent the ‘Bus’. It won’t need those tracks, and can roam all over with out a dedicated right of way. Creating individual mobility! The Buggymaker became a Car Company! So everyman could have their own car! [Or maybe,TWO?] [swg]
Along came General Eisenhower[34th President from 1953 to 1961] After seeing what the Autobahn’s contributed to Germany; he pushed for the 1956 Bill in Congress for the Interstate and Defense Highway Act which created our system of about 41,000 miles of limited access highways. Giving Americans access to roam about in their privately owned transportation; eventully, putting passenger trains on a path to demise(?). [sigh]
You forgot about airlines,
Point of correction on the big transit systems being bought out by an Oil-Automobile-Tire conspiracy. Had the discussion while I worked at GM at their HQ with their Economists. The Economists raised the issue because they knew I was a rail afficianado. Most of them were PhD’s and knew their specific areas of coverage really well. They all agreed this conspiracy theory was only partially true and the largest fact missing was the transit systems at the time of purchase were in serious financial trouble and the purchase and conversion to bus was an attempt to make them viable again via exchanging the rail infrastructure cost with the largely cost free and public provided paved streets. It wasn’t a nationwide goal to destroy rail or rail transit. So every time I hear it I am going to throw the BS flag on that specific conspiracy theory. It was the general move prior to WWII that continued after WWII to the private automobile and the U.S. standard of living which made one and two car households viable that led to the downfall of the privately run passenger train.
The Europeans had to start over again at near poverty after WWII because of the devastation of World War II, same with the Japaneese. Rail transportation was immediately available and made much more sense than waiting for the time when Europeans could afford to buy their own car or even a second car (which many of them still do not have today). Same is true of Japan and China. If everyone in China owned an automobile or had two of them that country would be unliveable due to traffic congestion and pollution.
Regarding that old conspiracy about the streetcars, the systems were worn out, people started buying cars and all GM did was open thier bus catalog.
Pretty good report, but they DID leave several things out.
NIMBY and BANANA opposition. Maybe a lot of people DO want high-speed rail, but not in their backyard, and they’ll fight tooth and nail to stop it. Add all those court costs to the construction costs.
Then, unions. Especially in the major urban areas. All those sky-high labor costs. Then there’s the corrolary big-city “where did the money go?” corruption. Don’t say it isn’t real!
Eviornmental study costs, I’m suprised they didn’t mention what a major killer those things are. Look at the Northeast, one environmental study after another to rebuild or improve rail lines that have been there since the 1850s! How is a modern electrically (or diesel) operated rail line going to pollute more than a smoky 4-4-0? Environmentalists are their own worst enemy sometimes. Don’t say how environmentally friendly high-speed rail is and then add to the difficulty in building it.
Property rights. Thank God we have them, but other countries don’t have that issue, especially dictatorships like China. “A rail line’s coming through. Move or else!” China doesn’t have a problem with unions or labor costs either, to say nothing of environmental impact studies. Wonder why?
They did mention car culture. Fair enough. This is America, we love our cars and hate everything else. An exagerration of course, but it’s real, and it exists for a reason. Car culture’s all about freedom, you come and go as you please not tied to any schedule or location.
And let me tell you, the root of car culture goes back further than you think. Ever hear of the “Great Bicycle Craze” of the 1890’s? By that time the modern bicycle as we know it was pretty much perfected. Here was a mode of transportation, for local uses anyway, that was a LOT
So you are saying that a devastating war might be the shortest path to viable HSR in North America?[:-^]
The greatest point is really cost. Obama threw a fornicaton (or coproton, if you object to the term) of money at high-speed rail, and it’s difficult to see where much if any of that actually contributed to 125mph+ service. We’ve had the knowledge and the technical development (e.g. ALPS) to implement at least HST-level service on new lines with fairly radical peak grades for decades now.
The great deal-killing thing I keep seeing is a point related to NIMBYism: a good HSR route is effectively a Chinese wall whether in neighborhoods or farm country, and it cannot deviate either for natural features or property boundaries. Even a proportion of railfans wouldn’t want to live within blocks of such a thing, and I see a large number of local politicians recognizing this fact even with respect to lower-speed developments like Brightline. You’d need a significant preponderance of voters, or at least effective lobbyist-influenced voters, to get any headway toward political support of true HSR, and the relatively small group of people who would cough up the likely tariff for HSR trips aren’t even a start on such a bloc…
I don’t see the ‘car’ being as much of an influence on this issue as the ‘good roads’ movement, culminating in the idea that highways should be free (or, if toll, providing significant convenience benefits). I was never prouder of Connecticut than when they abolished the toll on their turnpike, as they had initially promised, when it was paid off. But that would have been a nail in the coffin of any remaining intrastate competition from the New Haven or one of its successors.
We are now seeing, in the crumbling-infrastructure issue, what may become an end to cheap good-roads free access by ‘anyone’ (at least anyone who doesn’t have a valid RFID account hotlinked to a major credit card or equivalent) and, unsurprisingly, an accelerating trend by Gen C or whatev
You pretty much nailed it. Out of all of this, I think environmental opposition and private property rights are the biggest.
We can’t even get a highway widened without studies of how it will affect the geen-striped hornfly, the studies take years, and even if the studies come back fine, the lawsuits from the environmental groups and adjacent landowners will add more years.
Imagine trying to build a new rail line, even out here in flyover country. Imagine trying to reroute an existing rail line for high speed traffic.
It won’t happen.
Overmod:
I don’t see the impediment to HSR being cost. I see HSR not getting built as the legacy of Ralph Nader.
Back in the day of urban planner Robert Moses and California Governor Edmund G “Pat” Brown (Sr.), whatever the project was, it got done. This was the context in which Mr. Nader had his breakout idea, the context where the little guy got pushed aside in the name of a Greater Good.
Ralph Nader’s idea was to fight this disrespect in the courts. This has caught on; Nader has succeeded in empowering the little guy beyond his wildest imagination.
This is why HSR is all tied up in California. This is what Thomas Friedman is admiring about China – Friedman wishes restoration of a more authoritarian political order to get nice things like HSR.
I truly believe an overstated issue is “our crumbling infrastructure”.
A nominal search finds all kinds of gloomy reports, normally made by some civil engineering groups. Isn’t that strange?
And then those reports are trumpeted by politicians, who also would never, ever profit from increased government spending.
We then hear about it from media outlets who have no interest in reporting that a bridge is in good shape.
What about “structurally deficient bridges”? Next time you hear about a deficient bridge, here is what the term actually means, from the DOT Federal Highway Administration: “Structural deficiencies are characterized by deteriorated conditions of significant bridge elements and reduced load carrying capacity. Functional obsolescence is a function of the geometrics of the bidge not meeting current design standards. Neither type of deficiency indicates that the bridge is unsafe.”
Highways are continually being rebuilt. I know because I have sat in my share construction zones. Railroads are continually repairing and upgrading. Airports and airlines have the best safety records ever, and even old airports have been updated in the past 20 years. Look at a map of the pipelines in our country, and remember how few pipeline accidents we have compared to the thousands of miles of pipe. And our ports have been upgraded over the past years to handle huge amounts of trade.
Airines were one reason for no HSR in this country, but more specifically the likes of the Pacific Southwest Airlines and what PSA inspired (Southwest). During the 1970’s, non-stop flights from Southern to Northern California took one hour from gate to gate, and Air Cal could fly from Oakland to San Diego in two hours with stops at San Jose and Orange County. In 1972, air fare between L.A. and the Bay Area was $20, San Diego and the Bay Area fare was $24.50.
High speed rail makes the most sense when there is a substantial population density along the route, that is where most of the trips do not involve travel between the endpoints, otherwise it makes more sense to fly. In Calfornia, the high population route follows the US 99 corridor, where the shortest and cheapest route would follow I-5. Cheapest since the I-5 route would have required far less utility relocation.
I still think the federal money that went to the Cal HSR project would have been better utilized on the LOSSAN corridor.
Good thread. Good comments.
Overmod is bang on about having to bulid the ’ Chinese Wall’ although I’m not fond of the term ( I understand fully why though)
So why would this be a difficulty if it was built above existing right of ways. Private railroads and all freight below, HSR (and other passenger perhaps) but all passenger above, a public-private investment partnership. Might even be easier or desirable to go all electric on the private freight lines using the bottom of the above roof to carry the cat.
Wishing and wondering why someone, like say, the New York Central in partnership with government didn’t do this on their many passenger routes post war. That’s what we saw in futuristic drawings. Now that would have evened out the playing field with airlines, highways and waterways. I think they knew of this at the time and could do it. It would require the full support and funding of Government. Imagine how far down the road and advanced things would be today. It would have paid for itself several times by now.
Required competent people with vision. It was an opportunity at that time.
WWI and WWII and Poverty, in their wakes; was a catalyst, for ‘change’, not to mention some governance by assorted ‘tin-pot dictators’. and for the ‘love of pete’; I hope those events are not visited anywhere, on anyone. Let the natural flow of ‘Progress’ bring the changes we need, and not bloodshed.
Sam, I’m more than sure “Convicted One” had his tongue well planted in his cheek when he made his “devastating war” comment, hence the whistling emoticon.
We already had our cataclysm here in the 1860’s. We sure don’t need another one! Once was enough!
Wayne
The short answer to why we did not do the above is that we were too busy buying private autos, building government roads and government airports, taxing the railroads, holding their fares down, and then Boeing introduced the 707.
Mac
PMWRMNM-- Recalling the ads placed in Trains magazine by the railroads in the early to mid 50’s that explained to us all what was going on and how unfair it was.
What you describe is a societal direction encouraged and supported by Government with a policy in mind for a great lessening of the power of railroads.
I think they were seen as old fashioned, especially in terms of moving people and freight deemed that could be handled by trucks instead.
The point is I do believe that they could have instigated a levelling out of all forms of transportation. The technology was available.
Instead of leading the world in HSR and other benefits in railroad transportation the influences of big business pushed things in a different direction. Not saying it was wrong headed, only that the railroads didn’t stand a chance, watched their massive investment in new equipment go down the drain, lost a lot of revenue and they, as competition, were effectively eliminated.
Instead Pennsylvania Station was tore down, passenger service and a lot freight was essentially eliminated and Ike warned of the Military- Industrial Complex. It could have gone all ways more to the benefit of all.
I recall reading from many sources over the years that the railroads were not too pleasant to use during WW2. It wasn’t all the Super Chief but rather days standing up in a day coach with no dining car. Maybe that’s an exaggeration but that is what I recall hearing and the railroads did nothing to expedite getting the troops home in 1945. So, as soon as they could, people bought cars with all that wartime money (nothing to spend it on for the duration) and many vowed to never ride a train again. The choice was made and letting Robert Moses put highways through the middle of Bronx neighbourhoods and farmland on Long Island meant “progress” and if you weren’t in favor of progress there was likely something subversive about you.
Absolutely correct!
I believe that one (successful widespread implementation of HSR) is about as likley as the other…unfortunately.
There are more barriers than just the popular talking points about evil NIMBYS and ignorant BANANAs. Corrupt politicians and the attendant cronyism, where they will oppose all options that do not afford them their desired participation, for one…and what I will call “casual cynicism” for another.
The latter, citizens who would actually use the product so long as it’s made convenient for them at a cost they consider reasonable.
A HSR corridor between Chicago and Pittburgh seems reasonable to me…even desirable. But when it comes time to pay for it there is a problem.
For the Indiana section, roughly 160 miles from border to border…and an estimated cost of say $60million/mile, you’re talking roughly ten billion dollars (rounded up to account for the cost of money)…divided between every man, woman, and child living in Indiana that comes down to about $1500 per person.
Now, if you live within a half hour’s drive of the nearest station, that might look like a pretty good deal. But what about the Hoosiers who live 50 miles from the nearest station? Or 100 miles? or 140 miles? Those people are going to be considerably harder to pry away from their $1500.
So, obtaining the consensus to move forward on such a project, and having everybody happy to be paying into it, is going to be a challenge.
Actually, after the next major war I think we will finally move to infrastructure replacement on a serious scale.[:P]