Market Urbanism

Liberalizing cities | From the bottom up

“Market Urbanism” refers to the synthesis of classical liberal economics and ethics (market), with an appreciation of the urban way of life and its benefits to society (urbanism). We advocate for the emergence of bottom up solutions to urban issues, as opposed to ones imposed from the top down.

Obama’s genius high-speed rail plan

By

by Stephen Smith

Just in case you were under the impression that Obama’s high-speed rail commitment was genuine, the Boston Globe would like to disabuse you of that notion:

The railroad tracks from Boston to Washington – the busiest rail artery in the nation, and one that also carries America’s only high-speed train, the Acela – have been virtually shut out of $8 billion worth of federal stimulus money set aside for high-speed rail projects because of a strict environmental review required by the Obama administration.

Because such a review would take years, states along the Northeast rail corridor are not able to pursue stimulus money for a variety of crucial upgrades.

Instead, the $8 billion is going to be split up to ten ways amongst other regions, such as California, the Gulf Coast, and the “Chicago Hub.”

I love the irony of environmental standards stopping the Obama administration from making the one high-speed rail investment that has any chance of getting people out of their cars.

Originally posted on my blog.

Comments

  1. What a stupid conclusion. The US has been subsidizing the NE corridor for five decades. It's time for other regions to get a crack at HSR funding. California, Texas, the Chciago region and (maybe) Florida all have much more than a good chance of getting people out of cars (and planes) and into fast trains. You seem to be proposing that projects be built without environmental studies and concerns? Interesting proposition … not.

  2. Friend, there is more to life than the east coast. Investing in the midwest hub will be well worth it.

  3. The only reason that rail even sort of works in the Northeast is because cities in the Northeast are the only places that you can actually get around in without a car. So you take your lovely high-speed rail train from Chicago to St. Louis, and then what? Where the hell are you gonna go in St. Louis without a car? Or Ft. Lauderdale? Or Atlanta? Or Houston?

  4. There may be more to life, but there sure as hell ain't much more to American rail travel. In a perfect world, it would be great if there was high speed rail everywhere. But given the realities of national rail policy, it's unrealistic to imagine people paying upwards of $150 (have you ever seen the price of an Acela ticket? and that's in the NE, where there's high demand…I'm sure the price is going to be much higher than that in the Midwest) to take a train that averages 75 mph (if you're lucky) from Chicago to Des Moines. And it's absolutely fantastical to imagine that the US government is going to be able to provide anything more than that within the next 25 years.

  5. >”So you take your lovely high-speed rail train from Chicago to St. Louis, and then what? Where the hell are you gonna go in St. Louis without a car? Or Ft. Lauderdale? Or Atlanta? Or Houston?<“

    The same thing you do at the airport in Hartford, Boston, Baltimore or Philly. Either take public transit or find your car in the garage. Mr. Smith, the sun doesn't set in the Northeast only.

    And — earth to Smith — the trains in the midwest will go al lot faster than 79 mph. Get real, dear sir. Your turn at the trough is over.

  6. “Either take public transit…”

    …right, because that's practical in Des Moines/Ft. Lauderdale/Atlanta/etc. Get real – the only people in those cities who use mass transit are far too poor to be paying the exorbitant price that Amtrak is going to have to charge to make this thing even half-way fiscally sustainable (have you seen how much a ticket on the Acela costs??).

    “… or find your car in the garage.”

    Can you think of a single intercity rail terminal in the world that operates like an airport? And where exactly are you going to put these acres of parking? To do that you'd need to put the station outside the city center (like…an airport!), at which point you've just recreated an incredibly expensive airport with a slightly lower carbon footprint. Then you have to ask yourself: what exactly is the aim of a high-speed rail network to begin with?

  7. >”hat's practical in Des Moines/Ft. Lauderdale/Atlanta/etc.”<

    Not on the map, sir. We are talking about busy city pairs like Chi-STL, LA-SF, etc.

    Des Moines, Atlanta and Ft. Lauderdale are not the markets we are talking about. We are talking about Chicago-St. Louis. Los Angeles-San Francisco. Miami-Orlando. Houston-Dallas. “Those people” (as you so effetely put it) have enough money to fly, and do so frequently.

    >”Can you think of a single intercity rail terminal in the world that operates like an airport?”< I don't have to think about it, I can drive to it: Los Angeles Union Station. It has a very large car parking garage and freeway access — easier freeway access than LA International. It is also the hub of a modest — and growing — regional commuter train system. And the LA Metro is growing — have you checked that lately? http://www.metro.org.

    In California (which you decide to ignore), there is effective mass transit at all of the major city termini. Some of the cities, like San Diego, Ontario, and Anaheim, will have high speed rail with huge parking lots. Those intercity terminals will function exactly like airports … many people will arrive via private car. In fact, two of the above cities will have their terminals at the airport. Extensive local transport will tie in.

    >”What exactly is the aim of a high-speed rail network to begin with?”< To replace plane travel with less-polluting rails.

    Please, if you wish to maintain credibility, stop raising straw men arguments and conveniently ignoring the points with which your enthusiastic argument is destroyed.

  9. San Francisco had a similar problem when the city tried to double the number of bike lanes available for city cyclists. A local anti-bicyclist crank managed to gum up the whole project by demanding an environmental review, and when the city completed one he claimed the results were bad. He also got a preliminary injunction that was only recently lifted.

Trackbacks

Meta