Thoughts from George Will:
Forever seeking Archimedean levers for prying the world in directions they prefer, progressives say they embrace high-speed rail for many reasons—to improve the climate, increase competitiveness, enhance national security, reduce congestion, and rationalize land use. The length of the list of reasons, and the flimsiness of each, points to this conclusion: the real reason for progressives’ passion for trains is their goal of diminishing Americans’ individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism.
To progressives, the best thing about railroads is that people riding them are not in automobiles, which are subversive of the deference on which progressivism depends. Automobiles go hither and yon, wherever and whenever the driver desires, without timetables. Automobiles encourage people to think they—unsupervised, untutored, and unscripted—are masters of their fates. The automobile encourages people in delusions of adequacy, which make them resistant to government by experts who know what choices people should make.
Stupid proles.
By the way, just to preempt any further commentary along these lines, comparisons between my opposition to government-subsidized high-speed rail and my support for smarter government spending on space transportation are spurious and idiotic. Not that this will prevent them, of course.
“Allow me to make some bizarre philosophical point about the automobile, and use it to counter a strawman I’ve built out of a similarly bizarre philosophical point about progressivism and trains.”
comparisons between my opposition to government-subsidized high-speed rail and my support for smarter government spending on space transportation are spurious and idiotic. Why – because you say so?
In both cases, advocates are asking for government cash to be given to private companies in order to provide a service that doesn’t currently exist. In both cases, the private market has not seen fit to provide the level of funding desired by advocates. In both cases, the potential market for the service is unknown and based on estimates.
The difference is that you think (and I agree) that space travel is inherently worth subsidizing, while we disagree as to whether or not high-speed rail is worth a subsidy.
Burlington Northern, and Burlington prior to that, were running high sped trains between Chicago and Denver and on to the west coast, back in the “forties”. I rode them. They exceeded well over 100 MPH as a rule and had very few stops. They were great rides, great service, and the food was really good.
I have pictures of the engine and the engineer as well as a model of the train, which I built. It runs fast, too.
Bob Smith
In both cases, advocates are asking for government cash to be given to private companies in order to provide a service that doesn’t currently exist.
Except in one case the government has a desperate need to reach the destination for government purposes, at reduced costs.
Rand – my point is your opposition to subsidies isn’t principled, it’s a matter of convenience. Subsidies for your pet rock are okay, for mine, not so much.
Why does Dagny Taggart hate our freedom?
You took a double dose of the stupid pills this morning, did you?
Earth-bound transportation already fucking exists. If I want to go from Jacksonville to Miami I can take my car, or a bus, or even a taxi. I could fly several different airlines, or even charter a small plane of my own if I were of a mind to. Or hitch a ride with my dad on his boat.
I don’t need highspeed rail to do this. HSR will not get me there any faster than a plane, or any cheaper either. And it’s more expensive than driving, and much more expensive than a bus. And a sailboat would be a hell of a lot more fun.
HSR solves exactly zero problems that exist anywhere but in a liberal’s imagination.
Wrong! It’s not even a subsidy to space. There is no subsidy. Only trains get a subsidy.
The difference is that government desires for policies to achieve an objective (put men into space), and purchasing launch services from the private sector is the most effecient use of taxpayer money (and it will spur development and engineering that will lower costs and eventually allow non-government actors to go into space profitably).
There is no such similar service the government is purchasing from high speed rail.
Yes, we understand that was your attempted point. As both I and Brock have pointed out, your “point” is bogus and stupid. As I predicted.
I am not asking for “subsidies” for space transportation. You are asking for subsidies for rail.
“Rand – my point is your opposition to subsidies isn’t principled, it’s a matter of convenience. Subsidies for your pet rock are okay, for mine, not so much.”
How much public money are private “space” companies getting? By that I mean monies not paid to service a contract. Aren’t these HSR projects being refused because of the costs the states have to bear in cost overruns and long term maintenance? Why should they risk state money on projects that have not been proven to be successful world wide? How is government spending on a function that no one else in this country can perform a subsidy?
One of these rocks is not like the other.
I am not asking for “subsidies” for space transportation the hell you’re not!
You want the government to build spaceports for you, and buy tickets to fly from private providers. A subsidy is a subsidy whether you call it one or not.
In defense or your inconsistent positions on these two issues Rand, high speed rail is an old technology, while space exploration is something new. While rail is a technology that is well known (and hated) by most people, there is no economic basis for the exploration of space. It is something that is about the future, while railroads are entirely of the past. Expanding our frontier into space is inspirational and forward looking, but railroads are all about population domination by statist thugs with no respect for any science that does not serve their political needs.
You want the government to build spaceports for you
I do? Can you point out the post in which I made such a request? Because I think you’re just making it up.
and buy tickets to fly from private providers. A subsidy is a subsidy whether you call it one or not.
I am asking the government to purchase something that it is already purchasing from the Russians at a much more sane price. You can call it a subsidy if you want, but calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.
Brock, I’m going to ignore the politics of this thread, but I’d like to point out that there are needs which do exist which fast-enough high speed rail would address. The following argument applies to fast ferries where the route is applicable but progress in increasing the speeds of high speed marine transport has been even slower than high speed trains.
It would benefit all travelers if people traveling with very young children could easily and safely get up and walk around with them. Ideally, they’d go to a special room and play.
Ideally, on such a spacious vehicle whose efficiency isn’t tied to its payload weight, you could also take your car with you (thus partially defeating George Will’s argument).
Ideally, travel times would be extremely short.
The recently proposed high speed trains probably won’t be as spacious or as fast as I’d like, but in principle, they could be. Fast ferries are spacious enough, but nowhere near fast enough.
I’m waiting for maglevs and wing-in-ground-effect ferries. Or even some combination of the two: WIG trains might reduce the power requirements for maglevs…)
Anyway, consider my argument next time you are on an airline next to a screaming toddler.
Bill & Brock – you’re making arguments as to whether a particular subsidy is a good or bad idea. Where Rand confuses people is that he seems to oppose subsidies on libertarian principles yet wants the government to buy something from private enterprise in another case.
Rand – so when Alan Stern talks about the government-built spaceports, you’re against that? Specific subsidies the alt-space crowd seems to be in favor of include:
1) going to space in the first place
2) providing regulatory support for private spaceflight
3) Goverment subsidized research (the suborbital researchers and UCF get government money)
Now I happen to agree that these are valid and worthy subsidies. But they are subsidies.
High Speed Toddlers!
Bill & Brock – you’re making arguments as to whether a particular subsidy is a good or bad idea.
No, I’m not.
Brock, another take on this:
Getting to space is going to be technically difficult and expensive for the foreseeable future; although as an aside there are some ways it might be made a lot cheaper. One is the “wait till nanotech solves the problem” solution; space vehicles made out of molecularly perfect diamond lattices might well be pretty efficient. Another is a rather odd one; a linac suspended from really big balloons in the stratosphere. I’m sure there are others. But developing any reasonably efficient space transport system is going to be in the “government or multi-billion dollar corporation” scale. And there is no way around any of this, for reasons of basic physics. Not for a very long time, anyway.
In contrast, surface transport is a solved problem. For land transport, anyway, if there is no other way one could use Shanks’ Pony.
Also, HSR doesn’t go far enough. There is no problem it will solve that other methods will not. The matter of control is irrelevant, because the most favoured method of long-distance travel (aeroplanes) is just as inflexible as a train would be. Airports are actually a lot bigger than train stations.
Maglev might work rather well, maybe better than air, for medium-length journeys. Sure, it will be slower than an aeroplane – but your journey starts at your front door, not the airport, and maglev stations could be a hell of a lot closer than an airport.
Trains, however, have one advantage as far as lefties are concerned. Trains are already run by members of powerful unions.
Rand – so when Alan Stern talks about the government-built spaceports, you’re against
I haven’t heard such talk, but I am opposed to “government-built” spaceports, unless they are replacing a previous one with a lower-cost one, for government purposes.
Specific subsidies the alt-space crowd seems to be in favor of include:
1) going to space in the first place
In what way is that a subsidy? And to whom?
2) providing regulatory support for private spaceflight
Really? Do you consider all government regulation a “subsidy”? Again, to whom?
3) Goverment subsidized research (the suborbital researchers and UCF get government money)
If it is research for a government purpose, in what way is it a subsidy?
You clearly have no idea what the word “subsidy” means.
On second thought, I guess the problem is air drag, not levitation, so WIG trains don’t make so much sense. Evacuated tube trains!
Read for comprehension folks…
support for smarter government spending
This does not mean support for subsidies. It means, if the government is going to spend money, that money should not be spent as stupidly as they do. Support for subsidies means to maintain something that can’t maintain itself. These are two very different ideas. Why do liberals choose to argue against strawmen? Because it’s easier than using actual reason.
I think that the Libertarian position is that NASA is “Amtrak in spaaaayyyyyce!” Not that the government would be completely eliminated from promoting exploration of space and commercialization of space. But the current NASA model requires many bucks per Buck Rogers; the Amtrak model requires much financing per Frimbo (E.M. Frimbo — pen name of a noted rail enthusiast and train rider).
I’d be interested to know how many of those arguing against high-speed rail have spent any appreciable amount of time using the rail systems of Germany, China, or Japan. Having spent a decent amount of time with two of those three, I can say the advantages to a travelling businessman are considerable. Anecdotally, pleasure travellers on the trains related a greater sense of freedom to take long trips on a whim with little notice. The greatest benefit to the pleasure traveller was the ability to take overnight sleepers, which were very comfortable. You leave after work on Friday, arrive at your friend’s on Saturday morning; then leave again on Sunday.
I did not notice that people taking trains were more or less “sheeple” than those driving. If anything, the contrary: those taking the trains tended to be businessmen who valued their working time on the train.
Well we don’t want to be like “Germany, China, or Japan.” Germany is a country that is much smaller than the United States. To be like Germany we’d have to be much smaller than we are now. What parts of the US would you like to let go? To be like Japan we’d have to be an long, thin archipelago, not a continent, where land is scarce for anything, and everyone lives very cramped up and close together. Nothing like Japan’s geographical situation exists here, except maybe in New York City, which is an anomaly in the US, not the standard.
And to be like China we’d have to be a huge population of people living in more cramped communities, under a system of government that was up until recently one of the worst totalitarian communist dictatorships on Earth, and is now a more-or-less slightly capitalist, less-fanatical, but not exactly free society. I’m sure that leftist high speed train fans in this country would love us to be more like China — where only a connected elite has any real power, the rest of the people are welcome — as long as it’s fashionable with their rulers — to shut up and work and maybe they’ll be left alone. I am sure of this because of what every high speed train fan says when they comment on posts like this: they start extolling the wonders of Germany, Japan, and China.
C. Scott Ananian, you speak of how much fun you have riding on high speed trains. That’s nice, but would you do it, if you had to pay the actual price of that trip rather than your heavily subsidized price?
The length of the list of reasons, and the flimsiness of each, points to this conclusion: the real reason for progressives’ passion for trains is their goal of diminishing Americans’ individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism.
I think this is nonsense. Sure there are progressives who think this way, but that’s not how most of them think. Remember the first rule of public spending: public money is FREE money. Public funding is the default solution to any problem.
I see them as adult children, unable to conceive of a solution that doesn’t require government.
Moving on to Chris Gerrib, I don’t he’ll ever get it. Buying his high speed choo choo is equivalent to paying ULA to launch a DOD multibillion dollar launch detection system.
“they start extolling the wonders of Germany, Japan, and China.”
And France. You cannot leave out France.
Here is the deal. When Mr. Obama or whatever person or persons supports actions that can credibly lead to 80% of our electric power being nuclear, I will endorse the high-speed train proposal.
A Boeing 747 moves 400 people at 600 mph. It weighs about 100 tons.
A train moves 4,000(?) people at (best, maybe) 200 mph. It weighs about 1,000 tons. And beats that 1,000 tons to death moving over the ground where it needs a right-of-way, interferes with auto traffic, etc. San Diego to Seattle takes TWO DAYS. And if you want a new route …..
Trains are good at moving heavy, bulk materials that require a 1,000 ton machine to move them. But not people.
Fletcher Christain wrote:
“The matter of control is irrelevant, because the most favoured method of long-distance travel (aeroplanes) is just as inflexible as a train would be.”
Well, that’s not true. Once you have 1 km (Caravan/B1900) or 2 km of runway (jets up to 767 or 777 size) you can fly direct and ad-hoc to any other place with a similar runway. Railways have to cover the entire distance to the other place, can’t cross significant bodies of water, and typically don’t offer many choices of destination.
And Bob-1 reminded me of another reason why public transportation sucks. My car is a toddler-free zone.
This morning’s UK Guardian has an article about opposition to a new high-speed rail line in England. Guardian link. Since the UK is so fanatical about high speed rail, and has so much experience with its success, how could there be opposition?
Perhaps it’s the expense, plus the noise you get when you have the equivalent of Boeings buzzing the countryside at 50 feet, all to cut 40 minutes off travel time.
When those nukes come online, we need desal plants here in CA because population still >> available water. Meanwhile, I-5 and airports make the CA HSR plan triply redundant. IOW, can we get things we actually need before Europhile toys? kthx
Yay! 45 billion for a moving play pen for toddlers….What a value! What a value! *golf clap
You know what else businessmen value? MONEY! The U.S. has individual states with GDP levels that out pace whole countries of Europe. China’s GDP is 1/3 of that of the U.S. So, tell me then, which infrastructure system supports a higher level of productive capacity and value-laden services per capita? Which system not only supports this high level of GDP for his citizens but also directly fuels the economies and sustains the protection of other countries all around the world? Other countries that like building fancy trains mind you. The proof is in the pudding. And this pudding was hauled on a highway.
But, Josh, it’s for the children! Will someone please think of the children? /helenlovejoy
“But, Josh, it’s for the children!
Well, okay; but only if us adults get a disco car to boogie down in on our glorious commute to workers paradise.
Aite, Jiggy J, cuz ya know ’tis da Soul Train…
I was refuting Brock’s claim that “HSR solves exactly zero problems that exist anywhere but in a liberal’s imagination.”
I was ignoring politics on this thread. I was not suggesting anything about Federal subsidies.
And I didn’t *just* mention toddlers, I also touched on the problem of transporting heavy cargos at high speed (like your own personal car, but that’s just an example), and I also touched on the problem that all high speed transport isn’t fast enough.
For people who are eager to develop new technologies in space, you don’t seem very interested in developing new technologies on Earth. The idea that surface transportation is a solved problem is laughable. The complaints about high speed rail aren’t just rooted in the problems of federal subsidies and the costs, they are also rooted in the lack of ambition for the proposals. That’s my problem anyway — for the money we would be spending, I want something faster.
There was a proposal to be like France, and supply 80% of our power using nuclear. That’s fine with me, but how do you feel about federal subsidies for fusion research and (eventually) development? Is this a good use of federal funds?
If the High speed rail proposals were talking about, say, supersonic trains, would this be a good use of federal funds? If so, then the problem isn’t really trains.
(I’m not seriously suggesting a supersonic train project, but as in an earlier conversation about trains on this blog, I think it is interesting thought experiment to consider ramifications of teleportation (instant transportation) on people’s lives, and since that’s not possible, replace it with the fastest and cheapest sort of transportation for heavy cargos conceivable and think about what that might be worth.)
[[[By the way, just to preempt any further commentary along these lines, comparisons between my opposition to government-subsidized high-speed rail and my support for smarter government spending on space transportation are spurious and idiotic.]]]
Nope, you are just trying to dodging the issue that Pork is Pork. IF you were true to the Tea Party goals of smaller government will would support neither federal government funding of commercial rockets nor high speed rail since justification for neither is in the Constitution except by extreme twisting of the “general welfare clause”.
There is nothing idiotic in the belief that if industry is not able to make on its own in the commercial market place it should cease to exist. Its the foundation of a free market economy.
But if you allow government funding for one, then you have to allow funding for the other. Which is how the federal budget ballooned over the last 200 years, each individual lobbying government for why the government must make an exception and subsidize their industry.
But you seem to want your cake and eat it to by being against other folks budget wants you disagree with while claiming yours is justified…
Robert smith,
Yes, and the Prototype is sitting today in the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.
http://www.msichicago.org/whats-here/exhibits/pioneer-zephyr/
And yes it was built with Private Money before everyone went to Uncle Sugar to close their business model.
There is nothing idiotic in the belief that if industry is not able to make on its own in the commercial market place it should cease to exist.
Wow. Nice plump straw man you got there.
But if you allow government funding for one, then you have to allow funding for the other.
No, I don’t. What part of “having the government purchase needed launch services in a manner kinder to the taxpayer isn’t like subsidizing an unnecessary new public transportation system” are you having trouble understanding?
I can’t speak for Thomas, but I would guess that the part many people get hung up on is the word “needed”. And its evil twin, “unnecessary”. I would expect an argument that trains solve some energy problem that threatens national security while manned space travel doesn’t address any government needs.
blah, blah, blah, they are also rooted in the lack of ambition for the proposals blah, etc.
The problem with Amtrak… it’s not AMBITIOUS enough. If it just went a few miles per hour faster, it would capture people’s IMAGINATION!!! Problems Solved!
… laughable…
What kind of argument is that? I’m saying I want to see some new advantages over airplanes to deserve federal money and you re-characterize it “few miles per hour faster” than Amtrak?
Amtrak has been bleeding money since its first tie went down. It’s problem? Not ambitious enough. Quite an “argument” BOB.
I can’t speak for Thomas, but I would guess that the part many people get hung up on is the word “needed”.
If the government is going to continue to maintain its commitment to ISS, then transportation for crew and cargo is needed. If it wants to do human exploration BEO, then LEO transportation is needed. I want it to procure it sensibly instead of stupidly. I don’t understand how that can be considered a “subsidy,” but cost-plus contracts that cost many times more for much less results are not.
“I’m saying I want to see some new advantages over airplanes to deserve federal money
Hey great idea! I propose an exo-atmospheric spaceliner as a next possible direction. Eh, that’s right; never mind, we got all these problems here on the surface of the Earth to solve first. Guess I’ll go back to trying to bend teaspoons with my mind. Because, who’s really wants to waste their time trying to develop transportation services in the vacuum of space? We could instead be doing really neat things like, building trains that levitate down mega-mile vacuum tubes here on the surface; they go supersonic you know — SUPERSONIC! And who wants to sit in traffic on some multi-lane highway trying to grind their way to work every morning? When instead they could be sitting at a train station waiting to funnel onto specialized car carriers. Once you’ve got all the cars piled on, the toddlers in their play pens, the disco ball fired up, and the commuters properly socialized in their communal travel chambers why, all the conductor needs to do is blow his big choo choo whistle and away we go. Really, the only thing that will different traveling by train rather than by car is you’ll have to remember to wear pants while your traveling. Otherwise it’ll be a hoot, or should I say,”toot toot”.
I took Amtrak from Chicago to Rochester, NY, once. I’ll never do it again – not unless mind blowing improvements are made. 100 mph is still too slow. 250mph, and I’m suddenly very interested. Is 250mph train travel worth federal subsidies?
Is 250mph train travel worth federal subsidies?
For technology development maybe. Not to build it.
Why didn’t you just fly? I mean, if speed was such a consideration. Heck, it would probably have been faster to drive than to take the Amtrak.
Why didn’t you just fly?
He likes the TSA, just not in that way.
Rand,
[[[What part of “having the government purchase needed launch services in a manner kinder to the taxpayer isn’t like subsidizing an unnecessary new public transportation system” are you having trouble understanding?]]]
The part that NASA actually actually NEEDS to have tax payer subsidized access to ISS for the last few years (2015-2020) its in orbit. That is the REAL strawman.
The Soyuz is already an option that works for ISS. Tell me, How many seats on the Soyuz could NASA just buy with the money being assigned for developing “commercial” systems? Noting also that after paying for the development of those systems it will still be paying for access on a per seat basis to the winners of the competition.
So no, if you actually want the lowest cost option as you claim it would be a nine year contract for the Soyuz. Just as you have the option of driving instead of taking a high speed train.
Or waiting until the MARKET pays for the development of commercial HSF for commercial destinations like Bigelow’s habitats and then just buying seats to ISS if its still in orbit.