

The Plot Against Trains - eli_gottlieb
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-plot-against-trains

======
jerf
This is what the author may _wish_ was what was stopping big public works
projects, but look at what blocks the real, physical, approved public works
projects in the real world: It's lawsuits, permits, studies, protests being
made by people who are very much _not_ libertarians (environmentalists, rich
NIMBYs, etc.) and government requirements made without regard to costs for
things like unionization requirements, bid requirements, etc etc.

Proof: Look to the projects that are _already approved_ , like, say, the
California train. Look at why they're running over budget and past schedule.
It's not because libertarians are running around, yelling and scaring the
poor, hard-working train workers, who then have to take unexpected hazard pay.
It isn't for lack of money, which gets generously ladled over many of these
projects.

When I vote against these sorts of sweeping projects, I'm not really doing it
as a libertarian, I'm just doing it as a _pragmatist_. If the voting public is
reluctant to fund more of these things, they're quite possibly just being
_rational_. Michigan, for instance, just voted down a big bill to raise taxes
and fix up the roads, and _believe_ me, Michiganders are almost uniformly of
the opinion we need to do more for our roads... but we voted it down quite
hard because really all it seemed to do was throw money at the problem, and
_not even all that competently_. The sheer governmental incompetence at public
works projects has reached a point where even Michigan, a state that is at
least Blue- _ish_ , is _hardcore_ voting these things down because we simply
do not think the projects are being done _well_.

Fix that, and I'll vote you money. Even me.

~~~
drawkbox
You have some good points but one thing is for sure, less money means less and
less ability to do a good job. This attitude also makes it when we do
something like that, people are very critical and hoping for it to fail rather
than helping to fix it, further exacerbating the problem. We have groups of
people that want anything that benefits all to fail, and can't wait until they
do.

Looking back, even when they did large projects in the past there were
companies involved that did most of the projects. The government just funds it
across all because it is beneficial to many or all and it may not be a market
investment now but will be long term. Many people got rich determining where
the roads, rails and projects got made and fortunes were made. That is when
people started caring, many projects in when there were economic benefits. We
also built up after WWI/WWII because the entire world was in ruin and we had
an opportunity to get far ahead. I am convinced that if that happened today,
with our extreme views, that we would have just not built up after those wars
and we would be living in a much different place, with much less business and
economic opportunity. Rarely does a big project like this cause economic
issues other than the initial cost but the long term it adds many times more
worth. We now have some of the worst rickety infrastructure and we still
aren't doing anything now so why would we have then with this outlook. We use
public fees and funds to build stadiums but not much else.

I'd be fine with us giving Tesla or Elon Musk funds to make the US have
electric highways. Maybe even giving Google and others funds to build the
fiber network that will always be upgradeable and on a schedule. But that is
the flipside, lots of people wouldn't be fine with that without some
oversight, America is a big team that isn't playing for the better of the
whole team but tribes within it. It seems to be just black or white to most
people when these things take time to get right. We are like working at an
office with a really demoralized team, so why do anything for the team at all
then right?

We have forgotten how to build and fund things for the common good that
elevates everyone's quality of life and provides a better platform for
business and economic development. That American attitude of betterment for
all and strong base was left in the former century.

------
drawkbox
In the US we have taken advantage of all the great infrastructure systems of
the past, thinking that it just happens like that while neglecting it for
decades. We are like a friend that takes advantage while expecting it to just
continue. It is almost like a company that gets too much funding, then builds
off of a non reality thinking it just lasts forever.

I wonder after all these wars when we will finally get back to infrastructure
and projects like better roads, high speed rail, water projects like Hoover
Dam, the interstate system, bridges/tunnels, and more. What are we going to do
when we need drone infrastructure? What about high speed internet and fiber in
a constant upgrading capacity? Is our solution to continually fall behind
waiting for the market to be right?

Why don't we have the same grand efforts to build an electric highway
(highways with electric charging stations), or better high speed rail not 50
year old Amtrak trains, or that killer fiber network. These are quality of
life improvements, that directly increase economic power for all, that we
cannot get funding for but we can go to war.

We need a War on Infrastructure Aging and somehow tie it to War on Terror
funding or War on Drugs funding and scare people into doing it as that seems
to be our modus operandi this millennia.

------
chernevik
Man, Gopnik beat the hell out of that straw man.

"What we have, uniquely in America, is a political class, and an entire
political party, devoted to the idea that any money spent on public goods is
money misplaced, not because the state goods might not be good but because
they would distract us from the larger principle that no ultimate good can be
found in the state."

This is a very strong statement, but it is simply not true, and cannot be
substantiated by any reference to public statements of the people Gopnik is
criticizing. The best case he could make is that this is what they "really
mean", or that it is some logical conclusion of their statements. But that
ignores a lot of what they do say. Republicans have voted for all kinds of
public spending, on all kinds of things, since Reagan was elected. In fact
there is all sorts of criticism of some of that spending within the party,
going all the way back to Stockman. And almost all spending "cuts" championed
by those evil Republicans turn out to be refusals to increase spending.

If you want to know why our country is so divided, and our debate is so
sterile, just look at the massive mischaracterizations of pieces like this.
When you don't even listen to what the other side has to say, and can't bring
yourself to an honest account of the opinions you criticize -- yeah, there
won't be much dialogue.

~~~
cromwellian
Oh come on. The Republicans are gutting NASA's earth science budget and asking
the NOAA to study weather, not climate, for purely ideological reasons. The
author's claim that this is ideological don't need speculation, just read
George Wills columns on how trains represent European socialism and cars
represent freedom.

We've come a long way from Dagny Taggart.

~~~
waterlesscloud
All you've done here is illustrate the GP's point.

------
dnautics
the american train system is particularly cronyist. It's an issue very well
addressed in the (not libertarian) book "Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest
Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense". Especially damning is how
amtrak leases their right of way from freight carriers, who a) give freight
trains the right of way - leading to frequent delays and b) lobby the NTSB to
keep safety standards low.

The american train disaster is not a failure due to selfishness - it is a
failure due to central planning in the worst fashion: corruption.

~~~
gaadd33
Wait, what right of way does Amtrak lease from freight carriers? They outright
own the Northeast Corridor and tracks as far west as Harrisburg, PA. I think
they lease some bits of track from various state department of transportation
and they obviously have trackage rights with the various freight carriers.

The NTSB seems to have higher standards for railroads than elsewhere in the
world, that's one reason why we can't just import high speed trainsets, pretty
much every other passenger rail car is much lighter and less sturdy than ours.
I think much of that is due to our rail system handling both freight and
passenger traffic.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
> Wait, what right of way does Amtrak lease from freight carriers?

Well, everywhere west of Harrisburg and south of DC, Amtrak runs on the right
of way of freight railroads. That isn't "lease" exactly, but Amtrak pays to
use those tracks, which is essentially the same thing.

~~~
gaadd33
Right, that's called trackage rights and are given priority time slots over
freight trains. However when the slot is missed then the trains are treated as
any other freight.

------
Htsthbjig
I disagree Americans have a Plot against Public works. They have the biggest
army in the world, the CIA, the NSA, the NASA, the NOAA... totally public.

I have lived in cities like Boston, Berlin, London and I believed I had seen
crowded places. But living in big cities in China or Japan is another world.

Asia has an enormous population density, so trains(and bikes) make sense
there. Now I live in Europe(already crowded place) and I feel a void of all
this people everywhere.

Places like the US or Australia just have such low population density. They
already need cars for everything they do so they are car centric, and
distances are so big between cities that it makes sense to use planes instead
of trains.

~~~
darkmighty
Yes but I believe it makes quite a bit of sense for some select areas. The
problem is that trains seem to be a cultural shift, so building for those
niches where it makes sense is going to be hard.

------
mturmon
The two essays of Tony Judt regarding trains mentioned in the OP are:

[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/dec/23/glory-r...](http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/dec/23/glory-
rails/)

[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jan/13/bring-b...](http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jan/13/bring-
back-rails/)

These were published a few months after his premature death in 2010. Judt was
a prominent American/European historian and intellectual who wrote a series of
serious, elegant, and spirited essays for the _NY Review_ , all of which can
be recommended.

------
Shivetya
What plot? The US transports more by rail percentage wise than Europe and the
percent of people using trains while significant still isn't a percentage for
anyone to point "see over there".

Now public transportation, ie mass transit, is a financial mess whereby the
riders don't have to pay the full cost as its been acknowledged they would use
the service if they did; oddly some studies have found the percentage increase
if fares were removed didn't increase significantly.

Dollars spent on mass transit have increased from 1.6b in 1970 to over 20
billion today. The twenty plus billion of subsidies doesn't include nearly ten
billion to maintain it or almost eight billion for improvments.

The problem is light rail is super expensive, you could get more bang for your
buck with dedicated bus lanes and double decker buses. Consider cities like
Portland were expansion of the light rail is costing nearly a hundred million
a mile.

The only plot against trains for mass transport is there exceptional cost to
build and maintain versus ridership which even subsidized doesn't pay for it

As for the article, attempting to capitalize on a tragedy and then completely
ignoring already know facts is not journalism and its tasteless and
unprofessional

~~~
lutorm
What?

"American railroads accounted for just 17.2 billion passenger-kilometres in
2010, according to Amtrak, America's government-backed passenger rail
corporation. In the European Union, railways accounted for nearly 400 billion
..."

([http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-
explains/2013/08/ec...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-
explains/2013/08/economist-explains-18))

------
mindcrime
I doubt very many Americans are "against trains", but very many of us are
against the State subsidizing and propping up failing businesses that can't
survive without public dollars. Some of us simply believe that subsidizing
businesses is not a proper role for government.

Personally I think trains are awesome, and I've love to see high-speed bullet
trains criss-crossing America. But I don't want the government involved in it,
and if that means we go without the trains, that's an outcome I find
acceptable.

~~~
astrodust
"Personally I think cars are awesome, and I'd love to see some high-speed
highways criss-crossing America, but I don't want the government involved in
it, and if that means we go without highways, that's an outcome I find
acceptable."

Can you imagine the US without the Interstate? That's the sort of opportunity
you're missing out on here.

The subsidy the government has given American businesses a huge competitive
advantage, you can ship almost anything cross-continent within a few days.
This has enabled companies like UPS to exist.

High-speed trains have the potential to dramatically shrink distances between
major hubs, giving people an alternative to aviation for their mid-range
transportation needs, and could allow people to live in more affordable
neighborhoods without an unbelievably long commute.

There are people that live in northern France and commute to London and it
takes them about an hour. Meanwhile getting from Buffalo to New York City
takes a full day.

~~~
_archon_
I agree with astrodust, and would like to point out to the GP that arranging
the real estate necessary, plus getting all the zoning/easements/whatever (I'm
not in property development), would easily be prohibitively expensive for a
company trying to join any two major cities.

I am currently of the opinion that major logistical infrastructure can't
feasibly be done by any non-governmental entity since such company can't force
land acquisition and usage approval by their own fiat. A company could propose
a project to legislators, but would have to invest significantly before that
stage with no guarantee of return. If a company could feasibly be granted such
power plenipotentiarily, it would be a huge bill of rights issue (that eminent
domain is controversial is another discussion). Other than government, I don't
see a feasible solution here.

~~~
mindcrime
_I agree with astrodust, and would like to point out to the GP that arranging
the real estate necessary, plus getting all the zoning /easements/whatever
(I'm not in property development), would easily be prohibitively expensive for
a company trying to join any two major cities._

I never said it would be easy.

~~~
mozumder
Of course it would be easy. Private companies can easily take people's
property - just point a gun at them. It worked well for the East India
company.

If we can eliminate government, we can eliminate the people's protection
racket. This will allow private companies to flourish, and the weak to be
eliminated.

~~~
mindcrime
The East India Company was a "private company" in the loosest possible sense.
It was operating with the explicit sanction of the British Empire and was
effectively a government in its own right.

I find it amusing that you would cite that example as an argument FOR
government, as I think it stands as a classic example of the worst of what
government enables.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The East India Company was a "private company" in the loosest possible
> sense. It was operating with the explicit sanction of the British Empire and
> was effectively a government in its own right.

Every company that exists as separate juridical entity (e.g., every
corporation, for starters) does so with the explicit sanction of a government
and is an exercise of government power.

The East India Company was a private company in exactly the same sense as any
other "private" corporation.

~~~
mindcrime
_The East India Company was a private company in exactly the same sense as any
other "private" corporation._

That's just being pedantic. It was a "private company" yes, but a private
company that was granted powers far beyond those given to pretty much any
other private company. They were allowed to maintain their own private army
and effectively rule large parts of India as though they _were_ the
government. That's a HUGE difference from the typical private company.

~~~
mozumder
Not sure what you're getting at here.. are you saying, that, without
government, the East India company wouldn't be stealing people's lands?

It seems like you didn't think your cunning plan all the way through, because
you seem to be implying that you need more government regulation on what
private corporations can do, correct?

Or are you saying that, without government regulation, the East India company
wouldn't have formed their own private army?

Do you think private armed militias, that are legal today in the US, be
allowed to exist?

You're going to have to reconcile your position of "less government" with
"leads to more private armies".

~~~
mindcrime
_are you saying, that, without government, the East India company wouldn 't be
stealing people's lands?_

Most likely. Of course it's all hypotheticals, but since we - for the most
part - define government as that entity which has (mostly) a monopoly on the
use of force, a private company would not generally be considered empowered to
do that without the sanction of a government.

 _Or are you saying that, without government regulation, the East India
company wouldn 't have formed their own private army?_

Correct.

 _Do you think private armed militias, that are legal today in the US, be
allowed to exist?_

Of course they can _exist_. Now, of course, we're at the bottom of the stack,
so to speak. What if one of these private militias "goes rogue" and commits
unspeakable atrocities? Who's to stop that, right? And I guess your answer
would be "the government"? I'd argue that the answer is "some other
voluntarily assembled mutual defense entity, or no one". Anyway, all we've
really shown here is that if you drill down deep enough, human conflict is
inevitable and at some level we may never get away from "force vs force". But
I argue against _institutionalizing_ the idea of using force to compel people
to do things, and keep the use of force reserved for self defense.

 _You 're going to have to reconcile your position of "less government" with
"leads to more private armies"._

I'm not opposed to private armies in general. I'm opposed to private armies,
operating with the sanction of the State, and essentially becoming one more
arm of the government, and being used to violate people's rights. Or, you
could even omit the "with the sanction of the State" bit, and the rest would
still stand. The problem is, when we accept the presence and authority of
something like a State, and then it endorses or sanctions "evil" (for lack of
a better term) acts, it's that much harder to muster opposition to those acts,
since they're nominally "legal".

~~~
mozumder
>Or are you saying that, without government regulation, the East India company
wouldn't have formed their own private army?

>Correct.

This is why libertinism is often relegated to that of a sweet, innocent 12
year old idealists, because they do not know about the real world.

In the real world, what happens without government is that warlords form. This
happens throughout history, such as colonial expansion into indian territory,
or after the collapse of the Soviet Union, etc. And it's happening RIGHT NOW
in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan.

You don't need a state to sanction violence for violence to happen. Violence
will happen when there isn't a state to sanction it.

This is why the correct solution that adults agree on is a strong, centralized
government with power. The whole point of a strong, centralized powerful
government is to limit the rights and freedoms of individuals, so people
AREN'T allowed to do what they want.

Because, when people are allowed to do what they want, they form violent
armies. Government limits peoples rights and freedoms to do that.

To stop this, you need a) a strong, powerful government, and b) that
government to say "no violence."

Government is the social contract you offer to other people. And only though a
social contract can you prevent violence.

~~~
Turing_Machine
Why are "warlords" worse than, say, the Stalinist USSR, Nazi Germany?

That's what you get with your "strong, powerful, centralized government".

If there's ever been a government that actually said "no violence" and
followed through on it, I haven't heard of it.

Can you name a few?

~~~
mozumder
Are you implying that "warlords" are better than the US government?

Which system is better? A libertarian warlord system? Or the US government?

What exactly makes a warlord system more favorable than the US government?

If you want an example of a government, you don't need to bring up Stalin's
Russia or Nazi Germany.. you have an example of government right here in the
US!

Clearly you thought through your cunning "less government" libertarian plan,
and have concluded that such a system, which results in warlords, would be
better than the US government, right? Let's hear that rationale then.

~~~
Turing_Machine
No, I'm stating (not implying) that the hazards of a too-strong central
government (such as the Soviet Union under Stalin, or Germany under Hitler)
are far worse than "warlords".

You're pretending that the only options are no central government at all, on
the one hand, and an all-powerful central government on the other.

That's not actually the case.

------
jstalin
Relevant: Amtrak - A National Hazard At Any Speed
[http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-15/amtrak-national-
haz...](http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-15/amtrak-national-hazard-any-
speed)

\---

As it is, Amtrak’s current fare on this route is about 15 cents per passenger
mile and apparently it cannot go much higher if it wishes to remain
competitive with air. Yet why in the world should bus drivers in Minneapolis
pay Federal taxes in order to provide what amounts to a $600 subsidy per
ticket on the 180,000 tickets that are sold annually on the Chicago-Los
Angeles route? And the latter is only typical of most of the other routes
outside the northeast corridor.

Obviously, there is no means test to get a $600 subsidy from Amtrak, or any
other plausible criterion of public need. Like so much else which emanates
from Washington, these Amtrak subsidies are distributed willy-nilly——in this
case to retirees with enough time and money to see the country at leisure or
to people with fear of flying who don’t wish to drive.

~~~
waterlesscloud
He's way off on ridership numbers for the LA-Chicago route. It's around
350,000 per year.

