Rail: The Case for "Interstate II"

Washington (DC) Highway Transportation Fraternity | May 1999 | Gil Carmichael

[RobbyS]

How many times have you heard people ask, "Why can't we have trains like those in Europe?"

Only liberals...

or any conservative who has actually lived in Europe, and by Europe I do not mean England. It is possibile to fly into Frankfurt and go from there by train and bus to any place in Germany and not have to walk more than half a mile.Or you can rent a car and get on Autobahn's that are seldom half a full as the Beltway. Did that last spring, and as I swumg onto the Autobahn I asked my wife, "Where is all the traffic?" Nothing near as bad as what I had encountered driving into the airport in Phiuadelphia.

[Alberta's Child]

I've driven coast-to-coast (or at least east coast to Rocky Mountains) about a dozen times in the last seven years. I usually run westbound in Canada and eastbound along I-94 or I-90 in the U.S. The U.S. doesn't come close to Canada as far as the scenery is concerned, but the interstates are definitely FAST. Did Spokane to Chicago in two days driving by myself, and then on to New York in one more day. New York to Calgary via the Trans-Canada is a minimum of five days, depending on conditions along that treacherous stretch of road north of Lake Superior.

[balrog666]

And you don't think that current zoning laws force people to give up choices?

Of course they do, I don't want a factory or sewer plant built next to my house.

Honestly, I get the feeling that some conservatives think the New Urbanists invented zoning laws.

No, we are just honest about what their purpose is.

When you try to restrict the size of the house I can build, how much land I may use for a yard, how big my gargage can be, whether I can have a detached shed, or how close I must get to my neighbors (note: not how far away I can be), or any other stupid, pointless restriction of my property rights, I am naturally outraged. When you do it through a regional growth plan that will not allow me to move out of your control without leaving the state, I am outraged. When you restrict the allowed use of property simply because it has been sold, I am outraged. Shall I go on?

[Publius]

It is possibile to fly into Frankfurt and go from there by train...

And in those few words, you have hit upon the key to the future of successful passenger rail in this country. "Inter-modalism", as Gil Carmichael likes to phrase it.

The idea is to get passenger trains into our airports and use them for short-haul runs similar to Europe. Even the airports get a lift. It's more profitable to use a landing slot for a high-value long-distance flight than for a short commuter hop that could be efficiently handled by rail.

[Publius]

When you try to restrict the size of the house I can build, how much land I may use for a yard, how big my gargage can be, whether I can have a detached shed, or how close I must get to my neighbors (note: not how far away I can be), or any other stupid, pointless restriction of my property rights, I am naturally outraged. When you do it through a regional growth plan that will not allow me to move out of your control without leaving the state, I am outraged. When you restrict the allowed use of property simply because it has been sold, I am outraged. Shall I go on?

Suppose that restriction is placed on you by the private compacts and covenants of a neighborhood association, something that is extremely common in upscale neighborhoods?

[discostu]

That's not exploding into rage. I was raised by Marines and outlaw bikers, if I ever explode in rage JimRob will yank my priviledges faster than the electrons can cool. I was irritated because you keep shifting the arguement around. I say trains can't beat the convenience of cars you say walking achieves everything I pointed out, I say walking sucks and you say cars are destroying small towns, I say they're not and you say I'm a car lover that just won't listen. That's pretty irritating. Try actually rebutting an arguement instead of piling on obfuscations.

And I stick by my judgement that you feel cars are the root of all evil, that doesn't make them evil themselves, inanimate object are only evil in bad horror movies we all know that, but you're constant harangueing against them shows that you certainly think there are a host of problems in the world that wouldn't be here without the car. While this is certainly true they aren't the problems you're complaining about.

[SuziQ]

Interstate II can take advantage of rights-of-way that already exist -- both rail and highways.

I have no problem with high-speed rail service as long as it is run by private corporations. We've seen what happens when govt. runs a railroad. Since a large part of the dollar amounts involved in any rail project have to do with land acquisition and the enviro challenges to those purchases, a chunk of that problem is solved! The rights-of-way are there, they'll just have to make it impossible for folks to get onto the tracks. The results of a high speed railway accident are not pretty. Remember the one in Europe a few years ago?

As long as it supports itself, a la the airlines, I'm all for it. I love trains, it's just that Amtrak has such crappy service and the connections are awful. We thought about having our son come from Pittsburgh to Worcester, and it was going to take 17 hours including a 5 hour layover in Philly! That was nuts! It only takes 11 hours max to DRIVE there!

[cicero's_son]

So in other words, you like the laws that say "no sewer plant next to my house," but not the ones that say how big your garage can be.

Everyone's got their tastes. I like traditional communities. Believe me, I get the message that you don't!

[balrog666]

I'd argue that Detroit is more shaped by developments over the last 40 years than by anyting that happened in the previous 260.

I agree. The development of suburbs has allowed half the population to escape the inner city. 50 years ago Detroit had 2 million people and now it has half that - deservedly in my view. Allowed a choice, nobody chooses the New Urban lifestyle except a few hippies.

[TopDog2]

So its about twice as expensive to take the train as it is to drive. And that's not even counting the cost of transportation when you arrive at your destination. Sorry, but I will vote with my pocketbook and drive.

[balrog666]

Suppose that restriction is placed on you by the private compacts and covenants of a neighborhood association, something that is extremely common in upscale neighborhoods?

Not a problem when you can move out of the neighborhood. How far from Portland do you have to go to escape the Metro Planning Program? I rest my case.

[Publius]

For me, the public transportation in Portland is free. There is a large Fareless Square that permits me to get to my hotel by trolley. Can't beat it.

[cicero's_son]

I have said, repeatedly, that I do not think that cars are the root of all evil. I've had, what, a total of 5 or 6 exchanges with you and yet you feel you know enough about me to say that you know that I secretly think they are the root of all evil.

And this is coming from a person who complained about "not categorizing someone based on 2 sentences" they wrote.

Now THAT'S pretty irritating. Try actually responding to what people say instead of knocking down strawman arguments and making a hypocrite of yourself.

[Chemist_Geek]

Imagine, for example, what it would cost to drive from New York to Chicago if every car had to be monitored by the equivalent of an air traffic controller.

"Cadillac 2-November-50-heavy, right turn heading 280. Ford 22-Sierra-Hotel, accelerate immediately to 75 or left turn heading 265 for collision avoidance."

This would be unworkable. Not to mention the surveillance apoplexy that would accompany placing a radar transponder in each and every car and truck...

[discostu]

So you actually live in Calgary huh? Flames have always been my favorite NHL team (I've got the hat to prove it, not just sucking up), always wanted to go up there and catch a game, of course I live 50 miles north of the Mexican border so Calgary is a very long way away (same timezone though). Mastercard actually stole my idea (using their brainwave readers) I wanted to spend a winter seeing hockey games in every NHL city, figured a home-and-home Oilers/ Flames would be the thing to shoot for up there. Of course if I don't get off the schnie and do this thing soon neither city is going to have an NHL team (you guys really gotta stop taxing things to death up there).

Scenery is really a matter of choice. I know a lot of people don't like the desert because it's all brown and dead. I love the desert (at least my chunk) because you can always see a mountain (Texas is mostly flat boring desert, that sucks). Trees are boring to me, big rock thrust out of the ground by terrible earthquakes and volcanoes, that kicks (and you actually feel like you're moving as you drawn nearer mountains and pass them, unlike flatland driving where the horizon never moves). Though I will agree that even though the terrain is pretty much the same Southern Canada got the better deal than Northern America.

[Publius]

As long as it supports itself, a la the airlines, I'm all for it.

But the airlines don't support themselves. Go back to post #1 and click the link to the article I posted several days ago. It goes into detail about federal subsidies for air, water and road transportation.

[cicero's_son]

Capitalism--in the form of housing appreciation rates in New Urbanist towns--is proving you wrong.

[Publius]

I've been on Calgary's C-Train, the light rail system, for those who have never been there. Portland copied the concept for MAX, and it's just as successful -- and crowded. You have a wonderful city, a Canadian version of Denver.

[balrog666]

So in other words, you like the laws that say "no sewer plant next to my house," but not the ones that say how big your garage can be. Everyone's got their tastes. I like traditional communities. Believe me, I get the message that you don't!

There are some communities (mostly for historical reasons) that restrict everything down to the color paint you must use on your house. They have no place in this discussion. Neighborhood covenants are usually attached your deeds when you buy. If you don't like them, then don't sign them.

However, if I have owned 2 acres of prime real estate to build a retirement home and additional restrictions are placed on it some time later (for example, it must be subdivided and used to build twelve high density houses) then that is a "taking" under the law and my property has lost considerable value. Furthermore, the prospect that neighboring plots must also be corrupted from their original use after I have built is even worse.

[balrog666]

Capitalism--in the form of housing appreciation rates in New Urbanist towns--is proving you wrong.

When competing housing cannot be built, prices rise. I said, "When the choice is allowed".