Why not medium-speed rail? 8

The always-excellent Sam Smith, a keen observer of politics and society as a journalist for over 50 years, introduces an outstanding long piece on the high-speed rail money in the stimulus:

There’s nothing wrong with high speed rail except that when your country is really hurting, when your rail system largely falls behind other countries’ because of lack of tracks rather than lack of velocity, and when high speed rail appeals more to bankers than to folks scared of foreclosing homes, it’s a strange transit program to feature in something called a stimulus bill.

One might even call it an $8 billion earmark.

Let’s live on the planet as if we intend to stay.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Jay Alt Posted 12:45 pm
    27 Feb 2009

    High speed railThis reminds me of the chicken-egg arguments over photovoltaic power panels.  We couldn't install them because they were too expen$ive.  Govt couldn't subsidize them because that would offend the invisible hand.  They were too expensive because the market was too small.  
    Things change.  Government support for green markets can help turn them into winners.

    http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2236953/ ...  
  2. amazingdrx Posted 1:58 pm
    27 Feb 2009

    How about electrifying Good old fashioned freight and present commuter rail first, then build out a system of high speed rail in different corridors, like freeway median space in tubes where it would be safe to surpass 200 mph?  High speed rail will take awhile to research and develop to make it mass production ready.
    And while we are at it bury HVDC super grid lines along with electrification of existing rail.  It takes care of two big steps.

    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
  3. Jon Rynn's avatar

    Jon Rynn Posted 2:16 pm
    27 Feb 2009

    8 billion ain't muchand won't really lead to any high-speed lines, I don't think.  The main reason, it seems to me, to push for high-speed rail, is that the rising price of oil will make most air travel too expensive.  Now, if people don't want to travel between cities anymore within one day, then you won't need high-speed rail.
    Having said that, Kunstler has also called for a build up of regular rail as a higher priority than high-speed rail, but there is no reason that you couldn't do both.  Particularly if you're concerned that the eventually high oil prices will also make most trucking impractical, then it's crazy not to build a massive freight rail system.
    Certainly, the "market" will never move fast enough or with enough long-term vision to take care of a high-oil-price future, which will be devastating for air, car, and truck transportation.
    As for not being able to afford it, a real rail system is much more important than bailing out the banks, in my opinion, and it's certainly more  important than shoveling hundreds of billions every year to the Defense Department.  If we can't afford high-speed, medium-speed, freight and regular rail, we better relocalize and kiss industrial civilization goodbye right now.
  4. amazingdrx Posted 2:56 pm
    27 Feb 2009

    Ezackly Jon"If we can't afford high-speed, medium-speed, freight and regular rail, we better relocalize and kiss industrial civilization goodbye right now."
    I think that's what Jim is hoping for, his Y2K fantasy did not work out so well.  It's nothing against civilization, he just wants to be right for a change.  



    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
  5. Gar Lipow's avatar

    Gar Lipow Posted 3:14 pm
    27 Feb 2009

    Drx on Kunstler

    If we can't afford high-speed, medium-speed, freight and regular rail, we better relocalize and kiss industrial civilization goodbye right now."


    I think that's what Jim is hoping for, his Y2K fantasy did not work out so well.  It's nothing against civilization, he just wants to be right for a change.  



    I wish I'd said that. In fact, someday soon, I will.
  6. amazingdrx Posted 3:29 pm
    27 Feb 2009

    Well?Then you might like this too Gar:


    Nationalize banks and automakers? Isn't that socialism?
    It doesn't have to be.  As long as it isn't permanent, but rather a  stage in a recovery plan.  Take a bank for instance, why give the present management and owners bailout money?  Why not just take over the bank then share ownership with bank employees who were owed retirenent, healthcare, and pensions?
    Put senior employees in charge, they did most of the work anyway, and they now have an incentive to make the business succeed, once the economy turns around and the bank is profitable again, the government would sell it's shares taking the bank public again.


    Why not just nationalize failing railroads too?  It's a quick way to get this all done.  Don't send tax dollars down another corpor-rathole.
    I bet Jim would like this idea.

    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
  7. amazingdrx Posted 3:45 pm
    27 Feb 2009

    New steps Similar to Romm's wedges for climate action.  
    Electrified rail/HVDC supergrid should be the next step...then
    Plugin hybrid mass production
    Renewable distributed smart grid, generation, storage, and conservation
    Continued utility scale wind
    Rooftop solar concentrating PV cogeneration/factory solar furnace storage cogeneration
    Waste biomass biodigestion, biogas energy smart grid backup, and organic agriculture
    These steps should do the job.  Not only halting human GHG, but actually building soil carbon sinks to reverse GHG concentration over the next 50 years.  it took 150 years of industrial and chemical ag revolution to get us into this mess, maybe 50 years of extraction could restore the balance by the next century?
    How much carbon would organic soil take up over 50 years, if it covered all cropland?
    Electric rail, it's huge with a supergrid riding the same corridors.

    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
  8. Russ Posted 5:05 pm
    27 Feb 2009

    Ragging on KunstlerIt's nothing against civilization, he just wants to be right for a change.
    I wish I'd said that. In fact, someday soon, I will.


    It seems we skeptics regarding the fossil fuel platform and exponential debt civilization are looking pretty good these days, and not because we got lucky, but because we correctly analyzed the situation a long time ago, and things are happening as we forecast.
    As for the wonks of green cornucopianism and carbon policy arcana, I'll have to state the obvious: all that has existed of these on earth so far is talk, talk, talk, while emissions everywhere including among the most punctilious Kyoto signatories keep going up.
    So although I still hope this may change in time (and according to your own luminaries like Pachauri you have less than four years left to REALLY get started), all the evidence is it won't, that man is simply going to burn fossil fuel and emit profligately for as long as supply fundamentals and economics allow, and that nothing short of a cap imposed by Peak Oil itself is going to set the final concentration maximum.
    Sorry to get ornery, but these days I'm no longer willing to listen to Kunstler be the object of armpit noises when his record as a prophet, while imperfect, is vastly greater than that of almost anyone else, and his real-world accomplishment, while so far perhaps modest, is again greater than that of his critics, who have accomplished nothing but talk.
    "Just wanting to be right for a change" - don't we all. You guys ought to know.

     

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Advertisement