Passenger Trains > An old mans perspective on HSR

My dad is 85. He lives in Florida and is only moderately interested in trains (probably because of my interests) and has been listening to the debates over high speed rail. This morning at breakfast he wondered how the lawsuit against Governor Scott would be decided. Then he made some interesting observations and drew some parallels to Dwight Eisenhower and the Interstate Highway system. He recalled the arguments from the early to mid 1950's when Eisenhower first proposed the interstates (the idea had been discussed for years he said, even before Eisenhower brought it up but there was always big arguments against the concept so nothing ever happened. He said a lot of naysayers made these points:

1) it was too expensive to build and who would pay for it
2) only a few people would really use it because not every family owned cars then, distances between cities were too great and people would take the trains for long distance and the wealthy would probably fly instead of drive. There would not be that many people wanting to drive across country for long distances through Kansas, Nebraska, etc.
3) no one would want to drive that many hours and there were no services for food or lodging so you would have to get off and take the back roads to eat and sleep anyway
4) it should be a system of toll roads because using federal tax dollars for such a road network was irresponsible use of tax payer money
5) it would not do anything to improve commerce because freight moved by train

He pointed out that in order to "Sell" this idea that he came back from Germany with (Autobahns) that they used National Defense to justify the system and even rename the legislation to some effect with defense in the legislation. It became the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956.

Funny how we are hearing some of the same arguments today against a system of transportation long proven successful in much of the rest of the world just like we did when Eisenhower wanted to do what had only been done in Germany when he pushed for an interstate highway system

yet another terrific post on the topic COFLZephyr.

Thanks for all your insight and thoughtful responses.

Very well stated.

It is well-documented how long it took to get the interstate highway system. As far back as the 1920s, there was interest in better roads. But, the federal role remained limited, for years. When the interstate system was finally authorized, it was not because one day Congress came in and said "oh, here's something to do", and everyone said "yes". It was a long protracted effort that finally succeeded.

There were many arguments against it, as summarized by the OP. One that sounds familiar is "let the states do it". After all, we already had a mechanism....the eastern turnpikes, all set up without a federal role.

But there's no question things turned out much differently with the federal interstate program than they would have without it.

Part of the problem is that people analyze issues based on what they know. So, if no one has ever been to college, there is a tendency to say "who needs colleges". Interstates and HSR are built not for the moment, or for the next 5 years.....they are built for 50 years and 100 years.

Uhhh,,,actually, a toll road network was being built in the Northeast before the Second World War, and would have been a fine model for the rest of the country. The reality is that the great majority of trips on Interstate highways are short-distance trips (probably not even "interstate", most of them). Three-quarters of all Class 7 and Class 8 truck trips (these are the big trucks) are less than 500 miles. railroads STILL carry a majority of the long-distance freight. So what did we build the Interstate network for? And why wouldn't a nationwide network of toll roads have worked just as well?

The Interstates rapidly became a pork project, with roads built right through the hearts of cities so commuters could use them, and every city wanting a "beltway" that encouraged suburban development and sprawl. The network as originally conceived would not have gone into cities -- take a look at the route of I-76 and the Ohio Turnpike -- they both avoid big cities. The Pennsylvania Turnpike enters neither Pittsburgh nor Philadelphia, but goes around them both.

So the Interstate system was essentially a vast waste of money, building a national network primarily to serve short-hual traffic, driving the railroads out business, and contributing to suburban sprawl. Does anyone regard this as some kind of triumph of planning or vision?

And just by the way, we are spending more right now at the Federal level(adjusted for inflation) than we did in 1970, when the interstate system was still being built. And we're no longer building new capacity but just trying to patch up what we have. Speaking of long-term subsidy costs...

Full disclosure...I do transportation policy work at the Federal level.

1) The concept in the US did not start in 1955 or Germany but had its roots back to the Lincoln Highway
2) It was enabled by an Act Of the Congress specifically for that purpose
3) It had a specific funding mechanism where the users would pay for construction.
4) It was championed by Dwight D. Eisenhower, from his graduation from West Point had spent his whole life in the service of the United States reaching the rank of General of the Army.

Bob

erielackawanna Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yet another terrific post on the topic
> COFLZephyr.
>
> Thanks for all your insight and thoughtful
> responses.

Thoughtful, perhaps, but misleading..

The country in 1950 was much different from what it is today. Our national population has more than doubled from 152,000,000 to over 310,000,000. Compared with what would be required today to acquire right of way for HSR, the effort and expense for doing it during the 1950s and onward for the Interstate Highway system were trivial.

The United States of America is on the verge of national bankruptcy. We were in good shape economically in the 1950s. We aren't today.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

Fritz in HSV, AL

shoretower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uhhh,,,actually, a toll road network was being
> built in the Northeast before the Second World
> War, and would have been a fine model for the rest
> of the country. The reality is that the great
> majority of trips on Interstate highways are
> short-distance trips (probably not even
> "interstate", most of them). Three-quarters of
> all Class 7 and Class 8 truck trips (these are the
> big trucks) are less than 500 miles. railroads
> STILL carry a majority of the long-distance
> freight. So what did we build the Interstate
> network for? And why wouldn't a nationwide
> network of toll roads have worked just as well?
>
> The Interstates rapidly became a pork project,
> with roads built right through the hearts of
> cities so commuters could use them, and every city
> wanting a "beltway" that encouraged suburban
> development and sprawl. The network as originally
> conceived would not have gone into cities -- take
> a look at the route of I-76 and the Ohio Turnpike
> -- they both avoid big cities. The Pennsylvania
> Turnpike enters neither Pittsburgh nor
> Philadelphia, but goes around them both.
>
> So the Interstate system was essentially a vast
> waste of money, building a national network
> primarily to serve short-hual traffic, driving the
> railroads out business, and contributing to
> suburban sprawl. Does anyone regard this as some
> kind of triumph of planning or vision?
>
> And just by the way, we are spending more right
> now at the Federal level(adjusted for inflation)
> than we did in 1970, when the interstate system
> was still being built. And we're no longer
> building new capacity but just trying to patch up
> what we have. Speaking of long-term subsidy
> costs...
>
> Full disclosure...I do transportation policy work
> at the Federal level.


I guess commuters getting to work is waste of money. Railroads are not out of business, it just forced them to compete rather than rely on a monopoly. Railroads except for some specific uses don't want short haul business and have effectively lost that business throughout the world, Interstate Highway System or not.
Bob

shoretower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uhhh,,,actually, a toll road network was being
> built in the Northeast before the Second World
> War, and would have been a fine model for the rest
> of the country. The reality is that the great
> majority of trips on Interstate highways are
> short-distance trips (probably not even
> "interstate", most of them). Three-quarters of
> all Class 7 and Class 8 truck trips (these are the
> big trucks) are less than 500 miles. railroads
> STILL carry a majority of the long-distance
> freight. So what did we build the Interstate
> network for? And why wouldn't a nationwide
> network of toll roads have worked just as well?
>
> The Interstates rapidly became a pork project,
> with roads built right through the hearts of
> cities so commuters could use them, and every city
> wanting a "beltway" that encouraged suburban
> development and sprawl. The network as originally
> conceived would not have gone into cities -- take
> a look at the route of I-76 and the Ohio Turnpike
> -- they both avoid big cities. The Pennsylvania
> Turnpike enters neither Pittsburgh nor
> Philadelphia, but goes around them both.
>
> So the Interstate system was essentially a vast
> waste of money, building a national network
> primarily to serve short-hual traffic, driving the
> railroads out business, and contributing to
> suburban sprawl. Does anyone regard this as some
> kind of triumph of planning or vision?
>
> And just by the way, we are spending more right
> now at the Federal level(adjusted for inflation)
> than we did in 1970, when the interstate system
> was still being built. And we're no longer
> building new capacity but just trying to patch up
> what we have. Speaking of long-term subsidy
> costs...
>
> Full disclosure...I do transportation policy work
> at the Federal level.

One of the best posts I have seen on Trainorders.

shoretower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uhhh,,,actually, a toll road network was being
> built in the Northeast before the Second World
> War, and would have been a fine model for the rest
> of the country. The reality is that the great
> majority of trips on Interstate highways are
> short-distance trips (probably not even
> "interstate", most of them). Three-quarters of
> all Class 7 and Class 8 truck trips (these are the
> big trucks) are less than 500 miles. railroads
> STILL carry a majority of the long-distance
> freight. So what did we build the Interstate
> network for? And why wouldn't a nationwide
> network of toll roads have worked just as well?
>
> The Interstates rapidly became a pork project,
> with roads built right through the hearts of
> cities so commuters could use them, and every city
> wanting a "beltway" that encouraged suburban
> development and sprawl. The network as originally
> conceived would not have gone into cities -- take
> a look at the route of I-76 and the Ohio Turnpike
> -- they both avoid big cities. The Pennsylvania
> Turnpike enters neither Pittsburgh nor
> Philadelphia, but goes around them both.
>
> So the Interstate system was essentially a vast
> waste of money, building a national network
> primarily to serve short-hual traffic, driving the
> railroads out business, and contributing to
> suburban sprawl. Does anyone regard this as some
> kind of triumph of planning or vision?
>
> And just by the way, we are spending more right
> now at the Federal level(adjusted for inflation)
> than we did in 1970, when the interstate system
> was still being built. And we're no longer
> building new capacity but just trying to patch up
> what we have. Speaking of long-term subsidy
> costs...
>
> Full disclosure...I do transportation policy work
> at the Federal level.

I actually agree with a good deal of your post, but not all of it.

1) The Interstates created sprawl - YES (but so did turning houses so their sides face the street and the concept of the shopping mall - all three of which were the earlier result of the creation of an affordable automobile)

2) The Interstates seriously damaged city neighborhoods - YES (I can think of very, very few neighborhoods that did not disintigrate when an Interstate was built through them, but the same was true of the damage caused by the Cross-Bronx Expressway - which was not oringally part of the Interstate system... once a neighborhood has an expressway cutting through it, it has a no-man's land where no one wants to live... this allows homeless, drugs, and crime to move in, pushing those on the next block over out too.)

3) The Interstates killed the passenger train - YES (no question, but the patient was already fairly ill and a series of tollways would have had the same effect.)

4) Tollways pay for themselves - YES (I have no idea why the Interstates are free... this is a classic case of giving something away... driving is a privillige, don't forget).

5) We are spending more at the Federal Level today - YES (But we are fighting two wars, have troops stationed in far flung countries all over the world, have a huge Social Security system that was not designed for the life expentencies we experience today, a Medicare system that is having its own solvency issues and a massively, massively, massivly lower tax rate than we did in the 1970s)

Yeah, that's great policy. We'll make those wicked railroads compete by building a massive publicly subsidized competing transportation network and then give trucks access to it at bargin prices. Yes, that makes so much sense...

Take a look at this book. I found it helpful, and I've been in the transportation business for 35 years.

http://www.amazon.com/Getting-There-Struggle-American-Mathematics/dp/0226300439/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1299181111&sr=1-2

shoretower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, that's great policy. We'll make those
> wicked railroads compete by building a massive
> publicly subsidized competing transportation
> network and then give trucks access to it at
> bargin prices. Yes, that makes so much sense...
>
> Take a look at this book. I found it helpful, and
> I've been in the transportation business for 35
> years.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Getting-There-Struggle-Ameri
> can-Mathematics/dp/0226300439/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&i
> e=UTF8&qid=1299181111&sr=1-2


I'm going to agree with you 100% on this one. How is it fair to use not just taxpayer money, but the taxes of the railroads themselves to build a free ROW for trucks?

erielackawanna Wrote:

> I have no
> idea why the Interstates are free... this is a
> classic case of giving something away...

I can answer this one for you: here in Montreal, several of the major highways (Laurentian Autoroute, Eastern Townships Autoroute, Champlain Bridge) were originally built as toll roads, and it became politically expedient for political parties angling to get into power to promise to eliminate the tolls if they were elected. They were; the tolls went bye-bye.

Any administration in the US that makes the interstate highway system a toll system will rapidly become history. Any administration that puts into place trucking fees commensurate with the wear-and-tear the trucks cause to the roads and bridges will equally rapidly become history.

Ray

shoretower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, that's great policy. We'll make those
> wicked railroads compete by building a massive
> publicly subsidized competing transportation
> network and then give trucks access to it at
> bargin prices. Yes, that makes so much sense...
>
> Take a look at this book. I found it helpful, and
> I've been in the transportation business for 35
> years.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Getting-There-Struggle-Ameri
> can-Mathematics/dp/0226300439/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&i
> e=UTF8&qid=1299181111&sr=1-2


Railroads were very similar to the auto industry here. Competition was needed badly.
Last I saw freight RR were doing just fine or at least Warren thinks so.
Can you imagine what our autos would cost and their quality would be if thee was no Toyota.
Railroads would still have four man crews, cabesses, and get their orders by guys with sticks handing up pieces of paper.

Bob
Bob

> Can you imagine what our autos would cost and
> their quality would be if thee was no Toyota.
> Railroads would still have four man crews,
> cabesses, and get their orders by guys with sticks
> handing up pieces of paper.
>
> Bob
> Bob


Ya, we would probably have more jobs, and better paying ones at that. I guess if progress is measured by how many people are thrown out of work, then we're moving at lightspeed towards that goal.

ATSF3751 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Can you imagine what our autos would cost and
> > their quality would be if thee was no Toyota.
> > Railroads would still have four man crews,
> > cabesses, and get their orders by guys with
> sticks
> > handing up pieces of paper.
> >
> > Bob
> > Bob
>
>
> Ya, we would probably have more jobs, and better
> paying ones at that. I guess if progress is
> measured by how many people are thrown out of
> work, then we're moving at lightspeed towards that
> goal.


Oh, no, featherbedding doesn't create prosperity. Quite the opposite. How many jobs are there on the Rock Island, for example?

robj Wrote:
> Railroads were very similar to the auto industry
> here. Competition was needed badly.
> Last I saw freight RR were doing just fine or at
> least Warren thinks so.
> Can you imagine what our autos would cost and
> their quality would be if thee was no Toyota.
> Railroads would still have four man crews,
> cabesses, and get their orders by guys with sticks
> handing up pieces of paper.
>


So you think it's a good thing that we have lost much of our market to foreign companies?

The absolute abandonement of Detroit and Flint are wonderful?

Does this apply to steel too?

Is the competition that hit that indsutry to the point that most of it is gone good?

Along the same lines, the fact that my town no longer has a railroad because trucks took much of the traffic and foreign competition eliminated the remaining industry... that's good - competition!!!!

Well, at least we know that you and I are not going to agree on anything if you think these are good things.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/11 15:13 by erielackawanna.

navy5717th Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The United States of America is on the verge of
> national bankruptcy. We were in good shape
> economically in the 1950s. We aren't today.
>
This is a myth. The US is the largest manufacturing economy in the world - nearly 50% greater than the #2, China. By most standards of measuring economic output, we measure near the top. GDP per capita, adjusted for inflation, is far higher now than in the fifties. The problem that you're confusing with bankruptcy is the Federal budget deficit. That is a function of taking in less than we spend, which can be attributed to two fundamental variables - what the government spends, and what what the government takes in. Marginal tax rates are lower today than in the 1950s, particularly in the highest income bracket. For this reason we have a much greater concentration of both income and wealth at the very top. So as a nation we're far from bankrupt - we simply are underfunding all of the programs that the Federal government finances, relying instead on borrowing.

Dave

and we shifted more wealth to fewer people by reducing tax rates on the wealthiest Americans resulting in reduced income as a % of GDP for the Government. (While at the same time enormously increasing spending as % of GDP, especially for the Military).

DavidP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> navy5717th Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The United States of America is on the verge of
> > national bankruptcy. We were in good shape
> > economically in the 1950s. We aren't today.
> >
> This is a myth. The US is the largest
> manufacturing economy in the world - nearly 50%
> greater than the #2, China. By most standards of
> measuring economic output, we measure near the
> top. GDP per capita, adjusted for inflation, is
> far higher now than in the fifties. The problem
> that you're confusing with bankruptcy is the
> Federal budget deficit. That is a function of
> taking in less than we spend, which can be
> attributed to two fundamental variables - what the
> government spends, and what what the government
> takes in. Marginal tax rates are lower today than
> in the 1950s, particularly in the highest income
> bracket. For this reason we have a much greater
> concentration of both income and wealth at the
> very top. So as a nation we're far from bankrupt
> - we simply are underfunding all of the programs
> that the Federal government finances, relying
> instead on borrowing.
>
> Dave

People have bought into this notion that the government's deficit spending means that the country has no money. It may well happen that the government's deficits will cause some uncomfortable economic times in the future, but only because of poor policy and not because the money isn't available. We are currently in a cycle where corporations really do have far too much power and they are still gaining even more with the help of government at virtually all levels.

To be honest, I have never been a union member, nor have I been a big union supporter. That said, I know that unions have served the middle class well over the last several generations. I also believe that it is corporate interests that are currently behind the attempted dismantling of collective bargaining by public employees. Once those unions are busted, the political clout of unions will be almost nil, while corporations political clout will be almost unchecked....ultimately, one of the worst political crisis this country has faced. Corporate America is not our friend and right now, the political agenda is being set by those interests, and it has everything to do with eliminating government at every level.

US corporations are sitting on more than $2 trillion dollars in cash(a record level)and it is growing daily in leaps and bounds (one of the driving forces behind the stock markets gains of late) and a large part of this is derived from reduced taxes but is not adding jobs. Truth is they will use this cash in a massive series of consolidations, acquisitions and mergers that will likely result in more lost jobs in the future.