Passenger Trains > "Romance Of The Rails" Book Review In Wall Street Journal

Behind a paywall, so I can't provide a link.  But basically Randal O'Toole, the author, disses American passenger rail travel.  It should go the way of the canals, he claims.  Other than a few major US cities, he believes it is useless.  He cites Nashville's rapid transit system as a prime example, and in general includes both short and long distance trains. (His opinion; not mine)
 

Randall O'Toole is a hack. 

srlawton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Randall O'Toole is a hack. 

How exactly is he a "hack"?  Have you actually read anything he has wrote, or is this just a knee-jerk reaction because he has an opinion (which he backs up with facts and figures) that doesn't jive with yours or many others on this forum?  I've read a bit of his stuff (not the book in question, but others), and while I don't agree with all his conclusions, he makes a very strong case for what he believes.  

You may not agree with him, but I GUARANTEE that he has done a TON more research into the issue of rail transport economics than you, me, and probably any person here on TO. 

 

rbenko Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> srlawton Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Randall O'Toole is a hack. 
>
> How exactly is he a "hack"?  Have you actually
> read anything he has wrote, or is this just a
> knee-jerk reaction because he has an opinion
> (which he backs up with facts and figures) that
> doesn't jive with yours or many others on this
> forum?  I've read a bit of his stuff (not the
> book in question, but others), and while I don't
> agree with all his conclusions, he makes a very
> strong case for what he believes.  
>
> You may not agree with him, but I GUARANTEE that
> he has done a TON more research into the issue of
> rail transport economics than you, me, and
> probably any person here on TO. 
>
>  
He also thinks that the answer to our future transportation issues is the self-drving car!!!!!!  I had a good email war with him about 10 years ago.....He actually thinks highways pay for themselves......

Given the huge investments being made by the automotive company's including Ford purchasing and re-building of Detroit's Michigan Central Station as their autonomous auto development center, he might just be right.  

andersonb109 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Given the huge investments being made by the
> automotive company's including Ford purchasing and
> re-building of Detroit's Michigan Central Station
> as their autonomous auto development center, he
> might just be right.  

Just because they will likely make a fortune and sell a lot of them (I have no doubt that they will) does not in any way mean that they will be a cure-all for urban transportation issues.

andersonb109 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Given the huge investments being made by the
> automotive company's including Ford purchasing and
> re-building of Detroit's Michigan Central Station
> as their autonomous auto development center, he
> might just be right.

Well, researching transportation policy issues don't necessarily translate to knowledge on technology.

Companies DOING the actual self-driving technology testing (Uber and Waymo, for example) don't have to worry about baiting shareholders to prevent futher declines in stock prices. Ford and especially GM making announcements regarding their "committment" to the technology is just that, announcements to bolster their relevance to the "future." Any large company worthy of survival will spend some money on Research and Development (R&D), so this is what they are supposed to be doing.

rbenko Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You may not agree with him, but I GUARANTEE that
> he has done a TON more research into the issue of
> rail transport economics than you, me, and
> probably any person here on TO. 

Agree with that. Blind O'Toole haters are not doing opposition research at their own peril.

Roots of his anti-rail editorials (specifically, streetcars and light rail) are documented if people are willing to research. There's an eerie parallel to a notorious figure who lost his mind and went violent when nearby road construction (the real cause of urban sprawl, the automobile) ruined the pristine land he settled on. In comparison, O'Toole is a pussycat, and I applaud him to resort to writing instead of violence to express his views.

bluesboyst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He also thinks that the answer to our future
> transportation issues is the self-drving
> car!!!!!!  I had a good email war with him about
> 10 years ago.....He actually thinks highways pay
> for themselves......

Some people hate the fact that I lack strong ideologies, but that means I have no need to find agenda-filled think tanks as sponsors to write opinion pieces to attack rail transportation to distract people away from Automobile Socialism. Some states are realizing the financial realities of the Interstates, and have implemented toll roads in recent years where the routes used to be "free." However, if people argue that "free" Interstates were necessary to subsidize the American economic expansion, I can accept that.

I have no ideological need to defend the highways as self-funding, whether it's true or not.

There are at least two non-socialist countries that exercise relative fiscal conservatism that host profitable rail networks, plus a growing toll highway system, where people enjoy real freedom of choice in transportation. They aren't us.

There's a concept called the Overton Window. It is the range of acceptable range of discussion.

One area currently outside the Window is limiting airport expansion or imposing serious fuel taxes and tolls. The French did that as TGV came in. No short haul air flights to places on TGV.

That discussion hasn't even begun in the US.

Posted from Android

pennengineer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just because they will likely make a fortune and
> sell a lot of them (I have no doubt that they
> will) does not in any way mean that they will be a
> cure-all for urban transportation issues.

Elon Musk is probably doing a better job of trying to solve urban transportation issues than Ford Motor Company or Mr. O'Toole is.

Self-driving technology itself won't solve congestion, except to people who blindly believe the AI religion. The automobile does not scale well with increased use, no matter how "smart" the car behaves. Musk's approach by trying to create extra capacity, whether it be tunneling a separate car tunnel, or even Hyperloop is more viable. If seemingly impractical ideas are "viable," then we are in trouble.

If Mr. O'Toole is against population increase so there's no need for trains, or less need for cars, that's right to the point, but then who'll want to buy his book?

rbenko Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> srlawton Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Randall O'Toole is a hack. 
>
> How exactly is he a "hack"?  Have you actually
> read anything he has wrote, or is this just a
> knee-jerk reaction because he has an opinion
> (which he backs up with facts and figures) that
> doesn't jive with yours or many others on this
> forum?  I've read a bit of his stuff (not the
> book in question, but others), and while I don't
> agree with all his conclusions, he makes a very
> strong case for what he believes.  
>
> You may not agree with him, but I GUARANTEE that
> he has done a TON more research into the issue of
> rail transport economics than you, me, and
> probably any person here on TO. 
>
>  

I have not only read a great deal of his work over the years, I have also been privy to communication between him and experts in the field and I can confirm that he is, in fact, a hack. Aside from the dubious funding of his work, he routinely misconstrue facts and statistics, draws incorrect conclusions and refuses to address any of the issues with his work that have been pointed out numerous times. In other words, he is much less an expert academic (as he likes to portray himself) and is rather a pundit who profits from "stirring the pot".

I flipped through his latest book a couple of weeks ago and had to put it down after 10 minutes because I could feel my blood pressure rising. Just one example of the sloppy and/or misleading nature of his work: he had a photo of the derailed Cascades train on the Port Defiance bypass with a caption saying, roughly: "$100 million was invested to save 10 minutes, and the first train derailed". This is not serious academic work.

I also consider this author a "Hack", because, as the Journal article points out, he comes from the Cato Institute -- which has a well-known ideology hostile to any form of  Government support of passenger rail..   They consider it wasteful government spending (remember that sound bite?).

As far as his "facts & figures" goes -- they are "old stuff" which only the anti-rail crowd believe.

My "facts & figures" are these:
Over the last decade, passenger rail projects have been built all over the Country--light rail, heavy rail --and ridership has been good for the most part. So, we can safely say that many people think rail projects are well worth it -- even if this author doesn't think so.

Even Amtrak trains are considered worthy of support--(the second Norfolk train).

So, let this guy rant on about horses replacing walking & and trains replacing the Canal -- his ant-rail views are strictly "old hat".

 

andersonb109 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Given the huge investments being made by the
> automotive company's including Ford purchasing and
> re-building of Detroit's Michigan Central Station
> as their autonomous auto development center, he
> might just be right.  

I think he IS right.

In my opinion self-driving electric vehicles are going to become predominant must faster than most people think.  Even Ford has announced an electric F150 Pickup.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/24/19 09:04 by restricted_speed.

Audi is introducing several electric models, too.

Will the grid be able to sustain all this replenishment?

cchan006 Wrote:
....
> There are at least two non-socialist countries
> that exercise relative fiscal conservatism that
> host profitable rail networks, plus a growing toll
> highway system, where people enjoy real freedom of
> choice in transportation. They aren't us.

I have to ask:  What two countries are those ?

SZ

rbenko Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> srlawton Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Randall O'Toole is a hack. 
>
> How exactly is he a "hack"?  Have you actually

He's a paid operative of the Cato Institute/Koch Brothers. The whole point of his work is to represent their positions.

> read anything he has wrote, or is this just a
> knee-jerk reaction because he has an opinion
> (which he backs up with facts and figures) that

LOL, no he doesn't.  Go look at my many comments on his inaccurate figures or lack of figures on his blog.

> doesn't jive with yours or many others on this
> forum?  I've read a bit of his stuff (not the
> book in question, but others), and while I don't
> agree with all his conclusions, he makes a very
> strong case for what he believes.  
>
> You may not agree with him, but I GUARANTEE that
> he has done a TON more research into the issue of
> rail transport economics than you, me, and
> probably any person here on TO. 

Has he? Can you point to any published article's he's done on the economics of passenger rail operation?  Any textbooks or scholarly manuscripts on this subject?

cchan006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pennengineer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Self-driving technology itself won't solve
> congestion, except to people who blindly believe
> the AI religion. The automobile does not scale

Of course not, for the same reason all the information systems put up on highways have done nothing. Congestion can only be solved by sizing the system to the population and stopping excessive growth of the population.

> If Mr. O'Toole is against population increase so
> there's no need for trains, or less need for cars,
> that's right to the point, but then who'll want to
> buy his book?

Is he?  He is anti-immigration?

ronald321 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, let this guy rant on about horses replacing
> walking & and trains replacing the Canal -- his
> ant-rail views are strictly "old hat".

People would very likely enjoy American canals being made available again to pleasure craft as in England and Germany.  O'Toole should watch what he suggests.  The Erie Canal is very popular.

restricted_speed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think he IS right.
>
> In my opinion self-driving electric vehicles are
> going to become predominant must faster than most
> people think.  Even Ford has announced an
> electric F150 Pickup.

I think you are confusing "autonomous" and electric. Waymo's current test vehicles use Chrysler as their platform, but they are gasoline engined hybrids. So far, GM and Ford have missed out.

As I mentioned in another thread, the basics of modern electrical vehicle design has been dissected by non-software tech publications, so the auto industry in general are focusing on refining. Here in Tesla land (Silicon Valley), Chevy Bolt has been making great progress in gaining market share, as I see increasing numbers of them on the road.