George Will, writing in Newsweek, advances an intriguing theory as to why high-speed rail networks are so popular with the Obama administration.
... why is America’s 'win the future' administration so fixated on railroads, a technology that was the future two centuries ago? Because progressivism’s aim is the modification of (other people’s) behavior.
Forever seeking Archimedean levers for prying the world in directions they prefer, progressives say they embrace high-speed rail for many reasons - to improve the climate, increase competitiveness, enhance national security, reduce congestion, and rationalize land use. The length of the list of reasons, and the flimsiness of each, points to this conclusion: the real reason for progressives’ passion for trains is their goal of diminishing Americans’ individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism.
To progressives, the best thing about railroads is that people riding them are not in automobiles, which are subversive of the deference on which progressivism depends. Automobiles go hither and yon, wherever and whenever the driver desires, without timetables. Automobiles encourage people to think they - unsupervised, untutored, and unscripted - are masters of their fates. The automobile encourages people in delusions of adequacy, which make them resistant to government by experts who know what choices people should make.
Time was, the progressive cry was "Workers of the world unite!" or "Power to the people!" Now it is less resonant: "All aboard!"
There's more at the link.
I tend to agree with Mr. Will on this; also with John Mica, Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee of the House of Representatives, who famously said of President Obama's high-speed rail initiative: "This is like giving Bernie Madoff another chance at handling your investment portfolio."
However, vested interests and entrenched 'establishment' politicians are fighting to keep the program alive. I can only assume that's because they see a way to get power, patronage or
I guess, even more than collectivism, the real reason for this push for high-speed rail is money, plain and simple. It greases politicians' palms, and lets them advertise to their constituents that they've 'brought home the bacon' according to the ancient and time-honored practices of pork barrel politics. The fact that our children, and our children's children, will be saddled with paying for this technological white elephant, doesn't concern them at all. After all, they won't be in office when our children reach voting age - they'll have retired, rich, fat and happy.
Politicians! Grrr!
Peter
9 comments:
Is it also "progressive" that the oil and auto industries have spent the last 50 years promoting the paving of America, and the de-funding of cheap, safe and convenient public transportation? How very serendipitous for them that we are now almost totally dependent on the products they sell.
To clarify, that was not a comment on high-speed rail, it was a comment on modifying other people's behavior.
I'm not sure Obama is clever enough to have come up with the "rail = control" idea.
MAYBE high-speed rail would be worth putting money into IF there was a huge demand for rail travel in the first place. I don't see it. I've checked into rail before, for trips from Atlanta to South FL and NY, since I remember with fondness some train trips our family took when I was young.
I was shocked to learn that it was far, far more expensive to get seats and a berth in a sleeper car (required with a family, especially given how incredibly long the trips are, and the fact that so much of the schedule seems to run overnight.)
I have no confidence that high speed would be any better or cheaper. Maybe a little faster...but the trains still have to make their stops. Frankly, I'd rather drive...and I have.
it IS cheaper to provide a limo and driver for every local commuter train passenger. So you could pay a passenger a lot of money to ride along with one or two other passengers in a limo.
Willing to place money that high speed and commuter rail economics are the same.
If you think cars are addicting, suz, you should try a motorcycle....LOL. Freedom of movement needed little encouragement- I absolutely hate the mass transportation cattle car experience.
I would also say that the same people (Metro) who want to dump money into rail systems are often the same ones who allow much cheaper busing systems to be mismanaged and get run down to the point no one wants to ride them.
And take it from this Floridian. We are desperately trying to elect a "better class of representative"!
Instead of 'high speed' rail, we need to add another set of tracks to allow passenger trains to run without interference from the freight system. Freight trains have the right-of-way on existing tracks in nearly all locations. IMHO, high-speed is just a gimick. Give me something that will run ~80mph unimpeded, with resonable comfort, and on a schedule. That would actually create a large number of jobs in a number of industries. Oh well, it's a nice thought anyway...
I could see commuter rail services in places like the east coast and parts of the west, or even the Front Range (like the Railrunner between Santa Fe and Albuquerque, NM) where you have enough passenger traffic and other infrastructure to support it. Out here on the steppes and prairies? No, sorry. That was already fading in the 1950s, even before most of the main roads were widened and the county roads were paved. Now it would not work unless you poured waaaayyy too much of my money into it. And then they'd probably cut off the smaller towns as a way of encouraging the further depopulation of the area for economic and environmental protection reasons ("eat less beef and wheat. They are bad for you. Bring back the buffalo.")
LittleRed1
Post a Comment