Planes, planes, planes
I’m glad that some travel companies are finally stating that carbon offsets–those extra few bucks that are supposedly used to plant trees in order to “offset” fuel use and other carbon producing activities–don’t work. This is especially true with flying; see the story here. It’s about time someone said something about this.
The question in my mind–a question that the article raises towards the end–is why don’t we have good, fast trains here? When I was in Japan, there was the Shinkansen bullet train that moved so fast you would feel it in your ears. It moves up to 186 miles per hour. One could go from Aomori to Tokyo in just a few hours.
Here, on the other hand, we’re almost forced to fly. To visit LA from Portland, it takes 31 hours by train. 31 hours! It’s only 15 hours to drive. Plus, the rates we pay for using the train are sometimes higher than airfare.
I’ve heard the reasons for why we don’t have trains. I’ve heard that the automobile was invented in the U.S., and that car manufacturers paid tons of money for politicians to create infrastructure around cars, rather than trains. But isn’t it time we overturn that? Especially since no one buys American cars anymore. Maybe the creation and design of great train systems could be part of our new focus on green industry.
Related posts:
But here is an...
I agree with everything you said. About #1…I think...
Carbon offsets are ridiculous. Maybe we also agree that Al Gore is full of crap.
But flying in an airplane is cheaper than driving and cheaper than rail, judging by the fact that nobody dares travel by rail anywhere in the states, except locally. Let demand decide whether rail’s a good idea, rather than entrusting the subject with our wonderful economic planning committees. They’ll cut pollution by 10%, and employment by 20!
Eric,
You do realize that it’s impossible to set up a rail system without government interaction, right? The reason is that there is limited land and agreements have to be created with local governments/people in order to allocate land. Same deal with commercial airlines.
So whether we invest government time and money in promoting airlines or railways, we’re still investing government time and money.
I’m not that ashamed to say that I’m mostly uninformed about carbon offsetting. However, as a straphanger that uses public transportation… more specifically a New York City subway and bus rider, whose MTA is threatening us with fare hikes every 6 months… I can understand why high speed trains aren’t feasible now.
Public transportation is a failing “business.” Most public transportation started out as private business ventures and over the years became inadequate and financially unstable. They’re now extinct… or they’ve become city-state-federal government run, funded, or “watched” (oversight).
You’ve probably heard of Amtrak’s Acela high speed train service. What I remember about Acela over the years are the constant negative opinions and news stories about delays in service, train safety issues and concerns, and politics.
Maybe it was possible to build a railroad to the Pacific in the 1870s. That’s definitely not possible now. You can’t draw a straight line through anyway in the United States without demolishing thousands of homes and businesses. The governments could call it “emiment domain” but public opinion would be so fierce that it’d be called New Coke 2.0…
So the only option is to work with what we’ve got: the aged railways of the current railroad industry. They already struggle to maintain business, let alone their system.
If you consider New York City as an example of urban rail renewal, you’ll see these flaws surfacing. The MTA has been doing some heavy-duty renovations and reconstructions of the subway lines. Entire stations have been removed, causing serious inconveniences to the daily commuters. The Manhattan Bridge reconstruction might remove all express train service between the two boroughs. Not to mention that the B, the one true express train in Brooklyn, has been reduced to a useless local. And these projects are expected to take several years. In 2001, MTA fares were $1.50, with $15 netting you 12 rides (2 bonus rides) through MetroCard purchases. Now, $2.25, with $20 for 10 rides (bonuses included). Ask a lower middle class New Yorker where his/her income goes and they’ll tell you that a good portion is now for transportation. Groceries, rent, bills, doctor visits, transportation… and what’s left for putting the children through college?
I know this is a long rant, and I should be sleeping. I hope you find a gem inside those paragraphs though. Construction and reconstruction often means budget cuts and fare hikes, much of it to the detriment of the public that is supposed to benefit from the former.
If it has to be government funded to even happen (after which it won’t be profitable, this is a guarantee), then it’s not worth doing. I realize land agreements are complicated, but if there were enough money in rail, as Simon sees rightly there isn’t, then land-owners would be well paid for their land by the rail companies, who are sure to rake in huge profits from their new venture. Rail sucks, even if it’s “green”… which some argue it isn’t. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9325
“The reason is that there is limited land and agreements have to be created with local governments/people in order to allocate land. Same deal with commercial airlines”
Just to bother you further, ever see There Will Be Blood? Plainview bought up all the land he needed in order to dig pipes for his oil. Nobody was forced to sell their land, he just offered the right price, except one guy wouldn’t sell his land. So he built around it. These things worked back then quite well.
Now, there’s stuff everywhere, and people aren’t as easily bought, so they’re less willing to sell. That’s why they’d contract instead, if the money was right. Which it won’t be, unless of course you’ve got a shiny government subsidy powering the rail. And we all get to pay for it, even if we don’t ride the stupid thing.
Yes you’d have to do local government dealings too, but they’re all under Federal control anyway. States will get antsy but there are always ways to deal with them. You can drop all state funding, which seems to be effective at putting current rails under federal control (BART is on its way).
As for airspace, bear with me: I’d be interested in seeing privatized air. Do it with lasers or wifi or shiny crystals, something that sections it off. Land owners already own x amount of air above their land. Past x it’s able to be bought, whoever’s able to put a fence around it and bids the highest price owns it. The Wild Skies!
Contract with airports. Fly your plane through my space for $0.10/mile. More direct routes will be more expensive. The airport may demand that I make the airspace safe for their planes so I don’t “overbook” my space, otherwise no deal.
Contract with hippie communes. My air will stay 99.95% carbon-free for $50/month. As soon as it’s polluted, I use my CO2/heat lasers to find the source and sue the polluter. Goodbye air pollution. If the polluter is a road, sue him. So, roads better be privatized too. Another discussion.
The coolest: contract with flying city builders. They don’t exist yet, and maybe this is scifi nonsense. But if/when they do, that chunk of air space you bought for 50 bucks over Ashland is suddenly worth ten billion.
Privatization allows for a lot of things. Unfortunately it seems to prevent rail.
Eric,
In order for an all-encompassing rail system to work, a city needs an adequate population density. So it’s possible for a rail system to fail in greenness, but in general, if there is an adequate population density along with good urban planning and management, it will be greener.
That pay for airspace thing sounds like an logistical nightmare. You may be comfortable getting rid of the Transportation Department and letting private parties manage airspace. In a world like that, I wouldn’t fly…and I hope no one would fly close to my house.
Privatized roads? Okay, we should do that…as long as I own those roads!
Check out Mexico. Carlos Slim owns practically everything down there. Privitization in practice!
Simon,
I used to live in NY, and I was one of the lucky ones who paid $1.50.
Even if they raised the fares, think about what that $2.25 gets you. For just over two bucks, you can get anywhere in New York City. That’s a pretty good deal. For those lower class people who complain about the fares, they are correct–it probably does eat up a lot of their budget. However, think about what they would pay if they had to rely on cars. They’d have to rent a space (which is very expensive in some areas, even poor areas). If they live in a bad neighborhood, they’d have to worry about vandalism. They’d have to pay gas and insurance. Plus they’d have to have the money to buy a car in the first place. Now there are eight million people in NYC. Think of what it would be like if everyone had to drive. It would be a nightmare even if people carpooled.
If you pay that $2.25 a ride ($2.00 when you buy 10), it may be expensive, but it’s way cheaper than the alternative. If you get an unlimited ride metrocard and you ride a lot, you do even better. If I drove to every Portland party and get together, I’d be paying $100 a week in gas alone!
I agree with you on the Transcontinental Railroad thing. Even if they had it, I might just opt to fly when going to New York. It’s still way too long of a ride.
However, there are lots of trips that people could take more efficiently through rail. Portland to Seattle, for example, is a trip that many people take. And almost all of them drive. It takes about three hours by car, but it could be done in just an hour with a bullet train. Portland to Vancouver is also a popular trip. (there are issues with Seattle having no public transportation, but that’s also something that should be fixed anyway. Traffic in Seattle is horrible.)
And what about Portland to San Francisco? Everyone takes that trip. That trip could be done in three hours with less waiting time for the passengers. Think of the gas we could save if we reduced airplane usage and got people on trains.
I think there are already existing lines in place with Amtrak, etc.. They’d have to claim some additional land to build a faster train, but they could reduce this by building over the tracks that they have (assuming that it’s relatively straight), thereby eliminating the destruction of communities.
Say the rail is built. If it’s green, great. If it’s not green, we won’t know it, since that would invalidate its original goal. Regardless, it’s built, and the greens rejoice.
But if it’s not profitable, are you in favor of liquidating it?
If it’s not profitable, I favor finding a way to make it profitable! There’s no reason why it shouldn’t be profitable. Amtrak provides a pretty bad experience, which is why it’s not profitable. Plus, they don’t do a very good job of advertising.
Do you really think it’s sound business to build the rail first and THEN find a way to make profit?
Whose money is at stake? Who fronts the money for this venture? Willing investors? Or will you force taxpayers to pay for it, even if they don’t want the thing?
@Eric, tax dollars pay for a lot of things, even if you don’t benefit from it.
Which is why taxes blow, and nobody likes paying them.
Not that I’m entirely in favor of them, but Pigou taxes at least are intended to be paid on a use basis, like cigarette or gas taxes. I doubt we could find a clever way to do this with rail.
“Do you really think it’s sound business to build the rail first and THEN find a way to make profit?”
No, but like all businesses, I think people PLAN to make a profit. Like most businesses, a rail demands a large initial investment before profit.
I think taxpayers DO want the thing. I’m a taxpayer, and I wish I had a rail to take me to Seattle or SF.
Of course they plan to make a profit, but that requires risk investment, and normally you don’t force that from taxpayers, but it’s invested willingly by individuals. If taxpayers want the thing, shouldn’t they be the ones who voluntarily invest in it and reap the rewards, or eat the losses? Rather than forcing everyone to do it, even those who don’t want it?
If it’s going to be profitable, surely you could find some VCs to invest, so you won’t have to bother making it a taxpayer-funded operation. Then those who risk their money have a vested interest in seeing the thing move forward. Those who have their money forced out of their hands and into the operation (taxation) don’t have the know-how or really the interest to see something like this succeed, since they won’t be receiving dividends anyway. Why should they care if it’s profitable, especially if they’re not using it?
“If taxpayers want the thing, shouldn’t they be the ones who voluntarily invest in it and reap the rewards, or eat the losses? Rather than forcing everyone to do it, even those who don’t want it?”
Eric,
What constitutes voluntary? Check out that “Justice” episode. Living here, taking advantage of the military and police, using public schools, driving on public roads–I think most people don’t feel “forced” to be here or to pay for what they’re using. It’s democratic. Sometimes you get what you want, sometimes you don’t.
If it’s going to be profitable, surely you could find some VCs to invest, so you won’t have to bother making it a taxpayer-funded operation.
It’s public. The public benefits with cheaper transportation if the operation is successful. I wouldn’t want a system where VCs benefited from me with a business that by nature has to be a monopoly.
What do you think about Mexico? Carlos Slim owns much of that country, and with little enforcement of anti-monopoly laws, people can’t live without putting their money in his pocket. Is that the libertarian dream that you describe?
Believe it or not I’m more concerned with livelihood than freedoms. If a country is draining its subjects of money, but they’re allowed free marriage and free speech, then it’s not exactly working out.
What interests me is not what YOU think would be a nice public good, but rather what public goods would be worth having, and whether those goods continue to be goods or turn into bads, like BART in the Bay Area. The main problem with your definition of a public good is that nobody owns it, and so there’s no cost accounting. Hence deficits, not profits. And what good is it if it’s running a deficit? Fares go up, use goes down. Take USPS for example. USPS isn’t run by tax dollars past $10B. Are you willing to sink $10B of taxpayer money into your rail before finally throwing in the hat?
Carlos Slim, I never heard of this guy, thanks for the pointer. Sounds like he’s doing some good business for himself, which means he’s selling something that people buy. He wouldn’t be there if people weren’t buying his products (which, by the way, seem to be phone services). Let it also be known that it’s not exactly easy to run a business in Mexico, which is a bigger barrier to entry than Slim’s telecom business. If there’s a problem with this in Mexico then I dare say that’s a problem with Mexico.
As for private rail, at least there’d be cost accounting, and if it breaks you can sue the owner.
It’s not a monopoly since the owner has to compete with gas prices, airline prices, bike prices, etc. There’s no monopoly in transit now, only taxpayer drainage. Your idea would result in a ghost train that runs a $1B deficit every year and drains the very people it’s supposed to help. Then come the rate hikes, then the public service announcements about the benefits of rail… Please spare us your rail.
If you want a better example of monopolistic practices, Golden Gate Bridge is privately owned. So the toll must be thirty bucks right? No, it’s $1 more than alternate routes, and $2 if you pay cash, but that’s a cost-cutting measure. A bridge is a natural “monopoly”, but it still has to compete with ALL other options, not just bridges running in parallel.
Monopoly: USPS. Illegalizes first-class mail delivery by anyone else. That’s a monopoly, thank your democracy for that one.
Eric,
“Golden Gate Bridge is privately owned.”
I don’t think this is factually true. I just looked at the Wiki entry, and it was built from public funds. I’ve never heard of a privately owned road or bridge before, especially if the public built it.
Now if you’re talking about the Golden Gate Transportation District that manages the bridge, that may or may not be privately owned:
http://www.goldengate.org/
It’s looks public; the director is appointed by the Mayor. But even if it’s private (it really doesn’t look like it), it’s no different from other private utility or management firms such as NW Natural or even Verizon that work with government regulation. It’s not a true monopoly if prices and such are regulated. Maybe that accounts for the $2 toll.
My point about Mexico and Carlos Slim is this: it’s much closer to a free market than the U.S., but it’s not necessarily freer. Nor do they necessarily have a better livelihood. Well, Carlos Slim does, but he’s neither you nor me.
Looks like you’re right about the bridge. I mixed it up with this:
“The Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District is a quasi-governmental corporation that owns and operates three regional transportation assets in the San Francisco Bay Area:”
Perhaps this explains why it’s still running a deficit, despite its increase in toll rates over the years.
Mexico is a far cry from being a free market. Starting a business, trade, finance, fiscal freedoms are all pretty good. But the government fixes electrical and energy prices, and it’s extremely corrupt (forget enforcing contracts if your opponent has more money than you). Government corruption is not a libertarian utopia. Without a functioning legal system, freedom is worthless. There are good libertarian ideas for how to enforce contracts, but good law enforcement (either public or private) must go hand in hand with secure property rights. Those can be enforced by a government and used to be quite well throughout history until, oh… 1920, but a government tainted with lobbyists and poor masses who vote to redistribute income their way by definition cannot enforce property rights. Your masses who want their rail must expropriate other subjects against their will in order to get it because rail is not profitable. Diminished property rights result in deficits, crime, and all the other stuff we both hate.
In short, a strong government with strong property rights enforcement will provide far better for its people than a government that won’t even uphold a contract. Where an anarcho-capitalist society sits on that continuum, nobody really knows, I concede that now. But the ultimate failure here is in property rights enforcement. I’m more concerned now with those than freedoms, believe it or not.
For some wonderfully uplifting stories about our Muni system in the SF Bay Area, check out http://www.munidiaries.com/
That’s the problem–when you have no government enforcing laws, you have corruption. How can we talk about a “functioning legal system” and “property rights” when the libertarian platform preaches limited government?
Mexico has a government almost exactly the same as ours with three branches and all that crap. But if the government is corrupt, and Mexico is a democracy, why did Mexicans vote the corrupt government into power? How about African democracies, which have FAR worse corruption? Do they like corruption? Why don’t you hold them up to a higher standard and expect them to vote a non-corrupt government into power?
I’ve detailed libertarian ideas for contract enforcement, but as everyone has rightly pointed out, the ideas are largely untested. However, there are systems with extremely strong property rights and have been tested, and they produced incredible results. I’ve talked about this already too but nobody likes the answer.
still beating that dead horse, eh? it’s more like ground hamburger meat by now
dude, as I’ve stated before in previous posts, I’ve conceded that there are things in your philosophical beliefs that might be beneficial. but i see it beneficial only as it applies on a micro-level to the existing system we now have. and you know this already but i’ve got problems with your libertarian or anarchist stuff on a macro level. i dunno if you’re into the objectivist Ayn Rand shit either.
it isn’t so much that “nobody likes the answer”. you can speak freely until jaehwan thinks you’ve gone over the line on his blog, he’s in charge here. in my mind, you’re starting to come off as one of those zealots of your theories, just like with these committed Marxists or Lyndon LaRouche fringe elements, who feel the need to prove others wrong all the time. and when you phrase things like, “nobody likes the answer”, and your rhetoric of “extortion” and things like that, it comes off as a bit condescending, if you ask me. As if you’re cocksure that you are, in fact, right about everything.
class room theory and discussion? fine. real world applications? for me, not so fine. the difference is really in how we see the world and that is inimical to each of us. no amount of intellectual back and forth on this issue is going to change anyone’s mind. i’m not going to change the mind of OVCP who blasted my example of Warren Buffet in the other thread with the anti Wall Street/capitalism screed. i’m not going to change your mind, and you’re not going to change jaehwan’s. i mean, what’s the point?
“there are systems with extremely strong property rights and have been tested, and they produced incredible results.”
You’re talking about Iceland during the Ice Age right? Okay, maybe not during the Ice Age, but still…you’re talking about feudalistic societies that existed a long time ago, where might made right.
It’s not just practice vs. theory. I think libertarians need theory to support their views, theory that could work in this day and age.
Mexicans don’t have that much power. Many are poor, and when there’s such a large gap between poor and rich, the poor get fleeced. This is one reason why people are always stressing the importance of having a middle class.
But Mexicans vote for their favorite candidates, and surely the poor Mexicans outvote the rich Mexicans. So what gives?
As for the property rights issue, no. It wasn’t just Iceland. It was most of Europe before WWI. Might did make right, and often kept it. If you think today that might doesn’t make right then you’re not seeing how the US runs its foreign policy. We’ve been involved in skirmishes almost every year since WWII. That’s unprecedented.
Mojorider: My guess is Byron enjoys the debate, he and I are quite civil with each other. Sorry if you’re not having fun.
@Eric Jacobus,
Right now, Mexico is a poor example for anything other than a drug war and government instability. You don’t want to delve into Mexico for what was originally a blog entry about carbon offsetting and the reasons why we don’t have high speed trains already.
Carbon offsets <- global warming <- public transit <- taxpayer funding <- democracy <- Mexico
Besides, I wasn’t the one who brought Mexico up. Blame Byron for that one.
Eric,
We’re not talking about foreign policy. We’re talking about domestics. If I need a gun to make sure your respect my “property rights,” I think the society I live in is much worse than one in which I would call my lawyer. And in the society in which I would call my lawyer, that lawyer would use the laws of the government, not the tribe or militia.
Fair enough. Mexico’s got its property rights issues for the same reason as America.
So, say you appeal to your government to protect your property, but it decides against protecting you because a democratically-passed law says your property rights can be voided under this condition. The right to sell milk from your cow? The people say no! We must protect ourselves from bad milk! (read! http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2008/02/23/more_dairies_go_raw/?page=2 – article is almost 2 years old, maybe raw milk is only illegal in 15 states now, I don’t know, but my point stands)
What good is your protective government if you ask it protect your property rights, and it says no? What if it took your house?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
Ah yes, the “Takings Clause” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takings_Clause#Eminent_domain).
Taking this woman’s house was fully constitutional, since the tax advantage of the state owning it was surely in the public’s interest. Our elected officials were good enough to appoint five very intelligent Supreme Court justices who could interpret the Constitution correctly, confiscate the house, and hand it over to the state, who most certainly made the best use of it. (Here it is today, flourishing 4 years later: http://www.dr5.org/tag/kelo/)
My giving examples of property rights abuses is pointless, since it’s like pointing at the night sky and saying “Look, there’s a star”. But here’s my point in all this:
Super strong property rights => Renaissance, German intellectualism, Hong Kong
Weak/no property rights => Cuba
Why would someone enforce property rights? Because it increases the value of their territory. Why would someone stomp on property rights? To please voters and get reelection.
Oh oh I forgot one other reason a state would enforce property rights: to incentivize people to stay. That was especially true when Europe was made of some 1000 territories.