Amtrak Economics

[DFW HOYA]

Amtrak wants, get this, $117 billion for a high speed rail line from Washington to Boston, and it'll take 30 years to build. (That's about $50,000 per foot).

Meanwhile, in formerly Red China, that nation will be adding 4,000 miles of high speed track... by 2013.

greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=7344

[vcjack]

I'd imagine that Chinese attitudes towards Eminent Domain are a little different than American views

[Boz]

Sept 29, 2010 20:25:49 GMT -5 vcjack said:

I'd imagine that Chinese attitudes towards Eminent Domain are a little different than American views

Also, no union contracts.

[jerseyhoya34]

Although a recent development, there are unions and union contracts in China.

I think some privatization would help our own railroad but only marginally. I don't think you'll scare up too much interest in some Amtrak routes in the midwest and south.

The problem is that there is only one region that is profitable for Amtrak, and it has to live with its other routes.

[Boz]

Interesting, Jersey. I did not know that.

Tough, I imagine the terms of union contracts in China probably vastly differ from those in the U.S.

[HoyaNyr320]

I love how some conservatives will call Obama a Socialist on one day and then the next day talk about how we need to be more like China. Newt did this just a couple weeks ago:

www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_09/025560.php

I don't mean to direct this specifically at you Boz, your comment just reminded me of this phenomenon.

[Boz]

For the record, and I recognize that it wasn't directed to me, I am not really all that much against unions.

Well....in principle, anyway. (Practice is another matter altogether.)


Besides, the pundit with the biggest case of China envy ain't Newt Gingrich. It's Tom Friedman. But I guess that makes sense.

Anyway, digression over. Please resume discussion of how China is kicking our ass on the railways (among other areas).

[The Stig]

Japan has weaker eminent domain laws than the US, a much more mountainous terrain, and a much higher population density, but they've still been able to build arguably the world's best high-speed rail network.

A nationwide high-speed network in the US is unrealistic. But a group of regional networks could all be profitable on their own, provided they're built right. Simply upgrading current lines to "high speed" doesn't work, since the real restrictions are other slow trains on the tracks like freight trains and commuter trains. A dedicated right of way is absolutely essential.

Regional networks in the Northeast Corridor, the Midwest (centered on Chicago), Florida, Texas, and California would all be very successful. They may be expensive to build, but the contribution they'd make to our economy would be immense. Just look at the TGV in France or the bullet trains in Japan - both built by modern democracies with the same obstacles we have here in the US - and both hugely successful, profitable, and absolutely integral parts of their respective economies.

[SirSaxa]

Sept 30, 2010 0:20:10 GMT -5 The Stig said:

Japan has weaker eminent domain laws than the US, a much more mountainous terrain, and a much higher population density, but they've still been able to build arguably the world's best high-speed rail network.

A nationwide high-speed network in the US is unrealistic. But a group of regional networks could all be profitable on their own, provided they're built right. Simply upgrading current lines to "high speed" doesn't work, since the real restrictions are other slow trains on the tracks like freight trains and commuter trains. A dedicated right of way is absolutely essential.

Regional networks in the Northeast Corridor, the Midwest (centered on Chicago), Florida, Texas, and California would all be very successful. They may be expensive to build, but the contribution they'd make to our economy would be immense. Just look at the TGV in France or the bullet trains in Japan - both built by modern democracies with the same obstacles we have here in the US - and both hugely successful, profitable, and absolutely integral parts of their respective economies.

Good points Stig, but what I have heard from RR people is the biggest problem with the NE rail and high speed trains is the pre-existing track "footprint" -- i.e., far too many curves and too sharp. TGV and Bullet trains require straighter track to really take advantage of their high speed capabilities.

[theexorcist]

Sept 29, 2010 23:29:27 GMT -5 HoyaNyr320 said:

I love how some conservatives will call Obama a Socialist on one day and then the next day talk about how we need to be more like China. Newt did this just a couple weeks ago:

www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_09/025560.php

I don't mean to direct this specifically at you Boz, your comment just reminded me of this phenomenon.

The comments you linked to seem to throw the dagger at the US - hey, even the communists who are all about high taxes in general accept that low capital gains taxes grow businesses - rather than praising China.

I continue to be amazed that Moscow, capital of the country that lost the Cold War, can run trains every ninety seconds and Washington runs trains on the weekends every 20-40 minutes. I'm not praising the Russians.

[TC]

Sept 30, 2010 8:37:31 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

The comments you linked to seem to throw the dagger at the US - hey, even the communists who are all about high taxes in general accept that low capital gains taxes grow businesses - rather than praising China.

So let me get this straight - Boz thinks Tom Friedman is a Communist because he admires the way the Chinese are approaching clean energy and the way they aren't hampered in future efforts to reign in emissions by gridlock and fossil fuel lobbying (made possible by government control over industry) - but Newt Gingrich is not a Communist because he admires their low capital gains taxes which are made possible by government control of industry.

I think both of them are as far from a Communist as you can get, but what troubles me about Gingrich's quote is that this time I don't think he has any intention of balancing the budget. You can't cut capital gains taxes to 0 and make the Bush tax cuts permanent and have any chance of balancing the budget without adding gigantic taxes elsewhere - whether they be VAT or carbon or who knows what.

[Boz]

No, I think you are a Communist.

[theexorcist]

Sept 30, 2010 9:08:25 GMT -5 TC said:

Sept 30, 2010 8:37:31 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

The comments you linked to seem to throw the dagger at the US - hey, even the communists who are all about high taxes in general accept that low capital gains taxes grow businesses - rather than praising China.

So let me get this straight - Boz thinks Tom Friedman is a Communist because he admires the way the Chinese are approaching clean energy and the way they aren't hampered in future efforts to reign in emissions by gridlock and fossil fuel lobbying (made possible by government control over industry) - but Newt Gingrich is not a Communist because he admires their low capital gains taxes which are made possible by government control of industry.

I think both of them are as far from a Communist as you can get, but what troubles me about Gingrich's quote is that this time I don't think he has any intention of balancing the budget. You can't cut capital gains taxes to 0 and make the Bush tax cuts permanent and have any chance of balancing the budget without adding gigantic taxes elsewhere - whether they be VAT or carbon or who knows what.

The nexus of Tom Friedman's article was that, wow, the US was riven with internal debate, and wouldn't things be grand if everything was state-directed.

The nexus of Gingrich's remarks were that, hey, even the country that sent its people to work in the fields for a decade and that still officially is considered Communist has decided to choose some pro-business practices - maybe they're not that bad.

[jerseyhoya34]

We had January 2001-January 2008 for "pro-business practices." This included cuts to the capital gains tax, beginning in the later Clinton years. We tried every shibboleth in the books. We gave the people their money back, and it turned into one of the worst American investments in history. We were also told that the Bush White House would be run like a business. Mission accomplished indeed.

Historically, the cap gains rate was lower during the 1920's and Great Depression than it is today. Hmm...

Part of the problem is that our tax policy has become so piggish that business owners and families are making risky investment decisions that the market (and their wallets) simply cannot sustain. The idea that you can flush substantial gains on your home when you sell it every two years is no better example. Many people thought that would apply to them. Oops.

[theexorcist]

Sept 30, 2010 9:40:58 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

We had January 2001-January 2008 for "pro-business practices." This included cuts to the capital gains tax, beginning in the later Clinton years. We tried every shibboleth in the books. We gave the people their money back, and it turned into one of the worst American investments in history. We were also told that the Bush White House would be run like a business. Mission accomplished indeed.

Historically, the cap gains rate was lower during the 1920's and Great Depression than it is today. Hmm...

Part of the problem is that our tax policy has become so piggish that business owners and families are making risky investment decisions that the market (and their wallets) simply cannot sustain. The idea that you can flush substantial gains on your home when you sell it every two years is no better example. Many people thought that would apply to them. Oops.

Everyone who voted in 2008 thought that they were voting for change. Your guy isn't any better.

[TC]

Sept 30, 2010 9:32:14 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

The nexus of Tom Friedman's article was that, wow, the US was riven with internal debate, and wouldn't things be grand if everything was state-directed.

The nexus of Gingrich's remarks were that, hey, even the country that sent its people to work in the fields for a decade and that still officially is considered Communist has decided to choose some pro-business practices - maybe they're not that bad.

So you're saying they are both Communists?

[theexorcist]

Sept 30, 2010 9:53:06 GMT -5 TC said:

Sept 30, 2010 9:32:14 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

The nexus of Tom Friedman's article was that, wow, the US was riven with internal debate, and wouldn't things be grand if everything was state-directed.

The nexus of Gingrich's remarks were that, hey, even the country that sent its people to work in the fields for a decade and that still officially is considered Communist has decided to choose some pro-business practices - maybe they're not that bad.

So you're saying they are both Communists?

The practices, not the autocratic, corrupt,dissent-quashing, Tibet-crushing, make-your-family-pay-for-the-bullet-they-used-to-kill-you thugs who run China.

[SirSaxa]

Sept 30, 2010 9:32:14 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

The nexus of Tom Friedman's article was that, wow, the US was riven with internal debate, and wouldn't things be grand if everything was state-directed.

No, that wasn't his point at all -- at least, not the second part above. He was not calling for State direction, he was pointing out the cornerstone of democracy has been a willingness to compromise for the good of the nation. That has been lost in the current political/media environment.

The example of China being able to come up with a long range perspective and plan -- for its economy and environment -- while the US languishes despite our myriad advantages demonstrates how ineffective/counterproductive our current (last 10 years or so) political structure is.

[TC]

Sept 30, 2010 9:58:42 GMT -5 SirSaxa said:

No, that wasn't his point at all -- at least, not the second part above. He was not calling for State direction, he was pointing out the cornerstone of democracy has been a willingness to compromise for the good of the nation. That has been lost in the current political/media environment.

The example of China being able to come up with a long range perspective and plan -- for its economy and environment -- while the US languishes despite our myriad advantages demonstrates how ineffective/counterproductive our current (last 10 years or so) political structure is.

Thank you Saxa.

The only reason he's even making a China comparison (rather than Germany or the Netherlands or the UK or Canada) is because he wants to see our clean energy businesses compete with the Chinese - for research and manufacturing. He's made the same argument (almost the same column) now at least 7 or 8 times in the last two years, not sure how this is so hard to grasp.

[theexorcist]

Sept 30, 2010 9:58:42 GMT -5 SirSaxa said:

Sept 30, 2010 9:32:14 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

The nexus of Tom Friedman's article was that, wow, the US was riven with internal debate, and wouldn't things be grand if everything was state-directed.

No, that wasn't his point at all -- at least, not the second part above. He was not calling for State direction, he was pointing out the cornerstone of democracy has been a willingness to compromise for the good of the nation. That has been lost in the current political/media environment.

The example of China being able to come up with a long range perspective and plan -- for its economy and environment -- while the US languishes despite our myriad advantages demonstrates how ineffective/counterproductive our current (last 10 years or so) political structure is.

There's been an ongoing debate regarding China vs. India, best exemplified now in sporting events. China hosted the Beijing Olympics, widely considered flawless. India's about to host the Commonwealth Games, which are going to be a disaster (short list - venues have collapsed, cobras are in athlete residences, etc.).

China's success in the Beijing Olympics and its ease of ability to come up with plans for the economy and the environment are significantly due to the fact that it's an autocratic state. India, as a democracy, can't simply bulldoze what it wants and has to deal with suboptimal (in some cases, failures) solutions.

Friedman likes the Chinese model. It works and it gets results.

But it's evil.