Gregory

Sun, Oct 10, 2010 : 11:52 a.m.

I don't know if I care to be "left behind" or not - I'm not competing with the rest of the US - but I do know that I need reliable choices in transportation - especially in the "less than 500 mile" category. None of my choices today (car, bus, rail, air) are reliable. Rail is a must. (AlphaAlpha - check your history.)

AlphaAlpha

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 8:15 p.m.

Let's stay focused Edward. You asked how things happened; you have the explanation. and your response indicates you understand and agree. Referring to a completely discredited (worldwide, except a few US college campuses) quack such as Marx? Priceless...

Patrick

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 10:46 a.m.

Sb: i would love to talk more about this topic, you seem to understand it the way i do. shoot me an email at patcook1@hotmail because i need insight for research

AlphaAlpha

Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 11:04 p.m.

"IF (and that's a big IF) this explains the global economic growth that happened after WW2, it says NOTHING about the spectacular economic growth that happened in the United States during WW2." Oddly, the additional comment correcting the 'ugh' to 'though' seems to have been removed recently, though it was there before. Sans attribution. Edward, just one quickie explanation: The winner got to rebuild the world. That supercharged the economy in the states for 20-30 years; subsequently, as rebuilt nations came back online, their then cheap currencies allowed them to export in quantities generally sufficient to grow their own economies. The yankees were encouraged to (over)spend, and they did, adding fuel to the economic engine. It all worked very well. Until it didn't: staggering amounts of both debt (public and private), and overcapacity, enough to reduce labor demand, which is reducing wages, etc. etc. Same play, different act. Next rerun: perhaps 80 years on...

sbbuilder

Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 10:16 p.m.

Ghost Lest we forget, the US was nearly bankrupt towards the end of WWII. The flag raising at Mt Suribachi saved the day, by giving the folks back home some assurance that the war was nearing an end; but most importantly, it gave us the largest return on a bond drive in over two years. Businesses were actually refusing to do business with Uncle Sam because they weren't getting paid. So much for WWII getting us out of the depression. What got us finally out of the depression was turning all that wonderful industrial capacity towards building fridges and cars, and selling them to people in OTHER countries. That brought money from around the world back here. Patrick Cook Thanks for your insight. The way I see it, the Europeans and the Japanese had the hell knocked out of them, so when it came time to rebuild, they had more or less a clean slate. They chose to spend more heavily on rail than highways. One of the keys was that the inner cities were often levelled, allowing rail to be rebuilt right to the center. Also, I think there is a strong teamsters element to the trucking vs rail argument. I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that there was a lot of pressure to move tonnage off rails, and onto trucks, and that charge was led by the teamsters.

AlphaAlpha

Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 8:58 p.m.

ugh Keynesians and globalists are loath to admit the possibility, the real economic 'miracle' of the recent world war was that it destroyed a vast amount of productive capacity, ending the deflation of the 1930s. Industrial overcapacity fostered the deflation of the 1930s; It is doing the same in the 2010s. It is quite likely there will be another very major war somewhere in the world sometime during the next few years, again reducing overcapacity; these wars are predictable outcomes of deflationary episodes.

DonBee

Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 5:27 p.m.

If you look back on the Defense Highway system, there was more than politics. It was the cold war. We needed to be able to disperse fighters and other aircraft so they could not be destroyed in mass at airbases. We needed to be able to evacuate cities in the face of a major attack (think nuclear). We also needed to be able to get help the city. Railroads were too easy to target, a single person could take out several rail lines with nothing but hardware store bought tools. The highway system was not just a boondoggle. Should we spend money in a different way for transportation? Probably Should we invest in Roman era cart tracks? No, we should not. If we are going to rebuild the railroads, we need to think about what is the right way to do it. Currently the railroad is a holdover from another era. Rethinking railroads, maybe wider tracks? Maybe other significant changes would offer a chance to move ahead of the rest of the world and make railroads more interesting. As to Michigan being left behind see Verizons announcement of a G4 network yesterday. Not even the Detroit Metro Airport is on the list. Nothing in Michigan is, but Ohio gets wired.

Patrick

Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 4:41 p.m.

wow, after writing that, i found this article about CSX http://jacksonville.com/business/2010-10-06/story/csx-ceo-rail-ready-more

Patrick

Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 4:27 p.m.

Look, an economic student that focuses on public finance and transportation funding. Ghost- yes, the Acela (northeast corridor) does pay for itself, it actually makes a profit of 6 per person, where as the northeast regional, only loses $2 per person. now, Amtrak owns a majority the NEC track, it is a extremely crowded line between freight, commuter rail, IC trains. the NEC was not allowed to bid on high speed rail grants. yet, it has been shown that people will ride the train, the NEC captures 55% of non- car business travel, there is no philly-new york airline shuttle because it is no profitable b/c most businessmen take amtrak. if the NEC was properly funded, amtrak would be able to make a profit off of the NEC. Amtrak needs funds to expand capacity and bring the whole corridor to a state of good repair. if amtrak had stable and adequate funding source, it would become self-sufficient and be able to pay back federal funds. Now i live in NY state and see the benefit of mass transit. a new highway has not been built in the new york metro area in over 30 years. this is because New York and other NE states realize that we need a multi-modal transportation system and are more flexible to gas price increases. When NY hit $4 a gallon two summers ago, the commuter and amtrak trains were packed, they had got to a point that were at 120% capacity on some lines. Yet still, our transportation system is underfunded and i don't mean just the rail and public transportation systems, i mean roads and bridges. To the person that said rail is a 19th century technology, this is not true. trains are the most efficient way to move goods over large distances. Now, to the person who said there has not been any rail lines built in the recent past. This is because the major rail corridors for the country are already there. Freight rail companies are spending huge sums of money to expand and improve the existing infrastructure with government help. if private industry was to burden the whole cost, it would bankrupt them. also, someone said that about ripping tracks up because of lower freight need. This is partly true. when the IS was built it was and still is heavily subsided by the government. at the same time, government taxed the hell out of railroads to pay for the building of the highway system.how were they taxed by the miles of track they owned. how do you lower your cost, defer maintenance and rip up tracks to be tax less even though the amount of tons moved had not dropped, the costs because of unfair competition pushed them out. Private business would love to invest in railroads but that industry has a high cost of entry, Warren Buffet spent $77 billion to buy BNSF railroad because he sees with rising energy costs, railroads will become more important. I would love and want to talk about this subjects and answer any questions on the topic of public policy and transportation finance and history because i think there is a great amount of wrong information out there. shoot me an email at patcook1@hotmail.com

Mick52

Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 4:17 p.m.

Once again Pam Byrnes shows why she should not be in office. I suppose a high speed train from Detroit to Chicago would be great. For people who go Chicago from Detroit and vice versa. I doubt that really many do. Ca is putting in a high speed from SanFran to LA. Price tag is estimated up to $45 billion. Scooter Dog is wrong on the abandonment of cars. When gas hit $4=/gal in 2008, people did just that. Also I have found that bike sales spiked too. It would be foolish to think that gas prices will not go up to that level and higher there. Gas pricing is very unstable and there are many factors that can cause it to spike none of which are completely controllable. So it does make some sense to get some infrastructure to be prepared for that eventuality. But I prefer more local rail, like from Chelsea and Dexter and to the east into A2 for daily commuters. There are a lot and Chelsea and Dexter have historic depots sitting right on that rail line. The key is will it be less costly than paying for gas?

krc

Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 10:03 a.m.

I have fond memories of riding trains when I was a child back East. My Adirondack summer camp rented a Pullman sleeper car in a train that started in Washington DC with stops all the way up through Boston. When we got to Plattsburg NY it was uncoupled while we slept. When we woke, there was the bus to take us and all our gear to our beloved summer camp outside Lake Placid. The trip home was also by train. Loved those sleepers! Many, many years later when my children were little, we had a grand rail adventure starting from A2 and ending out in Flagstaff, AZ. I wanted to give my kids a taste of train travel, which I loved and still love. When I ran a daycare, I used to take the kids to the A2 station to watch the trains come in. It was thrilling every time. Just wanted to share some wonderful memories with you readers out there.

sbbuilder

Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 8:33 a.m.

Ghost Thanks for the info. The tracks around this area are in abysmal condition. You can walk along them (oops, did I mention that I may have done that?) and pull up the spikes by hand. Lots and lots of them. The ties are just rotting away. Try riding the train from here to Battle Creek, and you'll get your teeth knocked out by all the jarring. Pitiful. One factor in the high speed rail equation that is not being discussed is the very high electrical useage of these trains. We simply do not have the electrical infrastructure in place to power these power hungry trains. So, you can build a nice shiny new rail, but unless you can figure out how to power it, it will be useless.

DonBee

Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 10:23 p.m.

"Time to do the same thing now as we did during WW2." Spend heavily on the military? Ration some foods and fuels? Put cars on blocks because tires are rationed? Draft almost every able bodied male into the military? Sell lots of bonds directly to the people? Fix prices on most commodities? Sounds like fun. Didn't Jimmy Carter try some of this too?

AlphaAlpha

Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 7:32 p.m.

"Where we're going, we don't need roads." Perhaps the answer is not in roads, or railroads. Perhaps it's time for a paradigm shift, while our competitors waste money on a comparatively ancient technology.

CynicA2

Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 5:27 p.m.

Just what we don't need... another money-pit boondoggle for our tax dollars: a non- solution to a non- problem. Personal, powered, transportation will continue to be the transport of choice for most people - can't be beat for flexibility and personal freedom. It may eventually be powered by something other than the internal combustion engine, but will remain the dominant way to get from A to B for the foreseeable future. So forget the Choo-Choo, Pam, and get busy fixing OUR roads! I think you've spending too much time at DisneyWorld - probably in FantasyLand!

scooter dog

Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 3:13 p.m.

Why wont business come to michigan? It has nothing to do with the railroad. Why would you pay someone$25.00 a hr when you can go somewhere else and pay them $10-15. and NO union. Thats the main reason. That and out of control business taxes

sbbuilder

Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 12:52 p.m.

Cash There used to be two parallel tracks from Detroit to Chicago, but one set was ripped up around the middle 80's (I think). I'm not sure why one set was removed, but part of that decision had to be that rail traffic was decreasing. Personally, I'm a huge rail fan. Having lived in Europe for a total of five years in two countries, I have experienced first hand how useful and efficient rail can be. The major stations were often coordinated with trolley and bus, so you could de-train and walk up a level and hop onboard a trolley. The Gare du Midi in Brussels is a great example. The whole thing is also underground, which makes it more amazing. I think that building a new rail system is putting the cart before the horse, though. "Build it and they will come" won't work here. This is akin to the Alaska bridge going nowhere. Detroit is becoming a shell of what it once was. Freight traffic has always been the primary user of rails, with passenger traffic second. (The East coast corridor is a bit of an exception because of its population density.) Without an industrial base to link to, I don't see the justification here.

michiganexpats.com

Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 12:39 p.m.

"High-speed rail will make Michigan a better place for businesses to succeed." How? Rail is an antiquated transportation system. If it was useful to businesses, they would invest in the rail system. But it's not, so they don't. Waste of money.

SonnyDog09

Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 11:12 a.m.

"Why would a company want to come to a state that has done NOTHING to provide transportation for it's citizens?" Why is it the state's obligation to provide transportation for its citizens? "NOTHING?" Perhaps you mean nothing besides the buses, roads and airports. Yeah. Other than that.

Cash

Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 10:44 a.m.

Technojunkie, Amtrak is half funded and has never received a commitment to prosper. Look at regional systems like Amtrak out east! It is huge success. It's high speed and it's constantly booked. There's no doubt the long distance Amtrak trains pull down the system. But they fulfill a need. Look how difficult it is to even get people to talk about making the Detroit-Chicago train successful. We need Amtrak tracks to travel on, instead of "sharing" freight tracks, and we need high speed rides. But no one wants to commit. And this has been going on for years. This area continues to regress and can't make bold moves to the future.

Cash

Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 10:36 a.m.

Scooter Fog, So,here will people be unable to give up a car? Ever been to Chicago? Ever been to New York? Ever been to Baltimore? Ever been to Boston? Ever been to Seattle? I could go on but you get the point. Not only are other industrial nations light years behind the US in this area but even within the US, SE Michigan lags behind even further. Why would a company want to come to a state that has done NOTHING to provide transportation for it's citizens? We are ill prepared for any growth so it's clear we don't expect it. And generally you get what you expect to get.

abc

Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 8:23 a.m.

E R. Ms G I saw the NYTs article you referenced this morning and decided to try to see if Rick Snyder took a hard position on this issue. The closest I got was the following on his website: Michigan must properly plan growth, offer incentives to youth, combat poverty and crime, restore funding for the arts and invest in infrastructure and mass transit. Michigan needs to address urban sprawl with smart growth strategies would offer tax credits as an incentive for young professionals who choose to live and work in the city, like Maine has successfully done. The state also needs to work closely with local agencies and encourage community collaboration to make Michigans cities safer, fight poverty and help those in need. Michigan needs to invest in the arts and cultural community which generate nearly $2 billion annually. Michigan must prioritize investment in the states crumbling infrastructure and develop a long-range transportation plan that includes mass transit without increasing the burden on taxpayers. Somehow though concluding that the state should develop a transportation system without it impacting taxes is oxymoronic. But then again if you look closely he is calling for a plan not a system.

Technojunkie

Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 7:57 a.m.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEZjzsnPhnw Just sayin'. If Amtrak weren't such a government boondoggle I'd probably like the idea of implementing high speed rail more.

stunhsif

Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 7:50 a.m.

I agree with scooter dog. It would be a huge waste of taxpayer money and we have far more pressing issues to deal with. If you want high speed get the private sector to pay for it. That won't happen because high speed rail would not be profitable for at least another 50 years. When you can fly to Chicago for less than 100 bucks why would anyone take a train. And the further the distance you are traveling the less sense it makes.

Top Cat

Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 7:35 a.m.

Sure, the government spends more money on money losing projects and the result is more jobs and prosperity. Yes, that has been proven without a doubt the last 2 years. Let's do more of it.

scooter dog

Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 7:27 a.m.

People are not going to give up their vehicles to ride the train.I don't care how much gas costs. Just another frivolous,blowing smoke in the wind waste of taxpayers money.

Ian

Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 12:16 a.m.

I am all for fast trains so I can avoid the draconian and dangerous (20X the level of ration than we were told) naked full body scanners at the airports. Full body scanners that do not work and only reason why they are their is to train us to be sheep. I cannot believe Americans accept such humiliation. They can clearly see your private parts and the TSA is saving the scans. They told us they would not and could not save them. I think Rep. Byrnes should also campaign to get rid of naked full body scans. Hopefully they won't install them in train and bus stations. Michael Chertoff (former Homeland Security boss) must be making a killing pimping these scanners. I wonder how he is so well positioned to make money on terrorist events. Huuummmm.

Macabre Sunset

Mon, Oct 4, 2010 : 11:56 p.m.

Railroads are a 19th Century solution to a 21st Century problem. If relied on, all they do is increase the difference between the haves and the have nots. They are not cost-effective, which is why there's no private push to develop new railroads, as there was 150 years ago. The ideal long-term solution is to develop renewable sources of energy and improve our roads system.

5c0++ H4d13y

Mon, Oct 4, 2010 : 10:46 p.m.

After reading this I don't see the argument FOR high speed rail other than we need or we'll be behind them. Behind who? And what will they do with high speed rail that we cannot that will set us behind and in what way? What business or commerce will they do that we wont by moving their people at high speed on a fixed rail system? Of course the rail system is being upgraded with billions of dollars using private funding by the freight lines.

sbbuilder

Mon, Oct 4, 2010 : 9:47 p.m.

Ghost I actually agree with much of what you have written. Yup, the IS was built under Eisenhower's tutelage in part to move armies around rapidly. Our economy was busting at the seams back then, and affording this vast system seemed fiscally possible. I think we are in a very, very different position today. The sticking point here is 'federal dollars'. Just what exactly are federal dollars? Since 100% of taxes are already accounted for, we must borrow heavily from other countries, especially China. In essence, you are advocating that we borrow money from China to build a domestic rail system. Do you see a problem with that? I do.

AlphaAlpha

Mon, Oct 4, 2010 : 9:22 p.m.

Mr. Batterman - All aboard the federal gravy train... "From the perspective of economic efficiency alone, this makes no sense, since rail is faster and cheaper for mid-range travel." Only from urban center to urban center. Vast areas of the states are, and will remain, unserved by rails. Thus, additional modes of transportation are needed to complete the journey, typically before, and after, the train ride, along with their attendant transfer issues, costs, and inefficiencies. Net-net, like it or not, trucks and cars are really good at moving things from exactly where they are to exactly where they need to be. "High-speed rail investments could also bring more manufacturing to Michigan. " Could? Don't bet on it. If MI gets these rails, everyone will have them, and we'll be exactly where we are. Uncompetitive. "Let us know what we can do to bring the rest of your colleagues in line." Show us a good business case? With numbers, not emotions?

Joel Batterman

Mon, Oct 4, 2010 : 8:41 p.m.

US subsidies for rail are minute compared to those for virtually every other industrialized country, and a number of developing countries, notably China. The question is one of which modes of transport to subsidize. The US has chosen to subsidize air travel and highways exclusively. From the perspective of economic efficiency alone, this makes no sense, since rail is faster and cheaper for mid-range travel. High-speed rail investments could also bring more manufacturing to Michigan. Wisconsin got two new rail plants as part of its deal to buy railcars from train company Talgo. See also the report on Midwest rail at http://cdn.publicinterestnetwork.org/assets/383722fb41a7892af848673906fd84ac/Connecting-the-Midwest-vMI-web.pdf, and http://www.transportmichigan.org/2010/10/rail-improvements-will-reach-vast.html. Thanks for your work, Congresswoman Byrnes. Let us know what we can do to bring the rest of your colleagues in line.

AlphaAlpha

Mon, Oct 4, 2010 : 8:14 p.m.

Ms. Byrnes - An impassioned plea, perhaps. Such a lovely vision you have painted. But, what is the actual business case for this suggestion? The historic successes of the states were achieved without high speed rail; the historic problems we face now are not caused by a lack of same. Even if the concept is sound, should we entrust it to the same folks who have allowed they very decay they now bemoan? Amtrak has neglected proper investment for 40 years now; and only survives with significant subsidies. Not saying it's a bad idea, just show us a real business case with numbers. Please?

sbbuilder

Mon, Oct 4, 2010 : 8:12 p.m.

"Naysayers will roll out the same old arguments about government spending. And I understand that..." Well, no, I don't think you do understand 'that'. I agree with you that our transportation infrastructure is woefully inadequate. I agree with you that we are being left farther and farther behind. I agree that our State needs a vast improvement in 'jobs,...businesses, and...investment...'. Where I disagree forceably is that we need to borrow ever more deeply in order to pay for this improvement. For the sake of argument, if we build a high speed rail from Chicago to Detroit, but have no manufacturing left, then it will be an all but useless exercise. I think we are taking our eye off the ball here. We will live or die in this state on our ability to manufacture. We need to focus on 'that'.