Midwest HSR?
If you were willing to spend tens of billions of dollars on aid to auto companies, that would help people living in the rust belt. But by the same token, if you agreed to buy tens of billions of dollars worth of cereal that would also help the Michigan economy. Or what if you spent it on this:
High-speed rail could cut travel time between Detroit and Washington from nine hours to three — just a smidge longer than the train ride from Washington to New York, from downtown to downtown. And you’d never have to take your shoes off, unless you wanted to. High-speed rail would also cut a five-hour drive from Detroit to Chicago to just over an hour. Detroit to Cleveland? Just under and hour. Detroit to Pittsburgh? About an hour and a half.
High-speed rail would, in other words, turn Rust Belt distances into northeast corridor distances, while also shifting the Rust Belt closer to the northeast corridor. It would increase the return to doing business in every city in the region. It would be the Erie Canal and the original railroads on steroids.
And here’s the thing — California is estimating that its 800-mile high-speed rail network will cost it about $45 billion over twenty or so years. The actual cost will probably be higher than that, and a Midwest network would be larger and therefore more expensive, but the total cost is in the same ballpark as the $50 billion in aid automakers are begging for (which wouldn’t even be spread out over a period of years).
I think after what’s just been done for Citigroup, nobody — myself included — has much of a leg to stand on in opposing giveaways to car companies or anyone else. But it’s still the case that money could be better spent on public investments that would both directly create demand for industrial products and also build productive infrastructure for the future, than simply on covering the operating costs of industrial firms and hoping for the best.
117 Responses to “Midwest HSR?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 25th, 2008 at 9:30 am
I will publicly weep tears of join if & when this happens. To see my beloved Rust Belt homeland finally shepherded into the 21st century. To free me from the thousand annoyances of airline travel. To avoid hundreds of car crash deaths on I-70 and I-80. My god, it will be beautiful.
November 25th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Or, instead of trains we could just build really, really, really big SUV’s. And really straight roads.
November 25th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Bah — joy, not join. Shows just how emotional I get about transit.
November 25th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Is this assuming that the automakers would be totally unable to pay back the loans to them?
November 25th, 2008 at 9:42 am
I agree. (Perhaps not as tearfully as Tom, but whole-heartedly, nonetheless). I live in the rustiest of rust belt cities, and am, therefore, connected to the auto industry, however tangentially. I think a way to complete the circle would be to engage the factories and labor we use(d) to build cars and trucks to build the rolling stock of the proposed rail system. GM used to be (until it sold the division in 2004) the second largest manufacturer of locomotives in the United States.
p.s. Since “they” keep saying how important water is going to be in the 21st Century, perhaps the rust belt could get some positive PR by renaming itself the Water Belt.
November 25th, 2008 at 9:46 am
I’ll bailout out ny writer who promises not to use the tiresome Friedman-esque phrase “it’s not X, it’s X on steroids.”
November 25th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Or they could bail out the big 3 and build the HSR, Matthew.
People seem determined to blow as much money on the financial institutions as possible. It would be nice to have HSR in all reasonably dense regions of the country before the debt hits $30 trillion.
I’m beginning to wonder if US politicians are looking at Universal Healthcare and thinking, “Hmmm, that would reduce the government’s unfunded healthcare liabilities from about $32 trillion down to about $20 trillion or so. That gives us about $10 trillion to play with!”
The world has shown no willingness to punish the United States for its profligacy. During this mess that is largely of America’s making, the response from the world has been to ditch foreign assets and flee to American debt for safety sake. As long as future debt is incurred in a steady stream, rather than in big massive chunks that the rest of the world is incapable of absorbing, people will continue to give the US the benefit of the doubt because they have less faith in their own economies.
Spend, spend, spend, especially on long term projects!
November 25th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Connecting the Midwest to the East Coast is going to be much more expensive, however
There’s a railroad tunnel through the Berkshires for the line connecting Boston to Albany, which is only big enough for single-stacked containers. If it was enlarged to allow double-stacked containers, not only would it allow the HSR connection (as the Albany line continues to to Buffalo and then around the Great Lakes), but it would also shift a truly impressive amount of land frieght from trucks on I-95 and I-90 onto rail.
November 25th, 2008 at 9:54 am
We can most of this benefit for less than half the cost and much more quickly with the existing semi-HSR projects already laid out … the Ohio Hub and the Midwest Hub.
And that can be fit into the critical strategic need to electrify STRACNET, which is a program that can be pursued with bonding authority alone for the finance, without any need for tax funding … electrification of freight rail can easily be self-funding, since electric rail reduces operating costs and capital costs other than the electric infrastructure even at low oil costs, so a public authority building the electric overhead can refund the bonds with user fees.
Establish high speed freight lines (110mph) for fast electric freight that meets the FRA guidelines to run on regular freight lines and also has the control equipment to run safely with world standard lighter weight passenger tilt-trains, build up high speed lines with the appropriate elevations around curves for higher speed operation next to the heavy freight lines with the elevations around curves appropriate to low speed operations, and we can have 110mph passenger trains on both the Ohio and Midwest Hubs, linking through to the New York State system at Buffalo and the Keystone (Pennsylvania) corridor at Pittsburgh.
With that in place, we get a large number of true HSR connections between the Northeast Corridor and the Ohio to Midwest system with a single true HSR corridor, New York to Chicago.
November 25th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Matt, get over it. It’s way cool to imagine futuristic societies with fancy gadgets, but you’re again thinking in terms of what America can do, what not what America needs. Who the heck expects or even wants a new business commuter class between Detroit and Washington, and what would they do there, other than lobby for federal funds?
Amtrak’s NE corridor thrives in traffic because of three factors. There’s a huge concentration of urban centers. Each of these is a classic urban pattern of busy city as a hub of surrounding communities. And the unique nature of New York and Washington as power centers drives traffic all of its own, including Beltway types like Matt.
We need investment in urban patterns like this, including investment in mass transit and housing locally. We do not need to encourage further the spreading out of America. Matt thinks he’s looking ahead, after reading too many comic strips, but he’s looking back to Robert Moses instead. It’s energy inefficient, and it’s not going to happen anyhow. My next family vacation, even in this imagined tech future, will not be from New York to Detroit.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:00 am
High speed freight makes me drool. How realistic is mag-lev?
Also, low speed canal transport is very exciting. There’s got to be a class of products for which low-speed transport makes sense. Sort of the other end of “just in time” shipping–use modern inventory systems to figure out what big heavy things you’ll need 8 months from now. Order them way in advance, and ship ‘em slow for almost nothing.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:06 am
This may be a more realistic idea than most people think. The Tech Belt Initiative, a governmental coalition between Allegheny County (Pittsburgh), Youngstown, and Cleveland is picking up steam. Ohio and PA legislators are getting board and a high speed rail corridor is very much on the agenda. Detroit aside, these areas, particularly Youngstown, have had serious challenges over the past 30 years. Cleveland is now experiencing a serious decline to rival Detroit’s. Pittsburgh is on the upswing and it makes sense to maximize that, especially now. There is a lot of potential (and millions of people) in the area for green tech to take off in a big way. HSR can only help.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:11 am
But it’s still the case that money could be better spent on public investments that would both directly create demand for industrial products and also build productive infrastructure for the future, than simply on covering the operating costs of industrial firms and hoping for the best.
I think DTM and misterarthur are close.
Resolved: Michigan and Ohio depend too much on car companies.
Resolved: All the other countries in the world are not stupid enough to allow their car companies go down the drain. (Which is part of why ours is.)
Resolved: We need a massively upgraded transport network, not just for jobs, but to allow for future growth.
Resolved: All this stuff needs to be not based on oil.
Resolved: We need electric/hybrids to go with this mess.
So, we bail out the car companies at the(ir) cost of being reorganized into regional manufacturers of transport. (For political reasons, because the politicians will want to hurt car companies otherwise, but also because they need regional flavor to their designs to hold markets.) GM stops being GM and part of it starts being the Southeastern-based manufacturer of transport (Saturn Motors?), part of Chrysler plus some addons from GM head west to Cali, Ford stays where it is/edges towards Chicago, bits from all three become a northeastern car company, and the legacy stuff from all three companies gets funneled into one company centered around Kansas city (or so) – call that one the new AMC – they get the Jeep.
Tack on to the new companies some other manufacturers, and we should be getting close to fairly robust set of transport manufacturers. (All three companies thinned themselves out at the behest of Wall Street. Bad idea.)
We start building the Interstate Rail Network (automated, multi-track, multi-lane, federal), and start basically buying electric vehicles from the now five manufacturers, as soon as they can ramp.
Of course, the criticism would be that we would be engaged in industrial planning. But, over the last two or three decades, we have adopted the de facto industrial plan of liquidating the industrial base and shipping it overseas and giving the paper to finance, while sticking with gasoline and/or going to war over oil. So we’d just be switching plans.
max
['Time to get serious.']
November 25th, 2008 at 10:14 am
I know I’m missing the point entirely, (and for the record I’m not 73, but 37), but what was wrong with the old Twentieth Century Limited? You board in New York in the early evening, have a lovely trout dinner and maybe a Gibson with Eve Marie Saint, and in the morning, you’re in Chicago. That’s plenty high speed in my book.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:14 am
A few years ago, when the dollar was still strong, my wife and I took the TGV from Paris to Avignon. It took less than three hours. The distance from Paris is Avignon is about 460 miles. The distance from Washington to Chicago is 595 miles. Can you imagine four- or even five-hour train travel from Union Station in D.C. to Chicago? Why not? How much time does it take to get from D.C. to downtown Chicago by air, especially if the flight is from Dulles to O’Hare?
November 25th, 2008 at 10:14 am
GM’s actions against the streetcar network were motivated in large part of the knowledge that diesel buses wear out faster and are therefore good for repeat business. (Planned obsolescence. Rending is better than mending, children..)
A rail network is very much a one time shot of employment, and for that reason I expect much opposition. (And a good deal of support from those who can tell ass from elbow).
November 25th, 2008 at 10:16 am
How about picking off some low-hanging fruit first. Start with finishing of the Pennsylvania corridor. Philly to Harrisburg, the Keystone Corridor, is already HSR-lite (up to 110 MPH). How about extending that to Pittsburgh to make it sort of a HSRgateway to the East Coast. Pretty please?
November 25th, 2008 at 10:22 am
investing in a Midwest HSR network is one of the highest in bang-for-buck terms because it turns out the setup is nearly ideal for HSR: big cities at the right distances with mostly level and relatively low-density land in between.
You’d almost think that the area was built up in the era of the train.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Roman,
My heart agrees but my head doesn’t. Not that a Keystone HSR would be a bad thing. I go to Philly more than DC and would LOVE to take a HSR train. However, as a means of stimulus, A Detroit to DC corridor would pump a ton of cash and opportunity in a lot of depressed areas. And Somerset county in Western PA is almost a DC suburb and almost a Pittsburgh suburb anyways. Linking Pittsburgh and Washington makes sense. Extending rail through the Rust Belt makes sense.
As it is, a new business-class bus service operating between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh seems to be doing fairly well and satisfies a need. I’m going to try it after the Holidays en route to Philly.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:27 am
There are many, many places where new rail based infrastructure would have significant benefits, but the posted claims about three hour Detroit-Washington rail timings are frightfully dishonest. Dishonest on the level of “cutting estate taxes on the ultra-rich will drive an economic boom” or “landing US troops in Iraq will help rapidly turn Syria and Saudia Arabia into Swiss-style democracies”
High speed rail Paris-Marseilles (406 miles as the crow flies) takes 6 hours and was only considered because high speed routes had already been built over most of the route (Paris-Lyon) and is highly integrated into a very efficient SNCF network. Detroit-Washington (407 miles) has zero high speed infrastructure in place (none of the freight RR trackage is remotely suitable) and would be utterly isolated from any high-density feeder rail routes. You’re talking about a $100 billion investment–one of the dumbest uses of $100 billion that you could possibly come up with.
Slobbering enthusiasm for really bad, totally half-baked proposals just undermines serious efforts to increase needed rail funding. Why do you keep doing it?
November 25th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Who the heck expects or even wants a new business commuter class between Detroit and Washington, and what would they do there, other than lobby for federal funds?
Detroit-DC, I’ll grant you, is something that a Districtite would come up with. But if you’re talking about, say, the stretch of the upper Midwest between Pittsburgh and Milwaukee, which just happens to include Chicago, then there are lots of routes that make sense.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:39 am
. You’re talking about a $100 billion investment–one of the dumbest uses of $100 billion that you could possibly come up with.
I’ll see this dumb use of $100 billion and raise you one Hank Paulson.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:41 am
High speed rail Paris-Marseilles (406 miles as the crow flies) takes 6 hours
Er, no. It takes three hours; even before the final section of the line was upgraded south of Lyon, it was 4:20.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Hwkeye said: “…the old Twentieth Century Limited? You board in New York in the early evening, have a lovely trout dinner and maybe a Gibson with Eve Marie Saint, and in the morning, you’re in Chicago….”
Yeah, but then you wind up in a cornfield outside Chicago being strafed by a biplane. Who needs that?
November 25th, 2008 at 10:47 am
It is more in the 100 to 500 mile range where HSR competes effectively with cars and/or airplanes.
Yep, and you do need to think of it in terms of time. Three hours’ travel each way can mean ‘long day trip’ or ‘business trip with the chance to work in comfort en route’, which is why the extension to Marseille made a difference. Something like Cleveland/Detroit-Chicago is in that sweet spot.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:53 am
RoboticGhost Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 10:27 am
But the Keystone Corridor, which Roman refers to, is a worthwhile route in any event, and could be finished much more quickly than a true HSR from DC to Detroit through West Virginia, which would involve quite a lot of tunneling.
As I read more of these comments, it continues to read as if these are new ideas, when the Midwest Hub, Ohio Hub, Keystone Corridor, and Empire Corridor are all in early or advanced planning stages. They just need the funding to bring them through to completion.
And the Ohio Hub would be cheaper than bailing out a single Wall Street firm or Detroit auto-maker … working with existing alignments saves Billions of dollars in alignment acquisition costs … tens of billions for a line turns into hundreds of millions for a line.
Remember that California is a special case because of the difficulty geography of getting out of the Bay and LA Basin areas … in Ohio and the Midwest, the terrain is suitable for getting semi-HSR up much more quickly for much less money.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:57 am
RG: The high-speed section between Philly and Harrisburg cost $165 million in 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Corridor
With the numbers that are being thrown around being thrown around, finishing the Pennsylvania corridor really does look like a low-hanging fruit. It would add flexibility to the proposed network, while costing next to nothing in the grand scheme of things.
November 25th, 2008 at 11:14 am
As I read more of these comments, it continues to read as if these are new ideas, when the Midwest Hub, Ohio Hub, Keystone Corridor, and Empire Corridor are all in early or advanced planning stages. They just need the funding to bring them through to completion
True enough. I am regionally myopic, I suppose, and would really like to see a HSR connection that serves NE Ohio and SW PA. There is a lot of economic potential there if the region can gets itself organized and a lot of potential political oomph there to boot that would benefit the Rust Belt as a whole. There is an element of sibling rivalry standing in the way that an HSR link might help overcome to a degree by shrinking the area and letting people in Youngstown work in Pittsburgh or Cleveland and so on.
November 25th, 2008 at 11:46 am
And adding the Ohio Hub to the Keystone Corridor does exactly that. Just with upgrades underway and existing routes to be upgraded, the Midwest Hub extends from Chicago to (clockwise)
Grand Rapids
Detroit
Cleveland
Indianapolis / Lousiville
St. Louis
Quincy
Milwaukee / Minneapolis/St. Paul
Add in the Ohio Hub, and the Keystone Corridor connects to Toledo, Detroit and Chicago and points west as via Cleveland and Cincinatti and Indianapolis via Columbus.
November 25th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
I’m curious about this doppelganger planet in which huge numbers of people want to, or have to, travel between points in the American Midwest. Back here on Earth, large amounts of *stuff* has to travel between (Ibid.), rather than people.
November 25th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
This DailyKos post , points to a Kerry-Spector Bill to provide Federal funding for several HSR networks, including:
1. connecting the cities of the Midwest through Chicago,
2. connecting the cities of the Northwest,
3. connecting the major cities within Texas and Florida,
4. connecting all the cities up and down the East Coast.
Moreover, Isakson of Georgia is very interested in getting in on the deal to get a DC-Atlanta and Atlanta-Texas link.
From there, it’s only a brief hop to get Coast-to-Coast HSR networks, each founded on solid regional clusters, but still connecting the country.
November 25th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Oops, sorry about the style screwup there.
November 25th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Further evidence of the connection between Pittsburgh and DC: Fallout 3’s second DLC package will beset in the ruins of Pittsburgh. I doubt there will be high speed rail though.
November 25th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
This would rock.
November 25th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Rich in PA in November 25th, 2008 at 12:01 pm, says
Of course, this depends on how geographically exact the use of the term is. It is, for example, a commonplace of American political journalism to call Ohio part of the “Industrial Midwest”, even though it borders on an Atlantic Seaboard state. And look out over I-70 or I-71 in the middle of a rural county in Ohio, and it is clear that its not just corn and coal moving around in Ohio … there is a substantial inter-urban movement of people as well.
At the distances covered by the Ohio Hub, just getting back to the rail capacity that we just had and running regular, high quality 79mph corridor services can offer the trips of under three hours that can capture a large share of existing air travel markets … and trips of under two hours that can capture a majority of those markets. Spending an extra $600m to allow the top speed to get up to 110mph is probably worth it, but its not essential for the system to get started, so it would certainly be possible to roll the Ohio Hub out in stages, with the 79mph system first, and the 110mph system after.
When you get beyond Chicago, the distances between major population centers begins to stretch out, with longer distances in between. That is the terrain where the upgrade from the current notional-79mph, in reality more like 40mph speed of the current Amtrak to a 100mph passenger rail system would have some of the biggest impact … routes out of Kansas City, St. Louis, Des Moines, Minneapolis heading east that are presently minor routes competing against Greyhound can quite economically brought down to the 3 hour range where they can be expected to capture nearly half of the current air travel market.
November 25th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
A midwest HSR system is even more of a fantasy than the California HSR. It would simply not be remotely competitive or with alternative modes of transportation. The declining populations and economic importance of midwest cities will make it even less attractive in the future.
November 25th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
I’m curious about this doppelganger planet in which huge numbers of people want to, or have to, travel between points in the American Midwest. Back here on Earth, large amounts of *stuff* has to travel between (Ibid.), rather than people.
The real prognostication is best left to the models, but you can get a rough idea by looking at the existing volume of freeway and air traffic. My guess is there are a lot more people going to and fro than you might think had any reason to.
Also, one of the great things about high speed rail (or any improved transportation technology), is that it makes getting from point A to point B that much faster and easier, and this improves economic efficiency all around.
If getting from City A to medium-distant City B is just an hour or two hop on the train, a lot of things get better. A job seeker from A can think about taking have some job interviews in B, maybe even take the job and commute for a couple months until she moves; an investor from B can visit the factory in A that much more before (or after) putting their money down; a restaurateur can visit more restaurants in more cities and pick up some more ideas; etc, etc.
November 25th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Sure, Mixner. The fine financial health of the airlines and car makers demonstrates just what a doomed idea it is to have high speed rail in the Midwest.
November 25th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
And the staying power of home values in the Sun Belt shows how the Midwest is sure to die out. Because there will never be a water crisis in the Mountains or anything.
November 25th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
The fine financial health of the airlines and car makers demonstrates just what a doomed idea it is to have high speed rail in the Midwest.
No, the huge cost and small benefit demonstrates what a doomed idea it is to have high speed rail in the midwest.
November 25th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
DTM – Do you (or anyone else) know where I can find any numbers/ studies regarding HSR costs west of Harrisburg? I see studies to be completed in 2004 referenced, but cannot find any. If the point, in this instance, is how to connect a HS Mid West rail network to the Eastern network, it might very well be cheaper to do it from Pittsburgh via Washington. There’s already graded track and the distance is about the same. And the land between is generally pretty cheap until you get close to DC. Good point/ Bad point: There would likely be fewer stops.
I never paid too much attention to HSR because I figured it would never get done in the US unless a serious economic crisis came along or we run out of viable fuels for airplanes pollution be damned.
November 25th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Yes, a huge cost that is dwarfed by a single check made out by Paulson to Citibank this week.
A huge cost that is dwarfed by the costs we’ve sunk into I-80.
You are a nutcase, Mixner.
November 25th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
RG: Though I’ve never traveled west of Harrisburg (by road), the topographical map does not look all that imposing. Even assuming it’s 5 times more expensive than Philly-Harrisburg, that’s still “only” $800 million. (i.e., Citi group’s naming rights for the Met’s stadium x2). I understand why you’d want a direct route to DC, but don’t forget that it would place you on the southern tip of the Northeast Amtrack corridor. So if you want to go to NYC or Boston, it’s a mess. Philly is much more strategically located (founding fathers knew what they were doing).
November 25th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
And the staying power of home values in the Sun Belt shows how the Midwest is sure to die out.
The midwest has the lowest housing prices of any region of the country, because its economy is in freefall, people are leaving in droves, and nobody wants to move there. The median price of a house in Detroit is $62,000!
November 25th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
You are a nutcase, Mixner.
You are insane, Omri.
November 25th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
That’s because the real estate speculation fever didn’t hit the Midwest in the first place, Mixner. Yes, Detroit’s a wreck. But what are home prices in the first ring of burbs right there?
November 25th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
A midwest HSR system is even more of a fantasy than the California HSR. It would simply not be remotely competitive or with alternative modes of transportation. The declining populations and economic importance of midwest cities will make it even less attractive in the future.
Evidence?
Particularly for the claims that those planning and implementing HSR in CA (or who would be in the MW) are fantasists?
November 25th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Roman – I’m more curious about the cost differences than I am an advocate for the Pittsburgh to DC upgrade. Like I said earlier, it would be more to my benefit to have a HSR line to Philly. One argument that could be made for a DC-PGH line would be that Somerset County is sort of becoming a shared suburb between the two cities. But that’s certainly not a game changer. I’d say the benefits of a connection to either Philly or DC would be about the same for Pittsburgh, with a slight edge to Philly. All three places share a lot of human capital. More student exchange between Pgh and Philly (in state rates).
November 25th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
A professional cost-benefits analysis would be interesting. The new HSR bill is being pushed by the Casey-Spector-Rendell troika, so I gotta figure there is something in it for Pennsy.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2008/11/kerry-and-spect.html
Having Biden in the White House surely doesn’t hurt. Exciting times for rail fans.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Light rail. We need more than high-speed rail, and building cars for light rail could become part of the product mix for the Big Three. GM once owned Electromotive, so it’s not a far stretch.
VIDEO: Light rail will run from Detroit to Ann Arbor by 2010, planners say
It’d be nice if they participated in development in their own backyard, for starters.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
RoboticGhost on November 25th, 2008 at 10:27 am says:
Detroit is a very strange primary target for a corridor from the east, since the only main through route is into Canada, and there are two more convenient lines of travel to get into Canada from the NEC.
However, given the existing opportunities for projects like the Midwest Hub, the Ohio Hub, the Keystone Corridor, the DC / Charlotte / Atlanta corridor … which are, of course, cost effective even under recession-oil-prices … investment in upgrading a DC to Pittsburgh rail corridor by electrification, high speed elevations around curves, and some minor re-alignments made possible by technical improvements the last half century would certainly allow DC to Pittsburgh in under 3 hours, and provide a very effective route matrix, with DC / Pittsburgh Cleveland / Toledo (connection to Detroit) / Chicago and Philadelphia / Pittsburgh / Columbus / Cincinatti / Indianapolis / Chicago, both connecting at Pittsburgh.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
hhoran – not sure how long it’s been since you were in France but the TGV journey time between Paris and Marseille is 3hrs, not 6 hrs, over 411 miles. That’s not of course to discount what a big infrastructure project this is, it took the French years to complete HSR from Lyon to Marseille. But the result is that no-one drives if they can avoid it and air became so uncompetitive that it’s not possible to fly between these cities with Air France even if you wanted to.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
I find the idea that the Rust Belt is dying a rather curious one. “Well, the whaling industry’s done guess that it for Boston!” Sure its taken a series of huge hits over the past 30 years or so, but getting smaller doesn’t mean dying. Pittsburgh is a great example. On Sunday the Plain Dealer in Cleveland and the Times-Picayune in New Orleans both has long pieces about how Pittsburgh could serve as a model for other cities climbing out of severe recession. A while back the Detroit Free Press ran a similar article.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Between the last two Censuses (1990 and 2000), the urbanized areas of the following cities all gained population (in descending order of population)
Census Bureau Urban Areas are huge areas of land that include small towns and distant suburbs as well as cities and are therefore largely irrelevant to the feasibility of intercity rail service.
Between 2000 and 2006, the following mest CITIES all LOST population:
Pittsburgh
Philadelphia
Cleveland
Milwaukee
Minneapolis
St. Paul
Chicago
Detroit
St. Louis
A midwest HSR network would be a fantasy even if these cities were growing. The fact that the cities are dying makes the fantasy all the more absurd.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
That’s because the real estate speculation fever didn’t hit the Midwest in the first place, Mixner.
No, it’s because the midwest is dying, and its decline has accelerated in recent years. The demise of the auto industry will be yet another nail in the coffin. And if Toyota and Nissan and Honda pick up some of the autoworkers who lose their jobs at the Big Three, you can expect those workers and their families to relocate to the South, where foreign automakers prefer to build their factories, thanks to a better business climate and the lack of unions.
Light rail. We need more than high-speed rail, and building cars for light rail could become part of the product mix for the Big Three.
Yes, I’m sure the market for light rail of 100 vehicles a year will go a long way towards replacing the car and light truck market of 16 million vehicles a year.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
No, it’s because the midwest is dying, and its decline has accelerated in recent years. The demise of the auto industry will be yet another nail in the coffin. And if Toyota and Nissan and Honda pick up some of the autoworkers who lose their jobs at the Big Three, you can expect those workers and their families to relocate to the South, where foreign automakers prefer to build their factories, thanks to a better business climate and the lack of unions.
I think DTM demolished the urban area canard, but regardless, one would need a good deal more evidence than a few years of population stagnation to support the grandiose claim that “the Midwest is dying”.
Even if the Big 3 automakers die, what’s really more likely? Foreign automakers and new startups take advantage of bargain land, equipment and labor prices in the industrial Midwest? Or millions of workers and their pack up their things and relocate to brand new homes and cities in the South?
Really?
Also, keep in mind that one of the arguments FOR high-speed rail is that it will condense the distance between built up areas of the Midwest, and strengthen urban cores.
And do you have any particular reason to believe the South somehow has a fundamental comparative advantage in manufacturing? Beyond the rather shaky political foundations of a lack of strong labor regulations, and a “better business climate”? (The former being somewhat dubious already, given that foreign automakers pay wages competitive with the UAW…)
So?
November 25th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Between 2000 and 2006, the following mest CITIES all LOST population:
Between 2000 and 2006, the DJX went UP quite a bit. Asperger Boy has nothing.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Census Bureau Urban Areas are huge areas of land that include small towns and distant suburbs as well as cities and are therefore largely irrelevant to the feasibility of intercity rail service.
The provision of intercity rail service to the urban cores of those cities would steer more of the regions’ economic and physical development into those downtowns.
Areas around access points to transportation lines – whether we’re talking about train stations or cloverleafs – are particularly attractive for commercial investment. Therefore, the fact that regional growth in those areas has been concentrated outside the cities during the era of big highway investment isn’t an indication of the regions’ eternal destiny, and the twin needs to provide more energy-efficient travel while promoting more centralized development patterns (in order to reduce land consumption and foster revitalization of declining urban cores) are both met by providing intercity high speed rail.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
# DTM Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
An excellent point. And it avoids the problem of comparing apples to oranges in terms of cities in the trans-Appalachian Northeast that gained their size in the early part of the last century versus those that gained their size in the latter part. For example, it would be a foolish pretence to treat the city populations of Cleveland and Columbus as in any sense comparable, given that the City of Cleveland is ringed with suburbs that are themselves heavily urbanized, while the City of Columbus, which had a population of less than 400,000 in 1960, was quite aggressive in its pursuit of annexation to avoid being choked by parasitic suburbs.
Consider the <a href=”http://www2.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/Ohio%20Hub/Maps/Revised_Maps/OHIO_HUB_Proposed_Corridors_and_Stations.pdf” Ohio Hub Proposed Corridors (pdf). Two corridors intersect at Columbus main … the Triple C corridor Cleveland / Columbus / Cincinnati, connecting on the Midwest Hub to Indianapolis, and the Central Ohio corridor Pittsburgh / Columbus / Fort Wayne, connecting on the Midwest Hub to Chicago.
The Columbus metro area station on the east-west corridor are Newark, the county seat of once-rural, now heavily exurban Licking County, Columbus Airport, Columbus Central, and Dublin-Hilliard. The Columbus metro area stations on the Triple-Corridor are North Columbus and Columbus Main. So the proposed system is a main station in the urban core, an airport station, and three suburban stations in the surrounding suburban and exurban sprawl.
Similarly the southern terminus has an urban Cincinnati station and a suburban North Cincinnati, and the Cleveland City junction where the Pittsburgh corridor terminates on the Triple-C corridor extending toward Buffalo has urban Cleveland City, Hopkins airport to its southwest, and suburban stations for Northeast and Southeast Cleveland.
So throughout the system, you have inner urban central stations that can recruit effectively by urban transit, and surrounding suburban systems that will presumably recruit heavily by car, supplemented by local suburban transport corridors (some of which will be made possible by the opening of the stations).
November 25th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Oh, for a preview button.
Ohio Hub Proposed Corridors (pdf)
November 25th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
DTM,
So that is an illustration of why I used urbanized areas:
No, you used Urbanized Areas because, as always, you don’t know what you’re talking about. The Census Bureau changed its definition of Urbanized Area between the 1990 and 2000 censuses. Therefore comparing 1990 UA populations with 2000 UA populations is meaningless. It’s apples and oranges.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Mixner is a pretty good example of a guy who is building a house and doesn’t intend to check any of the measurements after a big earthquake hits. After all, what could change, right?
Well, here we are, earthquake time already, with every good reason to think things should change when some of the existing houses of cards have fallen. But just giving up and moving to Florida, like your grandparents did, is not change we can believe in.
Rail corridors in the midwest can be analyzed historically- there used to be four-track mainlines that thundered continually with freight and traffic. The two biggest- NYC and Pennsy- rounded the shoulder of the Alleghenies and came down the Hudson.
The Spanish, however, have considerable skill in running high-speed trains, and they have lots of mountains to contend with. It can be done.
Routes can be analyzed in terms of present traffic. It is possible to guess at how much market share can be taken by high speed trains in various demographics, and, by extension, how much could be saved by not building new freeways and airports. Even better, there are already some people doing this!
The hardest, of course, is to analyze in terms of future need, but even here we can make some shrewd guesses. The US is a high water mark of per capita energy use and suburban sprawl, and it’s hardly unreasonable to imagine this highest wave of all will eventually recede.
When it does, a city like Dayton, that depended on National Cash Register, Sloan-Kettering Labs, and Wright-Pat Airbase, may again be a stop on the line from Cincinnati to Springfield, while a city like Cleveland, located on both water and and routes, and close to manufacturing, may reinvent itself.
This, incidentally, is a golden opportunity for young people to grubstake a claim in some city, today with depressed housing prices, tomorrow a part of a reinvented midwest. Believe it, a lot of older people are wishing we were free again to pull up stakes and do it all over.
As for high-speed rail, of course we will build high-speed rail. It’s just a question of when and where.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
one would need a good deal more evidence than a few years of population stagnation to support the grandiose claim that “the Midwest is dying”.
It’s not just “a few years.” The midwest has been in decline for decade after decade. Its cities are shrinking, its infrastructure is crumbling, and its employment base is collapsing. It’s cold and depressing and miserable, and people don’t want to live there. So they’ve been moving en masse to the south and west, where the climate is warmer, the infrastructure is newer and economic conditions are much better.
Even if the Big 3 automakers die, what’s really more likely? Foreign automakers and new startups take advantage of bargain land, equipment and labor prices in the industrial Midwest? Or millions of workers and their pack up their things and relocate to brand new homes and cities in the South?
November 25th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
The provision of intercity rail service to the urban cores of those cities would steer more of the regions’ economic and physical development into those downtowns.
Your faith is touching, but we should not, and we will not, spend tens of billions of dollars on boondoggle rail systems on the basis of “build it, cross your fingers, and hope they’ll come” wishful thinking.
For example, it would be a foolish pretence to treat the city populations of Cleveland and Columbus as in any sense comparable,
Then it’s a good thing no one has done that, then, isn’t it? The point is that virtually every large midwest city is losing population, including Cleveland, Chicago, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Detroit and St. Louis. Columbus is one of the few that is actually growing. And even the ones that have any growth at all are growing more slowly than the U.S. population as a whole. Almost all the big growth is occurring in the south and west.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
It’s not just “a few years.” The midwest has been in decline for decade after decade. Its cities are shrinking, its infrastructure is crumbling, and its employment base is collapsing. It’s cold and depressing and miserable, and people don’t want to live there. So they’ve been moving en masse to the south and west, where the climate is warmer, the infrastructure is newer and economic conditions are much better.
More unsupported claims.
Meanwhile, the Midwest still has a lot of assets and people, and it’s possible to understand that sometimes a region’s population can stagnate (to the extent that that is even happening here) or even decline for a few years or a few decades without projecting that trend all the way down to a grandiose prediction of extinction.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
The point is that virtually every large midwest city is losing population
Au Contraire
BLS stats are about as accurate predictor/indicator of population growth as there is.
Population can mean a lot of different things. For instance, due to a meltdown in the steel industry 30 years ago, the population of Pittsburgh sharply declined. many people left. The young people who grew up in those cities left in large percentages and other young people did not move in to replace them. In Pittsburgh’s case this trend started reversing in 2000. Now, there is a fairly large population of very old people and very young people with a missing baby boomer segment. Industries diversified and grew and now are hiring in young people for middle management positions in healthcare, education, biosciences, tech, banking, nuclear power, natural gas, and a host of other growing industries. So most of the people who left the area in the last 8 years did so to go be with Jesus, not to take jobs. Its hardly a Seattle boom, but its steady, reliable growth.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
The real prognostication is best left to the models,
More unsupported claims.
but you can get a rough idea by looking at the existing volume of freeway and air traffic.
More unsupported claims.
Also, one of the great things about high speed rail (or any improved transportation technology), is that it makes getting from point A to point B that much faster and easier,
More unsupported claims.
and this improves economic efficiency all around.
More unsupported claims.
If getting from City A to medium-distant City B is just an hour or two hop on the train, a lot of things get better.
More unsupported claims.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Au Contraire
From your own source:
2001: 1154
2007: 1145
BLS stats are about as accurate predictor/indicator of population growth as there is.
The BLS doesn’t provide population stats. The Census Bureau does.
Population of Pittsburgh, PA:
2000: 333,804
2001: 330,576
2002: 327,458
2003: 325,075
2004: 320,402
2005: 316,299
2006: 312,819
Note the trend.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Incidentally, leaving aside (Mixner’s) quibbling about what constitutes a city, the only STATES with a net population loss between 2000 and 2007 were Louisana and North Dakota.
Now, even among the 48 states that grew, certainly some must have grown slower than average, and this well could have been more concentrated in the industrial Midwest. But to argue that this constitutes not merely a period of stagnation for the region, but some kind of dramatic mass exodus to the sun belt, well…
November 25th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
“My first inkling that my son had Asperger’s Syndrome came when he was only two years old because he was unable to cope with change of any kind…. When he was worried about or reluctant to go somewhere, I would explain what I thought would happen when we arrived at the destination and give him suggestions about the activities we would do there. Invariably, situations occurred that I hadn’t thought of and he became very upset, refusing to go anywhere unless I could predict EXACTLY what would happen.”
More unsupported assertions from Mixner, the child who puts the “ass” in Asperger’s. Stop projecting your condition, Mixie, and get medical help.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
The real prognostication is best left to the models,
More unsupported claims.
but you can get a rough idea by looking at the existing volume of freeway and air traffic.
More unsupported claims.
Also, one of the great things about high speed rail (or any improved transportation technology), is that it makes getting from point A to point B that much faster and easier,
More unsupported claims.
and this improves economic efficiency all around.
More unsupported claims.
If getting from City A to medium-distant City B is just an hour or two hop on the train, a lot of things get better.
More unsupported claims.
Clearly, I am defeated. There is no defense against such an obvious intellectual giant. One who puts such obvious thought and effort into each and every sentence. One whose retorts best even Aristotle’s classic, “I’m rubber and you’re glue.”
Mercy. I can take no more.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
The BLS doesn’t provide population stats. The Census Bureau does.
Sooooooo job growth doesn’t accurately predict population growth or for that matter economic growth? Here’s an interesting look at job growth trends nationally (caveat: before Wall Street melted) and a look at what jobs are growing and shrinking here.
Hmmm. Take a look at the Sun Belt.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
“My name is pseudonymous in nc and I live in a permanent state of uncontrollable rage.”
November 25th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Sooooooo job growth doesn’t accurately predict population growth or for that matter economic growth?
Probably not, noooooooo. In any case, it doesn’t make any sense to try to “predict” population growth from job growth. The federal government has its own agency, the Census Bureau, that provides population data.
November 25th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Asperger’s Syndrome Guide For Teachers: :”Our child may repeat the same thing over and over again, and you may find this increases as stress increases.”
November 25th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Clearly, I am defeated. There is no defense against such an obvious intellectual giant.
You just haven’t fully internalized the Mooxnerian koan: “an implicit proposition is an impossibility”. Until you do, you will always be “grasshopper”.
November 25th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Here’s an interesting look at job growth trends nationally (caveat: before Wall Street melted) and a look at what jobs are growing and shrinking here.
Pittsburgh may have added a tiny number of new jobs over the past year, but they appear to be mainly of the hamburger-flipping variety:
Pittsburgh 5th poorest big city, census shows
Pittsburgh actually fell in the rankings. In 2006, it was “only” the seventh-poorest big city.
The article goes on to say that Pittsburgh may actually be even poorer than this dismal rank suggests, because unlike other poor cities it has some affluent neighborhoods that may skew the median higher to make the city appear wealthier than it really is.
November 25th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
“My name is pseudonymous in nc, and I live in a permanent state of uncontrollable rage.”
November 25th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
First of all, the Census Bureau data you presented was for the city proper, not the economic region, defined by the BLS. Since what we are in effect talking about here is regional economics its a more useful metric in my opinion. Local wonks are expecting the trend to reverse for the city this year anyways, but it will be awhile before the data settles. Second, there is plenty of press and data out there celebrating the area’s reversal of fortunes. Happily, I needn’t read any of it because I can walk outside and see it for myself. The larger point here is that I take exception to your claims that Pittsburgh is dying. Its not and neither is Cleveland, Toledo, Detroit, etc… They are having some rough times, but there is no good reason they can’t bounce back as well. HSR would be a boon to that recovery and good for the country.
November 25th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
“My name is DMonteith and I obsessively follow Mixner around from thread to thread because I am infatuated with him.”
November 25th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Pittsburgh may have added a tiny number of new jobs over the past year, but they appear to be mainly of the hamburger-flipping variety:
Pittsburgh 5th poorest big city, census shows
Pittsburgh residents are making slightly more money than last year, but they still live in one of the poorest large cities in the United States, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
Pittsburgh actually fell in the rankings. In 2006, it was “only” the seventh-poorest big city.
Here we have a great example of the classic move, the Mixner-throws-crap-at-the-wall.
First, he claims that a stagnation or decline in the population of some cities portends an epic mass emigration of an entire region to sunnier points south. Note how the argument rests not on the fact that the ABSOLUTE population of any of the cities in question, merely the extrapolation of a superficial trend in population CHANGE.
Now, for the switcheroo. “Well, Pittsburgh may be gaining a few jobs, but it’s still real poor!” You see, year on year growth in a statistic is unimportant! What matters is the absolute level!
November 25th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
My name is jack lecou and I read Matthew Yglesias’ blog via RSS. I frequently post responses to Mixner’s comments because they are reliably the stupidest.
November 25th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
First of all, the Census Bureau data you presented was for the city proper, not the economic region, defined by the BLS. Since what we are in effect talking about here is regional economics its a more useful metric in my opinion.
Er, your own BLS data showed a decline in employment since 2001.
Local wonks are expecting the trend to reverse for the city this year anyways,
Keep hope alive!
The larger point here is that I take exception to your claims that Pittsburgh is dying. Its not and neither is Cleveland, Toledo, Detroit, etc…
The evidence says otherwise. None of those cities is likely to actually disappear any time soon, but they most likely will just keep shrinking and declining as people and jobs continue to abandon them for better places in the south and west.
November 25th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Pittsburgh may have added a tiny number of new jobs over the past year, but they appear to be mainly of the hamburger-flipping variety
The charts on the link seem to indicate the opposite. Much of the very recent job loss here is residual right-sizing on the periphery (retail, fast food, traditional manufacturing). Job growth is strong in health care, education, and professional services sector. Too many good jobs, not enough unskilled ones. As people move in to fill the higher paying jobs, demand for retail, labor and so forth will increase.
Off to play checkers with a three year old. Less frustrating.
November 25th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
“My name is DMonteith and I obsessively follow Mixner around from thread to thread because I am infatuated with him.”
I thought my name was jack lecou.
But it’s true, a fine ass is nearly irresistible.
(If you’re feeling hopelessly confused by that straightforward English sentence, don’t worry, it contains an implicit proposition that can’t really exist.)
Moo!
November 25th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
The evidence says otherwise. None of those cities is likely to actually disappear any time soon, but they most likely will just keep shrinking and declining as people and jobs continue to abandon them for better places in the south and west.
I was going to highlight the unsupported (implied) statements in the above, but then I realized they all are! (My favorite is the apparent self-satisfied normative judgement in “better cities in the south and west”.)
And then of course, even if this were true, one might look in puzzlement at the (supposed) phenomenon, note that the Midwest is a great region with a lot of things going for it where maybe lots of Americans ought to live and do stuff, and think, “hey! maybe we could make some adjustments to stop this!” Like, make some investments. Or build a train.
But that would probably disrupt Mixner’s weird schadenfreude. So, I guess we couldn’t.
November 25th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Too many good jobs, not enough unskilled ones.
You certainly deserve perseverance points for your increasingly desperate attempts to put a happy face on the 5th poorest city in the nation.
November 25th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
I frequently post responses to Mixner’s comments because they are reliably the stupidest.
DMonteith is an ignorant fool.
November 25th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
You certainly deserve perseverance points for your increasingly desperate attempts to put a happy face on the 5th poorest city in the nation.
Muhahaha! They are the 5th poorest city in the nation! The 5th poorest city in the nation! Everyone knows they can never become richer than that! Your precious “growth numbers” cannot save you now, fools!
November 25th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
…desperate attempts to put a happy face on the 5th poorest city in the nation.
And which city is the poorest of all?
Miami.
Ah, the greatness of the sunbelt!
Moo!
November 25th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
The point is that virtually every large midwest city is losing population, including Cleveland, Chicago, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Detroit and St. Louis.
The point is Mixner is knowingly spouting meaningless statistics. Quite obviously debates about infrastructure investments should focus on entire metro areas and regions — not mere municipalities. Curiously Mixner opts to focus on the latter.
Midwestern metro areas may not be expanding at the same rate as their sunbelt counterparts, but they’re mostly growing. Six of the seven metro area he cites above have gained population since 2000. Indeed the twin cities enjoy a growth rate comparable to metro areas in warmer climes.
It may or not be a good idea to spend billions on rail infrastructure to connect Midwestern population centers, but it’s certainly not valid to say the latter are “dying.” By Mixner’s definition the Northeast, too, is headed for the morgue.
November 25th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
I frequently post responses to Mixner’s comments because they are reliably the stupidest.
DMonteith is an ignorant fool.
Another devestating blow! You’ll get the Nobel for this one, if there’s any justice you will, Dr. Mixner! Your enemies will be forced to concede your greatness! And we will celebrate with champagne, over the decaying corpse of Old Detroit!
Wait. What did DMonteith say?
November 25th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Even if the Big 3 automakers die, what’s really more likely? Foreign automakers and new startups take advantage of bargain land, equipment and labor prices in the industrial Midwest? Or millions of workers and their pack up their things and relocate to brand new homes and cities in the South?
Option three: the Chinese owners of GM start importing cars from Brazil. Still, I’m sure that Alabama (or Sprawldale, Arizona, for that matter) can stump up another quarter-billion dollars to
bribeencourage expansion. Or perhaps not.Industrial revolution cities were built to last, and to quote Jane Jacobs, you should never underestimate the power of a city to regenerate. You’re certainly not going to hear the phrase ‘exurban renewal’ in the next twenty years, because McMansion subdivisions are just bloated trailers on sprawling trailer parks as far as construction and planning goes.
November 25th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Quite obviously debates about infrastructure investments should focus on entire metro areas and regions — not mere municipalities. Curiously Mixner opts to focus on the latter.
The entire region is doing poorly, and its big cities are in real trouble. A HSR network wouldn’t make sense even if the cities were healthy and growing. The fact that they are declining makes it an even worse idea.
Midwestern metro areas may not be expanding at the same rate as their sunbelt counterparts, but they’re mostly growing. Six of the seven metro area he cites above have gained population since 2000.
Where population is growing at all, almost all of the growth is occurring in outer counties or suburbs. HSR makes even less sense for suburb-to-suburb trips than for intercity trips. And the cities and shrinking.
November 25th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Where population is growing at all, almost all of the growth is occurring in outer counties or suburbs. HSR makes even less sense for suburb-to-suburb trips than for intercity trips. And the cities and shrinking.
Don’t let ‘em get you down, Doc. Just keep repeating it. I’m sure we’ll all realize the error of our provincial little “facts” and “data” and “understanding of the function of HSR” eventually. Dr. Mixner’s vision will conquer over all!
November 25th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
To be fair, I don’t think Miami is likely to actually disappear any time soon, but it most likely will just keep shrinking and declining as people and jobs continue to abandon it for better places in the north.
Moo!
November 25th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
You know we didn’t always have to take our shoes off at the airport. I know terrorism is serious and all, but this is a choice that we are making. Given the safety of air travel relative to cars we should have just reinforced the cockpit doors so terrorists couldn’t use the plane as a missle. Everything else was a waste. I am not ideologically opposed to HSR, but we shouldn’t forget that air travel could be faster and cheaper.
November 25th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Poverty!
It’s worth noting that The City of Pittsburgh is a small city in geographical size. Only Boston and Miami are smaller. The actual urban area extends to many middle-class neighborhoods that would skew the poverty ranking up if one were drawing ‘city’ boundaries today. Also, the cost of living in the area is low so wages tend to be lower on average than most cities. Several initiatives to lure middle class families back into the city are paying off pretty well lately. This former industrial slag heap, for instance.
November 25th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Why do you all even respond to Mixner’s uninformed, uneducated, speculative drivel? He’s obviously a thinly-disguised troll looking to pick a fight (and poorly at that).
Unless you enjoy crappy, never-ending argument…
November 25th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Why do you all even respond to Mixner’s uninformed, uneducated, speculative drivel?
coz there’s lots of us and only one of him. i figure he ends up wasting a lot of time, plus, he discredits his dodgy ideology in the bargain.
November 25th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Amen to high-speed rail in the Midwest. I weep for the hard workers in the auto plants in Toledo, Hamtramck, Lordstown, Middletown, etc.
But that is one part of our transit cycle. This country needs desperately to get with the program and provide moderate-cost high-speed ground transit.
How many times do you hear the car-addicted tell you something is “45 minutes” away. Does a radio signal travel 45 minutes from from that something to reach you or is it…45 miles away. THAT is how auto-addicted we area.
I don’t believe in penalizing car users, but 30% of the adult population does not drive and many who do are looking for an out that relieves some of their driving responsibilities. I think it would, in part, prolong the lives of their cars and that would be all-good in my book.
The sooner the better. Think about it: One billion dollars-plus to upgrade O’Hare Airport’s flying survace. $752 MILLION to sustain Amtrak. ONE airport gets more money than an entire rail system. Something wrong with that picture? You can build a mile of NEW rail for one-fifth the cost it takes to build a corresponding mile of highway.
Let’s git ‘er done…and soon. We can put corridors all over the Midwest, connecting Ohio’s 3-C’s, for example: Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati. Chicago-Rockford-Davenport, Chicago-DeKalb-Quad Cities-Iowa City-Des Moines, etc.
Add in the high speed factor and you’ve got a stunningly successful system that offers NO turbulence, grouchy attendants, airport hassles.
Seriously, the time comes. This financial hoo-hah we’re enduring might just be the perfect time to get to it.
Let’s push hard, with the Midwest Rail Passengers association leading the way. Build a powerful, influential Washington lobby. Threaten to escrow tax dollars going to the fly-car mentality.
Think trains!
November 25th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
anon Says, on November 25th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
There is a constant struggle between not feeding the troll and taking pot-shots at AEI talking points when they are lazily tossed in the air.
When he shows up after the main discussion has already taken place, its easier to see why people would succumb to the pot shots temptation.
It is, in any event, comforting to know that he finally did show up … if there was a post that was in favor of public transport infrastructure spending for the public benefit that he did not show up to shoot down, one would start to wonder whether there was something seriously awry in the proposal.
November 26th, 2008 at 5:50 am
Not the point, I realise — but why the picture of a london Crossrail train (which is not HST — but will cost on the order of $25 billion just for getting from one side of a city to the other..)
November 26th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
DTM,
It is true the Census made a few small modifications to its urbanized area definitions in 2000.
No, it didn’t make small modifications. It made substantial modifications that resulted in large changes in the area of many UAs. Furthermore, as I have already explained to you, UAs are large areas of land that include small towns and distant suburbs far from city centers where central train stations are located. UAs are therefore largely irrelevant to the feasibility of intercity rail services, which provide downtown-to-downtown transportation, not suburb-to-suburb.
Moreover, the Census slightly modified its urbanized area definitions in 2000 because it concluded it had been OVER-estimating the amount of urbanized land. So the reported population growth in urbanized areas from 1990 to 2000 is actually slightly understating the population growth we would have seen with a completely fixed defintion.
Wrong, yet again, DTM. You really don’t know what you’re talking about. To take your own example of the St. Louis Urbanized Area, in 1990 the UA area was 633 square miles and had a population density of 3,110 persons per square mile. In 2002, as a result of the Census Bureau’s change in the definition of Urbanized Areas, the St Louis UA size had increased to 829 square miles. The population density declined to 2,506 persons per square mile.
The population density of the St Louis Urbanized Area DECREASED between 1990 and 2000. And the population of the city of St Louis DECREASED from 349,613 in 2001 to 347,181 in 2006. St Louis became even less feasible as a HSR destination between 1990 and 2000, because both its population and population density declined. The same thing occurred in most or all other large midwestern cities.
November 26th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
St Louis became even less feasible as a HSR destination between 1990 and 2000, because both its population and population density declined.
Non sequitur, Asperger’s boy.
November 27th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Hey, doc, maybe you should share with everyone your calculations on the minimum size all the different Midwest urban cores need to be in order to support a high speed rail network!
That way they’ll have some context for these numbers you’re pointing too – I’m not sure they realize that every city needs at least 6 million people packed at least 6000 to a mile before HSR can even START to make sense. But your detailed regressions and calculations PROVE it, right?
Not everyone is as smart as Dr. Mixner, you know.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:55 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:34 am
levitraVery interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:17 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 14th, 2009 at 5:00 am
Great site. Good info
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:57 am
tramadol
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:20 am
buy viagra online
Great site. Good info
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:24 am
viagra
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:57 am
Incredible site!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:01 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 4:52 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right viagra
April 20th, 2009 at 12:42 am
Idk whether to laugh or cry…