This article from time.com about Obama's funding of high-speed rail tickles one of my secret ambitions: competitive mass transit in America. Whoah, whoah, whoah, you're saying... You're thinking I'm a small government guy. I've said I'm no republican but that I am definitely conservative economically. The thing is, I've established that I have no problem paying the government in exchange for certain services, and infrastructure is one of those things. I realize that in a laissez-faire capitalist economy roads and rails still get built by entities that need them at some point, and get maintained... somehow... At least in the interest of the market. I just don't quite buy it... I actually believe there are some questions the free market fails to answer in a way. As far as I'm concerned mass transit is one of those things.
If you try to frame a mass transit solution as a normal business problem you run into a sort of paradox. It only works if you have enough riders to make it efficient and you only get enough riders when the service level reaches a point that entices people to become riders. A capitalist would say that the market would select that solution if it made sense, but I'm convinced that any reasonable business man would look at the investment and tell you to take a hike. The market economy didn't build the Interstate Highway System (Uncle Sam did), but I'm sure glad we have it now. I feel the same way about mass transit, and personally very much favor rail.
I spent a year of college living in Tokyo, Japan, and it made me a firm believer in the social benefits of efficient mass transit. I'm guessing there are few or no cities with a more extensive rail network than Tokyo. If you're interested, here is a rail map of Tokyo in English. Then there's intercity train service in Japan, from the famed bullet trains (actually called Shinkansen) to commuter electric trains on shorter routes. And if that's not interesting enough, the thing I found truly staggering was that smaller Japanese cities and towns also have rail service... Admittedly that's easier in a country as densely populated as Japan, if compared to the vast spaces Americans live in. But maybe it sets a dreamer to dreamin' a little bit.
As it happens, I remember the day that Obama announced he'd fund high speed rail investment. Initially it elicited a sort of anti-socialist/anti-big government groan from me... But I read the article twice. I stared intently at the maps they released. I dug a little deeper into internet resources to research what they were thinking. It set me to dreamin'. Ever since I can't help but spend some small amount of time each day to imagining better rail service (intercity and local service) in America, and despite my capitalist proclivities I think government resources are the best route to getting it.
Yeah, but how do you explain the failure of the existing government-run rail service Amtrak? They charge outrageous prices, (almost as expensive as flying), and they still can't make any damn money.Plus I've never ridden on one that didn't take forever, have some kind of mechanical failure, or generally screw up my travel.
ReplyDeleteI think you are right that an effective mass-transit system would require some kind of government intervention, but I still think private industry should take the lead. Look at how we linked the country with regular rail. It required government intervention, but the railways were still competitive (although it was limited competition obviously, high barrier to entry)
I think you also run into a culture problem. Americans love their cars. Not just for convenience, but for the independence it suggests. I think you might find they prefer their cars, even if its slower and less effective.
Still, I wish I could hop on a bullet train and be anywhere in the country for an affordable price.
Dreamin'.
Here's a months late response. Just saw your comment, sorry. I agree that competition is the requirement. The Japanese seem to use several competing government-sponsored companies at once. Another option would be to use subsidy/funding rather than a state enterprise. As a rule I don't believe the government can run anything well at all, so I think they pay but don't operate. Maybe an option would be to use government funding to create the infrastructure itself, but sell operating rights to independent companies.
ReplyDelete