Obsidian Potency 3.0
Fear and Loathing of Public Transit -- An Example of the Decline of Old Media
posted Monday, 24 August 2009
While OP is angry at Metro's general failure to communicate and mange their transportation system, that does not mean we are anti-public transit. Far from it: we wish both the public and our elected officials were united in their efforts to expand and strengthen reliable, comfortable and safe public transit in (and between) densely-populated areas.
OP also believes in click-through support (at least) of Old Media outlets. We believe that ad revenue should be more justly divided between the providers of original content and the blogs that link to them. Right now, most people don't click through to media articles linked from blogs -- yet the media sources are the ones bearing the vast majority of the costs of original research and reporting, while the blogs profit from the clicks on their summaries and commentary on those originally-researched articles. While it's true that newspapers should have seen this coming and fell hopelessly behind the times, it's also true that blogs (including this one) are, in large part, leeching from a very expensive enterprise.
Which is what makes items like this article, rife with blatant lies of omission and misinformation, so disheartening. Shouldn't the Washington Post encourage its editorial staff to make even a half-complete argument? Seriously, there are bloggers who write for free that post more balanced, complete pieces than this on a regular basis. Shouldn't something appearing on Page 1 of the Post be held to a higher standard? Shouldn't it rise above the level of base hackery?
First of all, the author doesn't mention how much money is spent by the federal government on air and car travel. Conservatively, the USA spends about 40 times more per year on auto industry infrastructure and subsidies than it does on train subsidies. That doesn't include the billions spent on aviation subsidies. As a result, all the Feds have done for rail is provide "subsidized transportation for a small sliver of the population." That's what happens when you don't spend the money you need to spend, and instead try to get by with subsistence funding of infrastructure: you get what you pay for.
Then he compares population densities of Europe with population densities in the United States. The thing is, nobody is arguing that Montana and South Dakota need high-speed rail. It would be highly useful in the areas that ARE highly populated, and to connect urban centers -- you know, like the ones in Obama's HSR plan.
Finally, he talks about the extremely high cost of a rail system akin to one in Japan vs...well, I assume vs. the current status quo. To rebut his argument that rail is just too expensive (especially with our faltering economy), let's do some experimental math: calculating federal expenditures on non-rail transit over the past 20 years.
Let's say we've spent the modern equivalent of 40 billion per year on auto subsidies; most economists agree on that amount. Let's throw in another 15 billion per year on aviation subsidies (keeping in mind that 15 billion might be a conservative estimate). To be even more conservative, let's exclude all bailouts received by both industries during various economic downturns and 9/11.
That's 55 billion dollars per year times 20 years -- or 1.1 trillion dollars on transportation subsidies that do not involve railroads.
Does anyone think that we couldn't re-establish decent railroad transportation in densely-populated areas of this country for half that amount? From this perspective, doesn't it seem silly when the author talks calls the 125-billion-dollar cost of creating 10 high speed rail routes "huge"? Compared to the 20-year amount we've spent on other transportation subsidies, 125 billion seems like a bargain.
Worst of all, he fails to take into account the increasing cost of crude oil and gasoline. Everyone knows the dark stuff isn't getting any cheaper -- and it never will unless the world radically reduces consumption. It may seem cost-prohibitive to invest in rail now. But how about when the cost of gas rises to $7 a gallon? How about $10 a gallon? With the world's current demand for gas (mostly falling on the USA's shoulders, as this country is far and away the largest consumer of oil), these fuel prices are inevitable.
This article denies reality and fails to offer even a glimmer of an alternative solution. He thinks trains won't work here the way they do in Europe and Asia because "geography and energy policies differ." As gas prices rise, those conditions will be forced to change whether we like it or not.
When an article on the front page of one of the nation's last remaining newspapers fails to even note these stark realities, OP isn't surprised that newspapers are suffering. If New Media is killing your industry, it behooves papers to make sure their content rises above the quality of their murderers.
OP also believes in click-through support (at least) of Old Media outlets. We believe that ad revenue should be more justly divided between the providers of original content and the blogs that link to them. Right now, most people don't click through to media articles linked from blogs -- yet the media sources are the ones bearing the vast majority of the costs of original research and reporting, while the blogs profit from the clicks on their summaries and commentary on those originally-researched articles. While it's true that newspapers should have seen this coming and fell hopelessly behind the times, it's also true that blogs (including this one) are, in large part, leeching from a very expensive enterprise.
Which is what makes items like this article, rife with blatant lies of omission and misinformation, so disheartening. Shouldn't the Washington Post encourage its editorial staff to make even a half-complete argument? Seriously, there are bloggers who write for free that post more balanced, complete pieces than this on a regular basis. Shouldn't something appearing on Page 1 of the Post be held to a higher standard? Shouldn't it rise above the level of base hackery?
First of all, the author doesn't mention how much money is spent by the federal government on air and car travel. Conservatively, the USA spends about 40 times more per year on auto industry infrastructure and subsidies than it does on train subsidies. That doesn't include the billions spent on aviation subsidies. As a result, all the Feds have done for rail is provide "subsidized transportation for a small sliver of the population." That's what happens when you don't spend the money you need to spend, and instead try to get by with subsistence funding of infrastructure: you get what you pay for.
Then he compares population densities of Europe with population densities in the United States. The thing is, nobody is arguing that Montana and South Dakota need high-speed rail. It would be highly useful in the areas that ARE highly populated, and to connect urban centers -- you know, like the ones in Obama's HSR plan.
Finally, he talks about the extremely high cost of a rail system akin to one in Japan vs...well, I assume vs. the current status quo. To rebut his argument that rail is just too expensive (especially with our faltering economy), let's do some experimental math: calculating federal expenditures on non-rail transit over the past 20 years.
Let's say we've spent the modern equivalent of 40 billion per year on auto subsidies; most economists agree on that amount. Let's throw in another 15 billion per year on aviation subsidies (keeping in mind that 15 billion might be a conservative estimate). To be even more conservative, let's exclude all bailouts received by both industries during various economic downturns and 9/11.
That's 55 billion dollars per year times 20 years -- or 1.1 trillion dollars on transportation subsidies that do not involve railroads.
Does anyone think that we couldn't re-establish decent railroad transportation in densely-populated areas of this country for half that amount? From this perspective, doesn't it seem silly when the author talks calls the 125-billion-dollar cost of creating 10 high speed rail routes "huge"? Compared to the 20-year amount we've spent on other transportation subsidies, 125 billion seems like a bargain.
Worst of all, he fails to take into account the increasing cost of crude oil and gasoline. Everyone knows the dark stuff isn't getting any cheaper -- and it never will unless the world radically reduces consumption. It may seem cost-prohibitive to invest in rail now. But how about when the cost of gas rises to $7 a gallon? How about $10 a gallon? With the world's current demand for gas (mostly falling on the USA's shoulders, as this country is far and away the largest consumer of oil), these fuel prices are inevitable.
This article denies reality and fails to offer even a glimmer of an alternative solution. He thinks trains won't work here the way they do in Europe and Asia because "geography and energy policies differ." As gas prices rise, those conditions will be forced to change whether we like it or not.
When an article on the front page of one of the nation's last remaining newspapers fails to even note these stark realities, OP isn't surprised that newspapers are suffering. If New Media is killing your industry, it behooves papers to make sure their content rises above the quality of their murderers.
Want to read comments, or have something to say? Bring it.
Obsidian Hit Counter
Total: 411,389
since: 18 Oct 2004
since: 18 Oct 2004