3 ms·

In the areas it makes sense, nobody has the political will to say "this new dedicated high-speed right-of-way is going in your backyard whether you like it or n

In the areas it makes sense, nobody has the political will to say "this new dedicated high-speed right-of-way is going in your backyard whether you like it or not."

melling 15y ago
The problem doesn't get any easier to solve. 50 years ago there were less than 200 million Americans. Now there are over 300 million people. In other words, a lot more backyards. If we wait 20-30 more years? The places were it makes the most sense are exactly the densely populated areas of the North East and in California. People need to start thinking about what's best for the country instead of themselves.
- edw 15y ago
  I hope that you will realize that, when I say this that I am not being a cynic: Your suggestion that people start thinking about what's what for the country instead of themselves is naive in the extreme. It's quite possible that the people who would need to sacrifice in order to serve the common good are already among the less well off. Who has railroad track in their back yards now? Who is going to have more railroad track in their back yards after we build more track, presumably near the existing track. From a property value perspective, there's no right side of the tracks when you're a hundred feet from the tracks. And who is going to benefit from enhanced rail service in the Northeast Corridor? Well, indirectly, all of us, but more directly, it's going to be rich people and upper middle class people who are shuttling between Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, and DC. (Baltimore too, I suppose.) Someone (taxpayers, railroad companies?) really should compensate the people who will be getting screwed when new track gets laid, especially given that the immediate beneficiaries are not going to be the people who are in the crappy position of being asked to set aside their own interests and take one for the team. More generally, it's not clear to me what "what's best for the country" means. That's what the political process exists to figure out. If the result of the political process isn't what you'd prefer, feel free to call it "unjust," but short of becoming a dictator and deciding what's best for people, the political process is going to be an unsatisfying experience for pretty much everyone.

In the areas it makes sense, nobody has the political will to say "this new dedicated high-speed right-of-way is going in your backyard whether you like it or not."

melling 15y ago

The problem doesn't get any easier to solve. 50 years ago there were less than 200 million Americans. Now there are over 300 million people. In other words, a lot more backyards. If we wait 20-30 more years? The places were it makes the most sense are exactly the densely populated areas of the North East and in California. People need to start thinking about what's best for the country instead of themselves.

edw 15y ago
I hope that you will realize that, when I say this that I am not being a cynic: Your suggestion that people start thinking about what's what for the country instead of themselves is naive in the extreme. It's quite possible that the people who would need to sacrifice in order to serve the common good are already among the less well off. Who has railroad track in their back yards now? Who is going to have more railroad track in their back yards after we build more track, presumably near the existing track. From a property value perspective, there's no right side of the tracks when you're a hundred feet from the tracks. And who is going to benefit from enhanced rail service in the Northeast Corridor? Well, indirectly, all of us, but more directly, it's going to be rich people and upper middle class people who are shuttling between Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, and DC. (Baltimore too, I suppose.) Someone (taxpayers, railroad companies?) really should compensate the people who will be getting screwed when new track gets laid, especially given that the immediate beneficiaries are not going to be the people who are in the crappy position of being asked to set aside their own interests and take one for the team. More generally, it's not clear to me what "what's best for the country" means. That's what the political process exists to figure out. If the result of the political process isn't what you'd prefer, feel free to call it "unjust," but short of becoming a dictator and deciding what's best for people, the political process is going to be an unsatisfying experience for pretty much everyone.