Coming home from the annual meet-up of the New Urbanists, I was already agitated from the shenanigans of United Airlines — two-hour delay, blown connection — when I waded into this week’s New York Times Sunday Magazine for further evidence that our ruling elites are too stupid to survive (and perhaps the US with them). Exhibit A was the magazine’s lead article about California’s proposed high-speed rail project by Jon Gertner.
The article began with a description of California’s current rail service between the Bay Area and Los Angeles. A commission of nine-year-olds in a place like Germany could run a better system, of course. It’s never on schedule. The equipment breaks down incessantly. A substantial leg of the trip requires a transfer to a bus (along with everybody’s luggage) with no working toilet. You get the picture: Kazakhstan without the basic competence.
The proposed solution to this is the most expensive public works program in the history of the world, at a time when both the state of California and the US federal government are effectively bankrupt. By the way, I wouldn’t argue that California shouldn’t have high-speed rail. It might have been nice if, say, in the late 20th century, some far-seeing governor had noticed what was going on in France, Germany, and Spain but, alas…. It would have been nice, too, if the doltish George W. Bush, when addressing extreme airport congestion in 2003, had considered serious upgrades in normal train service between the many US cities 500 miles or so apart. The idea never entered his walnut brain.
The sad truth is it’s too late now. But the additional sad truth, at this point, is that Californians (and US public in general) would benefit tremendously from normal rail service on a par with the standards of 1927, when speeds of 100 miles-per-hour were common and the trains ran absolutely on time (and frequently, too) without computers (imagine that !). The tracks are still there, waiting to be fixed. In our current condition of psychotic techno-grandiosity, this is all too hopelessly quaint, not cutting edge enough, pathetically un-”hot.” The fact that it is not even considered by the editors of The New York Times, not to mention the governor of California, the President of the United States, and all the agency heads and departmental chiefs and think tank gurus and university engineering professors, is something that will have historians of the future rolling their eyes. But for the moment all it shows is that we are collectively too stupid to survive as an advanced society.
Ironically (if you go for gallows irony) a sidebar in the same issue of The NY Times Sunday Magazine featured the latest architect’s wet dream of an airport-of-the-future (p.35). Note to the editors and architects: commercial aviation is toast (we just don’t know it yet). We’re back in the $70-plus a barrel-of-oil aviation death-zone for airlines.
Also ironically proving that America is not alone in techno-triumphalist mental illness was another big article in the same magazine featuring French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s neo-Modernist fantasies for vast new construction projects in Paris. Note to Sarko: the developed world’s metroplexes are headed for shocking contraction, not further expansion. I know this is counter-intuitive, but a little applied prayerful research will bear it out. And, by the way, the last thing any city on earth needs is more skyscrapers — i.e. buildings that have no chance of ever being renovated when they reach the senility stage of their design-life. For really mind-blowing statements, this one from that article is a standout: “Paris’s current problems as a city can be traced to the very thing that makes it most delightful — its beauty.” Right. So, the solution will be to make it more like Houston.
Actually, I doubt the French people consider these schemes anymore plausible than ur-Modernist Le Corbusier’s 1924 proposal to bulldoze half of the Right Bank and replace it with dozens of identical skyscrapers. The French people laughed at Corbu, and put their vertical slums outside the city center, but notice that we Americans actually did it, replacing our old human-scaled center cities with priapic arrays of glass-and-steel tubes surrounded by parking lagoons. Anyway, nobody in the OECD world will have the energy to carry out anything like this again, not even France with its nuke plants.
Which brings me back to the New Urbanist annual meet-up last week in Denver. Given the gathering conditions of what I variously call The Long Emergency or the economic clusterf**k, they have had to shift their focus starkly. For years, their stock-in-trade was the greenfield New Town or Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND), a severe reform of conventional suburban development. That sort of reform work was only possible when 1.) the continued expansion of suburbia seemed utterly inevitable, requiring heroic mitigation and 2.) when they could team up with the production home-builders to get their TND projects built. To the group’s credit, they realize that these conditions are no more. Suburbia is now cratering, both as a repository of wealth in real estate and as a practical matter of everyday existence. They get that the energy crisis and all its implications are real and that our response to it had better be deft. They understand that the capital resources we thought we had for Big Projects are flying into a black hole at the speed of light. Mostly they see that he time for “cutting edge” fashionista techno-triumphalist grandiosity is over.
To put it bluntly, the Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU) is perhaps the only surviving collective intelligence left in the United States that is producing ideas consistent with the reality. They recognize that our survival depends on downscaling and re-localization. They recognize the crisis we will soon face in food production, and the desperate need to reactivate the relationship between the way we inhabit the landscape and the way we feed ourselves. They recognize that the solution to the liquid fuels crisis is not cars that can run by other means but walkable towns and cities connected by public transit.
This is exactly what you will not find in the pages of The New York Times or the political corridors of power. Oh, by the way, the Obama administration contacted one of the leading lights of the New Urbanism in the weeks after the inauguration. He never heard back from the White House. I guess they’re not interested.
Regards,James Howard Kunstler
June 16, 2009
James Howard Kunstler is perhaps best known for his 2005 book The Long Emergency , which predicted the financial meltdown and the implications of the peak oil problem. His 1993 book, The Geography of Nowhere, about the fiasco of suburbia, is a campus cult classic among the architecture and urban planning students. It was followed by a sequel, Home From Nowhere, and a companion book called The City in Mind: Notes on the Urban Condition. Mr. Kunstler is also the author of 10 novels including his latest book, World Made By Hand, a story set in America's post-oil future. His articles have appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Rolling Stone and The Atlantic Monthly.
By Bush’s day it was far too late to think about high-speed rail. Action had to be taken in the 1970s. Now, it will take us another 20 years to rebuild the system we had in 1940, assuming the obstructionist politicians fade from the scene.
Here in Denver the exodus to the exurbs was mandated by the idiotic policy known as “forced busing”. The same leftist idiots who destroyed our individual rights by enforcing busing against urban neighborhoods are the same people who are now lamenting the effects of suburban sprawl. Salvaging the cities destroyed by government mandates will take generations, if ever. What would the New Urbanists do with Detroit????
Pingback: The Daily Dig - High Speed Rail Edition » INFRASTRUCTURIST
It is never too late.
Unfortunately, California’s standard rail network between the Bay Area and LA takes a circuitous, slow route. Basic improvements to reach 100 max speeds would certainly help, but all the curves and the low freight trains along the way would make train travel times uncompetitive with cars, let alone planes.
If we run out of oil without building high-speed rail, buses down I-5 would still be faster than a train up the coast. But HSR could definitely compete with the airlines, even if oil prices stay as low as the current range. So it makes sense to do it, no matter what happens with commodities. Yeah, it’s expensive, but we’re talking $1 per month per Californian over the life of the infrastructure. We can afford that; we’ve built the freeways at even greater cost.
I detest public transportation. For all the limitless awfulness of the freeways, traffic and so forth, public transportation is still worse. And for one simple reason: people are not socialized for acceptable public conduct. I sound like an old fogey, and maybe that’s what I’ve become, but the rudeness, the stupidity, the impoliteness. . . its everywhere, and it can’t be “corrected”. We’ve lost all sense of public social shame, and that makes spending time in a cramped vehicle with other strangers (and their children) a potentially unbearable experience.
I am convinced that one day I will snap and punch somebody in the head for talking too loudly on the train.
I’ve had unpleasant encounters over laptop movie noise and the like already.
“But the additional sad truth, at this point, is that Californians (and US public in general) would benefit tremendously from normal rail service on a par with the standards of 1927, when speeds of 100 miles-per-hour were common and the trains ran absolutely on time (and frequently, too) without computers (imagine that !).”
To bad people like Jim don’t bother doing any research before spouting off. High speed rail is not exactly rocket science. It is proven technology that works fine all around the the world. By the time extra track so passenger trains don’t get stuck waiting behind freight trains, repairs are made to the existing tracks and the line is electrified, you might as well have built a new high speed rail line. As well, we need to more more goods by train instead of truck so it is unlikely that existing lines will have the capacity.
High speed trains are much lighter than freight trains so damage the tracks less and the tracks require less maintenance. As they have their own tracks without freight trains and thus won’t be in collisions with heavier freight trains, high speed trains can built lighter and thus use less energy.
Because they are faster and can thus do a given trip in less time, the staff, operating costs and rolling stock costs are lower per trip. High speed rail is faster so people are willing to pay more for it. As a result of this, many lines can operate without subsidies once they are build.
If there is the demand on a corridor for high speed high, which will likely be the case giving the uncertain future of flying and driving, there is a strong economic and environmental case for building high speed rail instead of settling for incremental improvements to existing lines.
Why the gratuitous slap at Bush? Why is it more his fault there is no high-speed rail in the US than it is any preceding president’s fault? When 2016 comes and there’s still no high-speed rail, will it then be Obama’s fault?
I think what JHK is saying is, we don’t have the money for high speed rail, so we might as well settle for 1927 level service.
I don’t know if that’s true or not.
But it is hard to imagine people of today being able to run the trains like they did in 1927 with or without computers. The fact that they did it without computers is impressive.
Pingback: Server Farm » The Best Amtrak Route You’ll Never Ride
In the past year, Bitcoin has taken the market by storm, with incredible stories of both huge profits and devastating losses. But filter out the high drama surrounding the world's most popular cyber-currency, and you're left with three very real benefits. Today, Josh Grasmick explains how to take advantage of those benefits, without so much of the risk...
Buying metals can be a long-term, "buy and hold" kind of trade. But that's not always the best option. Today, Greg Guenthner examines what he sees is the easiest and most profitable metals trade the market has to offer. You can take gains right now, and all you have to do is buy one, and sell the other. Read on...
After a rough year, will gold miners stage a comeback in 2014? Dan Amoss explains how falling outflows of gold from western ETFs, combined with falling operations costs, may bring good-looking profit margins back to the industry. But the biggest factor may be a sea change in how the market valuates miners in the first place. Read on...
Banks sure have turned things around, eh? Since 2009 (in the years following the financial crisis it helped create) global stock prices have rallied significantly. And financial stocks, in particular, have done considerably well - with US banks up by over 200%. But as Satyajit Das points out, these gains are just part of an elaborate fiction...
Every now and then, a piece of technology comes along that completely shocks the world, changing everything people once held true. Electricity, the telephone and the Internet are just a few examples. But there is a new piece of technology that's about to do the same thing for manufacturing. And the world will never be the same. Brad Hart explains...