Culture Vulture

President Barack Obama has come in for some criticism during the past month or so, as the nation attempts to recover from a steep economic downturn, for trying to keep his eye on the long term big picture. We think he and his administration are right to stay locked onto that focus, and hope the admittedly enormous array of problems the nation is facing, both foreign and domestic, doesn’t overwhelm their ability to separate the forest for the trees.
The worst economic slump in at least a quarter century — and while it’s the Great Depression that our current malaise is often compared to, so far the recession of the early 1980s is still statistically the sharper one in terms of unemployment and inflation — would tax most administrations when the world was a calm place. But with Pakistan leading the way, Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea and the issues they are presenting in different ways, the world is hardly calm. Did we forget about Iraq? Next year at this time, assuming continued outward tranquility, the role of U.S. military forces are scheduled to shift to more of a background mode. That period will be a real test of how well the “surge” and political reconciliation among the Iraqis has really gone. It remains an open question.
Then we have the cranky Russian bear longing to be on the prowl again, eager to reassert its former Cold War power and influence. Meanwhile China is seeking a role in global affairs to match its growing financial clout The Chinese at least want to become pre-eminent players in their own backyard. A crisis in the Straits of Formosa, should one erupt, would pose a massive problem for the U.S., dependent as we are on the Chinese soaking up all that American public debt that is our short term way out of our economic difficulties.
So while all this is going on, President Obama is trying to say that reforming the health care system, insisting on meaningful improvements in the nation’s public education system and pushing forward on a "green” agenda on energy use must be part of the program. He’s right. The economy might rebound for awhile as a result of the massive injection of public money into the financial structure and some key industrial corporations like General Motors that are deemed too big to fail, but if we don’t stop wasting it on an amazingly inefficient healthcare and health insurance system, if too many of our elementary and secondary students are subpar compared with students elsewhere and if we don’t — 35 years later than we could have — finally get serious about energy use and our dependence on foreign oil, the one or two trillion dollars we’re borrowing from future generations will be a one-off fix. We just can’t afford to be stupid about this stuff anymore.
The President, who’s unfortunately got to work through a fantastically complicated set of difficulties with the help of some partisan political hacks like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-California and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D—Nevada, deserves some support for trying not to get bogged down in the crises du jour and to look for a fundamental overhaul of what’s dragging the creative entreneurial energy of the nation backwards. Congressional Republicans, increasingly a pathetic one note band on taxes and the stimulus, need to get a life — or maybe a time out — and start offering intelligent alternatives if big picture solutions aren’t part of their way out of the box. They have an important role to play, but right now, they seem stuck in the Potomac mud, irrelevant. They remind us of the Democrats during the Reagan era, when it was the GOP who had the leading guy who resonated with the American public.
Reagan too, had a few big ideas — cut taxes, an appropriate stategy at that time, rebuild the U.S. military, and topple the Russians. He suceeded on all three counts, and that’s why he is remembered as a successful president. In the end, it’s the big picture that counts.

Posted by Andrew McKeever at 5:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Restoring passenger rail service to Manchester and the surrounding region is one of those hardy perennials, that much like the spring flowers we hope to soon see blooming, pops up out of the ground every so often to beguile us with thoughts of accomplishing two things at once — giving our local economy a boost and doing the right thing environmentally.
Last week a group of area officials and businesspeople went to Montpelier to urge the State Senate Transportation Committee to look favorably upon extending passenger rail service south from Rutland, through Manchester and Bennington before veering west toward Albany. To do that, the quality of the railroad tracks between Rutland and Manchester need an upgrade and other improvements made.
Like magic, a portion of the money coming to Vermont from the federal government’s economic stimulus plan may be available to grease the wheels. The $25 million or so officials estimate would be required to bring the tracks up to snuff, along with other needed investments, might fold neatly into a larger sum of money intended to help expand passenger rail service elsewhere in the state.
Bennington County officials and businesspeople were motivated to jump into the haggling over how the rail money might get divvied up because of the possibility that the county could be shut out of passenger rail upgrades altogether. State officials could opt to expand passenger rail service south only from Burlington to Rutland, which could then link up with the already established Ethan Allen Amtrak Express — recently spared from the state budget ax — and move passengers over to Albany that way. Or they could start from the south and build north.
But before we all get excited about the prospect of bringing passenger trains back to Manchester, we’d like to see a fair, objective study or analysis of how many passengers are really likely to ride the train. These sorts of decisions really need to be based on as much hard factual data as possible. Let’s not make investments based on wish-fulfillment or overly rosy scenarios. Because the fact of the matter is, the economics of passenger rail service, both coming and going, are highly problematic and far from an obvious necessity.
It would be one thing if the feds were simply happy to shower some overdue pork barrel spending here, but that’s not the whole story. Right now, the ridership on the Ethan Allen Express requires a federal and state subsidy of about $65 per passenger, on top of the price of the train ticket. The cost to the state treasury amounts to nearly $5 million per year.
We’re not sold yet that regular passenger train service is a panacea for local business, tourist-oriented or other. If it turns out it would be, great. But right now it takes longer, and costs more, for the typical visitor from downstate New York to arrive here by train, who is then faced with getting around a rural area with either a rented car, a van service or maybe, a bicycle. Until train service gets much faster, or the price drops significantly, or the price of gas shoots back into the $4-5 range (or higher), train service simply isn’t competitive. It may be fun, it may even be romantic, But until it’s an equitable dollars and cents match, it’s hard to see passenger rail being even close to a break-even alternative.
Here’s an idea we think does make some sense and may be worth exploring — light commuter rail. For much less money, upfront or otherwise, you could have a small two or three, highly automated passenger train car link from Manchester to Albany. Potentially, if the ridership were there, run several times a day. It wouldn’t require the level of track upgrades a full-blown heavy passenger rail service would, and would be sufficient to transport local residents who might want to travel to New York for the day or weekend and bring visitors to our neighborhood. People could live here and commute to work in Albany.
Train service is wonderful in the right places. Along the heavily populated Boston to Washington D.C. corridor, it makes an awful lot of sense. We don’t have the density of population here, which is part of what makes this area attractive, but it undercuts the case for passenger rail service.
We’d rather see the $25 million being discussed here invested in a super-fast “bullet” train for the Albany to New York run. That’s another way you could bring train service closer, and link with this area through a bus. That idea was advanced by Gov. Douglas earlier in legislative session before it died a premature death, but it had a lot of merit, and would have filled a public transportation gap. But legislators weren’t interested, apparently.
Here’s another idea that would be a nifty use for the existing rail bed — a Rail Trail. Cover the existing tracks with a tarpaulin and gravel and convert them into a 50 mile round trip bike and hiking path between Manchester and Bennington. It would be a unique drawing card for our area. It’s pretty level. It would probably draw hundreds, maybe thousands, of hikers and bikers — and their disposable income. If it flopped, or we needed the tracks again because of a national emergency, you could pull up the covering and have the railroad back. People would likely find their way here to experience it, and they wouldn’t need a train from Albany or Rutland.
We have nothing against trains. They are fun. Let’s also have some common sense and look at the big picture. Restoring passenger rail service to Manchester and the surrounding region is one of those hardy perennials, that much like the spring flowers we hope to soon see blooming, pops up out of the ground every so often to beguile us with thoughts of accomplishing two things at once — giving our local economy a boost and doing the right thing environmentally.
Last week a group of area officials and businesspeople went to Montpelier to urge the State Senate Transportation Committee to look favorably upon extending passenger rail service south from Rutland, through Manchester and Bennington before veering west toward Albany, where passengers could board trains to New York City and elsewhere. To do that, the quality of the railroad tracks between Rutland and Manchester need an upgrade and other improvements made.
Like magic, a portion of the money coming to Vermont from the federal government’s economic stimulus plan may be available for transportation initiatives such this. The $25 million or so officials estimate would be required to bring the tracks up to snuff, along with other needed investments, might fold neatly into the larger picture of expanding passenger rail service elsewhere in the state.
Bennington County folks were motivated to jump into the haggling over how the rail money might get divvied up because of the possibility that the county could be shut out of passenger rail upgrades altogether. State officials could opt to expand passenger rail service south only from Burlington to Rutland, which could then link up with the already established Ethan Allen Amtrak Express — recently spared from the state budget ax — and move passengers over to Albany that way. Or they could start from the south and build north. The latter approach has the merit of being closer to the major population centers further south, and so ensure a higher level of ridership, but Burlington and Chittenden County have the political clout in the Legislature to make the northern extension of rail the first priority. If that happens, passenger rail from Rutland south through Bennington would probably be doomed, because our guess is that ridership on that link won’t be great enough to justify the cost.
But before we all get excited about the prospect of bringing passenger trains back to Manchester, we’d like to see a fair, objective study or analysis of how many passengers are really likely to ride the train. These sorts of decisions really need to be based on as much hard factual data as possible. Let’s not make investments based on wish-fulfillment or overly rosy scenarios. And let’s enter the “green” factor when that is more precisely quantifiable — not just a nice, moral virtue. We’re all for getting green, but sustainable decisions need an economic foundation. A component of rail service may be a gas tax — which would make for an incentive to travel by train. But that’s another issue.
Federal dollars may help upgrade the track, but they won’t pay for the train’s operation forever. That will be borne by state money — our tax dollars. Right now, the ridership on the Ethan Allen Express requires a federal and state subsidy of about $65 per passenger, on top of the price of the train ticket. The cost to the state treasury amounts to nearly $5 million per year.
We’re not sold yet that regular passenger train service is a panacea for local business, tourist-oriented or other. If it turns out it would be, great. But right now it takes longer, and costs more, for the typical visitor from downstate New York to arrive here by train, who is then faced with getting around a rural area with either a rented car, a van service or maybe, a bicycle. Until train service gets much faster, or the price drops significantly, or the price of gas shoots back into the $4-5 range (or higher), train service simply isn’t competitive. It may be fun, it may even be romantic, But until it’s an equitable dollars and cents match, it’s hard to see passenger rail being even close to a break-even alternative.
Here’s an idea we think does make some sense and may be worth exploring — light commuter rail. For much less money, upfront or otherwise, you could have a small two or three, highly automated passenger train car link from Manchester to Albany. Potentially, if the ridership were there, run several times a day. It wouldn’t require the level of track upgrades a full-blown heavy passenger rail service would, and would be sufficient to transport local residents who might want to travel to New York for the day or weekend and bring visitors to our neighborhood. People could live here and commute to work in Albany.
Train service is wonderful in the right places. Along the heavily populated Boston to Washington D.C. corridor, it makes an awful lot of sense. We don’t have the density of population here, which is part of what makes this area attractive, but it undercuts the case for passenger rail service.
We’d rather see the $25 million being discussed here invested in a super-fast “bullet” train for the Albany to New York run. That’s another way you could bring train service closer, and link with this area through a bus. That idea was advanced by Gov. Douglas earlier in legislative session before it died a premature death, but it had a lot of merit, and would have filled a public transportation gap. But legislators weren’t interested, apparently.
Here’s another idea that would be a nifty use for the existing rail bed — a Rail Trail. Cover the existing tracks with a tarpaulin and gravel and convert them into a 50 mile round trip bike and hiking path between Manchester and Bennington. It would be a unique drawing card for our area. It’s pretty level. It would probably draw hundreds, maybe thousands, of hikers and bikers — and their disposable income. If it flopped, or we needed the tracks again because of a national emergency, you could pull up the covering and have the railroad back. People would likely find their way here to experience it, and they wouldn’t need a train from Albany or Rutland.
We have nothing against trains. They are fun. Let’s also have some common sense and look at the big picture.

Posted by Andrew McKeever at 2:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)