Bruce Babbitt, the former Interior Secretary (1993-2001) and Arizona governor 1978-87, thinks the national debate over President Obama's push for high-speed rail "has, to put it mildly, been a total disaster."
In terms of marketing, he told a group of journalists today, Obama goofed in comparing a new national high-speed rail initiative to the intercontinental railroad in the 19th century. That infrastructure initiative, Babbitt noted, is inextricably linked in history books with a huge corruption scandal, the Credit Mobilier. A much better comparison, Babbitt said, would have been the interstate highway system.
Today many people look back on the interstate highway-building project as if it was a unanimous hug-fest. In fact, Babbitt said, many governors opposed it when it was first proposed. They rejected the idea of a federal tax. Major businesses such as the concrete and steel industries didn't like the federalization. Eventually, though, after "protracted discussion," agreement was forged to raise the gas tax and create a trust fund – the product of "a lot of good, solid brokering."
Why not, he proposes, bring something of that process to a high-speed rail venture in the only region that, today, has a sound network of passenger rail – the Northeast? What about a regional compact for a regional gas (or other) tax, for regional high-speed rail? It might be a model for other regions. (Or not, as he pointed out.)
But he was also a bit pessimistic that seven regional governors could get together even on this kind of project. Someone asked why. "I was a governor," he replied.
The conference sponsors are the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, the Nieman Foundation, and Harvard's Graduate School of Design.
In terms of marketing, he told a group of journalists today, Obama goofed in comparing a new national high-speed rail initiative to the intercontinental railroad in the 19th century. That infrastructure initiative, Babbitt noted, is inextricably linked in history books with a huge corruption scandal, the Credit Mobilier. A much better comparison, Babbitt said, would have been the interstate highway system.
Today many people look back on the interstate highway-building project as if it was a unanimous hug-fest. In fact, Babbitt said, many governors opposed it when it was first proposed. They rejected the idea of a federal tax. Major businesses such as the concrete and steel industries didn't like the federalization. Eventually, though, after "protracted discussion," agreement was forged to raise the gas tax and create a trust fund – the product of "a lot of good, solid brokering."
Why not, he proposes, bring something of that process to a high-speed rail venture in the only region that, today, has a sound network of passenger rail – the Northeast? What about a regional compact for a regional gas (or other) tax, for regional high-speed rail? It might be a model for other regions. (Or not, as he pointed out.)
But he was also a bit pessimistic that seven regional governors could get together even on this kind of project. Someone asked why. "I was a governor," he replied.
The conference sponsors are the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, the Nieman Foundation, and Harvard's Graduate School of Design.
Posts
46 comments:
The debate is only a "diaster" because your side is rightfully losing it. Rail IS 19th century technology and people just flat out don't want to use it. Plus they understand that THERE IS NO MONEY. NONE! When the he'll are you going to understand this?????? Admit you lost and move on instead of crying like a baby in a checkout line. Mommy's broke.
Makes sense. But we're not making much sense in our country today.
Gas at the pump is approaching $4 a gallon. I've stated over and over on this blog to my good rightwing friends that this was going to happen. But despite the fact it has, this reality doesn't in any way get more people to realize we need a comprehensive mass transit system for our region.
My rightwing friends who oppose mass transit would rather walk 20 miles to work than pay a dollar for mass transit.
Being wrong can be humbling. But sticking to wrong is just plain stupid.
I'm appealing to all my rightwing friends to quit paying between $40 and $85 for EACH FILL UP, and start supporting mass transit now, while we still have some capacity to build it.
Time has just about run out.
P.S. Consultant's next prediction: This is the new normal. Once Libya is settled, prices will dip a bit, but then we're on to somewhere between $4.50 and $5 dollars a barrel.
Welcome to the new world.
I think that the answer is that, at least for now, it should be shelved. Until there is a surplus in the federal and state budgets. And then only after that surplus is used to pay back every last penny we owe then maybe we can begin considering something like this. Tighten your belts people. The government can't afford to do everything.
An Infrastructure Bank would be most ideal. A dedicated revenue for infrastructure - ala the gas tax. Maybe an emissions tax, or levee a tax on environmentally destructive/non-renewable resources. It shouldn't be illegal to mine coal (if that's the business you're in) but you should be taking responsibility for what you're doing: and paying into an Infrastructure Bank would allow people who oppose your business and alternative to it.
What debate? In a genuine debate, each party says at the start exactly what kind of evidence will lead him to concede the point to his opponent.
The Republicans have made it abundantly clear that nothing, NOTHING, no kind of evidence, will ever make them yield the point.
This is not a debate. It's a shouting match, and the Republicans can always win in a shouting match.
Estimates of the cost to build a comprehensive high-speed network nationally are somewhere between $1 and $3 trillion dollars. In case you haven't noticed, we already are in the red $15 trillion (approximately $70T if you factor in the liabilities of social security, medicare, and public pensions). So it's just financially impossible to build the network regardless of the benefits that may accrue.
Suspending reality, and assuming that we had even $1T to build the network, IS IT FINANCIALLY SUSTAINABLE ON ITS OWN? That viability depends on three things, which rarely all exist in a given corridor:
1. High origin/destination traffic between all (or at least most) points along a corridor. For the southeast high-speed rail corridor, for instance, is there enough intra-regional travel between Atlanta, Greenville/Spartannburg, Charlotte, Greensboro, Raleigh/Durham, Richmond, and DC to justify several hundred billion dollars of capital investment?
2. Is taking the train competitive, both in terms of time and cost, to driving or flying? While the train from Charlotte to Raleigh may be relatively cost-competitive due to the high price of gas, what happens when I actually GET to Raleigh? If I'm going to downtown Raleigh, then perhaps the train continues to be competitive. But what if I need to go to Garner? Wake Forest? Some place on I-540? How do I get from the train station to that secondary destination, and what are the time and financial costs with it?
3. The logistics of driving are prohibitive. Rail in general works in the Northeast because of the extreme congestion in driving, expense of parking decks, etc. The flexibility provided by driving an automobile has to be compromised somehow by the inherent logistical problems. Neither Charlotte nor Raleigh has those constraints; contrast that with, driving in, say DC or New York.
I am NOT saying that rail transportation is bad, outdated, or inherently evil. It needs to just not become another bottomless rathole that we throw money we don't have into. (See my preamble.)
And before you think I'm a paid shill for AAA, Ford Motor Company, or Blythe Construction, there are a whole bunch of subsidies provided to roads (both direct, such as public maintenance of roads, and indirect, such as employer-provided free parking) that need to end too. That's a discussion for another day though.
The country simply can't afford shiny new toys until we have paid off the credit card. Why is this so hard to understand?
"Rail IS 19th century technology and people just flat out don't want to use it"
I want to use it... so I can avoid the TSA, weather related flight delays, cattle car aircraft configurations etc. Plus I can get off the train at a convenient stop, usually in a center city instead of a $50 cab ride from my destination as it is at ATL/Hartsfield. Airlines are just so 21st century????
High-speed rail, any mass transit for that matter needs a critical mass in the population to be viable. Look at Amtrak, the only region it has had any success has been the Northeast, =critical mass, but even that is now failing because of shift in demographics to the South. Just because you make the train faster, it will not be a success in areas so spread out and less populated, 85% of the country.
Too often we have been hoodwinked into "investments" like bobcats arena and light rail that cost much more than projected and put a drag on the region due to rapidly expanding costs. People have heard these arguments before, just don't believe them anymore. Artificially limiting oil drilling makes people believe the gas price is contrived (for instance: how much of the increase in gas price is due to increased state taxes in the last several years). Our political system is broken - ideas, concepts, etc. from this broken system will be ever more difficult to "sell".
To Anonymous at 12:53pm, here is other 19th century technology, besides the rail, that people still use today:
1800 - the Battery
1810 - Tin Cans
1814 - Photography/First Picture
1830 - Sewing Machine
1836 - the Revolver
1856 - Pasteurisation
1858 - Internal Combustion Engine
1866 - Dynamite
1876 - Telephone
1877 - Moving Pictures
1878 - Electric Lightbulb
1885 - First Practical Automobile & Gas-Engine Motorcycle
1886 - Coca Cola
1887 - Contact Lenses
1888 - AC Motor and Transformer
1891 - Escalator
1892 - Diesel-fueled internal combustion engine
This is only a small list, hopefully it proves a point.
I must disagree with Anon 12:53 -- there are plenty of people who DO want to use it, when it will go when and where they are headed. That takes time, planning and investment. Europe has managed quite well to keep people riding trains.
When the US public finally gets around to recognizing that we don't deserve to use as much of the world's finite resources as we do, and should pay dearly for every gallon, you'll find more people willing to share the ride.
To 4/15 -
The rail not only costs money now but will also cost money in the future. Why are building more things that will be a net cost rather than benefit. Pay for it some other way. If rail was in demand and was financially feasible then private companies would have rail all over the place. Your argument is simply "it is better for the environment and weens us off foreign oil" - I hardly buy either and would love to see a study on either, rather than just assumptions as to the net benefits.
The "problem" with "high speed" rail is that it's not.... not high speed. The high speed rail money that the Governor of Ohio rejected would have established a link between Cleveland and Columbus with an average speed under 40 miles per hour. The proposed link between Charlotte and Raleigh cuts 13 minutes off the current trip.
I lived in Japan for over 2 years during my career in the Navy. These proposed links here in the USA would be classified as "milk runs" in Japan. Tokyo to Osaka at nearly 200 miles per hour is high speed.
Charlotte to Raleigh in under an hour is high speed.
"High speed rail" is like some sort sugar cookie for the liberal set.
Irresistible to the left despite the bloated obese and diabetes ridden budget deficits...still they gotta have it.
If it means so much to them, let them privatize it....that way no one could say no. But then again, self sufficiency is against some peoples rules. So that would never happen.
Look up that national debt clock, and ask about "high speed rail" again.
Highways are subsidized, why not mass transit?
On a related note,I am continually amazed at the vitriolic comments directed at Ms. Newsome. Her blog is informative and provides opportunity for community discussion. Why all the derision and hate?
WashuOtaku,
Everything you said has been upgraded! Rail would still be almost exactly the same!
"Estimates of the cost to build a comprehensive high-speed network nationally are somewhere between $1 and $3 trillion dollars."
Money well spent.
It's a better investment than:
-the hopeless task of stabilizing Iraq/Afghanistan
-bailing out criminal bankers, hedge fund speculators
-farm subsidies to corporate farmers
-subsidies to rolling in dough oil companies
-tax cuts for the 1% richest people in America
-tax breaks and tax loop holes for corporations who park their assets overseas so they don't have to pay taxes here in America
-miseducating 2 generations of American children so that now this large population of adults (ie. my rightwing friends & Glenn Beck) are illiterate and essentially unable to do many 21st century jobs and are incapable of understanding the complexities of the many problems we now face and their role as citizens in a society now controlled by transnational corporations
If we're broke, it's because my rightwing friends voted for being broke.
I'm searching for back bone, integrity and smarts. Do we have any of that left in this nation?
When all the cars stop running because the gas is way too high, all my good rightwing friends will be out in the streets crying and screaming the loudest. They'll say without the slightest hint of embarrassment, "Why did you listen to us fools? You know we don't know what we're talking about! Why didn't just go ahead and build the trains?"
Such are the challenges of democracy.
The great educator John Dewey stated that democracy cannot work without an educated citizenry.
This we do not have.
On another note, are any of you paying attention to what's happening in Japan? I hope so. It is going to have a major impact on our economy.
Just sayin'.
@consultant
The reason gas is at $4/gallon on the way to 5 is because Obama wants that. He said energy price will necessarily skyrocket under his plans. He shut down deep water drilling in the Gulf and has defied 2 court orders doing so. Now he is using taxpayer money to help Brazil drill for oil (not sure why Americans are not allowed to but its OK for Brazilians) and he said the US would be happy to buy it from them. How is that getting us off foreign oil?
We have plenty of resources in the US which he has made off-limits. When Bush announce he was lifting the offshore oil ban, the price of a barrel dropped by $22 in 4 days! Even the threat of us using our own resources will force the oil cartels to back down the price.
"Estimates of the cost to build a comprehensive high-speed network nationally are somewhere between $1 and $3 trillion dollars."
The amount of money it will take to build high speed rail is staggering. But what is more staggering is how much we spend every year to maintain our roads, which is a losing battle.
Roads crumble down to nothing, and in very short order.
Rails last.
Automobiles wear down within two decades.
Rail cars and locomotives last.
We call trains "19th Century" because so many of the trains that ran in the 19th Century are STILL IN WORKING ORDER. Can't say that about our roads, which are always a good storm away from being unusable.
Anon 4/15/2011 01:49:00 PM,
With respect to your well written post:
1) Of-course there isn't substantial traffic traffic between all (or at least most) points along the corridors. There wasn't significant traffic along 485 before it was built. Did you ever drive Park Road into Jonestown Road before it was fully connected? Have you noticed the metric ton of frontage that is there now (and coincidentally how 485 cannot possibly halfway serve it's usage)?
2) Have you priced the cost to ride to Greensboro or Durham or Cary or Raleigh? My mother makes that trip to/fro all the time to see us - it's like 14 bucks. She drives a 30mpg Celica and can't beat that in price and it's only about 15 minute difference. How you get to and fro is different per city and where there aren't great options in GSO for instance, you are in Downtown Durham where you can easily get transportation a few blocks away. But that's only looking at what is serving a 2-3 time a day ridership, not what would come out of the ground if there was high use/high demand.
3) I think you are taking a limited view of our traffic problem a) and b) you are underestimating the time frame that other (more congested) parts of the US "began" to address their problems. When MARTA started up, was there as much need then as today? No. How much it de-burdens ATL today is not something I know but I know that if they waited until now to begin it . . . well they simply couldn't have. We need to address problems before the arrive, not after. We cannot wait until we have a traffic problem like NYC before we decide to handle it - NYC has been building MT for 80 or so years - and as someone that has worked in the city, thank G-d they did.
To your statement of how can we afford it - it's simple, we can always afford infrastructure improvements that both enable business/growth and create jobs in their effort and aftermath. It's good investment - there's not a way to argue around that. We subsidize gasoline, diesel, air travel, public transit - We as tax payers are subsidizing all of that today. Why would we not want/nay demand that our subsidies are better spent on technologies and interconnectivity of the future instead?
"The rail not only costs money now but will also cost money in the future."
Funny, but that is a lot more true of our roads than it is of our rails. Roads cost more to build, and more to repair, than rails.
" Why are building more things that will be a net cost rather than benefit. Pay for it some other way."
Anon 4/15/2011 01:49:00 PM,
With respect to your well written post:
1) Of-course there isn't substantial traffic traffic between all (or at least most) points along the corridors. There wasn't significant traffic along 485 before it was built. Did you ever drive Park Road into Jonestown Road before it was fully connected? Have you noticed the metric ton of frontage that is there now (and coincidentally how 485 cannot possibly halfway serve it's usage)?
2) Have you priced the cost to ride to Greensboro or Durham or Cary or Raleigh? My mother makes that trip to/fro all the time to see us - it's like 14 bucks. She drives a 30mpg Celica and can't beat that in price and it's only about 15 minute difference. How you get to and fro is different per city and where there aren't great options in GSO for instance, you are in Downtown Durham where you can easily get transportation a few blocks away. But that's only looking at what is serving a 2-3 time a day ridership, not what would come out of the ground if there was high use/high demand.
3) I think you are taking a limited view of our traffic problem a) and b) you are underestimating the time frame that other (more congested) parts of the US "began" to address their problems. When MARTA started up, was there as much need then as today? No. How much it de-burdens ATL today is not something I know but I know that if they waited until now to begin it . . . well they simply couldn't have. We need to address problems before the arrive, not after. We cannot wait until we have a traffic problem like NYC before we decide to handle it - NYC has been building MT for 80 or so years - and as someone that has worked in the city, thank G-d they did.
To your statement of how can we afford it - it's simple, we can always afford infrastructure improvements that both enable business/growth and create jobs in their effort and aftermath. It's good investment - there's not a way to argue around that. We subsidize gasoline, diesel, air travel, public transit - We as tax payers are subsidizing all of that today. Why would we not want/nay demand that our subsidies are better spent on technologies and interconnectivity of the future instead?
Anonymous@1:49pm - Just answering one part of your long comment about how to travel in Raleigh if you don't go by car. Well, people that fly and ride the bus also have same unique issue; there is the local transportation, taxi service, rent a car, and friends that pick you up. This isn't really a big deal if you think about the people that does this everyday, especially via RDU.
Anonymous@1:52pm - The nation can't afford three wars either, yet we doing that too. If you think trains will put us over the edge, then you have no concept of the federal budget.
Anonymous@2:07pm - You give no definition of what the 'Critical Mass' is; you ignore the popularity of the current rail service today and are guessing that service in the Northeast is failing simply because of population shifts. Back-up your statement with some facts, thanks.
Anonymous@2:13pm - Not going to argue with you on that.
Anonymous@2:32pm - History lesson: in 1970, President Nixon signed into law the "Rail Passenger Service Act" which created Amtrak; this was to allow private passenger rail to move into hybrid public-private entity... the goal was to keep passenger rail service available. That being said, I'm not going to defend it as a Environmentally alternative... they all use diesel engines and they are very popular with hauling coal to power plants. But I still support passenger rail because it is a choice, and a lot of places don't have many choices for travel. Rail will never be self-sufficient, but neither is our state ferry system and state maintained highways (unless you put tolls on them, and even then may still fall short {i.e. I-185 in Greenville, SC}).
Anonymous@2:35pm - I laughed at how corny your comment was... you don't have any concept of the federal budget whatsoever. Come back to the grown-up table after you do some research.
Why is it Mary never tells us the real cost of rail in Charlotte.
We are subsidising it to about seven dollars according to a Professor out at UNC Charlotte plus the fare each way.
But then again the facts are not what is important to any of those who want to show how great a value it is for us.
Someone said these are in use today.
1800 - the Battery
1810 - Tin Cans
1814 - Photography/First Picture
1830 - Sewing Machine
1836 - the Revolver
1856 - Pasteurisation
1858 - Internal Combustion Engine
1866 - Dynamite
1876 - Telephone
1877 - Moving Pictures
1878 - Electric Lightbulb
1885 - First Practical Automobile & Gas-Engine Motorcycle
1886 - Coca Cola
1887 - Contact Lenses
1888 - AC Motor and Transformer
1891 - Escalator
1892 - Diesel-fueled internal combustion engine
What is funny is that all of them have improved and the cost of each of them have gone down and down yet Rail has risen and risen.
It must be an inverse relationship item.
Build it all. It really don't matter. The dollar will lose it's reserve currency status within a decade. When that happens our standard of living will become like Cuba. What this country needs is to end the federal reserve and go back to a gold standard.
And Mary be sure the readers know that seventy percent of the stuff is carried by trucks in this country on roads.
And in the city 100 percent get there by truck.
And on those roads people seem to dislike so much and love those trains so much.
Low speed rail is efficient and very cost effective. High Speed Rail requires very low track tolerances or the train will derail at 120 MPH killing everyone on board.
Consequently, HSR must have the rails adjusted and maintained on a nightly basis. That is why it's so expensive.
When our government proves it can actually run something as efficiently as the private sector, then maybe it won't be a disaster. Funny how Amtrak and the USPS do not make a profit, and yet our tax dollars continue to support it.
I disagree with the folks that say no one will ride it. That's an ignorant statement. However, I do agree with those who say: We have no money! If we keep spending like this, we may not have a United States of America anymore to fund it!
If people in the United States, which is a very large area, want to live in centralized, high rise apartment complexes then there is a possiblility light rail might work when going from city to city, however, there are too many people living in rural areas that will not lives as the Russians did in the 1950's and 1960's. When will people realize that where there is a small country with a few small towns, then light highspeed rail can work to some extent. Currently, and for the next 50 years, should the US survive the current events, then light rail just might make a little bit of sense but not before. Those that want to burn our food for fuel and not drill for the abundent amount of oil that is available to the people of the US are not thinking rationally. Sometime during the next fifty years while we burn fossil fuels someone will come up with a good alternative to oil and/or carbon fuels, however, we need everything at this point. Should those that don't believe this, I suggest they park their cars, give everything they earn to the government or whomever in order to construct light rail that will not and cannot be used without costing billions upon billions of dollars just to move a few hundred thousand people. I suggest: God be with us!
You people that simply must get to or from Raleigh to Charlotte...could you figure out a way to do it on your own? It's called self sufficient. If you don't know what that means, I think you will within the next few years.
It's not even "high speed". It's not going to be like the French TGV (200mph trains) it will be maybe 90mph, so why bother? The only affective genuine high speed European type rail is for linking cities like NY-Boston-Phil.-Washington, or LA-SF. No matter how high gasoline goes, people are not going to give up their cars. They'll give up other things first, even when gas is $9.00 a gallon.
"Rail IS 19th century technology and people just flat out don't want to use it."
So are cars and asphalt roads. Go to Europe or any major city including Charlotte and you will see people use rail heavily where it is available.
"I think that the answer is that, at least for now, it should be shelved. Until there is a surplus in the federal and state budgets. And then only after that surplus is used to pay back every last penny we owe then maybe we can begin considering something like this. Tighten your belts people. The government can't afford to do everything."
The government can't afford not to reduce dependence on oil and either can our society or any other society. We aren't going to be paying back every penny if we kep depending on oil for the majority of our transportation energy.
"Estimates of the cost to build a comprehensive high-speed network nationally are somewhere between $1 and $3 trillion dollars. In case you haven't noticed, we already are in the red $15 trillion "
What are the estimates if we keep building more roads (oil) and maintaining more roads (oil) and consuming more cars every 7 years on average as the population continues to grow, effects of environmental impacts snowball, and continue to focus all of our energy consumption on individual cars all going to the same destination (oil)?
"The country simply can't afford shiny new toys until we have paid off the credit card. Why is this so hard to understand?"
The country can't continue to consume oil which is a nonrenewable resource, so inefficiently at 25% of the worlds consumption, as world consumption and demand increases and expect to payoff a credit card. It is a major reason we have a credit card bill to begin with. Not to mention gas is increasing in price. So how are we going to afford it long term? We aren't... What can't people understand about that?
"Too often we have been hoodwinked into "investments" like bobcats arena and light rail that cost much more than projected and put a drag on the region due to rapidly expanding costs."
Businesses have actually relocated to Charlotte because of light rail. Ridership exceeded projections. Real estate values & Upscale development prices increased significantly and surely have added jobs, significant new property tax, and sales tax revenue.
The rail not only costs money now but will also cost money in the future. Why are building more things that will be a net cost rather than benefit.
Tel me the difference between cars and roads here. Seriously. Since when have roads made a profit or broken even. Roads and cars have no where near the life expectancy of rails and rail cars, the maintenance cost sand emissions are severely higher
"Pay for it some other way."
Same with roads...
If rail was in demand and was financially feasible then private companies would have rail all over the place.
Private industry would have roads all over too. but they don't. I can't even imagine private businesses trying to acquire the ROW at market rate without eminent domain or condemnation, or building setbacks, or trying to widen roads they already build. Seriously is this a joke?
"The proposed link between Charlotte and Raleigh cuts 13 minutes off the current trip."
This is not accurate at all. The 15 minute efficiency is based on a trip with no sidetracks.
I have taken Amtrak to Raleigh and back many times. Currently, the line is one way. So every time a train has to pass another train going the other direction, one train has to take the side track and sit and wait. It typically takes half an hour to an hour and a half on any given day "getting sidetracked" because another train has to pass and there are very few sidetracks. So they just wait. If there were two tracks trains could travel in both directions without getting sidetracked and add half an hour to an hour and a half to any given trip. Then there is the 15 minutes in addition to the increased speed.
"The reason gas is at $4/gallon on the way to 5 is because Obama wants that."
I recall paying $4 several times prior to Obama taking office and our president was the son of an oil tycoon. I would assume he would know how to reduce the price of oil better than anyone. but no dice... this isn't about Obama it is about the fact that we consume 25% of the worlds oil production and make up less than 5% of the population and it is a limited resource with increasing demand and consumption worldwide and a growing world population.
Perhaps if we backed out of policing the world and forced Europe to anty up in the global disputes we too could focus more of our energies/money on paying down our deficit instead of our military policing or waring practices- In essence, doing what the EU parties have been doing to us in the past. We dump our money into our military to fix what others won't, while the rest sit on the bench making sure their bugets are in line...just my thoughts.
Gregory008 - while I agree that the US cannot afford its military adventurism, I must ask if you have been paying attention to Europe for the past year. Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland - none of these countries "have their bugets (sic) in line".
Gregory008 - while I agree that the US cannot afford its military adventurism, I must ask if you have been paying attention to Europe for the past year. Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland - none of these countries "have their bugets (sic) in line".
Read more: http://marynewsom.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-high-speed-rail-debates-been.html#ixzz1Jhw9s0ka
Oh, agreed. These countries have committed all sorts of financial foolishness the last 10 years, mostly overbuilding tourist resorts along the south coasts. But the one thing we should notice about the Euros is that they can cope with expensive oil, and we can't.
>> Euros is that they can cope with expensive oil
Yup. France gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear and a whole lot more Euro cars run on diesel.
Post a Comment