The Video

Link here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFfggdBr_oI

The One Based off the Picture of The Pissed Wife and Broken Car

“Honey, I thought I told you to bring the toolbox with us.”

“No, my dear.  I asked you to fix the car BEFORE we left for our honeymoon—and you said you would.”

“I did!  I fixed the transmission.”

“I asked you to fix the car…”

“I did fix the car!”

“Then why are we stuck God-knows-where-we-are-now with a broken engine?!?”

“I didn’t know the engine was in trouble!”

“Robert, that engine’s been clanking like it was about to fall off for weeks!”

“I told ya—Amanda, that’s because the engine’s old—not because it’s loose!” Robert sighs. 

The young woman clad in the flowing white dress gives Robert a suspicious glare as he grabs the engine to give it a gentle shake—only to burst out laughing when her new husband lets out a terrific shriek and starts dancing around like a madman. 

“It burns!  It burns!  It burns—f**k it burns!!”

“Serves you right!”

“Oh shut up, woman!”  Robert playfully raises his dirty, grimy hands and slowly advances towards Amanda.

“Robert stop it!”

“Come on—I need to wipe this stuff off…”

“Robert—no!”  Amanda swats Robert’s hands away from her dress.  Holding them firmly her husband’s back, she kisses him eagerly. 

“Stuck in the middle of nowhere… got no toolbox to fix the car, got no gas… how long do you think it’ll be before the hotel realizes we’re not coming…?”

“…”

“Robert, don’t tell me that you forgot to book the hotel, too…”  

To the One who Eats Dog Food.

Dear Ann,

While I can certainly understand your love for your pets, I feel that the stage for packaged human food isn’t so different either.  For example, a European investigation recently revealed that certain brands of ground beef contained significant amounts of horse meat.  Not that horse meat isn’t edible, but the thought is hardly palatable when you are in the supermarket and are considering on purchase angus beef patties. 

Other stories are far more insidious: in Taiwan a few years back, whistleblowers uncovered that plasticines were being put into sports drinks and other commercial beverages as emulsifiers.  The media backlash was strong enough to warrant food and drug regulations for the country. 

There were even scandals in the United States—in the early 1900’s, inquisitive journalists uncovered deplorable conditions in meat packaging factories that sickened both workers and consumers alike—these journalists ultimately became known as “muckrackers” for the scum they were uncovering to the public.  So great and many were their findings that the time between the Civil War and WWI in America became known as the “Gilded Age”: a multitude of serious problems hidden by a very thin layer of gold. 

I do not know if the 21^st century will become the new “Gilded Age”: the Food and Drug Administration was erected in the US in response to these muckracking activities—and I hope that some kind of response is dealt with the current scandals of today.  The important thing is that there must be people who are willing to go where no one else feels like going or dares to; I applaud your dedication to exposing corporate dishonesty, and in your quest to find the truth… even if it is just about dog food. 

Sincerely,

Wei-fan Chang

A Study in Transit; or, Why HSR Isn’t a Boondoggle.

Attempts to start HSR projects in the US have started a torrential firestorm of political and economic debate.  Since 2008, when Californian voters approved the plan to build a high-speed rail link between Los Angeles and San Francisco, high speed rail and other transit project have attracted a great deal of controversy.  Ballooning costs, plan changes, and doubts about ridership have led to an unrelenting barrage of acidic reviews by conservative politicians and economic analysts alike; who all recommend the immediate halt of such projects.  Contrary to their claims, the positive effects of such networks are often hidden and overlooked by fiscal planners due to their scope and scale.  Aside from its high upfront costs, high speed rail is a critical investment that is required for all developed countries—government planners should ignore the partisan arguments regarding the issue and continue forward.   

The most visible issue about such projects is the subject of cost.  California High Speed Rail’s projections have fluctuated wildly over the years; initially sold to the public at a cost of $30 billion in 2008, a new estimate upped the price to $100 billion, and then gradually revised the cost downwards to $68 billion.  This has greatly eroded public confidence, reflected in popular polls from a 53% approval rate to a 59% disapproval rate.  In 2012, Congress voted to specifically block federal funding for all high speed rail projects, and Republican governors in Florida and Wisconsin rescinded federal funds that had already been approved.  In a time and age in which financial austerity is a political reality, the topic itself has become synonymous with the word, “boondoggle”: a catchy political phrase describing large, expensive investments devoid of actual benefit. 

Dubious claims of ridership have also attracted criticism.  Opponents cite the shortfalls of Amtrak, the American passenger rail carrier; ever since its creation since 1971, the ailing company has required constant federal subsidies to remain solvent.  Many see rail transport as an obsolete technology in the face of automobiles and commercial jetliners, and fanatical critics such as Randal O’Toole pontificate, “High-speed rail is a technology whose time has come and gone. What might have been useful a century ago is today merely an anachronism that will cost taxpayers tens or hundreds of billions of dollars yet contribute little to American mobility or environmental quality.” (O’Toole, 2009)   

While high speed rail may certainly be infamous for its extremely high upfront costs, the benefits associated with the service are much more difficult to discern and abstractly predict without a case study.  However, given the rabid pace of construction in China and their own HSR program of late, large-scale sociological effects can be accurately measured and effectively argued to counterpoint critics.

Randal O’Toole dismisses carbon savings from high speed rail because, he argues, cars and airplanes will become more and more fuel-efficient and environmentally friendly (O’Toole, 2009).  Unfortunately, this trend is likely also to be true for newer trains.  China’s new CRH380A series train sets require significantly less power to run as they are constructed of extremely lightweight materials.  Furthermore, newer models are now equipped with regenerative brakes; this new method of braking works by reversing the function of an electric motor into a generator: re-converting the train’s kinetic energy back into electrical power, which is then fed back into the electric grid for other use.  Previously, brakes slowed a train down by means of friction—converting the train’s kinetic energy into heat.  This method of braking is highly wasteful, as dissipated thermal energy cannot be economically recovered, and highly increases maintenance costs.  The use of regenerative brakes, therefore, greatly improves the energy efficiency of an HSR system; CRH380A trains regularly recover around 95% of the energy used while cruising using regenerative brakes during commercial operation.  Since electric trains emit nothing themselves, carbon emissions are externalized to the local areas around power plants instead of populated city centers.   This level of energy conservation and environmental friendliness is highly difficult for airlines and automobiles to challenge, and thus invalidates arguments on power consumption and carbon emissions for HSR. 

A favorite topic of rail critics in the United States is the abysmal performance of Amtrak.  Since its creation in 1971, the government-owned company has suffered from chronic low ridership and has generally failed to sustain itself financially.  As a result, some advocate the funding axe for Amtrak and other rail-related projects, citing the $1 billion annual subsidy required for operation as solid proof that rail is unviable.  “If there is merit, why hasn’t the private sector invested in it?” the popular phrase goes.  However, these people have very likely overlooked the consideration that high investment costs will deter most investors even though the concept itself is sound. 

Neither do the economic naysayers want to admit that the Interstate Highway system, the backbone of the US transportation network, is not and never was financially solvent.  According to federal budget appropriations, the Federal Highway Administration receives over $30 billion annually in maintenance, compared to the modest $1.5 billion budget allocated to rail (“Fiscal Year 2012,” 2012) .  Airports and other aviation infrastructure have also been heavily subsidized unbeknownst to the taxpayer, with costly land acquisition and construction fees borne by federal and state governments.  Rail proponents have drawn the comparison that for every $1 in federal funding that goes to passenger rail, freeways and airports receive $400-$500.  It is this unfair funding scheme, rail proponents argue, that rail service deteriorated in the 1960s to begin with—that freeways and airports received large government handouts while the railways system was forced to remain self-sufficient. 

The second argument regarding American passenger rail in general is related to its ridership—in the United States, people simply don’t ride the rails as much as they drive.  Critics counter that even though freeways and airports receive more subsidies than passenger rail, they still deserve more subsidies over railways because the public uses them to a greater extent.  This is further proof, they argue, that rail is an uncompetitive form of transportation—that even with subsidies, passenger railways are incapable of sustaining themselves. 

However, the problem with this argument is that it assumes Amtrak’s current iteration is fully competitive and is on-par with 21^st century standards.  While railways in Europe and Asia are modern marvels of engineering, passenger trains in the States share lanes with slow and heavy freight trains on outdated tracks.  For example, on the Northeast Corridor, the only service that resembles high speed rail in the country, some of the tunnels and bridges have history dating back to the American Civil War—the heavily-used Baltimore and Potomac Tunnel is still in use after 140 years of operation, and serves as a major bottleneck (Steinemann, 2011).   The effects of outdated and inadequate infrastructure are obvious: low service frequency, slow operating speeds, and limited capacity.  Even though the trains themselves can reach speeds in excess of 100mph, services outside the NEC in the early 2000s regularly average 20mph, run late by 6-7 hours, and offer less than a service a day due to a low state of disrepair.  This measly performance in effect creates a negative feedback loop.  Poor service leads to dissatisfied customers, and dissatisfied customers leads to lower revenue.  Lower revenue leads to budgetary shortfalls leads to more cuts in service quality.  Such has been the trend for the past 40 years; one only needs a brief look to realize that America’s broken passenger railway system is nowhere even close to 21^st century standards.  One can only begin to imagine the true potential of a robust modern network.

Despite the woeful quality offered by Amtrak, however, ridership has been steadily increasing nevertheless.  Amtrak regularly boasts a rate of 70-85% in farebox recovery in spite of its modest budget, while airports and freeways only manage to recapture around 50% of their operational costs. 

In March 2013, Amtrak announced a record-breaking 31 million passengers, marking the 11^th month of steady, unbroken growth in ridership (Amtrak, 2013).  This is part of a widespread, popular rising trend in rail usage for the past several years, and shows no sign of slowing down; in total, ridership has jumped by 70% since FY2000.  Some studies have suggested that this is attributed to increased congestion and rising gas prices, but the implications are clear: even with all of the limitations in place, passenger rail transport is far from obsolete in the US.  In fact, express trains running on the Northeast Corridor, despite costing more than airline tickets, have beaten air and car travel and now occupy 75% of the market and are nearing capacity (Nixon, 2012).  Aside from its dense, urban background, the NEC’s operational success is attributed to its services’ high speed and frequency, making rail travel a convenient and comfortable way to travel. 

To conservative urban planners in the US, high speed rail and other mass-transit projects still seem inherently incompatible with car culture.  The sprawling nature of American cities, with downtown areas surrounded by low-density suburban neighborhoods, makes the car the ideal mode of transportation, and makes high-density facilities like railway stations impractical. 

High speed rail may not seem to be able to compete with cars on an intracity level, but that is because it affects travel patterns on an intercity level.  According to a recent study by Tsinghua University, an analysis of cities recently connected by HSR saw an explosion in housing prices and economic activity, while areas not connected remained static.  A standard city model consists of a commercial “downtown” region and a residential “suburban” region.  When a city reaches capacity—when all available land within a reasonable commuting distance, is occupied, growth stagnates.  There are two reasons—businesses and commercial services cannot find affordable room needed for expansion, and new residents have difficulty finding affordable housing.  The introduction of an HSR station, however, acts as what analysts call a “safety valve”.  Instead of living and working in the same city, one can live in lesser-developed areas where housing is cheaper and commute to work in highly-developed “1^st tier cities” where pay is better.  Similarly, businesses can relocate new offices to new suburban “2^nd and 3^rd tier cities” (Zheng & Kahn, 2013), where office space is cheap and abundant.  This new intercity dependency has resulted in explosive economic growth for both 1^st and 2^nd tier cities.  According to lead researcher Kahn, “It's a ‘win-win’ as the scarce mega city's land is efficiently used and the secondary cities experience local growth.”  (Kahn, 2013)

The full extent of how an HSR station will affect a localized setting is difficult to gauge in the short term, even more so before it is built.  However, in light of overwhelming evidence, one must accept, no matter how grudgingly, that high speed rail will bring many positive benefits not to just an individual city, but the region as a whole.  Critics throw up one last cry of protest—that these projects are highly expensive, but what isn’t?  What of the time lost while stuck in traffic snarls, or the illnesses caused by poor air quality?  What of the higher prices people pay due to urban sprawl and the lack of viable property?  Many developed regions in America are already suffering from metropolitan overcapacity—people are forced to live farther and farther from their workplaces and spend more time on the road.  Airports are at capacity, and short-haul flights, currently the only fast way to travel between cities, are now commercially unviable.  The only reason why HSR appears to be expensive is because the real cost of doing nothing is what is truly invisible.  High speed rail goes beyond making cities feel closer together; it has the potential to redefine how cities operate in general. 

And that’s something. 

CITATIONS

Kahn, M. (2013, April 8). High Speed Rail Versus Austerity.  Harvard Business Review, Retrieved from http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/04/high_speed_rail_versus_austeri.html

National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), (March, 2013). Amtrak Ridership Growth Continues in FY2013.  60 Massachusetts Ave., NE, Washington D.C.

Nixon, R. (2012, August 15). Frustration of Air Travel Pushes Passengers to Amtrak.  New York Times.  Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/business/hassles-of-air-travel-push-passengers-to-amtrak.html

Office of Management and Budget, (2012). Fiscal Year 2012 Budget of the US Government. Washington D.C.: U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE.

O'Toole, R. (n.d.). High-Speed Rail: The Wrong Road for America. (2008).  Policy Analysis, (625), Cato Institute.

Steinemann, J. (30, August 2011). A 21st Century NEC: The Challenge of Civil War era Tunnels. Retrieved from http://www.northeastbizalliance.org/2011/08/a-21st-century-nec-the-challenge-of-civil-war-era-tunnels.html

Zheng, S., & Kahn, M. (2013). China’s Bullet Trains Facilitate Market Integration and Mitigate the Cost of Megacity Growth. Informally published manuscript, Department of Construction Management and Hang Lung Center for Real Estate, Tsinghua University, Beijing, Beijing, People. Retrieved from www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1209247110