Amtrak DID run an evacuation train out of New Orleans. It was practically empty when it left.

The people who stayed behind WANTED to stay behind - at least until the floodwaters hit 12'.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 28, 2005 9:29 AM

I tell ya, I used to think this anti-car hobby horse you've been riding was just another in a long list of nutjob idee fixes that you spout off about. But now that I'm finishing up Power Broker, I'm starting to think you might actually have a valid point on this. Whodathunkit?

Having endured Houston's rush hour traffic many times and lived to tell the tale, I can say Tom DeLay is off his meds when he keeps fighting the creation of light rail to run alongside the main arteries to the city. But Otis is a little on the delusional side if he thinks light rail could do much of anything to aid in a serious evacuation, since it runs on dedicated rail lines and never gets far enough out of a metro area to free itself from the traffic jam zone, even if you lined up hundreds of buses at the rail terminal stations.

As for rail outside the northeast, sprawl and decentralization of business areas from downtown to sections along city interstate loops and the outer arteries means designers have to re-think how they would lay out a rail system. Most still subscribe to the idea everyone wants to go downtown, but many people nowadays simply travel from one outer urban area to another for work or to go shopping. Any lines that fail to reflect that will never live up to their full potential.

I know you have some Chicago area readers. Anybody willing to wait for a CTA train to evacuate you from the city? Anybody? Bueller?

How many cars can the train parking lot hold? How much would it cost if every big city had to buy passenger cars, and make that enough passenger cars, to excavate their cities?

Posted by: AllenS at September 28, 2005 10:08 AM

Otis White - clueless reporter. As Michael noted, AMTRAK not only had at least one train available, but had earlier told Nagin they were prepared to help. He did nothing. The train left at around 8:30 PM on Sunday night (the 28th).

One train (assuming 20 passenger cars) could have taken maybe 2500 people. Five trains - maybe 10,000. Who cares if the train went all the way to Memphis? At least they weren't going to be at the Superdome 24 hours later. Blanco could certainly have arranged for them to be dealt with in Baton Rouge or points north. Of course, 'could' is the operative word.

In case of a terrorist attack, it would just take about a pound of c4 to end that escape route. (sort of my hobby, dreaming up ways to kill millions)

Michael:

The story of the last train out of New Orleans is a little more complex than that. Under normal conditions, two trains originate in New Orleans every day: the Crescent which goes to NYC and the City of New Orleans (the one the song's about) to Chicago. The Miami-Los Angeles Sunset also goes through NO. On any given day, there will be enough equipment (diesels, passenger cars, mail cars) sitting in NO to make up the consists for that day's City and Crescent plus a few spare cars and maybe a diesel or two as "protection" in case something on one of the three trains breaks down.

Just before the hurricane hit, Amtrak assembled a "deadhead" train to get this equipment out of the flood zone. It probably had a capacity of more than a thousand people, particularly if people were put in what is normally "nonrevenue" space (lounge seats, dining tables) and baggage cars.

As reported in this article (which is in turn based on reporting from the Washington Post), Amtrak offered to take evacuees on the deadhead train, but Mayor Nagin declined the offer. Nagin later offered the lame-ass excuse (pardon my language, OJ) that he'd checked the Amtrak reservation system and all outbound trains were "booked up." Amtrak's reservation system wouldn't apply to this train because it's not a regular revenue run.

There's no legitimate reason why the deadhead move couldn't have carried people--but it's not true that the people of New Orleans foolishly declined the offer of transportation. Their mayor foreclosed the opportunity for them.

Having endured Houston's rush hour traffic many times and lived to tell the tale, I can say Tom DeLay is off his meds when he keeps fighting the creation of light rail to run alongside the main arteries to the city.

He's not fighting light rail, but nobody is talking about running it along the main arteries. The one light rail line boondooggle that has been built goes nowhere, and has resulted in the transit agency taking on debt for the first time in its history and cutting critical bus service to poor parts of town (I would add that Tom DeLay was instrumental in helping METRO fund what was once one of the finest bus systems in the nation). The next proposed lines are aimed more at redeveloping Galleria/Greenway properties (which, conveniently, are marketed by the real estate company of the METRO head -- neat, huh?!) than moving poor, transit-dependent people around the city.

Rail is not a cost effective transit solution for Houston when compared with buses. Period.

What Orrin is talking about -- intercity rail transportation -- is even less cost effective in Texas. Nobody would ride the things when you can hop a Southwest flight and go anywhere in Texas for less than $100.

Fast, reliable intercity rail transport is a good thing, in principle. I used to use commuter rail to commute to work in NYC. It was vastly better than driving. In practice, however, it often sucks.

Take Acela, which NYT trumpets for its speed. For it to run at top speed, the rail bed needs to be improved. Between NYC and Boston, most of the track has not been improved because it's maintained by local authorities that can't afford it. So Acela pokes along at the same speed as the Metroliner except for a section between Providence and Boston.

It would help if Amtrak and the states could get even one high-speed rail line working properly before building new ones.

Ed

kevin;

we can fix that easy enough with gas taxes.

What I don't get is the rail fetish. If oj is so fired up about getting people out of cars then why not just substitute buses? After all, the road network for them is already built. Since we're in political fantasyland here already, why not just confiscate all the cars, and draft a certain percentage of the population to drive the buses. You could even make it sort of like jury duty is now. What's the big deal about trains?

Trains are cooler. I mean, would you rather ride the Twentieth Century Limited or a Greyhound?

Mike, Bingo! No one's favorite Thomas charcter is Bertie.

oj,
we can fix that easy enough with gas taxes.

I thought your gas taxes were supposed to offset other current taxes? Since that is the only possible (though still unlikely) way such a tax could be imposed, you sound like a bait-and-switch liberal.

Did Thomas the Tank Engine make it in America then? With Ringo Starr narrating, too?

Wonders never cease.

This is just stupid - anyone who owns a car wouldn't use the rail for evacuation - they want to protect their cars and have their own mode of transportation at the place the evacuate to. I had to evacuate for Rita and we took both cars because we didn't want them to get flooded and because we needed a way to get around town in Waco. Had a train been going form my front door to Waco I wouldn't have taken it.

Also light rail in Houston does nothing to alleviate traffic - it is truly a boondoggle.

How long will we have to endure the what ifs for NO? The facts are Nagin gambled and lost. Blanco wrung her hands and cried. Neither had a clue about their basic responsibilities. The real fix for cities are informed voters electing capable leaders; not clowns.

If our largest cities are vulnerable in mass evacuations, cars aren't the answer. They break down, overheat, runout of fuel etc. Mass transit may not get every soul out, but has the best chance for moving large numbers. Exurban population centers may be the real solution.

Maybe we need to build sturdier houses and then convince people to tough it out. Don't build in areas that are prone to flood, and if you do, make sure you have a tall house. Mass evacuations will always cause problems. You're trying to stuff ten pounds of sh*t, into a five pound bag.

Posted by: AllenS at September 28, 2005 12:05 PM

Rick T. was right. Public transportation means public officials decide when it leaves, if it leaves. People just need to drive their vehicles out earlier, or off-road it. Even building bigger highways to accomodate emergencies is preferable to more public transportation.

My fondest preschool memories are of French toast in the dining car of B&O #8, on my way to Pittsburgh for a ball game at Forbes Field (after the obligatory joyrides on the incline and streetcar, of course). 'Way cooler than a bus.

I'm rational enough to appreciate that such things will not be seen again in this world (though the inclines are still doing well), but that doesn't mean I can't miss them.

Evacuate via light rail?

Sure, if you don't want to carry a thing besides the clothes on your back.

Houston could have avoided gridlock if they performed a sequential evacutation by zipcode, or by the last digit on the license plate.

Evacuees aren't supposed to stop and pack.

ridership would determine.

Shelton:

They would if you closed the highways.

Rick:

Given that 30% of Chicagoans don't own a car the answer is, yes.

The original article is stupid on multiple levels. For example, there aren't enough passenger cars to take even a small percentage of evacuees anywhere. Gonna resort to boxcars? (which themselves are disappearing, replaced by specialized cars and intermodal containers. And cattle cars disappeared decades ago.) There aren't enough locomotives, and many of those normally used in urban areas are switchers which are designed to go real slow (or so old they can't be used anywhere else). Most railines are single track, which means you need to interrrupt the outward flow to return cars for a second load. Trolley cars are not compatible with long-haul passenger cars. Trolley cars can only run under their own power on electrified rail (and even there, there can be differences of voltage and polarity.)

What this article is is an example of someone who has a single point solution for a complex problem written by someone who does absolutely no research into a subject in which they are completely ignorant.

"Given that 30% of Chicagoans don't own a car the answer is, yes."

That sounds like a KB style quote, for which you are going to have to provide real citation if you want to be believed. (And let's avoid weaseling by including minor children and others with access to vehicles they don't actually own to come up with that 30% brown number you cite.)

A car-free attitude (Susan Chandler, September 16, 2005, Chicago Tribune)

According to the 2000 census, more than 306,000 households reported they had zero vehicles.

"There are a little more than 1 million households in the city of Chicago, so we're basically saying 30 percent of the households didn't own a motor vehicle. That's a fairly high number," notes Marc Thomas, information services manager at the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, Illinois' regional planning agency for the six-county area.

Gov: Don't believe everything you read. New York would have been vastly better off if they had let Moses finish the Great Work.

Robert:

To the gas chambers go!

Patrick:

No matter how high you raise them you can still offset them.

"What I don't get is the rail fetish."

Joe: OJ wants to bring back the 19th century. I assume he also favors replacing the internet with telegraphs. What I don't understand is his opposition to making taverns the centers of social life.

"To the gas chambers go!"

?

Robert:

Ayn Rand - Howard Roarke.

Moses destroyed the Bronx and would have destroyed the Battery if FDR hadn't stopped him. All his best work was outside the city.

oj,
Using the gas tax to build and improve mass transit isn't the same as offsetting other taxes. If they want to use tax money to do this, why not use what they would supposedly save on highway construction and maitenance. To use the gas tax removes the popular incentive for the gas tax.

they aren't mutually exclusive.

They should be.

OJ:

"Given that 30% of Chicagoans don't own a car the answer is, yes."

Well, then the baseline percentage for people who aren't going to get out is 30%. You lived in Chicago: you think that all the drivers and central operations employees are going to (wo)man their posts so the trains can keep running until the everyone is out?

Not every public employee (or private for that matter) is Jack Bauer material.

I didn't have a car. I walked to work or took the El.

Alright guys, take the US. In 1750… it was one of the richest societies on earth, but it was, of course, pre-industrial. If it had pursued its comparative advantage in accordance with market principles, it would now be exporting fish, fur, agricultural products, etc.

Instead, it industrialized, but not by adherence to market principles. Rather, by radical violation of these principles consciously undertaken to change its comparative advantage (otherwise known as development). Did it participate in “globalization”? Sure. Cotton in the early period of industrialization was rather like oil today, and the US was the major cotton exporter, thanks to extermination or expulsion of the native population and slavery—not exactly in accord with market principles, but perhaps the world’s leading illustration of “globalization.” Part of the motive for annexing Texas and conquering about half of Mexico was to try to gain a monopoly over cotton, to bring the major rival, England, to our feet, as the Jacksonian Democrats proclaimed—rather like the charges against Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait, though in this case much more realistic. Not market economies, but certainly export orientation, hence “globalization.” These are standard features of economic history. They include the current poster children, China and India. China is among the most extreme violators of market principles, and one of the leading exporters (though a good deal of the export, particularly towards the higher technology end, is foreign owned). So it illustrates “globalization,” but not market principles. India is similar…the inequalities are extraordinary. The same neoliberal principles that lead commentators to swoon over the marvelous high tech centers in Hyderabad and Bangalore are a primary cause of the rise of peasant suicides right nearby, as the rural economy is devastated by withdrawal of state support for credit, irrigation, etc., and pressures on poor farmers to undertake very hazardous production of export crops. The results are a horror for the majority of the population. China appears to be similar, but in its much more closed society inquiry is more constrained.

In brief, these formulas don’t mean much. What does mean a lot, however, are some of the phenomena reviewed in the UN development report …which, incidentally, is a scathing indictment of US government policies, facts not mentioned in the news reports I saw. Take child poverty in England. It increased sharply during the neoliberal Thatcher years, pursuing the principles of “market economies,” and declined sharply when the government began carrying out fiscal and other policies to support poor families, violating market principles but acting more humanely. Choice of policies depends on what goals one wants to achieve.

Yes, but achievement of those goals requires the opposite policies. If your goal is the "war on poverty" you tend to create more of it. If your goal is liberating the economy you tend to wipe out poverty. That's why our poor live like the middle class of a European nation.

opposite policies? could you elaborate?

"child poverty"

I never want to return to the days of me being 1-13 years old. Man, was I poor. Then I got a paper route...

Posted by: AllenS at September 28, 2005 4:38 PM

I don't really understand what you mean by "liberate the economy" or how it could be the opposite policy of something else. The economy is not very liberated, and even when it is, that was my point with Thatcher.
Basically, trickle-down theory is kinda bs.

OJ:

Well, you would be one of the 30% plus who wouldn't make it out. However, you would have been welcome to a ride in my car if you wouldn't have minded holding a cat in your lap.

Cuz the UN said so.

Edgar:

Except that trickle down ushered in 20+ years of uninterrupted economic growth.

Alright guys, take the US. In 1750… it was one of the richest societies on earth, but it was, of course, pre-industrial. If it had pursued its comparative advantage in accordance with market principles, it would now be exporting fish, fur, agricultural products, etc.

That's exactly what they WERE exporting in 1750, including huge quantities of beaver pelts and tobacco.

[America] industrialized, but not by adherence to market principles. Rather, by radical violation of these principles consciously undertaken to change its comparative advantage (otherwise known as development).

America had comparative advantages in cheap and plentiful land, cheap labor, cheap fuels...
Industrialization was a perfect fit.
"Market principles" don't dictate that one must stay a farmer or trapper, simply because there're game or fertile lands around.

[T]he US was the major cotton exporter, thanks to extermination or expulsion of the native population and slavery—not exactly in accord with market principles...

Forgive my ignorance, but how exactly is reducing the risk of attack, and gaining cheap labor, in discord with market principles ?

Killing the Indians and enslaving Africans may have been IMMORAL, but such actions aren't anti-market.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 29, 2005 3:30 AM

Brit: "Did Thomas the Tank Engine make it in America then? With Ringo Starr narrating, too?"

God, yes, Thomas is huge. Or was few years ago, when my nephews were that age. Maybe it's faded since?

Much bigger since they dumped that git Ringo and used first George Carlin and now Alec Baldwin.