They Criticized the Transcontinental Railroads Too
Feb 5th, 2015 | Posted by Robert Cruickshank
There’s so much to love about this op-ed by Kathleen Sharp that appeared in the New York Times yesterday, “150 Years of Working on the Railroad”, and not just because my ancestors left County Galway to wind up in California as hers did. She has nailed all the arguments for high speed rail, while also making some valuable historical connections and parallels.
Ever since then, my family has been complaining about how long it takes to get from Point A to Point B in California. At least twice a year we drive the 400 miles from Los Angeles to San Francisco to visit family. What used to be a six-hour trip now stretches into eight or even 10 hours, depending on weather and traffic jams. We while away the hours along the coast on Route 101, or inland on Interstate 5, listening to the radio and fantasizing about jet packs and high-speed rail.
Talk to an average Californian who makes the trip between Northern and Southern California on more than a rare occasion and they will have a similar story. Transportation options between north and south suck, there’s just no way around it, whether you’re driving like the Sharps or flying, as Joe Mathews recently discovered. It’s an onerous, long, costly trip. Surely there is a better way. Her family knows just what it is: HSR.
She also knows that the transcontinental railroad faced many of the same obstacles that HSR faces today:
My great-grandfather worked on what became the transcontinental railroad. He nailed 10 spikes to a rail, 250 rails a kilometer, and made $30 a month — when progress wasn’t interrupted by avalanches or knife fights.
Money woes for the builders were constant. One rail executive, Leland Stanford, solved that problem by becoming the governor of California. Between 1862 and 1864, Governor Stanford and his allies pushed through state laws favoring his company, the Central Pacific Railroad, particularly bills that gave it millions of dollars in state bonds. The Pacific Railroad Act of 1862 granted Central Pacific, along with the Union Pacific Railroad company, contiguous rights of way for their rail lines, as well as 200 feet of public land on either side of the track….
In 1869, after years of delays and cost overruns, the transcontinental railroad was finally completed. It was the last missing link connecting the American West to the Eastern Seaboard, and a cross-country trip that had once taken six months was cut to around a week. Even better, it produced a commercial flow of grain, lumber and other commodities which in turn created a superstructure for shipping, trading and financing — and jobs, lots of jobs. For those reasons, the transcontinental is considered to be one of the greatest technological feats of the 19th century.
Now as many of us know today, the decision to give the private railroads those rights of way and public land was a disaster for the country. But the only other option is direct public funding. And that’s what California has chosen to do, at least to the extent possible. It would be nice if the federal government would help, but under Republican control, they refuse to help.
It’s a total 180° from where Republicans were 150 years ago. Republicans, like the Whigs before them, had long called for a transcontinental railroad. The Democratic Party flatly refused to support it, arguing as they tended to do before the Civil War that it was not government’s job to pay for these things. When the Southern states seceded, their all-Democratic Congressional delegations went with them, leaving Republicans the votes they needed to pass things like a transcontinental railroad.
The project wasn’t easy and had its share of flaws, many of which we do not need to repeat today – much worse than the recent mistakes over the kit fox dens. It brought immense value to California, however, both practical as well as intangible:
Now the promise of middle-class employment may actually be realized. The rail system is projected to generate 67,000 jobs annually over the next 16 years, well-paying work for engineers, designers, scientists and laborers, including the Hmong, Laotians, Oaxacans and other immigrants who toil in the Central Valley. And of course it will also provide a cleaner transportation system for residents.
But bigger than the train’s cost and potential payoff is what it symbolizes. Nowhere else in the country can you find such bold, stubborn faith in the idea that government can actually do something for its citizens. It’s as if, after the long recession and a punishing drought, hope is stirring again in the Golden State.
Jobs and hope. These things both matter a great deal, especially to a state like California. The bullet train will put people to work and keep them employed at a good wage – while also building the basis for future economic growth on a sustainable model that can and should be emulated elsewhere.
After the first transcontinental railroad was built to California, another followed. The Santa Fe railroad arrived in Southern California in the 1880s and created an immediate economic boom – while also planting the seeds for the spectacular growth and prosperity of the LA region.
Here in the 21st century, as the Central Valley is often being left behind by coastal growth, another big railroad project will help bring prosperity to the inland parts of the state – while helping the coasts grow sustainably. Everyone wins, and 150 years from now, Californians will be celebrating the bullet train as the foundation of their renewed prosperity.
cahsrblog.com |
