Today Obama announced his intent to invest $8 billion into high speed rail in the US.
I walked into the tv room with the press conference happening live and I saw the crawl across the bottom of the screen - high speed rail. I started sobbing, "Thank you, Thank you." Real tears. It was a moment of grace in the tea bag hell we've been in, amid the fears of continued gulags and state secrets.
In 1974, I went to Europe and traveled all over the area on the train, with several legs of the trip on the TEE - Trans Europe Express, a super fast, country-to-country train that was reasonably priced and comfortable. I remember being jealous of the Europeans, and when I've taken Amtrak in the US since then, I can only compare it unfavorably. Amtrak is the stepchild, the orphan in this culture of car and airline dominance of public transit.
So, it's been 35 years that we have had to wait for high speed rail. Thank you Obama, for finally, finally bringing the US into the real world.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
forrestwife
Pensive Person
Dr William Lee
L'Heure Bleue 2
Nick Carraway
TriviaCompanion
Salon.com
Comments
At $1B per mile (what the HSR in Shanghai cost), that money won't be enough to link two major cities, so the political battle will be over where that money is used to jump start HSR investment. I truly hope we use the money to initiate regional service (city to city) rather than intra-urban service (a la Shanghai which links only the airport to a portion of the city).
I feel hopefull.
Although I can hear the Teabaggers now. "Horses and buggies was good enough for the likes of my grandpappy and I don't want My Tax Dollars blah blah blah."
@VR -- If the railroads were still privately owned, the tea baggers would be singing at different tune.
http://www.amtrakoig.com/(S(fxwwz2ijllkmf2mbiv1gi545))/Reports/E-08-02-042208.
a losing proposition under any circumstances. from what i can make of it for every $2 profit, the government(you and i) have to spend $38. so it does seem like the perfect government project. i think the republican plan of nikes and reeboks for every citizen, trimmed in red of course, including gays, lesbians, transgendered, and illegal aliens is much cheaper. not only is it cheaper it will stimulate the chinese economy, and they'd appreciate that. and it's a one time expenditure, unlike the trains which will costs $10's of billions per year in your(our) money to maintain.
Since we still don't know how to make Amtrak work, shouldn't we figure that out before pouring money into something based on invalid and unproven assumptions?
Anyone else remember the Simpson's episode about the Monorail? Anyone else live through the farce of the monorail in Seattle?
I have ridden Amtrak... Significant delays are the norm. Not because of derailments or mechanical problems or anything like that.. just 'business as normal'....
Buses are typically quicker and any delays are much less significant.
Trains are very, very expensive to build and operate. Incredibly so. Can you imagine how much the absurd fears of terrorism will add to the cost of high speed trains? The mind boggles. If only I could get piece of those lucrative government contracts.. Oh, the profits that will be made on the cost-overruns! To be a croney on the teat of government....
A lot of people in europe hate trains because of the lack of privacy and the germ factor. Oh, sure, trains get used a lot. But the folks I worked with didn't really like them. They preferred to drive their own cars. Of course if you make it so folks cannot afford cars, then, hey, maybe you have something.
Also, I do not want to subsidize mass transportation boondoggles. The fare should cover the operating cost. And if it cannot, I suggest the solution is too wasteful and too inefficient.
The Seattle monorail was supposed to be around $20 billion but the cost just kept going up and even that number was fudged. So the $8 billion they're talking about? That's chump change.
I'm all for making rail travel viable but the approach needs to be more honest and realistic. "High speed rail for only $8 billion"... That's a farce that ignores the cost and the endemic problems of US rail.
Question to Left Coasters: How would the high-speed train connect LA to SF? I would assume through the Central Valley. But if you take a look at the map, there is a coastal corridor as well as an inland (Valley) corridor. Anyone know anything more specific about the possibility of ANY train connection through Central (Coastal) California? I thought that would essentially be impossible and, even if not, would pretty much ruin the PCH.
But, I say again, it is definitely a step in the right direction!
I would be thrilled to ride the train anywhere, and before Amtrak became an expensive, extremely dirty and badly run situation with long, numerous delays, I often took the train cross country. I'd do it again.
I rode the "City of Los Angeles" pulled by the two largest Union Pacific Steam Engines back in 1994. Legroom in coach, lots of space and a smooth ride that no Amtrak car could match. And that was over rough tracks.
We can do it, but comfort needs to be considered and luxury added.
Also, the Las Vegas-Orange Country/LA route is not on his plan. He also lost us jobs and added to our 10.5% unemployment when the president implied Las Vegas is only a place for parties and junkets. We have over two million citizens, most of who do not work in gaming or hotel hospitality. We have a large percentage of Catholics, LDS, Baptist and other faiths. We have children, schools, and jobs we want to keep.
The President may be strangling our city's existence, and this rail plan only adds nails to the coffin by not including our needed commuter artery.
For high speed passenger rail to work in the United States, new tracks must be laid, and those tracks must be owned by the passenger carrier, or at least grant right of first passage to the passenger trains. In addition, the ticket price must be subsidized by the government just like everywhere else in the world, or else tickets will be prohibitively expensive. Take away any of these prerequisites, and the endeavor is doomed to failure. But if these requirements are met, I see no reason for it not to work in the United States.
I have been to Europe several times and traveling by train is one of the things I really look forward to.
8 billion may not be enough, but as others have said, it's a right step. I just drove forever from Michigan to NC and all the while I was thinking, boy, it would have been so nice if it were a train and I could just sit back to enjoy it. The whole trip with a motel and foo probably cost me 140.00. I'd gladly have spent that on a train.
But what's important about Obama's announcement is the philosophy and symbolism behind it--we're BEHIND, we need to move ahead, depend less on overseas oil, and get progressive.
Amtrak is another story. At least three times a week I go into Manhattan through Penn Station. There is always a crowd of people staring forlornly at the Amtrak train announcement board.
Whatever the government says it will cost, you can multiply by 10.
http://www.freep.com/article/20090316/NEWS06/90316061/1008/NEWS/Lawmakers+explore+plan+for+state+high-speed+rail+line
the only thing holding us back? gee, what is holding us back?