The Slow-Motion Journey to High-Speed Rail

Thalys at Gare du Nord in Paris



via MichaelMoore.com:




July 28th, 2010 7:26 PM
Bullet Trains: Obama Spends Billions on High-Speed Rail

1 of 1

By Michael Grunwald / TIME


I rode a train from Miami to Orlando — and I liked it.

I relaxed in a comfortable seat with Shaq-worthy legroom. I avoided the hassle of the airport and the maniacs on the highways. I did some phone interviews, read a book about the Compromise of 1850 and watched Funny People on my laptop; it wasn't Amtrak's fault the people weren't funny. In the dining car, I enjoyed a chat over lasagna with a train buff who shared my aversions to traffic jams, exurban sprawl, global warming, gas-guzzling SUVs with ludicrously rugged names, car alarms that go off at 3 a.m., the Chrysler bailout, the Toyota scandal and other by-products of our automotive culture. At one point, our train stopped in the middle of a classic old-Florida ranch, alongside a majestic oak dripping with Spanish moss, and I remember thinking, There's no better way to see America.

Unfortunately, for the next half hour, we remained beside that oak tree. Door to door, the entire journey took 10 hours for a trip I usually drive in four. My seat cost only $36, but taxis to and from the stations cost twice that. Even for car haters like my wife and me — at our wedding (in a train station), the rabbi advised us to stay off the road if we wanted to stay married — slow-speed rail is a tough sell. And most Americans aren't car haters.

This is why the Obama Administration is launching high-speed rail in the U.S.: so that Americans can ride sleek 220-m.p.h. bullet trains like the ones already zipping through Europe and Asia, as well as improved Amtrak lines that will still go far slower than bullets but will more consistently go faster than oaks. The goal is to create attractive alternatives to long drives and short flights, which would relieve road and air congestion; reduce carbon emissions, highway deaths and dependence on oil from foreign thugs or the blackened Gulf; create jobs; jump-start a new domestic manufacturing industry; and improve the competitiveness and convenience of the U.S. economy. President Obama inserted the first $8 billion for high-speed rail into last year's stimulus bill, even though it won't provide much short-term stimulus; it's a long-term legacy initiative modeled on the interstate-highway system, a gradual effort to transform the way we travel.

The plans envision a national network of 13 high-speed corridors, including Miami to Orlando in just two hours. You wouldn't have to get to the airport ridiculously early, take off your shoes, turn off your phone or pay extra for luggage; you wouldn't have to worry about the weather or some Icelandic volcano canceling your trip. You wouldn't have to watch the road, wait in traffic, find parking or pull over to stretch your legs; you wouldn't risk arrest or an accident by drinking or texting.

Our freight rail system is world-class, and our metropolitan areas are embracing commuter rail, but our intercity passenger rail is a global joke. "There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains," Obama said in his State of the Union address. The next day, he visited Tampa, Fla., with Vice President Biden — whose daily train rides between Washington and Wilmington, Del., earned him the nickname Amtrak Joe — to announce high-speed grants for 31 states. In an interview, Biden said he couldn't imagine an efficient transportation system in a carbon-constrained world without high-speed rail: "Tell me, how do you get it?" ............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/must-read/bullet-trains-obama-spends-billions-high-speed-rail

:kick:

However, it's easy to understand why Europe is so far ahead of us on this, in part because the major cities are closer together there than many are here.

I think mass transit railways in general (not necessarily just high-speed rail) could really work if we gave them a chance. Think about it. The cities that HAVE mass transit railways (New York, Chicago, and a few others spring to mind), the people USE them. The New York subways are PACKED. There are people who don't even OWN cars in some of those cities because the rail systems are so convenient and cheap. Now, if those big cities can have railway systems that people use, why wouldn't they work EVERYWHERE else?

Now, I love my car and I love to drive. But lately I've been thinking that if there were, for example, a subway here in town that had a stop within walking distance of my house and took me downtown and dropped me off right in front of the courthouse (which is where I go almost every day when I drive for work)..........I'd take it.

My wife and I were just talking about having a little weekend mini-getaway down to Cincinnati sometime, and we both mentioned how nice it would be if we could just hop on a high-speed rail that could take us from Columbus to Cincinnati in under an hour. We'd definitely take more trips down there if it was quick and easy like that. FYI, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland is being heavily ridiculed right now by Republicans for proposing a "3-C Railway" (so called because it would link Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland) because it would be such a huge waste of money that nobody would ever use. I know several people who would use it if it were available, including myself.

I think if you look to the cities that HAVE these forms of transportation available, the evidence is clear that when such a mode of transport exists, people WILL use it.

As usual, Jeb Bush arrogantly demanded his way or the highway, setting Florida back 10 more years on energy conservation.



Bullet Trains: Obama Spends Billions on High-Speed Rail, July 28, 2010