Area Soldier Killed In Fort Hood Rampage
Stroger Makes Hollywood Play
Put Down Your Nanowrimo And Leave The House
Sox Shuffle Continues
Before leaving for Mexico to meet with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, President Barack Obama outlined his vision for a series of high-speed rail corridors around the nation, including a nine-state, 3,000 mile Midwestern network that features Chicago as a hub. "High-speed intercity passenger rail can play a critical role in certain travel markets, but the United States has historically failed to invest in this mode," said a statement released by the White House. "The president proposes a long-term strategy intended to build an efficient, high-speed passenger rail network of 100- to 600-mile intercity corridors as one element of a modernized transportation system."
Image via the White House
"What we're talking about is a vision for high-speed rail in America. Imagine boarding a train, in the center of a city, no racing to an airport and across a terminal, no delays, no sitting on the tarmac, no lost luggage, no taking off your shoes," Obama said during a press conference with Vice President Joe Biden and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. He plans to use funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to finance the projects. " To make this happen, we've already dedicated $8 billion of Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds to this initiative, and I've requested another $5 billion over the next five years. The Department of Transportation expects to begin awarding funds to ready projects before the end of this summer, well ahead of schedule. And like all funding decisions under the Recovery Act, money will be distributed based on merit -- not on politics, not as favors, not for any other consideration; purely on merit."
High-speed trains could be zipping through Chicago as early as 2012 or 2014, and would run to Milwaukee and Madison on one corridor, Detroit and Pontiac on another. Those routes would be followed later by high-speed lines to the Twin Cities, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Kansas City, and Louisville and other cities. Outside of the Chicago hub, nine other corridors have been identified by the federal government as having the most potential for success. Those corridors include include a northern New England line, a line running east to west in New York State, a corridor running laterally through Pennsylvania, a southeast network connecting the District of Columbia to Florida and the Gulf Coast, a Gulf Coast line extending from eastern Texas to western Alabama, a corridor in central and southern Florida, a Texas-to-Oklahoma line, a California line from San Francisco to Los Angeles and a corridor in the Pacific Northwest.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I want this as badly as the next Midwestern urbanite, but has anyone seen a pricetag? In the realm of national infrastructure, $8 billion is good for a survey or two. Here's to hoping the teabaggers don't balk at the tens (hundreds?) of billions a national rail system will cost.
Oh, believe me, balk and gnash teeth they will.
The fact is NOTHING will change until we stop running passenger trains on freight lines. And make those lines grade-seperated.
I share your hopes and skepticism, but $8 billion will pay for more than just a few surveys. That amount, in fact, puts you somewhat close to actual commitment--not quite there, of course, but at the doorstep, ready to ring the bell.
Balk and gnash...and then enjoy the benefits to the economy and ease of travel.
Curse you socialism! And your improvements to quality of life!
"Balk and gnash...and then enjoy the benefits to the economy and ease of travel."
And you nailed it.
I propose waiting in their cars at a railroad crossing in the middle of an Indiana corn field while a two mile long freight train inches by slowly as punishment for balking and/or gnashing.
Every time I hear about this highspeed rail I can't help but to think of the Simpsons episode when Springfield gets sold a Monorail
I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and by gum, it put them on the map!
Great! I love it! I wonder how fast these trains will go. In order for it to be successful, these trains need to make a trip faster than an airflight--or at least comparable.
Well, the listed speed is 110mph. But that means nothing if you dont upgrade tracks, switching equipment..or if you're stopped waiting for freights to pass
The Accela line (boston to NY) averages 80mph..which is really only slightly better than the normal Amtrak service. I believe it arrives 20 minutes earlier...and a ticket costs twice as much.
Again, if people are picturing Japanese bullet trains, think again. This is more a "higher speed", rather than true high speed proposal. And dont get me wrong, any progress on this issue Im a huge proponent of. But I also think if we're going to do this, it should be done right. And as long as we share passenger lines with freights, you can keep dreaming about the true high speed the rest of the developed world enjoys.
Our sad lot as Americans, never getting to enjoy the nice things the rest of the developed world has.
Considering the time spent getting to the airport or waiting in line to have your shampoo confiscated, maybe it's not so unrealistic..
I'd rather spend that time, sipping a beer in the club car and watching the scenery.
until then, long live MegaBus
The US is too large to have a train system like Japan, France and others. Regional corridors is the best we can hope for. But I'm skeptical that non-business travelers will consider trains a realistic option for travel, at least in high enough numbers to avoid this project becoming a money pit. I'd love to be wrong, though.
Sorry, that should be: Building regional corridors is the best we can hope for.
Absolutely right. When comparing ourselves to other developed countries, more people in the USA need to consider the following: Geography; population size; and ethnic mix. For instance, some would argue that we need more Scandinavian-style socialism, or socialism-lite, in the USA, without considering that countries such as Sweden have much smaller populations with relatively little ethnic variety, and which are spread out in much smaller areas, which means differences in the types of political disputes and demands from the population. That matters a lot.
That said, I hope we can get these regional corridors. We need more efficient travel options between densely populated areas.
^ I'd settle for Canada's policies.
But I also don't think size is really an excuse for some of the better policies those country's have and let's face it, they are healthier, wealthier and have a better overall quality of life than us. Same is true for most of Western Europe and Canada (bigger than the U.S.) for that matter.
Of course not, Navin, but you must keep those different factors in mind when trying to export good ideas from Europe, or even Japan, into the USA. Demographics and geography obviously matter a great deal in forming policies. If you have a small, relative non-diverse population, some policies (not all) are much, much easier to enact and fund.
Obviously I don't think they are "easy" to enact, that's why I made my earlier post about not being able to have nice things. Our conversation with Craig is example enough about how hard talking sense is to people. That said I think the policies are sound and the actual size of the country doesn't matter. Political will is another thing, granted.
I work in the rail industry (we lease out railcars and manage them). . .I will say for the sake of the country and the economy, it makes more sense for a plan to improve the movement of goods through Chicago more rapidly. Chicago is a hub, and just to get through the city with all the traffic can take some time. Improvements here and in the security of cargo transport on cars invested by companies means more companies can rely on rail for shipping goods. . which is WAY more cost effective from planes/trucks. Less cost to distribute means companies can compensate for the rise in the cost of manufacturing goods and commodities, meaning prices won't go up for us, the consumer.
Adding more traffic through Chicago will only add more issues in a already problematic area.
Investing in rail is essentially subsidizing urban development, which, I guess isn't a terrible thing given how much the federal government subsidizes suburban development with highway infrastructure. However, I wish that neither were subsidized. Over a hundred years ago, every city in this country boasted an interurban transit network that was far more comprehensive, faster, and in fact profitable compared to any system that exists in Europe or any other country today. 115 mph? We had steam trains over a century ago that went over 100 mph; its a big achievement for us to go 115 in 2020?
The fact is is that we have the technology right now to make every other form of transportation that currently exists seem antiquated in comparison, and technology developed right here in this country. One such company, Fastransit, uses stabilized permanent magnet suspension, which is essentially magnet "rails" which can easily be integrated with existing rail infrastructure with absolutely no disruption to existing service at low cost (
(