Is rail the answer?
I really was joking about the small towns!
Though not about the isolation people will feel - really for the first time in recent decades - if the cost of driving becomes prohibitively expensive.
My point is that this hits Americans in ways the Britons find difficult to imagine.
A postscript though: a friend of mine who is a director of a British private rail company tells me he is looking for similar companies to buy in the US.
In fact, he is toying currently with buying a major suburban system which is up for sale soon, he tells me, with a view to pouncing if Amtrak is broken up.
Some may see this as an encouraging sign - a realisation in the outside world that there is a real market now for high quality public transport in the US. But the British experience has been - is it fair to say ? - patchy in recent years.
Whether British companies are in a position to provide some minor amelioration of America's transport difficulties, I could not of course possibly comment, since I have not lived in the UK for many years...
And the point remains that if you live in America's glorious interior, my friend the fat controller (that's a British thing) will not and cannot help.
Hello, I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~28~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Rail is a part of the solution, but not a sufficient solution. The United States does not have the density to make it efficient, although there are high density routes here and there.
Complain about this comment
I'm not so certain about that density thing. Rail was the only way to travel for long distances between, roughly, 1850 and 1950. The U.S., especially the West, was very sparsely populated compared with today's density.
I would be curious, however, to learn if/how much freight rail traffic subsidized passenger rail traffic in the 19th century.
Meanwhile, here are some problems for a Brit, or anyone, considering becoming an American rail mogul:
1. The infrastructure is miserable. Tracks need to be repaired and replaced. The AmTrak trains running in the D.C.-NYC-Boston corridor run much more slowly than they are capable of to cope with the bad tracks. Ditto elsewhere.
2. Railroad companies make their money on freight, so they give their freight trains priority access to the tracks. This makes scheduling passenger traffic a less-than-optimal game.
3. Commuter and urban rail systems demand public funds, expecially for construction and during their first years as ridership builds. Until a community reaches a tipping point, it will not vote to boost taxes for a rail system that, residents will inevitably say, does not go where they want to go. (That means from their back door to the front door of their office.) The tipping point will come when they can no longer buy gasoline as well as make their mortgage payment.
4. The legal and political battles surrounding any attempt to acquire new right-of-ways for new rail tracks will be bitter, expensive, and long.
Complain about this comment
Justcorbly (#2), sure, rail was the preferred method of long distance travel not so long ago. It may return to popularity (it is now more of a novelty) if the cost of air travel increases to the point where high-speed electric rail can compete (for modest distances, such as Portland-Seattle). I don't think that's the question, however. The question, what is the eventual alternative to the dependence on petroleum fuels for all of the local travel in low to medium density areas? Intercity train travel and suburban commuter trains amount to just a drop in the bucket when the infrastructure is built around automobiles and trucks.
Complain about this comment
The US does need a rail system similar to Europe's and Japan's, but that will not solve all of our problems and would only have a marginal effect on our dependence on fossil fuels. Most importantly, its cost would be prohibitive for an electorate that refuses to pay the taxes that are needed to repair our crumbling infrastructure, let alone build an expensive state of the art rail system. The most effective way to reduce our dependence on oil, in the short term, are relatively simple solutions such as a 4-day work week, tele-commuting, carpooling, vacationing near home, and a 55 mph speed limit would have an immediate impact on our oil consumption. Long term solutions include the development of energy efficient cars, high taxes for persons driving gas guzzlers, and transitioning to nuclear, solar, hydrogen, and wind as sources of energy in our homes and offices.
Complain about this comment
Since rail is now Diesel-electric, it's not hard to imagine an methane-electric or fuel cell locomotive. Meanwhile, the current train system is a more efficient use of scarce oil, or leaner source of carbon, than road traffic. As others have said, the tracks, like other US infrastructure, are in need of more rigorous maintenance. Given that a fair fraction of the freight hauled by train is coal from Wyoming to almost the entire 'lower 48' states, a long term change in our energy mix will free up some rail capacity. Our barge and towboat system is not restricted to canals; it plies the Mississippi, Illinois, Ohio, etc. Rivers and unites the Midwest and Northeast with an even more efficient (fuel per ton mile) mode of transportation. Barge traffic can be at the mercy of extreme weather though.
The Midwest until mid-century had an inter-urban trolley system that I don't think has been mentioned yet, it may have been a closer American approximation of European rail since it linked smaller communities across several states to the Chicago, Milwauke, etc. urban light rail systems.
I wish we could hear Sir Ringo (or his successor, was it George Carlin?) narrate as Sir Topham leads us to the right tracks for energy independence. No, Thomas in book or video format is not a 'British thing' for most US parents. Sometimes it seems the irksome freight cars are trying to make our policy instead.
Complain about this comment
re: #1,2,3 Gary_A_Hill, justcorbly
I agree with the gist of the above posts (except for the public funding, which needs a different model than what is currently being utilized in most places).
It needs to be noted that rail transport has been evolving to become somewhat competitive with truck transport, starting probably a decade or more ago. (It still has a long way to go, of course.)
Many transporters (although still a minority) have found that for long-haul transport, it is more efficient to load the cargo trailers onto trains at the origin, and to unload the trailers at the destination city, from where trucks complete the final delivery.
For the near-to-medium term, I see this model expanding significantly, somewhat akin to the current airline "hub/spoke" concept. In the train/truck scenario, I see trucks being involved primarily in the transport from outlying areas to a "hub" city, and the trains transporting the trailers to a distant "hub" city, and then trucks doing the deliveries to the outlying areas of that distant hub. It is certainly more fuel efficient, and, with the rising prices of fuel, the inefficiencies associated with the loading/unloading of the trailers on the trains are likely to be compensated by the savings.
With trucks being utilized near "hub" cities, it becomes easier to incorporate EV and similar technology into them, something that would not be realistically feasible if they continued in the long-haul mode of utilization.
That said, and similarly to the "spoke/hub" system currently in use by the airlines, the density issue makes the above concept difficult to implement for rural and smaller city areas. I see no alternatives that will allow us to wean ourselves away from the ICE engine for transportation to/from smaller cities and towns in the foreseeable future.
Complain about this comment
"Some may see this as an encouraging sign - a realisation in the outside world that there is a real market now for high quality public transport in the US. But the British experience has been - is it fair to say ? - patchy in recent years."
Well then perhaps this will jult domestic US companies to get their acts together and get to work on rail systems, so as to both show the outside world that America is capable of possessing and maintaining high quality public transport networks, and to hopefully avoid, if we can, the possible pitfalls that have beset the British with their experience with foreign companies investing in their domestic public transport networks!! Now there's a crazy idea, huh?
But if your friend is successful-more power to him and others like him!!
Complain about this comment
There is this interesting link about an
agency named RITA (presumably not
named after a lady in a Beatles song)
which purports to be charged with
coordinating research in some of the
area covered by this blog.
http://www.rita.dot.gov/about_rita/
I wonder if they actually do anything
important, or if they just occupy office
space.
Anyway, someone from the BBC should
check into this outfit to see if they are
doing anything important.
Complain about this comment
Justin,
Some of my young grandchildren are great fans of that train series which has been on PBS for several years. We do need rail in this country but where, when and how it is handled cannot really be based on any foreign model. We have to figure out what works best for us here in the US.
Complain about this comment
Increasing rail service is a nice idea. Unfortunately it is not going to happen.
Complain about this comment
Justin,
I don't think that any UK rail company has the expertise to manage a rail system in the USA. We (Brits) all know about the problems with our rail network. It's a nightmare of huge proportions.
I think the solution lies within the USA itself. America is a self built nation. She is a relatively young nation in comparison to most, but that has never prevented Americans from achieving whatever they set out to do.
If you look at the modern day US cities. They're beautiful, with such wonderful architecture and buildings that reach up into the Gods.
Now, if someone has the foresight in the US to see that under such pressing times regarding fuel, that a public railway system encompassing the entire nation is one of the answers............. The only real problems I observe with such a concept is that America is vast. As you stated previously people have to commute hours in some rural areas just to buy weekly or monthly food stocks.
Where do you begin under such circumstances? Should it be left for the individual states to work out (with help from the federal government) or should it be 100% federal government?
Then I think it opens up and old chestnut in the US. State v federal funding?
Does America with the money to build such infrastructure at this time? With a tanking economy and fighting two wars at a cost of billions/trillions may be?
Would it be revolutionary, Yes, but it should have been done years ago or at least the ground work should have been laid years ago.
You're probably talking a 20/30 year project may be more.
It's a major problem that any new administration must seriously have a look at. They must think long term, because a project this size can only be viewed long term, but do politicians think long term?
Complain about this comment
I'm 60; I road trains as a kid here in the Midwest, USA. Just a few years ago I road the Amtrak from near Seattle, Washington down to San Francisco, California. It was DISASTER - the freight trains having priority meant that the ride took forever. Worse, our/passenger train got struck behind a freight train going up a mountain pass and the engine wasn't strong enough to pull our train up! We had to stop, wait for the freight train to go ahead far enough that a second engine could be driven back to help pull out train up and over the pass. Our train was MANY HOURS late. Thank the big auto companies - they've destroyed our old train system.
Complain about this comment
The reason rail is not the answer is simple mathematics. Local transportation is a two-dimensional problem; rail is a one-dimensional solution. No matter how much use is made of electric rail for the linear part of the problem, point-to-point travel between population centers, the local transportation problem is an order of magnitude greater. The more difficult question is how to move people locally in two dimensions without petroleum.
Complain about this comment
"My point is that this hits Americans in ways the Britons find difficult to imagine."
Justin, you do realise that Britain has a countryside too, right?
How do Britains deal with this issue, then? Because after all, driving costs are a problem faced by all people around the world, not just Americans!! So do the British car pull? Walk? Bicycle ride? What?
Complain about this comment
"14. NoRashDecisions: "Justin, you do realise that Britain has a countryside too, right?" Since Justin comes from Britain, I imagine he would know that already. I think his point is that the distances involved are far greater in the US than in Britain. To get into the countryside (such as it is) in the Los Angeles area means driving thirty to forty miles, whereas in the same distance from London there is seemingly boundless countryside. If you've ever flown to Heathrow you can easily see green fields, but not so approaching Los Angeles.
#11. GazGsM "We (Brits) all know about the problems with our rail network. It's a nightmare of huge proportions." Only since privatisation. The creation of a mass of independent carriers and a separate entity to maintain the tracks (etc) was a great mistake. Of all the state-owned businesses, British Rail was the best. Although it received much criticism, it was efficient and usually on time. Not now!
Complain about this comment
Lets say i lived in San Fran. and wanted to go to Seattle. What would be my options?
1) drive
2 ) fly
3) train.
If a high-speed link all down the west coast from SanD. to Seattle stopping only at the major cities where one could eitehr be a passenger, or like the Chunnel, drive onto the drive, but then go sit in a nice lounge for the journey and then drive off at the end.
Set up another from Maine down to Florida. That'll cover a major chunk of the population. Baby steps....
Having the choice of a high-speed train which would compete very closely with flying in terms of 'time' i'm sure would be very appealing.
It would be not far removed from the "old days" when rail travel expanded the interior.
A good rail newtork opens up more avenues. If it worked, just think how less conjested the roads would be too...less cars and less trucks. Since their cargo would be better shipped by rail too. Also improves pollution levels!
Complain about this comment
#11 GazGsM "Does America with the money to build such infrastructure at this time? With a tanking economy and fighting two wars at a cost of billions/trillions may be?"
A common misconception is that the economy is tanking, when in fact it is still growing just a LOT slower (somewhere like 1.5 to 3%). It has not been in the negative growth at all yet. Just the rate of growth has been slowing.
Complain about this comment
Hopefully your friend can straighten his pieces of Amtrak in Philadelphia out. It is fine for commuting to central Washington, DC, where the metro is nearby and no car is needed. But if you need to go outside the DC Beltway, or to Baltimore (MARC) or New Jersey (NJ Transit), the connections are difficult if they exist at all and a car is required. It's also expensive.
Complain about this comment
There are several issues that are connected to one another that need to be separated out because rail has to be part of the answer going forward.
First, from a climate change/oil dependency perspective, increased use of rail in the US is a necessity. So at the Federal level, what does need to happen is legislation and incentives to make new investment possible.
Second, there is a need to distinguish between urban rail and regional rail because some of their issues are quite distinct, and the funding and investment issues are different. Whuile urban rail needs real encouragement, the real issue in my mind is regional rail..
Upgrading the regional rail network to high speed standards will be expensive, but it will also offer opportunities and jobs to areas that have been in decline. Once the process is started it will develop further but it does need the initial momentum and that can only come from government. If government gives a big push, the private sector will follow where the money is flowing.
In the first instance, the governement needs to focus on routes where a high-speed train is competitive with air: that means California, Wisconsin-Chicago-Ohio, Pennsylvania-Ohio, DC-Virginia-North Carolina, Atlanta-New Orleans-Florida, and Texas-Oklahoma-New Mexico. At a later stage these 'regions' can then be connected up with other high speed links; and, of course, the NE corridor needs to be properly upgraded. One way of helping to fund this is to open the rail network to telecommunications, and particularly the laying of fibre-optic networks down the lines.
If you look at the groups I've just suggested, then a Democratic strategist ought to see that high speed networks are overwhelmingly in their interest: both from the point of view of jobs created in key states, and in expanding the 'catchment areas' of a city like DC. If they went into the election advocating high speed rail in those areas with an emphasis on job creation and investment in infrastructure, they might well help swing some of the key states. So this is their opportunity to marry virtue with self-interest.
Complain about this comment
Rail as it is in Europe or Japan couldn't work in the US, the vast sparsely occupied areas make building a national rail system almost an impossibility. In the UK you have 2 main tracks going from London to Edinburgh, the West Coast Mainline, and the East Coast Mainline, by the time they have arrived in Edinburgh 3 hours later they have passed within easy access of the majority of the population. A similar system in the US, say from New York to Los Angeles, one north and one south, would have to meander and bend and change direction to connect cities so often that by the time you reached LA you could have driven faster. Although a US system based on smaller routes, East coast and West coast, North and South border lines, using the French V150 which can reach 574.8 km/h (I know it's French, you could make your own if US trains weren't so badly designed making them slow and unsafe) then rail travel can certainly compete with air travel, and completely thrash highway travel.
Complain about this comment
The entire idea is laughably impractical in the US. For freight, rail is valuable but not for passengers. If you go on a business trip, you often need to travel long distances. Two or three hours in the air equals an entire day on a train. What's more, when you get to your destination, you will often need a car. Airports on the fringes of cities have enough space for plenty of rental cars on huge lots. Passenger railway stations in the hearts of cities do not. Often, business clients are in industrial areas away from city centers and require a rental car to get to. Europeans simply cannot understand or compare the geographical realities of the United States with their own realities. It just won't work here. It takes planes to move the numbers of people to the places they want to go quickly and efficiently in the US. With a few exceptions in the crowded Northeast such as the Washington to Boston corridor, trains won't cut it. Even fast ones.
Complain about this comment
Marcus, you clearly have not read what was said very carefully. I know, at present, that US trains are slow: the point is to invest in high-speed (ie. 200mph+) regional networks (not national ones #20). There is no reason that Philly-Pittsburgh, for instance, should not be as fast by train as air, or even Charlotte-DC (once getting to and from an airpport, waiting to board, etc are taken into account). Air is only competitive because the rail network has lacked any real investment for years. It may also be worth noting that real high-speed trains require dedicated lines separate to freight: they can run alongside them, but freight and HST would not use the same track.
And as for Europeans not understanding the geographical realities of the US: I have travelled to 26 states and spent in all several years in the US: don't assume people from outside the US are 'unaware'. I've lived in more than a dozen cities for months on end in each, and I've survived in the US without a car: I know it can be done.
What you are offering is inertia, and inertia is not an excuse. You are assuming that the world will go back to what it was. However, oil will stay above $100 a barrel for the forseeable future, and some analysts expect $200-250. Very soon US consumers will be paying $6 a gallon, and that 'reality', when it sinks in, is going to change habits.
Through a combination of military over-reach, fiscal recklessness, and sheer incompetence, Bush has debauched the US dollar. It may be down 25% against all currencies, but the Chinese and Hong Kong rates are fixed against the US: that is not true of the UK, Europe, Australia or New Zealand, where the fall of the dollar has been 50% plus. That, and Chinese demand, is why the price of oil in US dollars is so high. China is growing by 10% a year, and will continue to do so (more or less) for at least the next decade, whilst the US dollar will not recover until the country is out of Iraq and the federal deficit is under control. Only then will the oil price start to drift back down, but even at its lows $100 a barrel is probably the bottom from now on. My bet is that the Chinese will decouple from the US dollar after the Olympics, to put the lid on their own inflation and to shift the rise in the price of oil onto the US. Interest rates will have to rise in the US to control inflation and that means that the housing market and the economy as a whole have further to fall. I think the political implications of that are obvious.
In the end, some real long-term decisions will have to be made, both because of global warming and because of the cost of oil: that is why rail has to be part of the answer.
Complain about this comment
"But the British experience has been - is it fair to say ? - patchy in recent years."
Indeed so - which is why I'm sometimes concerned to see you think [I may be wrong] that Public = Poor quality, Private = Good quality.
I can assure you that the privatisation of the railways, water companies, electricity companies, British Gas and many other utilities has not seen a subsequent improvement in quality, and in many cases it has seen a huge hike in prices to keep the shareholders happy.
The notable exception was British Telecom - but this is always trotted out as the example to quote when trying to prove that 'customers' will benefit from privatisation, and in many cases it just ain't so..
Complain about this comment
Dear Mr. Webb: Very insightful, as always. As a small-town Southerner, I agree that we do have a real challenge to overcome.
JustCorbly is correct:
'The legal and political battles surrounding any attempt to acquire new right-of-ways for new rail tracks will be bitter, expensive, and long.'
Any attempt to build a road, a bridge, expand a rail line, etc. is met with a host of lawsuits by 'environmentalists' or 'Native American activists', each attempting to extort a few million from the project budget. Then add the layers of local and state regulation, and you soon see that things grind to a screeching halt.
Oddly enough, what may be needed first is tort reform, so that the deadlock can be broken, and the country allowed to function again.
Heaven help us if the Democrats win. They are owned by the trial lawyers, and those people will never yield an inch toward tort reform. They make their money from this litigation.
Complain about this comment
We are all in agreement then,... rail is a regional passenger answer while airlines will survive on distant travel within the U.S. (time+cost=value). The only part we're missing is the public spokes to the hub idea.... Busses. "Go Greyhound and leave the driving to us" will once again be heard.
While living in Pennsylvania with Mom at nine years of age I would take the 'Greyhound' to Grand Central in NYC, hop on the Long Island Railroad for a short trip to Hempstead where Dad would pick me up. Time 3 hours at nine years old. At twenty something while on leave I took a car the same trip, traffic, fuel stop and more traffic, time, nearly five hours, and I wasn't rested nor happy!
There is a better way, and rehab from the personal vehical will be tough.
Complain about this comment
#21 Marcus:
In in the northeast corridor, train travel from city center to city center is just as fast as air travel, given airport delays and the time it takes to get from the airport into the city. No reason exists why this wouldn't be true in other regions.
You only need to rent a car at an aiport if you are going someplace that can only be reached by car.
Rental car outlets do not need acres of sprawling parking lots. Urban parking garages will do just nicely. I've rented cars in the center of a number of our largest cities and have never noticed a sprawling parking lot.
More funamentally, many of the comments posted here assume that existing American housing patterns will remain the same. That is almost certainly not true.
We have given the countryside over to suburban sprawl since the end of World War II because gasoline was cheap and because the banking industry could make large profits selling mortgages to new suburban buyers. In other words, buying a house in the suburbs became dramtically easier after WWII, and getting from that house to your job also became easier.
Unless some magical and cheaper replacement for both gasoline and the internal combustion engine is quickly found, new economic pressures will compel a restructuring of American housing and commuting patterns during the next few decades. Suburban houses will become increasingly difficult to sell and finance. Employers will shy away from locating new facilities in areas where they cannot attract employees due to the costs of commuting. Cities that currently provide even rudimentary public transport systems will attract new residents. Other cities will attempt to finance their own nascent systems.
When we consider alternative transportation schemes, we need to remember that how we get around is inextricably linked to where we live. And that will change.
Complain about this comment
Oh, in RITA, this is the reason the United States has not repaired nor kept up the infrastructure. Bureaucracy and overlapping departments with fully staffed and equiped offices, thier own building, vehicals and travel expense to 'see' how it's done in England, Russia and China,....and Japan. Theres a good chance the duplicate management overhead alone could fix untold miles of road a year.
I'm sure they each have a purpose that, awe B.S.,... I just reread the titles and checked the five year plan,.. just for kicks click on the 4.4 table and guess what that B.S. cost the American citizen. A 2.6 MB report that basically states we need to fix what we have and States need to add more as needed. Yeah, rail and commerce. Traffic. You all here have discussed the hubs, trucking and distribution, travel and logistics.
We wrote it up already, wonder what we could sell it for?
Complain about this comment
Oh seriously, please someone else read some of this RITA stuff. Chapter Seven is comical in reality. Chart with directions to study further for security and emergency response. HAhaha, in a flood or earthquake this would be of no help. Ah.......
Complain about this comment
Hmm, according to the Bureau Transportation Statistics, the average price of airline fuel for April 2008 in the U.S. was $2.96 to $3.16 per gallon, not the $7.00 plus the news has reported. Interesting site this RITA.
Wow, I stand corrected, this site is full of useful information.
Complain about this comment
quick note on infrastructure problems, and some good fodder for brit bashers, but after the sell off of BR Rail track were left with all those train lines , which had not been inspected for safety in 100 years.
Bridges about to fall apart.
Did they ever get checked?
Not sure they did.
Grrrlie the west coast line is really in a bad way. they need a new line on the west coast for passenger lines where as you say the people do not have to wait for the freight load(though there could be perishables in there) (though probably full of trees).
On freight, eugene, has no rail yard now , they closed it.
so all has to be shipped to eugene by truck from portland or down south.Unless you have a rail through your property.
this means a lot goes by road that could go by rail.
The other side of rail passanger services is that they prvent (in the UK's case) freight traffic.
this conflict between passanger and freight is actually a fairly big part of the problem.
An american company tried to get a truck freight piggyback rail carrier service going in the UK but it got nowhere because in part the rails were full of passenger trains and no one wanter freight moving al night past their windows.
the west coast (US) train line is finally up and running after a land slide buried the track(and took longer cause a guy with a calculator told the crew to blow the mountain to prevent further slides and buried the 2 months worth of clearing under a new slide).
The wst coast Amtrac was out and all trains went via idaho.
Two lines at least are needed on the west.
As for greenies beeing the problem I bet it will be one proud GOP oil loving rich guy saying "you ain't going over my land unless you give me Half the profits" that will stop anything.
And marcus really"
'Europeans simply cannot understand or compare the geographical realities of the United States with their own realities."
But some of us mark from oxford included do understand america and it's geographical size.
And I for one would say that is exactly WHY americans should be using trains.
They could look out the window and watch the dvd's etc.
Driving up from San francisco to portland is REAL BORING.
especially anywhere near Klammath.
If anyone in the FCO commercial section in New York dealing with business all over the US, can live without cars. renting when needing them , then I am sure it is possible.
for others(they do it because they get paid less than private industry.
Complain about this comment
94% of the American railroad's profit comes from freight. That has always been true.
No passenger rail system in America is profitable without subsidies. This will become even more true as fuel prices escalate.
1 gallon of diesel will move 1 ton of freight 100 miles. Who can compete with that?
Light rail on the other hand runs on dedicated tracks and is usually electric. There has been a 6% increase in ridership in the last couple of months. So this may be a growth area.
Complain about this comment
As a rider of Washington DC commuter rail (MARC), adding more rail service isn't going to solve anything. As it currently exists, it's terribly unreliable and temperatures above 90F cause delays of 30 minutes or more. Adding more trains would only add to the congestion on the rails. The DC-Chicago corridor on which my train runs shares the rails with freight and it is this freight traffic that will often hold up our trains for considerable amounts of time.
We've had thunderstorms come through and thanks to a few downed trees, thousands of commuters were stranded. One night, we didn't get home until after midnight. The people who drove those days were the smart ones. In addition, whenever there's a suicide-by-train or someone challenges Darwin and loses, the train and all of the passengers are held at the scene for 2 to 3 hours.
I will have to say, the one thing our line on the MARC rail does have over the Metro is that riders actually get seats and aren't crammed standing into rail cars. The Metro is a human rights violation in the way the riders are treated like (maybe even worse than) cattle.
Complain about this comment
As someone who lives in a port city and has to deal with trains on a daily basis I can only begin to imagine the problems that will arise out of a serious increase in train traffic. As it stands now I am sure our city (Savannah, GA) already wastes a ton of time and fuel waiting at train crossings.
When I lived in Florida the idea of a high speed rail to link the 3 major cities was a very hot one...until all the studies showed that it would be very unsafe unless you could elevate the tracks which adds huge costs and is an eye-sore. In a few weeks I am need to travel to Maine. I looked at Amtrak it would be a more than 24- hour trip that would save $100 on my plane ticket that gets me there in 4 hours…no thanks.
As has been hinted at before by other posters for most short trips (5 or less hours by car) it only make sense to drive since you still need a car at your destination. A high-speed train will not solve that problem. What we need are 50-100 new nuclear plants and decent electric car.
Complain about this comment
#24 OldSouth:
Actually, I was thinking more of the NIMBY reaction and less of the environmental reaction. (The reference to Native Americans is just bizarre.)
Environmentalists should, and likely would, support any effort that reduced pollution by transferring people from cars to trains.
People will argue that the new trains must, in effect, come within walking distance of their homes, their stores, and their workplaces.
But, no one will want new tracks and new trains running through their neighborhood. It will be a classic Not In My Back Yard fight.
Complain about this comment
It strikes me that comparisons between rail use in the U.S. and the UK are often wrong.
First, the UK is not a tiny country. Plenty of people are as geograpically as isolated there as in the U.S.
Second, trains-for-long-distance-travel is one scenario, and trains-for-commuting is another scenario entirely.
Third, when considering commuting by train, the large size of the U.S. becomes irrelevant. We need to be looking at the size of metropolitan areas and the distances people commute within them. I'd guess that those are of roughly equivalent size in the U.S. and in the UK.
People use trains in the UK because cars are expensive, city traffic is often difficult and aggravating, parking in cities is expensive, trains are reasonably frequent and reasonably on time.
Most important, in the UK, the large cities have excellent public transport systems, so people arriving by train can easily connect to their final destination in the city.
E.g., the commuter trains running from the west into London's Paddington Station or from the north into King's Cross station wouldn't be packed with commuters every morning if those passengers couldn't get off the train, walk elsewhere in the station, and grab an Underground ride.
In other words, rails work better in the UK because the UK has a much better rail infrastructure coupled with a much better urban transport infrastructure.
But, in parts of the UK where that infrastructure does not exist, guess what most people do? They drive.
The choice here in the states is twofold: Either build transport infrastructures that mirror those in the UK, or develop a replacement for the petroleum-fueled internal combustion engine.
Complain about this comment
Climate and terrain will determine how much we can utilize rail travel as a means of moving people from place to place. I don't think that there is any one solution to this issue. I think that we will need to utilize many different modes of transportation. It was mentioned that barges provide a cost effective way to move freight. Maybe we could utilize river boats again to move people from place to place in some areas. It would not do for the business traveler, perhaps, but for people wanting to shop or visit family in the area. It could provide some other form of transport than a car.
We have many possible solutions here. Creative problem solving requires an open mind to all options. And no one solution is the be all and end all to cure our ills.
I believe that we also must resolve our collective phobias regarding the use of nuclear power and begin building more power plants NOW! We must have enough nuclear material in our stock piles to produce electricity for the entire world!
Complain about this comment
Many people have mentioned electric cars. I know very little about this technology but wouldn't they provide a means of transport in cities for business travelers who would need to get from train stations to outlying areas of a city? They could be rented the same as one would rent a car. Also are there not vehicles on the road right now that utilize both a rechargeable battery plus a gas engine to increase fuel efficiency?
Complain about this comment
The problem isn't what method of transport to use, it's that we don't question the need to do so much of it. The addiction to hypermobility
is a feature of the once-in-an-epoch squandering of the fossil reserves.
Cold Turkey coming up.
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed
Complain about this comment
Solar and wind power to generate electricity are greatly under-utilized, at least where I live. We have all or part sunshine over 340 days per year. The wind blows almost daily as the desert temperature changes from morning to evening. There is a push to have solar panels on all new public buildings and to install panels on existing government buildings, schools etc.
Questions I have are why two sources of power that contribute to sustainability, that are efficient and clean are so under utilized? Why is it so expensive for the average person to buy and install such power alternatives for their homes?
I read, not long ago, about an eleven year old boy in one of our rural communities who built a solar water heater for his family using a truck radiator, some tubing and a fifty gallon drum.
Perhaps we should look to our children for some more creative solutions to our problems. The young seem to see only possibilities. They seldom get bogged down in 'it can't be done.'
Complain about this comment
People in depressed economic areas could be so energized if challenged and put to work on alternative electricity generating products. There must be empty factory buildings in these cities.
Building more fuel efficient modes of transport could also provide economic revitalization. What about workers going TDS ? (a military term for Temporary Duty Station) to work for a period of time on light rails, trains, and other installations. This has been done in the past, such as dam building, the Alaskan pipeline and other projects.
Complain about this comment
rail service "Patchy"? Patchy? Justin, you might just as well say threadbare and have done.
We are told that to upgrade our lines (which have been worked on already for years) we still have to look forward to another 2 years of diversions and bus-ing at weekends.
For our US posters, I used to travel regularly on rail in the UK. Then I travelled in the US by rail. I thought Amtrak was wonderful.
I think that tells you all you need to know.
Complain about this comment
Can you write something about the election, pur-leeze? Even GERRY Baker is better.
Complain about this comment
#38edenglehart
I think that many of us are questioning the amount of travel we do in the US. It cuts me to the heart to reduce the time I can see my grandbabies but I an trying to reduce fuel consumption by not taking 'unnecessary' trips.
We are getting web cameras so we can see each other but that does not replace being able to hug and love them in person.
Unfortunately, none of family are currently in a position to live in the same towns together
It seems to me that your presumption that all Americans are constantly traveling the roads for no real reason is somewhat naive. Most people here have very good reasons why they need to travel by car. We are not all living aimlessly here!
Complain about this comment
Actually, Ed (#38), people over here (U.S.) are questioning the need to do so much of it, in light of greatly increased fuel prices. Many people are, in fact, driving less, combining trips, telecommuting, reducing vacation travel, and so forth.
This phenomenon will continue as influenced by economics, I expect.
Complain about this comment
Aquarizonagal (#37), hybrid electric-gasoline cars are becoming pretty common here in California. No doubt all-electric cars at a practical price will come along eventually. Looking at the big picture, there are some interesting facts, however. In California, most electricity is produced by burning natural gas, believe it or not. So electric cars are using energy derived from fossil fuel. Also, lithium from Canada is shipped to the far east to make batteries which are shipped back to North America to make electric and hybrid cars. Lots of fossil fuel there, also.
If the problem Justin is posing is how to move people and products without fossil fuel, we have a very long way to go. Eventually, Americans will have to start building nuclear power plants again, in my opinion. There is still not a lot of sympathy for that approach today.
Complain about this comment
#41Argylljenny
Thanks so much for all of your input. It has been very informative, at least for me. From what I have read of your posts, I think that we may have similar living conditions, rural semi-rural, with not a lot of alternatives for public transport and what transport is available is, at best, inefficient.
Ed Englehart, I think, would have all of us in the USA stay home and molder! We all have different priorities and living circumstances. Yes, many trips are not necessary but what I have seen recently is that people are reducing those trips.
I find that this particular topic (rail travel) is a forum for creative problem solving not just an opportunity for an admonition to people to "just stay home"!
Complain about this comment
#42Mediamofo
This IS all about the election. The person who wants to be president had better address these issues and address them fearlessly!
Complain about this comment
Americans will only confront the public transportation crisis when they can no longer afford to use their cars, and all the airlines have gone out of business. It is a shame. This is the perfect place for high-speed rail, but that requires funding with taxes (our ridiculous government would probably suggest faith-based transport, or personal savings accounts for transportation). I have used the National Rail system in the UK many times, and it is light-years ahead of the US system. The US would be the perfect place for a French-style TGV system.
Complain about this comment
It's 110 degrees F. today in places in the East (San Francisco) Bay area where I work. This is an extremely unusual heat wave for coastal California. It may be that the long-term problem will be solved by global warming. A runaway greenhouse effect will exterminate the human species, and most other higher forms of life, before we (humankind generally) do anything to prevent it, and the species which replace us won't be driving cars, at least for a long while.
Complain about this comment
#44Garyahill
We have reduced our driving. I saw my two little granddaughters in June, usually I see them once a month. They live four hours drive away from us. We made a decision not to visit them again until October when their new little sister is due to be born.
We made this decision, not because we can't afford the gasoline, but because it seemed we should do our part to help conserve, by not making 'nonessential' trips.
Complain about this comment
#45Garyahill
I think I made a comment about nuclear power in one of my previous posts. We seem to have this collective phobia about nuclear power here in the USA. We need to face fear and get over this!
Complain about this comment
Rail travel is only one answer. It is not the ONLY answer!
Complain about this comment
#49Garyahill
And cockroaches will inherit the earth!
Complain about this comment
#38Edinglehart
I have enjoyed your posts and often agree with your position but this time your comments seem to resemble some of our failed policies here in the USA such as:
Just teach abstinence to our youth and they won't have sex.
Just say no to drugs and people won't use.
This is a test and only a test. If this was actual reality you would be provided with real instructions on where to go and how to actually get there!
Complain about this comment
re: #47 aquarizonagal wrote:
"This IS all about the election. The person who wants to be president had better address these issues and address them fearlessly!"
My apologies for being a cynical curmudgeon, but I am absolutely certain that ANY political candidate running for president who addresses the energy issue publicly in a "fearless" and truthful manner will have zero chance of ever being elected. Unfortunately, this applies to many other issues of importance, also.
Ain't US politics just wonderful?!?!?!
Complain about this comment
re: #53 aquarizonagal wrote:
"And cockroaches will inherit the earth!"
When one considers the political class, one can only conclude that they already have.
Complain about this comment
Rail is part of the solution but it will never happen. It's a question of money. Don't even think about maintenance. States and counties can't afford to buy those properties where they can build those tracks
Complain about this comment
#56Peterm99
You have made my day! I consider one good laugh essential to my health and you have provided it. But on a sadder note: So True!
Complain about this comment
peterm99
If you are a cynical curmudgeon, I guess that I am the same sometimes. But I find that one has to have some hope that the glass is still half full or give up entirely. I am not ready to give up just yet. How about you?
Complain about this comment
#49 gary a hill
so with all the newly flooded areas we'll be back to rowing, sailing, barges, balloons and microlights?
#53 aquarizonagal
and the cockroaches get a free ride
oops, nearly said something rude about politicians there
at least it will dampen the arguments about drilling and mining and divert them back to different forms of agriculture
But honestly, all these posts are quite depressing. Ingenuity can go just so far, but the cost of changing the basis of transport for any country is more than astronomical, because all the elements of production and distribution are so deeply intertwined.
And the worst of it is, it could all be a complete waste of time and money.
Still, that gives the politicians an out, doesn't it?
Complain about this comment
Aquarizona Gal,
Iglehart, please Engleharts do Gold and Platinum - no kin, sadly. ;-)My point was that we would never have developed a culture based upon moving goods and people around in the first place if it hadn't been for the one-time supply of cheap fuel. That is coming to its very predictable end, and we have to consider whether it is necessary to be able to live one place, work somewhere relatively distant and enjoy foods brought to us from all over the world.
If you live in Arizona, you must be aware that, at present it has a far greater population than it would ever have been able to support without the "benefits" of the last two centuries' hypermobility of goods and folk. This has led to the atomisation of society, including the fragmentation of families as you indicate.Be it ever so humble,
Salaam, etc.
ed
there's no place like home
Complain about this comment
Frankly, I am in awe of the fact that Justin Webb has not posted anything on the US/Israel reaction to Iran's missile launch. The article on the BBC website states: "US Under-secretary of State William Burns said that thanks to UN sanctions, Iran's real progress on its nuclear programme had been "modest", despite its sabre-rattling." I must say that a great deal of this incessant rattling noise echoing within this diplomatic void is coming from the grubby hands of the west. Did not a CIA investigation into this matter proclaim outright that Iran was not harbouring or planning to develop nuclear weapons? Did they not state this to the public as well as directly to this mental dwarf occupying the oval office?
It is quite evident that the media, despite its ever reaching grasp and command over all things that that enter our ear and eye holes, has failed us in every way in the moments leading up to the Iraq war. And with its vast millions of pounds and dollars it must not let the public it serves be bamboozled again.
The Centre for Public Integrity has revealed the Bush administration lied 935 times in the months leading up to the Iraq war. How many of those lies were uncovered by any "journalist?"
Why aren't any of these current facts and events being investigated? Rather, they are just being restated.
Perhaps the licensing fees are better spent on other things, and Justin's extended American holiday should come to an end. I have an idea, he can cover the Cooper's Hill cheese rolling contest (or send a link to the Guardian’s coverage of it), and we can send a teletubby to report on the happenings of America. At least, we all know Tinky Winky would be welcome in some of the dark alleys Justin wouldn't have access to.
Complain about this comment
"Is rail the answer?"
Justin, really - are you even [i]trying[/i] to be serious?
Before you know it, you'll be considered every bit as much a joker as McCain
Complain about this comment
re: #59 aquarizonagal wrote:
"But I find that one has to have some hope . . ."
Agreed. That is essential, and I am always filled with hope. That's why I still write to and call my congresscritters, try to stay on top of events, even why I occasionally rail away in fora and blogs such as this.
However, having observed the political system for as long as I have, my _expectations_ are very close to zero. (And, day after day, election after election, the people of our government (at all levels) regularly fail to live up to even those expectations.)
Complain about this comment
#61edenglehart
If you have really read any of my previous posts you would understand my take on how we could actually use some creative problem solving to address issues facing our current problems re: fuel and energy consumption. This is not about going back 100 years! It is about going forward.
My understanding is that you do not live in the USA and have not for a long time. How can you presume to have a full understanding of what this country is facing today? Would I want to see my children and grandchildren unable to move more than 50 miles from where they were born? Absolutely not! I will sacrifice so that my children and grandchildren can have better lives. Some of your comments and attitudes seem so intellectually effete.
I am happy that you enjoy a life that suits you. I also enjoy my life. I will make what modifications are necessary to insure that the young people growing up today can also realize their dreams. These Young people (see my post#39) are some of our greatest hopes.
Do you think that I like what has been done to the desert I love? Sometimes I have only been a 'voice crying in the wilderness.'
Complain about this comment
#64peterm99
Try to hang on! I'm old. When I feel really discouraged, I pray or do Tia Chi. That seems to help. Sometimes the best antidote is a good laugh.
Complain about this comment
Adding to my post #65
There are a lot more factors than so called 'cheap fuel' that contributed to over development in the desert Southwest. This is an issue that is very 'close to the bone' for me. So, I am asking that if you are not native to this area please don't presume to tell us where we all went wrong.
Complain about this comment
Will echo the suggestions of increased power from new nuclear plants and a large buildup of renewables. The massively larger output of electricity then could be used to power fully electric cars--which are now starting to come into their own.
Many people here aren't taking into account that most Americans (and [guessing] most foreigners) would choose personal transport over mass transit, if that was a viable option.* (If only because mass transit often has urine-soaked seats). =-o There's no reason that Americans can't have their cake (reduced dependence on hydrocarbon fuels) and eat it, too (by having their own car/vehicle).
In some urban areas, traffic congestion would still be an issue, but that's only a minority of cases. As has been pointed out either directly or indirectly, there are plenty of Americans living in relatively low density areas.
*Americans (and others) also tend to want their own property, so if you're going for what people want along with what's necessary, personal vehicles are still the way to go, albeit in a 'greener' form. Individuals can own their own car and house. If the electricity supply becomes so large (say from increased photovoltaic cell efficiency or a reduction in cost in their production), then electric cars could be cheaper than gasoline-fueled/internal combustion engine-run ones, too. Win win situation.
Complain about this comment
I grew up in Philadelphia and rode trolley cars to school. Public transport was a way of life. Even weekends, when I was a teen, meant a trolley or train ride into other parts of the city. My husband grew up in NYC, and didn't learn to drive until he was in his 30's, and we were living in Ohio.
Those of us who grew up in 'old' US cities took public transport for granted.
Even here in Scotland, where we could be putting in rail services, all we do is build bypasses. It's mad. It's not an American thing. It is the status of a car that's the problem. I stick out because I neither own one, nor want one. Perhaps our MP's and MSP's should start using public transport instead of cars to set an example!
Complain about this comment
re: #62 flatsoda
". . . Bush administration lied 935 times in the months leading up to the Iraq war. How many of those lies were uncovered by any "journalist?""
You are hardly being fair. The British press, of which the BBC is part, picked apart the entirety of Powell's fairy tales at the Security Council meeting within days. The fact that the US press was complicit in the administration's warmongering can hardly be blamed on the BBC. While you may complain (and you have the right since you are paying for the BBC via your fees and I'm not (thank you, by the way!)), probably the main reason that so many Americans frequent the BBC sites is that it stands head and shoulders above anything we have in the US (well, perhaps only a half a head above our PBS).
The US administration has demonstrated that it cares not a whit for the opinions of the press or of the world or even of its own citizens. It will either conduct an attack or facilitate an Israeli attack at a time of its own choosing, or not, regardless of press/public hysteria or its absence. The administration and Israel are still in the process of pursuing the propaganda campaign they feel is necessary to justify a decision to proceed with an attack, or, if no attack is currently in the works, to maintain sufficient demonization of Iran to impose sanctions, embargoes, etc.
All the items that you cite have been covered at various levels of depth in the US and foreign press. There is also substantial coverage regarding the missile launches and the international reaction. I would expect that the launches are not being given the attention that you propose has a lot to do with the fact that it's a lot like the boy crying wolf. The US and Israel take turns crying wolf about Iran, and Iran says "no, I'm not, you're the wolves", and the cycle repeats, over and over and over and over again. After a while, I imagine even the press tires.
Note that the potential Iran war was extensively discussed on one of Justin's blogs just a few days ago. Test and demonstration missile launches are commonplace events in many non-third world countries and Iran's performing them recently is not a substantial change in the overall situation. Another blog topic on Iran just because of this is unlikely to expose anything new since the last time.
In terms of developments which are truly potentially momentous, you should be more concerned about the fact that the US Congress, at AIPAC's urging, will imminently consider a resolution that calls for a blockade of Iran, one that would have to be enforced by US warships - a de facto declaration of war. Some observers feel that the likelihood of passage is high.
Complain about this comment
It is so easy to point the finger in blame, to talk against the policies that brought us here, to denigrate ideas for change .
The hard task will be finding and being open to real solutions. Are we up to it? Can we do it?
Complain about this comment
MarkfromOxford
Go to an American airport. There are hundreds if not thousands of passengers waiting around to catch planes or just arriving. I've sat on runways in a plane waiting to take off for as much as two hours in the recent past. Go try to find a parking space in one of the many vast parking lots. Now imagine all of that trying to squeeze into the center of an American city. Had it been planned like that from day one, it could have been accommodated but not anymore. Imagine JFK, LaGuardia, and Newark airport trying to get into Penn Station and Grand Central. And where would the normal commuter rail passengers go? America is too mobile and no it cannot relocate millions of people from the West and southwest back to the northeast in a short time justcorby. It took many decades for the migration out west and it isn't coming back east. One way or another, a solution will be found but it will not have anything to do with massive investments in passenger rail systems.
Complain about this comment
I must say that I was talking about the international journalist community and not specifically the BBC.
I find it very strange that the investigation of the CIA is not repeatedly mentioned to counter the claims of certain officials who state that Iran is a serious threat in any report concerning the issue. ie "Bush said on July 9th that Iran poses a grave threat to US security, this is despite the fact that the CIA's findings counter his claims etc etc." It is amazing how journalism has descended into this modern malaise of apparent indifference to fact and investigation.
I'm not a scholar by any means but, at least in my eyes, it seems to me that this society we live in has almost achieved a parody of its self. Where this system we are living under- mass appeal, mass consumption, this Darwinian capitalism has evolved into a kind of cannibalism where the exploits of the 20th century are now the very caustic substances eroding the society of the 21st.
And one of the 1st symptoms of this kind of plague is the erosion of the reporters' standards.
And without trying to turn a barn door into the Sistine chapel, these are CNN's so called story highlights
Story Highlights
Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards test fire long and medium range missiles
NEW: Iranian general: "Our finger is always on the trigger"
NEW: U.S.: Iran is "as serious... a problem as any we face today
Missile tests were part of Iranians war games in the Persian Gulf
Now, I don't see why this isn't a story highlight:
"We are making all-out efforts to expand peace and security in the world. You should not be concerned about a new war,"
or: "Iran, which says its nuclear program is strictly to produce energy, defends its right to proceed with enrichment."
Why aren't the journalists interviewing these people rather than just merely cutting and pasting extraneous quotes. We don't even know what these people are being asked or in what context their statements are in. If there isn't a cohesive story how can this be labelled journalism?
Is this is how we manage ourselves people wil certainly view us as a bigger laugh than the Victorians.
Complain about this comment
Aquarizona gal,
I havent't spent much time in the arid zone, but I have read almost everything written by Ed Abbey.
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
oh ok the "gusty gates" one. alright, tinky winky can stay here and Justin is not half bad then. apologies mr web
Complain about this comment
Aquarizona Gal,
Not sure which parts of that apply. No. 2 is closest.Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
Ref #71
A nation that has put a man on the moon, and developed magnificent robotic probes such as the Hubble Space Telescope, can definitely develop energy efficient vehicles and factories. What remains to be seen is whether or not special interests are ready to give up their oil profits, whether or not we are ready to change the way we do things and the way we live, and whether we are willing to pay the taxes needed to achieve energy independence.
Judging by how little has been accomplished since the gas crisis in 73, I believe progress depends more on actions taken by the citizenry than on policies from our pandering "leaders".
Complain about this comment
Auqua girl, thanks for reading my post, about barges and electric cars, Seeing as most seem to pooh pooh the idea of electric cars.
I was not convinced, still am not but Again on DVD available is the 2006 film made about a GM electric car,THAT WORKED.
"Who Killed The Electric Car"
When you get the chance to see it do not miss it, you will love it and be amazed.
Now Mre they won't work , old stuff will be said, but It is no older than the technology that ALL cars have now.
They take less to produce than hybrids,as well.
As to tthe long term feasability of nukes, why not try solar on every roof before that.
They cost MANY MILLIONS to build, DO POLLUTE, in use and in disposale of waste. and for less money they could pay all that want to stick solar on their roofs.
And the system has a more varied generation base it will be less vaulnerable to terrorist attack.
If every house is a generator then who to attack?
Though Ed has the best solution.Not run around getting in a tissey because your 3 minutes late.
Complain about this comment
Remember a simple rule.All traffic is local.In this day and when there is an existing transport system, which extremely chaotic and enviromentally unfriendly,the only way to come out of this situation is to radically alter our culture of transportation and living style.
All future planning should come to an halt untill we have developed a futuristic vision.
In the mean time, use modern technology to develop an extensive network of transportation at the local level.A land based lift system within a neighborhood.
This local system is then connected to a secondary and tertiary network
Complain about this comment
welcome back ED
Aqua girl just read todays posts.The reliance on nuke power goes to this. DO YOU WANT ONE IN YOUR BACK YARD.
and no one does.
Infact it will seriously deflate the property prices where ever thay are built.
But solar and wind are viable.
Well under utilised .
here are some green links for all to peruse
http://www.ecocitybuilders.org
http://postcarboncities.net
http://www.greenroofs.com
http://www.healthybuilding.net
http://www.eugenepermacultureguild.org/main/
http://www.cityrepair.org/wiki.php
http://www.sightline.org
http://www.solarbuzz.com/index.asp
http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/small_wind_generators_turbines_manufacturers
.htm
http://www.buildinggreen.com
http://www.dirtcheapbuilder.com/index.html
wow this should keep the mods busy for hours going through those links(please feel free to take any off you like and still post the letter)
Complain about this comment
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/223/index.html#here
watch this.the answer to what to do when you get there.
Complain about this comment
#34 justcorbly: Actually, the reference to 'Native American' groups isn't bizarre--it happened to us here in Tennessee. A much needed road has been held up for years in litigation because a 'Native American' group objected that 1000+ year old gravesites would be 'desecrated'. After years of motions, depositions, bureaucratic nonsense, and expense, the case finally went to trial.
The judge asked one question of the 'Native Americans': Can you demonstrate any direct descent or kinship with those bones in the ground?' And the answer was, of course, no.
Game over--the judge found for the state, and the road could continue...this of course after after years of parallel litigation because the road's path crossed small rivers and creeks(GASP!!). In this case, the 'environmentalists' collected cash from the state, and wrested a promise that no exit would be constructed near the estates they had erected within a few miles of the right of way.
You're right, in a way, it's a NIMBY thing, but they use the environmental laws, and the 'Native American' b.s., and any other pretext allowed by the Congress(bought and paid for by the trial lawyers).
The only green they care about is the kind they can deposit to an account.
That's why rail won't be built without tort reform.
I agree, it's bizarre--a bizarre situation, created by libs and lawyers.
And, by the way, that road is ten years behind schedule, and only now nearing completion.
Driving through Middle Tennessee is increasingly frustrating, because that road can't be used. Millions of gallons of fuel will be saved once it is finally opened--an example of true environmentalism, the kind that benefits PEOPLE over dead bones and minnows.
Bizarre, indeed!
Complain about this comment
AnonymousCalifornian has it right.
If you look at Europe, areas that have seen growth in wealth have expanded, with new, single family home suburbs being built in Paris, London, etc. The change is especially apparent in Eastern Europe. In Bucharest the sprawl expands by miles each year, with (believe it or not) SUV's filling the roads to bring people to and from their new houses. It's not up to America's level yet because there isn't enough wealth (I imagine a half acre of land on the outskirts of Paris is a bit pricier then a half acre on the outskirts of Atlanta...) or enough time for this development to mature, but even Europeans like a grassy lawn and flower garden.
The point - People LIKE having their own home and car. I wouldn't like having my own car in an English city (I drove around the country in 2005. The countryside was fine, the highways were good, the cities were nightmares), but when the city is built for cars... well.
SO the solution is - TECHNOLOGY. Super high speed rail is part of that. There should be a northeast corridor because its cost effective (its the only part of the US that even come remotely close to European level population densities, and we're talking about Poland/Belarus level, not Germany/France/UK). But it's not the main answer. That's better cars, better power systems, and renovations of industry.
The area I would most like to see improved in terms of rail is subway. DC only built their subway 20 years ago and its works great, so it CAN be done in a modern city. Baltimore built a light rail which does ok, but if they built an east-west one and maybe a ring one with free transfers I bet it would boom. I don't take it every day, but I take it when I want to go to the airport, downtown, or to baseball games. Shopping... nah.
More people should bike too.
And last note - I live 7.5 miles from work. so 15 round trip. Car ('96 corolla) gets 30 miles per gallon. x $4 = about $2 a day on gas. Bus fare round trip = $4. Not cost effective yet and takes twice as long. Mute point though because I bike it. But still.
Complain about this comment
this is a test post.
Complain about this comment
I don't know what the problem was, but I
was unable to post T. Boone Pickens' energy
plan, but if you do a quick search on Google,
it will come up.
Sounds like an interesting plan, especially
from an oil man.
Complain about this comment
Historically, passenger air travel has been cheaper than passenger rail travel. The 9/11 attacks probably changed some of that calculus. In addition to the fact that it's quite difficult to knock down a skyscraper with a locomotive, the cost of risk for airlines has skyrocketed. But this cost is now heavily subsidized by the federal government -- ironcally, pushed by many of the same conservative politicians who think that subsidizing rail is a form of socialism. Hypocrisy, anyone?
The inconvenience factor of airline travel has also skyrocketed. With new security procedures and traffic-choking airport redesigns, significant air travel can indeed take all day! You have to show up incredibly early on the off chance that the security line will be long and/or you or someone in your party may be selected for intensive screening. That's why the airports are packed -- not because they are efficient people processors.
Thanks to bureaucrats and politicians who haven't got the slightest clue about organic chemistry, you cannot carry liquids through security. Then you face further hindrances once on the plane -- no communication with the outside world, frequent turbulence, getting nickel-and-dimed for food, etc.
Travel with children (or even next to them) and the problems increase by an order of magnitude.
I look forward to the day when I can ride in a train instead of a plane for reasonably priced and schedulable cross country travel. Yes, ride in a steel box instead of an aluminum can, at nearly sea-level air pressure, with the ability to send a text message and walk around without contortions, or even (gasp!) look out the window and see something interesting.
What will it take? Redirection of subsidies back from the air industry to the rail industry. If government is going to invest in transport, at least it should invest in the most practical kind. That's not air anymore.
Complain about this comment
Oh, and by the way what makes you think that Sir Topham Hatt wouldn't come here? Our health care system for fat, rich corporate executives is the finest in the world!
Complain about this comment
A little perspective wouldn't hurt everyone to understand. The state of Oregon is roughly the same land area as the whole of the UK. And only 1% of our population lives in Oregon... High-speed rail will work in certain areas of the country though, that I agree with.
Complain about this comment
re: #86 RalphMa
Just a thought:
Given the historical behavior of gov't bureaucracies and the detachment from reality usually exhibited by Congress, do you really believe that, as trains start to become a more common means of passenger transport, the DHS and TSA aren't going to streamline train travel at least as much as they've streamlined air travel?
(for non-US folk: DHS = Heimatsicherheitsdienst (euphemistically known as Dep't of Homeland Security)
TSA = Transportation Security Administration (the friendly folks that handle airport security)
Complain about this comment
What's your opinion about remarks about Obama like the one made by J. Jackson? Do they help O with white voters?
Complain about this comment
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07092008/news/nationalnews/jesse_jackson_sharply_criticizes_obama_119161.htm
See the video.
I think the comments are a gift for Obama.
He's been trying to separate himself from the likes of Jackson and Sharpton who still cling to the politics of resentment.
This really helps him in the eyes of those sceptical white working class voters worried that he's some sort of Trojan horse of black liberation.
Complain about this comment
Comments by left and right wing extremists, such as Jesse Jackson, should not be taken seriously as they do not represent the views or values of mainstream America. Jackson is clearly dismayed by Obama's centrist proposals and his overt desire to represent all Americans, not just the interests of a specific ethnic group. In my opinion, Jackson's unseemly comment reflects negatively on him, and help distance Obama from the left wing of his party without losing their votes. His biggest problem are blue collar workers, Hispanics, and senior citizens. He should focus on the latter by emphasizing his approach to make Social Security and MEDICARE solvent. Seniors vote, blue collar workers seldom do!
Complain about this comment
#82 OldSouth:
I think one anecdotal report of a lawsuit in one state does not scale up to the notion that environmentalists and native Americans are blocking the solution to U.S. transportation problems.
And, clearly, the only tort reform you seem willing to accept would be one that prohibits those you oppose politically from bring suit, while allowing those you support to sue with abandon.
My guess is that if someone wanted to put an interstate or a new railway through your backyard, you'd be on the phone to a lawyer, too.
Whatever the solution to the tranport problem entails, it certainly does not include building more highways for more cars powered by petroleum products. Get used to it.
Complain about this comment
gunsandreligion wrote:
I don't know what the problem was, but I
was unable to post T. Boone Pickens' energy
plan, but if you do a quick search on Google,
it will come up.
Sounds like an interesting plan, especially
from an oil man.
You generally will get more constructive solution from the business community than from givt advocates.
A project that should be up and running is Cape Wind which is being blocked by the eviro-hypocrites the Kennedys.
Joe would rather be a Chavez stooge than block his family summer compund view.
Complain about this comment
Marcus, I've been to US airports several times this year, as I do every year, and will go to several more in the course of it: what is surprising is your need to take a car an put it in long term parking, though I am aware many do. For those cities that don't have public transport like DC (eg. Baton Rouge, where I was in February), my preferred method is Super Shuttle or its equivalent if I can, or a taxi if I must. Rail stations on the other hand tend to be in the city centre: any NYer who does not take the subway or a taxi to Penn Station and looks for parking instead ought to be certified: what city centre rail locations require is good local transport not parking lots. Having said that, if high-speed regional transport were invested in, perhaps there would be a market for the likes of Super Shuttle to serve not only airports but train stations: this is not an insoluable problem.
Complain about this comment
A more likely scenario is the development of more fuel efficient cars, and (in time) entirely new ways to power vehicles.
I personally love public transport, but it's a culture gap across the atlantic. Americans love driving; it's part of their heritage, their national identity, and I'm doubtful about whether that can be so easily turned around. If they possibly can, they will drive, regardless of the cost.
A governmnet sponsored pilot scheme in certain states adn cities might make more sense than a nationwide conversion to mass-transport. San Francisco, Seattle, New York and other places which fancy themselves as a bit "European" would probably be fertile ground for an experiment in train-usage. I reckon that other places might view a continental style transport system as too foreign to them.
Complain about this comment
#95 MarkFromOxford:
In American cities that have built good local transport systems, commerce, housing and services like Super Shuttle typically cluster at signficant nodes in the system.
Washington D.C's Metro rail system is a good example. New housing, new offices, and new shopping located withing easy walking distance of the junctions on the system. Taxis and buses line the streets outside the large junctions.
I judge the effectiveness of an urban transport system by asking if it's possible to live a normal life without a car in that city. I put Washington on that list, as well as New York, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, and Portland, Oregon. These cities show that good urban transport will be used.
Complain about this comment
What is constantly amazing is the number of you that will slag off Greenies, environmentalists etc.
Environmentalist stop your roads, environmentalists stop Nuke environmentalists stop Anwar and CAlifields being drilled.
WELL IF YOU HAD LISTENED TO THEM FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS YOU WOULD NOT BE IN SO MUCH TROUBLE.
So shut up and accept that the envirobashers are at fault.
that Good battery tech has been buried,that efficient cars, not running on , got buried.
that AMERICAN INDIANS OWN THIS COUNTRY SO YOU THAT WANT TO TELL THEM TO STOP SHOULD LEAVE
QUote "if you don't like it leave"
IF you had listened to those Greenies when Carter was trying, you would probably not be in a war over oil.
WAKE UP
Complain about this comment
train links and electric Hire cars for when you are going somewhere the buses don't reach.
Germans have collectivly owned cars where you book them when you need them and so reduce cost of having to buy cars and have empty ones causing more congestion.
Complain about this comment
Half the time when I have seen objectors to wind farms they have been landowners who think it will spoil the view.
Of both sides of the political spectrum.
because once someone builds in your area most get angry.
unlike
The Island in the Wind: A Danish community’s victory over carbon emissions.
Jørgen Tranberg is a farmer who lives on the Danish island of Samsø. He is a
beefy man with a mop of brown hair and an unpredictable sense of humor. When
I arrived at his house. . . he asked me if I wanted to climb his wind
turbine. I was pretty sure I didn’t, but I said yes anyway.
We got into Tranberg’s car and bounced along a rutted dirt road. The turbine
loomed up in front of us. . . Inside were eight ladders, each about twenty
feet tall, attached one above the other. We started up. . . The rotors,
which he had switched off during our climb, started to turn, at first
sluggishly and then much more rapidly. It felt as if we were about to take
off. I’d like to say the feeling was exhilarating; in fact, I found it
sickening. Tranberg looked at me and started to laugh.
Samsø, which is roughly the size of Nantucket, sits in what’s known as the
Kattegat, an arm of the North Sea. . . For the past decade or so, Samsø has
been the site of an unlikely social movement. When it began, in the late
nineteen-nineties, the island’s forty-three hundred inhabitants had what
might be described as a conventional attitude toward energy: as long as it
continued to arrive, they weren’t much interested in it. Most Samsingers
heated their houses with oil, which was brought in on tankers. They used
electricity imported from the mainland via cable, much of which was
generated by burning coal. As a result, each Samsinger put into the
atmosphere, on average, nearly eleven tons of carbon dioxide annually.
Then, quite deliberately, the residents of the island set about changing
this. They formed energy coöperatives and organized seminars on wind power.
They removed their furnaces and replaced them with heat pumps. By 2001,
fossil-fuel use on Samsø had been cut in half. By 2003, instead of importing
electricity, the island was exporting it, and by 2005 it was producing from
renewable sources more energy than it was using.
The residents of Samsø that I spoke to were clearly proud of their
accomplishment. All the same, they insisted on their ordinariness. They
were, they noted, not wealthy, nor were they especially well educated or
idealistic. They weren’t even terribly adventuresome. “We are a conservative
farming community” is how one Samsinger put it. “We are only normal people,”
Tranberg told me. “We are not some special people. . . ."
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_kolbert?currentP
age=all
thanks to Climate Crisis Coalition www.climatecrisiscoalition.org
Complain about this comment
kburns, my earlier posts were directed precisely at regional links in areas where they would be most effective. If you start with half a dozen regional projects then you can build from there; of course, doing the whole nation at once is not feasible.Over 20-30 years things will start to change and other projects can be added on. What needs to happen now is that the first steps are taken.
Complain about this comment
Justin,
You may not realize this, but many of us don't drive over long distances: we FLY!
And we don't even have to go through security checks and queue lines at hubs to do that;
we simply fly our own small planes: Cessnas, Beachcrafts, etc. That's what small aviation is all about: individual freedom.
P.S. If you bothered to check you'd find out that you can get from Long Island do Lower Manhattan in 10 minutes by hydroplane.
And the pleasure will cost ya merely $60.00 per ticket. :-)
Complain about this comment
MarkfromOxford, kburns_ireland, Americans have
a lot to learn about mass transit. I grew up
in Philadelphia, which is probably the only
city in the US that has a decent train setup,
because there are trains that take you directly
to terminals at the airport.
Here in California, we have a terrible mess.
It was a shock when I moved here to see
how disconnected everything is. There is
this system called BART which does not
extend into the "south bay" as it is called.
This is because when it was planned, the
residents of the south bay didn't want the
"growth" that might come along with it.
That area is now Silicon Valley; all of the
apple orchards which were there are now
gone, which just shows that we can't plan
anything.
Then there was this decade-long battle to
extend BART to connect with the airport.
A nearby town wanted the train to come
to their town, and force everybody to use
busses to transfer to the airport; the airline
employees union wanted a similar arrangement
whereby the train to stop at their parking
lot, and so on.
Now we have a high-speed rail system on
the ballot, which is essentially an upgraded
form of the French TGV system. We'll
see how far this goes.
Californians don't understand mass transit
very well, but the congestion in some areas
alone is going to force them to look at it.
Complain about this comment
Hello all,
I repeat this link and would like to thank who ever placed it, I've been reading and forwarding this to friends and family. In 1973 no less, the looming ENERGY CRISIS was already well thought out, not only in fuel, but cost to human life in quality and perception.
http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~ira/illich/texts/energy_and_equity/energy_and_equity.html
"Change of pace, change in place"
Doug
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat, I'm with you. I bought some
land up in a small development in the Sierras
which has its own airport. Like weird Al Yankovitch
once said, "I can't drive 55!"
Complain about this comment
DougTexan, if you happen to live near a
good technical library, I suggest that you go
look up the October, 1973 issue of
Scientific American, which was an entire issue
devoted to the "energy crisis," as it was called
at that time.
I might be off by a month or so, but I think
that was the issue. Virtually every issue brought
up in this blog was addressed in that issue.
Complain about this comment
#103 G+R "Here in California, we have a terrible mess . . . .Californians don't understand mass transit very well." BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) is an improvement on what there was; further south, in Los Angeles, the popularity of a similar subway line is quite phenomenal. Not just since the rise in the price of gas/petrol but as a way to avoid congested freeways. There is a dedicated bus system with its own route, formerly rail and that too has become very well used. This kind of rapid transit which, in the suburbs of the San Fernando Valley, links directly to the subway system. Apart from the financial considerations, the NIMBY attitude has had an effect, residents not wanting a train at the back of their houses. Rather short-sighted in my view since the above-ground portions of the London Underground are not especially unsightly.
As more commuters turn to public transportation and sample its convenience, hopefully NIMBY will be eradicated - but then there's the money from both State and Federal sources, and that is not readily forthcoming. Before the L.A. Metro was constructed, President Reagan opposed Federal participation saying it was an example of wasteful funding. With luck and in view of contemporary events, both private and public money will encourage expansion of the system in Los Angeles. I think yet more Californians will see the merits of mass transit, even La-la Land is getting the message!
Complain about this comment
In response to various comments, the reason passenger rail isn't working in the US is not merely a density problem, but mainly a mindset problem.
On mindset: Americans - I'm speaking for myself, too - like SUVs, we like to waste water and food without thinking, we like to have bigger houses and bigger backyards and bigger everything. So we buy two or three cars and say to hell with rail, because we can. I want to drive how I want, when I want, when I want to - it's what 'freedom' American style is all about. Seriously. To the average American, the railroad is a kind of tyranny against the glorious autonomy of the automobile.
Complain about this comment
Marcus,
You're really too pessimistic. We could find some way to manage rail travel in modern America. In case you've forgotten, we did use rail for years (and indeed build cities around rail) until we decided to abandon it in recent decades. Nobody's saying that we should now abandon air travel and use only rail, just that rail is a viable alternative in many situations, especially if we invest in it.
"There are hundreds if not thousands of passengers waiting around to catch planes or just arriving. I've sat on runways in a plane waiting to take off for as much as two hours in the recent past."
Well you do realize this is because airports and our skies are overcrowded, and rail travel would be a viable alternative, thus cutting down on air traffic, meaning fewer airport delays and runway wait times...
Complain about this comment
ctoocheck (#109) correctly observes that medium distance intercity high speed rail mainly addresses the limited problem of overcrowded airports with short-haul flights. The proposed SF-LA line in California addresses this, which is why the SFO airport authority is in favor of it. People who travel frequently between those two cities may switch to rail if it is competitive in time and cost.
The problem is, for those hundreds, or even thousands, of people who might benefit, there are millions of taxpayers who will be asked to support a $10B bond measure to build it. Why should they support it? I live in Oakland, close enough to use it, but I never go to LA. This project will do nothing to alleviate local traffic congestion. I would rather see better regional (BART) service than intercity high-speed rail. I'm inclined to vote against the proposal, as currently planned.
Complain about this comment
#75and 76 Edinglehart
Reading about the desert and actually living and loving it are two very different things.
Intellectually effete: Check 'all of the above'
Complain about this comment
Jacksforge
Nuclear power is not contrary to green living. I feel that I am, and have always been as green as Kermit the Frog. It isn't always "easy being green." Would I rather have wind and solar power? Make that a resounding YES. But am I open to many options? Again, YES.
Would I want a nuclear power plant in my neighborhood? I already have one. Palo Verde Nuclear Power is less than 300 miles from where I live. Would I want to be closer? No, that would mean being even closer to California which I consider even more insidious than nuclear power.
Would I want a plant in Southeastern Arizona? Yes, I know just the place and it could provide power for much of Arizona, New Mexico and probably some of West Texas.
I am not afraid of nuclear energy. I have lived very near a generator on Cape Cod.
At one time, I lived less than 30 miles from Rockey Flats in Colorado. I probably glow in the dark!
Complain about this comment
#110, Gary_A_Hill, there are a lot of indirect
benefits that California would accrue by building
this high speed rail. A lot of companies are moving
out of the state because housing in the Bay Area
is so expensive (even now).
This system would allow more technology
companies to locate in the Central Valley,
which would increase tax revenues both
on wages and on real estate.
Whether we can afford it or not at this point,
however, is a big "If."
Complain about this comment
#112, aquagirl, Rocky Flats? That must mean
that you have a thumb that glows green in the
dark, which is just the thing for growing
irradiated vegetables!
Complain about this comment
aquarizonagal (#112), I agree that someday the U.S. will have to come around to nuclear power again. Burning natural gas to make electricity, as we do in California, doesn't seem like a sensible use of the resource to me.
Nuclear power doesn't have a very good track record in the U.S. economically, however. The Trojan plant in Oregon, one of the largest, was operated for only 16 years, less than half its expected lifetime. Compare that to Grand Coulee dam, now 75 years old and still going strong.
Complain about this comment
#114Gunsandreligion
No irradiation for my veggies! We are only organic here!
Truly, after many years of the so called 'nuclear menace' I have come to some terms with the peaceful use of nuclear energy. I have lived a long time and I think that fear mongering is one our greatest enemies. If we choose to be negative and ruled by fear we will continue to be limited in what we can accomplish.
Complain about this comment
#109Ctoocheck
You have stated my position precisely. There is NO ONE solution to our transportation problems, nor is there ONE solution to how we can provide for our energy needs. We must be open minded and creative problem solvers.
Complain about this comment
#115Garyahill
I agree that hydroelectric power has continued to produce electricity over a long time. But why did the Trojan Plant shut down? When was it built? Was the technology old? Were there environmental protests? Was there ensuing developmental encroachment? I would like to know the reasons this plant discontinued operation.
I can't even remember the last time a nuclear power plant was proposed and/or built in the USA. But I have moved a lot and have been out of touch with these things.
Complain about this comment
I want to offer a small piece of amusement.
I have a young grandson who told me that he plans to make air powered hover boards (I think this is like a flying skate board) for everyone in the world so that no one will have to drive cars. Seats will be provided for "old people and babies."
Furthermore he plans to build a board for people to stand on, where all they have to do is 'think' about where they want to go and they will be there. He is also fascinated with that experiment involving putting Mentos (a candy) into a bottle of cola.
This results in a spectacular geyser. ( Don't let anyone do this near your house!) He is convinced that given a large vat of cola and sufficient Mentos we could send a rocket "all the way to the moon." Do I laugh? Only quietly and in private after I have cleaned the cola off my windows.
My point: Children have no limits to their thinking. They are open. They ask 'What if?'
Maybe we could all use some of this.
Good night and good luck!
Complain about this comment
aquarizonagal (#118), Wikipedia has a pretty good capsule history of the Trojan nuclear power plant. Built in 1970, a combination of technical and political problems did it in. Of course Oregon (I am an Oregonian, although living in California) has more than its share of no-nuke activists.
Complain about this comment
aquagirl, you should rent an old DVD for
your grandson - one of the "Back to the Future"
movies. Perhaps he will invent "Mr. Fusion",
the power source of the time machine in the
movie someday.
And, he'll love the skateboards.
Complain about this comment
time is not to compare these two countries (USA and UK) - there is none common appart from language - http://www.360view4u.co.uk
Complain about this comment
122, 360view, that's right, "The US and Britain
are two countries separated by a common language."
Complain about this comment
Aqua with regards to nuke stations.
I am all for all the other alternatives.
nuke stations are relatively ok(except chyrnoble)(3 mile) old etc who cares. the reprocessing industry(that supplies military grade as well) is pretty evil and polluting.
Windscale,now selafield is one of the worlds biggest and for years was reprocessing american waste(probably still is). that waste HAS polluted a lot.
Some of us do not see the devil as a solution.
Complain about this comment
Hi Justin
Cannot deal with much in a small space but here are of few points worth think abount in the USA.
First why not scrap AMTRAC, it does not work. Rather like having aircraft carriers where the Navy operate the ship and the Airforce the plans. re-unite track and trains. Rail Privatization turned a disgrace into a farce in Britain.
Federal Government to set overall Standard and to take and overview. Individual States to detail planning and implementation, including funding.
The upgrading of existing tracks and the restoration of passenger services is many time quicker and a lot cheaper than building high speed tracks. Electrify all mainlines. The gets away from the use of oil completely with the bonuses of being cleaner and much rediuced noise levels.
Make financial support depend on giving prority the passenger. Coal and new cars dont care if a journey take an extra 3 hours, people do. Also link grants to increasing passenger numbers.
All this will cost a great deal of money but Americans will beefit for the next hundred years. It all depends on whether you want a quick fix or a long term solution.
Complain about this comment
One major problem here in the NorthEast, is that we keep ripping up unused tracks for bicycle paths. They'd have been so easy to be used for light rail.
This was another of the many "green" fiascos that have hit the US.
People keep commenting on the infrastructure of the Washington to Boston corridor: about 15 to 20 years ago, the Boston to New haven section was electrified and all new concrete ties and welded ribbon rail were introduced ( at great expense) - the rails can't be considered worn out!
Complain about this comment
Guns and Religion,
Thanks, being in Dallas I have libraries everywhere. I'll let ya know if the month is right.
Complain about this comment
Just to clear up a few things.
Amtrak's northeast corridor (Boston - New York - Washington DC) got it's "high speed" service in 1999. The tracks aren't worn out but some of the old wire needs to be replaced - this is wire that was already there from New Haven to New York. Only the New Haven to Boston segment (some 200 miles) had to be electrified with new catenary (used to be you spent 15 minutes or more in New Haven changing locomotives between electric and diesel)
Acela (Amtrak's 'brand' of HS) runs slower than it should for 2 reasons. One is a colossal mixup inthe design of the trains that doesn't allow them to tilt as much as they can - it's an issue with clearances on curve, etc.
The second is that the NEC (North East Corridor) is VERY congested. From Boston to Washington, you have Amtrak running on rails that are ALSO used by the MBTA (Boston's transit authority), ConnDOT, MetroNorth RR (from NYC to New Haven), LIRR (Long Island RR), NJ Transit, SEPTA (Philadelphia), MARC (Maryland) and VRE (Virginia Rail Express).
I would LOVE to see passenger trains come back to my neck of the woods (Southern New Hampshire, about 40m/65km northwest of Boston). Currently they (commuter rail) end about 15 miles south of me. There's a plan to bring back the trains (since the freight line is still active thugh in terrible shape thanks to the company that owns it) and connect with the largest city in the state and it's airport (Manchester NH).
I would love to have the option of taking the train even though I also really love to drive. I try to minimize my gas costs but I got a lot back by going from a Dodge Intrepid (21 MPG, 11.2L/100km) to a Toyota Camry (30MPG, 7.85L/100km).
I need a car because I'd have to drive to the train and even if the trains cam all the way to the town next door, they all go to Boston. With my car I have about a 40 mile radius where I can look for work. But at least I can minimize my 'footprint' with a GPS that does traffic (so I can take back roads instead of idling on the highway when the traffic is bad) and, hopefully, telecommuting.
A really good Amtrak system would be a wonderul option. I've taken it in the past several times when going to Florida. Personally, I'm very fond of the AutoTrain where you pack your car like freight and ride a non-stop train from Just south of Washington DC to central Florida overnight. This is one of two trains that make a profit (individually) for Amtrak, the other being the Northeast Corridor.
Complain about this comment
djplong,
Why is this considered 'good'? My wife's Skoda easily gets 65 miles to an Imperial gallon (54 MPG US, 4.35 l/100km), and can get over 70 with attention to driving habits.Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
Marcus: Did I miss it or did you not think about visiting the WWII Memorial in D.C.? I guarantee that it would make your very FIRST visit to our nation's Capitol a memorable one!
Complain about this comment
Yes, rail is the answer...including buses and related public transportation.
Complain about this comment
Well, Skoda doesn't sell in the U.S. so I can't give a very informed opinion.
But Ed asked why I considered going from 21 to 30+ MPG was good.. Getting 40% better fuel economy is good no matter what the situation. I was also able to cut my commute by 75% for almost a year (now it's going back to 30 miles).
The Camry I bought was used (2002 model) so I didn't have to pay for all the depreciation. It surprised me by having a 4 cylinder engine - which I found out when I looked under the hood, I thought it was a V6 from the test drive.
It took myself, my 2 daughters and 2 of their friends on a day-trip to New York City (some 500 miles round trip) *comfortably* on one tank of gas. It hauls everything I've needed to haul and I've always had enough room for all the passengers I've needed to carry.
What's more important is Toyota's famous quality. Skoda isn't a name here and VW (Skoda's new parent) isn't exactly known for quality here in the United States. I've only needed repairs once and that was pretty simple. Looking up Skoda on the web, I see that it's in the bottom 5 of all manufacturers according to European surveys. I'm a contract worker and I can't afford to miss work for a breakdown.
Again, to bring this back on topic, I'd love to see rail more available in this country. Good, reliable service *will* win out if it's offered.
Complain about this comment
We do not need to compare rail service in the USA with that in the UK! Although there are minor applications, we basically need to look at Europe - in total, China, Russia, India, Japan, Korea and Taiwan. These nations have or are developing high speed rail and carry mammouth loads of passengers efficiently and effectively. Their trains are long, frequent and FAST! We need to develop a railway research institute and university, as some nations currently have. Then we need to set out, with total political resolve, to develop and implement the world's best rail system. It is unquestionable that rail is the world's least polluting form of transport. With total electric rail, it will pollute even less! I propose the following system:
- An initial high speed route from New York VIA Chicago to Los Angeles. The lines would be electric, double-tracked, high-speed, heavy-duty, and precision designed and built, with continuous-weld-rail! With our development of trains to run smoothly over these dedicated tracks at 300 to 350 MPH or more, Los Angeles would be 9 to 11 hours away from New York, including stops. But why not shoot for 400 to 500 MPH? "WE" would be doing the developing, based on our reviews of the experience of other nations, plus our own expertise! After a rush to open the core route, this line should extend to San Diego in the west and to Boston and Maine, right into Nova Scotia in the east, with Canadian agreement. Imagine going to sleep in New York and waking for a quick breakfast in the diner before getting off in Los Angeles?! Thousands would be employed in the construction and subsequent operation and administration of the trains. Day trips would begin and end during daylight!
- The second wave would include:
- Vancouver to San Diego, and on to Mexico City with Mexican cooperation.
- Maine-Nova Scotia to Miami.
- Montreal-Toronto-Detroit-Chicago-Saint Louis-Little Rock-Dallas/Fort Worth-San Antonio-Laredo-Monterrey-Mexico City. Let's be practical and realistic and accept the fact that our citizens and residents of Mexican decent need a practical method to visit the land of their ancestry! Subsequent lines would run east through Memphis-Shreveport-Houston-Corpus Christi and west through Kansas City-Tulsa-Oklahoma City-Lubbock-El Paso-Cuidad Juarez-Chihuahua-Mexico City.
- The third wave would include:
- A grid of east-west transcontinental routes, beginning in the south with Jacksonville-Tallahassee-Mobile-Gulfport-New Orleans-Baton Rouge-Houston-San Antonio-El Paso-Tucson-Yuma-San Diego-Los Angeles.
- Savannah-Macon-Columbus-Montgomery-Selma-Jackson-Shreveport-Dallas/Fort Worth-Abilene-Alamogordo-Phoenix-Riverside-Los Angeles.
- Charleston-Augusta-Atlanta-Anniston-Birmingham-Columbus-Texarkana-Dallas/Fort Worth-Lubbock-Albuquerque-Flagstaff-San Bernardino-Los Angeles.
- This same pattern would continue about +-100 miles apart, or closer in high-density population areas, with several lines converging on Chicago, due to the lakes. With Canadian cooperation, some lines from Maine and Boston would go through Canada, in an effort to make them as reasonably straight east-west as possible, and also reach major population areas. Canada and Mexico would be encouraged to have their own east-west grids with systems and schedules totally synchronized, as in Europe, with the USA system.
- A similar north-south pattern would be developed, with many originating in Canadian larger cities or provincial capitols, and continuing to southern coastal cities such as Miami, Tampa, Mobile, New Orleans, etc., and others going all the way to Mexico City. Both coasts would have a coastal route. A second inland route would be developed in the west. Due to heavier population in eastern inland areas, two inland coastal routes would be developed there, similar to the several old heavily used rail routes. Chicago-New Orleans would originate in Milwaukee or Green Bay or even Minneapolis-Saint Paul. A sample route in the center of the nation would be Winnepeg-Grand Forks-Fargo-Sioux Falls-Omaha-Lincoln-Topeka-Wichita-Oklahoma City-Fort Worth-Austin-San Antonio and either Corpus Christi or Laredo and on to Mexico City. This route might swing through Kansas City and interchange with the route from Thunder Bay-Duluth-Minneapolis/Saint Paul-Des Moines-Dallas-Houston, etc. In cases of this nature, the two routes could be combined between Oklahoma City and Dallas/Fort Worth, but we would NOT want to leave Tulsa off the system.
- Three varied routes would run NE-SW from Maine to Southern California, through the center of the nation, with the northern route running through Chicago, the central route running through Indianapolis, and the southern line through Louisville and Evansville.
- Three varied routes would run SE-NW from Miami to Seattle and on to Vancouver, through the center of the nation, with the southern route catching Jackson-Dallas/Fort Worth-Oklahoma City-Colorado Springs, the central route catching Birmingham-Memphis-Springfield-Wichita-Denver, and the northern route through Atlanta-Nashville-Saint Loius-Kansas City-Cheyenne, etc.
- The old heavily used routes, where passengers were literally expelled from crowded trains, such as Chicago-Miami would be extended to originate at least in Minneapolis/Saint Paul, through Milwaukee, and have three routings from Chicago to Miami, as in the past.
This concept of railroading would be patterned after Japanese and Swiss technology, except speeds would be refined and increased. Mountains would be tunnelled through! Valleys would have bridges crossing them. The lines would be as straight as humanly possible. Cheap ideas like tilting trains would NOT even be a subject of discussion! The system would be fenced off with NO grade crossings! A law on eminent domain would need to be passed that would allow NO EXCEPTIONS and speed the process along. In swamps and flood plain areas, tracks would be elevated high enough so that storms like Katrina would NOT even affect the trains. Trains to San Francisco would end in San Francisco and NOT in Oakland! Trains from New York to Maine would go right under Boston with ease as new tunnels are rapidly completed.
In phase four, ALL state capitols would be connected to adjoining state capitols. All metropolitan areas with over 1,000,000 population would be connected to other areas of this same or larger size with direct service within a 1,000-mile radius. ALL metropolitan areas of 2,000,000 or more would be connected directly to ALL other areas of that same size in the nation. Canada and Mexico could be invited to participate in this plan. Cities, counties, and states could suggest and justify additions to this basic plan, but NO reductions! Local regional routes would abound, such as Daytona Beach-Orlando-Tampa-Saint Petersburg and San Diego-Los Angeles-Bakersfield-Fresno-Sacramento. Eugene-Salem-Portland-Olympia-Tacoma-Seattle-Vancouver is another, among many others. Customs would need to be streamlined, with border-crossings NEVER exceeding 30 minutes. Border-less travel, as in Europe should be considered.
We need to change our mentality towards trains and railways! Polluting trucks need to be removed from the roads and placed on the rails. We do NOT need an employment program of polluting trucks. My system would give priority ALWAYS to passenger rail, but there is no reason why high-speed freight could not be developed, perhaps with newly designed freight cars, and use the same set of tracks!
Europe, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan have proven that free people will ride high-speed comfortable and efficient trains. Americans will also ride them, as has been proven on routes such as Boston-New York-Washington. In the past, America never had a coast-to-coast train under the old private railroad concept. Look at places like Chicago, where there were six or seven main stations, requiring changing trains at great inconvenience. New York had two; Seattle had at least two; little Salt Lake City had two; Birmingham, Chattanooga, and Atlanta had two each; even poor little Selma, Alabama had TWO!! There was never an attempt by the private railroads to provide comfortable, efficient, seamless rail travel in the USA! They were out for profit and nothing else! I submit that transportation should be a PUBLIC SERVICE! If the Interstate Highway System could be built with public funds, and used FREE by polluting trucks and busses, then certainly a reliable, efficient, and comfortable comprehensive rail system can be built and MAINTAINED with public funds!
Complain about this comment
It must have been an out-of-date European opinion on Skoda, which has become very fashionable recently, and, after a couple of years with my wife's low-mileage second hand one, We've had no experience of unreliability or poor service.... It's a diesel, which helps explain the fuel economy.
Salaam, etc.My point, however, was that 30 MPG is considered 'good' in the USA, but here in Europe it's at the very low end of acceptable fuel consumption (if we ignore the rapidly reversing fashion for SUVs) ;-)
I agree, any increase in fuel economy is to be welcomed, but it's only a small step in a situation which demands a completely new paradigm. We must question whether it is even conceivable for a world of seven billion people to base their lives upon accellerated hypermobility.
I refer interested parties to Ivan Illich's insightful observations from 35 years ago.
ed
Complain about this comment
Why do they put twin exhausts on american cars?
So you can push them when the oil runs out.
How do you double the price of a GM truck?
Put a penny in the Ashtray.
Whats the difference between a sheep and a Dodge?
It's less embarrassing getting out the back of a sheep.
the local charity raffle had a pickup truck as the prize.
the second prize was two
guy goes into a autoparts store and asks "do you have a windscreen wiper for my GM?"
store keeper says"sounds like a fair swap"
new cars here advertise the great milage.!(est highway.
as if that is acceptable.
Complain about this comment
!) would be 19 in type properly world.
Complain about this comment
Jack: The word is "tizzy" and it's in Websters Dictionary. But you don't need to look up anything or even use your Spellcheck - just ask your old pal Noble!
Aren't you glad to have Ed back? I just found him again - sure have missed his erudite contributions to this forum of intellectuals.
Complain about this comment
cheers nobel if I ever gain a conserm fo righting English I wiil get on touch.
Complain about this comment
One alternative will not work for America. Rail alone will not solve our problems but it should be a part of the solution.
Unfortunately transportation issues are debated for decades before anything is started. My city of Phoenix, Arizona started debate on light rail back in 1969 or 1970. And finally the first twenty miles of light rail are about to open. Not a joke!
A serious commitment is needed at every level of government as well as Americans.
Again, I am not sure if Americans are yet ready to abandon the automobile. One year ago I would have to guess most Americans did not support drilling of the coasts of Florida and or California. Instead of focusing on alternative sources or reducing our own consumption now most support drilling!
The federal government together with states, cities and counties should implement an aggressive light-rail,railroad development project starting with the top five or ten American cities.
Complain about this comment
Passenger rail service can very easily be implemented once again in the U.S. People forget that it was the current freight railroads that once ran all of the passenger trains in the U.S. until 40 years ago. It was the construction of the national highway system along with afforded, safe passenger jets that killed passenger trains. The railroads simply stopped their passenger services and focused all of their attention on freight. --However, the infrastructure is still there. If the price of oil continues to climb and it makes flying or driving less afforded, such railroads as the Union Pacific; Burlington Northern Santa Fe; and CSX could easily bring back their passenger rail services. I am doubtful that a British company could begin to solve the US rail problem. There's one major hurdle: The American freight railroads own almost every inch of track in the US and have a virtual monopoly over them. A British company would never be able to get a foothold in the US without dealing with the existing U.S. freight carriers. --Unless the Brits want to build a new transcontinental railroad from scratch, which would probably cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
Complain about this comment
As an American who has lived in the UK for nearly 12 years, I can honestly say that lack of public transport is one of the main factors in my not returning home. I know Brits complain about the trains all the time, but, as with the NHS, they've no idea what a good thing they have or what it would be like to live without it. It'd be nice if Britain would re-nationalise the trains and properly fund the NHS, but at least these things exist. If the US is too stupid to create nationalised public transport, it would be great if British comapnies would move in and create the infrastructure.
Complain about this comment
I don't really care who buys/runs the rails as long as they have trains. I often travel from Saginaw, Michigan to Toronto, Canada (500km). Driving takes about 5 hours, a bus (two available) takes either 9 or 15 hours. There's a train, but it takes 2 hours driving to get to. A few years ago, it was only an hour's drive away. We really need better train/bus service and if selling it off to the Brits will help, I'm all for it. (But please, no BR toilet paper).
Complain about this comment
"I know Brits complain about the trains all the time, but, as with the NHS, they've no idea what a good thing they have or what it would be like to live without it. "
some will say it is fine herein the states but by definition if they could afford to move here they were doing better than most were in the UK.so they probably got a deal on healthcare.
I know all about that having moved the wrong way over the atlantic.
but then I never thought the nhs was that bad for free.
the trains well they were better before Maggies private moneyspinner.
Just
as to the waxy toilet paper.
aaarrrhhh
I agree stay away from it.
Complain about this comment
The capacity of mass transportation should be relative to the density of an area. There is not one, but a combination of transport services that create an efficient means of moving people.
Rail is one of the best means of mass transportation between significantly populated areas. America needs mores high-speed, concrete-reinforced rail lines running between cities.
Light rail should be used to transport people from surrounding metropolitan areas into cities. Those lines wouldn't need as much reinforcement, as they cover smaller distances at a lower speed.
Buses are a better option for less populated areas. Remember, as population lowers, so should carrying capacity.
Smaller buses, carpools, and individual vehicles are needed for people who are isolated, or need extra support because of physical and/or mental conditions.
Remember that these suggestions pertain to passenger, not freight transport. All these methods would take more commuters off the road. This means less pollution, a fewer number of crashes, and more social interaction. These are all good things.
Complain about this comment
I am involved with train information on a different level. I grew up in New York City, where there were trains everywhere. I am a train buff, because my father got me interested in trains.
Living in Tucson, we only have one passenger train going through here, and the Sunset Limited runs in the middle of the night, three days a week in each direction.
The rising price of gasoline is now determining how I travel and where. To go to Los Angeles, for example, the least expensive way to go is by train. To Las Vegas driving is the best.
Our distances are so vast, making a profit is difficult for passenger service. Amtrak will never be 100% effective.
I volunteer and am on the board of the Southern Arizona Transportation Museum
http://www.tucsonhistoricdepot.org
It is one of the buildings that is part of the railroad station complex.
We have all sorts of historical things about the railroad in Tucson, but most people here have never been on a train. For people here, trains are the mile long freight trains.
You now have two generations of Americans who have never been on trains.
As the gas prices go up, we will see what happens.
Complain about this comment
I wish the un-named Brit luck with his venture into the American rail market – he will need it.
Some 16 years ago an attempt was made to establish and build a private sector high-speed corridor rail system in Texas. It was to link seven major cities in the central part of the state. They were to use French equipment. Morrison Knudsen Corp. was the one of the major players.
As the Texas TGV Corp. went about the process to establish this system they ultimately got shot out of the air, in part, by no less than three Airline Companies – all headquartered in Texas. There was a general reluctance on the part of the State of Texas too. Lobbying was heavy in Austin, the state capitol, to keep the Texas TGV Corp. from laying any tracks.
So goes the business of transportation in Texas and, in a way, in the United States – at least back in the early 1990’s. Today, the world faces a unique situation – personal transportation is getting to be rather expensive. Will people start requesting more communal transportation systems? Will corporations react and start the process to establish and build high-speed corridor style rail systems that can compete with airlines effectively?
Rail is and will always be a part of a well designed and managed transportation system only if everyone agrees.
Complain about this comment
Rail is the answer, but it will never happen in America. In Europe 90% of all fright moves my rail, but in America it moves by truck. Their is more money to be made by selling trucks, tires, insurance and of course motor fuel. Germany alone has 30,000 passenger trains every day. They are all powered by electricty, not motor fuel.
Complain about this comment
The USA has an interesting history of running to the suburbs, following WW2. They gutted the trolley and train lines in favor of the automobile and Levittowns being built around the cities. The safety of getting into your car, driving to a destination and returning, and never having to interact with other people beyond the store clerks.
The USA still has the rail access linking all these towns and cities. The trend had been to make bike paths out of them, but even this smacking of public use did not sit well with some.
The whole idea of public transportation became a political one when the cheap gas meant the public transportation would have to be subsidized by the government to provide a service to the poor who need it.
If they can convince the more affluent masses as they find they can not afford the cheap gas anymore, that public transport is an answer. This could make the system self sustaining with actual rider numbers. Taking it out of the political battle of big government / little governement battle lines. The moving beyond the actual having to interact with your fellow riders in person will take a long time to move beyond.
So the possiblilty of a train line returning to America's land scape is a tough one to answer. wrapped up in Politics, racial conflict, and american philosophical outlook. So even though it is needed and makes sence to invest in, no it will never happen.
Complain about this comment
Rail IS one of the smartest things the U.S. can invest in. Hey Brittish investors, please come over here rebuild the railways that GM tore up under the holding company name "national city lines" or pacific railway or whatever...we used to have more railways did you know that? Maybe we should sue GM since we're totally fudged now. You don't need infrastructure to build rail, it brings infrastructure. Everytime I leave my city of Albuquerque, NM and travel to another city I feel the rising cost, if we had rail connecting us to the other cities we would be much better off, food costs and costs for every single thing shipped here would be more affordable. According to the documentary "the end of suburbia", countries with better established railways will be better prepared for peak oil or any other oil crisis. Hell, we could run ours off 100% sun here in the southwest! RE: negative nancy/dawnjuan, we don't have a choice anymore, personal transport is no longer a viable option, i cant afford it in my own city anymore. But i agree too, railway needs to compliment more sustainable urban design and growth...it has too.
Complain about this comment
American workers have traditionally been willing to commute over long distances to reach their places of work. This appears to be particularly the case in Lower California.
While the elasticity of how long these workers may be willing to spend commuting may be significant, we still may not know whether they are willing to increase their commuting cost expenditures at the same rate. This will depend to some extent on how much employers are willing to indirectly cover these rising costs to retain employees living further away from their work sites.
We may be seeing employers increasingly taking into consideration employees commuting distances not only in terms of new employment, but also transfers, work shifts, and even promotions.
The decades long suburban living trends may once again revolve back to urban preferences. Real estate centered near nodes of public transportation, if services are run effectively, should increase significantly in value.
Cities and suburbs that work closely together to improve their rail and bus systems may avoid this trend towards retro-urbanization. The City of Chicago has gone a long ways towards making living in the suburbs and working in the 'Loop' affordable and viable--a win/win situation for both city and suburbs.
The City of Nuremburg, Germany has developed a fully integrated system of its rail and bus networks on both a city-wide and regional basis. One only has to purchase one ticket to avail oneself to rail, bus, and subway systems over a fairly large metropolitan, suburban and even country regions.
If rail is to become commercially competitive with airlines, a massive National effort would be necessary, possibly requiring the building of nuclear power plants at strategic points along the rail grid to supply long-term electric power for highspeed trains similar to those in Continental Europ--from the Netherlands and Germany to Spain, France, and Switzerland, and Japan.
As long as enornmous funds are being allocated for U.S. foreign wars, it is doubtful that projects of this size could find sufficient taxpayer support to be initiated at any time in the near future.
Complain about this comment
Britain has the balance wrong. During my last visit, the cost of getting two people from Nottingham to London was so high it was cheaper to hire a car for the day.
Complain about this comment
The US, I believe is too large for coverage of the entire nation with rail. However more poplulated areas like Northeast, Midwest, California, texas. Would do well to have regional systems.
The Midwest is exploring this option. See http://www.indianahighspeedrail.org/
Complain about this comment
Maybe we should sue GM since we're totally fudged now
they did get sued over the tram lines. the company had to pay a fine.$1000
the ceo $1
justice the american way.
Complain about this comment
my boss here in the states has 6 vehicles (trucks)that get no more than 15 miles per gallon. only one of which is ever used at a time.
And yet when He buys his own it is a truck that gets the same.
not a prius or whatever, how does he need another truck. he doesn't
but the tax right off is good for the truck.
they were all bought as tax right offs. thats hard to do with a civic getting 45mpg
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS