Showing posts with label High Speed Rail. Show all posts
Showing posts with label High Speed Rail. Show all posts

Sunday, April 19, 2009

Obama supports high-speed rail

Good news for fans efficiency in transportation. President Obama endorsed high-speed rail for large chunks of the country.

Money quote:

“Imagine whisking through towns at speeds over 100 miles an hour, walking only a few steps to public transportation, and ending up just blocks from your destination,” Mr. Obama said. “It is happening right now; it’s been happening for decades. The problem is, it’s been happening elsewhere, not here.”
That's for damn sure. It always boggles my mind that conservatives, who claim to be such ardent supporters of capitalist values, don't appreciate that high-speed rail delivers on the core capitalist value: it increases efficiency. It is vastly more efficient to travel by rail over short to medium distances than it is to travel by any other means.

There is some good coverage of this over at the California High Speed Rail Blog. The big problem, of course, is how do we pay for it. We really have to raise gasoline taxes. The problem there is that many people who drive long distances, particularly in the West, will see spending money on high-speed rail as something that will never benefit them. For many people, the benefits will come in the abstract; lower gas prices, cleaner air, lower greenhouse gas emissions. That's a classic problem with long-term governmental solutions; the cost is immediate and obvious, the benefit is long-term and abstract.

But there is reason to hope. First, there are many, many people in the Northeast who would love to see this. Those people have a disproportionate degree of influence on this, because the states in the Northeast are so small. There are therefore quite a few Senators who can be counted on to support this.

It's also helpful that Obama made it clear that this proposal encompasses many states, not just the ones in the Northeast. High-speed rail is proposed for every state on the East Coast, almost every state in the South (except Tennessee), and several of the states in the West, including Texas. I have a question about Tennessee if anyone can answer it: would high-speed rail benefit FedEx? It seems like high-speed rail could be used to deliver packages from Memphis to several other cities. Of course, FedEx doesn't have a hub just in Memphis any more. Which raises an interesting question: could high-speed rail be used for light freight, like packages? I have no idea, but I think it would be interesting.

In terms of public support, I am encouraged by the fact that more and more Americans are taking public transportation, particularly in response to the recession. I take it every day. Here in LA, we have plans to expand our subway, and voters passed a funding bill for that purpose last November. The more people take public transportation, the more people are likely to support this idea.

It's also fortunate, in a sad way, that the Big Three are in such bad financial straits right now, because there is no way in hell they are going to oppose this. In that respect, we are lucky, because the biggest losers from something like this would be car companies. And oil companies, but they are such villains in the public mind that if they oppose it, it would probably be a good thing.

On the other hand, building a high-speed rail line from Detroit to Chicago would mean lots of jobs for people in Michigan, which would be great.

This is the very beginning of redefining how Americans travel. This will take decades to implement. But at each stage, there will be more support. After a Detroit-Chicago line is built, few people in Michigan, Indiana, or Illinois will oppose expanding it, and their Senators certainly support it.

The one bummer about this announcement is that it is overshadowed, to an extent, by everything else that Obama is doing, like lifting the restrictions on Cuba, going to Mexico, releasing the OLC memos, etc. But the implications of this decision will last for decades, and then centuries. Long after Fidel Castro is dead, long after the US and Cuba have normalized relations, we will still be working on the railroad.

Sunday, May 4, 2008

Obama gets on board for high speed rail

One thing I've been wondering about during this campaign is the lack of any discussion of high speed rail as a solution to our energy problems. It works in many other countries around the world; it works in the Northeast in this county. It's extremely efficient, both in terms of time and energy. Traveling by air is increasingly a hassle these days, for many reasons. So why don't we invest more in high speed rail (HSR)?

Specifically, I've been wondering why I haven't been hearing more about this from Obama. It seems like something that would be right up his ally. Of course, with all of the Reverend Wright nonsense, my guess is that high speed rail gets lots in the noise. Turns out I was right about that. I just discovered a great blog, California High Speed Rail. And it's not just a great blog because it uses the same template that I do, although that is a nice style point. The first post up there right now is titled "Obama on High Speed Rail." Perfect! It's a great post - go read it. The only complaint, which I agree with, is why doesn't this have more prominence in the campaign? There are lots of people out there who are hardcore rail fanatics. You start talking rail seriously, you will get those people in droves. And you know what? A lot of those people are working-class white guys.

I will have more about this later. For now, I'm going to make it personal.

I did some rough calculations of time. Let's say I want to travel from LA to Las Vegas. Driving it can be done in about five hours, but unless you leave in the middle of the night, you're going to hit traffic, so call it six hours. Flying takes a little less than an hour, but you have to get to the airport at least an hour and a half ahead of time, and then it's going to take you some time, say 15 minutes, to disembark. And, of course, you have to park at the airport and then get to the terminal, which is at least another 15 minutes. So let's say flying to Vegas takes three hours - 15 minutes at the airport to park, an hour and a half at there to check in, etc., an hour flight, and then 15 minutes to disembark.

From my apartment, it's about half an hour drive to the airport. Alternatively, I can take public transportation to Union Station in about the same time, or even less. I can also take public transporatioin to Union Station and then take a shuttle to the airport, which is only $4, but that adds at least another 45 minutes. So getting to the airport or to the train station takes about the same amount of time. One benefit of taking public transportation (basically the subway, which is 4 blocks from my apartment) is that it's free - I have a bus pass from work. And, of course, I don't have to pay for parking at the airport.

Once I get to the train station, I can leave within about 15 minutes - pick up my ticket and get right on board. Assuming high speed rail is traveling 200 mph, and it's a straight shot to Vegas, that puts me there is roughly an hour and a half. And then basically no time to disembark.

So if I could take a high speed train to Vegas, I could get there in a little less than two hours, from the time I get to the train station. If I travel by air, I have to get to the airport a little less than two hours before my flight. So if I travel by high speed rail (HSR), I could get to Vegas not only faster than I could by air, I could actually be in Vegas before my flight takes off from LAX.

And my guess is that that would be true for many short term hauls around the country. Philadelphia-Pittsburgh. Chicago-Detroit. Dallas-Houston. Atlanta-Orlando.

Kudos to Obama for bringing this up. Talk about change - this could be a good one.