Eye Nosh: Is This the Best Pastrami in America?
Zenyatta Makes "Her"Story
Pixies 'Doolittle' @ The Palladium 11/4/09
-thumb-110x110-455795.jpg)
Build Your Own BBQ for Under 10 Bucks!
The Bravery @ the Wiltern 11/05/09
Via Streetsblog, we find a report from the Brookings Institution (.pdf) that outlines each candidate's positions on transportation. It goes over twelve issues such as transportation earmarks, the gas tax holiday, telecommuting and smart growth. However, what caught our eye was "View on Amtrak / Intercity Passenger Rail." The results show two extremely different points of view, which is a given, but nevertheless a fresh eye opener.
“Obama has been a strong supporter of federal financial support for Amtrak. Obama believes we need to reform Amtrak to improve accountability," his website says. "Obama supports development of high-speed rail networks across the country. Providing passengers with safe high-speed rail will have significant environmental and metropolitan planning advantages and help diversify our nation’s transportation infrastructure.”
Does that remind anyone of Proposition 1a that will be on this November's ballot asking voters to approve a $9 billion bond for a high speed train that will whisk passengers between Los Angeles and San Francisco in around 2 hours, 40 minutes?
And what about McCain?
McCain referred to Amtrak as a symbol of government waste, claiming, "There's only two parts of the country that can support a viable rail system - the Northeast and the far West," he said to Boston.com. And in Nation's Cities, he said that “Amtrak should be restructured to eliminate its reliance on the American taxpayers and to allow for its privatization.”
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
McCain loves to criticize Amtrak for not being self sufficient, while conveniently ignoring the fact that automobile and airline transportation aren't self sufficient without subsidy either. If it were up to him Amtrak probably would have sold for scrap metal a long time ago, and we'd be even more dependent on cars and planes.
He votes down trains every time, but I noticed something a bit odd about his opposition to trains. He loves train imagery and metaphors. His catch phrase is that he is the "Straight Talk Express". After his speech at the GOP convention the closing song was full of American train imagery. He recently toured a train engine manufacturing plant in the U.S., which largely exports most of it's product due to foreign investment in rail. His cross country tour bus is actually called the McCain train, which is written in large letters on the front of the bus.
This led me to wonder if he has some kind of closet love affair with trains, but projects outward trainaphobia with his voting choices. In any case, McCain is a proven enemy of train and public transit development.
On appropriately managed infrastructure investment, I agree with Obama/Biden. Steel-wheel HSR would also make sense over most of the midwest and east coast, not just CA and the Northeast.
Connecting all of the west with a rail system competitive with air travel, however, would require 250mph+ trains since it's so spread out, which means something like maglev.*
(*even though the French have gotten their steel wheel trains up above 300mph, it's not practical for production systems, and the japanese have yet to figure out how to deal with the catenary wear on their 220mph prototypes, plus maglevs accelerate much faster).
But this isn't just about HSR. This is about revitalizing our entire rail network, from HSR corridors, to regional transit, to commuter trains, to urban mass transit, all the way down to street cars. We need an efficient, electrified transportation network.
Very interesting observation, GarySe7en. McCain's train fetish doesn't jive.
Regarding the HSR to the bay area deal, it's a shame that the super cheap ($20) and relatively swift (under 6 hours) Megabus service from Union Station to Oakland shut down this spring because of lack of interest. I used this only once, there were less than 10 of us on the bus, and it was the best bus trip I've ever taken (I've sat my way through many a Greyhound experience). Why is HSR so much more necessary than just a cheap express bus up to the pleasure center of the bay area?
That makes sense. Joe Biden takes commuter rail to DC everyday he goes into the Senate. He has for 35+ years, which allowed him to raise his kids in Wilmington after his wife died. He's always been a huge supporter of Amtrak.
"Why is HSR so much more necessary than just a cheap express bus up to the pleasure center of the bay area?" - Urban Adonia
Express bus service is nice, but is really only positioned to compete with car travel and not air. With a time of 2:30 hours from LA to SF the HSR in competitive with air travel, especially factoring door to door travel time since getting to and processing through train stations is easier and faster than airports.
This ability to replace air as well as car trips is important to the long term projected growth of travel demands at airports and on highways already busting at the seams. Also, these trains are all electric, giving us flexibility with how to power them, with the possibility of all renewable power being explored.
Since buses do not hit 220 mph in the straights, they cannot replace the demand for rapid transportation which currently drives our unsustainable air traffic.
Your view of rail travel in the United States largely depends on where you live. If you live along the Northeast Corridor, rail travel is probably a fact of life, Amtrak or otherwise.
Living in Southern California, I grew up largely ignoring that the rapidly expanding Metrolink and Surfliner trains even existed. I had an epiphany when I took Metrolink and the Metro Red Line to Hollywood for a day trip a couple years ago. Today, rail and bus account for 75% of my travel.
Though it introduces its own set of annoyances, I prefer rail travel to automobile travel because owning a car to me is like being chained to a giant boulder. Opponents of rail often crow about "the time it takes to get to the train station". Going back to my Metrolink/Red Line example, drivers often fail to take into account the cost of parking, which also includes the time it takes to actually park.
At Hollywood & Highland you descend four levels into an abyss and it takes 10 minutes just to get down there, as people leaving slow the long line of drivers to a crawl. People who are in the process of parking their car look like they are in pain, to be honest.
The subway, however, lets you out right in front of a ghetto Spiderman balancing on a fire hydrant. Now that's service.
In conclusion we need more trains and more Spidermen.
"Why is HSR so much more necessary than just a cheap express bus up to the pleasure center of the bay area?"
Because buses don't get people out of their cars. MegaBus failed on the LA-SF route obviously. The only time I will ride a bus is to transfer to a train, as is the case on the Amtrak San Joaquins between Los Angeles and Bakersfield.
Also, speed is a factor.
Not to be rude, but buses don't even compare to HSR. They are subject to traffic conditions, use gas (thus subject to the price of gas), are not as comfortable as trains, and can only make it to SF in 6 hours minimum - even without any traffic.
Airplanes of are way of the past. Just this week I purchased a $1,200 ticket for my boss to go to Cincinnati, on coach!!It's obviously becoming an impractical mode of transport, and cars aren't much better due to the amount of time and gas they require...
"In conclusion we need more trains and more Spidermen."
Hear, hear!
As far as the MegaBus discussion, I am amongst those who feel that it simply wasn't marketed well enough. In difficult economic times like these, to have a (relatively) cheap cross-state transportation option like MegaBus sure would be nice. I really think if they had gotten into the public consciousness and stuck around a little longer they could've become very successful.
That said though, I'd still much prefer a high-speed rail option, but something like MegaBus could've filled a great niche in the mean time..
Yikes, sorry I mentioned buses. I guess that's a touchy subject. They actually do work excellently as a mass transit option, especially when given their own lanes. If your only experience with buses is in LA or Orange County I can understand your frustration.
Urban Adonia,
It's not that buses are bad, I think we need more bus transit options. What's at issue is that the train, especially the proposed HSR train, is fundamentally different. The bus you mentioned is a 6 hour trip, and as such will never steal market share from people who want more rapid travel. This train could carry many more passengers and more cargo in 2.5 hours and without fossil fuel dependency. It's about taking planes out of the sky and not just cars off the road.
Rail Transit makes sense, but is extremely expensive and takes decades to implement.
If the candidates wanted to start saving gas RIGHT AWAY, they should consider support initiatives that allow workers to work remotely.
Home telecommuting is one option. Another is for workers to work from Remote Office Centers.
Remote Office Centers make it possible for office workers to work from an office near where they live, by leasing individual offices, internet and phone systems to workers from different companies in shared centers located around the suburbs.
Not everyone can work remotely, and that is why car pooling, hybrids and mass transit should be supported. It is going to take many solutions (not just a single solution) to solve the current energy crisis.