Stop Global Warming

Trains, Plans, and $13 Billion Bucks

Published April 16, 2009 @ 03:03PM PT

Map of proposed high speed rail routes in the US

President Obama is making good so far on his vision of the nation knit together by energy efficient, climate-conserving high-speed rail.  If this keeps up, Americans may soon be able to get around as fast, far, and comfortably as ... why, as the French and the Japanese have done for decades. 

Today Mr. Obama released the administration's plan for creating high-speed rail in the US, and announced that he's asking for $5 billion over the next five years to make it happen.  These funds would be in addition to the $8 billion of federal stimulus spending  (a last-minute addition to the bill that stunned and delighted long-starved rail advocates) already targeted directly at building most promising new intra-city rail corridors around the country. 

Flanked by Vice President Joe Biden and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Mr. Obama called high speed rail crucial to US prosperity and security:

Today, our aging system of highways and byways, air routes and rail lines is hindering that growth.  Our highways are clogged with traffic, costing us $80 billion a year in lost productivity and wasted fuel.  Our airports are choked with increased loads.  Some of you flew down here and you know what that was about.  We're at the mercy of fluctuating gas prices all too often; we pump too many greenhouse gases into the air.  

What we need, then, is a smart transportation system equal to the needs of the 21st century.  A system that reduces travel times and increases mobility.  A system that reduces congestion and boosts productivity.  A system that reduces destructive emissions and creates jobs.

What we're talking about is a vision for high-speed rail in America. Imagine boarding a train in the center of a city.  No racing to an airport and across a terminal, no delays, no sitting on the tarmac, no lost luggage, no taking off your shoes.  (Laughter.)  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.  Imagine what a great project that would be to rebuild America.

Now, all of you know this is not some fanciful, pie-in-the-sky vision of the future.  It is now. It is happening right now.  It's been happening for decades.  The problem is it's been happening elsewhere, not here.

According to The New York Times, the 10 inter-city corridors tapped for development are "a northern New England line; an Empire line running east to west in New York State; a Keystone corridor running laterally through Pennsylvania; a southeast network connecting the District of Columbia to Florida and the Gulf Coast; a Gulf Coast line extending from eastern Texas to western Alabama; a corridor in central and southern Florida; a Texas-to-Oklahoma line; a California corridor where voters have already approved a line that will allow travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles in two and a half hours; and a corridor in the Pacific Northwest."

Vice President Joe Biden, perhaps the nation's best known Amtrak rail commuter, drove home the environmental angles for getting the US riding high-speed rail:

With high-speed rail system, we're going to be able to pull people off the road, lowering our dependence on foreign oil, lowering the bill for our gas in our gas tanks.  We're going to loosen the congestion that also has great impact on productivity, I might add, the people sitting at stop lights right now in overcrowded streets and cities.  We're also going to deal with the suffocation that's taking place in our major metropolitan areas as a consequence of that congestion.  And we're going to significantly lessen the damage to our planet.  This is a giant environmental down payment.

 
All in all, we're going to make travel in this country leaner and a whole lot cleaner.  

The US missed the train on advanced passenger rail in the last century -- while nations like France, Japan, and China left us in the dust.  Will we finally catch up with them in this one?

 

Share this Post

Related Posts

Comments (16)

  1. Christine  Adams

    Rapid rail/high speed rail service is long overdue for the U.S.  Research shows that rail is better for short distances between cities than air travel (for a one hour flight, rail is more cost and time effective).  Rail beats driving several hours anytime.  I have travelled in Europe by rail and as a kid rode the rail between Texas and Iowa to see family - it was great! 

    Posted by Christine Adams on 04/17/2009 @ 04:35AM PT

  2. Renata Ventura

    Great! How that comes to Brazil!!!!!!

    Posted by Renata Ventura on 04/17/2009 @ 06:39AM PT

  3. leatrice brantley

    You all have alot of Mountain ranges in your country but I did like the Cable Cars that connect and allow travel between one mountain and the other.

    Posted by leatrice brantley on 04/17/2009 @ 06:53AM PT

  4. Reply to thread
  5. leatrice brantley

    I live in South Florida and I love to ride Amtrak back and forth to Tampa.  The route has a car-carrier, like a ferry boat, you drive your car to the station, park it on a rail car, board the trail and go.  When you get to your destination, you simply drive away in your car.  The Fare is reasonable too, only $32.00 and the car rides for free.  Check out www.AMTRAK.com and we also have Tri-Rail.  It's so cool and it cost $2.00 on the weekends.  It runs from West Palm Beach to Miami, so Cool.  I would love to see a High-Speed System in the US.  We are so far behind Europe and Japan.

    Posted by leatrice brantley on 04/17/2009 @ 07:01AM PT

  6. Dennis Melancon Jr.

    Hurricanes (like Katrina) have proven that the Gulf Coast needs a way to rapidly evacuate millions of people in a short time. Something like this is not just only good for fighting global warming but also has other functions. I praise the Administration and President Obama for having such a great vision.

    Posted by Dennis Melancon Jr. on 04/17/2009 @ 07:14AM PT

  7. Michele Rodriguez

    I am excited about this!

    Posted by Michele Rodriguez on 04/17/2009 @ 09:50PM PT

  8. Phil Sorensen

    Unlike Japan and France, the US is a huge country. France is the size of Texas and its citizen prefer to take the train because of the price. Further more, large metropolitan cities in Japan and France are much closer, some only an hour apart. Americans will not use the high speed rail system because the airlines in the US are deregulated, the cites are too far apart and Americans want to arrive at their destination NOW. A few of the high speed corridors will work, SF-LA, Washington-Boston.

    Posted by Phil Sorensen on 04/18/2009 @ 02:00AM PT

  9. Tsahia Hobson

    I disagree, I think many Americans will use the rail system. Also, the availability of the rail system to connect major cities should help to lower the price so that we are not forced to pay those high fares. Good marketing will recruit more people to train travel. Plus, sometimes airport security is a hassle & tiring. Taking the train will be quick and efficient, also relaxing and reassuring for those who dislike flying.

    Posted by Tsahia Hobson on 04/18/2009 @ 07:09PM PT

  10. Reply to thread
  11. Emily Gertz

    It looks like the administration is focused on putting the new high-speed rail corridors in parts of the country that are more densely populated, where cities are closer together.  

    Posted by Emily Gertz on 04/18/2009 @ 04:02PM PT

  12. Emily Gertz

    It looks like the administration is focused on putting the new high-speed rail corridors in parts of the country that are more densely populated, where cities are closer together.  

    Posted by Emily Gertz on 04/18/2009 @ 04:02PM PT

  13. Finally!

    Posted by De Andre Nickens on 04/19/2009 @ 11:20AM PT

  14. withrow  newell

    Can't tell if this is a good or bad thing.  I'm currently a train traveler and as we speak i pay near double for a normally unreliable and inconvient service.  I don't need high speed trains I need more routes and more trains and tracks that are used by passenger trains only.  My last train tip to texas had a 3 hour hangover due to waiting for a frieght train to pass. 

    On a side note, other than people on the east and west coast i dont think very many people will use them.  Most people who ride trains are like me....they do it for the novelty.  i can pay less than half price for air travel to most destinatiions trains take me to.

    Posted by withrow newell on 04/20/2009 @ 04:02PM PT

  15. Claudia Collier

    We all want Washington to "change" but we resist change ourselves.  A commitment to making this change in our individual lives will enable the program to work, and will ensure a better future for our country.   I agree that it will probably work better some places than others, but every little bit helps.   

    Posted by Claudia Collier on 04/20/2009 @ 07:53PM PT

  16. M I

    Obama's high speed rail plan is appealing in many ways. That being said, rail will only really be a sustainable when it is powered in a zero carbon way. While trains with diesel locomotives do generally produce less CO2 per passenger mile than aircraft, the real reason air travel is so emissions intensive is because people travel greater distances by plane. If we want to be able to travel those distances while shifting towards a low-carbon society, better options are necessary. Replacing fossil fuels with biofuels is one option. It has the advantage that it would not require major modifications to either tracks or rolling stock. The downside, of course, is all the limitations of biofuels: from land and water use to effects on food prices to the use of fossil fuels in producing most of them. Also, if sustainable biofuels were available in quantity, it might actually make more sense to use them in aircraft.

    To me, it seems like the best option is the progressive electrification of the rail network, with the power coming from renewables and perhaps nuclear. Ideally, the electrified tracks could also be electricity transmission corridors. That way, new renewable stations like wind farms and run of river hydro stations could feed into the grid from the closest rail line. Because of its variety in both sources and uses, it seems that electricity will be the principal energy form in low- and zero-carbon societies, both for private vehicles (in the form of electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids) and for both urban and intercity forms of public transit.

    Such a deployment would probably be hugely expensive. That being said, it seems like the way to establish a sustainable, zero-carbon system for intercity transport.

    Posted by M I on 04/22/2009 @ 09:59AM PT

  17. kyle  groth

    In areas where existing rails are not available use the land between the lanes of the existing interstate systems.

    Posted by kyle groth on 04/22/2009 @ 07:02PM PT

  18. Helen Bushnell

    Trains are more comfortable than cars. We need to get decent rail travel between neighboring cities.

    Posted by Helen Bushnell on 09/25/2009 @ 06:47AM PT

Add a Comment

For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.

Author

Twitter Feed

Emily Gertz

Emily is a journalist and editor covering the environment and science, and has been working in online news, community and content since 1994.

close

This user's Profile page is not public. They have restricted it to only their friends.

Already a Member?

Create an Account

You must create a Change.org account to complete this action.
If you already have an account click here.