Posted by
thekeenobserver on Friday, April 24, 2009 4:56:50 PM
In nineteenth century America, rail was the only way to travel long distances. There were no other alternatives. The "iron horse"-- like the Conestoga wagon-- enabled frontier settlers to win the West.
And considering the America of 150 years ago, 35 mph cross-country travel by rail was the high speed of its day, versus riding a horse with saddlebags, or loading up the ol' ox-drawn covered wagon.
High-speed trains have been an idea floating around Washington since the 60's. But as Chairman Mao used to say in China --"it's time for another great leap forward."
Right now, the Republicans are having a hard time finding something that raises the consciousness of the average voter; but if they were to elevate high speed rail to their campaign platform, it just may be the political issue to enable them to actually WIN- not survive- the next election.
High speed rail is one of a few RATIONAL ideas left; and like the Apollo moon shot of the 60's, it could actually spark a total economic revival in America, and leave a permanent high tech legacy for all future generations.
In the 60's, for every dollar spent on the Apollo space program, NASA created an "economic multiplier" effect, returning four dollars of actual economic growth. There were tens of thousands of jobs created in Houston, Huntsville Alabama, and Cape Canaveral in Florida. Almost overnight there were a plethora of other 'spin-off' jobs around the country.
Companies such as McDonnell Douglas, Boeing, and other new similar industries were all part of the program necessary to cobble together the rockets, the moon-landing modules, vehicle-launchers, the propulsion systems, the spacesuits and life-support systems, etc.
New job titles emerged: aeronautical engineer-- astronaut- even the oft-joked about title of "rocket scientist"; all were offshoots of the space program in the 60's.
Experts today estimate that if America were to actually take the great leap forward and build a ground-up high speed rail system, the economic multiplier effect would be even greater than the space program 40 years ago-- as much as 6 to 1-- for every dollar spent, it would generate an actual six dollars in additional economic growth.
6 to 1? Who wouldn't take those odds, especially with the all-but-moribund economy we have today. Restructuring the nation's interstate transportation is long-long overdue, and would be a watershed opportunity for the Republicans to take away the political initiative from the democrats.
But politics aside, there are other compelling reasons for the U.S. to restructure its transport systems, like the need to prepare for stricter air-pollution standards, to alleviate traffic congestion, and coax the air-travel industry to get out of its "rut".
On the interstates, drivers almost everywhere are facing gridlock and worsening road rage--all adding to time wasted-- which jacks up the cost of doing business. The automobile promised mobility, but we've reached the point of diminishing returns-- the growing number of cars in an increasingly urbanized world offer only the opposite-- immobility!
And the same holds true in our nations' airports, as airline travelers now face "air- rage" impediments.
There is airport gridlock...congestion in the parking lots...slow-moving security lines...metal detectors. There are luggage searches, and the dreaded humility of personal searches, right down to having to remove your smelly shoes-- all for the pleasure of a sardine-like passenger experience, where sufficient legroom, hip room, and even food for one's growling stomach-- are denied.
Now contrast today's air travel versus the 60-70's, when air travel was glamorous. Passengers dressed to the 9's (whatever that means). Stewardesses (as they were called back then) were the starlets of the airways-- all wore designer uniforms-- and they were there to serve you, not police you like today
Even the names of the old airlines sounded glamorous and evoke memories of grandeur. TWA-Trans-World Airlines; Pan-American Airways: KLM Royal Dutch Airlines; BOAC- British Overseas Air Corporation...etc.
But now, airline travel is not dissimilar from riding the Greyhound: The obnoxia and hassle of ill-mannered passengers, scant service, crowded travel conditions, all are indicative that Americans need a new passenger-travel paradigm for the 21st century.
Now contrast boarding a high speed inter-city train with the distress of air travel:
For a flight of about an hour's duration, you have to arrive at the airport at least an hour in advance (security check) , then a good part of the "experience" is spent taxiing and waiting for clearance-- all are not an issue with high-speed rail.
On the train, you can access the Internet, and do your work while commuting; but can that easily (or cheaply) be done on a plane?
And what about personal comforts (i.e. liquid refreshment)? On a plane, they'll confiscate anything "suspicious", right down to your expensive bottle of max-volumizing shampoo. But on a high speed train, it’s what a flask was invented for!
And what would happen if airlines now had to face competition? You'd see a sudden spike in service and creature comforts, and lower fares. Some Airlines have become so brazen, that they'll even charge you for an extra pillow. Pretty soon, they may even resort to the pay toilet, so desperate do they seem to protect their bottom line.
But if time-harassed Americans had the option of hopping on a 200 mph train, vs. sitting around an airport, they'd take to the rails almost any time.
You drive right up to the depot, get on board (with no long waits or security checks), and then relax unencumbered by impudent children bawling & screaming across the aisle-- no claustrophobic seating arrangements-- and quality hot food available in the dining car.
It's a no-brainer. Just ask the Japanese or the Europeans. High speed rail travel is fantastic!
In England, you can connect from London and take the high-speed French TGV through the Chunnel from Dover to Calais, and then speed onward to Paris. First time passengers rave about the convenience, and often describe the experience as "amazing". Nothing in the U.S. compares in comfort, quality or RELIABILTY.
In France, the luxurious, glamorous TGV bullet trains are always booked solid. Travelers love the food and the pastoral view of the French countryside whizzing by at 200 mph.
To travel between the original Paris-Lyon link, you must make your reservations well in advance. But once aboard, you'll be pampered by wide reclining seats; footrests; convenient storage for luggage; and buffet/bar car. In first class, meals are served at your seat, with optional DVD film player rental.
Sure beats paying for a measly little blanket, or surviving a 4-hour flight on a bag of stale pretzels.
Japan’s high-speed rail network (in service since 1964), now stretches for 1,360 miles, linking nearly all its major cities. The most heavily traveled link is the original line between Tokyo and Osaka, where the bullet trains carry an astounding 117,000 passengers a day. The transit time of two hours and 30 minutes compares with a driving time of eight hours.
In Japan, the trains run on time...exactly on time-- for if not, the conductor or engineer will face dismissal--no excuses, no exceptions.
In Spain, the growth of the Alta Velocidad Española (AVE) high-speed rail network has changed peoples' attitudes almost overnight. Unlike footloose, highly mobile Americans, Spaniards were once fiercely attached to their home regions, and traditionally reluctant to live or even TRAVEL elsewhere.
In 1992, Spain's first high-speed line opened between Madrid and Seville. Critics panned the controversial decision to build the line, and were predicting a costly failure.
But the AVE proved to be smash success. Politicians now fight to secure stations in their districts, competing to offer ever-more ambitious expansion plans, and projections peg that nine out of ten Spaniards will live within 31 miles of a high speed rail station by 2020.
Residents of Barcelona can be in Madrid in just over two-and-a-half hours-- a journey that takes around six hours by car. Ciudad Real, a small town 120 miles south of Madrid, had completely vanished from the map. Now it has an AVE station that puts it just 50 minutes away from Madrid, and the once-forgotten city has come alive, and has attracted a host of industries; and the train is full in both directions.
Now who says history doesn’t repeat? If we were to go back to the opening of America's transcontinental railroad-- like Spain-- it knitted together all the major cities, and created an economic boom for all the smaller towns in between, and changed our nation overnight.
In retrospect, there wasn't a free market choice when Americans switched from trains to cars and planes a half-century ago. The federal government actually distorted the market-- pouring federal money into roads and airports--while the railroads had to build, maintain, and pay taxes on all of their infrastructure and stations.
But compared to the amount of money and resources we spend rebuilding roads, bridges and airports, the amount required to build a high-speed rail system is a bargain vs. the cost of traditional transportation.
High speed rail will breathe life back into city centers, and would encourage compact development, instead of sprawl. Plus it would spawn light rail lines, street cars, and short-hop "metros" to connect to the rail stations.
And given the option, people would be excited about high speed rail: It’s better transportation-- better for the environment-- and would create the economic boom that has been lurking beneath our noses ever since the 1980's.
And to all those naysayers who think Americans won't abandon their beloved cars-- or their preference for flying-- just go to Spain and take the train.
www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com