Log in

View Full Version : Obama Hearts High Speed Rail



TheCultofAbeLincoln
14th January 2009, 03:47
Now, this article (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-passengerrail_25met.ART.State.Edition2.9cf978a.htm l) I forgot about, then remembered, was done by my local paper, The Dallas Morning News, so naturally it focuses on North Texas. But there are things in it which could benefit many more people:


Visions of bullet trains – like the ones that danced in the heads of Dallas City Council members who toured China earlier this year – may seem a bit dreamy for the Lone Star State.


But as 2009 nears, this much is true: Talk of such passenger rail service, once thought of as forever dead in Texas, is back in vogue, both in Washington and Austin.

This month, the U.S. Department of Transportation called for proposals from states and businesses to develop any of 11 federally designated high-speed rail corridors. Proposals are expected across the country, and two of the specified routes run through Texas. One, the Gulf Coast Corridor, enters the state from the southeast and finds its terminus in Houston.


The other route comes in from the north, and runs through Dallas, Austin, San Antonio and more.


No proposals have been made to develop those corridors yet, but U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters was in New York City in recent weeks to urge investors to consider doing just that. The government's vision is to have private firms partner with state and federal governments to jointly develop the rail lines. Proposals are due by September 2009.


Texas ought to start moving if it wants to take advantage of the federal funds, said Peter LeCody of Texas Rail Advocates, a passenger-rail lobbying group. The federal government is promising an 80-20 match with local or state funds – a nearly unprecedented move for rail, which usually requires a 50 percent contribution from local sources.
An 80-20 match. I'm going to repeat that: AN 80-20 MATCH MO' FUCKA'S!

Whenever you hear the Obama Infrastructure plan discussed on TV what do hey talk about? New highways (yuck!) with more asphalt (yuck!) and more traffic (double yuck!). But this, well, this is the best damn news I've heard for a while.

Now, I don't think TX has the best shot to get it. Why?


The Texas Department of Transportation's executive director, Amadeo Saenz, disputed Mr. LeCody's assertions. He said the department is aware of the call for proposals and is working on a plan.

"If any of the other states are out ahead of us, I'd like to know about it," Mr. Saenz said.


If the department has a weak focus on rail, however, it may have good cause. It has never been allowed to spend money it collects from gasoline sales on rail programs. The Texas Constitution forbids it, though lawmakers have managed to find ways to divert about a half-billion dollars of the funds each year to other uses.


Mr. Saenz said he'd like to see that changed.


"You hit the problem on the head," Mr. Saenz said. "We need the flexibility to solve our transportation problems with the right solution. Our motor fuel taxes can only be used for highways. We have studies that say we need 18 or 19 new lanes on I-35 through Dallas to solve our congestion problems. Well, you are not going to fit that many lanes on I-35. What other solutions could give you the same results in terms of moving traffic? Perhaps rail or transit is the answer in that corridor, but we don't have that flexibility."


Rail advocates, too, say the department is far past due in looking beyond highways to fix Texas' traffic and air-quality problems.


"TxDOT should be a department of transportation, not just a department of highways," said former Austin Mayor Bruce Todd, who now leads efforts to raise money to relocate freight rail lines out of densely populated areas.
The article forgets to mention that in the 1980s Texas was approached by consultants from TGV, who were proposing what we will hopefully be building soon. However, the Southwest lobby shot this down, as their business in Texas revolves around the DFW-Austin-Houston triangle. Hopefully, the idea of flying between any of these cities will be obsolete shortly.

But anyway, back to the national stage, if you live in any of the 11 designated high-speed corridors Write Your Congressman! Senator! Governor!

Here are The 11 Corridors designated by the US Dept of Transportation (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d3/High-Speed_Rail_Corridor_Designations_53kb.png).

Now, I don't think the map is perfect. Texas should be connected, as should Florida.

But compared to Interstate Highways, I Love It!!!

Thoughts?

Phalanx
14th January 2009, 03:59
Yeah, I'd agree that this is good news. Especially if it's paid for largely by the feds, otherwise this would've been shot down right away. Glad to see the Upper Midwest in as well. But a few places don't make sense to me. Why don't they connect from Cleveland to Pittsburgh or Orlando to Jacksonville?

And I guess we know how he's planning on these 5 million jobs.

Bilan
14th January 2009, 04:30
It's kind of been an old cliché that americans dont use trains. Weirdos.

IcarusAngel
14th January 2009, 04:40
I agree with the above. Bullet trains are freakin' awesome. You could get around the state of California within a few hours. Bullet trains are also not as dangerous when hijacked - you couldn't drive one into a nuclear power plant or into a building and destroy, for example. There are numerous other advantages of bullet trains.

Hopefully this isn't the last we hear of this but it is true that Americans aren't too big on public transportation although we have light rail here and a lot of people use it.

The general benefit in regards to the environment is quite well with public transportation.

ÑóẊîöʼn
14th January 2009, 05:31
*GASP* Public transport?! But that's... socialist! :lol:

redguard2009
14th January 2009, 06:23
After living in the city for a decade I really can't see myself being able to live without comprehensive public transportation. Hopefully these developments will allow for easier access over longer distances -- I'm pretty much stuck as far as the local subway will take me.

Also, Montreal to Boston would be interesting, I wonder if the US gov't would pay for construction on the Canadian side of the border, too :P God knows we won't, especially Quebec.

TheCultofAbeLincoln
14th January 2009, 09:27
Yeah, I'd agree that this is good news. Especially if it's paid for largely by the feds, otherwise this would've been shot down right away.

Exactly, there is no way any local community could pay for a project of this scale on their own. California, for example, is expecting this to happen and therefore not have to pay for the building of the line they just voted on to build.


Glad to see the Upper Midwest in as well. But a few places don't make sense to me. Why don't they connect from Cleveland to Pittsburgh or Orlando to Jacksonville?Very good point, I certainly don't think the map is perfect either. On the Pitt-Cleveland connection it may because Pennsylvania is already connected (I believe) with trains going up to 103mph.


And I guess we know how he's planning on these 5 million jobs.A good chunk of them, hopefully.


It's kind of been an old cliché that americans dont use trains. Weirdos.Hey!....we used to :blushing:

But yes, for the most part we chose cars and jets, with a few major exceptions. Which was fucking stupid.

I personally believe that when we ripped out the transit systems every American city used to have we doomed the landscape to strip malls and parking lots. One of the absolute stupidest things the US has done in my opinion, and that's saying a lot. We killed all the culture that was when we did that.


I agree with the above. Bullet trains are freakin' awesome. You could get around the state of California within a few hours. Bullet trains are also not as dangerous when hijacked - you couldn't drive one into a nuclear power plant or into a building and destroy, for example. There are numerous other advantages of bullet trains.Starting with "not having to take your shoes off and get frisked when not getting on board."

Another thing, aside from eliminating cars from congested highways, expanding airports is expensive and often unplausible. Everyday, thousands and thousands of gallons of jet fuel are burned by planes circling airports that don't have room to land them.


Hopefully this isn't the last we hear of this but it is true that Americans aren't too big on public transportation although we have light rail here and a lot of people use it.I'm a bit worried. What may happen is Obama could abandon it altogether, because as you say the general public isn't too concerned. Or Congress could instead chose to waste billions on road projects because they're all scum and stupid, overpriced projects will bring the donation money.

Which brings up another thing. Because of the retarded system we have of allotting money for stuff, expect HSR lines to cost massive sums. Hopefully not, but either way with an 80-20 many states/localities would only have to guarantee a couple billion, and certainly less is some cases.


*GASP* Public transport?! But that's... socialist! http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif

Maybe Fox News was right about Obama's communist ties :p


After living in the city for a decade I really can't see myself being able to live without comprehensive public transportation. Hopefully these developments will allow for easier access over longer distances -- I'm pretty much stuck as far as the local subway will take me.

As I mentioned earlier, unfortunately we tore up most of the public transit we had in most cities, and many places are just starting to grasp their stupidity and begun to rebuild. I have hope though.


Also, Montreal to Boston would be interesting, I wonder if the US gov't would pay for construction on the Canadian side of the border, too :P God knows we won't, especially Quebec.

I was thinking the same thing...but if we're going to connect fucking Little Rock why the hell not throw all that "on Top?"

JimmyJazz
14th January 2009, 09:48
It's kind of been an old cliché that americans dont use trains. Weirdos.

I only knew one kid in high school who didn't get get his license at 16-17, and he was the class weirdo/valedictorian. Everyone drives here, starting as early as they can, going until their license is taken away due to old age or infirmity.

Then in college I had a Japanese housemate who was was 21 and had never driven in her life, and whose parents had never driven, because Tokyo's public tranpo is so good.

One day I actually agreed to take her out for a driving lesson in downtown LA traffic...holy shit I will not forget that soon.

danyboy27
14th January 2009, 17:21
After living in the city for a decade I really can't see myself being able to live without comprehensive public transportation. Hopefully these developments will allow for easier access over longer distances -- I'm pretty much stuck as far as the local subway will take me.

Also, Montreal to Boston would be interesting, I wonder if the US gov't would pay for construction on the Canadian side of the border, too :P God knows we won't, especially Quebec.

i heard some stuff last year about a high speed train that would do quebec city/montreal in 1 hour max, it would also go to new-york.

hey hello mate! i am from quebec city!