The new Obama administration has its hands full addressing a wide range of issues and problems, ranging from the economy and the war to healthcare reform and no child left behind. There’s also lots of talk about rebuilding America’s infrastructure. Just this past week, the
American Society of Civil Engineers said that after “decades of underfunding and inattention” the U.S. infrastructure needs no less than $2.2 trillion in repairs and upgrades.
We certainly need many new roads and bridges. Anyone who drives on Chicago-area streets this time of the year can attest to that. However, I would also urge the new team in Washington to start laying out a game plan that would establish a world-class high-speed rail network in the United States.
If you’ve ever travelled on the
TGV in France or the
Shinkansen in Japan, you know what I’m talking about—aerodynamic, electric-powered trains that travel smoothly, safely, quietly and efficiently from city to city at speeds up to 200 miles per hour.
Last November, California voters approved a proposition that may some day lead to a high-speed rail system connecting urban areas in the Bay Area, the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California. Similar proposals are under consideration in the Midwest and the Southeast.
Proponents of the California plan claim that more than 100 million passengers would ride their high-speed system by 2030. Without starting to make an investment today, tomorrow’s traffic congestion on highways will grow much worse and airport delays will intensify.
To serve the same number of passengers as the proposed train system, California would reportedly have to build 3,000 lane-miles of freeway, five airport runways and 90 departure gates. But, all that new infrastructure would come with a steep price tag—more than twice the construction cost and environmental impact as high-speed rail.
I realize that building a high-speed rail network would cost a ton of money. On the other hand, it would also put an awful lot of people to work. Perhaps the locomotives and rolling stock, not to mention signals, sensors and other communication equipment, could be built in one of the GM assembly plants recently shuttered in Dayton, OH, or Janesville, WI.
Two previous U.S. presidents had the courage, vision and foresight to change the transportation landscape, and transform the economic climate, by spearheading similar mega-construction projects. In the early 1860s, Abraham Lincoln championed the transcontinental railroad, which spurred rapid development in the agricultural, mining and manufacturing sectors. One hundred years later, Dwight Eisenhower’s interstate highway system paved the way for explosive growth in the automotive and trucking industries, not to mention the fast-food business and other spin-offs, such as suburban shopping malls.
After years of talk and no action on high-speed rail, it’s time to finally get America on the right track.
Login
By: Marc
Posted: January 20, 2009 10:12 PM
By: www.productiontoolco.com
Posted: January 26, 2009 8:44 AM
Developing a transit system to accommodate this type of layout would be extremely difficult.
For now the maintenance of our auto industry is key to both transportation and our economy.
To be successful mass transit should start in our major cities and grow from there.
By: Paul
Posted: February 4, 2009 11:24 AM
By: Joel melnick
Posted: February 4, 2009 11:44 AM
By: Mike
Posted: February 4, 2009 8:37 PM
Aw, hell! You didn'tell me it was going to be difficult! Just forget it.
By: Scott
Posted: February 5, 2009 9:11 AM
You forget that roads aren't a private business and we fund them to all ends. By the rational of your argument, we should privatize them and see where the investment will come from. It won't because it takes an entity, government in this case, to make it happen. Government does things that no private business can do profitably. That is their job.
Scott
By: Paul
Posted: February 5, 2009 11:27 AM
True, for the interstate system. However, many roads are private - they're called toll roads, and I believe they are very viable, so much so that even foreign companies desire to aquire them.
I still argue that it is not the government's role to make jobs, but rather private enterprise. And, no one commenting here has answered where this ton of money is going to come from, because the answer is inconvenient: the money has to be taken from someone and given to this high-speed rail project. Even if there was consensus that a high-speed rail project was a great idea, then the government should do what you and I have to do when we want something: we have to set aside some of our income until we save enough to pay for it. Until then, we have to do without.
Our national debt is staggering. You're not suggesting that we just pull out another credit card and spend "a ton" more, are you?
By: Tom
Posted: February 8, 2009 5:45 PM
By: dwmcgill
Posted: February 27, 2009 11:03 AM
Travelling from Frankfurt to Koln, or Stuttgart to Kassel is great, but that doesnt' mean that I would choose that option for a Chicago to Denver connection