VP Calls for More Rail Transit

Crossposted at Projectile Politics

Yglesias brings up a good point about today's Governor's Association meeting in Philadelphia. Biden issued a speech laying out some reasons that we should promote public transportation, specifically rail transit. Focusing Obama's stated desire to promote public works projects on public transportation would be incredibly smart. There are still many American cities that have sub-par transportation systems within the city and almost non-existent rail options from the `burbs.

Jumpstarting a massive rail construction program would kill many birds with one giant, expensive stone. It would prompt suburbanites who live outside the city to visit and spend on urban businesses and entertainment; it would provide cheap, public transportation for urban workers who live outside the city; and most importantly, it would drastically reduce the number of people who commute in personal vehicles, and thereby benefit our degraded, asthma-ridden natural environment.

Seattle is a good example of the need for more rail-centric public transportation. Within the city, it is fairly easy to get around using the bus system. But there is no rail transit besides the monorail that goes about three blocks and was created as spectacle for the World's Fair in 1962.

But a Light Rail will be completed next year to transport people from SeaTac airport to downtown Seattle and back. I'm very glad that this is happening, but its impact will not reach its potential unless complemented by a more extensive rail program becuase traffic west into Seattle from the Eastside is awful for hours every morning and evening. And the same goes for along I-5 north of the city center. Both are areas that the Light Rail will not service.

Biden's suggestion for developing more rail transit would help cities like Seattle develop their rail programs to benefit workers, drivers, and the environment.



Display:


Re: VP Calls for More Rail Transit (none / 0)

I really hope this becomes a priority in the Obama administration.  Rail transit is desperately needed in most of America's major cities.


John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a century.
by jkfp2004 on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 07:49:38 PM EST

Re: VP Calls for More Rail Transit (none / 0)

I grew up in a small town in PA.  Every few years they'd rip up the streets to resurface them and you'd see bricks and trolley lines under the blacktop.  This was a town of 16,000 people and at one point there was a trolley there.  The investment in small communities was orders of magnitude higher at one point.  And yet, somehow the narrative from 1994 to 2007 was that the government was wasting precious taxpayer dollars on unneeded public programs.  Think about someone advocating for a light rail line to be built in a small rural community.  They'd be pilloried.


by the mollusk on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 11:41:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: VP Calls for More Rail Transit (none / 0)

If energy independence is an issue, there is no way we can avoid discussion of a serious mass transit system, in particular a serious rail system. I don't care that some Republican governors from oil-rich areas will bitch and moan (Palin... Perry...). It's important and it will make jobs. WTF do people think built this country in the first place? ROADS! Or at least, that's what built the economy for much of Georgia.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:14:49 PM EST

Re: VP Calls for More Rail Transit (none / 0)

Ha!

During my last visit to Seattle, I wondered what that monorail-thing was for.

Didn't seem to go anywhere....just sort of sat there in the sky.


by Bush Bites on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:15:11 PM EST

they've got to be efficient (2.00 / 1)

and cheap, unlike Amtrak. The New York MTA is a superb example to follow, comparatively of course. A ride from New York to New Haven in only 14 dollars, whereas Amtrak charges 48 for the same trip. The trains are always on time, and come consistently and often.


by Lakrosse on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 11:39:56 PM EST

Re: they've got to be efficient (2.00 / 1)

The problem with Amtrak is largely that they are the lowest priority along all the tracks that they serve.  I ride them frequently, and while they have control or share tracks with happy-to-help commuter rail agencies, once you get outside the Northeast Corridor, they often share single-track lines with freight services who are not inclined to give Amtrak any right-of-way.  Because it's single-track and Amtrak doesn't own the tracks, it's not uncommon to have to sit in a siding for an hour waiting for a freight train to pass.  Last time I took Amtrak from LA to Arizona, we went about 30mph between LA and Palm Springs, but then upped pretty quickly to 80+mph outside of Palm Springs; the problem is that LA is a freight hub and the track is in poor condition.  Where Amtrak either owns or shares the track with commuter rail service, things work great.  When they have to beg at the feet of freight services (who largely don't care if their trains only go 30mph), they're at the mercy of the freights.

By the way, Amtrak used to serve Phoenix, but the tracks have degraded terribly and Amtrak has no authority to repair them, so now it serves a tiny town about half an hour south of Chandler.  Again, not anything within the control of Amtrak - Congress successfully created an agency with numerous problems and no authority to solve them, and then blames them for everything that goes wrong.

The problem isn't Amtrak, the problem is that the FRA has an absolute disdain for passenger rail service.  Upgrade and double-track the routes between major cities and Amtrak suddenly becomes a fast and reliable service.


by auronrenouille on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 02:30:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: they've got to be efficient (2.00 / 1)

By the way, Amtrak charges that amount to keep local traffic from gumming up long-distance traffic between Boston and NYC.  I used to take the Boston/NYC train all the time, and we had terrible problems with overcrowding once commuters started piling on in Connecticut, or in reverse, when commuters piled on in Providence - apparently they didn't mind paying the cost for a 10-minute faster trip.  Amtrak needs commuters to take the MNR or the MBCR because Amtrak isn't a commuter service.  It may be $48 to go from NYP to New Haven, but it's just slightly above $50 to go from NYP to Boston.  If they have a ton of reservations between New Haven and NYP, they can't take any more reservations for Boston to NYP (if you were ever wondering why all of the NE Corridor service requires reservations, that's why - to keep the trains from becoming commuter trains).

The Amtrak Pacific Surfliner, which follows two commuter rail lines in Los Angeles, does have that kind of capacity, so commuter rail tickets are also valid on Amtrak local trains.


by auronrenouille on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 02:36:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh hell yes. (2.00 / 1)

It took Jesse Ventura as governor to fasttrack (so to speak) the Hiawatha Line light rail system in the Twin Cities.  This is the train that goes from downtown Minneapolis to the airport and Mall of America.

It has been a resounding success, but Tim Pawlenty has had it in for public transit since he broke the bus drivers' union several years ago ("I don't see why we need busses back, since they're gone, there's been less traffic on my drive to work..."), so he's been slow to authorize a downtown Minneapolis - downtown St. Paul track, using it as a bludgeon in his battles with the Democratic legislature.

The sad thing is that the Twin Cities used to have an effective trolley system that got torn up as a way to appease auto manufacturers.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 10:11:10 AM EST

Re: VP Calls for More Rail Transit (none / 0)

I'm excited for this... we recently passed Proposition 1A in California, which authorizes California to issue state bonds to fund a high speed train that runs between San Francisco and LA, essentially.  It'll probably kill the Coast Starlight (I don't think Amtrak wants to continue that service anyhow, the California stretch of it is plagued by freight rail problems), but it's a huge project that will create innumerable jobs in California, and right now Quentin Kopp is beginning design and hoping to begin construction in a couple of years - just in time for Federal money to hopefully keep it moving.

It's a massive infrastructure project that will successfully give all of those homebuilding construction companies new work during the next decade or so that it will take to sort out California's housing stock problem, and in the meanwhile it'll greatly help the environment and increase connectivity between Northern and Southern California exponentially.  There's really no downside, and it seems to be exactly the kind of project that the new Administration would want to fund.  CHSR is probably a top-shelf choice right now, along with the plans for the high-speed line between Chicago and St. Louis.


by auronrenouille on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 02:43:33 PM EST

Re: VP Cnd in alls for More Rail Transit (none / 0)

Me too. Only in America would we still be in the dark ages about rail travel. Around the world, people are moving about faster and cheaper.


by cad on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 03:52:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: VP Calls for More Rail Transit (2.00 / 1)

I'd like to see bullet trains available between semi-close(nationally speaking), major cities like LA and San Fransisco, Columbus,OH and Chicago (or philadelphia).  Now i'm not up on national transportantion so similar options may exist but I know we could still build a bullet train system connecting all major ciies in the US.  They are more effiecent time wise than planes if the locations are less than 3-4 hours apart(flight time).


by goodleh on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 03:05:38 PM EST

Re: VP Calls for More Rail Transit (none / 0)

Check out CA High Speed Rail, which will do exactly that, and recently got funded through 1A.  You're right about the airlines - a lot of them are starting to dislike running the SFO-LAX shuttle, and would rather put their resources in more profitable routes, since that one often sparks price wars similar to BOS/NYC/IAD - once that's up and running, probably only Southwest will devote major resources to the shuttle.


by auronrenouille on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 04:03:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not so fast (2.00 / 1)

The cost of new rail lines is hugely expensive.   We've seen it here in Charlotte.   When gas prices shot up so did ridership but it was still low.

I'd like to see some studies.  

If we could build a fleet of electric cars, would the money be better spent on more asphalt?

I dunno.  It might be.


by RichardFlatts on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 03:21:17 PM EST

I, for one, don't want to risk it (none / 0)

Fully electric cars are still in the "someday" category.  Efficient train service is very much a reality.  

There's no guarantee that we'll get those fleets of electric transport up and running on a wide scale by the time we need them.  Work on electric cars, sure, but right now we need trains, STAT.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 03:37:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I, for one, don't want to risk it (none / 0)

Problem is they don't come overnight either.   They are talking a 10 year build out for lines in the Charlotte region.   Give that work on all lines won't start at once, it would be decades before the system was built out.


by RichardFlatts on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 12:27:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sure (none / 0)

But having contingency plans is good, and it's not like that work would be in vain or has to wait on technology.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 01:09:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: VP Calls for More Rail Transit (none / 0)

Rail is coming to Hawaii too.  The mayor of Honolulu basically


by Skaje on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 08:29:06 PM EST

sorry (none / 0)

basically staked his re-election on rail.  It's good to see interest picking up nationwide for this.


by Skaje on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 08:29:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry (none / 0)

I can't tell if this is snark or not.  Is this like the joke about why Hawaii has an interstate highway?


by markjay on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 12:01:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry (none / 0)

hey, Hawaii has a pretty terrible traffic problem.  No more space for roads.  They're going to build a rail transit.


by Skaje on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 02:42:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: VP Calls for More Rail Transit (none / 0)

Could use this in Indy.


Torture me once, shame on you; torture me and get away with it, shame on us all.
by freedom78 on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 08:34:07 PM EST

Re: VP Calls for More Rail Transit (none / 0)

Having just gotten back from London, the T in Boston is pathetic in its scope.  And it is one of the better subway systems in the country.


by Dreorg on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 09:59:54 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.