Obamateurism of the Day
posted at 8:05 am on April 17, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Barack Obama announced his new transportation-stimulus initiatives yesterday, including a renewed emphasis on rail infrastructure. In trying to sell rail service to a nation that has mostly eschewed it, though, Obama tried trotting out the notion that train riders don’t have to worry about security:
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.
Forget, for the moment, that one still has to get to the train terminal just the same as one gets to the airport, and that one still has to walk across rail terminals just as they do to get to airport gates. Forget, too, that trains are notoriously late, causing delays, even if in Obama’s utopian vision that he alone can get the trains to run on time. “Taking off your shoes” refers to security practices at airports adopted after Richard Reid’s aborted attempt to blow up a plane with explosive shoes. Is Obama seriously arguing that train terminals won’t have to have security against terrorist attack?
Does “Madrid 2004″ ring any bells?
We can certainly enjoy a laugh over the notion that trains are the 21st-century technology Obama has in mind for transportation. Having a President casually dismiss security at rail terminals, especially if he succeeds in getting people on the trains, is another matter entirely.
Got an Obamateurism of the Day? If you see a foul-up by Barack Obama, e-mail it to me at obamaisms@edmorrissey.com with the quote and the link to the Obamateurism. I’ll post the best Obamateurisms on a daily basis, depending on how many I receive. Include a link to your blog, and I’ll give some link love as well. And unlike Slate, I promise to end the feature when Barack Obama leaves office.
Illustrations by Chris Muir of Day by Day. Be sure to read the adventures of Sam, Zed, Damon, and Jan every day!
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
The Precedent is retarded.
progressoverpeace on April 17, 2009 at 9:48 AM
I agree with TexasJew on maintaining our interstate highways.
Damn. I enjoyed a roundtrip train ride from Baltimore to Charlottesville and was glad as a student to be able to avoid the bus trip. These days, I really want to go on a rail ride vacation through the Rocky Mountains. But budget determines my selection.
Still, the rails must remain for cargo transportation.
maverick muse on April 17, 2009 at 9:49 AM
No, see the train station is in the center of the city
Yes, imagine, see you can just walk. What’s that? You don’t live in the city? Oh, well you can just drive to the train station, get caught in city traffic and pay through the nose to park.
Oh, wait cars are bad. Well, you can load your family on the city bus with all of your luggage, that’s easy.
What? The city bus doesn’t run to your neighborhood? Well you can take a cab, and pay through the nose and get caught in city traffic….
Somehow any Obama transportation plan reminds me of Planes, Trains and Automobiles.
reaganaut on April 17, 2009 at 9:50 AM
Obama:
Let’s expand our rail system
Hotair’s amazing responses:
TERRORISTS BLOW UP TRAINS
MUSSOLINI LIKED TRAINS
THE EXPANSION WOULD REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION
NOBODY RIDES THE TRAIN ANYMORE
PLANES ARE FASTER
TRAINS ARE LATE
CARS ARE BETTER
TERRORISTS WILL BLOW UP TRAIN BRIDGES
WE SHOULD FIX TRAFFIC LIGHTS INSTEAD
THERE WILL BE SHOE BOMBERS ON THE TRAINS
Dave Rywall on April 17, 2009 at 9:51 AM
I vote for Hot Air Balloons!
And we should genetically alter carrier pigeons until they are the size of Blue Whales! How’s that for “Smart”!
DNA and all that stuff!
And we can add another 30 trillion to our national debt to solve another nonexistant problem until we have to sell our daughters to Chinese businessmen just to service the annual interest!
Of course, we can just get into our cars and drive somewhere inexpensively and very quickly using the trillion-dollar 80-year investment we have already made on our excellent national road systems, but that really wouldn’t qualify as “smart”.
TexasJew on April 17, 2009 at 9:57 AM
Responding to everything at once:
FIFY.
Mueller was terrible. I really don’t have much to offer beyond that, but Bergstrom is light-years better.
And once again D.Rywall completely misses the point.
Snowed In on April 17, 2009 at 9:58 AM
Hey Rywall, ….since trains can’t turn, trains can’t pull up to doors, and trains can’t really turn around, they are an extremely limited mode of transportation requiring autos to get to and from them except obviously where you live.
Subways and trains in huge metro areas make sense, but they make very little sense in the majority of the nation…If something hasn’t been working for 100 years, it’s kind of foolish to make another one. You wanna bring back horse & buggies too? Look at a map sometime, troll.
Tim Zank on April 17, 2009 at 9:59 AM
Hey Rywall, ….since trains can’t turn, trains can’t pull up to doors, and trains can’t really turn around, they are an extremely limited mode of transportation requiring autos to get to and from them except obviously where you live.
Subways and trains in huge metro areas make sense, but they make very little sense in the majority of the nation…If something hasn’t been working for 100 years, it’s kind of foolish to make another one. You wanna bring back horse & buggies too? Look at a map sometime, troll.
Tim Zank on April 17, 2009 at 9:59 AM
————-
ha ha so awesome
Dave Rywall on April 17, 2009 at 10:01 AM
I have no problem with Bergstrom as Austin’s relocated international airport. I was all for saving it for the military, utilizing it for the municipality.
Like any rational American, I would have appreciated Mueller remaining functional for small aircraft.
And though I hate the noise of jets, I do reject the noise argument of neighborhoods surrounding Mueller, as if the noise came after they purchased their home. Your neighbor has a screw loose; that round not only shot up but came down indiscriminately. Like many, we remain set in place along with others, though outside of Austin. I regret the general lack of aesthetic that American politicians assign to established neighborhoods. My beef: tolerating/enforcing subversion to the rule of law in order to facilitate their own ease in office, politicians turn mature neighborhoods into slums. Obviously, it costs more in that end to fight crime because illegal activities were and are ignored by the governing authorities. Their solution sucks: revise definition.
maverick muse on April 17, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Yeah, I have fond memories of trains, too. At the time we could walk to the train station to go into the city, off to visit relatives, or a vacation. That was almost 60 years ago. We didn’t live in that house long and all of the benefits went away when we moved back to the city.
Americans love their cars for a reason and trains and buses are that reason. It is a loss of freedom to not have a car. Once you know that freedom, you won’t give it up.
BetseyRoss on April 17, 2009 at 10:09 AM
Years ago I lived in Cleveland, near the airport. My job was downtown. They had a fantastic transportation system in that town and I was able to commute by train. I did that a couple years and can only recall one incident where there was a significant delay. I wish more big cities were like that. I now live a couple hours away from DC and wish there were a reliable train that didn’t cost $100 r/t that we could use because the traffic up that way is horrible. So I personally don’t think investing money in improving rail systems is a bad thing.
scalleywag on April 17, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Eh. Agreed in part on this one, Ed. It’s not as though trains will ever be “terrorist free” simply because they are trains, but bridges and other road infrastructure — say the Mackinac Bridge in Michigan — aren’t, either.
I rode Amtrak frequently while in college, because it was inexpensive. And Lord, was I ever frustrated, because there would be chronic delays. Mind, not in departure time from Chicago, but along the way.
However, this is because many of the State-funded passenger railways lease from the freight companies that own them. So if a freight train comes through? Freight gets right-of-way, causing massive delays. The federally owned train railways largely run on-time, but only service specific population corridors.
Right now is just a poor time to pump public monies into railway infrastructure since fuel costs are low, and cars are still a largely cheaper (or break even) alternative. But when fuel was around $4+/gallon, I saw a lot more people switching to rail transit for intra-regional transport.
lansing quaker on April 17, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Trains are an effective way to move people from one heavily-populated area to another, but the NIMBYism that’s an integral part of liberalism for the past 50 years is why any high-speed rail plan is a non-starter.
To create any sort of high-speed rail that’s truly effective from one big city to another, you’ve got to build dedicated high speed track that gets trains going 200-300 mph out of the way of your average Conrail freight or the 8:20 from Trenton to Penn Station. And to build those new corridors means acquiring new rights-of-way, in many cases right through the heart of urban areas.
Even if the feds decided to say to hell with coming up with the money to buy those rights and tried to use some sort of Kelo-like eminent domain seizure, lots of the land taken and homes removed would be lower-income residents who are among the core Democratic voters. Combine that with the environmental groups who would nit-pick every inch of the ROW through their cities, and you get a plan that’s a non-starter.
And in the areas where you could get this done — commonly known as “Red States” — 50 years of the Interstate Highway system have created urban area developments that are far more spread out and less hospitable to a rail system between tightly packed business area, the way the industrial cities of the East Coast and Midwest developed in the late 1800s and early 1900s. You could build a rail line from Dallas to Phoenix that would get people from Point A to Point B in 3 1/2-to-5 hours because there’s oodles of open space out there, but what do passengers do when they get off at the station and their final business destination is still 15-20 miles away? Without a major boost in city mass transit, the rail station would have to have long-term parking just like airports, and that’s a big investment of taxpayer funds for something that would have longer travel times and might end up costing more than a round-trip air fare to the same destination.
jon1979 on April 17, 2009 at 10:14 AM
We’re glad to see this OotD feature but in order to contribute we’d have to pay attention to Him, and we cannot stand the sound of his voice, or the look on his puss.
curved space on April 17, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Drywall, think this through
Commuter rail is a good thing around cities. By definition though they can’t be Hi Speed since they need to stop at every station.
Hi Speed rail to be cost effective needs long enough runs to get up to speed, run at high speed and then have enough distance to decelerate and stop. It will also have to move large numbers of passengers from point A to point B. The passengers will need to have other means of transportation to get them to point A and then additional transportation take them from point B to their final destination.
The nature of Hi Speed rail limits where it can be best utilized.
If America’s rail companies could make money on passenger trains they would still be running them.
oldernwiser on April 17, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Well, when you put it that way I guess it doesn’t make a lot of sense.
scalleywag on April 17, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Unless Ed has been pushing for airport-style security at Amtrak and subway stations (hell, even buses), he’s just wrong on his main point. If he does want that level of security there, well he’s still wrong, just in a different way.
And some of the responses in this thread…… :hand on forehead:
Mr Tips on April 17, 2009 at 10:18 AM
Now I get train rides if that’s part of the trip, in that you want to take your time getting there and enjoy the scenery. But, most people want to cut travel time to as low as possible.
In other words, trying to make trains into our primary transportation method is regressive.
amkun on April 17, 2009 at 10:18 AM
My son doesn’t have a car, so when he wants to come visit from Berkeley to the Sacramento area he has to take the train. For him that means walking from his apartment to the Downtown Berkeley BART station, BARTing to the Amtrak station, getting on the train, stoping in Vallejo, Vacaville, Davis on the way, and then, when he gets to the Sacramento station, I have to drive up from Elk Grove to pick him up. Reverse the process for him to get home. I think it’s $22 one way, and about 3 hours.
Sometimes it’s easier to just go pick him up.
Bob's Kid on April 17, 2009 at 10:18 AM
One of the main guys running AMTRAK over the past 2 decades has been a Democrat hack from Massachusetts named Mike Dukakis. Remember him?
As an AMTRAK rider myself I know that delays are the norm, not an exception-especially in the DC-NYC-Boston corridor. I once was riding between DC and Boston on the overnight redeye, and at about 2 AM, we suddenly stopped and then sat on the tracks near New London CT for 3 hours-no explanation given.
Keep an eye on what the Leftists in the state O’bama claims to have been born in are doing. They are going to spend millions of dollars to build a monorail in Honolulu.
Homer Simpson would be proud of them.
Del Dolemonte on April 17, 2009 at 10:19 AM
The mind is a terrible thing to waste. And yours looks like a big fried egg.
Del Dolemonte on April 17, 2009 at 10:23 AM
maverick muse on April 17, 2009 at 10:08 AM
The story is a bit more complicated. After the drought in the late 60′s-early seventies, rural land prices fell and you could purchase an acre in the Pflugerville area (which was all farmland back then – “downtown” Pflugerville was five little stores and completely burned down in 1970) for less than $200/acre. A huge swath of land was offered to the city up there for almost nothing, but the nitwits in the City Council didn’t have the smarts to jump on it. In short, they didn’t see how they could financially benefit from it. It was even onbvious then that Mueller (which at that time still required that you walk to the tiny terminal on the tarmac) was too small for what was coming.
Long-time Mayor Roy Butler quit his job a little while later, in ’72 or so, saying that “Austin is a nice town, but you can’t make any goddam money here.”, took over the first Coors distributorship and is still doing that, well into his 80s, having made millions.
So Austin suffered for another 20-plus years and paid out the nose for refitting Bergstrom and for the sweetheart land and kickback deals for the politicians and their buddies.
Sounds like Obamanomics!
TexasJew on April 17, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Mueller was designed and built for the smaller aircraft. It’s origination was not as an international airport. It was built prior to its immediately surrounding neighborhoods. But its gone, and that’s that. Now Lakeway is experiencing more small aircraft traffic than ever intended, and more endangerment since houses butt against the runway. Georgetown’s must be doing well.
Regarding mass transit in Texas, it would be great to maintain the heavily used and inexpensive airline routes, and also to HAVE GREAT PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FROM BERGSTROM via Capital Metro.
And if, indeed, the Leander rail system into Austin connects with San Antonio as promised, then so be it. I’d take the train there if it were not expensive. Hell, who wants to be stuck on IH35 between San Antonio and Dallas? I HATE the incessant highway repair/construction given our international load of traffic from Mexico to Canada. Then recall that the redesignation of our established highways as toll roads ends up costing $10./each way OUTSIDE of Austin per one-way commute. Just wait for the tolls to begin being enforced in full measure. You will be forced onto the train, no matter how much the train costs, because the collective tolls are extremely overpriced.
The politicians are sucking our taxes into their own pockets without providing the goods and services as contracted.
/thunderstorm–signing out.
maverick muse on April 17, 2009 at 10:24 AM
I’ve been working lately in midtown Manhattan, on the East Side (an easy walk from the Roosevelt Island tram). I live in New Jersey, which means that my trains run Penn Station (on the West Side). It’s two or three changes of stop on the subway, or about eleven dollars in cab fare.
When all the waits are considered, I get an extra hour of sleep by driving. So long as I get off the streets by about 8:55, traffic moves well in the AM, and since I rarely get to leave between 5:40 and 6:40, I miss the worst of the traffic on the way home.
And no, it’s not easy to sleep on the NJTransit trains. If you’re in the upper level of the double-deckers, it works. But since there’s no shelf on the lower level to put your bag or coat, you can’t be sure of a decent chance to sleep. If you can sleep on the train at those hours, you’ve had either too little sleep or too little caffiene. For a commuter, the first is likely, the second not.
njcommuter on April 17, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Just another point. Does Obama think the environazis would roll over on their agenda even for the messiah? I think they’d turn in a second if they thought he’d destroy their precious
caribou.Actually, if anyone has been to Japan and ridden on the non-shinkansen lines around the country, and subsequently been appalled at the amount of power lines and nasty brown and steel destroying an otherwise beautiful landscape, they might even agree with an argument of that line. (I… do.)
amkun on April 17, 2009 at 10:26 AM
If the government was really interested in pollution control and fuel economy, traffic lights would be timed.
Johan Klaus on April 17, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Drywall, think this through
Commuter rail is a good thing around cities. By definition though they can’t be Hi Speed since they need to stop at every station.
Hi Speed rail to be cost effective needs long enough runs to get up to speed, run at high speed and then have enough distance to decelerate and stop. It will also have to move large numbers of passengers from point A to point B. The passengers will need to have other means of transportation to get them to point A and then additional transportation take them from point B to their final destination.
The nature of Hi Speed rail limits where it can be best utilized.
If America’s rail companies could make money on passenger trains they would still be running them.
oldernwiser on April 17, 2009 at 10:16 AM
———-
It takes a change in attitude toward transportation that has been part of European society for 100 years.
Americans don’t have the vision or strength to do that. You’re too set in your ways and too in love with driving. Until the option to drive becomes less attractive, you won’t change you behaviour.
So that’s why expanding the rail system is a waste of time because the people won’t make use of it regardless of how convenient it actually is.
A high speed corridor along the east coast should have been built years ago.
Dave Rywall on April 17, 2009 at 10:31 AM
Wait a tick,maybe its a train system for the other
7 states,and it will create BidenGaffe’s 3 letter
word,jobs!!
canopfor on April 17, 2009 at 10:32 AM
“Imagine boarding a train in the center of a city”
What a surprise that this statement works just great for 90% of the idiot’s supporters, and doesn’t work at all for 90% of the voters who reject him.
Wasn’t there a time when presidents were expected to support all the people?
notagool on April 17, 2009 at 10:33 AM
If the government was really interested in pollution control and fuel economy, traffic lights would be timed.
Johan Klaus on April 17, 2009 at 10:28 AM
——-
Lights ARE timed in big cities. They’re just in disrepair because cities can’t get their sh1t together.
There’s a street in Toronto you can drive 50 Km/hr on from one side of downtown to the other without ever stopping or slowing down because the lights are awesomely in sync. But of course, every few months or so they break down and it takes weeks to fix them.
Dave Rywall on April 17, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Nothing convenient about being trapped in a slow-moving box that costs the same and takes as much time as driving with none of the freedom.
Americans don’t have the “vision” to warp back in time because we’re too busy creating bigger and better things.. like the airplane.
amkun on April 17, 2009 at 10:40 AM
maverick muse on April 17, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Oy!
Outside of hanging out with some of my Geology buddies, visiting my (very) old profs at UT and going to the Texas Railroad Commission (which has damn little to do with railroads, but everything to do with oil and gas), I tend not to venture much beyond the Arboretum area when I travel there – except to take my little girl to Toy Joy.
The traffic is obnoxious.
The thought of hopping on a Capital Metro bus after all these years is too horrible. I scarfed a Texpass thingie to get the hell out of Dodge on 183, and wonder if they even read those things as you drive by.. not cheap!
TexasJew on April 17, 2009 at 10:41 AM
Nothing convenient about being trapped in a slow-moving box that costs the same and takes as much time as driving with none of the freedom.
Americans don’t have the “vision” to warp back in time because we’re too busy creating bigger and better things.. like the airplane.
amkun on April 17, 2009 at 10:40 AM
—————-
The topic at hand that appears to have eluded you is high speed trains.
Attention. You need to pay some.
Dave Rywall on April 17, 2009 at 10:44 AM
No, it would take a physical restructuring.
Contrary to your belief, Americans are not stupid. They have and will continue to do what is best for them and their way of life. How the hell do you think we got where we are today without vision and strength?
You again show you bias by presuming you know how I think.
Full disclosure. I AM A RAILFAN I would love to see passenger trains all over this country. Being a railfan though I know why railroads gave up passenger carriers
I and others have tried to ‘splain why it isn’t convenient, our country is too large and spread out.
Yeah like 200 years ago before all that land wasn’t in private hands
Dave Rywall on April 17, 2009 at 10:31 AM
oldernwiser on April 17, 2009 at 10:46 AM
How exactly does that quote “dismiss security” again?
Constant Parrhesia on April 17, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Ever wonder why Interstate 95 goes on the Capital Beltway around Washington DC instead of through it, like with major interstates in almost every other city? Because the NIMBYs in the early 1970s blocked I-95 from running through the northeast quadrant of the capitol. They built the southern access, and even a tunnel under The Mall just west of the Capitol (the one all the Obama backers got stuck in on Inauguration Day. But the tunnel just peters out on the north side of downtown. I-95 as planned was redesignated I-395, and if you want to go towards Baltimore from downtown Washington, you’re still stuck on New York Avenue.
This was the Interstate Highway System. Approved and forced though cities by Washington D.C. Which then couldn’t go through Washington D.C. That battle was 40 years ago, and while rail doesn’t have the negative images on the left that Interstate highways do, even if the very first thing Amtrak did 39 years ago was to announce plans to mimic Japan’s Bullet Train between D.C. and Boston, there’s no way in hell running a dedicate high-speed line through the middle of Washington, Wilimington, Philadelphia, Trenton, Newark, New York, New Haven, Providence and Boston wouldn’t have ended up in litigation (likely with race cards being tossed around like a bunch of hyper 8-year-olds playing Mille Bourne as part of the lawsuits).
The result either then or now would probably be a line that made the Big Dig’s price look like a close-out item at Walmart, or a route that managed to come nowhere near the downtown areas it was suppose to serve (say, like a D.C. station in Landover or a New York City station strategically placed somewhere around Patterson, N.J.), forcing people to travel several miles by some other form of transit to actually reach the “metropolitan area” station.
jon1979 on April 17, 2009 at 10:51 AM
jon1979 on April 17, 2009 at 10:51 AM
——-
Oh it’s a quagmire, no doubt.
Dave Rywall on April 17, 2009 at 10:52 AM
Europeans and Canadians, but I repeat myself, will never understand why Americans like cars.
It’s a fundamental difference that explains a lot about why they are so willing to give up their freedoms for ever bigger government.
amkun on April 17, 2009 at 10:52 AM
Clowns always go for the laughs, he got one. Cant even do a simple presser without is Teleprompter.
WoosterOh on April 17, 2009 at 10:53 AM
Madison has a couple streets where I can get halfway across town without stopping if you just time the lights. The silly thing is they’re timed at the speed limit, so you have to accelerate slowly to make it work. Then people speed past you, pull in front of you and have to slam on their brakes at the next light because they haven’t figured out the timing. But it’s still a nice concept.
A high speed train on the eastern seaboard is about the only place in the country a train would be feasible, but I still don’t think it would be worth the money. The midwestern hub idea is terrible.
BadgerHawk on April 17, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Obama he wants to railroad america. Its his slogan.
William Amos on April 17, 2009 at 11:00 AM
It’s painfully simple.
If it was economically feasible to run a high speed line along the East Coast then it would have been done already – by private business. Same goes for a high speed line anywhere.
This is not Europe. This is not Japan.
That’s it. End of story.
Creating an Amtrak style high speed line will be an economic disaster. The government can’t run something like that. The waste, corruption, prevailing wages, regulations, political tampering, etc… will cripple it.
Imagine a “Big Dig” style project times 1000, from the people who run Amtrak oh so well.
reaganaut on April 17, 2009 at 11:03 AM
Oh Ed, let’s get with the program. It’s a new day. A new world. Everyone loves us now that Obama is our president. Harping on a few explosions in Madrid or London or NY is so very tedious. Didn’t you get the memo? Other than a few disgruntled vets, we have nothing to worry about.
CarolynM on April 17, 2009 at 11:05 AM
When I was young, I remember crews tearing up rail tracks that ran the lenght of the main street in our town. For decades one could get on the Lake Shore Electric Railway at one of several stops in our small town and for a few cents, travel to Toledo, or Cleveland, and with connections to Detroit, Chicago and Cincinnati, far beyond.
Most of the time, it consisted of a single rail car/combine. Sometimes, if traffic demanded, it consisted of two or more cars. It connected a host of small towns with larger regional centers, and thus to the national rail network in relative comfrot, cheap cost and ease of usage.
It worked. Until the automotive cabal got together and forced the end of localized rail service [cannot for the life of me recall the rail v. automotive industry case that made it to the USSC...anyone know that one?] and then along came the Interstate system, and the autumotive industry really took off, and local rail service died.
This new Obama-vaunted fast rail service is not designed to serve the small towns across America, not one bit. They, from what I have seen in the many proposals, are designed to connect large urban centers with other large urban centers, in direct competition with the airlines. For mere convenience, not for any economic sensible reasons. Hence Obama’s remarks about not taking off one’s shoes.
The start-up costs for these redundant fast-rail systems require massive government “investment” [read: spending] because they are a bad idea from the merely economic standpoint.
They will merely replicate what is already available, just in another form.
The rail that IS needed, is that which existed in the 1920′s through the 1950′s…interconnecting passenger rail links that connect small towns to larger regional hubs. Individual rail lines may have few passengers or a minimal amount of passengers, but in aggregate they will serve a far larger portion of the population than the present regional air systems, and at a significantly less cost for the passenger.
This sort of service I can get behind.
The proposed high-tech 220-miles-per-hour bullet train that would link San Francisco to Los Angeles in two-and-a-half hours, for example, is not something that will serve the most with the least cost. It will serve fewer at a greater cost. And be in direct competition with the airlines.
It is a bad business model.
Enamored of the high-techiness of it all, Obama and the pols are using us to further their dreams, as all tax-paying Americans will be paying for an ultra-modern exclusive rail service designed for the elites, with no perceivable benefit to most of those who will end up paying for it.
coldwarrior on April 17, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Dumber than a box of rocks.
Griz on April 17, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Yeah, this guy is a moron.
Y-not on April 17, 2009 at 11:17 AM
On top of all this Obama’s proposal is somewhat underwhelming. Coast to Coast high speed freight rail is something that he could easily sell instead. It would enable our military fast transport coast to coast, create a right of way for energy inter-ties, and boost economies of states across the country rather than the select regions picked. It could also be the next generation high speed internet right of way. The investment by gov. would be creating the right of way, and industry could pay the rest if Congress got behind this.
Tark on April 17, 2009 at 11:20 AM
This is a romanticized idea of Europe that is hardly set in reality.
The reason for the high number of trains and lack of cars in Europe is because the people cannot afford a car. The price of gasoline hovers around $5-6/gallon, because of their high taxes on gasoline, the high cost of car insurance, car inspection (If anything is wrong with the car it HAS to be fixed before being legal to drive), new registration, the cost of a car, then tolls and parking. Most people simply cannot afford a car, even though they would like to own one. I’ve lived in Sweden and Germany and know this from experience and first-hand knowledge. But you could read for yourself or stick with your romanticized notion of Western Europe.
You actually make a shred of sense here. With the Obama policies that trend socialist, we may be forced to abandon the high cost of automobiles as in Europe, and ride the trains.
A rail system is only convenient for urban centers, and even that is questionable as many have stated here. For me to get to O’Hare from the suburbs, I can ride the Metra downtown and then transfer to another train, which takes nearly 3 hours. OR I can drive my car in 45 minutes. Hmmmm…which one is more convenient?
The geography of our country differs greatly with Europe. A three-hour rail trip in Europe gets me from one country to 1-2 others, while here I got to my local airport. Also, rail systems are not convenient for rural areas, which make a large portion of America. But we know that suburbs bore Obama, so I guess they’re screwed.
conservative pilgrim on April 17, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Bingo! Isn’t this the crux of Obama’s proposal? The erosion of our freedoms and individual choices for conformity and “community”? There needs to be a balance, but he wants to tip the scales altogether.
conservative pilgrim on April 17, 2009 at 11:29 AM
The only reason terrorists haven’t attacked an American passenger train is because NOBODY RIDES THEM.
By Obama’s logic, the government should force everyone to wear Spam on their heads – because no terrorist has ever attacked anyone who was doing that.
logis on April 17, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Bwahahahahahahaaa!!!
It’s spam-o-rific!
csdeven on April 17, 2009 at 11:31 AM
Trains are great commuter-movers for cities that have central business districts and well-developed transit around the stations. They’re great in places like Philadelphia, NY or DC because offices are concentrated in the hubs. (Just make sure you have plenty of reading material, an iPod, and laptop and add in an extra 30-45 minutes if you have to be on time, because your transportation won’t be.) Cities like Houston have no center, so rail and buses are of limited value.
As for cross-country transportation, there is a reason that Amtrak is a money-hole. Pouring more money down it isn’t going to solve anything.
obladioblada on April 17, 2009 at 11:36 AM
Reality trumps good intentions.
obladioblada on April 17, 2009 at 11:37 AM
I’m no expert, but wasn’t it people moving from crime ridden democratic run cities to safe suburbs that killed rail transportation? With the advent of suburban tract communities, you still need a car, bus, or cab to get to a rail station in order to take it to work. And if you need a car anyway, why not ride in peace and quiet on the way to work?
csdeven on April 17, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Trains are especially vulnerable to terrorist attack. Once airplanes get off the ground they’re pretty much immune to interference from the ground, but trains travel on thousands of miles of unguarded track. History is full of examples of various warring parties destroying trains by blowing up or sabotaging the track, from the Civil War through WWII and probably after that, too.
Obama is just plain, flat-out stupid.
commenter on April 17, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Sweet. It’s TRUE. Europe sounds like it sucks. Why would I want to see that here?!
I know there are good things about Europe-cheese,castles…. uh…what else? EuroDisney?
Anyhow-This is America. We are different here. We are not looking to emulate Europe. We like our country.
And BTW-consider one reason perhaps that passenger trains don’t make $$ is bcs of UNIONS?
Rails here in SW ND-probably all over the N. Plains, were torn up in the ’80s.
Too bad that govt makes it too hard to make a profit with the rail system bcs I am betting it’s their onerous rules, taxes, etc. that ultimately make a rail system in America (besides the vastness of our country) unprofitable.
Badger40 on April 17, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Remember as a kid, ignoring your Mom’s warnings (I did) and putting a few pennies on the rail and waiting for the train to pass so you’d have squashed pennies?
These high-tech, high-speed intercity fast rail trains have limited tolerances, and a succession of debris, perhaps little bits of metal, quarters spaced along the rail, maybe, left along the rails at any point can derail them.
Anything that contributes to a weakness in any of the wheels, or alters the direction of the wheels, can be extremely fatal as well.
The ICE [InterCityExpress] Munich-to-Hamburg Eschede train disaster was the world’s deadliest high-speed train accident, thus far. It occurred on 3 June 1998…a minor crack in a wheel resulted in a minor derailment which at normal speed would have been felt, observed, and controlled, but at high-speed rapidly amplified to fatality in a matter of less than a minute, and is a pefect example of what can happen at any point along a high-speed rail line that can easily result in massive fatalities.
So…will we be paying for massive electric-fenced concrete-bunkered high-speed rail to prevent such disasters in addition to having static and roving patrols of armed security police covering every mile of these high-speed tracks?
Just because it is high-tech and such, doesn’t mean it is the perfect substitute for something less high-tech and less expensive. And a bit of low-tech debris can destroy anything high-tech.
We do not even have to go in to using more dangerous things…to get the same result.
You are correct…Obama is just plain, flat-out stupid.
coldwarrior on April 17, 2009 at 12:08 PM
And don’t forget all those laws about “train wrecking” still on the books. A train is a captive vehicle — its every movement constrained by the tracks it must follow.
unclesmrgol on April 17, 2009 at 12:18 PM
How does The One propose to power this 21st century miracle of travel?
GarandFan on April 17, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Obama should ask himself this simple queston: “How often have I taken the train during my brief life?” The answer, I suspect, hovers somewhere between “never” and “almost never”.
Then he should ask himself how often he had the choice between taking the train or driving his own Hemi 300. I’m betting the answer was “frequently”.
We Americans love our freedom of motion and have a cultural need for instant gratification. It’s why airlines are faring better than trains, and why the private automobile fares better than the omnibus. We want control over where we are going and when we go and how fast we go.
That said, watch who would benefit by the government throwing money at an idea whose time came and went a century ago, and that’s where you should put your money too.
unclesmrgol on April 17, 2009 at 12:28 PM
As in many other issues, with high-speed rail, the devil is in the details.
I’ve seen high-speed trains in France, which has a fairly well-developed system with their TGV (Train a Grande Vitesse), which literally means “high speed train”.
These trains can reach cruising speeds of 180 mph, and you CAN board them in downtown train stations. But safety considerations of high-speed trains require special tracks to be built for them, with no grade crossings, very gradual slopes and only gentle curves, lined with continuous fences over hundreds of miles to prevent collisions with people, wildlife, or livestock crossing the tracks (deer and cows are a major problem in France).
These special tracks are economically attractive only in relatively flat, rural areas, but are prohibitive in urban or mountainous areas. In America, they could be built in the Great Plains, for example to link Dallas to Houston or Chicago to Saint Louis, but they would be prohibitive in congested areas like the Boston / New York / Philadelphia / Washington corridor, or mountainous areas such as the Rockies or Appalachians.
Obama says that such a system “reduces congestion”–but the construction of the special tracks CAUSES traffic congestion (a la Big Dig) for a few years. In addition, the French TGVs travel on existing local tracks in the extensive Paris suburbs, so that speeds are limited to 50 mph while passing through the many local commuter stations (to reduce damage to idiots crossing the tracks), which reduces the time savings from the high-speed trains.
After about 30 years of TGV construction in France, there are four main lines: Paris / Lyon / Marseille in 3-1/2 hours, Paris / Strasbourg in 2-1/2 hours, Paris / Le Mans / Bordeaux in 3 hours, and Paris / Lille / London in 4 hours, although there is a significant wait at the Chunnel, and there is no high-speed rail on the British side. If a person wants to go to other French cities in the mountains or along the west coast, the TGV connects up with local low-speed lines, but there’s less time savings, and somebody in a hurry might save time (but spend more money) by plane, even counting going through security and waiting at the airport.
In order for a high-speed train to “reduce travel time”, the total travel time from downtown to downtown for the train must be less than that for a taxi to an airport, going through security, flight time, waiting for baggage, and a taxi to downtown in another city. If we assume 1/2 hour for each of the taxis, an hour wait at the departing airport, 1/2 hour wait at the arrival airport, the train travel time must be less than plane flight time plus 2.5 hours. Assuming that a plane flies at 500 mph and a high-speed train averages 150 mph (including acceleration and braking near stations), the travel times would be equal if
x / 150 = x / 500 + 2.5
where x is the distance between two cities in miles. Solving this gives x = 536 miles for EQUAL travel times, meaning that high-speed trains save time for distances less than 536 miles. But, due to the construction costs for the special tracks, they must be built through flat, uncongested areas (think Eminent Domain and Kelo), and have enough passenger volume between the cities to justify the expense. This works for major cities less than 500 miles apart in the Midwest and Plains states, and maybe the East coast south of Washington DC, but nowhere else. Easing congestion in the Megalopolis? Fuhgeddaboudit !!!
But has Barry O done the math? Probably not, since Barry O is a Hahvid lawya, and numbers don’t have to add up–he just prints the money!
Steve Z on April 17, 2009 at 12:28 PM
It’s too bad our current administration is unwilling to let the market find its own way. As someone earlier said, if rail companies could make money transporting passengers, they wouldn’t have spent the past ten years tearing up tracks and installing rail trails.
That’s not to say that consumer demand won’t change, but the calculus for passengers will always be some combination of time, cost and quality of the experience. Can government subsidies to rail companies provide us with fast trains that run on time, cost less than driving, and provide a safe and comfortable trip? AND will those trains go to the places we want to go? I’m skeptical.
Dee2008 on April 17, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Well stated
oldernwiser on April 17, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Obama is unaware.
rollthedice on April 17, 2009 at 1:09 PM
This slug Obowa just doesn’t stop trying to incinerate our money!
I feel another Tea Party brewing. Recommend to all that attended the tax day rallies that they bring at least one more “right wing radical” to the next Tea Party.
As for Odopey’s stupid train ideas, time to dust this one off:
http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=2360
Sweet_Thang on April 17, 2009 at 1:22 PM
What happens when you make demands and set policy that you’re unwilling to pay for. Pretty much the norm.
jdkchem on April 17, 2009 at 2:27 PM
AGREED! BRING ON THE AUTOBAHN!
Rovin on April 17, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Or the name “Colin Ferguson”?
jaime on April 17, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Heavy and light rail are notoriously expensive to build, operate and maintain. Point to one, ONE, rail system in the country that operates at a profit, you won’t find one, they all require subsidization.
Rails are an assinine way to transport people. In Boston we have one of the most extensive and best run subway and heavy rail systems and people don’t ride it because they are late, smelly, expensive, dangerous, don’t go where you need to go, and are steamy in the summer and expose you to the elements while waiting in the winter.
The only people who use the system are the poor -who don’t pay- students and inner city apartment dwellers forced to because a parking spot in Boston costs more than a home in most cities.
Alden Pyle on April 17, 2009 at 3:21 PM
How about wagon trains? They’re dependable…green as can be and unlike trains…can turn around and deliver you to your door. I like horses but I’m sure that the Prez can come up with some Unicorns to pull them…they’re prollly faster than horses…
Army Brat on April 17, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Uh, shouldn’t the way to go be having a company say, “Well, we think we could make some money by building a high speed rail system…is that OK with you Uncle Sam?”
Or: “We looked into this, and it’s not going to be profitable, so forget it.”
Of course, if Bush had proposed this rail system, they would have been all over him about the damage to the environment.
Dr. ZhivBlago on April 17, 2009 at 4:30 PM
Horses.
Daggett on April 17, 2009 at 6:48 PM
Obviously not. Man this clown is a moron. Thanks again, fellow citizens, for electing a moron who is hell bent on destroying this once great country.
RightWinged on April 17, 2009 at 7:49 PM
Where are Dagny and Taggart Transcontinental when we need them?
gstep58 on April 17, 2009 at 8:43 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2