Post by jeffe77 on May 27, 2008 8:10:37 GMT -8
I have notice more and more editorials supporting not only regional High Speed Rail but a nationwide system.
Here's another article:
www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-opree275702925may27,0,3126130.story
High-speed rail solution for chronic sky troubles
BY BRUCE REED AND PAUL WEINSTEIN JR | Bruce Reed is president of the Democratic Leadership Council. Paul Weinstein is chief operating officer of the Progressive Policy Institute and a visiting fellow at Johns Hopkins
If America's air travel system is any indication, the sky really is falling.
Flights have been canceled by the hundreds due to safety concerns. Four airlines have gone out of business since the end of March, in large part because of rising fuel costs. Six broad fare increases have gone into effect this year alone, along with new charges on everything from pillows to a first piece of checked luggage. And here in the New York metropolitan area, the nation's largest market, the delays have been so chronic that the federal government has imposed flight caps and installed a new "airport czar" to make sense of the mess.
And just think - the summer travel season is just beginning.
While the laws of supply and demand will undoubtedly correct some of the problems the airline industry faces, the future for air travelers is not so bright. Most economists agree that airline mergers, fewer flights, and new, more fuel-efficient planes will eventually help put the industry on stronger financial ground.
Unfortunately, these very measures will also mean higher prices, less choice, and fewer amenities for passengers. In the short term, passengers have two choices: fly less or pay more for an inferior service. But if the United States is serious about fixing the air-travel mess, there's a real, long-term solution: high-speed rail.
For years, some policymakers have called for a U.S. passenger high-speed rail system equal to those found in Europe and Japan. Unfortunately, cheap fuel, the rise of low-cost airlines and congressional inaction have undercut any momentum for a major investment in high-speed rail.
Today, however, with the cost of energy skyrocketing, and our air-travel system reaching its limits, demand for rail is outpacing supply.
That's why the next president and the new Congress should commit to building five new high-speed rail corridors in the next 10 years. The corridors would be selected based on three key criteria: geography (the flatter the terrain, the faster the train); a high probability of use (densely populated corridors with significant levels of highway and airborne traffic); and a commitment by the private sector, states and localities to share in the cost of construction. Wherever possible, the high-speed rail corridors should connect to major air hubs.
Roads and airports have direct sources of financing - namely, taxes on gasoline and ticket purchases. If high-speed rail is going to become a reality, it will need a similarly robust stream of income. That's why policymakers should establish a trust fund that would finance construction and maintenance. We could pay for this investment in a number of ways: carbon-offset purchases; a 4.3-cent diesel gas tax on the railroad industry that would raise about $200 million a year; ticket surcharges; and/or matching contributions from states served by the new rail lines.
A major investment in high-speed rail could dramatically decrease congestion at airports and on highways as well. A single railroad track, just 6 feet across, would provide the same capacity as expanding the Long Island Expressway by six lanes. Amtrak's high-speed Acela Express trains have already captured a significant portion of travelers between New York and Washington, competing with shuttle flights for passengers.
As for energy savings, even the most conservative studies give trains an advantage of 4 to 1 over cars and airplanes. According to studies done in Japan, high-speed trains produce one-tenth the carbon-dioxide emissions of airplanes.
With our economy most likely headed into a recession, another compelling argument for a major investment in high-speed rail is that it will help produce millions of new jobs and promote economic growth. A $20 billion investment in high-speed rail will create more than 300,000 jobs nationally. That ratio of investment to job creation compares quite favorably to the recently enacted federal stimulus package. According to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, the $150 billion stimulus will create only 500,000 jobs this year (a cost of $300,000 per job).
Since the Wright brothers, Americans have viewed the airplane as the future and trains as the past. These days, it looks more like the other way around. If we were meant to fly, we weren't meant to suffer this much for it. If we mean to get somewhere, we'll develop a high-speed rail system.
Here's another article:
www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-opree275702925may27,0,3126130.story
High-speed rail solution for chronic sky troubles
BY BRUCE REED AND PAUL WEINSTEIN JR | Bruce Reed is president of the Democratic Leadership Council. Paul Weinstein is chief operating officer of the Progressive Policy Institute and a visiting fellow at Johns Hopkins
If America's air travel system is any indication, the sky really is falling.
Flights have been canceled by the hundreds due to safety concerns. Four airlines have gone out of business since the end of March, in large part because of rising fuel costs. Six broad fare increases have gone into effect this year alone, along with new charges on everything from pillows to a first piece of checked luggage. And here in the New York metropolitan area, the nation's largest market, the delays have been so chronic that the federal government has imposed flight caps and installed a new "airport czar" to make sense of the mess.
And just think - the summer travel season is just beginning.
While the laws of supply and demand will undoubtedly correct some of the problems the airline industry faces, the future for air travelers is not so bright. Most economists agree that airline mergers, fewer flights, and new, more fuel-efficient planes will eventually help put the industry on stronger financial ground.
Unfortunately, these very measures will also mean higher prices, less choice, and fewer amenities for passengers. In the short term, passengers have two choices: fly less or pay more for an inferior service. But if the United States is serious about fixing the air-travel mess, there's a real, long-term solution: high-speed rail.
For years, some policymakers have called for a U.S. passenger high-speed rail system equal to those found in Europe and Japan. Unfortunately, cheap fuel, the rise of low-cost airlines and congressional inaction have undercut any momentum for a major investment in high-speed rail.
Today, however, with the cost of energy skyrocketing, and our air-travel system reaching its limits, demand for rail is outpacing supply.
That's why the next president and the new Congress should commit to building five new high-speed rail corridors in the next 10 years. The corridors would be selected based on three key criteria: geography (the flatter the terrain, the faster the train); a high probability of use (densely populated corridors with significant levels of highway and airborne traffic); and a commitment by the private sector, states and localities to share in the cost of construction. Wherever possible, the high-speed rail corridors should connect to major air hubs.
Roads and airports have direct sources of financing - namely, taxes on gasoline and ticket purchases. If high-speed rail is going to become a reality, it will need a similarly robust stream of income. That's why policymakers should establish a trust fund that would finance construction and maintenance. We could pay for this investment in a number of ways: carbon-offset purchases; a 4.3-cent diesel gas tax on the railroad industry that would raise about $200 million a year; ticket surcharges; and/or matching contributions from states served by the new rail lines.
A major investment in high-speed rail could dramatically decrease congestion at airports and on highways as well. A single railroad track, just 6 feet across, would provide the same capacity as expanding the Long Island Expressway by six lanes. Amtrak's high-speed Acela Express trains have already captured a significant portion of travelers between New York and Washington, competing with shuttle flights for passengers.
As for energy savings, even the most conservative studies give trains an advantage of 4 to 1 over cars and airplanes. According to studies done in Japan, high-speed trains produce one-tenth the carbon-dioxide emissions of airplanes.
With our economy most likely headed into a recession, another compelling argument for a major investment in high-speed rail is that it will help produce millions of new jobs and promote economic growth. A $20 billion investment in high-speed rail will create more than 300,000 jobs nationally. That ratio of investment to job creation compares quite favorably to the recently enacted federal stimulus package. According to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, the $150 billion stimulus will create only 500,000 jobs this year (a cost of $300,000 per job).
Since the Wright brothers, Americans have viewed the airplane as the future and trains as the past. These days, it looks more like the other way around. If we were meant to fly, we weren't meant to suffer this much for it. If we mean to get somewhere, we'll develop a high-speed rail system.
