My answer to our dependence of ME oil.

[caledesi]

Take it for what you want.

Why don't we emulate Europe and go full force into revamping our rail system. A major project, no doubt, but in the long run, we gradually lose a major part of our dependence of ME oil.

Like the highway system from years ago, we develop a super train, mass transit system that goes to EVERY place in the US (just like Europe), so when you go to work, shopping etc...just hop on the nearest train.

Would you utilize this system especially with the tenuous situation with oil?



French TGV Trains - nice huh?

Comments?

edit: usual stuff

[slor]

1. "A major project" that would have helped with...

oil overuse, and created quite a few jobs too. But when you blow money on tax cuts for people that do not need it, and a stupid pointless war, well, you may not have money for a smart project like you suggest.

[Telly Savalas]

12. Then undo the damn tax cuts and end the war.

[Salviati]

2. As long as it was well designed it would be great...

that is to say an integrated system of interstate, intrastate, and intracity mass transit.

An interstate system that would span the country, stopping in the largest city or two in each state. It takes 26 hours to drive from Seattle to Minneapolis, the train shoudn't have to take two times longer because it stops in every little podunk town (heck, it should take less than half the time). An intrastate system to get you from city to city, and to feed into the interstate system, and an intracity system to get you to work and to the store, as well as feed into the other two.

[arcane1]

3. sure, I'd use it, and it's a splendid idea.... however:

your average American isn't used to having readily-available public trans, and will thus fight tooth-&-nail to keep their cars, which for so long were the physical representation of the "freedom" the country stood for

sad, but true :(

[Lydia Leftcoast]

4. It wouldn't be a matter of forcing people to give up cars

It would be a matter of providing attractive alternatives that ENTICE people to give up cars.

I'm a die-hard transit advocate, and I fully understand why more people don't ride the Twin Cities' transit system, which doesn't run often enough or go the places people want to go or follow any logical plan. I take it when I can, but unlike Portland, I have to drive at times, and I hate it.

(For one thing, I've spent $3000 on car expenses--repairs, gas, and insurance for a paid-up car--each year as opposed to about $720 a year in Portland for a system-wide transit pass.)

We could sell transit partly by reminding people that each car they get rid of gives them an immediate tax-free rise in income of several thousand dollars.

[caledesi]

7. Excellent points: $ spent of car repair etc would be a great

talking point for the campaign and the tax-free income is a great idea.

Wish we could start a "grass roots" thing when we take the House.

I am sure we DUers could really brainstorm and come up with some great ideas and maybe get at least a few Dem Pols behind it.

[caledesi]

6. Yes, I have thought about this as well. The private car is such a

"symbol" of America and being American.

But, take New York. Most people who live in the city do not have cars and riding the subway is a mainstay. Doesn't mean you "poor" etc.

Well the American "dream" is over folks and people have to be re-educated and a major campaign for mass transit might do, if done right.

Anyone who has been to Europe knows what a wonderful rail system they have. When I was in Europe, never rented a car. I could walk to ANY corner, not much more than 1/4 mile away and jump on a train that went ANYWHERE and EVERYWHERE...small towns, big cities...you name it.

My idea is to have the same type of system...not just big cities...everywhere.

As an aside, this idea came to me, because I have been thinking about my experiences in Europe and remember the amazement of the rail system.

We have to change. That's it. To reiterate, we need a MAJOR campaign to
get people used to the idea.

It's so simple.

[Burried News]

5. Maybe we should build high speed rail for freight first? One obstacle to

high speed rail is that users would be brought to heavily populated suburbs or cities with an insufficient public transportation network. Obviouysly these networks should never have been left to atrophy - but they have. Those opposed to high speed rail cite the fact that we would have to build a vast amount of infrastructure, too expensive, would require relocation of city residents and alot of other yadayada.

But freight could be moved in containers and transferred to short haul trucks. Those networks are live and well. Materials and produce could be moved coast to coast in less than a day. This would make goods cheaper, highways safer and save fuel. In addition the airlines would not be threatened and presumably would not fight high speed rail.

The trains should be constructed on existing highway medians; when the public sees the trains moving at high speed I think it will demand access to this same system.

[caledesi]

8. Excellent point! See what I mean? We could brainstorm here

and come up with a multitude of advantages.

[kath]

9. But those damned Yurpeens are SOCIALISTS, don'cha know? And socialists

are EEEE-VUL!!

[eppur_se_muova]

10. Recent generations of Americans have been taught to regard trains...

as dirty, uncomfortable, & unpleasant. But there was a time when train travel was regarded as comfortable and elegant -- the "jet set" luxury of the day. And the New York subway system was literally the envy of the world (don't laugh -- it is sad but true). But the commuter rail lines were bought up by the Big Three automakers and closed down, the rails torn up. (I saw an excellent documentary on this -- http://www.newday.com/films/Taken_for_a_Ride.html This is a MUST SEE film!) Some insights into the fate of the NYC subway system in particular can be found in Robert A. Caro's "The Power Broker", a biography of Robert Moses, who was responsible for much of the bridge and highway construction in the NYC area. In one of the last chapters he discusses the social costs of Moses' building programs -- and drops a couple of real bombshells (I won't spoil it, if you haven't read the book).

[jpak]

11. I'm sorry

But the Chimp sez we's got to git to Mars first....

:evilgrin:

[Ron Green]

13. I wrote a paper almost 30 YEARS AGO

advocating this very thing, bemoaning only the fact that we should've acted earlier, when right-of-way much much less expensive. A 50-cent-per-gallon tax on gasoline would have paid for it (that would have brought gas prices up to almost a dollar and a half).