Apparently the Bush Administration has taken out an entire pro-rail section of the latest Surface Transportation Commission Report. The Surface Transportation Commission voted 9-3 in favor of this Pro-rail section.
After the billions and billions of dollars we have spent on Iraq and Afghanistan, if we took half of those billions and put it all into rail infrastructure, enough people wouldn't have to drive to work everyday and we wouldn't need any mideast oil. If we could eliminate most flights between cities of 400 miles or less with 150+ miles per hour trains, people would flock to electrified high speed rail in droves!
The key points for why we need more rail transportation :
- Traffic congestion is increasing which is decreasing the quality of life
- Many urban areas fail to meet Federally-mandated air quality standards
- Urban freeways are difficult and expensive to construct
- Limited-access highways have a negative impact on urban vitality
- Increasing gasoline prices
Key points why rail is better than buses :
- Rail has been successful in drawing riders who normally would drive.
- Rail has a demonstrated ability to spur new development
- While buses can be electrified, not many have; electrified rail should be preferred for both environmental and national security reasons.
It is refreshing to see something come out of the government that I have always believed, yet the Bush administration just tosses it out.
An important excerpt:
In the face of the Global War on Terrorism, providing Americans with mobility that is not dependent on foreign oil may be second in importance only to securing our homeland against direct terrorist attack. Just as the Cold War brought about the National Defense Interstate Highway Act, so we think it probable that the future will require a National Defense Public Transportation Act. Current and near-future national transportation policy should take this likelihood fully into account.
As we look toward increasing reliance on public transportation, we must recognize that all public transit is not alike. In particular, public policy must acknowledge that buses and rail transit are not fungible. In addition to the obvious advantage of electrification, rail transit, including streetcars, light rail, heavy rail and commuter rail (which should in most cases be electrified once certain densities are reached) serve different markets and perform different functions from buses.
As an urban resident in Boston who lives near a heavy-rail subway station, it only makes sense to me that we should have more light rail/heavy rail/commuter rail systems. Even in Boston we need more subways, such as the 66 bus line (click on the Interactive Street Map) should really be a full-fledged subway line. Not the extremely slow overcrowded bus line that exists today. Yes rail infrastructure is more expensive to build, but it costs less to run the system because you only need one train driver for hundreds of people as opposed to 1 driver for approximately 50 people per bus.
Read the full commentary at :
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/...