Every once in a while, there comes a point in the American culture where the country faces a difficult choice about its transportation issues. Does it need to move forward or is it content with the system that it already has in place? And if it is to move forward, the question then becomes what exactly does that forward motion entail? In the United States, the rail system for the large part has dominated American history as an important part of industrial growth. Children grow up in elementary schools learning about the transcontinental railroad and how America was the first to create such an incredible system of transportation for both commercial and personal travel. Amtrak, one of the largest rail companies in the United States, boasts what it considers impressive statistics, with over 21,000 miles of tracks and over 300 trains in operation per day. Although these are impressive numbers, the development of rail technology in the United States is largely inferior to the rest of the world, having put more focus on commercial air travel and interstate highway travel than on rail systems.
But, new blood in Washington has begun cautiously, if not hesitantly, making pledges about improving the condition of the high-speed rail system in the United States. President Obama, at a meeting in 2009, discussed the implications of improving rail systems in other countries and how America should take the charge and lead the world in improving rail systems. At this same meeting he pointed out that “In France, high-speed rail has pulled regions from isolation, ignited growth, remade quiet towns into thriving tourist destinations. In Spain, a high-speed line between Madrid and Seville is so successful that more people travel between those cities by rail than by car and airplane combined.” He goes on to discuss that “There's no reason why the future of travel should lie somewhere else beyond our borders. Building a new system of high-speed rail in America will be faster, cheaper and easier than building more freeways or adding to an already overburdened aviation system –- and everybody stands to benefit” (Obama). It seems as though this would be a major point of interest to the Obama administration to look into. After all, the economy is in terrible shape. The Bureau of Labor Statistics recently released its consumer price index summary which showed a drastic rise in the price for fuel in the United States. It could then be inferred by a person absorbing all this information that the government would want to put a good deal of effort into improving the situation of efficient and cost-saving rail travel.
Sadly, it does not seem to be the case. Adie Tomer of The New Republic points out in an article from 2009 that while the revival in interest in rail travel is beneficial to the overall program, the propositions that are already being made lack in some fundamental areas. The plans call for new rail lines to be built between some large cities, but leave out large sections of the more mountainous terrain between California and Missouri. The plans also leave out some important connections between several large cities as well as connections that would make logical sense to be built. “There is no connection between Southern California and Phoenix or Tucson. Buffalo and Detroit are connected to the east and west, respectively, but don’t maintain connections to the Toronto metropolis. Jacksonville (FL) is connected to the north, but doesn’t maintain a connection to Orlando or the rest of Florida. And why are Dallas and Houston unconnected?” (Tomer). And on top of all of the rest of the problems in the plans, the plans themselves are outdated. Little to no revision has gone into the plans since 2000. If the government is adamant about making high-speed rail travel an integral and important part of the way Americans travel, then it would make sense that more would already be in the works to improving this system.
But the idea that improved rail travel is purely for economic benefits would be leaving out about half of the total idea. While economics can make or break whether or not a rail system gets off the ground in the first place, it falls to the side of social acceptance to keep the system afloat. Even if the United States had the ability to put in a fully-furnished high-speed rail system tomorrow with all of the latest technology and the best possible system of organization, it would not be enough in and of itself to keep it up and running. In other countries, rail is successful for a handful of reasons. An obvious one is the economic benefits, but the other is social integration. In Japan, high-speed rail is an integral part of life. People crowd onto trains that travel at incredible speeds and arrive at their destinations in a relatively short amount of time. And with the options of quick transportation from even the train station to another destination, travel becomes not a question of what is the fastest and easiest way, but rather a question of what way might be the more interesting today.
--John Lehman
No comments:
Post a Comment