Issakson Wants High-Speed Rail From ATL to DC
Decatur Metro | September 8, 2008Johnny Issakson is reaching across the aisle again, this time to some Senator from Massachusetts, to jump all-aboard a proposal to build a high-speed passenger rail-line from Birmingham, thru Atlanta to D.C according to the AJC’s Political Insider. (Birmingham??) There’s no mention of any further connections to NYC and Boston, but one would assume that a Boston to D.C. rail would also be a priority.
This, compounded with the announcement that the federal highway trust fund will run out of money this month, may make a lot of financial conservatives cringe. How can we spend any more money on some speculative project when we can’t even keep our millions of miles of highways and bridges from crumbling? Well, the argument that our highway system is unsustainable in the long run is a conversation for another day.
But right now, let’s think about this from an selfish Atlanta perspective.
Atlanta, like other train towns such as Denver and Chicago (post-Erie canal), is located where it is because of its topography. Sitting on the edge of the piedmont, just south of the Appalachians, was/is an ideal central southern hub for rail (looking past all the old city rail wars that determined ultimate supremacy). So guess what Atlanta? Though most of your transients love to ignore your rail birth and history like the lonely Atlanta train depot, which sits almost comically outside Underground below a mural of whales painted on the side of a parking deck, you’re all about rail.
A high-speed connection to the nation’s financial hubs could potentially be a boon for the city, and really help catapult Atlanta into the top tier of cities. With topography and history on our side, its little wonder why Issakson is on board.
And yes, building new things does cost money…but I’d argue that its just as big a gamble to continue to allow 85% of all federal transit funding to go to our highway system, while oil prices continue to rise and mass transit continues to nibble at the scraps.
Acting now, as Issakson is doing, could one day help Atlanta regain its national standing as a rail mecca (this time for passenger trains)…and not just a gridlocked mess.
h/t: Fresh Loaf
Oil prices have not continued to rise lately: the price of a barrel is down almost 40 bucks from its high a few months ago. Long term you definitely have a point, though.
While I whole-heartedly support the Senator on this point, a subtlety that he misses is that the existing passenger rail system (Amtrak) needs help to thrive and fulfill a mission that can be accomplished NOW. Even using existing technology (forget mag-lev) high speed rail is 10 or 12 years away. With lower cost and quicker improvements, Amtrak could fill a much larger need than it does now. Their ridership is up 20% this year to the highest point in history, but is now constrained by lack of equipment.
Good point DEM. I shouldn’t have been so general on that point.
Personally I think the recent decline verifies some concerns of speculation raising the price. It went up way too fast for there not to be. At the same time it doesn’t seem like much of corporate America (let alone politicos) is ready to stand up and say prices will ever be $2/gallon again. So the increase might not be as dramatic, but long-term (as you said) its looking more and more like a long-lasting increase.
Steve – very interesting. This AP article says that ridership was “up 14% in July and was the highest ridership for a single month in the service’s 37 year history”. I agree that more funding for Amtrak is more critical at this stage to “fill the gap”. In both cases (high-speed/Amtrak), going against the ever-powerful auto industry is a grueling, uphill battle.
I think a transfer of some of the highway funds to persue this would be one of the smartest things the fed could do…think about the waste of the connector project (the asphalt wasnt bad, but now it sure is blacker!), or the 316/85 interchange….100′s of millions of dollars so people can live further out, spend more time commuting and spend more of out tax dollars to put more sewer and curb and gutter and ashphalt…
its time we start thinking outside the asphalt box…
Im not supporting an increase of taxes…just a transfer of the avaliable funds.
new, there have been proposals in the past to earmark one-half cent of the federal gasoline tax for Amtrak, but it never got more than the talking stage. There was a state constitutional amendment several years ago to allow for some of the state motor fuel tax to be used for something other than roads and bridges, as required by the current constitution, but it went down in the “no tax increase” flames, even though Georgia’s gas tax is the lowest in the country. Also, isn’t it interesting that 3 out of the 4 percent sales tax that you pay on gasoline (that’s in addition to the motor fuel tax), goes to the DOT. I doubt if any of the sales tax you pay on a refrigerator goes to Frigidaire.
Giving money to Amtrack is throwing it down a black hole. Amtrack has been a mess for decades, offering generally poor service at very high rates, and, incredibly, losing money while doing so. And lots of it. Who is going to pay a few hundred bucks to spend 12 hours on Amtrack from Atlanta to DC, when Delta will fly you there in less than 2 hours for the same (and often, even less) money? Even the Acela, which is super-convenient between DC and NYC, has low ridership rates.
Add in this simple fact: even if more investments in Amtrack were a good idea, we don’t have the money. Just this weekend, the government spent tens of billions (at least) it doesn’t have to prop up two more disasterous government experiments, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. And of course it’s all chump change compared to the trillions of unfunded social security and medicare liability we’re facing, yet determined to ignore.
I agree that oil is not going down to $2/gallon any time soon. Speculation drove oil’s increase to a point, but fundamentals — the world needs lots and lots of oil and production may have peaked short term — are a huge driver. The key is production. If we drill offshore and at ANWAR the price could decline further. Political considerations may force that, even in an Obama administration. Long term, though, drilling is clearly not a solution, since there’s only so much oil to be had no matter where we drill for it.
I would love to see Atlanta as a hub for high speed rail travel. It could be a 21st century growth catalyst (see: 20th century & Airport).
There will be multiple problems going forward. First, steel prices are ridiculous. Second, high speed rail is in demand everywhere but here. Third, there is a limited number of firms who can lay the fused rails necessary for high speed travel.
I want this pretty bad. Sorry to be a killjoy.
DEM, it’s Amtrak, not Amtrack. And, it’s not and has never been meant to replace the airlines. Amtrak is the only public long distance transportation for literally hundreds of communities in the US. Properly implemented, trains can be the fastest form of transportation – period – downtown to downtown for distances less than 300 miles and the most energy efficient to boot. No security waits, no ground stops, no weather delays. Passenger rail offers an alternative and should be supported. BTW, if you think that Amtrak is the only form of passenger transportation that is subsized, you need a little more research.
Raleigh Urbain, the central issue is not who can lay the rails – the railroads themselves do it all the time. More critical is who can build the equipment. There are no native passenger car builders in the US. But even more critical is having a national policy to encourage transportation alternatives (read “other than roads”). The reason Europe and Japan have much better rail systems is because it’s a matter of policy.
I would love that option, especially traveling with a small child. Great memories of going to DC on Amtrak in a sleeper car with my family to go sightseeing. It was the opposite of driving to an airport, parking, waiting in lines, rushing: all equals stressful travel. Plus I’m of the mind that by taking some time to get somewhere your head has transitioned at the same rate as your body!
Everyone I know in DC (and that’s a lot) love taking Amtrak, even the slow one, to NYC. It’s the only way to travel there. Plus who doesn’t love arriving in Union Station? Maybe Atlanta would get a nice station too.
Actually, Amtraks Acela runs between Boston and DC via Penn Station in Manhattan stopping at Providence RI and New Haven (Yale University). This line actually has exceptionally high ridership. I use it once a quarter to attend to my clients Yale Medical Group and Cornell Hospital in Manhattan and the trains are most always full. People may not take the full Birmingham to DC route but I guarantee they would take shorter routes in between to avoid the hassles of flying. Even though by train its 4 hours between Boston and NYC (going at around 120 miles per hour), its much more convenient (direct from the heart of downtown Boston to the heart of downtown Manhattan) and pleasant experience to take the train. It takes about the same amount of time to fly from Boston’s Logan to LaGuardia if you don’t get hung up by delays at either airport (especially LaGuardia). Amtrak may not have a great reputation nationally, but for whatever reason they take this northeastern route very, very seriously. The trains rarely experience delays and the trains are clean and staff professional. Business people on the northeastern Boston to D.C. corridor expect nothing less than the utmost efficiency and high quality service.
Our country desperately needs efficient high speed rail transport. I think we are the only developed country in the world behind the 8-ball on this.
My understanding is that the Northeast Corridor (DC to Boston) is actually a profitable route. It’s the rural spurs and cross country lines supported through congressional earmarks that really kill Amtrak. That and the fact that they rent capacity from freight lines virtually guaranteeing that you’ll be sitting in the middle of South Carolina for three hours with the engine off while they wait for a train full of rubber dog poop to pass by en route from China.
If such a line ran through places like G/SP, Charlotte, and Raleigh with “acela style” speed, it could be very cool.
Steve, so sorry for the misspelling. Of course I never said Amtrak was the only subsidized form of transportation. Whether other companies get subsidies, however, is quite irrelevant to whether Amtrak should get even more subsidies.
Maybe Amtrak is the only PUBLIC transportation system for some US communities. But even if so, so what? I have a hard time believing that any US communities are completely sequestered from private forms of transportation — Greyhound, for example — so it’s not as if the residents of west Texas can’t get to Oklahoma if they want to.
The rest of your post deals with an idealized version of what Amtrak might be, not what it is, or for that matter, has ever been. I can argue that if we poured billions more into airlines, we’d have a super-fast way of getting from A to B with world-class service, or that if we gave GM and Chrysler $50 billion, we’d get cheap and effective hybrid cars. (Looks like we’ll give them the $50 billion anyway). Maybe we would. But that kind of speculation is meaningless. I’d rather look at the actual record of Amtrak, recognize it for the financial disaster it is, and consider alternatives to handing a proven failure even more money we don’t have.
As for no security waits, ground delays, etc., all of that is already true. And the fact is, for the most part, Amtrak still can’t come close to breaking even, because people choose other forms of transportation over Amtrak.
So what’s the solution? Privatize it?
DEM, Greyhound has cut back severely on its routes and that’s why some communities are only left with Amtrak – ask some folks in the upper midwest, for instance.
You’re right, Amtrak doesn’t break even and never will, but neither does any other form of transportation, including highways.
And no, Decatur Metro, privatizing is not the solution. That’s the reason Amtrak was established to begin with – the railroads wanted out of the passenger business.
Greyhound and rail can conceivably switch to an alternate fuel model as circumstances demand but that’s not going to happen to air travel. We’re already seeing the impact of rising petroleum costs on the airlines: the smaller players are shaking out.
Now, and for the foreseeable future, commercial aviation is doomed to one of two fates: if you’re a doom and gloom type, look for death of the industry; if you’re a more positive person, count on a return to the time when air travel was the purview of the rich.
Which is all to say that, in the span of a decade or so, us normal folks are going to need a way to get around and keep our economy humming. Countries and U.S. cities well served by viable rail networks will be the winners. The interstate highway system was and is a great example of putting all one’s eggs in a single basket. Monocultures are deadly.
Steve – Right I understand that…but if energy prices go up, demand could make it profitable again. Just look at freight…or the numbers you cited earlier.
From what I can tell, you and DEM don’t disagree about whether to fund rail, but whether Amtrak would ‘do right’ with any extra cash.
Thanks both to Scott and Decatur Metro.
the irony of all this is that Atlanta already has mag lev…a 2000′ study track between Austell and Powder Springs.
any need to go between those two towns at 200mph?
For me the biggest thing is the allocation of tax dollars. We throw so much money at automobile infrastructure, when it needs to be reallocated towards a rail/maglev/something else technology. But the government is not forward thinking, they are just reactionary.
My BIGGEST frustration is that I pay, through taxes, just as much as a person who drives 30 miles to work on the expressway when I only drive 5 or 6 on local roads. there is no way that cost difference is just made up in gas tax. Much of road construction cames through city and county taxes, that we all pay, even if we dont have a car!!!!
I dont pretend to have an answer to this problem, but I wish it was more of a use based tax, cause its not really. We all pay the burdon whether we use it or not.
Marta, for examply, is a bit more use based i think…while not perfect, you dont pay taxes to use it if you live outside Fulton or Dekalb. Imagine if Marta got not only city and local, but state taxes as well (as our road infrastructure does)!
Actually Marta is the only rail transit system in the USA that is not funded at the state level.
I’m all for Maglev…although it would take an Eisonhower (sp?) type innitative to get it up and running. and a realocation (not increase IMO) of our tax dollars.
new, the problem with maglev is that it is extremely over-hyped. It only operates commercially one place in the world and there it will never pay for itself in its lifetime. It may be suitable where stops are 30 or 40 miles apart but even then it is very expensive. Today’s proven technology that is in daily use now can produce end-to-end transit times that are nearly as quick at a fraction (like 1/2 to 1/3) of the cost. I am aware of the test track in Cobb county, but that is the same company who tried to make it work in Virginia before exiting the project after large cost overruns and technical glitches.
well, thats fine, I am just on board the train “bandwagon”. If they have 1/3 cost system I’m all for it. Just need to get the feds on board!!
I am not, however, on the bandwagon “bandwagon”, as I dont have a band…nor a wagon.
to washington? yeah right. why don’t you try to get rail to gwinnett county first?
O-Gee, you need to tell your State legislators that. They’re the ones who hold the pursestrings.
steve, i’ll jump on that. purse strings to the 1.6 billion dollar deficit wil be as effective as my laudable kvetching. o.g.
O-Gee, I’m simply telling you what has to happen. If you want rail service, you have to tell them; it’s not going to happen on its own.
Amtrak does need to be privatized but that would take a grand initiative that no high level politician has the backbone in this country to undertake. The only one that has mentioned it is Obama and that topic seems to have fallen off his radar as of late. The subsidies given to Amtrak are ‘miniscule’ compared to the dollars thrown at the Iraq operation to secure oil resources for our country. Completely miniscule. I have a friend named Drew who works as a Transporation Planner for the city of Seattle and he keeps tabs on Amtrak funding. It is an absolute joke. I wish I had the numbers in front of me but unfortunately I don’t.
steve, thanks for the lecture. i thought it would happen on its own. t.o.g.
The thing that most people don’t understand about the rail debate is that the auto lobby has been arguing that the future belongs to the car for decades. These lobbyists have been very effective in shaping our country’s infrastucture. They have spent the last 50 plus years getting railroad tracks ripped out of the ground. Perfect example–We had light rail from Decatur to Atlanta going down Ponce. What happened? General Motorsand other lobbyists convinced our leadership to tare it out to make room for the automobile. Now we are left with sprawl and unusable city centers. I say back to the future with rail. Privatizing rail is a nightmare. Every successful rail system in the world gets tax money. Spend it on updating domestic rail or send it oversees so that another Arabian Prince can have another gold plated toilet seat for his spare yacht. Plus, I love traveling by train. It’s so stress free when well executed.
Anyone that’s seen “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?” knows the evils of the auto lobby and what they did to the nation’s inner-city rail system.
How could anyone support the auto industry after watching Christopher Lloyd submerge that poor, defenseless cartoon shoe in “dip”!?
JohnD, we still have light rail from Decatur to downtown. It’s called MARTA. Do you want the govt to invest the tens of millions it cost to build MARTA while maintaining a competing light rail system down Ponce? Seems like a huge waste to me.
Rick, the subsidies thrown at Amtrak have been over $1 billion/year for a while now. Comparing that to the Iraq war spending is simply a red herring; the two are very separate issues. Plus, even if you completely disagree with the war and think it’s a waste of money, that hardly justifies wasting more money on Amtrak. We should evaluate Amtrak on its merits.
I agree it would be hard to privatize Amtrak but we need to take a very hard look at it, because the current form does not work. The management is so incompetent that they actually lose money on foodservice — yes, they can’t manage to sell food and drinks at a profit to a captive audience. Why? Because it’s easier to whine and have the government just hand over a check for the operating deficits.
Dear DEM,
Marta is not light rail. I’m talking about street level cars, connecting important city centers. I’m also not just talking about Atlanta. Many mid-scale cities could benefit from true light rail. How many US cities even have any rail at all as a form of public transportation? Not many.
It is easy to poo-poo attempts at increasing rail ridership, however, the alternative is really the car and the airplane. Neither one of their futures looks that bright financially nor ecologically. Gas and jet fuel prices are going up and up despite this small dip in prices. Americans have ignored the benefits of rail so much for so long that I know it looks hopeless. We need a national effort to use better forms of transportation and rail seems logical to any civilized country but our own. The tracks are there, the airports are like a slow ride through hell and our highways are getting worse year by year with dangerous tractor-trailers.
It always strikes me as funny when people get so upset by using tax money for a project like improving our infrastructure. They want to privatize everything, because government projects are allegedly always wastful. Sometimes public interest and investment yield the best results for business. European governments work in conjunction with their big businesses to ensure an economic national plan with some level of security. Here in America people would scream “socialism.” Some of our best infrastructure is taxpayer funded and not for profit, and somewhat “socialist.” Fire departments aren’t privatized– neither is the police force nor the Eisenhower Interstate system, nor the Space Shuttle. Not everything should be so cut-throat capitalistic. Some projects are worth federal tax money. Rail, in my book, is worth it. I’d rather allocate the money to rail of any kind than send it overseas at $200 a barrel for the rest our lives. Rail is probably the most overlooked form of transportation in this country. It won’t solve everything, but it is one big important step into a smarter future.
Go, JohnD !
As to DEM’s comment that the Iraq war and the the funding of Amtrak are totally seperate issues. To me they are so intertwined it’s not even funny. Since WWII Americans have continually felt the need to police the world rather than spend that money on its own people. It’s time to pull the reigns back on the military-industrial complex. Building and stockpiling weapons eventually leads to finding or even creating a use for those weapons. If we actually spent our money on something tangible and useful for America we would have better schools, rails, healthcare, etc. Instead, we will spend trillions on fighting a war that can’t be won. When I here Republicans say that the surge is “working” I laugh. They don’t even know what working means. If winning the war in Iraq means spending trillions of American tax payer money so that Iraq can be free and democratized, I would rather lose. Seriously, if there is a Republican out there listening and you know what winning in Iraq would really be, let me know. I can’t think of a winning scenario.
No one said government projects are always wasteful. I said Amtrak is wasteful. It is. The numbers speak for themselves. We’ve tried running Amtrak on the taxpayer’s dime. It’s not working — ridership is generally low,, the service is poor, it is horribly managed, and the requests for more funding are never-ending. What more would you need to see to be convinced that trying something else is appropriate?
As for a national effort for different forms of transportation, I do agree with you to an extent. The airlines can’t lose money forever, and oil won’t last forever. Which means, be patient. Major changes are inevitable and will come even if the government doesn’t force them.
JohnD, I would respectfully suggest that if you can’t separate the Iraq war from Amtrak, you are a little bit obsessed. I presume you did not mean we “don’t spend money on our own people” literally, because it’s untrue. Even with the Iraq war, we spend more on domestic entitlements than defense.
I am not saying that Amtrak doesn’t have its weaknesses. I think we both agree that Amtrak does stink to some degree. What I am arguing is that is deserves to be reevaluted as a bigger priorty and thusly improved. Let’s make it better rather than sit back and disreguard its potential. Yes, DEM, you are correct in assuming I am a little obsessed with ending the Iraq War and spending that money domestically. It’s like the bumper sticker says, “If you’re not outraged you are not paying attention.” From my point of view, any patriot should be obsessed with its government fighting a false war on our dime. All I’m saying is you can only spend it once. Domestic entitlements should be more than military spending. I’m not saying we aren’t spending money on our citizens. I am saying we could spend more on domestic issues and infrastructure if we weren’t fighting a war with no clear objective other than wasting money on it.
DEM:
“ridership is generally low” – it’s setting new records every month right now
“the service is poor” – examples, please
“The airlines can’t lose money forever” – they’re doing a pretty good job right now, despite nickel and dimeing for everything
“the requests for more funding are never-ending” – yep, they’re subsized just like every other form of transportation – it’s just that theirs is much more visible. Privatizing would still require “subsidies” because transportation is not a money-making proposition.
You can’t defund something until it’s virtually incapable of providing a competitive service, then use its failure to be profitable as proof it doesn’t work.
Look at MARTA, the only major metropolitan rail system in the country that doesn’t get state funding — and it shows in the quality of its service and its infrastructure.
Building a competitive rail infrastructure will require the same commitment we gave to our automotive and airline infrastructures — both of which were built with federal subsidies out the wazoo. We just called them “investments” instead of “subsidies.” That way it’s free market.
Enough with this chicken vs. egg business. After 9/11, we dumped well over a billion dollars into private airlines to keep the afloat. Rail has to stop being about whether or not Amtrak is a suitable managing entity. It’s about admitting that our present system is unsustainable and without “investment” in new/revived modes of transit, we’re screwing our grandkids for a couple more years of the high life.
What would success in Iraq look like? I don’t know….perhaps the Battle of Thermopolaye might shed some light on it:
http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message/2006_04.htm
This country is turning into a bunch of whining ninnies.
Sorry…meant Thucydides.
Well put, Scott. BTW, the 9/11 “investment” in airlines was more like $5B and Amtrak was given $300M. The Washington Post at the time ran a great editorial cartoon showing the airlines running down the Capitol steps with huge bags of $$ and a little Amtrak character at the bottom with his hat out. And, in case you haven’t noticed, the airlines are even now asking for loan guarantees from the feds because of their current woes.
I dropped an email to my friend Drew (the transport planner in Seattle) to get some clarity on the Amtrak numbers relative to other forms of transport.
The auto industry is now crying out for help from the federal govt for billions of dollars to retool manufacturing plants so that they can produce more energy efficient cars. (I am sure they will get almost what they are asking for. BTW- where are all these billions of dollars coming from? Are they just printing money? Scary.) All the high level auto execs in American companies should be fired for gross incompetence.
I think Amtrak and the Iraq Occupation (its not a war…it started as a resource grabbing war thats turned into an occupation) are completely interrelated. To see how this country is perilously placing itself in debt due to the war and subsequent occupation, please see the always updated numbers in:
http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com
The Republican party at the national level can continue to tout family and religious values all it wants. Its a front for the sickness of the burgeoning military industrial complex.
Amtrak gets around a billion a year in federal money. Someone tell me how that equals “defunding” it to the point that it can’t provide services.
I’m against giving money to the airlines and very strongly against giving loans to the automakers. But the fact that we have done that in the past just doesn’t justify giving money to Amtrak. Your arguments boil down to assertions that, since the government is a profligate spender, we shouldn’t care whether Amtrak will waste the money. I’d rather see us invest taxpayer money wisely in every case, rather than throw up our hands and use past stupid investments to justify more of the same in the future.
Rick — the war certainly isn’t helping our debt situation, but even if we had never spent a dime on it, we’d be in very deep trouble financially. Social security and medicare alone have us on a road to bankruptcy.
Anyway, this has been a good discussion, but I think we’ll likely have to agree to disagree.
Not quite, DEM. I’m not advocating for Amtrak at all. What I’m saying is that, if you want to have an apples-to-apples discussion that paints rail as a failure, you need to fund it comparably to our automotive and air modes. We’re actually not far apart. You have a similar proposition in reverse — not giving money to the airlines and automakers.
That would still level the playing field, just in the opposite direction. Once we reduce the highway crew and air industry to a billion dollars a year each as well, we’ll be able to see who’s really the responsible steward and effective business entity.
Until then, it’s just a question of how we establish our national priorities. Given trends in petroleum, I see a future in rail.
Scott and Steve, you guys are dead on accurate.
Read through the comments from the beginning of this discussion. As it evolved into geo political policy, I began to wonder why, would someone even need high speed rail from Atlanta to DC ? Could it be so more polititcians & lobbyists can get there to seek and spend our cash ?
The solution ? Video conferencing. Stay home, get to know your kids, wife & neighbors.
Its the nature of commerce in a liberal market economy. There will always be a need to interact and do business with other citizens on a local, regional, national, and international basis…or even just visit family. I have family all over this country. Sure, its great to stay home, but its also important to get out of our environments periodically to gain broader perspectives on our world. The more options to readily move around, the better for all of us.
I doubt if the grandparents would much like seeing the grandchildren on videoconference. Rail represents another transportation alternative that we should be able to choose, and besides, in our suddenly energy-conscious world, it is the most efficient way to move people.
To Rick & Steve- your relatives live all over the place because of the mobility of the car over the last 60-70 years- and the choice of a liberal market economy to favor it. If rail were a more efficient way to move people around this country, it also would still be favored. It works for people where distances aren’t too long, and population densities are larger.(No conspiracy theories please)
Nothing is as flexible as in automobile for travel. I do not favor another government effort to re-invent a wheel that went off the tracks a long time ago. Let’s work on making cars technology viable for another 100 years. How about a next step technology for cars with “smart lanes” that program speeds & “auto drive” over long distances(For Grandma). Embedding an existing roadway with that technology seems easier than laying heavy rail suitable for high speeds. Any way, we won’t solve anything here–but it is fun to fence.
Citizen, while I agree that the flexibility of the car had a lot to do with its chosen high-status by the market economy, its not really a conspiracy theory to state that the WPA ripped up most of the city trolley lines back in the 30s. Or that mass transit is severely underfunded in the U.S. Or that the automobile is the most inefficient form of transportation in urban areas. Or that our promotion of democracy in places like China and India has made energy much more expensive. Or that parking lots have wiped out many of urban parks and historic buildings.
What we must continue to evaluate is whether all that flexibility has been worth it.
Some would say it was the auto lobby the hijacked the transport discussions way back when that led to the Interstate Highway System.
I’m sure there are many people that would choose rail if it traveled at 200+ miles per hour (as it many developed countries) and went from city center to city center (or wherever the business centers are) Acela in the Northeast goes from downtown Boston (financial hub) to Back Bay (business hub) to the 128 connector (tech hub) to downtown Providence (business and govt hub) to New Haven (university hub) to Penn Station (speaks for itself hub). The cost of trains is coming down. People have an impression that heavy rail is MARTA. MARTA is too heavy. I don’t understand why they continue with those trains but hey…at least its a start. Its a foundation to build from if enough educated people continue to move here and start making some needed changes to this transport mess. The one problem I could obviously see is dealing with land use laws which is probably what is holding up some progress.
I’ve heard about the smart lanes technology that you speak of above. I think I recall they were testing it somewhere in the Miami area recently. Another valid option…. however with projected population growth in the Atlanta area expected to top 7+ million over the next couple of decades, the rate things are going no one is going to be able to move anywhere in thier cars. Afternoon rush hour on the connectors is already from 3:00pm to 7:00pm and continues to expand. I hear nightmare stories of people that can’t get out of their driveways or housing developments anymore because the traffic is so bad. I think rail is a sustainable option and there are other regional business cities that it could connect to. Most would avoid flying or driving to Charlotte or Memphis or places like that if there were options to get there in a couple of hours.