Obama- Highspeed Rail = Helps with Jobs, Infrastructure, energy independence, global warming....

[FrenchieCat]

So, I like.

Obama may be a boon for high-speed rail

The president-elect is determined to slash greenhouse gas emissions, reduce dependency on fossil fuel and restore our transportation infrastructure.

Among his ideas to address climate change and the skyrocketing cost of fuel, he said he favors a major expansion of high-speed rail service.

"We could connect the Midwest with a high-speed rail system that would provide immediate jobs," he said, adding that it would also be a "much more energy-efficient" alternative to air transport.

The Obama administration is likely to look favorably on not only the development of new high-speed intercity rail corridors like the one California voters reauthorized with Proposition 1A, but on Amtrak and other public transportation investment.

Obama seems determined to slash greenhouse gas emissions, reduce dependency on fossil fuel, and restore the country's transportation infrastructure, in part through the creation of a proposed National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank.

Record gasoline prices and assorted problems with air travel have done much to push the U.S. toward the appropriate frame of mind. Meanwhile, the nation's passenger rail system -- once the target of much ridicule -- has started picking up passengers in record numbers. Revenues are hitting new highs.

Amtrak carried 14 percent more customers in fiscal 2008, which ended Sept. 30, than it did in fiscal 2007, the sixth straight year of increases. A record-setting 5.5 million passengers rode Amtrak's California routes.

But the American Public Transportation Association says 85 percent of rail systems, like Amtrak, fall short of the capacity to accommodate peak-hour demand. In other words, America will need more track and more trains, and soon.

Over the past quarter-century, a succession of Republican presidents, abetted by members of Congress from both parties, have tried to tear down Amtrak and end its annual handout.

More....
http://www.cmt-stl.org/blog/2008/06/obama-discusses-high-speed-rail.html

what do you think about that?

[NYC_SKP]

1. Recommended...

...for Mother Earth.

It's about time, long overdue, that's my president!

[FrenchieCat]

4. See, these are the type of ideas that excite me!

That's the kind of change I can believe in!

Wish that fucker Bush would have left something other than an IOU in the till.
His legacy will continue to stymie our progress for a long time....that buffoon!

[blm]

22. Kerry submitted the high speed rail bill last week...he worked on it for years and is taking

the opportunity of having a Dem senate pass the bill and a newly sworn in Dem president to sign the bill ASAP.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/25/95822/061/985/666177

[boppers]

2. Rail will surge

As will wind, tidal, telecommuting, anything that makes us travel "lighter".

That being said part of the *problem* is people traveling.

Culturally, we need to get past handshakes and face to face meetings, or replace such primitive rituals with newer ones.

[Trajan]

3. I think it is a great idea myself ...

I am not sure as to the economics of high speed rail travel versus current AMTRAK models ....

If they integrate such national, interstate level transport initiatives with county and city wide light rail ... We just might reach a critical mass that gets LARGE increases in ridership .... Portland Oregon has a wonderful system in place, and I know many use the Portland/Seattle Amtrak line already ...

It has to be a reasonable cost to build AND ride, with reasonable access and reasonable possibility of paying for itself ...

Im in ....

[davidpdx]

14. I'd love to see a Seattle to LA (or SD)

High speed rail system developed. The west coast really needs a better way of traveling as Amtrak is so outdated and has a bad problem with delays. I have my doubts this will happen though. Everything is pretty much Eastcoast oriented in terms of funding and the excuse will be "well there isn't enough people living out there".

[xxqqqzme]

5. Yes, yes, yes

If this gets underway, I will be thrilled beyond reason that I voted for Obama.

(BTW, this was also a Dean idea. Talked about very little but Howard talked about it @ LA's Union Station during that campaign.)

[karynnj]

24. I think MOST Democrats did - notably Frank Lautenberg

In 2004, the Democrat with the longest, strongest record on this was Kerry

Kerry, who spoke of it as both an economic and an environmental issue in 2004. It was also in his and Teresa's book "This moment on Earth". Before you say it, this was not copying Dean, they were both independently for a good idea. Kerry fought for high speed rail since he entered public service. Thomas only goes back until 1989 - and here is what I found - from October 27, 1990 - Kerry here is making certain that the House/Senate conference contained the money to fund "high speed" rail.

"Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to engage the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator from New Jersey , in a brief colloquy regarding the provision of funds for the Northeast corridor Improvement Program. The conferees have recommended $14 million for dual-propulsion locomotives under this program, and my inquiry to the Senator is whether it is his understanding that the intent of the conferees was that these funds would be available for the development and procurement of prototype dual-propulsion locomotives capable of operating at speeds of up to 125 mph between New York and Boston?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That was the conferees' intention.

Mr. KERRY. Is it also the Senator's understanding that the funds provided could be used to procure the prototype power cars necessary to operate two train sets for high speed Northeast corridor service?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is my understanding as well.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from New Jersey, and want to express to him and to the Senator from New York , my appreciation for their support of this important initiative to provide high quality, high speed rail service on the Northeast corridor between New York and Boston. "

His earlier speech on June 12, 1990 brings out some of the same points he makes today.

"Mr. President, Amtrak is a critical component of our Nation's transportation system. Amtrak provides intercity and commuter rail passenger service in the United States on a network that extends from coast to coast. Approximately half of Amtrak's traffic and revenues are generated in the passenger corridor that extends from Boston to Washington, DC. This system carries more than 20 million passengers more than 5 billion passenger miles each year, and, its operating deficit has been declining significantly in recent years. For the people of Massachusetts Amtrak provides a critical link to the rest of our Nation and is an important part of the economic infrastructure of our economy. Amtrak is an essential part of America's future and the future of Massachusetts. In Boston and throughout Massachusetts the thousands who ride our commuter rail system every day and the tens of thousands who travel in and out of our State every year understand its value.

Moreover, just think for a moment about the environmental implications of Amtrak's 5 billion plus passenger miles each year that would have to be traveled by car or by plane if Amtrak were not available. Everyone in politics these days claims to be an environmentalist. But, when the speeches are over and the real work is done, it is support for environmentally critical basic services like Amtrak that make difference between environmental improvement and deterioration.

And, as I have said many times before, Federal support of Amtrak is one of the most cost-effective investments America's taxpayers have ever made. Just imagine the ten of billions of dollars in additional taxpayer dollars it would be necessary to spend on roads and bridges and airports if Amtrak and its workers were not on the job. And, imagine the highway deaths and injuries that would result from the inevitable increase in highway travel and congestion that Americans without Amtrak would endure.

Mr. President, I have opposed administration attempts to kill Amtrak since the day I arrived in the Senate. In fact, as Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts I helped to rally support for this important service. I am very sorry that their administration has chosen to continue this misguided opposition of its predecessor to Amtrak. I was hoping that a `kinder and gentler' President would look beyond ideology to the real and unmatchable value of this system to our people.

As a Senator from Massachusetts, I am looking forward to improved Amtrak service in the Northeast. We have a great opportunity to begin to provide fast train service from Boston to New York. The legislation before us includes a provision which I proposed that will lead us to much more rapid service between Boston and New York.The benefits of this service to my State are tremendous and have been fostered and endorsed by the coalition of Northeast Governors who have been working toward this goal for many years.

But, Mr. President, as I argue again for Amtrak and reiterate my full support, I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to raise one serious concern.

Mr. President, I am concerned with the trend in labor-management relations at Amtrak. I am hearing too frequently from the men and women who make Amtrak what it is today, that they are unhappy and concerned with the way in which they are being treated. This simply must be revised in the interest of all of us.

We must be able to attract and retain the best railworkers available in Amtrak. Only a well trained, well motivated, highly productive and fairly compensated labor force is capable of keeping Amtrak safe, efficient, and attractive to our passengers.

In conclusion, Mr. President, I call in all of my colleagues to join me in overriding this unfortunate Presidential veto. A strong, healthy, productive passenger rail system, operated by dedicated men and women who are paid an equitable wage, is vital to the economic security and environmental health of this country and of Massachusetts. I recommit myself and my full efforts to Amtrak, its workers and its passengers, to see that our shared vision of our passenger rail future is realized."

[karynnj]

25. Here is a Biden speech from the same Congress (April 1989)

Mr. BIDEN. Through much of the 1980's, rail passenger service, and Amtrak in particular, has been a notion under siege. In each of its budget requests of recent years, the Reagan administration called for dismantling Amtrak, and on a yearly basis Congress rejected that proposal. And while the Amtrak system survived, during the Reagan years there was almost no active consideration of the role of rail service in our Nation's transportation plans. It is time for us to look to Amtrak to fill important roles in our future transportation plans.

Since its creation in 1971, Amtrak has largely been viewed as a creature of the Northeast. That is where its resources are concentrated and the region accounts for most of the system's current ridership. Indeed, efficient transportation in the Northeast is as crucial to the economic health of that region as are water projects to California and the arid Southwest or the construction of hydropower dams were to the Northwest.

But the idea that Amtrak should be limited to the Northeast is a short-sighted one. It is a perception that is, unfortunately, a significant roadblock to development of an improved rail system in this country.

What would have happened if the Reagan administration had won its fight, if Amtrak has been terminated? For starters, billions in capital investment would have been wasted, taxpayers would have paid more, and intercity rail service in this country would have ended forever. We would have been much worse off, not only in the Northeast region, but as a nation.

Amtrak survived the constant jabs at its existence by the administration and, in fact, developed an excellent record during that time. Dependence on Federal revenues has been reduced, tracks and control systems along the Northeast corridor have been improved, and ridership is at an all-time high .

A recent front-page article in the New York Times described many of the improvements Amtrak has made in service. The outmoded equipment Amtrak inherited has been updated or replaced. Passengers have noticed the difference. Amtrak carried 21.5 million passengers last year and earned over $1 billion in revenues.

The article also describes what lies ahead for Amtrak. Continuing increases in demand for passenger railroad transportation are testing the limits of Amtrak's resources. Equipment is aging. Capital needs are rising.

In the next few years, we need to look at increasing the resources available to Amtrak so it will be able to meet increasing demands on its existing system. This must be accompanied by continued improvements in ridership, service, revenues and rate of return ratios. Improved performance is a potent argument in support of maintaining our commitment to Amtrak in the short term.

For the long term, we need to look at Amtrak's role in our overall transportation policy. As congestion increases not only in the Northeast, but also in areas like southern California, Florida, and the Great Lakes region, we must drop our national blinders to rail as a possible solution. We cannot continue to address gridlock solely through the addition of more highway lanes or airport terminals.

In addition, we must resist the temptation to view the Nation as seven distinct and unrelated regional economies. The balkanization of our Nation which underpinned so many Reagan administration proposals is a strategy for disaster.

There is a stark contrast between the way our national leadership has denigrated rail transportation and how the Europeans have put it to use. As the Reagan administration was looking to put more and more Americans on to highways or in the air, the European Community was moving in the opposite direction. In fact, the EC has unveiled plans to expand dramatically its high -speed rail system to the corners of Europe, including links to Lisbon, Naples, Stockholm, and Edinburgh.

It is an ambitious plan, one that not even the strongest advocate of rail travel believes will be matched in this country. However, it does set an example of what is possible, of how much more of a role rail travel could have in this country. It is unmistakable evidence that rail is a realistic option.

Any chance of an efficient, albeit smaller rail system in this country must recognize the following points. First, we cannot let the existing system rot in front of us. That is what happened to predecessor railroads and it took more than a decade to recover. We must maintain a solid base to build from.

Second, we must look to fully integrating the system. Passengers who arrive on time in city A, but then face long delays for their connection to city B will not be passengers for long. Similarly, passengers who arrive at city B but have difficulty gaining access to public transportation will quickly find alternatives.

Third, a realistic timetable for establishment of the system must be developed. An up-to-date, widespread, efficient system will not be in place in 5 years or maybe even 10. We need to look at rail in the long-term and plan accordingly.

So as we look to the Federal budget for 1990, it is not unreasonable to think of our transportation needs of the next decade. Does anyone believe that Amtrak could be resurrected tomorrow if it was gutted today? Does anyone believe we can continue to simply add more and more highway lanes ad infinitum? Does anyone believe airports can be easily constructed to handle projected traffic increases?

In recent statements, Secretary of Transportation Samuel Skinner has signalled a much-needed change by this administration in our Nation's policy toward passenger rail service. After a half decade of repeated attacks, Federal policy is beginning to recognize the role Amtrak can have in our transportation policy.

It is a start, not the end, of the development of a balanced program. Congress must make sure that it does not take the same short sighted approach to rail transportation that the railroad companies did in the 1970's. It is a mistake we cannot afford to repeat.

*

[karynnj]

28. Senator Pell says he was an advocate since 1961!

This experience with rail -related issues formally began in 1961, when I drafted Senate Joint Resolution 194, which proposed the establishment of a public authority to run a passenger rail service within the Northeast corridor. Over the years, I have been pleased to introduce legislation on high -speed rail transportation, rights-of-way authority, rail rehabilitation, increased funding for Northeast corridor operations and cooperative rail compacts among Northeastern States.

[firedupdem]

6. Great! I'm excited about the changes that will start to happen

with this administration. It is unfortunate that we have to deal with the fuck ups of the last eight years while he still tries to implement the new ideas that will improve this country for all of us.

[Odin2005]

7. We need to create an "Interstate Passenger Rail System" parallel to the Interstate Highway System.

And we need it now, dammit. Us folks who can't drive want it most of all, our car-centered infrastructure discriminates against people like myself who are unable to drive cars; if I wanted to go to Minneapolis I have to get a ride from friends or family or take a disgusting Greyhound bus.

[Forkboy]

8. It's something that's long overdue.

Bush can't be gone quick enough. x(

I had been thinking of a highway overall along the same idea for years now. This is a good idea, too.

[BeyondGeography]

9. God, I hope so

Our inter-city railway system is a total embarassment. If we can't get this past the sneering Sun Belt Senators on the right now, we never will.

[amborin]

10. what about funds for AMTRAK, also?

isn't it low on funding?

needs maintenance of its rails and tracks

and trains

[BelgianMadCow]

11. I think that's a winner on all fronts

we have one of the densest rail networks here in Belgium, and it's still in good repair and largely in govt hands. Their passenger number has been increasing for years, and small stations (like my town of 7000) are no longer being abolished.

I'm liking Obama's fierce stance on global warming a LOT. Finally, I think you will lead by example instead of being the main obstructor.

:thumbsup:

[bridgit]

12. Didn't Cali just vote that up the other day? Geez I hope they don't staff it with...

duuph-ass out-sourced crap-heads texting on the cell phones to their girl friends...that would make for a high speed catastrophe no doubt!! x(

[FrenchieCat]

13. LOL! That's would be part of the last step......hiring,

cause we've got to get things built first! That's the hard part. :)

[Alter Ego]

15. Joebiden is behind this.

I expect Amtrak will get some money with Joebiden being Vice President.

[camera obscura]

16. Biden probably made him pinky-swear they'd keep Amtrak funded before he joined the ticket :)

[karynnj]

21. This is more than funding Amtrack

There was a major funding bill for Amtrack that Lautenberg sponsored this fall. I would guess that this is support for the bill that Kerry introduced with Specter in the lame duck session. Kerry has been working on this for over a year and is on the committee and sub-committee that has jurisdiction. Lautenberg the chair of the sub-committee is a co-sponsor as is Inohye the chair of the committee. This means that this bill, which will be re-introduced next Congress, has the support of the Senators on the committee it will be referred to. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/25/95822/061

It is good that both Biden, who has been a long time supporter of rail, and Obama have added rail to the list of what is needed in the stimulation package. Obama, in fact makes the same points Kerry did on the potential benefits. Here's a link to Kerry speaking about it at a Town Hall he had this week in Cambridge, MA. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x247029

Obama needs allies in the Senate and House who will translate his goals into legislation. It is highly likely that Kerry's bill, which he has gotten some Republicans to sponsor and others (Issacson of GA!!) to speak positively of, will be the bill that is worked on and marked up to do this.

[amborin]

27. thing is, amtrak is a great system, but way underfunded and needing repairs

many more folks would take amtrak but there are derailments, etc....

the tracks need repair, etc.....

[karynnj]

29. Lautenberg just passed a bill that became law this fall

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00210

That was on rail safety and provided funds.

[amborin]

37. oh good!

[lunatica]

19. Biden ought to know. He travels on trains every day n/t

One can get a lot of business done while traveling if one doesn't have to drive

[lunatica]

17. travel to closer states for business by high speed rail...

then rent an electric or solar powered small vehicle located in each of the train stations to get around in the new city. It can be done pretty cheaply too.

I see a future for this...

[ProSense]

18. It's going to happen: Kerry introduces landmark bill

High Speed Rail coming to America - Kerry introduces landmark bill

Video

[blm]

26. Yes - he worked on this issue for years. We would've HAD it built by now if the old DNC hadn't

sat on its hands under McAuliffe for four years watching the GOP and RNC set up another stolen election for Bush.

[beachmom]

31. Oops. I didn't see your post until now, and wrote a similar comment.

Oh, well. The more the merrier.

[karynnj]

35. Me too

Well, I hope with 3 of us providing links to your Daily Kos diary - which contains a huge amount of information - some one might link to the bill that will likely do what Obama is saying.

[Veruca Salt]

20. I prefer travel by train

it's cheaper than by plane, more scenic, and more comfortable than by long-distance bus. And of course, no road rage or wear & tear on my vehicle or parking fees for traveling by car. It's been my experience the price of round trip train tickets is equal or less than the price I would spend in gas alone for the same trip.

[reggie the dog]

38. even with buying three train tickets

it is still a similar price for me to take the train to paris than it is to drive and I live about 900 kilometers away. Once we took the TGV from where we live on the Cote D'Azur to Paris on a union rented TGV train, we all paid 20 euros round trip and that paid for the train rental, It took four hours to get there, we left at just before 7 am and got there in time to be at the protest in Paris by noon. They wanted to do away with our uniform high school diploma exam in France. All kids take the same test on the same day to have their diploma, that way all people with diplomas are equal. We won that battle. The TGV made it possible for people from all over France to be there. They even took a picture of our group carrying a banner that said 880 kilometers to save the education system. The unionists had a band that played Sweet Home Chicago but with unionist chants instead of the regular lyrics, as I hail from Chicago I felt at home. good times....

[Sebastian Doyle]

23. Now there's the Change we can believe in!

:bounce: :kick: :woohoo: :patriot:

[beachmom]

30. John Kerry and Arlen Specter introduced a bill about two weeks ago for High Speed Rail:

I wrote about it on Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/25/95822/061

Also, here is a video of Kerry talking about H.S.R. and his bill:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDMa8y_2Dac

The bill obviously has bipartisan support. My point is that Obama has major allies in the Congress to get this done.

[Mass]

32. Phil Specter? Really?

This one?

[beachmom]

33. Um, whoops. Edited.

:blush:

[karynnj]

34. That really is the key - we have a President who will support it and

a Senate that will very likely pass it. I was stunned when you posted earlier this year that Senator Isaccson(!!!) gave the Atlanta paper a positive comment on Kerry's bill. That shows that he has worked very hard to craft a very good bill that was getting good bi-partisan support, even before Obama was elected or spoke in favor of it.

[eshfemme]

36. Does this mean I can finally take a train that goes 100+ mph in America during my lifetime?

I always wanted to have such an experience-- nothing beats American scenery, especially if it's whizzing by at super speed! :D

[FedoraLV]

40. 100+ mph

You can -- the Acela. (Other current trains run at top speeds of 90 mph.) As the episode of Extreme Trains (http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Generic&content_type_id=60922&display_order=4&mini_id=60798) pointed out, to make this service national 1) Amtrak would need to run on its own track (not freight-company owned track as it presently does) 2) it would need to build new track on cement (rather than wood) railroad ties. (And the mandate that passenger service always yields to freight would also need to be changed.)

To understand exactly the extent of freight-owned track Amtrak runs on, these folks publish handy maps and timetables: http://www.altamontpress.com/.

-FedoraLV

[Selatius]

47. The only thing stopping Acelas from going faster is they have to share track with slower trains.

If you could put Acelas on track solely dedicated to high-speed passenger rail service, you could easily hit cruising speeds of 100 to 150mph easily. In France, the TGVs regularly get up between 150-175mph cruising. Try covering that kind of distance on the interstate in an hour.

[Selatius]

48. Hopefully, they can bring bullet trains like THIS to the United States

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB6tgKT-u1Q

[reggie the dog]

39. TGV speeds

train grand vitesse top speed is (360 225) km per hour but they run the trains at 320 km/hour (200 MPH) to be able to make up delays. When the TGV goes on regular lines it rolls at about 150 km per hour (95 mph) to 200 km per hour (125 mph). Think of it, a train rolling at 200 mph from Portland, Maine to Richmond, Virginia. 650 miles, with stops along the way you could easily get from Maine to Virginia in four hours. You could get to Atlanta, Georgia in seven hours from Portland, Maine. Look at the cities you could serve.

Atlanta, Georgia with two lines going northeast, one through Agusta, Georgia, and Columbia, South Carolina then up to Fayetteville and Raleigh in North Carolina where the two lines could join again in Durham. The other line could go from Atlanta up to Charlotte, Winston-Salem, Greensboro, and Durham in North Carolina. Next you could have Richmond Virginia, Washington D.C., Baltimore, Maryland then Wilmington, Delaware next Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on to Trenton, Princton, and Newark, New Jersey; New York City, New York; Stamford and Hartford, Connecticut; Providence, Rhode Island; Boston, Massachusetts; Portsmouth, New Hampshire and finally Portland, Maine. You connect fourteen states as well as DC and you roll at two hundred miles per hour.

[BumRushDaShow]

41. K&R... but one big issue

Oh gosh. Let's hope we can modernize the trains.

The one big problem will be the "not in my backyard" mentality (in terms of where tracks will go) and imminent domain vs private property (again, for where the tracks may need to go), etc. There will need to be some sharp minds and good negotiators to actually see something like this through.

[tigereye]

42. wow! that would be awesome! Someone with actual vision!

[Hieronymus]

43. Thank God .. we could catch up with Europe and Japan. It would put

lots of people to work and stimulate the economy.
I love train travel.
I just saw this was from June.

[genna]

44. The rail systems from each city should be revamped and connected

so people have the option of taking a low cost alternative (it might take a few decades before it would be a low cost) to car, truck, or airplane travel.


I think if Obama can redo the levy system in our coastal cities, we'd also be in for some real change.

The sewer system in ATL is and has been failing for a long time. How many other cities are on edge of a health crisis because their infrastructure sucks?



If we can remain on substance, I think most of us would be much more wiling to be cooperative. When the conversation revolves around what I want, all bets are off.

[Montauk6]

45. THAT was one of the primary reasons why I voted for the man!

It wasn't about helping my brotha become the first Black President.

It wasn't about sticking it to the GOP.

I got so sick of that BS; am I glad to see history made? Yes. Am I glad BushIII didn't occur? Absolutely.

But, MOST IMPORTANTLY, I'm ecstatic that we have man of IDEAS (GOOD ONES BESIDES!) now in the Oval Office, PERIOD.

[Zech Marquis The 2nd]

46. I'm all for high speed rail

It's way overdue here in the uS, and look at how much it'll help the economy and country: less gas emissions, far less harmful impact on the environment, fewer flight delays, more jobs to build, minatina and operate the high speed rail trains :bounce: and the travelers will get to enjoy a fast scenic route :-)


This is why I voted for the Man!!!

[Demi_Babe]

49. I LOVE it!

[Bluenorthwest]

50. I LOVE that and have no problem saying so!

Trains are great, we need them and I love them. It is exciting to hear Obama speak of rail. I love having this sort of post to respond to...President Obama will have my full attention and any assitance I can offer in bringing more rail service to this country. Obama has my energies across the board, I am with him. My style is not like yours, but we share many goals. I support with a harshly critical eye, but it is support, make no mistake. Style means nothing. Solidarity means everything.
High speed rail across the USA would be fantastic.
Peace

[Leo The Cleo]

51. Bad Idea

This is only a bad idea if you don't want to help the environment and don't want to create jobs. Otherwise, this is an awesome idea.

[Eurobabe]

52. It's about time

Now if he can calm those NIMBY folks...