YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is the REAL NEWS! Pay attention folks!

[PretzelWarrior]

You don't know how happy this makes me. On top of the commitment by the state of California to issue bonds for the high speed connection between San Francisco and LA, the news couldn't be better. Let me give you some background.

My family owns 2 cars. I am thinking of selling the second one and more fully utilizing the mass transit here in Portland, Oregon area. I will write a post and article soon on just how wonderful and connected that makes the whole Portland metro area (and more is under construction and in planning phases).

I went to Europe for the first time and got first hand experience with London's Underground, Paris' Metro, and Italy's train systems. WOW! This is what our country needs. We need more reliable and reasonable service for more of us, and we need to change people's psychology around travel by train vs. car (or even plane). After Europe I was also able to ride the New York and Boston subways which are the best in our nation, and I also rode Amtrak between New York and Boston as well as the commuter link from Newark, New Jersey to Manhattan.

By comparison, our public transportation costs too much to use and isn't as flexible. I am really hoping to be a major champion for this and hope others will join.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090217/pl_politico/18924

<snip>

The $787.2 billion economic recovery bill — to be signed by President Barack Obama on Tuesday — dedicates $8 billion to high-speed rail, most of which was added in the final closed-door bargaining at the instigation of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

It’s a sum that far surpasses anything before attempted in the United States — and more is coming. Administration officials told Politico that when Obama outlines his 2010 budget next week, it will ask for $1 billion more for high-speed rail in each of the next five years.

Yet for all the high stakes, the pieces didn’t fall into place until the end of deliberations on the recovery bill. And the way in which they did is revealing of the often late-breaking decisions — and politics — that shaped the final package.

As a candidate for president, Obama spoke of high-speed rail as part of his vision of “rebuilding America.” Campaigning in Indiana, he talked of revitalizing the Midwest by connecting cities with faster rail service to relieve congestion and improve energy conservation.

“The time is right now for us to start thinking about high-speed rail as an alternative to air transportation connecting all these cities,” he said. “And think about what a great project that would be in terms of rebuilding America.”

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. $800B and America is a shining city on a hill.

...again.

[GeorgeGist]

30. Lest we forget ...

from whom the hill was stolen.

[uponit7771]

2. If Obama 1.) Builds an infrastructure for high speed rail, 2.) Gets infrastructure for energy ...

...that gets us of foreign oil started, 3.) Gets REAL reform on health care going, 4.) Gets us tangible results in Afghanistan\Iraq, 5.) gets us out of this fiscal mess with some real investment then would it be too far fetched to think about..................................Mt. Rushmore?

Jus sayin, this guy sounds like he can herd cats with reasonable expectations...we need that right now.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

3. I am completely jazzed about the SF/LA line.

I live in SF and have been going to LA frequently for doctor visits with my Mom -- the drive is not only a killer, but all I could think about the entire time was all the gas I was using. :(

SF has a great transportation system -- between Muni, the Metro, and BART it is hella easy to get around in this town.

[PretzelWarrior]

15. oh you are right. Here's funny thing about SF and me.

It is expensive to fly there just to fly there so the many times I've visited it has been by car. Other than using the street cars I have not used BART or the other systems of transit they have.

However, I will say it looks very extensive as I've seen light rail far out into the surrounding cities/towns. Next time I go, it will be all about staying on foot or on public transit because that is my "thing" now. LOL.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. I've been wanting high speed rail forver, it seems

Voted for Clinton in '92 because Gore talked about implementing it back then.

I see this as only a start--revitalizing the major rail links, and then adding to them until folks in rural areas can hop aboard a bio-diesel bus and make it to the train station an hour or two away. I would LOVE that!

[Cha]

5. Sounds really Good and Promising!

I love real news:bounce:

[Turbineguy]

6. Repubs go ape-shit

they hate anything that gives value to ordinary persons.

But as usual, they are short-sighted. Getting the ordinary rabble to ride the train, leaves the roads more open for their Hummers. Also, fewer people buying gas means lower prices. Of course the real problem is less air pollution. Better cut down the forests and build wood fired electric plants.

This is great news.

[Dover]

7. Does one go over, around or through the gas/oil, automobile, tire, asphalt lobbies

to achieve this?

If I recall correctly, these are industries that took us away from mass transit.
Perhaps the first order of business is to change the way Washington operates.

[ejpoeta]

8. i have never been anywhere near california in my life.

but i have heard about how impossible it is to get around without a car. some sort of infrastructure for a rail system sounds like a great idea for the area to help ease some of that congestion. works for me!!

[rvablue]

10. Unlike you, I have spent A LOT of time in CA

I totally support this infrastructure spending.

The hard part is going to be getting the car-addicted populace to use it.

Might get a hit or two on this from Bay Area folks....but the rest of the state worships at the front bumper of their car....it might be a few years after it is built to see people using it en masse....but I'm dissing the building of it...just asking for caution and patience after it is built before we allow anyone to deem it a failure.

[ejpoeta]

11. oh, i am very supportive of this idea. just giving people the ability to make that choice

to use mass transit is the best thing. they don't have that option at all right now, and i think that getting something built, and if people can see it as financially beneficial to use mass transit they will go for it. may take a bit, but i think they'll be glad for it.

[PretzelWarrior]

12. cutting down the time will be HUGE! 200 mph versus 70-80mph when things are going good

and 30 when things aren't going so good on the freeways.

[4lbs]

18. In addition, here in Southern CA especially, most people tend to live far from work.

Driving 20+ miles to work, one-way, frequently happens with many people here.

If only people tried to live within 5 miles of work, they could drive less, or ride a bike or something.

I was guilty of that myself. For most of the 1990s, I would drive 25 to 35 miles to work, one-way. That's a 50 to 70 mile daily commute, round-trip.

That's how our freeways are often jammed at 8:00am and 5:00pm. People who live in area A, but work in area B, criss-crossing with people that live in area B, but work in area A. It's a simplistic view, and the reality is more complicated, but you get the idea.

[PretzelWarrior]

20. you probably are and WILL see more housing/businesses spring up

or revitalize along these commuter lines. People WANT to do the right thing. I have driven enough in traffic that if I could instead ride my bike a few blocks to a train stop, put my iPod on and chill out while getting to work or actually get some work done on the train rather than experiencing heartburn and frustration of driving, I'd do it in a minute were I to live in LA.

[4lbs]

25. I am still in awe of my 71 year-old father. From 1976 to 2000, he would ride his bike to

work every day. That's 17 miles... one-way.

About 35 miles of bike riding daily, 5 days a week, for 25 years.

That exercise, combined with mostly healthy eating (he ate a hot and hamburger every once in a while, along with some Doritos), and he looks about 15 years younger than he really is. He also has all his hair still!


Yeah, if I could take mass transit everywhere, I would. I try to take the bus and trolley as much as I can now, but still end up driving my car about 8000 miles a year.

[glowing]

9. Yes, we are 20yrs behind implementing public transportation.

Its insane and sick. My mom and I were talking about this last night.. the oil companies are losing money, even though the prices are down.. and I said look at how much oil is saved by American's not driving and not going to work.. Is it a wonder why the Big 3 work in connect with Oil? If two people need a car to get to work and to home and to every activity, you have a car.. probably 2 cars or even 3 if you have a teen. People not having jobs has cut down on the need for oil or going anywhere and production.. but on the production side.. there is less of that now than ever.. a lot of stuff comes from china. by us depending on cars only, the oil co's make out. anyway.. anyone who has been to Europe comes back to America and realizes just how crappy our transportation, arts, culture, history, friend/family relationships, food, time.. all of that sucks compared to Europe.. then again, we have a few things I wouldn't trade for the world.. but I do wish America would look around the world.. pluck the bests from each world and implement them... High-speed rail, public transport, city planning, and time to stop and smell the roses are a few things this country needs desperately.

[tabatha]

13. As a person who grew up with public transport, I used it so much

(bus, slow train) that I was reluctant to buy my first car. After arriving in CA, it was impossible not to have a car, even after trying.

Public transportation is great! because one can read for x number of hours instead of driving - which is boring if you drive the same roads over and over again. If it is a daily commute, one could study for a degree on public transport. Or catch up on reading/writing, etc.

[PretzelWarrior]

22. excellent point. People get hung up about waiting, etc.

well, if you make that your daily reality and have built in plan for using that down time either waiting or riding for legitimate purpose, it is awesome what you can get done. Great point.

[kimmerspixelated]

14. This is really promising!

Great news in a sea of doom and gloom. With 3 or 4 more big projects like this with a large scope, we might survive afterall!

[JVS]

16. The Underground is overpriced

You tell me what US cities charge $8 for a one way ticket within town

[PretzelWarrior]

19. that WOULD be expensive. but they don't charge that. learn your facts.

Current CASH fare for a 1 way on underground is 4 pounds. And last summer that would have equated to approximately $8.00 exchange. But if you're only needing to go through zone 1 once, then by all means that's what you have to pay. You have almost unlimited access to transfers while in the Underground system.

That would be expensive if a person who used the Underground frequently had to pay that price. But you can buy a weekly pass for much cheaper rate per ride if you're a visitor, or monthly passes if you're around for much longer. Better still is the Oyster card where even if all you do is buy a single fare it will only cost you 1.6 pounds in central London and only 3.8 pounds all through zones 1 through 6.

The best way to talk "expensive" vs. "inexpensive" is to weigh what it would cost you to go by taxi through central London or the cost of driving and parking a car in central London. Based on that, even your 4 pound ticket is a steal.

P.S. It costs me $4.75 to buy an all day ticket for MAX and associated transit here in little old Portland.

Here's a link:

http://www.ukstudentlife.com/Travel/Transport/London/Underground.htm#TicketPrices2009

[JVS]

23. So you admit my facts are right. I had to pay that to get across that shithole city to catch...

my train out of town (for some reason those dumbfucks can't do a central station, or even a national railway). Fuck them Berlin is better.

[PretzelWarrior]

24. you're being an idiot. they have a national railway.

simmer down. Underground constantly wins awards over any shithole commuter lines that might be in Deutchland. You were a one-time user, it sounds like. Too bad. You one-time users have to pay for the convenience of the line used only once. If you're that bent out of shape, go rent a cab for 30 pounds and see how you like it.

I can't believe you feel the need to diss a city's public transit. I'm sure you're one of those that is an outlier on those tripadvisor pages for a hotel/resort. 90% comments are positive but those 2 or 3 people have their HORROR STORIES of not having the sheets tucked in right or not having a room with a view. whatevah

[JVS]

26. You're being a douchebag. Learn your facts. They have privatised railways and to get to...

different cities, you have to travel with different lines via different train stations. So you simmer down and go look at the wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rail and you can see that "National Rail" is no such thing and actually a feudal patchwork of different lines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_operating_trains_in_the_United_Kingdom that will leave you at different stations depending on company, often with an expensive $8 connector to get where you actually need to be. And the Underground shuts down around midnight. It is not to be emulated. Berlin or Munich on the other hand have lower rates, 24 hour service, central train stations, and a single rail system (actually, I've seen privatised Arriva trains, but the ticket buying and collection, as well as the entire network compatibiliy) is handled by DB, so one doesn't notice it except by the color of the train. The English system, especially the Underground are not models to be followed.

[PretzelWarrior]

27. most subway systems don't run all night.

[JVS]

28. I could understand reduced service, such as twice an hour, but for a major city to have a complete..

shutdown at midnight is pathetic.

[mwooldri]

38. I think the current Mayor of London agrees with you on this point...

... but given the current state of the Tube, shutdown at night is still necessary. There are extensive night buses though that will connect you from one train station to another, plus the vast majority of journeys aren't between midnight and 5am.

Britains' train service is quasi-national... the tracks are all owned by a government owned entity (they bought it back from a private entity after it collapsed under its debts and them trying to cut the costs too far resulted in some rather nasty accidents on the train tracks). Ticketing is central: you can buy a ticket from point A to B that allows you go to on any train, no matter who operates it. However, individual train companies can and do advertise their own specials. The individual companies are all on a franchise basis, can be terminated at any time by the government. Ironically it's the BUS companies that operate most of these franchises, themselves being beneficiaries of bus privatization earlier on (National Bus Company was split up and sold off early on in the Thatcher years). FirstGroup, Stagecoach, National Express, Arriva - all prior to this major bus company owners. Even Deutsche Bahn's in on the act - they purchased the dominant freight train operator, and operate in partnership two railway franchises.

As for no central train station, blame the Victorians. The railways were developed using PRIVATE money back in the 1800's and competing companies built their own railway stations. Though I don't think a central station for London would even work these days - it would be way too crowded and how on earth would you connect the lines, and where would the station be?

£4.00 for a one-way ticket in Zone 1 is IMO a bit much. But yep, if you do multi-trips the cost per trip is significantly cheaper... and the ticketing system makes absolutely no sense... sometimes it's cheaper to buy a ticket from a station further down the line and get off earlier than intended, other times it's cheaper to ride the bus to the next station up and buy from there. This is when local knowledge pays off I'm afraid.

[liberalmuse]

17. Train fan here.

I was ecstatic at reading this! TRAINS!!!!

[vaberella]

21. I used to live in England back in 1999 for several years.

I was uber impressed since I'm a Manhattan native. They would tell you how long it would take before the train came...it was brilliant.

[bvar22]

29. One TON can be moved 450 miles on 1 gallon of fuel by rail.

We simply have no reasonable alternative BUT to improve our rail system and make the cultural changes necessary to fully utilize it.

[uponit7771]

32. I don't think it'll be that big of a cultural change in regards to time. 250 mph trains = reasonable

...time from Dallas to LA IMHO. Instead of 3 hours on a plane it'll be around 7 hours on a train....no bad if it'll help out on travel expenses

[bvar22]

35. I love your enthusiasm, but

...Dallas to LA non-stop by rail will never happen.
In order to make High Speed Rail efficient and effective, there will need to be "hubs" to service regions, with High Speed service between the hubs. Several stops would be required, and I don't see anyone averaging 250 over the Rockies anytime soon.

[Kablooie]

31. SF to LA line is a terrible idea unless it's over 300 MPH.

Most traffic between the cities is business. Usually one day trips. Leave in the morning, meetings during the day, return home in the evening. Airplanes make this possible, the flight is only one hour. You also have the advantage of choosing SF or Oakland in the north and LA, Burbank, Long Beach or Orange County in the south.

If the train can't do one hour trips in the same way, it won't be used except for vacationers which won't be nearly enough revenue to keep it running.

[madmom]

33. I live in the mid-west and I would give my right arm for public transportation of any kind. We

simply can not live with out a car/truck. If you have more than one member of the same family working that generally means 2 or more vehicles, and in the winter usually Suva. Such a waste.

[marions ghost]

34. K & R

n/t :thumbsup:

[windbreeze]

36. Then from SF to Seattle...then to Vancouver BC...n/t

[Sebastian Doyle]

39. I would say a Vancouver BC to Portland system is completely reasonable.

Linking that to California might take a little more time. Though eventually, I'd like to see a complete West Coast corridor from Vancouver to San Diego. Or even further south.

Seems that the I-5 corridor would be the most likely choice for that though, which would leave out San Francisco, but there are other ways of getting there. The I 80 west-east corridor would be a good base for an eventual nationwide high speed route, so you could get off the main Western line in Sacramento and take another train to SF from there.

[windbreeze]

40. I have wondered all along, why

they didn't do a raised light rail or monorail, right down the median of I-5...when I saw them do it in Portland, I wondered why it couldn't have already been done between Seattle/Portland...then further in both directions...could do a side trip into SF...and also could have eliminated all sorts of traffic problems being faced now, each and every day on that route...someone didn't have any vision of the future, I guess...wb

[Sebastian Doyle]

41. Linda Smith and Tim Eyman

Between those two Repuke asshats, the state budget has been so decimated that the money for such projects - even the Sounder train as it was originally planned - no longer exists. They're finally putting in the light rail from Seattle to the SeaTac airport, which is a good start. Hopefully they'll keep working south from there. The least they should aim for in the near future is Olympia to Everett. Then expand it south to Portland and north to Vancouver from there. Or at least to Blaine if there's some sort of legal hassles with border crossings.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

37. I like trains best and trams (light rail)

I wish all cities and towns had light rail like Oslo in Norway. Even toronto has trams.

[FKA MNChimpH8R]

42. Rode the TGV a couple of times

Paris to Lyons and back, when I was in France back in 2003. Unquestionably one of the most enjoyable travel experiences of my life. There's something satisfying about sitting in a huge seat with one's feet up watching cows and vineyards go by at 195 miles per hour.