Having spent a lot of time in the past decade living outside of the country and traveling by many means other than car, it's always been interesting attempting to have conversations with backpackers and travelers from other countries about how best to get around the US. Invariably, someone asks, "well can't you just take a train?" My response is usually a hearty laugh and then a sad shake of the head accompanied by a wry grin.
The truth is, you could (I wouldn't even know where to start), but the experience would be far from what these travelers are expecting. Indeed, I had to go to China to take my first ever, honest-to-goodness, real-life train ride. At 21. Since then, I've discovered the beauty of trains and find it sad that we don't have more here in the US. The LA-SF corridor would be ideal for a high-speed train, something that averages 180mph would take just over 2 hours to go point to point, making it highly competitive with air travel. Averaging 150mph, it would be just under three hours, still worthy of consideration when you factor in all the wait times connected with flying. For those of you thinking (flying is so fast though..) let me just quickly remind you of how much "cleaner" rail travel is than air travel. :)
So, it's really good to hear that the new stimulus package has set-aside $8 billion for the development of high-speed rail in the US. Now, as you can see from reading this particular article in the IHT (Slice of U.S. stimulus package will go to faster trains) don't expect to be riding the rails at 180 or even 150mph anytime soon. $8 billion is, unfortunately, close to nothing when it comes to making a dent in a system that has been neglected for probably 60 years. But, it is VERY heartening to know that this debate is once again a debate, and that we are finally beginning to consider alternatives to automobile and airplane travel again.
I am looking forward to the day when I can look up from my plugged in laptop with wireless internet to see the California coast zipping by outside my window at 200+mph.
The truth is, you could (I wouldn't even know where to start), but the experience would be far from what these travelers are expecting. Indeed, I had to go to China to take my first ever, honest-to-goodness, real-life train ride. At 21. Since then, I've discovered the beauty of trains and find it sad that we don't have more here in the US. The LA-SF corridor would be ideal for a high-speed train, something that averages 180mph would take just over 2 hours to go point to point, making it highly competitive with air travel. Averaging 150mph, it would be just under three hours, still worthy of consideration when you factor in all the wait times connected with flying. For those of you thinking (flying is so fast though..) let me just quickly remind you of how much "cleaner" rail travel is than air travel. :)
So, it's really good to hear that the new stimulus package has set-aside $8 billion for the development of high-speed rail in the US. Now, as you can see from reading this particular article in the IHT (Slice of U.S. stimulus package will go to faster trains) don't expect to be riding the rails at 180 or even 150mph anytime soon. $8 billion is, unfortunately, close to nothing when it comes to making a dent in a system that has been neglected for probably 60 years. But, it is VERY heartening to know that this debate is once again a debate, and that we are finally beginning to consider alternatives to automobile and airplane travel again.
I am looking forward to the day when I can look up from my plugged in laptop with wireless internet to see the California coast zipping by outside my window at 200+mph.
Posts
A few thoughts:
ReplyDelete1. Is high speed rail always more green than flying?
This Treehugger article asks this question: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/01/trains-vs-planes-emissions.php
I guess it probably is, but I think it's worth asking the question if it always is
2. There is more movement on high-speed rail in California than just what is coming from the Stimulus package. The State is trying to line up all the financing, starting to get public input, etc.
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/, http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_11127065, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/05/MN6N13V0M2.DTL&type=politics
At the same time, as people look into this more, there are just as many skeptics and critics as there are supporters: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/129404.html
On a personal note, there was recently a heated discussion in on my neighborhood email listserv about the high-speed rail might have on our neighborhood (downtown Mountain View, where the train would pass on the way to San Francisco and where the # of tracks would have to be doubled from 2 to 4 to accommodate the train). Plenty of people support it, but there are plenty of NIMBY-esque folks who cry about any kind of minor or major impacts that would have to be born by local cities. Just from that narrow view, I don't want to even imagine the public input process nightmare this will be...
3. Riding the train (or bus) in the US is clearly not as easy or customer service friendly as it is in many parts of Europe or Asia, BUT it can be done, it's not that hard to figure out, and can be just as enjoyable as riding the train elsewhere.
Although I grew up with as much ignorance of riding trains and buses as most Americans in the 'burbs, I started taking buses (to go to work) and trains (to see friends at other schools in California) when I was in college. I readily admit that there are limitations (getting around to the sprawling burbs of San Jose on public transit can take forever). And at the same time, I think there are plenty of fairly easily accessible options (I have been commuting the 15 miles to work by train for the last 6 years; using Amtrak to go from Orange County to San Luis Obispo or San Diego to visit friends in college was pleasant and easy, and much easier to figure out and less expensive than renting a car).
My personal opinion is that the "problem" (why most Americans don't take public transit and therefore can't explain to out-of-town friends how to do it) is all about perception and ignorance, a strange American perspective on time and convenience, and the projection of this onto others.
1a. In general, Americans don't think public transit is any good so they don't bother actually getting any information about it...
If people were just more open to it (instead of assuming that it's bad), I think many more people would come to realize that there are many convenient uses of rail and bus. On top of that, I think that if institutions did more to make people are made aware of the option (i.e. employers actively promoting or encouraging commuting by public transit), ridership would increase (i.e. Adobe Systems in downtown SJ has tons of people file off the train each morning because they talk about it to their employees, more than 1/3 of my office commutes by train because we educate all new staff about the convenience of it).
1b. ... And/or they think that taking public transportation is an all-or-nothing proposition (i.e. if it can't help me get to X, then it probably can't help me get to Y either).
Just because the 12 mile trip to Santana Row or 40 mile trip to Oakland from Mountain View would be public transit nightmares (Santana Row: 1 hr by bus, vs. 15 min drive; Oakland: 1.5-2 hrs by bus/train vs. 1 hr drive) does not mean that Mountain View is a public transit desert. I can get still make the 40 mile trip to downtown SF in less time on train during commute hours than I can driving, and the 3 mile trip to the Sunnyvale farmer's market is just about the same driving vs. taking the train (~ 10 min either way). Public transit is an option that will sometimes be a better choice for someone (given their priorities), and sometimes not. If people more actively think of the option, I think they would actually realize that it is a good, convenient option at least *some* of the time.
2. Most Americans I know break down the should-I-drive-or-take-public-transit question (if they think about it at all) into how much time will each take, and whichever takes less time wins.
Although this may very well reflect the priorities of many Americans, it definitely ignores 2 major considerations. One major consideration for me is quality of time. For example, I would rather spend 45 min commuting to work by train (20 min on a train reading, thinking or otherwise relaxing, and 25 min getting fresh air walking) than 20 min zoning out in a car. Day-in and day-out, my commute is relaxing and refreshing and relatively stress-free (battling daily traffic would make me not so pleasant to be around). The other major consideration is the impact on the environment. I know that when I take public transit, I am not only doing one small part in impacting the earth less (less CO2 emissions by not driving that one trip), I am also supporting a SYSTEM that taxes the planet less (public transit vs. driving) - and by supporting the system, I'm hoping that I can model that for other people (so they take it too) and be part of a positive-feedback loop (the more people take it, the more positive / less negative impact it has).
To be perfectly honest, I wish Americans would be less selfish, stop obsessing about their time and keeping up with the Joneses, and just slow the f*** down. And if not that, then at least...
3. Stop projecting their sense of time and convenience onto others (especially visitors).
Just because one person would never take Amtrak from San Jose to LA because it would take so much longer than driving (11 hrs) does not mean that another person (especially someone visiting the country) would not love taking doing this trip by train, especially if he/she thought it was a more enjoyable way to travel and would love spending a few hours admiring the California coast between San Luis Obispo and LA.
If we all just spent a little more time and energy, we could probably do more to encourage the use of public transit in the US (and help build up the system in the process).