Let me quote the opening paragraph of a Reuters dispatch appearing today:
PARIS (Reuters) -- President Nicolas Sarkozy is considering aid to help the French economy through the financial crisis including speeding up rail projects and helping car manufacturers, a newspaper reported on Monday. He is also expected to unveil later this week measures to fight rising unemployment. The report in Le Monde newspaper is consistent with warnings from economists that France and other European countries will take advantage of a clause in EU rules allowing countries to run up their deficits in emergency circumstances.
Imagine if we were to do the same; if the next President, on Inauguration Day, would suggest an emergency expenditure of five to ten billion dollars to build new tracks and trains for Amtrak across the nation. We'd create many thousands of jobs, we'd reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, we'd embark on a sensible policy of transportation that would reduce the need for cars, buses and planes, and we'd improve the quality of life, enabling us to make short-haul trips by efficient, economical, comfortable trains.
I assume this suggestion will provoke outraged responses from some of our readers, repeating their familiar cries about the need for Amtrak to rely on itself, to show a profit, to be privatized even. I would point out to them that just a week ago, President Bush signed the recent Congressional authorization for a doubling of the yearly appropriation for Amtrak.
For most Americans, of both political persuasions, that debate has thus come to the end. We have seen the urgent need for an increase and improvement in Amtrak, and almost every sensible American agrees. Let this important investment in our national infrastructure begin!
The issue for me boils down to would I use a high speed train? I always travel alone, so if I could save money (and/or time) by taking a train instead of driving, then maybe. I live in Atlanta (which, oddly enough, only exists because it used to be a train terminal). The two places I drive to most frequently are Savannah (4.5 - 5 hours away) and St. Cloud (7 hours away). I would never consider flying to Savannah, but flying to St. Cloud is right at that breaking point where it takes about the same time to fly as it does to drive. Two weeks ago (when Atlanta was OUT! of gas), I would have jumped on this train idea whole-heartedly. Now that gas prices are falling faster than the DOW, I'm a tad less inclined. Still, if I could get to St. Cloud and back for around $200 and in under 7 hours one-way (my front door to at least the St. Cloud station), I'd be on board. (Sorry, I couldn't resist the pun.)
What I foresee happening is that I could get from the Atlanta station (have to pay for parking) to the Orlando station for that price. Then I'd have to either get a relative to pick me up (what a bother) or pay an additional fee for shuttle or taxi service to St. Cloud, significantly increasing the price. If this new train service included express trains (Atl to Orl) AND local trains (Orl to St. Cloud), then it would be much easier and less expensive to get transportation to my final destination once in St. Cloud (or Kissimmee, either one).
The train trip from Atl to Savannah would have to be significantly less expensive to get my attention. I wouldn't even consider it for more than $99. I'm giving up too much freedom by not having a car in my destination city.
OK, this is long, but I guess I've gotten to the heart of the issue. In order to not have a car in a city that you would normally drive to, all US cities (at least tourist destinations) need to improve their public transportation. Orlando has so many shuttle services available, that it would probably be a decent city to start in (other than the obvious "commuter cities" of NYC, Chicago, Boston, etc.). Disney (and maybe Universal) should even chip in to subsidize a high speed train to Orlando.
What I foresee happening is that I could get from the Atlanta station (have to pay for parking) to the Orlando station for that price. Then I'd have to either get a relative to pick me up (what a bother) or pay an additional fee for shuttle or taxi service to St. Cloud, significantly increasing the price. If this new train service included express trains (Atl to Orl) AND local trains (Orl to St. Cloud), then it would be much easier and less expensive to get transportation to my final destination once in St. Cloud (or Kissimmee, either one).
The train trip from Atl to Savannah would have to be significantly less expensive to get my attention. I wouldn't even consider it for more than $99. I'm giving up too much freedom by not having a car in my destination city.
OK, this is long, but I guess I've gotten to the heart of the issue. In order to not have a car in a city that you would normally drive to, all US cities (at least tourist destinations) need to improve their public transportation. Orlando has so many shuttle services available, that it would probably be a decent city to start in (other than the obvious "commuter cities" of NYC, Chicago, Boston, etc.). Disney (and maybe Universal) should even chip in to subsidize a high speed train to Orlando.