Thursday, April 16, 2009
Transportation Obama Supports the Obvious Transportation Solution
Posted by Jonathan Golob on Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:30 AM
President Barack Obama on Thursday highlighted his ambition for the development of high-speed passenger rail lines in at least 10 regions, expressing confidence in the future of train travel even as he acknowledged that the American rail network, compared to the rest of the world’s, remains a caboose....The government has identified 10 corridors of 100 to 600 miles in length with greatest promise for high-speed development.
They are: a northern New England line; an Empire line running east to west in New York State; a Keystone corridor running laterally through Pennsylvania; a southeast network connecting the District of Columbia to Florida and the Gulf Coast; a Gulf Coast line extending from eastern Texas to western Alabama; a corridor in central and southern Florida; a Texas-to-Oklahoma line; a California corridor where voters have already approved a line that will allow travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles in two and a half hours; and a corridor in the Pacific Northwest.
If there is any good to come of the imminent death of the American auto industry, it is this. Trains—long, narrow and smooth—are inherently efficient, particularly when compared to cars—squat, blunt and short.
And, I have a modest funding suggestion for this program. Fine the shit out of any drivers who:
1. Are driving in a left lane slower or at pace with cars to their right.
2. Talking or texting on a cell phone while driving.
3. Merging onto the freeway at any speed other than that of the cars in the merging lane.
By my scientific calculations, based upon experiences on a road trip to Portland, if tickets are set at $100 each this should raise $4.27 trillion on the I-5 corridor alone.
Updated:
Because I cannot resist, compare Obama's wise leadership on transportation to Gregoire's Department of Transportation plan to ram both a (temporary) replacement viaduct and tunnel through downtown Seattle. Because, as per the superminority Republicans who seem to rule this state, transportation starts and ends with cars in Washington State. Cars, more cars. Roads, more roads. Anything else would be too forward thinking.
Share via
1
And then the roads will be clear and fast-so you can drive on them, right?
For people wondering what a system might look like, check out the trains around southern Ontario and Quebec (not high speed, and not doing that well, but the premise is there)
For people wondering what a system might look like, check out the trains around southern Ontario and Quebec (not high speed, and not doing that well, but the premise is there)
3
"1. Are driving in a left lane slower or at pace with cars to their right."
Fuckin' eh, man. This drives me insane! Flashing your lights doesn't even work on most of these meatheads.
Fuckin' eh, man. This drives me insane! Flashing your lights doesn't even work on most of these meatheads.
4
Okay. Try driving a VW Beetle up an inclined freeway entrance that's maybe 500 feet long and see how fast you're going once it's time to merge with traffic. Granted, freeway entrances in this area seem to be well designed, but the instruction to merge at the speed of traffic can often be a cruel joke.
And maybe I'm just in crazytown here, but I'd much rather that the highway patrol fine the shit out of dangerous drivers, not drivers who are merely inconveniencing others. Traffic accidents cause billions of dollars in damage every year.
Merging onto the freeway at any speed other than that of the cars in the merging lane.
Okay. Try driving a VW Beetle up an inclined freeway entrance that's maybe 500 feet long and see how fast you're going once it's time to merge with traffic. Granted, freeway entrances in this area seem to be well designed, but the instruction to merge at the speed of traffic can often be a cruel joke.
And maybe I'm just in crazytown here, but I'd much rather that the highway patrol fine the shit out of dangerous drivers, not drivers who are merely inconveniencing others. Traffic accidents cause billions of dollars in damage every year.
5
@4,
Actually make that 100 feet, the length of the freeway entrance I used for two years in high school. I was lucky to get to 40 mph before merging with traffic.
Actually make that 100 feet, the length of the freeway entrance I used for two years in high school. I was lucky to get to 40 mph before merging with traffic.
6
Yay trains!
Golob, your posts always seem to leave me with nothing to add except "I approve of the content of this post." Oh well. Good job.
Golob, your posts always seem to leave me with nothing to add except "I approve of the content of this post." Oh well. Good job.
7
If the line we build here is dedicated to fast freight and fast passenger train use (both 150 mph) down to say San Diego, then we could literally save America more money that wouldn't go to terrorist-supporting nations (jet fuel) and could even eventually use fuel cell powered trains that use H20 cracking from wind and solar to drive them (based on current scientific research).
And get there about as fast as flying.
Party Train to Portland! Meet you in the Bar Car! First round's on me!
And get there about as fast as flying.
Party Train to Portland! Meet you in the Bar Car! First round's on me!
8
@4-
Not merging at speed can be dangerous-it is assumed vehicles are moving at highway speed when merging. If the merge lanes are that short, almost nothing would be able to do a standing acceleration to highway speed in that distance, but if you're driving an original Bug, you shouldn't be going on modern highways.
Not merging at speed can be dangerous-it is assumed vehicles are moving at highway speed when merging. If the merge lanes are that short, almost nothing would be able to do a standing acceleration to highway speed in that distance, but if you're driving an original Bug, you shouldn't be going on modern highways.
9
... and can we ask them to make it cheaper than Amtrak? The prices for those things are ridiculous.
10
Please folks. I don't want high speed trains. I want VERY high speed trains:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P4874/
NYC to LA in twenty minutes? Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. Why don't you folks use the famed public policy influence of slog to make this shit happen.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P4874/
NYC to LA in twenty minutes? Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. Why don't you folks use the famed public policy influence of slog to make this shit happen.
11
YES... trains.
Anybody who's ever lived in a train-navigable part of the world (Europe rocks, Japan FTW) probably just got the same wistful far-away look in their eyes and started sighing happily like me.
Back to reality.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Never underestimate the ability of America to fuck up a common-sense solution.
Anybody who's ever lived in a train-navigable part of the world (Europe rocks, Japan FTW) probably just got the same wistful far-away look in their eyes and started sighing happily like me.
Back to reality.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Never underestimate the ability of America to fuck up a common-sense solution.
12
Not merging at speed IS dangerous. You're forcing a whole bunch of other people to swerve or slow down to accomodate you, and you're forcing the people behind you on the ramp to cause the same problem.
The cruising-in-the-left problem is overstated. What people really mean is "I want to drive 90, and I don't want anyone to get in my way". It's profoundly antisocial. The "passing lane" is an anachronism from the days when only a few vehicles used our new highways; it certainly is not a "lawbreakers' lane". If you're cruising in the left lane, at a reasonable speed, with normal (i.e., fairly heavy) traffic, you're doing nothing wrong, and if the Highway Patrol says otherwise, the Highway Patrol can suck my balls.
The cruising-in-the-left problem is overstated. What people really mean is "I want to drive 90, and I don't want anyone to get in my way". It's profoundly antisocial. The "passing lane" is an anachronism from the days when only a few vehicles used our new highways; it certainly is not a "lawbreakers' lane". If you're cruising in the left lane, at a reasonable speed, with normal (i.e., fairly heavy) traffic, you're doing nothing wrong, and if the Highway Patrol says otherwise, the Highway Patrol can suck my balls.
13
You know, Golob, I was hanging with one of your lab partners last night, and she said you make up half of your facts. How can I trust your columns anymore?
14
Does this mean real high speed trains or something like the crappy Acela here in the northeast that makes so many local stops and travels so slowly over large stretches that they might not have bothered?
Good luck surviving the human outcry from the people you will need to displace to put down the proper tracks.
Good luck surviving the human outcry from the people you will need to displace to put down the proper tracks.
15
while truly high speed trains (like the 250 mph+ trains elsewhere in the world) are probably not going to happen here for decades, i would love love love love to see serious rail transit in the US.
it is so obviously the only SANE option for our society, yet we have neglected it horribly for the personal automobiles. Which, if you consider them honestly for a few moments, start to seem a completely, utterly, and irrevocably INSANE solution to transportation.
all I ask is for the ability to roll my bike on board on any and every one of these trains, just like Amtrak Cascades.
it is so obviously the only SANE option for our society, yet we have neglected it horribly for the personal automobiles. Which, if you consider them honestly for a few moments, start to seem a completely, utterly, and irrevocably INSANE solution to transportation.
all I ask is for the ability to roll my bike on board on any and every one of these trains, just like Amtrak Cascades.
16
Fnarf - Cruising in the left lane is also dangerous. It forces people to pass on the right, and to drive fast in the right lane. Both of these make conditions ripe for accidents. In Europe (and the east coast) people seem to get this. It is also enforced by driving vigilantes in both areas.
Also, you may want to shave your balls and rinse them in Crystal Pepsi before allowing the cops to teabag them.
Also, you may want to shave your balls and rinse them in Crystal Pepsi before allowing the cops to teabag them.
17
Golob -- and everybody else who thinks high speed trains will reduce car travel: Wrong!
When we build bigger wider freeways into suburbia, does it reduce congestion? No.
Computers and the internet will eliminate the need for paper printers? Wrong.
All these new technologies merely expand capacity. High speed trains will reduce travel time, increase total travel capacity -- and hence increase DEMAND for travel.
None of which are reasons to be opposed to high-speed trains -- but don't start cheering the end of the automobile just yet.
When we build bigger wider freeways into suburbia, does it reduce congestion? No.
Computers and the internet will eliminate the need for paper printers? Wrong.
All these new technologies merely expand capacity. High speed trains will reduce travel time, increase total travel capacity -- and hence increase DEMAND for travel.
None of which are reasons to be opposed to high-speed trains -- but don't start cheering the end of the automobile just yet.
18
Acela express Boston to Washington: 6hr 30min
Drive Boston to Washington: 8hr
Sound like high speed to you?
Drive Boston to Washington: 8hr
Sound like high speed to you?
22
@16, how does it "force" people to pass on the right if I'm cruising in the left at 75 or 80? Only if they're going faster than 75 or 80, which, need I point out, is against the law. I hold no brief for people who dawdle on the left, but this reference to "passing" is in reality a demand for easier criminal behavior.
23
In general, California sucks at public transportation, and yet their Amtrak rocks. I can get from San Diego to Modesto for about $40 (or, if you want to go somewhere more touristy, San Francisco), and it's only about 2 hours more than driving. Whereas Seattle to Portland is, at this point, cost-prohibitive and takes way too long.
24
It is premature to congratulate ourselves for Obama's wise leadership on transportation. Floating a great idea is easy. Mustering political support to make it happen is grimy dirty work but without it ideas remain just that.
26
Why don't we just use the tunnel to run a high speed passenger train line through Seattle and make Paul Allen and Bill Gates pay for their own gosh darned tunnel themselves?
27
@22 - Do you pluck joints from people's mouths at shows and lecture street people for drinking in public? I don't care what speed you are going, if there is room to the right, please keep right except to pass.
28
You haven't answered the question: why are you passing? I'm going ten over the limit. And on a modern freeway, there usually ISN'T room on the right, because that's where all the numbnuts speeding up and slowing down, back and forth, 75 then 45, all day are.
The real question is, why, on Washington highways, is every single car traveling at a different rate of speed? It makes it impossible for traffic to flow smoothly. In California, the entire road, eight lanes across, is locked in a tight pattern going a steady 80, which makes it possible to do the classic Cali six-lane-change-to-exit maneuver, which is beautiful.
Here, you have all these idiots going different speeds, and dipshits and yahoos in hot Nissans weaving in and out of the whole mess at 95 (in Federal Way and Lakewood, at least). That's what ought to be disallowed.
The real question is, why, on Washington highways, is every single car traveling at a different rate of speed? It makes it impossible for traffic to flow smoothly. In California, the entire road, eight lanes across, is locked in a tight pattern going a steady 80, which makes it possible to do the classic Cali six-lane-change-to-exit maneuver, which is beautiful.
Here, you have all these idiots going different speeds, and dipshits and yahoos in hot Nissans weaving in and out of the whole mess at 95 (in Federal Way and Lakewood, at least). That's what ought to be disallowed.
29
Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah. But I can still only take the train to Canada once a fuckin' day. Let's get on that, Obama/Biden!
http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/commen…
http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/commen…
31
Calm down everyone...Republican Hummer drivers will never let this happen. Slow and steady - that's how we roll in America.
32
@22
Just this morning on 520, I was stuck behind someone going 50-60 in the left lane (lead-foot, feather-foot). I finally gave up and got into the right lane (which was often going faster than homeboy in the passing lane anyway), and some dude, who clearly wanted to go faster than any of us, got fed up with the slowpoke, jerked right out in front of me with about 2 feet of clearance, went past into the HOV lane (he was just the one person, of course), and then floored it past all of us.
Chilling in the passing lane gets people clearly already hitting the rage-ohol even more hot and bothered and they make stupid split second decisions as a result. People going too fast on the left is a known quantity. I expect that shit. People swerving in and out of traffic at close quarters then blowing past on the right is dangerous as hell. If you don't agree, then I fully expect you to say a few words at my funeral, guy.
Just this morning on 520, I was stuck behind someone going 50-60 in the left lane (lead-foot, feather-foot). I finally gave up and got into the right lane (which was often going faster than homeboy in the passing lane anyway), and some dude, who clearly wanted to go faster than any of us, got fed up with the slowpoke, jerked right out in front of me with about 2 feet of clearance, went past into the HOV lane (he was just the one person, of course), and then floored it past all of us.
Chilling in the passing lane gets people clearly already hitting the rage-ohol even more hot and bothered and they make stupid split second decisions as a result. People going too fast on the left is a known quantity. I expect that shit. People swerving in and out of traffic at close quarters then blowing past on the right is dangerous as hell. If you don't agree, then I fully expect you to say a few words at my funeral, guy.
33
I love the idea of high-speed rail. It's the most fuel efficient method of travel by a very wide margin. I've ridden high-speed trains in Europe and Asia, and it is fantastic.
However, he is only proposing to spend 8 billion dollars on it. That is a drop in the bucket. Think. Just a year or two back, Nickels was planning to spend 4 billion dollars on a cut & cover tunnel only a mile or so long. It would be great to have a Prortland-Seattle-Vancouver BC train, or a San Fransisco-LA-San Diego train, but it will cost a whole lot more than 8 billion to accomplish.
However, he is only proposing to spend 8 billion dollars on it. That is a drop in the bucket. Think. Just a year or two back, Nickels was planning to spend 4 billion dollars on a cut & cover tunnel only a mile or so long. It would be great to have a Prortland-Seattle-Vancouver BC train, or a San Fransisco-LA-San Diego train, but it will cost a whole lot more than 8 billion to accomplish.
34
@32 - isn't the limit on 520 something like 50 mph? (maybe 55?) So the left-lane guy was within the law, and the jackasses - you included - that had to get around so as to break the law were at fault.
Speeding is not a human right.
Speeding is not a human right.
35
I realize that it ain't gonna happen, but a high-speed line connecting Vancouver BC/Seattle/Portland would be dreamy. And the idea of connecting Portland to San Fran. . OMG, I'm coming all over myself at the thought.
37
@35--Portland to San Francisco is never going to happen, mainly because the population density between Eugene and Redding is non-existent. The best you can hope for is Vancouver to Portland, and maybe near the end of my lifetime Seattle to Spokane via Yakima with a spur to the Tri-Cities. Anything west or south or north of that system is not going to be viable.
On the other hand, you could redistribute all of the Seattle/Vancouver/Portland plane flights to increase service to the Bay Area, hook the high-speed rail up to the airports or close enough to make transfers, and that would produce a quick way to move between each region's rail system.
On the other hand, you could redistribute all of the Seattle/Vancouver/Portland plane flights to increase service to the Bay Area, hook the high-speed rail up to the airports or close enough to make transfers, and that would produce a quick way to move between each region's rail system.
38
It's also not clear how this is going to happen, since the tracks are owned by the freight companies, not Amtrak, and Amtrak rides on them at their sufferance. And replacing the cars with fast ones does nothing; we already have some Acela-style cars on Seattle-Vancouver, and they go the same twelve miles an hour everybody else does. And if you improve the track welds, you're still at the mercy of Burlington Northern deciding that now would be a good time to shuttle some freight engines around for a couple of hours while you wait.
There isn't enough room in the right-of-way for another track for Amtrak. And new rights-of-way are not possible.
There isn't enough room in the right-of-way for another track for Amtrak. And new rights-of-way are not possible.
39
Is anyone talking about the need to put the Olympia station in Olympia? I live in Seattle and work in Olympia, and I would give anything to stay off the road (car or bus). But the train drops you off 8 miles away from downtown Olympia, and the bus system takes an hour to get from the station to downtown (yes, averaging 8 miles per hour).
40
Speeding is not a right. If I'm doing 65 in the left lane, and you're sitting on my rear bumper flashing your lights at me, you can eat a dick.
And for #32: The guy who cut you off should get a ticket. The guy in the left lane was doing nothing wrong.
And for #32: The guy who cut you off should get a ticket. The guy in the left lane was doing nothing wrong.
41
@37 - shut yo mouth.
If they have a line from San Diego to San Fran and one from Vancouver BC to Portland, your argument fails.
Especially if it hooks up with the Las Vegas or Reno spur.
If they have a line from San Diego to San Fran and one from Vancouver BC to Portland, your argument fails.
Especially if it hooks up with the Las Vegas or Reno spur.
42
The Obama administration's high-speed rail proposal would make good fodder for a serious post, so Jonathan, why would you waste everyone's time using that as an excuse for a juvenile, silly rant about other drivers on the interstate highway?
Also, are you so lacking in perspective that you don't appreciate the irony of inserting the following in a post praising plans for high-speed rail: "...based upon experiences on a road trip to Portland..."? If you had some sensitivity to the possibility that people might perceive you as an airhead, you could at least have addressed the hypocrisy of advocating for passenger rail while you yourself are driving to Portland when you could have taken Amtrak.
Sure, I know the Amtrak Cascades is not high-speed rail, but it's just as fast as driving, and the improvements planned for that corridor aren't going to make it that much faster anyway. This isn't like someone advocating for light rail because the bus system sucks.
And sure, there may have been extenuating circumstances why you just had to drive, but who knows because you haven't even considered how you might come across.
From my own experience, whenever I've wanted to go to Portland, I've taken the train; I haven't driven. And it's not for any political reasons or out of any spirit of self-sacrifice. Just the opposite: I value my time and energy too much to be wasting it with my hands behind a steering wheel for three-plus hours each way. Not to mention I value my car too much to put the extra hundreds of miles on it.
Also, are you so lacking in perspective that you don't appreciate the irony of inserting the following in a post praising plans for high-speed rail: "...based upon experiences on a road trip to Portland..."? If you had some sensitivity to the possibility that people might perceive you as an airhead, you could at least have addressed the hypocrisy of advocating for passenger rail while you yourself are driving to Portland when you could have taken Amtrak.
Sure, I know the Amtrak Cascades is not high-speed rail, but it's just as fast as driving, and the improvements planned for that corridor aren't going to make it that much faster anyway. This isn't like someone advocating for light rail because the bus system sucks.
And sure, there may have been extenuating circumstances why you just had to drive, but who knows because you haven't even considered how you might come across.
From my own experience, whenever I've wanted to go to Portland, I've taken the train; I haven't driven. And it's not for any political reasons or out of any spirit of self-sacrifice. Just the opposite: I value my time and energy too much to be wasting it with my hands behind a steering wheel for three-plus hours each way. Not to mention I value my car too much to put the extra hundreds of miles on it.
43
cressona: I'm under two weeks away from defending my PhD. No time for substance. Irony is what I was going for.
I'm plotting a future series of posts on both alternative energy sources (you can google one I've written about wind power that I've already posted; I'm working on solar, geothermal, biofuels and the such) and a series on transportation modalities.
The train schedules didn't match up for my trip. And, believe me, I'd rather take the train.
I'm plotting a future series of posts on both alternative energy sources (you can google one I've written about wind power that I've already posted; I'm working on solar, geothermal, biofuels and the such) and a series on transportation modalities.
The train schedules didn't match up for my trip. And, believe me, I'd rather take the train.
44
Reverse Polarity @33: However, he is only proposing to spend 8 billion dollars on it. That is a drop in the bucket.
I had much the same reaction to the Obama administration's spending plans for high-speed rail. I'm thrilled that they're rhetorically advocating high-speed rail, but $8 billion plus another $5 billion over the coming years is not going to bring us high-speed rail. Well, those funds could be used to make some targeted, modest improvements to existing lines, so it's not wasted money.
But just think about California's plan for building from scratch a true high-speed rail system from San Diego and LA to Sacramento and SF. That system alone would cost on the order of $50 billion, I would guess.
Listening to Obama announce this today, I couldn't shake this sense of an "emperor has no clothes" quality to the proceedings. It's a bit like having your dream come true and then reading the fine print.
But hey, it's a start. And who would think we'd live to see the day when the president of the United States is someone who repeatedly, at any chance he gets, advocates for high-speed passenger rail?
Here's today's post from the White House blog:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/04/16/…
I had much the same reaction to the Obama administration's spending plans for high-speed rail. I'm thrilled that they're rhetorically advocating high-speed rail, but $8 billion plus another $5 billion over the coming years is not going to bring us high-speed rail. Well, those funds could be used to make some targeted, modest improvements to existing lines, so it's not wasted money.
But just think about California's plan for building from scratch a true high-speed rail system from San Diego and LA to Sacramento and SF. That system alone would cost on the order of $50 billion, I would guess.
Listening to Obama announce this today, I couldn't shake this sense of an "emperor has no clothes" quality to the proceedings. It's a bit like having your dream come true and then reading the fine print.
But hey, it's a start. And who would think we'd live to see the day when the president of the United States is someone who repeatedly, at any chance he gets, advocates for high-speed passenger rail?
Here's today's post from the White House blog:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/04/16/…
45
Jonathan Golob @43: cressona: I'm under two weeks away from defending my PhD. No time for substance. Irony is what I was going for.
Well, irony is certainly what you achieved with this post, Jonathan. Whether of the intended variety or not.
Well, irony is certainly what you achieved with this post, Jonathan. Whether of the intended variety or not.
46
Well cressona, I'm sorry I haven't lived up to your really high standards of commentary, wasting your precious time. Where's your brilliant thoughts on this subject, beyond $8bn is woefully inadequate to the task, but at least a step in the right direction.
At least I bothered to explain why a car, any car no matter how powered, is going to be inefficient at moving people compared to a train.
As Fnarf noted above, a huge reason why I (and many others) refuse to take Amtrak anywhere outside of the Northeast corridor right now is the priority given to freight. The Amtrak Cascades route is constantly being canceled, delayed and generally fucked with by BNSF. Fnarf is also correct: the passenger trains in the PNW are already 'high speed' capable (up to 110mph). Train travel here is a mess because of bad policy decisions. Obama is signaling a change in policy.
I drive. I'm sorry that makes you think I'm now an airhead on transportation. Provided a viable alternative, I'd take it. Congratulations on Amtrak working for you. Lucky you.
For what it's worth, I think only assholes and idiots fly between Northeastern cities.... or bitch about blog post that don't meet their exacting specifications for lack of humor and dry content.
At least I bothered to explain why a car, any car no matter how powered, is going to be inefficient at moving people compared to a train.
As Fnarf noted above, a huge reason why I (and many others) refuse to take Amtrak anywhere outside of the Northeast corridor right now is the priority given to freight. The Amtrak Cascades route is constantly being canceled, delayed and generally fucked with by BNSF. Fnarf is also correct: the passenger trains in the PNW are already 'high speed' capable (up to 110mph). Train travel here is a mess because of bad policy decisions. Obama is signaling a change in policy.
I drive. I'm sorry that makes you think I'm now an airhead on transportation. Provided a viable alternative, I'd take it. Congratulations on Amtrak working for you. Lucky you.
For what it's worth, I think only assholes and idiots fly between Northeastern cities.... or bitch about blog post that don't meet their exacting specifications for lack of humor and dry content.
47
@34
The speed limit jumps from 50 to 60 after lake Washington. You fail. Thanks for playing.
My point is that if some dillhole is lollygagging in the left, he is just asking for people to circumvent him, often on the right, often dangerously. It IS a requirement of the law that you drive right and pass left. How fucking hard is this? http://www.driverightpassleft.com/laws/i….
Yes, people speeding and driving recklessly deserve to get tickets, but encouraging people to weave in and out of traffic just to get around their slowpoke asses raises the chances of someone getting into an accident, and who wins then?
The speed limit jumps from 50 to 60 after lake Washington. You fail. Thanks for playing.
My point is that if some dillhole is lollygagging in the left, he is just asking for people to circumvent him, often on the right, often dangerously. It IS a requirement of the law that you drive right and pass left. How fucking hard is this? http://www.driverightpassleft.com/laws/i….
Yes, people speeding and driving recklessly deserve to get tickets, but encouraging people to weave in and out of traffic just to get around their slowpoke asses raises the chances of someone getting into an accident, and who wins then?
48
Has anyone else felt really sleepy about half way from Seattle to Portland (or the reverse trip).
Gets me every time.
Gets me every time.
49
Jonathan Golob @46:
Jonathan, you know damn well I'm not saying you're an airhead because you drive. I drive too. I'm saying your post came across as airheaded by turning the news about the Obama administration's high-speed rail plans into an unironic rant about how other drivers are inconveniencing precious little you.
Continued:
And Jonathan, it would have been nice if you had actually provided that context in your original post. Something like, "This is great news for me because I refuse to take the Amtrak Cascades for such and such reasons... Which is why I decided to drive recently to Portland..." If you're too busy to write a non-stupid post, then maybe don't post at all.
This does raise a fresh complaint, though. Let me get this straight, Jonathan. You refuse to take Amtrak anywhere outside of the Northeast Corridor because freight gets priority? Wow, you're apparently even more uninformed about this stuff than I had given you credit for.
Amtrak Cascades does get delayed for freight sometimes. But from my extensive experience riding Amtrak to Portland, I can attest that any really serious delays are rare. I wouldn't be surprised if significant Acela delays are more common than Amtrak Cascades delays, so maybe to consistently apply your principled stand, you should refuse to take Amtrak entirely.
Jonathan, I'm happy to continue this conversation with you, but now you're starting to sound like one of those typical ignoramuses who say something like, "I refuse to take the bus until they put a stop in front of my door." And at this rate, I'm not too sanguine about any more posts of yours.
More...
I drive. I'm sorry that makes you think I'm now an airhead on transportation. Provided a viable alternative, I'd take it. Congratulations on Amtrak working for you. Lucky you.
Jonathan, you know damn well I'm not saying you're an airhead because you drive. I drive too. I'm saying your post came across as airheaded by turning the news about the Obama administration's high-speed rail plans into an unironic rant about how other drivers are inconveniencing precious little you.
Continued:
As Fnarf noted above, a huge reason why I (and many others) refuse to take Amtrak anywhere outside of the Northeast corridor right now is the priority given to freight. The Amtrak Cascades route is constantly being canceled, delayed and generally fucked with by BNSF.
And Jonathan, it would have been nice if you had actually provided that context in your original post. Something like, "This is great news for me because I refuse to take the Amtrak Cascades for such and such reasons... Which is why I decided to drive recently to Portland..." If you're too busy to write a non-stupid post, then maybe don't post at all.
This does raise a fresh complaint, though. Let me get this straight, Jonathan. You refuse to take Amtrak anywhere outside of the Northeast Corridor because freight gets priority? Wow, you're apparently even more uninformed about this stuff than I had given you credit for.
Amtrak Cascades does get delayed for freight sometimes. But from my extensive experience riding Amtrak to Portland, I can attest that any really serious delays are rare. I wouldn't be surprised if significant Acela delays are more common than Amtrak Cascades delays, so maybe to consistently apply your principled stand, you should refuse to take Amtrak entirely.
Jonathan, I'm happy to continue this conversation with you, but now you're starting to sound like one of those typical ignoramuses who say something like, "I refuse to take the bus until they put a stop in front of my door." And at this rate, I'm not too sanguine about any more posts of yours.
50
We need rail for freight to replace trucks on the road as much if not more than passengers to replace cars and planes. Reagan really fucked us on that one.
51
11 described my reaction exactly. I lived in Japan for two years and miss the trains desperately.
53
Cressona and Golob, get a room.
But seriously, folks - I've made the Seattle/Portland drive at least a hundred times (family and band stuff) and taken the train a couple of times, and I'm pretty sure driving is usually faster than Amtrak on a point to point basis because of the number of stops the train makes (wanna see the wrong side of the tracks in Chehalis? You will) and also the times it has to slow down when it passes through congested areas*
*That said, the train might well be faster on some Friday evenings. I fear Friday PDX gigs.
Notwithstanding that, though, I'm absolutely all for moving toward regional high speed rail - Seattle to LA with all points in between in particular.
While I share Cressona's concern that the densities between Portland and San Francisco may not be viable for it now, I think that the long, flat straight stretches along existing rail lines and the I-5 and 99 Corridors may at least be reasonably easy to implement, and it's a worthwhile transportation link that could well serve as a viable and less environmentally damaging alternative to driving (for Portland) or flying (for SF and points south)
Heck, it's cheaper than bailing out an investment firm, and might create actual jobs....
But seriously, folks - I've made the Seattle/Portland drive at least a hundred times (family and band stuff) and taken the train a couple of times, and I'm pretty sure driving is usually faster than Amtrak on a point to point basis because of the number of stops the train makes (wanna see the wrong side of the tracks in Chehalis? You will) and also the times it has to slow down when it passes through congested areas*
*That said, the train might well be faster on some Friday evenings. I fear Friday PDX gigs.
Notwithstanding that, though, I'm absolutely all for moving toward regional high speed rail - Seattle to LA with all points in between in particular.
While I share Cressona's concern that the densities between Portland and San Francisco may not be viable for it now, I think that the long, flat straight stretches along existing rail lines and the I-5 and 99 Corridors may at least be reasonably easy to implement, and it's a worthwhile transportation link that could well serve as a viable and less environmentally damaging alternative to driving (for Portland) or flying (for SF and points south)
Heck, it's cheaper than bailing out an investment firm, and might create actual jobs....
54
If you are in the left lane going any speed and you can move right and you don't move right, you are breaking the law. Now throw into the mix that asshole no. 1 behind you, speeding, flashing lights at you....
doesn't matter -- you are still breaking the law by not moving right.
And now you become asshole no. 2, because you are making the situation more dangersous for everyone cuz you know damn well that asshole no. 1 will weave in and out.
Of the two assholes, you're the bigger one, cause you pretend to know better and have that smugness factor.
As to trains, why yes we have been killing train development here very assiduously lookit that bored tunnel there isn't any train in it is there?
Bored tunnel at $4 billion will end up $8 billion -- as much as this "huge" train investment Obama is for. Woo, hoo, we'll be riding high speed trains to Vancouver by about 3015, for sure!
Just immediately built it over the freeway, or buy other right of way now, whatever you do it's cheaper than waiting. And yes put the fucking train station in Olympia right by the leg.
doesn't matter -- you are still breaking the law by not moving right.
And now you become asshole no. 2, because you are making the situation more dangersous for everyone cuz you know damn well that asshole no. 1 will weave in and out.
Of the two assholes, you're the bigger one, cause you pretend to know better and have that smugness factor.
As to trains, why yes we have been killing train development here very assiduously lookit that bored tunnel there isn't any train in it is there?
Bored tunnel at $4 billion will end up $8 billion -- as much as this "huge" train investment Obama is for. Woo, hoo, we'll be riding high speed trains to Vancouver by about 3015, for sure!
Just immediately built it over the freeway, or buy other right of way now, whatever you do it's cheaper than waiting. And yes put the fucking train station in Olympia right by the leg.
55
Fnarf dear, I'm glad you stopped obsessing about passing lanes, or whatever it was that you were talking about, but I think you need a better understanding of things when it comes to Amtrak between Seattle and Portland.
The BNSF is a great partner to Amtrak. There are *occasional* problems, but most of that it beyond either Amtrak or BNSF's control.
Union Pacific, on the other hand, who runs the Cascades south of Portland, has been dreadful. but even they are improving.
The biggest problem the Cascades faces is Geography: It runs down to Puyallup, then over to Tacoma, then around Point Defiance (where there is a bottleneck in the single-tracked tunnels) then down over by Olympia before heading down to Portland. That's quite a meandering route compared to I-5.
Certain improvements, such as the Point Defiance bypass, will improve things, as will the Vancouver, WA realignment, but short of new ROW through built-up land, it will never be high speed rail in the European sense.
Personally, the time it takes to get to Portland doesn't bother me. It's certainly more interesting than driving, but I know that I'm the exception on this one. People have been thoroughly indoctrinated into the car culture in the US, and most would much rather get someplace that extra half hour early, or even sit in traffic, than give up control and let someone else do the driving. I think that's a real pity.
Oh, and I really don't think the train into Olympia will ever happen. As I understand it, back when there was train service to Olympia, the train had to back into town for several miles. People would never stand for that today.
The BNSF is a great partner to Amtrak. There are *occasional* problems, but most of that it beyond either Amtrak or BNSF's control.
Union Pacific, on the other hand, who runs the Cascades south of Portland, has been dreadful. but even they are improving.
The biggest problem the Cascades faces is Geography: It runs down to Puyallup, then over to Tacoma, then around Point Defiance (where there is a bottleneck in the single-tracked tunnels) then down over by Olympia before heading down to Portland. That's quite a meandering route compared to I-5.
Certain improvements, such as the Point Defiance bypass, will improve things, as will the Vancouver, WA realignment, but short of new ROW through built-up land, it will never be high speed rail in the European sense.
Personally, the time it takes to get to Portland doesn't bother me. It's certainly more interesting than driving, but I know that I'm the exception on this one. People have been thoroughly indoctrinated into the car culture in the US, and most would much rather get someplace that extra half hour early, or even sit in traffic, than give up control and let someone else do the driving. I think that's a real pity.
Oh, and I really don't think the train into Olympia will ever happen. As I understand it, back when there was train service to Olympia, the train had to back into town for several miles. People would never stand for that today.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Stephen Fry v. the Catholic Church by Dan Savage
-
Neologism Needed by Dan Savage
-
Palin's Cheat Sheet by Dan Savage
-
Straight Up by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Toilet Brush Off by Dan Savage
-
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father by Dan Savage
-
Tea Party Crowd Believes That Only Good Spellers Should Vote by Dan Savage
-
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father by Dan Savage
-
The Green Police Super Bowl Commercial by Charles Mudede
-
How's That Hopey, Changey Stuff Working Out For Childhood Obesity? by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (55) RSS