President Obama seeks to change this. Last month, he released a strategic plan that identified 10 corridors for high-speed rail ranging between 100 miles and 600 miles that could be eligible for federal funding. Attention would be shown to Acela. Mr. Obama would plunk down $8 billion authorized in the stimulus package and $5 billion over the next five years. That is a drop in the bucket; a proposed line between Anaheim, Calif., and San Francisco alone carries an estimated cost of $34 billion and would take 10 years to build. But this is a worthwhile down payment on a transportation system that would benefit the environment.
Mr. Obama calls high-speed rail “long overdue.” So is a modern air traffic control system. A car GPS navigation unit is more advanced than the 1950s-era equipment being used today. The Federal Aviation Administration is putting the pieces in place to make NextGen fully operational. It would allow more planes to get into and out of the air faster, relieving airport congestion and reducing delays. This is especially important for the New York area. A third of all U.S. flights go through the region, and a hiccup at any of its four major airports can affect two-thirds of the nation’s air traffic.
ad_icon
But it is not clear how the FAA will pay for key components of NextGen.
I wonder if the reporter did any actual investigation before writing this. Saying that the FAA uses 50’s era equipment is to ignore the modernizations that have taken place. Yes, there is some old equipment there, but it is a gross oversimplification to paint the whole air traffic control system with that brush. What may be necessary is to get the FAA out of the political appointee environment and into a quasi government role somewhat like the Federal Reserve Banks.
Trains are fine. They are especially fine for countries whose land area is on a par with some of the states in the US.
the environmentalists can’t be happy about the rail plans, it will use up a lot of land to build these things and trains use A LOT of energy to operate, particularly high speed trains. but they’re in the tank for Obama so don’t expect much…..
simple answer — elevated monorail, give Disney the contract.
It takes up very little actual land space, since it is on pylons, it uses electro-magnets for propulsion, and it’s fast. Up to 70 miles per hour (but limited to 55 in the parks). They can put it alongside existing tracks, on railroad right of ways, so no land purchases involved, and it won’t interfere with freight train schedules.
Wisconsin plus Minnesota: very liberal, 140 K square miles, not quite 11 million people. No trains worthy of mention.
Germany: very liberal, 138 K square miles, not quite 85 million people. Trains aren’t too bad.
So … at 15% of the potential market depth and density … we’re gonna make trains work in Wisconsin + Minnesota like they do in Germany, which is barely okay, in spite of oppressively structured gasoline taxes?
I like trains. There are some places where they would make sense. But I am dubious about the gov trying to figure that out. I suspect decisions and money would be spent more on the basis of politics than practical need. The issue with the air traffic control is a bit different. I know a couple people who have been in that field. One recently retired. And they both have some horror stories that make me leery about flying.
That is one area where we are legitimately in urgent need of upgrades. Its not just a transportation issue. It’s a national security issue. Our air traffic control system is dangerously vulnerable to sabotage and terrorist attack. A couple half way decently coordinated attacks at strategic locations could substantially paralyze our nation’s air traffic.
Christ is risen!
John
the only place they make sense (density wise) is the DC NYC corridor but the tracks there are so twisty and turny that straightening them out would involve displacing people from their homes. But hey, thanks to Kelo, that wouldn’t be any problem.
Trains were one of the reasons the US economy became so powerful. And it was due to immense government investment.
The government subsidizes cars through paying for roads. It does so to benefit powerful corporations, who have run their businesses irresponsibly. Why not choose other corporations to subsidize, like train builders?
Merely updating trains and train tracks would help enormously. Getting the Chicago-NY trains to work on time, rather than underinvesting (and then blaming Government for the consequences of not investing), or a few selected corridors to spur economic growth, would help economies enormously through the multiplier effect.
As well as the environment