So, let me get this straight: the feds are going to eventually spend $400 million on “high-speed” rail that will get people from Detroit to Chicago a full 30 minutes earlier than a typical motorist?
Does that make any sense?
The U.S. Department of Transportation will take an interim step to improve rail lines between Dearborn and Kalamazoo that will allow speeds of up to 110 mph, in some areas.
First of all, the Obama administration’s spin on this – that they are providing high-speed trains inspired by the “bullet” trains in Europe and Asia – is obviously BS.
The $2 billion handed out by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood on Monday lacks any sense of pragmatism, or common sense or cost-efficiency.
A large chunk of the money went toward the Washington-New York-Boston commuter corridor. But the result will be trains traveling at 160 mph, rather than the current 135 mph, on small stretches of that East Coast terrain.
An economist who periodically travels from Washington to Boston told the Associated Press that the announced improvements made no sense to him. Matthew Konopka said that traveling by air, including check-in and security pass-throughs, bring his travel time to 3 ½ hours. But the trains, under current speeds, are twice that much – a 7-hour trip.
Is there anybody at USDOT who has examined the parameters and limitations involved with these “improvements?”
Despite the obvious example offered by Konopka – and probably thousands more travelers – Congressman Jerrold Nadler, an old-school New York City liberal, said that USDOT’s goal should be to take all commuters off of New York’s short-trip flights. Nadler said that those flights along the East Coast have snarled air traffic at NYC’s airports.
Well, here’s an idea: Instead of investing $800 million in East Coast rail lines, why not invest that money in airports – at a time when many major U.S. airports are considered outdated and inferior to their overseas counterpart facilities?
Wouldn’t that make more sense, and give taxpayers more bang for the buck?