The Green New Deal wants to end air travel in favor of high speed trains. For some reason, the Climatistas think that train travel like they have in Europe works better than air travel. The problem, of course, is that in Europe, the cities are much closer together so that the train trips are short enough to be able to compete with the planes. That works in the USA too, but there are just two few places where the distances are relatively short and way too many where the trips are extremely long. For example, the train trip between London and Paris takes 2 hours and 16 minutes. By contrast, the train between New York and Los Angeles takes at least 3 days right now. Even if high speed trains were to cut that time by 1/3 (which they won't), the trip would still take 2 days. New York to Chicago by air takes about 2 hours, but by train it would take 24 hours or so. In Europe the train from Paris to Berlin takes 8 hours, and that route is not as heavily trafficked as the air travel between those points.
So are the places where high speed rail would work in the USA? Certainly! The Northeast corridor between Boston and Washington with major stops in New York and Philadelphia connects four of the ten largest cities in the US and the distances are not great. Even so, almost no one takes the train from Boston to Washington compared to the numbers that fly on that route. If the train speeds on the route were increased markedly, though, the trains could compete. Right now, this is one of the only routes on which Amtrak makes a profit.
The silly obsession with high speed rail was a hallmark of the Obama plan for improved infrastructure and fighting climate change. Obama got billions in the Stimulus bill in 2009 for high speed rail. Many states examined the possibility of building high speed rail. Nearly every state decided to forego the money because such a rail plan would not work. California was the only state to decide on a major commitment to high speed rail. It spent tens of billions of dollars on the central part of a line from LA to San Francisco. The lines in the Los Angeles and San Francisco areas, however, were not built because of difficulties in placing them and heavy local opposition. The costs of building the line in the central part of the state also soared to way higher numbers than had been estimated. California just abandoned the high speed rail project after wasting tens of billions on it.
Despite the clearly inadequate nature of high speed rail as an American solution, the Green New Deal endorses this failure as a cure for air travel and its supposed effect on the climate. Forgetting all the sillier aspects of the Green New Deal, the endorsement of high speed rail shows that the program was put together by people for whom slogans matter more than facts. It's the rough equivalent of the authors of the Green New Deal announcing that their solution to the effect that days without wind would have on wind driven turbines is that everyone in America would go outside and wave their arms to "create" wind.
So are the places where high speed rail would work in the USA? Certainly! The Northeast corridor between Boston and Washington with major stops in New York and Philadelphia connects four of the ten largest cities in the US and the distances are not great. Even so, almost no one takes the train from Boston to Washington compared to the numbers that fly on that route. If the train speeds on the route were increased markedly, though, the trains could compete. Right now, this is one of the only routes on which Amtrak makes a profit.
The silly obsession with high speed rail was a hallmark of the Obama plan for improved infrastructure and fighting climate change. Obama got billions in the Stimulus bill in 2009 for high speed rail. Many states examined the possibility of building high speed rail. Nearly every state decided to forego the money because such a rail plan would not work. California was the only state to decide on a major commitment to high speed rail. It spent tens of billions of dollars on the central part of a line from LA to San Francisco. The lines in the Los Angeles and San Francisco areas, however, were not built because of difficulties in placing them and heavy local opposition. The costs of building the line in the central part of the state also soared to way higher numbers than had been estimated. California just abandoned the high speed rail project after wasting tens of billions on it.
Despite the clearly inadequate nature of high speed rail as an American solution, the Green New Deal endorses this failure as a cure for air travel and its supposed effect on the climate. Forgetting all the sillier aspects of the Green New Deal, the endorsement of high speed rail shows that the program was put together by people for whom slogans matter more than facts. It's the rough equivalent of the authors of the Green New Deal announcing that their solution to the effect that days without wind would have on wind driven turbines is that everyone in America would go outside and wave their arms to "create" wind.
No comments:
Post a Comment