Thank You for Riding!
| more_riders_print_at_home_flyer.pdf |
Successful Trial Paves the Way for Midwestern H.S.R
Last Friday saw the first of what will hopefully be many high speed rail journeys in the Midwest region when a train on Amtrak’s Chicago-St. Louis corridor reached speeds of 111mph, faster than any U.S. train outside of the Northeast Corridor.
The successful trial points to a bright future for riders traveling in the region. The new faster service will reduce travel time between the two cities by an hour and will dramatically increase the number of passengers who can avail of the service. The more riders who can enjoy high speed inter-city train travel, the more resources available to invest in further improving the whole service.
The successful trial points to a bright future for riders traveling in the region. The new faster service will reduce travel time between the two cities by an hour and will dramatically increase the number of passengers who can avail of the service. The more riders who can enjoy high speed inter-city train travel, the more resources available to invest in further improving the whole service.
GOP Platform on investment in transportation.
The Republican Party platform is unambiguous when it comes to revealing the party's attitude to infrastructure investment and rail transit. It states;
"Amtrak continues to be, for the taxpayers, an extremely expensive railroad. The public has to subsidize every ticket nearly $50. It is long past time for the federal government to get out of way and allow private ventures to provide passenger service to the northeast corridor. The same holds true with regard to high-speed and intercity rail across the country"(page 6).
Both Mitt Romney and congressional Republicans have pledged to end federal support for inter-city and high speed rail transit essentially killing the service. There isn't a single example in the world of a passenger rail network that operates without some for of public support. Other countries, like Britain, have pursued radical rail privatization policies in the past. The results have not been promising. Privatized inter-city rail travel would mean more expensive ticket prices for a worse service covering less of the country. It would also mean more road traffic, more pollution, higher gas prices and fewer jobs.
"Amtrak continues to be, for the taxpayers, an extremely expensive railroad. The public has to subsidize every ticket nearly $50. It is long past time for the federal government to get out of way and allow private ventures to provide passenger service to the northeast corridor. The same holds true with regard to high-speed and intercity rail across the country"(page 6).
Both Mitt Romney and congressional Republicans have pledged to end federal support for inter-city and high speed rail transit essentially killing the service. There isn't a single example in the world of a passenger rail network that operates without some for of public support. Other countries, like Britain, have pursued radical rail privatization policies in the past. The results have not been promising. Privatized inter-city rail travel would mean more expensive ticket prices for a worse service covering less of the country. It would also mean more road traffic, more pollution, higher gas prices and fewer jobs.
The Stakes are High for Riders in Election 2012
Railroads are the backbone of America and every year rail transit provides millions of riders with a safe, affordable and efficient way to get to where they need to go. Last year, more than 30 million people took an Amtrak train, which was not only the highest number in history but was the 8th annual ridership record in the last 9 years. More riders means less road traffic, cheaper gas and energy prices, a better environment and a stronger economy.
So where do the parties stand when it comes to rail transit? One party is committed to make the necessary investment in building and maintaining the rail transit infrastructure that's so crucial to our economic success. The stimulus bill, passed by President Obama and the Democratic Congress in 2009 contained more than $9 billion dollars of much needed investment to improve both existing Amtrak services and to build the high speed rail infrastructure of the future.
The other has demonstrated both its opposition to making the necessary investment in American rail infrastructure and its dedication to a car centered transportation policy of highway building and oil dependency. History has taught us that building more roads and highways only makes traffic congestion worse. Increasing our dependency on oil weakens the economy, leaves America at the mercy of events in volatile oil producing regions of the world and hurts our environment. The Republican Party would eliminate public support for Amtrak, killing the service. The GOP Ryan budget, passed by the Republican controlled House of Representatives and supported by Republicans in the Senate would cut $200 billion dollars in transport infrastructure funding destroying jobs and damaging the American economy.
So where do the parties stand when it comes to rail transit? One party is committed to make the necessary investment in building and maintaining the rail transit infrastructure that's so crucial to our economic success. The stimulus bill, passed by President Obama and the Democratic Congress in 2009 contained more than $9 billion dollars of much needed investment to improve both existing Amtrak services and to build the high speed rail infrastructure of the future.
The other has demonstrated both its opposition to making the necessary investment in American rail infrastructure and its dedication to a car centered transportation policy of highway building and oil dependency. History has taught us that building more roads and highways only makes traffic congestion worse. Increasing our dependency on oil weakens the economy, leaves America at the mercy of events in volatile oil producing regions of the world and hurts our environment. The Republican Party would eliminate public support for Amtrak, killing the service. The GOP Ryan budget, passed by the Republican controlled House of Representatives and supported by Republicans in the Senate would cut $200 billion dollars in transport infrastructure funding destroying jobs and damaging the American economy.
Making the Case for High Speed Rail
Imagine being able to travel from New York City to Boston in just over 90 minutes or from Washington D.C. to Philadelphia in less than an hour. Imagine being able to do it in comfort for an affordable price without having to go through the hassle of airport security or highway traffic. Imagine instead of arriving at an airport on the outskirts of your destination, you could be brought right into the heart city. Commuters in other countries get to enjoy exactly this sort of transit experience, so why shouldn't America riders? The answer is that unlike Japan, China, Taiwan, Korea most of Europe, the United States lacks a properly developed high speed rail network. Plans exist to link major cities in America's economic regions with electrified, state of the art high speed trains but a lack of political ambition have delayed their implementation. Amtrak and the
Population growth, increasing traffic congestion, advances in rail transit technology, rising gas prices and the damage done by car and air travel make the case for high speed rail development even more compelling.
Population growth, increasing traffic congestion, advances in rail transit technology, rising gas prices and the damage done by car and air travel make the case for high speed rail development even more compelling.
- Experience from Asia and Europe has proven that over short and medium length journeys, high speed rail travel is as fast or faster than air travel or traveling by car. As high speed routes improved, passenger numbers skyrocketed. In France, TGV Sud-Est reduced the travel time between Paris–Lyon from almost four to about two hours. Market share rose from 49 to 72%. Air and road market shares shrunk from 31 to 7% and from 29 to 21%, respectively. On the Madrid–Sevilla link, the AVE connection increased rail transit's share from 16% to 52% ; air traffic shrunk from 40% to 13%; road traffic from 44 to 36%, hence the rail market amounted to 80% of combined rail and air traffic.
- Emissions from high speed trains are up to 90% lower than those produced by airplanes over the equivalent distance.
- High speed trains are safer, less effected by bad weather and provide a more comfortable journey than traveling by air or road.
