Yes, I wrote already, "I know, I'm sure it's just a fragment from whatever he was saying, and that he said lots of more a propos stuff too."
I think maybe we're kind of talking past each other. I have no problem with high speed rail! I think it's a great idea. Any expansion of rail is good in my book.
I also appreciate the extra info you and Fishin', too, provided about the difficulty of establishing new rail links. I know that a new North-South underground line that's being built in Amsterdam, right underneath the city centre, for example, was a couple of decades in making. It could really only be built now, rather than 30 years ago when it was first proposed, because back then it would have involved razing swathes of valuable inner city housing. Now new technologies of underground drilling make it possible to build it without much mayhem beyond breaking up roads and the traffic problems that temporarily causes.
Same here in Budapest, they're building a whole new underground line across the city here too. Also been a decade in making. Those aren't small efforts. Though both examples also show that such major infrastructural public transport projects are possible, and are a lot less disruptive now than they used to be.
As often as not, all kinds of non-tangible elements get in the mix too. The New Yorker had a great article about the myriad facets of the escalating commuter crisis last year, and one example it highlighted was the proposed extension of the underground or light rail system (dont remember which) in Atlanta. That's a city with one of the most messed up congestion problems in the country, apparently, but the proposal was voted down in a referendum (I think?), largely for reasons to do with community relations rather than transport. The (white) suburbanites resented the huge expenses that would largely benefit the black residents of the inner circles of the city, and the no-vote was partly even fuelled by the fear that rapid public transport links into the suburbs would lead to an influx of inner city blacks. (The acronym of the Atlanta public transport authority apparently is often derided by whites as standing for "Moving Africans Rapidly Through Atlanta.")
So there's a lot of challenges and dilemmas involved, while at the same time the need to expand quality public transport increases all the time with global warming, congestion and gas price rises. So what should have priority in this area? If you have to choose what to spend your political capital on? Replacing air travel with long-distance rapid rail links would be the most effective way to counter global warming, I would guess. But if it's congestion and the anguish of working/middle class people squeezed by rising gas prices you see as the most immediate problem, local public transport alternatives for driving seem more acute.
I can see the problems in building light rail from scratch, obtaining the properties etc. They have been building a new light rail system in Holland across the four main cities now, but it's alongside existing rail lines so thats probably easier. But then what about expanding and improving buses? From what I gather, especially in cities in the West, local buses are often rare, crappy and unsafe, and are only used by people who really cant afford anything else. Now take the example of Ken Livingstone in London. In his eight years as mayor he imposed a congestion charge for car traffic in the inner city, and with the proceeds he funded a great expansion of the number and frequency of buses and bus lines, and price cuts for large groups of people. It led to an explosion in the use of the bus.
Yeah so, I'm digressing ridiculously, but my beef isnt that I think rapid long-distance rail links are a bad idea. They're basically a good idea, though I do feel that improving local commuter options in public transport should be a bigger priority, because that would better benefit the people who need the break the most. But my point was about political strategy. Specifically Obama's seeming lack of feeling the right perspective in discussions like this.
Like I said, at this point in the race it's all about staying on message. The subject at hand was that Hillary has come up with some ridiculously rhetorical plan to help out struggling middle class families who are facing a squeeze because of the gas prices. The plan doesnt make any sense and will hardly help, but she's probably still scoring points with it in IN, NC, WV and KY. Explaining all the reasons why her plan is a fraud is good. But if you're doing that, then please find a counterplan to provide a break for these people and stick to it through all discussions about it. Being distracted into pondering the dilemmas of lacking the choice between air or high-speed rail for all those NY-DC trips, even just as part of your remarks, is just dumb and plays right into those "elitist, out of touch" stereotypes. That's all that got my goat.
