Riding the rails
(This post, in a slightly different form, originally appeared as a comment on papersky's LJ. I took so much time thinking about it and doing a little research for it, that I decided to revise it and post it on my own LJ because, based on the passions it raised in me, it wanted a little more room to breath.)
Over in her LJ, papersky is challenging the idea that the Amtrak Writer-in-Residence program is a good idea, mainly because it presents train travel a novelty rather than promoting it as a practical, economical means of transportation. She makes some excellent points that I, as someone who grew up taking trains, agree with.
I would challenge her idea, however, that all Americans think trains are weird novelties. They're weird novelties in certain parts of the country, sure. But in the northeastern portion of the country they are a way of life for many people. On Long Island, in Connecticut, in New Jersey, and Pennsylvania they are in daily use by millions of commuters every day. I used it daily for a decade. For business people who travel the DC-New York-Boston corridor, they are a pretty regular alternative to flights (quicker on-off times, no TSA Security Theater, more central embarkation/debarkation locations); our vice president used the railroad daily himself for decades. And then there are subways.
I understand that papersky was talking about longer distance travel, and I completely agree with her point that Amtrak has its problems. (It doesn't own its rails. Its connections can be dodgy. High speed rail continues to be an unrealized dream.) But living in a city where trains really are novelties (Seattle) I am struck by the idea because trains were so not novel things to me for so very long as I grew up and lived in New York. Would I like to see trains become more commonly used, more effectively deployed? Absolutely. They are greener than cars and planes, they offer a way to see the country that is fast and comfortable. Would I like to see high-speed trains in the US? After my experiences in Japan, it boggles my mind that a country the size of the US doesn't have high speed. I totally get it.
I think papersky nailed it when she talked about the issue of who owns the rails themselves--it's corporations and shipping companies, not the nation. Another thing that boggles my mind is how political that question gets. Witness President Obama and Vice President Biden's attempts to build the infrastructure to support high-speed development. Their attempt to provide Florida's most tourist-driven region with high-speed rail: politics killed it dead. And it's having its effect in California. And in New York. It's going to take a major change in political climate to get the rails rolling the way they could, the way they should, in the US.
I don't take the train the way I used to; I admit it. When I do, it's always a pleasant experience. But I don't have the need to get from here to there in the same way I used to. My travel patterns are different these days. And I live in one of those regions where rail is a novelty because it's not universally effectively deployed. I'd love to see that change locally. When we have the facility locally, we'll be able to support it more broadly.
Over in her LJ, papersky is challenging the idea that the Amtrak Writer-in-Residence program is a good idea, mainly because it presents train travel a novelty rather than promoting it as a practical, economical means of transportation. She makes some excellent points that I, as someone who grew up taking trains, agree with.
I would challenge her idea, however, that all Americans think trains are weird novelties. They're weird novelties in certain parts of the country, sure. But in the northeastern portion of the country they are a way of life for many people. On Long Island, in Connecticut, in New Jersey, and Pennsylvania they are in daily use by millions of commuters every day. I used it daily for a decade. For business people who travel the DC-New York-Boston corridor, they are a pretty regular alternative to flights (quicker on-off times, no TSA Security Theater, more central embarkation/debarkation locations); our vice president used the railroad daily himself for decades. And then there are subways.
I understand that papersky was talking about longer distance travel, and I completely agree with her point that Amtrak has its problems. (It doesn't own its rails. Its connections can be dodgy. High speed rail continues to be an unrealized dream.) But living in a city where trains really are novelties (Seattle) I am struck by the idea because trains were so not novel things to me for so very long as I grew up and lived in New York. Would I like to see trains become more commonly used, more effectively deployed? Absolutely. They are greener than cars and planes, they offer a way to see the country that is fast and comfortable. Would I like to see high-speed trains in the US? After my experiences in Japan, it boggles my mind that a country the size of the US doesn't have high speed. I totally get it.
I think papersky nailed it when she talked about the issue of who owns the rails themselves--it's corporations and shipping companies, not the nation. Another thing that boggles my mind is how political that question gets. Witness President Obama and Vice President Biden's attempts to build the infrastructure to support high-speed development. Their attempt to provide Florida's most tourist-driven region with high-speed rail: politics killed it dead. And it's having its effect in California. And in New York. It's going to take a major change in political climate to get the rails rolling the way they could, the way they should, in the US.
I don't take the train the way I used to; I admit it. When I do, it's always a pleasant experience. But I don't have the need to get from here to there in the same way I used to. My travel patterns are different these days. And I live in one of those regions where rail is a novelty because it's not universally effectively deployed. I'd love to see that change locally. When we have the facility locally, we'll be able to support it more broadly.