A great justification for building a nationwide high speed rail network

[Pab Sungenis]

There is a logical reason for our putting a nationwide high speed rail network in place, and I'm surprised that no one has brought it up. It's a logical argument, it's specifically called for in the Constitution, and it would be a great way to help pay for the network and help subsidize costs for travelers as an incentive to use it.

Build the network as a series of "post roads."

The Constitution specifically empowers Congress to build Post Offices and Post Roads, and it's safe to assume that the definition of "roads" as envisioned in 1787 can be extended to railroads today. This would allow the network to stand up to "strict constructionist" scrutiny when the Regressive Party argues against it on the floors of Congress and tries to fight it in the courts. Just dedicate a portion of each train to carrying mail and other packages from the US Postal Service, much as trains were used for regularly before air travel became ubiquitous.

How would this benefit everyone?

(1) It is cheaper, by mile, to move freight by train than it is by either overland trucks or via air. First-class mail, parcel post, and media mail could easily be moved very efficiently via a high speed rail network from point to point for a fraction of what it's moved now. True, it would take 15-20 hours to move across country (if we can get an average of about 200 mph per train) as opposed to 6 via air so Express Mail would still probably go by air, but the overwhelming majority of the mail could be moved either almost as quickly or even more quickly from point A to point B along the way using high speed rail.

(2) Because it's cheaper to haul by rail, this would lower the USPS's hauling costs, helping to keep the price of postage from rising at its current, ridiculous, annual rates. In fact....

(3) We could charge the USPS a premium for shipping mail on the high speed rail lines, but still less than what they're paying now to haul it over land or fly it, to help subsidize the cost of passenger travel on the line. In fact, since the high speed rail lines would technically be post roads, we might be able to defray almost ALL of the operational costs for the trains through postage, and charge relatively next to nothing for passengers. That would encourage more use of the rails, which would decrease fuel use by passenger vehicles and planes, which would have the added benefit of helping wean us off the teat of Saudi Arabia.

It's such a logical argument, it's no surprise no one in government has picked up on it yet.

[Romulox]

1. There is no Constitutional barrier to building HSR. There is a financial barrier.

With the USPS losing money on declining volume, I don't think USPS is a good "hook" to hang this argument on...

[Greyhound]

5. Far more to it than declining volume. n/t

[Skink]

2. We have the network we just need really fast trains.

Take a look at the defunct plans for the trans Texas corridor. Property rights were a major stumbling block and the cost was set to be astronomical.

[ThomWV]

3. This - and I pray it happens - will be President Obama's greatest legacy

Just like Ikes's Interstate system and Bill Clinton's Internet, this high speed rail system could go down as one of the fundamentally important infrastructure endeavors in the nation's history. I honestly believe that. Mass transit on a national scale via an environmentally friendly and economically sound new technology will be the greatest legacy this Administration leaves - more important than getting out of a war, more important than fixing a severe but short-lived downturn in the economy in his first term.

[Greyhound]

4. I like your idea, the roadblock will be the Corporate Congress.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5071628&mesg_id=5071995">If you read this post about things nobody knows regarding the USPS you'll see why. Congress turned it into their personal slush fund and uses it to subsidize UPS and FedEx.

[sandnsea]

6. Cheap travel for grandma

With the aging boomer population and airline travel being expensive and toxic to the planet, if grandma can get on a train and get to half the country within 8 hours, for less than $200, then you've got something people will support.

[ThomWV]

8. And for the majority of business travel too.

Its the cheap suits that will fill the trains - at a considerable reduction in cost to their employers and with less environmetal impact on all the rest of us. Long live the Ozone layer.

Hail to the Chief.

[BonnieJW]

9. Not only less cost, but

you don't get treated like a criminal when you ride the train. I can't stand flying.

[hunter]

7. I like that.

One of the primary attractions of rail is that it need not use oil. Electric trains might significantly reduce our nation's carbon dioxide emmisions.

Fewer trucks would reduce the costs of building and maintaining highways. As this railroad system was expanding we might give explicit employment and training preferences to displaced highway transportation workers.

[ThomWV]

10. There's a problem with that

Electric trains (not diesel/electric) might actually be the cause of a lot more carbon dioxide emissions. Most of our electricity comes from burning coal. There is a tremendous loss of energy in transmission (even with a "smart grid") and so you have the carbon dioxide created when the coal is burned multiplied by the energy transmission loss factor multiplied by the increased demand created by the electric rail system itself. Let's face it, the power demands for a heavy load fast rail system are not going to be met by solar arrays over the tracks - there simply is not enough energy there to do it. Nor will wind turbines over the tracks run the trains. In fact, considering that its use and energy demands would be consistent and predictable this would be a fine use of nuclear power.

Hail to the Chief

[damntexdem]

11. Strict constructionists didn't stop the feds from giving resources for RRs in the 19th Century.

Nor did they stop them from building U.S. highways, and later interstates, in the 20th.

We need the high-speed rail (maybe even the fantasy train from Disneyland to Vegas).

And the current proposal certainly doesn't go far enough. For example, it includes trains to Dallas and Houston, but not BETWEEN Dallas and Houston, nor from Dallas up to KC, so on to Chicago. And it certainly doesn't constitute a national system. Jetting around just won't fly anymore, not with the need to address global climate change.

[marions ghost]

12. K & R

High Speed Rail is a concept that is better late than never--it's DECADES overdue.

Transporting mail via the system is a good idea to me, using it to offset costs. Right, somebody will have an argument against it. But this is the kind of creative business thinking we need.

[ColbertWatcher]

13. Brilliant! Damn I wish I could rec this! n/t

[Pab Sungenis]

14. Feel free to spread the basic ideas

and repost them.