OneRail Coalition lobbies for extended rail system
By Susan Wilson
A mixture of freight and passenger rail lines has formed the OneRail Coalition to ask the new President and Congress for green infrastructure funds. The funding would be used to expand and bolster existing rail programs.
According to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA). the Coalition is comprised of American Public Transportation Association, Amtrak, American Short Line & Regional Railroad Association, Association of American Railroads, Building America’s Future, National Association of Railroad Passengers, Natural Resources Defense Council, Railway Supply Institute, States for Passenger Rail Coalition, and Surface Transportation Policy Partnership. The state goal of the Coalition is as follows:
The OneRail Coalition seeks to bridge the goals of expanding intercity and commuter passenger and rail options across the country and the need to ensure the capacity, safety and integrity of the nation’s freight rail network.
The Coalition hopes that infrastructure money will be used to improve the current rail system while extending rail systems between more cities and within larger cities. By creating a stronger rail system, it will encourage more people to travel by train, lowering traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.
Anyone who has ever traveled or lived in a big city knows the joys being trapped in rush hour traffic. On hot days, traffic gets more congested as cars overheat and stall. Rolling down car windows to lower stress on the engine rather than use air conditioning means breathing in nasty air.
Rail systems, like those in Atlanta, Boston, New York, and London, relieve a lot of that congestion by moving large groups of people between home and work and back again.
Commuter trains like those Ridden by businessmen between Connecticut and New York, cut down on frustration, traffic and increase productive time. This is part of the system that the Coalition is advocating.
Not only can trains both between and within cities lower pollution, move people faster, cheaper and safer (no road rage on the Metro) but freight can be moved more economically and lower green house gases. “Every ton mile of freight that moves by rail instead of long-haul truck reduces greenhouse gas emissions by at least two-thirds.”
Less frustration, better environment, and no hassle with parking or maintenance of a vehicle. What could be better?
Related:
Entry was posted
on Friday, January 16th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
under
Read more entries by Susan Wilson.
Stumble It!
January 16th, 2009
How about a system that works?
This again? People in the US don’t use mass transit much because our population centers have been built up around the automobile. People moved to the suburbs to escape the congestion that makes mass transit work. People hate Amtrak, I have had a half dozen of my my relatives and friends come for a winter visit. One from Charleston, one from Tacoma and several from the Midwest and all hated it.
We pour millions into this stuff every couple of decades, people stay away in droves because it’s inconvenient and unreliable unless you are talking about New York or Chicago. Cities that grew up post WWII sprawled. You can’t even get people to carpool and the high occupant vehicle lanes are way under capacity.
It sounds great and makes sense but people won’t use it. The money should be diverted to something practical and not ideological.
January 17th, 2009
I would like to see the rail system extended to make it easier for people to move around a city, but this does not address the vast majority in the suburbs. We need an organized system of paid ride sharing to connect people with mass transit. This would be the best of both worlds that would reduce congestion and help the environment. Let me know what you think at
http://www.Pay4Rides.com
January 18th, 2009
How many more millions must the got pump into Amtrak to make it viable?
How much higher can systems like DC Metro raise rates before people just completely stop riding?
NY and London and such subway systems work because the population and employment centers grew up beside the rails. Suburban America did not. With the Nimbly’s and the environmentalists fighting every proposed rail building project, it is hard to imagine rail ever becoming viable in the suburbs as there is just no way or enough space/money to put in enough rails where we need them in order to be a viable alternati e to driving there by car.
June 22nd, 2009
The anti-rail transit folk seem to forget that the first suburbs grew up around either light rail or trolley cars. The future can work the same way. Yes, it is true that the current suburbs were designed around the automobile and produced sprawl and massive traffic jams. Let’s go ‘back to the future’ and look at rail as the answer going forward since the car didn’t work out all that well. If we look at building rail as an infrastructure that will support future growth the same way that roads served as the infrastructure that fueled the sprawling suburbs then rail has a chance. Rail will not replace the car rather it will supplement the car. Our population is still growing rapidly and as such there will be a need for new housing in the future. The questions is do we continue on a non-working solution such as building more roads, which yes we will need to do but to what extent, or alternative enviuronmentally friendly transportation options such as rail transit. And also rail can be retrofitted in existing suburbs either during redevelopment or using existing rail or road right of way.