Are we a step closer to high-speed rail?

High-speed rail fans envision these IL routes

I got my kicks on Monday not from Route 66, but from the potential future of the railroad tracks that parallel pretty closely to the Mother Road of old in Illinois.

Transportation Department officials distributed another $2 billion to various states meant to pay for work needed to advance local rail systems to the point where they could someday accommodate high-speed rail trains.

OF THAT AMOUNT, Illinois is getting $238 million (or just over 10 percent of the total).

Now a part of the reason our state is getting that extra money is because of the political games played by Republican types who wanted to think they could sandbag this idea with their actions.

They took a pass on accepting a share of the money, saying they’re not interested in having high-speed rail in their states. Perhaps they think they can kill off the concept if they turn the United States into a virtual checkerboard, with certain blotches that can’t accommodate the trains that could turn a Chicago-to-St. Louis trip from a five-hour drive to a two-hour train ride.

One of those states is our neighbor to the north – Wisconsin. But the state that contributed to the latest cash disbursement is Florida.

FOR THOSE OF us whose memories extend beyond the past 15 minutes, Florida is the state that managed to impact a presidential election in favor of the candidate who “lost” the popular vote. Perhaps that kind of action made Florida political people giddy enough to think they could kill off this project.

Instead, Illinois got part of the cash they should have received.  It will go toward upgrades on the tracks between Chicago and St. Louis – particularly the portion between Dwight and Joliet. Although I have to think that the bulk of attention on any high-speed rail route that cuts across Illinois and connects the state’s residents to its two urban areas ought to be in those freight yards in Cook County just outside of downtown Chicago.

Anybody who has ever taken an Amtrak train in its current form knows that is where the trains have to creep along at a turtle’s pace. That is going to be the place that needs a serious reconfiguration if the idea of a Chicago-to-St. Louis journey in just over 2 hours is ever to become reality.

Now I will be honest. It has been just over five years since I last rode an Amtrak train on that particular route.

IT CAN BE a pleasant-enough ride if one has time to spare for leisure. Although the Spartan conditions of contemporary Amtrak trains makes the idea of a “leisurely train trip” through the Midwestern United States seem to be an absurd concept.

My point being that while I like the idea of travel by train in theory, the reality doesn’t live up to the image many of us would like to create in our minds.

Giving a boost to the idea of high-speed rail could be the step that helps move inter-city train travel somewhere in the direction of becoming that mental image we’d like to have.

Heck, perhaps I’d even be tempted to take a train trip up into Michigan (the Chicago-to-Detroit routes could also benefit from some of the federal funding that was awarded by Transportation Department officials on Monday).

IT’S TOO BAD that I can’t contemplate a Chicago-to-Milwaukee or Chicago-to-Madison, Wis., trip in the same way – since Wisconsin state officials are among those who want to play ideological games with the idea of high-speed rail.

Because that is what much of the opposition to the idea has become.

Some people just want to have their automobiles and want to be able to ride up and down Interstate 55 (which is what becomes of the Stevenson Expressway once you get outside of Chicago) and want to instill some sort of ideological purity to the idea of not having to travel on a schedule.

I can almost buy that concept.

THE ONES WHO I find to be most ridiculous are the ones who try to claim that riding trains somehow undermines persona l freedom by having so many people ride together. As though the very concept of mass transit somehow undermines the democratic ideals of the United States of America!

I have even heard some ideological crackpots try citing the fact that high-speed rail is so popular in other countries as evidence that the idea is “too foreign” to work in the United States.

We even get some of that kind of ridiculous rhetoric from the states that tried turning away federal funds.

My guess is that they thought they’d be allowed to keep the money and apply it to some other project of their choice – or at the very least some sort of transportation-related project. Road repairs?

INSTEAD, THE MONEY goes to the people who are willing to play ball, so to speak, on high-speed rail.

Which may mean that Monday’s grants are a purely partisan political move by the current administration. I’m not complaining. If it helps make the experience of a train trip more convenient and pleasant, it may very well let me get out more often.

  -30-

Will GOP eagerness to play partisan politics start Obama uptick to re-election?

When I hear the new Republican majority of the House of Representatives go on and on about how it will repeal the healthcare reform measure that is a significant part of President Barack Obama’s legacy, I wonder how short-sighted they truly are.



OBAMA: Is the 'daylight' in sight?

Not that I expect the healthcare reform measure that was meant to provide some sort of medical coverage to many of the 47 million people in our country who currently go without. The Senate remains Democrat-controlled.

SO EVEN IF the GOP uses its majority in a purely partisan vote to “approve” a repeal or significant overhaul of the law that would gut its intentions, it is very unlikely to get through the full Congress.

Even if for some reason Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., were to see some political advantage to letting something pass, Obama himself would use his “veto” power to kill it off. And nobody these days has a veto-proof majority to override the president.

So healthcare reform (or if you insist on using the nit-wit term, Obamacare) isn’t going anywhere during the next two years. Any rhetoric we hear about the issue (and we’re going to hear a ton of such talk) is about pure partisan politics – all geared toward the notion that Obama himself should be a one-term president.

Excuse me for thinking that these newly-elected officials who got sent to Congress by voters spewing Tea Party-type rhetoric are so uncompromising and so strong-arm in their approach to government that I fully expect they’re going to handle this thing in such a manner that will turn off the true majority of our nation.

MAYBE IT’S BECAUSE I still remember the budgetary negotiations for the federal government’s 1996-97 fiscal year. It was just months earlier that the GOP had taken a majority in both the House and Senate, and under the leadership of now-former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., was determined to implement their own partisan version (the “Contract with America”) of what federal government should be.

That is what inspired them to take a hard-line toward budgetary negotiations and refuse to compromise even slightly. So when the deadlines passed and the federal government was forced to shut down all non-essential operations until a budget was in place, GOP officials figured that then-President Bill Clinton would be blamed.

After all, everything was Clinton’s fault. Just as now everything that goes wrong with the government must be because of Barack Obama.

A national populace that had been inclined to listen sympathetically to the Gingrich rhetoric was so turned off by what it heard and saw in this case that Clinton wound up gaining the moral high ground. It was the beginning of the process by which Clinton cruised toward re-election the following year.

IS THAT WHAT could happen if GOP types start going overboard with all their talk of dumping healthcare reform, and anything else they think can be tied to the idea of an Obama administration being wasteful?

Let’s not forget that 47 million figure – as in the number of people who don’t have any kind of healthcare coverage, and whose reliance on hospital emergency rooms for routine treatment is a major financial burden on the medical system.

If they’re not careful, they risk being the people who are willing to leave a significant number of people with nothing. Similar to another report I read Tuesday in which the governor-elect of Wisconsin (a Republican who went overboard on the government waste rhetoric during his campaign) is insisting he does not want a high-speed railroad line developed in his state between Milwaukee and the state capital in Wisconsin.

He’s going to claim he’s saving the federal government money by avoiding lengthy studies to develop the kind of inter-city railroad system that is necessary if we’re ever to get people back onto trains for their travel.

WHAT REALLY COULD happen is that all the surrounding states could wind up taking Wisconsin’s share of the federal funds for the project, and Wisconsin gets left behind its Great Lakes states. Illinois officials already are saying they’ll take Wisconsin’s money and put it to use on improving the railroad line between Chicago and St. Louis.

Could Scott Walker’s stand on high-speed rail wind up helping Illinois to develop further ahead of Wisconsin? Could the resulting loss of jobs for Wisconsin because of not having a piece of the high-speed rail project wind up coming back to hurt the GOP electorally in 2012?

I couldn’t help but notice an MSNBC analysis of the Electoral College Tuesday morning that figured both Obama and any Republican candidate already have in excess of 200 electoral votes, and that there are only eight states that truly are up for grabs by either candidate.

One of those states was Wisconsin. Could these “principled” stands wind up offending enough people that Obama winds up following in Clinton’s footsteps in terms of re-election?

ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE. Because I couldn’t help but notice the Gallup Organization, which came out with a new study this week that says Obama’s popularity is on the rise in recent days – which is surprising to them because they would have expected such overwhelming losses in last week’s elections to cost him a few points.

But Obama went from a 43 percent favorable rating on Election Day to being up to 47 percent now (with the number of people who disapprove of his performance dropping to 46 percent).

It’s not a great performance rating. But it certainly could be worse, particularly compared to the studies prior to the election that showed the favorable rating for Congress ranging around 22 percent.

Which means those GOP partisans who want to think the whole country hates Barack Obama had best consider that people were always more disgusted with Congress than with the president. If they try to overstep their political play, they could find that the essential equation remains – and that they will be the ones who get dumped in Election ’12, rather than the president.

  -30-

Does Obama care about Chicago?

It amuses me to listen to Republican partisans, usually from rural communities across the nation, when they start lambasting President Barack Obama by accusing him of bringing Chicago-style politics to the federal government.

I say “amuse” because the very notion is ridiculous. After all, if Obama were truly using the ways of City Hall, there would be so many things strong-armed through the political process, instead of the current situation where a minority of the Senate is capable of bringing things to a crashing halt.

IF ANYTHING, OBAMA is an official who has tried reaching out to his opposition and tried to ensure that things get spread around fairly – only to learn that his opposition has little interest in cooperating and has no interest in an equal share.

They want more, just like every government official who is elected ultimately has the bottom line of trying to get as much for his constituents as he possibly can.

These thoughts ran through my head when reading a pair of pieces of reporting published in the Chicago newspapers.

There is the concept of high-speed rail – those trains that would run much more efficiently than the current Amtrak inter-city passenger rail trains. Chicago, being a natural transportation hub, would be a significant part of any high-speed development.

YET ILLINOIS OFFICIALS who were thinking that our state (because of Chicago) would get somewhere between one-quarter and one-third of the $8 billion in initial funding for high-speed rail have come to be disappointed.

The Chicago Tribune reported that Illinois will not come close to getting the $2 billion that was seen as a bare minimum.

Part of the reason is that federal officials are wondering if they can spread money around the country so as to encourage more passenger train usage in places that are not obvious now. They’re not just going to think of places such as New York to Washington, Chicago to St. Louis and Los Angeles to Seattle.

But also, the Obama administration does not want to be tagged with the reputation of someone who is playing favorites with his home state. In short, the fact that Obama officially lives here is being held against us.

SO MUCH FOR the thoughts of those that the Obama Administration would be an era of great fortune provided by the federal government to the Greatest City on the Face of Planet Earth – Chicago.

We might as well be Toledo, Ohio, for all that we’ve gained from having our one-time Senator and state legislator from the Hyde Park neighborhood living and working in the White House.

That sense of fairness in wanting to spread the money around truly is unique. If anything, it is what always made Obama stand out whenever he was in a pack of Chicago politicos.

For if Harvard Law grad Obama truly did fit in with the political crowd that takes pride in having graduated from Chicago-Kent College of Law, the last thing he’d be worried about was that public image.

NO SELF-RESPECTING CHICAGO politician would think it bad to be looking out for the old hometown when it comes to shelling out the government goodies. To many, that is the whole point of public service.

They’d argue that the people who complain about Chicago getting its share are either naïve or just jealous that their hometowns couldn’t get more money for their pet projects.

High-speed rail is going to be a moment I will remember whenever I hear the ridiculous Republican rhetoric about Obama being a Chicago political hack. He’s closer to being a goo-goo, with just a touch of that bipartisan idealism that makes him stand out, but also makes him vulnerable to those who are willing to play hardball politics against him.

In short, I think that many of the people who accuse Obama of being a political hack are nothing more than political hacks themselves, and jealous that they can’t say they live on the shores of Lake Michigan between Whiting, Ind., and Evanston, Ill.

THERE ALSO IS a report published earlier this week by the Chicago Sun-Times, telling us of how political adviser David Axelrod was back in Chicago and was thankful not to have to be stuck in the midst of the political brawl that currently is the state’s Democratic Party primaries for senator and governor.

Some people have criticized Obama for not getting active during the primary season to help pick a winner. After all, if he were a “true” Chicago politico, he would consider that to be one of his chief responsiblities.

Instead, he has focused his attention on Washington, where Wednesday night we got to hear “vision” for coping with the fact that his political opposition can now thwart him whenever they see fit (although they don’t yet have the ability to pass hostile legislation on their own).

If anything is true, the political “problems” confronted these days by the Obama administration are the primary evidence that he’s not truly a Chicago political hack – I doubt Obama has anything so brash in him that he would dream up the federal equivalent of tearing down Meigs Field in the middle of the night.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Chicago is going to have to share with the rest of the United States when it comes to (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/01/state-to-get-less-money-than-expected-for-high-speed-rail.html) federal funding for high-speed rail.

Barack Obama plans to get involved in the elections in Illinois once the Democratic Party’s voters decide for themselves (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/2009940,axelrod-obama-senate-campaign-012510.article) who should run – which is a very un-City Hall-like thought to have.

Yet another rant by someone who doesn't have a clue about what Chicago politics truly involves (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/22/ken-klukowski-supreme-court-amendment-mccain-feingold/?test=latestnews).

High-speed rail a nice dream

It’s nice to hear that President Barack Obama is willing to consider the concept of high-speed railroad connecting our cities. It really would be a better alternative than having to use airplanes for short trips, and more relaxing than having to drive.

Is there really a purpose to catching a flight from St. Louis to Chicago (I can’t envision anyone seriously wanting to make that trip in reverse) when a train on significantly improved tracks could travel that route in not much more time?

SO IT WAS encouraging to learn that Obama wants $8 billion put aside, with the chance of $5 billion more during the next five years. Money will come from the economic stimulus package that is supposed to give the U.S. economy a jolt and put people back to work.

I’m curious to see where in this country the federal government first experiments with the idea. I understand officials in California think a line connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco (and potentially shooting north up to Portland and Seattle) ought to be the first, while others would like to see the Washington to New York corridor be the first line for trains that could travel in excess of 100 mph (as opposed to the official Amtrak speed of 79 mph, but in some places on decrepit track they have to slow down to as little as 10 mph).

But let me throw my plug in for Chicago, the one-time hub of the railroad transportation system back in the days when most people took trains and still a significant city due to O’Hare International Airport’s role in U.S. flight connections.

I could easily see Chicago as the center of a railroad spider of sorts, with the arms shooting out in all directions and connecting the city to places such as St. Louis, Minneapolis, Milwaukee and Madison, Detroit and Indianapolis (along with a series of medium-sized towns that lie in between).

MY PERSONAL BIAS would be a route connecting Chicago to St. Louis. That trip (along with visits to places that lie along the route) is one I would make if the travel time factor could be reduced.

Now for those who argue that Amtrak already has service connecting those municipalities, I’d have to ask if you have ever taken that particular trip.

Personally, I haven’t traveled that route on train in about four years – the last time I made the trip to Springfield for a couple of days.

I remember my train left Chicago on schedule and arrived at the train station about one block from the Statehouse in Springfield only about 10 minutes later than the scheduled time. Amtrak worked that day the way it was supposed to.

WHICH MEANS WE are talking about a 3.5-hour-long train ride.

I know from personal experience from the seven years I lived in Springfield that I could make the same trip by car (on an interstate highway that parallels the tracks used by Amtrak for much of the route) in about three hours.

I’d like it if a train ride could cut the amount of time spent en route. And for those who will argue they like to drive, I find hours of driving to be headache inducing. I’d enjoy it if the trip to a place like Springfield were only a 1.5-hour-long ride.

And if a trip to St. Louis only took about two hours (as opposed to the roughly 4.5 hours it now takes on Amtrak), perhaps I’d be more inclined to travel to that city (a personal disclosure: the last time I went to St. Louis was when Pope John Paul II visited there in 1999) and find aspects I’d enjoy.

WHENEVER I HEAR of high-speed rail, I think of it as a nice ideal. But not one in which our political people seem inclined to take the actions that would allow for something to happen someday.

Then again, they don’t act all that quickly on any issue. The idea of a third airport for the Chicago area has been under consideration for nearly three decades, yet we’re not any closer to seeing shovels upturning earth to allow for construction to begin.

High-speed rail is one of those things I would use if someone were to take the initiative to build it. Yet too many political people seem to think that it shouldn’t be built unless people make some sort of commitment to its use.

So in that sense, Obama’s government-speak on Thursday before leaving for a trip to Mexico City was a positive.

NOW, IT’S JUST a matter of figuring out where the federal government will start. Obama would only say that 10 corridors across the country have been identified. Who’s to say what will occur first.

It would be nice to have one of the first high-speed lines (which would require significantly upgraded railroad track from the aging track now in use) in the nation. I’m just hoping this issue is one of those where Chicago gets the benefit of being the president’s “hometown.”

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Will Barack Obama remember Chicago (and his Springfield days) when (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/16/Obama-pushes-for-high-speed-rail/UPI-70531239879436/) federal transportation officials decide where to put the first high-speed rail line in this country?