Heh. Olbermann does a pretty decent Comic Book Guy impersonation.

Someone in a bad mood? I normally agree with what you say norm, but not on this one. The French are going downhill faster than we are. Ok, there are some problems with America, but do you have to complain like THAT? That post just seemed just childish to me.

Umm...watcher....maybe you aren't watching carefully enough.
While Norm is a little more pessimistic than I am concerning the future of passenger rail in the US, I would say my optimism may be more of a lifestyle choice than a reading of the facts on the ground.
But the basic point - that we are hooped if we don't get our poop together pronto on improving public transit.
He is likely also correct that when we finally do start acting, we will not have invested in the R&D necessary to supply the technology ourselves, so we'll buy it from Germany, France & Japan. Same goes for wind & solar power, by the way.
What, praytell, is your evidence that France "is going downhill faster than we are?"
Are they spending trillions on pointless illegal wars? Are they throwing constitutional protections out the window? Are they continuing to hold their fingers in their ears on global warming? Are they the industrialized country with the most citizens without healthcare? Should I continue?
And even if you are right, and we are somehow going downhill slightly slower than the French, are we supposed to pat ourselves on the back for spiraling downward a little more slowly?

Perhaps The Watcher thinks that saying America is the greatest is more patriotic than pointing out paths we should follow? Trains are efficient and fairly clean, especially compared to cars. Most Americans have never even been on a train and don't know what they are missing.

I would hardly say that France is going downhill. What are we as Americans doing that addresses our future? What is our vision? If we don't have one we'd better get right on it.

"It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the ones most responsive to change." --Charles Darwin

But norm, everywhere has its problems. The French (public) are becoming more and more racist by the day, and when's the last time they had a President that wasn't corrupt?

By contrast here (in Britain) we don't have the equivalent of the TGVs because we privatised the railways under Thatcher so she could keep up her 'economically competent' act. We're now trying to remunicipalise them slowly so that MAYBE someone that gets in office might have the motivational wherewithall to suggest that maybe a TGV line between the biggest cities might a) be a good idea and b) stop so many bloody businessmen (and MPs!) taking planes from London to Birmingham, Manchester and Edinburgh and back again cause they can't afford to sit on a train for seven hours.

Unfortunately the public tends to be fairly stupid universally and elects themselves politicians to match.

The French had basically done deals to build high-speed rail lines in Texas(Dallas-San Antonio-Houson)and Florida(Miami-Orlando)until the airline companies lobbied to get them canceled.

So much for free enterprise.

Texas now has a pharaonic plan that includes some trains but devotes most to more road traffic, the Trans-Texas Corridor.

http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/05jul/07.htm

I guess they will have to buy the trains from the French.

The opposition.

http://www.corridorwatch.org/ttc/index.htm

This is part of a bigger Rethuglican program, the SPP-Security and Prosperity Partnership. Even the World Nut Daily opposes it, but for its usual xenophobic reasons.

http://www.spp.gov/

This also includes something called NASCO.

http://www.nascocorridor.com/

In fact, these projects are a means of outsourcing to undercut workers at American ports and bring in goods from cheaper Mexican ports.

I have doubts about what you are saying. I think it's more efficient to travel using a plane (in the US) because of it's size. I live in Spain and using these trains is great because if I have to make a business trip, the farthest city is 500km from Madrid. Taking a plane would be faster but checking in, waiting to pick up my luggage... the trains is faster and has more flexible schedules so I use these kind of trains a lot. Although, this solutions doesn't work for the US. The economic centers of the US are separated by thousands of miles. There's no point in promoting railways when planes are faster (in the particular case of the US).

What do you think?

watcher,

me thinkie you should look up Peak Oil on google and start reading and researching in earnest.

I don't think trains are the ultimate solution for long distance travel in the US. It probably is impractical to take a train from say Houston to Los Angeles or New York. But it is perfectly practical to take a train from Houston to Dallas, or Austin or San Antonio. And it is also perfectly practical to take a train from any city in California to any other city in California. I understand the northeast already has a great rail system for travel between the metro areas. Now if only more people would utilize these rail lines, they might start getting better. I've only been on a train once (I live in Austin, Texas) and it was the best travel experience I ever had.

Dani, there is a point to promoting rail travel over air travel. The ecological cost. Trains burn far less fuel than planes do to travel the same distance.

Nobody has brought up cost. One reason why I don't fly is because it costs me $150 to fly from slc to las vegas (yeah yeah, i can find deals as low as $75 taxes included, but that's still $150 both ways per person). If they made one of these trains between these two places, it would only take an hour to get to vegas. On a plane, it takes 3 hours (check in included). Not to mention, that if it were a train, I wouldn't be surprised if the ticket only cost, say $20-35. I've always argued that major cities should be connected by train.

Then there is convienience. You cannot use cell phones or internet on planes (for now). I believe that a train would have WiFi and cell phone hubs built in (one would think).

I'd rather be buying trains from France than computers from China. I'm not all that interested in traveling 300+mph on the ground but I would love to see passenger trains become more popular.

We considered using Amtrack for our last family trip but a round trip from Kansas City to Hot Springs (Malvern), AR is about $600 for two adults.

I just made that same trip in the family car with four people and paid about $65 in gas. If we can't make train travel more affordable, I don't think it will matter how fast it goes, most people would prefer the car.

Cars are cheaper relatively only because we subsidize them shamelessly yet we expect trains to be self-sufficient. A couple years ago Amtrak needed $500 million for a bail-out and all of the Republicans screamed bloody murder yet we spend more than this of the public’s money on airports all the time. We spend a sinful amount to subsidize the automobile and jets but seem incapable in investing in the infrastructure needed for trains. Britain privatized their rail system and it quickly went from being one of the best to the absolute worst in Europe. Meanwhile most of Europe is bending over backwards to extend their network of high-speed rail all over the continent.

Trains could rival jets in speed between many cities when you factor in driving to airports and all of the other inherent hassles of air transit. Seattle and San Francisco would be better served by a high-speed rail line rather than the endless line of commuter flights that now service the two cities (and San Jose). The bottom line is this: Do we really believe that cars and planes are the answer? They are both 20th century dead ends as far as I’m concerned. Meanwhile bicycles and trains are 19th century inventions and show more promise for the future.

Am I an eco-hippie or a visionary?

Norm, Right on the money. I really wish the Dem's would start talking national rail again. The US desperately needs a better transport infrastructure.

Duncan said The French (public) are becoming more and more racist by the day

Care to back that up with some proof? I don't think that there are more racists in France than there are in England or the U.S.

What's with the reflexive French bashing? Every time the French are mentioned, some American or some Brit is there to spread lies about them. It's tiresome.

Duncan: //The French (public) are becoming more and more racist by the day//

What's your evidence of that?

//and when's the last time they had a President that wasn't corrupt?//

You may have a point here...

Truth is, a 200km trip costs around 80euros in business class. It may be cheaper to do it in a car howeverm while I'm in the train I can work in my macpro and enjoy a cattering service instead of driving. I am lazy I know but "who wants to drive when I can be driven"?

Worked in the US for a few years, now in France. What is amazing is how advanced they are here (ex: space industry) yet they can maintain such a high quality of life (8 weeks vacation!). People/media dont constantly cry "the world is going to end" or obsess about material wealth - unless you count good food and wine.

Long live the 35 hour work week!

There's racism everywhere. The best a country can do is have laws against it. I wonder what some countries would look like if these laws were revoked.

while I'm in the train I can work in my macpro

Yes, I’m aware that Mac Pro is a powerhouse for a computer but you must be crazy to carry your 19,2kg beast to the train. And that does not even count the display!

And I complain about the size and weight of my 12" Powerbook ;)

Although the EU is far from perfect, as an Euro ex-pat working in California I can see that the main difference between the American and the European models is: sustainability.

Most American enterprise moves following a very shortsighted approach: short term profits. Very few companies have long term strategies or have a focus other than profits.

Here in california, a high speed train line would be ideal, since most of the major population centers are actually aligned vertically. Mean that a single line would be able to connect San Francisco/San Jose/ Santa Barbara/Los Angeles/Orange County/San Diego. A locally developed transportation technology would make wonders to kickstart the economy, the construction would also be a great public work to funnel money into California based business. It is a win-win situation for most of the people in California, it is not a win for certain industries who have a strong lobbying culture and can trump the common good.

That to me is one of the main differences between US and EU approaches, even though the EU approach can be overly "socialized" I like the fact that the common good prevail more times than it does over here. Once the oil pinch begins, EU countries will be able to deal with it far better than America will. And that to me is a far larger threat to national security than a sexually repressed jackass wearing a turbant and saying stpid crap from a cave.

But to each their own, my home region back in Europe now has 70% of its electric supply coming from renewable sources (wind mostly). The state put a plan to develop and produce local wind turbines, turns out that most wind generators pay for themselves in less than 3 years. Which means that is a very attractice solution. The geius of the approach is to make it a win-win situation from a human/nature standpoint as well as a business standpoint. The technology is local, most of the benefits remain local, reduces the dependency on foreign energy brokers as well as contributes to a significan reduction in pollutants :-)

But, with the constant interference of corporate interests in American policies, a similar approach will never happen. Which is a pity... it was a great place, too bad the mass of morons populating the American plains managed to f'd it up.

"Am I an eco-hippie or a visionary?"

No, you just have this thing common sense :-).

I believe there should be a complementary means of transportation: Planes make sense for long coast-to-coast or transcontinetal flight, they make no sense for a 300 mile trip between SF and LA that could be better served via high speed trains.

Cars are great individual transport solutions for random displacements, they are crappy people movers for commute bound people doing the same trip everyday. Bus or train-links would make more sense: reduce traffic congestion, cheaper to build and operate than maintaining the mega highway system in Souther California, they also make great business sense: people can work on their commute, i.e. increased productivity and less wasted time.

And yes, weather in parts of California is nice enough that it would make sense to have cities with large amounts of cycle lanes :-)

I believe a mixed transportation approach using the best tool for ech displacement requirment should have been placed long ago. Instead in Cali we ended up with a choice of either Planes or Cars, with really crappy city mass transport systems. But hey, the car and oil companies sure make a heck of a lot of profits off our backs, which is what's important... you know?

Here's the English translation of the live broadcast on French national television. In the original French commentary, it is mentioned that the train's drivers were instructed not to touch the 600 km/h (~ 370 mph) barrier - technicians were unsure about whether the whole thing would stay on the ground at this speed or could possibly take off like a plane ... ;-)

Oh, and another in-depth English article by DER SPIEGEL about the TGV's new record and European High-Speed trains in general.

All I'm saying is Norm took some good news for humanity and turned it into something pessimistic. Don't you people have any hope for our country? I'm not getting the feeling you do. Just wait one and half more years, then we can decide if we lost it all....

After 24 hours of intelligent commentary on transit the watcher is back!

How about this proposition, Watcher: we don't just sit back and watch and hope that everything is just gonna be alright, momma's gonna tuck you into bed with a cup of hot cocoa and a kiss. Instead, we actually DO something!

The USA is not the most evil government ever, but it is NOT a shining light. It is a bunch of people in power put their by corporate interests, and defending those interests, while the rest of us scratch our collective heads and wonder why on earth it is in our interest to be fighting wars overseas based on lies.

OK, now, back to trains

Think about this: 300 miles per hour, 3000 miles from NY to LA, 10 hours. Lets add an extra 2 for the mountains. 12 hours.

How long does it take to get from downtown LA to downtown NYC on the plane? 1 hour to the airport, 2 hours in advance, 6 hours flight, 30 minutes getting bags, 1 more hour to get to mid town manhattan from JFK. that's 10 hours and 30 minutes.

1.5 hours difference and a HUGE CO2 savings

In the meantime, you have a bar car, a sleeper car if you want, a dining car, an observation car, WiFi, you can walk around, you have a bathroom bigger than a shower stall, you can actually recline your seat to a position that's comfortable to sleep, you can use your cel phone....

I'm mot waiting 1.5 or 15 more years, watcher, I want it yesterday.

oh...one more thing...you can put your bike on a train without having to put it in a box, get off the train, and ride it away.

Syngas-I love your 19th vs 20th century observation. Does that make us luddites?

...i mean leftbanker

bugjah,

Your hypothetical comparison assumes that 300mph train will go from LA to NYC without making any stops. Part of what would make trains efficient is that people wanting to get off in Denver, Kansas City or Chicago could board the same train as the people wanting to go to NYC.

If there were a track laid just for transporting people from LA to NYC, it would cost a fortune and probably do more environmental damage just from the construction of it than airplanes would ever create.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for passenger rail but lets not be pie-in-the-sky with our enthusiasm.

hi jo ann. you ask for evidence of french racism. well, french anti-semitism is fairly well documented, you can google it yourself. but an interesting phenomenon that i am in a unique position to testify to is the massive (by relative jewish standards, taking into account the tiny number of jews in the world) emigration of french jews to israel over the last few years, and specifically to the "occupied territories", where i live. there are now whole communities here that claim a french majority. the reason for this, as i understand it from my conversations with them, is not racism on the part of the french per se, but rather a stifling political correctness which allows french arab racism to flourish. the french jews feel that the french authorities are unconcerned with attacks against jewish communities in france because of a. political correctness and b. a sense of guilt and responsibility for french behaviour in tunis and algiers in the past- they feel they "owe" the arabs something and consequently ignore jewish contributions to french society. however you look at it, there is an undeniable fear that is leading thousands of french jews, economically successful and culturally integrated into french society ( as per the french ideal, and, interestingly, as opposed to the french muslim lack of integrationalist tendancies) to emigrate, not only to israel, but to the occupied territories, making a statement thereby of both defiance and a solidarity with the more extreme nationalistic aspirations of the jewish people which lay long dormant in the long history of french jewish assimilation.

jonathan, antisemitism is way higher in Great Britain than it is in France.

594 incidents in 2006 in Great Britain and 371 in France.

That's for a Jewish population of less than half in GB vs France (283,000 vs. 600,000) while the total populations are similar (about 60 million).

Further, polls show that the French have the highest favorable opinions of Jews of any western country (87%). Higher than in the US (77%) and higher than in Great Britain (74%). That last number is actually barely higher than the favorable opinions of French Muslims towards the Jews (71%. See the same link).

What there is however in the US, Great Britain and Israel is a large disinformation campaign against France by insinuating that it is antisemitic. Likely the consequence of having dare saying no to them for the war in Iraq.

Sorry, the link about favorable opinions of Jews by French Muslims is here (3rd chart from top).

Notice that it is more than twice as high as the number for British Muslims (32%).

By the way, the number of antisemitic incident for the US is about the same as the number for France: There 1,554 antisemitic incidents in the U.S. in 2006, or just 15% fewer than in France. The number for 2005 was higher in the US.

In the period 2000–2005, 11,148 Jews made Aliyah from France. That's less than 2,000 a year for 600,000 French Jews. By comparison, there are 110,000 American Jews in Israel, and more than 3,000 made Aliyah in 2005.

Jonathan and others, please stop this stupid, factless bashing!

hi, frenchie, and thanks for the stats. i was aware of the situation vis a vis britain vs. french antisemitism, but not of those numbers referring to "high favorable opinion". frankly i find them hard to believe, but who am i to argue with the mighty poll? anyway, remember that the situation hasn't deteriorated (yet) in europe to the point where one can proudly proclaim ones' anti semitism in the streets. this is one reason i'm suspicious of such polls. still its interesting, and thanks.

about the disinformation campaign against the french, accusing them of disproportionately high levels of anti semitism, you are absolutely right and i was also aware of this. i certainly didn't intend to add to it by my perhaps poorly chosen words. my intention was to point out their self imposed limitations of an aggressive political correctness, connected as i said to their former behaviour in north africa, which ALLOWS, if not encourages anti semitism on the part of the french muslim community. i use the term loosely, being aware that these strongly felt beliefs are so wrapped up in the arabs feelings about israel and its behaviour i would hesitate to attempt to disentangle one from the other. whatever the cause however, anti semitism (illegitemate) or anti zionism (legitimate), it expresses itself in incidents like last years brutal torture/murder of that jewish cellphone salesman whos name escapes me at the moment. in terms of statistics, this didn't make much of an impact-1 murder equals one murder. in terms of the emotional/visceral impact on french jews, however, the effect was a paradigm shift, leading as far as i can tell to increaced french jewish emmigration.

they sure do make awesome trains, though!

Hi Jonathan,

You said well, french anti-semitism is fairly well documented, you can google it yourself.

Well, American and British anti-semitism is also well documented, you can google it yourself. I didn't say that there was no anti-semitism in France. What I said was, and I quote myself, "Care to back that up with some proof? I don't think that there are more racists in France than there are in England or the U.S."

France has had three Jewish prime ministers (Léon Blum, Laurent Fabius, & Pierre Mendès-France) compared to zero Jewish presidents in the U.S. and one Jewish prime minister in the U.K.(Disraeli, who was baptized in the Anglican church.)

France has the third largest Jewish population after Israel and the U.S. Israel is desperate to maintain their population at the highest level possible and France is a country of choice for selecting new immigrants because of its large jewish population, and Sharon used France's political decision not to back up the Americans in Iraq, as well as some of the incidents which took place in France in the first half of 2004, to encourage emigration of French Jews.

Even the Anti-Defamation League says that France is not a racist country.

Jonathan, as to your comment "the french jews feel that the french authorities are unconcerned with attacks against jewish communities in france", even Ariel Sharon admitted this was not true after he made that outrageous comment about anti-semtism in France and encouraging mass emigration of French Jews.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63016-2004Jul19.html "In France today, about 10 percent of the population are Muslims," Sharon said in his speech. "That gets a different kind of anti-Semitism, based on anti-Israeli feelings and propaganda." He also said, "I must say that the French government are taking steps against that."

And finally, the last 2 major incidents of anti-Semitism both happened in the US -- Mel Gibson and the shooting at 6 Jews and killing one in Seattle.

I wanted to post additional links but my posts keep getting moderated. Norm, can you help?

Anyway, the favorable opinions of Jews by French Muslims is 71%. In Great Britain, it is 32%.

Also, the number of antisemitic incident for the US is about the same as the number for France: there were 1,554 antisemitic incidents in the U.S. in 2006, or just 15% fewer than in France. The number for 2005 was higher in the US.

Finally, In the period 2000–2005, 11,148 Jews made Aliyah from France. That's less than 2,000 a year for 600,000 French Jews. By comparison, there are 110,000 American Jews in Israel, and more than 3,000 made Aliyah in 2005.

Correction: I wrote:

there were 1,554 antisemitic incidents in the U.S. in 2006, or just 15% fewer than in France.

I meant 15% fewer per capita of course. The actual number is much higher in the US.

jo ann and superfrenchie: not to drag out unneccesarily this slightly off topic topic i started here, but i just want to be absolutely clear on this: my problem is with european anti semitism, the mother of it all-NOT specifically french anti semitism. i stand by my statement that it exists and is well documented, but also by your statements that it is no worse, and in many ways less of a problem than many other countries, like britian. i am VERY aware of anti french sentiment and the way lies and disinfo have been used against them, esp. since 9/11, including the (false) accusation that they are more anti semitic than other europeans. i have no wish for my words to be used as ammo against the french people in this war of words. my beef with the europeans in general is not even really about anti semitism, but a deep seated xenophobia, of which anti semitism is only part. but again, i have nothing against the french SPECIFICALLY. in fact, i would love to visit and would blow whoever i had to for a week in the louvre and a pair of rollerblades:).

this last was a kurt vonnegut reference, for those who care about such trivia.

i think i may have been slightly misunderstood here because i was talking not about my views, but those of the french jews who have moved to israel in the last few years, many of whom i now consider friends. it is they who feel (emphasis on "feel"-no stats involved) that french anti semitism is especially virulent. in my next conversation with one of them on this issue, for what its worth, i'll bring up your excellent points. as i've said here before, my ultimate intentions are about unity and love, not diviseveness and hate.

peace, etc., etc.

Peace! :)

And just to make sure I am not misunderstood: 371 antisemitism incidents in France in 2006 is 371 too many!

And Jonathan, the name of the Jew who was murdered in France a year ago is Ilan Halimi. Tragic and shameful indeed.

"90 minutes from New York to Paris, undersea by rail...."

;^)

A Guinean Student was just murdered in Marseille. He apparently had never been involved in any suspicious or criminal activity. For the moment, it looks like a racist murder. We will see if his case is given as much attention as Halimi's.

As bad as the Halimi case is, it is not at all clear that it is a case of "anti-semitism". As the leader of the gang that killed him has said, it was only for the money. This gang has used extortion on other people as well.

The Aliyah itself is a racist policy. Why does a French person or an American or a Russian have more right to settle in Palestine than the Palestinian refugees have to go home?

French or Americans or Russians who move to Israel are by definition racists.

bernarda, your spiteful disingenousness is pathetically transparant. why say "person" when its obvious you mean "jew"? your accusation of racism against any french, russian or american "person" (hah) who settles in "palestine" is itself clearly racist. your description of palestine as "home" for a palestinian refugee, excluding it as "home" for a russian jewish refugee reeks of western guilt, frustration and willful historical ignorance. i wonder whose "home" you're living in? go judge somebody who cares. even the palestinian arabs who you pretend such concern for have no respect for the likes of you.leave us alone to work it out. if you're really concerned about a solution, which i doubt, the best thing you can do is stay out of it. look to your own borders,child. believe me, we know when someone genuinely wants to help, as opposed to simple haters of jews and/or arabs, and your ass is showing.

go judge somebody who cares. even the palestinian arabs who you pretend such concern for have no respect for the likes of you.leave us alone to work it out. if you're really concerned about a solution, which i doubt, the best thing you can do is stay out of it. look to your own borders,child. believe me, we know when someone genuinely wants to help, as opposed to simple haters of jews and/or arabs, and your ass is showing.

I love the "STFU and mind your own business" response. By the way if you don't want our opinions does that mean you are also going to refuse U.S. funding?