High Speed Railway (New York Times Report)

I stumbled across an in-depth update about the insides of commuter transiting, an article entitled "Getting Up to Speed" from reporter Jon Gertner of New York Times. Just analyzing this reporters style is very interesting to see that--like real reporters do--he's immersed himself in the idea of railway transiting by taking several different trains and accepting the natural disadvantages of the pre-established system. And there are many so to speak "inconveniences" in everyday transiting; from how many employed drivers are on the payroll, to how that affects time schedule.

I myself am an advocate for alternative transport-- and do not own a car, even though at times I'd seek it much more convenient. Here in SD, it’s hard to be totally stoked about MTS because of all the waiting and potential social "danger" that one must endure/ accept as an honorary frequent rider. I constantly find myself thankful that there is a transit system in SD, rather than thinking why isn't MTS changing? I think this has been the mentality of many riders here in SD and perhaps within the southern Californian areas, because we know that just north of here cities like LA & SF have us beat on the efficiency and comfortably scale by ten fold. Perhaps this transit "intimidation" in a sense is what seems to lead the local SD transit commuters into a lull about speaking out about the changing needs of the system.

I support Obama's prop 1a, but I don't like how he’s been reviewed by several left-wing writers as being simply "jealous" of transiting competitors such as high speed railways in Japan and countries throughout Europe. This is a serious controversy, and shouldn’t be embellished as some jealous adversary in a Sharper Image store wanting the newest thing. I have said before, there are many people stuck between talking and doing, and for once I am proud to say that someone in the big W house is taking a communal stand, for the eco minded and sustainable cause.

I have much concern for the building of this high speed railway. Such as subjects pertaining to the ecological standpoint (the impact on the environment and natural niches which dwell in these personal habitats). Yes, this railway will benefit the movement of human life from point A to point B in convenience as well as resources, but there is still much to question and map out as far as railroad placement. This will be one of the most important issues factored within this mega project--to not damage or obstruct in any major way the natural cycles of wildlife as well as essential plant life. As much as my inner-industrialist mind is supporting this--I have a "circle of life" conscious that cannot stop screaming on my right shoulder.

Another concern I was conjuring was the already common thought that the billions of dollars planned to fund this railway (which is first planned to run from LA to SF, and then in later developments stretch as far south as SD and as far north to Sacramento) is taking a GIANT step towards a single project. Yeah, I hear go big or go home, BUT, I personally think that if each city were budged parts of this funding that the area of focus could significantly improve the mini transit systems of each community. Including bus, commuter light rails and commuter trains such as the Coaster, Sprinter, & Metrolink. This sort of distributed funding could essentially solve or improve the pre-existing flaws found in local transiting systems, as well as up the efficiency and cohesive flow with linking cities--even connecting these cities on a more intricate scale.

Just some thoughts.