We are already familiar with Senator Barack Obama's appeal to the crucial bicycle swing vote (between the three remaining candidates, his platform is the only one that even mentions cycling). Now, with the all-important Pennsylvania primary fast approaching (like a train, perhaps?) Senator Obama scrambled for votes on Saturday by taking an all-day, 100 mile trip by train "along the Philadelphia area's Main Line and on west to the capital in Harrisburg."
Certainly, Obama is not the first to campaign by train. Harry Truman is famous for his 1948 whistle-stop tour that covered 22,000 miles, and even the car in which Obama rode--a Georgia 300 Lounge Car--has in the past "carried Presidents Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton." But as the presidential campaigns have become more hectic and demanding, the carbon footprint of campaigning--done usually by SUV or private jet--has skyrocketed. Trains, as we've seen, are less carbon intensive than either SUV or private jet. And millions of Americans rely on trains to get to work, especially in busy corridors such as New England. So perhaps Obama was pandering to the train swing vote? Is there even such a thing?
Well, probably not. According to the LA Times, this train ride was more about helping "Obama deliver his closing argument to a state that is viewed as a must-win for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton" than it was about demonstrating his low-carbon transportation bona fides. Riding along in a "patriotically decorated antique rail car" Obama spread his message of change by asking people to "get on board the change train."
Okay, so this was a somewhat hokey, made-for-tv campaign move. Still, Amtrak has been seeing record ridership, and hitching its star to Obama's rising star can't hurt. Whether or not Obama would, if elected, increase funding for public transportation remains to be seen, but it's worth repeating that millions of Americans rely on public transportation to get where they need to go. Seen in that light the voters that use public transportation may rightly be considered a swing vote.
More important than his stance on public transportation will be his stance on coal, and specifically, coal-to-liquid diesel fuel technology. In other words, let's hope Obama does not pander to the coal vote. That would be a serious blow to climate change, clean air and renewable energy advocates. . .
Via: ::LA Times
See Also: ::CBS: Forget Flying, Amtrak is In, ::Summer Train Travel: In Your Future?, ::The TH Interview: Andy Kunz, New Urbanist, ::Obama Calls for Cap-and-Trade, and ::Obama Steps it Up on Climate Change
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
* Improve Your Athletic Game the Green Way With Yoga: How Yoga Can Make You Better at Any Sport
* Yes, There is Such a Thing as an Optimistic, Green American: Be One!
* Using Trellises, Walls, and Espaliers to Grow Fruit
* Is School Food Harming Kids? Enlist a Labor Day Eat-In To Promote Fresh, Healthy Food
* Green Glossary: Planet Bike
* How to Save Money With Wind Power!
I'd love to take the train, but the timetable sucks I typically compare driving, airline-travel, and trains before making a long trip.
I'm planning a trip next week, traveling from rural Southwest Virginia to rural southern Illinois. Airlines were prohibitively expensive, unpredictable (due to the corruption at the FAA) -- and I despise being searched at any time for any reason. The train looked like a good option, since Amtrak has a hub in Chicago and I can get a train to Chicago from my local Amtrak station (90 minutes away) -- however, the only trains that I could find took 20 hours (overnight), with an 8 hour stopover in Chicago. Oh, and the only overnight trips that were available were 2-3 days away from the date I needed to be in southern Illinois, so I wouldn't have been able to be in town for my appointment without taking off a week of work -- which is unacceptable. That leaves driving -- the price is reasonable, and the schedule is flexible.
If the timetable were at all useful, I'd absolutely love taking the train -- being able to sit in a car and work with my cell-phone and laptop instead of fighting with traffic would be wonderful. Failing that, I'd love to be in the dining-car drinking possibly-alcoholic beverages that are not compatible with operating an automobile. And all of this without having to be treated like a criminal and an inconvenience at every turn (as is the case with airlines)... But, alas, I will spend 10 hours each way (20 hours round-trip) driving all by my lonesome, trying to avoid being run-over or pulled-over -- and those fine beverages that could be available in the dining-car will have to wait until I get home from my trip.
So, I say to the passenger-rail companies of America: I'd love to use your service, but I'm a busy man and I can't plan my life around train schedules. As soon as there is a train that goes where I want to take it when I want to go, I'll be aboard. I'd love to be fiscally and environmentally efficient, and I'd love to travel in a relaxed atmosphere. But, first and foremost, I need to travel.
April 20, 2008 9:02 PM | click here to report abuse flag a problem
jump to top Anonymous says:
I'd love to take the train, but the timetable sucks I typically compare driving, airline-travel, and trains before making a long trip.
I'm planning a trip next week, traveling from rural Southwest Virginia to rural southern Illinois. Airlines were prohibitively expensive, unpredictable (due to the corruption at the FAA) -- and I despise being searched at any time for any reason. The train looked like a good option, since Amtrak has a hub in Chicago and I can get a train to Chicago from my local Amtrak station (90 minutes away) -- however, the only trains that I could find took 20 hours (overnight), with an 8 hour stopover in Chicago. Oh, and the only overnight trips that were available were 2-3 days away from the date I needed to be in southern Illinois, so I wouldn't have been able to be in town for my appointment without taking off a week of work -- which is unacceptable. That leaves driving -- the price is reasonable, and the schedule is flexible.
If the timetable were at all useful, I'd absolutely love taking the train -- being able to sit in a car and work with my cell-phone and laptop instead of fighting with traffic would be wonderful. Failing that, I'd love to be in the dining-car drinking possibly-alcoholic beverages that are not compatible with operating an automobile. And all of this without having to be treated like a criminal and an inconvenience at every turn (as is the case with airlines)... But, alas, I will spend 10 hours each way (20 hours round-trip) driving all by my lonesome, trying to avoid being run-over or pulled-over -- and those fine beverages that could be available in the dining-car will have to wait until I get home from my trip.
So, I say to the passenger-rail companies of America: I'd love to use your service, but I'm a busy man and I can't plan my life around train schedules. As soon as there is a train that goes where I want to take it when I want to go, I'll be aboard. I'd love to be fiscally and environmentally efficient, and I'd love to travel in a relaxed atmosphere. But, first and foremost, I need to travel.
0 comments:
Post a Comment