We have to acknowledge that an America run solely on fossil fuels should not be the vision we have for our children and grandchildren.
We consume more than 20% of the world’s oil, but have less than 2% of the world’s oil reserves. So without a major change in our energy policy, our dependence on oil means that we will continue to send billions of dollars of our hard-earned wealth to other countries every month – including countries in dangerous and unstable regions. In other words, our continued dependence on fossil fuels will jeopardize our national security. It will smother our planet. And it will continue to put our economy and our environment at risk.
...The time has come, once and for all, for this nation to fully embrace a clean energy future. That means continuing our unprecedented effort to make everything from our homes and businesses to our cars and trucks more energy efficient.
Part of that future means investing in high-speed passenger rail. That's why it was included in the stimulus bill and more investments are planned. It's an important part of the strategy to make America a less auto-dependent and less oil-dependent society.
It bothers me to see the opposite perspective promoted by the Springfield Railroad Corridor Study. Their materials start with the premise that rails are the transportation mode of the past and imply that we should continue the status quo of a city designed solely for auto-traffic.
Springfield is a city that grew up around its rail lines and was, at one time, an important railroad junction. Almost all of the people and goods coming into and out of the City were carried by rail. The situation at the beginning of the Twenty-first Century is vastly different. The City has significantly fewer rail lines; people arrive mostly by car or plane; and almost all of the products sold or used in Springfield move by truck.
A vestige of Springfield’s rail-centric past is that there are currently three north-south railroad corridors that run through the City.
The site goes on to focus on the inconveniences of rail traffic without mentioning the benefits of well-planned passenger rail, including reduction of oil use and economic development in city centers. I hope the above statements don't reflect the direction the study is taking. They sound grossly out of step with national priorities.
It's disturbing to see the study group frame the public discussion in this way, especially considering the lack of environmental or passenger rail advocates on their citizen advisory boards. It would be foolish to focus this study on how rail lines inconvenience cars. The most obvious vestige of the past is the study group's outdated attitude about promoting a car-dependent society.
Obama went on to say,
But if we refuse to take into account the full cost of our fossil fuel addiction – if we don’t factor in the environmental costs and national security costs and true economic costs – we will have missed our best chance to seize a clean energy future.
Will the Springfield railroad study consider those costs?