The Keystone Pipeline is a proposed oil line that would run from Edmonton to Houston, pretty much straight down the center of the country, connecting Canada to Mexico. Of course the environmentalists are up in arms, and the oil companies are claiming poverty, so the lines have been drawn. This is the United States though, where there is profit to be made, it will be made, sorry tree huggers. The GOP will end up getting its way on this one, as they should. The pipeline will be newer than the old, hopefully making it more safe, and will create tens of thousands of jobs for decades. There really is no dispute to that, and that is why the President pushed his decision until 2013, so he didn't have to break the news to his base.
High-speed rail has been a pipe-dream of the left for decades. This relatively clean technology would help shift us away from cars and increase the ease of movement around a vast country that has to curtail its fossil fuel consumption, simply as a financial necessity. As other countries develop, the cost of oil and coal will continuously rise and transportation costs will become a larger and larger percentage of our economy. High-speed rail technology has progressed considerably, with trains that ca go over 350 mph. Rail has also become so smooth, the ride is nicer than the highways. The problems with high-speed rail are numerous, but primarily it is about cost and access. There have been rumblings for years about high-speed rail coming to the northeast corridor, or a line from LA to Las Vegas and similar projects that pop in and out of the political arena. The problem with these projects is that they are too small and have too little impact for the money they would require. If you have driven in Boston anytime over the past 25 years, the Big Dig should show how inefficiently and slowly things move in congested space. The truth of the matter is, Americans are very individualized people and they like having their own car. The idea of riding in a train with hundreds or thousands of people is surely some kind of socialism. However, what we have seen is that people travel less and less, and they tend to stay closer to home as gas prices rise. This problem will only compound itself in the coming decades.
So we have two platforms that are diametrically opposed to one another, neither of which is a true solution for the country. The resolution in Washington DC has been to shelve both ideas. Instead, they should combine them. One of the most difficult parts of putting up high-speed rail is the land grants needed on either side of the rail. Also, the major cost of the rail is its base. Tons and tons of concrete and building materials have to support the trains, it's not like throwing down iron rails and hammering them together anymore. With a massive project we can bring those costs down, as opposed to short routes which will not drive such a discount. It seems, though, that the same obstacles that inhibit rail are required for the Keystone Pipeline. Space on either side of the line, solid foundation, and a direct path for transit are all things that both projects require.
The United States has built its legacy on infrastructure and innovation. This endeavor would encompass both and require millions of laborers for decades. I propose the Congress gets together and allow for the Keystone Pipeline conditional upon the construction of high-speed rail on top of the line. Not only would this further protect the environment from the pipeline by encasing it in the base of the line, but it would also generate the innovation necessary for the structure. This 1800 mile track through the center of the country would be quite expensive, but there is already private enterprise involved, oil companies. They have a vested interest in completing the pipeline, and are already fiscally committed to the construction costs, so there would be an offset to the project on the whole. I think oil companies have representatives in DC who can work out the details with the Congress.
The object of this high-speed rail would certainly be called into question. It seems to make no sense to put such a huge, expensive project in the middle of a relatively empty part of the country. But ask the people on Route 66 what happens when transportation routes change. They will tell you, people move to where the traffic is. Ask the people of Boulder City, NV, which was established only to build the Hoover Dam, they will tell you, construction jobs build lasting communities. All the towns and cities that would spring up right where we need them to spring up would also help balance the country. People would move inward instead of to the coasts, easing the strain on the environment as well as the economic strain that occurs when everyone is concentrated in one area. As the pipe/rail line neared completion, in 20 years or so, other lines would go up. High-speed rail would be considerably cheaper and easier to construct and cities like Chicago, St. Louis, and Denver would erect connections, starting a race throughout the country to become connected to the rail line. The projects would be endless, the work would be constant, and the result would be a cleaner, faster, more united country and continent. We should understand more and more as Europe slowly breaks off into pieces again, that the countries we should be most concerned with are the ones we are connected to. Bringing fluid transportation of oil, people, and goods north to south could kick off the same type of expansion and development as the trip out West. And the Oregon Trail didn't even have a pipeline running underneath.
