Ever since becoming elected last November, President Obama and his administration seem to be constantly stealing the political spotlight. First there was the outrageous, outspoken, (arguably out of his mind) Reverend Wright, then an Air Force One photo op gone awry, next a controversy regarding the “green jobs” advisor, a multi-billion dollar bailout plan, scrapping Bush’s missile defense plan, all the while balancing the recession and scrutiny over health care reform.

We, as human beings, are intrigued to hear all about these personal issues, slip-ups, scandals, and anything else we can point fingers at and become exasperated over where in the world our government is leading us (for some it’s toward world domination--for others its right down the drain).

Needless to say, it has been easy to overlook any beneficial reforms or thoughts the Obama administration has introduced. The idea of a high-speed rail system being constructed in the U.S. is by far one of the best and most overlooked by everyday citizens.
On April 16, 2009, Mr. Obama unveiled a plan for a national network of high-speed passenger rail lines.

So what exactly is this idea of a “high-speed rail” system? Basically, the U.S. would once again utilize the train system by connecting major parts of the country with new railways. The locomotives used in the process are said to reach top speeds of around 150 mph, and are also known as “bullet trains.”

The blueprints of this proposal identify ten “corridors” (or major railways) that are up for federal funding. They include California, the Pacific Northwest, the Southeast, the Midwest, the Gulf Coast, Pennsylvania, Florida, New York and New England. Each of these main railways reach lengths ranging from 100-600 miles.

The corridors will all boast different functions. The Empire line in New York will run from east to west, while the Keystone line in Pennsylvania will run “laterally.” The Southeast network will connect Washington D.C. to the lines in Florida and the Gulf Coast (which will extend from eastern Texas to western Alabama). There will be a Texas to Oklahoma line, and the network in California will allow travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles in two and a half hours.

The system will partly be funded by the $787 billion stimulus plan, which already has $8 billion set aside for improvements in rail services. (During his campaign Obama pledged to support a network of passenger trains — $1.3 million has already gone to Amtrak).

Many will ask, “Why continue to spend so much on a railway system?” Well, for several reasons: it will significantly reduce congestion both in airports and on highways, it will reduce dependence on foreign oil, it will reduce harmful emissions, increase mobility, and create jobs.

Sam Stanley of the libertarian Reason Foundation “does not think this will be a good investment in the U.S.”. He believes that the benefits of high-speed rail (including environmental and economic perks) are “overblown” due to the fact that “too few people will ride the trains to make the staggering cost worthwhile.” Those who advocate the idea dispute Stanley’s claims stating that plenty of people will be happy to opt out of flying or driving—especially to destinations that are hundreds, or maybe thousands, of miles away.

CNN reports that President Obama stated, “My high-speed rail proposal will lead to innovations that change the way we travel in America. We must start developing clean, energy-efficient transportation that will define our regions for centuries to come. There’s no reason we can’t do this.” Vice President Joe Biden simply added that it would make travel “a whole lot cleaner.”
Several countries have already put high-speed rail into action, including Spain, France, and Japan.

The New York Times reported Obama saying, “Imagine whisking through towns at speeds over 100 miles an hour, walking only a few steps to public transportation, and ending up just blocks from your destination. It is happening right now; it’s been happening for decades. The problem is, it’s been happening elsewhere, not here.”

Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood is also quoted: “Anybody that’s ever traveled in France or Spain or Japan or China and has ridden on a 250-mile-an-hour train comes back to America scratching their head, saying, ‘Why don’t we have high-speed rail?’”

The concept of high-speed rail does not only have an impact on cities such as New York, Los Angeles, and Washington D.C.

The system also affects Arkansans due to the fact that the Arkansas State Transportation & Highway Department is already requesting $500,000 in stimulus money in order to fund a route from Little Rock to Texarkana, that will “ultimately half the five-hour drive from Little Rock to Dallas.” This would be a regional route in the South-Central corridor.

Obama compared his plan to that of President Eisenhower’s push for a national highway system in the 1950s. Just like Eisenhower’s plan, President Obama’s could take decades—yet also like Eisenhower’s plan, it has the potential to transform the United States.