High Speed Rail - Yes or No?

[littleindiangirl]

I'm sure a few of you have heard the news. The presidential administration has unveiled plans for investing in a network of high speed trains that are common place in Europe, Asia and significantly in Japan.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/obama.rail/

I personally am ALL FOR RAIL! Not only do I know it is supremely more economical to travel by rail, but we're talking 200mph rail in the most congested parts of the country.

It will ease our dependence on oil, and also majorly cut our emissions.

I can't wait for the day I have a straight line of high speed rail to take me from Chicago to California as quick as an air plane.

It's worked successfully in Europe and Japan for decades. Question is, do you think it's a good investment, why or why not?

[JLC]

I'd be very interested in hearing someone's reasons about why it's not a good idea. Because personally, I can't think of any. My biggest concern would be how well would it actually work if the government is in charge of it. The government subsizes and regulates our current passenger train system and the whole thing is abysmal.

I think the "investment" would be extremely risky if the government is in charge...but the overall concept is excellent and I hope private enterprise gets a chance to pull it off right.

[littleindiangirl]

Well, as far as I know, it is portioning money to the states...?? No clue about that, but I also read they are giving some money to Amtrack for repair and improvement. I don't personally want to see Amtrack continuing as the ONLY long haul passenger rail across the US. That is just asking for trouble.

I guess we'll see what happens, however I am stoked to see this underway. Not even trying is a piss poor excuse to me.

I think the BBC has given a good summary of the routes.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8003077.stm

Obama plans high-speed rail in US
US President Barack Obama outlines his high-speed rail plan
President Barack Obama wants less congestion on roads and in the air

US President Barack Obama has announced his "vision for high-speed rail" in the country, which would create jobs, ease congestion and save energy.

He said the US could not afford not to make the investment in 10 routes.

Six of the routes already approved, including California and Florida, could get some of the $8 billion (£5.4bn) earmarked for rail improvements.

Mr Obama said his plan would provide faster journeys, increased mobility and better productivity.

His strategy envisions a network of short-haul and long-haul corridors of up to 600 miles, with trains capable of speeds of up to 150mph (240km/h).

Although super-fast trains in Japan, Germany and China run at more than 220km/h (137mph), the fastest service at the moment in the US averages only 120km/h.

He said: "Our highways are clogged with traffic, costing us $80 billion a year in lost productivity and wasted fuel.

"Our airports are choked with increased loads. We're at the mercy of fluctuating gas prices all too often," he said.

"We pump too many greenhouse gases into the air. What we need, then, is a smart transportation system equal to the needs of the 21st Century."

List of potential routes

* California corridor : Bay Area, Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Diego
* Pacific Northwest corridor : Eugene, Portland, Tacoma, Seattle, Vancouver British Columbia
* South Central corridor : Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Dallas/Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio, Little Rock
* Gulf Coast corridor : Houston, New Orleans, Mobile, Birmingham, Atlanta
* Chicago hub network : Chicago, Milwaukee, Twin Cities, St. Louis, Kansas City, Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Louisville
* Florida corridor : Orlando, Tampa, Miami
* Southeast corridor : Washington, Richmond, Raleigh, Charlotte, Atlanta, Macon, Columbia, Savannah, Jacksonville
* Keystone corridor : Philadelphia, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh
* Empire corridor : New York City, Albany, Buffalo
* Northern New England corridor : Boston, Montreal, Portland, Springfield, New Haven, Albany

[neilgolli]

I'm for them but against them as a stimulus package. They should have been introduced under a bill solely for a rail system. We are looking at 3 to 5 years for environmental studies and research to determine the best places for them. We will also not see 200 mph trains in the US for a long time. All the estimates that I've seen have said we will get 120 mph trains and that the upgrades need to get to 200 mph would cost over $70 billion. Like JLC said as well, who's going to run them? The Government, AMWAY???

[littleindiangirl]

Well, no better time to start then the present right?

[neilgolli]

Well, no better time to start then the present right?

Not really. I only say that because we don't have the money to do it. My argument against it is that while its a very worthwhile project so is a banana clown for my business HOWEVER I don't have the money for it so I'm going to have to put it off for awhile. The Government technically can never go bankrupt as it can always just print more money when China stops lending it to us but back to HOWEVER our kids and their kids will one day have to pay it all back or face an economy 100 times worse that we are seeing now.

[Freakie_frog]

I think that a good,affordable, safe clean inner state mass transit system like a high speed monorail would be nice. When I went to Europe in high school I loved the rails over there. You paid could ride where ever..

However I think the down side it it would end up being like the subways in NYC great when they first come out but 20 years down the road they are crap..We can't even find the funds to keep paved roads in drivable condition I think the rail system would be the same way.

[littleindiangirl]

Not really. I only say that because we don't have the money to do it. My argument against it is that while its a very worthwhile project so is a banana clown for my business HOWEVER I don't have the money for it so I'm going to have to put it off for awhile. The Government technically can never go bankrupt as it can always just print more money when China stops lending it to us but back to HOWEVER our kids and their kids will one day have to pay it all back or face an economy 100 times worse that we are seeing now.

I think putting things off will hurt us in the long run. I think the benefits of decreasing our oil use, creating jobs for the rail system of this size, and cutting emmisions is something to invest in.

We are already decades behind europe and asia in regards to transit, why should we put it off any longer?

Remember, to make money, you have to spend money. Have you seen an increase in taxes lately? I havent. Or is it moving money and spending it on other projects?

[TMoore]

I'm all for it. I'm sure things will have changed for me by the time they actually have trains up and running, but it would be great for me know.

I go to school in Boston but my parents live in Jersey and my fiances parents live near Portland Maine. Anytime I go home or up to her parents house, I take the train. I sold my car before I came to college, I hate the bus, and planes are to expensive.

To get from Boston to my home in Jersey it takes up to 9 hours (driving is about 5) from start to finish on trains. It really depends on the amount of time I spend waiting in New York for the commuter rail to Jersey, but if the ride from Boston to NYC was 1.5 hours as apposed to 4, it would be so much quicker.

[Stewart_Reptiles]

The high speed train is great no doubt about that, but here are the things to remember

In france for example it is not in people's culture to drive more than 2 hours when people have to drive long way they will take the train or fly.

The size of the countries where it has been implemented are very small which mean less of an expense compare to what it would be here.

So the question is this will people in the US start travelling by train more, and what will be the cost of doing this in a country as large as the US and will that cost be worth it?