U.S. unveils $53 billion in high-speed rail plan

[Viva_La_Revolution]

Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - The U.S. government will dedicate $53 billion over six years to build new high-speed rail networks and make existing ones faster, Vice President Joe Biden said on Tuesday.

The initiative will allow the Department of Transportation to choose corridors for the new projects and increase U.S. use of the passenger rails, the White House said in a statement.

President Barack Obama's budget for fiscal year 2012, which is to be unveiled next week, includes $8 billion for the plan. The rest of the money will be allocated over the six-year time period.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/08/us-usa-transport-rail-idUSTRE7173OM20110208?WT.tsrc=Social%20Media&WT.z_smid=twtr-reuters_%20com&WT.z_smid_dest=Twitter

[dipsydoodle]

1. Decided to follow Europe

at last ?

[jdlh8894]

3. Where are they going to GO? n/t

[Kablooie]

13. You could go to Los Angeles for an In-N-Out burger.

[jdlh8894]

16. Been there -Done that

Took me 3 days @ Big Sur to recoup! LOL

[JDPriestly]

23. We will be able to travel from Los Angeles to other places in California.

That will reduce the need to maintain and build more freeways. It will also probably reduce short-trip air traffic. That is great. Don't forget, the Los Angeles area has a huge population. We also have a huge and important port. So, we have ordinary traffic and the port traffic. When you add to that the traffic that is just traveling through Los Angeles to the north or south of the state, especially the central valley, it's far, far too much traffic. The trains would help alleviate some of that.

Peak oil is coming, and fast trains make mean that the fuel dollar will stretch further and that will mean more and more as gasoline becomes more expensive.

[Xithras]

48. The actual state numbers cite a 3% traffic reduction on I-5

There will be a difference, but it won't be huge. Cal HSRA has already acknowledged that the primary market for the new HSR system will be business people and vacationers who normally fly. One of the boardwomen of the HSRA even stated, point blank, during a public meeting that the system is NOT being designed to reduce or replace traffic on the roadways, but is simply meant to offer north/south travellers an alternative to flying, and to relieve traffic in our overburdened and built-out airports. When people were still arguing for the Bay Area approach to cross the Altamont, one of the primary arguments for it was a study showing that HSR across the Altamont and into SF would lead to a massive reduction in one of the worst traffic nightmares in California. That argument was quickly shot down as the HSRA repeatedly stated that "local traffic reduction" isn't one of the goals of the system. It's purely a long distance transport mechanism.

According to both state and federal numbers, SF to LA trips in passenger vehicles account for less than 5% of the overall traffic on I-5 and 99 combined. The state assumes that it can catch 60% of that traffic, leading to an overall traffic reduction of about 3%.

[JDPriestly]

73. The fast rail will remove long distance traffic from some of the

worst traffic jams in the state. That is at least something. The I-5 is a nightmare because of the trucks. I understand that this new rail will also accommodate freight, so that will be good.

[Poll_Blind]

2. YES! Mass transit FTW!

:thumbsup:

PB

[Roland99]

4. Rick Scott is doing his best to scuttle the light-rail and high-speed rail here in FL

fucking criminal.

[femrap]

9. Our new Governor

Kasich of Dumfukistan, the former state of Ohio, gave the $400 million back to the Feds...and it was given to CA.

I wish Kasich would just sell us to Canada.

[JDPriestly]

24. Thank you, Ohio. We need the money here in California.

And we need fast rail. Ours is a really big, state. Long, long, long.

[femrap]

57. I know....

I used to live there. Would have loved to hope a train instead of flying or driving to LA. I miss the Bay Area very much.

Our previous Governor...Strickland, a great guy with a brain and a heart...wanted to connect Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus and Cleveland...made perfect sense. But Kasich said no. It would have created jobs, reduced pollution, and I think generated more tourism.

I hate driving anymore....everyone is on the phone or texting. And then to have to drive into a city like Cleveland where you don't know the lay of the land that well....it's just not worth the headache. So I still haven't been to the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame.

[JDPriestly]

72. In addition, ours is an aging population.

In the future, a lot of travel will be done by retirees visiting family. Filling our highways with single, elderly drivers is absurd. But that is what will happen unless we get lots of alternatives to cars and roads. Of course, one of the worst stretches in California is between Santa Barbara and the outskirts of LA, and the rail won't help with that bottleneck very much.

But this rail will help get food from the Central Valley out to the rest of the state and to the surrounding states. That's a big deal.

[FBaggins]

5. And how many seconds will that survive in a House that wants to cut Amtrak?

Let alone just designate billions for the administration to dole out on their own?

[jdlh8894]

15. Just checked Amtrak from Atlanta to Orlando

$238 FIFTEEN F'N HOURS
Have to go to DC from Atl --Then to Orlando!!
I can drive there in less than 6 hrs and spend less than $40 in fuel!!!
Please help me understand!!!

[FBaggins]

17. Amtrak doesn't have a line that runs in that direction.

You're better off taking a bus.

There's one route that runs from New Orleans (through Atlanta) up to D.C. and there's an entirely different route down (very roughly) the I95 corridor.

You could take a train to Raleigh/Durham and switch to one headed south, but you would be lucky to find a layover that was more attractive than just riding up to DC and then back down.

I doubt that you'll ever see an Atlanta-Orlando run (at least any time soon). Too many flights between the two that are too cheap.

[amandabeech]

18. Fifteen hours from ATL to DC?

So, would you take a train if it were 6 hours and cost $40?

The advantage would be that you could relax or work rather than battling I-95, but the disadvantages would be that you'd have to get to the train from your house or business, get from the train to your final destination, and travel on the train's schedule and not your own.

Would you take the train over your car under the conditions that I've described?

Just curious.

[jdlh8894]

19. 15 Hrs From Atl to Orlando ! Have to go to DC First.

On edit-
No, I would not. Reasons being, Have to pay for parking my car in ATL
Having to rent a car in Orlando(or have someone pick me up)
Still can't see it being cost effective! JMO

[WatsonT]

27. Both have their advantages and disadvantages

Even if cost/time were the same with a train you get more free time and less hassle during the trip but at the end you don't have a car. Either have to rent or make do with whatever public transit happens to be available at the end of your trip. And the exact opposite with cars.

I like the idea of public transit and high speed rail in particular but I don't think it's practical in many parts of the US.

The problem is with population density: the main factor that makes or breaks public transit. That's why NYC can have a great subway that works efficiently and makes money as well as buses and taxis whereas some rural town with a 1000 residents would not be able to pull it off. And most of the country just isn't very densely populated.

High speed rail requires a lot of start up costs and infrastructure both to put it in and maintain it (consider the amount of land that would need to be acquired to run one new rail across the US). It can still be a financial boon but it takes a certain level of traffic to make that happen (because you have to pay to rent the land, maintain the trains and tracks, hire the conductors, pay upkeep on the stations, etc etc etc regardless of whether 1 person rides it or a million). So along the east and west coasts I could see it working. Perhaps some along the gulf and a few other areas.

But does a high speed rail from Bozeman MT to Manhattan KS stand a chance of breaking even? Seems unlikely given the inevitably low traffic.

[JDPriestly]

25. The whole point is to make trains faster and more efficient.

Do you know how much it costs to maintain the roads you drive on? Then there is your car, fuel and maintenance. Then there is the manufacture of your car and the raw materials involved in that. And then on top of that we either have to import our oil and spend American dollars overseas to put it in your tank or we can drill oil under difficult circumstances in unfriendly places at great expense and danger to our environment.

Trains run on electricity which as time moves forward will be produced more safely and efficiently from renewable energy sources.

When the first train tracks were built, most of America was just wilderness, with a few isolated farms and communities here and there. Trains were kind of exciting but also kind of a crazy idea. The trains made us a nation, tied us together, facilitated travel and communication. In time, train stations had telegraph stations. That is really how we became a nation. High speed rail is our future.

[FBaggins]

36. One correction

Yes... trains "run on electricity", but most of our rail lines are not electrified... the locomotives are giant diesel generators.

Even so... they move people/goods cheaper and cleaner than the alternatives.

[Big_Mike]

47. You are aware that HSR is totally incompatible with

regular rail? What purpose of having a 240 mph train following a 10-30 mph freight train on an uphill slope? HSR will require its own track and signal gear in order to operate. That means purchasing MORE easement along the current lines already on the ground. If you look at a great deal of the trackage in Japan, you'll see that the HSR is elevated a few feet off of the ground.

Oh, yeah. And that signal gear I mentioned. This is mature technology, and it costs the railroads damn near $1 million per mile to build and signal the conventional rail lines. It would likely be near $25 - $30 million per mile for HSR. Spain's latest effort came in at just under $22 million per mile, and costs in Spain are maybe 40% of those here. If we could achieve the cost savings that Spain did, that would mean about $33 million per mile.

The China routes succeed because putting the HSR in is a matter of prestige, the so-called "face" that is so important in Asia. There is no way in hell it will ever pay off for trips between S.F. and L.A. or San Diego. Just consider getting into S.F. You are going to put a HSR line through the Peninsula all the way to the city? That would be 3 or 4 billion in land costs alone. Then getting the Environmental Impact Reports done and approved in less than 30 years. I really don't see it. I work in the Railroad industry, and I cannot envision a high speed rail that is economically viable in America. The cost per mile would simply be too prohibitive. Figure 500 miles (San Diego to San Francisco) at $33 million per mile would be $16.5 billion, which I think is pretty much in the ballpark, if somewhat low.

We are going to have to find a better method than this, I believe.

[Xithras]

50. That's not correct.

The HSR system we're building in CA is dual mode, so that freight traffic can also use large sections of the new track. The primary difference with the new system is that it will have overhead electrical, and that passenger trains will have priority over freight traffic (which is a reversal of the current priorities). Revenue from the freight companies will be used to help offset part of the system construction cost, and much of it will be built on land already owned by the rail companies. Sections being built on the peninsula will essentially amount to a taxpayer funded upgrade of privately owned rail lines within existing rail corridors. In exchange for this upgrade, passenger traffic will gain a higher priority.

The Cal HSRA recently decided to start construction on the first section of track in the Central Valley SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE it will be immediately useful for revenue generating freight services. A secondary reason is that the completion of the system will require voter approval of several additional bond packages, and they're no longer sure they'll be able to pass them. If Californian's don't approve the future bond measures, the HSRA reasoned that the track could be put to use exclusively for freight traffic, allowing at least some benefit to come from the investment.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

60. the Federal Railroad Administration might have something to say about that,

The regulations for railcars that operate on shared track are extremely harsh, the Cascades Amtrak route drags along a railcar full of concrete as a buffer in the event of a collision with a freight train.

[Big_Mike]

75. Yesterday, I didn't do my research. Accept my apologies, please.

The fact that someone says that they plan to use the same track is just plain wrong. One area that makes this unfeasible is Grade Level Crossings, or where vehicle roadways cross tracks. In regular rail operations, as a train approaches such intersections, traffic lights are switched, gates lower, bells sound and traffic clears the tracks in the crossing. Generally, trains in towns move at about 45 miles per hour, or 66 feet per second. The rule of thumb is to warn an intersection about 30 seconds before the train arrives in the crossing (there are many other factors, but I'll keep this simple). It takes the warning machines between 3 and 7 seconds to react, depending up manufacturer. So call it 5 seconds as an average. So if we want 35 seconds of warning time, then we need to activate the crossing when the train is 2310 feet away from the crossing, or a little less than half a mile from the crossing. In the event of an emergency, most trains can stop within about 7000 feet, or almost 1.5 miles.

Now imagine a crossing in HSR max speed areas at 240 mph. Obviously, this cannot occur in towns, but consider a rural area, such as that near Merced. The train covers 352 feet every second. For a 35 second warning time, the system must begin to operate 12,320 feet (2.33 miles) from the crossing. So these trains are running across crossings at 240 mph, hopefully people avoid them and do not try to "beat the train" across the crossing. Have you ever been passed by a tractor-trailer doing 60 mph when on foot? The wind gust is very strong. Now imagine something 4 times stronger. I don't want to do that one, ever.

My point here is that mixing HSR and freight is not economically useful. One supposed benefit is that goods move more quickly. NOPE. HSR is passenger only. No freight. When you mix freight and passenger trains at the same speed, it is merely inefficient. Were you to do that with HSR, It would be a complete waste. Supposedly, the HSR would have priority on the track. That would slow the freight by a great deal; I would imagine between 30% and 60%. The longer it takes goods to get to their destination, the higher the cost. The higher transportation costs, the greater the retail price. Is the slight decrease in traffic worth the additional costs?

The California project covers 800 track miles. The current official estimate is $43 billion. I cannot see how this project, when lasting over 25 years, would come in for anywhere less than $200 billion dollars. As an exercise, compare it to the Chunnel that connects England and France. Originally proposed in 1986 at $5.5 billion. 19 months after beginning construction, it was completed with an 80% cost overrun (total cost of $9.9 billion). This project is expected to last 25 years, approximately 16 times longer than the Chunnel. If they could keep the cost overruns to less than 500%, I'd be pleasantly surprised.

I am not speaking against the idea of HSR. It is perfect for the Northeast Corridor, and should start there, IMO. California is just the wrong place for this to be done.

[Xithras]

78. Two things:

1. The California HSR project already includes the elimination of all at-grade crossings for both passenger rail and dedicated freight track in their right of ways. This was one of the major selling points of the system to the Central Valley communities (who will otherwise see little benefit from the system), as most of the towns straddle current rail corridors and traffic backups at crossing grades are a constant reality.

2. I saw a presentation on the HSR project where they were discussing their implementation plans. While the finer details won't be worked out until sections of the track are ready for service, they're primarily talking about phasing the traffic at different times of day. There will be at least four HSR north/south runs during the day, for example, but there will probably only be a single run in the middle of the night because the passenger volume won't be there to support it. Most freight traffic will probably be transferred down the new rails at night, when passenger service has largely ceased. By phasing track usage at different times of the day, they can allow dual mode operation while minimizing interference between the systems.

And the project will, indeed, speed the transfer of freight. By elevating the trackway and eliminating the grade crossings, the freight trains will have the ability to operate at higher speeds as they will no longer be encumbered by safety regulations. Freight trains operating on the BNSF tracks here in the Valley routinely hit 70MPH in the open stretches, but are forced to slow to 45MPH when entering towns and areas with a higher density of crossings. Eliminating that slowdown will greatly speed freight transfers. That's half the reason BNSF is going along with the plan and is allowing the state to use some of their land for its construction.

[Big_Mike]

80. That is good to hear. I have never heard any presentations

regarding the plans, just looking at the HSRA's website.

One critical point - I see BNSF is agreeing, what about Union Pacific (UP)? Well over 90% of Bay Area (East Bay as well as SF to San Jose) trackage is UP property.

Financially, I would personally benefit (the company I work for company would expand and be busy for well beyond my retirement date), but I am not certain of seeing a return on our state and national investment. I can always find another job, but can we afford to do this?

[RedCloud]

6. Just don't hire Homer Simpson as engineer.

[Uncle Joe]

7. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Viva_La_Revolution.

[InvisibleTouch]

8. Good on so many levels! I hope this keeps growing. n/t

[SnakeEyes]

10. I will only support this if..

each corridor is using the latest and greatest technology, laying down new rails for each train, and not looking for ways to cut costs that compromise performance potential. Retrofitting old tracks is inefficient and not worth the expense. Acela would be worlds better if they hadn't retrofitted.

[liberal N proud]

11. I hope this gets railroaded through

I would love to see HSR from coast to coast.

Not only would the trip be more comfortable but more scenic as well.

[sufrommich]

12. Me too. I would love to see train travel make a comeback. nt

[Poll_Blind]

14. I would love to see this become a reality. n/t

PB

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

35. Why? So a DC-8 can fly circles around it?

[liberal N proud]

53. So I don't have to sit go through TSA to sit in a sardine can to get

from here to there.

Save the air for need to be there today and overseas travel. I will take the train.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

58. I got the full treatment on Eurostar

I even encountered the TSA on the San Diego trolley, the purpose of the TSA is to serve as internal customs controls - not simply airport security. The TSA even proposed having dedicated security cars on Amtrak trains that would serve as a mobile check-point. They just couldn't get funding for them.

If high speed rail gets built, the TSA will be there screaming contradictory orders and stealing shit, count on it.

[liberal N proud]

61. Got nothing on the TGV from Paris to Geneva

Walked on with no questions and took my seat. A very comfortable set with connections for laptops and footrest.

No turning off all electronics or closing your window shade. Sit back and enjoy the countryside.

TSA checkpoints on a train would be worthless, if a terrorist is going to blow up the train, they will do it on the thousands of miles of un-guarded rails.

It would be a bigger farse than it is now.

[patrice]

20. YYYyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee HHHhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!

[cutlassmama]

21. Yay! Now the homeless can ride around on the train instead of the bus

all day. :sarcasm: That money could be spent on better programs/services for all these people out of work.

[JDPriestly]

26. Building the rail will bring jobs and employ people.

That's a big part of the idea.

When the original rails were built in the 19th century, there was lots of work. People came from over the world to help build the American railroads.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

38. In France, Germany and Japan

Railroad construction is slightly less labor intensive than it was 150 years ago...

[WatsonT]

40. It will create jobs

just for very specialized fields and highly trained individuals.

The days of getting work done with armies of untrained laborers are over.

So while the new jobs will be helpful it won't end our unemployment problems the way some folks hope it will. You can't simply take someone who spent 20 years working on an assembly line or cubicle and overnight turn them in to a construction worker.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

44. I don't see how

There is no indigenous expertise, everything short of the track itself will be imported, so were left with service industry and labourer jobs and probably not very many. It will just be the construction of the Panama canal in reverse.

Even the Acela is just a rehash of a Canadian Bombardier train that has been around for thirty years.

[WatsonT]

51. The construction industry was hit hard by the recession

there are folks out of work who are qualified to do the job. Just not the hundreds of thousands necessary to make a dent in unemployment. We have engineers and skilled laborers. They do need to be found and organized but it wouldn't require outsourcing the whole thing.

It is however not a solution to our other woes.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

55. and their going to build what?

This is how railroad track is installed these days, not labor intensive.

[WatsonT]

56. To quote myself:

40. It will create jobs just for very specialized fields and highly trained individuals.

It won't solve all our employment problems.

Those 4 people you see next to the machine? Those are workers. They are employed.

As I've said a half dozen times now: it won't employ the masses needed to get our unemployment numbers down. It would however employ some people.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

59. Fine, pay the equivalent number of people wallstreet salaries NOT to build it

Bargain of the century,

[WatsonT]

65. So we spend the same as we're getting now

and get nothing in return.

I'd prefer to employ some people and get some project accomplished if it's all the same to you.

I've clearly stated that highspeed rail will not solve all our problems nor is it practical in most of the US.

That doesn't mean it's worthless everywhere. Or that the entire concept of infrastructure rebuilding is a worthless enterprise.

[JDPriestly]

71. So is everything else.

[JDPriestly]

22. Wonderful! I'm riding Amtrack every few weeks now.

And I love it.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

28. Stupid

When we have universal healthcare, universal post-secondary education, an effort has been made to keep the interstate from disintegrating into gravel goat paths and a consistently balanced federal budget maybe we can waste money on this Europhilliac nonsense.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

39. you are so wrong, it is sad.

First, we keep the brain drain from happening, in engineering, construction, material science, and glass, plastic, steel, and high tech industries.
Second, this investment will increase the workforce measurably. For every dollar that is invested, our economy will benefit 3x to 4x as much.
Third, these will be good paying jobs, with decent insurance benefits, stabilizing our system.
Next, the efficiency increase in transportation will pay benefits for decades to come, lowering costs, speeding transit times, cutting travel delays.
Then, these industries will spawn even more development in the regions where they will be built.
Finally, all of these enterprises and their employees will pay taxes, increasing the coffers of local, county, state and the feds.

It is not nonsense, unless you close your eyes to the facts and the incredible opportunity we have here.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

45. How?

None of the engineering or manufacturing is going to be done here, labourers working on one-off projects will not improve the unemployment situation in the long-term - especially if the project grinds to a halt every other year pending further funding.

Wow, another generation of Pullman Porters and Gandy Dancers, what an opportunity.

Decoupling healthcare from employment will do far more to stimulate job creation that this fantasy.

[LanternWaste]

46. One does not deny the other.

One does not deny the other.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

54. When you are as throughly bankrupt as we are it does

If there is $53 billion to be spent, spend it on people not schemes worthy of Lyle Lanley.



Well, sir, there's nothing on earth, Like a genuine, Bona fide, Electrified, Six-car, High speed rail!

[LanternWaste]

62. 53b can't be cut from defense?

53b can't be cut from defense?

Regardless, I imagine you're opposition to High speed lies not in the problem of homelessness, but rather in watching too many cartoons. :shrug:

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

67. my objection is simple,

We endeavour to spend billions on something that is already being done quite adequately with airplanes at a time when intense sacrifices are being imposed everywhere else.

Leave high speed rail to Disney World,

[Posteritatis]

77. You consider the state of air travel adequate? LOL. (nt)

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

79. The short comings of air travel are easily addressed and cheap by comparison

Abolish the TSA and lift stupid obsolete restrictions and noise rules written for the jets of the 1950's on local airports that result in gridlocked hubs with under-utilized airports just miles away. The New York area for instance has lots of airports that could be used to relieve the strain, but the restrictions on them are so harsh that it is impossible. In the L.A. area there are three perfectly good airports operating below capacity because of stupid regulations while LAX bursts at the seems and contemplates ridiculous and cost prohibitive expansion plans.

And even with all the stupidity related frustrations, yes air travel is still marvelous.

[indimuse]

29. Obama to call for $53B for high-speed rail

Source: AP

By JULIE PACE, Associated Press – 5 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is calling for a six-year, $53 billion spending plan for high-speed rail, as he seeks to use infrastructure spending to jumpstart job creation.
An initial $8 billion in spending will be part of the budget plan Obama is set to release Monday. If Congress approves the plan, the money would go toward developing or improving trains that travel up to 250 miles per hour, and connecting existing rail lines to new projects. The White House wouldn't say where the money for the rest of the program would come from, though it's likely Obama would seek funding in future budgets or transportation bills.
Obama's push for high-speed rail spending is part of his broad goal of creating jobs in the short-term and increasing American competitiveness for the future through new spending on infrastructure, education and innovation. During last month's State of the Union address, Obama said he wanted to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail within 25 years.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110208/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_high_speed_rail

[Kaleva]

30. I think they ought to raise the gas tax 7.5 cents a year for the next ten years.

While a majority of the revenue would go to maintaining and improving the interstate highway system and bridges, part of it could go to projects such as mentioned in the OP.

[kpete]

31. Biden announces $53B high-speed rail plan here (Philly)

Source: Philadelphia Inquirer



Posted on Tue, Feb. 8, 2011


Biden announces $53B high-speed rail plan here

By Vernon Clark

Inquirer Staff Writer

The Obama administration announced plans today to spend $53 billion over six years to develop a national and intercity high-speed passenger rail network, creating jobs in turn.

President Obama will include an initial $8 billion investment in the budget plan he will release next week, Vice President Joe Biden said today at 30th Street Station.

If Congress approves the plan, funding would go toward developing or improving trains that travel up to 250 miles per hour, and connecting existing rail lines to new projects.

The push for high-speed rail investments is part of Obama's broad goal of creating jobs in the short-term and increasing American competitiveness for the future through new spending on infrastructure, education and innovation.

Read more: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20110208_Biden_announces__53B_high-speed_rail_plan_here.html

[lyonn]

32. SWEET! We so seriously need this kind of plan

And, move more products across the country via rails!!

[robcon]

41. $53B! Money down a rathole.

I'm sure the politically connected will get their cuts.

[Kingofalldems]

63. You agree with the republicans?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

69. Broken clock moment...

Much like Shithead Shelby and the bailouts,

[nyy1998]

33. Please make it happen!!!! nt

[Bluenorthwest]

34. This qualifies as great news

More would be good, but starting is better than not, and VP Biden knows this stuff very well, I tend to nod along when he's talking rail, he says things I've wanted said for a long time. Fast trains where we need them, asap!

[xchrom]

37. we need this badly. -- make it happen! nt

[PavePusher]

42. Some north-south routes would be nice.

To get from Tucson to Salt Lake, I have to go via L.A. or Chicago and it takes 3-4 days each way.

I can drive it in 12 hours, or two to three days with some fantastic sight-seeing, camping, hiking and mountain biking along the way.

Trains are great in high-population density areas, but unless they link a useful number of places inter-city, they'll never make any money.

[grahamhgreen]

43. Good for Obama. We can start to catch up to China.

[WatsonT]

52. Comparisons to China

or Europe, or Japan are not valid here.

Population density is key to making infrastructure heavy mass transit work efficiently and profitably.

Population density by country in people/square mile:
EU: 300.1
China:363.3
Japan: 873.1


United States: 87.4

You can see why what works for them won't necessarily work for us.

If we were to squeeze all our population together so that certain regions have a density in the hundreds per square mile and leave the rest as forest or farm land then we can have high speed rail, but only in those place. The majority of the country would still be without a rail system.

We can have it, profitably, in some places. But not for 80% of the population as it was claimed.

[grahamhgreen]

68. On a state by state basis, it can work. List

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density?wasRedirected=true

[WatsonT]

70. Exactly what I said

there are a few states that meet the requirements. Most do not. 80% of the population is not close enough together to be practically served by high speed rail.

[ItNerd4life]

49. Gov't can't even run Amtrak. I don't see how this is good.

It's pie in the sky dreaming, not reality.

[lutefisk]

74. The freight rail lobby, especially under Bush has had its way...

In our corporate run republic, efficient rail travel is about as likely as humane and fair health care.

:hi:

[jpak]

64. I hope it bypasses red states

:sarcasm:

[LanternWaste]

66. Took my first Amtrak ride in years from Ft Worth to S. TX a few weeks ago

Took my first Amtrak ride in years from Ft Worth to S. TX a few weeks ago and it was better than flying or driving.

Kicked back and enjoyed the scenery, prices were decent, and it left and arrived at its stated times. If nothing else, much better service than the airlines I've been on recently.

[OnlinePoker]

76. A cautionary tale could be shown in the German Rail system

Just as I was leaving there in 1994, they were privatizing the system. The government took on 60+ billion deutschemarks (around $40 Billion U.S. at the time) of company debt to allow the privatized company to reinvest in new equipment. One of the methods to return the company to profitability was cutting about 1/2 the system. From what I've read, 17 years later, they still aren't profitable. A good history of the Deutsche Bahn is at the link below.

http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/history2/38/Deutsche-Bahn-AG.html