Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Building high-speed trains will obviously create jobs. But they have potential to do even more. Say a high speed train gets built in rural Iowa. These folks would be able to commute to Chicago or St. Louis to work for a fraction of the time it would take to drive.
During previous recessions, people would pack up and move to cities with job growth. Now, due to the dismal housing market, people are less likely to move away.
These high-speed trains can change the way we think about commuting. They can let people in rural areas compete for jobs in the city.
U.S. unveils $53 billion in high-speed rail plan - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110208/pl_nm/us_usa_transport_rail - broken link)
I have read several of these threads concerning high speed rail lines and to be honest, I just don't know enough about the subject to qualify for anymore than watercooler opinion. Even still, I do believe it is a good idea to spend money on infrastructure projects, but I'm not entirely convinced that highspeed rail is the answer. I often think that the big push behind this is to merely keep up with so many other first world nations who have already invested heavily in this.
Personally, I see a greater advantage in more localized light rail, as it does not require the high level of investment in technology, as after all, many cities in America were once covered in street cars. In fact, America in the 1920's was a very mobile nation of people, far more than I think many realize.
As one argument I read in the American Conservative mag suggested, light rail's biggest problem was bloat, because for one, too few companies and engineers were working in this field in the US, and the tendency to rush towards bells and whistles instead of solid reliable transportation for the masses. In those few places that did get it right, light local rail systems encourage economic development as businesses saw it as a long term investment, and eagerly set up shop around systems and revitalized many areas on the verge of decay.
Oddly enough, in my rural community, there is a town near by that through cooperation with other small towns, is planning on using revitalized commercial rail lines for light passenger traffic, complete with new depots. As much as I love driving my car, there are some days I would love to just sit on the train, stare out the window or read while making that hour trip down the mountain to town. Personally, I'm looking forward to it and so are many in my community.
"The rail business is actually in tune with the future,... Trains move goods using far less fuel than alternatives."
- Warren Buffett, after investing $26.3 billion to buy Burlington
And I agree with him. May be I'm biased, because I think anything but train is horrible.
I'm all for trains... but only for places where they connect large numbers of people. Otherwise, they are a poor investment.
The best test though is to let private industry do the investing. If it's a good venture, they will do it. If not, it won't happen.
High speed rail will just like all rail endup a tax burden. Rail only really pays for transporting cargo really and only certin cargoes at that. If people want high speed rail then it needs to be paid for like airlines by actaul chargig thsoe usig it. Besides I don't see where the moeny would come from even as proposed. China crdeit card is over the limit now.
That's fine, but to be fair, let's setup toll booths on every public road. Either that or we can remove the tax credit on gas so that only drivers pay roads. Maybe both?
Oh, and airlines are partially nationalized...so those ticket fees don't pay for the whole thing.
Of course there is a market for this. It's designed to appease everyone who sits in heavy traffic everyday. It's not intended for people that sit at home in front of a computer all day.
Gee, that's not what the OP says:
Quote:
Say a high speed train gets built in rural Iowa. These folks would be able to commute to Chicago or St. Louis to work for a fraction of the time it would take to drive.
Heavy traffic between rural Iowa and Chicago, REALLY?
While we spend billions building this LR system so a few can benefit from it our roads and bridges crumble away so the masses can't travel.
BRILLIANT!
Progressive liberals 1, Rest of America 0
If we are doing this just to employ people, fixing roads and bridges would employ many more Americans.......
There are very few places that it we have the population density and commuters to do it. CA could pull it off, but it should come from 100% CA tax revenue. And there's one final thing that people seem to forget......
There would need to be ~$2/gallon tax on gasoline to subsidize the rail and encourage divers to use it.
Everyone neglects the tax, but it's what makes rail effective in other countries. Singapore and Japan both use that method and it's highly effective.
I agree if they can get past the Enviormentalists and I agree California and Investors should foot the bill. Outsiders should be responsible and NOT Caltrans.
If Caltrans were to be involved they would milk this project at taxpayers expense for 50 years.
I'm all for trains... but only for places where they connect large numbers of people. Otherwise, they are a poor investment.
The best test though is to let private industry do the investing. If it's a good venture, they will do it. If not, it won't happen.
Seems reasonable enough to me. I suppose the reason I am more inclined to support light rail between smaller cities and towns is because they can use existing lines, no special grades or added technology, and in most places, they already exist.
In our case, I believe several communities got together and had to come up with so much of the funding, the state provided some and I'm not sure whether federal funding was involved or not, but if so it was minimal. Nothing like the costs involved with a highspeed set up. In addition, they used some of the grading for a bike and walk path to encourage people to get out and enjoy it.
In effect, we are taking a medium college town in a rural area and making it a hub of sorts, and there is already talk of developing around the depots at the end points as well, so before this thing is even complete, folks are talking about building and building to me is a good sign.
This is old News , most of Rail community would like to see the $$$ spent in the Northeast and showcase the benefits of HSR. HSR won't work in the South , Texas or Florida....it could work in the Northeast , Ontario , Midwest , West Coast...... It stimlutes smart growth , so after the HSR jobs are gone you have a ton of new jobs to replace them. Its not for every part of the US ,Rail can work just about every part of the US though. Just not HSR , regular and Intercity Rail... For those of you wanting private companies to do it , you should tell the feds to get ride of some ridiculous rules....that hold up companies. There are 14 freight companies who want to get back into the Passenger Business here in the Northeast...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
