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.
Am an American, studying in the UK. Rail service is great!
When I need to travel regionally, its unbelievably more pleasant than flying. No TSA, you have room to move, relax, visit the on-board service car.
I don't want to live in a country where we don't have HSR.
It is the government's responsibility to build the infrastructure if nothing else, the service/rail can be provided by a private company...
Why is it the governments responsibility?
It will never happen. In 1970, the privately held railroads discontinued passenger rail service as it's a money pit. Amtrak is not self sustaining. I love trains but realistic enough to know it will never happen.
What Is your opinion on funding the new high speed rail program? Liberals are for it due to the fact that it would be environmentally friendly, while conservatives on the other hand think it is useless spending. I personally am a HUGE fan of it (due to the pro urban trend it would help set up).
I'm not a Liberal but I support more subways and high speed trains in the USA and I'm willing to pay increased taxes for it. But I think it's more likely the radical environmentalist wing of the Liberals that would most oppose disrupting the environment in such a way.
I am all for building one in the Northeast and in California and Texas where you could generate enough ridership to make it worth while. Extending the system to low density areas in this nation would be a tremendous stupidity and waste of money.
It will never happen. In 1970, the privately held railroads discontinued passenger rail service as it's a money pit. Amtrak is not self sustaining. I love trains but realistic enough to know it will never happen.
Why is road and airport construction government responsibility.
Trains also benefit vehicle traffic particularly in the NE but also other metropolitan areas, try driving from Boston to DC down I95. It's bad enough and getting worse HSR would increase ridership and avoid having cars wasting gas sitting in traffic, cut down on pollution.
Problem is that we have many roads and bridges with problems which are far beyond their lifespan that were built back in the 1930's
I am all for building one in the Northeast and in California and Texas where you could generate enough ridership to make it worth while. Extending the system to low density areas in this nation would be a tremendous stupidity and waste of money.
Mick
They are building a train already here in California and it won't be self funded by ridership.
Even the local rail that only goes to urban areas like BART and Caltrain which shuffles commuters is only roughly 50% funded by riders.
I think we could make both liberals and conservatives happy with a high speed rail system that would also carry oil.
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.
