High speed rail maybe a reality in the near future? In the U.S.? Say it ain't so! (middle east, generation)

[Bluefly]

For being such a powerful country, it's incredible how many aspects of civilized, developed culture we are playing catch up on - health care, transportation, education.

No matter what we do, other countries have done it better. That shouldn't be. At least we created the best collegiate education system and the Internet transition and will probably now lead the renewable energy transition.

[KevK]

Originally Posted by Blue Grass Fever

Here is the article - Obama plots huge railroad expansion - David Rogers - Politico.com

I'm surprised more people aren't talking about this, even in the media outlets. I'd figure both sides of the aisle would be abuzzed.

This article has a map that gives a general idea - Map Of Potential High-Speed Rail Built By The Stimulus

So what do my fellow Americans think?

Hopefully, in due time, the Midwest will be interconnected with the Northeast.

I persoanlly do not think I will live long enough to see a spade of dirt turned for this thing but I am for it!

[KevK]

Originally Posted by macmeal

As a frequent Amtrak rider and a bit of a 'rail fan', I hope this is a good sign. Several years ago some money, some 'groundwork', and some study went into a possible high-speed rail link between LA and Las Vegas. Not sure what their conclusions were.

There's also an on-going program here (California) toward building a high-speed rail line between San Diego, the LA area, and San Francisco. Ironically, most 'route studies' advocate running this train AROUND the congested Orange County area, which is looked at as too 'congested' and too expensive for aquiring new right-of way..

LasVegas does not even have regular Amtrak train service so why would they put this there?

[Hoarfrost]

Originally Posted by allydriver

Yep, were so backwards people will do anything to circumvent our borders to get in here

Eh...people from Chad would do anything to get into Libya. Congo -> Cameroon, Somalia -> Kenya/Ethiopia. It's just a matter of being a step up from what you came from. And you'd have a hard time convincing many Japanese, British, French, Italians, Germans, Belgians, Dutch, Norwegians, etc. that the US is a quality of life step up from where they live.

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

...Bullet trains would make commuting to and from places like Fresno, Modesto and Bakersfield easier. But wouldn't that merely encourage the sort of sprawl that we are supposed to be discouraging?...

Major reason to discourage sprawl is to conserve oil. Sprawl would be a greater concern for people themselves, when oil prices rise. Having said that, I don't see why this would be even an issue. People already live in these areas, and I don't see why people will move out simply because they can now take a fast train to work... it will be quite an expensive proposition as a commute.

Originally Posted by KevK

LasVegas does not even have regular Amtrak train service so why would they put this there?

Las Vegas was "advertised" by the same folks (in this case, R-Mich Candice Miller) who campaigned to label everything as pork in the stimulus package. Harry Reid appeared surprised (and actually happy since such claims would help him in his home state without having to do anything). The rail project is an Obama plan, and besides the $8B in the ARRP, he is also looking for $1B towards rail infrastructure in annual budgets.

I'm glad we're finally being serious about a fundamental infrastructure that has been completely forgotten over last half century.

[KevK]

Originally Posted by Bluefly

^^
It is quite funny how people complain about eminent domain for rail but are perfectly fine to destroy cities in the name of progress for highways. I grew up near Detroit and wonderful neighborhoods were destroyed so interstates could split the city and usher all the wealth out to the suburbs.

It's fine to oppose government proposals, but it's just odd how hypocritical people tend to be in supporting massive government highway projects but not rail.

Did you know the orginal concept of the Interstate Highway system was NOT to bisect cities. It was orginally designed to be a perimeter system where it would go around a city with exits on to that city's major streets. I don't know who decided it was wise to cut American cities in half or into quarters like that. While it is convenient, it was very costly to the cities in terms of destroyed businesses, neighbourhoods and middle class flight.

[KevK]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

The worst enemy of this has always been the automobile, oil, and highway building lobbies that own Congress. Look at the income of just the oil companies alone and you'll see the enormity of their income, mostly derived from motor fuels. Then the auto firms, both domestic and foreign, have tremendous incomes, especially in good years. Income stats for road builders and maintainers are harder to gather, but substantial.

The American dream is just that, an ideal scenario, built on the disappearing fantasy of cheap oil, cheap land, plentiful jobs and endless growth. We are 50 years behind Europe and Japan on good rail transport.

Many people fail to understand that both Europe and Japan had their infrastructure wiped out by WW-II, along with much of their institutional organizations. They had no choice, they had to rebuild, and they did it smartly, based on publicly funded rail infrastructure. On the other hand, our infrastructure stayed as it was in 1900, our industries, labor unions and other institutions were largely unscathed, then taxpayer funded highways put an end to railroads to the point we are dependent on highways that are eating us alive in many ways.

Now, our infrastructure is old, most railroads follow paths that were laid out 150 years ago, or more, and even our highways are 40-50 years old and in vital need of a major refreshment. It is a national disgrace, that all the world got to see, when that bridge fell into the Mississippi River the other year. Our so-called leaders made a big deal about "we'll have a new bridge up and running in one year or less" which is an amateurish publicity photo-op and nothing more. REAL leadership would have kept our rails and roads and levees, and you name it, all running smoothly without it becoming an issue. But that would take a few more tax dollars to achieve, meanwhile, our idiotic "less government is best government" anti-tax whack jobs gotta keep taxes low so the wealthy can live in excess while we strangle to death our own government (the ONLY government that will ever care about YOU and I), thus assuring our national downfall.

Europe and Japan are far more dense in population than the US is outside of a few select places like Chicago, NYC and San Fransisco.

[KevK]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

Though not much of a supporter of the rail proposals myself, I see the pros and cons breaking into two general directions.

The first (and I kind of agree with this) is that the country isn't really set up very well to support long range high speed rail, only local applications would seem to be cost effective. For long distance east/west travel, air travel seems to be the most logical mode of transportation if using mass transit. Only corridors such as Boston/New York/Philly/Baltimore/Washington seem to make possible sense here, and they already have a rail network in place (though it could stand improvement).

The other side of the coin would be that a high speed extensive rail network would possibly open up new economic opportunities and growth around the anticipated station areas. This could have the impact of initiating further subsequent development, generating new local jobs.

Frankly, I see the logic in both, but think the first makes a little more sense.

I tend to agree with you. If we are going to do high speed rail, do it where people actually live! That would be the Boston to Washington corridor and the San Diego to San Fransisco (maybe Portland and Seattle) and Miami to Jacksonville corridors FIRST and let's see how that works and then decide if and where to expand it.

[KevK]

Originally Posted by Bluefly

1. If you look at that map, this isn't building a cross-country rail system. It's intelligently focusing on regions - Florida, Southeast, Gulf Coast, Northeast, Great Lakes, Northwest, Southwest. So, this plan would not try to compete with airplanes. In fact, the reason rail is so successful in the Northeast is because it is more efficient and faster to travel rail than regional commuter planes - city center to city center, no security, no hour waiting. I thought it was obvious that economic development would be included with culture and recreation when I made that statement. Just look at DC and the massive development around subway stops.

2. It's time to reimagine the American infrastructure for the 21st century in much the way the interstate system did for the twentieth. That means moving beyond the automobile. It's destroyed our country in so many ways and the new generation - both liberal and conservative, mostly educated and professional - are choosing walkable neighborhoods. They are walking away from the suburban dream because it doesn't work on either a personal level or a societal level.

3. I don't understand Huckleberry's fear of "city streets". I just don't get what it has to do with this issue. The Northeast has people of all socioeconomic classes riding trains everyday. They aren't scared. These rails aren't even about city streets - they're connecting cities. I'd imagine ZipCar would move in and provide services for people to borrow cars at their destinations.

All in all, it's a good idea and nice to have a president looking forward and laying out a vision for a nation that works.

I am not against automobiles nor airlines. Both have their place and will continue to have their place in American travel. Rail will have its place as well and should.

[KevK]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

I'd like to see the fares that would need to be charged to make it operationally self sufficient.

It would never be "self sufficient" no more than air and car travel is. Only your feet on an upaved path is a "self sufficient" travel method. My guessing is that the fare would be about what a cheaper airline fare is.