High speed rail maybe a reality in the near future? In the U.S.? Say it ain't so! (solution, 9/11)

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by domergurl

But yet all the wingnuts can spew about is the Disney to Vegas line ... wait .. oops? THERE ISN'T ONE!!!!

I welcome high speed rail!

Wingnuts have mastered the Hitlerian art of poisoning good ideas by pointing out the worst aspect of the idea, even if they have to lie about it or actually invent a fictitious example, as in this case. They have no shame, thus they should get NO votes.

At 61, I may not see much high speed rail before I check out, but I'm hopeful that it will happen, for the sake of our nation.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948

of course mass transport is useless if your streets are dangerous. americans dont have a clue bek they have been in their cars 40 years.
the streets got very mean.

Hey Huck, those of us who don't live in good ole' Hannibal and drawn up behind Aunt Polly's apron don't give a goodgoddamn about the "dangerous" streets cause us city folks hate parking lot attendants more than muggers! Especially "us" who live in the Northeast corridor between Boston and Washington where high speed rail is slower than a speeding bullet or at least a fast Bentley on the Jersey Turnpike.

The quickest Acela can go between New York and Boston is three-and-a-half hours. Fifty years ago, the New Haven Railroad's Merchants Limited made the trip in four.

"Slower Than A Speeding Bullet" by David Carr

[Reads2MUCH]

Originally Posted by allydriver

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

Regardless, the destruction of our rail system over the last 50 years has been a massive mistake. Now, without our big rigs and planes we have no way to transport goods around the country. This was done intentionally to make us dependent on foreign oil and gasoline powered engines. Did you know that oil companies would buy up railroad companies just to dismantle their operations so that we would have to depend on their products to power vehicles to transport our goods. The destruction of our rail system was a planned attack, not progress.

And think about the energy saved by using the rail system to transport goods. One large train can transport as much as 200 semi trucks could in a single trip. Improving the rail system is a wonderful idea for many reasons. Product transportation and mass transit just to name a couple. Less dependence on oil and gasoline. Less big rigs on the highways. Nothing but positives from where I am standing.

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by bchris02

I really like the sound of this. The main reason this hasn't been done so far is the airlines are so opposed to it. However, having a high speed rail system would put us in a much better position to survive the next oil crunch. I would hope the high speed rail system would eventually be more extensive than shown in that image, but anything is better than nothing. I will say conservatives especially will not like this because it goes against their interpretation of the American dream.

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.

[Frankie117]

Originally Posted by Bluefly

The problem is they're all too far apart to feed off one another and harness resources to rebuild the Great Lakes from a manufacturing center to a thriving mecca of fresh water, culture, and sustainable recreation.

Unfortuneatly culture and recreation do not pay the bills, and the era of Rust Belt manufacturing is drawing to a close. Maybe the Great Lakes and Rust Belt regions can develop more research jobs, but the field has been taken over by places such as Cummings Research Park in Alabama, Research Triangle Park in North Carolina, and of course, Silicon Valley in California. Office jobs are also a possiblity, but once again most of those jobs locate to the Sunbelt region.

That aside, you are not going to get a high speed rail system on $8 billion alone. If we're talking Northeast Corridor quality, it costs around $10 million per mile. It would take upwards of $1 trillion to really get the ball rolling. And based on the current economic crisis, now is not the time to push that kind of spending through..

There is a reason why passenger rail died in the 60's. The automobile is one reason, the other is the fact that passenger rail succeeds in the medium haul. Stretch it out too far, and planes take the cake, too close and it goes to automobiles. The key is finding the 'sweet spot' so that all 3 modes are used efficently. Even more important is ensuring smooth transitions between all three.

Still, $8 billion is no where near enough to do anything with.

[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.

[Chatteress]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

Who cares. No one's crying about the property owners who were paid for their properties when the Interstate Highway System bisected entire major cities, suburbs and rural areas as well. If they pay me full market price plus expenses, they can have my house tomorrow.

Exactly! I live in Southern California and we are so far behind on public transportation due to the "car culture" here. No one is crying over the homes that were demolished to build yet another freeway! Has it helped congestion? No! So Cal is nothing but a huge tangle of congested freeways where traffic moves at 10 miles an hour! We need a more efficient mass transportation system here in So Cal and the rest of the US! Sheesh! If NYC wasn't so cold, I'd probably move there just for the public transit options alone!

[Chatteress]

Originally Posted by bchris02

I really like the sound of this. The main reason this hasn't been done so far is the airlines are so opposed to it. However, having a high speed rail system would put us in a much better position to survive the next oil crunch. I would hope the high speed rail system would eventually be more extensive than shown in that image, but anything is better than nothing. I will say conservatives especially will not like this because it goes against their interpretation of the American dream.

This conservative loves the idea of expanded rail options. I know many conservatives who would support rail expansion as well! Please don't lump us all as if we are a homogenous group!

[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.

[EllenArlingtonPark]

I think it is way overdue and am all for it!