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.
OK, sorry for being a pest. But the OP topic is that "we [ie. America] can't afford the luxury of high-speed rail" when that is not true. It just takes a commitment from the citizens to fund these projects.
Put up or shut up! I ask again: what state other than California has voted to increase taxes for high-speed rail? NONE. And what is even worse is that this was a proposition voted on by the electorate not the legislature. It was the people of California who directly raised their own taxes to pay for "bullet" trains. Unless there is another state that can claim the same than it is clear that California is progressive well beyond every other state and those other states should be ashamed for their lack of commitment and interest.
No, clearly not.HSR is useless in many states (North Dakota, Kentucky, Montana, Kansas, Oklahoma...) because they're not very populated and it's expensive.OK in California, Northeast, Florida, Texas and Illinois it's a good thing there, and all these states develop the HSR or want to develop it.
And
This past Tuesday, Amtrak proposed to spend more than $100 billion increasing the top speeds of trains in its Boston-to-Washington corridor from 150 to 220 miles per hour. In August, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood estimated that President Obama's proposal to extend high-speed rail to other parts of the country will cost at least $500 billion.
No one knows where this money will come from, but President Obama argues that we need to spend it because high-speed rail will have a "transformative effect" on the American economy. In fact, all it will do is drag the economy down.
What do you think about this ? Personally I love the high-speed rail and it's necessary for the US (for the most populated areas, not everywhere) but costs are impressive !
I would rather spend $500 billion for high speed rail than for stupid wars that cost us $1 trillion and we are over there rebuilding Iraq & Iraq instead of the US.
I think we should be rebuilding all of our infrastructure....and upgrading it as well...including high speed trains and rail...these things will make our economy and country stronger and more economically viable in the long term, relative to other nations that are fast improving their infrastructure while our bridges fall into our rivers...which just happened not too long ago.
The $8.7 billion tunnel beneath the Hudson River was the largest public works project in the United States, but Christie said it was likely to cost up to $5 billion more than estimated. In a statement announcing his plan to withdraw from the project, he said the tunnel "costs far more than New Jersey taxpayers can afford, and the only prudent move is to end this project."
Having read through this thread makes me exited for the future of high-speed rail in the U.S. on both coasts and hopefully, someday, coast-to-coast.
One thing, though, is californio sur promoting California's efforts in rail development or just some sort of California superiority agenda???
It doesn't matter if I think California is "superior" [which I do believe]; what matters is getting high-speed rail off the ground and California voters have done just that while other states have not. Plain and simple.
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.
