Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Where Should The First High Speed Train Be Built?
Boston to Richmond 32 18.82%
San Diego to San Fransisco 23 13.53%
Miami-Ft Lauderdale-Palm Beach-Orlando-Jacksonville 11 6.47%
Milwaukee to New Orleans 10 5.88%
Los Angeles to Las Vegas 9 5.29%
Dallas-Austin-San Antonio-Houston-New Orleans 18 10.59%
Other 19 11.18%
Don't Build Any High Speed Rail 48 28.24%
Voters: 170. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-03-2011, 07:14 AM
 
1,025 posts, read 1,753,017 times
Reputation: 965

Advertisements

I had a chance to ride Acela a month ago and loved it. If we could improve on making it faster, I definitely wouldn't mind spending the extra $100 bucks to ride it.

I think we should make high speed rail regional meaning, instead of trying to do a cross country deal, focus on connection major cities with smaller cities within the region. A good example, having a high speed rail in the Midwest and making Chicago the hub and having service to Indianapolis, Detroit, Cleveland, Minneapolis, St. Louis, etc.

We however need to get realistic though. Right now the country is broke. Until we get serious about getting our priorities straight, we will never be able to compete with Europe, China, or Japan when it comes to transportation infrastructure. Instead of wasting money on wars, a huge bloated DoD budget, and tax cuts for millionaires, we could have used the money to invest in our country, but we will never be able to get this done until we stop putting these wingnuts in office.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-03-2011, 08:34 AM
 
14,247 posts, read 17,924,929 times
Reputation: 13807
Quote:
Originally Posted by e2ksj3 View Post
I had a chance to ride Acela a month ago and loved it. If we could improve on making it faster, I definitely wouldn't mind spending the extra $100 bucks to ride it.

I think we should make high speed rail regional meaning, instead of trying to do a cross country deal, focus on connection major cities with smaller cities within the region. A good example, having a high speed rail in the Midwest and making Chicago the hub and having service to Indianapolis, Detroit, Cleveland, Minneapolis, St. Louis, etc.

We however need to get realistic though. Right now the country is broke. Until we get serious about getting our priorities straight, we will never be able to compete with Europe, China, or Japan when it comes to transportation infrastructure. Instead of wasting money on wars, a huge bloated DoD budget, and tax cuts for millionaires, we could have used the money to invest in our country, but we will never be able to get this done until we stop putting these wingnuts in office.
I agree 100%

High speed rail is ideal for distances up to 400 miles. Anything over that then flying probably works better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2011, 08:42 AM
 
Location: Mid Atlantic USA
12,623 posts, read 13,932,594 times
Reputation: 5895
Quote:
Originally Posted by UpNort View Post
Who is paying for this? This country is broke and unemployment is sky high. Tell me why we need these rails at this point in time?
I tend to agree. We can't afford this. I'm for infasturcture spending, but unless the cost of plane flight becomes exorbitant, Americans won't use it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2011, 09:02 AM
 
14,247 posts, read 17,924,929 times
Reputation: 13807
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom77falcons View Post
I tend to agree. We can't afford this. I'm for infasturcture spending, but unless the cost of plane flight becomes exorbitant, Americans won't use it.
I suppose it depends on the alternatives and on the need/market. Take the NE corridor. The roads are congested and the airports are at capacity. It would cost far more to add a lane or two to I95 or to add capacity at the airports than it would to build HSR especially if they can piggy-back off existing track.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2011, 10:02 AM
 
Location: Houston, Tx
3,644 posts, read 6,306,186 times
Reputation: 1633
?WHERE Should A HIGH SPEED Modern Train Be Built?

Japan? Oh, its been done. Well, in this country we should not waste our money building one. The country is too big, and we need our cars too much to become train-dependant. Once you get off the train, what are you going to do? You'll have to rent a car. Now, if there were $1 an hour car rental companies then this idea might work and I'd be all for it but until then we shouldn't get on board the train idea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2011, 10:06 AM
 
Location: Ohio
24,621 posts, read 19,170,143 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK View Post
OK so we are going to build a high speed train. So the question is where should it be built?
Preferably in Obama's rectum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK View Post
I am not against speedy rail service but it seems that the best place to start such a thing would be in highly congested areas with a medium to high population density. I would say Boston to Richmond VA would be the ideal place to start on the east coast and San Diego to San Fransisco on the west coast. But there are other proposals. What do you think?
I not against high-speed rail either. I love rail travel. It's my preferred method of travel in Europe. It might seem un-American to have Japanese, German or French engineers to design and build them, but I don't really trust American engineers who don't have any experience. Most likely, this will end up being an "ear mark" thing and it'll be built in all the wrong places, end up failing and being shut down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2011, 10:16 AM
 
Location: Leadville, CO
1,027 posts, read 1,971,660 times
Reputation: 1406
With paying a little bit more for high speed rail, think of how much you will SAVE on gas once it's built out.

Pay now, save later.

How about the whole east coast? Miami-Orlando (with Tampa connection)-Jacksonville- then maybe north to Atlanta? - Greenville - Charlotte - Raleigh - Richmond - BosWash. Maybe a branch along the seaboard with Savannah - Charleston - Wilmington - Norfolk etc.

Eventually we need high speed rail cris-crossing the nation.

I see a lot of people proposing lines including Kansas City and eastward - let's extend that to the Denver area shall we?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2011, 10:23 AM
 
14,247 posts, read 17,924,929 times
Reputation: 13807
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogerbacon View Post
?WHERE Should A HIGH SPEED Modern Train Be Built?

Japan? Oh, its been done. Well, in this country we should not waste our money building one. The country is too big, and we need our cars too much to become train-dependant. Once you get off the train, what are you going to do? You'll have to rent a car. Now, if there were $1 an hour car rental companies then this idea might work and I'd be all for it but until then we shouldn't get on board the train idea.
Trains, planes and automobiles ..... all have their place in an integrated transportation network. There are trips for which each makes sense. For city to city, 400 miles or less, then trains can make more sense than driving or flying.

The same is true for building infrastructure. There will be occasions where building a rail line is far more cost effective than increasing road or airport capacity. The NE corridor or Los Angeles to San Diego are both good examples of this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2011, 10:32 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
37,803 posts, read 41,019,978 times
Reputation: 62204
Doesn't matter as long as the passengers that use it, pay for it in their ticket prices.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2011, 10:35 AM
 
14,247 posts, read 17,924,929 times
Reputation: 13807
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post
Doesn't matter as long as the passengers that use it, pay for it in their ticket prices.
That is fair Just as drivers should pay the real cost of roads and airplane travelers should pay the real cost of building and operating airports.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:43 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top