Obama lays down plans for high-speed rail 19

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   hpvpaul2 Posted 12:28 pm
   16 Apr 2009

   Great idea, but as we have seen in the past, nobody who should use this service will.  Why? They want everyone else to get off their road and get on the rail service.  The only way to make something like this work, is to punish people for driving their vehicles instead of using mass transit.

   Permalink

   1. 

      racc Posted 2:24 pm
      16 Apr 2009

      High speed rail is simply better transportation than driving or flying for trips between 50 and 300 miles. People are sick of congested highways to say nothing of crowed airports, insecurity lines and being crammed into plans like cattle. When the recession is over, oil will skyrocket again and people will be flocking to rail.
      
      As well, on rail, you can enjoy a meal, have a drink, work on your computer, read a book or make out in the washroom, all things that are impossible or dangerous when you are driving. Lets face it, driving is wasted time that you will never get back.

      Permalink

   2. 

      marlen456y Posted 10:25 pm
      16 Apr 2009

      Yep I agree, but that is probably tougher to do, for Obama. ;) On another note, if more and more people forsake their private vehicles for the public vehicles, there would be a lot less pollution and the environment would be cleaner. Of cousre, people would also save on fuel costs! ;)

      Permalink

2. 

   Christopher S. Johnson Posted 1:37 pm
   16 Apr 2009

   Does Texas (my home state) still get rail as long as it has a Governor who is threatening to secede from the Union?  How does that work?Rick Perry might actually need a job on that rail line after the next election.

   Permalink

   1. 

      ken1 Posted 1:30 pm
      20 Apr 2009

      Perry is a politician. He's co-opting the secessionist movement for who knows what. 

      Permalink

3. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 3:16 pm
   16 Apr 2009

   Density of the US doesn't warrant it. 

   Permalink

   1. 

      racc Posted 3:48 pm
      16 Apr 2009

      Well sure if you take the country as a whole but the density among many corridors does.There is a $9.4 billion dollar line being constructed between Torino and Lyon, regions and cities that have similar populations and are almost exactly the same distance apart as Vancouver and Seattle. The $9.4 billion includes a 32 mile tunnel through the Alps.http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/04/06/chart-comparing-new-hs-projects-around-the-world/
      And the Vancouver-Seattle line is probably one of the lower priorities.
      With the Internet and Google, there is no reason why you can't do a bit of research before posting. You'll sound more informed then.

      Permalink

      1. 

         Delay And Deny Posted 4:33 pm
         16 Apr 2009

         To expand, yes, density overall (the US is in the top 200 countries of population density, while many European countries are in the top 30) restricts the utility of rail.So, then you punt and say, what about corridors.   Corridors only work with density at the stations.   But on the Vancouver to Portland route, there is little density.   Real destinations are spread out East and West from the corridor.   So, why build an expensive rail system that goes at best 300 miles and hour, and forces people to go through every stop as well as despoiling the landscape with tracks that inhibit wildlife migration, versus planes that go 500 mph and can take people direct, point to point and have lots of space for car rentals, parking to allow people to get to dispersed real destinations.
         The end result like all mass transit systems is that they become their own logic.   If only we could force everyone to live within 500 ft of a light rail station...all problems would be solved!   Put anther way, genius loves a dictator.  

         Permalink

   2. 

      racc Posted 4:59 pm
      16 Apr 2009

      Well, again please do your research. For one, on the Seattle to Vancouver route, for the near term, all that really is being considered is upgrades to the existing corridor so the trains can travel 110 mph. From downtown to downtown, the travel times would be quicker than flying. For another, as takeoffs and landings use a lot of fuel, short haul flights are very inefficient in terms of energy usage. For another, air travel just suck. People are really tired of it and it is bad for the environment. High-speed rail is much better. The alternative of more roads and airports is both more costly and has a greater environmental impact.

      Permalink

      1. 

         racc Posted 11:12 pm
         16 Apr 2009

         And further more, both Seattle, Portland and Seattle are continuing to build rapid transit systems which are ideal for feeding HSR.

         Permalink

4. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 5:43 pm
   16 Apr 2009

   The money is pretty pathetic, really, but the rhetoric at least is getting to a pretty good point.  Not quite getting men to the moon by 1969, but about as close as we've come concerning rail in a very long time (since the 19th century?).  So let's hope this keeps up, and it may be that Biden is having a very good effect on all of this.Chris, I guess they could run the rail through oklahoma instead, but I think kate baily hutchison will be an enthusiastic supporter of federal dollars, no?  isn't she a little more plugged into reality?

   Permalink

   1. 

      racc Posted 11:09 pm
      16 Apr 2009

      The money has been more than enough to get the ball rolling and politicians stumbling over each other to get HSR in their state. While it will take much more, it will also take years of planning and design to get to the point where can start construction. At that point, which in many cases will be five to ten years from now, that is when the money from the feds will have to increase dramatically. It was quite a feat to get the $8 billion in the stimulus as most projects are not exactly shovel ready. With the battle for funding in the stimulus, the fact that the $8 billion was inserted at the last minute speaks to the importance that Obama places on HSR. That and the fact it was the one item that he really want that there was some Republican support for.

      Permalink

5. 

   MN_man Posted 6:40 am
   17 Apr 2009

   I hope this becomes a reality in my lifetime.  There will be lots of obstacles, especially with property rights and just basic logistics.  Consider that the TGV high speed routes are straight as an arrow and have absolutely no grade crossings.  And they are fenced for the most part.  Right now, the train between, say, Chicago and St. Louis is riddled with grade crossings.  So, we can't just improve the tracks and dial up the speed.  Tracks will need to be laid or moved, and that won't be easy given the density in some of these areas.Overcoming those obstacles will be worth it.  I would much rather take a train to Chicago than deal with airports.  Imagine going straight downtown to Union Station in Chicago and then hopping in a cab instead of battling traffic way out at O'Hare.

   Permalink

6. 

   genoagybe Posted 3:14 pm
   17 Apr 2009

   Is there no demand for a high-speed line that runs from DC or NYC to San Francisco of LA?I've always wanted to make a cross-country rail trip, but Amtrak is a waste of time and money.

   Permalink

7. 

   Andrew09 Posted 4:29 am
   20 Apr 2009

   High
   speed rail will help create more compact development and discourage
   sprawl. It is also proven technology that works and that people use. It
   is better transportation. Electric cars by decreasing the cost of driving will encourage
   sprawl and thus more driving. It is unproven technology that in spite
   of existing for 100 years, practically no one is using today. It has no
   transportation benefits over current cars. There is no evidence that
   electric cars will ever be practical on a mass scale and that people
   will buy them. High-speed rail, transit and cycling are much better
   options than wasting money on electric cars.Like the interstate highway system we need to have an entire system
   designed for the entire country before we spend one cent. Don't us
   existing rails! These need to be elevated and designed for 250mph to
   span the many great distances in our country. They can run parrallel to
   the exiting interstate and avoid creating new right-of-ways.
   A message from the great little music of New York Music Festivals community
   

   Permalink

8. 

   greengenie4 Posted 8:55 am
   20 Apr 2009

   Having a domestic high speed rail system would also boost the tourism economy. Just look at Europe and how many people use the Eurail pass when traveling instead of renting a car and having to worry about directions. This decreases the travel time between cities, gives your vacay more bang for your buck while stimulating local and national economies.

   Permalink

9. 

   Lakeside Posted 5:36 pm
   21 Apr 2009

   I want to be able to put my car or RV on a train, ride to my destination - in my car or in my RV if the trip is two hours or less - just like on the train that goes beneath the English Channel from Paris to London, drive my vehicle off the train and enjoy my visit.  I think we need to restrict the number of miles a person can drive a vehicle in a month or year to force use of public transportation.  Trains need to be efficient, on-time, fast, service oriented and affordable.  Think of the tax dollars to build a mile of road, build an airport and runway, staff the FAA.  Mixing cars and RVs with high speed rail makes good sense.

   Permalink

10. 

    kim1958 Posted 1:53 pm
    25 Apr 2009

    Its a wonderful idea but who is going to pay for it. You and I?Marine supplies

    Permalink

11. 

    Lakeside Posted 3:25 pm
    27 Apr 2009

    Who pays for everything?  What hurts is paying and not getting.  We put all the money into roads and airports.  Now we are seeing toll roads and bridges taking off because it is so profitable.  Who pays.  We all do.  We need no longer support the auto, tire, oil companies, road builders, etc.  We can afford whatever we want - whatever is the highest priority.  If we want it bad enough, we can afford it.  In the long run it is probably cheaper than continuing what we have.

    Permalink