Obama Plans Massive New High Speed Railroad

"High speed rail is long overdue...

"...system connecting Pittsburgh to Cleveland to Indianapolis to..."

Agreed, to both thoughts.

ut first the $8 billion Reid RR; Vegas to Disneyland!

That is a complete falsehood that has been concocted by Republicans. There is no earmark whatsoever for an LA-LV high speed rail link in the stimulus bill.

Read the article, it states that the funding is to be managed by Sec. of Transportation LaHood (who is, btw, a Republican).

i definitely think a Midwestern rail system connecting Pittsburgh to Cleveland to Indianapolis to Chicago to Detroit to Minneapolis then south to Louisville to Memphis to St. Louis could seriously liven up travel between those cities.

You left out Buffalo and a high-speed link to NYC with connections to Toronto. The railbeds and rights-of-way are still in place, so it's not a starting-from scratch proposition.

There is a great economic need for a high speed rail across the nation, from the West coast ports to the East coast. This would put Chinese goods destined for Europe much closer than going through the Suez and the piracy in that area off Africa.

If you cut the cross country transit time to 24 hours and used automated systems for handling the freight, the nation could reap tens of billions in revenue from transiting freight.

Here's some more cool-aid everybody now shut the he11 up you Dumb F$@k$.

This isn't Digg. Abide by the CoH.

I dont think many pittsburgh people will enjoy any connection to Cleveland and vice versa.

We hate each other because we're so alike.

If you cut the cross country transit time to 24 hours and used automated systems for handling the freight, the nation could reap tens of billions in revenue from transiting freight.

I don't think freight trains will be going 125 miles per hour, but your thought process is right on. Trains are far more efficient than any other mode of transportation we have.

No prob, tyler. Just trying to keep things civil and the such.

We hate each other because we're so alike.

This is untrue, but anything that gets more Browns and Steelers fans in the same place at the same time is good for the economy. The beer people must be super excited.

Both are mid-American rust belt towns. You don't want to mix the fans, though, because we will literally pee on each other.

Never lived in Pittsburgh, but I've lived in Cincinnati, Buffalo and Cleveland. Buffalo and Cleveland are cool. Cincinnati, not so much. I'd expect Pittsburgh to be more like the former than the latter.

You actually pee on each other?

And people say I'm perverted just because I'm gay. No golden showers for me.

You actually pee on each other?

Oh yes. You're likely to get peed on from behind wearing the wrong colors in either stadium. We'll pee on your car, too.

Most football fans are normalish, but there's always someone...

I think everyone in America needs to spend a week traveling around Japan. Fo' rizzle. You can't get off a bullet train from Tokyo at the Kyoto Station and not immediately realize that we've been doing it all wrong for decades.

Myk is right. I used to travel from Tokyo to my old hometown in Higashi Zushi (Japanese for Bum@!$%#, Egypt) in a matter of hours. That's the equivalent of taking one train from D.C. to Inbredton, WV.

Imagine what such ease of transportation could do here, environmentally and for creating access to jobs.

Wait..did you just say "for rizzle"?

If your for this idea you got to let President Obama and Congress about it.

http://www.change.org/

No - I said "Fo' rizzle." I'm not entirely sure why.

Myk, and how is the size of Japan compared to the size of the United States?

The US already has a rail system to rival Japan's, it's called the North East corridor, DC to Boston, and all major cities in between. I'm in PA, but I can hop on a train and be in New York City in less than an hour.

Adam,

Must be nice! I think it would be pretty cool if they put in a bullet train from NYC to LA, stopping in Cleveland, Chicago, etc - maybe 10 stops total. Then some arteries connecting smaller cities to each of those cities. I'd love to hop a train to cleveland then a bullet train to chicago - that sure beats the hell out of driving or flying.

And there's no reason we can't construct another one in the Midwest.

Yeah there is, the North East has a hella lot more people living all close together than the Midwest. The North East also has all of it's cities lined up on the coast, so all you needed was a single line, rather than a web of lines.

However, I do think the regional approach is a far better idea than a national line.

I think it would be pretty cool if they put in a bullet train from NYC to LA, stopping in Cleveland, Chicago, etc - maybe 10 stops total.

It takes about 7 hours to fly from NYC to LA, add in another 2 hours for airport crap. The ticket will be in the $200-$300 range unless you buy last minute.

Even a high speed train will take over 20 hours, and more than likely 30 hours to get from NYC to LA, and will cost about the same, if not more (there's an increased man cost, since you have to pay stewardesses and engineers for 20-30 hours, rather than just 7.) Also, if you want to hit cities like Cleveland and Chicago, which aren't exactly in between the direct line from LA to NYC, then you add even more time.

Other than John Madden (a comment vote for whoever gets that joke), I just don't see many people choosing the train over flying.

I think Eric actually has a better idea, just try to connect the more regional cities, and forget about the national stuff. I still don't know why there isn't a train station in Columbus, OH other than you people being weird.

since a train has way more seating capacity than a jet the cost should be less if using maglev technology. I say three stops for the train with feeders branching from those stops. east Coast, Mid West, and West Coast. Having flown more times than I care to remember I can attest to a direct flight from Atlanta to Vegas with security wait times the trip averaged 9 1/2 hours. While jets are capable of flying in the 700 mph range this is not done because of increase fuel consumption. Since Vegas is only 1950 miles from Atlanta as the car drives and bullet trains can travel at speeds in excess of 200-250 mph I can see the three stop being comparable to a direct flight. Just as the more connections you have to make on a flight directly increases your travel time the same is true of the plane. The real difference will come in times of inclement weather. The trains would not be grounded for high winds and zero visibility.

since a train has way more seating capacity than a jet the cost should be less if using maglev technology.

This hasn't proven true in any real world operation.

I say three stops for the train with feeders branching from those stops. east Coast, Mid West, and West Coast.

and

Since Vegas is only 1950 miles from Atlanta as the car drives and bullet trains can travel at speeds in excess of 200-250 mph I can see the three stop being comparable to a direct flight.

Except by your own plan, there would be no direct line from Atlanta to Vegas. Instead, from Atlanta you'd like travel the East Coast regional line up to either DC or New York (with plenty of regional stops along the way), then you take a 3000 mile trip to the West Coast stop in LA, and then you'd take another regional line from LA to Vegas. You've now just likely traveled over 4000 miles, and while bullet trains CAN travel at speeds of 200 MPH, their average speed is in the lower hundreds and even less than that in populated areas. You've just made yourself a 40-50 hour trip there.

The real difference will come in times of inclement weather. The trains would not be grounded for high winds and zero visibility.

But they would be for ice and/or snow on the tracks. Remember, many a major city, Philly, NYC, Boston, Chicago, Minneapolis are in the north where there is this thing called snow and ice.

Not debatable with the facts I have at hand but considering the cost of diesel vs electricity I would bet on the electric option.

Apparently I was not clear enough. The three stops, for the sake of discussion, are in Atlanta, Salt lake City and Las Vegas. ATl to LV would be a direct shot with an hour stop In SLU. The feeders would branch from those three stops to connect to regional services but the main run would be the "Express" line. Should you wish and weather permitting you could hop a regional air connection if there are no "Express" lines from your city to the Mag-lev hub.

While ice and snow are a concern I left out mentioning those on purpose. A big determining factor in their effect on travel would be how this track is constructed. Elevated track would eliminate the worries as the train tracks would not accumulate enough snow or ice to hinder it significantly. Also the amount of snowfall across the middle of the country is significantly less than the nortern realms but delays in Boston routinely mess with flights in Houston or Orlando in air travel even when most of mid and southern US are not having snow.

You must be joking if you'd think the government would spend billions of dollars on a national rail system and locate the three hubs in such cities as Atlanta, SLC and Vegas. Any kind of national line would have to connect either DC or NYC with LA, and a mid-west stopover at either St. Louis or Chicago, depending on whether the East Coast hub was DC or NYC.

SLC and Vegas just don't have the populations to support a hub, while Atlanta may be large, but it's not actually close to anything else. Considering that a high speed East Coast Corridor line already exists between DC and Boston running through NYC, DC or NYC would be ideal hubs for the East Coast, especially since they are so close to other major cities and metropolitan areas.

Adam; those cities were picked at random and only because they were centrally located in the country. Sure most of the population is crowded north of this line but so is the worst winter weather. Also these hubs would also be ideal Because they are not so overpopulated meaning less fighting over right-of-ways. The feeder rails would service everything above and below and all 3 are major cities with International Airports for those who wish to hop regional air.

Except when you make the hubs out of the way cities with small populations you now run into the instances where a ton of people up in the North East have to travel about hundreds of miles on regional rail to get to the hub way down in Atlanta to even begin their Journey westward.

And ultimately, that's why any national rail system will fail. It's just too hard to connect every city to every other city, so you end up making convoluted paths that people have to take to get to the destination they actually want. This is okay in local rail systems when we are only talking about going a few minutes out of your way. But when you are asking people in NYC to travel an extra 5-10 hours just to get to Atlanta before they can even begin their trip west to a hub in another city they don't actually want to go to, then no one is really going to want to use that system.

Just curious, what would your alternative suggestion be?

Stick with regional rail, and improve that. For 90% of travelers, you just can't beat a 7 hour flight from NYC to LA with a 25 hour high speed rail trip.

Now where rail can be competitive is with the shorter trips replacing both family car trips and commuter airlines. That's why the Acela line has been so successful. It makes little sense to fly from NYC to DC, you'll spend about an hour traveling from NYC to DC, but another 30 minutes taxiing on the runway, 30 minutes circling the airport waiting to land and two hours in the airport dealing with security for a grand total of four hours of nonsense. The high speed Acela can turn that into a hassle-free three hours.

The Acela already exists. But there are other areas, such as all the Great Lakes cities, or the Californian cities, or the mid-west Cities, or the Carolina's to Atlanta to Florida, or Texas where high speed regional lines make a ton of sense.

you just can't beat a 7 hour flight from NYC to LA with a 25 hour high speed rail trip.

I think I would take the 25 hour rail. A 7 hour flight can turn into 12 to 15 hours. Get to the airport 2 hours early, plane delayed another 1 hour, change planes at hub 2-1/2 hours. More delays on more delays another hour.

Or sit back relax watch the world go by.

That might be you, but not most people (aka business travelers where time is money, or even most families on vacation who only get so many vacation days a year and don't want to use four of them on travel alone). Besides, I was talking about a direct flight, so you wouldn't have to worry about changing planes. And yeah, there are direct flights from LA to NYC for reasonable rates all the time.

Besides, how can you assume there wouldn't be delays on your train?

Adam most of the people I see on planes are not flying direct they are flying as cheap as possible. A company I used to work for always booked the cheapest fair. I oncw had to fly to houston from New Orleans (2 hour layover) then to Atlanta (1.5 hr layover) to get to Cleveland! Total time I spent in transit from home to hotel was almost 13 hours with flight delays and layovers and security. If they can afford direct flights let them go that way and I will take the train if is cheaper.

Maybe so, but direct flights from New Orleans to Cleveland do exist. There will never be a direct rail between those two cities, so you are still talking about a round-a-bout travel plan, but at speeds much less than air, and at prices just as expensive, if not more so (seriously, check out Amtrack fares, they aren't cheap, and are often more than the airlines).

Amtrack: Washington DC to San Fran - 4 days $303 (includes a bus for the last bit within San Fran) One way I'm assuming

Cheapticket: Non-Stop $218 ($246 w/fees) Two-way, with stops $178($229)

Price of Oil: $40

http://businesstravelcoalition.com/campaigns/consolidation/airline_crisis_report.pdf

About every $10 increate is Oil is a 3% ticket price rise (not the report is based on the 2007/2008 oil price spike so it's probally not true for this $40. But it's a guess)

So when not if oil gets to $140 prices increase at least 30% if not more.

Cheapticket: Non-Stop $283 ($320 w/fees) Two-way, with stops $232($298)

So according to my guess with high oil prices Amtrak may be cheaper (with no price adjustment for oil). So a non-diesel train should be able to hit a price point.

Also you want to build the railroad while oil is low. If you wait until the airlines contract, it's too late to build the railroad. (Consturction equipment uses fossil fuel/inflation etc.).

Another interesting things is it looks like in most years Airlines are not profitable. ANd that didn't start with 9/11 though it did get worse then.

Is part of the amtrak expense feeding you for 4 days? What cost get cut out with less time spent on the train?

(My vote is still for supergrid over superrail ... yes I have to mention that every 3rd post)

Considering the years it will take to finish this project I can see how it may sound unfeasible to some. Consider the dwindlingoil supply and what supply and demand influence on pricing you can see where this could lead in 30 years. BTW Iconclast, if we go maglev I don't see why we couldn't incorporate the infrastructure of the line and the power grid. Kill two birds with one stone so to speak and help offset the construction costs of the two projects by making them one.

I found this site years ago. It's an interesting way of looking at it.

http://interstatetraveler.us/

Kane said "Considering the years it will take to finish this project I can see how it may sound unfeasible"

Gee now wouldn't that be nice way to create sustained jobs. Your idea of combining the projects is even icing on the cake.

Count on my vote also!

Gee now wouldn't that be nice way to create sustained jobs. Your idea of combining the projects is even icing on the cake.

That's actually an economic fallacy, see the broken window theory. The project will cost money, and the jobs that it "creates" will need money to fund them, money that could have been used on better jobs working on projects that people actually want.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

money that could have been used on better jobs working on projects that people actually want.

Like????

Things that people are willing to pay for voluntarily, rather than being forced to via their taxes. If someone is willing to pay for it that means they actually want it. If no one is willing to pay for it, then that means no one really wants it. It's a pretty simple test.

Let's see it in another light; people wanting to get to the West/East coast from the opposite side of the country will take the train if it is cheaper than flying. Fuel saved by airlines. Wear and tear on interstate highways. Fuel saved in cars. Pollution by said cars/planes eliminated. Destinations rent cars. Adam, I fail to see the down side here unless as I stated earlier that the ticket cost more than flying or driving.

We've already established it will take 8-9 hours to fly direct, much more time if you must connect, and according to Google it would take 1 day and 5 hours to drive from ATL to LVN. Are you just being stubborn or do you have some hidden knowledge to share? If so please enlighten us for I also do not want another Albatross like Amtrack on my taxes.

I see nothing specific comes to mind then, Maybe the tax breaks that were supposed to stimulate investment and create jobs. You know all those jobs that got outsourced to Asia. All those manufacturing jobs that were created in other countries. Oh I forgot all that imaginary wealth that drove the stock market and like the house of cards it was it all fell apart?

Don't you think it's time we started thinking about Americans and our quality of life.

"Things that people are willing to pay for voluntarily, rather than being forced to via their taxes. If someone is willing to pay for it that means they actually want it. If no one is willing to pay for it, then that means no one really wants it. It's a pretty simple test."

This wasn't the principal that got the airports and highways built. Rememer they were both started as para-miltary projects. Moving troops on the highways and spare runway space for the airports. And given the option people will ask for tax cuts, national debt, and SUVs and then whine when it all goes ecomomically out the window.

Now for a local rail system I would say sell 10 year transferrable tickets before you build the thing. That way people have at least put their operational money behind it.

On a national system it's harder to insert a usability test. But I don't see the airlines being pratical for consumer flight. There is a tiny profitablity window if it even exists anymore between recession causing a loss and expansiion fuel prices cuasing a loss.

people wanting to get to the West/East coast from the opposite side of the country will take the train if it is cheaper than flying.

What you are forgetting is that it will take billions and billions of dollars, probably in the 100's of billions to even build the damn thing in the first place. And guess where that money comes from?

This wasn't the principal that got the airports and highways built. Rememer they were both started as para-miltary projects

Agreed, and look where that got is now. We live in a society that has seen the small town destroyed by suburban living and hour long commutes. It was government building something we didn't need in the first place that got us in our current energy mess in the first place.

People wanted huge cars and didn't care about fuel efficiency.

That was then, this is now. Isn't it funny how fast it's changed once consumers started demanding it? Government subsidies and "investment" in green technology didn't do 10% of what consumer demand has done in the last two years.

Consumers didn't care about surgeon general warnings on cigarettes.

So? If people want to kill themselves, then that's fine. If cigarettes were so harmful then why are they still legal? Hint: state government are dependent on cigarette taxes to fund a good deal of their government.

Nobody cared about sanitation in the meat industry until Sinclair wrote The Jungle.

Yea, and then they cared about it out of their own free will.

Your position is based on everyone always making decisions based on full information, and appreciation of consequences. That's not reality.

Except that's not my position. My position is let people be free to make their own mistakes, because sometimes what you think is wrong, is actually right.

It's better than you thinking you are better and smarter than everyone else so we should just do things your way.

Besides, you can't have it both ways. If government is all-knowing and invasive on economic matters, then it also gets to be all-knowing and invasive on moral matters. If the government can tell us that a train system is better for us, why can't it tell us that gay marriage is bad for us? If you give the government power over your life, then you have to be prepared to live with that government control when the other guys are in power as well.

I'm supporting it because it makes sense in both the near and long term.

If it makes sense in both the near and long term, then why are their so few people investing in it? If it will be successful, then people would want to make money out of it. If President Obama thinks rail is so good, then why doesn't he create a start-up and invest his own money?

Are you arguing against us having highways and airports?

No. But I do think that it was a mistake for government back in the '50s to choose the Interstate Highway system over the rail system, a mistake we are now paying for.

What significant government subsidies and investment existed over the last 20 years?

You can sure start with ethanol…

"state government are dependent on cigarette taxes to fund a good deal of their government"

side note: Did you know what many of them did? Have you all heard of loans you can get that pay your in full for moeny you are owed by installment? That's what many of the states did. They took half the money up front on some of those agreement the state is on the hook for money if too many people quit smoking. What a train wreck.

But back to the point. Under normal circumstance the goverment needs to cut back from the debt creation of the last 30 years. In times like these the goverment needs to do the oposite. So the only time to build "world of the future" kind of things is in a recession.

The pyarmids are nothing but a pike of stone but they held an empire together. They gave a focus to the economy that free enterprise could work around and gave a lasting symbol of accomplishment. So at a certain level I don't see how high-speed rail is any worse than a pile of rocks. Idle hands are the devil tools.

Adam:

http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/amtteam.htm

Try this page on for size. Look who IS investing. Also answers a lot of false ideas on cost. The following was clipped from an article on the cost of constructing highways.

New Construction:

New construction costs can vary widely due to a number of factors, and the FHWA does not have a standard value for them. However, the November of 2003 study produced estimates of highway construction costs based on information from several states based on current design procedures and cost factors. These costs have been adjusted to 2006 dollars.

The cost to construct one lane-mile of a typical 4-lane divided highway can range from $3.1 million to $9.1 million per lane-mile in rural areas depending on terrain type and $4.9 million to $19.5 million in urban areas depending on population size. However, in urban areas restrictions (high cost of additional right-of-way, major utility relocation, high volume traffic control, evening work restrictions, etc.) may increase the cost per lane-mile. If restrictions exist the cost to construct one lane-mile of a 4-lane divided highway can range from $16.8 million to $74.7 million. The cost of $74.7 million perlane-mile in areas of severe restrictions may not represent the maximum cost per-lanemile and should be used as general guideline only. Individual projects may include extreme conditions warranting a much higher cost.

The costs provided are per lane-mile. To obtain the cost for a section of roadway the cost would need to be multiplied by the number of lanes on the roadway section.

it will take billions and billions of dollars, probably in the 100's of billions to even build the damn thing in the first place.

Imagine all the people that will be put to work. They will be buying homes, cars, washing machines, educating their children. Infusing money back into the community on a daily basis. All trickling up to every walk of the economy. I don't know maybe I just have one of those "positive attitudes" and like to see the good in everything not the doom and gloom.

If you give the government power over your life, then you have to be prepared to live with that government control when the other guys are in power as well.

Don't look now pal but at least 50 to 60% of your life is government controlled. From driving down the street to filing income taxes. When your sitting in your living room your mostly out of their control. But even that can't be guaranteed.

Let's take a look at that. They set your utility rates, determine who will be your cable provider, determine what can be shown on the tv (X, XX, XX, XXXX), how your food is packaged, and who you can call or email without ending up being watched as a terrorist. That's only the tip of the regulation iceberg inside your home. Whatever happened to "A mans home is his castle"?

Let's build the damn thing, get the money flowing again so we can staunch this tide of unemployment before it becomes a tsunami.

No matter what the idea is, there are always people crawling out of the wood work with all sorts of reasons why it won't work. I see a lot of that on this thread. What I don't see is any of the nay sayers coming up with any alternatives.

Was I close @ 50 to 60% or do you think it's higher?

Let's build the damn thing, get the money flowing again so we can staunch this tide of unemployment before it becomes a tsunami.

Amen to that!

"nay sayers coming up with any alternatives"

To have an alternative you have to have a problem defined.

High-speed rail is the answer. What was the question?

Possibly providing steel work and jobs and a alternative to energy intesive unsustainable car and flight. However if they don't but into the question, they can't offer an alternative.

My answer? 42.

I think also that a lot of people are overlooking all the collateral jobs this would create and a lot of them would be long term or permanent.

50%-at least. If you figure in local and state government.

The pyarmids are nothing but a pike of stone but they held an empire together.

I'm sorry, but that's the worst @!$%#ing example in the world. The pyramids were built by slaves, captures as part of a conquering empire. Something tells me we shouldn't go there.

But in another sense, the pyramids actually help to make my point. Do you know what the purpose of the pyramids was? They were giant tombs and monuments to the Pharaohs. They didn't help the lives of the common person one bit. A national rail system would function much the same way. It would sure cost a lot, affect very few, and we'd probably name it after President Obama making it his memorial.

but ethanol is huge now mostly because of government intervention. Not because of consumer demand.

That's kinda my point. The green folks lobbied government to invest in "green" technology so government did, and did it poorly.

Imagine all the people that will be put to work. They will be buying homes, cars, washing machines, educating their children. Infusing money back into the community on a daily basis. All trickling up to every walk of the economy. I don't know maybe I just have one of those "positive attitudes" and like to see the good in everything not the doom and gloom.

When are we going to put this idiotic notion to rest. Every single dollar you spend of tax money has to come from somewhere, taxes. So every single dollar you take for this project is taken out of the private sector and it is destroying jobs and wages.

Money doesn't just magically appear. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

What I don't see is any of the nay sayers coming up with any alternatives.

Then you must not be reading half of my posts then. I've already proposed that more regional lines make far better sense than national lines, since alternatives such as the airlines ALREADY exist on the national routes.

And I don't even care if it will work or not. I just don't want you to take my tax dollars to use on your own pet projects. If you want it, if you are so sure that it'll work, then you invest in it. Put your money where your mouth is!

Look who IS investing.

That's great. If there are so many of them, then why do we need to waste tax dollars on it?

The following was clipped from an article on the cost of constructing highways.

You must be confusing me with someone who is proposing that we build new highways. I am not.

Adam,

Where is the money coming from for your regional expansions if not from taxes? No one is saying we should not expand regionals but we are saying that we could use a cost efficent national express line as well. I'll help fund your pet project if you help fund my pet project! It's the Washington way!

Funny I was only proposing one transcontinental line with three major stops to allow connections to ALL regional lines. Kind of like now but with a faster cleaner train.

Adam said: "When are we going to put this idiotic notion to rest. Every single dollar you spend of tax money has to come from somewhere, taxes."

Sir you use the word "taxes" like a four letter word. Taxes make our lives what they are. Without them there are no police, no fire fighters, no military. Who on this planet doe's not pay them? When taxes are used for the betterment of the community (in this case the entire USA) we should be encouraged and roll with the program. Your attitude seems to be "my way or the highway I'm the only one that counts". Tax cuts are meaningless fluff thrown to us like a bone to a dog. People fall for the same old "I cut your taxes" so vote for me garbage. They don't tell you that your children can't read because to cut your taxes they took it away from the schools. They don't tell that by lowering "your" taxes the infrastructure is dwindling to disrepair because there is no money to fix it. I guess like you I could ramble on but I feel I'm beating a dead horse so I will fade away form this discussion now.

Taxes make our lives what they are. Without them there are no police, no fire fighters, no military.

I don't know about you, but a world without any military seems like it would be a pretty damn good one, don't you agree?

As for police and fire fighters, those tax dollars are from local governments that are far more responsive to their constituents. I do find it funny though, that when most people make lists of all the great things that tax dollars do, it is almost always a list inclusive of state and local government services. I guess that's because when everyone really thinks about it, most people aren't proud that their federal tax dollars go to killing Iraqis, or funding some fat cat lobbyists pork project.

As for community. If the USA is a community, then community has lost all sense of meaning.

Where is the money coming from for your regional expansions if not from taxes?

Whatever company wants to fund it, or whatever states want to. I'm not proposing that a single federal tax dollar goes to it. Especially since you'll find the Constitution quite absent of any mention of the federal government having power to build or finance a rail system.

Adam their is a log cabin on a mountain top surrounded by beautiful forest waiting for you. Have you thought about emigrating to say South America? I understand they have some really poor undeveloped countries down their with next to no military and hardly any government to speak of. Taxes are cheap and there are no new roads or train tracks to bother you. No one but lonely bitter ex-patriarchs who wanted nothing more than no taxes. Render unto Cesar that which is his but let's at least get some of it back in the form of job creating infrastructure improvements. Isolationism is not an option any more. America has too much everyone else wants and their militarys aren't going to go away to please you.

Rail line from Las Vegas to Disneyland?

Is that what they're calling DC these days?

Heck you could catch a train on friday to Denver go skiing and come back by sunday. Hi speed trains would make it possible.

Airlines zuck so do cars. We had trains until the great transportation conspiracy came in and ripped up all the tracks in our cities which are now finally being put back in- funny how that works

A lot of those old rail beds are still in place, one reason they got pulled out of service was the RR having to pay property tax on all the right of way, and the RR wanting to get out of the passenger business, that is what led to Am trac. Not likely the gov. would have to pay taxes to itself, and what has the gov. ever done that showed a profit anyway?

When people see that high speed monorail zipping by them at 150 or so while they are tooling along at a blistering 70 mph they might decide to leave their car at home and take the train. Sf still has a few trolley cars, does that count as inner city rail?

I'd love to take a HS train regionally, I'm in st.l.. anything 5 to 6 by car could be done in 3 to 4 in relative comfort.... for me chicago, memphis, KC Mo. Indianapolis, nashville, possibly louisville.. lots of stops,,,

SF trolleys, does that count as inner city rail?

somewhat.....

...high speed monorail zipping by them at 150 or so while they are tooling along at a blistering 70 mph...

Or heck, outrun any car by some 100mph. I remember taking in scenes like this while on TGVs out of Paris.

While coast-to-coast freight service in 24 hours as mentioned above would be nothing short of a macro project miracle, starting work on a high-speed rail infrastructure in corridors the Department of Transportation has stewed over for decades (Midwest, California, Florida, Texas, Empire State) would in itself be fantastic.

I just wish it were as easy as signing bills and snapping fingers to get projects that involve a bit more than just repairs, signals and motive power. Amtrak for one has been a political punching bag for decades for many reasons, all while trying to sustain rail service across the continent, serving places you'll likely never hear of again, like Yazoo City. Aside from the still suboptimal NEC, they've never really had an infrastructure to operate on.

But who on earth would sink some $800bn into a series of projects that might prove to be sustainable, will fully show results several years from now, and might perhaps revive a regional economy or two? Hmm...

If there is a feasible way to develop affordable train travel between major cities, I'm all for it. I'd go somewhere different every weekend.

Miami tomorrow, New York Thursday, San Fran Friday. I'm in for a fun filled U.S. vacation of the major cities for the next couple of months all for under a $50 of travel.

Try a month in Iraq. But somehow I don't see people, other than those who are afraid to fly, really using any kind of national rail system. Prices just aren't competitive with flying, especially when you factor in how long it takes.

The other issue will be how much private property will the government have to steal from people via eminent domain to build the lines?

I'm also sure you'll get environmental wackos out there who will fight it because it will disrupt the migrating patterns of some animal or another.

Flying from New York to LA, perhaps.

But from New York to DC, or from Boston to NY, or LA to SF, or Chicago to Minneapolis, a high speed rail line will be competitive with shuttle flights, driving, or taking the bus.

A high speed line, the Acela, already exists from Boston to NY and from NY to DC. So this project wouldn't affect the North East corridor at all.

I believe there's also a California line as well, though I may be mistaken.

"Prices just aren't competitive with flying"

They haven't been competitive. However the costs have been going up.

Subsidy for security.

More planes means more expense to keep them all up there at the same time safely away from each other.

Fuel prices (which will return as an issue).

The airlines are struggling to maintain that cheap business model.

It takes a long time to build a rail system. Hopefully it will get done before causal flying goes into terminal decline. A certain level of business and/or luxury flying will last forever. For certain type of shipping flying will only grow. Common flying will be the thing that may die.

We need to start small with the rail lines and work our way up. Trying to do it all at once I don't think will help our chances of succeeding. For those who are arguing no one will choose a long train ride over a plane ride for further distances - that may be why EU still has airports. It isn't a solution for all travel obviously but it sure could cut down on vehicle traffic. It would also make it easier to travel to other cities for little day or weekend adventures.

And...?

That makes it a lot harder for a National rail system to work.

Yes it could, however with proper pragmatic planning we begin by creating a National rail system that would first connect major cities across America. Later we could add regional and local connections. Very long term National project, much like the interstate highway system of the 1950's. This would create long term jobs and allow for improved interstate travel and trade opportunities. We should see this as an investment in American society and culture and not a partisan boondoggle. I don't remember a time in my life when Americans were lacking in vision and this closed minded

"I don't remember a time in my life when Americans were lacking in vision and this closed minded"

We'll never make it to the moon.

We can't switch off of leading gasoline.

We can't stand the expense of sulfur removal for coal.

Ring a bell? :)

Let's hope they don't text on their phones!

Yeah, why would anyone want to travel at 10X the speed of a car...

Not really.

1. Mapping the route of rail alone will take years

2. Eminent Domain or payment to property owners, to get the property in the first place to place the rail system.

3. Courts, hearings, lawsuites etc.. will take years.

4. Cost to the users for tickets and then the cost for transportation to get to and from the system. Unless high speed rail goes from Orlando to Boston, short rail systems would be more expensive for the riders than driving say from Orlando to Disney or Tampa like is being proposed here in Florida. Why ride rail and go through the same hassel as airports, when you just jump in your car and go.

Because of the expenditure of this type of system, what would be a ticket cost. Maybe as much as a plane ticket, because they sure couldn't charge bus fare prices to get their money back.

There will be more involved with a project like this than everybody really knows.

While litigation goes on and on, for property, the money sits there, doing nothing. Could be used in better areas now.

This isn't really a problem. Intra city mass transport is already in place. In this respect, there's really not much difference in a person flying into a city, and riding a high speed train into the city.

It will be no different than the bus system sponsored by the state. Little ridership, especially the short runs, and the system will need more backup from state to keep going, because nobody rides. Linx here in Florida, basically blacks out their windows, so you can't see the limited people riding the bus and they go everywhere. Always asks for more money from the state, to keep running. This business was pushed by the state, and is a total failure as to any profit.

Same thing will happen to short run rail. Question is, how do you make people give up the freedom of their cars and get them riding rail. What will the cost of riding be, to re-imburse for the payout of the system? Linx raised their prices and ridership is now lower than it was before. Most that ride the bus system are low income, that can't afford cars. It will need to be a restructuring of the peoples thinking about cars and that would take along time.

If it goes from Orlando to Boston at say 100 to 120 mph, not including areas where it will need to slow down for crossings (unless its entirely built on a bridge system to avoid these crossings in cities and towns) , why take the train when a plane, traveling way faster, gets you there quicker, unless you just like to ride the rails.

Also you have a social stigma with mass transit. It's mainly for the poor people who can't afford cars.

If you build it, they will come. This could take some of the burden off our interstates and air travel. Especially when commuting b/w cities. I would say 120 mph is the extremely low end. Somewhere around 220-270 would be optimal, and the whole purpose of a high speed rail system is the fact that there are no crossings, towns, and crap where the train has to slow down. It's not Amtrak.

@ observer;

True. Us people who like our cars and the freedom that comes with it, won't ride the rails.

@ BAjunkie;

The problem with your statement is, now your getting into privately owned land. Eminent Domain (my spelling stinks at time, I think) , Law suites, attorneys etc... now start coming into play, taking years to settle and the money for this rail sits, and sits, and sits, only being spent on land purchases and litigation. After that, there is no stimulus money left, and there they go again, asking government to give them more of our money because court costs and land purchases took it all.

I think this is a great idea! I live in Dallas where we are fortunate enough to have DART, which is currently doubling the size of our light rail lines. It is so convenient and far cheaper than driving, especially if you are going downtown, where parking rates are upwards of $20. What is even more convenient is that most stations have plenty of free parking. We also have a commuter line that connects Dallas with Fort Worth. It takes just about the same amount of time (45 minutes) as driving, but without all the traffic and hassle. As far as saying no one would use this rail system because you couldn't get around once you arrived, I think that is silly. Once you get to your destination, you simply utilize that cities rail or bus system, or take a cab. It's the same thing you would do if you had flown there.

I liked the "Chunnel" idea of taking my car with me...

The problem with your statement is, now your getting into privately owned land

Not at all. In fact, a high speed maglev monorail could be constructed in the median of the existing interstate highway system. It is a raised, supported rail structure that has a low footprint and the ability to overpass obstacles easily.

The other comparison to air travel and prices are the high cost of jet fuel versus the relative low cost of electricity for maglev. If they are going to develop this high speed rail it should be just that-high speed! Putting it down the center of the interstate system is a Very Good Idea. Imagine sitting in traffic on the interstate and having your doors blown off by the train! I know it would definitely make me wish I were on it instead of stuck in my car. As far as the "how to get around when I get there" question; see above. Buses, walking, taxi's, he!! take your bike on the train with you! As another writer mentioned and I seconded, the Chunnel in Britain even has a "Car car" so you could take your car save some gas and get there faster! More time to spend on the beach and no long drive home! What more could you ask for?

Eric...

while hijacking a train doesn't make a lot of sense, trains can be blown away and tracks destroyed by terrorists. The entire rail link would be a potential site for an attack by people not even on the train. Securing the line would be as impossible as securing our borders.

Having said that, I welcome a modern train system and would be a frequent traveler for sure. I lived in the U.K. for five years and used the trains there and in Europe. Great way to go, concerns for terrorists notwithstanding. Too many benefits economically and environmentally to be deterred frorm doing it.

I'm not against trains but...

If you put trains in the medians ... what do when you come to and overpass? A: You put high-speed rail next to the low speed rail.

What about in the cities? That is a local issue. You shouldn't build a system people won't use. My recommendation is to sell 10-year transferrable tickets in adanvance of contrstuction. In that way at least a certain percent of the cost of the first ten year is guaranteed. We have a 100 year old subway system that was never put into operation that proves you can't build it and they will come.

In some cities the line would end at a local train line spoke. Here it would end outside of town like an airport.

If you put trains in the medians ... what do when you come to and overpass? A: You put high-speed rail next to the low speed rail.

Go over it. By putting it next to low speed rail, we get right back into the issue of eminent domain, since that land is owned by the rail companies, and the high speed rail system will be a government owned system.

Well ... I left Cincinnati recently but am still in that area ... that is where the unused subway is. We do not have light rail though it has been discussed. We have a spare bus service. Our communtes are nothing compared to the rest of the nation which causes the lack of demand for mass transit. It doesn't mean it not something to shoot for. It's just here we really have to make sure it would get used to sustainabiliy before it gets built.

And another note ... high speed rail can't make the twist and turns of low speed and neither can do the twist and turns of a highway. For any place with hills or curvy roads it's an issue. In other places where you have tunnels... ouch...that alot of money to make those.

@ eric Atienza;

The 50's were one thing, today is today and property rights are speaking alot louder than they were back then. We have a roadway, here in florida, that required Eminant Domain takings to widen and it took 4 years to complete for 5 miles of road, because of the court cases. That's what will happen now and it will be worse, as people will want way more money than their property is worth.

As to putting the rail in the medians on highways, what do you do when you get to a major junction (and our highway junctions are complicated). Private property will still need to be purchased. And the highways are owned by the state, so each state has a stake in this, and the legal obstacles and required payouts, because of each state, would go on for years, before the plans could even get completed, then you still have to go through approvals at each state, to meet their code requirements.

I permit for a living and you don't understand how complicated it gets, especially with each state having their own set of rules. Unless states and attorney's forgo the rules and allow what every state wants, thus going against the codes, you will see lawsuites like you have never seen.

There is more to this than just plunking down a rail line where ever you see fit.

Somehow I believe that with the public fully behind this project the "problems" will be minor and quickly cleared. It's amazing how fast a Court or Government office moves when it's being pressured by media and J.Q. Public.

A Citizen Kane;

You've got to remember, your dealing with attorneys and all their shenanigans, not the courts or public opinions. Delays, Delays, Delays as is the right of the owner and the state to expect from their attorney. He will do what it takes to make himself money and extend the proceedings as long as possible, which is his right.

I hope there is enough to make at least one coast to coast connection.

I guess we would go from "fly over state" to "Speed by state".

I hope there is enough to make at least one coast to coast connection.

Iconoclasm,

Let's do some math here:

3,000 miles divided by 120mph = 25 hours (assuming NO STOPS, a totally unreasonble assumption)

Would you want to travel for 25 hours? 50 hours Round Trip???

Is there internet, tv, a smoking car, chips and drinks?

The kids were off a week this year for snow and ice.

I can see how the conditions might drive some nuts. That's why they don't live here :)

Where do you live?

25 hours of "Are we there yet?"

"Where do you live?"

Northern Kentucky

And that was a solid week out of school during the ice/snow storm. They missed nearly as much for the Ike winds with a million without power some for a week.

Texas Ike was a big disaster.

The ice storm where it hit hardest (not here) was bad because it was cold after.

The Ike wind storm we had with a million out of power and almost another week off school while techinally a disaster was really what I would call just disruptive. It was warm and not rainy for the week after.

It would be great to be able to say "Power is out. The nieghbors are watchin the place. I call you from Vegas in a few days to see how things are going."

Would you want to travel for 25 hours? 50 hours Round Trip???

Oh heck yes. I'm probably an outlier, but it's not like going across the nation in a few weeks being feasible and comfortable is a bad thing for anybody.

Tyler,

Outliers do not make a economically feasible market.

It's the people going from DC to Cincinnati. Then the people going from Cinci to Chicago. And the people going from Chicago to Denver. And Denver to, I dunno, Vegas. One line with occasional stops.

Except airports already service these connections, and do so far faster and at about the same cost. Has anyone seen what Amtrack chargers for tickets these days? It cost me $200 round trip to go from Trenton to DC. I could have flown to Florida for less than that.

Was this completely in Belgium, or into other countries as well?

I was staying in Belgium and took the train to different cities and another country. It's one web site to check out schedules and buy tickets for any of them which made it really easy. I was over there by myself and honestly probably wouldn't have explored if it weren't for the trains.

Don't be kidding yourself, this is America in 2009. There won't be a smoking car. Hell, their probably won't be a bar car either once the special interest groups go at it. And the dining car will only be allowed to serve you organic salads. ;-)

LOL yup ur right but you get the picture. Nice, comfortable, enjoyable.

With the aerodynamics of current maglev trains, wind resistance isn't really a factor until the train is above 300 mph. It could feasibly travel at 220-250 mph at a fraction of the cost of other transportation methods.

On the security part it would be like 1990s travel terrorism. The worst that could happen is that everyone on the plane (train) dies. The train can only go so far off the rails.

Amtrack has the Acela line, a high speed lines that reaches speeds of 150 MPH at spots. The Acela line is extremely popular, but again, it also runs the North East corridor, DC, Baltimore, Philly, NYC and Boston.

Another thing to consider through here somewhere is that we are running out of oil and trying to come up with ways to save energy. When gas goes back up (it will) and it costs you $500.oo to drive or $50.oo to take a train which will you choose. The roads are falling apart anyway which has benefits, it makes you drive slower and conserve energy. The other things I have seen mentioned here are problems, not iinsurmountable obstacles.

There are several "green" things out there. The issue is that some "green" energy things can cause harm.

Example: Wind Turbines and bird kills (that has been mitigated somewhat via increased height, siting, and design. Wind Trubines and bat kills (which is limited to only some types of bats and is still under study).

You will get in trouble if you plow high-speed rail though certain natural and semi-natural areas. And no matter what you do someone will complain (some people protest the "uglyness" of turbines, it's a matter of taste really).

Iconclast we must remember the saying of can't please all the people all the time and since they already hate our ugly interstates me could put them above them for now. Further down the road we can stimulate the economy again by burying them below the median ground! Hey government projest, anything worth doing is worth doing again!

Eric,

If this is so easy why haven't some of the Liberal strongholds in this country (ie: The left coast and most of New England) already gone green?

This country laid millions of miles of railroad and Interstate in a fairly short period of time because surveyors went out and measured, and the track layers and road builders followed right after. That was before environmental studies and green peacers fighting and suing over every mile laid.

Can't happen today.

So the answer is to tax Texans so that the Federal government can put trains in New England?

The real answer would be for all of New Englad to create a regional mass transit system paid for by themselves. The Midwest can build thier system. The South can build thier system. The federal Government should just set the standards so that these systems can tie into each other.

This would be the same as Europe being made up of 24 different countries all tied together, and each part paid for by the country that owns it.

That sounds great but if the interstate highways were deisgned that way they wouldn't have good interconnection. Said more simply the trip across the country would be vary wavy and long.

Besides your using a strawman arguement. You mentioned New England. And now your pitching New England vs. Texas. There are people who live far from interstates who still pay for them via their fuel tax. Everything can't be completly fair.

That being said I still would have preferred for this money to be used for the national electric grid. Possibly the train lines could be centered in high wind and solar areas and used as a right of way to ship the power out to the rest of us. With all this money it still doesn't seem like they can make a national train system but at least they would get the right of ways to get our own energy to us.

Grid connection have the same "tree hugger" problem you metnion. The reason why there has been more concern about the environment over time isn't just some libveral thing. There are simply less trees to hug than there once was. Things need to be done in balance. Not too much treehugging and not too much function over form.

When gas goes back up (it will) and it costs you $500.oo to drive or $50.oo to take a train which will you choose.

I think you are highly underestimating how much train tickets cost. $50 barely gets you from NYC to Albany on Amtrack today, and Amtrack is already extremely subsidized by the Federal Government.

You do realize it costs more to take a train from London to Glasgow and return (8 hrs/$260) than Fly (1.5 hr/$116) right? And that's on a state supported train system..........................

What were the airline prices last year for that trip? And were the airlines making a profit off that route at that time?

I'm not saying that it's impossible to be a cheap airline route than a train route but I would be suspcious if it's maintainable with high fuel costs.

And isn't it train 8hrs+1hr from parking lot to train and plane 1.5 hours+ 3 hours from parking lot to plane?

Grabbing every straw you can find ICO? Just about every train system in Europe requires subsidies to stay afloat, just like AMTRAK. So why spend Trillions to fight the tree huggers to build a nationwide system that than will require more taxes just to stay afloat. And who wants to spend 24 hours with the kids going cross country when you can spend 6 at half the price.

BKER1492, to be fair, the airlines receive quite a few government subsidies as well.

But yeah, generally speaking, there aren't that many routes where train fare is significantly cheaper than the airlines, if not more expensive.