I'd like to know the following:

Do you want it?
If we had it, would you ride it, and how often? Commute to work?
Would you be willing to pay a little extra in taxes to get it?

Please, please, please, don't just come on and post something like "Obamas taking all my money anyway." Lets keep this civil and politics-free.

And to answer my own questions,
Yes, I'd love it.
I'd ride it probably two to three times a week.
I think it would be a good investment that could really pay off big in the long-run, so yes, I would.

No.

I'd like to know the following:

Do you want it? Yes
If we had it, would you ride it, and how often? Depends on where it was located. Commute to work? If it was within reason
Would you be willing to pay a little extra in taxes to get it? Yes

While I am conservative by nature I am pro high speed rail and getting it into the U.S. I think that high speed rail brings development in the areas of the stops and is a great option for a commute. I would much prefer riding a train into work than deal with bumper to bumper traffic daily. Sure it may take a little longer but the extra time to read the paper and relax may add years to my life rather then stressing out in traffic.

Once I get my master's in August I will be looking for a rail friendly city to relocate to. Portland and the Pacific Northwest is a great example of how light rail/streetcars can be integrated to commuter rail. Denver is getting there as well along with the obvious area of New England which has the most commuter rail in the country.

I think the 3C Project in Ohio is essential for the states future when it comes to attracting young professionals to transition from a manufacturing state to the new industries that each C is developing. However I find the current proposal of 79 mph rail unacceptable but from my understanding it would be temporary till the new track is laid to support HSR

What exactly is the definition of high speed rail we are using? 79 MPH is NOT high speed rail. That's like Amtrak. High speed rail is like the bullet trains.

It's never going to replace the car and won't really compete with air travel. You'll never be able to go coast to coast in a high speed rail, so I'd imagine most people would rather drive. It would work in regional areas like the NE, other than that, I don't see the appeal. If I had to choose between flying from say Columbus OH to Dallas TX or taking a train, I'm going to fly. It's just not ever going to be fast enough.

mucalum49 wrote:

Once I get my master's in August I will be looking for a rail friendly city to relocate to. Portland and the Pacific Northwest is a great example of how light rail/streetcars can be integrated to commuter rail. Denver is getting there as well along with the obvious area of New England which has the most commuter rail in the country.

I think the 3C Project in Ohio is essential for the states future when it comes to attracting young professionals to transition from a manufacturing state to the new industries that each C is developing. However I find the current proposal of 79 mph rail unacceptable but from my understanding it would be temporary till the new track is laid to support HSR

On Portland, I know that the Pacific Northwest corridor is one of the most promising areas for high speed rail.

On Denver, they passed landmark legislation at the beginning of the decade which is drastically expanding their lightrail system. It is a great system, and I can't wait for them to finish it.

As for the 79 and 110 mph, I wanted to get into this a bit but was unsure if other people would know what I am talking about. 79 and 110 is a real joke. While that is fine for rural areas or smaller lines and spurs, there is no reason IMO that the lines between major cities such as the eastern corridor, Portland and Seattle, the Texas cities, the 3C corridor, etc. shouldn't be around 230 like the trains in Europe and Japan, and like the one being planned/built in California.

And I also agree that the 3C corridor project is crucial for Ohio success, however they have been discussing it for several decades at this point, so I am not exactly holding my breath.

tk421 wrote: What exactly is the definition of high speed rail we are using? 79 MPH is NOT high speed rail. That's like Amtrak. High speed rail is like the bullet trains.

It's never going to replace the car and won't really compete with air travel. You'll never be able to go coast to coast in a high speed rail, so I'd imagine most people would rather drive. It would work in regional areas like the NE, other than that, I don't see the appeal. If I had to choose between flying from say Columbus OH to Dallas TX or taking a train, I'm going to fly. It's just not ever going to be fast enough.

I understand your point, but with all the hassle of airports anymore, and with the planes being so uncomfortable, I think High speed rail could be a great success. It took me four hours just sitting in two airports for my flights, and my layover was short. Trains could improve on this, and besides, trains give you a much more relaxed, laid back method of travel. I'd rather have the freedom to stretch out my legs and get up and move around easily than be stuck on a plane. As for it competing with the airlines, Europe has both and they do just fine, even with the Ultra-low cost Ryanair. They also have the autobauhns and many other freeway systems. I think it would do fine here.

redfalcon wrote:

tk421 wrote: What exactly is the definition of high speed rail we are using? 79 MPH is NOT high speed rail. That's like Amtrak. High speed rail is like the bullet trains.

It's never going to replace the car and won't really compete with air travel. You'll never be able to go coast to coast in a high speed rail, so I'd imagine most people would rather drive. It would work in regional areas like the NE, other than that, I don't see the appeal. If I had to choose between flying from say Columbus OH to Dallas TX or taking a train, I'm going to fly. It's just not ever going to be fast enough.

I understand your point, but with all the hassle of airports anymore, and with the planes being so uncomfortable, I think High speed rail could be a great success. It took me four hours just sitting in two airports for my flights, and my layover was short. Trains could improve on this, and besides, trains give you a much more relaxed, laid back method of travel. I'd rather have the freedom to stretch out my legs and get up and move around easily than be stuck on a plane. As for it competing with the airlines, Europe has both and they do just fine, even with the Ultra-low cost Ryanair. They also have the autobauhns and many other freeway systems. I think it would do fine here.

Who's going to build them, though? The federal government can't afford to keep our current infrastructure up to date, having them try to build rail lines across the country would be a joke and a major disaster. Europe does better because it's so much smaller. I just don't see the market for it. Amtrak doesn't have any kind of ridership, where's the market for high speed rail outside of the NE in this country?

Amtrak has been having record ridership on all lines over the past few years.

me and my buddy were looking to ride a train from D.C to philly over the summer. it takes almost the same amount of time to drive and was pretty expensive i think(over a hundred per ticket).

plus it might be easy to travel now, but if it ever did get popular, it would be just as much of a hassle as flying. there would be security checks and all the same hassles like airports have. plus its next to impossible to secure thousands of miles of track.

Do I want it?

No. I also don't mind if we have it.

If we had it I wouldn't ride it...unless it was for a novelty experience.

I would not be willing to pay a little extra in taxes to get it. I am perfectly comfortable with my current transportation options.

Yes I support it.

Might make sense in Europe and Japan...but not in the United States.

Why?

Americans prefer to fly when they need speed and drive when they want freedom.

Cost vs. benefit. Who's going to pay for it? The American taxpayer? Ain't gonna happen.

believer wrote:
Americans prefer to fly when they need speed and drive when they want freedom.

Please post a link for this statement.

Society wrote:Please post a link for this statement.

This isn't the politics forum.



No, I wouldn't want the rail system.

If a private company wants to do it, then it is up to them. I don't want to hear about the federal government getting into any more industries or spending another cent of borrowed money.

ernest_t_bass wrote:

Society wrote:Please post a link for this statement.

This isn't the politics forum.



No, I wouldn't want the rail system.

I don't understand. Are you saying we can make unsubstantiated remarks and others are supposed to take it as fact?

Cleveland Buck wrote: If a private company wants to do it, then it is up to them. I don't want to hear about the federal government getting into any more industries or spending another cent of borrowed money.

Enter: Norfolk, VA

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/12/norfolk-council-angered-new-lightrail-cost-overruns

I'm a huge fan of it in select spots throughout the country. The niche for high-speed rail is in the two-hour trip market. If they can be cheaper than flights or faster, then they'd got a market. Don't try to go from New York to Denver on high speed rail, try to go from St. Louis to Chicago, Houston to New Orleans, etc. The midwest is great for high-speed rail because it's flat and trains can just cruise without obstruction. It'd be important for it to not be a commuter way to work but to link entertainment and financial centers of cities. Their goal shouldn't be to compete with buses but to compete with short flights.

I think in Florida, the SunRail project can do wonders if it's done correctly. They need to be 200-mph trains, and connect entertainment centers. Link Tampa, Orland, Miami, and Jacksonville; maybe Gainesville but it'd only be used by the proletariat on Saturdays in the fall.

Texas, though, has probably the best opportunity. Connect San Antonio, Houston, and Dall/Ft. Worth. Southwest Airlines already has laws against high-speed rail on the books though, that's how worried they are that if would eat up their business if it was ever implemented.

I'd really have liked to have seen stimulus dollars make this picture a reality:


Los Angeles to Las Vegas would have been another great path. Harry Reid is actually correct for once.

If it's economically feasible, someone in the private sector will do it. If it isn't, the public sector has no business trying it.

I think it'd be sweet if it was like bullet trains

Society wrote:I don't understand. Are you saying we can make unsubstantiated remarks and others are supposed to take it as fact?

See: Chesapeake

sjmvsfscs08: What is that picture of?

I am not for trains financed by taxes. If a private investor wants to then cool. However if it costs more than driving, especially for a family, I don't see it being profitable.

But imagine the freedom they would provide to that same family. Instead of being cramped up in a car, you can relax in your own space.

redfalcon wrote: But imagine the freedom they would provide to that same family. Instead of being cramped up in a car, you can relax in your own space.

have fun stopping along the way when you see a cool landmark, resturant, or a tree that has richard nixon's face on it. nope, your stuck till the end of the ride. i'd rather be cramped in a car, going at my own pace, stopping when and where i want for aslong as i want.