Why Is There Such Intense Opposition Here To High Speed Rail?

[Yavin4]

Do you think that airline and car travel are the most efficient means of moving population masses from point A to point B?

Do you not see the environmental/economy positive impact from building a series of high speed rail lines?

Do you not see other industrialized countries around the world with high speed rail lines and how that makes moving around them highly efficient?

Do you not see how making travel from city to city will greatly improve home values? For example, someone living in Indianapolis can now live there and work in Chicago and vice versa?

Do you not see that new businesses and services will arise from the building of these trains?

Big infrastructure projects are what we use to do in this country. We use to build big things, and then new commerce and jobs would spring up around them.

Why the opposition? Please tell me.

[MH1]

1. troll invasion?

:shrug:

I guess I missed those threads, so far I've only seen one, obvious troll, posting that silliness.

[sandnsea]

9. I wish

This thread is just a bonanza of crazy-making.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7598394

[Overseas]

105. This wasn't opposition to high speed rail, just watching whose gets funded first.

We want it all over our country, but Florida was funded first, so people from other states are envious.

[sandnsea]

2. Obama proposed it.

That's how insane this place has gotten. There are people opposing high speed rail. Unbelievable. :crazy:

[Kievan Rus]

5. They oppose ANYTHING a Democrat puts forth...even an anti-rape amendment

[donco6]

12. I don't think so.

I've had my disagreements, but certainly not about this. I don't know what the opposition to this is about.

[sandnsea]

18. See thread in #9 n/t

[donco6]

31. I see.

It looks like some are insinuating that the choice of routes were made to benefit R districts. Whatever. I'm not much for conspiracy theories.

I think they're a great idea and long overdue. I wish there was something planned here, though. Snif. I guess we just don't have the population.

[JackRiddler]

97. Oh bite us.

Anyone who wants real change is going to see problems with Obama, but the only problem I'd have with high speed rail is that it wasn't $80 billion instead of only $8 billion. We could only hope for a bottom-up rebuilding of the entire rail infrastructure!

[Kievan Rus]

3. Because oil is the crack cocaine of energy sources

Even Dubya admitted that we're addicted to it. The oil lobby is too well funded for its opposition to be heard...especially after the recent Supreme Court SNAFU.

[Ozymanithrax]

4. I think it is a great idea, and haven't seen much opposition...

Of course, I haven't been looking.

Post links.

[HeresyLives]

15. Here's one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7594377

[Warpy]

34. They all seem to be kvetching mostly because

people are mentioning rail systems for places where they don't live.

NM got a short high speed rail system for the north-south corridor between Belen and Santa Fe. It's been a boon to commuters and shoppers, alike.

A decent rail grid (or two, one for high speed passenger traffic and another for slower speed freight) would seem to be one of those infrastructure improvements that would fuel the next business boom but people just can't see it.

[gateley]

36. I wasn't expecting Seattle to be mentioned, but I was still happy for those

who will be the recipients, believing it was just the beginning.

To my surprise, Seattle does appear to be in the mix -- somewhere.

[quiller4]

66. Why does that surprise you? The Amtrak route between Seattle

and Portland has experience a greater ridership increase than any other. Even though the number of runs has been doubled (and will be increased again) the seats sell out. I travel this route from Tacoma to Portland frequently. I used to be able to buy my tickets the morning of my trip-now I need to purchase well in advance because seats sell out.

[gateley]

92. I'd only heard about FL and CA, hadn't heard about Seattle, but then saw them

include Seattle on some map they were referring to, that's all.

[eeyore]

37. My wife just flew in to ABQ and rode that line to Santa Fe yesterday

It used to be that whenever she'd travel back to visit her family in Santa Fe, someone would drive to the airport and pick her up. Wasted gas, wasted time, and en extra car on the road. Now she can ride the train to Santa Fe and get picked up there. She loves it! I also know people who live in Santa Fe and commute to Albuquerque to work. Brilliant!

[Warpy]

47. Yeah, it's really spiffy

It's just jaw dropping that Richardson was finally able to get it off the drawing board and built before the conservatives noticed what he was up to. There was little notice in the press when work started and less as it continued. All the notice was saved for the first run.

I think that's how to do things for the public good, quietly.

[hileeopnyn8d]

42. That was a painful read. n/t

[TheCowsCameHome]

6. "Here" meaning where?

DU?

[Yavin4]

16. Yes on DU

On every thread about this subject, someone pipes in about how it won't work.

[ddeclue]

65. I really haven't seen such opposition.. In fact I wrote a thread happy about it yesterday

since I live in Orlando and sometimes work in Tampa/St. Pete.

[Yavin4]

74. You Need To Read More of this Thread

There is intense opposition.

[ddeclue]

75. Not really.

[glowing]

101. I live in Tampa and have to go to Orlando.. I can't wait for this thing to be built.

AND they mentioned another route into Miami... Thank God.. No more Aligator Alley in the middle of the night... Its a straighter shot... going over the Lake. AND I don't have to be rich to arrive promptly.. I can't afford charter flights. I know its going to take some time for these trains to be built, but I can't wait until the access is finally available... AND that I can enjoy Orlando without a worry about renting a hotel for the night or finding a DD in the group who wants to drive back after a night out.

[wryter2000]

7. I'm all for it

I can't wait until we have it in CA.

[musiclawyer]

8. Much of the perceived problem is misallocation

The theory being is that all the money should have been poured into one place as a) instant mega job creator and b) a demonstration project.... to show how it really works which would then convince the conventioanl wisdom that every part of the country needs to have it. We are a juvenile aged country so we engage in juevenile behavior. So this is not surprising........

[sandnsea]

We're basically getting 13 demonstration projects

Creating jobs in 30 states, so you'd think that would be 13 times the support. But nooooo...

[Johonny]

30. I agree

Big projects like that tend to lose congressional backing if the project doesn't include jobs in their state. Congress critters tend to be for it until it has a location and that location isn't their state.

Locally people tend to dislike spending money on infrastructure projects for the same reason they dislike spending on schools, police, fire fighters, sewers etc...

[WolverineDG]

10. cuz people can be idiots nt

[monmouth]

11. Dems will always have it to their credit. They have nothing...n/t

[liberalmuse]

13. I'm incredibly excited about the high speed rail plan...

I don't know that many liberals who aren't, but that's only in my small sphere of influence. This will provide jobs, cut down on road congestion and be better for the environment than just building more roads. It's also a project you can see - and that could be what scares the bejeesus out of the Republicans. I remember living in Salt Lake where the conservative element opposed the rail system for years, but one year it finally passed, and today it is a HUGE success and is so popular, they are expanding it at every opportunity. I just don't see a down side to President Obama's multi-billion dollar high speed rail plan, other than the cost, but the benefits will surely outweigh that in no time at all. This is one of the things I wrote President Obama about when he first took office and was asking us to send him our ideas. I couldn't be more thrilled!

[Jkid]

14. Because cars represent freedom to them.

Anyone who can't or unable to own a car is to them a loser. This is a part of the ideology known as American Social Darwinism (aka Neo-Individualism)

[Lorien]

26. If cars represent "freedom" to them then they should

be very pro-rail. Less highway congestion means more "freedom" for them.

I think that they're just parroting the "It's too expensive and it will mean more crime' propaganda from the fossil fuel lobby shills.

[Jkid]

45. More crime?

I think that they're just parroting the "It's too expensive and it will mean more crime' propaganda from the fossil fuel lobby shills.
"It's too expensive and it will mean more crime'
... more crime'

So the fossil fuel lobby shills started this "public transit=more crime" myth?

[NJmaverick]

17. President Obama proposed it

and for many DUers there is an automatic knee jerk negative reaction to anything he says or does.

[AngryAmish]

19. Racism

[Yavin4]

64. I Agree With You On That

Sitting next to people who are not White on an enclosed space engenders fear in some people.

[anonymous171]

76. I don't see it. nt

[Blue Owl]

20. Auto/Oil industry shills?

Higher fuel efficiency and mass transit means less profits for big oil -- a big part of Bu$hCo's bread & butter.

[MrsCorleone]

100. The Chamber of Commerce has been pushing hard against HSR in CA.

60%+ of the Chamber's board members are tied to the gas & oil industry here. I'm sure that has nothing to do with their anti-HSR position.

:sarcasm:


:hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. Rac ism.

[ourbluenation]

22. The discussion was NOT about HSR, it was about the politics of the funding of hsr.

I am very much in favor of hsr, as are most here. but having worked for a public railroad in california I can tell you with some authority that the funding for these public projects is highly politicized.

[Lorien]

23. Because if it's a success in the rest of the world

it MUST be a bad thing! :P

[Cali_Democrat]

24. Perhaps there would be less opposition if high speed rail was proposed in Iraq and AfPak

nt

[Skink]

25. One or two people might have to give up some land to eminent domain therefore....

we must all oppose it. can't have high speed rail disrupting factory farms.

[Lorien]

28. Simple solution; Maglev

you run the monorails along existing highways or median strips.



They are very quiet. More so than auto traffic. Anyone living near a maglev rail would find little to complain about.

[daleo]

51. I stayed in a hotel near a Vancouver Skytrain station

The train wasn't particularly loud, but there was a definite whooshing sound every five minutes. I don't know if the skytrain there is maglev, though.

It's a good system anyway.

[anonymous171]

80. I bet you could get the coal/energy lobby behind that one. nt

[Dappleganger]

99. You know, if they choose to run them through poor neighborhoods

due to classicism and racism, that would not be right at all. It's hard enough finding affordable housing as it is nowadays. Run those suckers through the rich neighborhoods and let them fend for themselves.

[amandabeech]

102. My guess would be that they will run these things through already-established

railroad rights of way. To do otherwise would involve costly litigation over rights of way and increased expense.

Since many of these go from city center to city center, they will inevitably impact poor neighborhoods.

Due to the cost of these things, I doubt that they will avoid wealthy neighborhoods that already get freight or Amtrak trains clunking by. However, I think that most wealthy neighborhoods have already been sited far away from any tracks except commuter rail tracks, like those on Long Island and one of the Virginia Railway Express lines that goes to D.C.

[ourbluenation]

27. this is a disingenous thread based on a false assumption. have a nice day. n/t

[Yavin4]

49. Really?

Read response #29.

[Occulus]

57. Actually, I've been told "we don't need it" and "we could spend that money on X instead"

not merely recently, but a long time ago. People here seem to think that, because the US is so much larger than European nations who are using high-speed rail to great effect, it's "impractical" for us to try.

[KittyWampus]

114. You have it exactly right and Post #29 says just that.

[KittyWampus]

115. dupe

[cbdo2007]

29. United States is too spread out for high speed rail to work.

Seriously, who's going to pay to take the train from Indianapolis to Chicago every day? Sure, maybe if there's a meeting but nobody's going to do that every day.

There's already train service not being utilized to most places. Like Chicago to St. Louis you can take the train. Or you could drive there in 3 hours for like $75 of gas money. High speed train tix will be expensive and American's would rather drive or if they have to get there for business they'll drive.

It'll never work in the US.

[TransitJohn]

38. That sounds suspiciously just like the arguments against single payer here.

:hi:

[cbdo2007]

52. WHAAA??? What train did you ride in on?

Your statement don't make no sense at all partner.

[Jennicut]

43. And China is smaller?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_PRsz6uvpTAY/SwHfXgEpaGI/AAAAAAAABwA/934Xx4efjH8/s400/china+hsr+2020.png

[cbdo2007]

53. Most chinese people don't have cars.

[Jennicut]

56. We have no alternatives here.

We need some.

[dysfunctional press]

60. where are you located...?

here in the united sates, we have LOTS of alternatives- cars, planes, trains, busses...what other alternatives are there?

[Jennicut]

61. Most people use cars instead of buses or trains.

We need more high speed rail.

[dysfunctional press]

63. you said yourself that more people drive than take buses or trains...

what we need are better highways, and long-range electric vehicles.
people enjoy the freedom that cars give them.

[KittyWampus]

118. The United States was ENGINEERED to need all those cars. If the civil engineers and auto industry

could design the USA back in the 40's-50's to need millions of cars, we can engineer the USA in the 21st century to need high speed rail instead.

Your post and the opposition to HSR indicates you tacitly just accept our reliance on cars, where every family NEEDS two cars as a fact of life.

You fail to realize that our reliance on cars was by design. And that design has become obsolete.

[cbdo2007]

67. I'm not sure where you're living where there are no alternatives...

but there are plenty all over the place and they all lose huge amounts of money every year. Why fund new bad ideas when we can come up with new good ideas?

In the United States we like the comfort and convenience of our own car. We like going over the speed limit and belting out our favorite tunes and stopping at McDonalds ever 150 miles. We like to stop at the World's Largest Groundhog or the Precious Moments Chapel just because they're there, or the huge Superman statue in Metropolis, IL. You're never going to see that stuff on a train.

Like the other poster here said...American's have already chosen their preferred form of transportation - the automobile. We need to come up with ways to make them cheaper, faster, safer, cleaner, rather than keep wasting money on these things that other countries have that most American's don't want.

[Yavin4]

You're Bringing Up A False Argument

The presence of HSR won't kill the car. You will still be able to drive and eat junk food. No one is taking that away from you.

The reason for HSR is because we need a better, cleaner, faster way of moving masses of people from point A to point B. Cars, trains, buses, and airlines are too expensive, too inefficient, and environmentally harmful to be the only means of transportation.

[cbdo2007]

79. I'm not saying HSR will kill the car - I'm saying the car will kill HSR.

American's prefer their cars.

As you say, we definitely could use a better, cleaner, faster way of moving people but they aren't going to let the airline industry fail just to see HSR succeed. That's who their real competitors will be and HSR will have all the same problems once it gets off the ground.

[Yavin4]

82. You're Exhibiting The Kind of Small Thinking That's Killing America

The philosophy that Americans won't ever adapt or change to new technology is the primary reason why our auto industry needs bailouts from the govt. because they foolishly believed that Americans would never drive smaller cars.

The purpose of HSR is aid the movement of masses of people and cargo from city to city, primarily to conduct business, not just joyride.

[cbdo2007]

87. You're calling trains "new technology" to conduct business??

and you think I'm the one that's exhibiting a small kind of thinking?? What century is this?????

If anything people will be traveling less in the future and they will be using the internet more.

This is a completely different argument than those of the (American) auto makers who kept making cars bigger and bigger, in fact you're backwards in your timeline. American's were buying more and more and more smaller/cheaper cars, the American car companies thought they were going to change and start buying bigger, more expensive gas guzzlers, and they were wrong. The "technology" in cars hasn't changed much in the past 20 years which is the problem. We all wanted change to smaller, more efficient cars, the American car companies were still making cars with the same gas mileage as the mid 80's.

[Romulox]

44. People don't want to hear that there is no demand for a high speed line from Muncie to Detroit.

They also want to pretend that the commuter lines they propose to build in some parts of the country are the equivalent of the tourist lines they propose in other parts.

It'll be Amtrack all over again.

[cbdo2007]

55. Exactly....it's similar to the discussion we've been having here in Kansas City

for years regarding light rail. The voters even passed it on a ballot and the city shut it down cause everyone knows it's not going to work here. Our city is too spread out with not much going on in the immediate downtown and closely surrounding areas.

Then they leave out major parts of the city altogether and think we want to take light rail which would take 45 minutes with stops to the airport rather than just drive the 30 minutes to the airport where you can park like 200 feet from the gate.

There may be some places that it would work...obviously along the east coast probably a route linking Boston, NYC, Wash DC, Philly may work or even California to link San Diego, LA, San Francisco, Sacramento or something but yeah, throughout the rest of the country it's going to replace Amtrack except that it will probably be more expensive and people still won't ride it.

[amandabeech]

106. Would you consider taking a fast train from Detroit to Chicago?

Maybe you'd miss the mess on I-94 and around Chicago, but I for one wouldn't mind taking the train on that route.

I drive a 2003 Taurus SES with the 201 hp engine and all the belles and whistles. It's a great road car.

Still, I'd rather not drive over beat up roadbeds, and through construction zones and congested city traffic, paarticularly if I was going to a central city location.

I grew up in the west side over by Lake Michigan. People in my hometown go to Chicago for mini-vacations, baseball, shows, etc.

More and more of them are driving down to Holland where they can catch the Grand Rapids AMTRAK to Chicago. They love it! They don't have to hassle with any of the items I mentioned above.

I don't think that high-speed rail here will beat out planes for long-haul routes, but for trips up to 400 miles between city centers, there might be some demand, especially if gasoline prices go up.

It would also help if travelers could pick up rental cars at their destination to offer added flexibility.

It would also hope if travelers didn't have to go through the security screenings and wouldn't have to show up well before the train pulls out of the station.

[hileeopnyn8d]

54. I HATE driving to Chicago

from St. Louis. Hate it. Hate it. Hate it.

And I don't know where you get the idea that it only take 3 hours to get there. It's just over 300 miles from my house. It's at least 325 miles for people who live in St. Louis County.

[cbdo2007]

58. Maybe you're not driving fast enough? ha ha, j/k

Seriously though you should drive through Hannibal and then through Keokuk to look for Geodes and then through Springfield and do a Lincoln tour. It's a lovely drive :)

Seriously though again (really serious this time) I'm sure there are some people like yourself who will be happy to pay $125 round trip to take the train from St. Louis to Chicago but MOST people are not. If people were at all interested in train travel they would take the Amtrak but they don't. If Amtrak were a success here I would say they should take a stab at high speed rail but otherwise it's going to turn into something that's going to lose major money so the govt is going to have to pour billions of $$$ into it every 10 years or so.

[YOY]

85. Considering the budget Amtrak has, it is a "success".

All successful national railroads have significant investment that we have failed to put down. Those that are "privatized" are not privatized in the sense that other privatization efforts have had done (e.g. Japan's is "employee owned") and only have had the significant amount of investiture done so they can be "privatized".

Consider that Amtrak has no dedicated rails of its own (save the Acela) we do the best we can without upsetting the freight railroads any more than we already do.

[dysfunctional press]

62. take amtrak, or fly...or take a bus.

there are options.

[cbdo2007]

68. That's true...and I just thought of this also - as if the airlines need more competition!!!

They lose billions of $$$ every year by themselves. The only way high speed rail would be successful here would be to completely get rid of domestic air travel....and that's not gonna happen. The two would be competitors for money people don't have and aren't willing to spend when they can drive.

[Yavin4]

73. Or, There Will Only Need To Be One or Two Major Airlines

which I don't really have a problem with because the airline business model really does not allow for multiple airlines.

[FarCenter]

81. The bus is cheapest

$15 one-way New York to Boston on Fung Wah.

Chinatown to South Station.

[amandabeech]

107. See my post just above yours.

Going to downtown Chicago can be a hassle. My examples are from Detroit and western lower Michigan.

I'd advocate at least one suburban stop with a parking lot and rental car companies.

I drove from Chicago all the way down to Cairo. It's a LONG haul through the corn and bean fields. It reminded me of the haul on I-80 through northern Pennsylvania, except with that, you drive down Appalachian mountains with semi grills in your rear view mirror. And I mean nothing but grill.

[Blue_Tires]

84. the New York--Philadelphia--Washington one is very popular

and I know probably 100+ friends, family and colleagues who would kill for a high-speed route from Norfolk to Washington, and Norfolk to Atlanta...

Given the time lost in post 9-11 security hassles, it is not as worthwhile to take a puddle-jumper flight to Dulles or Charlotte as it used to be...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

108. You know, people don't take the train because it's slow under current conditions

It takes most of the day to get from Minneapolis to Chicago. I'm sure the same is true for Chicago and St. Louis.

However, if the time were reduced to three hours, central city to central city, that would be competitive with air travel. (Not to mention that such a trip is more comfortable and pleasant than air travel.)

In Japan, there are three ways to travel between the 300 miles between the two main business centers of Tokyo and Osaka. The Shinkansen "bullet" train takes 2.5 hours and costs about $85.

Flying takes 70 minutes, airport to airport, not including ground transportation, and costs $225.

Driving (Japan does have high-speed highways) costs about the same in tolls as the Shinkansen charges for a ticket, but depending on traffic conditions (which can be like a parking lot, even on the so-called expressways), it can take between six and ten hours.

Another example--which I have not had the privilege of riding yet--is the Eurostar between London and Paris or Brussels. It has evidently come close to killing off air travel between those cities.

I agree that going from New York to Los Angeles by train would not be practical for business travelers, although I'm sure leisure travelers would enjoy it. Imagine sitting back and watching the Appalachians, the great rivers, the plains, the southern Rockies, and the southwestern deserts flow by. However, what is being proposed is regional networks, which may or may not be linked up later.

[KittyWampus]

117. WHOOP! THERE IT IS! This post is exactly what I've seen for years on DU.

IMO, this opposition stems from DU'ers who are so wedded to their cars they subconsciously feel threatened and end up opposing this.

[HughBeaumont]

32. I'm not opposed.

I'd love to take HSR to DC, Chi-Town, Philly, Boston or NY. Driving to those cities is a bee-atch.

Their issues, I believe, are extra costs (for instance, not all cities are as public-transit-friendly as the ones mentioned above), travel time and smoothness.

They're proposing a localized train (not HSR) that goes from Cleveland to Columbus to Cincinnati, but the issue is that none of these cities have very good public transit and there might be car rental involved. Plus, the trains supposedly wouldn't run at night, which is another issue about added costs of overnight stays.

[Loge23]

33. We about the last of the industralized world to embrace HSR

I was fortunate enough to visit Western Europe the past two summers and came away utterly amazed by how advanced countries such as The Netherlands, Germany, and France (among others) are compared to the U.S. Perhaps the most visible indication of this is their incredible rail networks, but it also evident on the roadways and other related infrastructure. They are also light years ahead of us in energy conservation and fossil fuel alternatives.
Obama's best argument for both health care and infrastructure is how we must take action now to position us for deficit reduction down the line. Unfortunately, so many Americans are individually handicapped by a lack of the ability to process information - another big area that we're falling behind on - so Obama's message is not being taken seriously.

[yurbud]

35. detroit + big oil. Didn't you see see WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT?

in the midst of the comedy they bury the true story of how Detroit, the tire, and oil companies conspired to buy up all the trolleys so peopel would be forced to drive. They didn't do away with intercity travel, but it sure is shitty and slow between most places.

[KansDem]

39. I'm not opposed but I would've liked to have seen it link the two coasts...

If this is the plan, there will be no direct way of getting coast to coast or from the middle of the USA to the coasts:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_H6XW_a4TYus/SeimllmJq2I/AAAAAAAAAnY/5Ar_KDvObGE/s400/obama+high+speed+rail+plan+map.jpg

Now this map shows more development:



...but it's 20 years away. Living in Kansas City, I'll still have to take airlines or cars to get to California until then.

I guess I would have rather seen a coast to coast route first (i.e., San Francisco to New York), followed up by all the other routes...

[WildEyedLiberal]

83. KC could go through Denver to San Francisco in that top map

And they could also connect St. Louis to either OKC or Little Rock (via Memphis), and Louisville and Atlanta.... if they do that, that would really open up most of the country to any of the routes available. I'd love to see something like that in my lifetime.

[KansDem]

86. "I'd love to see something like that in my lifetime."

Me, too!

I turn 57 tomorrow and since I've opted to be cremated and my ashes dumped in the Pacific Ocean (I grew up in California), ala "Neptune Society," I just might be able to take the bullet train someday from here to California...if only in an urn!

[amandabeech]

109. The top image shows a line to Detroit and a line to Cleveland from Chicago.

The lower one does not. I think that you'd need both. No one going to Detroit is going to want to change trains in Toledo.

Besides, that Cleveland line misses university towns like Kalamazoo (Western Michigan University and Kalamazoo College) and Ann Arbor (University of Michigan and Eastern Michigan university, which is in next door Ypsilanti). Most university towns are home to folks who don't have cars or who would like to be able to travel by public transportation.

[Gregorian]

40. I'm not opposed.

I just don't know what it's for. Or who it's for.

Of all the people I know, not one has a need for it. On the other hand, everyone I know needs other things that I believe are far more important. And given that our country is 14 trillion dollars in debt, I feel we should focus only on what we need.

Again, what is it for? People to commute? To just travel around? It doesn't seem important. If it moved freight it would one thing. But why not put the money into battery research?

Also, it isn't a standalone concept. What do people do for transportation when they arrive at their destination? Taxi, bike, car? They still need something.

I'm all for things we desperately need.



Something to add is that projects like this have huge energy needs. Monster carbon footprint. The amount of energy required in order to produce a facility like this has to be weighed in the balance of the decision making process. For all I know it is well worth doing. I need convincing. I do not see the widespread use of it.

[Romulox]

41. Infrastructure spending is NEVER fairly apportioned in the US. This is yet another example. nt

[Flaneur]

50. Yeah, South Dakota didn't get any funding...

...for that bustling Sioux Falls to Pierre corridor.

[happyslug]

46. The same reason there is so much opposition in the USA to Rail, money

We have to remember that almost all local government gets they campaign contributions from land developers. Land Developers prefer access to highways for then the land developers do NOT have to maintain the highway, such costs are shifted to the local government, while the land developers profit from the sale of the new development.

Rail is NOT intended to open up new areas for development, instead it is intended to ease existing traffic patterns NOT deal with new ones from new developments. Thus local governments (mostly suburban government but also inner cities) prefer improvements in highways for such highways permit development of new area (or shifts an old area to a new use i.e. tear down an old factory or set of old homes and replace them with a mall).

On top of the above financial incentives to local elected government officials, you have over 80 years of Advertising/Marketing (Propaganda with a nicer name) that shows the automobile as the "Best" if not only good means of transportation. This one-two punch was effective in killing rail after WWII and still effective in keeping it off the table to most people. Combined with what most Americans have considered their "Rite of passage" into the adult world, getting their driving license, to attack the Automobile culture by even suggesting there are other ways to move about is viewed as an attack on their "Manhood" (and this applies to woman in addition to men, for even thinking that the "Rite of Passage in the Adult-world" i.e. obtaining their driving license was NOT the only way one shows the world one is an adult).

[FailureToCommunicate]

48. Maybe because DU folks know the difference between rail, light rail, and HSR...

High speed rail almost always requires special right of ways - for speed- and NEW tracks. I say "almost" because they run "HSR" in NorthEast but since they use existing tracks they mostly can't do th. you know, HIGH SPEED part of high speed rail.
On the plus side, tickets cost more and you can boast you traveled on the "Acela"

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for trains, for people, freight, space shuttles, whatever. I have taken trains across America and highly recommend it. I just think we should be able to have todays trains run as fast as they did in the 60's.

Then of course there is the Peace Train. But I don't recall exactly what that was all about.

[amandabeech]

110. The tracks are not in good shape.

The Acela may end up being first-generation equipment here.

One thing about putting the high speed at close to the existing routes is that it would be easier to either stop at or transfer to regular rail.

[slackmaster]

59. The economics of high-speed rail is no different than any other transportation system

They make sense only if enough people actually use them.

I don't oppose them on a priori grounds. I just want to see a credible cost/benefit analysis.

[liberal N proud]

69. I am all for it

I wish we could get it up and running as quickly as possible.

The only opposition I can see to is from those supporting oil companies and airlines.

I don't buy all the land grab fear.

[David Zephyr]

70. K&R.

Thanks!

[laughingliberal]

71. I'm completely in favor of them

And I am sick and tired of our country falling behind in so many ways. I remember when the very first little Hondas were being driven by a few people and how 'everyone' just knew Americans would never drive small cars. Well, seems all those small car companies kicked our butt while we stuck our heads in the sand.

[Dappleganger]

72. I'm a big fan, but with a few of reservations.

First, points A to B need to both have sufficient public transit in place which can sustain the increased traffic. We don't want them to be trains to nowhere.

Secondly, the issue of eminent domain is a concern in that if the train goes through lower-income areas those types of housing are VERY hard to replace and could hurt the diplaced even more than they are suffering now. We need to ensure that the tracks are completely blind to class and color and take care of people who need help finding another place to live without tearing up small neighborhoods.

Lastly, with recent hiring events here in Jacksonville being so prominent in the news, I'm concerned about contractors who are hired from out of town and bring in undocumented workers instead of hiring local union contractors who are out of work. Rules need to be put into place to ensure that locals are hired first and that businesses who purposefully try to circumvent the law are fully prosecuted and shut down.

[Spike89]

77. It's a great start

If they can get people used to getting from a-b on hsr, then there is likely to be demand for routes going from a-c, and c-d, and eventually all the way from a-z. Specifics are going to be the killer though. Will they commit to dedicated lines, and what will that do to the existing (and too often neglected) freight lines? Will they subsidize travel in the early days to build ridership, or will they expect early riders to bear the brunt of paying for empty seats? I know some areas have semi-developed market, but for most of the country, train travel is something your grandparents did. Those people aren't going to switch from their cars if the cost isn't at least close to neutral. Mass transit only makes economic (and environmental) sense if the "mass" is in place. A car with 2 people in it is better in every way than a train hauling just those 2 people.

Get people on the trains, and everything takes care of itself from there...local transit, taxis, rental cars, all those things will get more robust and convienent for rail ridership, if the trains are used. If they aren't used, the end services won't exist (or will be a hassle) and that will give people more reason not ride...

[FarCenter]

78. I support high speed rail -- but that is not what is being funded

http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/100128_1400-HSRAwards-Summary_FRA%20Revisions.pdf

Look at it in detail. The only HSR are the Florida and the California projects. The rest are a bunch of modest improvements to other existing Amtrak services. Some places they will get to 90 mph top speed between stations, other places to 110 mph.

That is not high-speed rail.

To be usefully spent, the dollars need to be put into acquiring new right-of-ways and building new roadbeds that will support 200 mph trains. The need to be built between metro areas in corridors with traffic demands that will allow them to turn a profit. It seem doubtful that either the Florida or California projects meet that criteria, although San Diego - LA and Oakland - Sacramento might.

[amandabeech]

112. Moving to 110 mph would be a big improvement.

I'm sorry to see that the 110 standard isn't being implemented everywhere.

But you're right, it isn't true HSR. It's expedited regular rail service.

[hunter]

88. Automobiles are like cigarettes.

They stink and they kill people.

Lots of people won't admit to themselves that they've got a filthy expensive environmentally destructive and unsustainable habit.

I know I've got a filthy expensive automobile habit, but I admire those who've quit and I support the transportation systems and urban planning that will help even more people quit.

[Initech]

89. I'm 100% for it. I think it's the key to rejuvinating our economy.

[Xithras]

90. No opposition to HSR, but the California project is a sham.

It will be built by the taxpayers using state (and now federal) funds, and then is to be handed over to a private group to be run as a for-profit enterprise per the Lehman Brothers created business plan approved by the state voters. Taking the train will be more expensive than flying and, due to the number of stops they've added, it will rarely hit its highest speeds and will take longer than flying...even when airport delays and security checks are added in. My biggest gripe, however, is that the routes were planned with no eye towards relieving traffic congestion. When pressed on it, the former commissioner of the state high speed rail board said, flat out, that relieving regional traffic problems is NOT a goal of the project. Instead of identifying the commute corridors with the greatest traffic problems and building a rail system that would relieve traffic on them, they designed the system with a different goal in mind...to move people from LA to SF as quickly as possible. That's a great goal, but it was one major problem: LA to SF road traffic makes up an inconsequentially small portion of our traffic congestion.

The system is designed to cater to two demographics, tourists and businessmen. It offers little value to the average Californian, and almost none at all to the average California commuter.

A better concept would have been to expand/extend BART to Sacramento and well into the San Joaquin valley, and then greatly expanded the LA Metrolink throughout the LA basin to provide better regional rail support there. AFTER those were done, the two systems could have a high speed connection established. That would have had an immediate impact on traffic, smog, commute times, and quality of life for most urban Californians. As planned, the system they're actually building will do none of these.

[557188]

94. Metrolink is awful

It's far too expensive to be anything than a rich persons luxury service. Santa Clarita to downtown roundtrip is like, what, $15 dollars? Metro is $5 for an all day pass with unlimited transfers!

They need to expand the Metrorail system. It's absolutely ridiculous the Orange line is buses (yes stupid voters are to blame for this as well).

[gmoney]

91. I hope there is public transit infrastructure WITHIN the destination cities, too.

So, the raid dumps me in Columbus. Chances are, I need to be somewhere a few miles from the train station, so will there be buses or other means of getting to my actual destination, or will it be simply taxis or prevailing upon friends to pick me up and shuttle me around town?

Also, will the stations be the idiotic security nightmare our airports have become? "Train's late, but you can't wait here, gotta circle the block for 20 minutes."

[nashville_brook]

93. b/c we've lived in isolation & scarcity so long, we fear & loathe anything that doesn't

touch us personally anymore. it's generalized envy. it's the inability to embrace anything larger than ourselves. we're just too worried about barely getting by to be able to appreciate that which has the potential to make us all greater in degrees.

[557188]

95. Why I am opposed

Because, as I've already said, I'd rather see mass transit in URBAN settings. Something people use DAILY and not luxury items of a trip to another city.

Highway congestion in rural settings isn't a problem. Traffic congestion in cities are the problem. We need urban mass transit and not rural transit. People will continue to use cars and planes for those.

Our cities have crap for public transit.

First we need usable, and efficent, urban public transit before we think about linking cities.

[omega minimo]

96. California needs it.

[donheld]

98. I'm a big fan of High Speed Rail

Bring it on

[Lydia Leftcoast]

103. I don't particularly like Obama, but I LOVE high-speed rail

We're about 45 years behind Japan, 20 years behind Europe, and 5 to 10 years behind Korea, Taiwan, China, and even Thailand, for heaven's sake.

[Tailormyst]

104. I absolutely love the idea.

[B Calm]

111. I would love to hop on a train and go to Florida for the weekend. . .

[LanternWaste]

113. I think the opposition is mainly visceral

I think the opposition is mainly visceral-- we've allowed ourselves to buy a bill of goods that the automotive industry sold us 60 years ago and, not wanting to admit that we can be a) manipulated so easily, and b) wrong, we simply dig our feet in and hold to the moth tenuous of truths to better validate our positions.

I imagine that when the auto industry was first becoming a reality, many of the same arguments used here were used then. "Cars won't allow me the same freedom as my horse", "the US is too large to build a road network", "if cars really were that great an idea, everyone would be driving them" and on and on.

[jobendorfer]

116. a few observations

1. In terms of moving mass / unit of fuel, railroads are the most energy-efficient transport we have. Their capacity is immense.

2. I think there will always be a place for airline travel, simply due to geography (Japan and Europe are much smaller than the U.S.). Even at 200mph, it would be 15 hours to get from LA to NY. That said:

3. Here is a use case that I do fairly routinely: travel from Portland, OR to Seattle, WA. By road it is about 180 miles .. and 3 hours if I time it well ( translation: strategically avoid the notorious road congestion in both cities. ) But if I'm driving I (obviously) can't work on the way, although the views of Mt. St Helens and Mt Rainier are awesome partial compensation, I must say. If I fly, I have to drive to Portland airport, park, shuttle in, get to the terminal at least one hour and probably two before the flight, sit, get on the plane, fly the (semi-ballistic) parabola to SeaTac, and then drive 20 miles into downtown Seattle. In other words, it's about 3 hours, maybe more. I've done it both ways and it seems to be 3 to 3.5 hours +/- a few minutes.

Consider the alternative. I don't drive out of downtown Portland, either to Vancouver & I5 north or to the airport. I ***WALK*** to the train station and board a bullet train to Seattle. Probably 1 hour and 10 minutes after I depart, I am at the station in downtown Seattle and and I ***WALK*** to my meeting, after working productively on my laptop during the train ride. I do my meet, grab a quick bite, jump on the train home ...

I have done this exact use case in Europe, it's just the that the ride was Rome-Naples or Rome-Milan, and I'm here to tell you it's great. I cannot wait for the same kind of thing to develop here for short-haul travel. Say, anything under 500-700 miles, it's a completely mystery why we have to fly or drive.

J.

[NNN0LHI]

119. I am going to go out on a limb here but perhaps its because we are on an anonymous website?

:shrug: