Nationwide High Speed Tracks

[Anonymous]

It's high time that this nation get it together, and build a nationwide high speed passenger rail track system. Unemployment is high. Similar to FDR's WPA program which reduced unemployment, and improved infrastructure, it's time to put these people to work, and get some return. This return will be in the form of efficient nationwide passenger rail service, which will reduce this country's addiction to oil.

[jimrice4449]

The last time I checked unemployment was at near record lows.

There are very few corridors that could sustain an economically viable HS psgr system, mostly east of the Appalachians, and the characteristic (high population density) that would make it viable would make the right of way aquisition prohibitively expensive.

Those HS systems currently running are typically govt. subsidised for both building and operation and have dedicated ROW

If the airlines work just a litle bit harder at making air travel a torturous experience we might see a (slight) increase in Amtrak loadings, but I doubt it.  The prvately owned automobile is too firmly ingrained in our culture.

[train18393]

I do not think the statistics will bare the facts that unemployment is high.

I do think that $5.00 per gallon is a number that will cause people to think about a less expensive method of transport. High Speed rail like in Europe sounds good, but the US is a much, much larger land mass, and as such is not such a viable option as over there.

Until the voters of the US have firm national resolve to spend some big bucks on infrastructure, and some members of Congress and a President who will support such resolve it ain't gonna happen. I think that just like every other transportation system it would take a large subsidy from the general population.

Once we have the resolve to build it, and get it funded (through tax dollars?,) it will take many more years to have the system come to fruition due to actual construction time as well as litigation about where it will go, when it will go and who will build and operate it. For example it has been five years since the construction of the new Tacoma Narrows bridge was started, and that don't count the planing and acquiring property, and there is still property issues in court. Now that is just a little bridge relative to a high speed rail system. How long would it take to complete a HS rail system? They need many years lead time just to get a Budd MDC kind of rail vehicle, and that is when you order just a few of them.

All that being said, I think it would be wonderful, and just think how much less energy they would need to get a train of 400 people from Chicago to Seattle compared to a Jetlliner! Of course you would still need go about 300 miles an hour or better to compete with airplanes.

Again I think it would be wonderful.

 

Paul

Dayton and Mad River (model) Railroad

[spikejones52002]

If our President would spend 2 billion dollars a day on our nations transportation instead of Iraq.

We would have one of the best systems in the world.

No president has spent so much money on a Sink Hole as this one has for so many years.

[Anonymous]

Such a train will have to be totally isolated from the land. 300-400 mph will be required to compete and break some airline routes. Fares will have to be less than what it takes to fly and also less than what it takes to actaully drive the same distance one way.

I prefer to fly, less hassle, time and expense. 3 hours being examined with a bright light in places by security is not an issue.

Should such a train be built connecting a series of cities across the USA there may be a effect that people will use the service again.

Unemployment is very low. Everyone who wants to work has a job right now; especially the part timers.

[spikejones52002]

All that being said, I think it would be wonderful, and just think how much less energy they would need to get a train of 400 people from Chicago to Seattle compared to a Jetlliner! Of course you would still need go about 300 miles an hour or better to compete with airplanes.

Have you ever got up on an airlines and walked around? Have you ever sat and stretched out your legs?

On a train have you ever seen a small sign come on and tell you, you have to sit down and buckle your self in?

Hve you ever sat between two extra large people taking more of your seat than you do for hours on end?

Have you ever had to climb over two or three people to get to the isle on a train?

Is there one train that you have to look over 5 people to see a tiny window?

Yes speed would be more conducive. Confort getting there means a lot to me also.

Can you name one airline route that you can see the most beautiful country side in the world like you can on a train.

[Anonymous]

Examine and learn which jets have middle seating and avoid flying them. If you must use a widebody, try to fly with a confirmed seat reservation specifically for your choice.

The 737 class is a good one for the short haul up to 4 hours. Just dont get stuck in the B or C boarding section because you will get the bad seats after the pre-boards and A section gets on.

When that little sign comes on to sit down and buckle in, do it. If you hit a pocket of bad air and bounce 100+ feet you might just bust both of your ankles or worse.