President Obama has plans for high-speed rail system

Post Reply New Topic

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090416/ap_ ... obama_rail

A 180mph bullet train is nothing compared to the 567mph cruise speed of a 747. Ground transportation is not the most practical way to travel long distances. Much of Obama's plan is a bridge to nowhere. It will create some jobs for a while but is not likely to pay for itself anytime soon.

I'm sure B O has some good connections enough to get the job done.

This would be really great, if it could be managed. Anything to decrease the level of dependency on car travel. Trains are also far more environmentally-friendly than planes, if less convenient.

I personally like the thought of a high speed rail system, however at the same time, it would take decades to realise, not to mention the fact that in the US, high speed rail networks are only practical in the northeast and on the west coast. --The interior of the US does not have the population density to support a national system.

If this plan goes forward, President Obama should consider
using electricity for the new system.

I'm wondering how much this might cripple the airline system. It's a fantastic idea, of course. I would love it.

I'm pissed. All those rail plans, and not once is a rail mentioned for Montana. My university had a rally recently for a rail through Montana, since we depend so much on cars for transportation, which isn't so practical. We're one of the largest states, and our population in Missoula is growing dramatically each year, where's our train?

A good mass transit system could also work in parts of the South and even the Midwest. I know Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois all have sufficient urbanization that they should be able to benefit significantly from a well-developed rail system.

In Miami, we have the Metro Rail and Tri Rail systems, which provide efficient mass transit to help ease traffic congestion. They are not high-speed rail lines, but help for getting around the local area. Things like this should definitely be expanded so that people need cars less for day-to-day travel, and they should also be subsidized so that they cost less- right now, it costs $2 each way to ride the Metro Rail, no matter how many stops you take it, and that can add up after a while.

But you are right, because of the low population density in the inland regions a rail network simply is not practical for many parts of the US. Fortunately, that also implies that not enough people live there for them driving to be a really significant problem.

I’ll never forget riding in a sleeper when I was a child. It was one of the best experiences I ever had. Anyone else here ride on a sleeper train?

I think a high speed rail system is a great idea, especially between cities that are between 50-150 miles apart because it seems so pointless to fly that distance yet it can be a real pain to drive those distances. For example, I live near South Bend, IN, which means I have to fly into Chicago when I come home from school. My mom doesn't want to have to drive 2 hours out to Midway (god forbid O'Hare) and then turn around and come right back. Instead, I can take the L downtown and hop on the South Shore Line, which isn't high speed, but it's an inter-urban train nonetheless. Things like that are very convenient.

Here in Portland, we already have a light rail
system and a bus system. They are not high-speed,
but provide efficient mass transit to those who
want to use it. All the light-rail lines are color-coded
so one won't get confused.

Blue Line: Hillsboro to Gresham
Red Line: Beaverton to Portland International Airport
Yellow Line: Downtown Portland to Portland Expo Center
Purple Line: Beaverton to Wilsonville
Green Line{opening in September 2009}: Union Station to Portland State University

Portland also has a streetcar, which is very fun to ride, it is similar to light-rail.
All public transit methods have a fixed cost, which is usually $2.
However, you can purchase a public transit pass for the following month for $75.

Anyway, I think a high-speed rail system is a great idea.
The only problem is rural areas where a rail network
would not be a good idea. Streetcars or light-rail, similar to Portland's,
would be more practical for areas with low population density.

A good rail network could work, but it would take a lot of time
to fund and set up. Many people would probably say "NO" to
a rail network, but a rail network will prove to be beneficial.