Obama Plots Huge High-Speed Railroad Expansion In Stimulus Bill

Politico:

Railroads made Chicago, and now a Chicago-rich White House wants to return the favor: remaking rail with a huge new federal investment in high-speed passenger trains.

Read the whole story: Politico

Comments

[IndependentBadger]

01:13 AM on 02/20/2009

Oh JOY!

And thank God for the Twin Cities. If they didnt exist, I dont think any of us in Wisconsin woulda gotten any high speed trainage...

[johnb3950]

09:01 PM on 02/19/2009

It's about time! It will be difficult, especially over rights of way, which are a reason we have NO high-speed rail at present (and yes, I include Acela, which hits a poky 150 mph for about 20 minutes of its trip from Boston to NY.) Americans just don't realize how far behind they are. A high-speed service in Europe or Japan is a train that runs at a steady 186 mph (300 kph) all the way from A to B, on dedicated fenced lines. And the ride is smooth and quiet, unlike Acela rattling along over basically much-abused freight tracks.

That interesting character Lyndon Larouche had a pie-in-the-sky map of the ideal rail network - it was like a spider-web covering he whole country. He won't get it, but he had the right idea.

The sad thing is that the US had a nation-wide rail system that was basically attacked by the car and air industries - and it wasn't just "supply and demand." People complain about subsidies to Amtrak, but ignore the massive Federal investment in road and air support. I don't know if in our current state we can build the system we need, but I sure hope so.

[Lauren Glenn]

07:44 AM on 02/20/2009

The other reason for no-high speed rail is that things in America are much further apart than in Europe. If you don't believe me, try driving through Missouri or one of the south-west states.

I'd pay extra for a 186 mph, but not too much. It's something to be able to watch a movie on a train and relax while only paying $10 to travel 90 miles in just over an hour with no traffic.

In NJ for example, you have trains that go to NYC and Trenton (now Atlantic City and the shore line also). There's no real train service going to the Meadowlands or Six Flags. It's not so much the high-speed rail lines you need but trains period. If I can take a train from here to Montreal and it only costs me $50 each way, I'd rather do that than to go through screening, harassment, and bad food for a higher cost and with all that extra BS, it would probably take just an hour or two longer.

[Legalpenman]

03:48 PM on 02/18/2009

Bravo! While we're at it, let's make those trains electric and give our infrastructure a major push away from oil dependency.

[alvdh1]

02:02 PM on 02/18/2009

There should not be one more thin dime appropriated for new highway construction in the U.S.. The time has arrived for Interstate High-Speed Rail System. America needs to get its act together to develop a rail system on par with Europe and Japan. The beauty of it could be that it is actually constructed along the existing Interstate Highway System with little or no need to acquire the land through emminent domain thus reducing the cost and allowing people to travel, well, where people actually want to go unlike most of the urban mass transportation systems in service.

Amtrak operates most of their service on freight train tracks owned by Burlington Northern Sante Fe and Union Pacific to name a few. Consequently, Amtrak is subject to the existing congestion on the freight line tracks. Acelera's high-speed potential has been hampered by this problem too. We need to stop re-inventing the wheel to make a patch work of limited success. The Interstate Highway System is there and available for the transition back to rail. It would be fast, less expensive and put people back to work Let's use it. Gm, Ford and Chrysler have ample production capacity to start building railcars.

The bloated defense budget could be cut by a $250 billion per year with those funds being used to build out the system which would make our country more safe in the long run. It would lead to energy independence as well.

[VTHOKIE89]

09:26 PM on 02/18/2009

I'll agree with you on the defense budget cuts if you agree to eliminate the US Dept of Education which has no real impact upon a child's education. 90-95% of educational funding comes from state and local revenue sources.

[Agent420]

10:25 PM on 02/19/2009

Local control of schools is an old worn out theory that has failed. Any system that turns out a product that is 40% defective is defective in itself.

[johnb3950]

09:06 PM on 02/19/2009

Sorry, but the interstate system is no help for building train lines. The curves and grades are totally out of the question. Also there's the right of way issue - even if the interstates were straighter and flatter, there's usually not enough spare land alongside.

Agree about the defense budget!

[Agent420]

10:23 PM on 02/19/2009

The Interstate system is perfect. If the high speed rail is at ground level, then you are right.

However, if you build a system like the one in Germany, built over 100 years ago...

http://schwebebahn.com/home.asp

[Vermontah]

01:25 AM on 02/18/2009

This is great, I hope the bulk of it actually turns into trains and improved service, and not all consultants and studies and little teeny sections of high-speed tracks. I'm a little concerned that what we need in the US is not so much high-speed per se but the improvements of our regular-speed train system.

Here in Vermont I can't see us getting a high-speed corridor. Does all this money to high-speed mean that the terrible tracks between Bellows Falls and Springfield will go unrepaired? The trains have to go at like 30 mph through that section b/c the tracks are so bad.

Will the restaurant/bar service improve? Will there be more cars on the regular lines? Will stations be updated? I worry that a lot of money will be thrown at high railroad technology but once again the normal users will get nothing.

[dutchman]

01:30 AM on 02/18/2009

You raise some excellent points. Most people in the eastern third of the US could benefit greatly from existing, lower speed train service. A prudent mix of traditional and high speed rail must be the solution, not one at the expense of the other.

[Virginia Fitzpatrick]

02:25 PM on 02/19/2009

In some places high speed trains are an asset, but often good service at speeds from 40 to 60 mph would also be beneficial. It is more fun looking at scenery at speeds

[Jonni Rae]

01:20 AM on 02/18/2009

I think everyone is for high speed rail and more and better trains in general. I wonder why there wasn't more money in the bill for it. I think it has huge support among the public. Maybe more will be added. I hope so. I hate flying now. It is so thoroughly humiliating and unpleasant, with the cops and the plastic gloves, geez......

[Buddy McCue]

08:22 AM on 02/18/2009

Tell me about it! I NEVER fly anymore.

[Virginia Fitzpatrick]

02:27 PM on 02/19/2009

ditto. My last flight was my last. It was a tight squeeze.

[neocon666]

11:46 PM on 02/17/2009

The idea of real high speed trains in the US has been banted about for the last 30 years. I'm glad to see that Barack Obama is finally going to bring it into reality. This could save millions of gallons of oil each year when completed, which is probably why president Oil Man, and Vice Oil man had nothing to say about it.

[THE JEDI 69]

08:14 PM on 02/17/2009

If anything September 11 proved we as a nation are to dependent on planes..and imagine if we had high speed rail ......the airline would either come down on these crazy prices and offer better service and get rid of their smug attitudes.....vacations would be nice again...yes they will say that they will lose business....but tell me why I pay $1020 to fly to Oregon..from Baltimore.......thats crazy....

[Doofus]

07:31 PM on 02/17/2009

I'd guess that $8B ought to about cover the high-speed link
between LA and Las Vegas that Harry Reid is so fond of.

' In fact, there's little evidence that Reid had a decisive role, although he was happy to see his name mentioned for the sake of voters at home.

"It's amazing. I'm stunned," he said in an interview Friday, hours before the bill passed Congress. "I'm glad I get the credit in Nevada, but this is Obama's No. 1 priority. This is his legacy issue out of this bill, because we need these high-speed corridors. ... I'll take credit but frankly didn't have much to do with it other than carry forward with what Obama wanted." '

[Dave27]

08:28 PM on 02/17/2009

L A is the second largest city in the US. Vegas is the #1 tourist destination for international tourists. When that leg is complete, we can start cross-country.

[Doofus]

07:42 AM on 02/18/2009

Here in the Northeast, where we know a lot about 'population density',
we have the first largest city, and we could seriously use an extensive
high-speed rail system, which would serve the country's highest density
population megalopolis, Boston-to-NY-to-Washington & out to Chicago
(of course). But that's just me...

However, $8B would only begin to cover the cost. Or maybe not even that.

[allonfla]

07:27 PM on 02/17/2009

plots? what ridiculous language

[Dave27]

08:26 PM on 02/17/2009

Right!
There's that "liberal" media spin again.

[neocon666]

11:38 PM on 02/17/2009

To an oil company, it is a plot.

[NPA]

07:19 PM on 02/17/2009

China, France, Japan, Germany, etc... All have high speed rail (300+mph). Why are we so backwards? I thought the U.S. was innovation capital of the world.

[sueinmn]

07:24 PM on 02/17/2009

not in years repubs pocket all the money cant build infrastrucute or come into the 21st cntury! you know that.

Miickael Moore SICKO on cable and on demand. the US is way behind the world
We have shown footprints of becoming a 3rd world.

[DemCentrist]

07:44 PM on 02/17/2009

We are so backwards because cities in the countries you mentioned are relatively close when compared to the size of the United States. high speed rail is viable in our NE, but certainly not in our southwest.

Simple.

[Chakamb]

09:58 PM on 02/17/2009

Let me doubt RailTEam-Eurostar....DB -SNCF-Eurostar-NS Hispeed-ÖBB-CFF-SNCB (Thalys and Lyria) its the Whole Europe and I don't Paris-London is relatively close.
But anyway Hi-Speed is meant to bring every distance relatively long lol

[dutchman]

01:14 AM on 02/18/2009

The eastern half of the US is comparable to Europe in terms of population density and mean distance between population centers.

[RJII]

06:51 PM on 02/17/2009

By F-ing time. Go Prez.

[avocats]

06:28 PM on 02/17/2009

"plots"?

[WaspMan]

05:36 PM on 02/17/2009

The bill includes just under $50 billion for roads, bridges, transit and rail, less than many mayors and governors had hoped -- though the White House did manage to slip in $8 billion for high-speed rail.

Hard to see how this is "huge".

$8 billion is a pretty small chunk of $750 billion. But it's better than nothing.

[Soquel]

05:24 PM on 02/17/2009

This is fantastic news. I have been taking train trip vacations for 10 years now and average 2-4 train trips per year - from California to the East Coast as well as from Salinas to LA ($39.10 one way just recently!). I would like to see a station in Santa Cruz, so I don't have to drive 30 miles to get to the nearest Amtrak station in San Jose, or Salinas. I am in my 50's now, and I don't want to be driving the freeways anymore. I want to get there by train. With the baby boomer generation now getting older, more will be wanting to take trains long distances. It's more fun, relaxing, and a lot safer to let the trains take you there. Do you really want to see a lot of 80 year olds on the freeways in the very near future? Scary. (No offense, but 80 year olds tend to wear pretty thick glasses and drive kinda slow.) To have an updated train system will do more for the country than anything else. Jobs, jobs, jobs.