HighSpeed Rail in the U.S

[hummer0328 6]

Were already spending trillions of dollars trying to rescue the economy, whats another 45 billion...

Oh well, at least it will create some jobs.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa I must admit that I am somewhat ambivalent regarding the HSR project in CA.  I won't say how I voted on the matter.  There is good and bad to such a project.  Good for another means of transportation, but the expense is quite high and I think that the ultimate balancing out of cost will take years to realize.  Flights are still cheaper, if you find a deal, but there is more to a train ride than the cost (scenery matters to some people, but I doubt it means enough to most).

Regardless, the lack of mass transit in the US is something that is good to discuss.  I saw a previous post or two that indicated mass transit does not work for small communities and/or counties.  This is true at the present time.  However, if mass transit were introduced to smaller, semi-suburban communities, is it not logical to assume that this will encourage more population of these areas over a longer period of time?  Let's look at a hypothetical example, outside of Texas (which dominated this particular point).

Suppose you rent in the California Bay Area, so that you can have a shorter commute to your place of work.  If a HSR system were introduced to, say, Tracy, where property values are much better, who is to say the you might not decide to buy a home and commute to your place of work?  Even if the commute is 15 mintues longer, you are actually able to do it without the stress of traffic, you could potentially work remotely on the train (this is possible even on BART in the Bay Area), you save wear and tear on your vehicle, and, most importantly, you are able to own property, paying your own mortgage as opposed to someone esle's.  These are just some of the considerations when discussing a complicated issue like mass transit.  It may not work for everyone immediately, but the potential for work for the majority in the future cannot be ignored.

Barbarossaquote>

Isnt the point of those that use mass transit  that they dont have a  personal vehicle?

I think thats the reason it dosnt work in smaller towns if you need a vehicle ( and have that expence)  to get around your small town the only money you save  useing transit to work is the gas money.

 

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 1, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

New to this topic; just here to throw in my 25¢ (duck!)

My political leanings are not usually associated with support for rail over airplanes, yet here I am. I wholeheartedly support just about every rail project thrown my way, including increased gov't funding for Amtrak. The air lobby gets far too much money from the Fed, while Amtrak starves.

It's nonsensical, and maybe the only bright spot IMHO for our new administration.

 Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D Oregon) is almost a shoo-in for Transportation Sec'y, which I am actually pleased with. He is a big advocate for mass transit, including rail projects. As long as the tax burden is kept within reason, I say go for it.

[Ntq€310 1]

A somewhat big update to this story.

http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/united-states/high-speed-rail-us-cities-8623.html

This is a big step, espically seeing that the goverment for the first time seems intrested in getting this off the ground.

[confused04 14]

I like how some conservatives criticize mass transit as it won't break even despite the fact that highway/road systems never break even and never will. But whatever keeps car companies afloat I guess...