Obama High Speed Rail funding for US

[mightygoose 92]

From "Architecture My Ninja Please"

Obama unveils a plan to add an additional $5 Billion to fund high speed rail in the US [on top of the $8 Billion in the stimulus]. The message here? “Imagine an America that has the technology that Europe and Japan have had for something like 15 or 20 years”.

Bringing the United States into the late 20th century through infrastructure!

Seriously, though - this

could be

really exciting. Working to ‘undo’ what the mid 20th century did to mass transit is a noble cause - bringing our transit systems [on a national scale] up to date is a great project to undertake, especially when the auto companies are too broke to con us into buying buses or something instead. The real issue that I see here is funding the system

after

it’s built. We have the ‘T’ here in Boston - and the ‘commuter rail’ extending to the ‘burbs - but now with money tight [and beauracratic / legislative bull***** running rampant] they’re reducing the number of trains and cutting services

even though ridership is at an all-time high

.

The problems we’re having in MA got me thinking that Obama’s plan could make a significant difference to transit as a whole, by providing connections to rural areas. The ‘T’ is having funding issues, and the proposed solution [a gas tax increase] has been shot down in the legislature by the Western parts of the state - they feel they shouldn’t pay for services they don’t receive. While I’d argue they receive services that don’t benefit the cities, the fact is that connecting these rural areas to the transit system could serve to ease their feeling ‘left out’ - and encourage more taxpayers to ‘get on board’, so to speak, with transit funding.

My only question is: who is Obama referring to in the video, who says ‘this won’t work’? The plan i expensive, yes - but other than the cost, this isn’t a ‘big deal’. This isn’t rocket science here people - and we’re not setting any trends. We can look to Europe as a successful model, and go from there. We have the workers and the technology to lay the tracks and build the trains - and people will obviously ride trains if they’re running [mass transit numbers are up in just about every city, aren’t they?]. People love cars because they’ve been told to love them - and because they’re convenient. If we give them convenient trains - that create systems with similar [if not shorter] commutes that put passengers within a few blocks of their destination - people are going to love it.

Now we just need to find the Robert Moses of high speed rail [not really - that would be terrible].

I think this cannot be anything other than a good thing. It is a small step on the road for the US to becoming less reliant on combustion for long distance travel.

 

[belfastuniguy 18]

Although national high speed rail links are really not practical for America, given the size. Its good smaller scale projects are to go forward.

American rail has been a joke for a long time and the result of many factors. However, the planned high-speed routes are good news indeed.

[Ntq€310 1]

finally, the one subject that I can agree with obama on

[sim-fan192 4]

I hears somewhere that they wanted to build a high speed rail line from LA to Vegas. That makes no sence, but I bet those casinos will be much richer. I am agianst a massive overhualing for the American Rail System 1 becuase its soooo large 2 if they will do this, make it small expansions not it all at once, that could case major problems for the shipping and transportation industries.

[diamonddog_74 32]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Although national high speed rail links are really not practical for America, given the size.quote>

Why not? When the smaller regional networks are linked, we'll have a national high-speed network. I'll ride on it. I love taking the train.

American rail has been a joke for a long time and the result of many factors. However, the planned high-speed routes are good news indeed.quote>

You're right. We used to have the most extensive and efficient rail network in the world, and we've let it rust and decay, and in some places ripped out in favor of stupid cars.

I loved hearing these news. I then went to the C-SPAN website to actually view the president and vice-president say it in their own words. I'm all for this. These are the best news in infrastructure improvement we've had so far. Like the president said, this is a small step to get it started

[hym 358]

I wonder if anyone is thinking of the airline reaction to the idea of competing with high speed rail.  There was once an effort to get a high speed rail like that ran from Houston to Dallas, Dallas to Austin, and Austin to Houston.  It would have knocked a big dent in Southwest's profit.  Needless to say, Southwest got the project killed.

[hailman 1]

I strongly disagree, Sim-fan. I think the President hit all his nails on their heads. Much like the Trans-Continental Railroad in the late 1800s, the High Speed Rail expansion he proposes will serve to improve our nations transportation infrastructure at an exponential rate! Also, the plan clearly decreases our nation's dependence on automobiles and planes for long distance--and relatively shorter distance--travel. If you can show how this would significant;y damage the shipping and transportation industries in the long run, I might consider your point of view, but at this point, I can only respectfully disagree.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Why not? When the smaller regional networks are linked, we'll have a national high-speed network. I'll ride on it. I love taking the train.quote>

Its costing 10's of billions for a high-speed line in California. High speed rail that stretches the width of the US is wholly unrealistic. That distance is best served by planes. However smaller scale projects are perfectly realistic, such as in the North-east, California and planned Texan lines.

Transport systems

Slower than a speeding bullet

Apr 8th 2009 | CHICAGO

From The Economist print edition

America’s trains may soon go faster—relatively

“WE’RE going to lay some rail!”, Rod Diridon shouted to a packed room in Chicago last month. “What kind of rail?” he asked. “High-speed rail!” the room roared back. Mr Diridon, chairman emeritus of the California High Speed Rail Authority, was addressing like-minded folk at the annual meeting of the Midwest High Speed Rail Association. The conference had attracted far more people than anticipated, lured, no doubt, by money. Barack Obama’s stimulus contains $1.3 billion for Amtrak and $8 billion for high-speed and intercity rail projects. And support will be sustained with $5 billion in state grants over five years.

France, Japan, Spain, Germany, all have trains that zoom through the countryside at speeds up to 217mph (350kph). America has one “high-speed” rail corridor, from Washington to Boston, on which trains average about 80mph. With new federal cash, rail enthusiasts hope to convert a car-loving country to their cause. High-speed rail holds vast promise, from easing congestion (and speeding the flow of goods and services) to reducing carbon emissions. By April 18th Ray LaHood, the secretary of transport, must present a strategic plan for how the money will be spent. Those hoping for a Shinkansen in their suburb, however, will be disappointed.

 

In the 20th century rail travel languished as Americans fell in love with cars and interstate highways. Jet travel made railways even less attractive. A thinly scattered population and government subsidies for road and air travel did not help. In 1970 Congress created Amtrak to take over the ailing rail passenger service. Over the years the semi-private corporation has been plagued by poor management and volatile funding. Except for the Washington-Boston line, trains have been mostly slow, unreliable and unpopular. By 2000 rail accounted for just 1% of all intercity commercial trips. On National Train Day in May 2008 Amtrak employees handed out bumper-stickers that read “I’m a trainiac”, apparently not realising the irony of placing such a message on one’s car.

Trainiacs have had a better stretch of late. Ridership on Amtrak has jumped by 18% over the past two years. In October Congress reauthorised Amtrak for five years, and included plans to advance intercity and high-speed passenger rail. The stimulus added cash and momentum.

There are reasons, however, to be cautious. First, the cost of any one project far exceeds the money available. California, which has the most advanced plan, would connect the state’s biggest cities with trains running at more than 200mph. In November Californians approved $9.95 billion of bonds for the project. On top of this, officials hope to get $12 billion-16 billion from Washington. The plan is expected to cost $40 billion in all. But the stimulus contains only $8 billion for the whole country.

Second, many plans would make trains high-speed only in a relative sense. Proposals that are cheaper than California’s are also much slower. A plan for the Chicago-St Louis line, for example, would speed up trains from 79mph to only 110mph. Multiple road crossings require trains to move more slowly than in Europe. Adding to the problem, most passenger trains run on track owned by freight railways. Congestion makes service less reliable.

Third, some proposed lines make more sense than others. High-speed rail is most viable, reports the Government Accountability Office, when it runs through a crowded corridor for distances of 100-500 miles. Trains must compete with cars and planes for speed, reliability and cost-effectiveness. Brian Taylor, a transport expert at the University of California, Los Angeles, worries that the “coolness factor” of high-speed rail can tempt planners to look for a place to lay track, rather than for problems that fast trains might solve. America has ten official high-speed rail corridors, designated by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in the 1990s. Each proposal weighs costs and benefits differently.

It is up to Mr LaHood and the FRA to make sense of this jumble. A modern railway system—connected to America’s existing roads, airports, subways and buses—could support future economic growth. But there must be a national strategy before the rubber hits the road or, as trainiacs prefer to say, the wheel hits the steel.quote>

 

[mightygoose 92]

they are going to build at grade road crossings on a HSRL, what the hell????

[Easy Bakes 253]

Am i correct in assuming,  In europe/japan that these high speed trains are only from city to city not inner city travel?

I could see it working here if that was the case, however, I think iv said the before, it will be so over budget and not built to specs ( cost cuting to line contractors pockets) that no one would feel it was safe.And the 1st section might be done by 2050.

+the prices charged would be  compareable with flying to and from the same citys.

[fukuda 351]

Am i correct in assuming, In europe/japan that these high speed trains are only from city to city not inner city travel?quote>

Indeed

[belfastuniguy 18]

Yes that's correct.

Smaller cities/towns are generally linked by mainline services and inner-city/suburb by commuter lines. Though mainline services are generally relatively fast. We determine high-speed as very very fast and between major centres of population.

[panthersimcity4 162]

Ooooh, a high speed train going through Portland, OR? Oh, sure NOW they will, now that I don't live there anymore

Here in Arizona I don't even think there is a railroad system anymore. There's a passenger station somewhere in Phoenix but it's been abandoned for about 20+ years.

The Pacific Northwest has a great railway system (at least in comparison with the rest of the nation) , well last time I was there anyways. Particularly due to Amtrack's Cascade railroad service.

[Jasoncw 11,949]

I think they should construct an outstanding flagship line, and should spare no expense.

[Godzillaman 21]

Still can't beat the Daylight...

[Fresh Prince of Wmbg 44]

Well its a start..... But I doubt 13 billion will complete the rail systems. It going to take more than that.

[sneakeypete 16]

It'd be better off to focus on a good rail freight service, Its where the real benefits could be made. Or does that already exist? (i'm not american...)

[Zezug 6]

Freight Rail is much more extenstive in the US, something like 35-40% of freight moves by rail I think... something along those lines

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: diamonddog_74

Although national high speed rail links are really not practical for America, given the size.quote>

Why not? When the smaller regional networks are linked, we'll have a national high-speed network. I'll ride on it. I love taking the train.quote>

New York and San Fransisco are nearly 3000 miles apart. If your train averages 200 mph, that's a 15 hour trip.

Compared to flying, which takes 5 hours going east and 6 hours going west (thank you, jet stream), plus a couple extra hours in the terminal... so, 7 or 8, total. Taking the train would take twice as long, and would push the threshhold of how much awakeness you can expect in a day out of a person. Get to Penn Station by 7 in the morning and you'll be in 'frisco by midnight. Yeah, that'll work.

You could make the trips overnight instead, but then the midpoints become a problem. New York at 6 PM to San Fransisco at 11 AM means Chicago at 11 PM and Denver at 4 AM. They'll love that. And you could make the service nonstop, but then you really diminish its usefulness. By that point you might as well just have everyone get on a plane.

Originally posted by: sneakeypete

It'd be better off to focus on a good rail freight service, Its where the real benefits could be made. Or does that already exist?quote>

It exists, but, like with the passenger side of things, it ain't what it used to be. A lot of former lines have been abandoned and even ripped up. And where it used to be commonplace to have spurs directly off the line to factories along it, that's no longer a typical practice. A large portion of long distance freight in America is taken by truck. And the truckers are organized, so any attempt to make a political move to change that will meet some rough opposition.

The existing freight rail sytem is pretty much tretched to capacity, so it could stand to benefit from expansion... but again, the truckers. It ain't happening on their watch. In much of the country we are still continuing to build highways, though.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

There are many road crossings on US rail, many are unsafe even for low-speed freight service. A large percentage of our bridges are in need of replacement. Freight has the right-of-way due to the fact that freight companies own the corridors. There are many problems standing in the way of US HSR. Much more money and decades more time will be needed to solve these, my bet is it won't really happen to anybody's satisfaction.

But score 1 for Amtrak, my 2 experiences with them have been awesome. The employees really seem to care about their jobs and their customers, and it shows. They deserve some real Federal assistance to expand and improve the system. Air travel has become such a hassle and pain in the ass, with all the paranoid security and multiple fees and surcharges. For regional intercity travel, HSR is a genuine contender.

Just don't fall into the trap of trusting Roy LaHood to do right by the project or taxpayers. Those of us from IL know he's just another crook, and being from 'downstate' means he's part of the 'Combine'. His benefactor and mentor Bill Cellini was part of the Blagojevich indictment.

[Jezus53 18]

This is why we had the protests on Wednseday. Do we really need highspeed rail? If high spped rail was such a great idea, then a private company would have already built it, but it's not. It'll be a giant sink hole for money we do not have. I know Obama is trying to create jobs, but let's build something useful, like nuclear power plants, solar plants, FIXING POTHOLES!!!!!!!!!! I swere, on the ride home today I felt like my car was going to fall apart. I hate California and it's horrible road conditions.

Originally posted by: Fresh Prince of Wmbg

Well its a start..... But I doubt 13 billion will complete the rail systems. It going to take more than that.quote>

It's always more. They just cut the price in half, then lower it a bit more to get the American people on board. Then they raise the price on it and no one knows the difference, unless you watch C-SPAN, CNN, the 11 o-clock news, or read news articles. The American populace is ignorant and will rarely follow anything unless it has half naked women or someone throwing a ball.

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Ir you're going to do this you've got to do it right. HSR needs it's own track, no level crossings, bridges and tunnels to cross the rails. The rails need to beas straight as possible, and bends needs to be gentle and banked. But it will give a commercial boost to any area it's being constructed in.

It's already happened here in Kent, England where we now have the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. London to Paris or Brussels in less the 3 hours. When the commuter services start next year, Northfleet to London in 19 mins instead of the hour it takes now.

The longest journey begins with the first step.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Fresh Prince of Wmbg

Well its a start..... But I doubt 13 billion will complete the rail systems. It going to take more than that.quote>

Barring the work needed on bridges, the (roughly) estimated cost of repairing the entire US Interstate system is $100 billion.  (In reality, it would cost more than that.)  In constrast, a single rail system that California is working on is estimated at costing $50 billion to complete.

[diamonddog_74 32]

Originally posted by: Duke87

New York and San Fransisco are nearly 3000 miles apart. If your train averages 200 mph, that's a 15 hour trip.

Compared to flying, which takes 5 hours going east and 6 hours going west (thank you, jet stream), plus a couple extra hours in the terminal... so, 7 or 8, total. Taking the train would take twice as long, and would push the threshhold of how much awakeness you can expect in a day out of a person. Get to Penn Station by 7 in the morning and you'll be in 'frisco by midnight. Yeah, that'll work.

You could make the trips overnight instead, but then the midpoints become a problem. New York at 6 PM to San Fransisco at 11 AM means Chicago at 11 PM and Denver at 4 AM. They'll love that. And you could make the service nonstop, but then you really diminish its usefulness. By that point you might as well just have everyone get on a plane.

quote>

I've done the NY -CA flights. I'm from New York originally, and lived in CA four years, so I know the distances and the flight lengths.

If you need to get to San Francisco from NY quickly, then fly. They're not building this to replace plane travel, but to help decongest it regionally.

BTW, when I moved to Chicago at the end of December, I drove from San Francisco to Chicago through Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Illinois in four days. I basically followed Route 66 (now interstates). It was OK, but I didn't get to actually see much because I was the one driving day and night. It was hard, especially since I had to drive in a storm most of the way. Forget all that romanticism of driving cross-country. I would've rather taken the train (but I have two dogs). Unfortunately, driving was the least expensive option.

On the way, I did see rail lines in pretty flat terrain that paralleled the interstates (or vice versa, since the rail preceded them) and I just kept thinking that it should be an HSR line.

[Shadow Assassin 336]

I don't think some people are seeing the potential benefits of doing such a massive infrastructure undertaking.

Jobs.

America's in a situation of rising unemployment - if those people can be used to contribute to a massive nation-building scheme, then it can help at least stabilise the economy. However, something like this could be problematic to pull off, considering the average American's attitude towards mass transit.

If Obama can convince the American people to stand behind him while the national rail network is rebuilt, then it will indeed be a great step forward. It may be expensive at first, but it should then fully pay itself off within a couple of decades.

[sneakeypete 16]

I agree exactly with that sentiment, and i think almost everyone does. Its just that people think that the object you get out of it at the end just isn't going to be as useful as they are saying.

It exists, but, like with the passenger side of things, it ain't what it used to be. A lot of former lines have been abandoned and even ripped up. And where it used to be commonplace to have spurs directly off the line to factories along it, that's no longer a typical practice. A large portion of long distance freight in America is taken by truck. And the truckers are organized, so any attempt to make a political move to change that will meet some rough opposition.

The existing freight rail sytem is pretty much tretched to capacity, so it could stand to benefit from expansion... but again, the truckers. It ain't happening on their watch. In much of the country we are still continuing to build highways, though.quote>

Dam unions. Gotta love them, gotta hate them.

Still, rail freight is a much more ideal way to transfer things. You can (depending on where you travel. over the nullabore they have trains that are 100's of cars long, and double stacked with containers (no hight restrictions because there's nothing they go under), but it only takes 2-3 people to drive them. But it'd take about 50 truck drivers to pull that many containers, it adds up to a fair bit of money. I think what turns some people off the idea of rail transport is the loading/unloading times though. Perhaps if the government spent money on building more common and more effecient loading docks, if possible, or extending your lines, or something, you'd end up with something to be proud of out of this investment.

As it stands however, i have to agree that anything more than a highspeed rail connection up your eastern coast is probably not going to be very useful

Sure, in europe there is the eruostar in UK/belgium, TVG france and the... err, the german one. However, take into account that the average population density over there is 181 people/square kilometer, while in the US its only 31, and the fact that its about half the distance across those four countries (meaning its quicker to take the train rather than fly when you account for customs etc.), you begin to see why people think that anything other than localised High speed rail mightn't be such a good addition right now.

Of course, there are states in the US that have very few people in them, and places with a lot, but not so much in europe.

[fukuda 351]

If high spped rail was such a great idea, then a private company would have already built it, but it's not.quote>

Private companies don't have enough money for HSR lines, and if they have they will spend it in means of transport that have no risk at all. Monetary gain is quite slow in HSR lines (slow doesn't mean low) so that's why it's usually governments that build big HSR lines

[Odainsaker 2,137]

I thought this article showing the planning scramble in the the wake of Obama's interesting:

S.A.-Austin rail backers hail Obama proposal

By David Hendricks - San Antonio Express-News

Long-planned but unfunded, the San Antonio-Austin passenger rail service gained a brighter outlook Thursday when President Barack Obama identified 10 potential corridors for high-speed rail and outlined plans to begin developing the network with $8 billion in already-approved stimulus funding.

The San Antonio-Austin commuter rail service, currently in an advanced stage of planning, is part of the South Central corridor on the list. The corridor stretches from San Antonio to Dallas and north to cities in Oklahoma and Arkansas.

“This is good news. We are eligible for some of that funding,” said Ross Milloy, director of the Greater Austin-San Antonio Corridor Council.

The council provides staff support for the Austin-San Antonio Intermunicipal Commuter Rail District that plans a 110-mile route between San Antonio and Round Rock, just north of Austin. The district hopes to begin service by 2012.

Obama said the United States should move swiftly on an expanded high-speed rail travel system, saying it will relieve congestion, help clean the air and save on energy.

“This is not some fanciful, pie-in-the-sky vision of the future. It's happening now. The problem is, it's happening elsewhere,” Obama said, citing superior passenger rail systems in China, Japan, France and Spain.

The money would go not only to high-speed rail development but also to a parallel effort to improve rail service along existing lines

The White House said funding will move into the rail system through three channels, first to upgrade projects already approved and only in need of funding, thus providing jobs in the short term.

The second and third channels would focus on high-speed rail planning and a commitment to help in the execution of those plans far into the future when the stimulus funds are no longer available.

It remained unclear Thursday how much federal funding would be available for the listed corridors. “It appears the federal government may spend a lot of money in a couple of places or a little money in all places,” Milloy said.

“They might want to spend where they can get the most bang for the buck,” he added. “In that case, we might be a pretty good candidate.”

Milloy said the regional stakeholders involved in the San Antonio-Austin passenger rail project are united in support, including Union Pacific Corp., the Texas Department of Transportation and the local governments along the route.

Karen Rae, a former general manager of the Austin bus system known as Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, has been appointed the incoming deputy administrator for the Federal Railroad Administration, which will oversee the passenger rail spending program. Rae is familiar with the San Antonio-Austin passenger rail plan, Milloy said.

Competition for federal funding will be tough, Milloy added, citing advanced developments and state funding commitments in California and the Northeast.

Even with a stronger federal commitment, a prerequisite for San Antonio-Austin passenger rail service is construction of a new line for Union Pacific freight service so that the company can abandon its existing tracks and right-of-way between the two cities. High-speed passenger rail and rail freight services cannot share tracks, Milloy said.

Several rail relocation funding measures are under consideration during the current session of the Texas Legislature. Union Pacific executives said recently they favor a plan in which yearly $200 million allocations can establish a $2 billion bond financing mechanism, speeding up new track construction. Union Pacific would pay a share of the cost based on the extent it can offer faster service to its freight customers.

Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff said Thursday that state Rep. Ruth McClendon, D-San Antonio, will insert a $183 million rail relocation funding amendment to a state budget bill, perhaps as early as Friday. A Senate proposal calls for $90 million.

“Hopefully, one of those will be successful,” Wolff said. “The Obama announcement ought to be a sign for the Legislature to get moving. It would be a shame for the (San Antonio-Austin) corridor and for the Legislature to continue to sit on our hands and miss these opportunities.”

Once the state finances new freight tracks, federal funding can defray costs of passenger locomotives, passenger rail cars, station construction and track improvements.

Milloy said “high-speed rail” refers to service that is 25 percent faster than Amtrak or faster than a car can travel between any two points. The Austin-San Antonio Intermunicipal Commuter Rail District plans express service between San Antonio and Austin that can qualify as high-speed service, although passengers also will be able to choose rides that stop at a dozen or more stations along the 110-mile route.

The Associated Press and Bloomberg News contributed to this report.quote>

At last, all the cards might just be in the right place.  For those unfamiliar with area, the S.A.-Austin corridor is among the top fastest growing in the nation, and remains a bright spot despite the recession.  The real key, though, is the I-35 corridor, the so-called "NAFTA Superhighway," which connects the land ports of the central Texas border with Mexico through the center of the country in a spine all the way to Canada.  Already a tourist and convention hub, San Antonio has been benefitting as the first primary metropolitan center along this route, staging goods to send further north into the Midwest and Plains states or eastward to Houston and the Atlantic coast.  Forming a dipolar sister city is Austin, which has the government and higher educational engines for San Antonio's affordable labor pool and established logistical centers.  As a result, the corridor is a frieght and traffic nightmare.  A parallel rural Trans-Texas Corridor has been devised to alleviate this congestion, but it has been blasted from all sides as a grandiose megaproject designed more as a the mother of all revenue toll traps and massive land grab rather than a serious urban growth corridor.  I would gladly trade pharaoh's TTC bypass for a Texas Tokaido!

Ah well, we will see.  Locally, what may prove more important is ultimately an intelligible mass transit system that integrates into the proposed longer-distance service such that it becomes sensible to take a mass transit feeder to the connecting station.  That is going to take much longer.  Much also hinges on the Texas Legislature making commitments around which greater planning can commence (hard to do when the Legislature is only in session every two years), and on a Texas Governor willing to shepherd projects through with solid leadership.  Texas has recently lost bids for national projects simply because the biennial Legislature wasn't in session to address certain aspects of them, meanwhile, Gov. Perry is jockeying nationally for a future limelight place in the conservative right's leadership.  Errr, maybe the cards aren't quite all there yet!

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Shadow_Assassin

If Obama can convince the American people to stand behind him while the national rail network is rebuilt, then it will indeed be a great step forward. It may be expensive at first, but it should then fully pay itself off within a couple of decades.quote>

There are some major problems here.

First, Obama isn't going to be President more than 8 years, and any attempt to rebuild the nation's rail networks would be a multi-decade affair.  Assuming Obama does get the project off the ground, it will be very likely he'll be in charge of it for a very short time, at which point the President after him has to be willing to rebuild the network, and probably the President after him.  Different Presidents have different agendas, and that creates significant problems.

Second, we're looking at hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars to do this, and that's operating on the assumption that it's going to be built on budget (most government projects are overbudget and late).  The cost of this is going to be staggering, and unless the US wants to borrow more money, it's going to have to drag out the process over decades, cut back spending in other areas such as healthcare, or make some significant tax hikes (something people like myself aren't going to accept as an option).

Third, this is operating on the assumption enough people use it to make it profitable, and that it is able to charge enough money per ticket to cover its operating costs.  Remember what happened to the proposed HSR lines in Texas I mentioned.  Research said they had real potential and should be built.  Then Southwest said what it's business response would be.  Southwest had done the research and knew what prices the service would have to charge to make money, and Southwest planned to undercut it.  Southwest made it clear that it considered the HSR line to be a competing business and planned to respond is such a fashion as to ensure it'd never turn a profit.  In light of this, the project was abandoned because Texas lawmakers realized the service would never be anything more than a waste of money.

And this isn't exactly an isolated example of how private companies can absolutely destroy their government competitors if given the chance.  There is a law saying that private companies can't undercut the prices that the United States Postal Service charges, and this law is in place primarily because companies like FedEx could break the back of the postal service and make it bleed money at almost infathomable amounts if FedEx was given the chance.

The point I'm driving at is that government operations are often in no condition to compete with private industries, and I suspect this would be another case of that.  That would likely lead to one of those things: legislation to protect the government from the private industries (which makes me very leery), or it would effectively become a finacial failure and another money suck above and beyond the ones we already have.

[Yoman3 5]

Well first of all everyone in here needs to understand that for some reason the Federal Railroad Admin defines HSR as 110 mph. So most of these so called HSR routes are just slightly faster upgraded services

I think we should say screw Amtrak, split off the NEC, which is the only part of the system that actually works, and upgrade that to TGV style HSR with an LGV line from New York to DC, the track is straight enough. South of Newark NJ all the way to just before the Delaware River I am not lying to you when I say there is not one bend.

Another good project is the California HSR, which is true HSR. I hope that they don't divide up the funds and give a few hundred million there and a few hundred million there, it would result in nothing getting done.

A national rail system isn't really feasible due to the huge sizes, just a few corridors should be worked on, not the 10 proposed (which I think they let a 3 year old draw telling him he was playing connect the dots, I mean Houston and Dallas not connected?).