Obama's High-Speed Rail Fantasy

[lynks66]

And that's exactly how we'll get it.

 

Well played. :thumb:

[Zoot Soup]

I don't know, I think a rail would be pretty smart to run from Louisville to Lexington to Ashland. From Ashland you can hop on Amtrak to the East Coast. The main thing though is making sure it is safe, fast, clean and inexpensive.

[Blue Magic]

For those who want to create more jobs..

[Habib]

I don't know, I think a rail would be pretty smart to run from Louisville to Lexington to Ashland. From Ashland you can hop on Amtrak to the East Coast. The main thing though is making sure it is safe, fast, clean and inexpensive.

 

I've always thought a rail system between the Iron Triangle would be beneficial, I hadn't thought of the Ashland/Amtrak angle, but it makes sense. I'm not sure what the cost and logistics would look like for creating something like that, especially if it were very high speed. It wouldn't be able to use existing rail. And like Getslow said it would essentially have to end right at the center of the cities or else getting around would be nearly impossible. But, under the right conditions I could definitely be in favor of that.

[Run To State]

High speed rail in the US could present some problems. True high speed rail would need straight lines (as straight as possible) which would likely result in court battles with homeowners and possibly business owners, you're going to have to put the rail on someones land. Using existing rail would pretty much defeat the high speed part of it with all the bends in the rail, not to mention all the stops. The cost to tear up our existing infrastructure of roads, houses and industrial plants to build the needed rail to make it actually high speed would just be too expensive imo.

What about environmental groups? Wouldn't it take more energy to move that fast? More energy than to move existing rail? If so, environmental groups will fight that one, I would think.

Would enough people get on board, so to speak, to switch from air travel to high speed rail? It would have to travel to a large number of high-population cities that are very close to each other in order to keep the cars full so as to be a success. Do we have enough high-population cities close enough to one another to make high speed pay off? I have my doubts.

[swamprat]

As far as the the argument of $7 a gallon gas prices causing people to use high speed rail goes; believe what you want, but I ain't buying it.

 

Back in the 70's when gas went over a dollar, more buses were put on the road and nobody rode them. The same thing happened in the 90's when the price doubled to over $2. Bus ridership did not increase at all 2 years ago when gas got up to $4, here.

 

The majority of gasoline in this country is used by commuters going to and from work, shopping, and local events. Places that will not be covered by high speed rail, which are proposed between major metropolitan areas at least 100 miles apart. Light rail may be the answer, but again, nobody is riding buses and I don't see people giving up their freedom to do so, even at $7 a gallon.

 

Our current infrastructure is crumbling beneath us and there is no infrastructure in place to support high speed rail in most of the cities on the proposed routes. This means even more money will have to be spent. I know it's not as sexy to politicians, but wouldn't that money be better spent on repairing what we have?

[Getslow]

^ It's easy to figure out why this is happening this way. Politicians can only sell massive spending projects if it's something new and shiny they can gloat over. Repairs and refurbishments don't sell to the public very well. According to the American Society for Civil Engineers, the U.S. is about $2.2 trillion behind on infrastructure maintenance projects. Road repairs, water pipe replacements, power grid maintenance... all behind. Nobody wants to pick up the tab for $2.2 trillion dollars. And these are just maintenance projects... forget about growth. And the simple truth that biologists, economists and sociologists all understand is this: a system cannot sustain very long in equilibrium; eventually it either grows or it decays. We're going to need to seriously concern ourselves with infrastructure spending (USEFUL infrastructure spending) or we're going to find ourselves in some serious trouble.

 

I agree with some of the other posters that we need rail very badly, but I'm far more interested in urban mass transit than I am in inter-city rail projects. The high-speed projects will happen (and will work well) when the cities they connect have cheap and efficient mass transit to service passengers on the other end.

[Jumper_Dad]

Great idea on the surface, but when you start asking questions like, how, when. where and how much it kinda falls apart.

 

KY WILL NOT be on any agenda for high speed rail.

High speed rail would impact so few people nation wide that it would never be worth the investment. It would be a drain on the tax payers like Amtrak but to a much much higher degree.

 

I think that the President is looking for a legacy project, which is fine with me. I just don't think this is it.

[FarBeyondDriven]

High speed rail would be a boondogle, period. Utopia does not exist.

[Habib]

High speed rail in the US could present some problems. True high speed rail would need straight lines (as straight as possible) which would likely result in court battles with homeowners and possibly business owners, you're going to have to put the rail on someones land. Using existing rail would pretty much defeat the high speed part of it with all the bends in the rail, not to mention all the stops. The cost to tear up our existing infrastructure of roads, houses and industrial plants to build the needed rail to make it actually high speed would just be too expensive imo.

What about environmental groups? Wouldn't it take more energy to move that fast? More energy than to move existing rail? If so, environmental groups will fight that one, I would think.

Would enough people get on board, so to speak, to switch from air travel to high speed rail? It would have to travel to a large number of high-population cities that are very close to each other in order to keep the cars full so as to be a success. Do we have enough high-population cities close enough to one another to make high speed pay off? I have my doubts.

 

Good points. Finding and creating new rail paths would seemingly be costly and contentious. I think with how convoluted the airline pricing system is, intermediate distance or regional rail could be quite competitive if it were done right. It might also cause airlines to price more competitively.

 

^ It's easy to figure out why this is happening this way. Politicians can only sell massive spending projects if it's something new and shiny they can gloat over. Repairs and refurbishments don't sell to the public very well. According to the American Society for Civil Engineers, the U.S. is about $2.2 trillion behind on infrastructure maintenance projects. Road repairs, water pipe replacements, power grid maintenance... all behind. Nobody wants to pick up the tab for $2.2 trillion dollars. And these are just maintenance projects... forget about growth. And the simple truth that biologists, economists and sociologists all understand is this: a system cannot sustain very long in equilibrium; eventually it either grows or it decays. We're going to need to seriously concern ourselves with infrastructure spending (USEFUL infrastructure spending) or we're going to find ourselves in some serious trouble.

 

I agree with some of the other posters that we need rail very badly, but I'm far more interested in urban mass transit than I am in inter-city rail projects. The high-speed projects will happen (and will work well) when the cities they connect have cheap and efficient mass transit to service passengers on the other end.

 

I agree. I'm not familiar with the Louisville bridges project that was so contentious, but the Brent Spence bridge between Cincinnati and NKY is in desperate need of replacement and it appears no one is willing to put up the money. I don't think people will recognize the need for a new bridge or be willing to foot the bill until it's sitting in the river.