OFFLINE

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden on Tuesday announced an ambitious $53 billion program to build new high-speed rail networks and make existing ones faster over the next six years.

Biden, who estimated he has ridden Amtrak between Washington and his home in Wilmington, Delaware, some 7,900 times, made a strong pitch for rail transportation to enable the United States to compete and lead internationally.

"This is about seizing the future," he said, making the announcement at Philadelphia's busy 30th Street station with U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

Japan and China are already building high-speed rail, and "there's no reason, none," that the United States cannot do the same, Biden said.

"If we do not, you tell me how America is going to be able to lead the world in the 21st century."

Under the initiative, the Department of Transportation will choose corridors for new projects and increase U.S. use of the passenger rails.

President Barack Obama's budget for fiscal year 2012, to be unveiled next week, includes $8 billion for the plan. The rest of the money would be allocated over the six-year time period.

Biden noted Obama's goal to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail within 25 years, announced during his State of the Union address last month.

The announcement follows Monday's news that Amtrak, the nation's largest passenger rail service, plans a $13.5 billion commuter-rail project connecting New York City and New Jersey, reviving an idea rejected late last year by New Jersey's Republican governor, Chris Christie, as too expensive.


isn't this kind of a boondoggle? sure, it may cut down on commuting time for certain areas of the country, but that's not going to "win the future," and is only feasible in high population density areas. to give 80% of the population access to high-speed rail would cost trillions of dollars, and where is the real economic benefit? cargo trains, which make up the bulk of rail traffic, would still be regular old fashioned trains. so is this a case where we're simply trying to be like the cool kids? because other countries are pursuing high-speed rail, we have to as well? will it really be a determining factor in our competitiveness, or just mean that some people can set their alarm a few minutes later?

john kasich, ohio's governor, cancelled a "high-speed" rail project, which the federal government wanted to spend $400 million on, that would've gone a whopping average of 39 mph. this brings up another problem with high-speed rail. they can go extremely fast on certain stretches, but their average speed is much lower. around 50-60mph. you have to have dedicated tracks to go faster. california has spent $4.3 billion on a 65 mile stretch of high-speed track. that's $66 million per mile. they're looking at installing improvements to a line from chicago to st. louis that will cost $1.1 billion, but will only shave off 48 minutes from the commute, and only travel 62 mph.

and even if we did get this off the ground, it would basically become the concorde of rails. it would be utilized by the affluent, because our population density is so low (compared to europe, china, or japan) that ticket prices would have to be high in order to cover operating costs. the national research council found that only one route - san fran to los angeles - with a pop. density large enough to cover its costs, and that's only if all air passengers switched to rail instead. what does this mean? just like with amtrak, constant subsidization.

OFFLINE

Yay!  That's just what we need!  To expand Amtrak's "success!" (cough!)

And this is in addition to the $9-$10 Billion for the same purpose in last year's "Stimulus" (cough!)

How'd that go?

When they announced they were going to build a high speed train between Orlando and Tampa Bay last year, I did a quick calculation and figure it'lll only take 200 years to achieve a payback ... for what we p*ssed away last year!

This is just one more example of how loony, out of control, and out of touch Washington D.C. is.

If any of these idiots were in business and they came up with this kind a proposal, with no inkling of what the payback would be, they'd be fired on the spot.

OFFLINE

REally???  This country is supposed to be figuring ways to get the economy back on track... and thats what they come up with???  Seriously???  How about taking some of those BILLIONS and feeding the hungry, or using it.. instead of taxes... WTF????  

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Tonya Kiaunis-Dlugas:
REally???  This country is supposed to be figuring ways to get the economy back on track... and thats what they come up with???  Seriously???  How about taking some of those BILLIONS and feeding the hungry, or using it.. instead of taxes... WTF????  

I agree with feeding the hungry so long as it's American Hunger we're focusing on first. I'm sorry for those going without in other nations, but when we don't take care of our selves first, then I think we reduce the capacity for maintaining ourselves AND our ability to continue helping others.