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.

so america can't compete without 200mph commuter trains? 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?

OFFLINE

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

They've been talking for "years" here....about a high speed rail service going from Buffalo....through our lovely city.....over to Albany. I don't believe that it will make up the "time" that commuters are looking to make up....with progress certainly comes some negatives -- if they have an accident with a high speed train...how many more "injuries" would there be?!

http://www.whec.com/news/stories/s1505254.shtml

Since we've already experienced a failed "fast ferry" here.... from our city...across Lake Ontario....to Toronto, Canada....not sure how "onboard" people will be about THIS new project.

OFFLINE

I see this as a nice thing maybe to have on a 'wish list'.  But now is probably not the best time to blow a wad of money on it.  How many jobs will it create vs the cost to the taxpayer?

And while we're on wish lists, I'd much rather see us create more jobs inspecting cargo at our nations ports.  Create more jobs for border agents.  Create jobs by building more refineries, more roads, more nuclear plants.  More oil rigs.  More manufacturng in America.

Thats the kind of things our govt can work on (and usually help by simply removing over-regulation and corporate taxes, rather than spending).