High Speed Rail
 

High Speed Rail will provide 'Shovel Ready Jobs' and save the economy, we are told.

Really?

. How many non-union jobs are there in the railroad industry?
. Since it is a government project(s), how many non-union contractors will be used?
. How many unuin job-sites will accept non-union delivered cargo?
. From non-union manufacturers?

Scam! Scam! Scam!

Why does scab or union labor have to figure into this? Jobs are jobs, last I heard.

Is this the high speed rail in Florida?

You know , the one being built with technology from overseas?

Pete.

Frankly, while I'd love to see a good high speed rail system, wouldn't it make sense to make a low speed rail system that was profitable first?

Is there REALLY that much demand amongst the traveling public for a high-speed rail system?

Shatto may be talking about the bond proposition that California voters approved in 2008. It was a worthless giveaway of public funds because the money was to go to a study of high speed rail viability. There was no requirement that a single foot of rail had to be laid for the 10 billion dollars in funding the project received.

I hope this works out. america really needs this for now (jobs, doesnt matter if its min wage or 30 an hour) and the fact that instead of driving or taking a plane to another city to waste gas, these trains use 0 gallons of fuel.

I really like the idea, since if for example, you travel from a city to another city that takes 4 hours to drive (240 miles apart) , you would waste 30 min going to the airport, 2 hours for going thru security, 30 min for the flight, and another 30 to come back to the new city's downtown from the airport, that takes 3 and a half hours while a high speed train would take no more than 2 hours.

the pricing for a ticket has to be dead on also, I lived in philadelphia, pa before and taking the bus to nyc takes 2 hours, for 10 bucks. while the amtrak takes 1 hr 40 mins but the damn ticket costs 85 on average. the train wasnt twice the speed, and was way more than twice the price. just dont make any economical sense to spend 8x more to save 20 minutes

unions are garbage anymore anyways. i work for a non-union company but am contracted to work for a union company. but then again a union is only as strong as the people in it. too bad the majority of americans are ****asses:(

I'm talking about Barak Obama's plan. It will fund high speed rail projects nationwide.

We all will agree that; it makes sense and is practical and everybody would benefit from such a wonderful systen, yadda, yadda, yadda.......
BUT; we, you and me, won't use it. For the same reasons most people don't use public transit; it doesn't go where we want to go, we need transportation once we arrive, we need transportation to get the darn thing in the first place, it doesn't go when we want to travel and more reasons you get to think of.

I once read in a Railroad trade magazine, the reasons America would never have a Europe or Japan-type rail system. Essentially, cost to build it in the first place was beyond the GNP of the country.

you don't have to censor that. put dumb masses in place of it. in recent elections, it seems as tho the dumb masses are educating themselves a bit. ;)

From what I understand, there is talk of a high-speed rail system to link LA with San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, etc. 8-11 years to build the first segment. Compare with the transcontinental railroad, built between 1863 and 1869.

I'm just not sure that there is enough demand for the designated routes. Now...between LA and Vegas...

High speed rail is for countries that have the balls to balance budgets, spend only what they can afford and not go into debt. America doesn't deserve high speed rail.

I don't care who deserves what...if it could fix the economy, I'd love it.

I'm not convinced that it could fix the economy.

Public transit works well in high population density areas. Many european towns and cities are high density because they were constructed in time periods when walking was the most practical means of day to day transportation. As such, public transit works well in europe, but not in most sprawling US cities and towns.
The handful of cities where it does work well are particularly dense, like New York. It seems reasonable to me (though not necessary as these rail lines already exist) to link these population centers since people can get to and from the stations without a car. As was said above, if you need a car to get to the station and from the station to your destination, it doesn't make much sense from a convenience or financial standpoint.

It just create more debt.

yea the car when at destination is a problem for me. theres an amtrack station in town where i go to school but it doesnt stop anywhere remotely close to home. someoen would have to drive an hour to the closest station, pick me up then drive back
cheaper just to drive and the same time...