Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Obama Proposes High-Speed Rail System For the US

Posted by timothy on from the self-mucking-biodiesel-ponies dept.

fantomas writes "The BBC reports that 'US President Barack Obama has announced his "vision for high-speed rail" in the country, which would create jobs, ease congestion and save energy.' Can rail work in the land where the car is king? Would you travel on the new high speed lines?"

14 of 1,385 comments (clear)

  1. In a word... by hellfire · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    1. Re:In a word... by xgr3gx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Me too - rail would be awesome, but you have to be able to connect the rail ways effectivley.

      Example, I take the bus to work and it drops me pretty close to my building, that works great.

      Recently, I changed locations, and now I'm about a 10 minute walk to my building, which is fine too, but some people I rode with drive in now because this new building has a free parking lot. Free parking is not worth 45mins of driving + traffic + burning more gas + milage on my car.

      If the train station was more than a few blocks away from peoples' destinations, how many lazy Americans do you think will want to walk that far? I think most would say - F' it, I'll drive in.

      --
      Shameless plug alert: Game server control panel
    2. Re:In a word... by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No.

      Hell with high speed. 99.9978% of americans dont need to go from NY to LA via high speed rail.

      They need to get from the suburbs and smaller outlying cities to the major city or nearest city.

      how about fixing and replacing the rail system we used to have and need? Most 30 minute commutes could be eliminated by having a simple and useable rail system.

      High speed is not needed, How about having REAL public transit? you know the stuff that Ford and GM tried so hard to kill at every chance for the past 100 years...

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:In a word... by Remloc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ok, how is parent a troll? He's right.

      Most Americans I know are so lazy they'll circle the parking lot for minutes looking for a place in the first few rows instead of (*gasp*) walk from the far side, or even the middle of the lot.

      Add in places like Chicago where it may be life-threateningly cold in the winter or here in Dallas where it's so hot in summer--even in the early morning that just a 10 minute walk will put you at work quite unprofessionally sweaty and there's no way I'm taking the bus that drops off about 10 minutes away though I cannot wait until they finish the rail line that will drop off across the street.

    4. Re:In a word... by David+Greene · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This system won't take people from NYC to LA. It's for going from Minneapolis or Madison to Chicago. These are routes where air travel is wasteful (2 hours in the airport waiting for a one hour flight) and rail competes very well. Even with it's relatively slow speed and frequent stops, Amtrak's Empire Builder from the Twin Cities to Chicago is almost always packed. You usually can't get a ticket within a month of travel.

      Yes, we need to invest in commuter rail and light rail. Many cities are doing just that. But there is most definitely a place for intercity rail in this country.

      --

    5. Re:In a word... by mr_mischief · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A few blocks? For high-speed rail? High-speed rail is for between cities. Local light and medium duty rail won't get any faster.

      Right now, Amtrak has a station in my city, but to get to St. Louis (two hours by car) I have two options by rail. I can go to Chicago (six hours by car, probably 10 by rail) then to St. Louis (nine hours by rail). Alternatively, I can get off the train and onto a bus for over an hour, then back onto a train to continue the trip.

      If Amtrak had a rail line from where I live to St. Louis, I could usually live with three or four hours of regular-speed rail to get there cheaply and efficiently. I doubt I'll have high-speed or even regular-speed rail from here, though. They'll put in high-speed rail to some subset of the places already served, and people outside those markets will be stuck with what they have now.

      I proposed on the web site the administration set up for proposals a sweeping growth of rail. I think that in order to convince people not to drive, we're going to need the traisn to at least go everywhere the Interstate highways do. Even better would be to ferry the cars along those rails so you can drive as needed once you reach your destination. Paying for the train then having to rent a car because your final destination is too far from the stations is silly, and that's one reason many people just drive the whole way.

    6. Re:In a word... by mr_josh · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Someone mod this up, the original parent is completely missing the boat (train?)

      Look at California: it takes a full 8 to 9 hours to get from the north end of that state to the south end. If they can connect the Bay Area to Los Angeles and make it a 2 or 2.5 hour trip, it'll be a huge boon (HUGE) to everyone from tourists to commuters to business people.

      There are fantastic possibilities here, they're not trying to send little Johnny from NY to California by rail.

    7. Re:In a word... by Petaris · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How would changing trains be worse then changing planes? I've had to change trains in Japan and its not a difficult thing. Maybe inconvenient if you have to walk to another station but not difficult.

      --
      ~Petaris "The world is open. Are you?"
  2. Absolutely... by thered2001 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If it is priced less than air travel and it provides service to places I need to go.

    --

    If your only tool is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail.

  3. What about when I get there? by qbzzt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    High speed inter-city rail means that when I get to my destination I have to rely on public transportation (not very efficient in most US cities), or rent a car.

    If I'm renting a car, this doesn't reduce congestion. The congestion is in the cities themselves, not between them. Also, the car rental costs money. I doubt it will be cheaper than driving.

    I'd love to see rail as a replacement for flying, but I doubt it will be fast enough.

    --
    -- Support a free market in the field of government
  4. Can't mix freight and passenger railways by MillenneumMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Obama's plan simply will not work because he plans to mix freight and passenger rail routes. I would not call the examples in Japan and France a _financial_ success, but they are indeed impressive technologically. However, neither of those systems would work if they did not dedicate their tracks to passenger transportation. Freight would slow everything down dramatically.

  5. Re:Germany's cities are much closer together. by Cyberax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Look at the map of planned routes in the TFA. They are not that long, and the whole network will be shorter than railway network in Germany or France.

    So no, "USA is large" argument does not work here.

  6. Re:I like rail! Great mass transit in Europe by JerryLove · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So if I look around the world, I will find a direct correlation between taxes and unemployment? Because I don't see it.

    Perhaps if I pick a single country and look through history? There does seem to be one, but it's where government spending made jobs (such as the new deal and WWII).

    On what planet does the presence of concentrated wealth mean that jobs will be made. I don't see it at all. Companies will continue to spend as little on employment as possible to make their revenue streams look as good as possible, because the people who make the decisions (executives and stock-holders) are directly tied, not even to the long-term survival of the company, but rather to the stock value... wich is from the earnings report... which is most effected in the sort-term by reducing costs (like employees).

  7. Re:No by mr_josh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Everyone here is talking about the northeast and midwest, what about the damned west coast? Linking San Francisco to LA is huge, by itself. Linking Seattle to Eugene or Southern Oregon would be amazing. The commuter possibilities are endless here. Take Portland to Seattle, for example. Many people hop that via plane even though it's only about a 3 hour drive. Turn that in to a 1.5 hour train trip, and guess what? You've linked two cities with amazingly effective public transportation, cut down on the pollution of a plane or many individual autos, and perhaps increased the number of people who are willing to commute between the two large cities and their metro areas.