Obama Calling For $53B For High Speed Rail

Antisyzygy writes "President Obama is calling for $53B to be appropriated for the construction of high-speed rail in the United States over the next 6 years. Assuming Congress approves this plan, the funding would be spent on developing and/or improving trains that travel at approximately 250 miles/hour, as well as spent on connecting existing rail lines to new developed high speed lines."

Comments

Its not the speed that is the problem.

[suso]

It doesn't matter if it goes 250mph if it sits on the track for an hour waiting for right of way. Granted, this is just one experience, but from reading up after it happened, it seems to be the norm. Back in 1999 I decided to take a leisure trip out to Arizona from Indianapolis and I decided to take a train for fun. Instead of a speedy ride up to Chicago, we ended up waiting for an hour on a side track to get right of way. On the way from Chicago to Flagstaff, AZ, at one point we sat on the tracks during the day for 3 or 4 hours waiting again for right of way. On the return trip the train was 5 hours late getting back to Chicago and I missed my connection train back to Indianapolis.

Sure, you can build a high speed train, but if its run by Amtrak and exists in this countries rail system mentality, it will quickly become worthless. Fix the real issues.

Re:Its not the speed that is the problem.

[Tetsujin]

>>>like they do in France or Japan

Why would we want to imitate two countries that have spent the last 15+ years in economic decline (called "the lost decade" in Japan)? That would be akin to saying, "Let's model our system on the fallen empire of Rome." Um. No thanks.

Cars offer more flexibility than trains do (you can hop in your car in the middle of the night - can't do that with a train). Cars also offer more options (can drive to the beach tomorrow - can't do that with a train).

Yeah, but trains offer you the ability to spend your travel time doing something other than driving. You can sleep, watch movies, play video games, whatever.

Compare the experience of a delay or layover on a train to the experience of being stuck in traffic - in either case you may stress out about whether you'll reach your destination on time, but in the case of train travel you can relax and count on the train crew to work it out. You aren't operating a vehicle as it creeps forward in a hundred miles of stop-and-go traffic, you are in a comfortable seat with easy access to your luggage, there is a toilet available and probably a snack car.

Train travel is relatively expensive and I'm not fond of that aspect of it, obviously - but what I love about it is that it's so relaxed compared to flying or driving. I don't have to deal with the elaborate security that airports have, and I don't have to be driving for ten hours straight. I do have to be sitting in a train for a long period of time (hours, overnight, whatever) to get to my destination - but most of the time I have access to a power outlet and the freedom to use my computer. It's an enjoyable way to travel.

It's true that with trains, as with flying, you wind up at the destination station with no means of travel to your real destination. One could rent a car or get a cab or whatever - I agree it's a problem, a fundamental limitation of traveling that way. Still, in some cases this limitation is perfectly OK - I can travel to DC and have my in-laws pick me up at the station, or travel to Baltimore or Pittsburgh and walk to the con center, things like that.

None of the trains I've ever been on have run (close to) empty. They're usually (in my experience) filled to capacity for most of the trip.