A national high-speed rail network up and running by 2030 - Yes we can

You dont think that a more travelled train system would have the same restrictions? I don't think the government would wait for a bombing to implament safety protocols. Nobody would blow up amtrack or greyhound because there are only a few people on them. That is the only reason there aren't the same safety restrictions as far as I can tell.

@good_stuff

Have you ridden a train in Europe? Apparently not. Show up 2 minutes before the train leaves and walk through a metal detector, that's it.

How about the twits who voted for Bush pay for the Iraq war and refund the American people for the amount of tax dollars that were funneled into the private sector.

wow and here is another socialist leaving the closet....get back in there

"thecoyote23" 's arguement is the same as yours, Mr. Clown. Who are you, Joe McCarthy?

Because they're still trying to figure who is slower, the government or corporations. Maybe they will starve a few of us out of the equation before actually creating these much needed jobs.

I disagree with subsidizing anything, and trains are no more isolated or dependent upon additional transport than airports are. Either way, you have to find a ride in to the city or to your hotel, and in a lot of our cities, you used to be able to walk from the train station to the metro, not a big deal. The infrastructure is there, and if people were using train stations a lot more businesses would spring up around those stations.

quick physics lesson:

cars are slow, even the fastest cars are relatively slow when compared trains that use magnets.
Why because of a little thing called friction which cars have due to contact with the road but magnetic trains don't. This is also the same for planes, which are by sheer technological standards slow. I never got why people are so crazy about driving a damn car.

Yes, but I don't think you understood my comment. Modern Jets fly in excess of 500mph and don't have to follow the pesky contours of Earth.

Here's a quick physics problem for you with a little bit of math as E.C.:

1) You have a plane that takes off out of LA at 5 am travelling 500mph and possibly has a 2 hour layover in Denver. A train leaves at the same time travelling at 220mph and needs to stop at any major city along the way. Which one gets there sooner?

2) Extra credit: The plane requires gas and maintence of itself and the airports it flies into. The train also requires fuel (albeit less) and maintenence of itself and the stations and 1000's of miles of mag-lev tracks. Whose ticket is cheaper, the flyer or the rider?

You're forgetting to add in the fact that most airports lie far outside the city limits and pretty much 100% of train stations are right in the middle of the city center. So, by taking a training, you're skipping the 30-minute ride to and from the airport, you're also skipping the money either spent on gas and parking or a cab/bus.

You're also forgetting that you have to show up to the airport 30-minutes in advance and you can make it to the train station at the time of departure.

So, you're basically missing an hour and a half plus cab fare from your calculations.

Yes, but your forgetting that most cities don't have good public transit. W/ the exception of the east coast metropolis and chicago you would probably need to get a taxi anyways.

Also, what makes you think there wouldn't be security on a train such as this? Hundreds of people on the latest and greatest travel technology, which wouldn't have just regular commuter on it... sounds like quite the target to me.

Yeah, you might need a taxi but you'd probably be traveling 3 miles (assuming 90% of people stay in the city center when they travel) instead of 30 miles if you're coming from the airport. Big difference.

Because I traveled by train through Europe not that long ago and never had to go through more security than a metal detector and x-ray machine with 5 people in line. We literally showed up 5 minutes early to a few of the trains.

Ignore that clown, Nanac.

If you have anything positive to say with the name "Obama" in it, he is sure to troll.

The clownpuncher is right. We have fallen behind other countries in transportation. Thats a joke. We already have amtrak and the U.P.'s flying bird gets freight across the country in less than 48 hours. How much faster do you really think the freight will move? How much fgaster would it need to move. The RR now has rail service that can run produce trains out of Cali to the midwest in the same amount of time. 48 hours.

so we can move people and goods back and forth, even faster than an airplane could.

We just started light rail here in Phoenix a little western town, population 4,000,000+ and it is a good start

if they improve it they won't need to subsidize it, people will want to use it and demand will increase, but it is not very competitive or efficient the way it is now.

but you could also be taking a Peter Pan bus for $30 round trip.....

Ever take a bus on I-95 during rush hour traffic through any one of the major cities it goes through? Sure, it's cheap, but on the matter of convenience? Not a chance. Why should one have to choose between affordability and convenience?

i read somewhere that that shift is already happening, a side-effect of the economy. city living is generally all around cheaper

and Europe is not the real world? seems to work over there pretty well

one of the reasons the rails are inefficient here is because we stopped investing in them, and it shows.

I say this couldn't hurt.

"Until there is a massive shift in the US population from Rural and Suburban communities, towards the cities, this is a massive waste of money."

where have you been the last 15 years? over 80% of the population lives in metropolitan areas and it's growing as gas prices go up. public transportation will only help this trend. like they say - build it and they will come. it's not a waste, it's an investment. and if implemented correctly - it could be an economy saver.

Comparing the population distribution of the US with any country in Europe other than Russia is infantile. France, the largest country in Europe is about 4/5ths the size of Texas.

And since it is mentioned, let's examine the European system. Yes, the majority of their population travel by train. But also the vast majority of their freight is transported by truck. For the US, it is the opposite (despite the number of trucks you see on the highway in the US, the vast majority of freight goes through ConRail). For us to make the railways available, that means a lot more tractor trailers on the highways. Also, Amtrack is already heavily subsidized and it still doesn't come close to profitability.

Instead of wasting all of this money on this utterly stupid idea, we should be investing in our internet infrastructure and encourage people to work from home.

First, I'm assuming that would lay new rails considering our existing infrastructure isn't equipped to handle 220mph speeds.

Second, we invest billions upon billions every year into highways and runways, making more and making them wider. Shifting the money from that to this would probably pay for the majority of this project. And, the eastern US is about as spread out as Europe.

Oh come on that is ridiculous. How can you support a second stimulus when the first had very few positive effects!

We would have to print money if the majority of major corporations would quit committing gross tax evasion.

Yes the Republicans have looked at the history books and thats exactly why they are against it. When FDR's plans succeeded he ushered in a 40 year era of Democratic dominance over American politics.

They are doing everything in their power to prevent the success of Obama.

we've been printing money out of thin air since the inception of the federal reserve

pull back the empire start taxing the rich.

fixed.

ahhh, but unlike the airline and trucking industry, trains are not entirely dependent upon oil, so this could be an investment in reducing both debt and dependence.

Balance the budget before taking on the project? Hmmm.

The largest public works project in U.S. History (and perhaps world history), The Interstate Highway network, was conceptualized in 1939 - the last year of The Great Depression.

Look at the impact that highways have had on our daily lives and what it has done for commerce within our nation.

If it wasn't a bad time in the 30s, I doubt it's a bad time now. Let progress continue.

Our budget is way too thin.... How do you know? The govt. does whatever it wants because it will get it back out of YOUR pocket at a later time.

for one, we did not have our govt dumping billions of dollars it doesnt have into buisnesses that created their own demise and should have fallen.... also dont take my word for it, look into the economy yourself, things were not so great in the depression, otherwise it would not have been called what we call it..... pretty much the only reason we are floating through this is because of our unemployment service which is pretty much taking money from thin air itself.... We are on the verge of a very serious inflation epidemic and spending more money we do nto have is not going to help.....

this project generates jobs and business, which in turn stimulates the economy and brings in tax dollars.

so, wouldn't this help balance the budget?

actually lalapabrada, we're about $11 trillion in debt.
but yeah, i would love this train system! it would be amazing! i just think the government has too much financial expenditures on its plate already... recession, war (21% of budget), social security (21% of the budget)... or they should just reorganize the budget.

gylu: Why don't you try making more money so you can pay more tax. Fixed. Just remember, the more money you make, you'll have to pay even more in tax.

bishop: The difference between then and now is that on top of the economic turmoil, we have huge budgetary issues. Between our current debt and what is owed in the near-term future from entitlement programs, it is not looking good. Have you seen what this looks like as compared to the GDP?

jk47: Out budget IS way too thin. Do you even read the newspaper? Besides taxes how are we surviving? Printing & borrowing money - both of which devalues our currency and treasuries. There's a limit to how much that can be exploited.

So are we just trolling now?
I dont see why anyone would not want this, the country needs better transportation, and it needs jobs, and what the conservatives that you are talking about want is to create jobs, so therefore they should be all for this.
By posting stuff like this your just antagonizing people and separating people over the issue so that nothing will ever get done because people cant agree because their self labeled group "doesnt do it like that."
Please think out your posts before you post them.

conservatives don't fucking give two shits about "creating jobs". conservative only care about taking more money from the poor and giving it to the rich

Sir I am sorry you are mistaken, That may be what some politicians want, but not the everyday people, and if everyday people want to take money from themselves, then they are not a conservative, or a liberal, they are just and idiot.

It really annoys me when people blame solely the banks, and somehow think the people and government are victims.

Do you not understand that the entire environment was fostered by the government? Greenspan's idiotic low interest rates, and government home affordability programs are what triggered the economic collapse. Yes banks gave out money irresponsibly but the people also took them blinded by greed and/or stupidity.

"failed banks that helped put the county into this position". "helped" is the key word, and the government isn't so much a victim other than the fact that it has been heavily coerced by these same banks and corporations. I won't so much debate your criticism of Greenspan, but I do lay heavy blame on the Bush administration and Chicago School economic theories that believe it is beneficial to ship our jobs overseas and exploit foreign people on a level close to slave labor, all the while leaving US citizens with fewer and fewer jobs and declining quality of life. And yes, the people are the victims, government, mmmm not so much.

Please don't turn this into left vs right debate. Bill was just as big of a supporter of affordable housing as Bush was. While there are people who are being victimized in the current recession, many are part of the problem. People didn't need to buy homes with stupid terms, they didn't need to max out their home equity line of credit, and they didn't need to max out their credit cards. Your liberal attitude of sheltering the stupid and the lazy is really quite sad.

"And your faith in your friends is yours!"

Well, apparently you believe the housing sector and greed/stupidity on either side of the equation is the only factor in our current recession and fail to recognize the multiple factors that contributed to the collapse, all the while pigeonholing my views into the Limbaugh/Coulter liberal stereotype. "Liberal attitude of sheltering the lazy and stupid"? WTF? Now you are simply delusional. Nowhere in the post did I say anything of that nature. I am pretty sure you stopped interpreting my post after I blamed "right wing idealogies" and went into Fox News robot mode. You basically seem to be supporting the idea of giving billions to the failed banks. I said we should have used that money to put people to work, theoretically on the high-speed rail system. You automatically assumed that since I am critical of right wing economic policies that I believe in handouts and welfare, which is a right wing stereotype of anyone who has differing opinions from the conservative base.

Now who is assuming. First of all, my views are libetarian. Second, because I am libertarian I did not support the bank bailouts. And my comment on sheltering the stupid is based on your response of "people are the victims". Seriously, they are not. People need to understand their consumption behavior & financial decision making allowed this to happen - not be protected as victims from the big bad banks.

And besides the housing sector & the debt and securitization of these houses, what other major factors contributed to our current economic collapse?

Being a Libertarian can in many cases actually reinforce my points. Libertarianism="smaller government" ie less regulation (I know thats an oversimplification, but it works). This "smaller government" ideology is what has been slowly eroding the financial regulations that were put in place post depression and WWII. Libertarianism has a lot of good points, but I think the majority of people who call themselves Libertarians are just conservatives trying to distance themselves from the disaster that was the Bush Admin. I mean, almost anyone could call themselves a libertarian. Who doesn't want individual liberty? I am really sick of conservative libertarians pretending they are the anarchists around here. The financial crisis was exacerbated by multiple factors and really was a symptom of what I said in the very beginning, Chicago School economic policy, which can fall under Libertarian philosophy.

Ok...some factors....

1.Deregulation of Financial institutions!... mortgages. Government deregulation allowed these financial institutions to lend to borrowers who should not have qualified. This is actually a combination of left and right politics. The problem with being a libertarian is a belief that %95 of the government is bad. The reason there is a government is so the people who are elected are theoretically supposed to represent us, the people who are supposed to understand and interpret the law, so "we the stupid people" can be protected from things like predatory lending, and those ARM's can qualify as predatory. I have actually written an essay about predatory lending practices... but I wont get into the specifics. (This housing bit is your freebie)

2. Deregulation of crude oil futures trading, creating increased volatility at the exact time China and India increased demand exponentially. (Also, Americas retarded love of SUV's and Hummers, + Massive Bush tax breaks for those vehicles)

3. Crude oil prices driving up the cost of all trade, thus driving inflation (everything costing more to manufacture and ship)

4. American consumers not realizing the dollar does not have as much buying power as it used to, and failing to adjust their habits therefore falling into debt (owning a Hummer and an Escalade with spinning rims). Also failing to recognize the sign of a coming recession. I predicted it last year in July and had a Republican friend laugh in my face. I wish I was the wrong one. Maybe he calls himself a Libertarian now?

5. A.R.M.-interest rates going up, causing already indebted Americans to default and foreclose, further causing the interest rates to go up.

6. Insane financial securities trading. I'm not going to get into it.

7. Said "insane financial securities" blowing up in the banks faces

8. Falling house prices due to an increase in supply with lack of demand, due to the crappy economy, only further increasing interest rates on ARM's

9. Banks robbing the American people blind and putting us into a 1 trillion debt to China, who now has broad influence in Washington because they can directly influence the Dollar.

10. spiral spiral spiral

And then we get to the entire point of my original post, that we should have taken those billions and hired a good portion of the unemployed population to help build infrastructure such as the High Speed Rail.

Anyways, feel free to refute, and I may respond, but I think this matter is mostly closed.

I agree with you on 1 point: we should have spent money on infrastructure rather than war, if at all.

I don't disagree on your list, but at the end of the day would we be in this situation if the fed didn't dictate monetary policy, politicians did not push so hard for affordable housing, and labor unions didn't ruin American manufacturing?

Ha, I forgot all about the war! I would say that is one of the top contributing factors. The Fed is definitely not serving our interests, but labor unions are not inherently bad. The UAW really gave union members from all forms of industry a bad name. They just got out of hand and painted a really bad picture of what unions are actually supposed to stand for. Executive board members rank up there pretty high on the greedy list. The GM boards and the UAW were both two ends of the same greedy spectrum. Corporate boards and CEO's are definitely a problem, and I believe that about half of what is called "upper management" in Americas business place in unnecessary and grossly overpaid. But back to the unions, they did help prompt many businesses to move overseas, but the reason unions exist is so that Americans don't wind up like Chinese workers. This is where a lot of my left leaning sensibilities derive from. If the elected government continues to be undermined by corporate interests, we may all end up living in packed dormitories getting paid pennies and living in an industrial wasteland. Companies do not abide by morals or ethics, the only law is profit, even at human and environmental expense. Thats why when people scream "small government", I cringe, because international corporate interests will filll that void, and those interests are not elected by the people, but owned by the wealthiest individuals.

I respect your optimism but good intentions don't always yield good results. Let's take some of the government's major programs for example. The Fed, whose job is to control the money supply to stabilize the ups & downs of the economy did just the opposite and fostered the environment for the second great depression. The FHA, in an effort to make homes more affordable also did exactly the opposite. Programs like the Community Reinvestment Act, while noble in effort, just added to the housing bubble. The UAW, basically ruined the US auto industry.

These programs all had the best intentions, but are among the main reasons we are in this mess right now. So I hope you understand when people have very little faith in the government.