1
10
19
2009-11-21T07:13:48-08:00
6
2009-03-28T13:42:05-07:00
2
431211
false
1469
135
active
8197
431211
The Federal Gov't involvement in a National Rail system is necessary, just as it is in highway infrastructure. Long-haul transportation systems which cross jurisdictional boundaries will need material support to be effective and successful.
<p>The Federal Gov’t involvement in a National Rail system is necessary, just as it is in highway infrastructure. Long-haul transportation systems which cross jurisdictional boundaries will need material support to be effective and successful.</p>
2009-03-28T13:42:05-07:00
0
18385
true
false
published
2009-05-18T14:22:44-07:00
8197
431211
They will need material customers too and those customers aren't there. Or are you suggesting that if you build it, they will come?
<p>They will need material customers too and those customers aren’t there. Or are you suggesting that if you build it, they will come?</p>
2009-11-15T06:19:04-08:00
0
27050
false
false
published
2009-11-15T06:19:04-08:00
1471
431211
The customers exist today, they simply lack sufficient modern infrastructure to provide more localized services. For those areas in which good rail infrastructure is in place now (NE corridor, etc...) there is plenty of demand. Of course, high-speed rail is required for the longer hauls.
<p>The customers exist today, they simply lack sufficient modern infrastructure to provide more localized services. For those areas in which good rail infrastructure is in place now (NE corridor, etc…) there is plenty of demand. Of course, high-speed rail is required for the longer hauls.</p>
2009-11-15T10:22:17-08:00
0
27055
true
false
published
2009-11-15T10:22:17-08:00
8197
431211
If the customers exist in sufficient quantity, then surely it's a sound financial investment and any private company looking to make a buck will put up the capital for the insfrastructure. The truth, of course, is that the demand for such a system is not overwhelming, thus the capital is not being invested due to too high risk. We just went through this financial crisis and subsequent deleveraging of high risk assets. Do you suppose the billions of dollars required to make this work isn't high risk capital that could be lost on behalf of the taxpayer?
<p>If the customers exist in sufficient quantity, then surely it’s a sound financial investment and any private company looking to make a buck will put up the capital for the insfrastructure. The truth, of course, is that the demand for such a system is not overwhelming, thus the capital is not being invested due to too high risk. We just went through this financial crisis and subsequent deleveraging of high risk assets. Do you suppose the billions of dollars required to make this work isn’t high risk capital that could be lost on behalf of the taxpayer?</p>
2009-11-15T13:14:05-08:00
0
27056
false
false
published
2009-11-15T13:14:05-08:00
1471
431211
One might make the same argument for Interstate road systems then, no? Remember that passenger rail is only part of the entire rail picture. Freight makes up a vast majority todays rail use, and in order for the US to meet the inevitable pressures of greenhouse emission reductions, rail is the best long term option for long-haul freight. How this is funded, could, in fact., be tied to an overall emissions management strategy.
<p>One might make the same argument for Interstate road systems then, no? Remember that passenger rail is only part of the entire rail picture. Freight makes up a vast majority todays rail use, and in order for the US to meet the inevitable pressures of greenhouse emission reductions, rail is the best long term option for long-haul freight. How this is funded, could, in fact., be tied to an overall emissions management strategy.</p>
2009-11-20T19:08:13-08:00
0
27132
true
false
published
2009-11-20T19:08:13-08:00
8197
431211
I do make the same argument for the interstate road system. The only thing close to authority over highways is the Congress' power to establish post offices and post roads. I suppose any road could theoretically be used for purposes of delivering mail, but what a joke. In reality, States should be charged with keeping and establishing roads within their boundaries.
On the question of rail, passenger, freight, or otherwise, Congress, nor the President, nor the judiciary have any explicit authority to establish such a rail network. As such, and per the 10th amendment, this power would be reserved for the States or the people. The only possible way the Congress could have authority over rail would be if the President and the Senate ratified a treaty that required such action. Even then, I'm not exactly sure if Congress and the President have the authority to ratify treaties where they have no explicit authority to implement. It's not clear to me that ratification of a treaty gives Congress the power to do what the treaty says. Even so, the US has not signed Kyoto or any such treaty to reduce emissions, so your point is not relevant in this case.
<p>I do make the same argument for the interstate road system. The only thing close to authority over highways is the Congress’ power to establish post offices and post roads. I suppose any road could theoretically be used for purposes of delivering mail, but what a joke. In reality, States should be charged with keeping and establishing roads within their boundaries.</p>
<p>On the question of rail, passenger, freight, or otherwise, Congress, nor the President, nor the judiciary have any explicit authority to establish such a rail network. As such, and per the 10th amendment, this power would be reserved for the States or the people. The only possible way the Congress could have authority over rail would be if the President and the Senate ratified a treaty that required such action. Even then, I’m not exactly sure if Congress and the President have the authority to ratify treaties where they have no explicit authority to implement. It’s not clear to me that ratification of a treaty gives Congress the power to do what the treaty says. Even so, the US has not signed Kyoto or any such treaty to reduce emissions, so your point is not relevant in this case.</p>
2009-11-21T07:13:48-08:00
0
27135
false
false
published
2009-11-21T07:13:48-08:00
1471
2009-11-15T06:29:24-08:00
1
2009-11-15T06:29:24-08:00
1
560928
false
101
135
active
1471
560928
My national sense of purpose is to oppose gov't wasting taxpayer money, including to build a bunch of train tracks that'll be underused. Let the market decide if/when we have to move to a different type of transportation.
<p>My national sense of purpose is to oppose gov’t wasting taxpayer money, including to build a bunch of train tracks that’ll be underused. Let the market decide if/when we have to move to a different type of transportation.</p>
2009-11-15T06:29:24-08:00
0
27053
false
false
published
2009-11-15T06:29:24-08:00
1471
2009-11-15T06:27:31-08:00
1
2009-11-15T06:27:31-08:00
1
560927
false
1165
135
active
1471
560927
Interesting point about reducing energy consumption by reducing mobility. I suspect that's why Euros use less fuel than us. It's not necessarily that all their mass transit is inherently more efficient, it could very well be that because transportation is so expensive and options to leave one's city are very limited that unless it's for business travel, Euros don't leave their hometown.
I'm proud to live in a country where it's possible for me to hop in the car and go for a drive to visit somewhere I haven't seen before. I disdain any attempt to limit this freedom via gov't intervention. Screw rail! Unless a private company wants to do it because they see significant demand for it, there's no need to have the gov't put up a bunch of tracks that won't get used.
<p>Interesting point about reducing energy consumption by reducing mobility. I suspect that’s why Euros use less fuel than us. It’s not necessarily that all their mass transit is inherently more efficient, it could very well be that because transportation is so expensive and options to leave one’s city are very limited that unless it’s for business travel, Euros don’t leave their hometown.</p>
<p>I’m proud to live in a country where it’s possible for me to hop in the car and go for a drive to visit somewhere I haven’t seen before. I disdain any attempt to limit this freedom via gov’t intervention. Screw rail! Unless a private company wants to do it because they see significant demand for it, there’s no need to have the gov’t put up a bunch of tracks that won’t get used.</p>
2009-11-15T06:27:31-08:00
0
27052
false
false
published
2009-11-15T06:27:31-08:00
1471
2009-11-15T06:20:26-08:00
2
2009-01-25T21:35:16-08:00
2
327017
false
135
active
3248
327017
Put stimulus into public commuter rail service. Not only better for the environment but, also good for fair wages. If people have better mobility to gain access to their place of employment and do not have to buy a car to get there, their wages go farther.f
<p>Put stimulus into public commuter rail service. Not only better for the environment but, also good for fair wages. If people have better mobility to gain access to their place of employment and do not have to buy a car to get there, their wages go farther.f</p>
2009-01-25T21:35:16-08:00
0
9487
true
false
published
2009-05-18T14:16:49-07:00
3248
327017
What if the train is more expensive than a car?
<p>What if the train is more expensive than a car?</p>
2009-11-15T06:20:26-08:00
0
27051
false
false
published
2009-11-15T06:20:26-08:00
1471
2009-09-10T14:52:13-07:00
1
2009-09-10T14:52:13-07:00
1
544040
false
135
active
7692
544040
Stay out of Florida. We have enough developement, and now no jobs. We must keep what cattle and farming industry we have left, so the next time we have a serious economical hard time, atleast we still have a way to pull out of it by being able to stay working.
<p>Stay out of Florida. We have enough developement, and now no jobs. We must keep what cattle and farming industry we have left, so the next time we have a serious economical hard time, atleast we still have a way to pull out of it by being able to stay working.</p>
2009-09-10T14:52:13-07:00
0
26251
false
false
published
2009-09-10T14:52:13-07:00
7692
2009-04-16T18:50:29-07:00
1
2009-04-16T18:50:29-07:00
1
451584
false
135
active
3362
451584
Obama Seeks High-Speed Rail System Across U.S.
“What we need, then, is a smart transportation system equal to the needs of the 21st century,â€* he said, “a system that reduces travel times and increases mobility, a system that reduces congestion and boosts productivity, a system that reduces destructive emissions and creates jobs.â€*
The government has identified 10 corridors, each from 100 to 600 miles long, with greatest promise for high-speed development.
They are: a northern New England line; an Empire line running east to west in New York State; a Keystone corridor running laterally through Pennsylvania; a major Chicago hub network; a southeast network connecting the District of Columbia to Florida and the Gulf Coast; a Gulf Coast line extending from eastern Texas to western Alabama; a corridor in central and southern Florida; a Texas-to-Oklahoma line; a California corridor where voters have already approved a line that will allow travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles in two and a half hours; and a corridor in the Pacific Northwest."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/us/politics/17train.html
<p>Obama Seeks High-Speed Rail System Across U.S.</p>
<p>“What we need, then, is a smart transportation system equal to the needs of the 21st century,â€* he said, “a system that reduces travel times and increases mobility, a system that reduces congestion and boosts productivity, a system that reduces destructive emissions and creates jobs.â€*</p>
<p>The government has identified 10 corridors, each from 100 to 600 miles long, with greatest promise for high-speed development.</p>
<p>They are: a northern New England line; an Empire line running east to west in New York State; a Keystone corridor running laterally through Pennsylvania; a major Chicago hub network; a southeast network connecting the District of Columbia to Florida and the Gulf Coast; a Gulf Coast line extending from eastern Texas to western Alabama; a corridor in central and southern Florida; a Texas-to-Oklahoma line; a California corridor where voters have already approved a line that will allow travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles in two and a half hours; and a corridor in the Pacific Northwest."<br />
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/us/politics/17train.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/us/politics/17train.html</a></p>
2009-04-16T18:50:29-07:00
0
20323
true
false
published
2009-05-18T14:24:01-07:00
3362
2009-04-16T10:26:52-07:00
2
2009-04-16T10:26:52-07:00
2
451067
false
135
active
620
451067
"What we're talking about is a vision for high-speed rail in America. Imagine boarding a train in the center of a city. No racing to an airport and across a terminal, no delays, no sitting on the tarmac, no lost luggage, no taking off your shoes. (Laughter.) Imagine whisking through towns at speeds over 100 miles an hour, walking only a few steps to public transportation, and ending up just blocks from your destination. Imagine what a great project that would be to rebuild America.
"Now, all of you know this is not some fanciful, pie-in-the-sky vision of the future. It is now. It is happening right now. It's been happening for decades. The problem is it's been happening elsewhere, not here.
"In France, high-speed rail has pulled regions from isolation, ignited growth, remade quiet towns into thriving tourist destinations. In Spain, a high-speed line between Madrid and Seville is so successful that more people travel between those cities by rail than by car and airplane combined. China, where service began just two years ago, may have more miles of high-speed rail service than any other country just five years from now. And Japan, the nation that unveiled the first high-speed rail system, is already at work building the next: a line that will connect Tokyo with Osaka at speeds of over 300 miles per hour. So it's being done; it's just not being done here.
"There's no reason why we can't do this. This is America. There's no reason why the future of travel should lie somewhere else beyond our borders. Building a new system of high-speed rail in America will be faster, cheaper and easier than building more freeways or adding to an already overburdened aviation system –- and everybody stands to benefit."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/04/16/A-Vision-for-High-Speed-Rail/
<p>“What we’re talking about is a vision for high-speed rail in America. Imagine boarding a train in the center of a city. No racing to an airport and across a terminal, no delays, no sitting on the tarmac, no lost luggage, no taking off your shoes. (Laughter.) Imagine whisking through towns at speeds over 100 miles an hour, walking only a few steps to public transportation, and ending up just blocks from your destination. Imagine what a great project that would be to rebuild America.<br />
<br />
“Now, all of you know this is not some fanciful, pie-in-the-sky vision of the future. It is now. It is happening right now. It’s been happening for decades. The problem is it’s been happening elsewhere, not here. <br />
<br />
“In France, high-speed rail has pulled regions from isolation, ignited growth, remade quiet towns into thriving tourist destinations. In Spain, a high-speed line between Madrid and Seville is so successful that more people travel between those cities by rail than by car and airplane combined. China, where service began just two years ago, may have more miles of high-speed rail service than any other country just five years from now. And Japan, the nation that unveiled the first high-speed rail system, is already at work building the next: a line that will connect Tokyo with Osaka at speeds of over 300 miles per hour. So it’s being done; it’s just not being done here.<br />
<br />
“There’s no reason why we can’t do this. This is America. There’s no reason why the future of travel should lie somewhere else beyond our borders. Building a new system of high-speed rail in America will be faster, cheaper and easier than building more freeways or adding to an already overburdened aviation system –- and everybody stands to benefit.”</p>
<p><a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/04/16/A-Vision-for-High-Speed-Rail/" rel="nofollow">http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/04/16/A-Vision-for-High-Speed-Rail/</a></p>
2009-04-16T10:26:52-07:00
0
20281
true
false
published
2009-05-18T14:24:00-07:00
620
451067
Give us the Fair Tax Mr. President and I will support High Speed Rail.
High Speed Rail is a great idea, but unfortunatly it is not self sustainable and will have to be susidized. At this point only the Fair Tax Plan (as proposed) will generate the economic revenue required to build and maintain it.
<p>Give us the Fair Tax Mr. President and I will support High Speed Rail.<br />
High Speed Rail is a great idea, but unfortunatly it is not self sustainable and will have to be susidized. At this point only the Fair Tax Plan (as proposed) will generate the economic revenue required to build and maintain it.</p>
2009-04-16T12:25:39-07:00
0
20294
true
false
published
2009-05-18T14:24:00-07:00
7095
2009-03-28T16:11:49-07:00
2
2009-03-28T16:11:49-07:00
2
431310
false
135
active
6951
431310
We do not need to spend tax payer dollars on our rail system nor use government mismanagement of the rail system. What we do need is for the government to expedite the building of a US Mag Rail system of three East to West Mag lines and 30 North - South mag lines to be built and run by current railroad companies and current airline companies and current train manufacturers and current airplane manufactures. This is what I would support. The 'Rebuild and expand the long distance passenger rail system' is to general thus I oppose any government action on this. Be more specific....
<p>We do not need to spend tax payer dollars on our rail system nor use government mismanagement of the rail system. What we do need is for the government to expedite the building of a US Mag Rail system of three East to West Mag lines and 30 North – South mag lines to be built and run by current railroad companies and current airline companies and current train manufacturers and current airplane manufactures. This is what I would support. The ‘Rebuild and expand the long distance passenger rail system’ is to general thus I oppose any government action on this. Be more specific….</p>
2009-03-28T16:11:49-07:00
0
18432
false
true
published
2009-05-18T14:22:46-07:00
6951
431310
magnetic levitation, simply calling it "mag" is too brief and most people will not be able to make sense of it.
I am all for mag lev trains, but this is not an either/ or issue.
<p>magnetic levitation, simply calling it “mag” is too brief and most people will not be able to make sense of it.</p>
<p>I am all for mag lev trains, but this is not an either/ or issue.</p>
2009-03-28T16:56:34-07:00
0
18453
true
false
published
2009-05-18T14:22:47-07:00
7269
2009-03-25T13:08:57-07:00
1
2009-03-25T13:08:57-07:00
1
421567
false
135
active
8156
421567
The US doesnt have anywhere near the population densities required to operate a rail system without it being a massive money loser. Now parts of the Eastern Seaboard could and do support rail, but what about the midwest? I would say the population would need to increase it by 2 or 3 times to make a rail system finicially feasible in this country.
<p>The US doesnt have anywhere near the population densities required to operate a rail system without it being a massive money loser. Now parts of the Eastern Seaboard could and do support rail, but what about the midwest? I would say the population would need to increase it by 2 or 3 times to make a rail system finicially feasible in this country.</p>
2009-03-25T13:08:57-07:00
0
17530
false
true
published
2009-05-18T14:22:12-07:00
8156
2009-02-26T13:05:52-08:00
1
2009-02-26T13:05:52-08:00
1
382289
false
135
active
620
382289
In the President's budget: "Initiate a New federal Commitment to high-Speed Rail. To provide Americans a 21st Century transportation system, the Administration proposes a $1 billion-a-year high-speed rail State grant program, in addition to the $8 billion provided in the recovery Act. This proposal marks a new Federal commitment to give the traveling public a practical and environmentally sustainable alternative to flying or driving. Directed by the States, this investment will lead to the creation of several high-speed rail corridors across the country linking regional population centers."
<p>In the President’s budget: “Initiate a New federal Commitment to high-Speed Rail. To provide Americans a 21st Century transportation system, the Administration proposes a $1 billion-a-year high-speed rail State grant program, in addition to the $8 billion provided in the recovery Act. This proposal marks a new Federal commitment to give the traveling public a practical and environmentally sustainable alternative to flying or driving. Directed by the States, this investment will lead to the creation of several high-speed rail corridors across the country linking regional population centers.”</p>
2009-02-26T13:05:52-08:00
0
13213
true
false
published
2009-05-18T14:19:19-07:00
620