Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
I am Anomaly
14746 Followers
retroscifigeek.com
710 Followers
morningDigger
1022 Followers
adam jones
8206 Followers
Engineer09
4987 Followers
novenatorJan 24, 2011Submitter
Loved the potential high speed rail map (animated) at http://www.ushsr.com/hsrnetwork.html
zippy757Jan 25, 2011
If you notice the layout, they proposing something that has on average 1 city for states served. This is the Amtrak trick, i.e. get everyone to think it will benefit their state in someway.
novenatorJan 25, 2011Submitter
High speed rail lines cannot stop at every town and village, they should only stop at one or two cities per state, and perhaps none at all in some of the very tiny states. How it works in Europe is to do this, then have regional connectors and local trams. America should invest in those too.
jmaximus9Jan 24, 2011
Save the American dream? Hardly, a good idea yes.
DiabeticusJan 25, 2011
Yes, It is a good idea. But try and get some conservatives to see that. . .
snafflepaffleJan 25, 2011
I'm a pretty liberal guy but high speed rail is an expensive boondoggle who's costs vastly outweigh the benefits.
DiabeticusJan 25, 2011
Well you have to consider also that oil prices aren't dropping. A system that doesn't rely on oil will save an oil dependent nation billions in the long run.
Closed AccountJan 25, 2011
and thank god high speed trainsare powered by happy thoughts!
JewstinJan 25, 2011
It said in the article that a few different multi national corporations, China and Japan plan to invest in it. So in the long run its probably a good idea, not to mention that things like this do save the economy.
Closed AccountJan 25, 2011
"Things like this do save the economy"
citation needed
JewstinJan 25, 2011
its simple economics, you put 100,000 people say like in california back to work building it, they are gonna start paying down the debt and buying things again, which will in return will create new jobs. Money multiplies, if you say buy a loaf of bread from some baker,for 5 bucks, and he goes downtown and gets a haircut, which in return the hair dresser goes downtown and buys a cofee for 5$ another guy who puts it into the bank. Money always starts to move, you put a couple hundred billion into the economy it will more than likley turn into trillions.
miklkitJan 25, 2011
Yup. Putting Americans to work in America means that American money stays in America helping the American economy get stronger and more competitive. As opposed to spending money making the Chinese economy better.
Closed AccountJan 25, 2011
Except that is the simple minded way of thinking.
Those jobs don't just magicallly come from nowhere. They take jobs away from other areas. Andthey cost money oto provide. and therefore, if the trains are not used by enough people (and they wouldn't be) they would not help the economy at all.
Using your incredibly asinine logic...we should just put high speed trains connecting every single city in the country! It would put even MORe people to work....and that money would stay in the country.
The only proble with that is a little thing called reality. Consider yourself licky that you don't live in it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JewstinJan 25, 2011
jterryohn consider this reality, you call people names, call them stupid because they have a different view then yours. This not only makes you a very rude person, but also it makes it hard to have a intelligent conversation with you, add in your terrible spelling, and most people see through the fact that you are more than likely dumb as f**k and incapable of understanding what were talking about, you don't have to agree with someone to add to a conversation, but you should at least show a little bit of class in your disagreement, and at least try provide a suitable alternative that you think would work better.
immunofortJan 25, 2011
So you just happen to know exactly how much this would cost as well as the potential benefits it would bring?
JewstinJan 25, 2011
The benefits would be huge, 20 or more years of work alone to build it. Add the fact that gas is gonna go up in price to levels unheard of.... as far as costs go, trillions, but it wont be all tax payers money paying for this, it will also big business pitching and as i said before China and Japan said they were gonna invest in it.
dirtyfriesJan 25, 2011
Very cool...but an unlikely dream.
The costs, the sheer justification, and just the revision of local laws prohibiting high speed services through populated areas make this not much more than a pipe dream.
Still...one can hope.
Closed AccountJan 25, 2011
The American Dream is still alive.
Some high speed rail may be a good idea.
But you're right...it's costly and begging for problems in populated areas.
I loved rail in Europe...but Europe is compact...America isn't.
DiabeticusJan 25, 2011
Well once a rail system is in place it would allow more people to consolidate to population centers, therefor decreasing the US sprawl and automobile pollution. These population centers will also benefit from the increased growth.
I lived in Calgary for a while and the rail system was no problem in such a populated area other than the occasional depressed individual.
Closed AccountJan 25, 2011
Some people do not want to consolidate into population centers.
DiabeticusJan 25, 2011
Well America offers plenty of freedom to live wherever you want. But even corporations would benefit from growth of population centers. Centralizing a work force will allow for more possible locations for corporate headquarters and bring more corporations into or back to the US.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJan 25, 2011
with every new comment, you show the world how clueless you are on this subject.
DiabeticusJan 25, 2011
And you show you have nothing better to do than post incendiary comments with no beneficial input on the subject.
Go you.
Closed AccountJan 25, 2011
Are you REALLY that stupid? Do you really think that people live in suburbs because there is no high speed rail and not because THEY WANT TO? No one in a suburb is thinking "Damn...I really WANT to move to the big city, but there are not high speed rails connecting it."
If you are that out of touch with reality, please...feel free to sit out this discussion.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
novenatorJan 25, 2011Submitter
Don't you EVER have anything constructive or nice to say?
snafflepaffleJan 25, 2011
Short answer, no. Long answer, nooooooooooooooooo!
linuxpersonJan 25, 2011
Yes, another unsustainable government owned mass transit system is exactly what will fix the problem with our economy.
mogebierJan 25, 2011
Have any of you ever been on a train trip?
I have. IT WAS MISERABLE. I only took a train from St. Louis to Chicago. A 5 1/2 hour car ride normally. It took almost 9 hours by train. You have to stop at EVERY PODUNK LITTLE CRAP HOLE to drop off or pick up 1 person.
A high-speed train would still have to stop all the time.
adaguyJan 25, 2011
I planned to take a trip on Am trac from KC, Mo. to the Rio grand valley. When I found out that it took 3 days, I changed my plans.
goatmonkey2112Jan 25, 2011
I think that the idea is that it wouldn't stop all of the time like that.
It seems like it would only really be useful on medium range trips where you are trying to decide between flying and driving. To me, it's only worth flying if it will take more than 6 hours to drive it. Especially when you consider the hassle that flying is now and the amount of delays it gets. Then once you get there, you have to get your luggage and pick up a rental car.
If it only stops at major cities it might be worthwhile.
DiabeticusJan 25, 2011
Yea, the idea is to connect major population centers, getting rid of the wait times. Stopping a 200mph train to pick up two people from nowheresville isn't really logical. The energy use to brake and re accelerate isn't worth it.
So people who want to live wherever they want and drive SUV's will still have plenty of time to drive their vehicles
Closed AccountJan 25, 2011
This is a bad idea, but obviously they are talking about a NEW rail system being built with far fewer stops to complement the existing train sysem with local stops.
dusanmalJan 25, 2011
Trains are 19th Century mode of transportation. Get over with it. Countries that haven't been developed at that time (China, Japan,...) can indeed help themselves in quick transition to 21st Century by building fast train systems, ... But not countries for whom that would be a step back.
In USA trains are inefficient and unacceptable but for the cargo.
In USA, where trains have once flourished it is time to send them away to horse and buggy heaven where they belong. Air transportation is where true 21st Century is. USA have been advanced in 19th Century, leader in 20th and as such we have enough of old infrastructure to step over it to the real cutting edge transportation.
Air traffic needs to be improved by eliminating 20th Century restraints. By introducing modern hi-tech controls and regulations. Instead of investing immense amounts of money in physical 19th Century infrastructure, data and computer systems precisely controlling air traffic can be created. For a fraction of an investment.
For whatever bizarre reason (who'd would thunk it from a Govt. agency), NASA indeed have roots of such system done. System that can transform the skies in same way as good roads have transformed 20th Century. Opening way for ordinary, not much trained person to safely and efficiently operate aircraft by creating essentially a "cruise control" flight ability. Investment for such system covering the whole country and speeding up (already fast) air transport order of magnitude is LESS than single pointless high-speed rail from LA-Las Vegas Leftist love.
Time is ripe for severing our ties to rails. Transport car parts and cabbage over those. Not people who need to be there now.
DiabeticusJan 25, 2011
Airplanes don't really cut down on America's oil dependence. The system you speak of sounds great in concept, as it would reduce the need for our current infrastructure of roads and the immense maintenance costs involved with them. But such a system would be extremely complex and the smallest of errors could have catastrophic consequences. Piloting an airplane would still be quite difficult and one person "tweeting" instead of watching the air space could be bad, plane fragments have to land somewhere.
Another thing is when cars break down you have to call AAA. When planes break down you generally die(In a mid transit situation).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJan 25, 2011
seriously...this is NOT a good thread for you to reply to every comment.
addiktionJan 25, 2011
Maglev technology is already scalable up to similar speeds at commercial jetliners. The advantage really is the efficiency of these technologies. They can use 90% less energy usage and don't need fossil fuels to operate.
The only hindrance is the price really. Because all new infrastructure is necessary so it's not going to be cheap any time soon for a business or for the consumer. Although it makes the most sense in the long run because oil isn't infinite, it's dirty, and it makes us rely on foreign nations who can dictate American policies from their power on our economy.
Closed AccountJan 25, 2011
A rail system won't fix the fact that most American manufacturing jobs have been transplanted to china. Manufacturing is what built the US. It is hard to believe that so many american companies have sold out so many american workers. The US middle class is doomed.
DiabeticusJan 25, 2011
I have to agree there, it wouldn't fix corporations from outsourcing to other places to cheapen their labor costs. But it would allow them a larger consolidated work force which would at least allow them a larger population in one place to find their cheap labor.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJan 25, 2011
would you just STOP. My god....stop being under the impression that Americans WANT to live in a major city but are forced to accept the suburbs.. It truly is one of the most clueless things every said on Digg...which is saying A LOT.
barackalypseJan 25, 2011
What built the US was a climate of freedom and innovation. What will kill the US is a climate of taxation, regulation, and wasteful public spending. I'll happily trade all the manufacturing jobs in the US in exchange for an equal number of jobs in software, design engineering, or medical research.
Closed AccountJan 25, 2011
Stupid thinking. Not everyone is capable of performing those jobs. Nor do many people WANT those jobs.
I hate to break it to you, but he average person does not say to himself "Man...I wish I was a programmer! That sure is the life!"
prometheansparkJan 25, 2011
I believe state sponsored, money losing, mega-projects is the soviet dream, not the American Dream.
Even if we did build it, it would not create tens of thousands of (new) jobs, it would just replace tens of thousands of workers at small businesses such as fuel, fast food (along highways) and service stations with workers at huge mass transit bureaucracies. Or, more likely, nobody would ride the trains (except college students) and there would be tens of thousands of jobs lost due to the reduced demand because of the extra taxes everybody would be paying to support the underutilized train system.
The American Dream is that every generation has a better quality of life than the previous one. Cars provide a better quality of life than mass transit, period. The suburbs provide a better quality of life than the city, period. Our efforts are far better focused on developing electric cars, it's what people want and we already have the infrastructure.
DiabeticusJan 25, 2011
I support the idea of alternate energy vehicles, but not everyone can afford them.
As for jobs, the trains will not eliminate highways traffic altogether since there will always be a good percentage of Americans who can't or don't want to use mass transit for whatever reason. These jobs would most likely be offset by the creation of jobs in city centers.
Generally suburbs are on the outskirts of city centers, I don't think they'll be disappearing. And suburbs who don't surround cities with trains will still have the luxury of using automobiles as will people who enjoy driving to their jobs located in cities with trains.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
prometheansparkJan 25, 2011
Do you really think that people will commute to LA from San Francisco on a bullet train? We already have Bart in SF, it gets people from the suburbs to the city - where most driving occurs. The folks that would ride the long distance high speed trains would mainly be medium distance business travel, vacation travel, young or poor people visiting relatives, and car-less students traveling between home and school. That's not a particularly large segment of the market. Mass transit programs should be targeted where the market is to get the biggest bang for the buck. That market is commuters, not inter-city travelers. Compounding the problem, most high speed rail routes are chosen for political reasons, not practical reasons. It's no coincidence that high speed rail lines often end at Disney resorts or Casinos.
Alternative energy vehicles will come down in price as research progresses and more are made. A regular car is much better and cheaper than cars from 50 years ago, there's no reason not to expect similar progress over the next 50 years - it's not going to happen overnight though, but neither would high speed rail.
addiktionJan 25, 2011
The American Dream hasn't existed for awhile now. Some of those college students you speak of are out of the job even when they get out of college with a degree. Studies show the majority of people never move out of their economic class. Now we might improve life for some with each generation in America but at the expense of others, more specifically foreign countries. There is a reason why 1 billion people are in starving conditions and growing. There is a reason why the middle class is disappearing. George Carlin said it best, "It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe in it."
Building sustainable systems doesn't have to be a 'soviet union dream'. Highways are managed by government and I highly doubt private enterprise could do any better at coordinating a better transportation system like the road. The airplane is strictly regulated by government as well and government tends to be in all forms of transportation. Now I'm not for government control at all. I'd prefer it government shrank but certainly having a fast ground and air transportation system will greatly improve congestion from any one system. I happen to think ground transportation will win out because of its efficiency and lack of need for fossil fuels but thats only when oil hits its peak.
Closed AccountJan 25, 2011
I always knew that alternet and novenator were completely out of touch with reality...but I never realize just HOW far out there they both were until now.
devildog1633310Jan 25, 2011
I am a independent conservative who works for Amtrak riding the fastest HSR 150 MPH corridor in southern MA and RI and I must say our trains are packed. If you brought 200+MPH HSR into CA and ran "Acela like" equipment every 1 to 1.5 hrs I believe it would be packed day in and day out. One small Multi Billion Dollar Problem. And 1 other small one. Once railways are built who will pay for the upkeep of the rails? And will wealthy communities except the rails through their sheltered areas? I personally hope and pray every day that warmer climates (FL,CA,&NV) get HSR ASAP. I need the AARP members of Amtrak to leave my crew base opening up great jobs for junior people like me. Sorry, call me selfish.
barackalypseJan 25, 2011
No, because the American dream has nothing to do with fast scheduled train service between cities. Would it be nice to hop on a train from Chicago to Minneapolis instead of trudge through the security freakshow that is air travel these days? Sure. Will that save a Country drowning in debt? Not anymore than building wind turbines will, which is to say not at all.
optykunrealJan 25, 2011
The problem with the train system now is that you stop at every little stupid town along the way. Hinkle Oregon is a place that has like 10 people living there but it has a freaking Amtrak stop. Why? Sure the auto industry may have used government support to boost them up, but the Train industry didn't do themselves any favors.
If this were to happen it needs to function big city to big city, doing fast non-stop straight shots. I can drive from Purdue to my home state of Washington in half the time and cost it would take me to ride the train.
Closed AccountJan 25, 2011
Somehow people never ponder the environmental impacts of having to acquire all the right-of-way to run the tracks. Air travel requires a small dab of flat concrete at each end called an airport. Trains require you to link each destination. You must then bulldoze anything that is between those two points. Farmer Jones will not be happy to have a track down the middle of his corn field, either. You do all realize that high-speed rail projects have eminent domain authority, right? They can draw a line on a planning map over your land and - and then force you off of it:
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/right_of_way.aspx
"The vast majority of Rail Authority's property transactions are settled by contract. However, if the owner and the Rail Authority cannot agree on the terms of sale, the Rail Authority may initiate the eminent domain process to avoid delaying the project, and may eventually be required to initiate condemnation proceedings.
What a shame to flatten someone's home for a boondoggle...
peppermintpigJan 25, 2011
But it creates jobs? XD
*windows breaking in the distance*
quaestor44Jan 26, 2011
I see what you did there.
gkiltzJan 25, 2011
The best way is telecommuting, especially after the population starts dropping.
cupofkonaJan 25, 2011
I want high-speed rail...just not the slow ass compromises in the works. France-China have better systems already running....shessh!
amorougenJan 25, 2011
Americans are not interested in rail travel whether high speed or not. Too bad, but ride 'em cowboy individualists just aren't interested in cattle cars however comfortable they might be.
seratopeJan 26, 2011
you bet