Living Car Free - Is it time for a railroad revival?

I heard on the radio that President Obama is announcing final plans for spending $8 billion of stimulus funds on a number of high speed rail corridors scattered around the nation. Also, the Chinese are spending $300 billion on railroads to stimulate their own economy.

What do you think about this?

I'm all for it. Here in Spain, I use the bike-train combo for both touring and commuting. It's a great way to travel.

Yes it is time for a railroad revival. I hope high speed rail is less expensive than the $43 million per mile that Norfolk's light rail will cost.
http://hamptonroads.com/2009/12/norfolk-light-rail-over-budget-opening-delayed-2011

Yes it is time for a railroad revival. I hope high speed rail is less expensive than the $43 million per mile that Norfolk's light rail will cost.
http://hamptonroads.com/2009/12/norfolk-light-rail-over-budget-opening-delayed-2011

Is that a whole lot more than what freeway construction would cost?

I was curious as to what the difference might be. Seems highways aren't that cheap either. (Perhaps we should ask about a bike trail?)

From this source:
http://www.publicpurpose.com/hwy-fy$.htm



The cost to construct one lane-mile of a typical 4-lane divided highway can range from
$3.1 million to $9.1 million per lane-mile in rural areas depending on terrain type and
$4.9 million to $19.5 million in urban areas depending on population size. However, in
urban areas restrictions (high cost of additional right-of-way, major utility relocation,
high volume traffic control, evening work restrictions, etc.) may increase the cost per
lane-mile. If restrictions exist the cost to construct one lane-mile of a 4-lane divided
highway can range from $16.8 million to $74.7 million. The cost of $74.7 million per-
lane-mile in areas of severe restrictions may not represent the maximum cost per-lane-
mile and should be used as general guideline only. Individual projects may include
extreme conditions warranting a much higher cost.

The costs provided are per lane-mile. To obtain the cost for a section of roadway the cost
would need to be multiplied by the number of lanes on the roadway section.

I heard on the radio that President Obama is announcing final plans for spending $8 billion of stimulus funds on a number of high speed rail corridors scattered around the nation. Also, the Chinese are spending $300 billion on railroads to stimulate their own economy.

What do you think about this?

I'm actually againt it.


First, the government knows this 8 billion is not enough by a long shot. However, once they start building, additional money will be needed and taxes will be raised with Washington borrowing billions more. It will create lots of jobs and then there are the "transit malls" that will flourish at each stop.

So why am I against it? I believe we should focus on buidling lightrail for the biggest bang for the buck. That 8 billion could build over a dozen lightrail lines compared to only two or three highspeed rail lines. High speed rail does not foster the carfree lifestyle but only provides the motorist an alternative to an airline. Lightrail does just the opposite creating transit malls and office towers that enable people to live, shop and work along the line. This is what we need.

Yes it is time for a railroad revival. I hope high speed rail is less expensive than the $43 million per mile that Norfolk's light rail will cost.
http://hamptonroads.com/2009/12/norfolk-light-rail-over-budget-opening-delayed-2011

I read about this and was not surprised. I suspect they low balled the figure to get the project started and held the real price tag away from the public. In fact, 43 million per mile is within cost especially if you intend to run the line through a city. Our Hudson Bergen light rail was 1.2 billion for about 15 miles at the time.

Our was more expensive than others but Lightrail is very costly unless you intend to put the line in the middle of nowhere! At 43 million per mile, they actually did this on the cheap because 10 years ago, the average cost per mile was close to 70 million!

http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-lrt2001.htm

Though light rail would be better for more people on a day to day basis, I'm all for any rail system upgrades. The more people ride railroads the more likely they will vote for future rail projects.

Isn't it interesting that we can recognize something that is good for the country as cyclists and the motorists just don't see it. Perhaps we are more inclined to be environmentalists than the average car driver. Of course we're superior, right?

I looked at the price of gasoline today. It's up again. When I see that number I think about how much money I would need to be spending on owning a car and it amazes me every time.

I am for it but I am also not ready to start holding my breath. But then if it did happen it would give me an excuse to give in to the N+1 rule and get a folder. I have found that not all trains even on the same lines are bike friendly. Folders are a way to get around that problem.

I've noticed that some plans for railroad revival have been successful. One example is the revival of passenger rail service to Maine. Since 2001, Amtrak's Downeaster has made the trip between Boston, MA and Portland, ME. I've ridden on that train and found its service to be really good. In the near future, track improvements will be made so that Amtrak and freight service will be extended to Freeport, Brunswick, and Lewiston. Work to restore service on other corridors such as the once abandoned Mountain Division between Portland and Fryeburg and trackage in Eastern Maine to Eastport. Other than the Amtrak service, I'll believe the progress when I see it but it's time for a railroad revival.

Blog guru James Howard Kunstler often visits this issue. He argues against high speed versus standard speed rail revival. Here's a sample quote:



It will require a whole new track network, because high speed trains can't run on the old rights of way with their less forgiving curve ratios and grades. We would be so much better off simply fixing up and reactivating the normal-speed track system that is sitting out there rusting in the rain -- and save our more grandiose visions for a later time.
I don't like to be misunderstood. With the airlines in a business death spiral, and mass motoring doomed, we need a national passenger rail system desperately. But we already have one that used to be the envy of the world before we abandoned it. And we don't have either the time or the resources to build a new parallel network.

Good question. 8 Billion is just a drop in the bucket and probably wouldn't even cover a high speed track from Washington to Baltimore.

Intra-city light rail is the screaming need. But also we need to figure out how to put in an infrastructure that will serve entire metro areas. Trains are not going to compete with airlines. They just don't have the speed. But to have some efficient, well connected 24/7 rail that could connect say San Diego-LA-Santa Barbara and go as far east as Palm Springs, that would be quite a boon. The problem is building an infrastructure that could adequately do the volume of traffic needed with convenience rivalling the car.

If we are thinking long term, I think it's even more important to get serious about eliminating the national debt.

one of my immigrant grandfathers worked on the railroads when he was of age. my aunt recently mailed me a picture of him with his bike. this was the early 1900s. I should post it somewhere

one of my immigrant grandfathers worked on the railroads when he was of age. my aunt recently mailed me a picture of him with his bike. this was the early 1900s. I should post it somewhere
I'd like to see that picture. I'm into historical stuff especially life during the golden age of bicycles.

In the long run, I think we need high-speed rail. When we finally limit carbon emissions, we will have an easier time coming up with substitute fuels for cars than for airliners. Truly high speed trains could replace jets for many or most routes within a continent.

Blog guru James Howard Kunstler often visits this issue. He argues against high speed versus standard speed rail revival. Here's a sample quote:



It will require a whole new track network, because high speed trains can't run on the old rights of way with their less forgiving curve ratios and grades. We would be so much better off simply fixing up and reactivating the normal-speed track system that is sitting out there rusting in the rain -- and save our more grandiose visions for a later time.
I don't like to be misunderstood. With the airlines in a business death spiral, and mass motoring doomed, we need a national passenger rail system desperately. But we already have one that used to be the envy of the world before we abandoned it. And we don't have either the time or the resources to build a new parallel network.


For once I have to disagree with kunstler. We did not abandon the rail network. We converted it to freight use. The US is a leader in freight trains, although we lag behind in passenger service. We probably save more energy and money with freight trains than we ever will with passenger trains. It would be a big mistake, IMO, to give passenger trains priority on existing rails. If we want passenger trains, we have to build new infrastructure for them.

As for funding, let's look more to the private sector. A high-speed (>200 mph) hydrogen train has been proposed for a route in Michigan between Detroit and Lansing (where I live). This would be built, at a cost of $15 million per mile, on elevated tracks in the median of I-96. The trains would be magnetic, powered by hydrogen. This would be a private venture. The main cost to the public sector would be providing some of the right-of-way.

http://www.autoevolution.com/news/detroit-lansing-high-speed-hydrogen-powered-rail-line-pics-and-video-5188.html

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/03/high-speed-magnetic-train-proposed-detroit-lansing-michigan-hydrogen-solar.php

I heard on the radio that President Obama is announcing final plans for spending $8 billion of stimulus funds on a number of high speed rail corridors scattered around the nation. Also, the Chinese are spending $300 billion on railroads to stimulate their own economy.

What do you think about this?it's kind of ironic, if you think about it. China is much denser than the US so you'd think they would need less public subsidy of rail.

At the same time they will see more return of investment as there will be much more uptake of the service by the public.

major cities should promote businesses getting involved with housing so that people didn't have to commute. it so dumb right now. everyone driving everywhere and no one lives where they work. we should all walk or bike to work. I say eliminate trains and cars and force people to relocate!

major cities should promote businesses getting involved with housing so that people didn't have to commute. it so dumb right now. everyone driving everywhere and no one lives where they work. we should all walk or bike to work. I say eliminate trains and cars and force people to relocate!

Didn’t we try that with the Navajo and Cherokee? :innocent: I am pretty sure it wasn’t a good idea for the people in Germany that were forced to relocate and wear a armband with a J or six pointed star. :D

But when someone says we I often ask how the minority can force the majority into anything. :D

I have only had a few experiences with commuter rail and I liked it. I have tried Japans comutter rail as well as Londons underground. Both are designed for comutting from the outskirts of the city to the shopping and business areas. They seem to work pretty well a lot of people can walk from a station to where they are going to work. And they didn’t have to force any of the people to move. ;)

For once I have to disagree with kunstler. We did not abandon the rail network.

Respectfully, Roody, I disagree with you.

At least here in Western New York State, abandoned railway (both freight and passenger) is everywhere. There's hardly a town around without an old railway station converted to a trendy bistro or overpriced boutique. Heck, right in the middle of downtown Rochester, the world famous Dinosaur BBQ (http://www.dinosaurbarbque.com/rochesterIndex.php) is in an abandoned rail station at the end of an abandoned railway that's been converted to a bike path. And the whole nationwide rails-to-trails (http://www.railstotrails.org/ourWork/advocacy/index.html) thing simply wouldn't exist without abandoned railways.

Having just moved to Seoul, I know I have not changed my address on bikeforums yet, I can say that the subways here are amazing. A lot of them are raised about the ground and over highways as well. Seoul is the second densest city in the world, just a tick behind Tokyo. The city itself is home to 11 million Seoulites, there word not mine! However, the greater Seoul metropolitan area is home to 25 million which is just under half of the total population of South Korea. Korea also has a high speed rail system that is integrated into this and goes from Seoul to Busan, the second largest city in Korea with a population of 4 million. Busan is located on the opposite extreme side of the country and the trip takes under 2.5 hours and cost about $25-35 depending on exchange rate. Amazing. Check out this Seoul Subway map: http://www.urbanrail.net/as/seou/seoul-map.htm there are many lines that have been extended far into the Korea "suburbs" or outskirts and literally millions of people are moved around the entire area everyday for about $0.80 each way. Cheaper if you get a monthly pass.

major cities should promote businesses getting involved with housing so that people didn't have to commute. it so dumb right now. everyone driving everywhere and no one lives where they work. we should all walk or bike to work. I say eliminate trains and cars and force people to relocate!

Interesting! LOL!!!

This may come as a surprise to you but business is involved in building housing. Just not inexpensive housing which is why people like me use trains an express buses because living in the city has become unaffordable. When new construction for housing in the city begins, they are only thinking of luxury condos costing over 500K for two bedrooms or more!

On the other hand, you have to sue cities to build affordable housing! The NAACP sued my town to build affordable housing for blacks an minorities and this is the ONLY reason why they constructed section 8 housing. Big business would never do that.

In the long run, I think we need high-speed rail. When we finally limit carbon emissions, we will have an easier time coming up with substitute fuels for cars than for airliners. Truly high speed trains could replace jets for many or most routes within a continent.

This is a very pressing problem for any country that wants to stay competitive economically. The US airlines are very distressed right at the moment and as the price of jet fuel rises, air service will degrade rapidly. If you flew 10 years ago and have done so recently, you might even say the degradation is happening now. These airlines need to re-think their business strategy and, when they do come up with an answer, it is going to radically change air travel (much, much more expensive and with many fewer routes.)

The only solution that currently exists to replace air service is high-speed rail. Can you imagine how much national commerce would happen to the US economy if the trip from, say, Chicago to NY took 14 - 16 hours?

I heard on the radio that President Obama is announcing final plans for spending $8 billion of stimulus funds on a number of high speed rail corridors scattered around the nation. Also, the Chinese are spending $300 billion on railroads to stimulate their own economy.

What do you think about this?

Pardon my cynicism, but I wonder if this isn't more about diverting money to politically well connected private interests than it is about promoting the general welfare of the country.

From sf.streetsblog.org (http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/11/18/general-electric-inks-high-speed-rail-deal-with-chinese-government/)


General Electric Inks High-Speed Rail Deal With Chinese Government

by Elana Schor on November 18, 2009

While President Obama grappled with political concerns during his trip to China this week, General Electric was busy signing technology-sharing agreements with Beijing partners -- including a high-speed rail pact that positions GE to leap ahead of its competitors in the race for business from the Obama administration's bullet train rollout.

The deal involves a net gain for both parties. GE plans to share its low-emissions Evolution Series technology with CSR Qishuyan, China's biggest diesel locomotives company, while China's Ministry of Railways will license high-speed rail technology to GE.

And given American policymakers' concerns that U.S. "high-speed" trains will be too slow to compete with overseas models, it's worth underscoring that the GE-China deal has a target speed of 350 kilometers per hour, or about 220 mph.

The deal, which GE says could provide up to 3,500 U.S. jobs, requires 80 percent of the materials for high-speed rail construction and 100 percent of the assembly to come from American sources. From the statement issued by Tim Schweikert, president of GE Transportation China:
High-speed Rail in the U.S. and in markets worldwide is a significant opportunity for infrastructure and business growth. With the signing of today's framework agreement, GE and China’s Ministry of Railways have provided the basis for a cooperation-focused framework that will enhance economic development, create new jobs and promote research and development for high-speed railway technology.
While GE currently is the world leader in locomotive diesel-electric and electronic control systems technology, China currently is a leader in high-speed rail technology for speeds of 220 miles per hour. Working together, both parties could develop the best solutions faster to serve America’s high-speed rail needs for many years to come.

Like most things we won't do it the right way. We do it the cheap and easy way. This is why when you go to Europe you see infrastructure that has been around 400 years and still works. Also why they already have a HSR.
Orlando to Tampa is a classic cluster waiting to happen. It will remain on an high speed Island for a long time. Why not invest in rail which could eventually reach across the US or someday go somewhere. Check out the Tampa portion it stops on the freeway miles from downtown where a train station is being used already. It also only goes to the Orlando Airport.



If we were to build a network, we should require to build a trail along the track at the same time. Much like when a freeway is built. We should also setup electric, fiber, and gas lines along the same rail lines. This should be required.

I'm actually againt it.


First, the government knows this 8 billion is not enough by a long shot. However, once they start building, additional money will be needed and taxes will be raised with Washington borrowing billions more. It will create lots of jobs and then there are the "transit malls" that will flourish at each stop.

So why am I against it? I believe we should focus on buidling lightrail for the biggest bang for the buck. That 8 billion could build over a dozen lightrail lines compared to only two or three highspeed rail lines. High speed rail does not foster the carfree lifestyle but only provides the motorist an alternative to an airline. Lightrail does just the opposite creating transit malls and office towers that enable people to live, shop and work along the line. This is what we need.

This seems reasonable: spend the money where it has the most impact.

I will say that as a cyclist, I am most fond of the regional train systems in Europe. They usually take bikes, and they get you somewhere you you might not otherwise go with a bike (ie, I have no need for commuter trains, since I ride nearly everywhere). I'm guessing they are the least profitable, though, so I don't expect any great investment in my personal priorities.

I have no need for commuter trains, since I ride nearly everywhere.

Even when I'm not using commuter trains, I'm glad they exist because they reduce traffic, which is good for the environment and makes cycling safer and more pleasurable.

Regarding using existing rail lines instead of building new high-speed rail:
Using existing rail isn't very effective, for a couple reasons.

First, it's slow. Even by car standards it's slow. 85 mph at best, and an average of about 35. That's a big limitation when you're trying to get people to actually use the rail for travel. Why take the train when you can drive where you're going just as fast, or fly there much faster for about the same price? Sure, it's nice novelty, but do we really want it to be a novelty?

Second, by sharing the same tracks as the freight system, it competes with the freight system for space. That's going to further hinder speed and utility.

If rail is going to be a viable travel option it has to have benefits over flying and driving. That means being faster and/or more convenient than driving, and being substantially cheaper than flying. As AMTRAK demonstrates, you don't get either on the current rail system. We've gotta build new stuff (or do major modification to old) designed for passenger carrying. Light rail for metro areas, high-speed rail for regional transit, eventually connecting the regional rail systems for a cross-country system.

I think if a rail line can make a profit it will and should be created. I don't believe someone from Iowa or anywhere else in the US should be paying for a rail line from Cincinnati to Cleveland that will cost billions, take 6 hours to go what can be driven in 3.5 and you end up with no transportation so to speak once you arrive in the city. I suppose Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus and Cleveland have bus systems but how many people are going to get off the train and learn how to use each individual system. If it were important to the people of Ohio private industry would take it upon itself to provide the service. Ohio has a population of around 11M people. New York city and its surrounding area has at least that number in an area about the size of Cleveland and Columbus combined. Rail, Subways etc. make sense there. In Ohio not so much.

If it were important to the people of Ohio private industry would take it upon itself to provide the service.

Is it true that private industry would take it upon itself to provide the road building service if the road building service were important?

Some economists claim that government's purpose is to address the problems of market failures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure) and externalities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/externality). Do we want government behaviors around roads and railroads to deal with market failures and externalities? Do we want them to deal with some completely different problem?

First, I am all for rail and want to see more of it. However, I would like the trains to be significantly more bicycle friendly. There are places I go, on a regular basis, that I would liek to use train/bike instead of motorcycle or auto. However, I cannot because Amtrak does not allow it.

Before you say, "folding bike," first, I do not like folding bikes. Second, even if I did like them, they areot allowed on all trains. From Amtraks own site, "Folding bicycles may be brought aboard certain passenger cars as carry-on baggage."

"Certain," is not the same as, "all." I do not want to find out that I have to abandon my bike at a train station because I am not allowed to board with it.

That being said, I am glad to see a renewed emphasis on renovating and expanding rail in America. With a doubt, rail is the transportation medium of the future.

First, I am all for rail and want to see more of it. However, I would like the trains to be significantly more bicycle friendly. There are places I go, on a regular basis, that I would liek to use train/bike instead of motorcycle or auto. However, I cannot because Amtrak does not allow it.

Before you say, "folding bike," first, I do not like folding bikes. Second, even if I did like them, they areot allowed on all trains. From Amtraks own site, "Folding bicycles may be brought aboard certain passenger cars as carry-on baggage."

"Certain," is not the same as, "all." I do not want to find out that I have to abandon my bike at a train station because I am not allowed to board with it.

That being said, I am glad to see a renewed emphasis on renovating and expanding rail in America. With a doubt, rail is the transportation medium of the future.

I always thought Amtrak was moderately bike-friendly. Read this post http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?515198 Seems like unless things are really crowded, you shouldn't have much trouble.

I think if a rail line can make a profit it will and should be created.

Do you expect roads to turn a profit?

Do you expect roads to turn a profit?

Yeah really... a typical driver buys a gallon of gas and pays $0.184 in taxes and drives 20 miles on that gallon. Sound like a deal to me.

I don't think roads will ever make a profit.

Do you expect roads to turn a profit?

Roads are a public entity. Once built they are free for everyone to use. You provide your own means of conveyance. Train tracks require that you pay for the use of the train. This is what I object subsidizing. We don't have any train operators saying that if the people of the state of Ohio will subsidize the building of the tracks we will provide the service. The government would have to subsidize the service as well. If the people of Ohio want it they should stand up and demand it and be willing to pay for it. I don't hear or see that happening by the majority of Ohioans.

Roads are highly subsidized already. Of course, when it is a road we call it subsiding and when it is public transit we call it a waste. People in the US drive for way too cheap. The gas is cheap and the roads are free. The freeway in France, for example, is not free, in fact it is quite expensive. If you are traveling alone it is more expensive than taking a train, which also encourages people to travel together and car pool.

As another example, to speak of something I know, the budget for the transportation department in Tennessee is 7 billion dollars, which all goes towards roadways. Is that a subsidy? Is that free? Where does the money come from? Why do my tax dollars have to pay for it if I don't use it?

Roads are highly subsidized already. Of course, when it is a road we call it subsiding and when it is public transit we call it a waste. People in the US drive for way too cheap. The gas is cheap and the roads are free. The freeway in France, for example, is not free, in fact it is quite expensive. If you are traveling alone it is more expensive than taking a train, which also encourages people to travel together and car pool.

As another example, to speak of something I know, the budget for the transportation department in Tennessee is 7 billion dollars, which all goes towards roadways. Is that a subsidy? Is that free? Where does the money come from? Why do my tax dollars have to pay for it if I don't use it?
In the last few years there have been studies that estimated that about 80% of the cost of roads in the USA is paid for by the gas tax, meaning that 20% is funded through other taxes and means. Of course there is a lot of subjectivity in how to measure the cost of a road - do you add in health care costs, lost property tax revenue, time wasted in traffic jams, crop damage due to pollution etc.? And do you subtract the supposed economic benefits the road generates?

Roads are highly subsidized already.

Yup. Airline travel is also heavily subsidized. Taxpayers pay huge chunks of money for airports and infrastructure, even though most people think it is paid for by the airlines.

Just as one example, when was the last time the nation's Air Traffic Control system was required by the FAA to show a profit?

I have a meeting to attend in Chicago this weekend. Calculating door-to-door cost and time and lost productivity, I'm better off taking the train, as slow as it is, than the airline. Be a lot more enjoyable, too. Won't get strip searched again and won't be locked in my seat for at least two hours every flight.

"We did not abandon the rail network. We converted it to freight use. The US is a leader in freight trains, although we lag behind in passenger service."

Not really. The vast majority of passenger rail was provided by freight railroads and it was good. For a varriety of reasons, not the least of which was the government's socialization of driving by the creation of the interstate highway system (yes. it's a socialst program) that reuslted in the loss of passnger and freight revenue, the railroads could no onger afford to subsidize passenger service and got/were let out of the business. The Penn Central was a prime example. What is now Amtrak's Northeast Corridor used to be owned and operated by the Penn Central. Same is true for Amtrak's Harrisburg Line. New Jersey Transit took over the passenger operations of the Penn Central as well as other railroads in northern and central NJ. freight now either is non-existent or take a back seat to passenger service on those lines.

Roads are a public entity. Once built they are free for everyone to use. You provide your own means of conveyance. Train tracks require that you pay for the use of the train. This is what I object subsidizing. We don't have any train operators saying that if the people of the state of Ohio will subsidize the building of the tracks we will provide the service. The government would have to subsidize the service as well. If the people of Ohio want it they should stand up and demand it and be willing to pay for it. I don't hear or see that happening by the majority of Ohioans.

I don't know about Ohio (which generally seems to be a backward state) but here in Michgan (a democracy), all government spending is decided by the people, either directly or through their elected representatives. So all subsidies of public transit are in fact approved by the voters. (Notice the use of the word public.) Here in Lansing, the voters approved two to one a millage increasing property taxes in order to support our award-winning public transit system.

Roads are a public entity. Once built they are free for everyone to use. You provide your own means of conveyance. Train tracks require that you pay for the use of the train. This is what I object subsidizing. That's an oversimplification. "Once built"? The building of a road is itself hugely expensive, and maintenance and operating costs are high too: repaving and rebuilding, plowing, painting, policing, lighting. Also the externalized costs as described ad nauseum. If both rail and road were totally paid for by the user, rail would win out. It loses because it gets less subsidy.

I know we are getting a pretty good chunk of federal funds for high speed rail in my state but so many cities are taking the state to court with the NIMBY attitude I can’t see one getting built between LA and San Diego. Two cities north of LA have taken the rail authority to court as well makes the LA to Frisco seem like a dim possibility as well.

In the last few years there have been studies that estimated that about 80% of the cost of roads in the USA is paid for by the gas tax, meaning that 20% is funded through other taxes and means. Of course there is a lot of subjectivity in how to measure the cost of a road - do you add in health care costs, lost property tax revenue, time wasted in traffic jams, crop damage due to pollution etc.? And do you subtract the supposed economic benefits the road generates?

I have seen studies of roadways from interstates to local town roads. You have to remember much of the interstate system was built using taxpayers dollars NOT gas taxes. Ditto many state, county and town roads. New roads may or may not be built with gas tax dollars and the maintenance varies based on locale and type of road. In NC the state highways and most interstates are pretty well funded by gas taxes, local city streets are not.

Now that does not take into consideration the 40,000 people killed every year in auto accidents and the $169 billion dollars that accidents cause in related costs to society, let me know when they raise gas taxes enough to cover that cost to society.

Aaron :)

I have to say that my wife works on high speed rail planning and modeling over here in France. Just yesterday she told me that her company will likely get a contract to do some modeling for the Florida high speed rail project. It is kind of ironic that Obama puts some stimulus dollars towards high speed rail, and then those dollars head over to France to do the actual studies. Well, I guess it makes sense since there are more companies experienced in rail here than in the USA.

High speed rail will be a reality in the US, it will just take time. I tried to get some actual numbers from my wife, like how much a new line costs per mile here in France, but she couldn't say for sure. One line she has worked on that goes to Italy is insanely expensive because there are numerous tunnels involved to pass the Alps. I don't think that will be a problem in Ohio or Florida. Anyway, the 8 billion is a good start, and will get the things in motion. A lot of people seem to be complaining that this is not enough, however, that is how these things work, no project ever gets funded completely at the beginning.

I know we are getting a pretty good chunk of federal funds for high speed rail in my state but so many cities are taking the state to court with the NIMBY attitude I can’t see one getting built between LA and San Diego. Two cities north of LA have taken the rail authority to court as well makes the LA to Frisco seem like a dim possibility as well.

People in other regions would be wise to look at the history of mass transit in the Detroit region over tha past few decades. The various municipalities and counties there were never able to agree on anything related to transit. They have lost billions in matching funds over the years, and the lack of regional transit in southeastern Michigan drags them down, and drags the whole state down.

I don't know about Ohio (which generally seems to be a backward state) but here in Michgan (a democracy), all government spending is decided by the people, either directly or through their elected representatives. So all subsidies of public transit are in fact approved by the voters. (Notice the use of the word public.) Here in Lansing, the voters approved two to one a millage increasing property taxes in order to support our award-winning public transit system.

We here in the obviously dictatorial state of Ohio are in awe of the economic dynamo that is Michigan. Thank you for your civics lesson. Now that Detroit has half the population it had 20 years ago I am sure the inner city mass transit system is awash in activity. I am also sure that there are throngs of people in Ann Arbor, Lansing, Grand Rapids and Marquette waiting breathlessly to be able to take the train to their neighboring cities. Perhaps Michigan is on the cusp of a rebirth and mass transit will lead the way. If so the people of Michigan should pay for it and reap the benefits in future economic growth. If it fails Michigan will then live with the consequences and we here in backwards Ohio will not have to suffer because of Michigan's decisions.

We have to remember that the high speed rails in France were additions to an already healthy rail system. Here, we have let our rail system become moribund. With few exceptions, a high speed rail here would not link in to any pre-existing rail systems, providing less utility.

The most frequent use I make of trains is for getting between airport terminals. ;)

Meanwhile, as the US dallies, China spurs growth by investing heavily in high-speed rail (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/business/global/13rail.html?partner=rss&emc=rss).

Meanwhile, as the US dallies, China spurs growth by investing heavily in high-speed rail (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/business/global/13rail.html?partner=rss&emc=rss).

Yes--the US invests $8 billion in high speed rail. At the same time China invests more than $300 billion. This is the unfolding history of the 21st century!

We here in the obviously dictatorial state of Ohio are in awe of the economic dynamo that is Michigan. Thank you for your civics lesson. Now that Detroit has half the population it had 20 years ago I am sure the inner city mass transit system is awash in activity. I am also sure that there are throngs of people in Ann Arbor, Lansing, Grand Rapids and Marquette waiting breathlessly to be able to take the train to their neighboring cities. Perhaps Michigan is on the cusp of a rebirth and mass transit will lead the way. If so the people of Michigan should pay for it and reap the benefits in future economic growth. If it fails Michigan will then live with the consequences and we here in backwards Ohio will not have to suffer because of Michigan's decisions.

And another thing about Ohio...they can't take a joke! :D