Obama outlines high-speed rail plan for U.S.
President Obama today outlined a plan to build regional high-speed rail routes in the United States. Cross-country trips will still be conducted best in a plane or as a road trip, but options to go from Detroit to Chicago, for example, would include the new trains that can go up to 110 mph. The regional routes include a Chicago Hub, a California corridor (Sacramento and San Francisco down past LA), and a southeast corridor (DC down to Florida). There's a map of the proposed routes and all 10 regional routes after the jump.
The federal government is willing to spend up to $13 billion ($8 billion from the stimulus bill, plus another billion each year for the next five years). Obama acknowledged that rail won't replace the car in America, but that it is high time we get our tracks in order:
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.
One last thing: go ahead and take a look at the file name for the image above. I didn't change if from the name that the White House gave it. Just so you know.
[Source: Detroit Free Press, White House]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
keith_indy 6:49PM (4/16/2009)
Good luck getting the environmentalists on board with that one. Who know's how many habitats that things is going to wreck.
Reply
Luis 9:52AM (4/17/2009)
They're all on existing rights of way, except for perhaps California's proposal which is real high speed rail. This plan just focuses on improving existing tracks to accommodate more trains that operate slightly faster than they can now.
I just finished a book on trains and they ran 110mph back in the 1920s and '30s. This is bull - we need trains averaging over 200mph.
Zeph 7:09PM (4/16/2009)
In a country that spends who knows how many 100's of billions or even trillions bailing out corrupt banking that adds nothing to the economy, this is pretty pathetic... however it is a step in the right direction I suppose. Let's see if it actually happens or if it's like so many other of the politician's promises.
Reply
Hank 7:15PM (4/16/2009)
It's about time.
Reply
Chris 7:20PM (4/16/2009)
Stupid that high speed rail doesn't connect Houston to Austin or San Antonio. I'm not sure what "Other Passenger Rail Routes" are, but I hope it's not Amtrak.
Looks more like a way to get more illegals in the USA than a mass transit type plan.
Reply
Gordio 8:54PM (4/16/2009)
That might be beneficial. Big cities are already too congested, and are difficult to drive to, just for that train ride. It's better IMO if a train station is away from big cities.
Also, as stated above, it might help smaller cities grow if the train station is nearby.
John 7:23PM (4/16/2009)
wooo high speed through my home town!! :D
if by high speed you mean the top speed is the lower to mid range speed of the typical european network, but its a start i suppose. please build them for higher speed trains though even if we cant afford them right now. it is about time that amtrak brings itself into the 20th century at least, if not the 21st :P
Reply
Jason 7:23PM (4/16/2009)
Great. A nationwide Amtrak. How many times has that boondoggle made a profit? Ever?
Reply
JustZisGuy 7:35PM (4/16/2009)
And how many times has the road network made a profit? Ever?
Jason 7:40PM (4/16/2009)
So Amtrak doesn't collect fares? It's paid for purely by the taxes of the people who live along it?
Passenger rail doesn't work in this country because we're too big and too spread out and most people have, and prefer, cars.
JDred 7:59PM (4/16/2009)
"And how many times has the road network made a profit? Ever?"
In terms of Interstate commerce, more than you can imagine. Then there's gas stations, Hotels and I don't know of any trains that can go through a drive-thru.
asus 9:41PM (4/16/2009)
The mistake many people make when they react to the gov't spending money on rail is to think that because the USA is so in land mass, that the popluation density is relatively uniform and low across all 50 states. In other words, that everyone lives in the middle of nowhere like they do - and trains don't make sense. Thus to spend money on it wouldn't serve the "majority of people".
Well if that were true, they'd be right. However, the proposed high speed rail markets are in the most densly populated areas of the country. Thus, by definition, these projects are serving the "majority of people". These areas are already highly conjested and commerce would be greatly increased by better passenger rail service. Ever been to the northeast? It would be non-functional without its rail system. I'm actually surpised california has done so well without a similar system, 45million people and all.
So sure, if you live in town relatively far from any others, trains don't really make a whole lot of sense for you. But don't make the mistake to think that for those of us who live in large congested areas are in the same situation. And also don't make the mistake to think that the sucess of those large areas doesn't have economic impact even on people who don't live anywhere near them... it does.
asus 9:43PM (4/16/2009)
"because the USA is so in land mass" = because the USA is so large in land mass
stupid typing...
Matt 11:18PM (4/16/2009)
clearly asus has never driven in LA
dhofmann 12:21AM (4/17/2009)
Amtrak has made a profit every year it didn't have to compete with subsidized freeways.
majortom1981 7:22AM (4/17/2009)
You keep forgetting that these same rail lines could be used to haul freight also which can cut down on the number of trucks on the road.
Chris M 10:01PM (4/17/2009)
If the same lines are used for freight and passenger rail, then you can't really achieve high speeds. The only true high speed rail lines (Shinkansen, TGV, Transrapid) have tracks designed for and used solely by high speed trains. Trying to combine slow freight and high speed trains is a recipie for disaster.
Amtrak has always been subsidized and has never shown a profit. A truly high speed version might increase ridership enough to break even, maybe even turn a profit, but most proposals plan to share tracks with slow freight, thus aren't really "high speed" at all.
jim ahlstrom 7:34PM (4/16/2009)
Forget the rail. We are in the 21st century, Build the mag lev system (speeds up to 350 mph), It's all electric, elevated, and can be built over the existing interstate highway system saving right of way costs. China has already built this. Can't believe
the total lack of vision that exists in Washington.
Reply
JDred 7:58PM (4/16/2009)
Jim, what they don't mention about a maglev system is the incredible amount of electricity needed to power it. You aren't going to get it from Windmills and Solar panels.
Doug 8:55PM (4/16/2009)
As a physicist, I'll tell you maglev is a waste of money and a poor ROI. I'd be perfectly happy with something on the level of the Shinkansen or the TGV.