Comments on: New Report Maps a High-Speed Rail Link For Every Major U.S. City

By: rt66

rt66 — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 05:48:28 +0000

i disagree with the post below about st. louis to k.c. if nothing else this route is still the old rt. 66 and that must be honored

By: Pursuant

Pursuant — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:36:41 +0000

Wonderful to see the investment, but it’s a shame they can’t get the current trains running as fast as they were in the 1920s, ninety years ago.

Talk about progress.

By: Mad Park

Mad Park — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:36:15 +0000

Alon Levy – I am well aware that the costs of even “adequate” urban and inter-city rail transport will be in excess of a trillion dollars – I’ve posted thus on several blogs. The automobile century (1910-2010)has already cost us trillions; we need now to face up the political, social, and economic reality that cleaning up the toxic mess that was the automobile century will cost us trillions more. Our grand children deserve this from us.

By: J:Lai

J:Lai — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:05:20 +0000

Alon Levy, you are ignoring the probably re-distribution of population in response to investment in rail/transit. Those costs would be to create that amount of rail usage given no change in the distribution of where people live and work.

By: AlexB

AlexB — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:05:19 +0000

The lack of connections from Atlanta to Charlotte, Pittsburgh to Cleveland, and Chicago to Cincinnati via Indianapolis seem to be an oversight. Each of these routes would have greater ridership for the cost than the Milwaukee to Minneapolis or St Louis to Kansas City routes shown, for example. Other than that, this seems to be a great and very feasible proposal.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:03:57 +0000

Mad Park: yes, the US could spend $300 billion. That could create either a good HSR network, or a network with lines to nowhere in Vermont and Georgia as PIRG proposes – take your pick.

But to put things in perspective for you, if urban rail cost as little in the US as in the rest of the world (a little under $10,000 per weekday boarding, cf. $20,000 for US light rail and $50,000 for subways), and if the US wanted to have the same rail ridership per capita as New York nationwide (about 30 weekday boardings per 100 people), then this program would cost $900 billion. It would not be so glamorous as HSR, but it would help people’s commutes, and somewhat reduce car use and environmental damage. But if this program were to increase rail ridership to higher levels, say that of Hamburg (which has about 45 weekday boardings per 100 people) or Paris (which has nearly 70), or if the costs were proportional to those of existing urban rail projects in the US, its cost would be in the trillions.

By: gecko

gecko — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:08:54 +0000

It is definitely something better than nothing. Hopefully, we will seriously start to focus on really improving this country.

By: Mad Park

Mad Park — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 04:31:11 +0000

1) For 4 decades of obvious reasons, Amtrak should not be involved in any meaningful way in HSR planning.

2) The US COULD spend US$300B on HSR between now and 2020 IF it’d quit meddling in the business of other nations and peoples.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 03:53:25 +0000

Is PIRG also calling for nationwide campaigns for connecting transit, or just for the form of rail that’s high on pizzazz?

Also: connecting Atlanta to Birmingham and Macon but leaving Charlotte for “future HSR” is insane.