FEB 10

It's a start. Certainly not the full amount. I look forward to seeing the tea party decry this as a horrible waste of everyone's money because they think trains are still steam engines.

but now the right wing oil loving good ol boys are going to castigate Obama as a car hating nut...
I have a dream... a dream when America has a proper democracy that isn't owned by the wealthy few...

If high speed rail is ever to fly in this country we have to focus on area with the largest population density. Show it makes money there a and then move outward. Yes that means my federal taxes are going to be support the east and west coast (I'm in Ohio), but tell me something new. At a cost of dollars per passenger mile, or CO2 per passenger mile the high speed rail is going to beat planes. But it will take time to convince people to use the trains again, so you better start where they are most likely to succeed.

That is just a wish not to happen now that the Repubs. are back in power. From here on in it's back to drill baby drill and when we finally run out of fuel and we can't get ourselves across the street they will find a way to blame the other party for the whole mess.

@ohio et al,
sure yea prove it works in a dense population...but that has basically already been done. Though not tested in the US so much, we already know fast works works in a dense populations. Prove it works in a medium population and you've got something to really talk about.. take the middle path and it can be seen by those above and those below. Seriously test it in a place like one of the big C's and that's how you truly see if it works. I don't think this should be a trickle down study because it's looking at acceptance and perception, not safety or luxury.

But ... oh yea... hey our new gov is against high speed rail in ohio. He wants to spend the money on roads instead even though it is only allocated to high speed rail. He doesn't see the point in a time of fiscal restriction to spend money to make money or use progressive actions to make real positive change with magnifying force.

We had our chance wiht the previous gov. but more people came out in support of a different person, a person that likes to regress more then progress because people looked in their bank book and saw it tight and looked at their neighbor and saw them foreclosing on their house and got scared and said i want t back to the way it was instead of realizig the way it was was the way that got us here in the first place.

The new gov. prefers to look in a .25-4 year scope instead of a 10 to 100 year scope....The real trouble with way of life in USA (that for the most part we are ruled by decisions by the people who hold the money in quarterly cycles, the people that have the power in 2 and 4 year cycles, and often the books that were written 2000 years ago for people living 19 and 50 years ago) it becomes very insular, very small picture, very self serving and very lost in direct translation...in other words serving only those that serve us back directly... there is little future thinking only now thinking and me thinking... which doesn't leave much room for costly system changes unless an increase of money, power, or prestige occurs... which unfortunately seldom happens overnight...and will only occur if one can see a relatively quick gain in advantage over ones competitor without sacrifice of any comforts by making a switch...and sadly most honor or "right thing to do" is thrown under the bus when capitalism has to tighten it's belt or feels at all threatened...and lets face it, it feels threatened... because capitalism doesn't know it but it really functions much better when it extends it's hands 7 neighbors wide and 7 neighbors deep instead of slashing at the 1 very new neighbor who seems like he/she is going to seriously change the demographic and thus the culture and comfort of now to something a little leaner a little more difficult then the ease of flow now instead of celebrating the change as an opportunity to grow and improve....instead of trying hard to make change not change... even though we all know change is a river or a wind...we hardly see its movement but we see it's force... nearly impossible to stop...though possible to potentially direct, harness, and float with, or study and react.

Why can't big oil look at it self as an energy company or a product resource company instead of an oil company? because it is so heavily invested in its present self and how much it's invested in its present self that it can't see any other future (instead of maybe seeing that it's relation ship with itself is like staying in a bad relationship because one has already invested so much in it one can't see putting similar effort in a different relationship because one fought so hard to get where one was in ones present standing with one's present relationship instead of investigating the ease of transfer of lessons learned or bridging out and making friendships in new places and new ways... why can't big bad oil or dirty dangerous coal have a relationship/friendship/discussion with easy breezy wind or sunny happy solar or lol willful lunar wave? instead of spending all it's time trying to put coal in a freshly laundered party dress and while letting oil go beat up the neighbor kids and take their lunch but say it is actually to stand up for an other neighbor kid)

There is no reason companies that big shouldn't simply continue to profit but with ventures in different energy sources...It is simply diversifying a portfolio...proving one is not a one hit wonder who doesn't realize the party is over.

There is no reason big companies and small can't also see that high speed rail could improve their performance and broaden their target market making cracking the trend of "local" by remaining ethical by offering efficient effective ways to quickly and sensibly reach out, connect, and effect change for the positive or at least get some energy using piezoelectric conductors off of the vibration of change.

Matt:

Denser populated areas like the coasts pay much more in federal taxes than they get back. The middle of the country gets more than their share of tax dollars.

Is that telling something new?

Sorry my comment about Fed tax distribution by state/person was off topic.

Yes high speed rail has been proven in other countries, but sorry to say not here. I would rather see a couple of projects funded to a level to be completed. Than 10-20 projects that spend lots on studies and consultants; and then die before anyone rides a mile on them.

@Ryoin... I do not appreciate your assumption that all Tea Party members are ignorant. Your attitude and the attitude of those like you is the reason there is no progress in America. You are looking at the title and pictures of a book without reading the context. I support the idea of a Tea Party if only because it is something fundamentally different in America. Now, let's get back to the rail system that I am so ignorant about. I do think rail ways are the way to go, however, the proponents must realize that there is still a need for oil companies and gasoline (though natural gas burns much cleaner) are necessary for rural America. America's interests are so widely spread that we have to diversify. Railways are great way to do that. Granted, it is expensive, but I think it will be worth it in the long run. I also think oil companies are doing this country a favor by investing in American oil and gas. At least here regulations and the government make sure the processes necessary to run our nation occur cleanly and efficiently, limiting the amount of world-suck spread about. Let us cut the political assumptions and come together, realizing that solutions are costly and long term so decisions should not be treated lightly. Let us have a dialouge cutting the hatred of each other based on our political views and centering on our solutions. Because a well-thought, efficient, costly solution will no be able to be taken down by rhetoric but stand on its' own.

The reason why high speed rail has worked in other countries is that they are much SMALLER than we are. Did you realize that New York State is larger than from France to Germany? Our sheer scale makes the prospect of high speed rail very difficult. Sure you could put high speed rail from NYC to Chicago, but it would prove pretty limiting (and expensive) as you need large open expanses of uninhibited track to let the trains go fast, and you can only have a few on at one time going the same direction. Unless you can get many hundreds of people on each train it will become a very expensive, and ungainly system. Buyer beware.

This is yet another example of government waste.

First, "will go towards building new high speed rail corridors and outfitting existing lines for high speed" ... most of this will be outfitting existing lines, except that those lines are owned by freight lines which have, by law priority over passenger traffic.

High speed rail is not the answer, and all Obama wants to do is spend money which we don't have. If you're going to spend $53 billion dollars, spend it on fixing more roads and bridges, improve airports (by implementing point to point flight), and add more efficient buses and bus lines which are closer to the actual people who ride them. Expand bike paths for pete sake ... rail will never work here, sorry unless you spends hundreds and hundreds of billions (which we also don't have).

JA, you make some valid points and I agree with the ideas of improving busses and for that matter all forms of surface transportation.

But think ahead before you say high speed rail won't work. Remember when gas was upwards of $4/gal and the airlines were screaming because fuel cost so much? I recently read that the current prices (here in CA ~$3.50 gal) are higher for this time of year than at any time in history. Meaning, we're on track for the summer peak price to be back up to $4+ or perhaps even higher. We haven't somehow become immune to the effects of high fuel costs in only a couple of years, so what happened before is going to happen again. In years to come it's only going to get worse.

All of which leads to this: rail is the most fuel-efficient way to move lots of stuff (including people) long distances. Not only that, but since the high-speed trains are electric, you can run them on anything that generates electricity including wind or nuclear. Unless the airlines can find aircraft that can compete, they are going to be in trouble, especially on shorter routes. Incidentally, any law that gives freight priority over passengers can be changed, and just because they are going to use the same right-of-way doesn't mean they'll use the same track.

We've had a brief respite from high fuel prices because the economy tanked. That isn't going to last and we'll soon be needing once again to squeeze every bit of work we can out of every drop of petroluem.

Fifty three billion wasted bucks.
Anybody witnessing the building of a pitiful little 20 to 30 mile long light rail system such as the one at Portland, Oregon that operates at speeds of 15 to 45 MPH with luck and takes several billion bucks just to make it available for use and had to fight many battles to get there. Many of us tea party types understand the proposed federal administration's scheme is just a scam.

Factors to consider against :
1. High Speed Rail has to have fairly level land to run on which is not the average terrain here in the U.S.A.
2. Spurs to populated regions will still be the old slow ways just like the ties to the vaunted systems in other areas of the world (Saw a family going to an express rail terminal in the Orient riding in a trailer being pulled by the family gas powered rototiller).
3. It can't have competing rail uses such a freight operations on the same trackage.
4. It faces years of rabid NIMBY opposition in inhabited areas.
5. Years of environmental protection challenges in rural scenic areas.
6. Years of court battles for right-of-way and support structure(s) acquisition.
7. Years of proof testing before customer acceptance.
8. Existing airline and bus systems opposition.
9. Existing aircraft, bus, truck, and union opposition.
10. I could go on and on.

Meanwhile various governmental entities are disposing of existing rail lines and right-of-ways, converting them to bike/walking paths, or subsidizing competitive uses such as highways and airports. This removes some of the infrastructure that could support an orderly transition to more rapid rail service, which this country really needs.