How sweet! Build something for the people with no jobs or money to just look at. Typical of the government to wast money on something the people cannot afford to ride or have any use of.

Maybe we should take away government Welfare programs that our government is living on. They give the people crumbs to live on while they all take 50% more of everything. They are no better than the people on welfare, because the people running our country are on their own welfare program that gives them more than they deserve.

We dont need to catch up with the rest of the world on some things, this be one of them. This country got great by doing its own thing and living its own dreams. Not by being followers.

In 200 short years, this country went from a nobody to the envy of the world. And it wasnt because we followed other countries.

Now we have a huge segment of society that wants us to "catch up" to other countries. We need nationalized healthcare because Europe has it. Bullcrap. They are failing.

Yea, we'll follow them alright, over the cliff!

Exactly! And you see how our wonderful government maintains our roads now! Can't wait to see what this waste of funds will look like in 20 years.

AZ

Simple workers will loose their jobs because new technology and is speeding up in its development. Its going to be even worse, don't tell people we should just collect cotton from our back yard like we always did, nothing stands in one place. Dragging backwards because your are too proud to admit that we are way behind will not help any body, and certainly not my family that cant find a simple job.

This is just another huge gov't run money hole that will never make a dime profit with many future generations subsidizing it with tax dollars.

It's beyond belief how out of touch and mentally deficient these pols are. Send them home in 2012.

Emma...so building more railroad is not going back in time? lol Collecting cotton?? Dont be such a drama queen.

Look, we in Phoenix built this light rail that costs billions on the premise it will reduce traffic congestion by taking more cars off the roads, etc. It failed miserably to deliver on its promises. Its considered an expensive boondoggle now. I am all for moving forward with SANE projects like upgrading this country's fiber optics for better faster internet etc. But trains?? And you speak of moving ahead?

Amtrak has been a big government drain and has been losing money for years now. We should expand it?? Please.

One has to wonder.... Is the future of business going to be in getting people to the office to work, or allowing the office to move to where people are. Are advances in the Internet going to be a more cost effective manner to do business?

I'm an engineer that believes in investment and technology. But like many of our military leaders.... are we fighting the last war? I'm not sure that moving people is going to be as important as moving information and ideas. I've not studied the issue so not sure either way.

The president does not approve funding, its congress. Fat chance this will get funded in the next couple of years given the current debit.

What a ridiculous idea.

Who rides a train anyways? Must be Biden's idea.

Dear Mr. President we are not Europe, no matter how bad you would like us to be.

Rails would create jobs and money. And Honestly, most countries figured this out a loooonngg time ago. We need a transportation infrastructure to better connect towns, cities, and states. Europe, Japan, China, Germany, and Russia figured this out eons ago. Its just that greed and corruption (yes, even in the USof A) has stopped the progress of this from happening. You can see the disadvantage and loss of money Airlines would incur. They do not want this to happen. They want a monopoly on long distance travel so they can continue to charge passangers for bags, seats with 5 inches more leg room, and the ridiculousness of these special "sky mile" clubs that let you board the plane 2 minutes before everyone else. An exercise in the stupidity of individuals!!!

And 1 more thing.

Instead of spending $56,000,000,000 on this dumb idea how about you give teachers a nice fat bonus?!?!?

In 200 short years, this country went from a nobody to the envy of the world. And it wasnt because we followed other countries.

First, it must be remembered that we had one of the highest standards of living in the world at the time of the revolution. Second, we became the envy of the world as a result of investments in our infrastructure. starting with a large canal network, then railroads, then highways and finally airports. All the ingenuity in the world is useless if we can efficiently move people and goods from point A to point B. I have my concerns about the proposed high-speed train network, but we shouldn't turn down infrastructure improvements merely because of the cost. If they make economic sense, even huge projects should be undertaken. That's how we got to be the envy of the world -- by thinking big.

Teachers a BONUS? For what? For making us 28th in the world in our education of students?

(Grew up in a family of teachers including hubby-a former teacher.)

And we'll go from being the envy of the world back to nobody in far fewer than 200 years if we all believe like egomaniacs that we have nothing to learn from other societies, AZchzhd.

So, while you rail (pun intended) against this plan as being built on the back of yesterday's technology, I'll bet you are also against forward-thinking initiatives such as wind, solar, and other non-fossil fuel power generating options.

How do YOU propose we move forward?

just because obama gave the rich a tax cut is no reason to dump on him,bush did that too.

I'm really curious why such seemingly common sense proposals are summarily rejected with such vehemence.

Unless you live under a rock, you've seen firsthand the sorry state of infrastructure in this country - we've been underfunding and under-maintaining it for decades. Not only would this type of program provide jobs throughout it's construction and operation, it enables people living along or near the line to have a much wider area in which to work and live - it expands their opportunity and economic power, it moves people and goods efficiently, and at less of a resource impact (fuel and pollution).

If our parents and grandparents held the same selfish, isolationist values as we see and hear (today, on this board) we wouldn't have interstate highways, rural electrification, an internet, etc. - just a bunch folks sitting alone in the dark wilderness, blissfully ignorant, untaxed, and unconnected.

I'm glad they chose a different path for our country.

High speed rail is ridiculous unless you have very long distances to travel. That's why China is building it (that and the fact that they have very little infrastructure anyway).

Short runs (the only ones that make any money at all), will not benefit from higher speeds. New York to New Jersey is a short run, as are all commuter lines.

Trains will not compete with air travel for 99.9% of travelers. When you want to travel somewhere 1000 miles away, you would not take a train unless that was your vacation. And, of course, there has to be a passenger line going to that destination.

I happen to like riding the rails, but high-speed passenger rail service is a pipe dream that would suck money that could actually be used for something much more important and beneficial.

Yes, I guess those darn American Indians were blissfully ignorant, until Europeans began their march across the fruited plain and leaving behind a trail of death and destruction!

Teachers a BONUS? For what? For making us 28th in the world in our education of students?

No parents did that. Motivation for learning belongs to the parents. Children in the US get everything handed to them. Then the expectation is that they deserve a job and a high paying one.

High speed rail is ridiculous unless you have very long distances to travel

BS. When I was in Italy, we took high speed rail all the time from Rome to Florence and Rome to Naples. Those trips would be crazy expensive by air and would take longer and sometimes cost more by car.

LOL, ok Larry,

http://www.insidervlv.com/landmass.html

I'd be all for a new rail system if the current rail system wasn't subsidized like it is. Why should we be building a few short rail systems that are highly likely to loose money every year just like Amtrak? I'd rather the government spend the 53 billion on a new rocket to the moon and Mars. Instead it seems 9 billion is too much for them to spend yet not enough to get the job done. If we want to lead into the future, we need to go places nobody has ever gone. High speed rails are yesteryear.

Best use of 53 billion would be in bettering our education though.

Dr Noo "This is just another huge gov't run money hole that will never make a dime profit with many future generations subsidizing it with tax dollars."

yeah, like paved roads were huh? some things, you see, arent meant to turn a profit - but "pave" the way for profits to be made. High Speed rail is one of those things, in my opinion. You can disagree on that point if you want, but to simply say "it'll never make a dime of profit" is just a pitiful argument.

In fact, if we ONLY EVER DID THINGS that reaped us profit, you're entire house would look an episode of hoarders, wouldnt it?

Truth is, there are some things we simply must just DO despite not making a buck for doing it...or heck, even some things cost us money - like deodarant, but yet, you put some on every morning even though it doesnt spit you out a dollar bill after doing it, right?

About $378 per taxpayer.

Hopefully we'll get a bill, or will this be borrowed too?

This article was somewhat misleading in a couple of ways:

1) The level of train service being proposed is what Japan started in 1963 --- almost 50 years ago. You can't play catch-up when you set your goals that low.

2) Comparing this proposal to state-of-the art high-speed trains is stupid. The latest Chinese trains and France's TGV are both 300-mph systems.

I have lived in both Tokyo and in Europe and have ridden high-speed trains in several countries. They are great. In Japan and Europe I would always choose a high-speed train over flying. More comfort and much better service.

Recently my wife and I and several friends went from central Alabama to New Orleans by Amtrak Crescent City. It is not high speed by any means. But it had several advantages over flying or driving:

1) One of the problems with flying is that you don't go to your destination, but to an outlying area near your destination. Trans go city-center to city-center. So you have to count the entire trip. I drove 10 minutes to the Amtrak station, parked, and rode the train to New Orleans and walked to my B&B in NO. To fly, I would have had to drive one hour to the airport in Birmingham (deregulation ended air service to my city years ago), arrive an hour early to get through security, fly for one hour, claim my baggage and then get transportation into New Orleans from the airport. Instead of being free parking (as with Amtrak) I would have had to pay $12 a day for parking.

2) Leg room and room for baggage was very adequate. The restrooms were kept clean by the conductor. There was a club car for food and drinks. The conductor helped people put their luggage up and take it down. The conductor would wake people up when their stop came so they would be ready to get off.

3) There were no funky fees on Amtrak. I actually brought back a couple of things that I would not have been able to bring with me on an airplane without special packing --- such as a 40x60 watercolor.

4) The total time to get from my house to a B&B was significantly faster than flying and about the same as driving.

5) Even though the TSA has exactly the same rules for rail travelers and cruise passengers as air travelers, the level of security theater was way low. There were railway police around watching everyone, and a metal detector gate to go through and baggage was x-rayed and sniffed by a dog, there was no groping of my privates and no one seemed to care that I had an artificial knee.

6) It was $35 each way on Amtrak compared to over $200 to fly and around $50+ for gasoline to drive.

And I guess the nut case who ranted about how it is better to fly for a thousand miles than to take a train --- obviously you have never flown the same route that you took a high-speed train. For any trip within the continental US, a TGV-speed train would be significantly faster and cheaper than flying. Take your hypothetical 1000-mile trip and do the math. The train is significantly faster. Most airliners do not average as high a speed as a high-speed train and leave you to get to and from the airport on your own.

It's not just Europe and China. Japan has had high speed trains for over forty years, with their fastest train reaching 361 mph.

Imaging going from D.C. to NYC in under an hour. People could commute greater distances in search of work or be able to visit family without spending hours on the freeway and dealing with traffic, gas prices, limited mobility. On a train, you could move passengers and cargo at the same time, something you can't do on the highways. This would be a big step towards efficiency and cost savings for corporations and private citizens.

For all of you who think this a good idea; If it was a good idea then why does the government have to do it. Private companies should be lining up to get a hand in it. Where are they? They all know it's a losing proposition, (Amtrak) especially if its govt. run.

Some one posted the "but its infrastructure" argument (roads, bridges etc.). Those infrastructures represent one of the few areas in our overtaxed country where there is taxation with representation (kinda); Gas tax. Most use cars and those who don't, don't have to pay the tax. How do you propose we pay for this when no one will use it. I'll tell you; they'll tax us all, and cry about how we're really to stupid to know what we actually need. Its the liberal way.

Get a clue. WHO WANTS IT?

Get a clue. NO ONE WITH 2 BRAIN CELLS WANTS IT?

One, you make an assumption that private businesses are intelligent and quick to jump on good ideas. This is sadly not true. Second, what businesses that there are out there don't want good transportation infrastructure, because our system is based on a wasteful system of every person owning a car which burns gas, and driving that car a good distance every day to go to work, or go into town for shopping. This sells lots of cars and burns lots of oil. Its not particularly cost effective for the individual, and its not a good "big picture" system, but its the one making money for those who are in charge. US industry is driven by the quarter not by the future.

The reason the US infrastructure can not advance in this country is because any prodject that is planned is always loaded with overrun! It's like any bill that is introduced in the House or Congress, it is loaded with pork! Free money to all that is involved at the taxpayers expense!

Tod,

In my opinion, Because the Private Sector (Private Sector = Big Business) is only in it for profit not for the benefit of the citizens. Also its possiable the Private Sector would do something else with whatever money they got to build the High Speed rail, they always do. And finally the mentality in the USA is that the Rich get to go whereever they want and the poor should be content with where they are and not want to move. So thus, the Private sector would lobby to end this before it began based upon the rich get it all the the poor should put up with it and shut up.

Also if a route earned .00000001% below expectation that route is cut off. The Private sector does not care if tens of thousands loose rail, profit is the name of the game, not helping the citizens. The Private sector ask, what can my country do for me, not what I can do for my country.

Thats why the Private Sector should be kept as far away from the high speed rail as possiable.

Tod - you're right. There is a privately-funded high-speed mag-lev train that will ferry passengers and autos betreen Grand Rapids and Detroit in one hour. The cost: $2 billion. The price to government? Free use of the median space along I-96. The group who is proposing this already has pledges.

This is an example of what the private sector can do - if government will allow it. There is a potential problem - government-sponsored high-speed rail between Grand Rapids and Chicago (part of the $53 billion) which will require altering the existinig Amtrack rails to accommodate the higher speeds (which will still be slower than the proposed mag-lev to Detroit). These apparently are competing interests.

I'm not an expert nor do I know if this is a good investment or not.

Here is what would be helpful, rather than calling names and criticizing.

1. How about a 1-sheet showing us how this mode of transportation will actually pay off? Give us stats of where the dollars will come from to pay off the cost, and to maintain the system.

2. I wonder if this is the right solution in the US - Europe, China and Japan all have different geography and needs than us, and as others have stated, have invested over 50 years. How about a 50 year plan for the US?

3. More people than ever work from home. Technology allows for this. Is this a trend that will continue to expand or are we at the limit?

4. How practical is this nationally, or is this a solution well suited for the east coast, but way too expensive for the middle of the country or the west coast?

I do think that government can make good investments. I am just not sure this is one, and as for California, it makes no sense at all, and my city will be one of the first to receive funds and jobs from this type of project. It just makes no sense based on where people work vs live, and the existing auto based system in place.

If it were a money making proposition the private sector would be fighting to make the investment, but its not, this will be another government boondoggle just like Amtrack is now.

In the midwest where I live we are too spread out to make rail practical. Your commute to the rail station would be as far as your commute to the office is now. Let the people in the cities who would benefit from this pay for it. This just looks like another far-flung plan to throw billions at something for the sake of throwing billions at it.

A big difference between the US and much of the rest of the world is that we have a large geographic expanse and people are spread out. Our placement has evolved in great part because we've had wide access to cars the past 100 years (unlike in European countries where people located along rail lines because that was how they traveled).

We should let private enterprise build the high speed rail lines if it makes economic sense to do so, because our government is broke and does not have the money for a boondoggle like this.

All the ingenuity in the world is useless if we can efficiently move people and goods from point A to point B.

Big typo ... should read "all the ingenuity in the world is useless if we CAN'T efficiently move people..."

Correction: Not mag-lev. Hydrogen powered rail. Here's a link to the article.

Your "big picture" involves my hard earned money that I want to be able to chose who to give to.

magnum and rconstant: SO WHAT!! You could say the same thing about any project you declare that your idea of "society" is in need of.

Bruce...I agree 100%. The city of Phoenix, where I live, the metropolitan is over 80 miles wide. That is almost as wide as England and more than double the size of the entire state of Rhode Island. High speed rail may work in the East, but out West, especially with the terrain, its a waste of time and money.

Tod, it involves "our" hard earned money. We live in a republic so you chose where your money goes by who you elect to your representative office.

Some things just don't belong in the private sector. Pretty much anything that is part of health, infrastructure, or criminal justice should not be in the private sector. The reason is because these sorts of services should be distributed with no consideration of socio-economic situations. Anytime "for profit" is applied to a scenario corruption will occur. That's a given. So you keep that motivation away from national and state services.

2. I wonder if this is the right solution in the US - Europe, China and Japan all have different geography and needs than us, and as others have stated, have invested over 50 years. How about a 50 year plan for the US?

There is no one solution for this. We need a multilayered infrastructure that includes cars, trains and planes. As for those people in the west who complain that they don't want to pay for trains on the east coast, there are many on the east coast who don't want to pay for highways and airports out west. We're ONE country and we have to think like one country.

3. More people than ever work from home. Technology allows for this. Is this a trend that will continue to expand or are we at the limit?

The problem is that we have a skewed view of the world on here. We're posting in the middle of the day. That means that a) we're not working, b) we're working at home or c) we have enough autonomy that we can post from work. So, most likely, the idea of telecommuting looms large for us. But, for instance, at my company, only about 10% of the employees have jobs that would be possible to do off-site. A factory worker or warehouseman can't telecommute. A waitress, sales clerk and number of other people can't telecommute. There IS a limit to what telecommuting can do to relieve stress on the infrastructure.

Does anyone remember the concept of 'the common good'? In the Constitution it's called "the general welfare" - where did it go? Why is the only criteria whether or not something makes money? Why should our government be run (or judged) like a for-profit business?

Genuinely curious what people's perceptions are here.

Oh brother, another money pit...'kill it Quint, kill it!! NOW!!!"

You won't even be able see the fast thing go by...not because it is that fast, but because you will be too busy dodging potholes (if you can even afford a car) in the freakin, cracked up road!!

43 million people in poverty... how is this going to help???

rconstant,

you just put health care in the same category as criminal justice. Do you own a constitution, a bill of rights? Every American is not guaranteed access to health care any more than they are guaranteed the right to a flat panel TV!!

Stop creating rights that require more govt. intervention, power and regulation.

Tod,

Actually American's can Constitutionally expect the government to see their general welfare. As a rule we also tend to hold to this idea of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Considering the many things that we do assume that the government is rightfully responsible for health care is a very easy assumption to add to the list. I figured you'd flounder on that one though. Almost didn't add it because of its distraction value in avoiding the over all point.

"Considering the many things that we do assume that the government is rightfully responsible for"

"We do assume" in that you are right; many of you on the left do that all day long.

Pacific,

Do you actually believe that "Common Good" and General Welfare" mean take money from one person and give it to another (income distribution)? Or that somehow government's job is to birth, educate, employ, transport, medicate, pension, bury, and, if any money is left, then protect you and property? Is that what you mean by Common good and General welfare?

43 million people in poverty... how is this going to help???

You might have asked the same question before the Interstate Highway System was constructed. But, it allowed the faster, cheaper transportation of good and people. It allowed people easier access to better paying jobs, even if they weren't in the same little community in which they lived. In short, the country would be unimaginable without them.

If the standard of any project is how it is going to cure poverty, nothing is going to get done.

Or that somehow government's job is to birth, educate, employ, transport, medicate, pension, bury, and, if any money is left, then protect you and property?

Actually, transportation is a common good. There are "goods" that benefit society as a whole that are not undertaken by the private sector because the benefits don't (and can't accrue) to specific individuals and companies. This is a bit like rural electrification in the 1930's. It was of immense value to the country to have its farms electrified (more efficient agriculture, new markets for manufactured goods, etc...), but no one segment could accrue enough benefits to bear the cost of the electrification. It was also of immense value to this country to have an extensive, coast-to-coast rail network. That's why Washington gave vast amounts of land to the railroads to make it worth their while.

rconstant,

A question for you and all the other Govt.-run health care advocates: exactly how do you plan to pay for this health care?

Fact is, we are broke! Over shadowing this whole discussion and seemingly impervious to Govt.-spending supporters (like on this train), is the fact that the value of the US dollar is losing more and more value due to our Govt.'s money-printing press (already at 11% and dropping at an accelerating pace).

We keep thinking we can print money any time we need it to get out of trouble, but that is only if the US dollar maintains its role as the world reserve currency. In addition, the rate at which we have been printing money lately, our dollar will eventually lose this role. And then we will have more than health care to worry about, believe me!

You may not think things are THAT BAD in the U.S. economy right now, but consider this simple fact from the National Inflation Association:
Even if all U.S. citizens were taxed 100% of their income... it would still not be enough to balance the Federal budget! We'd still have to borrow money, just to maintain the status quo.

On the line of the devaluing dollar, recently the other major countries in the world (Russia, Japan, China, and France) held a meeting. Not only did they not invite us, they kept it in secret the best they could! In that meeting, they discussed the elimination of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency.

Believe me, when the Yen, Quan, or the other emerging Berkshares currency takes over as the world reserve currency, oil prices in the US are going to sky rocket and we will be paying European prices for gasoline. It will be upwards of 5-7 dollars a gallon or higher because the US dollar as the world reserve currency helps keep the prices down!

You think the riots that happened in Europe and are now happening in Egypt, is not going to happen here? Most Americans are in Normalcy Bias! They don't believe anything bad will happen to them!

And for anyone to think we can afford this health care plan of the current administration or even a "fast train" as this article reports, needs a reality check! We are on a fast train alright! Headed for the biggest economic train wreck the world has ever seen!

When we start seeing riots and chaos starting on our streets because few people can afford the outrageous cost of food or other services because of huge fuel prices and the resulting out of control cost of living, the nice big government is not going to save your ass!

Joe Biden should know better than anyone that we cannot afford this "little toy train" or the Obamacare package, or the recent "stimulus money" either.

Reminds me of a bet I had with myself over the Superbowl. I bet Myself a billion dollars that GB would win and I won the bet. Myself said, "I'll write you a check..."

Just call me Pissed Off Charlie...

Your post begs the question Charlie - how much would you be paying for gas if you were riding a highspeed train?

Would be able to afford the cost of riding the thing...

Another PIPE DREAM by this Administration. Sure must be getting smoky in the Rose Garden.

Oh, I forgot....the First Lady said her husband quit smoking (as he sneaks out the back door).

So it must be GOOD for the country (or a Legal Right to have a train commuter system) to RAISE THE RAILS and catch up with China and Japan....which will probably take 200 years. Another money pit just like the high speed rail between L.A. and Vegas.

A line item in the next budget under high suspicion of who is going to profit from this endeavor. Could it be GE which will probably be given taxpayer dollars to produce the first GREEN TRAIN run on cow, or beltway, poop ????

Sounds like the VIRTUAL FENCE built by Boeing. After $ 1,000,000,000, the taxpayers have nothing to show for it.

Amen Ido!

Just like your mentioned Boeing project, a body builder cannot get in shape by just doing "spot workouts" and the govt. cannot get us back in shape by just doing "spot spending!" Each must do the correct application to the whole body as a unit. Or nothing happens.

Good post Ido!

The government needs an extensive plan if it is going to fix the mess that we are in. Spotty spending or investing will yield a limited return that will be lost by the burden of increasing the national debt. Someone said that we need a 50 yr. plan. Is this a systematic reform or just a small step along that journey in the plans of the Transportation department that could easily be overshadowed in the future to the extent that it drowns in its own lack of vision.

The constitution says the government should "promote" the general welfare, which may not be the same thing as planning, paying for, maintaining, and ensuring it.

How could the government promote high speed rail short of doing it all? There are many ways. Perhaps tax incentives for companies interested in developing it. By helping the companies acquire the land they need via emminate (sp?) domain proceedings. These would both "promote" the general welfare without taking on the sole responsibility for it.

We have MANY infrastructure examples in this country that are not government owned. THe airlines are private. Most electrical lines and gas lines are privately owned (but government regulated). The federal government does not maintain most of the roads in this country (the states, counties, and cities do, although they seem to rely more and more on federal funds for it.)

In short, we really need LESS government, not more. If the federal government would get out of half the businesses it's in, taxes could be lowered to a miniscule level and then the states could handle most of what the feds try to do today (or it wouldn't get done). We've simply proven that it's impossible to provide for everybody's wants and whims, and we have to start putting the burden back on individuals to provide for themselves and their families.

You're welcome Tod,

We on the Left make those assumptions all day. And because of that you now live in a representative republic instead of being a subject of the Crown. We don't have slavery, we and our allies don't speak German, we have civil rights regardless of race, we can expect general safety precautions at work, we can expect to make a minimum wage, we can expect to not have to send out kids to work in factories, and the list goes on.

Conservatives are reactionary and as such are afraid of just about everything. If we on the left stopped every time you guys got scared or lacked vision there would be no USA.

Charlie,

We can't afford NOT to have HCR. now I'll admit I'm not a huge fan of this particular plan. It should be single payer. But considering how freaked out the right got at the implementation of their own health care plan I guess that would have been completely out of the question. Right now we end up having to cover expensive emergency treatments because people can only afford to go when things are really bad.

You are right that things are getting bad. We falling the white rabbit of unregulated markets for 30 years. And its brought us to this point. Time to start waking up.

Here's the bottom line when it comes to government involvement. When a state (or feds) spends a dime that dime comes from two places; businesses and citizens. So that money is not used to produce (business) nor is it used to consume (citizens). With one fell swoop you have limited job growth.

If a state continues to spend and tax, the business will go to another state that does'nt.

Here's my point; when you add over-regualtion (as rconstant just suggested) to over-taxation and over-spending COMPANY"S LEAVE THE COUNTRY!!

sound familiar to anyone (hint: China, India)

That's interesting because the US was at its most powerful when it was at its most regulated. When we deregulated what happened? Businesses all left. Taxes have nothing to do with that, hell many major companies like GE don't even pay them. Deregulation allows them to dodge those pesky taxes. The idea of the government "getting out of the way of business" has 30 years of proof against it. Businesses don't suddenly become benevolent because they got a tax break. They shove it into a foreign bank and sit on it. Under deregulation the US worker has one option. Continually decline the standard of living until the majority of the country is living in 3rd world conditions. Then yeah I agree the companies might come back.

The fact is that the only way to turn US industry around is going to take the government getting very aggressive. And sadly the US corporations seemed determined to force the government's hand in this. The only thing that has ever kept US industry working for America has been government intervention. It SHOULDN'T work that way but it does. US industry feels no loyalty to our nation. And Deregulation has time and again proven to be lost cause.

rconstant

DE-regulation and the piling on of regulations on companies, by state, local and federal governments, is not the same thing. (I'm not going waste time explaining it to you)

The rest of what you wrote is typical liberal revisionist history, and U.S. or any industrythat is loyal to their stock holders the way they should be.

Businesses should not pay tax anyway. Any profits that a business makes, either goes back into the business or is given out as income or dividends, both of which are taxed!!

Busines tax should be eliminated like inheritance tax; both are double taxation and ethically wrong to begin with.

Revisionist? Oh the irony of that statement.

So let me see if I'm reading your right. You're taking the typical Conservative approach of: cut revenue, send jobs over seas, make sure more money is taken out of the economy and sent to overseas banks. When things collapse either take out more loans to make things appear to be OK (Reagonomics). Or just point to the nearest democrat and say "tax and spend" even if he actually lower taxes, and then scream "where's the jobs!!!" Then when you get some more Conservatives in office you want them to twiddle their thumbs and say: "Its not the job of government to create jobs" (Teapublican).

Does that about sum it up?

I also like how Conservatives puff up words like Patriot but then sneer at the concept of national loyalty.

Other than your one true statement:"Its not the job of government to create jobs": I honestly have no idea what you are blathering on about: cut revenue, send jobs overseas, take money out of the country blah, balh blah.

I am also convinced you don't either.

Don't feel bad. Most Conservatives seem to suffer from this.

At least you're honest and don't blame Obama or the democrats for the slow job growth since its not government's job and all.

O contrair,

I blame Bush for misplacing his veto pen during both reps and dems congressional watch. Presently I do blame Obama (though he at least is being true to his principles) for not getting govt. out of the way, and making it worse. I blame repubs for always backing down and holding onto their spending projects.

There is a huge difference between government "creating" job growth, and government allowing an environment that promotes job growth.

P.S. government intrusion; pushing (encouraging/muscling) banks into giving home loans to those not qualified, got us here.

That's be pretty big over simplification. What got us here was the government stepping away from the banks back in the 80's and allow them to to take bets on bets. What got us here was the government stepping away and letting jobs head south of the border. What got us here was the Supreme Court seeing a Corporation as a "Person". What got us here was the government stepping away allowing patents on living organisms. The more ground that the corporate sector gains the worse off you and I are. The vast majority of Americans are beholden to the corporate sector. The government however is at least somewhat beholden to the citizenry. When you weaken the government before corporate interests. You pulling the teeth from the one entity that has the power to protect you. This is all a matter of history.

rconstant,

I beg to differ on the cause of this mess we are in. Like Tod says, the housing market started this whole thing through the govt pushing "to get everyone into a house." Banks felt pressured to give the loans and made some bad decisions because of it. The hedge fund stuff was just a side show.

I would rather see them spend the money for direct investment in new companies creating new jobs. Work with the private sector in places where this makes sense. As for public roads, imagine all roads are private and when you roll out of the driveway the meter starts running.

LOL you’re kidding right, I'm an engineer and NOTHING about flying is cheaper than riding a train. High-speed rail systems travel between speeds of 110mph to 268mph on average and are designed for short distance traveling; let’s say traveling from NYC to Washington. Production of rail systems are relatively cheap compared to other forms of travel, that’s why American corporations often use rail system to transport goods across the country (ECON 101). Currently, we are one of the only developed countries who do not have a high-speed railways system (International Union of Railways). Ironically, comparing train tracks to roads, train tracks permit a far higher throughput of passengers per hour than a road of the same width. Wikipedia states an interesting figure for people similar to you:

The rail market share rose from 49 to 72 %. For air and road traffic, the market shares shrunk from 31 to 7 % and from 29 to 21 %, respectively. On the Madrid–Sevilla relation, the AVE connection rose the rail market share from 16 to 52; air traffic shrunk from 40 to 13 %; road traffic from 44 to 36 %, hence the rail market amounted to 80% of the combined rail and air traffic. This figure increased to 89% in 2009, according to the Spanish rail operator RENFE According to Peter Jorritsma, the rail marked share y, as compared to planes, can be computed approximately as a function of the travelling time in minutes x by the formula

y = 1 / (0.031*1.016^x + 1)

According to this formula, a journey time of three hours yields 65 % market share. However, market shares are also influenced by ticket prices, so some air carriers have regained market shares by price slashing

LOL you’re kidding right, I'm an engineer and NOTHING about flying is cheaper than riding a train. High-speed rail systems travel between speeds of 110mph to 268mph on average and are designed for short distance traveling; let’s say traveling from NYC to Washington. Production of rail systems are relatively cheap compared to other forms of travel, that’s why American corporations often use rail system to transport goods across the country (ECON 101). Currently, we are one of the only developed countries who do not have a high-speed railways system (International Union of Railways). Ironically, comparing train tracks to roads, train tracks permit a far higher throughput of passengers per hour than a road of the same width. Wikipedia states an interesting figure for people similar to you:

The rail market share rose from 49 to 72 %. For air and road traffic, the market shares shrunk from 31 to 7 % and from 29 to 21 %, respectively. On the Madrid–Sevilla relation, the AVE connection rose the rail market share from 16 to 52; air traffic shrunk from 40 to 13 %; road traffic from 44 to 36 %, hence the rail market amounted to 80% of the combined rail and air traffic. This figure increased to 89% in 2009, according to the Spanish rail operator RENFE According to Peter Jorritsma, the rail marked share y, as compared to planes, can be computed approximately as a function of the travelling time in minutes x by the formula

y = 1 / (0.031*1.016^x + 1)

According to this formula, a journey time of three hours yields 65 % market share. However, market shares are also influenced by ticket prices, so some air carriers have regained market shares by price slashing

Cory, conservatives don't like all this mathy and sciencey stuff. Makes you sound elitist.

I am pretty sure the Airlines are all subsidized waaaay more that the railways. If we subsidized Amtrak to the extent we do the highways and airlines it would probably be cheaper.

Amtrak is heavily +++++ subsidized. If not, there would not be any passanger rail in the US.

Only more expensive for long haul. Short haul (<250 miles) train tickets are typically cheaper. The high speed corridors in the NE and NW are both price and time competitive with flying. And they are profitable. We need more of those.

In my experience these corridors are very different than the typical Amtrak experience. The trains are full of business people and other regular customers that are very happy to have the alternative to flying or driving. I consider myself lucky to live on one. When I have to go to a business meeting in Seattle I get a few hours of work done on my laptop, while the others are fighting traffic or getting groped by the TSA.

Please. Stop the "new Companies creating new jobs" BS. The instant a new company creates these "new jobs" they will immediately begin to look for ways to cut cost and save money by hiring offshore at half the cost of hiring a US worker that wants in excess of $30 to $60/hour for their time. So no, investing in "new companies" is not the one stop shop solution to building the economy. We tried that for 8 years under Bush and longer under Reagan. See where it got us today!!!!

SupperClub, since when did President Bush or President Regan EVER invest in American infrastructure? Like you so boldly commited! O ya, by the way President Regan and President Bush both paid for their "American" tax cuts by ignoring the American Infrastructure. Take Ronald Reagan for example:

Legislated Tax Changes by Ronald Reagan as of 1988

Source: Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1990 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989), p. 4-4.

Now where in President Regan's Acts does it include Infrastructure repair, which was federally scheduled to start during his presidency.

I am pretty sure the Airlines are all subsidized waaaay more that the railways.

Yeah that's why so many are struggling to stay alive. Do you think the taxpayers fund the stockholders of the airlines?

LOL you’re kidding right, I'm an engineer and NOTHING about flying is cheaper than riding a train. High-speed rail systems travel between speeds of 110mph to 268mph on average and are designed for short distance traveling; let’s say traveling from NYC to Washington.

LOL. You're an engineer?

You make us all look bad. High speed rail is NOT designed for short distance traveling - it's ONLY use is LONG distance traveling.

NYC to Washington, DC is about 230 miles by road (rail would be about the same). Would the train make intermediate stops - or just bypass Trenton, Philadelphia, Wilmington, Newark, and Baltimore??

Tell me what point the train will approach 200 mph, much less 268 mph?? Nope, the average speed would, in reality, be about what the Acela Express does now (you know it would make intermediate stops). It takes 3-4 hours for this route now on a train that "can reach 150 mph". Higher speeds will not help, because we can't have multi-g accelerations and decelerations.

Oh, and 1-way NYC to DC costs from $76 to $337.

To "not-payin-attention"

AMTRAK is subsidized, airlines are not.

Tell me what point the train will approach 200 mph, much less 268 mph?? Nope, the average speed would, in reality, be about what the Acela Express does now (you know it would make intermediate stops). It takes 3-4 hours for this route now on a train that "can reach 150 mph". Higher speeds will not help, because we can't have multi-g accelerations and decelerations.

High speed rail lines are for direct travel. They would not stop at Trenton, Phily, etc. That's the entire point. You can take a low speed regional train from the main terminals after if you like.

Great post Cory! I have traveled by high-speed rail in both Europe and Japan and would never fly in either place if rail were an available alternative. Rail is cheaper, much faster (if you consider the entire door-to-door time and not just the airport to airport flying time) and much, much, much more comfortable.

At 67, my biggest complaint is that there is no longer any where to put my arthritic knees on a cattle-plane.

And for @literfairy: most high speed train systems interface several speeds of train service and interface directly with buss and subway systems. So, to get from one place to another in, say Japan, might involve taking a bike from my apartment to a train station, taking local train from Higashi-Fuchu (a Tokyo suburb where I lived) then transferring to a medium-speed express train with limited stops at the first opportunity then switching to a high-speed train to go to Kyoto and then back to an express train to get to Nara. It sounds like a lot, but the trains are so efficient that it would take less time for the entire trip than the drive to the airport would take. It isn't a terminal to terminal thing --- they interleave high speed, medium-speed express trains, and local trains on the same tracks by controlling the train flow with computers. So to switch from a local train to a higher-speed train usually consists of getting off at a common stop and getting on the next train at the same platform. We used to do it that way here until the 1950's. The terminal-to-terminal thing isn't done anywhere by anyone except airlines and ships. That's why airlines carry passengers 40% further than necessary only to dump them ion the boonies hours from their actual destination.

High speed trains would allow you to move goods and passengers faster, which allows for more goods and passengers in a given time period, which would cost less.

Also, taking a high speed train from Nashville to Dallas would take about 2hours moving at 361 mph (example - Japanese MAGLEV) vice 10 hours driving at highway speed and dealing with traffic, gas, vehicle maintenance, lodging if required, accidents, speeding tickets, etc (all of which have taxes attached to it) in order to cover the same 665 mile trip.

I'd pay that fare to save EIGHT (8) hours of transit time.

Granted, there may be time spent speeding up and slowing down for stops along the way, but there would also be express trains that would bypass that.

I didn't mean to imply that it would be like air travel. I spent two months in Italy and am well-acquainted with how high speed works. I was simply pointing out that it's not true that high speed trains would be slowed does by stopping along the way. They are direct lines. I would take a mid speed or high speed train from Rome to Naples and then switch to the regional Circo Vesuviano to get to Pompeii, or the high speed train from Rome to Florence and then switch to a regional to get to Pisa. It's an extremely fast and efficient system, and the termini are always connected to other modes of transportation.

Pdub states:

"Cory, conservatives don't like all this mathy and sciencey stuff. Makes you sound elitist"

Actually Pdub, conservatives are into "mathy and sciency stuff". As a matter of fact those two areas are the only areas in academia (college professors) that are not overun by liberal ideologues (about 50/50). Liberal "elite" ideologies are born in liberal arts college classes, and quickly die in the real world. Those who can't abide the death, go on to teach their mis-guided professor's liberal dribble.

Case and point: Columbia's journalism school, most public education credential programs.

CoryPointer

It cost 5.00 less to ride the train from Houston to Los Angeles than it does to fly, if you want a very small compartment it cost 3 times as much. If the private sector thinks they can make money on it, fine, but if the government ran a lemonade stand it would cost 400.00 a glass.

And I suppose that "private" "corporate" money would have built the interstate highway system. Well, it's never too late...how about highways for profit?

Republicans ought to be ashamed to show their a-hole moron stupid-a$$ed faces in public. Is there nothing they they won't grandstand about? Is there no limit to their bull$hit?

I swear, all their f#%king talk about god and country...what a stinking crock. France and every other western democracy treats it's people better than the U.S. does...

I would point out that the AVERAGE speed of an airliner (not a regional carrier which would be even lower) is around 165 mph tops. If you factor in the door-to-door time, airliner speeds drop to an average of 60 mph. And they waste much of that by going about 40% further in passenger miles than necessary because of the stupid terminal-to-terminal system. Few American airports interface to other modes of transportation with any efficiency. One of the reasons that airlines are losing so much money is that they are so slow and so bound into an archaic dumb system that grinds to an instant halt at the first snowflake.

I would point out, however, that the 350+ speeds being touted are not the actual average speeds. They are test speeds and happen when engineers are testing out stresses on the trains and roadbeds, passing dislocations, and that sort of thing where they are looking to verify safety margins. The TGV is more representative as about 261 mph average speed. There seems to be a practical plateaus in efficiency at about 50mph, 90mph, 150mph, 250mph and 350 mph. Each increase in average speed requires an immense jump in technology.

And for @literfairy ---- didn't mean to insult you kiddo. Just thought that your note left the impression that trains worked like the stupid airport system and you went to a major terminus and then came back out in most cases. Going to Rome myself in May. Staying at a B&B 2 blocks from the Terminus. That's all I need to know about transportation --- I can walk to the terminus and get anywhere in Europe by a combination of rail and bus very inexpensively and much faster than flying.

And I would also point out that with very long train trips, you actually do not lose as much time as you would think because you can get a sleeper car and for practical purposes, sleep is location-independent and would generally save you a night's lodging, making the trip even cheaper. Usually in Europe when I am traveling, I try to arrange long legs to have a sleeper and use the savings of a night's lodging to make the train trip virtually nothing.

Doctor Larry, why yes I am a Engineer - my degree is in Computer Science (Logical Engineering) with a minor in Physics and German Studies and I'm getting my graduate degree in Physics with a specialization in mechanics, ironic your questioning me huh?

First off, look at my sentence structure again and notice that it says "and are designed for short distance traveling;". If you remember anything from English which you apparently don't you will notice traveling is a Present Active Participle to distance and the sentence ends in a semicolon between closely related independent clauses not conjoined with a coordinating conjunction. So, the adjective short is closely related to the sentence "let’s say traveling from NYC to Washington" which is a direct distance of 204mi or a driving distance of 230mi as you so kindly clarified. Therefore, my sentence structure clarified a short distance to be about 230mi. According to world news “HSR is best suited for journeys of 2 to 3 hours (250–900 km or about 150–550 miles), for which the train can beat both air and car in this range. Many HSR production companies use the design concepts focus around this idea for city to city HSR.”

To tell you at what point the train will approach 200 mph, much less 268 mph?? Since you now flipped your conversation to the Acela Express I would say never, but then again we all know you’re horrible with English. I said “High-speed rail systems travel between speeds of 110mph to 268mph on average”. This means that I am referencing high-speed rail systems (HSR) in general and not singling out the Acela Express. The UIC (International Union of Railways) and EC Directive 96/58 define HSR as systems of rolling stock and infrastructure which regularly operate at or above 250 km/h (160mph) on new tracks, or 200 km/h (120mph) on existing tracks; however, lower speeds can be required by local constraints. Ironically, the Acela Express by the international definition is not a HSR and therefore isn’t included in my argument unless I included United States Standards. In the United States, HSR is defined as having a speed above 110 mph (180 km/h) by the United States Federal Railroad Administration which I used as my lowest average speed. So what HSR averages speed of up to 268mph (431 km/h)? Well the Japan’s Shinkansen report states “many customer based HSR have average speeds of 268mph (431 km/h)”.

In conclusion Doctor Larry, take your right wing no education crazed remark and think about what you have done it silence!

"I swear, all their f#%king talk about god and country...what a stinking crock. France and every other western democracy treats it's people better than the U.S. does..."

Dang Caligula,

You're leaving? Bummer; you had so much to offer this country. Oh, well I guess France will now have the incredible benefit of your dazzling wisdom. Please do post once in while while you're there though, it's so entertaining. Bye, have a safe train ride to France.

Just thought that your note left the impression that trains worked like the stupid airport system and you went to a major terminus and then came back out in most cases.

Unfortunately, in many cases, they do operate just that. I live in the suburbs of NYC. If I want to take a long-distance train, I have to a train ride from a local train station to Penn Station. That takes an hour, even though NYC is visible from the train station. Then, I have to wait an hour or so for my long-distance train. When I get back, I have to reverse the process. Just as if I was flying.

A high speed train??? Why the hell are we in such a damn hurry???

So ultimately, the internet will put a stop to most business travel, train or otherwise. Sites like Gotomeeting.com, Cisco, and others are eliminating the need to travel across country. So eventually, the only people who will need to travel are sports people and other folks who have to have their body there. The only people who will need to fly, seriously, will be people going across the oceans (don't give Obama any ideas about building a tram over the ocean...) So all this engineer babble about how fast the things go... what is the hurry? You can only take a sh!t so fast...

Caligula, that's because the US used to expect you to take care of yourself. As we experiment with various flavors of socialism and facism, we have created a dependency on the government.

Maybe we should spend more on public education, teach people to expand their vocabulary, then they wouldn't have to swear, and their statement would be better received.

Caligula, that's because the US used to expect you to take care of yourself. As we experiment with various flavors of socialism and facism, we have created a dependency on the government.

Maybe we should spend more on public education, teach people to expand their vocabulary, then they wouldn't have to swear, and their statement would be better received.

Yeah I swear... "Heck" just doesn't get it anymore... and for your information, I am college educated and just wanted to make an expletive statement using predicate nominatives...

Sorry if I burned your ears. :)

You should actually check the prices on trains. Train rides are usually 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of a flight (although it varies somewhat depending on what part of the country you're in). The only reason we don't bother with trains is that they're so slow. If the train is fast enough that it gets there at least faster than a car, trains will be the most cost-efficient measn of transportation.

you can't fly there quicker and pay 1/2 the price in you are going from NYC to Wash, DC or Boston or Philly. you spend more time getting to the airport than you realize and airports aren't free!

Ed your comment can be summed up in one word: IDIOTIC

Hey Ed, maybe you should move to Egypt where you can earn a hefty $2 per day. Sounds like your dream place.

Besides, all your FOX dolts are union members. But IOKIYAR

Trains are not 1/2 the price. Take a look at a couple of travel sites and you'll realize it. Example ATL->LAX, Feb 28th. Flights $272-$312 (w/fees) and 8 hours of travel time. Train is $302 and 84 hours of travel time. Seriously, 84 hours! That's a coach seat, not a sleeper car which would push the price to >$1000.

Mr.Slinky - the proposal would reduce the 84 hours. The route from ATL to LAX is NOT a straight route by rail. A better comparison is the Washington, D.C. to Chicago departing Feb 28. $85.00 and 17h 40m by rail vs. $104 (one way, non-stop) taking 2h 1m plus time at the airports. Not half price, but almost $20.

I live in a rural town in Ohio. 1 hour from Cleveland and 1 hour from Pittsburgh driving time if there is not bad weather or traffic. I have a job that pays me $15 hr because there aren't alot of IT jobs available in this community. I could have a job in Pittsburgh paying $40 hr but I would have to drive over an hour each way. When you add in my gas, time, and parking it isn't worth it for me to invest in the better job because of my family situation. If I could ride the train for a 40 min each way investment all the while doing more work while letting the conducter drive, that would be worth it. Some would say that I should just get the job and move but selling my house is a pipe dream in this economy. If you can get the people from thier homes to thier jobs more cost effectively wouldn't that make sense? I agree that ATL to LAX isn't worth rail service but NE Penn to NYC and thus NJ would. Connecting Pittsburgh to Detroit via Cleveland would. We already move most freight via rail because it is cost effective, moving people the same way would be as well.

Mr. Slinky,

The main advantage of high speed rail is not in 2500 mile cross country trips but in moderate-distance trips of 200-300 miles. Those are the kind of trips that take 3-4 hours by plane (when you add in the time to park, go through security, wait to board, etc.). Anyone who has traveled in Europe knows how backward we are for not having a modern, high speed passenger rail system. The Chinese have recognized this and are well on their way to building a modern HSR network of their own.

ReallyMrSlinky LOL, your supposed resource is for a passenger train not for a high-speed train there is a huge difference. The differences are usually discussed in college transportation or culture classes which from your comment it appears you've never been. So I will give you the summary, passenger trains in the US travel at speeds less than 1/2 to 3/4 the speeds of a high speed train. Also your travel time and cost of the flight does not include what type of flight your stats come from nor do they include airport wait times. I travel to Europe all the time for work and allows use the Cologne-Frankfurt high-speed railway (Neubaustrecke Köln-Rhein/Main) that is a 110 mile long railway line. The total travel time of the trip is 70 minutes with at least five stops along the way. Here's the kicker for all you right-wing nuts, the total cost of a ROUND-TRIP ticket is about $120(under 100 euros)!

we need hi speed rail in NC, i hope it comes here...its time for it..it is just hard to believe how behind the rest of the industrialized world..oh I know why...the republican party thats why

USAIR $319

Amtrack $72

Difference in time all of 40 min longer for travel but probably 2 hours shorter for airport screening.

Regardless, if you can get from NYC to Philly in 1 1/2 hours and an 1hr by plane why would we need "High speed" Seriously not needed.

No one is going to take a train cross country, it would be a huge waste.

Monday, March 14, 2011
172 Northeast Regional (PHL - NYP)

Depart:
9:18 am, Mon, Mar 14, 2011


Arrive:
10:44 am, Mon, Mar 14, 2011


Duration:
1 hr, 26 min

Amenities

• 1 Adult
  $36.00
• 1 Reserved Coach Seat
• Subtotal
  $36.00

Monday, March 21, 2011
175 Northeast Regional (NYP - PHL)

Depart:
8:00 pm, Mon, Mar 21, 2011


Arrive:
9:25 pm, Mon, Mar 21, 2011


Duration:
1 hr, 25 min

Amenities

• 1 Adult
  $36.00
• 1 Reserved Coach Seat
• Subtotal
  $36.00

Terms & Conditions
Total
$72.00

New search
Trip details

Depart:

Philadelphia, PA

New York, NY (Laguardia)

Date: Monday, March 14, 2011

Depart:

Date:

Flight status

Flight # / Carrier

Depart

Arrive

Travel time

Meal

Aircraft

Cabin

4311

Piedmont Airlines

Flight operated by Piedmont Airlines
doing business as US Airways Express

9:00 AM PHL
9:59 AM LGA
0h 59m
None
Dash 8
Coach (S)

Return:

New York, NY (Laguardia)

Philadelphia, PA

Date: Monday, March 21, 2011

Depart:

Date:

Flight status

Flight # / Carrier

Depart

Arrive

Travel time

Meal

Aircraft

Cabin

3701

Air Wisconsin

Flight operated by Air Wisconsin
doing business as US Airways Express

8:30 PM LGA
9:35 PM PHL
1h 5m
None
CRJ
Coach (S)

• Flight operated by Air Wisconsin doing business as US Airways Express
• Flight operated by Piedmont Airlines doing business as US Airways Express

Total $370 Non-refundable

(includes taxes and fees)

Acela Express (AMTRAK) costs $76 to $337 for a ONE-WAY ticket from NYC to DC. And it takes 3-4 hours.

Washington, D.C. to Chicago departing Feb 28. $85.00 and 17h 40m by rail vs. $104 (one way, non-stop) taking 2h 1m plus time at the airports. Not half price, but almost $20.

So you think it is worth spending the nearly 18 hours sitting on a train seat to save $20??

Don't forget that you have to get to a train station and wait (though not as long as airports), as well. So maybe you are only wasting 12 hours for that $20? (And count on it - the TSA will be showing up at your train station any day now).

I suggest you send yourself UPS or FedEx - it might be quicker and cheaper!!

So you think it is worth spending the nearly 18 hours sitting on a train seat to save $20??

Driving would be cheaper, faster and more convenient than a train.

Cheaper to drive from DC to Chicago? Not with gas at $3+ a gallon and the wear and tear on your car factored in.

And while I'm at it, let's rant about something else that is very pertinent, but that the politicians, especially the GOP, doesn't like to talk about. ALL SPENDING IS NOT EQUAL as they would have you think.

1) "Entitlement spending" has a high k-factor --- that is, it passes through a lot of hands before it is "retired." This because it enters the economy at a very low level and is virtually always spend immediately. Most entitlement spending actually generates more in revenue than it costs (you can see for yourself at Moody's Financial website, hardly a liberal bastion.)

2) The problem with entitlement spending is that when the money is spent there is nothing tangible, except for perhaps better standards of living or better health to show for it.

3) Military spending is almost as bad. Buy a 500-lb JDAM bomb for about $1200. It is worth $1200 on the books until it is used. Then it is worth not just nothing, but must be replaced, and so goes from being a $1200 asset to a bill for $1200 --- a net change of $2400 on the books. Military spending is in the same category as pencils and staples --- expendables.

4) But infrastructure spending creates something of value that then belongs to the taxpayer. The money doesn't just go away, it changes forms from cash to a hard asset. And infrastructure spending is immune to most economic ups and downs because its value rises and falls in tune with the GDP and inflation.

I guess the bottom line of what I am trying to say is that you have three types of spending: entitlement, expendables, and infrastructure investment. Only the last of these provides lasting value to the taxpayer.

When Eisenhower wanted to push two very important infrastructure projects, he tried to use the infrastructure investment argument and his own party opposed him to the point of stopping him cold. He wanted the Interstate system and the GI Bill. One invested in roads and the other in education and home ownership. Both would have created lasting value for the taxpayer in two very different ways. But the GOP and the Dixiecrats opposed it because they saw both as "social engineering." So Eisenhower just switched both programs to the defense budget where they were treated as expendables and both literally flew through Congress as necessary to support the Cold War.

People need to start looking at things like education, keeping infrastructure in good repair and doing things like high-speed rail as investments and not as expenses. There is no need for railways to turn a dime's profit as long as the value added exceeds the cost. Because we see these things as expenses with no residual value, they education, maintenance, and hard investments in up-to-date infrastructure are the first things to be deferred or deleted from the budget.

That depends on your point of view and what your priorities are.

You have to factor in cost of vehicle, maintenance, gas, taxes, license, tags, driving time to destination, weather, traffic, road maintenance, tolls, etc.

On the one hand, while driving you're in control and can alter your destination as you feel like it. You can stop as often as you like, get food or lodging if desired, etc.

On a train you wouldn't have as many options, being locked into the train schedule, available seating (which could be mitigate by assigned seating like airlines), carrying your luggage about or having it stored below the train and unreachable, limited food/drink, public restrooms, etc. But...a high speed train would cut down your transit time, reduce mileage on your car, save on gas (driving down the price at the pump), reduce highway congestion, cut down on accidents, reduce pollution, and allow you to relax for the duration of the ride.

In Italy, high speed rail does have assigned seats. When you buy the ticket, you can choose your seat. Only on overnight trains would your luggage be out of reach. You can bring food on the train and there is often food available on board too. There are restrooms, and on Eurostar, they're not too bad. I'd say they are much nicer than the restrooms available along the highways and better than an airplane toilet. You can also usually get tickets day of and you don't pay more because of it as with air travel. No, you can't just get off anywhere, but you don't have to lock in your travel plans a month or more in advance.

I would take a high speed train from Chi to New York, or New Orleans for a long weekend in a heart beat!

To the poster attacking the "right wing nuts" how about this. How about explaining how many years Europe has invested in their rail system, account for the costs of this mode of transportation, and then explain how this mode of transportation works with a nation that is 3000+ miles across?

My guess is that if we were to build a high speed national rail system, we are talking several trillion dollars, and likely a 10-20 year build. I honestly don't know, but I know that a $100 train ticket won't ever pay for a multi-trillion dollar rail system, nor do I see how this makes us more competitive in the world.

I guess I would like a reasoned complete explanation with real costs so that we can all actually understand what is being proposed.

Here in CA they "won" several billion to begin construction, and so many people are excited about the "jobs". I am not sure that this cost makes any sense, as here in CA everyone owns a car. So somehow you are going to need to entice people from the freedom a car provides.

I am in no way saying this doesn't make sense. What I am saying is calling names and making this political is really silly when what is needed is a good explanation with real world costs.

Im a Right Wing Nut myself!! Right tighty! Lefty Loosey!! When Loosey, everything falls apart!!

Like the Back to the Future movie: "Roads? Where we're going, we DON'T NEED roads!!"

I am talking about traveling at a whopping 4G or who knows how fast! I'm talking about business meetings held in your pajamas because you didn't have to take that silly high speed train, or the plane, or Superman...
The internet is the new high-speed train/plane/car/thingy.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it...

The Japanese also did it and it worked out well. High speed rail is necessary in very dense corridors. It's expensive but so is subsidizing highways and airport expansions. If you don't like it start working on a plan to decrease the population in our urban areas.

That's a completly crazy way to look at the problem! We need to stop consolodating all of our businesses in one place and spread out more. There is no need to have every business in a city. Furthermore, there is little need to even have people come into an office much anymore. Telecommuting is the way to go.

Good luck with that telecommuting when you need a plumber or car repair.

Ummm .. . businesses go where the people are. Not the other way around!

Business don't open branches around the country for the hell of it. If, say, IBM opens an office or a plant in your town, its because it makes economic sense.

A plumber and an auto shop are two examples of jobs where a train is not needed. The population density makes some sense, but again, not really for high speed, unless you have large quantities of people living 100 miles from their work.

Pack 100k people into a stadim to watch a football game is a pretty good target for terrorists as well. You think we should cancel football games?

'Dick,

By your logic, we shouldn't have bothered to develop the Alaska pipeline since it is a "single point of failure line will be shut down by terrorism". It's a good thing nobody listened to people like you crap on big ideas throughout American history. I'm sure if people like you had had their way we would never have built the Transcontinental Railroad, the Panama Canal, the Hoover Dam, or the Interstate Highway System.

ORLY?

Have you ever looked at a map? Try it. China is a wee bit bigger than the US.

Do you know that China also has very little infrastructure to begin with, so of course they are spending more?

Sounds like you need to remove your head and take a fast train to China!

Comparing Chinese development to the US is not sensible. How can we honestly discuss this when all reason is thrown out the window?

Compare our investment over the past 200 years to China, compare the wage basis, taxation, poverty & living conditions, it's lunacy to think these under-developed countries do not have to play catch up.

If we didn't have an auto based society, and had not spent trillions on this system, we might be spending trillions right now on trains. But we are an auto based nation. Shifting to an alternate source cannot be done in a few years. Decades maybe. But then only if it serves the best interests of the individuals who make up the US.

My guess is that train transportation as a large scale solution has seen its best days. Time will tell.

@Doctor Larry -

Point of correction: The US is larger than China.

USA - 9,629,091 km^2

China - 9,596,960 km^2

the brains if republicans have any are underutilized and they seem to be a drain and always will be

Amtrak has always been underutilized and a cash drain and always will. Why do the feds think high speed trains will be any better?

Amtrack has always been underutilized because our gas prices are artificially low -- driving American's love affairs with their cars (pun intended). Let gas prices go up, and they will (and are) you might find those trains MUCH more used.

As to riding trains as opposed to air travel -- it depends on where, how and why. I choose trains to planes in Europe, not because they are cheaper, but because they go pretty much EXACTLY where I want to go and they are much less stressful. Unfortunately, I don't have much access to trains in the U.S. -- wish I did.

Someone commented above on an 84 hour train ride. Well, I probably wouldn't do that either. But, let's say the train ride from Point A to Point B was six-eight hours and I could catch that train within 30 minutes of where I lived. Currently, I must travel over an hour to the airport. Don't forget to be there an hour early or more! Then I have to go through security. Don't forget, those bags now add $50 to your trip (free on the train!). My actually flight time let's assume it's direct, is 3 hours. As you can see, the time spent is not that much different and the train is a whole lot less stressful - and the seats are a whole lot bigger and more comfortable!

Amtrak is nowhere near the cash drain that other forms of transportation are. Nobody ever thinks how much money the government provides to build and subsidize the commercial aviation infrastructure or the highway system. Not to mention the de facto subsidy we provide to the petroleum industry through the defense budget (securing the shipping lanes throughout the world isn't free and it is a cost borne almost solely by the United States). Rebuilding our rail passenger infrastructure is one of the best ways of reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

AMTRAK is underutilized because it's not usually the best way to get where we want to go. PERIOD. It is also subsidized, so that hides that part of the cost. Oh, and you do know that trains use some form of energy, don't you? When that energy cost rises, well....

I ride trains in Europe too (for short runs), but that's because they have been incorporated a long time and air traffic is not as efficient.

As to time spent at the airport - get ready, the TSA will be coming to a train station near you any day now.

And getting to an airport or train station varies depending on where you live. I'm closer to a major airport than a train station. And the train goes nowhere I need to go (at least without spending a day or a week).

If you have a 3-hour flight, a train will not get there in 6-8 hours. If you are talking about total portal-to-portal, it's possible. Unless I am going coast-to-coast, I could drive most places faster than a train would get me there.

Rail is efficient for cargo, not so much for passengers. The market shows that and speeds can not be high enough to overcome that.

but let's say I ... could catch that train within 30 minutes of where I lived.

That's the trick. The planners haven't figured out how to manage that. There are many train stations within 30 minutes of me (although they're just feeders into NY Penn Station). But, they all ban overnight parking. It hasn't sunk into the planners' bird brains that a restriction like that makes those stations useless for accessing long-distance train travel. Its as if airport required that all their parking lots be emptied by midnight or they'd tow the cars!

Once again, Europe and Japan can provide some example to build off of. You may have to take a shorter train ride from your neck of the woods to a hub, and change to a fast train.

I spent 2 months in Italy and the trains went nearly everywhere. You have express trains, freight trains, passenger trains, sleeper cars, etc. There are a lot of possibilities for growing this industry into the 21st Century, which would bring jobs with it.

Once again, Europe and Japan can provide some example to build off of. You may have to take a shorter train ride from your neck of the woods to a hub, and change to a fast train.

Exactly -- and I can't wait for a hub to come near me! But even now, the closest Amtrack station is closer than the nearest major airport!

What's frustrating? Trains run right by our town ALL THE TIME! Granted, freight trains but the infrastructure is there -- even if eventually another set of tracks might be needed along side.

We used to have a great rail system. But after WWII the auto industry paid cities to pull up their streetcars and buy buses. They didn't want the competition. And once the trains were gone, everyone HAD to buy a car to get anywhere. Sort of like New Orleans after the flooding.

All our government funds went into highways and automobile support. Alternatives were stomped dead. Robert Byrd paved over most of his state. West Virginia has great roads, but no jobs.

Even when it became apparent that you can't build yourself out of traffic, places like Atlanta and Houston tried their best.

Look what mass transit has done for Portland.

Rail done right will put a serious dent in auto sales. Too bad.

Part of what defines living in a City is that you don't have to own a car. If you do, you're not in a city - you're in a very dense suburbia.

The question is: "Why should I live in a city where I have to buy a car ?"

Hi speed between Baton Rouge and New Orleans would almost drag us into the 20th century.

Nola - so right you are! I've lived in cities and not needed a car and I LOVED it! I'd occasionally rent one if I wanted to drive someplace, but didn't need to worry about parking it or insuring it!

If you want to look at another place mass transit has done wonders for -- Curitiba, Brazil!

Bingo! Thats a great idea.

Increased rail use would lower the strain on our current infrastructure and give it a longer shelf life. Rail is infrastructure. How do you think most freight is moved in the US currently?

Ummm, Rail creation is part of the US Infrastructure. hahahahaha. Could you be a bit more specific.

PDub

How do you think most freight is moved in the US currently?

The trucking industry moves the most freight in this country. Period.

60% of all the weight shipped was moved by the trucking industry and only 31% was on rail. 52% of all rail shipments was coal or chemicals. By and large the vast majority of products are moved by truck in this country, especially time sensitive freight like food.

Railways ARE a part of infrastructure. Wow, you're quite the genius.

Your half right Wizard. Trucking moves a very large portion of freight, but when it comes to production materials(I.E. lumber, drywall, insulation, steel), coal,ore, bulk oil, grain, and hauling from coast to coast, train is king. Most of what you are referring to, is the post rail distribution of goods to production, and distributions centers, or final product processing.

The basic problem with fixing our existing infrastructure is that the Highway and Airways Trust Funds have many, many billions of dollars in them but are also empty at the same time. I believe that GHW Bush referred to it as "voodoo economics." Those funds (and the Social Security Trust Fund) were initially looted under Reagan to pay for the "Star Wars" (SDI) $1.3 trillion total waste of money. But on paper it was made to look as though the trust funds were still solvent because they considered the federal IOU's a "valuable asset" and "income-producing" even though they were worthless IOU's and no longer interest-bearing accounts. Just phony bookkeeping.

It strikes me as a very bizarre way to think when you consider the estimated $12 trillion cost of the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as "good" spending and building infrastructure that becomes a tangible hard asset of the taxpayer as "bad" spending. People who can wrap their brains around that sort of irrational thinking can mentally manipulate and falsehood into truth or any sort of empirical data into "whack job pseudo-science."

By and large the vast majority of products are moved by truck in this country, especially time sensitive freight like food.

The industry is actually making a big comeback when it comes to food.

Intermodal will become critical in the future of freight transportation in this country. It will not be which mode moves more, it is going to be a collaboration of moving the same freight.

rail IS infrastructure.

Eric-2189088

Your half right Wizard. Trucking moves a very large portion of freight, but when it comes to production materials(I.E. lumber, drywall, insulation, steel), coal,ore, bulk oil, grain, and hauling from coast to coast, train is king. Most of what you are referring to, is the post rail distribution of goods to production, and distributions centers, or final product processing.

I own a trucking business, and on total tonnage the trucking industry moves 60% of that tonnage and rail moves 31% and the rest is either water or by air. The fact is that 52% of all rail tonnage is coal and chemicals, that leaves 15% of the total tonnage of what the rail moves to cover all that you said, and it just doesn't happen. Flatbed companies make huge money hauling drywall and lumber, not to mantion finished steel.

Venator

The industry is actually making a big comeback when it comes to food.

Rail has to huge strikes against it when it comes to hauling food. First is time, fresh produce has four days to get from Salinas Ca to the east coast, the rail can barely make it to Chicago in four days, by the time it makes it to the east coast the produce is beyond what the warehouses will accept. Second is the problem with equipment faiures. If I have a reefer failure while on the road I am probably no more than 3-4 from anywhere to get it repaired to save the load. A reefer unit on the rail, either mounted to a boxcar or an intermodal unit, will have to wait up to the train reaches a maintenance yard before repairs can be made. That can take up to 12 hours, meaning that the load would be lost.

Wizard61,

Union Pacific takes about 5 days to go traverse the country. Not mention intermodal containers are not being marketed to transport the time sensitive cargo. Not to mention Chicago needs an upgrade overall.

Even if they do break down, the problem car will just be cut from the rest of the train and probably (since it is high priority) they will make a special trip out of it. Maintenance of Way crews are also capable of making repairs right on the spot.

"Infrastructure modernizing"

In this country? That would be a change for the better. I'm tired of seeing billions go abroad and less security coming back. We need a huge public works program to modernize our country. Put people to work!

But...the government creating programs to put people to work is...is...socialism isn't it? (Not really) Didn't they try that back in the 30's during some economic event that nearly wiped out a generation? Oh wait! They did do it in the 30's, and keep millions of people working and feeding their families, including Ronald Reagan's own family! Imagine, Regan, (who was a former union leader when it suited his purposes), owing his life to an evil government run program.

Investing in infrastructure has always benefited the United States, from canals and dams, to inter-continental railroad, to telegraph, roads, telephone, interstate highway systems, airports, and even the Internet. It works! Projects like these have changed the face of America and opened it up to greater and greater possibilities. A few people even made money because of it.

Not all government ideas or spending is bad. What's the real issue? I think those with vested interest in the continuation of the way things are afraid of any change that will affect their bank accounts.

Kris:

I wasn't being facetious. I was being serious. I'm thinking you were agreeing with me.

We need infrastructure here not in Iraq or some other country we bombed into the Stone Age based on lies and a vendetta. Spend $10 Billion a month here!

I was agreeing with and trying to poke fun at the naysayers. It's time something like this came along and we can all benefit from it in a multitude of ways.

I'm with you Brian. Investment in infrastructure is critical, and the U.S. rail system is decrepit and woefully underdeveloped for passenger use. I'm not a fan of Obama, but this is something I can get behind.

Yeah, but will it benefit rural America? I live in Western Maryland and we have no mass transit to speak of, but my tax money goes to this?? Who exactly will this benefit?

Well, it'll benefit rural America because it'll mean more people can get to work in the cities, so they can make more money, which gets taxed, and then gets funneled to rural America as farm subsidies.

Additionally if it's a nationwide network of high speed rail it'll go through rural areas, and the railroad construction will create jobs in the areas it goes through.

It will make it easier and cheaper for goods produced by rural America to get to the cities, which was one of the major goals of the original rail system. Grains, livestock, etc.

Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

Perhaps you should go check out what an amtrak ticket costs and tell me the cost to travel a mile by train is a fraction of that of car or plane.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but last time I checked on that, taking the plane is not only faster, but a lot cheaper.

This will benefit everyone one. If eventually these trains could move cargo as well as passengers it could mean that there would be less trucks on the roads polluting the air, destroying our highways, and adding to highway traffic. Also goods could travel long distances faster without having to go on a plane. This would be great for cross state commerce.

The cost to travel short distances is also pretty costly on an airplane. Anyone who has every traveled from Northern California to Southern knows the drive sucks. If it took the same amount of time and cost less than a plane ticket, I know I would use it.

And yet if I were to ride a train to work instead of drive, it would take almost twice as long and cost about 50% more than my gas money does.

That's why it would need to be "High Speed" because regular speed takes twice as long. It currently takes 11 hours for a train to travel a route that I use about 10 times a year. It takes me 6 hours by car. A plane ride cost $525 for my entire family and takes about 1 hour (flight time). The train ride for my whole family cost $225-$250. If it still cost $225-$250 and only took 6 hours or less I would use it without a doubt.

Perhaps you should go check out what an amtrak ticket costs and tell me the cost to travel a mile by train is a fraction of that of car or plane.

If I wanted to go from Cleveland to the Amtrak station in Naperville IL one block from my parent's house, this weekend, round trip tickets via Amtrak are $124. If I wanted to fly from Cleveland to O'Hare and have my parents come out to pick me up, it's $291 minimum.

Brian... go look up the fares for the Amtrak Excel train the closest to high speed rail we have so far. Go see how insolvent Amtrak is, how many billions a year are wasted keeping this POS passanger rail system going. After looking into the cost and time differences between taking Amtrak, Jet or driving we decided to do our 500 mile track from our home to my parents by car. With all the added sexual harrassment...er security at the airport and the nickel and dimming of the airlines we found we could make it there faster driving as flying. Train cost over 100.00 more than flying, took hours longer than flying or driving, and I'd still have to drive 45 mins to the train station, at our destination we'd wind up an hour from my parents home requiring us to rent a car or get picked up. Yeah so much better.... the rail system is unnecessary for passenger travel. It is good for commercial traffic and likely military mobility.....

Don't be fooled that it would do squat for the low income.

If I want to go round trip with me and my wife, to downtown Chicago, I could fly, or drive, or take the train.

The nearest Amtrak station is Elyria OH, a 2.5 hr drive away, costing about $34 in gas expenses for the round trip. From Elyria OH to Chicago's Union Station is a 6.5 hr overnight train ride. For two adults, with our AAA discount, the round trip rail tickets would cost $170, for a total cost with gas and rail of $204 for 2 people. The total driving time would be 5 hours, and the total travel time would be 18 hours.

If I want to drive the whole way, to downtown Chicago it's a 6 hour drive. That's not accounting for ridiculous Chicago traffic, tack on another 2 or 3 hours for that. It's 350 miles, for a 700 mile round trip, which would cost about $100 in gas expenses, and involve about 12 to 18 hours of driving depending on the traffic in Dayton, Indianapolis, and Chicago.

Flying, I can leave right from Columbus, it's about half an hour to get to the airport, and of course I have to get there 2 hours early so I can catch a dose of radiation or get felt up. The flight duration there is only about an hour and a half, then figure another half hour to get my luggage on the other side. And then to get to downtown Chicago figure another half an hour if the traffic is good. I'd have to take a taxi, which would tack on $40, $80 if you factor in the return trip. Round trip airfare for two people from Columbus CMH to Chicago ORD and back, over the same span of time as the rail tickets, is $518 with taxes and fees. Add to that $80 for the cab, and we're looking at $600. Total travel time is 10 hours. And this assumes that I don't have a situation like the last time we flew to Chicago, when upon our departure our plane engine had a critical fault and we aborted takeoff (scary!) and then we were stuck in the plane for 3 hours and then in the terminal for 3 hours and then on another plane for 2 hours.

Rail: $204, 18 hours, 5 hours are me driving

Driving: $100, 12-18 hours, all are me driving

Flying: $600, 10 hours (if we're lucky), 1 hour is me driving

So, rail is much cheaper than flying, and not much more expensive than driving, the question becomes how much is your time worth?

I've traveled by Amtrak and it costs more than air. Rail travel is dead in the US and it came to an end slightly after WWII. A total waste of money.

What do you say then about about light rail systems? They are a form of rail transportations that many large cities have, and then there are the subway systems, still fairly popular passenger rail systems. What Obama is proposing is those rail system's big brother, a rail system to interconnect large population centers with a high speed rail system. Would it be fesible for long distances? Not currently, the rail infrastructure isn't really in place, unless you supplant the current freight rail system, which we still need by the way, and it wouldn't be cost effective for the end consumer. But say interconnecting the eastern seaboard by high speed rail, incrementally mind you, interconnect the midwest, and then the west. As the technology progesses, and longer distances become more feesible, then it wouldn't take too much to connect the three separate regional lines.

This story is about plan for a HIGH SPEED rail system, not the current one we use which operates at a fraction of the speed. Japanese bullet trains have been steadily improving for 40 years and they have one that moves at 361 mph. People routinely travel from Tokyo to Osaka, two major metropolitan cities, moving around 150 million people per year. (Imagine New York City to Richmond, VA for distance purposes). They do it in 2.5 hours vice 6 on their highways, which have traffic congestion too.

We're not talking what you can get on AMTRAK right now. Think big...something America used to do. We're talking expanding and improving on the current system to connect smaller communities to hubs where super-fast trains can move people and cargo across hundreds of miles in an hour.

Japan is also a much smaller country than the US. Building extensive high speed here is going to be very costly, and take a lot of time, nevermind the fact that most companies that build the components are European companies, and we have no one really trained in the U.S. to monitor and administrate the high speed rail system. Thats not to say that would shouldn't try, we most definately should, its one of the few things that can help loosen the vise grip hold the oil industry has on this country, but to do it on large scale is not going to be feesible for now, unless we can start building production plants for these components in the U.S.(very good idea by the way, more jobs), and start training people how to run, and work these systems(Again good idea, means jobs). The plan it and of itself is a very good one, the only big issue is really going to be paying for it, everything else can, and hopefully will contribute to improving the number of jobs in the areas getting these high speed rail systems, and providing a good alternative to driving or flying in more localized areas, in the short term, and eventually progess to larger areas over the long term. It is very ambitious, and I hope it happens.

Yeah, but will it benefit rural America? I live in Western Maryland and we have no mass transit to speak of, but my tax money goes to this?? Who exactly will this benefit?

I think a high speed system might -- I hope. I'd certainly like to see it. I got used to the great trains in Europe and really miss it.

Ted, you're dragging out the same old false comparison of rail station-to-station times versus airport takeoff-to-landing times. Factor in time spent going through security, checking and retrieving luggage unless you can pack everything in an ever-shrinking carryon), getting from the airport to the city you're visiting, and Amtrak* even in its present state comes out looking pretty good over medium distances. And remember, IF Amtrak were funded at the same rate that airlines and roads are subsidized, we wouldn't be having most of this debate anyway because trains would already be averaging 150 mph, not just maxing out at that speed over minuscule distances in the NEC. Like so many others here, I've ridden a lot of European trains and they can and do achieve very high average speeds (225 km/hr and more) over medium-length routes.

* I assume because you keep spelling its name as "AmtraCk" you've never used the system - ??

The subway systems and other light rail system the larger cities have are all subsidized and in no way could run at a profit because not enough people want to use it and to charge a profitable ticket price those that do use it couldn't afford too.

We do not need another money pit! Especially now of all times. What will it take to get through peoples heads as a nation WE ARE BROKE!

jabbausaf, you seem to miss the mark. You are using Amtrak's standard service not using the prices of their highspeed rail service of which is the subject. Try using your calculations using the ticket prices using Amtrak's Acela Express trains going the same distance. You'll find flying and driving is much cheaper.

For the others supporting high speed rail. No one has answered how a broke nation is going to be able to afford it without it always running in the red.

I ask again why should all the taxpayers pay for something that is only going to service the few? As for getting away from the airport security....what do you think will happen once rail traffic picks up? The terrorists can kill and injure many more taking out a train with multiple cars than an airplane.

Do you believe government is the only way to look to the future?

I find it curious that those who are loudest about how patriotic they are and how much they love their country are the most likely to want to shrink the government and prevent it from doing anything that looks toward the future needs of the people

I find it curious that it takes a government expansion proportional to the money invested to write checks. Putting money into infrastructure is less the issue than a massive bureaucracy to administer it.

How do you suppose the majority of the current rail system was built? No, it wasn't the government it was business. Someone saw a way of making money moving people and materials via trains....that is until air travel arrived. Why do you suppose private business got out of passenger rail service? NO ONE WANTED IT ANYMORE.... There was not enough interest in it to support them running their rail lines.

Take a peek at the documents that define our government namely the Declaration of Independence, Federalist Papers, U.S. Constitution, etc... tell me where it says government is suppose to prop up unsustainable businesses?

Look into our current "high speed rail system" Amtrak (bleeding billions in red ink for decades) Acela Express that travels at up to 150 mph but most of it's trip is at 65 mph..... Just look at how long it has been running, what the ticket costs are, how badly it bleeds red ink, and how much we contribute to it a year when 99.9% of us don't even use it and even if we wanted to it a large percentage couldn't afford too!

Don't fall for the hype actually read up on the stats and reasons why no one is commercially successfully running passenger rail service....

Do you believe government is the only way to look to the future?

It has been in the past. If you leave it up to the people, we'd still be an agrarian society. Probably used as field hands by the Nazi-Nippon global empire.

First of all, we live in a republic. The day it is considered a democracy is the day we lose our freedoms. Please school yourself. Second, we can't afford it. We don't have any money. You cannot claim to love your country if you are willing to enslave your children (and my grandchildren) by making them responsible for the insane level of spending this administration has embarked upon. Why is it so hard for pie in the sky idealists to understand what it takes to succeed in the real world? Hint: a large part of the equation is not digging yourself deeper into the red hole you are trying to escape from

"I find it curious that those who are loudest about how patriotic they are and how much they love their country are the most likely to want to shrink the government . . . "

They say insanity comes in many forms. This remark is one of them. What does being patriotic have to do with big government?

Why does one think that everyone should contribute to paying for their personal healthcare?

Why does one think that everyone should pay for a train system when few people will ride such a system? I personally love to ride a train. But it's just too expensive for people. It's great for freight because it costs so little per mile. Have you ever bought a ticket on Amtrak? It's expensive and it rarely goes where you want to go.

If Biden really wants to spend $53-billion he should spend $10-billion as the freight haulers want it spent on infrastructure. Take the other $43-billion and spend it on our Interstate Highway System. Our highways and local roads take us anywhere we want to go. AND, everyone uses them.

Talk about insanity, have you ever been on an INTERSTATE trip and tried to go through Atlanta (or even downtown Minneapolis, or even worse - Nashville). The goal on all Interstates should be 70MPH during rush hour. Once we fix the Interstates FOR EVERYONE, then perhaps our economy will grow enough for Biden's special interests.

On 7,900 trips I just wonder how much the government subsidy is that Biden received? Everyone that takes a train is indirectly taking money out of the taxpayers pockets.

I want to live where I don't HAVE to have a car. It would save me huge bucks in insurance, maintenance and gas.

Big business has us trained to think we're responsible for transporting ourselves to where ever they feel is most convenient for them.

Any cost savings are eaten up on tending to the autobeast.

Yes and taking care of interstates costs money, and since so called patriots don't want to invest in our national systems to improve infrastructure, we likely won't see much improvement to our roadways. Indeed I have little doubt that if this headline was about our interstate system instead of the rails we'd be hearing complaining about it. Today "patriotic" in the US means send all our nation's money to a private bank account in a foreign nation.

Why don't we ask how it's patriotic to continue to support modes of transportation that use enormous amounts of oil, most of it imported, while starving the one mode of transportation that could make a real dent in petroleum use? I'll be the first to admit that rail isn't practical in major swaths of North America, but lots of corridors are already at or beyond the level of density that supports rail service in most other industrialized countries.

But no, we're better off laying more concrete and shipping a few trillion bucks to our democratic allies like Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin, and the sheiks, right?

So would it be more patriotic to announce to the world that they are now considered part of the US, and then move to take over their countries?

Actually we're a republic.

This may come as a shock to you, but the United States was never designed to be a democracy. Our founders looked upon democracy with a great measure of dislike. Democracy is nothing more than mob rule. We are a representative republic based on the concept of a rule of law.

As it pertains to looking to the future, I will put my faith in the individual rather than government 100 times out of 100. Government did not invent many of the items we use daily to make our lives better. Government certainly has its place. I rather enjoy the use of city streets, the protection afforded by our military, and the freedom to express my opinion without fear of government reprisal. But, I do not expect anyone in government to move me into the future. I can do that on my own.

If high speed rail is such a great thing, and it may well be, then private industry should make it work. I can certainly envision a stsyem where the highways are less congested because freight is primarily delivered via high speed rail. Airports could have shorter screening lines because more people take rail. But if that is to be, I don't want fellow taxpayers to fund the endevour. Let it be done with American spirit and entrepenurial know-how, not government bureaucratic corruption and favortism.

I want to live where I don't HAVE to have a car. It would save me huge bucks in insurance, maintenance and gas.

Big business has us trained to think we're responsible for transporting ourselves to where ever they feel is most convenient for them.

Move to the city... they have many businesses in walking distance and also have mass transit and airports. Oh look...no car needed it is a matter of CHOICE. The choices you make affect other choices you make. Freedom of movement it's a good thing.

Why should the taxpayers be responsible for where you decide to live in relation to where you work? The location was your choice.

Transportation is too big of a concept to have one right answer. China is investing heavily in high-speed rail because they are building out new infrastructure where none previously existed. This isn't a competition, and if it is then we already won- you can drive or fly from any place in the US to any other fairly easily. It will cost trillions of dollars we don't have for HSR to catch up to that. What do we gain in the end? Nothing.

If competing in the future is the priority here then there are better ways to go about doing it. Medical research, high-speed Internet, and improving the automobiles and planes the world already uses are all great places to start- they have proven demand and the benefits will be long-lasting. Avoiding further growth of the national debt by avoiding boondoggles like HSR is also a great idea for long-term viability.

Jonny O,

Thanks for the response. "too big of a concept" - that's the problem with your thinking right there! Was it too big of a concept to be the first to the moon or even go to space?...was it too big of a concept to build a link between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans?...YES, but we still did it and it costed this country a ton of money, but we still prevailed and we're able to get even further ahead in this world b/c we took on the fight and challenge like any successful company or person with lots risk, but sound idea! No Risk, No Return!

...China isn't the only country or land mass that is benefiting from such a novel idea! And this would not be competing in the future how?! Do you think if there was a new competitor in the market that companies would have more incentive to make their products more efficient (transportation engines)...fyi, it's cheaper for companies to send products by our current rail system, but very few utilize this b/c the timely issue of the slow trains and limited hubs to obtain the goods, so companies will pay the premium to get the goods flown in and pass it on to their consumers (as long as they're willing to keep paying for the price increases!)...we still use trains to transport our goods that we don't need immediately - saves us tons of moneys, but once again not a good idea I guess!

~Ind

Johnny O.

When I drive on roads that have potholes, and when bridges are closed because they are unsafe we have not WON. As with anything else, to maintain the edge one must upgrade and innovate. The United States of America is in desperate need of an infrastructure upgrade, not only our roads, but our rails, and utilities. In the future, we will not be able to compete with the rest of the rest of the world if we do not have a modern infrastructure to move us and our goods from point A to point B.

More government is NOT competition. That seems to be a difficult concept for many.

You are saying if we do the equivalent of throwing more money at AMTRAK, prices will go down???? AMTRAK bleeds money hand-over-fist, and you want to increase the hemorrhaging?

Touting this as a "jobs" benefit is another loser. We can create a lot of useful "work" in places that really need it for this money, which would be mostly wasted on "high-speed" rail. The best use of the $56B, is to leave it in OUR pockets, where it belongs.

Any possible lowering of prices as a result of more competition (and that is assuming a lot) will be more than offset by higher taxes necessary for the government to build, operate and maintain the whole thing.

Larry, Amtrak bleeds no more money than other forms of transportation. The canard that "cars and planes pay for themselves" is a zombie that keeps coming back no matter how many times it's been chopped up and buried. If you check any transportation studies such as those done by the University of Pennsylvania, roads only recover on average only about half of their total costs from gas taxes and other user fees. The rest comes out of general funds - yes, from the taxes we ALL pay whether we use specific roads or not, the takes that go to all those "other people" who "benefit at our expense".

As so many conservatives want, let's level the playing field - but do it FOR REAL. If private industry should be handling rail transport and government involvement is evil socialism, let's apply the same same rule to roads and airports. Let McDonald's sponsor road construction so people can drive out for a Big Mac, then put a surcharge on each burger for their share of the blacktop. Take down all those "Municipal Airport" signs and sell each runway to a corporate sponsor. "Flight 387, you're due in on WalMart runway E-W vector 5-56" sounds good, right?

Sorry, but whoever you got the doctorate from should be held liable.

guess you are confused.....we aren't discussing the cost of the Iraq War!

way to stay on topic

Fall behind how? In WHAT way? Their trains are cooler and faster and prettier? So what? How about our debt is bigger and we need to rein it in?

Did I mention that the TSA is coming to train stations?

Did I mention that trains will never be as fast as planes?

They also prefer football with a round ball compared to the game we play. So what?

Not really, our needs are different.

If you want to really improve things, stop physically commuting (where possible) and switch to telecommuting. Get the folks who can do so, telecommuting, and the infrastructure we have will EASILY support those who can't.

This technology already exists (Telecommuting) and those who can are and those who can't aren't. The highways are still crowded.

I don't really support most regulation but if you're going to spend money and regulate willy-nilly, at least regulate that those who can telecommute should do so.

I could telecommute 100% of my job at Microsoft, but the culture is such that they don't really encourage that much in my group.

Telecommuting is great for people in the "knowledge" industry. If one works in a service or manufacturing industry, forget it. Telecommuting is not a magic bullet.

Not all money that the government spends is "spending" some of it is "investing". Infrastructure money often has a return on investment, and that return is expected, otherwise the money isn't appropriated.

If it makes financial sense, "spending money that we don't have" is the right thing to do. Companies that are losing money don't cease their capital investments -- they need them to grow. A country is no different.

How did Eisenhower pay for the Interstate Highway System that most people use everyday? Probably taxes, which is justified as it benefits the whole country. If Obama can ignore the taunts of Republicans next year, when the Bush Wealthy Welfare extension expires, they could apply some of that to the rail project. It's only an increase in taxes by 4.1%, but the construction project would create jobs, spur innovation, lessen congestion on the freeways, reduce pollution, lower gas prices, etc. It could provide a boon to real estate prices as property is bought up to make room for the expansion or laying of new track.

I've been stationed in Europe while in the military and the rail system is impressive, and that's not even high speed most of the time. We'd better be getting out in front of this before China overtakes us...oh wait, they already are. Good thing we're working to corner the solar industry...oh wait! China is pulling ahead of us there too.

Just a history lesson to put this into perspective...

During the Civil War, Lincoln was able to foresee the railroad as an expedient way to move troops and supplies into critical areas in rapid fashion. Likewise with the telegraph. He was able to provide reinvorcements in days instead of weeks and used the telegraph to communicate in near real time to issue commands to his generals in the field.

Today, we may not be at war with China, but we are economic competetors. If we don't invest in high speed rail and faster Internet and solar technology, then they and other countries that have done so will be able to move passengers and goods faster, cheaper, and more efficiently; use their faster networks to spur growth and innovation; take advantage of abundent sources of energy. They will reap the rewards for their investments and improvements in infrastructure in the 21st century while we watch American Idol and argue over tax cuts for the rich and pray for trickle down economics to "trickle" down to us. They call it trickle down economics for a reason. They might as well call it "dripping tap economics".

How are we going to pay for not doing it?

With Uncle Benny's Magic Fairy Money! Here's how it works:

Elves working deep within the Federal Reserve Bank feed tickleberry leaves into a mystical printing press powered by Pegasus farts that never stops printing. Trolls load the Fairy Money into plasticene sleighs pulled by winged polar bears that fly over the Treasury Department and shower it over Li'l Timmy Geithner. Timmy gathers it up into baskets woven out of golden jackalbush reeds and carries it to Emperor Barry, who graciously bestows it upon those who promise to feed a tenth of it to his fierce reelection dragons.

this is better than those Superbowl ads..Bumpkin

Actually, Bumpkin's description is scarily accurate!

Actually not, the Federal Reserve does not have the authority to print money, that lies solely with the US Treasuryy. The Fed is there to enforce monetary policy. Now yes the Fed can request additional money to be printed by the Treasury to print money, but they cannot authorize it directly.

As for how its going to be paid for, we will have to wait and see. I am will to bet they will find a way to fund it

Forgive me for being simplistic in my explanation. No, the Fed does not print currency, but it determines the level of money (which is different from currency, i.e., dollar bills) in circulation through its policies, including setting bank reserve levels, setting the discount rate, engaging in open market operations, and in its most recent innovation, by directly purchasing debt securities directly from the US treasury. The Fed does not "enforce" monetary policy, but sets it under the charter granted to it by Congress.

I'm just sayin'.

The fed does print money. It cant do it directly, but the Fed buys treasuries through a bank at above market prices, it gives a false value to the bonds (which are worthless due to the radical spending by the traitors in Washington) but it gives money to the banking cabals and banking oligarchies. Its a double whammy.