Baraka_Guru

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/us...s/17train.html

My first reaction to this news was that of being pleased. North America can be considered "behind the times" when it comes to transportation of this kind. High-speed rail is available in Europe and parts of Asia, but I didn't think any such system exists at all in North America.

Amtrak's Acela Express serves centres such as Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington, using trains at speeds of up to 150 mph. This is a good start, I suppose, but America is a big place. And what about Canada?

Emerging and existing technologies mean that there is no excuse beyond cost/time and politics. In terms of benefits, there are many...both economic and social.

Obama mentioned Spain as a good role model. Apparently their rail system transports more people than air and highway combined.

• Do you see a national high-speed rail system getting underway in America?
• There are several states that have already been pushing for this kind of system. Do you see the overall system as a state or federal issue?
• Would you use such a system instead of air or highway travel?
• Is this a good idea, or would it be a waste of taxpayer money?
• Is America behind the times in this 21st century when it comes to transportation?
• What about Canada? Should there be a North American network of high-speed rail?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

inBOIL

I've heard the U.S. version of high speed trains will be considerably slower than the European versions. If so, I don't see how they'll effectively compete with air travel.

__________________
And you believe Bush and the liberals and divorced parents and gays and blacks and the Christian right and fossil fuels and Xbox are all to blame, meanwhile you yourselves create an ad where your kid hits you in the head with a baseball and you don't understand the message that the problem is you.

snowy

I've been all over the United States via our passenger rail system, and while Amtrak is not great compared to the rest of the world, they do what they can with what they have. There are several things holding Amtrak back, and thus national passenger rail in the United States (whether its future form be Amtrak or not): Amtrak owns a very limited amount of track, most of it restricted to the Northeast Corridor, and so has to rely on freight rail companies who do own the rail to lease them right-of-way (this also means freight on said lines has priority); there are a lot of laws in place that regulate how trains must be constructed in order to be safe in the United States, in addition to laws that regulate crossings, speed, and how they are gated off; and Amtrak has aging rolling stock--when fuel prices went through the roof, they were pulling mothballed cars back into the fleet because the current rolling stock couldn't meet demand. There are myriad other issues, but these are three of the big ones that will shape how we proceed with high speed rail in the United States. Also, we must keep in mind the sheer size of the United States; this is why I think the Obama administration's choice to pursue a corridor-based model is a good one. We ought to focus on getting these particular corridors up-to-date with high speed rail, and worry about connecting the corridors later.

I think it's a state and a federal issue. Washington State and Oregon have a model program with their sponsorship of the Amtrak Cascades route. Washington State has ponied up some major bucks for track improvements (including improved crossings in many areas) and for the Talgo trainsets, and their goal is to ultimately run the train from Seattle to Portland in 2.5 hours. Some of this track, post-improvements, will be owned by WSDOT.

While this is a good solution for now, we have to realize that if we truly want high speed rail in this country, we are going to have to invest in infrastructure beyond the current freight rail system, for both safety and speed. We cannot keep leasing track from the freight operators forever and keep a timetable. But I think we're taking steps in the right direction--we also cannot expect this to all happen overnight. But I think if President Obama is serious about finding a "shovel-ready" stimulus project, rail in the United States is a good one--I would rather take the train than drive my car any day of the week, and I truly enjoy laughing at the sorry saps on the I-5 as I whiz by them drinking a gin and tonic in the Cascades' bar car.

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Willravel

Do you see a national high-speed rail system getting underway in America?
It's entirely possible.
There are several states that have already been pushing for this kind of system. Do you see the overall system as a state or federal issue?
I don't see it as an issue to be necessarily delegated to state or federal. It's simply an issue.
Would you use such a system instead of air or highway travel?
I might.
Is this a good idea, or would it be a waste of taxpayer money?
Right now it's a bad idea. It would have been a better idea in 1998. We are in a bad way right now and need to concentrate on stabilizing before jumping on any major projects.
Is America behind the times in this 21st century when it comes to transportation?
Very much so. Still, we're lightyears ahead of most other countries in so many ways that it's not really a huge deal. It might be better to improve public transportation in large cities before creating a national high-speed railway.
What about Canada? Should there be a North American network of high-speed rail?
Canada can actually afford this right now. If you guys want to create a system that can one day be met with a full US system, go right ahead.

kurty[B]

Do you see a national high-speed rail system getting underway in America?

I can only hope! High-speed rail system in the U.S. would be great. The hardest part, is yes, America is a big place, and if any one particular location gets federal funding the others will feel neglected.


There are several states that have already been pushing for this kind of system. Do you see the overall system as a state or federal issue?

I wish people would see it as a federal issue. How great would it be to hop from San Diego to Seattle by train? Florida to Boston, or Chicago to Denver?


Would you use such a system instead of air or highway travel?

After taking the high speed train from Rome to Florence. I would definitely use such a system if it was available. No turbulence, comfort, ease. I'd take whichever offered cheaper tickets.


Is this a good idea, or would it be a waste of taxpayer money?

I think its a great idea, but I imagine most people who are not going to be directly affected by it (plenty of mid-westerners) absolutely hate the idea.


Is America behind the times in this 21st century when it comes to transportation?

Yes. I also think the way most American approach transportation is off. The hike in gas prices last year helped affect that thinking, but with cheap gas prices back I see the "driving everywhere as usual" thinking back.


What about Canada? Should there be a North American network of high-speed rail?

A network of high-speed raillines would be tough to do. I imagine with only a billion available at a time you are looking at accomplishing it city by city. I think the East Coast would be the most intelligent place to get a system up and running.

__________________
In the Absence of Information People Make Things Up.

KellyC

Yeah, I thought the reason why this hasn't been done before because the US is too damn big unlike France and Japan. Which I why I only see localized rail system like in the Bay Area and New York. Then again, I don't travel much so I can't say. Would I like to use the railway system? Hell yes. I've always wanted to travel from CA to WA by train. Only, when I look at the cost and travel time, the ticket costs about the same as an airplane ticket but the trip is around 24 hours long. Too long.

__________________
Him: Ok, I have to ask, what do you believe?
Me: Shit happens.

Baraka_Guru

Okay, here is some more information on the benefits of high-speed rail (HSR):

The optimal distance is 100 to 400 miles (or a 2- to 3-hour journey); generally, journeys of up to 400 miles benefit from not having to check-in, do security checks, suffer delays, claiming baggage, etc., as you would in airports. This is assuming, of course, things are running as they should with HSR. Apparently, the systems can be well run compared to the "typical" airliner.

Compared to automobiles, even the low end of the HSR travelling at 125 mph is substantially faster.

Spain has an HSR network of nearly 750 miles, while China has over 3,700 miles.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail)

That covers a lot of area. I know the U.S. is big, but when you plan it properly, you'd have webs of regional coverage linked up possibly with some express routes in between.

The bottom line is that there is a lot of potential for such a system both in the U.S. and Canada merely because of the distances required to travel. Travelling 400 miles is quite a distance without having to fly (and waste time getting on and off) or drive and still get there in under 3 hours. That's like Los Angeles to Phoenix, or Toronto to New York City.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dippin

I would absolutely love to have a HSR here in the Southeast.

The Atlanta airport is such a mess that it is better to drive anywhere within 600 miles than to fly.

Craven Morehead

Only if it can exist without government subsidies.

Baraka_Guru

You mean like highways and airports?

I don't see why subsidies would be a problem considering the benefits.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Craven Morehead

There are no benefits if its a losing proposition.

To be truly beneficial to society, it needs to be self sufficient. The proposed high speed rail lines will only serve major metropolitan areas, should the tax burden be increased for all? I've been to Europe and Japan and I am a firm believer in revolutionizing this country's mass transit. However, I can't see building a rail system that will require government subsidies in order to keep it operational. Regardless of that decisions were made in the past, future funding must be consideration for any new infrastructure investment. Otherwise, we are just setting the country up for a future of required spedning to fund otherwise bad investments.

MexicanOnABike

__________________

- Movie Reviews - Ratings-

murp0434

That's an excellent point Craven. If the railways are not designed appropriately for traffic flow, they won't be utilized and the system will fail. The transportation system WOULD need to at least break even if not generating a little money for the government. It needs to be easy and convenient and FAST.


Aside: I personally love public transportation. If I could sell my car and rely on public transportation to get me anywhere I needed to go, I'd be 100% willing to do so. I lived in Madrid for awhile and the metro/Eurail (sp?) got me everywhere and it was awesome. No car payment, no insurance, no worries about parking, gas or drunk driving.


Ideally this would be a solid investment to offset the numerous bailouts, wars, etc. that are putting us so far into national debt that we may never be able to climb back out.

__________________
These are the good old days.


How did I become upright?

eribrav

There seems to be considerable enthusiasm for the NY high speed rail project and if any of this actually has a chance to succeed I think it will include the New York section.
Once you have built from Buffalo to Albany, it's a no brainer to then go back through Niagara Falls to Toronto.
Having lived outside Buffalo I'd say it makes no sense to end the rail line without going to Toronto. Western NY's economic future depends at least as much on Ontario as it does on the rest of New York.

Seaver

We don't need a system like Europe. With the distance involved and the spread of modern cities it does not make sense. Rails for Cities should be handled by the local and state taxes only, the EL here in Chicago is a perfect example.

HOWEVER, more rail lines (commerce and HSR) between the cities should have been done ages ago. Take a look at San Antonio, Austin, Waco, Dallas/Fort Worth. They all sit on I-35, which is the busiest highway in the country for trucks which flow from the largest inland port in the world (Laredo) thanks to NAFTA. They are building massive projects to build bypasses around the cities as they sit directly on this highway. A HSR would allow people to travel by train between these three large cities, and it could also be built paralleling commerce tracks which desperately need to be built. Sort of a 2 for 1 deal, as the length of land s the majority of cost, not the extra 15 feet for a second rail.

Build a modern web of commercial rail between the cities and see the drastic reduction in truck traffic as a result. HSR travel will still primarily make sense in the NE, less so in the South and West. With the distances involved, the time difference between flight and rail (even at 175mph) is too drastic. As one person mentioned, 12hrs by train or 2.5hrs on a plane, which do you think the businessman will want? Which do you think the parent with a 6mo and a 2yr old wants to do?

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Baraka_Guru

We don't know if any of the following are self-sufficient, because they are heavily subsidized by the government:

• airports (and the manufacture/purchasing/leasing of airliners)
• highways
• the meat industry
• the dairy industry
• localized public transportation

Taking away the subsidies would increase the per-user/consumer cost by enough to discourage use/consumption. In many cases, I would assume the per-user cost would double or triple. The government subsidizes many things for a reason: its benefits extend beyond the immediate. None of these things operate in isolation. There are a number of industries that benefit from them.

Not necessarily. I imagine the funding should come primarily from municipalities and states/provinces that would benefit directly. I'm not so sure about federal money, unless there is some country-wide plan with obvious benefits.

Basically, if a lack of subsidies would mean no one would do it, then it might suggest the government needs to support it if the overall benefit it worth it.

Would you say high-speed rail is worth it in Europe and Asia?

Yeah, there is a lot of co-dependence across the entire border, I'm sure. High-speed rail (I'm assuming) isn't just for passenger traffic. Imagine the boon to industry with an improved train system for transporting goods.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Craven Morehead

To be fair, I have no idea about the financial viability of such a project. It just bothers me to create an endless need for subsidized support. As I stated, I am in favor of a mass transport overhaul in the US however we have already have an Interstate road system that is the envy of most other countries and a very robust air transport network. High speed rail will need to compete with both but is it wise to do so if the only way it can compete is with governmental subsidies? We're only creating a taxation need that will continue for generations when there are already two other forms of transportation that essentially do the same thing.

greytone

A nationwide high speed rail system in the US is a solution in need of a problem. Using Europe as a model for transcontinental transportation is as reasonable as using Europe as a model for good local public transportation. The population density and need for transportation at each end of the line mean that very different solutions are needed for cities that developed after the invention of the automobile. High speed rail makes sense for the nearby cities of the Northeast and Midatlantic states. It might be commercially viable there and maybe in a few other regional markets, but I really doubt it could ever compete with Southwest Airlines in Texas.

__________________
I was there to see beautiful naked women. So was everybody else. It's a common failing.
Robert A Heinlein in "They Do It With Mirrors"

Martian

Define 'compete.' What are we competing with here? The Interstate highways are, to my knowledge, paid for almost entirely by public works programs. That would count in my book as a government subsidy. Airlines may be efficient for long trips, but for regional or statewide travel, rail can be a cheap and effective solution. Looking at the popularity and utility of the GO system in the Greater Toronto Area, I can only imagine that a high-speed rail system would be that much better.

Furthermore, a rail system will only serve to improve roadways. Moving some of the commuters and travelers to a parallel network decreases congestion and maintenance costs. It's all interconnected.

I'd love to be able to get from Toronto to Montreal (or even Edmonton or Vancouver) via high speed rail. Such a thing would open up travel opportunities for people like me, who prefer to avoid driving and air travel due to the expenses and inconveniences involved.

Building a transcontinental rail system is not an overnight process. This will necessarily start at a smaller scale. Planning for the future and connecting the smaller regional networks via express lines only makes sense.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

loquitur

I'm actually a fan of intercity rail, but it can work only if the population densities and intercity commerce will support it. But it would also require new rights-of-way (and yes, eminent domain) and some pretty careful planning to choose optimum locations so that the density-to-distance ratios are sensible. It would have to be installed regionally, not nationally. Off the top of my head, it seems the sensible areas would be: (1) Boston-Providence-Hartford/New Haven-NY-Phila-Balt-DC; (2) Miami-Orlando-Tampa; (3) Around Lake Erie, from Buffalo to Detroit, with spur to Chicago, possibly on up to Milwaukee, maybe to Toronto, too, from the other side; (3) triangle Houston-Dallas-San Antonio; (4) SD-LA-Central Valley-SF (this one might have a spur from, say, Bakersfield to Vegas). There are some other possibilities, such as Cincinnati to St Louis to Memphis, but the density relative to mileage starts dropping real fast past that.

Fact is, the US is just huge, and people aren't going to go from NY to LA by train other than on leisurely vacations. I live in NY and I usually prefer going to Philly, Wilmington, Baltimore or DC by train rather than plane or driving, especially if I leave from the office (I work nearer the train station but live nearer the airports); I haven't been to Boston by train yet but it's around the same distance as DC so I have to figure it's equally convenient. But I can't see myself taking a train to Chicago or Atlanta - those are a two-hour plane ride but probably 8+ hrs by train, even at high speed.

Craven Morehead

Availability and cost and to some extent the time it takes for travel. Primary competition would be air travel. And that will be tough to compete against.

I live in NW Indiana. I have my choice of one train into Chicago or bus service. That's it. Not much choice. Chicago has rail service to Milwaukee as well as St. Louis. I can grab a train coming out of Chicago to New York or Washington DC. But neither would be a quick trip, not even close. For leisure, it would be great. For business, no way. Once you get distances greater than Chicago to St. Louis air travel is going to be tough to beat.

I wish I had more transportation choices. But should they be offered if the demand on the service can not support the cost?

Jimellow

Do you see a national high-speed rail system getting underway in America?
No. I don't think enough of America relies on public transportation to travel to the extent other nations that are heavily invested in it do. And over longer distances, I think flying has been at the forefront for so long in America that it would be difficult to convince the average traveler to consider rail.

Would you use such a system instead of air or highway travel?
I'd try it out once out of curiosity, but generally will always rely on the highway or airways; unless I lived outside of New York City.

Is this a good idea, or would it be a waste of taxpayer money?
It's a good idea, but I don't think it's realistically going to pull much traffic from our already established, and popular, methods of travel. As for it being a waste of tax payer money, I suspect not, as I get the notion that the government is wasting money elsewhere that could be tightened up before investing in the railways became a valid concern.

Is America behind the times in this 21st century when it comes to transportation?
People get where they need to go. In our country, it's generally by road or airway. Most people own cars, whereas other countries with heavily used railways, don't have a population that owns as many cars. If every city in America was like New York City, then rail systems would be much more popular. But New York City is not a realistic representation of the average American city.

What about Canada? Should there be a North American network of high-speed rail?
It would be fun to try, but I think it's too late to make dramatic changes to the traveling infrastructure of our nation.

__________________
Desperation is no excuse for lowering one's standards.

guy44

Thinking about costs as being supported entirely by fares is an incorrect way to think about HSR, or in actuality, most transportation systems. The airline industry would basically be kaput if it weren't for major government subsidies at certain delicate times. No city's public transit system is self-sustaining. The interstate system was a massive public works project which still requires enormous sums of government money to upkeep. Just because we've become accustom to all of these methods of transportation existing, and as a result don't really think about their attendant costs as government subsidies for otherwise unsustainable endeavors, doesn't mean they aren't so.

Furthermore, the interstate system has innumerable externalities that no market currently captures and thus don't generally get thought of as costs. For example, the interstates are overcrowded, increasing travel times, lowering quality of life, and slowing business and commerce. The massive toll the interstates have on our environment is another major externality that will be partially mitigated by increased reliance on HSR as an alternative to interstates. And so on.

Obviously, the United States is not Japan or Europe and as such need not construct its HSR infrastructure according to the same basic plan. Ours is a large country with vast expanses of uninhabited or sparsely populated areas and there is no need for trains to replace interstates or air travel in those areas. But Obama's plan seems to me to be a good-faith effort to identify those regions that could benefit substantially from HSR and build up a network with very specific needs in mind. Intelligently done, there's really no reason that improved linkages between northern midwestern states couldn't play a substantial role in the resurrection of Michigan's economy, or that more attractive travel options between SoCal and NorCal couldn't result in a tourism boom. (I just made the trip from San Diego to Seattle this summer, and I can assure everyone that that corridor need HSR badly.)

I've also noted several people noting that no-one would take a train very long distances, such as from NY to LA or Chicago to Atlanta. Agreed - and so does Obama, whose plan is based around regional efforts:



P.S. MexicanOnABike, I met the guy who wrote the Monorail song, and yes, he is that awesome.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

shakran

Alright. I'll buy that. I take it, then, that as a means of protesting non-self sufficient government projects, that you will not drive on anything but a toll road? And I assume, that you don't fly either. You also probably don't eat, because the meat inspection process requires money and is not self-sufficient, and besides, all that food has to be transported on that boondoggle they call the "highway system."



This seems to be another "if I don't directly benefit from it, I shouldn't have to pay any money for it" argument. I'll gladly accept that, but I expect you to pay me for my share of the road in front of your house, and the clean air that you breathe, because I don't live by you and don't want to pay for YOUR clean air, and also for your police, fire, and EMS services, because, hey, they won't come to MY door when I need them - I've got my own. I'm certainly not paying for yours. Oh, and while we're at it, if you have kids, you can add their education costs to your bill, too.

The_Jazz

I guess I have a unique perspective, considering that I'm most likely someone who would be considered in the target market - the hub-based business traveler.

I'm for it - up to a point. I would use it - up to a point.

Chicago is unique in the country but not in a good way. Rail traffic here is incredibly fucked up. There is a giant bottleneck of tracks here and most goods coming from the East to the West or back again go through here. Almost all of it is freight. Once a freight train (or long distance passenger train) enters a radius of about 100 miles from Chicago, it takes about 5 days to get out the other side. THAT'S how bad things are.

If we're going to do this, the high-speed rail HAS to have dedicated tracks - no other trains moving on it except in an emergency. More importantly, Amtrack (or whoever is going to run these trains) has to own those tracks. Currently, Amtrack leases space on all rails and owns virtually none of them. The freight companies that own the rails have to, by law, lease space to Amtrack, but they get the lowest priority and usually have to wait for freight to move first. That typically adds days (not hours) to a cross-country trip going through here.

Honestly, St. Louis and Detroit are places that I go to fairly regularly, and I'd be very inclined to try high-speed rail. The flight times are relatively short for both - about 50 minutes each - but the associated hassles would probably make me change my mind. They're saying that Detroit and St. Louis would each be about 3 hours away by rail (Detroit a little less, St. Louis a little more), which translates into about an extra half hour for me once you factor in the extra drive time to O'Hare from my place, having to be at the airport an hour before my flight, the waiting on the tarmac before and after the actual flight and then waiting for the cattle in front of me to get their damn bags out of the overhead and remember that walking is alternating the left and right foot and no other combination. Add in the fact that I can make calls and send emails during the trip, possibly while having my phone and/or laptop plugged in, and it seems like a very good option.

A flight longer than about an hour doesn't make sense, though. If I went to Milwaukee frequently (I don't), that would be an even better option since the proposed train time would be much faster than driving.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

stevie667

With high speed rail just coming to bear in the UK, i can say that is a great idea for any country. People often don't use rail because it takes ages to get anywhere (especially if you have victorian era tracks like we have), which is exactly what it intends to change. Like The_Jazz said, although there might be a slightly longer trip on some journeys in comparison to flying, the associated stress is much reduced.

__________________
Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

Craven Morehead

No, I never said that. This is what I posted earlier in this thread (copied complete with bad grammar and poor spelling, but you get the idea) "Regardless of that decisions were made in the past, future funding must be consideration for any new infrastructure investment. Otherwise, we are just setting the country up for a future of required spedning to fund otherwise bad investments." The rest is conjecture on your part.

There are plenty of recovery process investment opportunities to be decided upon. Doesn't it make sense to put the investment of our tax revenue into areas that are truly going to uplift society and commerce while not creating a continual drag on the economy via additional taxation? There's far too much of that already. Why on earth would you want to continue that?

shakran

Who says that a public-funded mass transit system is a drag on the economy? Sure, we might have some of our tax dollars go toward funding it, but the idea that programs which are not self-sufficient yet benefit society (in this case by moving people from point A to point B quickly, efficiently, and without having to rely on the heavily subsidized, wasteful, and godawful airlines) is patently false.

kurty[B]

It makes sense to me to have a Chicago based HSR, or NYC based HSR. Trips over 300-400 miles makes flying more sensible (unless you're riding the train for vacation, but then most people wanting to take the train as a vacation would rather take a slow train).

I visit DC for fun every so often to see family. If there was a high-speed rail to NYC or Boston. I would probably use it every other time I went to visit them.

Even on the Front Range of Colorado, if there was even a commuter train that went 90 mph that spanned from Fort Collins to Denver and from Denver to Colorado Springs and maybe Pueblo. That would alleviate tons of bottlenecks on those interstates and relieve commuters stress. The ski resorts in Colorado are currently trying to work with Union Pacific to get them to update and lease their tracks for commuter trains from Denver to the ski resorts. If you've ever been on I-70 on any winter ski weekend you know exactly why this sort of thing is a good idea. A cross country high speed rail system is unrealistic, but if regional commuter rail systems were updated, and I was able to ride from San Diego to NYC using it at some point in my life I would just for nostalgia purposes.

__________________
In the Absence of Information People Make Things Up.

djtestudo

That map that guy44 posted is basically what I've thought would be a successful plan for a while (which scares me if it's also what Barak Obama believes ).

You have a bunch of very-high-traffic areas, like Sacramento-to-San Diego (Pacific), Dallas-to-Miami (Gulf), Boston-to-Richmond (NEC), Buffalo-to-Milwaukee (Great Lakes), Minneapolis-to-New Orleans (Mississippi), and the like. Then you connect them with stretches that would see more sparse traffic and connect a few additional cities.

I've taken the normal Amtrak train from Baltimore to Philly and to Newark and it was pretty good even at that speed.

The problem is that there is no way that the track can be laid without major federal government money, since there would need to be brand-new track laid for this to be feasible.

Really, the entire rail system needs replacement. It's a pretty big issue here in Baltimore after a major fire in the tunnel under downtown that is the single way to get freight down the East Coast.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

ASU2003

I'm not sure if it should be done right now, but I think it might be ok if they put the hubs by the airports.

If the cost for a ticket is much lower than the cost of gas, I could see it taking off. Especially if it is faster than driving, and cheaper than flying. And if you could bring a bike or extra large luggage, it would be another benefit.

The only thing is the Toledo line should go to Detroit instead of Chicago directly.