Comments on: Administration Releases High-Speed Rail Plan.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 15:52:13 +0000

Houston will have to wait for Dallas-San Antonio HSR, which is a more sensible starter line for Texas than Dallas-Houston.

By: Woody

Woody — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 04:01:00 +0000

liam — Don’t worry. The map is obsolete.

But this fact is still current: Neither Louisiana nor Texas is planning to spend any matching funds on HSR, so lines on the map, or the absence of lines, make no difference at all. Houston will have to wait for Govs Perry and Jindal to grow up – not likely any time soon, is it?

By: liam

liam — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 16:25:52 +0000

how come houston is only connected with new orlens and not san antonio?

By: Da Moose

Da Moose — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:32:48 +0000

Where do these people live? Fantasyland? How do the Obama cronies plan to pay for this. Oh that’s right ,there’s always the tax payers. Oh and if we run out of funds we can always borrow more. The Deficit doesn’t matter cause it will just magically disappear right?

By: Gene Callahan

Gene Callahan — Fri, 08 May 2009 17:06:03 +0000

“Those deficiencies in the existing plan are likely to be remedied as the administration selects the most cost efficient and valuable routes for funding.”

Which, of course, will happen as soon as it snows in hell. Instead, of course, what the administration will wind up doing is selecting the routes that win the votes of key congressman and please major campaign contributors and lobbyists.

By: Mad Park

Mad Park — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:32:19 +0000

Before the excitement levels get to a fever pitch here…
A reality check: US$8B will be barely enough money to buy some new equipment for a corridor or two and do ROW work to raise speeds to 80-90 MPH over some stretches of some corridors. NO high speed “system” will built for US$8B or even US$80B, and no system will be completed even in an 8 year Obama Administration. Remember, Japan started in the 1960s, France in the 1970s, other European nations even later. Only Spain has pushed so hard to have a more or less complete system built in about 15 years. It will require a major change of national will and investment priorities, and, say, a trillion dollars over 20 years or more to develop true high speed with hourly frequencies on all the routes on the map.

By: Woody

Woody — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:09:59 +0000

Ha ha ha ha. I was mostly kidding about not spending on HSR in Deep Dixie. I grew up in Texas and I have roots in half the former Confederacy. But I did not vote for Rick Perry, or for secession.

That said, the route map shows as much politics as population. I mean, Little Rock to Dallas via Hope, Arkansas? That was put on the map under what President? And HSR from Boston to Montreal, but not from NYC to Montreal? Meanwhile there’s no connection between Pittsburgh and Youngstown and Cleveland, or Buffalo and Cleveland. I know those old cities are rusting away, but come on.

And I was glad to see this in the AP story on the Yahoo front page:
“We are very jazzed about it,” said Karen Parsons, executive director of the Southern High-Speed Rail Commission. She said preliminary numbers showed that they could increase capacity and speed on the existing New Orleans-Baton Rouge line for about $150 million to $200 million, and for $500 million they could expand service from New Orleans to Mobile, Ala.

I’m ready to drop $200 million on Baton Rouge right now. Half a billion on Mobile? Get in line with the others.

By: jon

jon — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 23:55:59 +0000

no, money has to be spent in red states. the worst thing is for high speed rail to be something only for democrats or rewards for blue states. it is essential that they reach out to the south and try to make high speed rail and rail in general, less political not more political. its people like pat mccrory the republican mayor of charlotte (who is very pro-transit) who has helped greatly to introduce transit and rail to traditionally conservative areas that are big on highways. rail does not need to be made into another politically divisive issue.

a perfect candidate for HSR in the south is Atlanta-Charlotte as is the texas triangle.

i live in the pac nw and i dont care whether a line is built near me or not, i just want to see high speed rail play a large role in the transportation system of america, so where ever this starter money does the most good for getting a national system that all i care about.

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 21:57:24 +0000

Jake,

The MWRRI lines are generally mixed with freight, but on low freight traffic corridors. Madison to the twin cities may be one case where there is more freight congestion, and more new tracks will be needed, but it will follow existing rights-of-way.

In most cases, the railroads used to have 2 tracks, but now they have only one, with occasional passing sidings. Putting back the second track creates the needed capacity to avoid freight.

There is congestion in some of the large cities, especially Chicago, and that will have to be dealt with as well. Look up the CREATE program for Chicago’s plan.

By: Jake

Jake — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 21:52:11 +0000

I’m all for the Chicago Hub Network! It connects so many mid to major sized cities. Plus, I live in the Midwest haha.

These are going to be ACTUAL high speed rail, right? Are they going to have their own tracks and whatnot? Because the freight tracks are already clogged enough, they don’t need more traffic