Should the US develop and begin operating a High Speed Rail service? Discuss

2015-05-20T18:20:46-04:00

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made May 20 at 2015 6:25 PM

2015-05-20T18:25:56-04:00

No. Amtrak has been funded by the government since its inception ... we don't need anymore budget drains like that. If this is going to be done, it needs to be done by the private sector (not the government).

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 20 at 2015 6:28 PM

2015-05-20T18:28:51-04:00

No.
The capital investment needed is simply not justified by what ridership[ would be.
Air travel is faster and today, less expensive.

Response by SGT Anthony Bussing made May 20 at 2015 6:40 PM

2015-05-20T18:40:49-04:00

now I know....wiki isnt the best source material....but this does prove for some good reading...

if these trains could go 800 miles in 2.5 hours...it would take about 10 to get from coast to coast...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV

TGV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The TGV (French: Train à Grande Vitesse, "high-speed train") is France's high-speed rail service, operated by SNCF Voyages, the long-distance rail branch of SNCF, the national rail operator.

Response by MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P made May 20 at 2015 6:57 PM

2015-05-20T18:57:49-04:00

I loved using the rail system when I was stationed in England. It was a great way to see the countryside and was cheaper than driving my own automobile (especially if you had to purchase fuel on the economy). Plus, you could get from one end of the country to the other in a matter of a few hours.

Now that being said, while I like the appeal of a rail system here in the States, I just don't see it as a practical alternative. First, as previously mentioned, the capital outlay for construction would be HUGE. Then comes the meddling in the form of EPA regulations, Commerce regulations, Trade Commission, NTSB, DEA, FBI, CIA, Airplane of the Month Club, Playboy, Coke, Pepsi, and Congressman Makemericher all wanting their cut.

I don't see rural America benefiting all that much as there would not be a large enough customer base to justify spending millions of dollars to build rail spurs and stations for something that would most likely have light/sparse usage on most days. Since I'm most likely going to have to drive to a major city to find a station, I'll just go by airline since it will probably be cheaper, faster, and more responsive to scheduling in the long run.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made May 20 at 2015 8:18 PM

2015-05-20T20:18:56-04:00

The issue with rail & the U.S. is that the U.S. is #%^#^% HUGE. I mean really #^%#^% huge.

So from a countrywide concept, it just isn't feasible. We're too big, too spread-out to justify it. The Interstate system is "barely" justifiable in many places.

Now if you want to drop it from macro to micro, that's another story. Some places it makes perfect sense. Unfortunately in those places, you would have to put the infrastructure somewhere... which presents a different kind of problem.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made May 21 at 2015 3:07 AM

2015-05-21T03:07:59-04:00

Absolutely not. Our infrastructure is circling the toilet with a D- rating. We spend less than 1.5% on it (according to last night's episode of Engineering Disasters at least). All of those huge national development projects that we took on in the post Korean War years (under Ike's leadership) solidified our nation as certifiable grade A badassery. But many of those endeavors were rated at a 50 year lifespan, and we are long past that. These days, we put band-aids on aqueducts, tunnels, sewers, bridges, and roads. China is kicking our collective a$$es and better suited for that kind of project. Of course they'll all e dead in 50 years from air pollution, but they will probably go to war and expand their borders if it gets much worse.

Response by LTC Ed Ross made Jun 4 at 2015 8:49 AM

2015-06-04T08:49:38-04:00

Not unless it's self funding. Don't need another drain on the Federal budget.