How can you compare the US to Spain and Japan when talking about high speed train service?

I don't see why people don't take the train over air travel. If you're going cross country or in a big rush to get somewhere, I can understand, but trains are relaxing, some have wifi and most have normal wall oulets in them and snack cars. They are very inexpensive. You could at least add them in the dense part of the U.S. which would be west of Chicago. If we could get trains going twice as fast and perhaps even more fuel efficent, it could do wonders for our country. I take the train a lot. Think of it. Round trip from flint Michigan to Chicago is nearly $200 with a group of 4 and it takes a little more that 4 and a half hours. If you fly to Chicago, it takes around an hour and a half and your would spend over $200 per person. Trains are defenatly more cost effective and if they go twice the speed they do now, then I really think it could benifit our country.

When? Well, that'll be when the devil and all his imps are ice skating in hell. If you could build it tomorrow and start running the next day, the trains would be virtually empty, because it isn't just the price of fuel that is at issue. It's the "flash." Two story pick-up trucks that can drive over anything except the two story pick-up truck right in front of it, and they'll never see a day off road while getting that 12 mpg. Hummers? Should be illegal to own. But, if we do get to buy them, we ought to be able to get them "fully loaded," to use Detroit's old terminology, which includes the roof mounted .50 Cal. Next, get rid of all the useless crap on today's production models. SUV's loaded with electric everything: re-configure the seat arrangement, open and close doors, windows, sun roof, moon roof, rear hatch, etc., all at the push of a button. (Get rid of it and the vehicles will be lighter, therefore more fuel efficient, as well as having the extra benefit of an obese America burning off a few of those greasy, fast-food meals. We cab also get rid of a bunch of cup holders, too.) Video cameras for backing up? Turn yur flippin' head, people, and quit paying to haul the extra weight around. 6 DVD players in an SUV? More unneeded weight. In my dad's car, "Sit sown and shut the hell up." was all the entertainment we needed. It is a means of transportation, not a rolling family room... And most everything is 4 wheel drive today. Wanna own one? Fine. If you live in an area where there is less than 18" annual snow fall, pay a large "luxury tax" the same way people do on pleasure-boats and personal aircraft, so you can keep your gas guzzler and worry about how to keep it fueled and ready to roll... (A side note here: I have many people who live in the SF bay area say that the 4x4 is a 'back up' for travelling after 'the big one.' Idiots... unless you have a helicopter, you ain't going anywhere..) Finally, anyone who was driving in the early '70's remembers the last engineered oil gouge, courtesey of OPEC. What was a good national approach to the problem? A 55 mph national speed limit. It helped then, it'll help now. I find it telling irony that most often, when someone sees the "think green" bumper stickers and other conservative measures emplazoned on the rear of a car, you gotta read fast because that car is moving past ya at 75+ mph. All of which means, no. You're not going to see high speed rail in America, outside of a short commute corridor, perhaps. So, slow down, don't buy into the "keeping up with the Jones' " mind set, or shut the hell up, and keep wasting fuel and money.

For one thing, it is true that the US is large, but high speed rail would be placed in the areas where it is useful, like the Northeast Corridor, the Midwest, Texas, and the west coast (Cali). As for size, Russia has an extremely high amount of rail usage. See this chart:

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

They don't even have high speed rail as far as I know, yet the railway services provide 3.6% of Russia's GDP and carry 80% of passengers on travel.

Also highways and airports make no real profits, they are put in place by the government, in fact I believe our some of our highway network was in the planning stages during the Great Depression, and was expanded further in the 50's, not because of companies, but because of the government. So in the future we could either be moaning about lack of rail and tons of pollution and congestion, or happy and proud that Obama took initiative in hard times. Plus infrastructure and technology build the economy.

Sure, just like the private sector provided us with our Interstate Highway system and electricity in rural communities. Do you think that public policy had nothing to do with our rail system, which was the best in the world prior to WW2, being one of the worst in the world by 1980?

China has them and they are way bigger than the US.

We needed this technology 25 years ago. We are falling behind because of the Luddites and the know-it-alls think we don't need to progress into the future.

Siberia is ahead of us in train service.

I think he and Gore should master high speed internet first

we r at the bottom. trains only work in small countries, where it is faster to take a train then to take a plane.