Do you support the implementation of high speed rail as an alternative to flying or driving?

Many factors to consider. If it close enough that it is faster to drive I will. If I want to go to Dallas from Oklahoma it is faster for me to drive because I do not have to go through the airport ( security, parking ) and I can go to my final destination. If the train ran at intervals that would allow me to arrive close to my required time and the price is reasonable I would use it. But consider if I needed to rent a car once I got there it might not be worth it.

I do not want HSR if it is like AMTRAK where it is a huge money loser.

I have been on the HSR in Shanghai China and it was pretty cool. But I got off the train very close to my destination. For the person concerned about the Chinese building it, they have good records both for safety and reliability although their experience is less than the Japanese and French. I would be more concerned with a French built train.

Definitly! The US once had a rail system that was the envy of the world, it helpt build this country. We need to rebuild a modern high speed rail system. It would provided millions of jobs and save enourmous amounts of energy. There are some situations were there is no substitute for air travel but we have got to stop thinking about airlines like a bus service. Within about a 500 mile radius a high speed rail system would beat air travel every time when you consider the remote local of most airports and the lost time spent there. We also need to specify that all materials used in the construction of such a system would be 100% US sourced and would us only US labor with verified citizenship.

England does well with but it is also a small nation and the Untied States is not. The problem is that it might work in certain areas but then so does Amtrak but overall Amtrak is a money losing entity because it cannot provide services to the majority of the driving population. Works well in the NorthEast corridor and is cost effective because the rest of the nation subsidizes it but for large areas of the nation it will not work based on population density and low usage. Run one from NYC to LA and it might work but still much slower then a plane, the cost of the rail would be extremely high (land to run it on, new rail system and so on) plus the endless years of law suits by the various special interest groups and environmentalist not liking the area used and possible side effects on the environment. To properly replace air travel it would have to have numerous stops which would increase transit time, land purchase cost, and so on and to replace private/automobile use it would be even worse.

No. The reason passenger train travel has basically died in the USA is due to the fact that it is

1) expensive to operate

2) much slower to get from point A to B. For example, a Amtrack trip from Miami Fl to Chicago takes about 70 hours. I can fly that in 2 or 3 hours.

They are talking about building a high speed train from Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland in Ohio. It will take 6 hours to go from Cincinnati to Cleveland. Once you get to Cleveland, you will need to rent a car or take a taxi to get where you are going.

I can drive it in 3 hours and have my own car. So why would I ride the train?

This train is going to require massive government subsidies. Amtrack was supposed to be profitable in 3 years according to a report published in the 1970's. It has been 35 to 40 years now and it is a hole the federal government throws money into each year.

Stupidity is when you don't learn from your mistakes. Obviously people have learned from the 35 year Amtrack mistake.

This is not only an American issue. Yes, where a route does not cross the sea, the high speed train/TGV etc is much more fuel efficient and generally ecologically sound.

All I would say is that these benefits are easily lost where railways are run as a business, not as the vital infrastructure they actually are, and where they are market priced, as in Britain, not socially or ecologically priced.

And I'm British, and a Green Party supporter.

Yes if is was maglev fast, and it will be needed at the end of cheap oil. And I really don`t care about the tax hike, I go on my take home pay at review time.

I am not a fan of flying but if the cost is prohibitive to efficient rail service I would not support it..

Interesting idea.

It depends on the details, costs, and conditions....

but overall, sounds like a smart move.

If it is cost effective, sure. China manufactures the high speed trains, that is concerning.

It doesn't matter to me. Well wait, I do hate to fly so yeah, I would support it I guess. I would rather drive though.