Hi Speed Rail

While I as someone who enjoys trains and have rode Amtrak and like to take the train. I am not sure 53 billion is the way to go, especially some of these multiple projects. I say go for it in the Northeast. A lot of people in a dense area. Some of the other places he is trying not so much. Not sure how much of a job creator it will be though, since laying tracks and incorporating the signalling system takes a little training and I don't think the class A railroads can get people trained and up and running while still tending to their own infrastructure.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110208/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_high_speed_rail

I saw a graphic on this mornings news that showed a proposed route for the hi-speed rail through Indiana. It went from Toledo, through Fort Wayne, then to Chicago. There wasn't a direct route from Fort Wayne to Indianapolis. If you wanted to take the rail to Indy, it would go from Fort Wayne, to somewhere over near Gary, then south to Indy. Personally, I would use the hi-speed rail very seldomly. I like to visit Chicago, but don't go there very often. If the rail was direct to Indy, I think I would use it much more.

IrishGuy wrote:I saw a graphic on this mornings news that showed a proposed route for the hi-speed rail through Indiana. It went from Toledo, through Fort Wayne, then to Chicago. There wasn't a direct route from Fort Wayne to Indianapolis. If you wanted to take the rail to Indy, it would go from Fort Wayne, to somewhere over near Gary, then south to Indy. Personally, I would use the hi-speed rail very seldomly. I like to visit Chicago, but don't go there very often. If the rail was direct to Indy, I think I would use it much more.

I would use high speed rail to get to Indy for a game or something.

The problem I see with High Speed Rail is that once you get to your city of destination...you still have to travel from the train station to wherever you're going. I'd much rather have my own vehicle. Granted, the air travel industry has this same issue. However, I don't see people using high speed rail to go from one part of the country to another. If you can drive there on your own within a few hours (or a day), give me my own vehicle 95% of the time.

IrishGuy wrote:I saw a graphic on this mornings news that showed a proposed route for the hi-speed rail through Indiana. It went from Toledo, through Fort Wayne, then to Chicago. There wasn't a direct route from Fort Wayne to Indianapolis. If you wanted to take the rail to Indy, it would go from Fort Wayne, to somewhere over near Gary, then south to Indy. Personally, I would use the hi-speed rail very seldomly. I like to visit Chicago, but don't go there very often. If the rail was direct to Indy, I think I would use it much more.

Well they could run from FTW to Wabash to Marion on NS lines then hand off to CSX south of Marion, not an easy move by any means.

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:The problem I see with High Speed Rail is that once you get to your city of destination...you still have to travel from the train station to wherever you're going. I'd much rather have my own vehicle. Granted, the air travel industry has this same issue. However, I don't see people using high speed rail to go from one part of the country to another. If you can drive there on your own within a few hours (or a day), give me my own vehicle 95% of the time.

That is why you need density. Works well on the Northeast. Amtrak to commuter rail or subway.