Comments on: National News: High-Speed Rail Money Awarded

By: Steph

Steph — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:03:49 +0000

I’ve ridden Amtrak and I’ve flown various airlines. I’ll take Amtrak. I’ll ride a train over flying any ol’ day.

By: Witherspoon D

Witherspoon D — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:06:37 +0000

It’s pretty hypocritical of the President to lecture republicans on reaching across the isle when funding for his transportation initiative is almost strictly along party lines. We are fortunate that he threw us a $4 Mil bone in TX. In fact, Missouri and TX are the only red states receiving any funding at all. Not clear how much Missouri is getting, because all of the Illinois money is being distributed jointly with neighboring states. But even with a high estimate of $500 mil for Missouri, that’s only 6.3% of funding to the red states. Politicians : /

By: fwtacoma

fwtacoma — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:25:11 +0000

I’m confused Jason – you’re okay with the French building a train (which US citizens would pay to ride) but not okay with Cintra building toll roads (which US citizens would pay to drive on)?

By: Witherspoon D

Witherspoon D — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 15:38:31 +0000

I’m writing a letter to the President right now

By: Jason Jones

Jason Jones — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:55:31 +0000

No, it does not include the security check point at the airport but if you think it will be any different at the train station you are naive.

The experience is your personal point of view. Flying through the air at just below the speed of sound is still pretty exciting.

Yes, most airlines are propped up by the government but Southwest is not. Yes you are correct that the government does subsidize airport construction but an airport is an economic hub and supports freight and civilian transportation. High speed rail is a dedicated line and only has one use.

If the French want to build high speed rail in Texas I say let them but I do not think the US people should provide the funds. I also disagree with Cintra getting paid for financing Texas toll roads too and I do not see the difference here. In both situations we have to pay a foreign company to participate in the transportation system.

By: cooper

cooper — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 14:46:10 +0000

does that “one hour to houston” include the whole “arriving early at the airport for your strip search and dna test?”

probably not.

the experience of high speed rail is so far beyond airline travel that i think plenty of people would like the alternative even if it is a little slower (not counting the delays of security and stuff at the airport which the airline folks always leave out).

and the airlines are propped up by the government to a huge extent. there ain’t no form of transport in the u-s-of-a that isn’t subsidized.

u might want to talk to sncf about that “the business model doesn’t work in texas” thing – they know their high speed rail and they seem to disagree.

By: Jason Jones

Jason Jones — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:28:55 +0000

It currently cost $49 and one hour to fly to Houston. It would cost $150 and two and a half hours to ride a high speed train to Houston. Texas would also have to invest another $200 billion to construct the rail network. Also the train would be run by the government and not a private company. It is a neat idea but the business model does not seem to fit in Texas. It will be interesting to see if the train in Florida increases the public’s transportation needs or if it becomes another Amtrak.

By: Walton

Walton — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 01:58:50 +0000

I was very happy to see so many projects in the works around the country even if none of them are here. As an Amtrak rider and an I-35 driver I’m very sorry none of them are here.

By: Doug Black

Doug Black — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:05:14 +0000

Hooray for Governor Good Hair our visionary leader!!!