It should be noted the ohio money was not for high speed rail but traditional rail which would have taken twice the time of driving.

Posted By JR on March 14, 2011, 12:24 PM

Pricey, slow with all the stops, lousy parking at the stations, costly cab rides to get to final destination. No thank you.
Only plus is no TSA perverts...yet.

Posted By Nick P on March 17, 2011, 10:15 AM

High speed rail works in other countries because the infrastructure for LOCAL public transportation has also been developed. In the U.S., local light rail, metro, and other such options are not well developed, so if you go from one city to another, basically the only way you have to get to your final destination is by cab....which is the most expensive form of transportation known to man, other than the Space Shuttle.....NO THANKS

Posted By Mad Dog on March 17, 2011, 11:41 AM

Southwest Airlines, faster & cheaper than high speed rail.

Posted By G on March 17, 2011, 12:19 PM

In Europe, trains are great for traveling to cities. However, if you want to independently (not on a bus tour) visit the countryside, you need a car. Trains don't take you to wineries and all the little towns and scenic areas.

Posted By Ted on March 17, 2011, 12:42 PM

Train travel in the USA will alsways be derailed (ha, ha) by the car, big oil, and airline lobbies who have a lot more money than Amtrak to dole out to Congress.

Posted By Rich on March 17, 2011, 2:05 PM

I have to take strong exception to the statement "Politics aside, one fact remains clear: Americans are far behind other countries when it comes to train technology, new track construction, and green rail initiatives."
While the United States is behind in passenger train" movements, the United States is superior to probably all other countries for freight train transportation which is dependent upon highly efficient track construction, reconstruction, and being environmentaly friendly.
Railroads can rebuild bridges under traffic. Highway cannot. Railroads can restore service following disaster so much faster than highways.
Yes high speed passenger trains are desirable,
for them to be able to operate at the high speeds, they must have a dedicated right-of-way and not share the same track with freight trains. The Northeast Corridor passenger operations has demonstrated that less than what some people call high speed, is still very efficient. On the Northeast Corridor, some trains run up to 140 mph with many running at 110 mph. I have been on the NE Corridor in New Jersey at 2:00 AM on a week night and in a couple of hours, there were upwards of 20-25 passenger train movements. During daytime, there is and even greater density of train movements.
Granted that there are other corridors where there is sufficient travel to justify "fast" passenger trains, all these competing entities need to agree on standards so that as segments become connected, then the equipment is compatible with the track, power supply and method of operations.

Posted By Max on March 17, 2011, 2:14 PM

Train travel nationwide would be tremendously helpful for older people to travel as well as families, also tourists love to see the scenery. I have been advocating bringing back the trains for years.

Posted By Katherine Stuart van Wormer on March 17, 2011, 2:57 PM

The article -- and the Chinese -- are absolutely right. What the "no thanks" folks aren't thinking ahead on is the energy-deficient future that we all face. The only reasonably secure and plentiful energy source for vehicles of any kind in the next 2 or 3 decades is natural gas, and cars and aircraft don't run on liquified natural gas very well, whereas buses and trains do.
So the USA should be investing in the intercity and intracity infrastructure needed to make efficient, fuel saving public transportation practical, starting with corridors like Orlando-Tampa and Los Angeles-San Diego.

Posted By Gene on March 17, 2011, 4:39 PM

If we had true high speed rail(not Acela)over long distances (not the Tampa route) it would be wondeful. China's new train scheduled between Beijing and Shanghai will probably be faster than taking a plane after travel to airport and wait times are factored in. But this country clearly does not want to spend money to invest in the future. The governors and Congress are near-sighted and Neanderthal.

Posted By lhs on March 17, 2011, 5:38 PM

There is a much better technology than high speed rail coming soon. It will be called "Air Travel" or "Flying". Speeds will be in the hundreds of miles an hour. No tracks for miles, just "depots" near city centers. Literally flying through the air. We'll even be able to travel over water without the need for boats!

Oh wait,.....I'm told "Air Travel" is already available. Yippee!!

Posted By tim on March 17, 2011, 6:08 PM

To me, the answer is an obvious yes. If you build it, they will ride. No worrying about gas prices, parking, staying awake, having a cocktail, road rage, accidents, reading etc... If you need a car then drive and then you'll be happy about driving in less traffic since more people are snoozing on the train.

DO IT

Posted By Chris on March 17, 2011, 7:40 PM

Reagan taught America to think small, and to feather their personal nests and the heck with progress. The passenger train situatio is just one consequence of such small mindedness. Teh Tea Party,soi-disant, is the living breathing expression of this. You cna't save people from themselves.

Posted By L. Nannery on March 17, 2011, 7:55 PM

By the looks of the first few comments on this page, it doesn't seem to matter how efficient & effective trains are; people in the U.S. don't seem to be very receptive to giving it a try.
So the answer is to start small. Connect a few towns that are not too far apart so as to keep the initial costs low. Make sure that an infrastructure of local transportation is available once people get to their destinations. Local transportation (to get to and from the train) options should include either a good bus or fixed-rail system and trails to allow walkers and bike riders to access the train and points throughout the town.

Posted By trailsnet on March 17, 2011, 8:13 PM

The government does not "invest". It takes your and my tax money and spends it, generally on things in which private capital will not invest because there is no competitive return to be earned. High speed rail is just one more example.
The only high speed rail line in the world which operates at a profit is the single line between Tokyo and Osaka in Japan.
All others require on-going taxpayer subsidies.....as will those which are being proposed/built in the US.

Tax subsidies for high speed rail should be halted immediately.

Posted By jchb on March 17, 2011, 11:16 PM

Taxpayer subsidies is a non argument. Road and air travel are highly subsidized now and are reaching critical limits. Its time to add a more efficient means of travel into the mix.

If you haven't experienced the trains in Europe, Japan and China you don't really have any comparison.

Posted By kc on March 18, 2011, 7:07 AM

THREE COMMENTS 1. Trains were big before cars. Who is looking back? 2.They only work if you live in a city and want to travel to another city. I love Yellowstone,Yosemite,The Grand Canyon,etc. 3.Passenger trains always lose money and survive only with taxpayer subsidies.As for saving energy they would hinder freight shipments which are actually earning profits and moving products efficiently.

Posted By Harold on March 18, 2011, 8:21 PM

In the 1950's, the U.S. heavily subsidized the Interstate Highway network. That idea might have been fine for a half-century ago, but, with rising fuel costs, congested airways, airplanes and airports, and most expressways and freeways resembling parking lots, rather than anything that even begins to look as if cars are in motion at all, high speed trains DO have a very important role to play in the backbone of the U.S.'s transportation network. For short or medium distance trips, high-speed trains comfortably and efficiently transport you from the center of one city to the center of your destination city in half the time or less, than driving a car to taking a motor coach or bus, which moves only at the speed of highway traffic. High speed trains have their own right-of-way tracks to run upon and are immune to highway traffic and airways congestion. I know this for a FACT, since I have used the high speed train networks in Europe and Japan for travel in the past and will continue to do so in the future. What is so amazing to me is that, while the U.S. can send people into space, unmanned rockets to the moon and to other planets in our solar system, the U.S. has allowed its passenger rail networks to deteriorate to a degree that doesn't even compare to some Third World countries on the planet now. Instead of investing in a very viable and cost-effective high speed rail network for the U.S. NOW, we have politicians, who lack the vision and who are so short-sighted about the infrastructure needs of American that they seem not to be able get their minds around the simple FACT that highways and planes are NOT the solution to our present and future passenger transport needs in the U.S., while high speed trains provide SUCH A SOLUTION. As a nation, we should stop trying to defund Amtrak and make a sustained funding commitment to constructing a high speed network in the identified high speed rail corridors where travel times could be cut significantly by building and using high speed trains, rather than commuter flights and automobiles to get from one point to another. Both China and Spain have recently constructed high speed rail networks. Because of the high speed rail networks in Europe, up to 66% of the short and medium haul airplane flights have been replaced by high speed train service. A high speed train will take you from the Center of London to Paris in less than 3 hours. Try that in a car! The average car trip from Los Angeles to San Francisco, California, is about 6.5-7 hours. Factoring in the ground transport time, the average flight time between these two destinations is 4 hours! A high speed train network, such as the one being constructed in California now, could make this trip in 2.5-3 hours or less. High speed trains are powered by electricity and not by diesel fuels, so high speed trains are much more eco-friendly. Imagine what an improvement it would be to be able to get to your destination without needing a car, working on the way there in a comfortable high speed train coach, or simply relaxing and enjoying the trip to your destination. Isn't this a much better idea than burning more fossil fuels, being invasively searched at airports or spending hours in traffic jams, for a trip that could be completed in 25% of the travel time by taking a high speed train? America deserves a first-rate high speed passenger train system NOW! How much more time are you going to have to waste at airports, in traffic jams or on some very boring and endless highway trip before you, too, realize that high speed trains are a superior and much more cost-effective way to travel? Most Europeans cannot believe that the U.S. has one of the slowest and worst passenger rail networks on the planet. When are we Americans, as a nation, going to wake up to this reality and build a high speed train network in the U.S. that will be a 21st Century gem of American technological innovation and a 21st Century solution to our short and medium distance travel needs, both now and in the future? California is now building a high speed train network. In the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak does operate high speed train service, but which is still much slower than any European high speed train service. The major metropolitan areas of the U.S. also need high speed train service. Why should the rest of the U.S. be left in the dust of mid-20th Century travel and transportation systems, while the Northeast Corridor and the West Coast and Pacific Northwest areas of the country move into the second decade of the 21st Century with high speed rail systems that WILL solve the transport needs for passengers, which the Billions of dollars of subsidies that the U.S. now spends upon highways and airports maintenance and construction will NOT solve, either now or in the future.

Posted By Geoff on March 20, 2011, 5:51 AM

It should be noted the ohio money was not for high speed rail but traditional rail which would have taken twice the time of driving.

Posted By JR on March 14, 2011, 12:24 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wrong JR! The money WAS to help develop high-speed rail.

Pricey, slow with all the stops, lousy parking at the stations, costly cab rides to get to final destination. No thank you.
Only plus is no TSA perverts...yet.

Posted By Nick P on March 17, 2011, 10:15 AM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nick, I don't know where you've gone on trains, but my cousin & I rode from Pittsburgh to NYC & back for less than $120.00 per person round-trip & the parking was very convienent! Slower than a plane? Yes, but we weren't in a hurry. It was also a lot more comfortable than a plane, no charge for baggage & no TSA groping!

Posted By Caitlin on March 22, 2011, 5:58 PM