White House: $53 billion for high speed rail system!

[schulzte]

I've thought about this quite a bit. While it would be nice to have high speed rail, I think it is too expensive to build a large network in the US. The population centers of the United States are more spread out than they are in Western Europe and Asia, so the cost of building such a system per user would be just too high to connect the Midwest. I've read estimates to the tune of $80 million per mile of newly constructed high speed line. Think about that. Just to run a new high speed rail from Ann Arbor to Detroit would cost $2-3 billion. Its just too much. $53 billion could build 8 major new international airports that would be used by far more travelers.

I've looked at some of the Amtrak ridership numbers, and assuming ridership would probably double or triple if high speed rail were a reality, I think there are a few places where it could work, connecting chains of cities, rather than vast expanse.

1. Boston-New York-Philadelphia-Washington [[obviously)
2. Los Angeles Area-San Diego
3. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland-Sacramento
4. Milwaukee-Chicago-St. Louis [[St. Louis is a stretch)

Sadly, I don't think the ridership on any other routes would warrant the massive costs of high speed rail now or in the future. I think we have to stick with airplanes by and large. That infrastructure is already in place, and there are security issues with high speed rail that are already taken care of in our airports as well.

I'm not opposed to government involvement in mass transit. Far from it. But think about what $53 billion dollars could do for intracity mass transit in this nation. That is the problem to solve, high speed rail is trying to solve a problem that isn't really there in most of the country.

[iheartthed]

The population centers of the United States are more spread out than they are in Western Europe and Asia

This isn't true.

[esp1986]

I've thought about this quite a bit. While it would be nice to have high speed rail, I think it is too expensive to build a large network in the US. The population centers of the United States are more spread out than they are in Western Europe and Asia, so the cost of building such a system per user would be just too high to connect the Midwest. I've read estimates to the tune of $80 million per mile of newly constructed high speed line. Think about that. Just to run a new high speed rail from Ann Arbor to Detroit would cost $2-3 billion. Its just too much. $53 billion could build 8 major new international airports that would be used by far more travelers.

I've looked at some of the Amtrak ridership numbers, and assuming ridership would probably double or triple if high speed rail were a reality, I think there are a few places where it could work, connecting chains of cities, rather than vast expanse.

1. Boston-New York-Philadelphia-Washington [[obviously)
2. Los Angeles Area-San Diego
3. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland-Sacramento
4. Milwaukee-Chicago-St. Louis [[St. Louis is a stretch)

Sadly, I don't think the ridership on any other routes would warrant the massive costs of high speed rail now or in the future. I think we have to stick with airplanes by and large. That infrastructure is already in place, and there are security issues with high speed rail that are already taken care of in our airports as well.

I'm not opposed to government involvement in mass transit. Far from it. But think about what $53 billion dollars could do for intracity mass transit in this nation. That is the problem to solve, high speed rail is trying to solve a problem that isn't really there in most of the country.

And how, exactly, is air travel viable today? Sure we can build the airports, but only a handful of airlines have posted profits in the last 10 years, resulting in a number of mergers, with more on the horizon. The federal government spends upwards of $20 billion annually to police air travel, through the TSA. If that were to be passed on to the airlines themselves, they would all be out of business within a year. Air travel as we know it is no longer viable. For cross-country and overseas flights, it can be very profitable, but with all of the short distance service on planes that have only a few people, the fuel for the flight alone costs more than the revenues generated.

The Amtrak Acela, the highspeed line on the east coast is actually a profitable venture. Now, you're gonna say, "Well that's because there are so many people on the east coast." Very true, but the mid-west is essentially the second densest corridor in terms of population. Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo, Detroit, Chicago, a number of cities throughout Illinois and on down to St. Louis and Kansas City. If these lines are limited to dense corridors like these, the lines can be profitable. It is just a matter of execution.

[BrushStart]

Of all the things the federal government blows money on, infrastructure such as this has got to be the best use of that money.

I always wonder what would happen if there was some severe shock-wave in the oil market that sent prices skyrocketing. How would most of the U.S. get to work, to school, to the store, etc? We'd be completely shut down. Metro Detroit would pretty much just collapse. Everyone would be isolated in their homes without access to gasoline. Our nation's reliance on 1 [[maybe 2?) forms of transportation is astronomically stupid.

[ghettopalmetto]

I've thought about this quite a bit. While it would be nice to have high speed rail, I think it is too expensive to build a large network in the US.

The truth is, if we had utilized this line of reasoning in the 1950s, we wouldn't have the Interstate Highway System. For what it's worth, rail infrastructure is cheaper to construct than Interstate-grade highways, can move more people, at faster speeds, and in a smaller footprint. You bemoan a roughly estimated cost of $2 billion to build high-speed rail from Ann Arbor to Detroit, yet neglect an estimated $1 billion cost to add one lane in each direction to I-75 through Oakland County, or $1 billion+ to re-work I-94 in downtown Detroit, or $1 billion to reconfigure a *single* interchange in Columbus, Ohio. At least high speed rail--even "slow" high speed rail like Acela--can recoup most of its operating costs through passenger fares, and recoup even more through increased property values and economic development near stations.

We have to stop pretending we're somehow "more advanced" than the rest of the world. If we don't, we're going to get our asses handed to us on a plate.

[esp1986]

We have to stop pretending we're somehow "more advanced" than the rest of the world. If we don't, we're going to get our asses handed to us on a plate.

We already are.

[schulzte]

Lets do some math

Hypothetical brand new high speed rail line. This means new railroad from the ground up. New high speed tracks, land acquisition, grade separation an bridges, the whole smash.

Central Detroit to Central Chicago is 283 miles

Lets use a conservative figure on this and say its going to cost $60 million per mile. It will be less than that for much of the run, but there is lots of city to get through in both Chicago and Detroit, and that runs costs in urban areas over $100 million per mile.

Total cost of the project would be around $17 billion. Assuming the government is going to pay for this with bonds [[pretty good assumption), the annualized cost for a line like this assuming a 50 year useful lifespan and 3% interest would be about $600 million

Now lets look at ridership
The current wolverine line has annual ridership of approximately 600,000, and generates approximately $22,000,000 in annual revenue. Lets assume that this high speed rail line is wildly popular, and ridership increases four-fold. Also, lets assume that ticket prices will double due to the enhance value of the service. That puts us at 2.4 million passengers annually [[6500 a day), and revenue at $176 million per year.

$600 million annualized construction cost over 50 years at 3% borrowing rate, while generating $176 million in revenues. The estimated construction costs here are conservative, while the revenue projections are very aggressive. Given all of that, there is still a $424 million deficit between construction costs and revenue, and that is before figuring any operating costs what so ever. That is about $175 per ride.

This is why I say its too expensive, and it is better to slowly upgrade existing rail. Again, I'm not opposed to government spending on infrastructure or mass transit. Only a fool believes Amtrak or any mass transit should be fully self-sustaining and should not receive any subsidy. But these high speed rail numbers just don't work for me.

[ghettopalmetto]

Why are you conflating capital costs with operating revenue? We don't apply the same standard to roadways or airports, so explain the disconnect.

And what is your metric? What is considered a "reasonable" cost for high-speed rail, and on what objective measurement do you base that?

If you think high-speed rail is expensive, try to have a functioning economy when oil hits $200 a barrel. Europe, China, and the Northeastern U.S. will be fine. We, on the other hand, will be living in the 18th century--unable to do so much as buy a loaf of bread.

[Whitehouse]

Is it feasable to get a traintrack and station in downtown Detroit? The lessons from MCS should not be taken lightly. The reason why MCS failed was the distance to downtown. If a massive tunnel is dug with an exit in the epicenter of the city, Detroit could end up with a new Grand Central. A new station, along with an office building on top on the spot where the Lafayette Building once stood, would do that lost building some justice.

Or maybe a new building right across the Fox theater, smack in the middle of the entertainment alley with the Ford Field, Comerica park, the theater of course and maybe an new red barn.

Another option would be an elevated track, but I don;t know if that is desired. The view from the train would be spectacular but the noise it brings would be a draw back.


Ah.... dreams....




I'm a serveyer. What is the ground made out of up to 40 meters deep in Detroit? Is it mainly clay?

[schulzte]

Lets compare capital costs with passengers served. Denver International Airport was probably the last major airport in the US built completely new. It cost $5 billion in 1995, which could be inflated roughly $9 billion in 2011 money. Using the same calculation as above with high speed rail, that is about $350 million annualized capital cost. Denver International Airport handles 50 million people annually, and generates about $500 million in revenue, while operating expenses are about $370 million. So, DIA's annual revenue is $150 million greater than its theoretical annualized capital cost. I could go on and on. As far as comparing high speed rail to the cost of urban expressways, I agree that its silly spending billions simply widening interstates in cities. However, if you're going to spend massive amounts of money on mass transit, I think it is better spent on intracity mass transit lines that can serve many times more people on a daily basis and take more cars off the road than high speed intercity rail. The Washington DC metro system for example has a ridership of 219 MILLION annually.

[ghettopalmetto]

Lets compare capital costs with passengers served. Denver International Airport was probably the last major airport in the US built completely new. It cost $5 billion in 1995, which could be inflated roughly $9 billion in 2011 money. Using the same calculation as above with high speed rail, that is about $350 million annualized capital cost. Denver International Airport handles 50 million people annually, and generates about $500 million in revenue, while operating expenses are about $370 million. So, DIA's annual revenue is $150 million greater than its theoretical annualized capital cost.

And those 50 million passengers are all origin/destination passengers? Or are you maybe counting *just a couple* who are merely connecting through Denver, as it is a hub for United Airlines.

And are your revenue figures including only gate fees and PFC charges? Or are you counting revenues realized by shops and restaurants too?

I could go on and on. As far as comparing high speed rail to the cost of urban expressways, I agree that its silly spending billions simply widening interstates in cities. However, if you're going to spend massive amounts of money on mass transit, I think it is better spent on intracity mass transit lines that can serve many times more people on a daily basis and take more cars off the road than high speed intercity rail. The Washington DC metro system for example has a ridership of 219 MILLION annually.

Intracity transit, while it has its purpose, can't get you to the next town over. You tell me--does it make sense to keep bailing out airlines with taxpayer dollars by requiring them to fly money-losers like "Detroit-to-Cleveland" or vice-versa? I think you're just creating a straw man argument to pit pro-passenger-rail folks against pro-transit folks, while the highway lobby carts off bags of cash.

Go sit on the Jersey Turnpike for a while and think about what you wrote.

[DetroitPetanque]

I can imagine what the $1,025 of the Detroit Branch will look like...

[Zacha341]

The cost outlays are incredible with little ROI as seen with other attempts. In the meantime our national electric grid and major city sewer and water systems continue to age [[many major city sewer and water systems are over 100+ old) sans much needed overhauls.

Lets do some math

Hypothetical brand new high speed rail line. This means new railroad from the ground up. New high speed tracks, land acquisition, grade separation an bridges, the whole smash.

Central Detroit to Central Chicago is 283 miles

Lets use a conservative figure on this and say its going to cost $60 million per mile. It will be less than that for much of the run, but there is lots of city to get through in both Chicago and Detroit, and that runs costs in urban areas over $100 million per mile.

Total cost of the project would be around $17 billion. Assuming the government is going to pay for this with bonds [[pretty good assumption), the annualized cost for a line like this assuming a 50 year useful lifespan and 3% interest would be about $600 million

Now lets look at ridership
The current wolverine line has annual ridership of approximately 600,000, and generates approximately $22,000,000 in annual revenue. Lets assume that this high speed rail line is wildly popular, and ridership increases four-fold. Also, lets assume that ticket prices will double due to the enhance value of the service. That puts us at 2.4 million passengers annually [[6500 a day), and revenue at $176 million per year.

$600 million annualized construction cost over 50 years at 3% borrowing rate, while generating $176 million in revenues. The estimated construction costs here are conservative, while the revenue projections are very aggressive. Given all of that, there is still a $424 million deficit between construction costs and revenue, and that is before figuring any operating costs what so ever. That is about $175 per ride.

This is why I say its too expensive, and it is better to slowly upgrade existing rail. Again, I'm not opposed to government spending on infrastructure or mass transit. Only a fool believes Amtrak or any mass transit should be fully self-sustaining and should not receive any subsidy. But these high speed rail numbers just don't work for me.

[Russix]

Is it feasable to get a traintrack and station in downtown Detroit? The lessons from MCS should not be taken lightly. The reason why MCS failed was the distance to downtown. If a massive tunnel is dug with an exit in the epicenter of the city, Detroit could end up with a new Grand Central. A new station, along with an office building on top on the spot where the Lafayette Building once stood, would do that lost building some justice.

Or maybe a new building right across the Fox theater, smack in the middle of the entertainment alley with the Ford Field, Comerica park, the theater of course and maybe an new red barn.

Another option would be an elevated track, but I don;t know if that is desired. The view from the train would be spectacular but the noise it brings would be a draw back.


Ah.... dreams....




I'm a serveyer. What is the ground made out of up to 40 meters deep in Detroit? Is it mainly clay?

Why move a whole train station[[and lose it's high-speed alignment) when you can build something that connects it to the people mover for much cheaper. Either down Michigan or down the old cut to the riverfront to Joe Louis.

[MrNittany]

How does this affect Michigan, and getting to the East Coast? Because the 3C, serving over 6 million people, was the key to establishing regular train service in Ohio. Without it, upgrading the route between Chicago/Toledo/Cleveland doesn't make nearly as much sense.

I disagree. I'm glad the 3C is shelved, and that's as a proponent of high-speed rail.

Even if it were high-speed [[which, of course, it wasn't, "interurban" was the right term) ..... it would have gone Cinci-Dayton-Columbus-Cleveland. Two problems with this:

[[1) Unless you're going from either Cinci or Dayton to Cleveland, any possible trip is <125 miles, a distance at which, frankly, high-speed rail is still inferior to a car.

[[2) As for the >125 mile trips ..... despite being in the same state, there really is NOT an overly strong economic/social connection between the cities of Cincinnati and Cleveland. I doubt there would be that much traffic.

The 3-C corridor is set-up to fail: no-matter what speed the train goes.

If rail is to succeed in Ohio, there are two corridors where it must start IMHO:

[[a) Cleveland - Chicago [[with a likely stop in Toledo).
[[b) Cincinnati - Chicago [[stopping in Indianapolis).

Disclosure: I live in Cincinnati. The number of weekend and/or business trips where people go to Chicago SUBSTANTIALLY dwarfs the number of trips where people go to Cleveland. [[I don't know about the dynamic among Cleveland residents, but I suspect it's likewise)

Get the Cleveland - Chicago line going --- that will be a hell of a lot better for Michigan's long-term high-speed rails up than starting the 3C.

[MrNittany]

Intracity transit, while it has its purpose, can't get you to the next town over. You tell me--does it make sense to keep bailing out airlines with taxpayer dollars by requiring them to fly money-losers like "Detroit-to-Cleveland" or vice-versa? I think you're just creating a straw man argument to pit pro-passenger-rail folks against pro-transit folks, while the highway lobby carts off bags of cash.

No airline is "required" to fly Detroit to Cleveland.

Besides, believe me, that route makes money. Flown 4-times daily [[5 in summer) by Delta. Even if there wasn't a hub to feed on one end, that route would still be flown once each weekday morning and once each weekday evening for business travelers and make $$$.

[ghettopalmetto]

I disagree. I'm glad the 3C is shelved, and that's as a proponent of high-speed rail.

Even if it were high-speed [[which, of course, it wasn't, "interurban" was the right term) ..... it would have gone Cinci-Dayton-Columbus-Cleveland. Two problems with this:

[[1) Unless you're going from either Cinci or Dayton to Cleveland, any possible trip is <125 miles, a distance at which, frankly, high-speed rail is still inferior to a car.

Bullshit. Nobody refers to Michigan's Amtrak service as "interurban". The 3C line would have been intercity rail, similar to what exists elsewhere. Future upgrades had already been phased. And, I'll say it again--it's not perfect, but far better to the train that exists now along that route.

Never mind that the line would have had a stop at Hopkins International Airport [[CLE), which is certain to lose it's Continental hub status after the merger is complete. The 3C rail was a tremendous opportunity to maintain that hub status by feeding passenger traffic to CLE.

Cleveland to Columbus is 143 miles. By comparison, Washington, DC to Philadelphia is 136 miles. I grew up in Cleveland. We never much went to Columbus or Dayton or Cincinnati because, quite frankly, who the hell wants to sit in traffic on I-71 for hours on end, especially during an Ohio winter? And doesn't ODOT already have plans developed to widen I-71 at enormous taxpayer expense, due to the high volume of traffic???

You also forget 55,000 students located right in downtown Columbus, many of whom do not have cars, and who regularly travel to Cleveland, Dayton, and Cincinnati to go home. And for people who are young, old, disabled, would rather work [[= billable hours) on the journey or just plain don't want to drive--fuckem, right?

[[2) As for the >125 mile trips ..... despite being in the same state, there really is NOT an overly strong economic/social connection between the cities of Cincinnati and Cleveland. I doubt there would be that much traffic.

No shit, Sherlock. 3C would have provided that connection.

The 3-C corridor is set-up to fail: no-matter what speed the train goes.

The studies conducted by ODOT concluded that, in it's first year of service, 3C would have been one of the 12 busiest intercity rail routes in the nation. And that's at the "slow" speed.

If rail is to succeed in Ohio, there are two corridors where it must start IMHO:

[[a) Cleveland - Chicago [[with a likely stop in Toledo).
[[b) Cincinnati - Chicago [[stopping in Indianapolis).

Those corridors already exist, and passengers are boarding at Ohio stations in record numbers despite the current lousy service. Ohio, unfortunately commits exactly ZERO money toward intercity rail, so you're left with the two trains per day through Cleveland, and the thrice-weekly train through Cincinnati--all of which stop in the middle of the night. Ohio has had DECADES to improve service on these lines. They have chosen not to. The 3C project was critical for tying together a corridor of 6 MILLION people--the most densely populated corridor in the nation without passenger rail service.

Get the Cleveland - Chicago line going --- that will be a hell of a lot better for Michigan's long-term high-speed rails up than starting the 3C.

Cleveland-Chicago was Phase II in the statewide rail plan that your governor cancelled. 3C was determined to provide a greater return on investment. Now that 3C is cancelled, it also reduces the cost-effectiveness of the Cleveland-Chicago route. Read the studies. The information in them is far more objective and reliable than the bullshitting your idealogue governor sold you.

But hey, what do I know? Keep on keepin on there in the 1950s, and then ask me where all the young, educated TAXPAYING people with good jobs have gone. If it was $400 million in federal money for a new football stadium, you clowns would have jumped all over it.

[ghettopalmetto]

Ohio [[and Wisconsin) are letting the Good become the enemy of the Perfect. For the good of our nation, I hope other states are a little bit smarter and more committed to economic development.

You have to start somewhere, and Ohio clearly doesn't want to start at all, because it's too whiny and scared. Using the same line of reasoning that Ohio Gov. John Kasich used against the 3C rail project, I propose a few additional activities Ohioans should not undertake:

1. Buy a starter home. Why settle for a 1200 sf house when you can continue living under a bridge until you can afford your million-dollar dream home?

2. Go to school. Why bother going to high school if they don't hand out PhDs after four years?

3. Date. Why go out on a first date with someone unless you're going to get married?

4. Eat. Once you start eating, you're stuck with buying food for the rest of your life.

5. Work. Why get a "first job" if it doesn't pay $250,000 a year? Stay unemployed and hold out for better!

[MrNittany]

If high-speed rail is going to gain traction in Ohio, this first rail project must be a success. Opposition toward passenger rail transit will just decline further if it isn't.

Demand will be much bigger for Cinci-Chicago and Cleveland-Chicago versus Cinci-Columbus-Cleveland. I know this entails getting Indiana on-board, but if the Federal government's going to be spending $$$ on high-speed rail, focus on corridors where success is more likely [[e.g., higher demand).

Also ... high-speed rail is more likely to be a success when one of the end-point cities already has a good internal mass transit system. Which, as of today, describes none of Ohio's biggest cities.

If Ohio is to get more efficient rail connections to Chicago [[which ultimately is in both Ohio and Detroit's best interests), I'm not sure going ahead with 3-C, a project with significant downside, is a good way to get there.

[Brian1979]

Detroit needs inner city mass transit, this high speed rail system sounds more like commuter trains instead of something like the Chicago El or NYC Subway.

[river rat]

Smoke and mirrors from Joe Biden. The same thing we have been getting for the last two years from the administration. Wake up! The United States [[and most states) is broke, out of money, tapped out, bankrupt. There is no money for high speed rail. Don't blame the new Republican House. Not one shovel turned, not one job was started on high speed rail in the two years of the full Liberal spenders control of the business of the country. But some way we spent more than a trillion dollars!

All of this Obama-Biden talk is pablum for the masses to keep you happy as the ship goes down.

[ghettopalmetto]

If high-speed rail is going to gain traction in Ohio, this first rail project must be a success. Opposition toward passenger rail transit will just decline further if it isn't.

Demand will be much bigger for Cinci-Chicago and Cleveland-Chicago versus Cinci-Columbus-Cleveland. I know this entails getting Indiana on-board, but if the Federal government's going to be spending $$$ on high-speed rail, focus on corridors where success is more likely [[e.g., higher demand).

Of course any such expenditure should result in a successful project. That's why former Governor Bob Taft commissioned the Ohio Rail Development Commission to start studying this idea 10 years ago. Their work demonstrated the 3C route would be successful [[one of the 12th busiest routes in the nation at the initial "slow" speed). The report--which studied multiple routes in Ohio--also concluded that construction of the 3C line would provide more benefit than upgrading the Cleveland-Toledo-Chicago route. John Kasich, world-renowned transportation expert, was the one who decided the 3C route would be unsuccessful, and clearly, you've bought the junk he's selling.

Also ... high-speed rail is more likely to be a success when one of the end-point cities already has a good internal mass transit system. Which, as of today, describes none of Ohio's biggest cities.

Cleveland has a decent transit system. Columbus had proposed upgrades to transit in the downtown area to connect with the rail system. Cincinnati, I'm not too sure about, but I think the planned streetcar would have connected to the rail system.

The reality is, you're just making excuses based on very little actual data, which is exactly the kind of thinking that keeps the moving vans busy in Ohio.

[schulzte]

Bullshit. Nobody refers to Michigan's Amtrak service as "interurban". The 3C line would have been intercity rail, similar to what exists elsewhere. Future upgrades had already been phased. And, I'll say it again--it's not perfect, but far better to the train that exists now along that route.

Never mind that the line would have had a stop at Hopkins International Airport [[CLE), which is certain to lose it's Continental hub status after the merger is complete. The 3C rail was a tremendous opportunity to maintain that hub status by feeding passenger traffic to CLE.

Cleveland to Columbus is 143 miles. By comparison, Washington, DC to Philadelphia is 136 miles. I grew up in Cleveland. We never much went to Columbus or Dayton or Cincinnati because, quite frankly, who the hell wants to sit in traffic on I-71 for hours on end, especially during an Ohio winter? And doesn't ODOT already have plans developed to widen I-71 at enormous taxpayer expense, due to the high volume of traffic???

You also forget 55,000 students located right in downtown Columbus, many of whom do not have cars, and who regularly travel to Cleveland, Dayton, and Cincinnati to go home. And for people who are young, old, disabled, would rather work [[= billable hours) on the journey or just plain don't want to drive--fuckem, right?



No shit, Sherlock. 3C would have provided that connection.



The studies conducted by ODOT concluded that, in it's first year of service, 3C would have been one of the 12 busiest intercity rail routes in the nation. And that's at the "slow" speed.



Those corridors already exist, and passengers are boarding at Ohio stations in record numbers despite the current lousy service. Ohio, unfortunately commits exactly ZERO money toward intercity rail, so you're left with the two trains per day through Cleveland, and the thrice-weekly train through Cincinnati--all of which stop in the middle of the night. Ohio has had DECADES to improve service on these lines. They have chosen not to. The 3C project was critical for tying together a corridor of 6 MILLION people--the most densely populated corridor in the nation without passenger rail service.



Cleveland-Chicago was Phase II in the statewide rail plan that your governor cancelled. 3C was determined to provide a greater return on investment. Now that 3C is cancelled, it also reduces the cost-effectiveness of the Cleveland-Chicago route. Read the studies. The information in them is far more objective and reliable than the bullshitting your idealogue governor sold you.

But hey, what do I know? Keep on keepin on there in the 1950s, and then ask me where all the young, educated TAXPAYING people with good jobs have gone. If it was $400 million in federal money for a new football stadium, you clowns would have jumped all over it.

So....what numbers do you have to suggest all of these high speed lines are going to be successful? Would your business plan be "build it and they will come?" Get real. The reason I mentioned those four potential high speed routes is that they have current ridership that, while no where near enough to make high speed rail worth it now, might have a chance to grow into it in the future. It is simply too expensive to guess on some of these routes, we have to look at real numbers. Are there any actual passenger projections? I can tell you that based on Amtrak ridership there aren't 12 viable high speed rail corridors, even if those numbers are greatly extrapolated for higher ridership of high speed rail. There are only three corridors that service more than 1 million passengers per year, the Northeast, San Francisco Bay, and LA-San Diego.

So current train service is being utilized in record numbers. Really? Ohio has three current rail services, the Cardinal, the Lake Shore Limited, and the Capitol Limited. We'll take the Cardinal out of it due to its late night service, but the Lake Shore Limited is 26th of 43 current Amtrak routes in ridership per mile and the Capitol Limited is 28th.

[Richard]

Smoke and mirrors from Joe Biden. The same thing we have been getting for the last two years from the administration. Wake up! The United States [[and most states) is broke, out of money, tapped out, bankrupt. There is no money for high speed rail. Don't blame the new Republican House. Not one shovel turned, not one job was started on high speed rail in the two years of the full Liberal spenders control of the business of the country. But some way we spent more than a trillion dollars!
All of this Obama-Biden talk is pablum for the masses to keep you happy as the ship goes down.

I may be mistaken but was not the highway system constructed during the depression? Broke is when one is shooting rats to feed their families.

If you do a bit of research you might be surprised how many shovels are actually are in the dirt,its kinda like the super fund for the gasoline tank removals,put x amount of dollars in the bank pull the interest for other projects when all the research is done the capital is used for the project intended.

Hence the get something moving,it takes up to a year just for the ground testing to see if high speed rails can be even placed .

[esp1986]

The modern highway system in this country was built in the 1950s, when Eisenhower was president. He saw the Autobahn in Germany during WWII and thought it was a great idea, so he modeled our highway/interstate system after that. Long after the Depression.