It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Unveils High-Speed Rail Plan (April 16, 2009)

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Obama Unveils High-Speed Rail Plan (April 16, 2009)


www.nytimes.com

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Thursday highlighted his ambition for the development of high-speed passenger rail lines in at least 10 regions, expressing confidence in the future of train travel even as he acknowledged that the American rail network, compared to the rest of the world’s, remains a caboose.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
With clogged highways and overburdened airports, economic growth was suffering, Mr. Obama said from the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, shortly before leaving for a weekend trip to Latin America.


NOTE FROM POSTER:

I noticed two things:

first of all - connections to Canada imply Canadian consent - or a plan to merge the US and Canada?

secondly - most of the theorized FEMA camp locations are along these tracks!

www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   
I don't get it.... really, air travel is direct in many cases, who will want to ride Amtrack from city to city?

Who knows, maybe i am wrong but it seems like a terrible waste of money.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Does anyone actually know what kind of high speed trains Obama is proposing?

I keep seeing this story reiterated, but are they going to be like those Japanese Maglev trains that travel at 500km/h or just ordinary electric locomotives?



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by infolurker
 
For some of us who live in rural areas, passenger train travel would be a blessing. Some of us would love it when we have a doctor's appointment, or if we want to go to a larger city to pary, and then come home, without the risk of an accident or a DUI.
And sometimes, I just don't feel like fighting the traffic.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by kettlebellysmith
 


Well lets spend a few hundred billion dollars so people out in the rural areas can avoid getting a dui. For the kind of money it would take to build a nationwide rail system we could rent limos and hotels for all the rural folks doctor visits, city visits, etc.... We would still save a couple hundered billion left over for you.

If any of you are interested we are also discussing this over here ATS Thread



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
I would imagine he is referring to something akin to the Japanese Shinkansen or the French TGV type of rail rather than high-speed electric trains which Amtrak already has. (Anybody ever hear of the Acela service by Amtrak ?) But unlike in cities in the West coast and a few big cities in the West with subways. There is no point in taking a train to another city if you have to get out and drive again! Obama should be promoting more efficient and cost effective public transportation in more big cities.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
reply to post by infolurker
 
For some of us who live in rural areas, passenger train travel would be a blessing. Some of us would love it when we have a doctor's appointment, or if we want to go to a larger city to pary, and then come home, without the risk of an accident or a DUI.
And sometimes, I just don't feel like fighting the traffic.



I thought these were high speed "limited stop" trains city to city. I don't think this is light rail bud.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Other countries utilize rail travel very well. It's cheaper than air and they can go pretty fast. America could really use this.. we're like the only major country that doesn't.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Trains are most more efficient and less maintenance, its a good idea, although through Osama I'm sure it'll be to slowly link up Canada and Mexico, next to nothing is done for the benefit of the people anymore



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   
ridiculous. they have them allready linking their damn underground bases.. los angelkes subway is a couple miles of rail at cost of ocer 3 billion.not nmuch bang for the money.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Well, you know what having a high speed Amtrack train means?

A longer walk out of the woods!



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
I would ride the train more but i have to drive 60 miles to the train station because there is no public transit system where i live.
Then i can only use the train for day trips because if you leave your car a the station over 24 hours they tow it. And i must have a car to get to the station because i am disabled.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
I'm thinking it will be like the Acela, probably. I've taken that train before, it's not that different from other Amtrak trains but it is faster and probably doesn't require an entire rebuilding of the tracks.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Do you hear that sucking sound??? More US tax payer dollars being thrown at another useless project. The railway will never make money. Just look at Amtrak. This isn't Europe mr. president. We don't need rail here. This country is really spread out. But none of us may be able to afford cars by the time you leave office so I can see your reason for pushing public transport.


[edit on 16-4-2009 by on_yur_6]



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
I think if they are going to spend money things like this would be great. I read that it would be great up the Eastern seaboard between DC and NY and the west coast between LA and San Francisco. I don't know how practical it would be cross country though.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   
You picked on one thing I said. What about people who need to travel to a metro area for medical treatment. Not everyone can nogotiate big city traffic.
And we dont need a mag-lev system. We have a nationwide rail system. What we need are passenger trains. And I don't mean amtrack!
And if enough cars and trucks get off the roads, we could cut the use of petroleum products.
You might try thinking about the whole post nest time.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by infolurker
I don't get it.... really, air travel is direct in many cases, who will want to ride Amtrack from city to city?

Who knows, maybe i am wrong but it seems like a terrible waste of money.



Since when air travel has never been direct; Most airports are not in the city of where your going even if there is a airport within the cities limits its right at the edge and most people usually want to go downtown when they reach a city unless they live somewhere outside of the city. While on the other hand 100 % of major train stations are in the middle of cities.

So the train is more direct when you take into time to drive to the airport, or take a train to the airport go through security, get your plane delayed then fly arrive at destination get in car/train/bus/cab drive to downtown. If you consider most major cities on the east and west coast its quicker to catch the train.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Obama is not doing it cross country. Only is pockets like in the NE, in the Chicago area, From DC to FL, between Texas and OK and in parts of CA.

Moreover Acela isnt really high-speed as its average speed is about 75mph. The Japanese shinkansen (bullet train) on the other hand travels at about 180mph.

Setting up this kind of network would mean new track and new trains.

Also, these high speed trains are not really cheap. They are almost on par with airplanes.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join