What do you think about the interstate high speed rail investment in the Barack Obama's stimulus bill ?

This sudden rail advocacy over the last 40 years coming up with this concept of a transportation policy is a false assumption. There have been those since the 50’s and before calling for a “rationalized” transportation system; this was long before NARP! It is not a biased based call but a call to really look at all there is in transportation, all the needs, and how to make the best application of the most modern, effecient, and environmentally safe transportation to any given situation

Oaltman, Paul: Although Europe is only a fair to good example because of different population densitys we may be able to draw some conclusions. I’ll use France as a starting point. Almost all of their electrical power consumption comes from nuclear or other(non petroleum based) sources. The rail system has almost completely replaced the consumption of petroleum that would have used other oil based. The ability to get around all of Europe using public transportation (I include all methods) is orders of magnitude better now than 1950. That is additional oil savings. Much of the integration of transportation modes has never occurred in this country and only now is improving in Europe.

As RWM has stated it is very hard to allocate traffic so it moves quickly. In that respect it reminds me of the network theory that AT&T developed for telepphone traffic. However there is little or no delay in switching centers (RR yards) to slow traffic down. The only delays noticed is when your conversation gets a two sattelite relay and then you can tell the delay. I’ll bet though that the operators of mainframe computers connected together over any distance want the shortest fiber optic route possible and may have pentaly clauses for reroutes that slow down information transfer. Network theory shows that there are unintended consequenses of all traffic and we may well see alot of traffic not touch rail even though it will parallel or touch rail at transfer points.

One point you made about air/auto is true. Rail air interface is very spotty in this country. Partial list SFO, PHL, South Bend (not exactly a hot bed of air traffic) maybe Providence in the future. There are many local subway/light rail airports but not enough (been on almost all of them). I would add auto/train and have often wondered how other Auto-Train routes would do. AMTRAK has never stated an estimate of the amount of fuel saved on one of th

And that is why we must plan. Plan for the best possible use of the money in the transprtation sector. That means best use of each technology and system interlinked, the the vernacular, to give the best bang for the buck . Intermodal? Rationalized? Bi-modal? Bi-use? I don’t care what you call it, just plan and call it right, more right than we have inthe past!

There is a plan, at least the Vision Report proposed a plan. If someone submits a plan, can we discuss the merits, of say, whether the energy savings of spending 500 billion dollars on passenger rail is a cost-effective trade over spending it on hybrid autos? Or overseas military campaigns to secure oil supplies? Or if someone submits a plan, do we need to be in awe of it and any criticism constitutes obstruction? Is this plan any more right or have any clearer a vision than any past plans? Is it a better plan simply because there is more passenger rail in it? Because its supporters are more enthusiastic for it? That more exclamation marks are used in writing in support of it?

Others can speak for themselves, but I have never claimed “there is no money for it” with respect to anything rail. If the people, the voters, and their elective representatives want something badly enough, money will be found, and I don’t subscribe to conspiracy theories that the will of the people is thwarted by representatives who are in the thrall of nefarious interests.

I do, however, constantly and perhaps chronically, question whether some of the present or proposed spending on trains is cost effective, especially with regard to such questions as fuel saving and congestion relief.

For example WisDOT has a plan to spend 400 million upgrading the tracks between Watertown and Madison, Wisconsin, as part of a plan to provide passenger train service from Madison through to Chicago.

The statement that the automobile is the main passenger transportation mode in Europe is not completely correct. It is in Great Britian, despite a well developed intercity and commuter rail network… It certainly is not in Switzerland, where rail is by far the dominant mode, both intercity and commuter. Other countries vary, Sweden more towards auto. Germany more towards rail, for example.

We may be talking apples and oranges, but:

“Car ownership is increasing: in 2006 for every 1000 people there were 516 passenger cars, well above the European average. (This compares with over 800 in the US.) Figures issued in 2006 showed that private cars account for two thirds of passenger kilometers.”

http://www.swissworld.org/en/economy/transport/mobility/

[:)]Well,I really don’t know aware of that. But one thing is for sure is that Europe has a high speed rail network for passengers more developed than North America USA,Canada and Mexico included. Despite the Swiss and Sweden countries that goes to highway system.

Raily Yours.

Sylvain