not a false choice, it's the introduction of choice. rail and cities have competed against cars and suburbia and have and found wanting economically and socially. study history of city centers, poverty, immigration and see how nothing has changed for millennia. e-cars will further highlight the failure of cities and rail to satisfy real world needs

countrymouse, on the surface I think you're right. However, that is only because of the poor investments we have made over the past 70 years. The gov't investment in highways has given the american population a false choice between decaying urban centers and the brand new, but lifeless, suburbia.

public transit is not a good idea. Electric cars are an order of magnitude more energy-efficient. The only thing that will drop urban real estate costs, food costs, etc. is to artificially flood the market with government housing and supermarkets otherwise, suburbia will remain a safer, cheaper and a cleaner place to live

The lack of useful public transportation creates a monopoly for car manufacturers. Working class people can't afford to live near the big cities as housing is too high. We need to provide transportation for the daily commuter to reduce pollution, dependence on foreign oil and a fair society. When you talk rail, talk commuter rail please.

An important first step in changing America's outdated transportation infrastructure and use of natural resources. One that will have an impact on everyone for years ahead. I'm in favor of spending whatever it takes to make this happen. A sound investment for the future of America

Sounds awfully expensive, especially considering the size of our country, but if it's ever affordable it sounds like the best idea ever. Shame it won't be within our budget for a very long time.

Replace long haul trucks with rail. Individually powered freight cars would be more efficient than a truck on tires.

So glad we all agree! Now we need the rest of the country on board! The current political capital toward a federal infrastructure stimulus package is a once in a generation/lifetime opportunity. We cannot squander this opportunity on funding highways and sprawl. We must reconsider the character of our country and invest in high speed rail, light rail and transit oriented development.

High speed rail systems, as in France or Germany is the best system today. With such system, a 550 miles trip is done in less than 3 hours! And the station are usually in the middle of the cities, whithout securities check point. It's definitily the much efficient system for trip from 100 to 550 miles. California, Florida, Texas and North Corridor are studying how to develop such system.

I'm for this as long as it also involves "greener" train technologies like maglev monorail.

We have to be careful not to run "rail lines to nowhere", of course. Amtrak is now running 90% full most of the time. Most well-managed new light rail lines run at least 40% full. At those percentages they *are* more efficient than cars. Any place a two-lane-each-way freeway is crowded can support passenger rail, and it's cheaper than freeway widening.

For busy routes, examine the number of people (and goods!) travelling it. For *high volume travel*, rail is far more efficient. When full six lane superhighways need repairs, replace them with rail. (Roads are great for low volume). This 'movement density' number also shows you if you want a streetcar or a subway. Japan has a chart for this; we should too.

cost per mile.$248,085.00 (http://tacnet.missouri.org/history/railroads/rrcosts.html#1995)
how many passengers must a train carry to reach energy parity with a 30 mpg car? for example, A typical bus must average 7-10 passengers per mile from day start to finish to equal a 30mpg car. if cars reach 100mpg they win.

A federal move to prioritize rail over roads would represent a tacit abandonment of the living arrangement we've promoted and enjoyed (to a greater or lesser extent) for the the past 50 + years.
This makes such a move, however necessary, very difficult.
I'm not sure I see it happening unless or until we are unable to reliably get anywhere by private vehicle.

We NEED to restore our once-magnificent trains system. We foolishly favored highways and planes and then stripped our train system down to sub-skeletal desolation. The rest of the world has now surpassed us so that we're now the only industrialized Western nation with no high speed rail. Cannibalizing our trains was a mistake we MUST fix, especially if we face a bleak future of energy scarcity.

I'm voting for this b/c it requires direction at the federal level -- the states and municipalities can't swing it!

One obstacle is the power that railroad corporations wield over the nation's rail rights-of-way (the government owns very little track). The Feds need to find creative ways to work with the railroads to either have them provide passenger rail service, or give up rail capacity to accommodate passenger rail. Of course, there are plenty of highways to retrofit with rail, but lots of hills too=$$$

This is something government can do that the private sector cannot. It reduces dependence on imported oil, cuts pollution, improves congestion, and creates jobs at all skill levels, during construction and operation. I'm so glad to see this at the top of the list and connected to urban issues. Cars strangle our cities, and -- not by coincidence -- oil strangles our foreign-policy options.

The US passenger rail system is a national disgrace. The lack of such a system is enormously costly to households and governments, is significantly fueling sprawl, is destroying communities, and is maintaining an unsustainable transportation system.

Trains are awesome, lets make more of them. China is investing 200 billion into rail this year, and Amtrak getting an extra 12 billion this year was seen as a huge deal. I'm so thrilled that Prop1A passed in California to create America's first true high-speed rail system.