<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Would you be on board for high-speed rail travel?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.ajc.com/still-traveling-blog/2009/04/22/would-you-be-on-board-for-high-speed-rail-travel/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.ajc.com/still-traveling-blog/2009/04/22/would-you-be-on-board-for-high-speed-rail-travel/</link>
	<description>Where Atlantans share their travel experiences and discuss the places they&#039;d like to go</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Mar 2011 19:27:18 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: SexySexyJenny</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ajc.com/still-traveling-blog/2009/04/22/would-you-be-on-board-for-high-speed-rail-travel/comment-page-1/#comment-1157</link>
		<dc:creator>SexySexyJenny</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Aug 2009 05:49:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ajc.com/still-traveling-blog/?p=97#comment-1157</guid>
		<description>Go here NOW!
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ureeni.notlong.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;GET LAID TONIGHT!&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Go here NOW!<br />
<a href="http://ureeni.notlong.com" rel="nofollow">GET LAID TONIGHT!</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Infrastructurist &#124; The Daily Dig - High Speed Rail Edition</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ajc.com/still-traveling-blog/2009/04/22/would-you-be-on-board-for-high-speed-rail-travel/comment-page-1/#comment-672</link>
		<dc:creator>The Infrastructurist &#124; The Daily Dig - High Speed Rail Edition</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:28:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ajc.com/still-traveling-blog/?p=97#comment-672</guid>
		<description>[...] writer: Would I use high speed trains? &#8220;I’m thinking the answer would be no.&#8221; Not unless they were cheap and &#8220;seriously fast.&#8221; (Atlanta Journal [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] writer: Would I use high speed trains? &#8220;I’m thinking the answer would be no.&#8221; Not unless they were cheap and &#8220;seriously fast.&#8221; (Atlanta Journal [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gartrell Bibberts</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ajc.com/still-traveling-blog/2009/04/22/would-you-be-on-board-for-high-speed-rail-travel/comment-page-1/#comment-460</link>
		<dc:creator>Gartrell Bibberts</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2009 14:30:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ajc.com/still-traveling-blog/?p=97#comment-460</guid>
		<description>European HSR exists because they have eliminated level grade crossings.  When we - a nation of auto lovers - are willing to give up easy crossing of rail lines then we can have rapid rail.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>European HSR exists because they have eliminated level grade crossings.  When we &#8211; a nation of auto lovers &#8211; are willing to give up easy crossing of rail lines then we can have rapid rail.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: netdragon</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ajc.com/still-traveling-blog/2009/04/22/would-you-be-on-board-for-high-speed-rail-travel/comment-page-1/#comment-458</link>
		<dc:creator>netdragon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 May 2009 05:27:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ajc.com/still-traveling-blog/?p=97#comment-458</guid>
		<description>I think we&#039;ll see a lot of city-hopping on high-speed rail as opposed to people taking the whole route (aside to save money). I think it is very viable compared to an airport for Atlanta to Charlotte routes, etc. A lot less sitting around waiting for the flight.

Tom: Seriously, do you get into the airport with 5 minutes to spare? Think about all the time you waste in the airport. It turns a 1 hour flight into 3 hours if you include sitting around at the airport.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think we&#8217;ll see a lot of city-hopping on high-speed rail as opposed to people taking the whole route (aside to save money). I think it is very viable compared to an airport for Atlanta to Charlotte routes, etc. A lot less sitting around waiting for the flight.</p>
<p>Tom: Seriously, do you get into the airport with 5 minutes to spare? Think about all the time you waste in the airport. It turns a 1 hour flight into 3 hours if you include sitting around at the airport.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Veil</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ajc.com/still-traveling-blog/2009/04/22/would-you-be-on-board-for-high-speed-rail-travel/comment-page-1/#comment-420</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Veil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:41:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ajc.com/still-traveling-blog/?p=97#comment-420</guid>
		<description>The budget estimates I&#039;ve seen for rail are pretty cheap compared to, say, a new highway lane.  If they&#039;re taking my tax money anyway, I&#039;d rather pony up for the 120mph trains instead of the 90 mph trains.  Think about the difference between 90 and 120 like this:
Atlanta to Charlotte in 2 hours &amp; 40 minutes?  Not bad.
Atlanta to Charlotte in 2 hours flat?  I would never buy a plane ticket again!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The budget estimates I&#8217;ve seen for rail are pretty cheap compared to, say, a new highway lane.  If they&#8217;re taking my tax money anyway, I&#8217;d rather pony up for the 120mph trains instead of the 90 mph trains.  Think about the difference between 90 and 120 like this:<br />
Atlanta to Charlotte in 2 hours &amp; 40 minutes?  Not bad.<br />
Atlanta to Charlotte in 2 hours flat?  I would never buy a plane ticket again!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: anonymousella</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ajc.com/still-traveling-blog/2009/04/22/would-you-be-on-board-for-high-speed-rail-travel/comment-page-1/#comment-399</link>
		<dc:creator>anonymousella</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Apr 2009 13:09:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ajc.com/still-traveling-blog/?p=97#comment-399</guid>
		<description>high speed rail is *IDEAL* for regional travel. the DC-BOS route is incredibly well traveled. A high-speed train from ATL to Charlotte, Birmingham, Savannah or Chattanooga is almost a no-brainer. A high speed rail would make New Orleans a 2.5 - 5 hour trip (depending on train speed) rather than a 7-8 hour interstate trip. i&#039;d take rail in a heartbeat if pricing was competitive and the schedules made sense (atl to charlotte that arrives at 1am? what?). i&#039;d take the train more often if it wasn&#039;t so inconvenient.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>high speed rail is *IDEAL* for regional travel. the DC-BOS route is incredibly well traveled. A high-speed train from ATL to Charlotte, Birmingham, Savannah or Chattanooga is almost a no-brainer. A high speed rail would make New Orleans a 2.5 &#8211; 5 hour trip (depending on train speed) rather than a 7-8 hour interstate trip. i&#8217;d take rail in a heartbeat if pricing was competitive and the schedules made sense (atl to charlotte that arrives at 1am? what?). i&#8217;d take the train more often if it wasn&#8217;t so inconvenient.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Daily Dig - High Speed Rail Edition &#187; INFRASTRUCTURIST</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ajc.com/still-traveling-blog/2009/04/22/would-you-be-on-board-for-high-speed-rail-travel/comment-page-1/#comment-398</link>
		<dc:creator>The Daily Dig - High Speed Rail Edition &#187; INFRASTRUCTURIST</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:49:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ajc.com/still-traveling-blog/?p=97#comment-398</guid>
		<description>[...] writer: Would I use high speed trains? &#8220;I’m thinking the answer would be no.&#8221; Not unless they were cheap and &#8220;seriously fast.&#8221; (Atlanta Journal [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] writer: Would I use high speed trains? &#8220;I’m thinking the answer would be no.&#8221; Not unless they were cheap and &#8220;seriously fast.&#8221; (Atlanta Journal [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AlanB</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ajc.com/still-traveling-blog/2009/04/22/would-you-be-on-board-for-high-speed-rail-travel/comment-page-1/#comment-397</link>
		<dc:creator>AlanB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 02:16:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ajc.com/still-traveling-blog/?p=97#comment-397</guid>
		<description>Lou wrote: &quot;As for the Highway system it is paid for by the tax payers not subsidized by the tax payers that is the distinct difference.&quot;

Sorry Lou, but last year the Fed dropped $8 Billion of our Federal Income Tax dollars into the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) to keep it from going bankrupt, that&#039;s a subsidy since even those who don&#039;t own cars saw their money go into the HTF.  The HTF, which is funded via the Federal fuel tax, pays for the bulk of our Interstate Highway System&#039;s (IHS) repairs and expansions.

It was estimated early last year, before the high gas prices last summer drove the fuel tax revenues down even futher, that the HTF will need a $9 Billion subsidy this year and next.  Comes 2011 &amp; 2012, that number jumps to $12 Billion, unless Congress raises the fuel taxes and soon.

Even worse is the fact that the current 5 year plan authorized by Congress that we&#039;re operating under, was $79 Billion less than the DOT estimated it actually needed to maintain a state of good repair to the IHS.  And that was before a bridge on I-35 in Minneapolis-St Paul fell into a river over a year ago, which set of a flurry of bridge inspections that found Billions more work that is needed.

Then we come to the Stimulus package which also has funding for highways, in addition to high speed rail, yet another subsidy.  And many also consider the bailout to the Detroit automakers yet another subsidy.

Lou wrote: &quot;The airports are subsidized by the Government and the Airlines pay for the use of the airport.&quot;

If the airlines paid for the full value of their use of the airports, then the airports would not need a government subsidy.  Of course if the airlines did that, they&#039;d be bankrupt too.  By the way, We The People also watched as just shy of $1 Billion of our Federal income tax dollars was dumped into the FAA to support airline operations.  Heck, we even pay companies to fly almost empty airplanes into small airports around the country.  The program is called EAS, Essential Air Service.

Lou wrote: &quot;When we get on the highway, freeway, beltway, whatever, it is free or there may be a small toll charge. When you use Amtrak it is NOT free. That is the difference. Why not make it free? like the highway system?&quot;

The highways aren&#039;t free, you&#039;re paying via the fuel tax, even though you, I, and the rest of America aren&#039;t paying enough via the fuel tax. 

Lou wrote: &quot;Amtrak’s board of directors is appointed by the President, and the DOT holds the majority of STOCK. I personally find that interesting. That is why they need to make money…because it is a business.&quot;

What other company sees it&#039;s board appointed by only one person?  What other company can basically ignore State laws?  What other company pays no property taxes, state income taxes, state sales taxes?

Amtrak is a company in name only, and the only reason for that is to allow our politicians to be able to point at it&#039;s company status to avoid blame for any problems or failures.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lou wrote: &#8220;As for the Highway system it is paid for by the tax payers not subsidized by the tax payers that is the distinct difference.&#8221;</p>
<p>Sorry Lou, but last year the Fed dropped $8 Billion of our Federal Income Tax dollars into the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) to keep it from going bankrupt, that&#8217;s a subsidy since even those who don&#8217;t own cars saw their money go into the HTF.  The HTF, which is funded via the Federal fuel tax, pays for the bulk of our Interstate Highway System&#8217;s (IHS) repairs and expansions.</p>
<p>It was estimated early last year, before the high gas prices last summer drove the fuel tax revenues down even futher, that the HTF will need a $9 Billion subsidy this year and next.  Comes 2011 &amp; 2012, that number jumps to $12 Billion, unless Congress raises the fuel taxes and soon.</p>
<p>Even worse is the fact that the current 5 year plan authorized by Congress that we&#8217;re operating under, was $79 Billion less than the DOT estimated it actually needed to maintain a state of good repair to the IHS.  And that was before a bridge on I-35 in Minneapolis-St Paul fell into a river over a year ago, which set of a flurry of bridge inspections that found Billions more work that is needed.</p>
<p>Then we come to the Stimulus package which also has funding for highways, in addition to high speed rail, yet another subsidy.  And many also consider the bailout to the Detroit automakers yet another subsidy.</p>
<p>Lou wrote: &#8220;The airports are subsidized by the Government and the Airlines pay for the use of the airport.&#8221;</p>
<p>If the airlines paid for the full value of their use of the airports, then the airports would not need a government subsidy.  Of course if the airlines did that, they&#8217;d be bankrupt too.  By the way, We The People also watched as just shy of $1 Billion of our Federal income tax dollars was dumped into the FAA to support airline operations.  Heck, we even pay companies to fly almost empty airplanes into small airports around the country.  The program is called EAS, Essential Air Service.</p>
<p>Lou wrote: &#8220;When we get on the highway, freeway, beltway, whatever, it is free or there may be a small toll charge. When you use Amtrak it is NOT free. That is the difference. Why not make it free? like the highway system?&#8221;</p>
<p>The highways aren&#8217;t free, you&#8217;re paying via the fuel tax, even though you, I, and the rest of America aren&#8217;t paying enough via the fuel tax. </p>
<p>Lou wrote: &#8220;Amtrak’s board of directors is appointed by the President, and the DOT holds the majority of STOCK. I personally find that interesting. That is why they need to make money…because it is a business.&#8221;</p>
<p>What other company sees it&#8217;s board appointed by only one person?  What other company can basically ignore State laws?  What other company pays no property taxes, state income taxes, state sales taxes?</p>
<p>Amtrak is a company in name only, and the only reason for that is to allow our politicians to be able to point at it&#8217;s company status to avoid blame for any problems or failures.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jerry H. Sullivan</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ajc.com/still-traveling-blog/2009/04/22/would-you-be-on-board-for-high-speed-rail-travel/comment-page-1/#comment-396</link>
		<dc:creator>Jerry H. Sullivan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:01:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ajc.com/still-traveling-blog/?p=97#comment-396</guid>
		<description>I am opposed to the expenditure of any money for HSR.  First of all, the $8B will only pay for some consultants, who will take and write a report.  In addition, HSR will take a many year commitment, something we are not good at.  Obama will be office 4 or 8 years, and then the next regime will shoot it down.
I would rather see the money spent on rehabilitating the current system, equipment, and routes.  We, in Florida can only get to Atlanta by way of Washington DC, or NewOrleans the same way.  There needs to be a viable network that connects all major population centers.  If I am in a hurry, I choose to fly, but 90% of my travel, prior to August 2005 was by rail.  Katrina shutdown the only Amtrak train that was of use to me, so I am forced to either say home or fly - SouthWest Airlines has a seat reserved for me on 4 flights in June, none of which I am looking forward to, but grandchildren are grandchildren.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am opposed to the expenditure of any money for HSR.  First of all, the $8B will only pay for some consultants, who will take and write a report.  In addition, HSR will take a many year commitment, something we are not good at.  Obama will be office 4 or 8 years, and then the next regime will shoot it down.<br />
I would rather see the money spent on rehabilitating the current system, equipment, and routes.  We, in Florida can only get to Atlanta by way of Washington DC, or NewOrleans the same way.  There needs to be a viable network that connects all major population centers.  If I am in a hurry, I choose to fly, but 90% of my travel, prior to August 2005 was by rail.  Katrina shutdown the only Amtrak train that was of use to me, so I am forced to either say home or fly &#8211; SouthWest Airlines has a seat reserved for me on 4 flights in June, none of which I am looking forward to, but grandchildren are grandchildren.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: B</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ajc.com/still-traveling-blog/2009/04/22/would-you-be-on-board-for-high-speed-rail-travel/comment-page-1/#comment-395</link>
		<dc:creator>B</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:41:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ajc.com/still-traveling-blog/?p=97#comment-395</guid>
		<description>I agree with the author.  While I love trains and try to take them as much as possible for a whole host of reasons, environmental ones among them, in order for trains to have mass appeal they are going to have to be competitive with planes on routes where flying is an option in price and perhaps even time.   90 mile per hour trains are nothing to be excited about.  New York Central ran trains above that speed in the 1940s.  Even steam engines could move over 100 mph more than 100 years ago.  The northeast corridor owned by Amtrak runs their trains (most designed in the 1970s) at 125 mph in the open stretches.  Acela approaches 150 mph in the same stretches.  The stops as well as rail congestion are problematic factors, dropping the overall speed on a line very dramatically.  Most importantly, the fact that 70% of rail lines that Amtrak runs on currently are owned by freight carriers, means dramatic slow downs and delays.  This is going to mean building new, restricted access, lines for high speed rail, not sharing tracks under unfavorable terms with freight.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with the author.  While I love trains and try to take them as much as possible for a whole host of reasons, environmental ones among them, in order for trains to have mass appeal they are going to have to be competitive with planes on routes where flying is an option in price and perhaps even time.   90 mile per hour trains are nothing to be excited about.  New York Central ran trains above that speed in the 1940s.  Even steam engines could move over 100 mph more than 100 years ago.  The northeast corridor owned by Amtrak runs their trains (most designed in the 1970s) at 125 mph in the open stretches.  Acela approaches 150 mph in the same stretches.  The stops as well as rail congestion are problematic factors, dropping the overall speed on a line very dramatically.  Most importantly, the fact that 70% of rail lines that Amtrak runs on currently are owned by freight carriers, means dramatic slow downs and delays.  This is going to mean building new, restricted access, lines for high speed rail, not sharing tracks under unfavorable terms with freight.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
