I am very pleased to see a candidate take a stand on an issue like this. High speed rail is positive for some many reasons, and having a local plan so that we could receive more funding would be awesome! There is not doubt Philadelphia needs high speed rail service.

Perhaps Mr. Lentz wasn’t paying attention to the rest of the state… they’re working on a high-speed line in Pittsburgh right now.
http://specter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.NewsReleases&ContentRecord_id=a5bc6be9-ab65-6e18-30cd-19d011f094c5&Region_id=&Issue_id=

http://www.maglevpa.com/

It’s hard to get fired up about a high speed rail to Pittsburgh (while nice), when you can’t even get a train to Reading (or more importantly take a train into Philly from K of P, Collegeville, Royesford, etc.). The Rt. 422 corridor has long been a “hole” in the area transit system, and IMO, really serves to stunt the growth of that area. This should be a much higher priority. I hope Mr. Lentz agrees given a chunk of this is in the district he’d like to represent.

What’s funny is how much funding Chicago will get for high-speed rail. But, I guess Chicago just has their act together more than any other city in America. How nice for Chairman Barack’s people.

The 422 corridor isn’t his district. It’s 6th district stuff. So hopefully some of those candidates take a stand on that. However, I still really like this idea.

There are few institutions in the history of the United States that are worse investments than passenger rail. The costs are exhorbitant and the benefits are minimal. There isn’t one rail system in the entire U.S. that doesn’t lose money. In the face of enormous deficits, I’m glad Lentz wants to waste $ billions on high-speed rail.

Hey Pete, ever think the idea is to make them useful. Or in other words. FAST. People don’t use the slow trains. Using funds for FAST rail is not a waste. But your probably some old jaded generation x’er. We can just vote to build more old folks homes so you can go bitch and moan about every aspect of American life while the current youth put this country back in the right direction. Thanks for nothing. We’ll take it from here Petey.

Or perhaps you are a really old Baby Boomer and your talking about steam locomotives.

China? Are you serious? CHINA?!

“Much of the country still lives in rural, undeveloped conditions (in many cases lacking indoor plumbing” and yet they have high speed rail and you have the gall to ask WHY?!

Gee, I dunno, maybe cos its funded through massive, out of control government projects like what you’re proposing that do nothing to help the people, and only serves to perpetuate their poverty!

Lentz, you really need to do your homework. Why are Hong Kong residents protesting violently against the building of HSR with Guangzhou?

Why are Shanghai residents marching across the city against HSR?

The Chinese people are so angry about high speed rail, they are willing to stand up to the government that murdered 3,000 students in cold blood only 20 years ago, and you think this is something we should emulate?

去你妈的。。。

Amtrak loses, on average, $32 per rider. So, if someone takes Amtrak five days a week for 50 weeks a year, the annual taxpayer subsidy for just one rider is $8000. And, that’s just one-way. The federal government could lease every daily Amtrak commuter a Mercedes for less than that.

Peter-
How much would all those commuters using addition cars on the road add to congestion, loss of productivity, cost of gasoline, road repairs, lack of parking, and reduction of tourism, etc.
Isn’t every non-toll road and bridge a taxpayer subsidy?
Aren’t all those nuclear missiles we never use to destroy the world a waste of money?

Government underwriting of public transportation promotes commerce. I realize that the GOP wants to go back to the horse and buggy days, but the rest of want to have a 21st century rail system.

We have spent billions of dollars on the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System since the 1950s. While some see that as nothing more than a taxpayer-funded hand-out to the auto companies, I prefer to see it for what it is — a vital piece of the vast economic engine of the United States in the second half of the 20th Century.

Now, as we move into the 21st, high speed rail corridors should be a vital part of the fight to reduce our dependence on oil from hostile and unstable regimes and cut carbon pollution.

I loved commuting by train the one summer I did so for my job. In Central PA, I know we would definitely benefit from an extension of the rail lines to the West Short to relieve the seemingly perpetual gridlock over there. I’d also like to see a track run down to York and Baltimore.

Actually, the interstate highway system is almost entirely subsidized by gasoline taxes. If you don’t drive, you don’t pay for them. Passenger rail would be fine if the riders had to pay the actual cost. But, they won’t. In the US, about 40% of freight is transported by rail. In Europe, it’s about 17%. The rest is transported by truck. Building more passenger rail actually increases pollution because you put more trucks on the road. This is so typically liberal. It sounds great until you actually have to think about it.

Investment in high-speed rail produces needed jobs now and lays a foundation for economic growth in the future. The benefits in terms of energy independence, environmental protection, and safety are enormous.

Unfortunately, some oppose the idea of investing in our economic future. Naysayers such as Peter make lots of claims, but they can`t back them up with any evidence. It`s simply not true that the highway system is funded “almost entirely” by gas taxes: user fees account for only 51% of highway funding. Taxpayer dollars are already being used to fund our transportation infrastructure – why not invest some of those dollars in high-speed rail?

Peter is also wrong when he says all passenger rail lines lose money: Acela, the closest thing we have to HSR in this country, turns a profit on every passenger! I guess that means Acela/HSR is “fine” by you, right Peter? The problem with passenger rail in this country is the fact that it’s too slow and uncompetitive. High-speed rail is the solution here, not the problem.

The federal contribution to the financing of the interstate highway system comes overwhelmingly (over 90%) from user fees such as gasoline taxes and motor vehicle registrations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System
Most of the the state contribution is also financed through user fees. It’s the local contribution that must come from other sources since localities generally don’t levy a fuel tax.
Secondly, I wrote that every passenger rail system loses money. The fact that one particular rail line like Acela turns a profit does not mean Amtrak is a successful enterprise. Amtrak receives over $1.5 billion annually from the federal government. How the hell was Conrail able to turn a profit after 5 years while Amtrak loses more money every year? Why don’t the high-speed rail lines in Europe and Japan turn a profit. The answer is that trains are extremely inefficient for transporting people. It doesn’t matter how fast the trains go.

Well the current plan on the table for high speed rail between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh is to upgrade Norfolk Southern’s Freight route. Although more communities would be served; you would not be able to get across the state in 90 mins.

Personally if you have the trains going on faster track between Harrisburg-Altoona and Johnstown- Pittsburgh, on separated track from the freight trains, and operated frequent service so you could go across the state and back in the same day; then passenger rail would prosper across this route.