Should the government provide subsidies for the development of high-speed rail networks?

Yes, the federal government should issue grants and PABs for states with projects on designated high speed corridors (186+ MPH MAS, 155 MPH Average Speed) and higher speed corridors (110-125 MPH MAS, 90-110 MPH Average Speed). States should utilize P3s to help increase efficiency of project development

Yes, but they should make sure it doesn't harm any communities and towns where the train will pass through

Yes, the government should build and operate them with provisions for lifetime funding and absolute protection against privatization.

This is a silly idea in our country. This method of transportation works in other countries because they're small. This would not work in the United States because we are geographically massive.

Yes, if they get rid of other public transportation as a way to replace it and truly make its impact effective

The government should provide subsidies for the development of high-speed rail networks as long as they are reviewed and meet safety standards.

Depends on the area, most of the united states wouldn't benefit from rail networks and is much more reliant on cars. The government should focus instead on improving electric charging infrastructure

Not at this time, as the money that would be used to fund this network could be placed somewhere else

Yes, only when projects are completed within the estimated time of completion, if not, the subsidies may be revoked.

Yes, The government should provide subsidies for the general improvement and expansion of all kinds of public transportation

No because the land area and various terrains and biomes make countrywide high speed rail infeasible

Yes but only if the heads of the network are running short of funds and the taxpayers have a say in the project.

No, I believe instead of providing subsidies the government should provide taxes breaks or other incentives for high-speed rail networks. I don't agree with the development being purely funded by the taxpayers.

No they shouldn’t, because what if the discounted development for subsidies is counter productive to a possible accident of any sort. And only for middle class and above people.

No, unless they are being made to allow travel between states otherwise it is up to the states to make.

No the us has so much land mass compared to other countries around the world and our land is so complicated, u have mountains and canyons on the west and east sides which makes it hard to build a railway system for high speed trains.

Regardless, we should get rid of all forms of transportation in order to allow for maximum environmental protection, we must walk

Yes, but require strict oversight and mechanisms to avoid decades long delays in building and huge cost over runs

I don't think so. This type of thing could easily put thousands, if not millions, of auto manufacturers out of business and potentially send the economy into a downward spiral.

for the purposes of interstate travel and commerce, yes. the federal gov should not be paying for wheeling, wv public transport, though.

No direct subsidies should be given, but land use approvals and permitting restrictions should be relaxed insofar as construction would not interfere with environmental quality. This will lower costs. Additionally, the government should use other mechanisms like allowing the development company to issue tax exempt bonds.

Yes, but states where the rail networks are built should provide an equal or greater share of the funding.

High speed rail systems would increase the quality of life for Americans but the efficiency of using government funds shows a horrible amount of corruption.

Only if the government it’s going to have some kind of control and regulations and earn some its money back. If not, the private companies should do it on their own

No, the FRA and the States should partner with the private sector via P3's and an infrastructure fund to invest in High Speed rail networks

Yes, but only if research and development shows high certainty of usage and ability to recoup ongoing costs while in use

Yes but the process should start with a small regional test bed to determine feasibility, usage, cost, and long-term success.

The people developing the high-speed railroads should make sure that where they put the railroad would be beneficial, and would not harm the dropping population of wildlife by deforestation to make room for the railroads. The fuels to power the train should be efficient, or electric, because if the railroads are going to be running all across the country, 24/7, the fuels being burnt would pile up, and we could have another O-Zone dilemma, and it could turn out to be irreversible.

I don´t think it is of top importance, but could increase efficiency in certain ways. There are negatives and positives.

Any opportunity for lower carbon emissions and the stimulation of economic growth should be taken, so I do vote yes on this statement. But the means in which the funds for these networks should be obtained cannot increase the taxation of the nation to an overwhelming degree

Yes, only if it makes the difference between the projects getting completed or not. If private industry can economically construct and run the project, that is preferred.

I think it would be good but with financial problems and also it probably won't be as popular then other things

Only if this money is not taken out by imposing more taxes, and or if taken out using more tax dollars, for the tickets to the high-speed rail network to be easily accessible.

It should, to a certain point, connecting larger cities with smaller surrounding communities, but, anything more, and it becomes unnecessary.

I think that in high populated areas it would be better for the government to provide more public transportation that way it cuts down on emissions.

In the end when it says that funds could be used elsewhere, Those funds could be used on more important things on funds but, I do feel like they could use more railroads for transportation.

I bealive that if everything else is done this should be added but not put with crazy amounts of money

Yes, the government should invest into this as a public project not a private project subsidized by the government.

Yes, and the government should also enforce price caps on subsidized rail - They already took our money to develop the network, they shouldn't be allowed to double-dip.

while it does apparently prove to be a greener option compared to other trains, it also more costly and potentially dangerous for any passengers.

I think this is a balanced question because there might not be as many users and it will be more expensive, but it will grow through improved connectivity.

I believe that as long as we are attracting enough users to justify the funds then I believe it is a smart enviormental decision our country could make to lower climate change.

Yes, but make it safe for people outside of the high speed rail network as to people could be a bit stupid some times.

No, because if we put our taxes into a rail network and no one ends up using it. That means we are just throwing our money to nothing.

Yes and modifying the heartbeat of America being its railroads as they are very large and could be used more often. By providing the development of high-speed railways you'd find an immense drop in emission levels, fatal crashes, and transportation related crimes would be reduced greatly.

to an extent but only tax and tariff people who it benefits, rather than taxing the whole state for only a small portion of people to benefit from.

I would say no for the fact that railroads are already not safe if they were faster it would make them even more not safe

Yes, but blanket answers like that are reductive and how much if at all depends on factors surrounding the project. If gov't money is to be used to heavily subsidize a project then it should come with restrictions so as to discourage poor/wasteful spending (California high speed rail or any NYC subway project).

The government should start promoting public transportation especially in large cities not necessarily high speed-rails.

Yes, but only if it is financially and socially feasible. If ridership is there and ready then it should be considered.

Yes, however in a financially responsible way. Preferably through a land value tax (LVT) policy. A small sales tax may help as well. Not too high though.

I do agree with it but also I don't agree because we can use it for reducing travel times,air travel and so on but if it does not work the money goes to wast but I will give it a try.

I think the government should be involved in this activity due to global warming. Funding could work.

This should be set in place, but it should start small and then expand if needed. Why waste tax payers money when the government is already in so much debt to them. Stop making people pay for more than they can afford please.

if in depressive times the government should help with projects but they should leave it to railway businesses other than that

Personally I do believe lowering carbon admissions is good, however I also agree that not all will use them. People use their cars often, so I think it could depend on where these trains would be put.

No, States should focus on the cost, Federal government should ensure the tracks are efficient, and communication occurs between states.

Yes, I think that if that will reduce carbon emissions making it more environmentally beneficial, and if that becomes economically convenient

only if the communities say they would like it. as it would help a lot of low-income families who have no transportation.

I believe they should be implemented but there needs to be a vote or something to see if these rail networks would actually be used instead of people just continuing to drive cars. I don't think people would want to abandon the ease of driving their own car.

Some areas are more rural and do not need high speed rail networks but I think it should be made for more crowded places

Yes but it should still be an option to use other forms of transportation if someone wants to do that.

No, but the government should reduce taxes and regulations that effect the companies building the rail networks so technically they are not giving away money

I think yes but only in populated areas or areas that have been surveyed where a majority of residents say that they would use high-speed rail networks

I think it'd be cool for high speed trains to make good travel faster but at the same time we already have cars and planes so I don't see the point.

The government should provide developments for rail networks, but only after research and testing is done to ensure that it will reduce carbon emissions

Where it reduces car and air travel for statistically supported movement of people but not just because it is fair to allow other communities if there’s no data supporting it is a wise use of funds

I don't think it should be subsidized because the money is already there from the people that will gain more wealth than what they have already. Subsidies should be used for food and housing, while having access to High-speed rails will benefit everyone. Especially those who used the "public" transportation (not free) will be able to leave their local area.

No, because there are many other issues that need to be addressed instead of high speed rail networks that are already present in most big cities

Yes, but only in areas that could benefit the most from it like cities and said cities would reduce the use of their cars

The govt should partner with the private sector, but otherwise, if the govt controls it, it ends up like Amtrak

Yeah but only if the other levels provide funding as well. We should work to eliminate the need for cars almost entirely in major cities, implementing a free autonomous, robotic taxi-like system.

Yes, but not the federal government. Amtrak and other operators should work with States to build and maintain infrastructure like stations, tracks, catenary, etc. Amtrak and other operators would pay states to operate on infrastructure. Dispatching can be handled by a third party company

Yes on investing in the future of transportation, but not with any current subsidy system that leads to over budget and behind schedule projects currently. Open to competitive bidding including foreign companies who actually have experience in high speed rail

it depends on whether this railway will be used for public transportation. we should have more public transportation for those without funds for a vehicle.

If this would be something useful that a lot of people would use and does not cost a lot then this might be nice

If government truly wants to reduce emissions and help the environment, this seems like a good place to begin.

It depends if they wanted to subsidies if they think that is a good idea or not becuase the economic growth comes when the service is good

I would promote more government subsidies for cities with robust neighboring cities as well such as New York.

It should be taken to vote on whether or not they should build it to see if it will actually be used

The us is too reliant on cars, we need more public transport for those who don't have the money for cars or gas, we should also have bike lanes.

Most people drive a car or take the city bus, walk, or even ride a bike. Not a lot of people take a train where I live. So personally I would say the money could definitely go to something more beneficial.

Like what if it goes too fast and the people in the train or subway die or if something is wrong with certain things that they use on the track and the vehicle gets stuck and they are stranded in the middle of nowhere hours away like thought trains that take you from one place to another like 5-8 hours away

Given his focus on modernization and public works during his presidency, he could see the value in investing in transportation systems that enhance commerce and connectivity.

Yes, if they have extra money. If they don't though this is a waste of money since our modes of transportation are fine as they are. If anything build better or more roads.

Yes trains work great in countries like Japan, and it will make cross country trips much easier and I think it will be better for the environment

With the current economic environment I believe the government should be spending more time applying FFV mechanics to already public transport.

Yes, but it should be limited and not take over current systems and not obstruct building, communities, forestland, and functional zones

I don't think that this would be a very good investment since there has been little success so far. We should try this in California with engineers leading the project first and then we can revisit the topic once we see how it works out in the smaller area.

A high-speed rail network should fail under the government's responsibility to build and maintain roadways.

Yes, although subsidies should be well distributed to all forms of public transportation. High-speed railways should be reserved for long-distance travel to and from population centers.

Yes, but only after we decrease cost of public transportation and fix many of our infrastructure issues with roads.

No, not until more people use the rail networks. As long as people have personal cars, they can operate outside of the rail networks schedule, it may be difficult to attract users and it's not worth spending the money if the rail systems don't divert many users away from using their gas guzzling cars.

Yes, but must be regulated and ensure that we are appropriately funding the right people not just the government buddies as cumshaw for their donations.