@ISIDEWITHQuestionstransportationStarted 10mos agoActive 1wk ago

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

High-speed rail networks are fast train systems that connect major cities, providing a quick and efficient alternative to car and air travel. Proponents argue that it can reduce travel times, lower carbon emissions, and stimulate economic growth through improved connectivity. Opponents argue that it requires significant investment, may not attract enough users, and funds could be better used elsewhere.

+
Expand
+ Settings x  60605 (Illinois)

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 441 60605 voters.

73%
Yes
27%
No
73%
Yes
27%
No

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 441 60605 voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 441 60605 voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from 60605 voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @9N8XVGK from Alaska  answered…9mos9MO

Yes, but only in areas where such a development is economically beneficial, such as the northeast corridor.

 @9L4Z23B  from Pennsylvania  answered…10mos10MO

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

 @9X9Q7KB from Illinois  answered…4mos4MO

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.

 @9NNC8HX from Pennsylvania  answered…9mos9MO

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

 @9X682Q6 from California  answered…4mos4MO

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

 @9WSQRB5 from Michigan  answered…5mos5MO

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

 @9STNQFM from Ohio  answered…6mos6MO

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

 @B3CBMRJ from Florida  answered…2wks2W

No, the unites states is so vast that this would only be applicable to one railway on the east cost and on the west coast and the high speed rain on the west coast is infested with bureaucracy, corruption, long build times, etc..

Latest News

Stay up-to-date on the most recent “High Speed Rail” news articles, updated frequently.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4mos4MO

House Democrats Filibuster Flip-Flop: Keep It When the GOP’s in Charge, Kill It When We Are

Filibuster for me, but not for thee. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), an outspoken critic of the Senate filibuster, indicated Monday that she will not support axing the procedural hurdle as long as Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress. “Am I championing getting rid of the filibuster now when the Senate has the trifecta? No,” the chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus said at a press conference on Capitol Hill. “But had we had the trifecta, I would have been, because we have to show that government can deliver,” Jayapal added. The Senate filibuster rule, which requires a 60-vote threshold to end debate and pass most types of legislation in the upper chamber, is seen as the best chance Democrats have at blocking the adoption of President-elect Donald Trump agenda – with Republicans taking a 53-47 seat advantage in the Senate and expected to retain a slim majority in the House. Jayapal, as recently as September, was pushing to “abolish” what she called the “Jim Crow filibuster.” “The filibuster was originally created *by mistake* in 1806,” she wrote on X. “Every day we don’t abolish it is just as big a mistake.”The Washington Democrat dislikes that the procedural tool makes it difficult for progressives to ram their agenda through Congress. “It’s the filibuster OR an assault weapons ban. It’s the filibuster OR codified abortion access. It’s the filibuster OR raising the minimum wage. It’s the filibuster OR protecting voting rights. The choice is clear. Abolish the Jim Crow filibuster,” Jayapal tweeted. The progressive rep argued Monday that passing a liberal agenda would’ve “built some trust with the American people.”“If we had had control of the trifecta and gotten rid of the filibuster to pass minimum wage, to pass paid sick leave, to pass many of these things that are passing – abortion access – that are passing on ballot measures that are so popular … then I think we would have built some trust with the American people,” Jayapal argued.

▲  226 replies