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.
69% Yes |
31% No |
69% Yes |
31% No |
See how support for each position on “High Speed Rail” has changed over time for 8k America voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
See how importance of “High Speed Rail” has changed over time for 8k America voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from America users whose views extended beyond the provided choices.
@9N8XVGK1wk1W
Yes, but only in areas where such a development is economically beneficial, such as the northeast corridor.
@9L4Z23B 2wks2W
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
@9NHLT534 days4D
Yes, if the taxpayer who does not use the speed rail have to pay yearly taxes. If it will affect taxpayers that do not use the rail then No.
@9NHCHLS4 days4D
Yes as to capital spending for needing rail routes, some initial capital for rolling stock, no for operating expense.
@9NH66J94 days4D
The government should offer low interest rate loans to credit worthy companies that have the ability to produce such a project. Pocketing government money for additional profit isn't acceptable.
@9NGYM5M4 days4D
I feel like this could be a good option in the future but there is a lot to fix currently that isn't this.
Explore other topics that are important to America voters.