If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   "In liberals' dreams, this Is what America's high-speed rail network looks like." Gee only 18 hours from NY to LA eating Amtrak food? Who wouldn't spend 200 billion for that?   (slate.com) divider line 373
    More: Interesting, Los Angeles, Amtrak, high-speed rail  
•       •       •

5715 clicks; posted to Geek » on 09 Feb 2013 at 4:08 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



373 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-09 12:09:29 PM
Have you looked at how long it takes to get there *now*? Probably won't gain you time from major coastal hubs, but try getting from White Plains, NY to New Orleans, LA - if you only have to change planes once each way. Pick somwhere a little further from a major airport pair and it gets a lot more interesting having the rail option.

Air travel is a great subsidy for a few big cities.
 
2013-02-09 12:15:39 PM
Yeah, Subbass, let's keep doing it with 3 day busses and no food.
 
2013-02-09 12:30:08 PM
in before some conservatard divides the cost by the number of jobs created to come up with: "IT COSTS $300,000 PER JERB!!!!" forgetting, of course, that we also receive a shiny new piece of infrastructure that will generate revenue, facilitate commerce and make life easier for the public for a century afterwards.
 
2013-02-09 12:34:28 PM
"In liberals' dreams, this Is what America's high-speed rail network looks like."

This is why we can't have nice things
 
2013-02-09 12:36:32 PM
i105.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-09 12:38:19 PM

MisterTweak: White Plains, NY to New Orleans, LA


HPN - MSY, 5 hours.
 
2013-02-09 12:38:31 PM
Yes, this would just SO terrible. Let's keep everything as shiatty as possible, and never try.
 
2013-02-09 12:43:13 PM
Let's face it; the Interstate Highway System turned out to be a useless liberal boondoggle, and this will be no different.
 
2013-02-09 12:44:53 PM

St_Francis_P: Let's face it; the Interstate Highway System turned out to be a useless liberal boondoggle, and this will be no different.


Damn that RINO Eisenhower!
 
2013-02-09 12:46:30 PM

FlashHarry: in before some conservatard divides the cost by the number of jobs created to come up with: "IT COSTS $300,000 PER JERB!!!!" forgetting, of course, that we also receive a shiny new piece of infrastructure that will generate revenue, facilitate commerce and make life easier for the public for a century afterwards.


That isn't the point.  Unless it's substantially cheaper than flying, it won't be used....so it will be nothing but a government sinkhole.  The fastest bullet trains in the world travel around 150mph.  A trip from New York to LA would take 18 hours of travel time (non-stop and not accounting for time changes).  A flight is 5 hours and 45 minutes.  Just looking it up, a one-way non-stop flight to LAX from NYC is $328.

Even now, a one-way trip on Amtrak from New York to LA costs $218 and it takes 5 days (3 stops).

It's simple math.  There's no way to make that affordable and self-sustaining to the point it will be a viable alternative to flying.
 
2013-02-09 12:49:49 PM

slayer199: FlashHarry: in before some conservatard divides the cost by the number of jobs created to come up with: "IT COSTS $300,000 PER JERB!!!!" forgetting, of course, that we also receive a shiny new piece of infrastructure that will generate revenue, facilitate commerce and make life easier for the public for a century afterwards.

That isn't the point.  Unless it's substantially cheaper than flying, it won't be used....so it will be nothing but a government sinkhole.  The fastest bullet trains in the world travel around 150mph.  A trip from New York to LA would take 18 hours of travel time (non-stop and not accounting for time changes).  A flight is 5 hours and 45 minutes.  Just looking it up, a one-way non-stop flight to LAX from NYC is $328.

Even now, a one-way trip on Amtrak from New York to LA costs $218 and it takes 5 days (3 stops).

It's simple math.  There's no way to make that affordable and self-sustaining to the point it will be a viable alternative to flying.


And you can declare it as uneconomical without any knowledge of the cost of a high speed ticket, how?
 
2013-02-09 12:54:32 PM
$200 billion sounds way low to me.
 
2013-02-09 12:54:46 PM

GAT_00: And you can declare it as uneconomical without any knowledge of the cost of a high speed ticket, how?


Look at the existing costs.  It's already $218 to take a train to LA from NYC.  Are you even going to try and argue that it will be LESS expensive with $200billion dollars of new infrastructure?
 
2013-02-09 12:55:08 PM
I prefer taking the train if it is going where I need to be.  I would be willing to spend 2 trillion on a high speed rail system if it was what it takes.

I hate driving and I hate flying.
 
2013-02-09 12:56:16 PM

slayer199: Unless it's substantially cheaper than flying, it won't be used....so it will be nothing but a government sinkhole.  The fastest bullet trains in the world travel around 150mph


So high-speed rail is never used by anyone, anywhere?
 
2013-02-09 12:59:17 PM
Who did the mayor of Cheyenne pay off to get not just a stop, but an out of the way stop?
 
2013-02-09 12:59:41 PM
The plus side is no TSA agent groping your junk before you board.

The negative is no TSA agent groping your junk before you board.
 
2013-02-09 12:59:49 PM
JFK to LAX right now STARTS at $328. Sounds to me like there's a price point in between $218 and $328 where High Speed Rail would fit just fine.
 
2013-02-09 12:59:56 PM

slayer199: GAT_00: And you can declare it as uneconomical without any knowledge of the cost of a high speed ticket, how?

Look at the existing costs.  It's already $218 to take a train to LA from NYC.  Are you even going to try and argue that it will be LESS expensive with $200billion dollars of new infrastructure?


The cost of flying has substantially decreased over the years as infrastructure has increased.  The same thing with cars.  Why exactly are trains except from this?
 
2013-02-09 01:01:11 PM
The irony is if the high speed rail gets built suddenly Ayn Rand's novel about a future dominated by rail travel becomes relevant again.
 
2013-02-09 01:01:28 PM

slayer199: GAT_00: And you can declare it as uneconomical without any knowledge of the cost of a high speed ticket, how?

Look at the existing costs.  It's already $218 to take a train to LA from NYC.  Are you even going to try and argue that it will be LESS expensive with $200billion dollars of new infrastructure?


 It is like our pharmaceuticals.  We pay a lot for early users and the research costs are high.  It is not the overall cost that matters as much as the public good.   Money should not get in the way of doing what is right.
 
2013-02-09 01:04:46 PM
Oh and according to that map I would be able to travel from Atlanta to Las Vegas without flying.   Very nice idea.  Even if the funds and collective political will were there today, I would still be a very old man before it could happen.
 
2013-02-09 01:04:47 PM

slayer199: There's no way to make that affordable and self-sustaining to the point it will be a viable alternative to flying.


Sure there is
 
2013-02-09 01:05:52 PM

FlashHarry: in before some conservatard divides the cost by the number of jobs created to come up with: "IT COSTS $300,000 PER JERB!!!!" forgetting, of course, that we also receive a shiny new piece of infrastructure that will generate revenue, facilitate commerce and make life easier for the public for a century afterwards.


There isn't a single passenger rail system in the world that generates enough revenue to cover the costs.  They are all subsidized.  Europe, Japan, and China all have to funnel money each year into their passenger rail systems above and beyond what they take in via tickets.

I believe it's a worthy subsidy, but liberals need to stop pretending that passenger rail isn't a money loser long-term.  Be honest about it: it's going to cost way more than it will ever bring in, but we do it for the same reason we keep the interstate system up and running - it's a public benefit.

So I'm in after a libtard tries to lie about the economics of passenger rail systems.
 
2013-02-09 01:08:07 PM

cameroncrazy1984: So high-speed rail is never used by anyone, anywhere?


Look where they're being used.  Most make runs in Europe that are a couple hundred miles.  Europe is smaller than the US in case you weren't aware.

For example, Eurostar train from Brussels to London is $200 round-trip.  To fly to London from Brussels is $187 round-trip.

The time via train is 2 hours and 20 minutes.  To fly is an hour and 10 minutes.  When you calculate the time spent at the airport (check-in, security, etc) it's more efficient to take the train.
 
2013-02-09 01:09:16 PM
Nah too many wasteful stops in the middle. Up and down the coasts is fine, but crosscountry you need express from ny to chicago and maybe stop at denver then on to the left coast
 
2013-02-09 01:10:58 PM

Ghastly: The plus side is no TSA agent groping your junk before you board.

The negative is no TSA agent groping your junk before you board.


For now.  Just wait.
 
2013-02-09 01:11:01 PM

slayer199: cameroncrazy1984: So high-speed rail is never used by anyone, anywhere?

Look where they're being used.  Most make runs in Europe that are a couple hundred miles.  Europe is smaller than the US in case you weren't aware.

For example, Eurostar train from Brussels to London is $200 round-trip.  To fly to London from Brussels is $187 round-trip.

The time via train is 2 hours and 20 minutes.  To fly is an hour and 10 minutes.  When you calculate the time spent at the airport (check-in, security, etc) it's more efficient to take the train.


And nobody in Europe ever uses the train, thus proving your point.

Oh wait.
 
2013-02-09 01:12:03 PM

slayer199: Europe is smaller than the US in case you weren't aware.


Actually, you aren't aware. Europe is larger than the United States - even including Alaska.
 
2013-02-09 01:13:11 PM

Dead for Tax Reasons: Nah too many wasteful stops in the middle. Up and down the coasts is fine, but crosscountry you need express from ny to chicago and maybe stop at denver then on to the left coast


Do you know how trains works? There are express lines and local lines. They run on the same tracks (basically). There's very little downside to including more local stops if there's sufficient demand. Once you build the express line the infrastructure is already in place other than the stations themselves, which aren't that expensive.
 
2013-02-09 01:20:55 PM
Subby has obviously never had Amtrak food.

/taking a trip south on Amtrak in two days
//looking forward to eating a cheeseburger on the way
 
2013-02-09 01:24:27 PM

DamnYankees: Dead for Tax Reasons: Nah too many wasteful stops in the middle. Up and down the coasts is fine, but crosscountry you need express from ny to chicago and maybe stop at denver then on to the left coast

Do you know how trains works? There are express lines and local lines. They run on the same tracks (basically). There's very little downside to including more local stops if there's sufficient demand. Once you build the express line the infrastructure is already in place other than the stations themselves, which aren't that expensive.


"Next stop, west bumblefark, indiana"
 
2013-02-09 01:24:34 PM
For those of us who have never been on a plane and have no desire to ever be on a plane, that sounds pretty awesome. Liberal or otherwise.
 
2013-02-09 01:26:39 PM

slayer199: GAT_00: And you can declare it as uneconomical without any knowledge of the cost of a high speed ticket, how?

Look at the existing costs.  It's already $218 to take a train to LA from NYC.  Are you even going to try and argue that it will be LESS expensive with $200billion dollars of new infrastructure?


Too bad all travel is just from NYC to LA and that no one ever stops or simply needs to go from any point in between.
 
2013-02-09 01:27:09 PM

slayer199: Europe is smaller than the US in case you weren't aware.


Lisbon to Bucharest is only about 20% shorter than San Francisco to DC.
 
2013-02-09 01:29:04 PM

kronicfeld: slayer199: Europe is smaller than the US in case you weren't aware.

Lisbon to Bucharest is only about 20% shorter than San Francisco to DC.


And its much, much longer to Moscow, which is sort of a big transportation hub.
 
2013-02-09 01:31:05 PM
Hey just guarding the rail line from terrorists will generate 25,000+ full time jobs. Another thousand high speed snow plow drivers. A few thousand track workers. Guys to wash off the high speed bug splatters and birds every 1,000 miles or so. It all adds up.
 
2013-02-09 01:35:00 PM

DamnYankees: And its much, much longer to Moscow, which is sort of a big transportation hub.


I chose not to include Ukraine/Russia to avoid the inevitable Europe/Asia/Eurasia* argument.

*Blade/Laser/Blazer
 
2013-02-09 01:36:39 PM

kronicfeld: DamnYankees: And its much, much longer to Moscow, which is sort of a big transportation hub.

I chose not to include Ukraine/Russia to avoid the inevitable Europe/Asia/Eurasia* argument.

*Blade/Laser/Blazer


Russia is not part of Europe.
 
2013-02-09 01:37:08 PM

Lsherm: kronicfeld: DamnYankees: And its much, much longer to Moscow, which is sort of a big transportation hub.

I chose not to include Ukraine/Russia to avoid the inevitable Europe/Asia/Eurasia* argument.

*Blade/Laser/Blazer

Russia is not part of Europe.


hahahahahah
 
2013-02-09 01:40:07 PM

Lsherm: kronicfeld: DamnYankees: And its much, much longer to Moscow, which is sort of a big transportation hub.

I chose not to include Ukraine/Russia to avoid the inevitable Europe/Asia/Eurasia* argument.

*Blade/Laser/Blazer

Russia is not part of Europe.


Look how stupid you are!
 
2013-02-09 01:48:45 PM

Lsherm: kronicfeld: DamnYankees: And its much, much longer to Moscow, which is sort of a big transportation hub.

I chose not to include Ukraine/Russia to avoid the inevitable Europe/Asia/Eurasia* argument.

*Blade/Laser/Blazer

Russia is not part of Europe.


www.troll.me
 
2013-02-09 01:57:07 PM
Make it affordable and I'm all for train travel. I've flown and have ridden on Greyhound buses across this country numerous times. Both ways sucked. I would have preferred train, but it was too expensive. My question is how much would tickets cost after spending 200 billion to make it happen? Like others said, this isn't a high speed railway through France or Belgium.
 
2013-02-09 01:59:41 PM

muck4doo: My question is how much would tickets cost after spending 200 billion to make it happen? Like others said, this isn't a high speed railway through France or Belgium.


Like others have said, why not? Why CAN'T it be like that? Nobody says you have to use the whole system all at once.
 
2013-02-09 02:02:29 PM
I guess the Interstate system is a huge money sink because nobody drives from NY to LA, either.
 
2013-02-09 02:04:55 PM
What if it was a bunch of linking regional systems? Maybe not a straight shot from NY to LA but you can go from the northeast to Chicago area to the west? Divide the US into 6 regions so that you can get the benefits of high speed rail in the region but still be able to take the train cross country.

/highspeed to Atlanta would be sweet
//or to Florida to visit the folks
///Florida needs a good rail system, driving from Tampa to Orlando or Miami sucks
 
2013-02-09 02:09:30 PM

SarahDiddle: What if it was a bunch of linking regional systems? Maybe not a straight shot from NY to LA but you can go from the northeast to Chicago area to the west? Divide the US into 6 regions so that you can get the benefits of high speed rail in the region but still be able to take the train cross country.


If you look at the map, that's exactly what it is. Heck, that's exactly what the Interstate system is.
 
2013-02-09 02:17:51 PM

rev. dave: Money should not get in the way of doing what is right.


With conservatives, it all comes back to money. That's all that matters to them.

While I despise making everything a partisan issue, the author of the article fired the first shot.
 
2013-02-09 02:18:11 PM

cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: My question is how much would tickets cost after spending 200 billion to make it happen? Like others said, this isn't a high speed railway through France or Belgium.

Like others have said, why not? Why CAN'T it be like that? Nobody says you have to use the whole system all at once.


I'd like it to be like that. I have already said so. Next trip to NY or San Jose I would love to take the train. But face it, 200 billion is a lot of money to make it happen. You can bring up our interstate highways, fact is, they are already there. People can drive or fly as it is. Amtrack is too damn expensive for the time and travel. I would like to see high speed rail, but I just don't see how it will be cost efficient compared to what we have now. This isn't Europe or Japan with a bunch of large population centers close to each other.
 
2013-02-09 02:18:37 PM
So which one would give the US the best return over time? Several times this amount of money spent on Iraq or high speed rail infrastructure in the US?

Yes, we chose so wisely.
 
Displayed 50 of 373 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report