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  
•       •       •

5716 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 02:19:37 PM  

Di Atribe: 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.


Money doesn't grow on trees. We don't live in Jerry Jones world.
 
2013-02-09 02:23:24 PM  

WorldCitizen: 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.


Yes we did!.  The Iraq war paid for itself and, conversely, people would ride the train for free!
 
2013-02-09 02:24:30 PM  

muck4doo: Di Atribe: 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.

Money doesn't grow on trees. We don't live in Jerry Jones world.


DoD spends over 500 every year, with far less to show for it.
 
2013-02-09 02:25:26 PM  
Hmmmm.  Wait a minute.  The artist left off the Mexico City spur.
 
2013-02-09 02:26:23 PM  
The multilayered cluelessness inherent in this headline is staggering.
 
2013-02-09 02:26:24 PM  

doyner: WorldCitizen: 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.

Yes we did!.  The Iraq war paid for itself and, conversely, people would ride the train for free!


Yes, too bad we can't do Iraq all over again.

/ That is neither here nor there. It's done. It's history. We can't save money on that now to build train tracks.
 
2013-02-09 02:27:34 PM  

muck4doo: Money doesn't grow on trees.


Exactly.  Money is technically a fungus.
 
2013-02-09 02:27:59 PM  

ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: muck4doo: Di Atribe: 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.

Money doesn't grow on trees. We don't live in Jerry Jones world.

DoD spends over 500 every year, with far less to show for it.


DoD employs too many people. The money isn't going to come from there.
 
2013-02-09 02:28:40 PM  

thamike: muck4doo: Money doesn't grow on trees.

Exactly.  Money is technically a fungus.


LOL!
 
2013-02-09 02:30:21 PM  

muck4doo: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: muck4doo: Di Atribe: 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.

Money doesn't grow on trees. We don't live in Jerry Jones world.

DoD spends over 500 every year, with far less to show for it.
n
DoD employs too many people. The money isn't going to come from there.


We just need to sell it is a military/industrial necessity as Eisenhower did with the interstate system. Then have the military/industrial complex build it. Problem solved.
 
2013-02-09 02:36:14 PM  

WorldCitizen: muck4doo: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: muck4doo: Di Atribe: 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.

Money doesn't grow on trees. We don't live in Jerry Jones world.

DoD spends over 500 every year, with far less to show for it.
n
DoD employs too many people. The money isn't going to come from there.

We just need to sell it is a military/industrial necessity as Eisenhower did with the interstate system. Then have the military/industrial complex build it. Problem solved.


We already have a railway system. What you mean to say is that we need to sell a "high speed" railway system as a necessity to the military. They won't buy that. They already have planes to do the high speed stuff.
 
2013-02-09 02:38:19 PM  

muck4doo: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: muck4doo: Di Atribe: 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.

Money doesn't grow on trees. We don't live in Jerry Jones world.

DoD spends over 500 every year, with far less to show for it.

DoD employs too many people. The money isn't going to come from there.


Trust me, I'm aware of how many people the DoD employs, but let's not pretend that this just about how much money it will cost.
 
2013-02-09 02:39:31 PM  

muck4doo: Money doesn't grow on trees.


Money is paper. It literally does grow on trees. I've never understood this expression.
 
2013-02-09 02:41:19 PM  

DamnYankees: muck4doo: Money doesn't grow on trees.

Money is paper. It literally does grow on trees. I've never understood this expression.


That is why you vote Democrat.
 
2013-02-09 02:41:46 PM  

muck4doo: 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.


Yes, and the interstate system just magically appeared overnight. And the westward expansion didn't really cost a dime. And the moon, nah...moon shot was just some stuff lying around.

And here I thought Conservatives like the can do
 
2013-02-09 02:42:18 PM  

muck4doo: DamnYankees: muck4doo: Money doesn't grow on trees.

Money is paper. It literally does grow on trees. I've never understood this expression.

That is why you vote Democrat.


I vote for Democrats because I understand monetary economics, yes. That is one reason why I tend to vote for them.

Or was that supposed to be an insult or something?
 
2013-02-09 02:43:16 PM  
$200 billion came right out of submitter's ass. The price could be 50 times that or 1/2 of that. Just don't use the headline as the authoritative source of the costs.
 
2013-02-09 02:47:03 PM  
BTW Japan would gladly sell the US it's latest shinkansen trains, Germany would gladly sell ICE trains, the French would gladly sell the TGV. So as far as rolling stock goes, there's no need to spend money on R&D and such. Which actually greatly simplifies things. Just have to decide which rolling stock to go with and place an order.
 
2013-02-09 02:47:19 PM  

muck4doo: Di Atribe: 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.

Money doesn't grow on trees. We don't live in Jerry Jones world.


We are one if the wealthiest countries in the world. And yet we don't have the money to improve our society.

Why is that?

Why are conservatives such cowards?
 
2013-02-09 02:47:22 PM  

ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: muck4doo: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: muck4doo: Di Atribe: 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.

Money doesn't grow on trees. We don't live in Jerry Jones world.

DoD spends over 500 every year, with far less to show for it.

DoD employs too many people. The money isn't going to come from there.

Trust me, I'm aware of how many people the DoD employs, but let's not pretend that this just about how much money it will cost.


It is about money. They say 200 billion now, how much do you think it will really cost(cough cough Boston Big Dig)? How many riders per year for how many years would it take to make up for that? You're not even counting now how much it would cost to keep it operating once it starts.
 
2013-02-09 02:47:32 PM  

DamnYankees: muck4doo: Money doesn't grow on trees.

Money is paper. It literally does grow on trees. I've never understood this expression.


Actually, US currency is made from cotton and linen....or electrons really.
 
2013-02-09 02:48:33 PM  
This thread will be wasted on the geek tab.
 
2013-02-09 02:48:51 PM  

doyner: DamnYankees: muck4doo: Money doesn't grow on trees.

Money is paper. It literally does grow on trees. I've never understood this expression.

Actually, US currency is made from cotton and linen....or electrons really.


So plants, not paper. I stand corrected.
 
2013-02-09 02:49:11 PM  

DamnYankees: muck4doo: DamnYankees: muck4doo: Money doesn't grow on trees.

Money is paper. It literally does grow on trees. I've never understood this expression.

That is why you vote Democrat.

I vote for Democrats because I understand monetary economics, yes. That is one reason why I tend to vote for them.

Or was that supposed to be an insult or something?


You dug that insult yourself. I just helped you along with it. :p
 
2013-02-09 02:49:43 PM  

DamnYankees: muck4doo: Money doesn't grow on trees.

Money is paper. It literally does grow on trees. I've never understood this expression.


If we're getting literal about it, paper money is made of cotton and linen, neither of which grow on trees.
 
2013-02-09 02:50:24 PM  

DamnYankees: doyner: DamnYankees: muck4doo: Money doesn't grow on trees.

Money is paper. It literally does grow on trees. I've never understood this expression.

Actually, US currency is made from cotton and linen....or electrons really.

So plants, not paper. I stand corrected.


Meh.  Most of our money is imaginary anyway.
 
2013-02-09 02:50:32 PM  
Sorry for the redundancy.
 
2013-02-09 02:51:07 PM  

thamike: Sorry for the redundancy.


Did I jut get laid off?
 
2013-02-09 02:54:41 PM  
I'd happily subsidize this and use it.

Flying sucks balls.  I'd rather have a bigger seat and a dining car.  Private sleeper cars would be awesome, too.

Also, Amtrak is far less evil than any of the major airlines.  The airlines lie about bad weather when it's really something else and are always looking to screw you for an extra fee.
 
2013-02-09 02:56:31 PM  
I don't see how an NY-LA train trip would be more viable than flying, unless it was much cheaper than I think it would be. But NY-Chicago? Other trips along those lines? That could work.
 
2013-02-09 02:56:51 PM  

doyner: thamike: Sorry for the redundancy.

Did I jut get laid off?


Welcome to 0bama's America.

*flees thread*
 
2013-02-09 02:58:33 PM  

flucto: This thread will be wasted on the geek tab.


If going to main this would be filled with penis jokes.
 
2013-02-09 03:05:26 PM  

muck4doo: flucto: This thread will be wasted on the geek tab.

If going to main this would be filled with penis jokes.


Well you are offering stiff resistance to the idea. Backers have thrusted forward with great arguments. But I think your issued your counter proposals prematurely.
 
2013-02-09 03:05:56 PM  
Can we get a 268 mph maglev? Because that would be rad.
 
2013-02-09 03:08:53 PM  

JerseyTim: Can we get a 268 mph maglev? Because that would be rad.


I've been on that and it was awesome. I'm not sure I want to hit a cow in the middle on Indiana going 430kph though.
 
2013-02-09 03:09:18 PM  

muck4doo: cough cough Boston Big Dig)


The Big Dig would've cost less if it hadn't been awarded to the lowest bidder. The price was so low that there was no way the contractor could've met the budget even if everything was how they were expecting and they got away with cutting corners. That last thing by itself added a bunch to the final cost. Then there was the matter of things not going how they planned because of things they found they weren't expecting. Get someone who isn't out to cut corners and sure the initial price might look higher, but you're not going to run into cost overruns when the corner cutting catches up with them, which it always does. Also part of the issue was waiting so long, it should've been done ages ago, when just by virtue of inflation it would've cost less. Sitting around waiting to do something for 20 years is now way to keep costs down.
 
2013-02-09 03:11:21 PM  

JerseyTim: Can we get a 268 mph maglev? Because that would be rad.


A French TGV could do that in theory and so could a Japanese shinkansen. While neither currently runs that fast, both are capable of it.
 
2013-02-09 03:15:47 PM  

WhyteRaven74: muck4doo: cough cough Boston Big Dig)

The Big Dig would've cost less if it hadn't been awarded to the lowest bidder. The price was so low that there was no way the contractor could've met the budget even if everything was how they were expecting and they got away with cutting corners. That last thing by itself added a bunch to the final cost. Then there was the matter of things not going how they planned because of things they found they weren't expecting. Get someone who isn't out to cut corners and sure the initial price might look higher, but you're not going to run into cost overruns when the corner cutting catches up with them, which it always does. Also part of the issue was waiting so long, it should've been done ages ago, when just by virtue of inflation it would've cost less. Sitting around waiting to do something for 20 years is now way to keep costs down.


Indeed, and why do you think this time it will be different? Also, how many riders per year are going to be needed to make up the costs, and also pay for costs of running this?

/Look, I like the idea, but think it is not fiscally responsible. Maybe you can prove to me otherwise.
 
2013-02-09 03:19:09 PM  

Di Atribe: 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.


People like us don't usually read well balanced and non-partison white papers unless it is part of the job.    But you do make a good point about conservatives seeing through green colored glasses.   I thought the part of religious conservatism was not supposed to be so worldly and selfish.

Trains just shift the costs from the people to the government.   If trains are not making a profit then that means there is no money wasted on middle men.  If people did not buy cars and gas and insurance for those cars, each person may save $10,000 or more per year in driving related costs.  Not to mention all the reduction in traffic deaths which have no monetary value.   Even those who own cars will still save money in the long term.  At some point while our population keeps growing even air travel will become so congested that the ticket price will become so high only the wealthy can fly.
 
2013-02-09 03:24:11 PM  

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


Money funds things. Without money you don't have nice things like fire and police. And 911 call centers.

While I like the idea of high speed rail, (hell I enjoyed low speed when I took it) will it be able to be self sufficient?
 
2013-02-09 03:25:42 PM  

muck4doo: why do you think this time it will be different?


Well if people decide to do it right, and skip on the nonsense of awarding things to lowest bidders, it'll work better. Also we can get help from those who've built high speed rail already.

Also why is it people will go off about how much a high speed train would cost yet aren't going utterly apeshiat about the F-35 program doubling in cost and turning out to be the bad idea many people said it would be? Lockheed-Martin is basically demanding the government pay for its own fark ups and delays saying it's not their fault. Yet don't hear people gnashing their teeth about the program the way they do whenever someone mentions things like expanded public transit, high speed rail and so on.
 
2013-02-09 03:26:36 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: will it be able to be self sufficient?


As long as you can cover operational costs, you've got no problems.
 
2013-02-09 03:27:54 PM  

muck4doo: /Look, I like the idea, but think it is not fiscally responsible. Maybe you can prove to me otherwise.


How is improving our infrastructure, which is crumbling at this point, NOT fiscally responsible?
 
2013-02-09 03:29:42 PM  

WhyteRaven74: As long as you can cover operational costs, you've got no problems.


Think it can be done without pulling funds from elsewhere to do it?
 
2013-02-09 03:35:25 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Think it can be done without pulling funds from elsewhere to do it?


If we can pull funds from elsewhere to build a new class of ships for the Navy, why not do it for the public good? Either no one does it, period, or everyone gets to, you can't have some people be allowed to do it and others not.
 
2013-02-09 03:41:09 PM  
Continent-spanning high speed rail for the cost of 4 months of The War Against Terror in Afghanistan?

Hey Congress, spend my money!
 
2013-02-09 03:42:26 PM  

Lsherm: 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.

So I'm in after a libtard tries to lie about the economics of passenger rail systems.


please point out where i said it would generate "enough revenue to cover costs."

you can't, because i didn't. now who's lying again?

i was referring to things like hotels, restaurants, shopping, etc. near stations. i lived in europe for many years. every train station is a hive of activity, far more than just getting on and off the train.
 
2013-02-09 03:43:03 PM  

WhyteRaven74: If we can pull funds from elsewhere to build a new class of ships for the Navy, why not do it for the public good?


So, no, it can't be self sufficient.
 
2013-02-09 03:44:08 PM  

WhyteRaven74: muck4doo: why do you think this time it will be different?

Well if people decide to do it right, and skip on the nonsense of awarding things to lowest bidders, it'll work better. Also we can get help from those who've built high speed rail already.

Also why is it people will go off about how much a high speed train would cost yet aren't going utterly apeshiat about the F-35 program doubling in cost and turning out to be the bad idea many people said it would be? Lockheed-Martin is basically demanding the government pay for its own fark ups and delays saying it's not their fault. Yet don't hear people gnashing their teeth about the program the way they do whenever someone mentions things like expanded public transit, high speed rail and so on.


IF people decide to do it right? I think right there is where you and me disagree, as well as operating costs. I like the idea of better mass transportation. As a matter of fact, I believe when i met you here in Austin 4 or 5 years ago I told you one of my biggest pet peeves was seeing teen age girls wasting gas riding big trucks to haul their hides around to the next party. I'm looking at the big picture here of it all, and wondering if this will work. What are the costs going to be to build this? What will the operations costs be like per year? How many riders will it take per year to make this cost efficient? Why will people use this instead of their own cars or taking a plane ride?

cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: /Look, I like the idea, but think it is not fiscally responsible. Maybe you can prove to me otherwise.

How is improving our infrastructure, which is crumbling at this point, NOT fiscally responsible?


How was building the bridge to nowhere in Alaska fiscally responsible?
 
2013-02-09 03:46:49 PM  
Did you know that you can bring booze on an Amtrak train.


Think about it.
 
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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report