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
 
2013-02-10 04:58:56 PM

GF named my left testicle thundercles: high speed rail from LA to NY is dumb as shiat for sure. flying will always be faster and better for that route.


No doubt. But that's a reason not to  take the train from LA to NY, not a reason for the train not to  run from LA to NY.

Every individual link in the chain that goes NYC → Pittsburgh → Cleveland → Chicago → Omaha → Denver → SLC → Las Vegas → LA makes sense, so it makes infinitely more sense to link them all together. That would be true even if only a tiny, tiny fraction of passengers crossed from one side of Omaha (for example) to the other.
 
2013-02-10 05:39:19 PM

muck4doo: You know who else really loved using his train systems?


Thomas the Train?
 
2013-02-10 06:16:53 PM

Babwa Wawa: HSR up and down the east coast would introduce a lot more efficiency into our economy. It would add at least 200 miles to every person's potential coverage area.


That makes more sense than a cross-country route...much like Europe (especially western Europe).  Cleveland-Detroit-Chicago would make sense as well.

Basically, if you're looking at the time to get to an airport, check-in, security, etc...you're looking at 2 hours added on each way.  A high-speed train to Chicago from Detroit would take under 2 hours.  A flight is 1 hour but add 2 hours to that time and it takes more time to fly.
 
2013-02-10 06:45:51 PM

slayer199: Babwa Wawa: HSR up and down the east coast would introduce a lot more efficiency into our economy. It would add at least 200 miles to every person's potential coverage area.

That makes more sense than a cross-country route...much like Europe (especially western Europe).  Cleveland-Detroit-Chicago would make sense as well.

Basically, if you're looking at the time to get to an airport, check-in, security, etc...you're looking at 2 hours added on each way.  A high-speed train to Chicago from Detroit would take under 2 hours.  A flight is 1 hour but add 2 hours to that time and it takes more time to fly.


I think that's the key. PEople, particularly conservatives, will latch onto the entire length of track, and talk about how infeasible and uncompetitive long range HSR is. But HSR is about multiple 100-300 mile routes chained together. New Orleans to Houston to Dallas. SF to LA to SD. Boston to NYC to philly to DC. Rail will never compete with flight for 1200 mile plus routes and to act as if that's the only realistic use case is disingenuous.
 
2013-02-10 07:03:06 PM

jtown: cptjeff: jtown: Assuming that's what he meant (and I don't think it is), it contradicts nothing that I said. I said many people will have to drive for hours to get to a high speed rail station. Taking a slow, local train instead would take even longer than driving.

Actually, not all that many. Most of the population of this country lives in cities these days, small town America makes up a pretty small proportion of the population. Yes, people without many transportation options would continue to not have many transportation options. Boo-farking-hoo. Don't like it, move to a city with more conveniences.

So why should we spend $200,000,000,000 on something that will not provide any kind of advantage for travelers?  It's not cheaper, it's not faster, and it's not more convenient.


You must be trolling, because I cannot believe you're that dumb.

/most of the population lives in cities
//therefore investing in transportation to connect them will not provide any advantage
///your deductive logic saddens me
 
2013-02-10 07:07:30 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.


But nothing gets blown up!
 
2013-02-10 07:13:12 PM
The big problem is that High Speed rail needs dedicated lines, specifically made for high-speed trains.

Our rail is optimized for moving freight, and you'd be talking some epic scale eminent domain and costs to buy up the needed land for high speed rail lines. I don't know how this could ever be done in any area that's substantially built up like Chicago or New York. The costs just for land and right of ways would be astronomical.

Airports exist for a reason.
 
2013-02-10 08:07:11 PM
With the singularity coming, this is all moot anyway.
 
2013-02-10 08:29:56 PM

Babwa Wawa: slayer199: Let me ask a question.

What problem does this solve?

Highly inefficient commuter air routes.  Give you an example:  I used to go down to DC from my home in Hartford for work.  A quick hour long flight, but at the right time it's a 5 1/2 hour drive.  I would drive more often than fly.  The commuter routes were expensive, infrequent, and security lines in conjunction with travel time to the airport made it a wash.  Rail was simply not an option, but should have been given the distance between the cities.

A train route is different.  A route with stops in Boston>Hartford>NYC>Philly>Baltimore>DC route will have an overwhelming number of passengers doing between 1-3 hops, and would be simultaneously competitive on a time basis for relatively long haul passengers.  Remember that business travelers can count train travel time as productive time what with cell and internet access.   Capacity is easier and cheaper to add with trains rather than planes.

Nowadays I travel a lot to Atlanta, Charlotte, Philly, and NYC, DC, Chicago, Dallas, SoCal, and NoCal.  For NYC and Philly, I either Amtrak or drive it.  It takes far longer to take the train, but I'm productive - I can be on email, do designs, etc.  What intrigues me is a potential 8 hour train  trip to Atlanta.   I may or may not take HSR to Atlanta, but I'm sure that DC folks would take a 3 hour HSR route to Atlanta. I can fly to Atlanta in about 3 hours direct, but I have to pad about 3 hours on that for various crap around the fact of flying. HSR would reduce my total flights about 20%, and would reduce my car travel by about 80%.

HSR up and down the east coast would introduce a lot more efficiency into our economy.  It would add at least 200 miles to every person's potential coverage area.


And there are no 15-60 minute periods where you can't turn on your laptop.
 
2013-02-10 08:38:16 PM

Dommo: The big problem is that High Speed rail needs dedicated lines, specifically made for high-speed trains.

Our rail is optimized for moving freight, and you'd be talking some epic scale eminent domain and costs to buy up the needed land for high speed rail lines. I don't know how this could ever be done in any area that's substantially built up like Chicago or New York. The costs just for land and right of ways would be astronomical.

Airports exist for a reason.


And airports must be huge and miles outside population centers. Ever notice there is no convenient airport to NYC? You can't even just slap on chains and start the plane in a snowstorm. Everything has its drawbacks.
 
2013-02-10 09:56:49 PM

moothemagiccow: And airports must be huge and miles outside population centers. Ever notice there is no convenient airport to NYC? You can't even just slap on chains and start the plane in a snowstorm. Everything has its drawbacks.


NYC is one city.  LAX, LGB, ONT, BUR, and SNA are all in the major population centers in LA. For every NYC there is an LA
 
2013-02-10 11:03:27 PM

bhcompy: LAX, LGB, ONT, BUR, and SNA are all in the major population centers in LA.


And yet we fly to whatever one is cheapest, then spend hours stuck in LA traffic to get to where we actually want to go. ;)
 
2013-02-11 01:08:42 AM

imgod2u: doyner: 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.

*all* of money is imaginary; it only has value in that people believe it has value.




Lmao...let me guess...you went to a public school, you're a lib, and you think you're smart.....
 
2013-02-11 02:35:15 AM

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?


probably be much better for regional as opposed to cross country. Think detroit to DC or Boston to richmond, stuff that's far enough that driving is inconvenient and close enough that trains can compete with airplanes (unless you live in a land where you can fly everything with 0 stop overs.

Also trains are by far the least energy intensive per passenger mile.
 
2013-02-11 02:36:00 AM
http://costofwar.com/

Frankly, I'd be astonished to find that an inter-continental high speed rail would only cost $200 billion, but even at ten times that cost, it's still a bargain.  Especially considering our other boondoggles.

It would also be damn cool to be able to explore the country without the necessity of a car.

Why are conservatives so against repairing our infrastructure?  You'd think, given their leanings toward all things nostalgic, that an inter-continental train would be right up their alley.  We could even get the Chinese to build it!
 
2013-02-11 02:40:40 AM

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.


the east and west coast corridors do rival europe in population density, that's why the whole philly-DC-NYC-Boston route always gets mentioned same as LA-to seattle.  high speed rail on the coasts make sense.  Once those projects are in place, you can start linking other cities as demand dictates.
 
2013-02-11 05:30:47 AM

slayer199: Of course the bigger issue, which has been brought up by others is that we have a massive deficit and all the libs here are in favor of adding to it.

Mind blown.


We have a struggling economy and slow job recovery, but the only thing folks like you can think about is the deficit even though borrowing money is dirt cheap right now.  Maybe high speed rail is a good project, maybe it's not, but we do need to boost our economy and infrastructure is a great way to do that.  How about investing in solar, wind and improving our electric grid?
 
2013-02-11 09:00:07 AM

Dead for Tax Reasons: 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"


They're putting a stop in Terre Haute? Sweet. Cthulu knows we already have the infrastruture.
 
2013-02-11 10:14:17 AM
Trains are too fast and they pollute and divide up the land.  Wagon trails are the way to go.
 
2013-02-11 10:29:54 AM

Baryogenesis: but the only thing folks like you can think about is the deficit even though borrowing money is dirt cheap right now.


Incorrect. Five- to ten-year bonds are at negative real rates, so it's more correct to say that it's dirt cheap to lock your money away in the Treasury's vaults.

Of course, that doesn't exactly undermine your larger point.
 
2013-02-11 11:10:45 AM

Baryogenesis: We have a struggling economy and slow job recovery, but the only thing folks like you can think about is the deficit even though borrowing money is dirt cheap right now. Maybe high speed rail is a good project, maybe it's not, but we do need to boost our economy and infrastructure is a great way to do that. How about investing in solar, wind and improving our electric grid?


And the debt doesn't matter?
 
2013-02-11 12:54:46 PM

slayer199: And the debt doesn't matter?


Negative real interest means it matters as little as it possibly can, and less than it would under any normal circumstances. Remember, thrift is a tool, not a virtue. If you don't know where your next meal is coming from, but you have a free ticket to an all-you-can-eat buffet, that's a good time to have seconds and thirds. It doesn't mean you're embracing gluttony as a lifestyle or denying that any bad thing can ever come from pigging out. (And it also doesn't mean you should have fourths and fifths, because there comes a point at which the long-term gain is offset by short-term consequences.)

Trains would be a cool way to spend that better-than-free money. Hospitals and schools would also be nice. We're never going to run out of good things to spend it on. We're just going to run out of time in which to borrow it at better-than-free rates.
 
2013-02-11 05:22:37 PM

slayer199: Baryogenesis: We have a struggling economy and slow job recovery, but the only thing folks like you can think about is the deficit even though borrowing money is dirt cheap right now. Maybe high speed rail is a good project, maybe it's not, but we do need to boost our economy and infrastructure is a great way to do that. How about investing in solar, wind and improving our electric grid?

And the debt doesn't matter?


It doesn't matter in the short term and it matters much, much less than getting our economy strong again.  A strong economy generates more tax revenue, has fewer people drawing on social programs and it hurts less when you make cuts.

It's pretty funny to see people complain that the deficit and/or debt is going to kill the economy at some unknown future date when we have a shaky economy right now.  Hey, let's fix the economy now instead of worrying about what might happen in 25 years.
 
Displayed 23 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