Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Interesting, Los Angeles, Amtrak, high-speed rail  
•       •       •

5726 clicks; posted to Geek » on 09 Feb 2013 at 4:08 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



373 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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.
 
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.
 
2013-02-09 03:49:35 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: So, no, it can't be self sufficient.


As far as day to day operations? It could be. Funding the construction is another matter.
 
2013-02-09 03:55:10 PM  
Cost aside, I see security as the weak link. I don't know how we'd keep cattle and elk off the track. Or deranged madmen from taking a stolen excavator to the track just as a 220mph bullet train carrying 500 people gets there.

And that concern aside, I think it makes more sense to build high speed rail with a regional mentality before constructing a coast to coast straight shot. Regional rail would eliminate the need for business air shuttle flights, and get a lot of cars off the road.
 
2013-02-09 04:05:13 PM  

violentsalvation: I don't know how we'd keep cattle and elk off the track.


France and Germany have no problem keeping cattle off their high speed tracks.
 
2013-02-09 04:14:01 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.


YET.
 
2013-02-09 04:21:24 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: 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?


Because they favor corporate welfare for the oil and gas industry, and have an irrational fear of choo-choo trains.
 
2013-02-09 04:23:37 PM  
I'm about to spend 44 hours on the Empire Builder ... and I know that the food isn't the best.  I'm trying to figure out the best options for carry-along snacks (and yes, there will be a hip flask).
 
2013-02-09 04:25:29 PM  

HighZoolander: Darth_Lukecash: 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?

Because they favor corporate welfare for the oil and gas industry, and have an irrational fear of choo-choo trains.


That's the retard perspective of it. You got that nailed down.
 
2013-02-09 04:28:52 PM  
Who wouldn't do it?

An idiot. Or a conservative.

But I repeat myself.

/ gotta save money to shoot brown people in other countries somewhere, and there's not much more meat we can hack of public ed's bones at this point
 
2013-02-09 04:29:32 PM  
I'm not sure if cross-country trips would be easier than flying, but if you set up high speed train networks linking up major cities on each coast and priced it lower than flying, I think it would be incredibly popular among people looking for an inexpensive, spur-of-the-moment weekend getaway.

I was thinking you could link up these cities:
West coast: LA, San Diego, San Francisco, Vegas, Phoenix
East coast: NYC, Boston, Atlantic City, Philadelphia, DC

I mean, if you lived in Phoenix, how awesome would a 2-hour, $100 train ride to Vegas be?
 
2013-02-09 04:31:41 PM  
New York to Los Angeles (straight-line distance)-  ~2400 miles.

Let's see what 2400 miles gets you in Europe/Asia-

Lisbon to Moscow
Paris to Baghdad
Liverpool to Jerusalem

Guess how Europeans travel between these cities. THEY farkING FLY.

No one is talking about riding a train 2400 miles in one sitting.
 
2013-02-09 04:33:07 PM  

Mr. Chainsaw: I mean, if you lived in Phoenix, how awesome would a 2-hour, $100 train ride to Vegas be?


Bullet trains can make that in closer to an hour.
 
2013-02-09 04:33:27 PM  
As a Republican, I'd rather give that $200 billion to private contractors to liberate more Iraqis and find those WMDs.  Anyone who disagrees with me is clearly against nation building.
 
2013-02-09 04:33:46 PM  

tricycleracer: No one is talking about riding a train 2400 miles in one sitting.


And no one is advocating building trains for the primary purpose of riding 2400 miles in one sitting.
 
2013-02-09 04:34:41 PM  

DamnYankees: tricycleracer: No one is talking about riding a train 2400 miles in one sitting.

And no one is advocating building trains for the primary purpose of riding 2400 miles in one sitting.


Plenty of conservatives are using that exact straw man argument.
 
2013-02-09 04:35:38 PM  

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

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


I thought money was made from cotton and linen.  Linen's made from flax.  So bushes and flowers, nu?
 
2013-02-09 04:35:55 PM  

muck4doo: That's the retard perspective of it. You got that nailed down.


Aside from the sarcasm, what part is wrong? Conservatives have historically fought tooth and nail to defend unnecessary subsidies to the extraordinarily profitable oil and gas industries (and, until more recently, coal). They also fight tooth and nail to defend excess military spending even when it means going head to head with actual military leaders over what the military thinks it needs to be buying.

They also traditionally hate any sort of public infrastructure project that isn't part of their own district. They fight against high speed rail, they fight against light rail, they fight against improving urban bus systems.

I'll agree on one point, though. It's not that they're afraid of trains.

It's that they're vile little pants-sniffing scumbags who don't think we shouldn't ever do anything unless what we do benefits people who are already rich.
 
2013-02-09 04:37:17 PM  

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

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

I thought money was made from cotton and linen.  Linen's made from flax.  So bushes and flowers, nu?


I don't know about you, but I carve my nickels from solid oak.
 
2013-02-09 04:39:04 PM  

GAT_00: And nobody in Europe ever uses the train, thus proving your point.

Oh wait.


Shorter distances, more condensed population centers...or did you miss that point.
 
2013-02-09 04:39:11 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: don't think we shouldn't


Stupid double-negative-typing fingers...
 
2013-02-09 04:39:50 PM  

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


China is exactly the same size as the US, and they are doing great things with high speed rail.

But yeah, herp derp derp.
 
2013-02-09 04:41:33 PM  
I wish that this had been the idea of conservatives. But sine the liberals were the ones with the idea, they HAD to oppose it.
 
2013-02-09 04:41:56 PM  

slayer199: GAT_00: And nobody in Europe ever uses the train, thus proving your point.

Oh wait.

Shorter distances, more condensed population centers...or did you miss that point.


[citation needed]
 
2013-02-09 04:42:14 PM  
I don't have huge opinions on high-speed rail and the proposed private and public options.

However, I just want to say that Amtrak food is the worst thing I've ever been presented as "food". Worse than any hospital, public school, or airplane.
 
2013-02-09 04:42:17 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: muck4doo: That's the retard perspective of it. You got that nailed down.

Aside from the sarcasm, what part is wrong? Conservatives have historically fought tooth and nail to defend unnecessary subsidies to the extraordinarily profitable oil and gas industries (and, until more recently, coal). They also fight tooth and nail to defend excess military spending even when it means going head to head with actual military leaders over what the military thinks it needs to be buying.

They also traditionally hate any sort of public infrastructure project that isn't part of their own district. They fight against high speed rail, they fight against light rail, they fight against improving urban bus systems.

I'll agree on one point, though. It's not that they're afraid of trains.

It's that they're vile little pants-sniffing scumbags who don't think we shouldn't ever do anything unless what we do benefits people who are already rich.


So in other words you have no argument as to how this makes any monetary sense other than you can stick it to the evil gas and coal conservatives.
 
2013-02-09 04:42:20 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: muck4doo: That's the retard perspective of it. You got that nailed down.

Aside from the sarcasm, what part is wrong? Conservatives have historically fought tooth and nail to defend unnecessary subsidies to the extraordinarily profitable oil and gas industries (and, until more recently, coal). They also fight tooth and nail to defend excess military spending even when it means going head to head with actual military leaders over what the military thinks it needs to be buying.

They also traditionally hate any sort of public infrastructure project that isn't part of their own district. They fight against high speed rail, they fight against light rail, they fight against improving urban bus systems.

I'll agree on one point, though. It's not that they're afraid of trains.

It's that they're vile little pants-sniffing scumbags who don't think we shouldn't ever do anything unless what we do benefits people who are already rich.


Why do you hate the job creators?!?!?!  If the men who run the oil companies aren't unfathomably rich, they won't feel like working anymore and they'll just shut the companies down.  Then we'll have no oil at all!
 
2013-02-09 04:42:34 PM  

serpent_sky: 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.


For all the griping about the TSA, planes aren't that scary. You really shouldn't criticize what you don't know, flying is about as safe a mode of transport as you can get, not ridiculously uncomfortable, and you can get drunk if you so please.

It's just stupid to insist that you have no desire to ever experience something without any knowledge of exactly what you'd be experiencing.
 
2013-02-09 04:42:41 PM  

slayer199: Shorter distances, more condensed population centers...or did you miss that point.


You keep saying this, but there's no evidence. Europe is larger than the United States, first of all. Second of all, while Europe does have a population density about twice as dense as us, that number includes Alaska, where there are no people. And if we just leave out the Northern Plains from our rail system, we're relatively close to their density to the point where the objection based on density needs much more empirical evidence than just saying the word.
 
2013-02-09 04:43:43 PM  

MrEricSir: slayer199: GAT_00: And nobody in Europe ever uses the train, thus proving your point.

Oh wait.

Shorter distances, more condensed population centers...or did you miss that point.

[citation needed]


Google "map"
 
2013-02-09 04:45:07 PM  
Thats alot of taxpayer money just so a couple of you druggies can travel with weed.
 
2013-02-09 04:47:57 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: muck4doo: That's the retard perspective of it. You got that nailed down.

Aside from the sarcasm, what part is wrong? Conservatives have historically fought tooth and nail to defend unnecessary subsidies to the extraordinarily profitable oil and gas industries (and, until more recently, coal). They also fight tooth and nail to defend excess military spending even when it means going head to head with actual military leaders over what the military thinks it needs to be buying.

They also traditionally hate any sort of public infrastructure project that isn't part of their own district. They fight against high speed rail, they fight against light rail, they fight against improving urban bus systems.

I'll agree on one point, though. It's not that they're afraid of trains.

It's that they're vile little pants-sniffing scumbags who don't think we shouldn't ever do anything unless what we do benefits people who are already rich.


Life must be so easy when you dismiss your political opponents as evil genius retards.
Taking that a priori makes sure you never have any thoughts that, if harbored for any length of time, would lead to ouster from the tribe.
 
2013-02-09 04:48:07 PM  

cptjeff: serpent_sky: 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.

For all the griping about the TSA, planes aren't that scary. You really shouldn't criticize what you don't know, flying is about as safe a mode of transport as you can get, not ridiculously uncomfortable, and you can get drunk if you so please.

It's just stupid to insist that you have no desire to ever experience something without any knowledge of exactly what you'd be experiencing.


I refuse to travel by plane because it saddens me to be confronted so strongly with our loss of freedom and how little anyone else cares about the Constitution.

Best of all, the same minimum-wage morons who are entitled to touch your genitals and take naked pictures of you get to hassle you like crazy if you protest.

www.wired.com
 
2013-02-09 04:49:03 PM  

gimmegimme: I refuse to travel by plane because it saddens me to be confronted so strongly with our loss of freedom and how little anyone else cares about the Constitution.


What the hell are you talking about.
 
2013-02-09 04:49:52 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: 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


took Amtrak From Richmond Va to West Palm beach last year.

19 hours.

the club car isn't...... TERRIBLE.. but it's all pretty much convenience store stuff they shove into a microwave. the booze isn't that expensive, at least compared to airplane booze.

no wifi on the southern bound trains.wifi on the trains is based off of cell service anyways. I was able to tether my phone to my lap top for a good deal of the trip, but a good data connection was spotty. and completely went out for hours at a time as I was out of range of any towers, anywhere near the rail line.

bring a good book, or three, and load up the laptop or whatever with some movies.. bring snacks. there will not be anytime to get a good meal, unless you are on a good train. Like the Auto train express from DC to Orlando is first class service, other wise.. its a long haul commuter like a step above taking the bus.

good thing though! each set of seats has a 120volt outlet, so you can at least keep powered up.


otherwise,  it wasn't all that bad traveling by rail really. kinda relaxing.
 
2013-02-09 04:50:32 PM  

DamnYankees: gimmegimme: I refuse to travel by plane because it saddens me to be confronted so strongly with our loss of freedom and how little anyone else cares about the Constitution.

What the hell are you talking about.


In order to get on the plane, you must submit to unreasonable search and seizure.  Right?  Was all of that repealed and I missed it?
 
2013-02-09 04:52:00 PM  

gimmegimme: DamnYankees: gimmegimme: I refuse to travel by plane because it saddens me to be confronted so strongly with our loss of freedom and how little anyone else cares about the Constitution.

What the hell are you talking about.

In order to get on the plane, you must submit to unreasonable search and seizure.  Right?  Was all of that repealed and I missed it?


It's not a search and seizure. Getting on a plane is a completely voluntary activity. There's absolutely no obligation on your part to do it. You might think its overly invasive and therefore decide to not fly on planes, but the idea that its unconstitutional is ridiculous.
 
2013-02-09 04:52:05 PM  
If it's going to be so profitable why can't we let the companies that intend to be carriers raise funds to pay for it?  Just like professional football teams and stadiums.
 
2013-02-09 04:53:49 PM  

violentsalvation: $200 billion sounds way low to me.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-vice-pres id ent-biden-announce-8-billion-high-speed-rail-projects-ac

'member when so many people got all boner-fied over the $8billion for high speed rail?

It really moved us right along.
 
2013-02-09 04:54:27 PM  

gimmegimme: DamnYankees: gimmegimme: I refuse to travel by plane because it saddens me to be confronted so strongly with our loss of freedom and how little anyone else cares about the Constitution.

What the hell are you talking about.

In order to get on the plane, you must submit to unreasonable search and seizure.  Right?  Was all of that repealed and I missed it?


The derp is strong in this one.
 
2013-02-09 04:55:36 PM  
It's kinda appropriate that the only thing on that map that makes no sense is the goofy clusterfark going on in Florida.
 
2013-02-09 04:56:10 PM  

DamnYankees: gimmegimme: DamnYankees: gimmegimme: I refuse to travel by plane because it saddens me to be confronted so strongly with our loss of freedom and how little anyone else cares about the Constitution.

What the hell are you talking about.

In order to get on the plane, you must submit to unreasonable search and seizure.  Right?  Was all of that repealed and I missed it?

It's not a search and seizure. Getting on a plane is a completely voluntary activity. There's absolutely no obligation on your part to do it. You might think its overly invasive and therefore decide to not fly on planes, but the idea that its unconstitutional is ridiculous.


Well, then I suppose that Jeffrey Rosen, a guy who's written a bunch of great books about law and who teaches law at Georgetown is ridiculous.  Link: WaPo
 
2013-02-09 04:57:15 PM  

gimmegimme: DamnYankees: gimmegimme: DamnYankees: gimmegimme: I refuse to travel by plane because it saddens me to be confronted so strongly with our loss of freedom and how little anyone else cares about the Constitution.

What the hell are you talking about.

In order to get on the plane, you must submit to unreasonable search and seizure.  Right?  Was all of that repealed and I missed it?

It's not a search and seizure. Getting on a plane is a completely voluntary activity. There's absolutely no obligation on your part to do it. You might think its overly invasive and therefore decide to not fly on planes, but the idea that its unconstitutional is ridiculous.

Well, then I suppose that Jeffrey Rosen, a guy who's written a bunch of great books about law and who teaches law at Georgetown is ridiculous.  Link: WaPo


Holy crap - you cited an opinion article of a guy who agrees with you. Well done.
 
2013-02-09 04:58:19 PM  

muck4doo: gimmegimme: DamnYankees: gimmegimme: I refuse to travel by plane because it saddens me to be confronted so strongly with our loss of freedom and how little anyone else cares about the Constitution.

What the hell are you talking about.

In order to get on the plane, you must submit to unreasonable search and seizure.  Right?  Was all of that repealed and I missed it?

The derp is strong in this one.


Come on, now.  I like having my genitals fondled as much as you do.  Just not by government mandate and not by a stranger.  (You know...unless I get to pick the stranger.)
 
2013-02-09 04:58:32 PM  
We've already got a high speed train in America, and people like it. I'm ok with paying to build more.
 
2013-02-09 04:58:44 PM  
Amtrak isnt all bad. They do serve Dogfish head on board.
 
2013-02-09 04:59:47 PM  
Rick Scott is a farking asshole. Everyone voted for it, it was all in the federal budget and he nixed it because he's a farking teabagger.
 
2013-02-09 05:00:13 PM  

DamnYankees: gimmegimme: DamnYankees: gimmegimme: DamnYankees: gimmegimme: I refuse to travel by plane because it saddens me to be confronted so strongly with our loss of freedom and how little anyone else cares about the Constitution.

What the hell are you talking about.

In order to get on the plane, you must submit to unreasonable search and seizure.  Right?  Was all of that repealed and I missed it?

It's not a search and seizure. Getting on a plane is a completely voluntary activity. There's absolutely no obligation on your part to do it. You might think its overly invasive and therefore decide to not fly on planes, but the idea that its unconstitutional is ridiculous.

Well, then I suppose that Jeffrey Rosen, a guy who's written a bunch of great books about law and who teaches law at Georgetown is ridiculous.  Link: WaPo

Holy crap - you cited an opinion article of a guy who agrees with you. Well done.


No...a famous and well-respected professor of law.  I think we usually agree on things.  I wonder what is keeping us apart on this.
 
2013-02-09 05:02:38 PM  

MisterTweak: 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.


You didn't look at The Map, did you?

www.slate.com

There ya go.  The mythical high speed trains only stop in a few big cities.  If the trains stopped at every little podunk station, it would take forever to travel a significant distance.  (Kinda like how it is now.)  So, just like air travel, many people will have to drive for hours to get to a station then pay more money to spend 3x as long as flying travelling to the next big city.
 
2013-02-09 05:02:51 PM  
I can think of dumber things we've spent 200 Billion on.
 
2013-02-09 05:05:42 PM  

jtown: MisterTweak: 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.

You didn't look at The Map, did you?

[www.slate.com image 568x367]

There ya go.  The mythical high speed trains only stop in a few big cities.  If the trains stopped at every little podunk station, it would take forever to travel a significant distance.  (Kinda like how it is now.) So, just like air travel, many people will have to drive for hours to get to a station then pay more money to spend 3x as long as flying travelling to the next big city.


That's the worst part of going Greyhound.  It wouldn't be so bad if it were express from, say, New York to Cleveland.  But you have to get off the Interstate and drive 50 miles to some one-streetlight town and then drive 40 miles in the other direction to a Wal-Mart parking lot to pick up one guy and then drive another 35 miles until you get back on the Interstate at the original exit.
 
2013-02-09 05:06:10 PM  

MisterTweak: 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.


Deregulation
 
2013-02-09 05:07:52 PM  

violentsalvation: $200 billion sounds way low to me.


What's the California line going to cost? $70B - $100B?
$200B for L.A. to N.Y. seems waaaay optimistic.

I'd be more encouraged about the prospects if Amtrak could run a high speed line that was (a) high speed, and (b) cheap in comparison an airline ticket.  This thing would unfortunately end up as the boondoggle of all boondoggles.  Every State along the way (and even those not along the way) would want a bigger piece of the action and the train would end up stopping every 50 miles.  The 18 hour ride would quickly turn into a 36 hour ride.
 
2013-02-09 05:08:56 PM  
Rail makes a lot more sense for short journeys than it does for really long ones, tbh - and I'm a European AND a liberal.

For example, from my town to the state capitol is about an hour by car.  It'd be awesome to be able to hop on a regular ol' 80mph local train that goes from here, stops at the mid-way town, and then a few stops up there.  From there to Chicago, high-speed rail would be awesome.  Right now, I have to either drive four hours, or drive one hour to the airport, get there roughly an hour and a half before my flight for long-term parking, security groping, and baggage loading time, fly 70 minutes, and fight my way out of the airport there, for a total of about three or three and a half hours.  A slow train to Indy at ~1 hour, then change to a 200mph fast train that gets me to downtown Chicago in about an hour and a half (185 miles by road right now) would be roughly the same speed as flying, but would get me closer to downtown, and I could leave my car at home completely.

On the other hand, if I'm going to LA for the week, it's 2000 miles, so HSR would take a minimum of 10 hours (realistically more like 12 with stops) to flying's 6, so unless it's a lot cheaper (and it won't be), screw it, I'll fly.

The whole DC/Baltimore/Philly/NYC/Boston corridor is just crying for some good HSR though.  It'd be so much quicker and easier for people than flying.
 
2013-02-09 05:09:28 PM  
I got a Dogfish Head 60 minute IPA on my NYC->Boston train.

/in a glass bottle
//can't get that on a plane
 
2013-02-09 05:10:17 PM  

Old enough to know better: I can think of dumber things we've spent 200 Billion on.


It's cheaper than the next war. If the choice is killing a bunch of brown people versus having gleaming new 200mph trains, I know which I'd rather have.
 
2013-02-09 05:10:21 PM  
Not a big fan of Amofftrak, but 'train vs. Dreamliner'?

hmmmm....
 
2013-02-09 05:10:26 PM  
Is there a chance the track could bend?

/actually thinks this is a decent idea, FWIW.
 
2013-02-09 05:12:42 PM  

Lsherm: 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.


Deutsche Bahn, the German rail company, receives some subsidy for the small regional routes, but it has been posting good profits in recent years.  In 2010, the operating profits were 1.9 Billion Euros (source: http://www.bahn.com/i/view/GBR/en/about/overview/company_profile.shtml ) on revenue of 38 Billion Euros, with expected increases in coming years.

The bigger hindrances to rail catching on in the US are cultural, I think.  We get much less vacation time every year than most Europeans, we generally have an attitude of getting everything done quickly/instant gratification, and if people aren't flying they generally prefer to drive.  Trains would have the advantage of not being delayed or canceled due to weather quite as easily as flights (blizzards like the current one being exceptions, of course)
  I think some rail lines would definitely help some business travel, especially if the trains all have wi-fi, but it will be a hard sell until gas prices really go up. Certain trips, like NYC to LA will still be dominated by air travel because of the distance, but for something like Minneapolis to Chicago, or Denver to Phoenix, train could be better.  I could also see it being used more by college students heading between campus and home in summer and winter break.  I've always been surprised that Madison doesn't have a rail station, considering all the students that would likely be heading towards Milwaukee, Minneapolis or Chicago.
 
2013-02-09 05:15:54 PM  

DemonEater: The whole DC/Baltimore/Philly/NYC/Boston corridor is just crying for some good HSR though.


Let's try this again...

/is this thing on?
 
2013-02-09 05:15:59 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.


Could we stop subsidizing airfare and make them pay their carbon costs?
 
2013-02-09 05:16:42 PM  
The line from NY to Cali is of course stupidly long and expensive.. but thats an  outlier, the lines along the major lines of cities are magnitudes more economic. Thats like saying planes are shiat because it takes 2 days to get from the UK to New Zealand. defining the value of something by its worst possible case is crap.
 
2013-02-09 05:17:15 PM  

67 Beetle: I'd be more encouraged about the prospects if Amtrak could run a high speed line that was (a) high speed, and (b) cheap in comparison an airline ticket.  This thing would unfortunately end up as the boondoggle of all boondoggles.  Every State along the way (and even those not along the way) would want a bigger piece of the action and the train would end up stopping every 50 miles.  The 18 hour ride would quickly turn into a 36 hour ride


Property and easement rights combined with local taxation has already chewed through many rail companies.
If this were to ever happen it would have to be done on the federal level.
 
2013-02-09 05:17:56 PM  

gaspode: The line from NY to Cali is of course stupidly long and expensive


I don't understand this complaint. It's like a subway line - you don't build it for the purpose of letting people actually travel from one end to the other. It's about moving in between all the stops in the middle.
 
2013-02-09 05:18:57 PM  

gimmegimme: DamnYankees: gimmegimme: I refuse to travel by plane because it saddens me to be confronted so strongly with our loss of freedom and how little anyone else cares about the Constitution.

What the hell are you talking about.

In order to get on the plane, you must submit to unreasonable search and seizure.  Right?  Was all of that repealed and I missed it?


I wear a suit when i fly and I have never been searched or seized and they never take my Zippo away.  Usually they stop me from removing my shoes and wave me past.  In order to get on a plane, all I have to do is pretend not to notice the farce that pretends to be airline security.  You don't need to be a jedi to get on an airplane without inconvenience.
 
2013-02-09 05:19:57 PM  
Yep, as several people have alluded to here, high-speed rail isn't - and never was - intended to compete over long-distance travel.

The fact that people keep dreaming of a nationwide system, IMO, actually hurts the cause by diverting attention away from HSR's true niche - the short-  to medium-distance corridors.
 
2013-02-09 05:20:29 PM  
Well the conservative idea is to throw away 10 trillion in a dust hole thousands of miles away on a people that hate us.
 
2013-02-09 05:22:11 PM  
Ottawa to Washington is a one hour direct flight (just enough time to drink your cup of tea or coffee), but you have to be at the airport three hours early. Then when you arrive at Dulles (Reagan if you're lucky) you have a couple more hours picking up luggage, going through customs, and in a taxi.

Trains used to run right downtown. I've seen The Railroader with Buster Keaton, a comic short in which he crosses Canada on a hand-cart. The Conference Centre was a train station and the Chateau Laurier Hotel had its own spur so travellers didn't have to get a taxi to cross the street.

Decent railways compete easily on short trips because of these advantages: you can walk around a train, spend the trip in the bar, get some work done, have a private compartment, even attach a private rail car. You don't have to spend hours at the station on either end or in the middle of the trip, and you can get there faster, real travel time being the most important element in travel besides physical comfort.

A train is still competitive with a bus because crossing North America in Bus Hell is for the poorest travellers--nobody does it for fun or business. It is cramped and you have no mobility to exercise or work. With fast enough trains, the train can be competitive with all but giant airplanes with cabins and lots of room for first class passengers to work and lay around sipping champagne. It is much easier to hold a business meeting on a train than on a bus.

When I book airplane flights, I find it almost impossible to book a direct flight within the Gubbermint budget in North America. A flght from Ottawa to New York, which is an hour as the crow flies, has to go through Chicago, Atlanta, Philadelphia, or if you are lucky, Boston. It HAS to. There is no cheap flight direct or even through Montreal or Toronto unless you book months ahead and pay more. Only the rich (and possibly Cabinet Ministers) can direct fly from Ottawa to Washington with less than eight weeks advance purchase for less than thousands. You'll pay several hundred dollars for each hour you cut off of flying time and airport time. You'll pay through the nose for each week and then each day that you delay booking.

This ideal train network would take about a century to complete--bits of it are more or less in place, however, and the most profitable lines could be upgraded in our life times. It's basically what Europe has now. True, the American and Canadian West are emptier than the plains of Russia, but that's the biggest obstacle to a trans-continental ground-based mass transportation system that works. And basically, even getting to one of the bigger airports is good enough. If you can get to a hub, you can fly from there--for a price, a hefty, time-consuming price.
 
2013-02-09 05:22:15 PM  

pinchpoint: Let's try this again...

/is this thing on?


Given the circumstances it was born into, the Acela has done an admirable job of increasing ridership on the Northeast Corridor - but it's nowhere close to a true high-speed train.
 
2013-02-09 05:22:32 PM  
I have paid to ride Japan's bullet trains, and would pay to have that experience here.

Get to L.A., San Francisco or even Santa Barbara, where a car is a liability, without having to do the driving or pay to park?

Yes, I do want that. What the hell is taking so long?

This isn't a liberal thing.

This helps businesses and is a constructive use of our resources to make the country a better place.

Calling everything that threatens to create jobs and/or reduce car exhausts "liberal" gets tiring after a while.

You think Japan is a liberal country? What percentage of workers there are businessmen? 80%? Ask a Japanese banker if he thinks high speed rail was a poor investment.
Likewise the Chinese that authorized their Mag-Lev trains; you think they thought it was Mao's last dream?
These things are business smart. The biggest problem we have in the States is that not enough of us have gone overseas and seen other ways of looking at the world than our own.

And for God's sake, turn off Fox News before you kill yourself to make some political point.
 
2013-02-09 05:22:54 PM  
I take the train from Memphis to New Orleans all the time. Spacious seats. Nice meal, on plates with silverware. A bar. Scenery.  I love trains.
 
2013-02-09 05:23:12 PM  
I have a cunning plan to get this through - all we have to do is convince someone at Fox News that a conservative came up with this idea first.
 
2013-02-09 05:23:17 PM  
www.wired.com

Ha ha!
 
2013-02-09 05:30:14 PM  
Hartford CT? Surely not. New Haven would be far more direct.
 
2013-02-09 05:32:29 PM  
I posted this article in TFA's comments, but it's worth reposting here:

The full cost of high-speed rail: an engineering approach

"The paper concludes that high-speed rail is significantly more
costly than expanding existing air service, and marginally more expensive
than auto travel. This suggests that high-speed rail is better positioned to
serve shorter distance markets where it competes with auto travel than
longer distance markets where it substitutes for air."


HSR makes no sense in the Midwest, especially with a spectacular interstate highway system already in place and decent airport hubs.  From Boston to DC?  Sure, that's justified.  San Francisco to San Diego?  It would probably work.  Hell, an LA to Vegas express train would probably be a gold mine.  But trying to connect the dozen or so cities in the Midwest that would even be worth it is just foolish.
 
2013-02-09 05:34:22 PM  

Solid Muldoon: I take the train from Memphis to New Orleans all the time. Spacious seats. Nice meal, on plates with silverware. A bar. Scenery.  I love trains.


must be nice.. is that an express train with first class service? becuase for me on the east coast, and not a major connector, for that type of servicec, I would be taking the Auto train from DC to Orlando, where, in addition to my first class ticket, I would also be paying a freight charge for my car as well. all other train service for the same route is regular class, or first class which only really accommodates sleeper cars.

DC to further points north you have more options with high speed and express,  but if you are traveling south from the north east corridor, you are pretty much switching to a regular train once you get to DC to travel further south.
 
2013-02-09 05:34:28 PM  
This is really starting to annoy me about the Right. If its for bettering the country we cant do it. We cant do anything. Oh but we are the greatest country in the world! But we cant do a damn thing to show it because it might make a Democrat look good.

Todays GOP would have let the Soviets win the space race, Cut funding on the hoover dam and told the french to keep that statue of liberty! Too many tax dollars to assemble that thing and screw you frenchy!!

But if its to spend spend spend on the military, the war in Iraq or gut the surplus for a tax cuts for the rich they are gung ho about it


We do need to rebuild our infrastructure. Republicans just want it to crumble. Rail lines would ease traffic, cut down fuel consumption, cleaner environment .You know..things the GOP hates
 
2013-02-09 05:36:55 PM  
So... Why is this a "HURR LIBERALS" topic again? Wasn't it the development of the Transcontinental Railroad that opened up large swaths of America that were previously empty and really started the USA's push towards being a modern industrialised nation? What the hell does "LIBERALS ARE BAD" have to do with anything?
 
2013-02-09 05:37:06 PM  

Foundling: I have paid to ride Japan's bullet trains, and would pay to have that experience here.

Get to L.A., San Francisco or even Santa Barbara, where a car is a liability, without having to do the driving or pay to park?

Yes, I do want that. What the hell is taking so long?

This isn't a liberal thing.

This helps businesses and is a constructive use of our resources to make the country a better place.

Calling everything that threatens to create jobs and/or reduce car exhausts "liberal" gets tiring after a while.

You think Japan is a liberal country? What percentage of workers there are businessmen? 80%? Ask a Japanese banker if he thinks high speed rail was a poor investment.
Likewise the Chinese that authorized their Mag-Lev trains; you think they thought it was Mao's last dream?
These things are business smart. The biggest problem we have in the States is that not enough of us have gone overseas and seen other ways of looking at the world than our own.

And for God's sake, turn off Fox News before you kill yourself to make some political point.


Japan is roughly the size of Montana, there's a lot more miles to cover in this country...
 
2013-02-09 05:37:30 PM  
The maker of that map apparently doesn't know where Tulsa is. Unless he intended the train to stop in Ponca City and mislabeled it. Which I doubt.
 
2013-02-09 05:37:45 PM  
US: 3,794,000 square miles
Europe: 3,930,000 square miles
 
2013-02-09 05:38:46 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.


and smells to high heaven. What do they do to make it smell so strongly?

Last time I went to get money changed, I knew the moment the woman had opened the drawer with the US currency.
 
2013-02-09 05:39:08 PM  

ItchyMcDoogle: This is really starting to annoy me about the Right. If its for bettering the country we cant do it. We cant do anything. Oh but we are the greatest country in the world! But we cant do a damn thing to show it because it might make a Democrat look good.

Todays GOP would have let the Soviets win the space race, Cut funding on the hoover dam and told the french to keep that statue of liberty! Too many tax dollars to assemble that thing and screw you frenchy!!

But if its to spend spend spend on the military, the war in Iraq or gut the surplus for a tax cuts for the rich they are gung ho about it


We do need to rebuild our infrastructure. Republicans just want it to crumble. Rail lines would ease traffic, cut down fuel consumption, cleaner environment .You know..things the GOP hates


It's not better for our country to have high speed rail from the east to west coast, it would be a waste of money in the long run unless they could get the ticket costs down to compete with air travel...
 
2013-02-09 05:42:08 PM  

rugman11: I posted this article in TFA's comments, but it's worth reposting here:

The full cost of high-speed rail: an engineering approach

"The paper concludes that high-speed rail is significantly more
costly than expanding existing air service, and marginally more expensive
than auto travel. This suggests that high-speed rail is better positioned to
serve shorter distance markets where it competes with auto travel than
longer distance markets where it substitutes for air."

HSR makes no sense in the Midwest, especially with a spectacular interstate highway system already in place and decent airport hubs.  From Boston to DC?  Sure, that's justified.  San Francisco to San Diego?  It would probably work.  Hell, an LA to Vegas express train would probably be a gold mine.  But trying to connect the dozen or so cities in the Midwest that would even be worth it is just foolish.


Well said
 
2013-02-09 05:45:13 PM  

jtown: MisterTweak: 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.

You didn't look at The Map, did you?

[www.slate.com image 568x367]

There ya go.  The mythical high speed trains only stop in a few big cities.  If the trains stopped at every little podunk station, it would take forever to travel a significant distance.  (Kinda like how it is now.)  So, just like air travel, many people will have to drive for hours to get to a station then pay more money to spend 3x as long as flying travelling to the next big city.


Oh dear. Do you actually understand how trains work? Probably not, so I'll explain.

"The train now leaving Podunk is the local train to Wensleydale, Buttock, Fishpaste and Grover's Mills. Change at Fishpaste for the express to Chicago."
"The train now leaving Fishpaste is the express to Chicago. The High Speed train to Los Angeles will leave from Chicago track 27".
They all use the same basic infrastructure, and can do so without getting in each other's way.

This isn't fiction or speculation: many non-US countries are currently running very efficient rail networks.
 
2013-02-09 05:46:21 PM  

Foundling: I have paid to ride Japan's bullet trains, and would pay to have that experience here.

Get to L.A., San Francisco or even Santa Barbara, where a car is a liability, without having to do the driving or pay to park?

Yes, I do want that. What the hell is taking so long?

This isn't a liberal thing.

This helps businesses and is a constructive use of our resources to make the country a better place.

Calling everything that threatens to create jobs and/or reduce car exhausts "liberal" gets tiring after a while.

You think Japan is a liberal country? What percentage of workers there are businessmen? 80%? Ask a Japanese banker if he thinks high speed rail was a poor investment.
Likewise the Chinese that authorized their Mag-Lev trains; you think they thought it was Mao's last dream?
These things are business smart. The biggest problem we have in the States is that not enough of us have gone overseas and seen other ways of looking at the world than our own.

And for God's sake, turn off Fox News before you kill yourself to make some political point.


Japan is roughly the size of California, our most heavily populated state (and 11th in population density), yet it has 3.5 times more people.  It also has 19 cities with a higher population density than the most densely populated city in California.  Under that scenario, HSR makes a lot of sense.
 
2013-02-09 05:47:48 PM  

thisone: What do they do to make it smell so strongly?


Addictive pheromones.
 
2013-02-09 05:48:18 PM  

thisone: and smells to high heaven. What do they do to make it smell so strongly?


It's a preventative measure. Saudi riyals aren't made to smell one way or another.  Guess what they smell like within a week of circulation?
 
2013-02-09 05:53:32 PM  
Let's also keep in mind though with all the Amtrak Horror stories..

they rent track time on regional freight lines, and freight comes first. A Amtrak train WILL be put on a siding to accommodate a passing freight train. there are also rail speed limit areas put in place once you enter into urban areas. so even if the train isn't actually stopping, it must slow down to accomodate local rail traffic and conditions.. also  HSR cannot go over any street grades. you can't run the risk of having Joe Bob out in the sticks trying to drunkenly beat the gates when you have a loco tearing ass down the rails at 220 mph.

Joe Bob aint going to survive the situation, and we wont worry about that, fark Joe bob any ways. but you better believe that "incident" is going to cause sever damage to the train and mostly derail it in the process. so any HSR is going to have to be purposely built, and most likely elevated when going through urban areas, and avoiding all road grades in rural areas.

the line doesn't need to be double tracked, a send and return line, the whole way, but there will have to be very, very, very long sidings for passing all along the way.

I love rail, don't get me wrong, my dream is more light rail and trolly systems in the cities, high speed inter-connetions between nearby local cities. transportation hubs for train freight to overland truck... really.. there is absolutely no reason for a shipping container that's dropped on the west coast, be put on the back of a truck to travel to the east coast.
 
2013-02-09 05:54:56 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.


A city subway would not be fast enough to get from New York to Los Angeles, so that means we shouldn't build one.

/NY to LA might not work, but NY to Chicago could
//Chicago to LA could work as well
 
2013-02-09 05:55:45 PM  

Cerebral Knievel: Let's also keep in mind though with all the Amtrak Horror stories..

they rent track time on regional freight lines, and freight comes first. A Amtrak train WILL be put on a siding to accommodate a passing freight train. there are also rail speed limit areas put in place once you enter into urban areas. so even if the train isn't actually stopping, it must slow down to accomodate local rail traffic and conditions.. also  HSR cannot go over any street grades. you can't run the risk of having Joe Bob out in the sticks trying to drunkenly beat the gates when you have a loco tearing ass down the rails at 220 mph.

Joe Bob aint going to survive the situation, and we wont worry about that, fark Joe bob any ways. but you better believe that "incident" is going to cause sever damage to the train and mostly derail it in the process. so any HSR is going to have to be purposely built, and most likely elevated when going through urban areas, and avoiding all road grades in rural areas.

the line doesn't need to be double tracked, a send and return line, the whole way, but there will have to be very, very, very long sidings for passing all along the way.

I love rail, don't get me wrong, my dream is more light rail and trolly systems in the cities, high speed inter-connetions between nearby local cities. transportation hubs for train freight to overland truck... really.. there is absolutely no reason for a shipping container that's dropped on the west coast, be put on the back of a truck to travel to the east coast.


Be careful using common sense on fark.. :D

Good point though.
 
2013-02-09 05:56:11 PM  

thisone: 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.

and smells to high heaven. What do they do to make it smell so strongly?

Last time I went to get money changed, I knew the moment the woman had opened the drawer with the US currency.


two words...


Ass Pennies.
 
2013-02-09 05:56:32 PM  

Electrify: 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.

A city subway would not be fast enough to get from New York to Los Angeles, so that means we shouldn't build one.

/NY to LA might not work, but NY to Chicago could
//Chicago to LA could work as well


Unless it's significantly cheaper then flying, no it wouldn't.
 
2013-02-09 06:00:53 PM  

Tillmaster: jtown: MisterTweak: 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.

You didn't look at The Map, did you?

[www.slate.com image 568x367]

There ya go.  The mythical high speed trains only stop in a few big cities.  If the trains stopped at every little podunk station, it would take forever to travel a significant distance.  (Kinda like how it is now.)  So, just like air travel, many people will have to drive for hours to get to a station then pay more money to spend 3x as long as flying travelling to the next big city.

Oh dear. Do you actually understand how trains work? Probably not, so I'll explain.

"The train now leaving Podunk is the local train to Wensleydale, Buttock, Fishpaste and Grover's Mills. Change at Fishpaste for the express to Chicago."
"The train now leaving Fishpaste is the express to Chicago. The High Speed train to Los Angeles will leave from Chicago track 27".
They all use the same basic infrastructure, and can do so without getting in each other's way.

This isn't fiction or speculation: many non-US countries are currently running very efficient rail networks.


What the fark are you babbling about?  What does anything you said have to do with anything I said?  I think someone slipped chicklets into your meds.
 
2013-02-09 06:05:03 PM  

mjones73: Electrify: 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.

A city subway would not be fast enough to get from New York to Los Angeles, so that means we shouldn't build one.

/NY to LA might not work, but NY to Chicago could
//Chicago to LA could work as well

Unless it's significantly cheaper then flying, no it wouldn't.


Oh and don't get me wrong, I'd love some alternatives to flying.. trains for long trips aren't cost effective. Hell I've priced taking the train to Florida from Maryland and it's $940 round trip for the wife, two kids and me. The ride is 19 hours in each direction. I can drive there on 2 1/2 tanks of gas in about 15-16 hours. I've looked into the auto train too, figured it would be nice not to put 600+ miles on my car, it's even more expensive and still takes 16 hours to get from Virginia to Florida.
 
2013-02-09 06:05:28 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.


...except when it's their pet project, then empty the pocketbooks and fill up the credit cards. Oink, oink, baby; bring on the pork!
 
2013-02-09 06:06:36 PM  
The sweet spot for HSR travel is where it is twice as fast as a car trip but somewhat slower than a plane trip, at half the price of air travel.  What this does is open up recreational and business travel over a much greater range. It makes it practical to take the train from St. Louis to Chicago or Milwaukee, shop or attend a concert or something, and get back home in the same day, where a car would require an overnight stay plus the stress of driving itself. The point of having HSR is not IMO just about only traveling from the most extreme ends of the network lines, but in making many trips a year across the shorter distances that were impractical by car and expensive for flying.
 
2013-02-09 06:13:06 PM  

jtown: Tillmaster: jtown: MisterTweak: 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.

You didn't look at The Map, did you?

[www.slate.com image 568x367]

There ya go.  The mythical high speed trains only stop in a few big cities.  If the trains stopped at every little podunk station, it would take forever to travel a significant distance.  (Kinda like how it is now.)  So, just like air travel, many people will have to drive for hours to get to a station then pay more money to spend 3x as long as flying travelling to the next big city.

Oh dear. Do you actually understand how trains work? Probably not, so I'll explain.

"The train now leaving Podunk is the local train to Wensleydale, Buttock, Fishpaste and Grover's Mills. Change at Fishpaste for the express to Chicago."
"The train now leaving Fishpaste is the express to Chicago. The High Speed train to Los Angeles will leave from Chicago track 27".
They all use the same basic infrastructure, and can do so without getting in each other's way.

This isn't fiction or speculation: many non-US countries are currently running very efficient rail networks.

What the fark are you babbling about?  What does anything you said have to do with anything I said?  I think someone slipped chicklets into your meds.


He is saying that you take high the high speed rail to larger cities and then connect to smaller ones via commuter rail. Although I wouldn't call "Portsmouth NH, population 20,000" a very large city.
 
2013-02-09 06:16:50 PM  

slayer199: 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.


That's what taxes are for. If a country's infrastructure can't be maintained by private companies, the government should do it instead.

/ditto healthcare
//and retirement funds
///and utilities
 
2013-02-09 06:18:03 PM  

Lsherm: Russia is not part of Europe.


Part of Russia is part of Europe.
 
2013-02-09 06:20:28 PM  
Why is everyone comparing this to Air Transportation??

Show me a ground vehicle that can do it that fast.
 
2013-02-09 06:20:52 PM  
...IIRC, the $200B cost is predicated on being able to use a great deal of existing right-of-way - which is...umm...optimistic.

/Thinks this would be an incredible idea but under our current system and priorities would be an unmitigated disaster
 
2013-02-09 06:23:16 PM  
Those cost estimates are ludicrously small.  Hell the high speed rail project from San Diego through LA to Sacramento and San Francisco is estimated to cost 200 billion.  A nationwide network of that size would probably end up several trillion dollars at minimum.  Last time I checked we were having some bugetary difficulties so I don't see that happening any time soon even assuming there was a huge demand that would help pay for the costs of construction and operations and maintenance budget.

High speed rail can work among major ctiies in close proximity. There is no transeuropean high speed rail.  Just national systems that sometimes run a little over their borders.  With this in mind, the DC/Philly/NY/Boston corredor is suited to high speed rail  and would benefit from a more dedicated faster line than the 150mph system at present that is slowed at several spots.  The California High Speed rail is doomed to failure as the distances are too far, the demand to low, and the routing woefully done to promote legislative votes rather than economic realities.  National high speed rail would be upon similar lines and would end up an expensive legacy cost or abandoned boondoggle of epic proportions.
 
2013-02-09 06:24:31 PM  

gimmegimme: As a Republican, I'd rather give that $200 billion to private contractors to liberate more Iraqis and find those WMDs.  Anyone who disagrees with me is clearly against nation building.


i47.tinypic.com

Well, speaking as member of the Stock Exchange, I would suck their brains out with a straw, sell the widows and orphans, and go into South American zinc.
 
2013-02-09 06:27:07 PM  

Carth: jtown: Tillmaster: jtown: MisterTweak: 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.

You didn't look at The Map, did you?

[www.slate.com image 568x367]

There ya go.  The mythical high speed trains only stop in a few big cities.  If the trains stopped at every little podunk station, it would take forever to travel a significant distance.  (Kinda like how it is now.)  So, just like air travel, many people will have to drive for hours to get to a station then pay more money to spend 3x as long as flying travelling to the next big city.

Oh dear. Do you actually understand how trains work? Probably not, so I'll explain.

"The train now leaving Podunk is the local train to Wensleydale, Buttock, Fishpaste and Grover's Mills. Change at Fishpaste for the express to Chicago."
"The train now leaving Fishpaste is the express to Chicago. The High Speed train to Los Angeles will leave from Chicago track 27".
They all use the same basic infrastructure, and can do so without getting in each other's way.

This isn't fiction or speculation: many non-US countries are currently running very efficient rail networks.

What the fark are you babbling about?  What does anything you said have to do with anything I said?  I think someone slipped chicklets into your meds.

He is saying that you take high the high speed rail to larger cities and then connect to smaller ones via commuter rail. Although I wouldn't call "Portsmouth NH, population 20,000" a very large city.


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.
 
2013-02-09 06:28:36 PM  

gas giant: Is there a chance the track could bend?

/actually thinks this is a decent idea, FWIW.


Tracks are made to bend.  How do you think they account for the expansion and contraction during hot and cold weather?
 
2013-02-09 06:33:01 PM  

DamnYankees: slayer199: Shorter distances, more condensed population centers...or did you miss that point.

You keep saying this, but there's no evidence. Europe is larger than the United States, first of all. Second of all, while Europe does have a population density about twice as dense as us, that number includes Alaska, where there are no people. And if we just leave out the Northern Plains from our rail system, we're relatively close to their density to the point where the objection based on density needs much more empirical evidence than just saying the word.


Try looking at a freaking map.
 
2013-02-09 06:34:29 PM  

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.
 
2013-02-09 06:34:30 PM  

Daedalus27: Those cost estimates are ludicrously small. Hell the high speed rail project from San Diego through LA to Sacramento and San Francisco is estimated to cost 200 billion


Actually, I thought Sacto said the rail from SF to Anaheim would be $55 billion.  Now, they are a bunch of liars, and I don't trust their numbers for a moment, but  whatever.

FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 638x149]


Seattle to NYC via HSR... you'd have to go from Seattle down to LA on the Coast Starlight line, through the SF Bay Area.  Then you'd have to get on the line to NYC... although it's probably more like Los Angeles to Chicago, Chicago to New York City, if you look at what Amtrak does cross-continental.

In any case, factoring in stops & transfers, 23 hours is probably fast compared to doing HSR from Seattle to NYC.

/we would use the Coast Starlight to visit folks in Seattle and SoCal, but it's EXPENSIVE and we don't have that much time to waste on the train.  Even if I had another week or two of vacation, it would be way too long to be on the train... and I love riding on the train! But it's kind of an East Coast thing. People really underestimate the geography of everything in the West.
 
2013-02-09 06:34:35 PM  

Giltric: Thats alot of taxpayer money just so a couple of you druggies can travel with weed.


I wish we could all be smart like you and just have our drugs fedexed out ahead of us.
 
2013-02-09 06:36:36 PM  

Cerebral Knievel: The My Little Pony Killer: 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

took Amtrak From Richmond Va to West Palm beach last year.

19 hours.

the club car isn't...... TERRIBLE.. but it's all pretty much convenience store stuff they shove into a microwave. the booze isn't that expensive, at least compared to airplane booze.

no wifi on the southern bound trains.wifi on the trains is based off of cell service anyways. I was able to tether my phone to my lap top for a good deal of the trip, but a good data connection was spotty. and completely went out for hours at a time as I was out of range of any towers, anywhere near the rail line.

bring a good book, or three, and load up the laptop or whatever with some movies.. bring snacks. there will not be anytime to get a good meal, unless you are on a good train. Like the Auto train express from DC to Orlando is first class service, other wise.. its a long haul commuter like a step above taking the bus.

good thing though! each set of seats has a 120volt outlet, so you can at least keep powered up.


otherwise,  it wasn't all that bad traveling by rail really. kinda relaxing.


The amount of space that you get to yourself, and I'm just counting a regular couch seat, is far greater than the space you pay for when you board a plane.  That alone is worth it.

Best of all, all of the real jackasses insist on flying, which means that with the short trips I end up taking, I usually have the car to myself.
 
2013-02-09 06:38:39 PM  

jonny_q: However, I just want to say that Amtrak food is the worst thing I've ever been presented as "food". Worse than any hospital, public school, or airplane.


Airplane food in business class or first class is usually pretty decent.  Airplane food in economy is virtually non-existent, "for purchase," and crappy. And I don't know who comes up with these "snack boxes" they sell on planes, but whoever they are, they think foods I like go really well with foods I hate.  I'd take Amtrak food any day over that stuff.
 
2013-02-09 06:44:52 PM  

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.
 
2013-02-09 06:45:38 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.


At the same, time, there are some routes where it does make sense.  East Coast from Boston down to Atlanta through Charlotte would be a huge money maker.  That would eliminate about 1/3 of my 100-odd segments i fly each year, and I would take it every damned time over a plane.
 
2013-02-09 06:49:03 PM  

mjones73: mjones73: Electrify: 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.

A city subway would not be fast enough to get from New York to Los Angeles, so that means we shouldn't build one.

/NY to LA might not work, but NY to Chicago could
//Chicago to LA could work as well

Unless it's significantly cheaper then flying, no it wouldn't.

Oh and don't get me wrong, I'd love some alternatives to flying.. trains for long trips aren't cost effective. Hell I've priced taking the train to Florida from Maryland and it's $940 round trip for the wife, two kids and me. The ride is 19 hours in each direction. I can drive there on 2 1/2 tanks of gas in about 15-16 hours. I've looked into the auto train too, figured it would be nice not to put 600+ miles on my car, it's even more expensive and still takes 16 hours to get from Virginia to Florida.


thanks for the ups previously.. but from VA to Florida is also rated at 19 hours for regular rail. it comes out closer to 20+ hours factoring in stops and incidentals... like my last rip was delayed an hour about 20 minutes after leaving the Richmond stop.

AutoTrain is express and first class from DC to Orlando.. it does not stop at all between here or there unless crap is happening with the train itself, or you have to give right of way to freight. but you are paying to transport the car, and travel first class, with no stops

one of the things we like to brag about here in Richmond Va is that we are pretty much exactly 24 hours from the furthest point north on the east coast, and 24 hours south . 2 hours from the beach, 2 hours from the mountains, and 2 hours from DC... to hell with the rest of the south right? okay.. 2 hours to the outer banks.. hows that?
 
2013-02-09 06:54:48 PM  
rugman11:
HSR makes no sense in the Midwest, especially with a spectacular interstate highway system already in place and decent airport hubs.  From Boston to DC?  Sure, that's justified.  San Francisco to San Diego?  It would probably work.  Hell, an LA to Vegas express train would probably be a gold mine.  But trying to connect the dozen or so cities in the Midwest that would even be worth it is just foolish.

Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland would disagree with you.  We would love to have a high speed regional rail to connect the 3 C's.  Add Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Chicago, Memphis,  St. Louis, Louisville, Nashville and you would have a great regional rail system.  Heck, you could even include Detroit for old times sake.
 
2013-02-09 06:56:33 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Cerebral Knievel: The My Little Pony Killer: 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

took Amtrak From Richmond Va to West Palm beach last year.

19 hours.

the club car isn't...... TERRIBLE.. but it's all pretty much convenience store stuff they shove into a microwave. the booze isn't that expensive, at least compared to airplane booze.

no wifi on the southern bound trains.wifi on the trains is based off of cell service anyways. I was able to tether my phone to my lap top for a good deal of the trip, but a good data connection was spotty. and completely went out for hours at a time as I was out of range of any towers, anywhere near the rail line.

bring a good book, or three, and load up the laptop or whatever with some movies.. bring snacks. there will not be anytime to get a good meal, unless you are on a good train. Like the Auto train express from DC to Orlando is first class service, other wise.. its a long haul commuter like a step above taking the bus.

good thing though! each set of seats has a 120volt outlet, so you can at least keep powered up.


otherwise,  it wasn't all that bad traveling by rail really. kinda relaxing.

The amount of space that you get to yourself, and I'm just counting a regular couch seat, is far greater than the space you pay for when you board a plane.  That alone is worth it.

Best of all, all of the real jackasses insist on flying, which means that with the short trips I end up taking, I usually have the car to myself.


that's another thing, the seats are bigger as a matter of practice, planes try to jam as much crap on there as possible, with trains, usually, unless it's a high volume travel weekend, that bench seat you got, you will usually have it for the duration of the trip, and if you DO have to share a seat, your fellow travelor is most likely on  a short leg, and you will get your space back.

my last trip, I was complety spread out on the trip down, and only had to share for about 3 hours on the return 19 hour trip.
 
2013-02-09 07:04:02 PM  

MasterAdkins: rugman11:
HSR makes no sense in the Midwest, especially with a spectacular interstate highway system already in place and decent airport hubs.  From Boston to DC?  Sure, that's justified.  San Francisco to San Diego?  It would probably work.  Hell, an LA to Vegas express train would probably be a gold mine.  But trying to connect the dozen or so cities in the Midwest that would even be worth it is just foolish.

Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland would disagree with you.  We would love to have a high speed regional rail to connect the 3 C's.  Add Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Chicago, Memphis,  St. Louis, Louisville, Nashville and you would have a great regional rail system.  Heck, you could even include Detroit for old times sake.


Wouldn't you have to worry about infection if you connected Detroit?
 
2013-02-09 07:04:16 PM  
Was that supposed to look bad? Sounds pretty cool to me.
 
2013-02-09 07:07:16 PM  

slayer199: DamnYankees: slayer199: Shorter distances, more condensed population centers...or did you miss that point.

You keep saying this, but there's no evidence. Europe is larger than the United States, first of all. Second of all, while Europe does have a population density about twice as dense as us, that number includes Alaska, where there are no people. And if we just leave out the Northern Plains from our rail system, we're relatively close to their density to the point where the objection based on density needs much more empirical evidence than just saying the word.

Try looking at a freaking map.


So, even though Europe is over 10 million sq kilometers, and the USA is under that, I'm supposed to look at a map and magically forget math?
 
2013-02-09 07:15:53 PM  

jtown: Tillmaster: jtown: MisterTweak: 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.

You didn't look at The Map, did you?

[www.slate.com image 568x367]

There ya go.  The mythical high speed trains only stop in a few big cities.  If the trains stopped at every little podunk station, it would take forever to travel a significant distance.  (Kinda like how it is now.)  So, just like air travel, many people will have to drive for hours to get to a station then pay more money to spend 3x as long as flying travelling to the next big city.

Oh dear. Do you actually understand how trains work? Probably not, so I'll explain.

"The train now leaving Podunk is the local train to Wensleydale, Buttock, Fishpaste and Grover's Mills. Change at Fishpaste for the express to Chicago."
"The train now leaving Fishpaste is the express to Chicago. The High Speed train to Los Angeles will leave from Chicago track 27".
They all use the same basic infrastructure, and can do so without getting in each other's way.

This isn't fiction or speculation: many non-US countries are currently running very efficient rail networks.

What the fark are you babbling about?  What does anything you said have to do with anything I said?  I think someone slipped chicklets into your meds.


Nurse! Thorazine 200mg. Stet!
In the meantime, do try to keep up.
 
2013-02-09 07:23:39 PM  
I actually enjoy traveling by train. Unfortunately, these days it seems pretty expensive to do so.
 
2013-02-09 07:24:13 PM  

muck4doo: MrEricSir: slayer199: GAT_00: And nobody in Europe ever uses the train, thus proving your point.

Oh wait.

Shorter distances, more condensed population centers...or did you miss that point.

[citation needed]

Google "map"


If you look at a population density map, the places where HSR tracks are proposed in the US are places that have about the same population density as Europe. Unless a lot of Americans suddenly get up and move to say, Idaho, what's being proposed seems pretty sensible when you compare it to European rail.

Besides, when you consider none of this will be finished for at least a decade and a half, you need to start looking at population projections. The US is not shrinking.
 
2013-02-09 07:25:07 PM  
As others have pointed out, with typical layovers 18 hours wouldn't be uncommon for cross-country flights, and a  reliable 18 hours during which you could actually turn sideways and take a real nap would in fact be a significant improvement for regular travelers, as it's the unpredictability of air travel that really gets you most of the time.
 
2013-02-09 07:34:04 PM  
If we ever get to the point where we have ultra-cheap electricity and prohibitively expensive fossil fuels something like this might be feasible, especially if battery technology doesn't get much better than we currently have.

If I was presented with a working cold fusion reactor and a blank slate of a continent, say, if the FSM magically moved Antarctica into the middle of the Pacific Ocean--and I was tasked with designing the rail infrastructure of the place--I'd build a grid of high-speed rails at 300 mile intervals. That way you're never farther than ±150-200 miles from a rail station. We can get that kind of range with electric cars today. You want to go somewhere? Drive it to the station and plug it in and go. You can rent a car at your destination or pay to have your car ferried.

Problem is: you're still going to need roads, because you can't run rails to everyone's house. Seems needlessly complicated. With automated cars just around the bend might it not be better to just design highways with a lane that powers the electric motor in your car? The you could have buses and trucks and cars that drive together in packs to draft each other. Sure, you probably lose the mag/lev option when you do it like that, but you also don't have to waste space and time and upkeep on a system that only railcars can use, especially when you're going to (presumably) need roads anyway. Of course, flying electric cars would be better. Roads are for earthbound types, damn Neanderthals.
 
2013-02-09 07:39:20 PM  

mrlewish: gas giant: Is there a chance the track could bend?

/actually thinks this is a decent idea, FWIW.

Tracks are made to bend.  How do you think they account for the expansion and contraction during hot and cold weather?


Lol.
I'm so sorry, the answer we were looking for was, "Not on your life, my Hindu friend."
 
2013-02-09 07:40:04 PM  
And yes, I know what I just said doesn't really apply to the article or what is best for the US. I'm dreaming, not pretending to redesign the US rail system.
 
2013-02-09 07:48:37 PM  

DamnYankees: gaspode: The line from NY to Cali is of course stupidly long and expensive

I don't understand this complaint. It's like a subway line - you don't build it for the purpose of letting people actually travel from one end to the other. It's about moving in between all the stops in the middle.


That's kind of my point.. people talk like a network is represented by the longest, least economic journey possible on the network, in order to falsely portray the whole thing as a boondoggle.
 
2013-02-09 07:53:06 PM  

jtown: . I said many people will have to drive for hours to get to a high speed rail station


the people of Germany would like a word with you, once they get over how breathtakingly clueless you are
 
2013-02-09 07:56:14 PM  
ItchyMcDoogle: we are the greatest country in the world! But we cant do a damn thing to show it because it might make a Democrat look good.

Todays GOP would have let the Soviets win the space race, Cut funding on the hoover dam and told the french to keep that statue of liberty! Too many tax dollars to assemble that thing and screw you frenchy!!

But if its to spend spend spend on the military, the war in Iraq or gut the surplus for a tax cuts for the rich they are gung ho about it


We do need to rebuild our infrastructure. Republicans just want it to crumble.


Just in case anyone missed that.

Because it's goddam true. They are completely regressive repressive assholes whose entire political philosophy has been distilled down to: Stop anyone from doing anything good, because the moment people realize how nice shiat can be without us they are going to throw us out on our asses.

Every goal they have politically rotates around benefiting the very privileged few at the cost of the many.

They hate the concept of progress. They admit this openly.
They hate the concept of modern society preferring instead for each man to be an island.

And it works. They kick and scream and throw around bullshiat so when we discuss something like building better rail lines... a task that should be EASY AS CAKE for the richest most powerful nation on earth by-the-way... all you hear is line after line of bullshiat about how it's impossible. (much like many people in this thread are regurgitating)

It's a farking train, not a space elevator.

How can any of you honestly sit there and think you're being reasonable listing all the reasons this just isn't feasible or possible? Your either trolling or you drank the koolaid. You are already convinced this nation can't do shiat about shiat because you ate the big steaming pile these pathologically lying obstructionist basterds served you with their wide smile troll face.

Your shining pinnacle of logic? Air travel is just cheaper.

Yes, air travel. The one industry that has been so plagued with trying to remain profitable that even with the litany of government windfalls they enjoy they continue to throw seats and meals and any other creature comfort off a plane to try and make it just that much closer to cost-effective. They are farking considering STANDING ROOM ONLY flights ffs.... yeah, we should probably just launch ourselves into the air with jet fuel for the rest of time to solve our travel needs... seems legit and smart to me! farking idiots.

Back to the Republican assholes... These are assholes who would GLADLY watch this dollar amount tagged to this rail system get pissed away as long as one of their campaign donors were profiting from it. They'd spend 10x this amount on a defense project they know damn well would never work or see the light of day. They are in the business of stealing tax dollars, not in using them for building and operating the infrastructure of our nation.

Nothing new. It's viewing and imagining problems vs viewing and imagining solutions.

When confronted with a new idea most can only come up with reason after reason not to consider it or accept it. The only questions they are able to ask are 'Why?' never being satisfied with any answer they receive. Nothing but ingrained resistance to change and lack of intelligence to realize there is always a better way. You know, the base logic behind your average neocon.

It's only the visionary and atypically intelligent that can weight the concept against the status quo fairly and say "why not?"
 
2013-02-09 08:02:16 PM  

WhyteRaven74: jtown: . I said many people will have to drive for hours to get to a high speed rail station

the people of Germany would like a word with you, once they get over how breathtakingly clueless you are


Who (besides you) is talking about Germany?  We're talking about a high speed rail system covering the continental United States.  Try to keep up.
 
2013-02-09 08:03:27 PM  

jtown: Who (besides you) is talking about Germany? We're talking about a high speed rail system covering the continental United States. Try to keep up.


And Germany's way of handling it, indeed France's too, provide a nice example of how the US could do it.
 
2013-02-09 08:05:46 PM  
This thread has go this far and no other chummers have pointed out how wiz that typeface is?
 
2013-02-09 08:07:09 PM  

ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: DoD spends over 500 every year, with far less to show for it.

 
2013-02-09 08:08:15 PM  

gaspode: DamnYankees: gaspode: The line from NY to Cali is of course stupidly long and expensive

I don't understand this complaint. It's like a subway line - you don't build it for the purpose of letting people actually travel from one end to the other. It's about moving in between all the stops in the middle.

That's kind of my point.. people talk like a network is represented by the longest, least economic journey possible on the network, in order to falsely portray the whole thing as a boondoggle.


What if you want to go from Seattle to Dallas?  Or San Francisco to Orlando?  Or Denver to Detroit?  It might not be a total boondoggle, but it's also not a panacea. Travel in the United States is complicated.

As it is now, is there a direct Amtrak from LA to NYC? I think it goes LA to Chicago, Chicago to NYC. That makes more sense. 18 hours, without stops?  Boondoggle is an exaggeration, but so is the 18 hour trip idea.

Just the California to Chicago piece... so the SF Bay Area & Silicon Valley would have to go down to LA, then go over to Chicago?  That's hardly a win for actual progressives in California.  There's tons of direct flights from SF to Chicago, SF to NYC, etc.  There are many other people besides those living in Los Angeles & New York City, and what's the benefit to them?

And I take commuter rail all the time. Someone else said that there's no complications with rail?  Hardly.  Suicidal maniacs "trespassing on the track", mechanical issues (track & train), weather issues (excessive precipitation is a problem, no matter the mode of transport)... a long-distance train has at least as many issues as an airplane trip.

 /Europe is a tough comparison because it's not the same as here. The Acela makes great sense for our East Coast, but expanding this idea to a run from LA to NYC is apples & oranges.
/B-b-but Republicans! We might not be able to afford our budget as it is, but HSR is progress or something!
 
2013-02-09 08:09:56 PM  
Yeah, conservatives, the last thing we want is a more robust and efficient transportation infrastructure.
 
2013-02-09 08:12:01 PM  

WhyteRaven74: jtown: Who (besides you) is talking about Germany? We're talking about a high speed rail system covering the continental United States. Try to keep up.

And Germany's way of handling it, indeed France's too, provide a nice example of how the US could do it.


So the US can shrink down to the physical size of Germany or France.  Good to know.
 
2013-02-09 08:17:58 PM  

jtown: So the US can shrink down to the physical size of Germany or France. Good to know.


the US can build up it's commuter rail and regional rail to feed high speed rail just like Germany and France.
 
2013-02-09 08:22:09 PM  
Sounds great if the ticket price is right. Why do conservatives hate all forms of progress? Should we just ban all forms of infrastructure improvements until we can teleport people?
 
2013-02-09 08:22:48 PM  

Jim_Callahan: As others have pointed out, with typical layovers 18 hours wouldn't be uncommon for cross-country flights


For me the typical layover on a cross-country flight is no layover at all.  Non-stop flights between New York City and Los Angeles -- the route described in the headline -- already take off several times every day on multiple airlines, and can be had dirt cheap (under $0.10/mile is easily achievable).  Even including time for traveling to and from the airports and waiting in checkin and security lines, that trip is going to take maybe 10 hours.  The trains will still be almost twice as long.

So, that's not the transportation option that high-speed rail is going to replace.  Think regional instead.

A flight from NYC to Savannah, GA might take five hours, including all the airport bullshiat.  If a high-speed train route can get me there in six, for about the same price, it's well worth considering.

NYC to DC is four hours by car (in light traffic).  If the train can get me there in two, that's farking great!
 
2013-02-09 08:23:54 PM  

GoldSpider: Yeah, conservatives, the last thing we want is a more robust and efficient transportation infrastructure.


But greasy poor people could get from Detroit to the Hamptons too easily.
 
2013-02-09 08:25:17 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Sounds great if the ticket price is right. Why do conservatives hate all forms of progress? Should we just ban all forms of infrastructure improvements until we can teleport people?


Look at current train travel pricing, add in the money to build this system all over the US, I don't see it being any cheaper then flying... Would be great if it was, as long as it's similarly priced to flying, guess what option most people are going to take.

I agree with others that it would make sense in certain areas, connecting the whole country by high speed rail just wouldn't be profitable.
 
2013-02-09 08:28:29 PM  

WhyteRaven74: jtown: So the US can shrink down to the physical size of Germany or France. Good to know.

the US can build up it's commuter rail and regional rail to feed high speed rail just like Germany and France.


What about the stretches of hundreds of miles of nothing that this high speed rail has to traverse to cover the entire country (United States)?  Pro-rail people try to pretend that it's all about management and if we just do things like densely populated Europe, it'll be just like densely populated Europe.

It's just not the same thing at all.  No amount of wishing will make it the same.  I could see high speed rail working in the northeast where density is similar to Europe but crossing the midwest is a whole different animal.  It doesn't scale.
 
2013-02-09 08:29:43 PM  

tricycleracer: New York to Los Angeles (straight-line distance)-  ~2400 miles.

Let's see what 2400 miles gets you in Europe/Asia-

Lisbon to Moscow
Paris to Baghdad
Liverpool to Jerusalem

Guess how Europeans travel between these cities. THEY farkING FLY.

No one is talking about riding a train 2400 miles in one sitting.


Sure they are.  Not to mention that people do it here in America all the time and over many more days.

UK-Moscow
Paris-Syria (Obviously the route ends there at the moment, but Baghdad was a connection)
Liverpool-Jerusalem

And my personal favourite London to India overland by train

The train to Moscow is quite heavily used.  The other three are more esoteric.
 
2013-02-09 08:44:12 PM  
How about we start with getting high-speed broadband to every part of the US first?  I'd think that would be a bigger boost to the nation's economy for far less cost than high speed rail.
 
2013-02-09 08:56:03 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Sounds great if the ticket price is right. Why do conservatives hate all forms of progress? Should we just ban all forms of infrastructure improvements until we can teleport people?


I'm all for this as long as none of my money is involved (and that includes tax money)

This is just a boondoggle. Money pissed away on something not needed.

We have a good air travel infrastructure already for long distance travel. We have a good road travel infrastructure for short distance travel. We don't need this. It's just a waste.
 
2013-02-09 09:06:45 PM  

Close2TheEdge: How about we start with getting high-speed broadband to every part of the US first?  I'd think that would be a bigger boost to the nation's economy for far less cost than high speed rail.

 

Throw it on the list.

While your at it add dams, urban water works, a complete power grid revamp, a few off-coast wind farms large enough to be visible from space and about 1000 other things we need very badly if we want our next generations to live in a nation described as "first world" and "economic superpower"

We'll make it the biggest infrastructure investment act in the history of the nation since the New Deal.

I even coined a term for it!  We'll call it 'Nation Building'
 
2013-02-09 09:07:49 PM  

MurphyMurphy: While you're at it add dams,


*godamitsomuch
 
2013-02-09 09:07:54 PM  
I see the One Laptop Per Child group here still thinks Everything Can Be Done Free if only those mean Republicans (and rich people) would just become Socialist.


/This is NOT what Krokus meant when they sang "Eat The Rich".
//Despite what you all think.
///OLPC: Another Great Socialist Idea. What ever happened?
 
2013-02-09 09:16:27 PM  

Lee451: I see the One Laptop Per Child group here still thinks Everything Can Be Done Free if only those mean Republicans (and rich people) would just become Socialist.


/This is NOT what Krokus meant when they sang "Eat The Rich".
//Despite what you all think.
///OLPC: Another Great Socialist Idea. What ever happened?


our entire society is built on socialism, your argument is retarded and manufactured

It's spending neutral, I promise.

See, we take the following 2 trillion dollar project seen here:

www.google.com

And turn it into a 2 trillion dollar project here:

www.google.com

You can call it socialist if it makes you feel better about being so so terribly wrong.
Other words you could use to describe it would be patriotic and American.

Keep espousing the noble tenets of the treasonous war profiteers in the military industrial complex and the global oil conglomerates. Those who tell Americans we can't use their tax money for their own nation while simultaneously grinding the nation to a halt if we don't let them build another 5k tanks or a few dozen muti-billion dollar aircraft that will never see combat (and wouldn't work if they did)

... sorry, no infrastructure for you America... but do listen to this idea I have about invading Yemen.

I'm sure history will show you to have served the more noble of the 2 goals.
 
2013-02-09 09:17:20 PM  
Wouldn't it be easier for you guys to move to the countires that give you a 30 hour work week with 8 months vacation, HSR from where you are to where you want to go, and free health care?

Sort of like how teatards are told to move to Somalia?
 
2013-02-09 09:17:56 PM  

Lee451: I see the One Laptop Per Child group here still thinks Everything Can Be Done Free if only those mean Republicans (and rich people) would just become Socialist.


/This is NOT what Krokus meant when they sang "Eat The Rich".
//Despite what you all think.
///OLPC: Another Great Socialist Idea. What ever happened?


How about instead of flushing billions of dollars into foreign entanglements and bloated military contracts, we instead use the money on useful shiat here in the US?  That would be far easier than asking Republicans to be Socialist.  Oh wait, that never happened anyway so your argument is just plain stupid.
 
2013-02-09 09:23:43 PM  
It seems to me that the only people in this thread who believe HSR is doomed to spectacular failure think two things: HSR will only be used to link New York to Los Angeles, and HSR will make every stop at every po dunk town on the line thus negating any benefit of HSR.

To prevent those failures from being realized, they need regional HSR systems set up that serve as hub and spoke systems across the country with long distance travel coordinated between hub cities. Secondly, they need tiered service so you can take the express train from New York to Chicago with stops in only Pittsburgh and Cleveland instead of hitting Buttfark PA, State College PA, and Shifferbrains PA as well.
 
2013-02-09 09:27:30 PM  
Butbutbut profitable! Socialism! My tax dollars!
And then you point to airlines as a model of what you would prefer? What in the actual f*ck.
 
2013-02-09 09:29:25 PM  

Giltric: Wouldn't it be easier for you guys to move to the countires that give you a 30 hour work week with 8 months vacation, HSR from where you are to where you want to go, and free health care?

Sort of like how teatards are told to move to Somalia?


Doing the right thing is rarely the easy thing.

I'm not really interested in what is easier.

That's how we got in this boat to begin with, we let rich farkwads sell our nation out from under us because it was easier to hand over all control and responsibility for our nation's future than to tend it responsibly ourselves.

Not that I expect much better out of our morbidly obese nation.

Constantly looking for the easiest way to duck out of our problems. As long as our fat asses are comfortable, consequences can be damned, right?
 
2013-02-09 09:34:19 PM  

gas giant: Butbutbut profitable! Socialism! My tax dollars!
And then you point to airlines as a model of what you would prefer? What in the actual f*ck.


I think people are trying to point out that it would cost the same and be quicker to fly to most areas. Train travel in this country right now isn't much cheaper then flying, you think it's going to go down after all the money needed to build out and maintain this HSR infrastructure is spent?
 
2013-02-09 09:34:24 PM  
i would really like to see high speed rail someday but they would have to start with routes that would makes sense. phoenix - LA - Vegas triangle would be a good start. on those routes, the train could compete because it would be faster and cheaper than flying or driving. high speed rail from LA to NY is dumb as shiat for sure. flying will always be faster and better for that route.
 
2013-02-09 09:36:38 PM  

DamnYankees: Who did the mayor of Cheyenne pay off to get not just a stop, but an out of the way stop?


Not like theres any important defense sites in the area that the DoD might want alternative transportation to and from in case of something...
 
2013-02-09 09:36:51 PM  

TwistedFark: I have a cunning plan to get this through - all we have to do is convince someone at Fox News that a conservative came up with this idea first.


That didn't work out so hot for Obamacare.
 
2013-02-09 09:37:24 PM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: i would really like to see high speed rail someday but they would have to start with routes that would makes sense. phoenix - LA - Vegas triangle would be a good start. on those routes, the train could compete because it would be faster and cheaper than flying or driving. high speed rail from LA to NY is dumb as shiat for sure. flying will always be faster and better for that route.


I'd love to see the north east corridor replaced with high speed rail, it's another area that makes sense to put it in.
 
2013-02-09 09:37:47 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.


The Interstate Highway System is a huge success because it allows trade to flow very quickly at all times of day.  Our comprehensive rail system does the same, as does our network of airports, and even allows for passenger traffic just like the highway system.  The high speed rail networks being proposed are just for moving people, and transit that only moves people is only affordable on certain routes with a certain time efficiency.  The high speed rail from LA to SF probably won't be high speed at all, because it will have a dozen stops along the way and spend half the time in areas with at grade crossings, noise ordinances, etc.
 
2013-02-09 09:38:03 PM  

MurphyMurphy: Constantly looking for the easiest way to duck out of our problems. As long as our fat asses are comfortable, consequences can be damned, right?


LOL we're talking about HSR, not energy independence.

HSR will never be as fast or faster than flying, and when people have a limited amount of time for vacation I doubt they would pick the 20 hour rail trip over the 6 hour flight.

The TSA does not add extra time only to flying, the TSA will be involved in HSR security. You will have the same hassle, you will not avoid the hassle.
 
2013-02-09 09:38:31 PM  
Amtrak from Charlotte to Atlanta is 112 bucks round trip, the train only runs both ways in the middle of the night and takes 5 and 1/2 hours. Flights from Charlotte to Atlanta cost around 130 dollars, you can catch a flight anytime of the day, and takes not even 1 and 1/2 hours(not including all the check in time, waiting for luggage that may or may not be there, etc).

At Amtrak I can show up 5-10 minutes before boarding time and park for free, when I get to Atlanta I walk off the train with my bags and 5 minutes later I am inside a van taking me to my hotel(usually a 15 minute ride tops). Flying, actually takes about the same amount of time when you add it up; checking in, boarding, waiting to land, actually getting out of the airport, time spent getting back to the center of town(yes, the train station is actually in Atlanta).

I take the train, the only pain in the ass is the time of the train, but it does get me there early in the morning. If they were to offer an option that left at 7am and got me there by noon  I would pay $200(round trip) for it.

I take the train, and if they added a day trip for $200 I would gladly pay it.
 
2013-02-09 09:39:55 PM  

mjones73: gas giant: Butbutbut profitable! Socialism! My tax dollars!
And then you point to airlines as a model of what you would prefer? What in the actual f*ck.

I think people are trying to point out that it would cost the same and be quicker to fly to most areas. Train travel in this country right now isn't much cheaper then flying, you think it's going to go down after all the money needed to build out and maintain this HSR infrastructure is spent?


Do you know why it's cheaper to fly?
Do you understand the concept of an investment?

We get what they are trying to point out.

I just try not to get my directions from people that can't see 2ft past their own noses.
 
2013-02-09 09:43:39 PM  

Giltric: MurphyMurphy: Constantly looking for the easiest way to duck out of our problems. As long as our fat asses are comfortable, consequences can be damned, right?

LOL we're talking about HSR, not energy independence.

HSR will never be as fast or faster than flying, and when people have a limited amount of time for vacation I doubt they would pick the 20 hour rail trip over the 6 hour flight.

The TSA does not add extra time only to flying, the TSA will be involved in HSR security. You will have the same hassle, you will not avoid the hassle.


Did you mean to respond to someone else?

When did I say anything about the TSA? Did I say trains are faster than planes somewhere? What the flying fark are you on about?
 
2013-02-09 09:51:17 PM  

MurphyMurphy: Giltric: MurphyMurphy: Constantly looking for the easiest way to duck out of our problems. As long as our fat asses are comfortable, consequences can be damned, right?

LOL we're talking about HSR, not energy independence.



HSR will never be as fast or faster than flying, and when people have a limited amount of time for vacation I doubt they would pick the 20 hour rail trip over the 6 hour flight.

The TSA does not add extra time only to flying, the TSA will be involved in HSR security. You will have the same hassle, you will not avoid the hassle.

Did you mean to respond to someone else?

When did I say anything about the TSA? Did I say trains are faster than planes somewhere? What the flying fark are you on about?



The bolded part is what you said and my response. The rest is a response to the rest of the posters in case you didn't have time to read the thread in your fury to show everyone, while using the doll, where Haliburton touched you.

HSR is a convienence to a very small number of people. It is a pipe dream in the US.
 
2013-02-09 09:53:48 PM  

MurphyMurphy: mjones73: gas giant: Butbutbut profitable! Socialism! My tax dollars!
And then you point to airlines as a model of what you would prefer? What in the actual f*ck.

I think people are trying to point out that it would cost the same and be quicker to fly to most areas. Train travel in this country right now isn't much cheaper then flying, you think it's going to go down after all the money needed to build out and maintain this HSR infrastructure is spent?

Do you know why it's cheaper to fly?

Pretty much the same reason Amtrak is only $1 billion in the hole every year, government money.
Do you understand the concept of an investment? Yep, given my previous point that Amtrak can't turn a profit even with government backing now, how do you expect them to do the same once this HSR is built? The investment is only going to pay off if enough people use HSR once it's built. Short of giving away train tickets, grounding airlines or taxing airfare to the point it's undesirable, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

We get what they are trying to point out.

I just try not to get my directions from people that can't see 2ft past their own noses.
 
2013-02-09 09:56:20 PM  

muck4doo: HighZoolander: Darth_Lukecash: 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?

Because they favor corporate welfare for the oil and gas industry, and have an irrational fear of choo-choo trains.

That's the retard perspective of it. You got that nailed down.


You're right, I'm sorry. That was pretty high-brow for your average conservative. In the future I'll try to say things as if I'm speaking to Peter or a creationist.
 
2013-02-09 10:01:29 PM  
I bet if we invaded Iran, you could get from NY to LA in like, two minutes. And they'd pay you to do it.
 
2013-02-09 10:03:57 PM  
$200 Billion? So... One fiscal quarter's worth of Obama deficit spending? Go for it.
 
2013-02-09 10:07:15 PM  

Giltric: The bolded part is what you said and my response. The rest is a response to the rest of the posters in case you didn't have time to read the thread in your fury to show everyone, while using the doll, where Haliburton touched you.

HSR is a convienence to a very small number of people. It is a pipe dream in the US.


Just because it's convenient for you to separate the HSR issue from it's obvious realm of infrastructure investments doesn't make it so.

And this is ultimately what this discussion is about, not energy independence or just the HSR, but the entire logic behind the b.s. argument of why this along with every other proposed domestic spending project, isn't possible. Keep repeating it's a pipe dream over and over, your only convincing yourself.

The only fury I have is aimed at people so miserably stupid they can't even realize they aren't discussing the issue, they are obfuscating it.

Case in point: The HSR is a convenience to only a very small number of people?
Huh, who knew?
Wow, that changes everything entirely!
Except for it being a completely made-up pile of steaming shiat.


The planes vs trains discussion is repeated in this thread several times. We all know the status quo is the preferred and easier travel option. It's why they call it the status quo. But no one wants to have a substantial discussion about the whys behind that being the case.

If we'd spent the last 50 years focusing on rail travel the way we have automobile and air you could replicate this discussion switching every instance of plane with train (and vice versa).. it's pointless. Your not discussing why HSR is a bad idea, your just repeating the obvious regarding our current culture and status quo. It's not even an argument, in either direction.
 
2013-02-09 10:11:06 PM  

muck4doo: How was building the bridge to nowhere in Alaska fiscally responsible?


Perhaps it was "nowhere" because there was no bridge?
Infrastructure often creates demand that didn't exist when it was built.
 
2013-02-09 10:23:41 PM  

mjones73: Do you know why it's cheaper to fly? Pretty much the same reason Amtrak is only $1 billion in the hole every year, government money.
Do you understand the concept of an investment? Yep, given my previous point that Amtrak can't turn a profit even with government backing now, how do you expect them to do the same once this HSR is built? The investment is only going to pay off if enough people use HSR once it's built. Short of giving away train tickets, grounding airlines or taxing airfare to the point it's undesirable, I don't see that happening anytime soon.


And this is the discussion worth having.

It's hard to even produce solid numbers regarding how much (and in how many ways) the various elements of both industries are subsidized by the Federal Government.

You say it wouldn't be used enough to pay off long term. It may very well be the case. I think, as has been mentioned many times, that the coastal portions of a HSR system would be used greatly but it's hard for either of us to know 100%, either way unless we give it a fair shot somewhere.

I would go so far as to say it's nearly impossible to write a comprehensive cost/benefit analysis comparing HSR to the current air and road, nationwide.

What we do know is that at the basics, rail as a mode of transportation is less resource intensive and has proved much more economically viable (provided consumer demand/use) when compared dollar to dollar against other forms of travel. This has been proven to be true internationally (and historically) especially for areas with populations and distances that we see in coastal US and European nations.

Can the same be said of HSR as traditional rail? I don't have the numbers but I'd love to see them from nations that have been using HSR for years.

The yea's saying to do it because we believe it to be a good idea, and the nays saying not because it's impossible or unrealistic can talk past each other (as we have). I support the former because I think we won't know until we try and there is a lot worse we can do (we DO do) with our money than try new infrastructure projects that if they pay off at all could pay off in a really really big way for our economy.
 
2013-02-09 10:24:06 PM  

CujoQuarrel: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Sounds great if the ticket price is right. Why do conservatives hate all forms of progress? Should we just ban all forms of infrastructure improvements until we can teleport people?

I'm all for this as long as none of my money is involved (and that includes tax money)

This is just a boondoggle. Money pissed away on something not needed.

We have a good air travel infrastructure already for long distance travel. We have a good road travel infrastructure for short distance travel. We don't need this. It's just a waste.


How much is spent per year maintaining all those roads?
 
2013-02-09 10:34:19 PM  
Are airlines subsidized or given tax breaks currently?
 
2013-02-09 10:36:15 PM  
Everyone is focusing on this for passenger transport, high speed rail for freight would be a HUGE time saver, can't ship most of it via plane, cuts down on inventory because shipments are faster, even more of an impetus to bring manufacturing back to places on the line, and could even give it a military impetus, large shipments of military hardware across country more quickly.