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 95
    More: Interesting, Los Angeles, Amtrak, high-speed rail  
•       •       •

5711 clicks; posted to Geek » on 09 Feb 2013 at 4:08 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-02-09 12:38:31 PM
12 votes:
Yes, this would just SO terrible. Let's keep everything as shiatty as possible, and never try.
2013-02-09 12:30:08 PM
8 votes:
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 12:15:39 PM
7 votes:
Yeah, Subbass, let's keep doing it with 3 day busses and no food.
2013-02-09 01:12:03 PM
5 votes:

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 12:09:29 PM
5 votes:
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 12:59:56 PM
4 votes:

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 12:55:08 PM
4 votes:
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 07:56:14 PM
3 votes:
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 05:34:28 PM
3 votes:
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 04:35:55 PM
3 votes:

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 02:18:37 PM
3 votes:
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 01:29:04 PM
3 votes:

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 01:05:52 PM
3 votes:

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 12:59:49 PM
3 votes:
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 12:54:32 PM
3 votes:
$200 billion sounds way low to me.
2013-02-09 12:43:13 PM
3 votes:
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 12:36:32 PM
3 votes:
i105.photobucket.com
2013-02-09 12:34:28 PM
3 votes:
"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 09:16:27 PM
2 votes:

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 06:18:03 PM
2 votes:

Lsherm: Russia is not part of Europe.


Part of Russia is part of Europe.
2013-02-09 05:08:56 PM
2 votes:
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 04:50:32 PM
2 votes:

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 04:48:07 PM
2 votes:

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 02:41:46 PM
2 votes:

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 02:04:55 PM
2 votes:
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 01:27:09 PM
2 votes:

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 01:24:34 PM
2 votes:
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 01:20:55 PM
2 votes:
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 01:11:01 PM
2 votes:

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 01:04:47 PM
2 votes:

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 12:49:49 PM
2 votes:

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 12:46:30 PM
2 votes:

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.
2013-02-10 02:43:27 PM
1 votes:
Let me ask a question.

What problem does this solve?
2013-02-10 11:21:17 AM
1 votes:

FlashHarry: irving47: $200 Billion? So... One fiscal quarter's worth of Obama deficit spending? Go for it.

[www.investors.com image 600x369]


Do you even know what that chart says? You don't, do you?

It says that under the first three years of Obama, the deficit increased the MOST, SECOND MOST, and FOURTH MOST it ever had. The basis for each year's comparison is three year's earlier. That means in his fourth year it decreased since you are comparing it to his first year. Congratulations Obama, you ballooned the deficit by SO MUCH your first year that you couldn't help but have it be less in your fourth! $1.4 trillion to $1.1 trillion! We're basically in the black, right?!?!?

I love when idiots/trolls post the information themselves needed to prove they are idiots/trolls.
2013-02-10 10:01:34 AM
1 votes:

muck4doo: Animatronik: Morons.Before you blow billions on new rail from LA to NY, you might want to ask how ACELA competes with air for the D.C. to Boston route. Answer: it doesn't. Most people fly. I do. Why take 3 or 4 times longer.

Funniest part of this is that we already have coast to coast train tracks. You don't see any of these punks using it, but they will tell you we should spend trillions more dollars to expand it because at least they are doing something.


Right. I take the train when it makes sense. Baltimore to NYC MAKES SENSE.

DC to Boston DOESN'T. There are very few routes in the US, all a couple hundred miles, where this should even be considered.

High speed rail across the US makes no sense at all. Its a litmus test for stupid liberals the have been voting in the last couple of elections. I wish they'd stick to watering their gardens with bongwater.
2013-02-10 09:11:24 AM
1 votes:
Morons.Before you blow billions on new rail from LA to NY, you might want to ask how ACELA competes with air for the D.C. to Boston route. Answer: it doesn't. Most people fly. I do. Why take 3 or 4 times longer.
2013-02-10 05:44:08 AM
1 votes:

0Icky0: muck4doo: Sure, build a bridge to nowhere and people will flock there, right? There's a bridge to Isleton CA, and I don't see tons of people moving there.

Gosh. It's almost as if there is more than one variable.
You saw the question mark on the end of my question?
And I said building infrastructure "often" creates demand....


The point in question was the bridge to nowhere in Alaska. You made the point of that if they build it, people will come. My point was that not all infrastructure spending is good. Spend our money wisely.

imgod2u: muck4doo: It would take a large scale use of "Imminent Domain" to make it happen. This is not the 1800's where most land wasn't claimed by anybody. If you think $200 billion is all it is going to cost, I've got a bridge to sell to you. This will land in the trillions of dollars, and be tied up in courts for years.

The interstate highway system wasn't setup in the 1800's either but that worked fine. There's actually quite a bit of land when we're talking about traveling between major cities. Enough such that telecom and power companies have no trouble finding places to lay large fiber tracks or superconductive power lines. Those are also examples of government-assisted private companies.

$200 Billion for a government program to install HSR is a lowball. But as far as subsidy or even a loan to a privatized company...that's actually a huge amount of money. Especially if it's given to a tech company the likes of which Musk founds. I don't disagree with you that a lot of things can go wrong. I disagree with the throw-arms-up-in-the-air defeatist attitude.

That mantra has been said at just about every stage of human progression and it has never been true. In fact, I fully expect silicon valley's next big venture to be efficient, fast mass transit.


There's a big difference in convincing people to let a government monopoly set up a few poles across their land, and letting them set up railways.
2013-02-10 03:13:39 AM
1 votes:

slayer199: DamnYankees: 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?

You may want to look at a map again and my post where I state that most of the runs are a couple hundred miles and can be cost competitive with flying.  Most of the high speed rail projects in Europe are in Western Europe.  Very few are in Eastern Europe.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 800x600]
Of course the bigger issue, which has been brought up by others is that we have a massive deficit and all the libs here are in favor of adding to it.

Mind blown.


You know you are addressing the "Trying anything is better than trying nothing regardless the consequences" crowd, right?
2013-02-10 01:42:09 AM
1 votes:

moothemagiccow: poot_rootbeer: 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.

Ok either you win the thread or you just pointed out subby's strawman, I don't care which. And this is what DoT's across the country are considering.


The problem with his scenario is that it's almost impossible.  Let's look at the numbers.  New York City to Savannah, GA is about 800 miles.  At an average speed of 180 mpg (higher than the average speed of any route on the SF-LA line), that's 4.5 hours of travel...minimum.  Then you factor in that that train is not going to run straight from NYC to Savannah and the time starts adding up.  That train's going to stop in Newark, Philly, Baltimore, Washington, Richmond, Raleigh, Charleston, and maybe a few other places.  Once you factor in stoppage times (let's stay 8 stops at 15 minutes each - pretty generous), suddenly your 4.5 hour trip is 6.5 hours.  Just look at the London-Marseille trip.  It's 768 miles (shorter than NYC-Savannah), it's serviced entirely by HSR and yet it's still a 6.5 hour trip at $200 one-way.  Compare that to a London-Marseille flight (which is $150 round-trip and 3 hours).
2013-02-10 01:14:22 AM
1 votes:
America isn't Europe.

/more at 11
2013-02-09 11:54:21 PM
1 votes:

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: 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.  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.

Kind of like those epic boondoggles of the Interstate Highway System and Rural Electrification? Let's not forget about Seward's Folly - Alaska state income taxes are horrendous!


The Interstate Highway System had a massive demand as the existing system failed to provide all weather transport links between major population centers allowing for redeployment of military and evacuation of civilians in the case of nuclear war.  Rural Electrification is a bit more debatable in terms of overall demand and benefit per costs but it certainly does allow areas outside population centers to develop more effectively.  Seward's Folly really was a folly until technology uncovered minerals and oil so sometimes you get lucky.

Tell me what benfit high speed rail will provide?.  What demand it is serving that isn't already better served by the highway system, air traffic, freight rail (which high speed rail cannot service).  It is an extremely expensive method to move individuals around that isn't as effective as other technolgy both at short range and long.  It is only in rare areas where it can make some sense where demand provides sufficient economic incentives to justify the huge investment costs.  Why is the California High Speed rail construction commencing from Madera to Merced (south bumfark central valley to more northern slightly less podunk central valley) beyond political considerations when an actual market from San Francisco to San Jose would have a much larger demand and a potential market. High speed rail is a gimmick utilizing an older technology to do a job that is better done by other techniques which are faster and cheaper in the short and medium term.
2013-02-09 11:01:16 PM
1 votes:

rugman11: Our interstate highway system is amazing at moving people around cities and through the less populated areas and remains an incredibly cheap method of transportation (show me another means of travel that can move 7 people from NYC to St. Louis for $100).


again, that's the tricky part of this is identifying true cost. The analysis is almost impossibly complex.

The cost to move those 7 people from NYC to St Louis is so much more than $100 (even if that were all the gas it cost). Everything from DMVs to the highway system maintenance to State Police/Highway Patrol must be factored in.

And I won't even try to argue which is, short term, cheaper for the nation. I don't think that's a question here. But sometimes spending more today can save us magnitudes more in the future.

And if we move away from economics for a second and into more subjective fields we might ask "what is better?" in many other respects. Safety comes to mind, as we love to turn a blind eye in this nation to just how hazardous our auto and highway culture has become. And speaking of the incredible number of auto accidents in our nation... viola... in these subjective discussions we can find even more costs we probably didn't include in our original equation.
2013-02-09 10:59:30 PM
1 votes:

0Icky0: 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.


Sure, build a bridge to nowhere and people will flock there, right? There's a bridge to Isleton CA, and I don't see tons of people moving there.
2013-02-09 10:39:26 PM
1 votes:

MurphyMurphy: 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.


This is absolutely true, and absolutely not an argument in favor of HSR.  Had we spent the last 50 years investing in rail travel, it would make sense to expand that to include HSR.  But we've spent so much money on automobile and air infrastructure that it makes more sense to invest the $1 trillion+ that you would spend on national and regional rail systems (much of which would duplicate what we already have) on technologies to expand and more efficiently use the infrastructure we already have.  Let's invest in driveless cars.  In new battery technologies.  In renewable energy sources.  Things that will let us move our cars and planes faster and further than they can go now.

Our interstate highway system is amazing at moving people around cities and through the less populated areas and remains an incredibly cheap method of transportation (show me another means of travel that can move 7 people from NYC to St. Louis for $100).  Air travel is capable of getting people across the country in 1/4 of the time of HSR.  Let's spend money making these technologies faster, better, and cheaper rather than throwing trillions of dollars reinventing the wheel.
2013-02-09 10:36:15 PM
1 votes:
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.
2013-02-09 10:23:41 PM
1 votes:

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 09:34:19 PM
1 votes:

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 09:17:20 PM
1 votes:
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 08:56:03 PM
1 votes:

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 08:08:15 PM
1 votes:

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 08:02:16 PM
1 votes:

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 07:07:16 PM
1 votes:

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 06:44:52 PM
1 votes:

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 06:38:39 PM
1 votes:

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 06:33:01 PM
1 votes:

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 06:27:07 PM
1 votes:

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 06:23:16 PM
1 votes:
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 06:16:50 PM
1 votes:

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 06:06:36 PM
1 votes:
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 06:05:03 PM
1 votes:

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 05:46:21 PM
1 votes:

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 05:45:13 PM
1 votes:

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 05:39:08 PM
1 votes:

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 05:37:06 PM
1 votes:

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 05:36:55 PM
1 votes:
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 05:23:12 PM
1 votes:
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 05:17:56 PM
1 votes:

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 05:07:52 PM
1 votes:

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 05:02:51 PM
1 votes:
I can think of dumber things we've spent 200 Billion on.
2013-02-09 05:02:38 PM
1 votes:

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 05:00:13 PM
1 votes:

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 04:59:47 PM
1 votes:
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 04:56:10 PM
1 votes:

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 04:54:27 PM
1 votes:

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 04:42:17 PM
1 votes:

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 04:39:50 PM
1 votes:

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 04:39:04 PM
1 votes:

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 04:33:46 PM
1 votes:

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 04:25:29 PM
1 votes:

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 03:44:08 PM
1 votes:

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 03:43:03 PM
1 votes:

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 03:35:25 PM
1 votes:

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 03:27:54 PM
1 votes:

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 03:24:11 PM
1 votes:

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 02:49:11 PM
1 votes:

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 02:47:19 PM
1 votes:

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 02:26:23 PM
1 votes:
The multilayered cluelessness inherent in this headline is staggering.
2013-02-09 02:02:29 PM
1 votes:
I guess the Interstate system is a huge money sink because nobody drives from NY to LA, either.
2013-02-09 01:31:05 PM
1 votes:
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 01:13:11 PM
1 votes:

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 01:10:58 PM
1 votes:

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 01:01:28 PM
1 votes:

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 12:59:17 PM
1 votes:
Who did the mayor of Cheyenne pay off to get not just a stop, but an out of the way stop?
2013-02-09 12:54:46 PM
1 votes:

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 12:44:53 PM
1 votes:

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!
 
Displayed 95 of 95 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report