You interpreted my comment as implying I had a negative view of public transit and you tried to be witty and respond while twisting my words. I just wanted to clarify since the title was misleading. In the mean time, eat a bowl of dicks, sir.
Also, Trains don't need to be as fast as airplanes. Because economy of scale applies here as well. and geography and infrastructure in the United States is different from France and Japan. United States has very well established airfare infrastructure. Trains can be slightly slower than airplanes but it should be cheaper. Because people who is in hurry(or for convenience) will use airplanes and they will pay the extra. People who is not in hurry can pay less for it. Overall, it will shift travelers from airports to train stations. it's truely a win win for everybody. Passengers can pay less and airports will be less crowded. Trains offer similar quality of service. Also trains are generally safer when accidents happen.
Correct. Public transportation will continue to ignore those who chose to live in the middle of friggin nowhere. If you realize that the majority of the US population does NOT live in the middle of friggin nowhere, and that the population is trending towards more urban, then you'll understand that this IS actually possible here & frankly more practical then driving.
Looking at the Chicago map I doubt people will be complaining because we already have trains in our backyards from the current commuter lines. The only thing that annoys people is the freight trains that come through dragging on their train whistle. However, that was recently solved when our town was used for a trial run of an automated train whistle that goes off at each crossing as the train approaches. The automated whistle is much quieter because the sound is focused down the roadway. Everyone I have talked to out in the suburbs and in the city itself are really excited about the idea of high speed rail.
@darkfish:I asked that very question to an airline bankruptcy attorney once. He said that, basically, the airlines are risk-adverse to the point of paranoia as far as trying new things, though they are equally as paranoid about a startup coming along with a novel approach like the grid system and eating their lunch. This is why cash-strapped carriers are so eager to gobble up small, regional start-ups. They're afraid that, with no legacy costs, a smaller company can grow pretty quickly with better service and lower fares.Since air travel is insanely regulated, it would take some positive motion from the FAA to get the grid system working, i.e. - licensing startups for grid operation only, and keeping the majors out of their hair.
comrade693May 1, 2010
The problem is that these plans get fought in court because people don't want trains in their backyard or their tax dollars going to it.
qwertasdf12May 1, 2010
You interpreted my comment as implying I had a negative view of public transit and you tried to be witty and respond while twisting my words. I just wanted to clarify since the title was misleading. In the mean time, eat a bowl of dicks, sir.
slashdotordiggMay 1, 2010
Also, Trains don't need to be as fast as airplanes. Because economy of scale applies here as well. and geography and infrastructure in the United States is different from France and Japan. United States has very well established airfare infrastructure. Trains can be slightly slower than airplanes but it should be cheaper. Because people who is in hurry(or for convenience) will use airplanes and they will pay the extra. People who is not in hurry can pay less for it. Overall, it will shift travelers from airports to train stations. it's truely a win win for everybody. Passengers can pay less and airports will be less crowded. Trains offer similar quality of service. Also trains are generally safer when accidents happen.
rupethereitisMay 1, 2010
Correct. Public transportation will continue to ignore those who chose to live in the middle of friggin nowhere. If you realize that the majority of the US population does NOT live in the middle of friggin nowhere, and that the population is trending towards more urban, then you'll understand that this IS actually possible here & frankly more practical then driving.
dr0xMay 1, 2010
Looking at the Chicago map I doubt people will be complaining because we already have trains in our backyards from the current commuter lines. The only thing that annoys people is the freight trains that come through dragging on their train whistle. However, that was recently solved when our town was used for a trial run of an automated train whistle that goes off at each crossing as the train approaches. The automated whistle is much quieter because the sound is focused down the roadway. Everyone I have talked to out in the suburbs and in the city itself are really excited about the idea of high speed rail.
jbmcbMay 1, 2010
@darkfish:I asked that very question to an airline bankruptcy attorney once. He said that, basically, the airlines are risk-adverse to the point of paranoia as far as trying new things, though they are equally as paranoid about a startup coming along with a novel approach like the grid system and eating their lunch. This is why cash-strapped carriers are so eager to gobble up small, regional start-ups. They're afraid that, with no legacy costs, a smaller company can grow pretty quickly with better service and lower fares.Since air travel is insanely regulated, it would take some positive motion from the FAA to get the grid system working, i.e. - licensing startups for grid operation only, and keeping the majors out of their hair.
i38warhawkMay 8, 2010
Until someone blows up a train, then the security theater will start right up again.