Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Skateboarding
6163 Followers
ext99k KOSTA
3680 Followers
Scenic Anemia
2644 Followers
Jason Kempshall
558 Followers
No Wingnut Lies!
128 Followers
Jonathan Nafarrete
5122 Followers
petrinhill
648 Followers
redstringNov 5, 2010
Seriously. Wtf is taking so long?
bdbrNov 6, 2010
I'm guessing: money
adml_shakeNov 6, 2010
Politics
atai1638Nov 6, 2010
AAA and big oils
Closed AccountNov 6, 2010
They are talking about high speed rail replacing airlines, not local commutes.
sigmaman2Nov 6, 2010
The Scott Walkers of the world are getting elected, and denying their benefits.
highlifemattNov 7, 2010
God bless Scott Walker
rayskinNov 6, 2010
Airline lobbyists
davecachiaNov 6, 2010
THEY TOOK ERR JOBS! Seriously, don't build the rail. I need a job in the future.
zirchxworldNov 6, 2010
everyone here drives cars. even if 2/3 of americans would use high-speed rail most would need cars just to get to the train station. there's a reason we don't use more trains and its because people don't use trains. there are better solutions for better prices.
adml_shakeNov 6, 2010
We don't use trains, because they aren't that much faster than cars. However if I could take a train from point A to B that scooted along at 200-250 miles an hour and didn't have to put up with all the bulls**t of check in at the air port I'd take that option almost every time.
s4forum18Nov 6, 2010
actually, they are slower
zirchxworldNov 6, 2010
slower or faster who really cares? its about hassle. its a hassle at the airport and a hassle to travel by train. here is where trains do make some sense, I also would rather take a train from lets say phx to Las Vegas to LA but again the price to build a slow train let alone a super fast one is something like a 100mil per mile + upkeep and its still just not affordable. my only issue is with the price and efficiency, you fix that and Im all for it. but like the light rail system they built here in Tempe its just so poorly planned and no one ever uses it but it costed a fortune. and like this article, they surveyed and everyone said they would like it and use it but when it opened, some did use it but now no one does and the tax payers are stuck paying for a running ghost train. typical government.
klipseracerNov 7, 2010
@zirchxworld I see tons of people riding the light rail, what are you talking about? I see many many youths riding it for school etc. I don't have any data but I work in the biltmore area, I'm 25 and I have a car so I don't need the light rail however I see many people using it.
bigpimpin79Nov 7, 2010
@zirch- Perhaps the people in Tempe are too boring (no life) and retarded (request light rail then never use it) enough to not use a efficient and well planned light rail or the light rail is not efficient and well planned. Either way kinda shows the intellect of folks in Tempe. Ive lived there... it blows, I believe the main reason noone is using it (if in fact that's the case) is the heat in the phoenix metro area. Seriously, how many "smart" people would stand around in 110+ degree temps waiting for a train when they could be sitting in thier fancy cars with AC. Denver, on the other hand, is a perfect example of great planning and high usage of the light rail concept. Perhaps air conditioned light rail stops would increase usage however then it would be difficult to keep bums and natives from livin in the them.
zirchxworldNov 7, 2010
The light rail always has some passengers but I rarely see it more than half full except during games and events. I don't go there much but when I do its operating at like 2 or 3% capacity. it just seems so wasteful to be running a fancy train for a few people who could be riding a bus for a fraction of the cost.
if the government really wants to do rail they should plan for a cross-country system instead of local commutes. expensive? hells yes. efficient? who knows. I think I might still prefer flying, after all its not like they have a first-class cabin on a train.
ultramagnus0001Nov 6, 2010
Put the cars on rails
seanofNov 6, 2010
People use airliner despite having the same limitation.
yurmutha412Nov 6, 2010
most high-speed railways in the world are actually loss-making, due to interest payments on construction costs
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/americas-new-high-speed-rails-will-be-built-by-china-2010-1#ixzz14XVYnMVm
yatataNov 7, 2010
capitalism survives on inefficiency. inefficiency = environmental annihilation = human extinction. We cannot fix our problems from the same paradigm (capitalism) which created them. We need to find a new way - not communism, not capitalism, but a hybrid that uses technology to maintain a strong impenetrable democracy.
Imagine voting on important issues from your hand-held. A system of government - the decision-making portion of which runs like avaaz.org with real-time voting from all citizens to determine which programs and legislation to implement and which projects citizens wish to donate money to. If every citizen that wanted high-speed rail was able to donate money directly to build it, and could see how much money had been donated and how much is still needed, it would be built.
with technology we would be putting the power back in the hands of the people.
dwnwrdNov 21, 2010
"Imagine voting on important issues from your hand-held."
No. Hell, no. No no no no no. WTF are you crazy?
bigpimpin79Nov 7, 2010
all environmentalists love to have large objects inserted in thier rectums but you don't hear me complaining
bigpimpin79Nov 7, 2010
http://eternian.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/study-shows-that-environmentalists-are-more-likely-to-be-immoral/
FirstMackerelNov 6, 2010
GM, Ford, and Chrysler don't want no stinkn' high speed rail!
fragmaster01Nov 6, 2010
Logistics. It's like saying people would ride the subway if their city had one. Problem is: there's a city there, you need to work around it to install such things. Take a thought of how trouble utility workers deal with when working on water lines, and think of how much more work putting up a rail line would be.
That said, it'd be wonderful for metroplexes like the Bay Area of New England, or any such place where you need speedy travel between cities. Sadly, not gonna happen without serious work figuring out how to do it while stepping on as few toes as possible.
aljeraisNov 6, 2010
SEXY GERLS
addiktionNov 7, 2010
This country is broke for major infrastructure changes. Plus the monopoly of the car and airline industry have definitely lobbied against it in politics. Seriously one of these high speed railways would cut off my transit by 2/3's. An hour would become 20 minutes. It really is the high speed of the ground and will only get faster as they discover new methods of maglev technology.
caramba421Nov 5, 2010
Don't these people understand that having a train is THE EXACT SAME THING as Joseph Stalin sending political dissidents to prison camps in Siberia?
arpadNov 6, 2010
And don't YOU understand that stupid comparisons may make you feel clever but they don't do a thing to persuade people you're right...
Oh, silly me. Smugness is the goal, isn't it?
You don't actually care about mass transit. It's the opportunity to feel clever with no effort that motivates you. Well then, carry on and I can stop worrying about fiscally-wasteful mass transit systems that no one uses being built. With proponents like you there's no need for an opposition.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
enantiodromiaNov 6, 2010
i love it when someone calls someone else smug, even though they are by far the huger smug douchenozzle.
arpadNov 6, 2010
Why would you love that? You really ought to consider finding a hobby that doesn't include gazing into a mirror admiring your perfection.
The strain of seeing what isn't there is causing you to believe that the use of phrases like "douchenozzle" means what you think it means.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
vilesNov 6, 2010
Pretty sure the /s was implied there, arpad. Calm down, sheesh.
daimposterNov 6, 2010
i'm surprised someone thinks it wasn't a sarcastic statement
caramba421Nov 6, 2010
It IS a stupid comparison. That's the point. I assume, then, that you will also categorize as stupid every time a conservative calls a liberal plan "socialist."
arpadNov 6, 2010
Sorry but the stupid comparison says more about your inability to make a case for mass transit then it does about the people at whom the comparison was supposedly directed.
And you don't have to be a mass murderer to be a socialist although there does appear to be a strong correlation. You just have to want your mommy to take care of you while you pretend you're all growed up because you've got puberty-associated body hair.
In any case, with the Repubs in control of the House it's unlikely we'll see too much of this mass transit nonsense despite all the bullshyt polls proponents of mass transit hack together.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
caramba421Nov 6, 2010
"Sorry but the stupid comparison says more about your inability to make a case for mass transit then it does about the people at whom the comparison was supposedly directed."
I don't have to make a case for it. The jury is not out on mass transit. Anybody who has spent any significant amount of time in any of the numerous countries in the world that put any serious effort into mass transit knows that it works.
"And you don't have to be a mass murderer to be a socialist although there does appear to be a strong correlation."
Isn't the authoritarianism exactly what was wrong with Soviet Communism? Call me crazy, but I thought that the mass murder and the total party control was the reason people didn't like Communists. Or was it because they had trains? Maybe I'm not remembering clearly...
arpadNov 6, 2010
Yeah, mass transit's such a success that each project that's started is treated as if it were precious whereas freeways that span a hundred times the distance, at substantially lower cost and with substantially greater flexibility, don't get any love at all.
By the way, any mass transit systems self-supporting or are they all operated at a loss?
Since mass transit's built on railroad technology, and necessarily inflexible, it's hardly likely to be responsive to the rapid pace of change of modern society and likely to appeal only to those who have no other options. Not a customer base for the long haul, as it were.
Of course none of that matters to the proponents of mass transit who are transfixed by the vision of human beings being herded like cattle.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
adambomb5060Nov 7, 2010
Do you think roads make a profit? In general the funds come from state gas tax, which doesn't even begin to cover maintenance, let alone new construction (which is something many areas are in dire need of).
As for flexibility, sure they can handle varying traffic loads, but look at it this way - do subway and train lines run 24 hours? No, if they did that, they'd lose even more money. The idea is to schedule routes by the hour, day, season, etc.
Even when it comes to responsiveness to the "rapid pace of change of modern society", you've got it wrong. The only reason the interstate highway system handles the traffic it gets today is because it was massively overbuilt for civilian traffic. Eisenhower had it designed to handle military caravans, which place loads on a surface that are far out of proportion to typical passenger traffic loads.
Anyhow, the point of infrastructure is not to make a profit, it's to get people from their homes to the buildings in which they generate profit by either producing or consuming.
arpadNov 7, 2010
What difference does it make whether roads make a profit? They're not sold to the public on the basis of them not being a continuing burden on the public revenue. They're sold as part of the national defense network as you almost certainly know whereas mass transit benefits riders tangentially and the government employees who run/maintain the system, specifically. Defending the nation incontestably benefits all citizens, even those who dismiss the possibility of a foreign enemy attacking us, whereas a mass transit system doesn't. Mass transit, by its nature, has a high percentage of free riders, in the economic sense. The cost of the system is so great that it can't, in any realistic sense, be born by those who ride the system.
When it comes to flexibility I've got it right.
A highway can carry zero vehicles or tens of thousands. It can accommodate motorcycles or double-bottom fuel tankers and buses. It can accommodate all those vehicles at any hour of the day or night without regard to the administrative limitations of a central authority. A highway is constructed of relatively inexpensive materials that can be put together, comparatively speaking, in a pretty slapdash manner. Maintenance requirements are almost non-existent compared to mass transit and much maintenance is relatively inexpensive. It's just not easy to put a highway out of operation whereas there's no trick at all to knocking a train off its track.
But don't despair. Politicians love to spend other people's money so just because there's a Republican majority set to march into the U.S. House in January doesn't mean idiotic ideas like most mass transit projects are, won't get funded.
caramba421Nov 7, 2010
Roads are not cheaper when you consider the energy costs to the consumer. Also, this is not a zero-sum game. Whenever people use mass transit, it increases the value of our road systems by alleviating traffic. Imagine, if you will, the traffic in lower Manhattan if a subway did not exist.
"[Roads] are sold as part of the national defense network."
Railroads ARE used by the DoD. In the event of a national emergency, the Strategic Rail Corridor Network provides an indispensable tool for our military to move large amounts of materiel without dependence on traffic conditions. Why do you think that invading armies almost always immediately target rail lines when they launch an offensive campaign?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/stracnet.htm
Again, the jury is not out on this s**t. Almost every civilized country in the world has them, and uses them successfully. While people here are stuck in traffic listening to people tell them on talk radio that trains don't fit nicely into their ideological framework, people in China and Japan will going to work at 200 miles per hour.
arpadNov 7, 2010
> Roads are not cheaper when you consider the energy costs to the consumer.
Actually they are because a cost that isn't born by the road network, as the energy costs are not, is not a cost with which the road system can be burdened. That's just a bit of sleight of hand used to try to redress the cost differential between mass transit where per person costs are very high versus the automobile where per person costs are very low.
Also, with regards to the military uses of transportation systems the Germans discovered during WWI how vulnerable railroads are to aerial bombardment versus the vastly greater resistance to traffic interruption of roads. That doesn't preclude the use of railroads, provided there's a road network to fill in the gaps that result from the vulnerability of roads but if it's a choice between one or the other the road network will get the nod every time.
As to what "every civilized country" does, who cares? If every civilized country decided to jump off a cliff would that make it a good idea?
adambomb5060Nov 7, 2010
This conversation merits investigation beyond the scope of a Digg comments section, suffice it to say that road and rail construction costs vary widely based on factors such as terrain, materials, design speed and real estate, among others. Rail designed for speeds similar to those of highways often is less expensive than the equivalent road, though I'm not aware of maintenance costs.
However, we're talking about high-speed rail. Because of the stresses placed upon high speed rail networks, they must be built much more substantially. This does, in fact, make them vastly more expensive than road. Of course, because we're talking about high-speed rail, the arguments about national defense and flexibility are moot. The construction of high-speed rail will almost certainly reduce road traffic between major cities, and reduce the demand on airlines to offer unprofitable short-range flights.
I will stress again that the point of infrastructure is not to make a profit, but to get people where they need to go to generate profit. With this in mind, the benefits of high-speed rail are many: less expense for travelers, faster travel times (not only on this network, but on pre-existing networks as well), and less pollution. Further down the line, you get airlines downsizing, restructuring and becoming more profitable, population and economic growth in urban areas and crossroads, and to some extent, better respiratory health in areas where gridlock was previously the norm.
If we get too bogged down in the immediate costs of new infrastructure, then we will end up stagnating, without the ability to travel or communicate effectively. To say that our network of freeways (much of which is half a century old) is sufficient to meet the demands of modern business and industry is not only wrong, but completely counterproductive.
danbarkerNov 6, 2010
Should take a visit to http://www.noagendashow.com then, they keep saying that.
Closed AccountNov 6, 2010
All aboard! Trains good, planes bad, woooo wooooo!
In the morning!
Closed AccountNov 6, 2010
In the Morning!
godsbongNov 7, 2010
Thank you internet, without you I wouldn't know whats Fact or not!
anomaly100Nov 5, 2010
Hell yeah, I would.
whiteravenNov 6, 2010
Why? I see zero appeal. I have to somehow get to the rail line... either riving out of my way or taking other forms of public transit that are even less convenient. Then I take the train... whee... to a place I don't actually want to be and then I have to treck again to actually reach my destination.
The private automobile is simply a superior solution. It uses a much finer network of routs to get me to where I want to go. It is ready to depart the instant I want to depart and goes exactly where I want to go.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
enantiodromiaNov 6, 2010
whiteraven,
NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR PARTICULAR SITUATION
please stop thinking any of us give a damn about what works for you
whiteravenNov 6, 2010
I am voicing universal truth, not my opinion or what applies only to me. Cars offer door to door service, trains are a far cry from that. There is nothing specific to me about this fact.
Did you even understand my explanation? It is a matter of *physics*, not opinion. Trains *never* reach a person's intended destination... unless they actually work in one station and live in another!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
daimposterNov 6, 2010
@whiteraven: did you even read the article? There are many reasons people would like high speed rail:
80 percent want shorter travel times compared to flying;
79 percent said they want the experience of traveling by train;
78 percent said they liked the opportunities during their leisure or business trip to visit another city that is linked to their destination by high-speed rail;
75 percent said environmental concerns drove their decisions;
For me personally, I would prefer the comfort of high speed rail over flights that are under 2 hours. For the most part, it's not meant to compete against flights from Chicago to LA but rather Detroit to Chicago, DC to Atlanta, etc. I travel for work and I hate having to take the local rail to the airport (Ohare), walk 10 minutes to the ticket counter (or kiosk), then 15-30 minutes through security, then depending which gate I have to go to it might be another 10-15 minute walk plus the 45min-60min process of waiting to be boarded, boarding, and the flight taking off.
If my flight leaves at 10am, it will take me at least 90minutes of time at the airport. I'm not counting the 20-30min to get there since that would be the same as having to arrive at the high speed rail station. then when you land, by the time you make it out our of the airport its been another 30minutes since the plane taxied. So that 2hr flight is actually 4hrs of airport time. I'd rather just spend those 4hrs (or even 5hrs) on a train to get to the same place...it's more a comfortable process than the hassle of the airport.
zirchxworldNov 6, 2010
its what works for most people. again, you have to get there, ride, and find a way to get to your destination. people just have boners for trains and there is already better much better solutions like buses. yes a bus is flexible, cheaper, and much more people use them. leave the trains in europe and we'll stick to the car. seriously if people really want to blow the budgets on f**king trains then why not be more beneficial to the community and invest in "green" buses.
it just doesn't sound as cool as HIGH-SPEED LIGHT RAIL!! OMG
overoneNov 6, 2010
Convenience may be the biggest argument against high speed rail, but if you're debating between taking a plane and taking the rail, I don't see how those inconvenient moments matter.
There may be little appeal in many day-to-day situations, for you, but in general there is far from "zero appeal" to a significant number of people.
anomaly100Nov 7, 2010
@WhiteRaven:
Have you ever been on the Bullet train or something of the same caliber? I have and it's brilliant. It also got me to where I was going quickly and I was late.
Since I didn't drive while living in Japan and considering they have *no street signs*, only building names, then you need to take another route. It is impossible to use public transportation if you're from another country and don't speak Japanese. The same can be said of a Japanese person living here. My point is, there is no universal language, or means of transportation. It's not that simple.
Besides, I like to have fun.
uncoverorNov 6, 2010
Even if 90% said they would use it, it will not happen in the United States of Automobiles. The conspiracy between the auto and oil industries is why trolleys and short line rail were replaced by buses in the first place. They would never let us turn back. This is well documented, not just a tinfoil hat rant. Read more.
http://culturechange.org/issue10/taken-for-a-ride.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scandal
http://seekingalpha.com/article/121703-gm-the-neverending-bailout
whiteravenNov 6, 2010
There is no conspiracy, buses are inherently superior. They are more versatile. They better serve the actual needs of the populace.
Trains are always favored by people that want to plan communities and force people to abide by their vision of the world. Cars and buses in contrast respond to the real wordl demands of free individuals.
The majority of people who responded "yes, I would take the train" in this poll would not in fact do so when given the actual choice. It is a matter of thinking something is good in abstract while finding it too limiting if actually put into practice.
afizzledbearNov 6, 2010
Streetcars also hold more people and attract more riders. As for your idea that people would not take the train you just have to look internationally and to the north east corridor. Internationally true HSR has beaten out planes and in the NEC Amtrak reports that more than fifty percent of people take trains.
miklkitNov 6, 2010
I have ridden in trains and buses, and also trains AND buses. I prefer trains because they are roomier and have things like food and drink. The best solution is to take a bus to and from the train station.
jstock23Nov 6, 2010
I can see your tin foil hat peeking through from under the linux baseball cap ;)
ciarNov 7, 2010
did you even read the article? 8 billion of the stimulus was for high speed rail development...
killer2021Nov 6, 2010
I am not buying it. If 2/3rds of Americans would use rail then Amtrak would not lose money every single year of operation. Yes I know amtrak is not high speed rail but its similar. I am all for high speed rail, but not when its paid for with my tax dollars. Government has no business in that area.
bdbrNov 6, 2010
The problem with doing it private is that it requires way more capital than any startup can obtain, and the payout is too long. The state can benefit from fewer cars on the road (less maintenance and construction), but a private firm doesn't see any of that benefit.
amaoicanNov 6, 2010
My suggestion on this is: Government builds the compan(y/ies) to build the high speed rail system, then privatizes it by distributing shares equally to all citizens. That way there is the "unlimited" startup fund, AND the longterm profit motive.
nerdsturmNov 6, 2010
It's simple economics, if people don't value it enough to pay it's upkeep willingly, then it's not worth the money it takes to keep running, let alone build.
And there's no way this will perform better than Amtrak financially.
bookantNov 6, 2010
"It's simple economics, if people don't value it enough to pay it's upkeep willingly, then it's not worth the money it takes to keep running, let alone build."
Great, so we can apply that standard to transportation by car, too, right? No more subsidies for gas and oil, no more government intervention to keep the price of gas artificially low in America, no more tax money for roads. If people love driving so much, they'll gladly pay all that willingly, right?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
agmlauncherNov 6, 2010
bookant, you're ignorant.
People HAVE to drive to work. They HAVE to drive to take their kids to soccer practice, or school, or buy groceries, or visit their friends.
Meanwhile people don't HAVE to take a vacation and get there by high speed rail.
People can't suddenly afford to have their cost of living go up dramatically...
Unless you plan on building a high speed rail network that is in walking distance from everyone's home to every possible destination they might want to go to, then you're not going to affect the number of cars on the road significantly enough to offset the cost of government maintained highspeed rail.
If the government is going to invest in any public infrastructure, it should be communications lines.
More people will use it, it's more necessary for commerce, it's cheaper to establish, cheaper to maintain, and will fix the duopoly nonsense that results in 1.5mbps service at $45/month.....
bookantNov 6, 2010
"People HAVE to drive to work. They HAVE to drive to take their kids to soccer practice, or school, or buy groceries, or visit their friends."
No, they don't. They HAVE to GET TO work and school. They HAVE to GET TO the grocery store. They WANT to get to those other places you mentioned. None of those things mean they HAVE to DRIVE there. Driving certainly has a big head start as far as the convenience factor, but that's nothing intrinisic to driving itself, and it didn't just magically happen on it's own. It's the result of almost a century now of car-centric social engineering.
"bookant, you're ignorant."
Exactly the opposite. Unlike a whole lot of the people in this thread, I have livied in places that HAVE invested in decent public transit systems. Places where I could park my car for six months or a year at a time without ever having to touch it. Unlike a whole lot of people in this thread, I'm not speculating I'm speaking from first hand expirience. I guess that's why I can make my points on their merits rather than make myself look like an idiot just throwing personal insults around.
"If the government is going to invest in any public infrastructure, it should be communications lines."
I agree with you on the communication lines, but it isn't an either/or. It's not like we can just pick one piece of infrastructure and ignore all the others. Too late for that. We've been ignoring and neglecting domestic infrastructure for too many decades already, now we've got to deal with it. I have some experience with that,as well. A few blocks down the street from my house there's a new I35 bridge across the Mississippi. Unfortunately, the old one had to fall into the river first before they pulled their heads out and take care of it.
oceanplexianNov 6, 2010
The problem with Amtrak is that it goes 60mph, costs $80 to go 20 miles, and the service sucks.
It's like saying "look, nobody cares about their country anymore because the domestic automakers are going bankrupt". No, the automakers are going bankrupt because the products suck, not because I don't support my country.
countess666Nov 6, 2010
if it brings enough benefits other then income it might still be worth it.
so the economics aren't simple at all.
ferretmanNov 6, 2010
The problem with this is the way the question is asked.
When asked, "Would you use high speed rail if it were available?" people will answer SURE! It's easy enough to agree with something that doesn't exist, it makes you look all smart and sophisticated in front of your girlfriend, and there aren't any specifics provided that would lower the percentage of positive answers--like schedule, price, where it actually would *go*, etc.
What most people are *really* thinking is, "High speed rail is great and everybody ELSE should use it!". That gets them out of the way on the road.
We've had bus service crop up from time to time out at the base where I work. You'd think it would be hugely popular--it's an isolated base far out on the plains, it's a pain in the butt to drive it every day and whenever there's a poll there's always a *big* number of folks who say they'd use the service. So the city puts in a bus route and it has a surge of business that gradually drops off until the bus is running mostly empty again, and they cancel the service as unprofitable.
The reasons vary but they usually boil down to:
- Irregular hours: Buses (or trains) run on fixed schedules. People rarely do. If you're there too late--too bad! If you want to sleep in late one day--too bad! This isn't a problem for everybody, but it's an issue for enough people.
- After-work chores: Inevitably folks run into an issue where they need to do something after work--drop off a library book, pick up their dry cleaning, do a bit of shopping, whatever. Can't do that if you have to run on somebody else's schedule.
- Cost: The cost of driving to/from work is rarely 100% of the perceived cost of filling one's tank. A person does a lot of things with their car and while going to/from work may be a bit chunk of that you rarely consider that when you're filling your tank--you just think about how prices have gone up or down lately.
enantiodromiaNov 6, 2010
":After-work chores: Inevitably folks run into an issue where they need to do something after work--drop off a library book, pick up their dry cleaning, do a bit of shopping, whatever. Can't do that if you have to run on somebody else's schedule."
Please show me where it says people aren't allowed to also own cars at the same time.
kukbahlamNov 6, 2010
I would like to add:
Climate: Many of us live in a climate where it is above 90º for 4 months out of the year. Add in average humidity of 60% to 90% and in shorts and a t-shirt you still show up to work wearing an extra half-gallon of water. In these areas, the distance from 1 climate controlled area to another (car or home to terminal / terminal to work) must be similar to what is provided by car.
Currently, neither our buses or trains have cooled waiting areas.
andrewpmkNov 6, 2010
The Interstate highway system loses money every single year of operation.
Airports lose money every single year of operation.
Both roads and airports receive huge government subsidies, yet no one expects that they be profitable. Why should Amtrak be profitable?
whiteravenNov 6, 2010
You're making illogical comparisions. The interstate highway system is not a corporation, it is a public work. By contrast, Amtrak is the result of the nationalization of private rail lines. Once upon a time, those rail lines were major money makers, producing phenomenal wealth. Now, under government ownership, they are red-ink factories. By contrast, the interstate system was conceived as a tax-funded network from day one. It was never intended to make money, it is one of the things taxes are supposed to pay for,
Airports are also city or state-built facilities. There is no more reason to expect them to "make money" than a prison or school system should.
Because Amtrak grew out of private enterprise, the fact that it can't support itself is very telling. Apparently, the populace no longer desires these services. It is illogical for the government to go on sustaining something that can't justify its existence.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
seanofNov 6, 2010
People are use to the idea that of cars and airplane and the public spending that supports them. High speed rail, on the other hand is new and strange.
rashomon999Nov 6, 2010
“If 2/3rds of Americans would use rail then Amtrak would not lose money every single year of operation?”
Yes, it works out that way because Amtrak has been purposely underfunded for decades in the hope that it would lose all support and could be cut. How popular would any airline be if they were practically forbidden from advertising and making investments in new equipment? When was the last time you say an Amtrak commercial? When was the last time you say a Jet Blue commercial? Yet there is still support for it because of areas of the country; like the northeast corridor which serves 250,000 passengers daily; that depend on commuter rail, rural areas that are underserved by other forms of transport, and train enthusiasts. If it were an airline it would still be the 8th popular. The majority of trains are slow and old; imagine how many more people would use rail if the trains were faster and nicer.
You also have to consider the competition. Airlines are becoming increasingly inconvenient and costly plus there is security. How many people want to be cavity searched on the way to a conference or vacation? Long distance travel by car is time consuming, stressful, and gas prices can make it pretty expensive and that is if you are lucky enough not to get stuck in traffic. High speed rail would look like a great alternative to a lot of people as long as it was fast and price competitive.
agmlauncherNov 6, 2010
"imagine how many more people would use rail if the trains were faster and nicer."
Wrong. The statement should be: "imagine how many more people would use rail if the trains were cheaper..."
No doubt the cost of tickets would INCREASE...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rashomon999Nov 6, 2010
Of course, competitive pricing is important but high speed rail isn't innately more expensive than say air travel.
Example, right now you can get a ticket on the Eurostar from London to Paris for $98 (2h25m travel time). A flight will cost you $204 plus tax (2h15m flight time). It doesn't always work out the cheapest but there are economies of scale for rail travel that would allow it to be competitive.
rashomon999Nov 6, 2010
Why do you expect the high speed rail to grow without government subsidies when every other form of transit recieves them? Why hold high speed rail to a higher standard than cars or airlines? The government subsidizes the infrastructure, manufacturing, and fuel necessary for automobile travel. The government does the same thing for air travel. Over the last 20+ years, the federal government alone has provided more than a billion dollars a year to just build or renovate airports. There seems to be two standards; one for programs where the benefits primarily go to citizens and one for when it benefits commercial interests.
I am sure you are yelling, I don’t want my tax dollars used any of it, we don't need the government interfering in markets. Well, you could move to Somalia or the Sudan. The rest of the developed world and the emerging nations are much more interventionist than the US. I guess it is a problem because all the nice countries use tax dollars to pay for public goods, even ones they don't personal use up, its sort is what makes them nice.
o76923Nov 6, 2010
If you factored in local governments paying for airports, the costs of the TSA for security, and the FAA for coordination, I'll bet airlines would be in the hole every year too. Yet rail companies are expected to pay for stations and railroads.
agmlauncherNov 6, 2010
Yes, because far fewer Americans use trains than fly. Why should the majority of Americans be taxed for something the minority are going to use?
daimposterNov 6, 2010
@killer: People don't speak up about high speed rail because they know little about it. They don't take amtrak more often because it doesn't compete with planes.
Why wouldn't it be the governments responsibility to jump start high speed rail? With you reasoning, why did the government build roads? Why create national parks?
Amtrak is a horrible example not only because it's not high speed rail (for the most part), its severely underfunded, and they have no marketing. Does Nike make the best shoes? marketing helps!
Also, moving forward we are seeing more and more security measures at airports. It's becoming a bigger hassle every time a terrorist plot is unveiled. yes, trains will have security measures as well but they will never be as much as those done on individuals at airports for the single reason that you can't ram a train into a 100 story tall building or a government building.
piratearggghhhNov 6, 2010
LA to vegas ... That thing will be packed
ryker777Nov 6, 2010
You stupid liberals…
1. The train doesn’t go to LA it goes to Anaheim. The distance is approximately 40 miles. The driving time is approximately 1 hour, depending on variables such as traffic and weather conditions. The cost for that trip will be around 175.00, I can fly from 79.00 all day and get to LA not Anaheim, you f*cks…
2. Trains for people are a big waste of money. Plane and car per passenger mile government subsidies are around 1cent ( and get paid by fuel taxes ), trains are around .60cent per passenger mile. Go look it up on the government transportation website.
3. Every train route on earth, except for 3 lose money, massively.
Stop believing the propaganda, and start to think for your self… A$$holes
Thanks youComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
andrewpmkNov 6, 2010
The train goes from San Francisco to Anaheim VIA Los Angeles.
sigmaman2Nov 6, 2010
Yet again with the "Per Passenger Mile" distraction...
Passenger-mile is meaningless. It changes when people change their travel habits. Take 5000 people off the roads or the planes, and put them on trains, then that statistic is skewed the other way.
BTW, according to the plan, the Vegas train DOES go to LA. DesertXpress will use compatible trains with CAHSR, so they will be able to roll right in to LA, SD, SF, or Sacramento.
And finally, there are three train routes in the world that are models of profitability for all the others. See? You can say almost the exact same thing, and spin a negative into a positive.
enantiodromiaNov 6, 2010
please keep copying and pasting the same thing over and over again. it makes it easier to get your account removed. :)
ferretmanNov 6, 2010
Amtrack runs San Fran to Reno--it is definitely NOT packed
piratearggghhhNov 6, 2010
What does SF to Reno have anything to do with LA to Vegas? Reno sucks. You probably haven't seen HWY 15 on a Friday night going to Vegas.
ferretmanNov 6, 2010
Being a proud Coloradan I can't say I have....
I'm surprised however that a Californian would be so....local. San Francisco (being the major northern city of the state) and Reno are roughly the same distance access wise as LA and Vegas. Both San Fran and LA are huge and diverse population centers, while both Reno and Vegas are gambling and recreation centers. Reno is somewhat more diverse, even, since it's closer to the mountains and offers a couple of nearby amenities (the legal brothels) that Vegas can't match.
So what they "have to do with each other" is that they are similar in terms of start and destination, with more than enough folks at either end of the rail to keep a train busy--IF there were sufficient traffic.
There's not such traffic on the San Fran-Reno run. I suspect there wouldn't be much difference on an LA-Vegas run either.
enantiodromiaNov 6, 2010
you are comparing to entirely different things dude.
i lived for decades in l.a. and now a decade in the bay area, and i can say without a doubt, no one in the bay area is excited to go to Reno.
las vegas however, is a very popular destination for l.a. and bay area residents.
again, no one is going to Reno except old people form the midwest. Reno is a sad joke which happens to be near Lake Tahoe, which is its only useful trait.
daimposterNov 6, 2010
reno =! vegas
Vegas >>>> reno
reno = FAIL
Vegas = WIN
bdbrNov 6, 2010
When I see the results of a study, I like to see if the people running the study have a vested interest. Curiously, the results of studies almost always benefit the ones doing the study.
"APTA members are public organizations that are engaged in the areas of bus, paratransit, light rail, commuter rail, subways, waterborne passenger services, and high-speed rail."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
liam30Nov 6, 2010
Why are you sheeple so excited about high-speed rail? Seriously, it's just a big scam to move freight, not people. The main person behind the push is Warren Buffet - who has no interest in passenger rail. Stop believing the propaganda, and start to think for your self.
PS... Do you believe Obama when the says there won't be full-body scanners and you won't need to take your shoes off before you get on the train? Than you get what you deserve. Wake up and smell the propaganda for what it is.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
enantiodromiaNov 6, 2010
ok alex jones, lol
fluxNov 6, 2010
Guess what boys and girls were broke and were going to be broke for a long time so nice things like high speed rail are not going to happen.
Our govt has spent us all ( both parties ) into so much debt that our grand children will still be paying it off if we balanced the budget today
miklkitNov 6, 2010
Both parties? BU**SH**!!
http://reaganbushdebt.org/
fluxNov 6, 2010
yes both parties dumbass have you seen the deficit the past 2 years, this also didn't start with Reagan it started just after WWII.
If you had a brain in your head you would understand most of the fault is liberal progressive policies not conservative ones and guess which party that is .....it starts with a D
enantiodromiaNov 6, 2010
flux, how much do you have to lie to yourself to totally disregard the fact that Republicans have been in control 2/3 of the time in the last 30 years.
sure, blame the guys who have only been in 1/3 of the time, its easier than actually thinking.
fluxNov 6, 2010
hey idiot congress passes the budget not the President and the liberal democrats have controlled the congress for 70 of the last 80 years
catch a clue you ignorant dumbass congress spends the money not the president so try your revisionist history on other dumbass liberals not me
armedrebelNov 7, 2010
What liberal progressive policies?
ryker777Nov 6, 2010
You stupid liberals…
1. The train doesn’t go to LA it goes to Anaheim. The distance is approximately 40 miles. The driving time is approximately 1 hour, depending on variables such as traffic and weather conditions. The cost for that trip will be around 175.00, I can fly from 79.00 all day and get to LA not Anaheim, you f*cks…
2. Trains for people are a big waste of money. Plane and car per passenger mile government subsidies are around 1cent ( and get paid by fuel taxes ), trains are around .60cent per passenger mile. Go look it up on the government transportation website.
3. Every train route on earth, except for 3 lose money, massively.
Stop believing the propaganda, and start to think for your self… A$$holes
Thanks youComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
enantiodromiaNov 6, 2010
when did you learn english?
dutchguilder2Nov 6, 2010
You got it right. While in Europe and the UK I was suprised that travelling by train cost as much as flying and didn't really save time.
armedrebelNov 7, 2010
Are you smart enough to factor in the boosts to the economy by how many people would be employed by a high speed rail?
However if we just pay China to do it it's worthless.
zorinlynxNov 6, 2010
I'd happily use trains if they were faster and at least as affordable as flying.
Miami to New York. Flying time is about 3 hours.
Driving time, 22 hours at 60MPH.
High speed rail, let's say, 200MPH. That'd be about 9 hours. Even if you round it up to 12 to take into account stops along the way, do it overnight with 7-8 hours of sleep and it's a four hour ride to you. At a FRACTION of the energy used by an airplane to do the same trip.
A comprehensive high speed rail network would be an amazing investment for the US. But conservatives keep insisting everything must make a profit. Right now. No long term investment.
Please, go found your conservative paradise somewhere else and let this country catch up to the rest of the world already.
whiteravenNov 6, 2010
A rail line, high-speed or otherwise, is a very poor solution to any problem other than freight. It lacks the versatility and freedom of road travel and it lacks the speed of airline travel. There's no no logical case in its favor.
If you take your own car over the roads, you can drive to your actual destination, not whatever station/hub the train happens to go. And then, you still have your own personal car to use at that destination. So, taking a car is cheaper and only slightly slower.
The plane doesn't give you that versatility and may cost more but it's much quicker.
Rail is kind of a pointless middle ground.
afizzledbearNov 6, 2010
HSR is useless for long distances, it would be good for thing like miami to orlando to tampa because it can beat out airplanes due to howlong it takes to get on an airplane and then actually take off.
bernlin2000Nov 6, 2010
I could see it used for both, especially if it's cheaper to HSR. What's wrong with a middle ground? Airplanes are expensive but quick, cars are slow but cheap (and very flexible). HSR could stand in the middle, and it's especially reasonable for people that don't want to deal with long distance driving (or the ridiculous hassles of airports now).
dwnwrdNov 6, 2010
All times and costs are estimates based on information found online.
All costs and times are roundtrip, as it's easier to price tickets that way.
Boston to Miami
*by air
Arrive 1.5 hours early, flight time 1.75 hours, 0.5 hours to claim baggage and exit airport
Total 3.75 hours, x2 = 7.5 hours
Price: $229.40
*by car
16 hours, x2 = 32 hours
Price: $212.15 (2000 miles, 27mpg - the federal reported average for 2010 cars, $2.864/gal - Gasbuddy's average price for that route)
You'll probably also need a hotel or some place to stay, and several meals
*by Amtrak
Fastest round trip is 57.5 hours total, but 45.75 hours on trains. Add ~1.5 hours total in the stations.
Price: $203.00 (plus tax, I assume, but I didn't reserve the ticket so I couldn't see the final price)
- I'm not presenting any opinion here, just putting out facts for the discussion.
retrofitmeNov 6, 2010
Thanks for doing some legwork and research here, but Boston to Miami via car round trip is 3000 miles, not 2000 (according to google maps). So, your price should be $318.22.
The real trick with the car is that you can transit more people for the same price. For $318.22, you can transport not just one person, but say 4 (assuming a midsized sedan). 4 people traveling together brings the price down to $79.56 per traveler.
dwnwrdNov 9, 2010
Wow, I totally screwed this whole thing up. All that work, and I put the wrong city. All the info above is for Boston to CHICAGO. I had Miami on the brain, I guess.
scamper22Nov 6, 2010
I never really understood the hype behind high speed rail.
Would it be nice... sure. I might use it for a weekend trip somewhere.
But do mass numbers of people really have the need to travel long distances on a daily basis?
If I given the choice between spending tens of billions of dollars on High speed rail, versus spending lots of money on local subways or rapid transit... give me subways and rapid transit any day.
Solving our day to day traffic is surely more important than solving weekend travelers or business class travelers. Airplanes function quite nicely too.
enantiodromiaNov 6, 2010
go to the airport on monday
count the dudes wearing business suits
listen to them call to tell their wives they will be home for dinner
i work with several people who i see almost every day at the office, who like ~400 miles away.
afizzledbearNov 6, 2010
HSR would only be usefulll when implemented for trips 3 hours or shorter
squall1980Nov 6, 2010
I took the TVG from Paris to Stuttgart. I only took 3 hrs. I wish we had a rail sytem like the EU
rashomon999Nov 6, 2010
I wonder what the percentage would be if more Americans knew how nice high speed rail systems are in Europe, Japan, Hong Kong, even in China. I can’t help but think that if they experienced it, they would start to wonder why their only options are to put up with a strip search at the airport just to be crammed between two strangers and a hard place or sit in traffic for 12 hours, 20 hours, an impossible amount of time, aren’t we there yet! I think the percentage would go up to at least 80%. (15% would object on principle, 5% would object because they aren’t affected by normal travel problems anyway.)
clunderNov 6, 2010
In Japan it was great to not need a car. Instead I have to stay wake for a 200 mile drive
rashomon999Nov 6, 2010
Japan railway is sweet. I rode Amtrak recently and I actually felt sad because I would remember how nice it was in Japan. I loved the stations and the food you could get (all about udon and onigiri from convenience stores) and how I would already be there if the train traveled as fast and how the inside of the train there was nicer and more relaxing. Why don’t we have that? I think I was a bit spoiled though since I only stayed for short stints and could get rail passes which made everything seem really cheap, as in practically free. Good luck on your drive!
clunderNov 10, 2010
Oh and the food.... I miss Japan
whiteravenNov 6, 2010
It is just as likely that Europeans would find the freedom of a car-centric model very attractive. Just jump in your car and go exactly where you want exactly when you want... how can anything beat that?
rashomon999Nov 6, 2010
You know the Europeans have cars; they even make a whole bunch of them. Same deal in Japan and China. They also have highways, you might have heard of the autobahn, and their own car culture. They simply have more options.
You could also say “why have airplanes?” You can just get in the car and drive there. High speed rail has many of the same reasons why people would choose that option, its faster (120 MPH- 268 MPH depending on the train and rail system), you can do something other than drive as you travel, and its possibly cheaper depending on the distance and gas price. Rail has the added benefit of being more energy efficient and the stations can be more conveniently located.
dooglas56Nov 6, 2010
yes please!
charlesp2009Nov 6, 2010
Sure! I'd use high-speed rail! Probably as much as I ride regular trains, maybe once every 5-10 years as a tourist with family.
whiteravenNov 6, 2010
Worthless F-ing poll. It's easy to say would would do something that you would infact not do. It's not even a matter of honesty... it's a patter of perception vs reality. And reality is, people like the notion of public transportation but hate relying on it in their daily lives.
We prefer to drive. Don't waste money on crap people won't use. Most public transportation systems in the US are ridiculously underutilized. How many times must one try the same stupid plan before it proves they are insane?
enantiodromiaNov 6, 2010
lol
have you ever even been to a large city? go to NYC or Chicago some time, and tell me people don't use public transportation in their daily lives.
whiteravenNov 6, 2010
You mean all the most expensive cities to live in? Ever think maybe those places are just messed up?
enantiodromiaNov 6, 2010
I always like to get travel advice from people who have never left a 20 mile radius of the barn they were born in.
boldfireNov 6, 2010
My town in the UK has one of the main links to the continent via EuroStar and London via HighSpeed 1. Our local economy, and house prices, have risen despite the bad economic environment.
gkiltzNov 6, 2010
At the "middle distances" like DC to NYC or Boston to Philly, rail works the best.
Those distances are an all-day drive. Flying has become such a headache in so many ways that, unless you are in the air for more than an hour, you come away feeling it's not really worth the trouble. So, that distance, a day's driving, but less than an hour by jet, rail is THE way to travel. Longer distances, it's still better to fly, and shorter It's still better to drive.
Closed AccountNov 6, 2010
Pimp could send his hoes faster across states and on long distance call outs much quicker O_O
opportunities are endless and don't forget new canvases for gang graffiti and trying to be the first idiot to get out and surf on top!
http://www.facebook.com/artsouthafricaComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
agmlauncherNov 6, 2010
Ok, this is clearly a skewed metric. Nobody is going to say they wouldn't use it......if they had a need for it.... but most Americans don't have a need for it. If there was a high speed rail from Boston to NY, I wouldn't suddenly start traveling to NY regularly. It's a pain in the ass drive from where I live to Boston, then you gotta wait around at the train station etc.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jemmaskevinNov 6, 2010
High speed train to Disney Land would be awesome!