What is Digg?108 Comments
- lilhelper, on 03/18/2009, -4/+37California is getting a bullet train.
I voted for it last November.
I was so happy when it passed. - naturalpapa, on 03/17/2009, -1/+25The last time I checked train prices, it was as expensive as flying. After living in Europe for several years and using their excellent train systems, I know I could wholeheartedly support the plan for more passenger trains in the US.
- glueandglitter, on 03/17/2009, -2/+26I am so in love with trains and scared of flying! If it were feasible to travel long distances without leaving the ground, I'd never get on a plane again!
- shupy, on 03/18/2009, -0/+22Yes, we are far behind other countries in rail travel. It would be really nice to see our trains become an option to travel.
With the energy crunch, train travel could really compete with air travel. - cambob76, on 03/18/2009, -0/+18$8B is not enough.
- VenDrake, on 03/18/2009, -0/+13Any method of travel that doesn't involve a guy's hand up my ass looking for a bomb is better than the current US air system.
- nascentia, on 03/18/2009, -0/+11The reason the US is so behind other countries is because we ship way, WAY more freight in the US than other countries. I believe we ship twice as much freight yearly via rail than all of Europe combined.
And, those freight tracks happen to be the same tracks used for passenger. Amtrak just has trackage rights on Class I lines in most of the country, and the reason there isn't a ton of passenger train travel is because the freight trains need lines to "pull over", since they move slower than passenger.
So the only viable way we'll have high-speed rail is if they use some of this money to build dedicated lines. Seems like that's their plan, even though they acknowledge the 8 billion isn't enough money to make it happen - "As large as it sounds, $8 billion wouldn't begin to design and construct a true high-speed system in which rails are dedicated to high-speed trains."
So without dedicated lines, it's going to be very limited in the US, since we ship so much freight. You'd be surprised, but just having one single passenger train come through a freight line sets the freight locomotives on that line back by 30 hours.
And if you're wondering why I know so much about rail in the US, my country provides services to 1/4 of the US's 500ish Class II and Class III railroads. - deadbaby, on 03/18/2009, -0/+11Train is an elegant way to travel. Power outlets, 3G data cards, overpriced bar. Good times.
- ohthedaysofyore, on 03/18/2009, -0/+10I took a train up the West Coast this summer, and flew back day.
The train ride was farrrrr more relaxing and enjoyable than the ***** air-fare experience. I remember when I used to enjoy flying too, but these days it's more like a cattle drive than commuting.
Oh well, I really would love to see the trains pick up in America again. - KibblesnBitts, on 03/18/2009, -1/+8Why not just build a Monorail? I know this guy, Lyle Lanley, he already built a few of them in a couple of small towns, and they're doing great...I think
- kaelyiesta, on 03/18/2009, -5/+12Just because money is being given to the train industry doesn't mean we will see any improvement in service. A common theme in bailouts is that the recipients don't deserve it, nor use it very well. I am very skeptical this will be any different than any other corporatist behavior.
- paulkc, on 03/18/2009, -0/+7We are behind other countries because we subsidize air travel more effectively. We have to realize that we put massive public dollars into airports and air traffic control. We also pay airline to maintain service to certain cities, and to keep their fleets ready for national emergencies. The US military also trains many of the pilots.
- inactive, on 03/18/2009, -2/+9I think rail is very attractive for certain routes, but not the holy grail its supporters seem to think it is. Too many people who spent a week in Europe think that rail is the answer to all of America's transportation problems when there are a completely different set of circumstances to consider. On the plus side, at least with rail you can avoid the idiotic security people from the TSA!
- Shadic, on 03/18/2009, -0/+6Amtrak isn't too bad most of the time, but prices seem to soar when you're traveling out of state, it's kind of annoying.
I just got a round trip about 2 hours each way for $42, if that says anything. - connieLingus, on 03/18/2009, -4/+10when a train can get me to Vegas from Orlando in 3.5 hours for under $200, give me a call...ill gladly buy a couple of tickets.
- gasoline, on 03/18/2009, -0/+6Train is as expensive, but far more comfortable.
- Velnich, on 03/18/2009, -0/+6It's somewhat confusing why we don't already have high speed trains running among the major cities. Bring em on.
- ScottMitchell, on 03/18/2009, -0/+6Holy hell, what person would want to spend three or more days traveling from San Francisco to New York via rail, all the while cooped up in a cylindrical tube where it cost $8.95 to get a hot dog, plus another $2.95 for chips, and $2.95 for a water?
- flyingpj, on 03/18/2009, -0/+6Nothing beats traveling by train. It's so enjoyable just looking out the window as you're going through the countryside.
- ScottMitchell, on 03/18/2009, -0/+5It's enough to get the plans drawn up and the work half-heartedly started, no?
- inactive, on 03/18/2009, -0/+5The reason we are less dense is the government subsidized freeway system. The Freeways still work great for frieght, this would mostly be for commuter traffic, and would work great between cities for that.
The real killer is that EU cities have great intracity transit and are built around foot traffic. Once you get off the train in the US you have to still rent a car.
The real killer is that there is no commuter light rail in the US, this isn't a problem unless gas goes up, at which point it will be time to build that. - ASfinkterSezWut, on 03/18/2009, -0/+5If you build it...the hands will come.
- chuckDontSurf, on 03/18/2009, -0/+5There's nothing on earth like a genuine, bona fide, electrified, six-car Monorail!
- lostsymphonies1, on 03/18/2009, -1/+5It's about time America gets with this global trend. Why do we always have to be so horribly different?
- diggproof, on 03/18/2009, -0/+4If that train's going full speed that guy is screwed.
- Traiklin, on 03/18/2009, -0/+4cause America doesn't want to lose it's monopoly on the auto industry
well it DIDN'T want to then they made horrible choices and lost it so now they are realizing it's time for change. - DickyT83, on 03/18/2009, -1/+5Rearden would be happy.
- snogye, on 03/18/2009, -2/+6Wow, we're slow. China is kicking our asses when it comes to building trains. And Japan is upgrading their "old trains" which are faster than anything we've got. Good game, America.
- Shadic, on 03/18/2009, -0/+4Well, yeah. Also, the pricing can be ridiculous. It fluctuates based of the car owner, or whatever. It'll go from $20 to $37 in the same DAY.
- nascentia, on 03/18/2009, -0/+4Damn brain farts. I meant company when I said country.
- scottc, on 03/18/2009, -0/+4No, that would be air travel. Or car travel. Both are more heavily subsidized by taxes than train travel.
- bogdon6, on 03/18/2009, -0/+4California's bullet train isn't going to happen in anytime soon. The amount of money in the referendum will not get it out of San Francisco, let alone anywhere that happens.
- firefox15, on 03/18/2009, -0/+4Well, you can avoid them for now. The instant rail travel becomes popular again is the second TSA-like people are there to make sure nothing happens.
- ASfinkterSezWut, on 03/18/2009, -0/+4This is exactly the problem that will "sink or swim" the whole plan. In Europe Train Travel is so affordable EVERYONE rides the trains ... but here, it costs an arm and a leg just to go across town
- enronias, on 03/18/2009, -1/+4If I'm not in a hurry, train is definitely the way to go, the price is great, and the experience is amazing. See parts of America you never would otherwise, great views one after another.
- lilhelper, on 03/18/2009, -0/+3We have long lost that monopoly...
- BoredDigger, on 03/18/2009, -1/+4Infrastructure Ftw...
- floorman56, on 03/18/2009, -0/+3So a train can go from Orlando to Vegas in less than 6 hrs?
- VenDrake, on 03/18/2009, -0/+3It was going full speed before he stopped it with that really strong stick he's got.
- Harbinger67, on 03/18/2009, -0/+3It's called a car, I believe.
- yeahwhatever58, on 03/18/2009, -0/+2The greater question to ask is if train A from San Francisco traveling to New York is going 150 mph and train B from New York traveling to San Francisco is going 200 mph, when will they intersect and how long will it be before they get their next round of stimulus money???
- diggduggjoe, on 03/18/2009, -0/+2Are you over 27? ;)
- inactive, on 03/18/2009, -0/+2Examine the proposed point A and point B. You'll find the answer.
- scottc, on 03/18/2009, -0/+2WW2 did not get us out of the depression. In fact, it was over just as the U.S. started to get involved in the war.
- ScottMitchell, on 03/18/2009, -0/+2@perkoff: I've not traveled cross country on a train, although I did once take a 400 mile trip. The "Wow, I'm on a train!" excitement wears off after about the first 45 minutes.
- entropy71, on 03/18/2009, -0/+2It is an issue of size more than wanting to prop up our auto industry. What other country has the sheer distance that we have in addition to a high-speed rail system? It's just a little more expensive than many of the European countries, so no one has really wanted to foot the bill. The article suggests that the California project alone will be $50 billion, so $8 billion will only go so far on a national system.
I hope it does succeed, though. I love trains. - goalieguy314, on 03/18/2009, -0/+2As a pilot I am genuinely curious, why are you afraid of flying?
- deema1, on 03/18/2009, -0/+2I'm sure there will be tight security regulations for travel by train as well, ever since Madrid.
- JanK1, on 03/18/2009, -1/+3YEAH! ALEX JONES!
- gordigor, on 03/18/2009, -0/+2idiot.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 111 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is