/dev/null Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Not a chance my Hindu friend! What about the Daves and other brain dead slobs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Trains are a push in the highly congested NE corridor. Door to door, you're about the same flying vs car vs train. But speaking of cost, try to rationalize $500 roundtrip NYC-DC on Acela vs $10 roundtrip BoltBus. Those $$$ billions are better spent building another highway lane. $500 round trip? Are you !@#$ing kidding me?? I can fly to NY and Back for a lot less than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 What about the Daves and other brain dead slobs? They'll be given cushy jobs! Seriously though, any public works projects which can exceed 200 mph should receive funding. That's just sound spending. Also, I have it on good authority that Obama calls the big opossum "Fidy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 They'll be given cushy jobs! Seriously though, any public works projects which can exceed 200 mph should receive funding. That's just sound spending. Also, I have it on good authority that Obama calls the big opossum "Fidy". But the main street stones are cracked and broken! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 But the main street stones are cracked and broken! Sorry man, the mob has spoken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 After reading this whole thread (and its 90% of messages from people who have no idea what they talk about) may i add something from a country that has basically been the first to vastly invest in high speed trains? High speed trains has just changed the way people travel in France and now in most of western Europe as Germany, Spain and other europeans countries have done the same than France those last decades. For travels from 200 miles to 800 miles high speed trains are the best solution for mass transit. Plane can not beat train on those trips that take under 3 hours with the train, about the time you have to spend in airports just to take a plane not counting the actual flight in those days of high security checks. And trains bring you directly in the center of cities while airports are usually at least 15 miles form the metro area center. It obviously looks like the best solution in US areas like the NE corridor from Boston to DC, the Texas Y Houston-Dallas-San Antonio, the SD-LA-SJ-SF line... Cost? of course it costs! it is an investment, an investment you know that thing our governments both side of the Pond have totally forgotten what it is. Our states love to put their money in bottomless baskets like stupid programs to help lost causes survive a few more years... Reading some of you i just wonder what the USA 'd look like if you were in charge... No water and power in houses? no paved roads, highways and airports? Infrastructures is what make the difference between a developped country and bull **** countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 After reading this whole thread (and its 90% of messages from people who have no idea what they talk about) Welcome to virtually every thread on virtually every message board on the internet. may i add something from a country that has basically been the first to vastly invest in high speed trains? Out of necessity. High speed trains has just changed the way people travel in France and now in most of western Europe as Germany, Spain and other europeans countries have done the same than France those last decades. For travels from 200 miles to 800 miles high speed trains are the best solution for mass transit. Plane can not beat train on those trips that take under 3 hours with the train, about the time you have to spend in airports just to take a plane not counting the actual flight in those days of high security checks. And trains bring you directly in the center of cities while airports are usually at least 15 miles form the metro area center. It obviously looks like the best solution in US areas like the NE corridor from Boston to DC, the Texas Y Houston-Dallas-San Antonio, the SD-LA-SJ-SF line... About the only one of those that has an even tiny chance of being built is NE. There's no way California would ever be able to get all the permitting required to even start. To say nothing of finding the funding/beating back all the protesters who'll get in the way. Cost? of course it costs! it is an investment, an investment you know that thing our governments both side of the Pond have totally forgotten what it is. Our states love to put their money in bottomless baskets like stupid programs to help lost causes survive a few more years... Reading some of you i just wonder what the USA 'd look like if you were in charge... No water and power in houses? no paved roads, highways and airports? Infrastructures is what make the difference between a developped country and bull **** countries. Investments make money. People movers in America lose tons of money. Americans aren't like Europeans and they "if you build it, they will come" mentality hasn't proven fruitful in this arena. Virtually every mass transit system in this country is a huge money pit. That's why most of them are dirty and very old. You can do stuff like this in Europe because the entire continent is so compressed. What's France's entire "high speed" system? Like 1200 miles? Or about enough to handle California if 4 tracks were built? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 About the only one of those that has an even tiny chance of being built is NE. There's no way California would ever be able to get all the permitting required to even start. To say nothing of finding the funding/beating back all the protesters who'll get in the way. You can do stuff like this in Europe because the entire continent is so compressed. What's France's entire "high speed" system? Like 1200 miles? Or about enough to handle California if 4 tracks were built? why 4 tracks? there is currently about 1200 miles of high speed train lines (2 tracks) in France (the double is planned for 2030), 1400 miles in Spain, i don't know the figures for the rest of Europe. You just need about 550 miles to make the SF-San Diego line and 500 miles for Boston-DC the two places where i so no reason why it 'd not work. Don't worry each line built in Europe has to deal with dozens of trials, protests and issues. At the end they find a way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 why 4 tracks? there is currently about 1200 miles of high speed train lines (2 tracks) in France (the double is planned for 2030), 1400 miles in Spain, i don't know the figures for the rest of Europe. You just need about 550 miles to make the SF-San Diego line and 500 miles for Boston-DC the two places where i so no reason why it 'd not work. Don't worry each line built in Europe has to deal with dozens of trials, protests and issues. At the end they find a way! Let's try to stay on point. I used 4 tracks as a measure because the math works and because France is planning on expansion in 2030. If a system was actually going to be built in California or NE/DC, it would take 5-7 years from this point to even break ground. Construction, if we're lucky, would take about 10 years to complete. What year is that? 2026 at the earliest. It only makes sense to learn the lessons of those who came before and are already having to expand. The protesters aren't really the issue, just another serious time (and therefore cost) hindrance. What is the issue is funding. California and the U.S. are both completely broke. We don't really have an issue moving people between Boston and DC or stops in between, nor do we have an issue moving people between SD and SF. "High Speed Rail" for the United States is just another "Look at Me" endeavor. The cost is prohibitive and the benefit is small. There are far bigger issues for us to spend billions of dollars on, including the decaying road system that we've ignored for decades because politicians are too busy ignoring Constitutional responsibilities in favor of giveaways to keep themselves in office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Let's try to stay on point. I used 4 tracks as a measure because the math works and because France is planning on expansion in 2030. If a system was actually going to be built in California or NE/DC, it would take 5-7 years from this point to even break ground. Construction, if we're lucky, would take about 10 years to complete. What year is that? 2026 at the earliest. It only makes sense to learn the lessons of those who came before and are already having to expand. The protesters aren't really the issue, just another serious time (and therefore cost) hindrance. What is the issue is funding. California and the U.S. are both completely broke. We don't really have an issue moving people between Boston and DC or stops in between, nor do we have an issue moving people between SD and SF. "High Speed Rail" for the United States is just another "Look at Me" endeavor. The cost is prohibitive and the benefit is small. There are far bigger issues for us to spend billions of dollars on, including the decaying road system that we've ignored for decades because politicians are too busy ignoring Constitutional responsibilities in favor of giveaways to keep themselves in office. i can understand the "we have other priorities" argument but when you build infrastructures i don't think the "we are broke" argument is really in the balance. if you're really broke, cut expenses without any long term benefits and i'm sure like us in France you have tons of that kind of expenses in the federal budget! investment on infrastructures give work to a lot of people, help consumption and have long term benefits. if there's a place NOT to cut expenses it's there! Roads or railways, whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 (edited) $500 round trip? Are you !@#$ing kidding me?? I can fly to NY and Back for a lot less than that. I have a simple solution to this: All the assclowns who think high speed rail/Amtrak is a good idea should be forced to ride it between NYC and Philly every business day for 10 months, provided they actually have a job that they need to get to in one city. That will be the end of this discussion. Who wants to massively overpay for the privilege of being late to work 60% of the time? The train is great....if you don't care when you get there. Before we drop billions we don't have, we need to do something about the root cause: letting government be in charge. Don't tell me about the environment and waste, and air, and all the rest...if you aren't also going to tell me about the how you are going to account for the biggest waste of resources in this country pound for pound : the Amtrak employee. Don't tell me a thing before you tell me how you plan to prevent corrupt politicians, commissions, union bosses, bureaucrats, and their crony business partners and "non-profits" from paying each other off while stealing the billions you insisted that we spend. If you aren't interested in solving these problems, or worse, if you won't even acknowledge that they exist, or worst, if you think the government will do a good job...which is contrary to every piece of data we have, then there's no reason to take you seriously. You are a child who sees only one problem, and thinks they can make the others go away by covering your eyes. Edited October 25, 2011 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 i can understand the "we have other priorities" argument but when you build infrastructures i don't think the "we are broke" argument is really in the balance. if you're really broke, cut expenses without any long term benefits and i'm sure like us in France you have tons of that kind of expenses in the federal budget! investment on infrastructures give work to a lot of people, help consumption and have long term benefits. if there's a place NOT to cut expenses it's there! Roads or railways, whatever. The "we are broke" argument is always in play when you're talking about things that have significant costs with minimal benefit. If California wanted to build High Speed Rail, then they should have at it. If they want Federal dollars for it, then no way. The United States isn't France or Germany. High Speed Rail isn't going to make a large positive difference in our infrastructure, made somewhat clearer by the fact that taxpayers subsidize 40% of every ticket on Amtrak and virtually no mass transit system in the country is self sufficient - the DC metro is about three quarters of a billion dollars underwater ANNUALLY. That money is better spent elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 After reading this whole thread (and its 90% of messages from people who have no idea what they talk about) may i add something from a country that has basically been the first to vastly invest in high speed trains? High speed trains has just changed the way people travel in France and now in most of western Europe as Germany, Spain and other europeans countries have done the same than France those last decades. For travels from 200 miles to 800 miles high speed trains are the best solution for mass transit. Plane can not beat train on those trips that take under 3 hours with the train, about the time you have to spend in airports just to take a plane not counting the actual flight in those days of high security checks. And trains bring you directly in the center of cities while airports are usually at least 15 miles form the metro area center. It obviously looks like the best solution in US areas like the NE corridor from Boston to DC, the Texas Y Houston-Dallas-San Antonio, the SD-LA-SJ-SF line... Cost? of course it costs! it is an investment, an investment you know that thing our governments both side of the Pond have totally forgotten what it is. Our states love to put their money in bottomless baskets like stupid programs to help lost causes survive a few more years... Reading some of you i just wonder what the USA 'd look like if you were in charge... No water and power in houses? no paved roads, highways and airports? Infrastructures is what make the difference between a developped country and bull **** countries. I love this "I can get from point A to point B on a short route so much quicker with a train." Bullcrap. I fly from SF to OC/LA several times a year. Most people that travel that distance don't have any bags to check. Boarding passes are printed online so no need to check in. And though people bash the TSA they've got it down pretty quickly with regard to check in. Also with these heavily traveled corridors there are flights leaving every five minutes or so. That way I can plan my business trip much easier. How often is a train going to leave or be available? So having said all that what is the reason/advantage of all this investment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 The "we are broke" argument is always in play when you're talking about things that have significant costs with minimal benefit. If California wanted to build High Speed Rail, then they should have at it. If they want Federal dollars for it, then no way. The United States isn't France or Germany. High Speed Rail isn't going to make a large positive difference in our infrastructure, made somewhat clearer by the fact that taxpayers subsidize 40% of every ticket on Amtrak and virtually no mass transit system in the country is self sufficient - the DC metro is about three quarters of a billion dollars underwater ANNUALLY. That money is better spent elsewhere. you know the money the SNCF (the french amtrak) makes with the high speed trains (lines that are making tons of money) help subsidize the local classic commuter lines ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 I love this "I can get from point A to point B on a short route so much quicker with a train." Bullcrap. I fly from SF to OC/LA several times a year. Most people that travel that distance don't have any bags to check. Boarding passes are printed online so no need to check in. And though people bash the TSA they've got it down pretty quickly with regard to check in. Also with these heavily traveled corridors there are flights leaving every five minutes or so. That way I can plan my business trip much easier. How often is a train going to leave or be available? So having said all that what is the reason/advantage of all this investment? Exactly. What need is high speed rail addressing? What demand is it serving? A marginal benefit at an astronomical cost that no one wants is not a good investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 (edited) I love this "I can get from point A to point B on a short route so much quicker with a train." Bullcrap. I fly from SF to OC/LA several times a year. Most people that travel that distance don't have any bags to check. Boarding passes are printed online so no need to check in. And though people bash the TSA they've got it down pretty quickly with regard to check in. Also with these heavily traveled corridors there are flights leaving every five minutes or so. That way I can plan my business trip much easier. How often is a train going to leave or be available? So having said all that what is the reason/advantage of all this investment? I know Chef i'm a frequent flyer too... The thing with LA is that there is no real center so there's a good chance your final destination is not too far from the airport... and the SF airport is quite well situated. on the NE corridor i'm pretty sure lot of frequent travelers d' love to have a train bringing them from a train station right in the financial district to the center of DC or downtown Boston in less than 2 hours ... that's what it takes them today just to go to RFK! BTW Chef... air transportation is not going to get cheaper... no way "green energy" can ever make planes fly. In the long term electric high speed trains 'd have a big cost advantage for mid-range travel. and i'm not at all a "green" wacko. That's just logical forecasting. Edited October 25, 2011 by olivier in france Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 The US is geographicaly too large for a high speed national rail system to be economicly viable. I'm not going to pay 500$ for a high speed rail ticket to Florida that takes 15 hours when I can hop on a direct southwest flight for 150 and be under a palm tree in less than 3 hours. The only hope of high speed rail here is in densely populated geographically small areas. Like the Boston to DC corridor it cali. But evenrhere the potential is limited to select areas and low future expansion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 I don't know much about politics or all the financial stuff in here and I am NOT reading three pages of crap, but I am wondering if anyone pointed out if people that ride trains are either dorks or yuppies that spill coffee. Do you really want to spend 3 hours of your life with those people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 I don't know much about politics or all the financial stuff in here and I am NOT reading three pages of crap, but I am wondering if anyone pointed out if people that ride trains are either dorks or yuppies that spill coffee. Do you really want to spend 3 hours of your life with those people? well are they really worse than the people in planes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 well are they really worse than the people in planes? Just more smug, because "I'm taking a train, I'm special!" And I've never seen a smug person fly Southwest. I think Southwest's entire business model is designed to suppress any sense of ego. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts