Chef Jim Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Oh ya, you think the tickets would cost that much?Makes sense, I'd not be surprised. They'd not go broke from the tickets ya doofus. I take it you don't gamble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 They'd not go broke from the tickets ya doofus. I take it you don't gamble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 That's the rub. It's taken them over 30 yrs to recognize that transcontinental rail travel doesn't make any sense in the US. But regional tracks can definitely work. Seems like an obvious realization to anyone looking at a map, so insert your own opinion on why it took 30 yrs for the powers that be to finally get it. And yes, rail travel will need gov't subsidies if a decision is made that railroads are a part of the nation's transportation network. I have a hard time believing some of those corridors would be economically viable. Tulsa to Little Rock? What'll that get, about eight riders? Toledo-Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Louisville? Hell, even Albany to Buffalo garners a "why bother?" from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Oh ya, you think the tickets would cost that much?Makes sense, I'd not be surprised. Thanks for 'tarding up what until now was a pretty good discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 They'd not go broke from the tickets ya doofus. I take it you don't gamble. Heh, doh! You are correct on that. I don't gamble. Sorry Tom. My bad. Hope this doesn't ruin things between us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Oh I see. It's takes four hours because of luggage and security right. And you'll just be able to hop on one of those high speed trains without going through security and checking in luggage. There's no baggage check on any train that runs from DC/Baltimore/Wilmington//NYC/Boston. You just show your ticket and get on the train with your bags. That's it. Regarding ticket prices, there is nothing cheap about riding the train. In almost all cases, you can find a cheaper flight than a train ticket. From Philly to DC is about $75 one way on Amtrak. If you take the nicer Acela, it's $200 (doing this from memory--might be more or less but that's about right). Philly to NYC is about $100. To get from Philly to Buffalo on the train is 13 hours and something like $300 one way. High speed will only cost more. I love taking the train because there's a lot more room, you can move about, there are plugs for laptops, and checkin is nothing--you can get to the station 5 minutes before departure. But it's costly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Sorry Tom. My bad. Hope this doesn't ruin things between us. Nope. I still think you're a fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 I love taking the train because there's a lot more room, you can move about, there are plugs for laptops, and checkin is nothing--you can get to the station 5 minutes before departure. But it's costly. And there's also that issue that if it loses power is doesn't fall 30,000 feet to earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 I have a hard time believing some of those corridors would be economically viable. Tulsa to Little Rock? What'll that get, about eight riders? Toledo-Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Louisville? Hell, even Albany to Buffalo garners a "why bother?" from me. The analogy you'd have to use is if they'll relieve capacity on the competing car/air routes. Tulsa - Little Rock? The trail ends don't make sense, but when you add the Dallas/Austin/San Antonio stops as part of the total, then it becomes more viable. The Midwest areas would be an extension of the Chicago hub. And, economically viable is a loaded term, as the cost analysis would have to take into account adding new road or airport capacity to meet traffic demand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 The analogy you'd have to use is if they'll relieve capacity on the competing car/air routes. Tulsa - Little Rock? The trail ends don't make sense, but when you add the Dallas/Austin/San Antonio stops as part of the total, then it becomes more viable. The Midwest areas would be an extension of the Chicago hub. And, economically viable is a loaded term, as the cost analysis would have to take into account adding new road or airport capacity to meet traffic demand. And this is where my issue with this lies. From the feasability studies I've seen, at least for the LA-SF line is way out of whack when it comes to ridership. I don't have the number off hand but it's really a fantasy number. And that only leads me to question the motives of this whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 16, 2009 Author Share Posted April 16, 2009 And this is where my issue with this lies. From the feasability studies I've seen, at least for the LA-SF line is way out of whack when it comes to ridership. I don't have the number off hand but it's really a fantasy number. And that only leads me to question the motives of this whole thing. But doesnt it stand to reason there is a potentially huge Silicon Valley to SF ridership, central CA to SF and LA, SD to LA to SF, Santa Barbara either way? Seems to me that just the state of CA alone could sustain one of them without connecting to any other states. Amtrak is just too slow and antiquated, and yet I like going down to SD on the Amtrak. Way better than driving it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 The analogy you'd have to use is if they'll relieve capacity on the competing car/air routes. Tulsa - Little Rock? The trail ends don't make sense, but when you add the Dallas/Austin/San Antonio stops as part of the total, then it becomes more viable. The Midwest areas would be an extension of the Chicago hub. And, economically viable is a loaded term, as the cost analysis would have to take into account adding new road or airport capacity to meet traffic demand. Yeah, it becomes more viable...but wouldn't it be more viable still if you limited it to just the Dallas-Austin-San Antonio corridor then? Some regional systems would be no-brainers (The "Die-95" corridor - Boston-NYC-Philly-Baltimore-DC-Richmond - is a hideously overloaded travel route by air and car. Ditto Florida's Atlantic Coast.) But what's the traffic now between Tulsa and Oklahoma City that makes high-speed rail a sensible system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 But doesnt it stand to reason there is a potentially huge Silicon Valley to SF ridership, central CA to SF and LA, SD to LA to SF, Santa Barbara either way? Seems to me that just the state of CA alone could sustain one of them without connecting to any other states. Amtrak is just too slow and antiquated, and yet I like going down to SD on the Amtrak. Way better than driving it. Fine, get me a study that's reasonable and let CA pay for it. Why would my 80 year old dad in NY have to have his tax dollars go for building a train so you can wing your way up to SF on the weekend so you can drink Chardonnay with your left wing wankers in the Castro? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Fine, get me a study that's reasonable and let CA pay for it. Why would my 80 year old dad in NY have to have his tax dollars go for building a train so you can wing your way up to SF on the weekend so you can drink Chardonnay with your left wing wankers in the Castro? For the same reason he's paying for an interstate highway from Bismark to Billings, or for an air traffic controller to sit in Minot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Fine, get me a study that's reasonable and let CA pay for it. Why would my 80 year old dad in NY have to have his tax dollars go for building a train so you can wing your way up to SF on the weekend so you can drink Chardonnay with your left wing wankers in the Castro? It's only fair since we're paying for someone's 80-year-old father to get full heath benefits from GM. The least they can do is give us a train. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 For the same reason he's paying for an interstate highway from Bismark to Billings, or for an air traffic controller to sit in Minot No, the difference is the highways and air traffic are interstate. This is intrastate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 The HSR system in Florida has been a ten year debate. A colossal cluster!@#$, to say the least. The proposed initial system, I believe, would be from Tampa to Orlando, and one down the east coast to miami. I can see how ridership could be good, being that the Florida residents could get to Disney World in a quicker way than driving in the mess they call a road system here thats 30 years behind the growth of the state. All's I can say is " Big Dig" You get the Gov. involved in something like this and there's corruption and chaos, cost overruns...etc. Pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 The HSR system in Florida has been a ten year debate. A colossal cluster!@#$, to say the least. The proposed initial system, I believe, would be from Tampa to Orlando, and one down the east coast to miami. I can see how ridership could be good, being that the Florida residents could get to Disney World in a quicker way than driving in the mess they call a road system here thats 30 years behind the growth of the state. All's I can say is " Big Dig" You get the Gov. involved in something like this and there's corruption and chaos, cost overruns...etc. Pass. Reminds me of the Inter-County Connector here. An expressway, maybe 20 miles long, to link 270 to 95 through Maryland north of the stretch DC Beltway in Montgomery County (which is a hideous stretch of interstate). I believe it was proposed some 30 years ago, and studied...and re-studied...and-restudied...and it got to the point where there was such a cottage industry involved in studying the ICC, that no one had any vested interest in actually building it. They finally did get around to approving and starting it two or three years ago. The shitstorm surrounding it is still massive, since a not insignificant segment of the local economy is centered around talking about the damned thing, that I think they've managed to construct maybe 400 yards of it so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 I have a hard time believing some of those corridors would be economically viable. Tulsa to Little Rock? What'll that get, about eight riders? Toledo-Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Louisville? Hell, even Albany to Buffalo garners a "why bother?" from me. The Greenies and Lefties here in Cincy screamed and screamed for bus routes from the inner city to the suburbs. Jobs! Opportunities! For years, they got their way. After those several years, years of 3, 4, 5 people on the buses, it was stopped. It turned out that the inner city crowd was quite happy with subsidized, virtually free housing, Medicade, calling for an ambulance to take them for free emergency room care if they sneeze, free life insurance, food stamps, wic, free phone service, free heat, free cable, free training to sign up for and not bother to attend - but you have to sign up to keep that the eligibility for all the other free things. If you do bother to work, there is earned income credit cash coming your way. Extra cash in the past year or so, too. I think the el-hi school attendance for the children of people just looking for a "fair shake" hovers around 60%...on a good day. There is little reason to work in America. Just show up and vote, learn how to play the game, and you, too, can live a life of ease without lifting a finger - easily a better life than 90% of the rest of the world's population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 No, the difference is the highways and air traffic are interstate. This is intrastate. Let's extend the analogy. Of the peak hour traffic on I-5 or I-10, how much is for interstate travel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts