High speed rail system, would you use it ?
- Thread starter vinnie
- Start date
try and stay on topic troll.
Somehow this high speed rail has become a political issue when it should not be.
Again I say its a long overdue idea for this country and I would use it often.
I think its a great idea! I could go from Nashville to Chicago in 2 hours? Nashville needs more options though, not just saying that because I live there. It needs to be able to go east and west as well and I assume eventually they would add more rails.
Clearly, everyone would love this - if it were free.
But it is tremendously costly to build. Which is why it is a political issue. Who pays for it?
The fares would not make it self sustaining - and still be affordable for folks. So, it would have to be heavily subsidized. Again, who pays for that?
Not sure if anyone realizes, but we already have a huge budget deficit at the Federal level, and a huge debt.
I don't think any sane person would want to add to our current deficit and debt, given where they are right now... oh wait, I know of one person who continually adds to it and doesn't mind....:nono:
Probably will not see it in my life time, yet, is very over due. Airline travel is really becoming a joke and very much a hassel. :0008
would love it hop on train at 30th station hook up to west bound train to vegas be there in 10 hours even 12 hrs would be nice.
driving to Vegas takes 25 hrs at least with stopping to sleep for 6 hrs.
driving to Vegas takes 25 hrs at least with stopping to sleep for 6 hrs.
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
This is way overdue. I would love to see this as an option of cross country travel. I hate flying.
America should be on the cutting edge and sadly we are too busy spending money on killing people around the world. Our infrastructure needs upgraded badly. Money should be spent here to benefit everyone.
Just curious, TU:
Let's say it is $350 to fly cross country (round trip) and takes 5 hours each way.
The train costs $250 and takes 15 hours each way.
Which one would you do?
I have a hunch there won't be enough people that choose to train it. And time is worth money, especially for folks taking vacation days.
Fact is, the only place trains make a lot of sense is the upper east cost and some areas of California - the rest of the country does not have enough areas of nearby population density.
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
Personally, I would take the train. Even if the money was equal. I don't enjoy flying and traveling first class on a train should be a lot more luxurious.
I think of the opportunities of traveling in this manner. Land vs Air would create a greater advantage for traveling for pleasure as you would have more options for seeing cities or destinations that are on the grid vs just flying over? Europe is so far ahead of the united states with this JMO
We need to improve our own country.
We somehow find money to waste being at war 24/7.
I would think this would also create jobs. I know I would much rather use this then deal with airports.
Plus maybe this guy can get be the train conductor.
unfortunately,people don`t shit money,so it`s a real issue....we just can`t keep printing money like it means nothing...
our wars are basically over now..but we`re still spending more than we`re taking in..by a countryu mile..
i read that the pricetag on california`s project(for now) is roughly 68 billion...and they only have around 8 set aside...i`m wondering how they get the rest(short of federal assistance).....we all know how the pricetag on these large projects is always underestimated...
i`m one of those people(along with t.u.) that would much rather take a train than fly..it`s a great idea in theory.....but how do we swing this expense considering the situation we`re in debt-wise?....our kids are getting buggered by our debt....and why would it be any different than our airlines(security-wise)?...will they be able to make it earthquake resistant?....
theoretically,i`d love it...not sure it it`s a realistic given our financial issues...
hopefully,it doesn`t turn out to be another cincinnati...
http://www.forgottenoh.com/subway.html
our wars are basically over now..but we`re still spending more than we`re taking in..by a countryu mile..
i read that the pricetag on california`s project(for now) is roughly 68 billion...and they only have around 8 set aside...i`m wondering how they get the rest(short of federal assistance).....we all know how the pricetag on these large projects is always underestimated...
i`m one of those people(along with t.u.) that would much rather take a train than fly..it`s a great idea in theory.....but how do we swing this expense considering the situation we`re in debt-wise?....our kids are getting buggered by our debt....and why would it be any different than our airlines(security-wise)?...will they be able to make it earthquake resistant?....
theoretically,i`d love it...not sure it it`s a realistic given our financial issues...
hopefully,it doesn`t turn out to be another cincinnati...
http://www.forgottenoh.com/subway.html
but hey...if cali can make it work and pay the freight,it would be a great model for the rest of the company...
i hope they can swing it and that`s it`s a huge success....
i hope they can swing it and that`s it`s a huge success....
If we are going to collapse upon our own debt I sure as hell hope we have some nice infrastructure as a legacy. As of now, where is our debt getting spent? Overseas? China? Lawyers, rules, regulations?
None of that will move us from point A to point B, or put food on our table.
This might.
My political philosophy says this is a moderately bad idea, but in our current state of affairs I can't think of anything else we absolutely MUST spend money on.
As said, up and down coasts maybe. Cross country no way that could come close to cost effective. As for the "Europe is far ahead of us" crowd, not hard to figure out why it is more beneficial for them.
I would definitely take it, absolutely.
I 100% agree that up and down the coasts is the way to do it.
I 100% agree that up and down the coasts is the way to do it.
We can't agree to build gas pipeline through low populated areas but this ok?
Id be interested in seeing a business plan on the cost of travel per hour for the traveler.
All of the hassles of air travel would still be present.
Id be interested in seeing a business plan on the cost of travel per hour for the traveler.
All of the hassles of air travel would still be present.
I'd definitely use it. There are a lot of places I don't go because it seems too long to drive to and too much of a hassle to fly there.
Driving 95 up the eastern seaboard is misery. This would be extremely successful on the NE coast IMO.
good point...as you know,california is the rules and regulations capitol of the country....all the environmental studies,regulations and minutiae will probably increase the price tag significantly.......and we aren`t even talking the eminent domain issues....people are going to have their property basically confiscated leading to more and extended litigation expense and delays.....
hopefully the whole shebang isn`t just a huge quid pro quo between politicians and monster contractors.(i`m being cynical now:lol: ).....:toast:
lets hope it can be done without bankrupting the state(baltimore`s heading toward bankruptcy...people are fleeing the city like there`s an ebola epidemic).....pretty soon they`ll be looting the suburbs/counties to keep the city afloat....when that happens,i`m gone....
i hope it works out for ya`,imf....:0074
