Obama plans to be engaged in urban affairs/"White House Office on Urban Policy" (Chicago: school, shop)

[PokerPlayer1]

Originally Posted by supernerdgirl

god forbid some of us don't want to fly or drive everywhere.

Yeah, because that's what I was saying...

To suggest that one should be able to board a train in any given US city and from there, take a non-stop train to any other US city is what's totally delusional. The infrastructural requirements for something like that would be 100% unmanageable, not to mention impossibly expensive.... And just to preemptivley cut off what's a certainty to come (because it's impossible to examine the cost of left-leaning fantasy projects where they won't rationalize the associated outlay as a matter relative to Iraq war expenditure); yes, yes, I know how much the war in Iraq costs, but we aren't talking about the costs associated with the War in Iraq. A project like Cooly is suggesting would cost drastically more than that, not to mention the cost-to-benefit ratio would be almost entirely slanted towards cost...

Thus, the "childishly unrealistic" remark. Much like how children might suggest that we invent flying cars that run on sunbeams and saltwater, what he/she suggested is entirely in the realm of fantasy, yet people actually believe that we should waste our time 'looking into' such fluff.

I'm a huge public transit proponent and utilize it extensively myself, but 'playing pretend' is counterproductive and a retrograding force that detracts away from the legitimacy of projects that are realistic and do'able.

[supernerdgirl]

Originally Posted by PokerPlayer1

Yeah, because that's what I was saying...

To suggest that one should be able to board a train in any given US city and from there, take a non-stop train to any other US city is what's totally delusional. The infrastructural requirements for something like that would be 100% unmanageable, not to mention impossibly expensive.... And just to preemptivley cut off what's a certainty to come; yes, yes, I know how much the war in Iraq costs, but we aren't talking about the costs associated with the War in Iraq. A project like Cooly is suggesting would cost drastically more than that, not to mention the cost-to-benefit ratio would be almost entirely slanted towards cost...

Thus, the "childishly unrealistic" remark. Much like how children might suggest that we invent flying cars that run on sunbeams and saltwater, what he/she suggested is entirely in the realm of fantasy, yet people actually believe that we should waste our time 'looking into' such fluff.

ok i guess i didn't read the whole thing, but to tell the truth i am really unhappy that i have to rent a car to drive down south for Christmas because i refuse to fly anymore. it would be wonderful to take a train to Nashville...

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by coolyfett

One of the most important agendas in my book, people should be able to get around without using a car all the time. I should be able to walk to my local train station, connect to the train station that connects to Amtrak and go to any major city in the US I want. If I want to go from Chi to Sea...it should be strait shots. I shouldn't have to go to New Orleans to go to Seattle, know what I mean. Makes traveling a hassle unless you use planes.

Yeah - I have to agree that trains are more of a regional transportation solution and not a cross country solution. High speed rail From Chicago to Indy, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Detroit, etc. makes sense. Transferring at somewhere like Pittsburgh to get to NYC via rail makes sense - but even at the short distance to NYC flying makes a lot more sense than even high speed rail.

BTW - The Empire Builder goes straight through from Chicago to Seattle (or Portland with one transfer at Spokane). I'm not sure why you would go through New Orleans.

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by supernerdgirl

...to tell the truth i am really unhappy that i have to rent a car to drive down south for Christmas because i refuse to fly anymore. it would be wonderful to take a train to Nashville...

Well you could take a bus. I thought you hate Tennessee? Make whomever you are going to visit come here.

I am just playing around. Do not take it personal.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by supernerdgirl

ok i guess i didn't read the whole thing, but to tell the truth i am really unhappy that i have to rent a car to drive down south for Christmas because i refuse to fly anymore. it would be wonderful to take a train to Nashville...

So basically.... you're unhappy on account of your own refusal. I'm not sure creating a redundant transportation infrastructure to accommodate your unhappiness and refusal is a wise use of resources. As big as our country is and as spread out as our metropolitan centers -- particularly west of the Mississippi -- air travel will be far, far more cost-effective way to connect distant cities and regions for the foreseeable future. Trains make sense in dense corridors like Boston-NYC-Philly-Baltimore-Washington, or maybe SD-LA-SF... but crisscrossing the entire continent with rail lines isn't practical. So unfortunately you'll either need to get with the program or drive a car.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by PokerPlayer1

To suggest that one should be able to board a train in any given US city and from there, take a non-stop train to any other US city is what's totally delusional.

Sure. But with stops only in major cities along the way it should be possible. Europe has it's inter-city express trains that are pretty efficient.

The way I see passenger rail transportation evolving in the post-automobile world is that regional systems will be developed independently, and then connected to each other. The Northeast corridor is already pretty well-served. High-speed rail in the Midwest could connect our major cities. The Southeast and West Coast would develop independently, and then the resulting networks would be connected.

Originally Posted by PokerPlayer1

A project like Cooly is suggesting would cost drastically more than that, not to mention the cost-to-benefit ratio would be almost entirely slanted towards cost...

Umm, like the Federal highway system? It's actually quite a bit more cost-efficient to let our interstates crumble and develop rail.

Originally Posted by PokerPlayer1

I'm a huge public transit proponent and utilize it extensively myself, but 'playing pretend' is counterproductive and a retrograding force that detracts away from the legitimacy of projects that are realistic and do'able.

"Playing pretend" got us to the moon, and has been responsible for the lion's share of innovation in the last century. You're being condescending, not rational.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by Drover

As big as our country is and as spread out as our metropolitan centers -- particularly west of the Mississippi -- air travel will be far, far more cost-effective way to connect distant cities and regions for the foreseeable future.

Not necessarily. There are ominous signs for the airline industry that hint that air travel will be an exclusive affair in the future. Rail corridors connecting distant cities in the U.S. exist already. This "future of fantasy" was realized in the freakin' 19th century! Non-stop travel may not be feasible between distant cities, but inter-city express trains are surely an option that has been tested in the distant past!

[via chicago]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

Not necessarily. There are ominous signs for the airline industry that hint that air travel will be an exclusive affair in the future. Rail corridors connecting distant cities in the U.S. exist already. This "future of fantasy" was realized in the freakin' 19th century! Non-stop travel may not be feasible between distant cities, but inter-city express trains are surely an option that has been tested in the distant past!

Amen. And I think its ridiculous that we live in the 21st century and the fastest our intercity trains can go is is what..80 mph? Thats the same speed we were at in the 1930's with the Zephyr. Japan is rolling out a line that will be over 200mph by 2010. Germany hits 180. France has maxed out at 370 on some test runs.

We are in the dark ages people, and getting woefully left behind.

[supernerdgirl]

Originally Posted by Avengerfire

Well you could take a bus. I thought you hate Tennessee? Make whomever you are going to visit come here.

I am just playing around. Do not take it personal.

i do hate it. i'm pretty much driving down there on Xmas eve, turning around and coming back the day after Xmas. i've tried like hell to get them to come up here but they're all "omg what if the weather's bad!" i'm not doing it next year.

Drover, i wasn't asking for a non-stop trip on amtrak to LA. i would like to go to Nashville. 560 miles away, which could be done in 3-4 hours if we had decent high speed rail. Yes, Amtrak will go to Memphis and Birmingham, but those are both inconvenient and expensive to where I am going. but yes, i am unhappy because i refuse to take a plane, waste hours of my life sitting in o'hare or midway, and wind up getting a severe sinus infection after flying (which always ALWAYS happens after I fly).

but thanks for the condescension this morning, i needed it!

[jdiddy]

Originally Posted by PokerPlayer1

And just to preemptivley cut off what's a certainty to come (because it's impossible to examine the cost of left-leaning fantasy projects where they won't rationalize the associated outlay as a matter relative to Iraq war expenditure); yes, yes, I know how much the war in Iraq costs, but we aren't talking about the costs associated with the War in Iraq.

Just because you were such an ass in this post.

Iraq earmarks $3 billion for Baghdad subway - Yahoo! News


But a Chicago to Nashville train, or any adequate regional transit, should forever remain a left-leaning fantasy.