U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-12-2011, 12:37 PM
 
Location: CT
1,215 posts, read 2,155,425 times
Reputation: 2008

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by grmasterb View Post
With all of this talk about HSR, I wonder where's the conversation regarding improvement of the existing Amtrak service? It could use a lot of improvement.
We need alotta improvement on our current systems but no seems to wanna pay for it. I know it's one thing to fund a completely new project and that's not simple and one sided at all, but can't we at least up keep and "modernize" what we already have in place?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-12-2011, 01:11 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
32,376 posts, read 55,173,351 times
Reputation: 15454
National High Speed Rail...is a waste of money imo.

I think the President(whom I otherwise support btw) is grasping at straws by investing so heavily in the whole bullet train hysteria that seems to be sweeping across the country.

I can see it being useful in Florida and perhaps the Northeast where Metro Areas are relatively close to each other, but the Great Lakes and California NO.

I mean really, why the hell would I choose to take a train from LA to SF if its just as expensive as flying and takes longer?

And why are we seeking to take passengers away from the wildly successful air travel corridor between Northern and Southern CA?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2011, 01:23 PM
 
Location: Fishers, IN
6,495 posts, read 10,802,779 times
Reputation: 4060
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
National High Speed Rail...is a waste of money imo.

I think the President(whom I otherwise support btw) is grasping at straws by investing so heavily in the whole bullet train hysteria that seems to be sweeping across the country.

I can see it being useful in Florida and perhaps the Northeast where Metro Areas are relatively close to each other, but the Great Lakes and California NO.

I mean really, why the hell would I choose to take a train from LA to SF if its just as expensive as flying and takes longer?

And why are we seeking to take passengers away from the wildly successful air travel corridor between Northern and Southern CA?
I think you're wrong about the Great Lakes. I think a rail network with Chicago as it's hub and that goes to Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, Indy, St. Louis and the Twin Cities could do very well, especially for business travel.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2011, 01:24 PM
 
Location: On the Rails in Northern NJ
12,381 posts, read 23,379,736 times
Reputation: 4519
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
National High Speed Rail...is a waste of money imo.

I think the President(whom I otherwise support btw) is grasping at straws by investing so heavily in the whole bullet train hysteria that seems to be sweeping across the country.

I can see it being useful in Florida and perhaps the Northeast where Metro Areas are relatively close to each other, but the Great Lakes and California NO.

I mean really, why the hell would I choose to take a train from LA to SF if its just as expensive as flying and takes longer?

And why are we seeking to take passengers away from the wildly successful air travel corridor between Northern and Southern CA?
Overcrowding in the skies and on the ground and people would not just use it to go form SF to LA but the other cities aswell. Florida's plan makes no sense at all....Only the Northeast and Cali's plans make sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2011, 03:36 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,171 posts, read 12,802,899 times
Reputation: 4047
No one's plan makes sense, and its a bit of a waste of money. For all I know (and care) I hope it doesn't happen and better alternatives are studied and implemented. I used to be strongly for this too before, not really anymore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2011, 03:50 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
32,376 posts, read 55,173,351 times
Reputation: 15454
Quote:
Originally Posted by grmasterb View Post
I think you're wrong about the Great Lakes. I think a rail network with Chicago as it's hub and that goes to Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, Indy, St. Louis and the Twin Cities could do very well, especially for business travel.
I can see a Chicago-Milwaukee bullet train but everywhere else, no not really.

Of course Im no expert on the Great Lakes, but I dont see this being self-sustaining anywhere.

Just like how almost every transit system is heavily subsidized by taxpayers, I see these bullet trains turning into yet another burden on the govt that will die without a huge annual bailout.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2011, 05:05 PM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
4,896 posts, read 7,659,080 times
Reputation: 4508
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
I can see a Chicago-Milwaukee bullet train but everywhere else, no not really.

Of course Im no expert on the Great Lakes, but I dont see this being self-sustaining anywhere.

Just like how almost every transit system is heavily subsidized by taxpayers, I see these bullet trains turning into yet another burden on the govt that will die without a huge annual bailout.
I don't think everyone would get a "bullet train" right away, anyway. I don't remember the figure stated, but it sounded too small for that anyway. Rebuilding and improving rail connections between the great lakes cities is a good idea, even if it's not high-speed right away. (can't speak about other areas of the country)

And, being "self-sustaining" isn't a requirement of any transportation infrastructure anymore. The interstate highway system gets a huge "bailout" every year, already.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2011, 09:32 PM
 
Location: Southeast
4,296 posts, read 6,273,040 times
Reputation: 1445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey View Post
Overcrowding in the skies and on the ground and people would not just use it to go form SF to LA but the other cities aswell. Florida's plan makes no sense at all....Only the Northeast and Cali's plans make sense.
What makes you think Florida's plan does not make sense? The Miami-Orlando-Tampa corridor will hit the most densely populated portions of the state. It is not really feasible to fly between any of these cities and driving can be hellacious on the Interstates.. Honestly I cannot think of a better place for HSR, it is the perfect distance for a regional system.

Florida spent at least a decade planning their HSR, and preparing for it, they are probably in a better position to build than any other location (hence why they were at the top of the priority list when funding became available).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2011, 07:50 AM
 
Location: On the Rails in Northern NJ
12,381 posts, read 23,379,736 times
Reputation: 4519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie117 View Post
What makes you think Florida's plan does not make sense? The Miami-Orlando-Tampa corridor will hit the most densely populated portions of the state. It is not really feasible to fly between any of these cities and driving can be hellacious on the Interstates.. Honestly I cannot think of a better place for HSR, it is the perfect distance for a regional system.

Florida spent at least a decade planning their HSR, and preparing for it, they are probably in a better position to build than any other location (hence why they were at the top of the priority list when funding became available).
Theres nothing to connect to in Tampa or Orlando and HSR is not for daily travel its for vacations and Business trips hench the NEC.... If you want a line between Tampa and Orlando build a Regional Railway and build a connector system otherwise this will fail....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2011, 01:21 PM
 
Location: Land of Ill Noise
956 posts, read 1,775,158 times
Reputation: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by grmasterb View Post
I think you're wrong about the Great Lakes. I think a rail network with Chicago as it's hub and that goes to Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, Indy, St. Louis and the Twin Cities could do very well, especially for business travel.
Something has always made me thought that if the state of Missouri really wanted to invest in such a rail expansion, that Saint Louis and KC would make very good limited hub cities for expanded Amtrak rail service, though of course the amount of lines that would connect wouldn't be as many as in Chicago's Union Station. Say like a line that would connect Cincinnati with Saint Louis(and say, have intermediate stops in cities like Louisville, Evansville, and perhaps a few others?), and Saint Louis to Springfield. Or north-south lines connecting cities like Grand Forks, Fargo, Sioux Falls, Omaha, and from there south to KC. Heck, at the minimum(since I'm sure it's more likely than nothing anywhere to the level of what I'm dreaming would really ever happen), it'd be cool to see a Saint Louis-Springfield Amtrak line(and maybe for all I know, it could even run west to Joplin), and a line running between Springfield and Kansas City. I remember some years ago seeing a proposal floated by either Kansas or Oklahoma's transportation departments, or Amtrak to extend Heartland Flyer service from Oklahoma City up to Newton, KS, so that Wichita would finally have regular passenger rail service. Before my aunt passed away who lived in Wichita, she was a very strong supporter of this idea.

If passenger rail isn't going to be extended as much as I'd like(and I fear that's probably much closer to the reality of what'll occur in future years, than I'd like to think), I would hope the Heartland Flyer is expanded from OKC to Newton, and Missouri seriously considers funding regular rail service between Saint Louis and either Springfield or Joplin(but preferably both). And just to think if Oklahoma wanted to join in later, and provide more funding so such a line could be expanded all the way to Tulsa and OKC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top