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)
 
 
Old 11-08-2011, 08:40 AM
 
Location: Denver
14,157 posts, read 19,812,740 times
Reputation: 8811

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
If I fly somewhere, it is a destination with mass transit options available, or where I have the option of using a car at little cost to me. Typically that's not anywhere in the United States.

So yes, being stranded in some city, without mass transit, and without a car, would be new to me. I would not enjoy it.
There's no difference except you won't be in the air. Mass transit has nothing to do with it. If you don't fly to car depepndent cities, I'd assume you wouldn't ride HSR to one.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-08-2011, 08:42 AM
 
3,458 posts, read 3,118,116 times
Reputation: 1532
Quote:
Originally Posted by annie_himself View Post
There's no difference except you won't be in the air.
High speed rail won't get me from North Carolina to London. Air travel will.

High speed rail would get me from North Carolina to Atlanta, but I don't want to be in Atlanta without a car.

Quote:
Mass transit has nothing to do with it.
Mass transit is absolutely critical. If I can't get around whenever I get to where I'm going, then I'm not going to go.

Quote:
If you don't fly to car depepndent cities, I'd assume you wouldn't ride HSR to one.
That's correct, I drive to car dependent cities.

Most of America's cities are car dependent, which is why HSR makes no sense for us. If we had decent mass transit in cities nationwide then I'd have a different opinion.

If Massachussetts, Connecticut, NY, NJ, PA, MD, DC, whomever else, wants to build a regional high speed rail system with non-federal money, then that's great. go for it. Same for California, or anyone else. just don't waste everyone's money on it.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2011, 08:49 AM
 
Location: Denver
14,157 posts, read 19,812,740 times
Reputation: 8811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
High speed rail won't get me from North Carolina to London. Air travel will.

High speed rail would get me from North Carolina to Atlanta, but I don't want to be in Atlanta without a car.

Mass transit is absolutely critical. If I can't get around whenever I get to where I'm going, then I'm not going to go.
That's correct, I drive to car dependent cities.

Most of America's cities are car dependent, which is why HSR makes no sense for us. If we had decent mass transit in cities nationwide then I'd have a different opinion.
If you're going for business you won't go? Emergencies?

American downtowns are walkable, if going for a short business trip, a cab can get you to and from your destinations while having everything else in walking distance. Many cities have some sort of rail options at least (Houston, ATL, Charlotte, Miami, NOLA, Memphis, etc), doesn't need to be NYC or London to not need a car.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2011, 09:16 AM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,483 posts, read 10,491,929 times
Reputation: 5401
Its needs to be built first in the Northeast then eventually build it in the other regions of the U.S.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2011, 09:25 AM
 
Location: The City
22,345 posts, read 32,231,632 times
Reputation: 7749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
High speed rail won't get me from North Carolina to London. Air travel will.

High speed rail would get me from North Carolina to Atlanta, but I don't want to be in Atlanta without a car.



Mass transit is absolutely critical. If I can't get around whenever I get to where I'm going, then I'm not going to go.



That's correct, I drive to car dependent cities.

Most of America's cities are car dependent, which is why HSR makes no sense for us. If we had decent mass transit in cities nationwide then I'd have a different opinion.

If Massachussetts, Connecticut, NY, NJ, PA, MD, DC, whomever else, wants to build a regional high speed rail system with non-federal money, then that's great. go for it. Same for California, or anyone else. just don't waste everyone's money on it.

The govt subsidizes air travel, highways, and rail


And on travel to a city on HS rail it is the same as air travel, you can always rent a car.

HSR makes sense in some areas and not in other IMHO, the us is too large and spread for the most part for it to be effective everywhere but as a Govt investment it can be just as good if not better than highway or airport infrsatructure in many locals. Air traffic in the NE is already extremely congested, there isnt much space for additional lines as one example.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2011, 09:27 AM
 
Location: The City
22,345 posts, read 32,231,632 times
Reputation: 7749
Congestion in the NE air routes


A Day in the Life of Air Traffic Over the United States - YouTube
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2011, 09:42 AM
 
3,458 posts, read 3,118,116 times
Reputation: 1532
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
The govt subsidizes air travel, highways, and rail
that's because those have a nationwide reach. HSR would be much more limited in its reach, it would disproportionately benefit people living in major cities, moreso than even air travel.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2011, 09:50 AM
 
Location: The City
22,345 posts, read 32,231,632 times
Reputation: 7749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
that's because those have a nationwide reach. HSR would be much more limited in its reach, it would disproportionately benefit people living in major cities, moreso than even air travel.

well it also could benefit a huge percentage of people and would be more scalable, not sure i buy that rationale honestly
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2011, 09:59 AM
 
1,351 posts, read 2,454,263 times
Reputation: 1225
America's land is too vast and population density too low, and labor costs too high to justify such an expensive system.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2011, 10:11 AM
 
Location: NC
4,112 posts, read 3,829,690 times
Reputation: 1331
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
Its needs to be built first in the Northeast then eventually build it in the other regions of the U.S.
Agreed.
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.


 
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