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 06-12-2009, 11:09 AM
 
39 posts, read 91,773 times
Reputation: 59

Advertisements

No because it would technically be winter in Rio so Chicago would be warmer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-12-2009, 11:26 AM
 
2,437 posts, read 7,285,415 times
Reputation: 1512
A friend of mine from Sao Paulo Brazil said, as cool as it would be do have the games down there, she would not even go if they were in Rio because it's too dangerous and scary there... and she's a NATIONAL!

So, if that's a common perception, there's no way they'll host the games there, since any real public safety risks are the #1 red light for the IOC.

Note: On that rail discussion (in hopes of maybe stifling it and getting back on topic): That map was only showing rail corridors with approved feasibility studies which would be likely targets to begin constructing first. It is not a master plan for the whole nation. Obviously, if several of those lines could be built and proven successful, the next logical step would be to link them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2009, 12:00 PM
 
Location: Lower East Side, Milwaukee, WI
2,945 posts, read 4,149,388 times
Reputation: 1113
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasTheKid View Post
There are so many maddening gaps on this, I'm stupefied. You want to travel fast from Dallas to Little Rock? No problem. From Dallas to Houston? Cleveland to Pittsburgh? San Francisco to Eugene? Well... you may want to rent a car. It's just strange they would build these little islands of high-speed rail and not find some way of connecting them all into one large network. And I find it curious how the PNW line starts in Eugene but completely bypasses Portland, and the line doesn't connect to California at all. What a strange rail system. I wonder who designed it.
The high-speed rail is meant to bridge the gap between flying and driving. I agree that Houston and Dallas should be connected as well as Pittsburgh and Cleveland. There also seems to be a huge void between St. Louis, Atlanta, and Little Rock where cities like Memphis and Nashville are completely overlooked.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2009, 12:13 PM
 
Location: US Empire, Pac NW
5,008 posts, read 10,793,962 times
Reputation: 4125
In 7 years who knows how well Rio will progress on crime. I think the top contenders are Chicago and Rio, with Rio leading slightly. As stated before, they've never been in S. America.

That said though, I will root for my hometown, Chicago!!!

(And about the high speed rail map, I think that it will be hard to sell that to politicians to shell out the billions to make it work, especially with our burgeoning debt. This debate of high speed rail comes about every 10 years or so and it never gets off the ground.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2009, 12:39 PM
 
Location: Albuquerque,NM
2 posts, read 1,319 times
Reputation: 10
[quote=jjacobeclark;9254439]This map came from the New York Times, but I have also seen several other maps including on the official White House website, Popular Mechanics, CNN, and the Federal Department of Transportation. However, none of the maps I have seen have showed any kind of high-speed rail corridors in the Rocky Mountain West Region. Denver is too isolated from any other big cities to warrant building a Rocky Mountain corridor. No offense, but the cities of Cheyenne, Colorado Springs, and Albuquerque are way too small to be included in any kind of high-speed rail development. I would imagine Phoenix would get high-speed rail before any of those cities, and that hasn't been proposed yet either.




Then why does Portland, Maine have one?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2009, 12:47 PM
 
2,437 posts, read 7,285,415 times
Reputation: 1512
Quote:
Originally Posted by southwesthermit View Post
No offense, but the cities of Cheyenne, Colorado Springs, and Albuquerque are way too small to be included in any kind of high-speed rail development.
I said that there was a proposal for one...
Rocky Mountain Rail Authority
But I also said it was kind of a pipe dream here. And why would I be offended that the front Range is not chock full of obnoxiously large cities?

This has gotten way off topic, but it seems to be what folks wanna talk about right now, so I suggest a new 'Which Proposed High Speed Rail Corridors do you Think are Most Viable' (or something like that) thread... Anyone want to get that going?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2009, 01:49 PM
 
Location: Lower East Side, Milwaukee, WI
2,945 posts, read 4,149,388 times
Reputation: 1113
Quote:
Originally Posted by southwesthermit View Post
Then why does Portland, Maine have one?
Because Portland, Maine is less than 100 miles from Boston, a city of 7 million people. Cheyenne is home to 80,000 people, Colorado Springs 600,000, and Albuquerque 900,000. I would hardly consider any of those places to be major cities worthy of being connected to federally-funded high-speed rail. Denver is too isolated from other big cities, it's 500 miles to Salt Lake City, 600 miles to Kansas City, and 800 miles to Phoenix.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2009, 02:15 PM
 
2,601 posts, read 4,072,419 times
Reputation: 2275
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve View Post
In 7 years who knows how well Rio will progress on crime. I think the top contenders are Chicago and Rio, with Rio leading slightly. As stated before, they've never been in S. America.

That said though, I will root for my hometown, Chicago!!!

(And about the high speed rail map, I think that it will be hard to sell that to politicians to shell out the billions to make it work, especially with our burgeoning debt. This debate of high speed rail comes about every 10 years or so and it never gets off the ground.)
My purpose for starting this thread is to point out that Chicago is now leading. Madrid is in second place, but as for now, Chicago is leading.
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.
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