Vision For High-Speed Rail In America (Atlanta, Savannah: 2010, how much, public schools)

[NewtownMacon]

Originally Posted by gaflsc

Agreed....and I hope so as well.

"In 4 years, once the republicans retake the white house, this will all be nothing but a bad dream". WILL NEVER HAPPEN, Thats why we are in this recession mess NOW; because of Republicans holding too many govt offices.

The high speed rail project will be very successfully, there are a lot more supporters than op posers.....

[gaflsc]

Originally Posted by NewtownMacon

"In 4 years, once the republicans retake the white house, this will all be nothing but a bad dream". WILL NEVER HAPPEN, Thats why we are in this recession mess NOW; because of Republicans holding too many govt offices.

The high speed rail project will be very successfully, there are a lot more supporters than op posers.....

Son, just sit down. You clearly have no idea as to how things work in Washington. Shouldn't you be in school?

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by NewtownMacon

What is the difference, whether its 100 or 1000 miles it still the same distance whether or not its in the US or Europe.

Not by a longshot. If you're going 100 miles, that trip takes 30 or 45 in a high speed train and makes both flying and driving impractical. If the trip is 1000 miles, why would you sit on a train for 6-8 hours (assuming an average trip speed of 125 - 175 mph) when you can fly there in 2 to 2.5 hours?

Now I could also introduce a whole other line of thinking that revolves around security. Airplane security screening isn't perfect, but it's gotten much better since 9/11, and is a whole lot better than Amtrak.

What is Amtrak's security screening? Oh...there is none, except cops patrolling busy stations. If they institute airport type screening for trains, there goes much of the perceived time savings for rail, as you would have to have a reservation, have your baggage matched, and go through metal detectors and other security.

[NewtownMacon]

Originally Posted by neil0311

Not by a longshot. If you're going 100 miles, that trip takes 30 or 45 in a high speed train and makes both flying and driving impractical. If the trip is 1000 miles, why would you sit on a train for 6-8 hours (assuming an average trip speed of 125 - 175 mph) when you can fly there in 2 to 2.5 hours?

Now I could also introduce a whole other line of thinking that revolves around security. Airplane security screening isn't perfect, but it's gotten much better since 9/11, and is a whole lot better than Amtrak.

What is Amtrak's security screening? Oh...there is none, except cops patrolling busy stations. If they institute airport type screening for trains, there goes much of the perceived time savings for rail, as you would have to have a reservation, have your baggage matched, and go through metal detectors and other security.

No you said that comparing traveling from Paris to Brussels and Atlanta to Savannah is like comparing Apples to oranges.

[PT 3000]

Originally Posted by neil0311

Yeah, but who is going to take a train from Atlanta to Raleigh, Richmond, DC, New Orleans, or anywhere in the northeast when you can fly there in 1 to 2.5 hours? Even with the time to get through security and drive to the downtown core, flying is still the best option. This isn't Europe where large capitals are 100 miles away and a trip between them takes 45 minutes. Look at where rail has been successful...Europe and Japan, where distances are small and population centers are very close.

Now Charlotte might work out if the train trip is under 4 hours...that would put it at a par with driving and just a little behind flying.

A lot of people would take the train, some people are scared to fly and refuse to fly and if it is cheaper for those on a budget they may take the train as well. I sure would if I didn't have to be at a destination ASAP!

[southgeorgia]

Originally Posted by NewtownMacon

"In 4 years, once the republicans retake the white house, this will all be nothing but a bad dream". WILL NEVER HAPPEN, Thats why we are in this recession mess NOW; because of Republicans holding too many govt offices.
.....

too sad to laugh.

[NewtownMacon]

Originally Posted by gaflsc

Son, just sit down. You clearly have no idea as to how things work in Washington. Shouldn't you be in school?

I think a Bachelors and Masters is enough schooling for me.....What about your self.

[gaflsc]

Originally Posted by NewtownMacon

I think a Bachelors and Masters is enough schooling for me.....What about your self.

Judging by your writing (typing) style & overall way you carry yourself, I call BS.

[NewtownMacon]

Originally Posted by gaflsc

Judging by your writing (typing) style & overall way you carry yourself, I call BS.

WHAT!!!!!! Do you think I care the least bit of what YOU think......First of all you do not even know me, Hell can not even attempt to describe how I carry my self. I don't remember signing or checking any blocks before joining this forum that said, our grammar, typing styles and etc would be graded. When or If I decide to post something on this forum; as long YOU and everyone else can comprehend, "Which I hope YOU can do", thats all that matters.... So if YOU want to post messages that sound as if you are conducting a research paper or a Grammar essay YOU can go right HEAD....Sherlock.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by neil0311

If you're going 100 miles, that trip takes 30 or 45 in a high speed train and makes both flying and driving impractical. If the trip is 1000 miles, why would you sit on a train for 6-8 hours (assuming an average trip speed of 125 - 175 mph) when you can fly there in 2 to 2.5 hours?

To fly 1000 miles that quickly, one must assume that it's a direct flight, fuel costs are reasonable, and the lost travel time to/from terminal is reasonable.
FWIW, a Boeing 747 cruises at 566 MPH. Neglecting ascent / descent, 1000 miles can be covered in 2 hours.

An electric high speed train, operating at 250 MPH, would take 4 hours. When fuel costs force airline ticket prices to double and triple, electric rail, though slower, will be preferable.

Flight consumes the most fuel per passenger per unit distance. In fact, any mode dependent upon petroleum will become progressively expensive, as the century progresses.

Originally Posted by neil0311

Airplane security screening isn't perfect, but it's gotten much better since 9/11, and is a whole lot better than Amtrak.

Though rails can be targets for terrorists, hijacking a train and crashing it into the equivalent of the World Trade Towers is not an option.

Originally Posted by neil0311

If they institute airport type screening for trains, there goes much of the perceived time savings for rail, as you would have to have a reservation, have your baggage matched, and go through metal detectors and other security.