High Speed Rail Boondoggle (employment, environmentalists, dollars, politician)
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.
We all can go back and forth with the pro and cons of the rails they want around the country(just like they want) BUT it really boils down to Agenda 21. It was posted in this forum a few months back, the rail map and the Biodiversity and Wildlands Project Map.
The rails go between the same cities they are going to ALLOW YOU to live in.
Here's the biodiversity map--someone else here had the rail map.
They are-it's happenend in Moscow, in Madrid, in London...
I think those were more run-of-the-mill mass transit attacks, no? Not as effective terror-wise as blowing up a plane, or a train crossing a bridge at 100+MPH.
Quote:
For all of you saying "at least on HSR passengers won't be groped like on the airlines"-who's to say they won't?
That seems unlikely though, since unlike a plane, you don't have to board a train to blow it up...
Why do correspondents on this board always use a sexual metaphor "shoved down our throats" when the government or anyone else proposed to do something they object to? Why not just say I disagree with this policy because...
I think enhancing our HSR passenger system is a very good use of government money because the money is going to be spent in this country (not wasted on our imperial overeach) and provides American jobs as well as a more efficient transportation system. This conclusion is based on how much petroleum fuel is used per passenger mile for airline transport compared with how much is required to power a train.
I disagree with the contention that “our roads are fine”. They are not. The interstate system is overcrowded around all of the major cities most of the time. Commuting hours are frustrating nightmares. All of this cost us huge amounts of money to pay other countries for the fuel. The automobile and truck dependant transport system is expensive and unreliable. The money proposed for such boondoggles as seven road stacks high Interstate junction could be better spent on improver rail passenger and freight. I have often wondered why the auto, truck and aircraft based transport is very heavily subsidized while the railroads are mostly the results of the private business system. Why do conservatives want to stack the deck against the capitalists in favor of a government subsidized and wasteful transport system?
That was rhetorical: The current system used far more petroleum than an equal capacity rail system and our petroleum aristocracy rules our government.
I think those were more run-of-the-mill mass transit attacks, no? Not as effective terror-wise as blowing up a plane, or a train crossing a bridge at 100+MPH.
That seems unlikely though, since unlike a plane, you don't have to board a train to blow it up...
What do you mean "run of the mill transit attacks"? How were they different than terrorist attacks?
What do you mean "run of the mill transit attacks"? How were they different than terrorist attacks?
I mean they don't accomplish much other than killing a few people. If terrorists were satisfied with that, they would stick to easy suicide bombings instead of going to the trouble of trying to get a bomb onto a plane.
What do you mean "run of the mill transit attacks"? How were they different than terrorist attacks?
They are both terrorist attacks. But, blowing a plane out of the sky and killing everyone on board has much more "media" impact and visibility than putting a bomb on a train and killing just a few people.
They are both terrorist attacks. But, blowing a plane out of the sky and killing everyone on board has much more "media" impact and visibility than putting a bomb on a train and killing just a few people.
I will bet that we won't have to have our privates patted down to get on a train either.
According to the American Trucking Association, US Freight Transportation Forecast, trucking will increase 21% in the next 10 years. There is no way to increase the size of our interstate system by that amount in 10 years; in many parts of this nation it has failed totally to be fast and efficient.
Add to that the increase in private vehicles. While the population has increased 30% in 30 years, the number of private vehicles has increased by 87% and the miles driven by 130%.
3.5 BILLION hours are wasted yearly on road delays in the nations 75 largest metro areas.
The only answer is rail, for people and more goods.
Another factor to consider is that technology is making intercity travel for business reasons less and less necessary.
Unfortunately I don't think there's any way to accurately predict ridership until a big portion of the envisioned network is operational and operating costs and usage fees relative to alternative modes are known (e.g. will advances make electric or hydrogen cars a more attractive choice).
I suspect that political support for rail is much more environmental than economic oriented...
I agree, especially with the last part. It seems that some people just want light rail because they think its green, and better for the environment. These greenies think the added taxpayer costs are completely justified. But the problem is that every green energy choice costs more, and no one is sitting down deciding which evolution to green initiatives we should concentrate on, so we have people pushing all of them, all at the same time, and we cannot afford to do that, especially when some of the technologies are not there yet.
I agree, especially with the last part. It seems that some people just want light rail because they think its green, and better for the environment. These greenies think the added taxpayer costs are completely justified. But the problem is that every green energy choice costs more, and no one is sitting down deciding which evolution to green initiatives we should concentrate on, so we have people pushing all of them, all at the same time, and we cannot afford to do that, especially when some of the technologies are not there yet.
Lets not get mixed up between light rail which is essentially an urban mass transit system and high speed rail which is a city to city system. I am not against adding mass transit systems where it makes sense but you have to make the economic justification based on estimated ridership and the extent to which lack of mass transit is leading to serious road congestion, delays and pollution.
I used to live near to White Plains and would get the train into NYC. The economic justification was simple. $17 round trip on the train plus $5 for parking (county lot) was cheaper than driving into the city (cost of gas) + tolls (Henry Hudson) + parking in the city. The door to door times were pretty much the same but I could read or do emails on the train. Obviously others thought the same because the trains were always full.
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 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.
