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.
I don't know about the airlines but the roads, highways and bridges are directly funded by those that use them through gas taxes and other fees like registrations. The question becomes is could this support itself through the fees paid by passengers?
The airlines costs, including security, is also funded by those that fly, through taxes and fees added onto a cost of a ticket.
No one could afford to use it daily to keep it operating. No one could use it with the hours they were proposing.
Not worth the money.
I can drive from Cincy to Cleveland cheaper then taking the train. More time but more that is ok. At least I wont get stuck if I am not at the train station before 7 pm and have to pay for a hotel until the next morning.
Not many locations in the US that it would benefit the masses at all.
Not cost effective.
We do not have the funds to even build one let alone several of them.
Most Americans cannot afford the cost of the trains. It was going to be 45.00 for a Cincinnati to Columbus trip. I can drive it for 10.00 bucks.
Now if you can have a train from Columbus Ohio to Tampa Florida and it will cost less then 100.00 to use it I will be all for it because I can catch a last minute flight for 100.00 from Col to Tampa usually daily.
Many of those 79% like the idea of HSR, but when they looked at the schedule and saw that it'd take two days to go coast to coast, they'd opt for the jet.
People don't have time to take the train anymore. Light rail is fine in certain urban environments, but trains will never work on a large scale in this country. Its time has passed. The nation is simply too geographically dispersed for it to ever take off.
And to the person that said that roads don't make the government money - you're wrong. Roads facilitate commerce, which increases tax revenues. The Interstate highway system is easily the best use of federal money, second only to defense.
I don't know about the airlines but the roads, highways and bridges are directly funded by those that use them through gas taxes and other fees like registrations. The question becomes is could this support itself through the fees paid by passengers?
We've gone over this issue in great detail in around a dozen threads in recent years and the truth is, no, gas taxes and user fees (such as car registrations) do not fund road maintained much less new road construction. They pay for 40%-60% of the maintenance costs depending on the state and the rest ends up coming out of either state general funds or Federal subsidies.
The gas tax and registration fees would have to more then double in most cases if users were simply to pay for road maintenance without subsidies.
Most Americans cannot afford the cost of the trains. It was going to be 45.00 for a Cincinnati to Columbus trip. I can drive it for 10.00 bucks.
Now if you can have a train from Columbus Ohio to Tampa Florida and it will cost less then 100.00 to use it I will be all for it because I can catch a last minute flight for 100.00 from Col to Tampa usually daily.
"... Not cost effective" at this point in time, with true costs hidden beneath layers of bureaucracy and taxpayer subsidies.
Here's the situation, in terms of passenger - miles / gallon (equiv.)
strickland.ca (http://strickland.ca/efficiency.html - broken link)- transportation energy efficiency (fuel consumption)
Rail : 2000 passenger miles / gallon
Diesel Bus : 280 passenger miles / gallon
Ford Explorer : 100 passenger miles / gallon (*fully loaded with passengers)
Aircraft : 70 passenger miles / gallon
(this is a rough approximation)
When petroleum was cheap and plentiful, it was reasonable to expend excessive fuel to travel fast and conveniently.
When petroleum is no longer cheap nor plentiful, it will be reasonable to seek the most EFFICIENT form of transportation.
(Especially after those convenient jet flights double or treble their fares)
We know that water transport is cost effective. But for land transport, the winner is rail.
However, American rail is not as efficient as it could be, saddled with FRA regs that are often counterproductive.
But when it comes down to energy consumption, electric traction rail (steel wheel on steel rail) is the champion.
I wonder how many of those 79% have actually travelled any great distance by rail. I've ridden the Amtrack Acela and I'd rather fly. I used to commute by train every day and I'd much rather drive. People seem to forget that trains are also hit by delays due to mechanical issues and etc.
You commute by train and would rather drive? Why do you keep beating yourself up? Highways too jammed up? I have never ridden the Acela but have taken many intercity train trips. I enjoy the ability to get up you don't get when driving and better room than on a plane. The train is not attractive for NY to Houston, but if you could get from Chicago to St Louis in three hours by train, it would be very attractive.
Again and Again people give the logic that if Trains were profitable, private corporation will run it. Rail network is a service to our country, its people and will save billions of our dollars going to Arab countries in buying oil from them and sacrificing lives of our troops. Private company will not send man on moon or win second world war for USA. private company will outsource jobs to India and fill our market shelves with China made products. Do you like that? Is private companiy profiteering the sole reason to deny people of USA an efficient high speed rail network. We have to develop an efficient train network to reduce our monthly gas bills for using our cars. It is high time people have an option for going from suburbs to city center by train/tram/bus and also between cities. A high speed triangle network between Dallas-Houston-Austin-San Antonio for example will save lot of money and time.
I absolutely love traveling by rail. But I do agree that once it became more common in this country, the TSA would step in and make it miserable, just like plane travel. Plus, to increase revenue, they'd probably start making the seats as small as they are in airlines. It would eventually be like taking a plane, but on the ground. Too bad, because I love HSR; it's a very good way to travel and you can see the sights while you're traveling. Europe or Japan didn't mess HSR up, but this country would.
Many of those 79% like the idea of HSR, but when they looked at the schedule and saw that it'd take two days to go coast to coast, they'd opt for the jet.
HSR is about shorter trips, about 300-400 miles, connecting major metro areas, not cross country. And makes a whole lot more sense than flying.
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.
