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.
Please name me one HSR project that has turned a profit for their investors. Just one. (and before you jump on me, I take a train to work every day)
to me that's like demanding that we name some roads that turned a profit for their investors. transportation is a public good.
i see passenger rail as something the states should do , and i'd pay higher taxes for mass transit here in North Carolina. However, waiting around for the Feds to do something is not smart. This will never get anywhere at the federal level because there is no way in hell you will get any huge high speed rail project through the senate.
Why don't MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA, and MD get together and fund high speed rail at the state level?
Please name me one HSR project that has turned a profit for their investors. Just one. (and before you jump on me, I take a train to work every day)
The airline industry is heavily subsidized by taxpayer dollars, much more so than rail. Airports, runways, equipment, technology, salaries are a much greater expense to get a plane off the ground.
HSR runs into issues with land and infratructure, maybe 70 years ago that would have been possible but today it's a huge issue. Government does not want to condemn properties but that is what is needed, imagine putting in a new airport on the east coast.
Relative to efficiency, HSR over air is a no brainer the time will come, hopefully sooner than later because it's the way to go.
I choose driving over rail or airplanes. the crap at the airport concerning the TSA and other stuff wont change until the airlines start to feel it in the pocketbook. once that happens, the TSA wont be around much longer.
I mostly have to travel to the Bay Area so that's not so bad. And when you add the time to get to the airport, fly, etc. compared to the misery of flying, crammed in to tin can, high speed rail sounds great.
I mostly have to travel to the Bay Area so that's not so bad. And when you add the time to get to the airport, fly, etc. compared to the misery of flying, crammed in to tin can, high speed rail sounds great.
Even from Seattle to San Francisco would be around 600 miles I believe. At 125 mph without stops (and there would be plenty of stops), that would take 5 hours.
Even from Seattle to San Francisco would be around 600 miles I believe. At 125 mph without stops (and there would be plenty of stops), that would take 5 hours.
Five hours? Sounds excellent. The flight is a little over two now, plus airport arrival two hours before, etc. five hours sounds excellent. It can't be that good, it would have to be worse than that.
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.
