Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
View Poll Results: Should we build the HSR network
Yes 192 60.57%
No 125 39.43%
Voters: 317. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-12-2015, 06:20 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,151,656 times
Reputation: 7875

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by iNviNciBL3 View Post
Then it probably would only have one stop to deal with, and needing to keep to a schedule, the added time probably wouldn't matter that much.

 
Old 01-12-2015, 06:27 PM
 
Location: M I N N E S O T A
14,773 posts, read 21,480,290 times
Reputation: 9263
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Then it probably would only have one stop to deal with, and needing to keep to a schedule, the added time probably wouldn't matter that much.
I really would rather not have to share a train with people from Wisconsin though.
 
Old 01-12-2015, 06:37 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
37,792 posts, read 40,977,589 times
Reputation: 62154
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Actually most liberals are for high speed rail.
Of course they are. They live in big cities. What if the trains have to go through wetlands? What about eminent domain? Are they paying for it or do they expect the rest of us to subsidize their ticket price? What do the studies say about how much they'll have to charge you for a round trip? Just trying to figure out if it will cost you more than a plane trip and we'll have a rail system with no riders. The problem with trains is that they only go to places with tracks.

How about you go small first and build one between Los Angeles, San Francisco and Vegas? And one between DC, NY and Boston and see if it's worth it to go large.
 
Old 01-12-2015, 06:51 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,151,656 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale View Post
It is.

I don't think that you realize this fact, but please allow me to educate you.

ALL teachers come from the same pool of graduating classes. They ALL need to pass the same testing to get certified to teach.

The difference in "good" schools and "bad" schools are the attitudes of the people who send their kids to said schools.

You're welcome....that schooling was free!

Back to HSR. The River Line that runs between Trenton and Camden NJ is ONLY safe during main rush hours.
Why? Even then ridership is limited to those without other means of transportation.
So all teachers from from the same school? No, they do not. Then you go on to give a vague response on schooling to justify your inaccurate response about the problem being inner city ghettos.

What do you mean the River Line? Do you mean the light rail line? Do you know what High Speed Rail is and the difference between that and Light Rail is?
 
Old 01-12-2015, 06:52 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,151,656 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post
Of course they are. They live in big cities. What if the trains have to go through wetlands? What about eminent domain? Are they paying for it or do they expect the rest of us to subsidize their ticket price? What do the studies say about how much they'll have to charge you for a round trip? Just trying to figure out if it will cost you more than a plane trip and we'll have a rail system with no riders. The problem with trains is that they only go to places with tracks.

How about you go small first and build one between Los Angeles, San Francisco and Vegas? And one between DC, NY and Boston and see if it's worth it to go large.
Many rail routes can use the interstates that we have now to reduce the need for going through wetlands and eminent domain.
 
Old 01-12-2015, 07:11 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,814,094 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Many rail routes can use the interstates that we have now to reduce the need for going through wetlands and eminent domain.
The places where there is land around freeways to build rail would not have an issue finding other land to build on. Most metropolitan areas don't have any spaces around freeways because the freeway has already expanded to fit the full space available because demand is high in the area.

Did you see the cost to build the tunnel in Boston and how long it took? Now imagine doing that in every metropolitan area in the country, but every project would be even larger in scale.

This would take probably 50-60 years to complete, cost hundreds of billions of dollars if not trillions of dollars up front, plus ongoing subsidize in perpetuity all while not being as good as air travel, which is already paid for.
 
Old 01-12-2015, 07:15 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,151,656 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
The places where there is land around freeways to build rail would not have an issue finding other land to build on. Most metropolitan areas don't have any spaces around freeways because the freeway has already expanded to fit the full space available because demand is high in the area.

Did you see the cost to build the tunnel in Boston and how long it took? Now imagine doing that in every metropolitan area in the country, but every project would be even larger in scale.

This would take probably 50-60 years to complete, cost hundreds of billions of dollars if not trillions of dollars up front, plus ongoing subsidize in perpetuity all while not being as good as air travel, which is already paid for.
Most freeways have space above them. When you can't go out, you go up or down.

And I agree, we live in an era where big infrastructure projects no longer happen, so something that should be built up in the next 10-20 years would take 50-60 years here, which is a very sad truth about how far our country has fallen.
 
Old 01-12-2015, 07:17 PM
 
Location: Richmond/Philadelphia/Brooklyn
1,264 posts, read 1,551,050 times
Reputation: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
The places where there is land around freeways to build rail would not have an issue finding other land to build on. Most metropolitan areas don't have any spaces around freeways because the freeway has already expanded to fit the full space available because demand is high in the area.

Did you see the cost to build the tunnel in Boston and how long it took? Now imagine doing that in every metropolitan area in the country, but every project would be even larger in scale.

This would take probably 50-60 years to complete, cost hundreds of billions of dollars if not trillions of dollars up front, plus ongoing subsidize in perpetuity all while not being as good as air travel, which is already paid for.
You do realize that what we did in Boston is what we did in every American city with interstates. Get over the whining, and realize that any large infrastructure project is going to cost tons of money.
 
Old 01-12-2015, 07:21 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,814,094 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Most freeways have space above them. When you can't go out, you go up or down.

And I agree, we live in an era where big infrastructure projects no longer happen, so something that should be built up in the next 10-20 years would take 50-60 years here, which is a very sad truth about how far our country has fallen.
Building elevated track exponentially increases the cost of the project.

The country hasn't fallen, things just cost money and we have more important things to spend the money on.
 
Old 01-12-2015, 07:22 PM
 
Location: M I N N E S O T A
14,773 posts, read 21,480,290 times
Reputation: 9263
Quote:
Originally Posted by pantin23 View Post
You do realize that what we did in Boston is what we did in every American city with interstates. Get over the whining, and realize that any large infrastructure project is going to cost tons of money.
The question is will this large infrastructure project be worth it?
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:31 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top