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 am not opposed to rail service where it works best for the people. But it only works best in places that have a high density of population. I fully support it for Boston to Washington. I fully support it for San Diego to San Fransisco- and maybe even Portland, Seattle and Vancouver. Milwaukee- Chicago- Detroit might work. But Iowa?? Missouri??- I do not see it as working in those places. Not enough people to make it worth the investment.
It doesn't matter if it works. That's not the point. THe point of the program is to grow government jobs.
I am not opposed to rail service where it works best for the people. But it only works best in places that have a high density of population. I fully support it for Boston to Washington. I fully support it for San Diego to San Fransisco- and maybe even Portland, Seattle and Vancouver. Milwaukee- Chicago- Detroit might work. But Iowa?? Missouri??- I do not see it as working in those places. Not enough people to make it worth the investment.
High speed too no less. There's also one on the list for a high speed from Cali to Las Vegas.
Lots of high speed rail but IMO not in the right places to make them very useful.
Originally posted by zz4guy
It doesn't matter if it works. That's not the point. THe point of the program is to grow government jobs.
Whether it's private or public, what does it matter? It's still a job that people would accept. I for one think it's a great idea. A hundred years ago people from Chicago took the trains to northern michigan for the summer, and quite a few here in Michigan take the train to Chicago for a weekend. Also, connecting Detroit to Chicago to Minneapolis wouldn't be a bad move, IMO.
I am not opposed to rail service where it works best for the people. But it only works best in places that have a high density of population. I fully support it for Boston to Washington. I fully support it for San Diego to San Fransisco- and maybe even Portland, Seattle and Vancouver. Milwaukee- Chicago- Detroit might work. But Iowa?? Missouri??- I do not see it as working in those places. Not enough people to make it worth the investment.
Missouri?? why not? St.Louis to Chicago makes a lot of sense.
In fact, mass transit and Amtrak are all recording record riderships.
Same thing is happening here in Dallas with DART. But the fact is that the record numbers translate to a percentage increase that is either in line with or below the rate of population growth.
In Texas we don't need to get other states to sign, just our cities. Besides, who wants to leave Texas?
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.
