[robojester]

How about we buy nicer buses?
No need to lay track and you can move a lane if population and demand changes.

One laid a rail system is fixed pretty much in place.

Yes things MAY boom along the rail line but those people and that money is coming from somewhere else.

So you create the same problems you just move them around.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by convextech

I have, but it takes too long with all of the stops. the rail would be much more comfortable. Just like we ride the current rail, and it forces us to walk inside the casinos. We love seeing what's been updated, etc.

Why do you think light rail would have fewer stops? Why do you think it would be more comfortable? I have used light rail in the bay area (BART) and Sacramento and would describe neither as comfortable or fast.

[convextech]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior

Why do you think it would be more comfortable?

Because I've used it. It is more comfortable and has more room, and doesn't make as many stops as a bus.

[tijlover]

Originally Posted by convextech

Because I've used it. It is more comfortable and has more room, and doesn't make as many stops as a bus.

Speed is the factor as well. The trains in L.A. top out at 79.5 MPH. When I take the Green Line from the Blue BLine @ Rosa Parks to the Airport, which runs parallel to the freeway, the train passes up a number of cars on the freeway!

Yes, we could duplicate L.A.'s awesome bus system (2nd best in the country) but who would fit the bill?

When I was in Santa Monica last year, wishing to go downtown, I had 3 choices: The Freeway Flier on I-10, a local bus that made all the stops, and another choice, a bus, on the same line, which skipped some stops. Faster.

I went out to Monterrey Park on that trip as well, same system. Your choice: a bus which made very stop, and another bus, on the same line, which skipped some stops.

[tijlover]

Originally Posted by robojester

In MN it seems the only people who love it ar5e people who owned the cheap areas they ran it through, They made a fortune and of course they claim biz is booming along the rial routes but then other places are suffering.

They have a nanny state mentality there and are pround the 38% of the cost is covered by fares.
I see it as about 60% is not.......so about 70 mill a year to drive business and renters to areas no one wantesd to live in before for one reason or another.

I think we free thinkers in NV can find a better place to put 70 mill a year in subsidies.

In the first half of this year, alone, there were 19,100 people killed in car accidents, and 2.2 million seriously injured, and the National Safety Council estimates the cost of these deaths and injuries at about $205 billion.

Taxpayers don't want to hear or read this, as a result of our addiction to our Sacred Cows, the Automobile.

There was an article in The Economist regarding India with their Retirement Homes for aging cows, as the cow is sacred to the Hindu's. I told some co-workers about that and they were incredulous, such a waste, given the hunger in that country, and I: But! America has it's sacred cow, the automobile! And to keep that addiction going everyday, how many children are lacking nutritious food as a result of it?

70 million a year in subsidies, and to get some people away from car dependency? What a cheap price to pay!

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by convextech

Because I've used it. It is more comfortable and has more room, and doesn't make as many stops as a bus.

You have used the Las Vegas light rail system that doesn't exist?

[convextech]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior

You have used the Las Vegas light rail system that doesn't exist?

*sigh*

[Cold Warrior]

Taxpayers don't want to hear or read this, as a result of our addiction to our Sacred Cows, the Automobile.

Correct. We prefer automobiles to all forms of public transportation.

how many children are lacking nutritious food as a result of it?

None. The poor in the US are obese, not malnourished.

[Bruff]

Originally Posted by convextech

(Rail) is more comfortable and has more room, and doesn't make as many stops as a bus.

It is only more comfortable and has more legroom than a bus if you don't have 'company'. And if it doesn't make as many stops, doesn't that mean more walking to get to your destination?

[Bruff]

Originally Posted by robojester

How about we buy nicer buses?
One laid a rail system is fixed pretty much in place.

What's your definition of a 'nicer bus'? With bike racks and skyseats, except for a tendency to rearrange body parts when they come into contact with, say, a train, things are just fine, aren't they?


But you're right about once laid, they stick around for a long, expensive time.