National Geographic Best Of The World Must-See Places for 2012 (Pittsburgh: costs, to move)

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by Blackbeauty212

You're talking about that slowwwww-ass SEPTA to NJTransit option....No thanks I'd rather take the bus....NJTransit part is OK but SEPTA is too freaking sloowwwwwwwwwwwwwwww it dosn't go any faster than 40MPH and has to stop more than a LOCAL Subway line...

Ah, that explains it then.....I just remembered looking at the various options for going to NY last time I was in Philly & remembered it was pretty cheap, now that I think about it I passed on that because it was about a 3hr trip, I ultimately just drove up to Newark & went in from there.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by SammyKhalifa

Let's not build anything at all then, because what if terrorism.

Let's not kid ourselves into thinking HSR will be necessarily TSA-free. And besides, terrorists want the most deaths for the bang.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by rhondee

You're right-we don't. I think the reason why is because the U.S. suffers from " Caretaker Personality Disorder". We continue to always put the needs of other countries ahead of our own to the point we are in a state of self neglect.We must have low self esteem problems or something, we are afraid of being 'not liked' or 'rejected' by other countries if we're not always throwing our money and our help to them first instead of taking care of our own needs.

The U.S. needs to seek psychotherapy for itself, and get over this syndrome in order to take care of #1.

No, I think we ultimately do things for our own self-interest. We're involved in the Mideast because of oil. If a place has a strategic location or important raw materials, we'll be involved. True humanitarian support is comparatively small. The latest being the US effort to promote acceptance of homosexuality through its foreign policy.

[rhondee]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

No, I think we ultimately do things for our own self-interest. We're involved in the Mideast because of oil. If a place has a strategic location or important raw materials, we'll be involved. True humanitarian support is comparatively small. The latest being the US effort to promote acceptance of homosexuality through its foreign policy.

Well then, I guess we fall under the ' Narcissistic Personality Disorder' category then...LOL!!!

[Aqua Teen Carl]

Originally Posted by SammyKhalifa

Let's not build anything at all then, because what if terrorism.

I am not going to go to work anymore in my skyscraper because what if terrorism.

[gg]

Originally Posted by tread102

Highly unlikely you could ever do it in an hour. Its 200 miles to both locales and while the trains can reach those speeds its doubtful it could be done. You would still deal with the TSA. Think about it. You now have a train carrying over a 1000 pax maybe? It would be a huge target for a terrorist. Also would be much easier to hit.

One thing for sure, fear beats reason in you mind. So wait, lets not build infrastructure because it might be a target? Oh my. How about fix foreign policy and then maybe we would have a lot less to worry about in the first place. Build up the US an make it a real power again. Rail is needed for the future, but so many can't see future.

[tread102]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

One thing for sure, fear beats reason in you mind. So wait, lets not build infrastructure because it might be a target? Oh my. How about fix foreign policy and then maybe we would have a lot less to worry about in the first place. Build up the US an make it a real power again. Rail is needed for the future, but so many can't see future.

My reasons for not wanting to have a rail line built has nothing to do with terrorism. I just brought that up because someone suggested that they were for the rail line so they wouldn't have to deal with the TSA. If you believe that your foolish.

I'm against most passenger rail lines. I'm certainly against a highspeed line anywhere from Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh just simply isn't big enough to support any line. It would be a boondoggle. The billions it would cost could be better spent elsewhere.

[Aqua Teen Carl]

Originally Posted by tread102

The billions it would cost could be better spent elsewhere.

Yet Iraq's $70 million dollar high speed rail from Baghdad to Basrah pushes forward with our tax dollars. Perhaps that would be better spent here. Just a thought.

[tread102]

Originally Posted by Aqua Teen Carl

Yet Iraq's $70 million dollar high speed rail from Baghdad to Basrah pushes forward with our tax dollars. Perhaps that would be better spent here. Just a thought.

You won't get an argument from me on that. The thing its just not possible to do highspeed rail, and to do it right. People are on here saying oh we could be to philly or DC in 90 minutes.

That's nonsense. It would be no different than flying. You would have to drive to the station. Stand in line be screened yada yada yada. Even if and thats a big if you could get the travel time at 90 minutes. Your still talking 21/2 to 3 hours from your house to the destination. Not much difference than a direct flight. I would rather see money spent to make air travel more efficient.

Now it may be cheaper, but that would only be because the government was subsidizing it.

[BrianTH]

It always struck me as absurd that choices of transportation technology have gotten caught up in the Culture Wars (particularly since trains were once the American intercity technology of choice).

Anyway, to correct an erroneous concept: high-speed trains are always going to be much less of a terrorist target than airplanes. That is true for a few reasons. They are actually a lot less vulnerable than some people seem to think--even a derailment is often survivable unless the train-car in question actually hits something really substantial. In that sense not starting high up in the air and full of highly-volatile fuel is a huge advantage when disaster strikes. Also, you can't turn high-speed trains into weapons like you can with airplanes, an issue we should all be regretfully aware of in the United States. In fact, the same reasoning applies to cars and trucks, which can be turned into bombs, as we have unfortunately seen in the United States as well. All that is why countries with just as much or more of a terrorism problem as the United States don't have the same security procedures for high-speed trains as airplanes. The threat just isn't remotely the same.

By the way, Pittsburgh and DC are a pretty textbook example of a good candidate for a HSR route--a high-speed train would offer significant time savings over both cars and airplanes (note this is based on real world experiences of when HSR takes share away from alternative modes--if someone theorizes differently, they need to look at the real world and see where their theory has gone wrong). True HSR would require a new rail ROW, but it wouldn't be impossible for terrain reasons, just somewhat more expensive than running through cornfields (although not necessarily as expensive as running through a more built-up route). Of course such a link would also allow be crucial to allowing direct service from DC to a host of other major cities, like Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, and so on, and all the benefits would help justify the costs.

Anyway, for Culture War reasons high-speed rail has been backburnered, which is too bad. But those Culture Wars are literally dying out, and none of this need take a really long time once the political conditions are right.