Honest question - What is the fascination with rail systems amongst those left of center? (Iran, myths)

[JR_C]

Originally Posted by bobtn

Glitch, You live in a subsidized state. Alaska w/o subsidies would have ZERO airports.

I wouldn't bother arguing with this poster. Despite being shown documentation from their own state that indicates otherwise, this poster still believes none of their roads or highways receive federal subsidies.

[GregW]

Given the Interstate Highway system and several interstate irrigation and electric power systems I think the Federal government does have that authority. I also think it is about time the Federal government did something besides buying supporting our military overlords and actually built something useful.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by GregW

Given the Interstate Highway system and several interstate irrigation and electric power systems I think the Federal government does have that authority. I also think it is about time the Federal government did something besides buying supporting our military overlords and actually built something useful.

Citing one unconstitutional act in order to justify another unconstitutional act is hardly a valid argument. The Interstate highway system justification was based upon the Rural Post Road Act of 1916 which was construed to mean any road by which the mail is transported.

The actual power granted to Congress was the power "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads." Since when is a four-lane Interstate required to deliver mail?

Only a liberal could twist and bastardize the US Constitution to make it mean whatever they want it to mean.

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by Glitch

The northeastern states are closer together, much like Europe, thereby making transport by rail more practical. The further west you get, the bigger the distance becomes between major cities, making passenger rail transport less practical except for the light rail wholly within the major western cities.

Stop making excuses. You might want to stick to your argument on "unconstitutionality" as if you can actually challenge and win your case on those grounds.

What difference does population density in Europe make when one can travel from London to Paris, non-stop, by rail as can be done by flight but people have BOTH options? What difference does population density make on Dallas-Houston sector when one car drive, or fly or take the train? What difference does population density make when connecting Oklahoma City - Dallas - Austin - San Antonio?

When talking non-HSR lines, it might even benefit rural areas just as it did when America was largely rural. It was purely a coincidence last weekend when I drove into Sherman, TX and remembered grandma (100+ now, and having lived her entire life in the area) telling me about how they used to take the train to Dallas. The service was taken off in the 1980s. The tracks still sit. Then while driving back to Dallas, I realized that once again, the train services might reach Sherman some day, and they certainly can, to McKinney (which is more than half way to Sherman from Dallas). It is what is in the future, but the "oil generations" (1940s+) will definitely have a hard time digesting that fact.

Originally Posted by bobtn

Glitch, You live in a subsidized state. Alaska w/o subsidies would have ZERO airports.

Yep. But with "do as I say, not as I do" mentality, it is hard for them to get in touch with the reality.


Imagine an aviation system in which planes fly two-thirds empty, fares are as low as $46 and the government pays up to 93% of the cost of a flight. You don't have to look far. That system exists in the USA — and quietly is expanding even as most of the nation's 2 million daily air travelers see fares tick upward for increasingly crowded flights.

Each day, about 3,000 passengers enjoy mostly empty, heavily subsidized flights, financed by a 30-year-old program that requires the government to guarantee commercial air service to scores of small communities that can't support it themselves.

[Vinylly]

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

Whether it's a national high speed rail system, or local rail in a spread out southern city - why do Democrats like rail so much? It is not feasible in every locale.

Are any of the reasons below valid?

OBAMA’S HIGH-SPEED RAIL OBSESSION

So why is Obama still so determined to push the high-speed boondoggle? Largely it’s a deadly combination of theology and money. Powerful rail construction interests, notably the German giant Siemens, are spreading cash like mustard on a bratwurst to promote the scheme. Add to that construction unions and the ever voracious investment banks who would love to pocket fees for arranging to sell the bonds and you have interests capable of influencing either party.

Then there’s what might be called the “density lobby” — big city mayors, construction firms and the urban land owners. These magnates, who frequently extort huge public subsidies for their projects, no doubt think it grand to spend billions of public funds on something that might also increase the value of their real estate.

And finally there are the true believers, notably planners, academics, green activists and an army of rail fans. These are people who believe America should be more like Europe — denser, more concentrated in big cities and tied to the rails. “High speed rail is not really about efficient transport,” notes California transit expert and accountant Tom Rubin. “It’s all about shaping cities for a certain agenda.”

I don't know but it has been said that Adolph Hitler made sure his trains ran on time and they were kept in excellent condition. Could there be a connection?

[Marv101]

It wouldn't work between any of those cities in Texas or Oklahoma for the same reason that it wouldn't work between LAX & SFO; it's not price competitive with flying.

A flight from Dallas to San Antonio takes a mere 30 minutes, and there is no way in you know where that an HSR trip between those two ctities could be done any faster, and especially after allowing for at least one stop in Austin.

[Nairobi]

It has nothing to do with wanting to be like Europe. Most of Europe sucks.
It's all about wanting America to be a better America. Better transportation opportunities for those who can't afford or don't want a gas guzzler. Simple as that.

I'm moderate, by the way.

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by Marv101

It wouldn't work between any of those cities in Texas or Oklahoma for the same reason that it wouldn't work between LAX & SFO; it's not price competitive with flying.

A flight from Dallas to San Antonio takes a mere 30 minutes, and there is no way in you know where that an HSR trip between those two ctities could be done any faster, and especially after allowing for at least one stop in Austin.

Perhaps we Americans can learn how to run trains, and make them competitive as Europeans and Japanese have. BTW, Dallas to San Antonio is a one hour flight, plus the time you must have on hand to waste at the airport. And if you feel that you're better off flying versus taking the train, you should have the choice, based on your regard for comfort, time, money and convenience.

[JR_C]

Originally Posted by Vinylly

I don't know but it has been said that Adolph Hitler made sure his trains ran on time and they were kept in excellent condition. Could there be a connection?

Hitler also wanted a "people's car" (Volkswagen)

[bobtn]

Glitch, The data is published and your fares , like many w/o pop density, are heavily subsidized, albeit with a small interruption this summer when we had no debt ceiling raise.