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.
This is an interesting article that explains why conservatives hate High-Speed Rail. The only argument they have is that rail costs more than highways do. That argument got debunked. Conservatives just don't like to see progression. If we were in the cavemen era, they would not want to build infrastructure. They would want us to continue living in caves without lights and be uncivilized. Conservatives just hate fun and new ideas.
Wrong. I have no interest in reading the actual article, but if your summary is correct, you are wrong and so is the article. The problem is that we do not want some boondoggle that will not fund itself. We do not want the feds handing out large sums of money to keep the thing running at the expense of the taxpayer. Done. End of discussion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqYXP-f0YUw&hd=1
^The Busiet section of Railway in my state over 2,000 trains go through this point and another line just 5 blocks North. The Area around the station is being transformed into a Muti-billion City-within a city project.... Rail can stimulate growth.....
I will be paid for by people who will never use it.
The cost of choosing to live in a society. Realizing that reason, my opposition to wars wasn't based on "who is going to pay for it" but rather on ideological grounds.
The majority of Americans lives in urban areas. It's only natural to build high speed rail in locations with high population densities. If also the most efficient use of resources in terms of high speed rail dollars.
Now you can argue about the merits of building high speed rail all day long. But building high speed rail in rural areas is akin to building “Bridges to Nowhere”.
It is not "natural" if it cannot fund itself. If a private company cannot come in and build the thing after having done a good cost/benefit analysis, it should not be done.
Also, just out of curiosity, do you have a link providing evidence that the majority of American live in urban areas? I have never lived in an urban area in my life until I moved to Milwaukee.
It is not "natural" if it cannot fund itself. If a private company cannot come in and build the thing after having done a good cost/benefit analysis, it should not be done.
Also, just out of curiosity, do you have a link providing evidence that the majority of American live in urban areas? I have never lived in an urban area in my life until I moved to Milwaukee.
The cost of flying on the SST made it a tool of the rich after the taxpayers funded its development in France.
It is not "natural" if it cannot fund itself. If a private company cannot come in and build the thing after having done a good cost/benefit analysis, it should not be done.
Also, just out of curiosity, do you have a link providing evidence that the majority of American live in urban areas? I have never lived in an urban area in my life until I moved to Milwaukee.
Many people just take that food in the food stores for granted and have no idea how it got there.
Yep, they seem to believe that food grows right on the shelves.
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.
