Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-21-2011, 07:14 PM
 
48,502 posts, read 96,894,387 times
Reputation: 18305

Advertisements

But if they had to apy the whole price then they would faint. Travelig across this country with the sleepr coach;meals and other things would ricve the price very high especially considering the cost. Ist quite poosible to experience it at elast halfway now with some privte trains at slower speeds. Its very high but compared to am trak its luxury.Last I checked it was like 3500 from houston to california.AmTralk loss 1 billio last eyar which we makeup.o it limited service which is still mcuh higher than air. I the future we will see super sonic flight with nop sonic boom that is being worked on now.It will again revolutionise travel by air cross country in this country.I can't even ingaine what the cost would be to give the same level of service acrosss the country by train and maintainnig it that airlnes give;besides the cost per passenger really.For trips below 600 ,iles I will still take the highweay trip any day which its control and convenience when you get there without renatl car.I actaully enjoy those short trips with stop control.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-21-2011, 07:17 PM
 
4,428 posts, read 4,484,248 times
Reputation: 1356
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey View Post
That's why we need HSR. Too bad the airline industry won't allow it to happen.


Survey says: 79% of travelers would pick high speed rail over air travel when possible | Gadling.com

Amtrak has lost money since it's inception.

Your President wants to spend $53 billion to get high speed rail started.

Florida already said, "NO WAY".


This is dumb. Quit advocating more spending. Especially on losing ideas.


An airplane can go anywhere. Trains only go where the rails are.



If you just can't stand it anymore ... just drive.

And keep your hands out of the taxpayer's pockets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2011, 07:23 PM
 
Location: Murika
2,526 posts, read 3,006,384 times
Reputation: 1929
You know, I'd happily see some of my tax dollars diverted from road maintenance and ever more road construction to HSR. We can't have that, though, can we? After all, spending tax dollars seems to only be a concern when the spending doesn't benefit you...

Alas, I have to bend over and simply accept that so much money is spent on roads - they benefit us all, right? Never mind that I rarely drive and wouldn't drive at all if that was a possibility. Also, never mind that a heavy vehicle causes more stress on a road surface than a smaller vehicle, meaning that roads need to be resurfaced sooner - I still have to pay for any freedom-loving American in their Suburban or Hummer, regardless of my usage of roads. Oh yeah, my tax dollars are well spent.

I'd say, make it an even expenditure. Or, since so many love the idea of private enterprise, why not make ALL roads private and charge for usage? Don't like that? Well, perhaps $20 a gallon will do the trick - then you are really paying according to your usage. But oh no, taxes spent on roads benefit me and thus, they are perfectly acceptable. Hypocrisy at its best.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2011, 07:26 PM
 
3,681 posts, read 6,277,015 times
Reputation: 1516
Joe Biden Railroad « John Stossel
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2011, 07:44 PM
 
Location: Midwestern Dystopia
2,417 posts, read 3,563,870 times
Reputation: 3092
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821 View Post
Mmmmhmmmm.

Again, if it's such a great idea, private industry can fund and run it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert_J View Post
I agree. A group a investors backing the project and not my tax dollars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Backspace View Post
Oh it's a great idea, if you have a ton of tax dollars and no plan to ever be profitable.

the roads are not profitable either, what's your point?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert_J View Post
Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution gives the government power to construct roads.

Which airlines are they subsidizing?
and those "constitution roads" are not profitable and are subsidized HEAVILY by the federal gov't, so again I ask, what's your point?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Yooperkat View Post
Amtrak has lost money since it's inception.
so do the roads and bridges that are subsidized by the gov't, what's your point?




Quote:
Originally Posted by vamos View Post
You know, I'd happily see some of my tax dollars diverted from road maintenance and ever more road construction to HSR. We can't have that, though, can we? After all, spending tax dollars seems to only be a concern when the spending doesn't benefit you...

Alas, I have to bend over and simply accept that so much money is spent on roads - they benefit us all, right? Never mind that I rarely drive and wouldn't drive at all if that was a possibility. Also, never mind that a heavy vehicle causes more stress on a road surface than a smaller vehicle, meaning that roads need to be resurfaced sooner - I still have to pay for any freedom-loving American in their Suburban or Hummer, regardless of my usage of roads. Oh yeah, my tax dollars are well spent.

I'd say, make it an even expenditure. Or, since so many love the idea of private enterprise, why not make ALL roads private and charge for usage? Don't like that? Well, perhaps $20 a gallon will do the trick - then you are really paying according to your usage. But oh no, taxes spent on roads benefit me and thus, they are perfectly acceptable. Hypocrisy at its best.

bingo, the hypocricy is amazing amongst the anti-train people. The fed. gov't has subsidized roads, highways, and bridges over Amtrack 64-1. If it was even half that we could have an amazing rail system and when gas was 4.00-5.00/gal. we'd actually have another option but the transportation industry wouldn't like that would they?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2011, 07:51 PM
 
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
3,390 posts, read 4,953,197 times
Reputation: 2049
I absolutely love traveling by rail. But I do agree that once it became more common in this country, the TSA would step in and make it miserable, just like plane travel. Plus, to increase revenue, they'd probably start making the seats as small as they are in airlines. It would eventually be like taking a plane, but on the ground. Too bad, because I love HSR; it's a very good way to travel and you can see the sights while you're traveling. Europe or Japan didn't mess HSR up, but this country would.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2011, 08:27 PM
 
Location: On the Rails in Northern NJ
12,380 posts, read 26,863,665 times
Reputation: 4581
Amtrak actually accounts for half the trips along the NEC and that is expected to grow. The Airliners are pushing for more routes in the region to free up Air Space.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2011, 08:43 PM
 
8,624 posts, read 9,093,726 times
Reputation: 2863
We are BROKE! No rail!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2011, 08:46 PM
 
Location: You Ta Zhou
866 posts, read 1,561,148 times
Reputation: 401
I bet 79% of travelers would like to fly across the country for free. Shall we have the government fund that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2011, 08:47 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
37,981 posts, read 22,172,656 times
Reputation: 13811
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey View Post
That's why we need HSR. Too bad the airline industry won't allow it to happen.



Survey says: 79% of travelers would pick high speed rail over air travel when possible | Gadling.com
Sounds like government regulations have made air travel a hassle, so the answer is taxpayers have to pay hundreds of billions on rail transport? No chance that the government would start checking carry on bags for trains? What if a terrorist bomb caused a 20 train car pile-up in a busy train station, do you think we would see the same long lines for inspection on trains?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:11 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top