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.
So by that definition, China has airports and airplanes, does that make it a communist thing too? They also have cars and highways, is that a communist thing too? So to answer your answer, that was a poor stab, I think you accidentally stabbed yourself.
I think if China can manage to have HSR and an extensive rail being a country that is roughly the same size as the US, I don't see why we can't have a comparable system. I think it makes no sense to have China beating us on the rail front when we should be leading the way with all forms of transportation.
Call me when we have 1.3 billion people crammed into an area the size of the Atlantic states.
To all showing the parts of papers the founding fathers wrote, they knew nothing about our modern era, nothing about the internet or computers, nothing about cars or trains, and absolutely nothing about global warming, heck the industrial revolution consisted of nothing more than a few steam powered mining machines in the 1700s.
They didn't need to know anything about those things.
But they did know about freedom, controlling government and taking money from one person and giving it to another. They warned us about government getting too big and powerful... as we have today. And they developed a constitution to control government and preserve the rights of the people. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has removed those controls primarily by ignoring the commerce language.
I think it's worth noting that although it's often recognized that this forum is slightly center=right in orientation, rail transit is drawing a favorable vote by about the same 3/2 ratio. Many of us recognize that the auto-centric culture that reached its height around 1972 is simply not sustainable, but the favorable response toward mass transit ebbs and flows with the price of fuel, thus inhibiting long-term thinking.
Accordingly, if we are to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and the uncertainty which arises from it. it would make the most sense to improve our present corridors incrementally (which is pretty much what's happening) and restore the passenger rail service to the exurbs, the developing areas beyond the older suburbs which, in many cases, had rail passenger service until around 1960.
The push for "true" HSR -- the shiny Lionel set -- has been clearly identified with a mostly young and impressionable group who are fully in synch with the "progressive" agenda and, as with the folly of Political Correctness, determined to force all of it on all of us.
Ain't gonna happen. The rule of reason, as determined by the markets, will eventually get us to something that works, but I don't have much of a problem with an occasional planned push in the right direction, in he name of foresight.
I think it's worth noting that although it's often recognized that this forum is slightly center=right in orientation, rail transit is drawing a favorable vote by about the same 3/2 ratio. Many of us recognize that the auto-centric culture that reached its height around 1972 is simply not sustainable, but the favorable response toward mass transit ebbs and flows with the price of fuel, thus inhibiting long-term thinking.
Accordingly, if we are to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and the uncertainty which arises from it. it would make the most sense to improve our present corridors incrementally (which is pretty much what's happening) and restore the passenger rail service to the exurbs, the developing areas beyond the older suburbs which, in many cases, had rail passenger service until around 1960.
The push for "true" HSR -- the shiny Lionel set -- has been clearly identified with a mostly young and impressionable group who are fully in synch with the "progressive" agenda and, as with the folly of Political Correctness, determined to force all of it on all of us.
Ain't gonna happen. The rule of reason, as determined by the markets, will eventually get us to something that works, but I don't have much of a problem with an occasional planned push in the right direction, in he name of foresight.
This entire post contradicts yourself, you are for local rail to reduce dependency on foreign oil but against HSR because you think it is "shiny Lionel sets" that only "young and impressionable groups" want and that it goes with the "progressive agenda."
Hate to break it to you, but both local, regional, and long distance rail is apart of the "progressive agenda" because we support the idea of decreasing our dependency on foreign oil, something you seem unwilling to fully commit to.
But I do agree with your first part, I think every city in the country should have a strong local rail, whether it be subway, elevated rail, light rail, or streetcar. But then I think each metro within a region should be connected via HSR to make access much easier without the use of cars to get from city center to city center.
No. Our population density isn't high enough to invest a trillion dollars on a national system. It makes sense in certain population-dense areas. Other than that, waste-o-cash.
No. Our population density isn't high enough to invest a trillion dollars on a national system. It makes sense in certain population-dense areas. Other than that, waste-o-cash.
What is the density level that is needed to begin investing in HSR? I don't think anyone is suggesting it go to every reach of the country, heck, look at that map of China. If you notice, the HSR lines only connect the most dense areas and not the rest of the country.
We are however suggesting that we invest in connecting our current densely populated areas such as the Northeast corridor where our biggest cities in the country sit. The Chicago region, the Northwest region where it would benefit connecting dense spread out cities that have high activity of people traveling between them. California's coastal cities, and Florida. With the possibility of having lines run from city to city in Texas and possibly the Gulf States (though I do think that would actually be a waste of money, or at least should be last on the list.)
What is the density level that is needed to begin investing in HSR? I don't think anyone is suggesting it go to every reach of the country
This is a point which has been made at least a dozen times in this thread. It's obviously not going to register; the people who keep ignoring it are too stupid and too obstinately wedded to their spurious positions to accept it.
So fine, dummies - the plan is to run HSR everywhere! See that 7-11 parking lot? Yes, it will have HSR running over it. Your backyard? Right down the middle of rivers? Along the crest of the Rocky Mountains? Yes, yes, yes, yes! Hold Rover still for a minute, we've got to put an HSR line across him. Sorry TR, but we're running HSR across Mt. Rushmore too.
It will run where the political muscle is and be paid for by everyone including the majority who wont ever use it.
HSR should be left to the private sector.
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.
