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.
Rail is great for freight, and we move a LOT of freight by rail. But passenger service was put out of business by the airline industry because the airlines delivered better service, it is faster, and it is far safer. Copying Europe by building high speed rail isn't going to benefit anybody in the U.S. It might serve Europe, but we are not Europe. This is a "progressive's" wet dream. It will always have to be subsidized by government, and it will serve nobody.
Airline travel is in fact heavily subsidized by taxpayers and is one of the most inefficient means of travel as far as cost. If we had a top notch train system between major hubs they would most certainly be the first choice.
Airline travel is in fact heavily subsidized by taxpayers and is one of the most inefficient means of travel as far as cost. If we had a top notch train system between major hubs they would most certainly be the first choice.
So use one subsidy to justify another? So it goes in socialist utopia.
Did you say innefficient? Government schemes funded with stolen money are the ulitimate models of inefficiency.
Airline travel is in fact heavily subsidized by taxpayers and is one of the most inefficient means of travel as far as cost. If we had a top notch train system between major hubs they would most certainly be the first choice.
How are the airlines heavily subsidized? ATC costs are paid for by fuel taxes, and other fees. I know because I pay them. Also, why would people want to waste time on a train when they can get to their destination so much faster by air? Especially, for long distances? Do you really want to sit on a train for days, and days going from NY to L.A.?
Airline travel is in fact heavily subsidized by taxpayers and is one of the most inefficient means of travel as far as cost. If we had a top notch train system between major hubs they would most certainly be the first choice.
Which airlines are subsidized by government. List them, and explain how they are subsidized.
Today's wide body aircraft such as the Boeing 787, Dreamliner, etc. are much more fuel efficient than past commercial jets and they get you where you need to go faster than any proposed high speed train, which will be heavily subsidized (even to be built, it is being paid for by government; i.e., taxpayers).
Air travel is faster than rail, so it's hard to even imagine that a "top notch" (whatever that may mean) train system between major hubs would be preferable to air travel. Besides, in order to build such a system, land must be acquired for the right-of-way, which means the taking of land from private owners, which is sure to be met with resistance, and require years of litigation, etc., not to mention environmental studies and all that that entails. Airlines do not need to acquire any right-of-way, and there are already plenty of "major hubs," which serve the country very well.
"Progressives," who claim to be for "progress," seem to want to go backward.
How are the airlines heavily subsidized? ATC costs are paid for by fuel taxes, and other fees. I know because I pay them. Also, why would people want to waste time on a train when they can get to their destination so much faster by air? Especially, for long distances? Do you really want to sit on a train for days, and days going from NY to L.A.?
Precisely. A five hour flight is far preferable to a two or three day train trip, and the ride is smoother, it's quiet, and comfortable.
There was good reason why passenger train service went out of business, and speed isn't going to bring it back, because it is still far slower than air travel.
I used to travel a lot in my former jobs. I was a "frequent flyer" before the airline industry created the term. I have flown from San Diego to Brussels, Belgium, and also from San Diego to Aberdeen, Scotland. I have flown to and from many U.S. cities as well. Air travel would always be my first choice.
Conservatives have a really weird hangup about trains. They love cars, trucks and airplanes -- but hate train travel. It's very, very odd.
They seem to forget that failed highway systems everywhere need TRILLIONS in work and then - still - we'll have 30,000 deaths per year from them, traffic, pollution and many other benefits.
Self-driving electric cars can't come soon enough for me.
Speaking of "centuries", wasn't the Auto an early 20th century thing?
I take it you don’t commute in major metropolitan area.
As I understand it, "high speed rail" isn't about a "commute," which means multiple stops at many stations along the way, which may beat sitting on the freeway in traffic; but that isn't what we're hearing about. We're hearing about rail travel between major cities, not cities within a metro area.
Precisely. A five hour flight is far preferable to a two or three day train trip, and the ride is smoother, it's quiet, and comfortable.
There was good reason why passenger train service went out of business, and speed isn't going to bring it back, because it is still far slower than air travel.
I used to travel a lot in my former jobs. I was a "frequent flyer" before the airline industry created the term. I have flown from San Diego to Brussels, Belgium, and also from San Diego to Aberdeen, Scotland. I have flown to and from many U.S. cities as well. Air travel would always be my first choice.
Let's talk reality. I live about 400 miles from Pittsburgh. I live about 250 miles from my old home in the Philly area.
There is no way for me to get to Pitts (my son lives there) except a 9 hour drive or flying to someplace like DC and then taking another flight. One day I tried it I was out from 8 in the morning until ten at night (summer day when some T-Storms were around).
It takes about 5 hours to drive to Philly. The airlines have been jacking up prices on short routes so that flying is almost out of the question ($400 round trip for a one hour flight...meaning almost a grand if I take the wife when parking, airport transportation, etc. is figured in)...
If there were 1/2 decent trains I could make it from Springfield, MA to Philly in 3 comfortable hours - this includes a transfer (assuming a train would run down tracks to New Haven and then switch, etc.).
Pittsburgh would also be about 3 hours or less on a Bullet train or even the next step down. NYC would be an hour...instead of almost 3.
If you carefully study a map of the USA and most of the routes people take you will see that high speed trains could serve a decent percentage of the population and help with overburdened highways.
Air travel might be a bit better if the Gubment got involved and"
1. Made sure that shorter routes didn't gouge the customer.
2. Made sure underserved areas were served better.
And, no, it's not a matter of supply and demand. Remember that both Southwest and JetBlue made their companies serving shorter routes for $39-$79 (each way). But - why should they do that anymore when JetBlue can get $500 for a trip from New England to Florida??
I'll all for flying when distances exceed about 800 miles. But I would use fast trains in a NY minute if they were available.
Another example - longer distance. My parents used to live in Hilton Head and we in Philly area. To visit them would be a layover in Charlotte and then a puddle jumper. It would take about 7-8 hours total including driving to the airport, etc (let alone puddle jumpers in T-Storms)....
It would take 14 hours to drive it.
Yet it was directly down the coast and near 95 - so a bullet train that ran the coastal route would get me there in 4-5 hours without the hassles of air travel. My parents used to have a place in Miami and HH - and drive between the two. They had to sell the HH house because the drive became too much of a PITA (8 hours).
"Conservatives" fail to see the economic boom which would be created by easier access to "places along the way"....to say nothing of about 25-30 million Americans who are too fearful to generally fly.
As usual - thinking ahead is not the way of the "traditional" mind. They will put up with thousands dying monthly as well as the traffic, sprawl, etc...until the whole country is one big parking lot. But ask them to envision a better world and they often draw a blank.
Of course, trains allow for spreading out, walking around, etc. - instead of being trapped in a small Aluminum tube full of kerosene. There is something to be said for that too...
"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush signed into law an emergency aid package for the U.S. airline industry Saturday, saying that "the terrorists who attacked our country on September 11th will not shut down our vital businesses or thwart our way of life."
The measure provides $5 billion in direct federal aid and $10 billion in loan guarantees for an industry that has announced tens of thousands of layoffs since the terrorist hijackings.
The measure also offers the industry federal help with rising insurance costs in the wake of the terrorist strikes, and limits airline liability in any federal lawsuits that could result from the deadly hijackings.
The House approved the measure late Friday night, 356-54. The Senate passed the package earlier in the day, 96-1. Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, R-Illinois, was the only senator to vote against the bill."
So, you'd be OK for all the airlines to be out of business like the RR's. If the "free market" was at work, we'd be flying Lufthansa everywhere in Airbus and Embraers.
Heck, the US Gubment created the airline industry.
Next you will tell us oil is not subsidized either. Any other fairy tales? Or is it that you don't study history and current events?
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.
