Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Could We See 48 State High Speed Rail Svc By 2035?  
User currently offlineGEsubsea From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 183 posts, RR: 1
Posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2358 times:

A California group envisions a national high-speed rail system that could transport a person from any major city to another in hours. And this vision has Austin, TX as a major train connection hub.

California Rail Map has unveiled its vision for a national high-speed rail system. Its map (see below link) features color-coded rail routes with speeds of 220 miles per hour. The map connects almost every major U.S. city and even goes international, with stops in Quebec, Tijuana, Juarez and Vancouver.

The map puts Austin smack-dab in the center of all the southern lines. In Twu's concept, it's only 6 hours to Los Angeles, 7 to Chicago, and 1 hour to Dallas, San Antonio and Houston.

President Obama has continued to push for high speed rail funding, and outgoing Department of Transportation Secretary Ray La Hood has recently said that 80 percent of the country will be connected by high speed rail in the next 25 years, “because this is what the American people want.”

So, my question would be HOW would this affect the current as well as future landscape of our domestic air travel industry if we do decide to incorporate a high speed network similar to the European continent? Could this be good for the American people as an option to the high cost of air travel in this country right now? How many of us would actually prefer to ride a high speed train as opposed to a 2-5 hr flight (with connections) across the country?

http://www.kutnews.org/post/map-coul...tin-be-high-speed-rail-city-future

[Edited 2013-02-11 14:04:17]

69 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6678 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2342 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting GEsubsea (Thread starter):
? How many of us would actually prefer to ride a high speed train as opposed to a 2-5 hr flight (with connections) across the country?

Not a 2-5hr flight. Make that a 1.5hr flight

I flew often between ORD and MSP (1.5 hr block time - but really 1hr) for businesses - sometimes back and forth the same day. I would rather spend 3hrs on a train than1.5hr on the plane +1.5hrs checking in and going thru security + weather + ATC delays..sigh..

I am sure that three are plenty of city pairs for which it could work. MIA-LAX would be just plain silly.

I do think that HSR has a place in the US; a very targeted place - but a place none the less.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9294 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2330 times:

If the last 50 years is an example, I do not hold out much hope. We are still in the stone age here. Too many special interests to deal with as usual. Politics will continue to kill most of it.


It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2849 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2328 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Frankly I don't see this ever happening. While I understand how nice high speed rail would be it seems like a pipe dream. The cost to build the infrastructure is enormous and we just don't have the money sitting around to accomplish it. That doesn't even mention the fact that some politicians love it, and others will do everything in their power to block it. For whatever reason, outside the northeast corridor, people in America just don't think about rail travel. Even as someone who grew up in the northeast I never took the train until I was 19 years old. That was only because it was my option to get where I needed to be. Would I love being able to grab a train in Fargo and be in Minneapolis in 2 hours for a reasonable price? Heck yeah, but I don't want it if billions upon billions of dollars we don't have is being pumped into a network that we don't have a guarantee will be used. I would rather it be spent on the air traffic infrastructure that desperately needs it and that is the primary source of transportation Americans use over long distances.
Pat



All of the opinions stated above are mine and do not represent Airliners.net or my employer unless otherwise stated.
User currently offlineL0VE2FLY From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 1640 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2307 times:

I'll take the    any day. It's faster, more exciting, plus the views from 30,000'+ are much better than from 3'! I've never been inconvenienced by airport security or bad weather yet.

If you want unbiased opinions, you should ask this question on a website that has nothing to do with aviation or railroad.


User currently offlineN867DA From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1012 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2307 times:

For a country the size of the United States, a hybrid system of high-speed and conventional trains may be a better starting point from a financial perspective. The system could even be put together piece by piece, starting with urban corridors and filling in the more rural stretches until the national system is complete. Once popular routes like Chicago-Minneapolis or San Francisco-Los Angeles are complete, the more 'empty' stretches like Minneapolis-Seattle could be converted. There will be millions of people dead-set opposed to infrastructure development, but if we put down 40,000 miles of freeways, then we ought to be able to push this through too.


A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15844 posts, RR: 27
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2282 times:

Quoting GEsubsea (Thread starter):
California Rail Map has unveiled its vision for a national high-speed rail system.

Do they have any visions regarding how much this might cost and who will pay for it?

Quoting GEsubsea (Thread starter):
Tijuana, Juarez

Thank God for that. We need more drugs faster.

Quoting GEsubsea (Thread starter):
So, my question would be HOW would this affect the current as well as future landscape of our domestic air travel industry if we do decide to incorporate a high speed network similar to the European continent?

It won't because we'd have to be completely stupid to let this happen.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 1):
I would rather spend 3hrs on a train than1.5hr on the plane +1.5hrs checking in and going thru security + weather + ATC delays..sigh..

Because Amtrak has an impeccable on time record? Not to mention that rail is both very expensive and less flexible than other forms of infrastructure in terms of destination. If you build high speed rail from Chicago to Minneapolis, it's pretty useful for people going from Chicago to Minneapolis. Maybe also for people going to a couple of places (maybe Madison, for instance) in between, if the train stops there, but each stop makes high speed rail less high speed.

Interstate 90 is also useful for the Chicago to Twin Cities journey, but unlike high speed rail it's also useful for getting to many places in between and beyond. It helps me if I'm coming from Gary or Milwaukee and going to Rockford, or La Crosse, Fargo or Rochester.

There's also the false notion that a downtown train station is some sort of transportation holy grail, when in reality many businesses and homes are not in downtown areas. Most high speed rail proposals seem to be afflicted by the fallacy that everyone is going to or coming from a downtown area.

Expanding airports is a mixed bag. It's of great use for going to any destination big enough to have flights. More gates or security lanes doesn't help me get to Rockford or St. Cloud, but is just as useful for journeys to Minneapolis as it is going to Munich.

The way I see it, high speed rail is only possibly useful in very limited corridors and possibly not even that. A national network is a nonstarter. It's just carries too much cost and too little utility.

Interstates can be built and expanded more or less as they have been, nothing is fundamentally broken there.

The rail lines that should be developed to help nationwide transport are ones that go to relatively far flung airports. I love Heathrow Express and with cost and NIMBY pressures future major airports should be similar to Denver: large, expandable, and not near anything. Of course people and businesses will encroach but nothing will stop that. Rail lines can provide much more flexibility to place other infrastructure away from city centers where it can expand more easily.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently onlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2374 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2260 times:

I saw that map and honestly still don't understand why they made Austin the major connection point instead of the much more reasonable DFW.

User currently offlineAesma From Reunion, joined Nov 2009, 6963 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2253 times:

Well China has done it so it's possible. Even pressurized trains for high altitudes !


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2254 times:

Quoting GEsubsea (Thread starter):
A California group envisions

"A California "group" envisions"...........that should pretty well answer your question right there ! "Groups" in California have been "envisioning" all sorts of needles things, for as long as I can remember ! ( "Preserving" dead people by reducing their temperature to near absolute zero, for hundreds, even thousands of years comes to mind  what they NEVER seem to "envision" is who's going tp pay for all of their kooky "visions" ! ( This sounds like more Obamanomics to me )

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6346 posts, RR: 33
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2192 times:

I could only wish but it will not happen. Even if it did I feel fairly certain the same cattle car seating would arrive along with a useful rail system.


Damn, this website is getting worse daily.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11812 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2184 times:

Quoting GEsubsea (Thread starter):
So, my question would be HOW would this affect the current as well as future landscape of our domestic air travel industry if we do decide to incorporate a high speed network similar to the European continent?

It won't. This country is so caught up in oil and cars there is no way any reasonable rail connections will be made. They are having a hard enough time trying to link SFO and LAX. Even SAN-LAX is there but no way it will ever be high speed. The best that will ever happen, even after oil starts drying up, will be between select cities. It is a nice dream, but it will never happen.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4071 posts, RR: 30
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2162 times:

Quoting GEsubsea (Thread starter):
Could this be good for the American people as an option to the high cost of air travel in this country right now?

Why don't you go and price a NYC - BOS or NYC - WAS round-trip on the Acela and compare it to how much flying costs, and then come and talk to me about how much money I am going to save with high-speed trains?



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15844 posts, RR: 27
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2138 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 11):

Are you going to power these trains with pixie dust? That third rail doesn't electrify itself.

As peak oil occurs, which by the way we probably won't know until well after it happens and certainly may not be a clean cut notion at that point either, various things will start to shift away from oil to other energy sources, starting with low hanging fruit and things people won't pay a premium for.

Cars may well be one of those things, if the technology gets better, but the shift won't be to trains but more likely just electric cars. Those can, after all, use the exact same roads that fossil fuel cars use and have all the same advantages that cars in general have over train travel. It won't change the fact that all these railways would have to be built at massive cost. And what is it that powers most construction equipment?

And for what it's worth, when did rail become some sort of utopia? Do train travelers shower more than flyers? Less likely to have screaming babies? No lines in train stations?



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineAesma From Reunion, joined Nov 2009, 6963 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2131 times:

Well if children are taken into account it can be nice. I still remember the playground car of a train I took as a child, with a climbing net and other games, it was great !


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinekngkyle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 414 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2126 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 12):
Why don't you go and price a NYC - BOS or NYC - WAS round-trip on the Acela and compare it to how much flying costs, and then come and talk to me about how much money I am going to save with high-speed trains?

Sure thing.

New York to Boston:

United F/C: $504
United Y: $224

Amtrak F: $374 (Acela)
Amtrak C: $214 (Acela)
Amtrak Y: $98 (Northeast Regional)

Acela has no economy class so I included the cost of the Northeast Regional for comparison sake. Of course you could probably find cheaper airfares if you shop around, but that's another benefit of Amtrak - no need to do that.

----------------

Acela is operationally profitable to the tune of $100-$200 million a year, and it's not even really high speed, with an average speed somewhere in the low 80's I believe. It's a good indicator of what can happen when you properly invest in high(er) speed rail. Opponents of high speed rail always point to the unprofitability of most Amtrak routes as an example of rail not working, yet the only route that is actually "high" speed is the one that is the most profitable. What this tells me is that if you invest some money to bring other worthy routes up to the 21st century then they too can be profitable.

One big problem with high speed rail is the unnecessarily high cost. It doesn't cost near as much per track mile to build high speed rail in Europe or Japan. That needs to be examined and regulations need to be changed.


User currently offlineaf773atmsp From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2719 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2100 times:

Before cities jump on building high speed rail they need to have good local transportation (bus, light rail, commuter rail) and a transit hub in the downtown area to connect it all together. For example if someone in Chicago wants to go to St. Cloud instead of dealing with the airlines they can take a high speed train to Minneapolis and then connect to a commuter train to St. Cloud.

Even as fossil fuel cars are replaced with electric cars or cars running on a different type of energy, that won't stop traffic congestion on the freeways. No matter how much you expand a road there will always be congestion, which is where high speed rail and other types of public transport come in to relieve some of the congestion.

Only a few corridors in the U.S. should be upgraded to high speed rail, but a large network of high speed rail connecting the east coast and west coast doesn't make sense.



It ain't no normal MD80 its a Super 80!
User currently offlineCadet985 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 1673 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2088 times:

I don't see it by 2035...there's too much infrastructure involved, too much money, too much that would have to be built and demolished (especially in urbanized areas). I'd say for a map like that, 2050-2100 would be more realistic. Any shorter time frame than that, it'd be dependent on trackage owned by UP, BNSF, etc., and getting rights to share them. That's the problem Amtrak has outside of the Northeast Corridor.

In the interim, we should just link existing systems together. For example, there's a proposal with NJTransit to bring service back to the station in West Trenton (really Ewing, NJ), which would be a link with SEPTA ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Trenton_Line_(NJ_Transit) ).

That's just my    .

Marc


User currently offlineaflyingkiwi From New Zealand, joined Nov 2010, 517 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2071 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 11):
It won't. This country is so caught up in oil and cars there is no way any reasonable rail connections will be made. They are having a hard enough time trying to link SFO and LAX. Even SAN-LAX is there but no way it will ever be high speed. The best that will ever happen, even after oil starts drying up, will be between select cities. It is a nice dream, but it will never happen.

It is worth noting that these HSR projects are shockingly expensive. The California HSR is expected to cost around $100 billion & will probably be higher.

IMO California would do much better spending the money on transportation projects within the big cities where most trips are taken. LA has terrible transit & aside from San Francisco, the Bay Area's transit options are pretty sparse.


User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4071 posts, RR: 30
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2067 times:

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 15):

United F/C: $504

Nobody pays to fly Shuttle in First Class so that is a mute comparison.

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 15):
Amtrak Y: $98 (Northeast Regional)

Not sure what dates you looked at, but if you actually manage to find Northeast Corridor trains for $100 return at times someone sane would actually want to travel in I will buy them off you.

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 15):
Acela has no economy class so I included the cost of the Northeast Regional for comparison sake.

That makes no sense whatsoever. The difference for the Northeast Regional is not the comfort (which is actually pretty acceptable in both trains) but the time it takes (and the departure times).

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 15):

Acela is operationally profitable to the tune of $100-$200 million a year, and it's not even really high speed, with an average speed somewhere in the low 80's I believe. It's a good indicator of what can happen when you properly invest in high(er) speed rail. Opponents of high speed rail always point to the unprofitability of most Amtrak routes as an example of rail not working, yet the only route that is actually "high" speed is the one that is the most profitable.

Acela operates in tracks that have been around for centuries and have basically $0 depreciation, and it is along the most densely traveled route in the U.S. Amtrak should be trying to compete with the buses (over which they should have a cost advantage every day of the week, if they weren't government run) to reduce congestion on the I-95, decrease pollution and increase safety but instead they try to make money by competing with the airlines so they can subsidize loss-making routes elsewhere (as would fir sure happen with a high-speed rail).



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40076 posts, RR: 74
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2047 times:

Just another pipe-dream but it sounds cool.
Too many NIMBY's and environmentalist in the way along with the fact that the US can't afford it.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11812 posts, RR: 15
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2030 times:

Quoting aflyingkiwi (Reply 18):
California would do much better spending the money on transportation projects within the big cities where most trips are taken. LA has terrible transit & aside from San Francisco, the Bay Area's transit options are pretty sparse.

Most of the Bay Area has BART which is very good. We, in the North Bay, are getting a rail line: SMART, Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit. In 2015. Any additional funding would go to the board of supervisors, I'm sure. They had to cut out five additional stations just to open in 2015. However, Novato added a lane each way to 101 for 2 miles in six months. Northbound goes from four lanes to two. Great planning! And BART is adding three additions at the same time. So, any additional funding would just go to waste in the North Bay...



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7982 posts, RR: 19
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2012 times:

Never going to happen. The US is too large and DL, UA, AA, and WN are too large and inexpensive (relatively) and efficient (can't believe I'm saying this) to be able to support this....another thing I see as an issue comes from the OP:

Quoting GEsubsea (Thread starter):
A California group envisions a national high-speed rail system that could transport a person from any major city to another in hours. And this vision has Austin, TX as a major train connection hub.

California.

Austin, TX...

Democrats.

I'm not being partisan here, I'm being realistic- there is NO way that republicans will ever get behind such funding. Such a large interstate project will need federal funding, which reps will never give.



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11812 posts, RR: 15
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2003 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 22):
there is NO way that republicans will ever get behind such funding. Such a large interstate project will need federal funding, which reps will never give.

That too. Right wingers want God in everything and women out of everything. If high speed rail were to succeed, the right wing would have to connect church to church and have baby making factories on every train /sarcasm

The right hates anything where they have to deal with other people.

Again: I can see corridors: YVR-EUG, LAX-LAS, PHX-TUC, MCI-STL, etc... But, cross country? Nope. Never gonna happen.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15844 posts, RR: 27
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1998 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 23):
The right hates anything where they have to deal with other people.

Damn right. If I'm going across the country or into a city I'd much rather not have to sit between a smelly backpacker and a screaming toddler. It's much nicer in my car and at least planes are much faster. And if I could have a private plane, you better believe I would.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
25 ozglobal : Yes, because 'Republicans' are just a front for the Oil and other corporate lobbies. Clean up the dysfunctional political system in the US and many t
26 PHX787 : Wait a sec here, I cant tell if youre being facetious or serious. I'm a libertarian-leaning republican on my way over to the train capital of the wor
27 Post contains links kngkyle : But nobody with any influence is advocating for a shinkasen-like network connecting every city in the country. There are certain corridors that do ho
28 ltbewr : Perhaps better would be to create higher speed freight rail systems, so that a freight load of perishables, could get from Florida to New Jersey or Ch
29 N867DA : This is why we as Americans can't have nice things. If it benefits too many people, there's just a very large contingent of the population that'd be
30 NorthStarDC4M : That map is all pipe-dream, little fact, some of those lines are pure fantasy and would be nothing but massive money pits... There are a very few corr
31 Ken777 : While it seems like a "nice idea" the reality is that it won't happen in the midwest & western states. That leaves the north east, where commuter
32 BMI727 : That's an odd definition of "nice things." I'd have to get to a station that may or may not be nearby and deal with the crowds. And then sit on a tra
33 N867DA : Fortunately, our nation doesn't work this way. Several states out there would have no shot at all if they had to pay for all their development and lo
34 CalebWilliams : The simple: no, not in the current political system.
35 BMI727 : ...which is exactly how we end up with ghost airports and bridges to nowhere. If making a profit isn't going to happen they should at least lose as l
36 Cadet985 : That service currently exists on Amtrak. Philadelphia-Harrisburg trains run fairly frequently, and Philly-Harrisburg-Pittsburgh trains, there's one d
37 N867DA : We are definitely getting off topic, but I wonder how many large ghost airports and bridges there really are. I am sure there are a few dubious proje
38 Ken777 : To be realistic, rail takes some of the burdens of the highways and, in that view, it worth the investment. Especially when we already have right of
39 BMI727 : Then the people who are actually going to use the thing should pay for it. My guess is that they'll get real quiet if they see the cost. Of course th
40 Flighty : I very wish the Interstates were not built! They destroyed many cities and resulted in huge sprawl. When I look at houses, I try to look pre-1930. Mu
41 Ken777 : When I look at alternatives for most of the country I vote for rail for longer haul freight. Pulling long haul trucks off the interstate is, IMO, a g
42 Post contains images N867DA : Folks in Pierre and Fargo may be getting corn subsidies and a host of other benefits from me right now. You can keep the streets in Fargo nice and ne
43 BMI727 : Urban sprawl is wonderful. There is just no substitute for space. You can have a house with plenty of room, a big yard, three plus car garage, etc. a
44 kngkyle : You mean people from recipient states? The ones that already receive more federal dollars back than they pay in? Unlike California, Illinois, New Yor
45 BMI727 : No it's not. If I had my way, I'd kick Mississippi and Alabama out of the country tomorrow. Well if these places have so much money floating around w
46 Ken777 : Companies generally cannot function without the infrastructure provided to them by various levels of government. Even city streets employees use to g
47 kngkyle : That is a strange position for someone who is supposedly fiscally conservative to hold. The cost to build the infrastructure for every tom, dick, and
48 kngkyle : One reason they don't have money floating around is because they are forced to spend it on infrastructure projects in Alabama and Arkansas.
49 Post contains images N867DA : Real mature I can see we won't have much to agree on (or discuss), so I will leave it at that. Getting back on track (if you'll pardon the pun): Amtr
50 tz757300 : As an urban planner, I will bite my tongue, but must ask, do you realize how much money sprawl costs? It's not cheap in the short or long term. Every
51 BMI727 : Because they find it economically viable. If a city needs a road, the city should build a road rather than ask the next city over to build it for the
52 Boeing717200 : To be fair, California won't even be done by then. They are talking LA to SF and it may not even be a full HSR system at that point. Problem number on
53 af773atmsp : I can see that you love the suburbs, and to be honest I love the suburbs too. Large roads, large houses, large yards, etc. is great, but there has to
54 seb146 : If we all were right-wingers with huge amounts of disposible income, that is great. But, the rest of us live in the real world. Even if we are right-
55 BMI727 : That assumes that everyone does business downtown, but that just isn't true. It's not just people that moved out of the cities and into the suburbs,
56 Post contains links Superfly : This is what you need. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzv4q5EEy1k
57 Post contains links aflyingkiwi : Well, the US has received huge economic benefits from the interstate system so for one am happy that they were built. The thing is, America already h
58 Ken777 : I haven't seen Tulsa ask Oklahoma CIty for some money to build or re-surface a street here. We have city streets paid for by the cities, county roads
59 BMI727 : No but you do see federal money going to Alaska for EAS subsidies while the state cuts a royalty check to each citizen every year. They don't owe any
60 Boeing717200 : Ref city streets... The formula on this is that the developer puts the road in then recovers that cost on the sale of the homes. The city then uses p
61 Flighty : It depends if an actual architect was hired or not. There are many substitutes for space, such as building up, digging down, transit, landscape archi
62 BMI727 : There's always a price to be paid for that sort of thing. Building a parking lot is cheaper than a garage, for example.
63 RomeoBravo : I would hate to see the US further destroy itself by building a high-speed, life-size train set in every contiguous state. When it comes to high speed
64 Post contains images BMI727 : If all of the terrible, greedy corporate entities of America don't think it's a worthwhile idea, why should the government? It all comes down to a po
65 Flighty : Love the part where they say private industry lacks sufficient capital to build a long distance rail line without government funds. Really? They did
66 Post contains images RomeoBravo : Indeed, the four ways of spending money. That said, the playing field should be level, all cost associated with building airports or roads etc should
67 BMI727 : To be fair, it was a bit cheaper back then. That said, you've hit on one of the major inconsistencies and fabrications liberals promote. On the one h
68 Max Q : I wish. Train travel in Europe is simply one of the most pleasant ways to travel. Spacious, comfortable and a nice stable ride with very high speed to
69 Boeing717200 : EAS comes money comes from the trust fund, so its really airlines subsidizing airlines, not the government subsidizing cities. The cost of building a
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Sweet! Another High Speed Rail Route On Line posted Mon Oct 25 2010 22:42:34 by geekydude
Amtrak Releases High-speed Rail Plan For 2040 posted Fri Oct 1 2010 11:46:06 by BOStonsox
California High-speed Rail Dream! posted Wed Feb 24 2010 17:46:15 by boeingfever777
Louisiana Says "No" To High-Speed Rail posted Sat Aug 22 2009 14:07:39 by MSYtristar
High Speed Rail posted Sat Feb 28 2009 08:31:49 by Seb146
High Speed Rail Win In California - America's 1st! posted Wed Nov 5 2008 17:09:02 by Aaron747
CA High Speed Rail Gets Thumped posted Wed May 9 2007 00:55:38 by Boeing7E7
Proposed High-speed Rail Lines In Arg., Brazil posted Wed May 2 2007 04:48:24 by PPVRA
Montreal-NYC High Speed Rail Line (4 Hour Trip) posted Mon Jan 13 2003 04:05:21 by STT757
Check This Out-High Speed Rail IN USA posted Mon Mar 4 2002 06:56:52 by PanAm747