Posted on 08/18/2010 7:49:38 AM PDT by Willie Green
What costs me less and gets me to my destination faster, and airplane or a train?
High speed rail is a waste of money and it sucks. You appear to pimp it a lot Willie. Are you a Democrat?
When libs start using phrases like “sustainable development” the hairs on my neck stand on end in warning.
What’s beyond stupidity? Conspiracy?
Right-of-way costs can be a bear in some areas, I believe. Better bus service could be a better choice.
For some trips, I would include Cadillac Escalade in the same comparison.
Living in the northeast, it takes (With early arrival time, car rentals and baggage claims) the same amount of time for me to drive from Southern Connecticut to Charlotte North Carolina as it does to fly.
And far cheaper.
No kidding...
We drive from Baltimore to West Palm (SUV) several times a year and cheaper than flying, not as fast but we have a vehicle when we get there and enjoy the family time.
When terrorists start to target rail travel, the same sort of delays you will see with planes you will see with rail. The only advantage rail has is that the turnaround times are not as fast.
They spelled 'kickbacks' 'cooperation'.
As long as it is funded by a tax on the liberal newspapers that support it and local governments that want the money, I am all for it.
Lets see...expanding highways is expensive...good thing it is paid for with fuel taxes.
Building high speed rail is expensive....and in Europe, that is also paid for with fuel taxes.
I always chuckle when people talk about how great high speed rail would be...to me its not unlike saying ‘private helicopter ownership is great’. Helicopters are fast, and it would be great to own one to get around town...but its ridiculous to even talk about, because its so impractical.
Rail works well in dense urban areas...not so much elsewhere...unless heavily subsidized...period.
What costs me less and gets me to my destination faster, and airplane or a train?
Planes are better for long distances. But for shorter, regional trips, trains are much better than inefficient short-hop air flights. (especially if you factor in airport security hassles.)
One track Willie, Choo Choo!
Is it really?
Lets Compare SF to LA a distance of 380 miles.
Driving time (via I5) = 6.5 to 7.0 hours
Plane: 1 hour flight + 30-45 min to SFO + 30-45 min security + 30 min. boarding + 30 deplaning + 30 to get car + 30 to get downtown = 4-5 hrs.
Train: 3.5 hour Travel Time + 15-30 min to Station + 30 min security + 30 min. boarding + 15 disembarking + 30 to get car = 5-6 hrs.
Of course there are many variables in the above, but if you are going for personal reasons (as opposed to business) and if you need a car when in LA, you are better off driving.
One big exception or other factor to be considered though is how you spend the travel time. The train is obviously much more comfortable and one can be productive.
* It’s also FASTER than flying or driving when door-to-door times are compared
Ohio's "High Speed" proposal was nowhere close to as fast as driving, even if I got behind some little old lady in a Buick with here left turn signal on all the way from Cincinnati to Cleveland. The average speed was about 39 mph. Build a 100mph train that's cheaper than driving (counting both the ticket and the April 15 bonus bill) and I'll consider it.
* Rail stimulates massive sustainable economic development around stations – reinvigorating forgotten downtowns
Shuffling business from one location to another is not development.
and post industrial brownfields
Brownfields are problems primarily because of environmental laws and lawsuits. If I buy the land where an old locomotive factory was, I could be held liable for 100% of the clean up costs. Nope. I'll just build on old farmland instead.
and creating neighborhoods that are more desirable to live and do business in.
I don't want to live in a neighborhood next to a freeway, a railroad or directly off an airport's runway. Build a major railroad within a few hundred feet and I put up the for sale sign.
* By stimulating further development of walkable neighborhoods and alternatives to car travel, HSR impacts social problems including obesity and access to jobs.
Confusing high speed intercity rail with local public transport doesn't aid the argument.
I’m 100% all for light rail, Willie.
The more of you chumps that waste your day waiting for the train, the more space there’ll be on the streets and highways for MY car.
And because I waste less time on transportation, the more efficient I’ll be, so I’ll kick your butts in business too.
It’s a big win for ME and my CAR. Thanks for helping.
Balderdash. If high speed rail made economic sense, private industry would be all over it. Why aren’t they? Two main reasons:
(1) Geography. The US is spread out. Comparisons to Europe are daft. Our cities are further apart with far more local jurisdictions to deal with, rigtht of ways to secure, and track to lay down. How about China? Cheap (virtually slave) labor and an all powerful central government let them mitigate those issues. So unless we want that, geography makes high speed rail a pipe-dream.
(2) Government. High speed rail is a techy-sounding enourmous government works and power grabbing scheme. Those are its primary purposes, so it would NEVER be run efficiently. NEVER.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.