Posted on 06/11/2010 7:43:40 AM PDT by Willie Green
Interesting theory since it was the railroads that expanded our population center and allowed our country to grow and prosper.
No, it is $7 per gallon. It’s around EU1.50/litre.
Perhaps you live in Amish country, but for the rest of us, our options of travel today are no longer limited to horse and buggy.
Is he implying that I’m going to be able to take “high speed rail” to pick up a pizza?
No, not at all. Don't be silly...
He's implying you'll take the train to the doctor/dentist's office, to go to the restaurant, and to a gas station.
You won't use it to bring a pizza home, though. That's just silly!
He said he was the fire tender.
I said, “Um...it is a diesel-electric?”
He said, “Union.”
We learned about this in High School 50 years ago. It is called “Featherbedding”. A permanent UNION job for a non existant or eliminated position.
What Jobs would one go to in the US on these high speed train? Trains/commuters in Chicago to her suburbs already exist called AmTrack which just needed again how many federal billions?
Trains are cheaper to ride perhaps in mass; but like a bus, "more chance of wackos on board". This country is in greater land mass compared to some foreign countries mentioned. I can go from London to Paris in 2.5 hours like I can go from Portland Me to Boston in the same.
There is one train slated for stimulus money to go from Brunswick Me to Boston!! Whoopty doo!..A Red Sox game, Bowdoin College students will party in Boston.
Much of this high train use is for recreational-Vegas, Disney etc. The rest are specific land investor groups who already own or WILL own the land, make out. Who has money to spend on Vacations with no job?
As a parent would say to their kids: "When you show good financial responsibility by saving up your money, then you can go buy XYZ with it."
or go from my house to the grocery store? or take my kids to a tournament soccer/tennis/volleyball/etc... how do I pack their cr#p and get to the site. yeah... right trains suck. packed in like pigs and if you love the TSA at the airport, can you imagine the SEIU losers we'll have to put up with that are too stupid to qualify for airport duty.
It's about limiting freedom. They want to pack you in a box and deliver you on THEIR schedule, not yours.
The taxes are just a way to take money away from us so we can't donate to charities we want only to those that are politically connected.
They take our money so we can't educate, travel or even flush our toilets without a government subsidy. We are headed towards serfdom. We are headed towards Europe.
Once we get "given" our tax break or given our subsidy. We will be dependent on it and we are TRAPPED. Cause in order to break away we have to give the money back to the government in the form of taxes and resist taking it back , pennies on the dollar after it feeds their fat faces, jets, hookers and union buddies.
All you have to remember is that black "activist" punching the Tea Party man yesterday and we see the end game . I will never back down if I'm in public and this happens to me. If these clowns want to punch me or push my wife, I'll take my chances with the court system. That fat piece of blubber would be waking up about now trying to figure out where teeth went and why he has a catheter where his balls used to be.
If they want to "get in my face" or get all wee-weed up... fine. Let's do this thing.
I’ve seen one of those. Isn’t it called a bus?
No a passenger bus doen't get 25 mpg like I stated in my off-the-cuff example.
But in my effort to google the actual mpg for a typical bus, I came across a very informative Wikipedia article that provides comparison data for different modes of transportation: Fuel efficiency in transportation
Under the heading title "trains" I found this excerpt:
A trial of a Colorado Railcar double-deck DMU hauling two Bombardier Bi-level coaches found fuel consumption to be 128 US gallons (480 l; 107 imp gal) for 144 miles (232 km), or 1.125 mpg-US (209.1 L/100 km; 1.351 mpg-imp). The DMU has 92 seats, the coaches typically have 162 seats, for a total of 416 seats. With all seats filled the efficiency would be 468 passenger-miles per US gallon (0.503 L/100 passenger-km; 562 passenger-mpg-imp).
And under "buses" I found this:
A diesel bus commuter service in Santa Barbara, CA, USA found average diesel bus efficiency of 6.0 mpg-US (39 L/100 km; 7.2 mpg-imp) (using MCI 102DL3 buses). With all 55 seats filled this equates to 330 passenger-mpg, with 70% filled the efficiency would be 231 passenger-mpg.[40] At the typical average passenger load of 9 people, the efficiency is only 54 passenger-mpg and could be half of this figure when many stops are made in urban routes.
One could quibble for eons about how these statistics are calculated, but at least trying an objective apples-to-apples comparison at maximum seating capacity shows:
468 mpg for the train with all seats occupied
330 mpg for the bus with all seats occupied.
The train wins.
They never want to talk about the fact that the vast majority prefer driving and even more live well away from a railroad.
I’ve been on a train exactly once in my life better than 30 years ago. It required a 20 mile drive to drop us off at the train station and someone to drive to pick us up at the other end. Then we had to do the same in reverse to go home. That sure shoots the hell out of the efficiency. Trains are fine for long distance frieght and not much else.
When I go to Michigan’s upper peninsula I can go and drive where I wish when I wish. I can stop and stretch my legs, have a picnic on a remote beach or wander off into the woods. Being forced on to a train will put enormous swaths of the American wilderness off limits. Which is just one more goal of the greentards.
I wonder if special purpose trains may find a market. Perhaps with casino, fine dining, theater, or duty-free cars? Something you couldn’t get in a passenger car.
I took the Napa Valley wine train once and while it’s only a tiny touring train, it was a lot of fun — although expensive.
Hmm, I may have refuted my own argument. Premium amenities will restrict the number of patrons who can afford to ride, leading again to the ridership/revenue problem.
“Interesting theory since it was the railroads that expanded our population center and allowed our country to grow and prosper.”
True, and it was whale oil industry that helped develop the northeast states; do you also think we should be using government funds to re-establish/re-develop/advance the whaling industry?
“The passenger fees have not covered the cost of maintaining or building the trains and tracks and MOST stations! That’s why my taxes help pay for people to ride Amtrak!””
Well Amtraks trains riding rails in the Northeast make money. The rest of the system does not. Interesting note is that the rest of Amtrak’s system rides on private rail owned by private railroads. Amtrak only owns and maintains the tracks on its northeast corridor.
Not a chance... It'll be triple that. We just installed a 14 mile rail line here in Seattle at $179 million per mile. Estimating $50 million per mile is LOW...
The fact is we simply cannot afford this. At all. The estimate is $2 TRILLION to deploy across the US. Assuming today's bond rates (4.625%), we have a monthly interest expense of $7.5 BILLION. Yes, $7.5 BILLION a month for just the interest (not including the principal).
Assuming one out of 10 workers in the US use the train every day, that works out to $500 per MONTH in subsidies. Just in the interest costs alone.
$500 per rider, per month. Just in interest costs. Not including operational costs. Principal costs. Maintenance.
$23 per day per rider, just to pay the interest. Not the actual costs. Just interest.
So how does everyone else feel about tossing in $3 a day to pay the interest for each of those riders? How about tossing in another buck or two a day to cover their operational costs? Spend $5-$7 per day for your neighbor to ride his trains?
These are the questions that Willie loves to avoid...
see my other posts. I want government out of the transportation business all together.
Which is why they hate it so much. Sprawl is “unsustainable”. Travel will only be allowed between “smart growth” zones, as dictated by the Wildlands Project plan.
The $50 million per mile figure was from a congressional research bureau earlier this year.
I’ll defer to real numbers...
It's about 70-80% covered, depending upon your reference. Meaning gas and excise taxes cover the vast majority of the operating costs of the highway system.
Do train fares cover anywhere near that amount of the costs of operation?
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.