Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Florida Loses $2.4 Billion For High-Speed Trains
This is what happens when you have a governor who runs the state like businessman and a very bad one at that, instead of like a politician. There would have been job creation in this but Repugs never promised job creation in their campaigns did they? Its clear they don't fucking care.
Florida isn't Europe, clown....
Who said it was you dumb ass motherfucker? Get a geography lesson or learn not to build a strawman.
No benefit? How about a 2 hour train ride from Chicago to St. Louis whic takes 5 hours by car. Yeah you're right no benefit.
Government doesn't do things to make a profit. Its not a business. It does things to better society. Think about it (I know hard thing to do, but at least try):
A 2 hour train ride cuts a business cost to travel, meaning less costs meaning they can save or create new jobs, meaning employment rate goes down, economy gets better, American gets better.
Oh and maybe able to save American manufacturing because transportation cost decrease.
But yeah absolutely no benefit.
How does making something faster cut costs? Going faster uses more energy, more resources, and is more dangerous, which adds to liability, thus adding to costs. Not to mention that in that train passes through at least 10 separate communities, none of which are going to allow a train to speed through at more than 30 mph, which will mean that the mythical bullet train will have to either go around those cities somehow, or fly over them.
Oops, we are back to planes again. Isn't modern technology wonderful? Tell me something, since you believe in high speed rail, do you also believe in unicorn dust and pots of gold at the end of rainbows?
Yeah even though it has worked and will work. And it creates competition for Airliners to finally start lowering prices. But yeah it never works. By the way, they build bridges and get the bullet trains to work faster.
Watch the beginning of the video of the japan high speed rail. a 350 mile trip in 2.5 hours. Thats 140 mph. Cuts travel time in HALF. HALF. You mean to tell me I get to chicago in less than half the time and not have to go through security and the hassle of the airport? Count me in.
And this is no unicorn. This is proven to work and will work. Why you are against it is beyond retarded.
How does making something faster cut costs? Going faster uses more energy, more resources, and is more dangerous, which adds to liability, thus adding to costs. Not to mention that in that train passes through at least 10 separate communities, none of which are going to allow a train to speed through at more than 30 mph, which will mean that the mythical bullet train will have to either go around those cities somehow, or fly over them.
Oops, we are back to planes again. Isn't modern technology wonderful? Tell me something, since you believe in high speed rail, do you also believe in unicorn dust and pots of gold at the end of rainbows?
Yeah even though it has worked and will work. And it creates competition for Airliners to finally start lowering prices. But yeah it never works. By the way, they build bridges and get the bullet trains to work faster.
Watch the beginning of the video of the japan high speed rail. a 350 mile trip in 2.5 hours. Thats 140 mph. Cuts travel time in HALF. HALF. You mean to tell me I get to chicago in less than half the time and not have to go through security and the hassle of the airport? Count me in.
And this is no unicorn. This is proven to work and will work. Why you are against it is beyond retarded.
Why you are for something that obviously isn't commercially viable is beyond retarded.
Never said people don't prefer to drive. Thats a different story. Yes I prefer to drive as well. But when I went to Cardinals game in St. Louis, I take Metrolink. Why? the traffic heading out is a pain in my ass and I like to be on the train.
When I travel to Chicago. I take the train instead of airplane. I love seeing the countryside. Flying doesn't give you that opportunity to see America. I fly to farther locations. A car can create problems and with gas prices going up, its becoming increasing popular to use Subways and trains because its cheaper.
Preference to drive is different than the cost/benefit analysis of what works best.
Never said people don't prefer to drive. Thats a different story. Yes I prefer to drive as well. But when I went to Cardinals game in St. Louis, I take Metrolink. Why? the traffic heading out is a pain in my ass and I like to be on the train.
When I travel to Chicago. I take the train instead of airplane. I love seeing the countryside. Flying doesn't give you that opportunity to see America. I fly to farther locations. A car can create problems and with gas prices going up, its becoming increasing popular to use Subways and trains because its cheaper.
Preference to drive is different than the cost/benefit analysis of what works best.
You take a HEAVILY subsidized train to Chicago.
Why is it heavily subsidized if trains are so efficient and viable?
Never said people don't prefer to drive. Thats a different story. Yes I prefer to drive as well. But when I went to Cardinals game in St. Louis, I take Metrolink. Why? the traffic heading out is a pain in my ass and I like to be on the train.
When I travel to Chicago. I take the train instead of airplane. I love seeing the countryside. Flying doesn't give you that opportunity to see America. I fly to farther locations. A car can create problems and with gas prices going up, its becoming increasing popular to use Subways and trains because its cheaper.
Preference to drive is different than the cost/benefit analysis of what works best.
You take a HEAVILY subsidized train to Chicago.
Why is it heavily subsidized if trains are so efficient and viable?
Just watch train travel increase as Obama's inaction drives up the price of gas...
Amtrak ridership rising right along with gas prices(March 14, 2011)
By design...
You take a HEAVILY subsidized train to Chicago.
Why is it heavily subsidized if trains are so efficient and viable?
Just watch train travel increase as Obama's inaction drives up the price of gas...
Amtrak ridership rising right along with gas prices(March 14, 2011)
By design...
Your point? Train travel is better for the environment and the pocket book. I can believe a tea-bagger is upset their is no government interference on the free market.
I too enjoy seeing the countryside and being able to move around easily on a train. I've see more of Europe than most who fly from city to city.Never said people don't prefer to drive. Thats a different story. Yes I prefer to drive as well. But when I went to Cardinals game in St. Louis, I take Metrolink. Why? the traffic heading out is a pain in my ass and I like to be on the train.
When I travel to Chicago. I take the train instead of airplane. I love seeing the countryside. Flying doesn't give you that opportunity to see America. I fly to farther locations. A car can create problems and with gas prices going up, its becoming increasing popular to use Subways and trains because its cheaper.
Preference to drive is different than the cost/benefit analysis of what works best.
Tell that to Europeans, Japanese, and Chinese.Seriously though, a mode of transportation that is fixed on rails (the ultimate in inflexibility) and travels over the ground (even at high speed) will lose to air travel for long distances and automobiles for short distances.
Now if a private corporation wants to develop a high speed rail line without tax payer money - GO FOR IT. If it is such a great idea, surely entreprenuers and investors would be lined up to participate, right?
How many of those make money?
Let me tell you something, if the Japanese cannot make money when they cram riders into the train like they do, no one can.
I would rather be a sardine in a can than pack in like that.
High speed rail is an economic loser. It has never worked, outside of one or two well traveled corridors. The guv was right. An expensive boondoggle that would have cost taxpayer money for no benefit.
Yep. And a good portion of the citizens here don't want it because it only covers a small portion of the State, will create a few temporary jobs, and then the Taxpayers will get stuck with it.
It's a bad deal like everything else coming out of the Disctrict of Criminals these days.
Saying that highspeed trains never worked is an outright fucking lie, have any of you two dickheads been to Europe? I can get on a train right here where I live in Germany and be in Paris in two hours, same with Rome. When you say the word NEVER you're making an absolute statement which require facts to support it, now prove that high speed trains have NEVER worked.
Noooo.......http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/11/florida-loses-24-billion-_n_834768.htmlThis is what happens when you have a governor who runs the state like businessman and a very bad one at that, instead of like a politician.
It's too costly of a project for private industry. Period. Name an industry other then oil who can afford to invest billions in a project.If there were sufficient demand, private investors would be wiling to fund the railroads.
As there isn't, there aren't, and the true nature of these initiatives are revealed as pork and political favors under the veneer of dogooderism.
Plus, private industry cannot use eminent domain to acquire the land needed for rail routes.
Hopefully, this will be the last time I need to explain this to you. But I'm not all that hopeful.
If the return on investment is there, private investors would do it, period. And look, a libby that likes eminent domain, shocker!
They are able to wire existing infrastructure; they will never have to create new infrastructure.It's too costly of a project for private industry. Period. Name an industry other then oil who can afford to invest billions in a project.If there were sufficient demand, private investors would be wiling to fund the railroads.
As there isn't, there aren't, and the true nature of these initiatives are revealed as pork and political favors under the veneer of dogooderism.
Plus, private industry cannot use eminent domain to acquire the land needed for rail routes.
Hopefully, this will be the last time I need to explain this to you. But I'm not all that hopeful.Name an industry other then oil who can afford to invest billions in a project.
Telecommunications.
You take a HEAVILY subsidized train to Chicago.
Why is it heavily subsidized if trains are so efficient and viable?
Just watch train travel increase as Obama's inaction drives up the price of gas...
Amtrak ridership rising right along with gas prices(March 14, 2011)
By design...
Your point? Train travel is better for the environment and the pocket book. I can believe a tea-bagger is upset their is no government interference on the free market.
When Amtrak compares its fuel economy with automobiles (see p. 19), it relies on Department of Energy <="" a=""> that presumes 1.6 people per car (see tables 2.13 for cars and 2.14 for Amtrak). But another Department of Energy report points out that cars in intercity travel tend to be more fully loaded the average turns out to be 2.4 people.
Intercity auto trips tend to [have] higher-than-average vehicle occupancy rates, says the DOE. On average, they are as energy-efficient as rail intercity trips. Moreover, the report adds, if passenger rail competes for modal share by moving to high speed service, its energy efficiency should be reduced somewhat making overall energy savings even more problematic.
I agree. I want more rail for freight purposes. I want to see a drastic reduction in 18 wheelers across the country. They are a huge use of oil.Plus, private industry cannot use eminent domain to acquire the land needed for rail routes.
Oh, and good job explaining why rail is dead save for freight.
Tell that to Europeans, Japanese, and Chinese.
How many of those make money?
Let me tell you something, if the Japanese cannot make money when they cram riders into the train like they do, no one can.
I would rather be a sardine in a can than pack in like that.
That looks like a subway car to me.
If you travel by high speed trains in Europe, and I suspect Japan, you have a seat reservation...it's very comfortable.
Like the existing railways between Orlando and Tampa can't be retro-fitted???They are able to wire existing infrastructure; they will never have to create new infrastructure.
Big difference.
As someone who WORKS in mass transit, I think you're full of it.Horseshit. Chicago-Milwaukee-Gary, maybe. You have high enough density to make it worth while. Oh wait, there used to be a LOT of those in the area. thanks also to cities like Kenosha and Racine inbetween those cities. But they can't even justify the line out to Madison, and why would they bother going to Springfield or Green Bay, Terre Haute or even Lansing?Another thing to add:
The Florida rail from Orlando-Tampa is unnecessary. But other areas like the Midwest (Chicago-St. Louis, Chicago-Cincinatti) and West Coast (LA-San Diego) are needed.
No, there is no real need for high speed rail in the mid west. That died with the interstate system. Now, instead of hopping on the Hiawatha from Minneapolis to Chicago, or the C&NW's '400's, you get in your car and drive it in about the same time with no having to secure transportation on the other end and it goes precisely where you need, not to stations you have to work from there.
Face it, convenience and ergonomics killed rail travel. It'll kill air travel if the FAA authorizes cheap private air cars too.
Again you have no idea what you are talking.
First off, Chicago has a huge rail system that millions of people use everyday. Its government subsides and it serves a benefit to the community. If you take the high speed rail, you have ways to get around chicago.
Plus with a car, you have to pay for parking, pay for gas, pay for the oil, pay Maintenance and it comes out to the almost same cost.
Again, you fail. But thanks for playing.
