Why do we have one of the WORST Railway systems in the world?

[REIMktg]

Under $300 billion a year used to be considered plenty to deal with all these scenarios.

Yes, but now we are in 2 wars.

At least five of the hijackers visited strip clubs and drank alcohol. Why are they more against the US than, say, Brazil or the Netherlands?

It is not the mind of the hijacker but of their leaders that concerns me. The hijackers do as they are told. Our culture is repulsive to their claimed ideals. I realize that they may be as bad at adhering to their ideals as Christians. Of course, you think they only hate us because we occupy Holy ground. There are some actual fundamental reasons why they hate us that are grounded in the ways that our culture infects other cultures. I am not pronouncing whether I think this is good or bad, just a statement of fact.

We already do and even if the US went full bore on oil drilling, we would still need to get the majority from other countries.

You are wrong on this. & it does not just have to be oil. See previous oil threads. The US has more energy resources than any other country in the world, assuming you include natural gas.

You were discussing that with yourself apparently.

You mentioned why spend the $700billion. I was discussing that we lost $1 trillion from a single attack. Then I referenced the long term after affects of the lowering of interest rates. 9/11 hurt our economy in many long term ways that people fail to acknowledge.

A quick look at the link below is enough to learn that most of the new Chinese lines are for passengers only.

High-speed rail in China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You learned nothing of the cold war. Freight, armies, people. All tools for the Country. But I will grant you, that I said it was just for freight.

His first choice is to let the people keep the money, but his point is if they are going to take X amount of dollars from us, then some of that money would be better spent on health care.

What a ridiculous point to be made by a true libertarian. I thought he was a purist, I guess not.

Why spend more on health care anyway? It is already wasteful. Any American (and illegal alien) regardless of economic situation can walk into a hospital and get care in the US. Good care. They have programs even for those that are destitute.

How is it anti-market to point out that the government takes and spends too much of our money on the military? A true free market would have a military where people are free to decide exactly how much they wish to donate to that cause.

We do spend too much on the military. But RP saying to move money to health care was the point at hand and addressed above.

You're saying that the reasons the jobs are located where they are is because the government forces companies to locate there? I've never heard that one before.

No I did not say that. I am saying that having rail systems to large cities is an old way of thinking and is/will be rapidly changing. The technology has arrived. The big city model is dead.

Commuting to work is not the purpose of high speed rail. Airports were built where they were because that is where the demand was expected to be, not because there was some government plot to confine people to cities.

What is the purpose of high speed rail then? Are we putting in rail for everyone to go on vacation? I know LA wants rail to Las Vegas for that reason, but we are all crazy in LA.

I provided at least one set of facts about how people feel about rail, while you are just pulling speculation out of your ass. Creating and expanding roads has been ongoing since before there were cars. It's not like the US highway system lags way behind other countries like it does in high speed rail.

Speculation? Cold hard anecdotal speculation is what I gave you.
The reality is that it is a given that the people want Roads. Look at the ways voter vote. Roads, Roads, Roads.

Freight rail is useful. High speed rail could be useful, but the public does not use it. Why would we invest billions in an old mode of transport? This is backward thinking.

So? 100% of funding for Fox News or CNN does not come from individual donations.

I am saying that NPR should not get Gov't funding. Gov't funded organizations should be non-partisan. NPR is a voice for the Left.

Fox & CNN can say what they want.


By the way. Respond if you want but this thread is ceasing to be fun. We are going to go in too many circles. We just do not agree. I am out of this thread. Though I will read any responses if there are any. Not that anyone cares if I return or not.

 

[crackp0t]

What a ridiculous point to be made by a true libertarian. I thought he was a purist, I guess not.

That quote is being taken out of context. He's not for sending money on government health care. He's saying if he was forced to make a choice in where X dollars should go between two causes he'd choose the one that he felt would benefit the population more. There was no third choice for him to choose from.

 

[hellblazer]

What a limited view. Like I said. If not US then who? How about we pull out of Korea? Maybe if we were not in Cuba then the Soviets wouldv'e eventually put their missiles there and the Cold War would still be on? How about we pull out of Europe when the Warsaw pact was strong?

Do you understand how fast an army can plow through a country before the US can get there to help?


Your statement that NPR is 85% private funded is inaccurate. If I have to endure everyone telling me that Oil Companies are subsidized because the government gives them leases then you should understand that no on, NO ONE, is contributing to NPR without the tax break. And all of those contributions, many are from public funds once removed. Such as university grants.

NPR is bullshit. A great idea to advance culture that was taken over by ideology and has turned into overall propaganda.

They really don't get the simple concept that Russia and China would literally invade and take over nations if we weren't there. It's how Communism works; they infect the minds of the citizenry, dividing it into traitors and patriots, so that we're so busy fighting these retards we can't even focus on the real threat.

Ultimately the U.S. will be forced to contract militarily simply because of the Communist strategy to destroy us from the inside. Look at Robert Welch videos, he predicted this 60 years ago. It's way, way too late right now, and still these fucking brainwashed idiots can't wait to open the gates and be raped by the invaders.

 

[BlokBlok]

Well.... we are far more spread out than most nations with high speed trains and we also have a huge highway and road infrastructure. I was just watching a show about dangerous roads and China has the highest % of car wrecks even though they only have a very small amount of people driving. So it seems we have a great highway system instead of trains.

 

[samgeneric]

^ Ha, as opposed to the geniuses who managed to run up a 14 trillion dollar debt because they were so obsessed with spending on all those other things?

Or the brain wizards obsessed with getting tougher on drugs, resulting in $70 billion a year on prisons?

Your entire post is what we call a red herring. Congratulations on pointing out a different problem entirely while not addressing anything I said.

 

[samgeneric]

Hahahaha, I just read all the posts since the one I just posted about. @Moxie, you've been getting accused of Red Herring-ing it all over. You kind of suck at this arguing thing.

You obviously never tried a bullet train. Of course no one wants to take Amtrak trains, they're slow as fuck and they stop everywhere. The purpose of bullet trains is to connect major hubs. (think NYC to Washington DC straight). No stop in small country-ass towns, that's not the point. A bullet train improves business relationships and tourism between cities. It makes the ride more enjoyable, more comfortable (you can barely feel the friction on such trains) and like I said before, HS train stations are usually always located downtown

First, you didn't actually respond to the economic argument leveled by Napolean. Second, isn't this what airplanes are for?

 

[Moxie]

Yes, but now we are in 2 wars.

Yes, 2 wars that polls show 60-70% of Americans want us withdrawn from.

You are wrong on this. & it does not just have to be oil. See previous oil threads. The US has more energy resources than any other country in the world, assuming you include natural gas.

Russia has more oil and natural gas. I've linked in the past to plenty of sources about all out USA drilling. Drill Baby, Drill?

You mentioned why spend the $700billion. I was discussing that we lost $1 trillion from a single attack.

The Iraq war and much of Afghanistan had little to do with 9/11. The actual operation into Osama's house in Pakistan didn't cost much. Taking over large areas of land with ground troops is expensive and not always needed.

Why spend more on health care anyway? It is already wasteful. Any American (and illegal alien) regardless of economic situation can walk into a hospital and get care in the US. Good care. They have programs even for those that are destitute.

And who ends up paying for many of those uninsured emergency room visits? Aren't you aware of all the health care related bankruptcy filings?

What is the purpose of high speed rail then?

What is the purpose of airplane travel?

Cold hard anecdotal speculation

Haha, that sounds like something that Stephen Colbert would come up with.

Why would we invest billions in an old mode of transport? This is backward thinking.

Not that I agree it will do even half of this, but here are some listed reasons :

• Creates millions of green jobs nationwide building the new rail infrastructure and manufacturing the rail cars
• Pays for itself by significantly reducing our $700 billion a year oil purchase trade deficit
• Offers a convenient, comfortable way to travel without hassles or delays
• A major step toward solving global warming by reducing our oil consumption and emissions
• Drastically reduces our oil addiction and lowers our risk from the coming peak oil crisis
• Lowers our dependence on costly military operations securing oil flow around the world
• Lowers our national security risk, and ends wars for oil
• Freedom from oil - Powered by clean electricity from renewable energy sources: wind, solar, geothermal, ocean/tidal
• Safe, affordable, green transportation for everyone
• Saves lives (43,000 Americans die each year in car accidents)
• Provides efficient mobility that moves people and goods without delay and waste

High Speed Rail Benefits

I am saying that NPR should not get Gov't funding.

I and Ron Paul agree, but that wasn't the point he was making in the video.

That quote is being taken out of context. He's not for sending money on government health care. He's saying if he was forced to make a choice in where X dollars should go between two causes he'd choose the one that he felt would benefit the population more. There was no third choice for him to choose from.

Yeah, I tried to make that clear.


“Even though I have my ideal system I would like to see, with the government out completely — because that would be a much better system — that’s not going to happen. I’m realistic.”

“So what I would do in a transition, is cut spending somewhere and take care of the people we're talking about.”

“I would cut from overseas spending, I would cut from these trillions and trillions of dollars that we have spent over the years and bring our troops home so that we can finance it.”

"We need to change our foreign policy, then we could afford the health care that is necessary to tide us over until we come to our senses and believe that freedom can deliver medical care much better than a bureaucracy.”

Your entire post is what we call a red herring. Congratulations on pointing out a different problem entirely while not addressing anything I said.

True, but I wasn't trying to make a fallacious argument to support the intelligence of train people, but rather making my own argument about the hypocrisy of many "conservatives." Your comment about "stupid people" was ad hominem to begin with.

@Moxie, you've been getting accused of Red Herring-ing it all over. You kind of suck at this arguing thing.

Lol, there are others in here that have steered things off into tangents about market support for NPR, natural gas, the quality of health care that illegal aliens can get, the communist strategy to destroy us, etc.

 

[Rusky]

Who gives a shit.
I got kids and shit to carry. As I'm sure 90% of households. Cars and SUVs are here to stay. Spend my tax dollars on shit I actually use, like the roads.

 

[REIMktg]

I could not help myself but to link this article about the Newest USA rail line. $3.5 million annual projected fares and $25 million expected maintenance. - People do not want to ride the train. They want to drive.

ABQjournal.com: Albuquerque Journal login page

Not worth the read but it is Gov Richardson's Bullet Train in New Mexico.

But if you want to read it, you have to click "trial pass", watch the 55 second commercial, then click "no thanks, just read article" If you want to read the article.

People want to drive their cars.

 

[Moxie]

^ A person in the comments said he stopped riding once they added more stops. That "bullet" train goes 100 miles and makes 12 stops.

The total trip takes about 2 hours and 15 minutes. The train goes 75 mph, but with the stops it ends up being 45 mph.

High speed rail will be direct rides between populated areas. A 100 mile ride would take 30 minutes going at 200 mph.

Some of the trains in China go 260+ mph and Japan will soon have ones that go over 300 mph.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPduAYKk_6I&feature=related]YouTube - ‪Fastest Train in the World: 581km/h. Japan JR-Maglev‬‏[/ame]

 

[stmadeveloper]

I live near an amtrak station. I've yet to find it cheaper to deal with getting on a train ever.

It's expensive, slow, and as much fun as a city bus.

My Mother is another example. She took a job near Baltimore which is about an 2 and a half hours away. She figured she would just take the amtrak train every day since it goes there.

Instead she found it cheaper to BUY a 350k condo and move there tuesday through friday.

Literally it was cheaper for her to have a mortgage than to take a train.

 

[DocApocalypto]

There are high speed rail lines now making profits in Europe.

high speed rail linE.....

“High-speed rail is good for society and it’s good for the environment, but it’s not a profitable business,” said Mr. Barrón of the International Union of Railways. He reckons that only two routes in the world — between Tokyo and Osaka, and between Paris and Lyon, France — have broken even.

 

[DocApocalypto]

Interesting read

High-Speed Rail: The Wrong Road for America



High-Speed Rail: The Wrong Road for America | Randal O'Toole | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis

 

[cheezile]

China now spends about $100 billion a year on creating high speed rail. The US has started to spend around $3 billion a year.

Different countries have different priorities, lol

This data is somewhat misleading considering it's using absolute numbers. If you look at America's military spending as a percentage of GDP it's about the same as most other developed countries. But I do agree we could definitely lower military spending a bit and use that money elsewhere..

 

[lukep]

El Bumpo!

China Officially launched the longest track of their super train:

World’s longest high-speed rail line opens connecting Beijing with southern China - The Washington Post

That connects Beijing to Guangzhou (near Hong Kong) in 8 hours flat, which they will tool up even faster over time on this rail.

They've said elsewhere that this train system will eventually connect london with singapore and all major cities across both Europe & Asia.

Game over bros. China wins.

 

[AdamC]

Have you ever driven in Europe? Literally every 5 - 10 minutes you hit a new town / village. In Canada, you can drive for 4 - 6 hours straight without hitting a single town.

In other words (at least in Canada), we're behind in high speed rail due to low population density, massive land area, and cost. Why lay 800kms of high-speed rail tracks, when it's only going to pass through maybe a million people if you're lucky?

Because when you lay down good infrastructure, people and business tend to want to locate near it. it's a one off cost that had decades, centuries of benefits. The brits went a bit rail mad and if they hadnt, it'd be borderline impossible now in the UK.

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

^^

Canada = 9,976,140 sqkm, with 35m people
UK = 244,820 sqkm, with 62m people

Tad different.

For another perspective, China's new high-speed rail line, which is now the longest in the world, is 2300km. The trans-Canada highway is just over 7800km. Canada isn't doing high-speed rail anytime soon, because the cost would be triple of a flight.

 

[AdamC]

^^

Canada = 9,976,140 sqkm, with 35m people
UK = 244,820 sqkm, with 62m people

Tad different.

er, take into account only the habitable parts of canada. Also, it doesnt actually mean anything other than longer stretches. They have laid down rail in other large countries, like australia, india and russia

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

They have laid down rail in other large countries, like australia, india and russia

Rail or high-speed rail? Obviously, there's railway systems from coast to coast in Canada, but it's basically just for transport. Maybe they still have passenger service, or maybe they've discontinued it all together now, I'm not really sure.

Regardless, no government or company in their right mind is going to lay down 7800km worth of high-speed rail tracks to service 35m people. I can safely say Canadians are stuck with flying / driving, until the next breakthrough in transportation technology emerges.

 

[Andrey]

Who is gonna buy 5 cars per family if you have a good train system?