Republicans say they will destroy Amtrak.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I remember reading a newsweek about three years ago which talked about a feasability study that Amtrak did for bullet train service. They found 22 routes all over the country (including one going through Kentucky and Tennessee as well as two in Texas) which have or are expected to have enough ridership to support bullet trains. The problem is Congress wouldn't supply the funds to build the trains & tracks so nothing came of it.

Apparently in 1998, Floridiots passed a Constitutional amendment to set up high speed rail service in the state by 2006. The Republican government, however, has basically ignored it.

It's too bad. I'd really like to live somwehere besides Jax and still be able to work here, sompleace like Orlando. Hell, with Orlando as a high speed hub, you could live there and work just about anywhere in the peninsula.

[Sava]

This is not true. Train travel is probably the most enjoable form of travel bar first class service in planes and ships. The problem is that it is too expensive. I can fly to Chicago and back to Jacksonville in four hours for $227 or take two days on the train for $260, without benefit of a sleeper car.

It depends on the person I guess. I hate the stress of air-travel. When we went to AZ, it was first-class all the way. We had a two room sleeper suite. 3 great meals a day (it took just under 2 days), and free drinks and snacks included. I brought a laptop with and played Civ2, read, and even wrote while watching the beautiful scenery of the American country-side. It's incredibly relaxing.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Federal grants pay for something like 50% of all state highway costs plus the Feds pay for 100% of all interstates. Further the Feds provide grants to cities to help them maintain and build road ways.

Face it, the ND has no right to complain when they get $1 out of the system and have to put $0.01 back in it.

Is that why it takes a decade to build a simple highway or repair one. If the folks in the Northeast or Chicago want to have a really nice train service then they should pay for it. If the people of the mid west want one then they should pay for it. If a couple of states want to get together and fund a system then fine. But by placing the federal goverment into things, you esure one thing. Delays and over spending. I say one thing because the two always accompany each other.

But hey, we got money to burn.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Come on folks. Distance travel on trains sucks. Otherwise people would use it. I'm for more mass transit, but not distance travel.

I agree. Trains aren't for long distance any more then ships are for long distance passanger service (the exception is a few wealthy people who truly enjoy it and will pay for it). Trains do work well at local and medium distances though (say LA to Vegas or New York to DC) and the government should be building those routes up by coughing up the case for Japanese or French style bullet trains.

When I went to Japan it took 20 minutes to travel the 60 miles from Norita (the main airport) to downtown Tokyo. The ticket only cost me $7.50. Why can they do that? Because the Japanese, like the French, understand efficiency and that the public good is served when a pratical, affordable, and timely multimethod national transportation system is in place.

[Sava]

I agree. Trains aren't for long distance any more then ships are for long distance passanger service (the exception is a few wealthy people who truly enjoy it and will pay for it).

My family isn't wealthy. IIRC, for the 4 of us, it was $500 bucks for that Arizona trip. 2 days in a sleeper suite??!! I think that's great. And definitely less expensive than flying... and less of a hassle. Plus, on a train, you can get up and walk around, stretch, and aren't cramped into some cattle car like most flights.

Trains
planes

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I remember reading a newsweek about three years ago which talked about a feasability study that Amtrak did for bullet train service. They found 22 routes all over the country (including one going through Kentucky and Tennessee as well as two in Texas) which have or are expected to have enough ridership to support bullet trains. The problem is Congress wouldn't supply the funds to build the trains & tracks so nothing came of it.

You cannot starve an oppuration like Amtrak to success any more then you can starve an automaker to success. Instead you have to come out with better products and services so more people will ride and revenue will increase. If we do that and force Amtrak to break up their worthless unions then we'd have a great service.

If Amtrak sets forth a proposal that includes service to most areas of the country ( i dont expect every rinky dink town to get it ) I will be the first ones that writes to my Congressman asking for Amtrak infrastructure funding. But what I'm hearing is lots of people paying for the service to a few.

BTW, if I had my way there would be more toll roads so that people would be paying for the roads they use.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Is that why it takes a decade to build a simple highway or repair one. If the folks in the Northeast or Chicago want to have a really nice train service then they should pay for it. If the people of the mid west want one then they should pay for it. If a couple of states want to get together and fund a system then fine. But by placing the federal goverment into things, you esure one thing. Delays and over spending. I say one thing because the two always accompany each other.

But hey, we got money to burn.

Sparayber: If you want to go that route then if North Dakota wants really nice roads then they should pay for it themselves. There's no reason the rest of us should have to pay for roads we'll never use.

The fact is we recognize roads as being an important government service. I have to pay for roads in 49 other states which I will probably never get to use but I pay it any way because it is in the national interest to do so. These ****ers who whine "I don't want to pay for something I don't directly benifit for" are greedy fools. I'd say 25 states in the Union pay 90%+ of all the Federal expenditures and yet the 25 who pay 10% *****, whine, and moan about every thing that doesn't revolve around them.

They should take a hard look at how much we pump into their economy and stop worrying about whither they will have to pay ) 0.05% of a rail project.

[Sprayber]

Read my post right before yours.

BTW. Roads are used everywhere. The question is, will Amtrak be operated in a wide ranging areas, or will it be clustered? All I am hearing is about cutting service.

[Dinner]

You have a point about clustering. Passenger train service only makes sense in densely populated areas so it will have to be clustered around where people live.

I'm all for cutting unprofitable routes and breaking these unreasonable union contracts. Allowing them to cut routes just requires a change in the law while breaking contracts and making sure the new ones don't become as outragious as the last ones will require more competetion. How do you create that competetion if you don't use my plan?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sava
Trains
planes

So say lots of people, but when it comes down to it they fly instead usually.

[Sava]

but when it comes down to it they fly instead usually.

I don't have any stats, but I suspect more air-travel is business related than vacation related. And most people don't even know about train trips. Most dumbasses just think flying is the only way. And this is really an irrelevant point anyways. It's like saying more people watch American Idol, so we should cut the History Channel. Just because something is popular, doesn't make it superior.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sava
I don't have any stats, but I suspect more air-travel is business related than vacation related. And most people don't even know about train trips. Most dumbasses just think flying is the only way. And this is really an irrelevant point anyways. It's like saying more people watch American Idol, so we should cut the History Channel. Just because something is popular, doesn't make it superior.

Air travel is superior though. The train takes too long. Why would you want to spend a large part of your vacation on the train when you could be at your destination?

[Arrian]

Personally, as long as air travel is both cheaper and significantly faster, I'm taking the plane.

-Arrian

[Dinner]

On the up side if Bush kills Amtrak (which he probably will) then California might actually be able to work with Nevada and FINALLY build some sort of regional high speed train service.

Lines connecting LA to Vegas, SF to Reno, San Diego up the coast to Santa Barbara, and maybe another going from San Diego up the center of the state to Sacramento (thus tieing the whole system togeather) would be a good send. In order to compete though the trains would have to go at least 200mph and there would have to be experse trains as well as communter trains (I hate having to sit and wait at every stop).

[Sava]

Air travel is superior though. The train takes too long. Why would you want to spend a large part of your vacation on the train when you could be at your destination?

The trip IS part of the vacation. I would hate to start a vacation with a stressful day filled with rushing to get to an airport, spending hours in security and waiting, then spending more hours sitting next to some fat, smelly, drunken business traveler... not to mention the safety concerns. It's too much of a hassle.

Arrian: our trip to Arizona was cheaper by train; more comfortable, and less of a hassle. We left at 8 AM on a Monday, and arrived 8 PM (local time) in Arizona on Tuesday. That day was great. We also stopped in Albequerqe for an hour and had lunch while the train was getting maintenance.

oh yeah, and there was 0% chance of a terrorist crashing the train into a skyscraper.