High Speed Rail in the US

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, you have NO IDEA how stupid your posts are looking to an European who has lived most of his life in a country with a well-functioning, hi-tech rail network.

Europe! = USA.

Thread over.

Look, dude, I'd love to see High speed rail in the US too, but the numbers just don't work here.

Edit, why aren't you also dissing DanS?

[DanS]

Spiff: On our highways, most of the space is not taken up by cars, even in stop and go traffic. It's something like 12% of the highway surface area is taken up by a vehicle. As you can see, vehicle size doesn't really make any difference. I have seen estimates that a simple version of automated driving could increase the driving density by about 100% during stop and go traffic (i.e., to about 25% highway surface area being taken up by a vehicle) while eliminating several large externalities.

If we are moving to automated driving, it makes the case for add'l subway spending much more difficult in all cities in the US except perhaps Manhattan. It also alleviates the pressure for add'l highway infrastructure spending.

[Asher]

Europe! = USA.

Thread over.

Look, dude, I'd love to see High speed rail in the US too, but the numbers just don't work here.

Edit, why aren't you also dissing DanS?

He's a smart guy, you're a ****ing dumbass.

Take this post of yours for example. You didn't comprehend what he was talking about at all.

[Ben Kenobi]

He's a smart guy, you're a ****ing dumbass.

The post he was referring to is the one I made with the Amtrack numbers.

So obviously he was critiquing the fact that I said high speed rail isn't possible in the US.

You know, it's funny. I'd rather agree with DanS then with the usual suspects who don't know what the **** they are talking about.

[Wezil]

I'm sure that gives DanS a warm fuzzy feeling.

[Edan]

I've always found trains to be considerably more comfortable than planes. You can move around easier, the air isn't stale and recycled, you can change seats away from the 300 pounder who is snoring and drooling on your shoulder (or the three month old who won't stop shrieking), easier on the nerves of people with flying phobias, etc.

+1, as long as the ride isn't significantly longer than flying.

Plus, you don't have to get there so early, go through as much security, can use electronics/cell phones/inetnet/etc without interruption. Plus train stations are usually closer to the center of town than airports.

[Asher]

The post he was referring to is the one I made with the Amtrack numbers.

So obviously he was critiquing the fact that I said high speed rail isn't possible in the US.

You know, it's funny. I'd rather agree with DanS then with the usual suspects who don't know what the **** they are talking about.

You're the only usual suspect that fits that bill.

Wait, that's not true. You and DFG.

[Ben Kenobi]

Obviously you have an issue with me personally as you've not attacked DanS for saying the same thing.

Why do you bother to post? Do you think people enjoy reading you saying the same things, over and over again?

It's boring.

[Sava]

IL also got a huge slice of the stimulus bill. $50 billion which is more then California's $11 billion. That seems really unfair.

thats what you get for calling LOLcats stupid

[Asher]

Obviously you have an issue with me personally as you've not attacked DanS for saying the same thing.

DanS has provided some sound reasoning, you've provided some of the most stupid **** I've ever read.

[Japher]

Yet you keep reading it. It's like watching a dog take a sheit isn't it?

[Ben Kenobi]

DanS has provided some sound reasoning, you've provided some of the most stupid **** I've ever read.

What's wrong with my reasoning? 12 million people a year riding on Amtrak along similar routes. The numbers are pretty much exactly what DanS was saying.

The only difference is that I provided a source.

[Sava]

+1, as long as the ride isn't significantly longer than flying.

Plus, you don't have to get there so early, go through as much security, can use electronics/cell phones/inetnet/etc without interruption. Plus train stations are usually closer to the center of town than airports.

In 2000, I took a ride on a train out to Arizona from Chicago. I was with the fam. We had a sleeper. The whole ride took about a day. The best part was sleeping through Kansas and the little bit of Texas we went through. Flyover states are sleep-through states on a train. But even though the trip was longer, it was better. We got three good meals in the dining car. It was like eating in a restaurant. This was 2000, so there was no WiFi, but I'm sure trains could have that now.

Overall, the experience was great. It costed less than flying. Drinks were complimentary, or at least, factored into the cost of our package. We didn't have to sit next to stinky obese people or crying babies. Oh, and Lorenzo Llamas and his Playboy girlfriend were in the cab next to us. My mom and sister heard them fooling around. It was hilarious.

I suppose if high speed rail became the backbone of our transportation system, it would start to suck like airline travel. The companies nickel and dime you, pack you into a cattle car, and the ride sucks. But hey, as long as right wing thinking people are happy with the idea of something that is "profitable", that's cool I guess. I mean, you aren't making the money. I'm not making the money. As consumers, we're all getting shafted by receiving the worst possible product/service for the highest possible cost. Oh, and we're a captive market, so we just get to bend over and take it. But hey, as long as it conforms to ideology, it's good, right?

[Ben Kenobi]

What makes you think I'm against trains? Dude, I've gone halfway around the US in a bus. I completely agree with your experience, and if there were a train terminal up here, I'd go on Amtrak all the way down again.

[Sava]

I didn't say you were against trains. Did something in my post hit a nerve? you seem defensiveCLOSET TRAIN HATER