BF2S Forums High speed rail in America

Trotskygrad wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

tbh it's cause he thinks it'll decrease emissions from highway congestion or some shit like that, because trains put out less CO2 than cars

That's retarded. If I'm not driving to my destination, I'm flying and renting a car when I get to my destination. Who wants to sit on a train or a bus for hours if they don't have to?

because he thinks HSR can be just slightly slower than flying? and cheaper?

I know it's a pipe dream ,but those are the arguments

So maintaining thousands of miles of train tracks, the trains themselves, the hubs, and the increased salary demands because "it's only slightly slower", would produce a lower travel ticket than the ~$100 I can spend on a plane ticket?

Let's see, it takes approximately 29 hours for me to drive from here to... Austin, TX. Average speed for that journey is roughly 62 mph and 1800 miles (Yes, I've done it). Let's assume the average speed for a high speed train is roughly 124 mph (because high speed does not mean a 250 mph bullet train). Ok, so it now knocks 14 1/2 hours off my journey... leaving me with a travel time of 14 1/2 hours...

Oh, but wait. The flight from Austin, with a stopover in Houston to change planes, is 5 hours? And it only costs $120? So I can save myself from 10 hours in an uncomfortable chair smelling other peoples farts and feet and all for triple the price... I'm down.

Currently, an Amtrak ticket from New York to Dallas costs $306 and takes 21 hours, 45 minutes. I'll pass.

How has Amtrak not gone bust, or stopped passenger travel all together then, if they're that bad?

I can't believe John Galt is actually trying to make an argument about New York to Dallas, I was being sarcastic about that when I was saying that about NYC to Hawaii.

You honestly think that's their intentions?

Just do a quick google image search for High speed rail US and it all makes sense:

http://www.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&am … l=&oq=

JohnG@lt wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

That's retarded. If I'm not driving to my destination, I'm flying and renting a car when I get to my destination. Who wants to sit on a train or a bus for hours if they don't have to?

because he thinks HSR can be just slightly slower than flying? and cheaper?

I know it's a pipe dream ,but those are the arguments

So maintaining thousands of miles of train tracks, the trains themselves, the hubs, and the increased salary demands because "it's only slightly slower", would produce a lower travel ticket than the ~$100 I can spend on a plane ticket?

Let's see, it takes approximately 29 hours for me to drive from here to... Austin, TX. Average speed for that journey is roughly 62 mph and 1800 miles (Yes, I've done it). Let's assume the average speed for a high speed train is roughly 124 mph (because high speed does not mean a 250 mph bullet train). Ok, so it now knocks 14 1/2 hours off my journey... leaving me with a travel time of 14 1/2 hours...

Oh, but wait. The flight from Austin, with a stopover in Houston to change planes, is 5 hours? And it only costs $120? So I can save myself from 10 hours in an uncomfortable chair smelling other peoples farts and feet and all for triple the price... I'm down.

Currently, an Amtrak ticket from New York to Dallas costs $306 and takes 21 hours, 45 minutes. I'll pass.

With a stop over in Chicago.  Sorry, but if I'm not in a rush I don't want to fly.  Keep yer' tsa shit off me.   Maintenance is all ready in place as freight is all ready using these lines.  I've traveled by rail and it isn't that bad.

JohnG@lt wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

If they aren't turning a profit, they are inefficient and the taxpayer is stuck footing the bill for their inefficiency. By your logic, Amtrak should provide service to every town in America whether its profitable or not instead of just sticking to the places where it will turn a profit and thus makes logical sense.

Nah, offer service to areas that would break even & I think that's where we're at currently.  I just wish there was a greater enthusiasm for rail.

I'd sit on a train for hours rather than be stuck on a tarmac breathing recycled ass air worried about my baggage, connecting flights and shit....  But I would most likely rent a car upon arrival.

& safer than other means of travel.

I live in the train capital of the US and believe me, it's not nearly as enjoyable an experience as you think it is. I've ridden Amtrak a handful of times in my life and it's slow and expensive. Greyhound is cheaper and just as fast, as sad as that is.

oh god, not greyhound!  Now THAT'S a mode of transport that truly sucks.

I remember going to Chicago from DC by Amtrak. It was awful, took nearly a day and it wasn't much cheaper than a plane ticket.

Our freight rail, however, is great.

Can't be as bad as Seattle wanting to build an expensive tunnel through mud.

socal needs mass transit asap.  sadly they spent money elsewhere and now they are broke.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Let's assume the average speed for a high speed train is roughly 124 mph (because high speed does not mean a 250 mph bullet train). Ok, so it now knocks 14 1/2 hours off my journey... leaving me with a travel time of 14 1/2 hours...

Why would you assume that?

Loads of trains are capable of doing 200mph+ the biggest limiting factor is the track. Passenger trains in Europe do 160mph when on new track. If this is a new programme that would involve laying loads of new track I'd imagine that you would expect average speeds to be substantially higher.

Trains are also easier and more convenient than planes and typically nicer places to be. I much prefer getting the train if I'm travelling to Paris or somewhere like that as it is as quick, less unpleasant and much easier compared with flying there - despite the fact it costs much more, I typically choose to take the train.

well all i know is it takes my sis over 2 hours to get back to OC from work

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

where does she work?  L.A.'s a big place.

i dunno....some fbi office somewhere.  ill ask her.