I agree. Imagine how nice it would be to be able to take a high speed train to Louisville, Lexington, Cincinnati, Dayton, and Columbus. Not to mention the economic benefit it would bring to those areas.

It works awesome in Europe, I don't know about cross country, but the distances you are talking about would work out nicely...IHMO.

Intercity passenger rail service would be a costly moronic thing to do in Cincy.

 

I disagree. I think a rail service between cities could help lessen our dependence on oil and improve transportation between cities.

 

But I am not sure it is the federal government's responsibility to bring Lex/Louis or Cincy/Columbus together.

But I am not sure it is the federal government's responsibility to bring Lex/Louis or Cincy/Columbus together.

 

 

When you think of it in the context of whether the Federal government should become more involved with passenger rail, consider how much it spends subsidizing air travel (2008 Federal Aviation Administration spending: $14.9 billion), and the Interstate Highway system (Federal Highway Administration: $41.2 billion). Spending for the Federal Railroad Administration (which includes Amtrak) was $1.6 billion in 2008. You get what you pay for.

 

We're already heavily subsidizing two forms of transportation that are less fuel efficient than rail. If we're serious about reducing our dependence on petroleum, shouldn't we consider shifting funding away from the modes of transportaion that are less fuel efficient and toward modes that are more fuel efficient?

First he's trying to raise a man from his wheelchair; now he's trying to reverse time. Maybe he's just trying too hard.

 

I personally think his constant mistakes in public speaking and his obvious lack of confidence in himself as a VP compliments Obama well.

Why?

Why? Because it's extremely costly. This isn't Europe, this country was built more on the automobile than rail as far as transporting people. To build it would be expensive and likely wouldn't get used as it's used in Europe. It would be a waste of money.

Maybe he meant Obama is going to reverse his choice of a running mate.

I agree. Imagine how nice it would be to be able to take a high speed train to Louisville, Lexington, Cincinnati, Dayton, and Columbus. Not to mention the economic benefit it would bring to those areas.

Not a cheap prospect and no guarantee on how much it would get used. We had it once and it died out, there was a reason for that.

Why? Because it's extremely costly. This isn't Europe, this country was built more on the automobile than rail as far as transporting people. To build it would be expensive and likely wouldn't get used as it's used in Europe. It would be a waste of money.

 

 

This country wasn't "built more on the automobile than rail as far as transporting people." How do you think people got around before the interstate system was built? I guarantee you it wasn't in airplanes or on bicycles. You bring up cost. You want to know what is extremely costly? Oil is extremely costly. Our trade deficit is extremely costly. You can't criticize the cost of passenger rail upgrades that would reduce our reliance on imported oil and support extremely costly subsidies for roads and air travel.

Not a cheap prospect and no guarantee on how much it would get used. We had it once and it died out, there was a reason for that.

 

 

The reason was that the Federal Government built (and paid for) something called the Interstate Highway System and also spent billions upon billions setting up the commercial aviation system. The railroads received practically no government support. To continue such lopsided funding for inherently less fuel efficient technologies at a time when we import 70% of our oil is asinine.

This country wasn't "built more on the automobile than rail as far as transporting people." How do you think people got around before the interstate system was built? I guarantee you it wasn't in airplanes or on bicycles. You bring up cost. You want to know what is extremely costly? Oil is extremely costly. Our trade deficit is extremely costly. You can't criticize the cost of passenger rail upgrades that would reduce our reliance on imported oil and support extremely costly subsidies for roads and air travel.

Before the popularity of the automobile you're right. After that, you're dead wrong. You have no clue what it would cost to set up rail the way you guys are talking, with zero guarantee it would be used enough to offset the cost. Why do you think it died in the first place? Automobiles, that's why. Other sources of fuel is sensible, rail is stupid.

The reason was that the Federal Government built (and paid for) something called the Interstate Highway System and also spent billions upon billions setting up the commercial aviation system. The railroads received practically no government support. To continue such lopsided funding for inherently less fuel efficient technologies at a time when we import 70% of our oil is asinine.

Throwing billions of dollars into rail is asinine, especially when people aren't going to give up their vehicles to ride a train. It's a stupid idea and it won't work, remember you heard it here first.

Throwing billions of dollars into rail is asinine, especially when people aren't going to give up their vehicles to ride a train. It's a stupid idea and it won't work, remember you heard it here first.

 

 

Funny thing is, passenger rail works in every other major industrialized country in the world. With $4 gas, people are looking for alternate forms of transportation to the automobile. 2008 vacation travel on Amtrak was up 28% from the previous year, and Amtrak is short of equipment to handle more passengers on many routes. I don't know what you base your opinions on, but it doesn't seem to be reality.

The reason was that the Federal Government built (and paid for) something called the Interstate Highway System and also spent billions upon billions setting up the commercial aviation system. The railroads received practically no government support. To continue such lopsided funding for inherently less fuel efficient technologies at a time when we import 70% of our oil is asinine.

An example of how costly rail is:

A proposal by Norfolk Southern railroad to build a stretch of rail along 400 miles of Interstate 81 in Virginia as part of a state project amounted to a cost of $6.5 million per mile of track.

Data on three or four light rail projects in Southeast cities in the Knoxville area show an average cost of about $40 million per mile, including stations, bridges and other infrastructure. Light rail generally depends on an elevated track.

Funny thing is, passenger rail works in every other major industrialized country in the world. With $4 gas, people are looking for alternate forms of transportation to the automobile. 2008 vacation travel on Amtrak was up 28% from the previous year, and Amtrak is short of equipment to handle more passengers on many routes. I don't know what you base your opinions on, but it doesn't seem to be reality.

:lol: You need to check what you consider reality. No other country uses the automobile like this country does, instead of insulting me think first about what you're arguing. The cost is too much, we're not set up the same as the other countries. It makes more sense to advance electric cars then to do rail the way you're talking about.

Throwing billions of dollars into rail is asinine, especially when people aren't going to give up their vehicles to ride a train. It's a stupid idea and it won't work, remember you heard it here first.

I really think you're wrong about that. I think you're looking at it with a late 20th century mindset. In those days, yes, the personal automobile was king. But back then, gas was a lot cheaper and a lot less scarce.

 

I saw a statistic the other day (sorry, don't have the numbers) that showed that people are much more concerned these days about energy conservation and the environment. The public mindset has changed. People want efficient, low-cost transportation; and their concerned about our dependence on oil. I think, now more than ever before, people would flock to a regional light rail system.

 

The obvious problem is the enormous start-up and infrastructure cost. But I truly believe it would work and it would end up being an economic boon to the region. I'd like to see Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus, Lexington and Louisville included initially. Perhaps, later, other cities could be added.

Edited September 25, 200818 yr by Birdsfan