(01-05-2015 06:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 05:36 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 05:00 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:43 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:13 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  A bullet train would be awesome.

Fit, the two cities mentioned are 25 miles apart. This is the dumbest idea liberals ever came up with and that's saying something.

No wonder he thinks it would be awesome, nothing says "exciting" like going 25 miles @ 200 mph... And in 14 years, you go 800 miles with the simple on boarding and off boarding a measly 24 times...

Not to put words in Fit's mouth, but I think he meant it would awesome, in general, not just between those two cities. Of course only between those two cities is crazy. However, it would be cool to have one cross country or between major cities, but given vast distances I just don't see how that would work.

Exactly. I like trains. So shoot me.

You are aware that blacks and Chinamen worked in brutal conditions with little pay in order to build our railroad system, right?

(01-05-2015 10:38 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 11:30 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Doesn't government do any studies on profitability before taking on massive projects? This is guaranteed to lose billions.

Libs in government just do what they want to do, regardless of feasibility or cost.

Step back from the cost aspect, because Airlines go bankrupt all the time and it is debatable on whether road 'pay' for themselves. The correct measure for transportation projects is that of utility. Could a HSR system actually work in US in terms of being frequently used? Sure, but it would never be the interconnected system like the one Europe sports. That's bcause the most accessible market for HSR to capture is regional air travel. So high density areas like the West Coast or the NE Corridor would be the ideal locations for such a service. But take a look at this Alignment map and you will notice that the proposed route is not very straight and that stations (24 in total) are sometimes not even 30 miles apart, effectively eliminating the high speed aspect of HSR (Avg speeds will be between 79-90 mph). Combined with the fact that the HSR will have to share the same tracks as conventional rail, California's experiment will be reduced to Acela levels of performance.

Roads do pay for themselves by the tax revenues. The Highway trust fund not only pays for roads but BS projects like light rail, subways, bike trails and bike lanes not of which generate any tax revenue and few actually generate enough operating revenue to cover operating expenses.

I'd be more excited about it if it wasn't so expensive and they were completing all of it. I studied abroad in Europe and rode the rails all over, it was impressive how inexpensive it was and how little time it took. I'd love to be able to take the high speed rail down to Disney with the kids in about 3-4 hours as opposed to 6-7 hours driving.

(01-05-2015 06:16 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 06:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 05:36 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 05:00 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:43 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Fit, the two cities mentioned are 25 miles apart. This is the dumbest idea liberals ever came up with and that's saying something.

No wonder he thinks it would be awesome, nothing says "exciting" like going 25 miles @ 200 mph... And in 14 years, you go 800 miles with the simple on boarding and off boarding a measly 24 times...

Not to put words in Fit's mouth, but I think he meant it would awesome, in general, not just between those two cities. Of course only between those two cities is crazy. However, it would be cool to have one cross country or between major cities, but given vast distances I just don't see how that would work.

Exactly. I like trains. So shoot me.

You are aware that blacks and Chinamen worked in brutal conditions with little pay in order to build our railroad system, right?

What does that have to do with anything?

(01-05-2015 06:58 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 10:38 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 11:30 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Doesn't government do any studies on profitability before taking on massive projects? This is guaranteed to lose billions.

Libs in government just do what they want to do, regardless of feasibility or cost.

Step back from the cost aspect, because Airlines go bankrupt all the time and it is debatable on whether road 'pay' for themselves. The correct measure for transportation projects is that of utility. Could a HSR system actually work in US in terms of being frequently used? Sure, but it would never be the interconnected system like the one Europe sports. That's bcause the most accessible market for HSR to capture is regional air travel. So high density areas like the West Coast or the NE Corridor would be the ideal locations for such a service. But take a look at this Alignment map and you will notice that the proposed route is not very straight and that stations (24 in total) are sometimes not even 30 miles apart, effectively eliminating the high speed aspect of HSR (Avg speeds will be between 79-90 mph). Combined with the fact that the HSR will have to share the same tracks as conventional rail, California's experiment will be reduced to Acela levels of performance.

Roads do pay for themselves by the tax revenues. The Highway trust fund not only pays for roads but BS projects like light rail, subways, bike trails and bike lanes not of which generate any tax revenue and few actually generate enough operating revenue to cover operating expenses.

All roads do not pay for themselves though. Many sparsely used roads are absolutely subsidized by major highways.

Rural and suburban residential streets are enormous money sucks. Not all of course, but a lot of them are. They aren't used for commerce and they carry a low quantity of vehicles.

All roads aren't equal.

(01-05-2015 10:58 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 06:58 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 10:38 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 11:30 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Doesn't government do any studies on profitability before taking on massive projects? This is guaranteed to lose billions.

Libs in government just do what they want to do, regardless of feasibility or cost.

Step back from the cost aspect, because Airlines go bankrupt all the time and it is debatable on whether road 'pay' for themselves. The correct measure for transportation projects is that of utility. Could a HSR system actually work in US in terms of being frequently used? Sure, but it would never be the interconnected system like the one Europe sports. That's bcause the most accessible market for HSR to capture is regional air travel. So high density areas like the West Coast or the NE Corridor would be the ideal locations for such a service. But take a look at this Alignment map and you will notice that the proposed route is not very straight and that stations (24 in total) are sometimes not even 30 miles apart, effectively eliminating the high speed aspect of HSR (Avg speeds will be between 79-90 mph). Combined with the fact that the HSR will have to share the same tracks as conventional rail, California's experiment will be reduced to Acela levels of performance.

Roads do pay for themselves by the tax revenues. The Highway trust fund not only pays for roads but BS projects like light rail, subways, bike trails and bike lanes not of which generate any tax revenue and few actually generate enough operating revenue to cover operating expenses.

All roads do not pay for themselves though. Many sparsely used roads are absolutely subsidized by major highways.

Rural and suburban residential streets are enormous money sucks. Not all of course, but a lot of them are. They aren't used for commerce and they carry a low quantity of vehicles.

All roads aren't equal.

If there is one thing that I have zero objection seeing the government involved in?...its good roads. I dont even get upset when delayed by construction. it is IMO the best use of stolen fruits of my labor. I don't care where they build the roads. I love them.

(01-05-2015 11:53 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  With a little luck, the wildlife activists will find some endangered chickadee that nests in the route of the tracks and sue to stop the construction.

Only if it was a highway. Enviro nazis love trains because they think it is so cool.

(01-05-2015 06:58 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 10:38 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 11:30 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Doesn't government do any studies on profitability before taking on massive projects? This is guaranteed to lose billions.

Libs in government just do what they want to do, regardless of feasibility or cost.

Step back from the cost aspect, because Airlines go bankrupt all the time and it is debatable on whether road 'pay' for themselves. The correct measure for transportation projects is that of utility. Could a HSR system actually work in US in terms of being frequently used? Sure, but it would never be the interconnected system like the one Europe sports. That's bcause the most accessible market for HSR to capture is regional air travel. So high density areas like the West Coast or the NE Corridor would be the ideal locations for such a service. But take a look at this Alignment map and you will notice that the proposed route is not very straight and that stations (24 in total) are sometimes not even 30 miles apart, effectively eliminating the high speed aspect of HSR (Avg speeds will be between 79-90 mph). Combined with the fact that the HSR will have to share the same tracks as conventional rail, California's experiment will be reduced to Acela levels of performance.

Roads do pay for themselves by the tax revenues. The Highway trust fund not only pays for roads but BS projects like light rail, subways, bike trails and bike lanes not of which generate any tax revenue and few actually generate enough operating revenue to cover operating expenses.

Paying a toll on traveled roads would be a more accurate determination of whether roads pay for themselves or not. Or course there are impracticalities associated with that as well as an associated inducement of traffic to non tolled routes. Thus, tax receipts from gas sales are easier to collect and capture a far greater pool of people. Which is why portions the Highway Trust Fund can be diverted for other uses. Again, I would have no problem with the diversion if it was going towards the NYC Subway, Chicago El and DC Metro. These are frequently used links those cities transport portfolio. Bike Trails and Bike Lanes aren't even rounding errors. What I do take issue with is cities requesting this money to buy civic jewelry in order to validate political egos.

(01-06-2015 06:42 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 10:58 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 06:58 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 10:38 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 11:30 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Doesn't government do any studies on profitability before taking on massive projects? This is guaranteed to lose billions.

Libs in government just do what they want to do, regardless of feasibility or cost.

Step back from the cost aspect, because Airlines go bankrupt all the time and it is debatable on whether road 'pay' for themselves. The correct measure for transportation projects is that of utility. Could a HSR system actually work in US in terms of being frequently used? Sure, but it would never be the interconnected system like the one Europe sports. That's bcause the most accessible market for HSR to capture is regional air travel. So high density areas like the West Coast or the NE Corridor would be the ideal locations for such a service. But take a look at this Alignment map and you will notice that the proposed route is not very straight and that stations (24 in total) are sometimes not even 30 miles apart, effectively eliminating the high speed aspect of HSR (Avg speeds will be between 79-90 mph). Combined with the fact that the HSR will have to share the same tracks as conventional rail, California's experiment will be reduced to Acela levels of performance.

Roads do pay for themselves by the tax revenues. The Highway trust fund not only pays for roads but BS projects like light rail, subways, bike trails and bike lanes not of which generate any tax revenue and few actually generate enough operating revenue to cover operating expenses.

All roads do not pay for themselves though. Many sparsely used roads are absolutely subsidized by major highways.

Rural and suburban residential streets are enormous money sucks. Not all of course, but a lot of them are. They aren't used for commerce and they carry a low quantity of vehicles.

All roads aren't equal.

If there is one thing that I have zero objection seeing the government involved in?...its good roads. I dont even get upset when delayed by construction. it is IMO the best use of stolen fruits of my labor. I don't care where they build the roads. I love them.

agree.

(01-05-2015 06:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 05:36 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 05:00 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:43 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:13 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  A bullet train would be awesome.

Fit, the two cities mentioned are 25 miles apart. This is the dumbest idea liberals ever came up with and that's saying something.

No wonder he thinks it would be awesome, nothing says "exciting" like going 25 miles @ 200 mph... And in 14 years, you go 800 miles with the simple on boarding and off boarding a measly 24 times...

Not to put words in Fit's mouth, but I think he meant it would awesome, in general, not just between those two cities. Of course only between those two cities is crazy. However, it would be cool to have one cross country or between major cities, but given vast distances I just don't see how that would work.

Exactly. I like trains. So shoot me.

bang

(01-06-2015 12:55 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 06:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 05:36 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 05:00 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:43 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Fit, the two cities mentioned are 25 miles apart. This is the dumbest idea liberals ever came up with and that's saying something.

No wonder he thinks it would be awesome, nothing says "exciting" like going 25 miles @ 200 mph... And in 14 years, you go 800 miles with the simple on boarding and off boarding a measly 24 times...

Not to put words in Fit's mouth, but I think he meant it would awesome, in general, not just between those two cities. Of course only between those two cities is crazy. However, it would be cool to have one cross country or between major cities, but given vast distances I just don't see how that would work.

Exactly. I like trains. So shoot me.

bang

careful now. If you were in school that'd get you suspended.

High-tech infrastructure is great. The reason it doesn't work in this country is because unions and politicians want to inject themselves into design and cost decisions that should only involve engineers and infrastructure planners.

The reason the technology is over budget has nothing to do with the technology itself.

(01-06-2015 01:08 PM)Niner National Wrote:  careful now. If you were in school that'd get you suspended.

Only if I used this...

(01-06-2015 01:10 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  High-tech infrastructure is great. The reason it doesn't work in this country is because unions and politicians want to inject themselves into design and cost decisions that should only involve engineers and infrastructure planners.

The reason the technology is over budget has nothing to do with the technology itself.

i'm interested. can you share some of your favorite links? i go back and forth on this. i f*cking really would like high speed light rail, but is it practical? i have a hard time grasping what the price tag on a project means to me. there's so much sh!t that goes on that suppose to affect me financially and the bottom line doesn't seem to change.

i have thought about this briefly. the east coast would use a bullet train more because that's where the population is. midwest has big connectors. south has big connectors. outside of texas it's okc and denver en route slc and the pac nw.

boston, nyc, philly, dc, pittsburgh, columbus, indianapolis, chiacgo, charlotte, atlanta, memphis/st louis could all be major hubs in the east/midwest to get you elsewhere. those routes are strategic even if i didn't give routes. it's basically the interstate, which would be imo, where it should be built.

california makes sense to have a high speed train, i think they would use it a lot (sf to la, la to sd). cut the driving time in half. those are pretty big money cities. trains can make sense

I'd love to know the costs operation of a bullet train.. Manpower, fuel, etc.

The thing about "high-tech mass transit" is that a lot of it would simply entail improvements on systems that are already exist, making them more feasible for the average commuter.

We have a LOT of good infrastructure to build around. It just needs to be tied into a national/regional system that can connect the smaller groups (with a bullet train, maybe?).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Island_Rail_Road

I think systems similar to the LIRR are the future in this country. The LIRR is a dated system, but it has been upgraded in other to accommodate new technology and to improve safety and capacity.

Another good base idea would be the MAX Light Rail which exists in Oregon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAX_Light_Rail

I think the ideal situation would be developing a widespread series of Light Rail systems around the new suburbs, and then connecting the new suburbanite systems with the existing metropolitan light rail systems.

You would never just build high-speed rail from DC to SF, that's a waste of money and doesn't really service anyone. I think that this should be done by breaking each small area of the country into a spiderweb - and then somehow finding a way to effectively connect the spiderwebs to together to improve quality of life and commercial interests.

The biggest fricking hangup is that politicians are going to get their hands involved the moment you bring up "inter-state cooperative transportation pacts". If you could only let the engineers and planner just work for the businesses that they extract tax money from...

...this will all never happen - but not because it doesn't make sense.

(01-06-2015 01:49 PM)Lush Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 01:10 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  High-tech infrastructure is great. The reason it doesn't work in this country is because unions and politicians want to inject themselves into design and cost decisions that should only involve engineers and infrastructure planners.

The reason the technology is over budget has nothing to do with the technology itself.

i'm interested. can you share some of your favorite links? i go back and forth on this. i f*cking really would like high speed light rail, but is it practical? i have a hard time grasping what the price tag on a project means to me. there's so much sh!t that goes on that suppose to affect me financially and the bottom line doesn't seem to change.

i have thought about this briefly. the east coast would use a bullet train more because that's where the population is. midwest has big connectors. south has big connectors. outside of texas it's okc and denver en route slc and the pac nw.

boston, nyc, philly, dc, pittsburgh, columbus, indianapolis, chiacgo, charlotte, atlanta, memphis/st louis could all be major hubs in the east/midwest to get you elsewhere. those routes are strategic even if i didn't give routes. it's basically the interstate, which would be imo, where it should be built.

california makes sense to have a high speed train, i think they would use it a lot (sf to la, la to sd). cut the driving time in half. those are pretty big money cities. trains can make sense

I'd have to know where you are at. The website that I use to evaluate transit budgets and system effectiveness is here. As Olive and Blue states, there are a lot of political machinations that reduce the effectiveness of transit projects. For instance, you like every other rational person would say that if you were designing a HSR for California that you would connect the major cities and maybe some airports. But go back and look at the route map I linked to and you'll see stops at podunk locations that don't make any sense. The reason they exist though is that they are political concessions that grease the skids to get the program moving. Always remember that politicians love ribbon cutting (new projects) but hate dusting (maintenance).

My opposition to light rail stems from the fact that most of the time when it's implemented it lacks grade separation. While trains running along street medians looks very European, it ultimately slows down the trains and because of FTA standards typically result in trains cars that weigh as much as their heavy rail cousins. And while a cross country HSR sounds sweet, a airplane will easily double the max speed of any train with the added benefit of a non-stop option.

(01-06-2015 02:53 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 01:49 PM)Lush Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 01:10 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  High-tech infrastructure is great. The reason it doesn't work in this country is because unions and politicians want to inject themselves into design and cost decisions that should only involve engineers and infrastructure planners.

The reason the technology is over budget has nothing to do with the technology itself.

i'm interested. can you share some of your favorite links? i go back and forth on this. i f*cking really would like high speed light rail, but is it practical? i have a hard time grasping what the price tag on a project means to me. there's so much sh!t that goes on that suppose to affect me financially and the bottom line doesn't seem to change.

i have thought about this briefly. the east coast would use a bullet train more because that's where the population is. midwest has big connectors. south has big connectors. outside of texas it's okc and denver en route slc and the pac nw.

boston, nyc, philly, dc, pittsburgh, columbus, indianapolis, chiacgo, charlotte, atlanta, memphis/st louis could all be major hubs in the east/midwest to get you elsewhere. those routes are strategic even if i didn't give routes. it's basically the interstate, which would be imo, where it should be built.

california makes sense to have a high speed train, i think they would use it a lot (sf to la, la to sd). cut the driving time in half. those are pretty big money cities. trains can make sense

I'd have to know where you are at. The website that I use to evaluate transit budgets and system effectiveness is here. As Olive and Blue states, there are a lot of political machinations that reduce the effectiveness of transit projects. For instance, you like every other rational person would say that if you were designing a HSR for California that you would connect the major cities and maybe some airports. But go back and look at the route map I linked to and you'll see stops at podunk locations that don't make any sense. The reason they exist though is that they are political concessions that grease the skids to get the program moving. Always remember that politicians love ribbon cutting (new projects) but hate dusting (maintenance).

My opposition to light rail stems from the fact that most of the time when it's implemented it lacks grade separation. While trains running along street medians looks very European, it ultimately slows down the trains and because of FTA standards typically result in trains cars that weigh as much as their heavy rail cousins. And while a cross country HSR sounds sweet, a airplane will easily double the max speed of any train with the added benefit of a non-stop option.

In Charlotte, the light rail trains are mostly grade separated. There are a few areas that they cross traffic, but the arms are down only for 30 seconds or so because its a short train.

The extension currently being built north will be completely grade separated. It will run in the median of a major road for much of the way (completely separate from traffic) and will be raised over the intersections.

We're also building a streetcar though that will run on the road with normal traffic.

(01-05-2015 05:36 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 05:00 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:43 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:13 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  A bullet train would be awesome.

Fit, the two cities mentioned are 25 miles apart. This is the dumbest idea liberals ever came up with and that's saying something.

No wonder he thinks it would be awesome, nothing says "exciting" like going 25 miles @ 200 mph... And in 14 years, you go 800 miles with the simple on boarding and off boarding a measly 24 times...

Not to put words in Fit's mouth, but I think he meant it would awesome, in general, not just between those two cities. Of course only between those two cities is crazy. However, it would be cool to have one cross country or between major cities, but given vast distances I just don't see how that would work.

They are working on a similar train in Illinois between Chicago and St.Louis(only a small portion capable of those speeds currently). I believe they share a track and are only in the same speed range. I think city to city(Chi/StL, Chicago/Mil/Minn etc) is the best way to go at least to start. Hard to beat airplanes for coast to coast. I do think that true high speed(150+mph, own track) would be the best though.

(01-05-2015 06:16 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 06:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 05:36 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 05:00 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:43 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Fit, the two cities mentioned are 25 miles apart. This is the dumbest idea liberals ever came up with and that's saying something.

No wonder he thinks it would be awesome, nothing says "exciting" like going 25 miles @ 200 mph... And in 14 years, you go 800 miles with the simple on boarding and off boarding a measly 24 times...

Not to put words in Fit's mouth, but I think he meant it would awesome, in general, not just between those two cities. Of course only between those two cities is crazy. However, it would be cool to have one cross country or between major cities, but given vast distances I just don't see how that would work.

Exactly. I like trains. So shoot me.

You are aware that blacks and Chinamen worked in brutal conditions with little pay in order to build our railroad system, right?

Chinamen?