High Speed Rail Between LA and Vegas

[frigidweirdo]

Great another train that will lose money and have to be propped up by the taxpayers

That's the attitude, everything shouldn't be done because it might not work out. Let's just stick to the problems we already have instead of trying to fix them.

The US has to have some of the worst public transport in the world. It's easier to get public transport in 3rd world countries than in the US.

So what?

Tell you what you show me a train that pays for itself and I'll be all for it.

Pay people a fair price for the land that will be taken from them in claims of eminent domain

And then show me that people will actually use the train.

My bet is people would rather drive than take a cattle car

What I'm saying is that sometimes things need to develop. You don't just expect day one of something to be full with people all going about their lives. Often transport links can take a while to develop, for people to get used to them, then they start making money.

Would people prefer to drive? Maybe in the US, because that's what people are used to, because they don't actually have much alternative. And no alternative because the alternatives aren't given the chance to work.

Years ago I went Amtrack from NY-Chicago-New Orleans-Atlanta-Philly-NY and people used the train, but it was too slow, it was quicker to go by bus. So it wasn't a great alternative. Now it's all about planes, which produce a ton of pollution.

Why are planes cheaper? Because they've been given the chance to work. Rail works slightly differently as you need the railway line to be built first, airports already existed for longer distance travel already.

Look at other countries. Where rail travel is a viable alternative, people use it.

The US actually has the second largest freight rail tonnage per kilometer in the world behind China, mainly because they're large countries. But falls behind Canada, Russia Latvia, Estonia and Switzerland when it comes to % of freight that uses rail.

When it comes to passengers the US falls to 22nd in the world. Belgium has more, look for Belgium on that map, it's like the size of Rhode Island or something. But people use rail, because it's there.

Amtrack reported 30 million passengers in 2014. China had 17,116 million, with 4-5 times the population.

Japan has a great high speed rail system, it has 7,289 million passengers, Belarus, Malaysia (a country split in two parts that aren't that big), Hungary, South Korea, Poland, many countries have many more passengers.

Rail is used because it's there and it's convenient. They don't use it in the US because it's not there.

It's used because people don't have a choice

Yes they do. Japan has a GDP of $32,000 a year. People have cars, they have the choice, and they choose rail a lot more than in the US where they don't have the choice of rail.

Germany has a GDP of $41,000. They also have the choice of rail or cars. They have Autobahns where you can go FASTER than US highways, but still many people choose to go by rail.

Not many of those countries which have a higher railway usage than the US are poor, China is half poor, people often don't have much of a choice, rail is cheap and it goes long distance. India is the same.

But most poor countries don't have railway because they just didn't keep their railways up. I went to a nice railway museum in Bulawayo in Zimbabwe, lots of old trains doing not much. I went by train once in Zimbabwe, but for the most part it's not an option any more.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Great another train that will lose money and have to be propped up by the taxpayers

That's the attitude, everything shouldn't be done because it might not work out. Let's just stick to the problems we already have instead of trying to fix them.

The US has to have some of the worst public transport in the world. It's easier to get public transport in 3rd world countries than in the US.

So what?

Tell you what you show me a train that pays for itself and I'll be all for it.

Pay people a fair price for the land that will be taken from them in claims of eminent domain

And then show me that people will actually use the train.

My bet is people would rather drive than take a cattle car

What I'm saying is that sometimes things need to develop. You don't just expect day one of something to be full with people all going about their lives. Often transport links can take a while to develop, for people to get used to them, then they start making money.

Would people prefer to drive? Maybe in the US, because that's what people are used to, because they don't actually have much alternative. And no alternative because the alternatives aren't given the chance to work.

Years ago I went Amtrack from NY-Chicago-New Orleans-Atlanta-Philly-NY and people used the train, but it was too slow, it was quicker to go by bus. So it wasn't a great alternative. Now it's all about planes, which produce a ton of pollution.

Why are planes cheaper? Because they've been given the chance to work. Rail works slightly differently as you need the railway line to be built first, airports already existed for longer distance travel already.

Look at other countries. Where rail travel is a viable alternative, people use it.

The US actually has the second largest freight rail tonnage per kilometer in the world behind China, mainly because they're large countries. But falls behind Canada, Russia Latvia, Estonia and Switzerland when it comes to % of freight that uses rail.

When it comes to passengers the US falls to 22nd in the world. Belgium has more, look for Belgium on that map, it's like the size of Rhode Island or something. But people use rail, because it's there.

Amtrack reported 30 million passengers in 2014. China had 17,116 million, with 4-5 times the population.

Japan has a great high speed rail system, it has 7,289 million passengers, Belarus, Malaysia (a country split in two parts that aren't that big), Hungary, South Korea, Poland, many countries have many more passengers.

Rail is used because it's there and it's convenient. They don't use it in the US because it's not there.

It's used because people don't have a choice

Yes they do. Japan has a GDP of $32,000 a year. People have cars, they have the choice, and they choose rail a lot more than in the US where they don't have the choice of rail.

Germany has a GDP of $41,000. They also have the choice of rail or cars. They have Autobahns where you can go FASTER than US highways, but still many people choose to go by rail.

Not many of those countries which have a higher railway usage than the US are poor, China is half poor, people often don't have much of a choice, rail is cheap and it goes long distance. India is the same.

But most poor countries don't have railway because they just didn't keep their railways up. I went to a nice railway museum in Bulawayo in Zimbabwe, lots of old trains doing not much. I went by train once in Zimbabwe, but for the most part it's not an option any more.

It's a lot more expensive to drive in those countries and you know it.

Like I said if people in this country really wanted trains everywhere we would have had them by now

We don't want them

 

[frigidweirdo]

That's the attitude, everything shouldn't be done because it might not work out. Let's just stick to the problems we already have instead of trying to fix them.

The US has to have some of the worst public transport in the world. It's easier to get public transport in 3rd world countries than in the US.

The US is the car capital of the world. What public transport do you mean? ... Oh I got it, selling more cars to the public.

Cars have gained supremacy for a long time. J-Walking existed because the early car industry decided it would be a good idea to have cars supreme on the roads. The govt of the day decided to go with industry over citizens then, and it has done it ever since.

So in your mind putting citizens first would be telling them they had to use public transportation thereby telling them they could only travel on someone else's schedule and go only where the cattle cars take them

giving people the freedom to travel in their own vehicles wherever and whenever they want is putting people first

No, I didn't say anything about telling people they have to use it. You said that.

Giving people the CHOICE to take their car, or use public transport is PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST.

A car limits people too. You have to pay for it, drive it, do all of that.

History has shown that Americans don't want t use public transportation other than within cities

If people wanted trains everywhere we would have them by now

Building them and wasting tax payer money on them then paying for ridiculously expensive ad campaigns to try to convince people that they really do want trains is a waste of time and money

History has shown that because Americans don't have access to good railways, they don't use them. What kind of bullshit argument is that?

Commuter rail in North America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Americans DO USE TRAINS.

Long Island Railroad is the most used railway system in North America. 337,000 people use it a week.

I used to use the train to go into NY when I lived in both Jersey and upstate NY, the trains were used, and used quite a lot.

But they use them because they're there and available and convenient.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That's the attitude, everything shouldn't be done because it might not work out. Let's just stick to the problems we already have instead of trying to fix them.

The US has to have some of the worst public transport in the world. It's easier to get public transport in 3rd world countries than in the US.

So what?

Tell you what you show me a train that pays for itself and I'll be all for it.

Pay people a fair price for the land that will be taken from them in claims of eminent domain

And then show me that people will actually use the train.

My bet is people would rather drive than take a cattle car

What I'm saying is that sometimes things need to develop. You don't just expect day one of something to be full with people all going about their lives. Often transport links can take a while to develop, for people to get used to them, then they start making money.

Would people prefer to drive? Maybe in the US, because that's what people are used to, because they don't actually have much alternative. And no alternative because the alternatives aren't given the chance to work.

Years ago I went Amtrack from NY-Chicago-New Orleans-Atlanta-Philly-NY and people used the train, but it was too slow, it was quicker to go by bus. So it wasn't a great alternative. Now it's all about planes, which produce a ton of pollution.

Why are planes cheaper? Because they've been given the chance to work. Rail works slightly differently as you need the railway line to be built first, airports already existed for longer distance travel already.

Look at other countries. Where rail travel is a viable alternative, people use it.

The US actually has the second largest freight rail tonnage per kilometer in the world behind China, mainly because they're large countries. But falls behind Canada, Russia Latvia, Estonia and Switzerland when it comes to % of freight that uses rail.

When it comes to passengers the US falls to 22nd in the world. Belgium has more, look for Belgium on that map, it's like the size of Rhode Island or something. But people use rail, because it's there.

Amtrack reported 30 million passengers in 2014. China had 17,116 million, with 4-5 times the population.

Japan has a great high speed rail system, it has 7,289 million passengers, Belarus, Malaysia (a country split in two parts that aren't that big), Hungary, South Korea, Poland, many countries have many more passengers.

Rail is used because it's there and it's convenient. They don't use it in the US because it's not there.

It's used because people don't have a choice

Yes they do. Japan has a GDP of $32,000 a year. People have cars, they have the choice, and they choose rail a lot more than in the US where they don't have the choice of rail.

Germany has a GDP of $41,000. They also have the choice of rail or cars. They have Autobahns where you can go FASTER than US highways, but still many people choose to go by rail.

Not many of those countries which have a higher railway usage than the US are poor, China is half poor, people often don't have much of a choice, rail is cheap and it goes long distance. India is the same.

But most poor countries don't have railway because they just didn't keep their railways up. I went to a nice railway museum in Bulawayo in Zimbabwe, lots of old trains doing not much. I went by train once in Zimbabwe, but for the most part it's not an option any more.

It's a lot more expensive to drive in those countries and you know it.

Like I said if people in this country really wanted trains everywhere we would have had them by now

We don't want them

Maybe it is. Why is it more expensive? Because of the tax the government puts on fuel.

Gasoline and diesel usage and pricing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However it's cheaper to drive in Malaysia than it is to drive in the USA, and yet they have more rail passengers than the USA.

But then what is "choice"?

Does a person choose cheap car driving over expensive public transport? Or do they choose cheap public transport over expensive car driving?

Are people really choosing? Or is the govt in the US deciding that people "want to drive cars" just as the govt chooses that people "prefer" dollar bills over dollar coins?

Where is this choice? Make public transport a similar price and similarly available to cars and then will you see more people take public transport?

You don't want them? Is that because you have never experienced it?

Is the "we" you and your family or the whole country?

Is "we" the people of LA and Las Vegas who might make use of it?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The US is the car capital of the world. What public transport do you mean? ... Oh I got it, selling more cars to the public.

Cars have gained supremacy for a long time. J-Walking existed because the early car industry decided it would be a good idea to have cars supreme on the roads. The govt of the day decided to go with industry over citizens then, and it has done it ever since.

So in your mind putting citizens first would be telling them they had to use public transportation thereby telling them they could only travel on someone else's schedule and go only where the cattle cars take them

giving people the freedom to travel in their own vehicles wherever and whenever they want is putting people first

No, I didn't say anything about telling people they have to use it. You said that.

Giving people the CHOICE to take their car, or use public transport is PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST.

A car limits people too. You have to pay for it, drive it, do all of that.

History has shown that Americans don't want t use public transportation other than within cities

If people wanted trains everywhere we would have them by now

Building them and wasting tax payer money on them then paying for ridiculously expensive ad campaigns to try to convince people that they really do want trains is a waste of time and money

History has shown that because Americans don't have access to good railways, they don't use them. What kind of bullshit argument is that?

Commuter rail in North America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Americans DO USE TRAINS.

Long Island Railroad is the most used railway system in North America. 337,000 people use it a week.

I used to use the train to go into NY when I lived in both Jersey and upstate NY, the trains were used, and used quite a lot.

But they use them because they're there and available and convenient.

We have more track than China twice as much in fact

If Americans wanted to use it for passenger trains they would be
And just because you use a train in no way means that the everyone else would

In fact it's just the opposite most people do not want to use a train and would rather drive or fly

 

[Skull Pilot]

So what?

Tell you what you show me a train that pays for itself and I'll be all for it.

Pay people a fair price for the land that will be taken from them in claims of eminent domain

And then show me that people will actually use the train.

My bet is people would rather drive than take a cattle car

What I'm saying is that sometimes things need to develop. You don't just expect day one of something to be full with people all going about their lives. Often transport links can take a while to develop, for people to get used to them, then they start making money.

Would people prefer to drive? Maybe in the US, because that's what people are used to, because they don't actually have much alternative. And no alternative because the alternatives aren't given the chance to work.

Years ago I went Amtrack from NY-Chicago-New Orleans-Atlanta-Philly-NY and people used the train, but it was too slow, it was quicker to go by bus. So it wasn't a great alternative. Now it's all about planes, which produce a ton of pollution.

Why are planes cheaper? Because they've been given the chance to work. Rail works slightly differently as you need the railway line to be built first, airports already existed for longer distance travel already.

Look at other countries. Where rail travel is a viable alternative, people use it.

The US actually has the second largest freight rail tonnage per kilometer in the world behind China, mainly because they're large countries. But falls behind Canada, Russia Latvia, Estonia and Switzerland when it comes to % of freight that uses rail.

When it comes to passengers the US falls to 22nd in the world. Belgium has more, look for Belgium on that map, it's like the size of Rhode Island or something. But people use rail, because it's there.

Amtrack reported 30 million passengers in 2014. China had 17,116 million, with 4-5 times the population.

Japan has a great high speed rail system, it has 7,289 million passengers, Belarus, Malaysia (a country split in two parts that aren't that big), Hungary, South Korea, Poland, many countries have many more passengers.

Rail is used because it's there and it's convenient. They don't use it in the US because it's not there.

It's used because people don't have a choice

Yes they do. Japan has a GDP of $32,000 a year. People have cars, they have the choice, and they choose rail a lot more than in the US where they don't have the choice of rail.

Germany has a GDP of $41,000. They also have the choice of rail or cars. They have Autobahns where you can go FASTER than US highways, but still many people choose to go by rail.

Not many of those countries which have a higher railway usage than the US are poor, China is half poor, people often don't have much of a choice, rail is cheap and it goes long distance. India is the same.

But most poor countries don't have railway because they just didn't keep their railways up. I went to a nice railway museum in Bulawayo in Zimbabwe, lots of old trains doing not much. I went by train once in Zimbabwe, but for the most part it's not an option any more.

It's a lot more expensive to drive in those countries and you know it.

Like I said if people in this country really wanted trains everywhere we would have had them by now

We don't want them

Maybe it is. Why is it more expensive? Because of the tax the government puts on fuel.

Gasoline and diesel usage and pricing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However it's cheaper to drive in Malaysia than it is to drive in the USA, and yet they have more rail passengers than the USA.

But then what is "choice"?

Does a person choose cheap car driving over expensive public transport? Or do they choose cheap public transport over expensive car driving?

Are people really choosing? Or is the govt in the US deciding that people "want to drive cars" just as the govt chooses that people "prefer" dollar bills over dollar coins?

Where is this choice? Make public transport a similar price and similarly available to cars and then will you see more people take public transport?

You don't want them? Is that because you have never experienced it?

Is the "we" you and your family or the whole country?

Is "we" the people of LA and Las Vegas who might make use of it?

The problem is that I here in New England will be paying for your LA to Vegas train

 

[frigidweirdo]

Cars have gained supremacy for a long time. J-Walking existed because the early car industry decided it would be a good idea to have cars supreme on the roads. The govt of the day decided to go with industry over citizens then, and it has done it ever since.

So in your mind putting citizens first would be telling them they had to use public transportation thereby telling them they could only travel on someone else's schedule and go only where the cattle cars take them

giving people the freedom to travel in their own vehicles wherever and whenever they want is putting people first

No, I didn't say anything about telling people they have to use it. You said that.

Giving people the CHOICE to take their car, or use public transport is PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST.

A car limits people too. You have to pay for it, drive it, do all of that.

History has shown that Americans don't want t use public transportation other than within cities

If people wanted trains everywhere we would have them by now

Building them and wasting tax payer money on them then paying for ridiculously expensive ad campaigns to try to convince people that they really do want trains is a waste of time and money

History has shown that because Americans don't have access to good railways, they don't use them. What kind of bullshit argument is that?

Commuter rail in North America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Americans DO USE TRAINS.

Long Island Railroad is the most used railway system in North America. 337,000 people use it a week.

I used to use the train to go into NY when I lived in both Jersey and upstate NY, the trains were used, and used quite a lot.

But they use them because they're there and available and convenient.

We have more track than China twice as much in fact

If Americans wanted to use it for passenger trains they would be
And just because you use a train in no way means that the everyone else would

In fact it's just the opposite most people do not want to use a train and would rather drive or fly

Having track doesn't make it convenient. 24 hours from NY to Chicago is not convenient, especially when it's quicker to go by bus and much quicker by plane.

The train is too slow.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What I'm saying is that sometimes things need to develop. You don't just expect day one of something to be full with people all going about their lives. Often transport links can take a while to develop, for people to get used to them, then they start making money.

Would people prefer to drive? Maybe in the US, because that's what people are used to, because they don't actually have much alternative. And no alternative because the alternatives aren't given the chance to work.

Years ago I went Amtrack from NY-Chicago-New Orleans-Atlanta-Philly-NY and people used the train, but it was too slow, it was quicker to go by bus. So it wasn't a great alternative. Now it's all about planes, which produce a ton of pollution.

Why are planes cheaper? Because they've been given the chance to work. Rail works slightly differently as you need the railway line to be built first, airports already existed for longer distance travel already.

Look at other countries. Where rail travel is a viable alternative, people use it.

The US actually has the second largest freight rail tonnage per kilometer in the world behind China, mainly because they're large countries. But falls behind Canada, Russia Latvia, Estonia and Switzerland when it comes to % of freight that uses rail.

When it comes to passengers the US falls to 22nd in the world. Belgium has more, look for Belgium on that map, it's like the size of Rhode Island or something. But people use rail, because it's there.

Amtrack reported 30 million passengers in 2014. China had 17,116 million, with 4-5 times the population.

Japan has a great high speed rail system, it has 7,289 million passengers, Belarus, Malaysia (a country split in two parts that aren't that big), Hungary, South Korea, Poland, many countries have many more passengers.

Rail is used because it's there and it's convenient. They don't use it in the US because it's not there.

It's used because people don't have a choice

Yes they do. Japan has a GDP of $32,000 a year. People have cars, they have the choice, and they choose rail a lot more than in the US where they don't have the choice of rail.

Germany has a GDP of $41,000. They also have the choice of rail or cars. They have Autobahns where you can go FASTER than US highways, but still many people choose to go by rail.

Not many of those countries which have a higher railway usage than the US are poor, China is half poor, people often don't have much of a choice, rail is cheap and it goes long distance. India is the same.

But most poor countries don't have railway because they just didn't keep their railways up. I went to a nice railway museum in Bulawayo in Zimbabwe, lots of old trains doing not much. I went by train once in Zimbabwe, but for the most part it's not an option any more.

It's a lot more expensive to drive in those countries and you know it.

Like I said if people in this country really wanted trains everywhere we would have had them by now

We don't want them

Maybe it is. Why is it more expensive? Because of the tax the government puts on fuel.

Gasoline and diesel usage and pricing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However it's cheaper to drive in Malaysia than it is to drive in the USA, and yet they have more rail passengers than the USA.

But then what is "choice"?

Does a person choose cheap car driving over expensive public transport? Or do they choose cheap public transport over expensive car driving?

Are people really choosing? Or is the govt in the US deciding that people "want to drive cars" just as the govt chooses that people "prefer" dollar bills over dollar coins?

Where is this choice? Make public transport a similar price and similarly available to cars and then will you see more people take public transport?

You don't want them? Is that because you have never experienced it?

Is the "we" you and your family or the whole country?

Is "we" the people of LA and Las Vegas who might make use of it?

The problem is that I here in New England will be paying for your LA to Vegas train

Not necessarily. That's a poor argument.

I'm not necessarily saying that any proposed plan should go ahead, but the two states could easily pay for it also. But then again if LA-Las Vegas were a success, who knows about what would then happen in New England where train travel is much more usual.

 

[Muhammed]

I often taket he train on a round trip from Toledo to Chicago because two of my children live in Chicago. From a time schedule standpoint there's not much difference between flying, taking a train and driving. And I have a car there at my daughters' house so I have transportation when I get there anyways.

It's about 5-6 hour ride no matter what mode of transport you take. So taking the Amtrack is much more convienient. Since I don't have to drive there I can take a shower, change clothes, take a nap, read a book, surf the net or make a new friend playing chess in the lounge car, (I make new friends easy), or whatever on the way. Even hook up with a friendly female companion (before I got married a couple years ago). Taking the train is better than driving for six hours or standing in line forever in an airport security chokepoint because I have long dark hair and a beard and look like a standard Al Qaeda Muzzie suicide bomber with an IED in my turban.

I like taking the train. It's my favorite mode of transport to Chicago besides a 23'6" Thompson cabin cruiser with a 6.2L Mercruiser engine. Depending on the weather of course.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's used because people don't have a choice

Yes they do. Japan has a GDP of $32,000 a year. People have cars, they have the choice, and they choose rail a lot more than in the US where they don't have the choice of rail.

Germany has a GDP of $41,000. They also have the choice of rail or cars. They have Autobahns where you can go FASTER than US highways, but still many people choose to go by rail.

Not many of those countries which have a higher railway usage than the US are poor, China is half poor, people often don't have much of a choice, rail is cheap and it goes long distance. India is the same.

But most poor countries don't have railway because they just didn't keep their railways up. I went to a nice railway museum in Bulawayo in Zimbabwe, lots of old trains doing not much. I went by train once in Zimbabwe, but for the most part it's not an option any more.

It's a lot more expensive to drive in those countries and you know it.

Like I said if people in this country really wanted trains everywhere we would have had them by now

We don't want them

Maybe it is. Why is it more expensive? Because of the tax the government puts on fuel.

Gasoline and diesel usage and pricing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However it's cheaper to drive in Malaysia than it is to drive in the USA, and yet they have more rail passengers than the USA.

But then what is "choice"?

Does a person choose cheap car driving over expensive public transport? Or do they choose cheap public transport over expensive car driving?

Are people really choosing? Or is the govt in the US deciding that people "want to drive cars" just as the govt chooses that people "prefer" dollar bills over dollar coins?

Where is this choice? Make public transport a similar price and similarly available to cars and then will you see more people take public transport?

You don't want them? Is that because you have never experienced it?

Is the "we" you and your family or the whole country?

Is "we" the people of LA and Las Vegas who might make use of it?

The problem is that I here in New England will be paying for your LA to Vegas train

Not necessarily. That's a poor argument.

I'm not necessarily saying that any proposed plan should go ahead, but the two states could easily pay for it also. But then again if LA-Las Vegas were a success, who knows about what would then happen in New England where train travel is much more usual.

I pay to subsidize Amtrak.

But hey if a company will build your train with no government subsidies or loan guarantees so that the only people paying for it are the ones who use it go right ahead

But it will be a waste of money