Obama has just proposed a plan to spend $13 million on high speed rail for the U.S.
We are behind most countries, especially Europe and Japan, on this front. I think this is a long time coming and I am really excited about it.
Obama unveils high-speed passenger rail plan - CNN.com
Ummm...13 million?Quote by: Clementine
I think that money is a bit of an over kill, especially since there were only 29 million passengers last year...or roughly 80,000 people a day nationwide...not sure that's worth the investment...His plan would be funded in part through the recently passed $787 billion stimulus plan, which includes a total of $8 billion for improvements in rail service. Obama has also proposed a separate five-year, $5 billion investment in high-speed rail as part of the administration's suggested fiscal year 2010 budget.
"Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives." | "Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them." - RR
Quote removed because someone got their feelings hurt. (boo hoo)
The whole idea is to up that figure. You invest where you want growth, don't you?
Anyway, we sorta had this discussion recently here: http://www.volconvo.com/forums/polit...-around-3.html
"I wish I was as cocksure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything."
-- Viscount Melbourne
It's kind of hard to have that many passengers when there's not too many trains. If it's an extensive/efficient network and relatively cheap, I think it'll work quite well. Also, it would provide a lot of jobs and if all the materials and work force is from the States, it would actually be quite beneficial economically.
I'm rather excited about the prospect of a renewed train system in the States. It works quite well in the UK and is extremely convenient.
Billingsley.
Or, if you're BO, you just carelessly spend everyone's money where ever you want...
Will it be a "extensive/efficient network"? Nothing the government does is "efficient"...
We don't need more government sponsored jobs...
The UK's just a tiiiiiiny bit smaller than the US, so it's bound to be a bit more efficient..
"Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives." | "Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them." - RR
Quote removed because someone got their feelings hurt. (boo hoo)
I didn't mean the government putting up the job, just the possibility of a train system would be nice. I'm well aware of how inefficient the government is.
Also, I think the US could come up with an efficient system, Dieval. Size doesn't have to bear issue with efficiency. I was commented more on the fact that it works great for traveling far (relative) and it's nice not having to worry about gas and food like you would in a car.
Billingsley
Dieval:
An extensive/efficient network has already been made in European countries, so why not here. Allegedly, the project is already below budget and ahead of schedule. The administration is claiming that it will take a million cars off the road.Will it be a "extensive/efficient network"? Nothing the government does is "efficient"...
- http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/04...gh-Speed-Rail/
"The day we stop exploring is the day we commit ourselves to live in a stagnant world, devoid of curiosity, empty of dreams."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FMNFvKEy4c
I agree. Trains can be quite efficient when done right. The ones in Japan work like clockwork, even in the crowded cities. If that train is supposed to arrive at 9:30am, it will be there AT 9:30am. I even was able to take a ride on the "Bullet Train". That was probably the best means of transportation I've ever ridden on. Ridiculously fast, cheap, environmentally friendly, and smooth. It felt like I was moving 10 mph.
If the government pays anything for building trains like they do highways, it won't be the best source of work for those who desperately need some. I know a lot of construction guys who work on the highways. They usually get paid a year after the work is done. Still not sure why.
I'm sorry, but I'd agree with you if you were right.
Incidentally, the episode of Top Gear where they went to the UK was fascinating.
They said the trains there are on time 99% of the time, and the most amazing thing is that they only consider "on time" to be within 60 seconds of the correct time.
"But it wasn't until he met his beautiful wife that he learned using logic and reason isn't enough. You have to be a dick to everyone who doesn't think like you." - South Park on Richard Dawkins
Well, creating jobs will be great, first of all. Secondly, as people become more and more concerned over the environment, I wouldn't be surprised if many people begin to try using mass transit, including trains. The thing is, it's hard for people to do that if the trains they want to use are slow and old.
Or don't go where they want to go.
I would like to use a train to visit my relatives in the Philadelphia area. Trouble is, to get there, I have to go all the way to Albany and then to NYC and then to Philadelphia. Not worth it.
If it went through Syracuse and then headed due south, following roughly the path of I-81, and got me there in say 7 hours or less, I'd take it sometimes. If it did it in under 4 hours, for say 1/2 the price of flying, I'd never drive that trip again.
"But it wasn't until he met his beautiful wife that he learned using logic and reason isn't enough. You have to be a dick to everyone who doesn't think like you." - South Park on Richard Dawkins
If the trains are profitable, there's no reason for the government to invest in them.
if the trains aren't profitable, there's no reason for the government to invest in them.
Oh...look at that, government shouldn't invest in trains, the private sector should determine what's needed and where.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks