High speed rail system in U.S.

2»

Comments

  • Cropduster-80
    Cropduster-80 Posts: 2,034
    edited May 2022
    brianlux said:
    Cropduster-80 said:
    brianlux said:
    Cropduster-80 said:
    If you stopped subsidising small airports with federal money that’s a start. 

    The amount of cities that can’t reasonably support an airport and have one anyway is absurd 

    take the train once from London to Paris, then fly it. No one would rather fly unless you want to waste your entire day 

    Generally, I would totally agree, but not in all cases. Ketchikan, Alaska for example, only has a year around population of only a little over 8,000, but they have a commercial airport large enough for passenger jets.  The city is on an island and though small in population, it does a lot of fishing and lumber, and tourism commerce.  Losing that airport would be a huge burden for it's residents.

    There are likely some other similar exceptions, but on the mainland, I would say, yeah, stop subsidizing them and get the railroads back up to snuff!
    Every time a how do we fund something comes up I’m always reminded of rural america.

    it costs a lot to live that isolated.  I end up paying for them to be able to have that convenience.  Mail is another one.  It probably costs 10 cents to mail a letter within my city. Probably costs 15 bucks to deliver a letter to my brother in laws house as that delivery person is probably handling 2-3 deliveries an hour.  

    high speed rail has the purpose of connecting cities. Cities (the ones that voted Biden for instance) represent 71% of the economy and thus tax revenue. It’s about time cities get their share of what they pay in taxes.

     Rural states and rural areas almost exclusively get more spending than what they pay in taxes.  There is plenty of money, it’s how it’s allocated that’s a problem 

    the reason high speed will never happen is totally related to that. It benefits cities and you would have to use eminent domain to seize rural land to build it. That’s not happening on any large scale.  It’s entirely probable that a hypothetical rail link from Dallas to Houston connecting 10 million people would be derailed (pun intended) by 7 ranchers 
    I would be careful not to over-generalize rural areas.  I have lived in big cities, and I have live in rural areas.  There are advantages and disadvantages, and good aspects and bad aspects of both.  At this point in my life, having to deal with hyperacusis and agoraphobia, I'm happiest when more isolated.  When I was younger, I loves living in the city.  And I paid plenty of taxes in both places.

    The other thing to remember is that a lot of the food you eat comes from rural areas.  Star Trek food replicators have not been invented yet, lol.
    All I’m saying is federal spending per 1 person is way, way higher in rural America than it is in LA.

    that’s great they grow food. That’s subsidised too. both on a state and federal level their chosen location to reside isn’t sustainable so the money flows from cities to the country like their their airports, roads, schools etc.  

    it gets frustrating to help fund it and still be their enemy. TBH rural America is much angrier at city people than the reverse.  A thank you would be nice 😂

    the main point though is you’ll get more pushback for high speed rail from small town America than you will from city dwellers 
    Post edited by Cropduster-80 on
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,663
    Cropduster-80 said:
    brianlux said:
    Cropduster-80 said:
    brianlux said:
    Cropduster-80 said:
    If you stopped subsidising small airports with federal money that’s a start. 

    The amount of cities that can’t reasonably support an airport and have one anyway is absurd 

    take the train once from London to Paris, then fly it. No one would rather fly unless you want to waste your entire day 

    Generally, I would totally agree, but not in all cases. Ketchikan, Alaska for example, only has a year around population of only a little over 8,000, but they have a commercial airport large enough for passenger jets.  The city is on an island and though small in population, it does a lot of fishing and lumber, and tourism commerce.  Losing that airport would be a huge burden for it's residents.

    There are likely some other similar exceptions, but on the mainland, I would say, yeah, stop subsidizing them and get the railroads back up to snuff!
    Every time a how do we fund something comes up I’m always reminded of rural america.

    it costs a lot to live that isolated.  I end up paying for them to be able to have that convenience.  Mail is another one.  It probably costs 10 cents to mail a letter within my city. Probably costs 15 bucks to deliver a letter to my brother in laws house as that delivery person is probably handling 2-3 deliveries an hour.  

    high speed rail has the purpose of connecting cities. Cities (the ones that voted Biden for instance) represent 71% of the economy and thus tax revenue. It’s about time cities get their share of what they pay in taxes.

     Rural states and rural areas almost exclusively get more spending than what they pay in taxes.  There is plenty of money, it’s how it’s allocated that’s a problem 

    the reason high speed will never happen is totally related to that. It benefits cities and you would have to use eminent domain to seize rural land to build it. That’s not happening on any large scale.  It’s entirely probable that a hypothetical rail link from Dallas to Houston connecting 10 million people would be derailed (pun intended) by 7 ranchers 
    I would be careful not to over-generalize rural areas.  I have lived in big cities, and I have live in rural areas.  There are advantages and disadvantages, and good aspects and bad aspects of both.  At this point in my life, having to deal with hyperacusis and agoraphobia, I'm happiest when more isolated.  When I was younger, I loves living in the city.  And I paid plenty of taxes in both places.

    The other thing to remember is that a lot of the food you eat comes from rural areas.  Star Trek food replicators have not been invented yet, lol.
    All I’m saying is federal spending per 1 person is way, way higher in rural America than it is in LA.

    that’s great they grow food. That’s subsidised too. both on a state and federal level their chosen location to reside isn’t sustainable so the money flows from cities to the country like their their airports, roads, schools etc.  

    it gets frustrating to help fund it and still be their enemy. TBH rural America is much angrier at city people than the reverse.  A thank you would be nice 😂

    the main point though is you’ll get more pushback for high speed rail from small town America than you will from city dwellers 
    Fair enough.
    My push back from high speed rail has nothing to do with rural or urban thinking since I have both in my life experiences.  I love the idea of high speed rail, but the time for doing it has passed.  The article I posted her yesterday illustrates that very well.   I don like sounding pessimistic about this, but it's not going to happen.  I've been following this through both Rail Passenger Association of CA and NV (RailPac) and Rail Passengers Association (formerly NARP) for about 20 years.  It's too late.  We blew it.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,674
    Looks like we actually are going to get a high speed rail line between Vancouver, BC-Seattle, WA-Portland, OR, and I am STOKED! 1 hour travel time from Vancouver to Seattle, that is so awesome!
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Cropduster-80
    Cropduster-80 Posts: 2,034
    edited May 2022
    brianlux said:
    Cropduster-80 said:
    brianlux said:
    Cropduster-80 said:
    brianlux said:
    Cropduster-80 said:
    If you stopped subsidising small airports with federal money that’s a start. 

    The amount of cities that can’t reasonably support an airport and have one anyway is absurd 

    take the train once from London to Paris, then fly it. No one would rather fly unless you want to waste your entire day 

    Generally, I would totally agree, but not in all cases. Ketchikan, Alaska for example, only has a year around population of only a little over 8,000, but they have a commercial airport large enough for passenger jets.  The city is on an island and though small in population, it does a lot of fishing and lumber, and tourism commerce.  Losing that airport would be a huge burden for it's residents.

    There are likely some other similar exceptions, but on the mainland, I would say, yeah, stop subsidizing them and get the railroads back up to snuff!
    Every time a how do we fund something comes up I’m always reminded of rural america.

    it costs a lot to live that isolated.  I end up paying for them to be able to have that convenience.  Mail is another one.  It probably costs 10 cents to mail a letter within my city. Probably costs 15 bucks to deliver a letter to my brother in laws house as that delivery person is probably handling 2-3 deliveries an hour.  

    high speed rail has the purpose of connecting cities. Cities (the ones that voted Biden for instance) represent 71% of the economy and thus tax revenue. It’s about time cities get their share of what they pay in taxes.

     Rural states and rural areas almost exclusively get more spending than what they pay in taxes.  There is plenty of money, it’s how it’s allocated that’s a problem 

    the reason high speed will never happen is totally related to that. It benefits cities and you would have to use eminent domain to seize rural land to build it. That’s not happening on any large scale.  It’s entirely probable that a hypothetical rail link from Dallas to Houston connecting 10 million people would be derailed (pun intended) by 7 ranchers 
    I would be careful not to over-generalize rural areas.  I have lived in big cities, and I have live in rural areas.  There are advantages and disadvantages, and good aspects and bad aspects of both.  At this point in my life, having to deal with hyperacusis and agoraphobia, I'm happiest when more isolated.  When I was younger, I loves living in the city.  And I paid plenty of taxes in both places.

    The other thing to remember is that a lot of the food you eat comes from rural areas.  Star Trek food replicators have not been invented yet, lol.
    All I’m saying is federal spending per 1 person is way, way higher in rural America than it is in LA.

    that’s great they grow food. That’s subsidised too. both on a state and federal level their chosen location to reside isn’t sustainable so the money flows from cities to the country like their their airports, roads, schools etc.  

    it gets frustrating to help fund it and still be their enemy. TBH rural America is much angrier at city people than the reverse.  A thank you would be nice 😂

    the main point though is you’ll get more pushback for high speed rail from small town America than you will from city dwellers 
    Fair enough.
    My push back from high speed rail has nothing to do with rural or urban thinking since I have both in my life experiences.  I love the idea of high speed rail, but the time for doing it has passed.  The article I posted her yesterday illustrates that very well.   I don like sounding pessimistic about this, but it's not going to happen.  I've been following this through both Rail Passenger Association of CA and NV (RailPac) and Rail Passengers Association (formerly NARP) for about 20 years.  It's too late.  We blew it.
    The other thing to consider is high speed rail is great, however it’s less attractive because public transportation within the cities you are connecting is also lacking.  So you arrive and still need to rent a car, so people would just drive city to city. 

    I wish #1 my city had functional, reliable, and fast public transportation (light rails or whatever)
    2 that cities could be connected via high speed rail 

    even a liberal oasis in the middle of Texas, their idea of public transportation is letting the city bus take the HOV lane. Every time a freeway is expanded it seems like  they consider a light rail in that space adjacent to the road for about two seconds, then build another lane 
    Post edited by Cropduster-80 on
  • static111
    static111 Posts: 5,088
    edited June 2022
    Cropduster-80 said:
    brianlux said:
    Cropduster-80 said:
    brianlux said:
    Cropduster-80 said:
    brianlux said:
    Cropduster-80 said:
    If you stopped subsidising small airports with federal money that’s a start. 

    The amount of cities that can’t reasonably support an airport and have one anyway is absurd 

    take the train once from London to Paris, then fly it. No one would rather fly unless you want to waste your entire day 

    Generally, I would totally agree, but not in all cases. Ketchikan, Alaska for example, only has a year around population of only a little over 8,000, but they have a commercial airport large enough for passenger jets.  The city is on an island and though small in population, it does a lot of fishing and lumber, and tourism commerce.  Losing that airport would be a huge burden for it's residents.

    There are likely some other similar exceptions, but on the mainland, I would say, yeah, stop subsidizing them and get the railroads back up to snuff!
    Every time a how do we fund something comes up I’m always reminded of rural america.

    it costs a lot to live that isolated.  I end up paying for them to be able to have that convenience.  Mail is another one.  It probably costs 10 cents to mail a letter within my city. Probably costs 15 bucks to deliver a letter to my brother in laws house as that delivery person is probably handling 2-3 deliveries an hour.  

    high speed rail has the purpose of connecting cities. Cities (the ones that voted Biden for instance) represent 71% of the economy and thus tax revenue. It’s about time cities get their share of what they pay in taxes.

     Rural states and rural areas almost exclusively get more spending than what they pay in taxes.  There is plenty of money, it’s how it’s allocated that’s a problem 

    the reason high speed will never happen is totally related to that. It benefits cities and you would have to use eminent domain to seize rural land to build it. That’s not happening on any large scale.  It’s entirely probable that a hypothetical rail link from Dallas to Houston connecting 10 million people would be derailed (pun intended) by 7 ranchers 
    I would be careful not to over-generalize rural areas.  I have lived in big cities, and I have live in rural areas.  There are advantages and disadvantages, and good aspects and bad aspects of both.  At this point in my life, having to deal with hyperacusis and agoraphobia, I'm happiest when more isolated.  When I was younger, I loves living in the city.  And I paid plenty of taxes in both places.

    The other thing to remember is that a lot of the food you eat comes from rural areas.  Star Trek food replicators have not been invented yet, lol.
    All I’m saying is federal spending per 1 person is way, way higher in rural America than it is in LA.

    that’s great they grow food. That’s subsidised too. both on a state and federal level their chosen location to reside isn’t sustainable so the money flows from cities to the country like their their airports, roads, schools etc.  

    it gets frustrating to help fund it and still be their enemy. TBH rural America is much angrier at city people than the reverse.  A thank you would be nice 😂

    the main point though is you’ll get more pushback for high speed rail from small town America than you will from city dwellers 
    Fair enough.
    My push back from high speed rail has nothing to do with rural or urban thinking since I have both in my life experiences.  I love the idea of high speed rail, but the time for doing it has passed.  The article I posted her yesterday illustrates that very well.   I don like sounding pessimistic about this, but it's not going to happen.  I've been following this through both Rail Passenger Association of CA and NV (RailPac) and Rail Passengers Association (formerly NARP) for about 20 years.  It's too late.  We blew it.
    The other thing to consider is high speed rail is great, however it’s less attractive because public transportation within the cities you are connecting is also lacking.  So you arrive and still need to rent a car, so people would just drive city to city. 

    I wish #1 my city had functional, reliable, and fast public transportation (light rails or whatever)
    2 that cities could be connected via high speed rail 

    even a liberal oasis in the middle of Texas, their idea of public transportation is letting the city bus take the HOV lane. Every time a freeway is expanded it seems like  they consider a light rail in that space adjacent to the road for about two seconds, then build another lane 
    I think we are planning to build a tunnel train in Austin and it will probably take over ten years, cost millions and then be obsolete or incomplete.  It was all approved by voters but will likely be held up by bureaucrats and when it fails and costs zillions everyone will say see we told you the liberals don't know how to be fiscally responsible.I'm sure the Boring company will make a quick buck
    Post edited by static111 on
    Scio me nihil scire

    There are no kings inside the gates of eden
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,663
    PJ_Soul said:
    Looks like we actually are going to get a high speed rail line between Vancouver, BC-Seattle, WA-Portland, OR, and I am STOKED! 1 hour travel time from Vancouver to Seattle, that is so awesome!

    I hope it goes well!  You all up north must manage money better than us down here!
    static111 said:
    Cropduster-80 said:
    brianlux said:
    Cropduster-80 said:
    brianlux said:
    Cropduster-80 said:
    brianlux said:
    Cropduster-80 said:
    If you stopped subsidising small airports with federal money that’s a start. 

    The amount of cities that can’t reasonably support an airport and have one anyway is absurd 

    take the train once from London to Paris, then fly it. No one would rather fly unless you want to waste your entire day 

    Generally, I would totally agree, but not in all cases. Ketchikan, Alaska for example, only has a year around population of only a little over 8,000, but they have a commercial airport large enough for passenger jets.  The city is on an island and though small in population, it does a lot of fishing and lumber, and tourism commerce.  Losing that airport would be a huge burden for it's residents.

    There are likely some other similar exceptions, but on the mainland, I would say, yeah, stop subsidizing them and get the railroads back up to snuff!
    Every time a how do we fund something comes up I’m always reminded of rural america.

    it costs a lot to live that isolated.  I end up paying for them to be able to have that convenience.  Mail is another one.  It probably costs 10 cents to mail a letter within my city. Probably costs 15 bucks to deliver a letter to my brother in laws house as that delivery person is probably handling 2-3 deliveries an hour.  

    high speed rail has the purpose of connecting cities. Cities (the ones that voted Biden for instance) represent 71% of the economy and thus tax revenue. It’s about time cities get their share of what they pay in taxes.

     Rural states and rural areas almost exclusively get more spending than what they pay in taxes.  There is plenty of money, it’s how it’s allocated that’s a problem 

    the reason high speed will never happen is totally related to that. It benefits cities and you would have to use eminent domain to seize rural land to build it. That’s not happening on any large scale.  It’s entirely probable that a hypothetical rail link from Dallas to Houston connecting 10 million people would be derailed (pun intended) by 7 ranchers 
    I would be careful not to over-generalize rural areas.  I have lived in big cities, and I have live in rural areas.  There are advantages and disadvantages, and good aspects and bad aspects of both.  At this point in my life, having to deal with hyperacusis and agoraphobia, I'm happiest when more isolated.  When I was younger, I loves living in the city.  And I paid plenty of taxes in both places.

    The other thing to remember is that a lot of the food you eat comes from rural areas.  Star Trek food replicators have not been invented yet, lol.
    All I’m saying is federal spending per 1 person is way, way higher in rural America than it is in LA.

    that’s great they grow food. That’s subsidised too. both on a state and federal level their chosen location to reside isn’t sustainable so the money flows from cities to the country like their their airports, roads, schools etc.  

    it gets frustrating to help fund it and still be their enemy. TBH rural America is much angrier at city people than the reverse.  A thank you would be nice 😂

    the main point though is you’ll get more pushback for high speed rail from small town America than you will from city dwellers 
    Fair enough.
    My push back from high speed rail has nothing to do with rural or urban thinking since I have both in my life experiences.  I love the idea of high speed rail, but the time for doing it has passed.  The article I posted her yesterday illustrates that very well.   I don like sounding pessimistic about this, but it's not going to happen.  I've been following this through both Rail Passenger Association of CA and NV (RailPac) and Rail Passengers Association (formerly NARP) for about 20 years.  It's too late.  We blew it.
    The other thing to consider is high speed rail is great, however it’s less attractive because public transportation within the cities you are connecting is also lacking.  So you arrive and still need to rent a car, so people would just drive city to city. 

    I wish #1 my city had functional, reliable, and fast public transportation (light rails or whatever)
    2 that cities could be connected via high speed rail 

    even a liberal oasis in the middle of Texas, their idea of public transportation is letting the city bus take the HOV lane. Every time a freeway is expanded it seems like  they consider a light rail in that space adjacent to the road for about two seconds, then build another lane 
    I think we are planning to build a tunnel trailer in Austin and it will probably take over ten years, cost millions and then be obsolete or incomplete.  It was all approved by voters but will likely be held up by bureaucrats and when it fails and costs zillions everyone will say see we told you the liberals don't know how to be fiscally responsible.I'm sure the Boring company will make a quick buck
    Nor a lot of conservative, of course.   It's almost as though fiscal responsibility is a foreign concept in this country.  And no surprise- look at how poorly the average person handles their personal finances.  Look how "economy" is divorced from environment and natural resources in this country.  We are so young and have so much to learn.  Hope we make it long enough to do so.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

Categories