Post: #1

I know the U.S is a nation of cars and highways shit, but there are benefits to actually using a statewide/city rail system. Now of course America has trains, but thats not the preferred method of transportation and only reaches to only certain locations & cities. With a highspeed rail system that reaches every state and city in the country, it means less gas and less cars on the road, less congestions etc. All of which benefit the environment, it makes the flow of traffic easier and more people can get where they want at a fixed amount of time.

Post: #2

Because theirs no money in it. And we're broke

Post: #3

Because we're too spread out for it to make any economic sense. They've been talking for years about a high speed rail between LA and SF but the train would offer no advantage over adding more daily flights. Ticket prices would be similar and it would still take several hours as opposed to 50 minutes by plane.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...02037.html

Post: #4

(08-31-2011 11:14 AM)Ohiogang Wrote:  . With a highspeed rail system that reaches every state and city in the country, it means less gas and less cars on the road, less congestions etc.

Also it would bie less profits for big oil companies. They own our politicians and will make sure there is never a fast efficient train from dc to up and down the NE corridor.

Post: #5

U.S is all about blatant money. Other countries are too but they disguise it with bureaucracy and other bullshyt.
When you make a suggestion, think about who will get paid. If there is no paper in it, you can bet it's a high chance your suggestion or idea will get vetoed.

Post: #6

Because the us has its population dependent on OIL, only region that's semi good is the NE with the acelea line and numerous budget bus companies DC to NYC that's it.

Post: #7

(08-31-2011 11:47 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  Because we're too spread out for it to make any economic sense.

What he said. Even if you fly somewhere, the first thing you usually have to do is to rent a car. Most local transit systems absolutely suck.

Post: #8

What I wonder though is why can't we have the clean but affordable intercity bus systems like in S. America? Greyhound sucks balls compared to the buses in Argentina and Chile. Being on those buses was like flying in first class. Full reclining leather seats, movies, hot meals, pastries, even champagne! If they had such services here I would use them rather than driving.

Post: #9

The US doesn't subsidize rail enough.....
They should, it would make a helluva lot of sense especially in the Northeast. It lowers traffic and is a lot more comfortable and convenient than taking a flight.
Air travel only wins For long distance travel. Anything in the NE corridor is pretty short to mid range. If the tickets were cheaper more people would take these trains(which is why Amtrak would need higher subsidies and funding).

Its environmentally much friendlier and personally I find it much more comfortable. The benefits outweigh the costs. Lower traffic + Lower pollution + Lower airport congestion is worth the extra funding.

I do agree that it doesn't make sense for spread out cities but thats a function of the automobile culture. I prefer European cities that are more accessible by public transportation rather than vast spread out cities with huge tracts of suburbs. I'm sure most players on this forum agree since the logistics are simpler and cheaper in the first case.

Post: #10

(08-31-2011 07:29 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  What I wonder though is why can't we have the clean but affordable intercity bus systems like in S. America? Greyhound sucks balls compared to the buses in Argentina and Chile. Being on those buses was like flying in first class. Full reclining leather seats, movies, hot meals, pastries, even champagne! If they had such services here I would use them rather than driving.

Speakeasy raises a good point, every long-distance bus I rode on in south/central america was pristine and efficient. I'm surprised at how inferior the quality our Greyhound service is in comparison. Most of the people on a Greyhound bus are the working-poor or below. While in So. America their buses and numerous competing companies attract a far wider range of income levels who demand a higher level of service.

Post: #11

(08-31-2011 11:47 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  Because we're too spread out for it to make any economic sense. They've been talking for years about a high speed rail between LA and SF but the train would offer no advantage over adding more daily flights. Ticket prices would be similar and it would still take several hours as opposed to 50 minutes by plane.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...02037.html

I think what this article doesn't take into account is the incentive for people to take public transportation, and most importantly high-speed rail. When gas prices rise even higher, say to $8/gal, people will definitely be looking to alternatives to auto/air. Also, politicians can use tax-incentives for businesses to use rail over air. There is also the convenience factor of trains-- train stations are usually centrally located, and the security is much more lax (quicker).

There are a lot of things this article doesn't take into account. I think high-speed rail will happen in the US, and it will be successful. The major factor that will speed up the process is higher fuel costs.

@Speakeasy: I wonder if this is a great time to get into the private bus business? I think in latino communities they have rapid busses from LA -> Santa Ana -> San Diego -> Tijuana.

Post: #12

(08-31-2011 07:29 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  What I wonder though is why can't we have the clean but affordable intercity bus systems like in S. America?

Because once you get into that another city, you'd have to rent a car to get to most places!

Post: #13

Outside a few major coastal cities, how the heck are going to get around the city at your destination?

For example, put a high speed train that gets you from Dallas to Houston in 2 hours. How the heck are you going to get around in 95 degree heat in Houston? How will you visit clients who are based in places like Plano?

Other countries build their entire cities around the train stops.

Post: #14

There's really nothing like driving on a freeway with good music playing while getting your dick sucked, smoking a blunt and sipping something good.

Post: #15

(09-02-2011 12:20 AM)houston Wrote:  There's really nothing like driving on a freeway with good music playing while getting your dick sucked, smoking a blunt and sipping something good.

Road head driving while intoxicated under several substances. Have you been reading Gmac's blog lately?




And there's no fucking way to make a mass transit system possible in the US without wasting hundreds billions of dollars. It's cheaper to invade a few countries for their oil than it is to build a country-wide mass transit system.

Post: #16

Well, for starters the government has been subsidizing oil companies for years which is hiding the cost of auto transit for consumers. Prices will increase due to rapid inflation however and subsidies will not be able to keep up, then changes will happen. This is why subsidies of any kind are bad: they distort the perception of true cost and are often influenced by corruption. They are also unnecessary as demand for any particular good or service will draw businesses to provide it.

Trains are over-rated anyway. They are expensive and difficult to alter. Once a rail is in place it's there for good. Rail systems are not flexible. Bus systems can be altered at the drop of a hat and can be changed frequently to meet consumer demands.

In the end the market will decide. Whatever is most flexible and require the least amount of resources will win out...if the government stops handing out money, that is.

Post: #17

(09-02-2011 10:24 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-02-2011 12:20 AM)houston Wrote:  There's really nothing like driving on a freeway with good music playing while getting your dick sucked, smoking a blunt and sipping something good.

Road head driving while intoxicated under several substances. Have you been reading Gmac's blog lately?




And there's no fucking way to make a mass transit system possible in the US without wasting hundreds billions of dollars. It's cheaper to invade a few countries for their oil than it is to build a country-wide mass transit system.

Nope, I don't read his blog. Why are you asking?

Post: #18

(09-02-2011 11:01 AM)CupCake Wrote:  Well, for starters the government has been subsidizing oil companies for years which is hiding the cost of auto transit for consumers. Prices will increase due to rapid inflation however and subsidies will not be able to keep up, then changes will happen. This is why subsidies of any kind are bad: they distort the perception of true cost and are often influenced by corruption. They are also unnecessary as demand for any particular good or service will draw businesses to provide it.

What is the nature of these subsidies? It's possible removing them won't raise gas prices, because gas already sells way above cost due to scarcity.

Outside of Manhattan, nearly everyone who isn't dirt poor has a car. Plus buses are a huge waste of time, and are filled with undesirables. NYC people say they love the subway, but why do all the people who can afford it take taxis? Even in cities with great public transport, driving in a cushy car is more pleasant, but relatively costly.

Cheap public transport is always filled with a huge number of undesirables, and people get the eff out when they have the chance.

Plus, as others have said, public transport rail doesn't make sense economically. No conspiracy theories necessary.

Within two decades we'll have self-driving cars, and thus automated taxis and even buses that make routes on the fly given the passengers on board.

Post: #19

(09-02-2011 12:01 PM)houston Wrote:  There's really nothing like driving on a freeway with good music playing while getting your dick sucked, smoking a blunt and sipping something good.

Do you guys in Houston sip that shyt that Lil Wayne sips? That sirrrrup? Just wondering. Y'all must never get colds down thurr...

Post: #20

(09-02-2011 12:26 PM)basilransom Wrote:  What is the nature of these subsidies? It's possible removing them won't raise gas prices, because gas already sells way above cost due to scarcity.

Outside of Manhattan, nearly everyone who isn't dirt poor has a car. Plus buses are a huge waste of time, and are filled with undesirables. NYC people say they love the subway, but why do all the people who can afford it take taxis? Even in cities with great public transport, driving in a cushy car is more pleasant, but relatively costly.

Cheap public transport is always filled with a huge number of undesirables, and people get the eff out when they have the chance.

Plus, as others have said, public transport rail doesn't make sense economically. No conspiracy theories necessary.

Within two decades we'll have self-driving cars, and thus automated taxis and even buses that make routes on the fly given the passengers on board.

In France they have laws to keep the undesirables out of public transportation. In France, there is even a law that states one must always have at least 1 euro on his person to deal with vagrants. There are ways to deal with the issue, but the question is are law-makers ready to fight the onslaught of political correctness issues.

Post: #21

(08-31-2011 11:35 PM)torontokid Wrote:  The US doesn't subsidize rail enough.....

They do, they just do it wrong, and let private interests have to much control over big parts of rail development.

Honolulu is trying to build some rail bullshit. It's gonna cost something like 6.5 Billion dollars. I read that it costs maybe 10 grand per resident. They haven't dug a single hole and it's already a massive clusterfuck.

Here they are spending $75 Million on artwork at the train stops: http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/blog/...sider.html

When I was in college the City of St. Louis had opened up their light rail system. It connected the ghetto with the riverboat casinos. This was in 1996 when welfare and social security people still got checks in the mail. The casino cage would turn social security checks right into slot tokens.

It was sad to see. The train would be packed at 10 am, then at 4 pm going back there'd be all kinds of sorry folks begging for change to get home. To combat that, the rail company gave out 5 hour roundtrip passes. This meant that since the people knew their time at the casino was limited, they would bet big.

I remember reading that St. Louis's Metrolink project wound up costing $10 Billion taxpayer dollars.

Aloha!

Post: #22

(09-02-2011 01:33 PM)kerouac Wrote:  In France they have laws to keep the undesirables out of public transportation. In France, there is even a law that states one must always have at least 1 euro on his person to deal with vagrants. There are ways to deal with the issue, but the question is are law-makers ready to fight the onslaught of political correctness issues.

Since when do laws stop thugs?

http://www.break.com/index/dude-mugged-o...-bus1.html

And beatings may not even be that common. But it's the psychic cost, of going into the bus every day and sitting in fear of an attack, of bracing yourself constantly and casing the joint for possible threats. Every American city has enough criminals to make public transport dangerous at night. And even during the day, if there isn't a critical mass of normal people riding it, public transport is seen as sketchy.

All in all, public transport is rarely superior even in the best of cases. The proof is in the money: when people have it, they don't use it.

The great thing about LA is that you can pretty reliably wall yourself off from undesirables. Eg, work in Century City, live in Beverly Hills, party in Santa Monica... I don't see how you could do that in NY without being extremely wealthy. Even the hipsters here, who don't feel authentic unless they live in a dangerous area, soon stop using the bus and get a car.

Post: #23

(09-02-2011 12:46 PM)Moma Wrote:  

(09-02-2011 12:01 PM)houston Wrote:  There's really nothing like driving on a freeway with good music playing while getting your dick sucked, smoking a blunt and sipping something good.

Do you guys in Houston sip that shyt that Lil Wayne sips? That sirrrrup? Just wondering. Y'all must never get colds down thurr...

No, he sips the shit that we've been sipping since the 90's haha. Its not as popular because all these fucking rappers made the cops catch on. The price has been tripled for a while now. Sip some and listen to a screw tape if you ever get the chance Moma

Post: #24

(09-02-2011 04:00 PM)basilransom Wrote:  Since when do laws stop thugs?

http://www.break.com/index/dude-mugged-o...-bus1.html

And beatings may not even be that common. But it's the psychic cost, of going into the bus every day and sitting in fear of an attack, of bracing yourself constantly and casing the joint for possible threats. Every American city has enough criminals to make public transport dangerous at night. And even during the day, if there isn't a critical mass of normal people riding it, public transport is seen as sketchy.

There will always be cases like that happening. That's what happens when you dress like a preppy Parisian dude and get on a bus with a bunch of lower-class immigrants who despise you just for being better off. At a certain point they were even poking fun at him by bringing up "Chanselise".

I'm not defending those thugs actions, but there is a level of street smarts that needs to be expected of someone. It's like someone from the Upper East Side getting on the G Train to Crown Heights dressed in preppy attire expecting to not get picked on.

Anyway, my point is that the video strikes more of an emotional point than anything. How many times have I gone on a bus from Downtown to Westwood, drunk out of my mind, taking the 720 express to the Village unscathed? Well, one actually, but that's beside the point

I have Parisian friends who live in the better parts of Paris who never get beaten up, and they rely solely on public transportation and walking-- and they go in and out of the center, so they deal with a lot of the undesirables. They might get harassed every now and then, but that's basically a given in city life where things are so diverse and crazy.

Post: #25

(09-02-2011 04:00 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

(09-02-2011 01:33 PM)kerouac Wrote:  In France they have laws to keep the undesirables out of public transportation. In France, there is even a law that states one must always have at least 1 euro on his person to deal with vagrants. There are ways to deal with the issue, but the question is are law-makers ready to fight the onslaught of political correctness issues.

Since when do laws stop thugs?

http://www.break.com/index/dude-mugged-o...-bus1.html

And beatings may not even be that common. But it's the psychic cost, of going into the bus every day and sitting in fear of an attack, of bracing yourself constantly and casing the joint for possible threats. Every American city has enough criminals to make public transport dangerous at night. And even during the day, if there isn't a critical mass of normal people riding it, public transport is seen as sketchy.

All in all, public transport is rarely superior even in the best of cases. The proof is in the money: when people have it, they don't use it.

The great thing about LA is that you can pretty reliably wall yourself off from undesirables. Eg, work in Century City, live in Beverly Hills, party in Santa Monica... I don't see how you could do that in NY without being extremely wealthy. Even the hipsters here, who don't feel authentic unless they live in a dangerous area, soon stop using the bus and get a car.

Wtf that is fucked up.
I've been using public transport for a long time in Toronto and I never feel unsafe.