President Obama plans to put a minimum of 8 billion dollars towards building railroads. This can have a strong negative OR a strong positive effect. On the one hand, it can really help us save fuel and it could be good for the Earth. However, there is a negative side to it too. From what I can tell, admittedly I'm not done with my research yet, this is going to practically eliminate the use of cars. The plan, from what I've heard, is to stop fixing the roads that we already have because it will cost millions to fix them all. A negative point would be that cars, while using a lot of gas sometimes, are highly convenient and can be used for many things. What do you guys think?
Originally posted by domino971As long as Ziggy Stardust isn't involved in this it's OK with me.
President Obama plans to put a minimum of 8 billion dollars towards building railroads. This can have a strong negative OR a strong positive effect. On the one hand, it can really help us save fuel and it could be good for the Earth. However, there is a negative side to it too. From what I can tell, admittedly I'm not done with my research yet, this is goi ...[text shortened]... gas sometimes, are highly convenient and can be used for many things. What do you guys think?
GRANNY.
Originally posted by domino971I think we should trust the oil companies to manage our transportation situation. I know they will do a good job.🙄
President Obama plans to put a minimum of 8 billion dollars towards building railroads. This can have a strong negative OR a strong positive effect. On the one hand, it can really help us save fuel and it could be good for the Earth. However, there is a negative side to it too. From what I can tell, admittedly I'm not done with my research yet, this is goi ...[text shortened]... gas sometimes, are highly convenient and can be used for many things. What do you guys think?
check it out.
$15 billion replacement cost for BART, in 2004 dollars ($1.5 billion startup cost, in dollars of whatever year it was finished, i guess).
that is a rapid transit system that only goes around a part of the Bay Area. probably doesn't service more than a third of it.
so the 8 bil is a drop in the bucket, when you're talking the entire USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit#Recent_news
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWell the thing is they want to stop repairing the roads that we already have and just start building the railroads. The roads that we already have, not all in the best condition already, would quickly deteriorate and become hard to use or useless. And this is 8 billion MINIMUM. I'm mostly thinking worst case senario here, but I disagree heartily with the plan.
Eliminate the use of cars with a mere 8 billion investment in railroads? You're joking, right?
US infrastructure needs a much bigger investment than 8 billion.
Well we shouldn't get in too big of a hurry with the high speed rail.
First we should pump several billion more tax-payer dollars into the automobile industry to bail them out some more.
Then move on to the rail system with more taxpayer money.
Yes, then put the automobile industry that we just helped out of business.
Makes lots of sense to me.🙄
Originally posted by mwmillerThe thing that I'm mostly looking at is that not everyone has access to public transportation such as railroads. I don't agree with the replacement of our current system at all. I agree with improving the cars, but not eliminating them. Public transportation is useful in that it doesn't use as much fuel as the dozens of cars that would be other wise driven. But there are so many downsides to it that I can't see the point in it. It will cost more money to build the railroads than to fix the already built roads. Individual transportation allows more options. I live in the country, for the most part, and if I didn't have a car I wouldn't be able to go into town to shop or do recreational activities. I think that instead of pouring billions into railroads, we should just improve cars. It is possible, if we just put a real effort into it.
Well we shouldn't get in too big of a hurry with the high speed rail.
First we should pump several billion more tax-payer dollars into the automobile industry to bail them out some more.
Then move on to the rail system with more taxpayer money.
Yes, then put the automobile industry that we just helped out of business.
Makes lots of sense to me.🙄
i took amtrak once, roundtrip san jose to san antonio ...
the departure was at MIDNIGHT.
the one-way trip time was 2 DAYS.
the train was delayed FOUR HOURS by slow moving freight trains.
instead of arriving in San Antonio at 10 PM, i arrived at 2 AM, and instead of waking up the relatives took a taxi to get a rental car.
on the way back, it was faster to have my wife drive across the bay area to pick me up, instead of waiting for the train to get from the northeast bay to the east bay for closer pickup.
i think there is not enough population here to support much of a passenger train system. or even light rail.
Originally posted by zeeblebotI'm sure there is potential for a good railway system in parts of the US - France is not that densely populated and has a very good high speed rail system, it's just a matter of whether or not you all want to pay tax for it.
i took amtrak once, roundtrip san jose to san antonio ...
the departure was at MIDNIGHT.
the one-way trip time was 2 DAYS.
the train was delayed FOUR HOURS by slow moving freight trains.
instead of arriving in San Antonio at 10 PM, i arrived at 2 AM, and instead of waking up the relatives took a taxi to get a rental car.
on the way back, it ...[text shortened]... is not enough population here to support much of a passenger train system. or even light rail.