Bush proposes Amtrak to get the budget ax again

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
This is not about a private inititive to lay track it is about the strangling to death of public high speed rail in a crucially important time.
Those cars are going to be obsolete soon and looking into improving our high speed rail infrastructure NOW would be very advantageous to our future IMO.

Amtrak is high speed rail? 😕

Yes they have electric high speed rail in the northwest (the ONLY somewhat profitable part.) see above post.
I am surprised you did not know this but yet make these wild accusations about the uselessness of Amtrak.
The option is there with some money for the project but this country has a bit of a prioritys problem it seems

 

[Tommunist]

if they could make public trans better in this country I would be very happy - I'd take a well run public trans system over a car anyday. The only problem with having fully privatised public trans is that they will only run where they can make money with little to no concern about where the public trans would be the most useful. For a long time there was no cable service to my parents house b/c at&t knew they wouldn't really make any cash in such a rural area. I suspect a similar kind of mentality would happen with a train system...

 

[Steeplerot]

The rural areas historiclly struggle with mass transit profits but then it is important for the overall system to have good service there AND the more profitable urban areas.
It CAN work. Just not a lot of spotlight put on trains and their advantages here in US anymore.
In the future we might be paying for this oversight greatly when we HAVE to get that rail laid becasue we have no other choice.
it's getting high time to look into our options and here is another one.
One that served this country well if not built this country, through sheer steel and horsepower.
Now it lies dying in a time when we could let bygones be bygones and start our romance with the american rails anew since oil is getting more expensive.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
This is not about a private inititive to lay track it is about the strangling to death of public high speed rail in a crucially important time.
Those cars are going to be obsolete soon and looking into improving our high speed rail infrastructure NOW would be very advantageous to our future IMO.

Amtrak is high speed rail? 😕

Yes they have electric high speed rail in the northwest (the ONLY somewhat profitable part.) see above post.
I am surprised you did not know this but yet make these wild accusations about the uselessness of Amtrak.
The option is there with some money for the project but this country has a bit of a prioritys problem it seems

I'm no expert on Amtrak but I know government pork when I see it, and this is nothing but government pork.

 

[Steeplerot]

You are an expert but knew nothing of high speed rail in the northwest corridor...yeah
-the daily riders here in CA and the northwest who depend on amtrak daily to get to work or go home cheaply and comfortably would disagree with you.

 

[Crimson]

There is no market for trains in the United States.. we don't want them.. they are not practical except in VERY specialized highly urban areas. Besides that, we already have trains which ride on roads.. they are called BUSES. Much more convenient and can go anywhere there is a road.

I love how people think a train system will solve all our problems.. How do you get to the train station? By car.. How do you get from the train station to your destination.. by car.. What if the train doesn't go where you want to go, when you want to go? You take a car/bus/taxi whatever. Trains are not on-demand.. we live in an on-demand world..

 

[Steeplerot]

I use the bus daily and I make it to work fine, economiclly it kicks ass all over a car and a lot less pollution.
Isolated suburbanites with road-rage are a thing of the past!
Naysay all you want but soon this is seriously going to have to be considered, why not start now?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Crimson
There is no market for trains in the United States.. we don't want them.. they are not practical except in VERY specialized highly urban areas. Besides that, we already have trains which ride on roads.. they are called BUSES. Much more convenient and can go anywhere there is a road.

I love how people think a train system will solve all our problems.. How do you get to the train station? By car.. How do you get from the train station to your destination.. by car.. What if the train doesn't go where you want to go, when you want to go? You take a car/bus/taxi whatever. Trains are not on-demand.. we live in an on-demand world..

Yeah, let's just completely ignore the ever-expanding part of our nation known as suburbia. What do they know anyway.


BTW, with an effective rail system, train stations would be just minutes from peoples' homes. That's quite a bit less driving then 30-, 45-, 60-minute commutes.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
You are an expert but knew nothing of high speed rail in the northwest corridor...yeah
-the daily riders here in CA and the northwest who depend on amtrak daily to get to work or go home cheaply and comfortably would disagree with you.

Of course they would, they are consuming government pork. Who wouldn't disagree with someone who wanted to cut off their subsidy?

 

[Steeplerot]

how are paying passangers subsidized? they pay their fare, they ride. So by your view here it is the people driving cars on highways who are the leeches on a much grander scale.
close down the dirty highways and lets get those commuter rural welfare queens to stop sucking our tax money down. :roll:

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Crimson
There is no market for trains in the United States.. we don't want them.. they are not practical except in VERY specialized highly urban areas. Besides that, we already have trains which ride on roads.. they are called BUSES. Much more convenient and can go anywhere there is a road.

I love how people think a train system will solve all our problems.. How do you get to the train station? By car.. How do you get from the train station to your destination.. by car.. What if the train doesn't go where you want to go, when you want to go? You take a car/bus/taxi whatever. Trains are not on-demand.. we live in an on-demand world..

Yeah, let's just completely ignore the ever-expanding part of our nation known as suburbia. What do they know anyway.


BTW, with an effective rail system, train stations would be just minutes from peoples' homes. That's quite a bit less driving then 30-, 45-, 60-minute commutes.

Minutes how? By walking? That would mean we would have to have train stations within a half mile of everyone's house.. I'd love to hear how you plan on accomplishing that. Minutes by car? Then why bother with the train if you are getting in your car anyway? Take your car so you can wait for a train? Any idea how long it would take for a train stopping every half mile to go 20 miles from suburbia to downtown? My guess is longer than or the same time as getting into your car and driving.

Besides, a lot of people in the burbs are like me.. we live in the burbs, and work in the burbs.. Businesses are moving to where the people are, and out of big urban centers.

 

[conjur]

There could be train stations with 5 miles of most peoples' homes. That's no more than a 10-minute drive. But, your overblown statement of stations every 1/2 mile is duly noted and dismissed.

And, if everyone that lived in suburbia also worked in suburbia, we wouldn't have the levels of traffic heading into downtown centers now, would we?

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Crimson
There is no market for trains in the United States.. we don't want them.. they are not practical except in VERY specialized highly urban areas. Besides that, we already have trains which ride on roads.. they are called BUSES. Much more convenient and can go anywhere there is a road.

I love how people think a train system will solve all our problems.. How do you get to the train station? By car.. How do you get from the train station to your destination.. by car.. What if the train doesn't go where you want to go, when you want to go? You take a car/bus/taxi whatever. Trains are not on-demand.. we live in an on-demand world..

Yeah, let's just completely ignore the ever-expanding part of our nation known as suburbia. What do they know anyway.


BTW, with an effective rail system, train stations would be just minutes from peoples' homes. That's quite a bit less driving then 30-, 45-, 60-minute commutes.

Minutes how? By walking? That would mean we would have to have train stations within a half mile of everyone's house.. I'd love to hear how you plan on accomplishing that. Minutes by car? Then why bother with the train if you are getting in your car anyway? Take your car so you can wait for a train? Any idea how long it would take for a train stopping every half mile to go 20 miles from suburbia to downtown? My guess is longer than or the same time as getting into your car and driving.

Besides, a lot of people in the burbs are like me.. we live in the burbs, and work in the burbs.. Businesses are moving to where the people are, and out of big urban centers.

Suburbs are ghettos of the future, urban sprawl is soon to be a historical byproduct of the age of oil.
How to get around in a few minutes, well here is how I get around easily http://www.transitinfo.org/

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
I use the bus daily and I make it to work fine, economiclly it kicks ass all over a car and a lot less pollution.
Isolated suburbanites with road-rage are a thing of the past!
Naysay all you want but soon this is seriously going to have to be considered, why not start now?

I disagree.. I don't think trains will EVER be a solution in this country.. no matter how bad the traffic gets. You live in San Francisco, don't assume that your cities traffic is the same as my cities traffic. Why is taking the bus cheaper for you? Because you are only paying a very small percentage of the actual cost.. the rest of us are picking up the tab for you to use the bus..

Besides, I am perfectly capable, and willing, to pay the extra cost to have my own car. Why should you tell me I can't? Besides, I am sure you, even if you don't own your own car, have hopped into Friends cars when it was convenient to go somewhere.. I'm sure you didn't say for them to go ahead and you would take the trolly.

 

[Steeplerot]

I have to disagree with you about your statement that your traffic is the same.
I am sure it is worse here becasue of geographical limitations. (And we haven't banned the damn cars yet.)
We have 24/7 buses within a few blocks of everyones home.
And I do not even know anyone with a car. A car is a obsolete and a burden to have when their is a viable alternative.
The statement that people is USA do not want trains is bunk LOTS of people use trains. Heck I know plenty of people who have never had a licence and never will most likley. People who live somewhere with no trains I could see not understanding though.
US males have some angup on their car like it has some direct correclation to pen0r size. Attitudes will have to change yes. But then time marches on.
If you want to have a car good for you, enjoy your rightly deserved 8$ gallon of gas while we ride in style.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
how are paying passangers subsidized? they pay their fare, they ride. So by your view here it is the people driving cars on highways who are the leeches on a much grander scale.
close down the dirty highways and lets get those commuter rural welfare queens to stop sucking our tax money down. :roll:

They pay a fare that is subsidized by the government. Therefore, they benefit from this subsidy, while others who do not use that transportation do not. With highways it is more complicated because anyone who is driving a car is using gas which is heavily taxed.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: conjur
There could be train stations with 5 miles of most peoples' homes. That's no more than a 10-minute drive. But, your overblown statement of stations every 1/2 mile is duly noted and dismissed.

And, if everyone that lived in suburbia also worked in suburbia, we wouldn't have the levels of traffic heading into downtown centers now, would we?

Ok, so you admit then for mass transit to work, everyone would still need to have cars? And thus roads would still have to be built, insurance for said cars paid, gas for said cars, oil, etc... Seems to me that most people would choose to just STAY in their car and drive to work, rather than get in the car, get out of the car, wait for train, wait for train to stop every 5 miles to pick people up, get to work... pay for a taxi, get to work.. pay for another taxi back to train station, wait for train, wait for train to stop every 5 miles to drop people off, get in car, drive home..

I never said traffic levels aren't INCREASING in urban areas, but its certainly not increasing in proportion to the increase in cars.. because as the traffic becomes unbearable, businesses move elsewhere.. You need to think outside of the box grasshopper.. The solution to the problem will arise when traffic becomes too big of an issue, and the solution often is the businesses MOVE out to where the people live.

The solution doesn't have to be to force people to use something they don't want to use.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
I have to disagree with you about that your traffic is the same if not worse here becasue of geographical limitations. We have 24/7 buses within a few blocks of everyones home.
And I do not even know anyone with a car. A car is a obsolete and a burden to have when their is a viable alternative.
US doesnt not want trains LOTS of people use trains. People who live somewhere with no trains I could see not understanding though.
US males have some angup on their car like it has some direct correclation to pen0r size. Attitudes will have to change yes. But then time marches on.
If you want to have a car good for you, enjoy your rightly deserved 8$ gallon of gas while we ride in style.

if I could get by without driving a car I would. I might still own one but only for trips that would otherwise be inconvenient with public trans. Living in Cambridge means on the weekends I pretty much don't drive - unfortunately there is no public trans that goes to my work so I have to drive. If there was a train within walking distance of my place I would almost def use it though - not having to worry about getting smashed up by the sh!tty masshole drivers would be nice 🙂

 

[Dissipate]

BTW Steeple, here in San Diego there is the Coaster train, which costs hundreds of millions of tax dollars a year to operate. One third of all the passengers on the Coaster have incomes of $100,000 or more.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
BTW Steeple, here in San Diego there is the Coaster train, which costs hundreds of millions of tax dollars a year to operate. One third of all the passengers on the Coaster have incomes of $100,000 or more.

looks like some people with some money/influence got a train where they wanted it 🙂

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
how are paying passangers subsidized? they pay their fare, they ride. So by your view here it is the people driving cars on highways who are the leeches on a much grander scale.
close down the dirty highways and lets get those commuter rural welfare queens to stop sucking our tax money down. :roll:

They pay a fare that is subsidized by the government. Therefore, they benefit from this subsidy, while others who do not use that transportation do not. With highways it is more complicated because anyone who is driving a car is using gas which is heavily taxed.

Suburban commuters are not only subsidized by our tax money as well but are subsidizing our future.
End th dependance on automobiles give public transit a real shake and well see where the stones may fall as far as profitability.
Selling our rail system short is just that..short-sighted

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
how are paying passangers subsidized? they pay their fare, they ride. So by your view here it is the people driving cars on highways who are the leeches on a much grander scale.
close down the dirty highways and lets get those commuter rural welfare queens to stop sucking our tax money down. :roll:

LOL.. are you honestly suggesting that the passenger fares pay 100% of the cost of providing the bus service? I'd venture to guess that the fares cover 10% of the cost.. and tax payers cover the rest. Car drivers have to pay yearly fees to register their vehicles, they pay taxes on the vehicles purchase price, they pay TONS of taxes on gas, they pay tolls, etc.. etc.. etc..

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
how are paying passangers subsidized? they pay their fare, they ride. So by your view here it is the people driving cars on highways who are the leeches on a much grander scale.
close down the dirty highways and lets get those commuter rural welfare queens to stop sucking our tax money down. :roll:

They pay a fare that is subsidized by the government. Therefore, they benefit from this subsidy, while others who do not use that transportation do not. With highways it is more complicated because anyone who is driving a car is using gas which is heavily taxed.

it seems that roads and trains are funded by the gov't to some degree so it all evens out (unless you never use either of them).

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: Dissipate
BTW Steeple, here in San Diego there is the Coaster train, which costs hundreds of millions of tax dollars a year to operate. One third of all the passengers on the Coaster have incomes of $100,000 or more.

looks like some people with some money/influence got a train where they wanted it 🙂

Yep. So few people ride this train that my dad calculated that per passenger it costs taxpayers about the same amount of money that it would cost to just lease each passenger a brand new Lexus. Then, a San Diego lawyer magazine came out with an article about how these three (wealthy) lawyers just love the coaster.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
BTW Steeple, here in San Diego there is the Coaster train, which costs hundreds of millions of tax dollars a year to operate. One third of all the passengers on the Coaster have incomes of $100,000 or more.

OK what does that have to do with anything though? Everyone rides the trains poor and rich ...public transit ya know? your point dissapate?
Your not trying to fob off the old "Rich people are smarter" line are you? :laugh: