Bush proposes Amtrak to get the budget ax again

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Crimson
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Trains are the most retard overrated way to transport people. Give me a car any day over a damn train ticket that goes 10 miles out of the way. Stops 30 times and then drops you off a good 20 miles from the place you want to go. And just to make sure they suck hope you don't want to make any connections because only 3 cities in the US have main lines going into them and then the train only runs once a day.
Thanks for sharing your ignorance.

Much appreciated.

Now, go back to your TIVO'd episodes of WWE.
Ignorance? That pretty much covers trains in a nutshell.
Why don't you go pick up some Montana brochures or something. Maybe consider putting in for some leave of absence.
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
This is why more efficent service is needed. Cutting budgets to the bone once again is going to make good service less of a reality.
I guess you never heard of a express train. They are set-up for minimal transfers.
Right now if you live in the 'burbs the train is NOT a viable alternative I never argued that point.
But it IS the problem I have with the issue.

A train is only viable between cities with a viable subway system. Any other time a train is completly usless. And subways are only used in high desity cities. Ever where else people want to go in different directions. Very few people like mass tranist. Maybe we should bring back boats, you can take a few weeks to get to europe. I mean they used to use boats so they most be the greatest thing since sliced bread. The train died when the car and plane where invented get over it.
 

arsbanned

Banned
Dec 12, 2003
4,853
0
0
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Trains are the most retard overrated way to transport people. Give me a car any day over a damn train ticket that goes 10 miles out of the way. Stops 30 times and then drops you off a good 20 miles from the place you want to go. And just to make sure they suck hope you don't want to make any connections because only 3 cities in the US have main lines going into them and then the train only runs once a day.
Thats funny becasue the scedule points out that you are full of sh1t clearly. once a day lol
http://www.amtrak.com/timetable/oct04/W02.pdf

I didn't say all the trains. Your own post shows that most lines 75% only run one train a day. For an example of how F'n retard trains are for rural areas try to go from Vermont to say albany. First you have to take a 7 hour ride to NYC then spend the night then take the train from NYC to albany another 2.5 hours. Or you could drive for 3 hours save a day and about a hundred dollars.

Exactly. They should die, and die now. Amtrak has been an interesting experiment and it has failed and should die die die. :D
The U.S. is geographically unsuited for rail service.

edit: changed "wrong" to unsuited.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
This is why more efficent service is needed. Cutting budgets to the bone once again is going to make good service less of a reality.
I guess you never heard of a express train. They are set-up for minimal transfers.
Right now if you live in the 'burbs the train is NOT a viable alternative I never argued that point.
But it IS the problem I have with the issue.

A train is only viable between cities with a viable subway system. Any other time a train is completly usless. And subways are only used in high desity cities. Ever where else people want to go in different directions. Very few people like mass tranist. Maybe we should bring back boats, you can take a few weeks to get to europe. I mean they used to use boats so they most be the greatest thing since sliced bread. The train died when the car and plane where invented get over it.

A car has nothing on a 250mph express train.
Same deal with timeframe you cannot just drive where you want whenever you want you will get stuck in rush hours and sit that car on the pavement idling.
With GPS and electric technologies cars and with a bit more speed even planes are obsolete.
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
This is why more efficent service is needed. Cutting budgets to the bone once again is going to make good service less of a reality.
I guess you never heard of a express train. They are set-up for minimal transfers.
Right now if you live in the 'burbs the train is NOT a viable alternative I never argued that point.
But it IS the problem I have with the issue.

A train is only viable between cities with a viable subway system. Any other time a train is completly usless. And subways are only used in high desity cities. Ever where else people want to go in different directions. Very few people like mass tranist. Maybe we should bring back boats, you can take a few weeks to get to europe. I mean they used to use boats so they most be the greatest thing since sliced bread. The train died when the car and plane where invented get over it.

A car has nothing on a 250mph express train.
Same deal with timeframe you cannot just drive where you want whenever you want you will get stuck in rush hours and sit that car on the pavement idling.
With GPS and electric technologies cars and with a bit more speed even planes are obsolete.

A car has nothing on the train except that it goes to the place I want.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: arsbanned
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Trains are the most retard overrated way to transport people. Give me a car any day over a damn train ticket that goes 10 miles out of the way. Stops 30 times and then drops you off a good 20 miles from the place you want to go. And just to make sure they suck hope you don't want to make any connections because only 3 cities in the US have main lines going into them and then the train only runs once a day.
Thats funny becasue the scedule points out that you are full of sh1t clearly. once a day lol
http://www.amtrak.com/timetable/oct04/W02.pdf

I didn't say all the trains. Your own post shows that most lines 75% only run one train a day. For an example of how F'n retard trains are for rural areas try to go from Vermont to say albany. First you have to take a 7 hour ride to NYC then spend the night then take the train from NYC to albany another 2.5 hours. Or you could drive for 3 hours save a day and about a hundred dollars.

Exactly. They should die, and die now. Amtrak has been an interesting experiment and it has failed and should die die die. :D
The U.S. is geographically unsuited for rail service.

edit: changed "wrong" to unsuited.


Funny rail networks served this country well until cheap gas. Even built this country...next,
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
This is why more efficent service is needed. Cutting budgets to the bone once again is going to make good service less of a reality.
I guess you never heard of a express train. They are set-up for minimal transfers.
Right now if you live in the 'burbs the train is NOT a viable alternative I never argued that point.
But it IS the problem I have with the issue.

A train is only viable between cities with a viable subway system. Any other time a train is completly usless. And subways are only used in high desity cities. Ever where else people want to go in different directions. Very few people like mass tranist. Maybe we should bring back boats, you can take a few weeks to get to europe. I mean they used to use boats so they most be the greatest thing since sliced bread. The train died when the car and plane where invented get over it.

A car has nothing on a 250mph express train.
Same deal with timeframe you cannot just drive where you want whenever you want you will get stuck in rush hours and sit that car on the pavement idling.
With GPS and electric technologies cars and with a bit more speed even planes are obsolete.

A car has nothing on the train except that it goes to the place I want.

For now not forever though and ditching cheap safe public rail is short-sighted and foolish.
Going from almost nothing to a efficent public rail network is a HUGE undertaking but one we will have to look into sooner or later. Why burn what we have?
 

Crimson

Banned
Oct 11, 1999
3,809
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Crimson
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Trains are the most retard overrated way to transport people. Give me a car any day over a damn train ticket that goes 10 miles out of the way. Stops 30 times and then drops you off a good 20 miles from the place you want to go. And just to make sure they suck hope you don't want to make any connections because only 3 cities in the US have main lines going into them and then the train only runs once a day.
Thanks for sharing your ignorance.

Much appreciated.

Now, go back to your TIVO'd episodes of WWE.
Ignorance? That pretty much covers trains in a nutshell.
Why don't you go pick up some Montana brochures or something. Maybe consider putting in for some leave of absence.

You just can't avoid the personal insults can you? I'll take that as a sign of you having run out of valid points.
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
There is no damn reason a buisnessman would invest billions in track, with no short-term goal capitolism fails in this respect.
Long term goals for the betterment of society is a group effort at times.

If people had to actually start paying to drive on the roads, how do we know what kind of transportation systems would suddenly become economically lucrative to invest in? People drive on roads because they are perceived to be free, even during peak load hours. Make people pay for transportation (of any kind), and let the free market do its work.



toll booths everywhere or new infrastructures for a dying technology is not going to help the inevitable end of cars...There will still be cars more and more choking our cities and killing our peoples. And in the end we shall still be screwed with no rail. When the inevitable does happen.

HuH? What century are you living in? Toll booths everywhere? Not really. More than enough technology exists today to charge people for using roads. You just put a device on your car, and you get a bill in the mail at the end of the month.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
That is the problem noone is arguing that the network is not in shambles after all the cuts and the rise of the automobile.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
There is no damn reason a buisnessman would invest billions in track, with no short-term goal capitolism fails in this respect.
Long term goals for the betterment of society is a group effort at times.

If people had to actually start paying to drive on the roads, how do we know what kind of transportation systems would suddenly become economically lucrative to invest in? People drive on roads because they are perceived to be free, even during peak load hours. Make people pay for transportation (of any kind), and let the free market do its work.



toll booths everywhere or new infrastructures for a dying technology is not going to help the inevitable end of cars...There will still be cars more and more choking our cities and killing our peoples. And in the end we shall still be screwed with no rail. When the inevitable does happen.

HuH? What century are you living in? Toll booths everywhere? Not really. More than enough technology exists today to charge people for using roads. You just put a device on your car, and you get a bill in the mail at the end of the month.



And this will help what? It's the same diffrence as taxation currently with extra privacy concerns.
What happens if someone just drives through?
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
This is why more efficent service is needed. Cutting budgets to the bone once again is going to make good service less of a reality.
I guess you never heard of a express train. They are set-up for minimal transfers.
Right now if you live in the 'burbs the train is NOT a viable alternative I never argued that point.
But it IS the problem I have with the issue.

A train is only viable between cities with a viable subway system. Any other time a train is completly usless. And subways are only used in high desity cities. Ever where else people want to go in different directions. Very few people like mass tranist. Maybe we should bring back boats, you can take a few weeks to get to europe. I mean they used to use boats so they most be the greatest thing since sliced bread. The train died when the car and plane where invented get over it.

A car has nothing on a 250mph express train.
Same deal with timeframe you cannot just drive where you want whenever you want you will get stuck in rush hours and sit that car on the pavement idling.
With GPS and electric technologies cars and with a bit more speed even planes are obsolete.

A car has nothing on the train except that it goes to the place I want.

For now not forever though and ditching cheap safe public rail is short-sighted and foolish.
Going from almost nothing to a efficent public rail network is a HUGE undertaking but one we will have to look into sooner or later. Why burn what we have?

I hope I'm long dead by the time my area of Vermont has enough people to have a high speed train.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
It's not a matter of when but when will it AGAIN. I bet 60 years ago you had a long line of trains coming through.
It worked fine for 2 world wars building this country etc. Rail is not dead espically with new tech available.
 

Crimson

Banned
Oct 11, 1999
3,809
0
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
This is why more efficent service is needed. Cutting budgets to the bone once again is going to make good service less of a reality.
I guess you never heard of a express train. They are set-up for minimal transfers.
Right now if you live in the 'burbs the train is NOT a viable alternative I never argued that point.
But it IS the problem I have with the issue.

A train is only viable between cities with a viable subway system. Any other time a train is completly usless. And subways are only used in high desity cities. Ever where else people want to go in different directions. Very few people like mass tranist. Maybe we should bring back boats, you can take a few weeks to get to europe. I mean they used to use boats so they most be the greatest thing since sliced bread. The train died when the car and plane where invented get over it.

A car has nothing on a 250mph express train.
Same deal with timeframe you cannot just drive where you want whenever you want you will get stuck in rush hours and sit that car on the pavement idling.
With GPS and electric technologies cars and with a bit more speed even planes are obsolete.

Planes are obsolete now too? A plane going 550 mph over water and land has what disadvantage to a 250mph train? BTW, will the trains go 250mph in urban areas? We'd be lucky if they went 25 mph.. I'd love to see a train going 550mph.. the tracks would start on fire.

 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Granted yes, 550mph is way faster then we have now, nonetheless germany and japan have maglevs now -no track -whisper quiet and clean. These things just get faster with time.
espically if a huge country like US dumped some good old know-how into it. ,-=
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
There is no damn reason a buisnessman would invest billions in track, with no short-term goal capitolism fails in this respect.
Long term goals for the betterment of society is a group effort at times.

If people had to actually start paying to drive on the roads, how do we know what kind of transportation systems would suddenly become economically lucrative to invest in? People drive on roads because they are perceived to be free, even during peak load hours. Make people pay for transportation (of any kind), and let the free market do its work.



toll booths everywhere or new infrastructures for a dying technology is not going to help the inevitable end of cars...There will still be cars more and more choking our cities and killing our peoples. And in the end we shall still be screwed with no rail. When the inevitable does happen.

HuH? What century are you living in? Toll booths everywhere? Not really. More than enough technology exists today to charge people for using roads. You just put a device on your car, and you get a bill in the mail at the end of the month.



And this will help what? It's the same diffrence as taxation currently with extra privacy concerns.
What happens if someone just drives through?

A. It will help eliminate the 30,000 drunk driving deaths that occur every year.

B. It will eliminate traffic jams.

C. It will create new economic incentives for alternative forms of transportation which would not have to be subsidized by the government.

What do you mean what if someone just drives through? They get pulled over by a private security force. As for privacy concerns, those could be worked out as well.

As Ludwig von Mises explained decades ago " Government interventionism breeds more government interventionism." In this case the government has provided people with free access to roads at all times of the day, is alarmed at how much people use the roads, and now wants to subsidize other transportation systems. Government at its finest.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
And how are you going to tell who it was that drove through? What if someone else is driving but the owner?
Capitolism is a failure in these respects sooner or later private industry will find a way to make in inaccesable to those only with money....
*Waiting for a libertarian to come in here and blow this one out*
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
And how are you going to tell who it was that drove through?
*Waiting for a libertarian to come in here and blow this one out*

Who knows? Perhaps they would know from the fact that their car was not on the computer system. Or they could require the cars to have stickers, and if they saw one without stickers they would pull them over.

To say flat out that they couldn't restrict the access to the roads is absurd.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
So you think every car and your every location should be known by a private company?
There is endless possibilitys of abuse in that idea. and it's kinda 1984 freaky.
No thanks, i'd rather stay on the train.
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
So you think every car and your every location should be known by a private company?
There is endless possibilitys of abuse in that idea. and it's kinda 1984 freaky.
No thanks, i'd rather stay on the train.

A private company has a record of all of your telephone calls, I bet. Problems analogous to 1984 do not come from free enterprise, but rather they come from government.
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Granted yes, 550mph is way faster then we have now, nonetheless germany and japan have maglevs now -no track -whisper quiet and clean. These things just get faster with time.
espically if a huge country like US dumped some good old know-how into it. ,-=

Most people when they get in their car to go somewhere go very short distances. I don't really care how fast your train can get me between NYC and boston when I want to go to the store and buy some milk. It is the short routes that make trains usless not the longer ones. Well those are usless because of planes but a fast train might be able to come close on middum range routes.