"high speed" rail

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I think there's some confusion. Whatever they're proposing technically isn't high speed rail, according to Wikipedia HSR is the US is above 90MPH. A true HSR project would probably require laying new track and would be very expensive. It sounds like they're just planning to retrofit existing track for "high speed" passenger rail, which is why the project is relatively inexpensive ($30 mil). True HSR like a mag lev would probably cost a lot more.

No, there is no "confusion", that is why I put "high speed" in quotes because BHO and co are pushing this as "high speed" and it's anything but high speed especially with multiple stops.

When perpetually confused right wingers say there is no "confusion" all I can do is chuckle.
It's high speed compared to what's there now.
If you want Japan or Europe style high speed rail, need to build new lines, very expensive. But can also upgrade existing rail lines to handle higher speed rail for a small sum, in comparison.

:laugh: I see you are confused as always. 79 MAX is not "high speed" - not even close. As mentioned earlier in the thread the average will be MUCH MUCH lower. So I recommend you get your boy BHO to stop trying to "confuse" people (read: lie to people) that this is "high speed".

There is NOTHING now so yes, it's more "high speed" compared to zero mph but a person can travel by car much faster and more economically, especially if there is more than 1 person in the vehicle.

 

[postmortemIA]

there are probably about 10,000+ Illinois students going to Iowa colleges, they would be interested.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I think there's some confusion. Whatever they're proposing technically isn't high speed rail, according to Wikipedia HSR is the US is above 90MPH. A true HSR project would probably require laying new track and would be very expensive. It sounds like they're just planning to retrofit existing track for "high speed" passenger rail, which is why the project is relatively inexpensive ($30 mil). True HSR like a mag lev would probably cost a lot more.

No, there is no "confusion", that is why I put "high speed" in quotes because BHO and co are pushing this as "high speed" and it's anything but high speed especially with multiple stops.

When perpetually confused right wingers say there is no "confusion" all I can do is chuckle.
It's high speed compared to what's there now.
If you want Japan or Europe style high speed rail, need to build new lines, very expensive. But can also upgrade existing rail lines to handle higher speed rail for a small sum, in comparison.

:laugh: I see you are confused as always. 79 MAX is not "high speed" - not even close. As mentioned earlier in the thread the average will be MUCH MUCH lower. So I recommend you get your boy BHO to stop trying to "confuse" people (read: lie to people) that this is "high speed".

There is NOTHING now so yes, it's more "high speed" compared to zero mph but a person can travel by car much faster and more economically, especially if there is more than 1 person in the vehicle.

I am sorry if you were expecting Shinkansen or Maglev to Iowa on a shoestring budget. That would cost tens of billions of dollars, and then you'd be b!tching about the cost. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

 

[sportage]

Well... one could rail to iOwa, take advantage of same sex marriage laws, rail back to Chicago. Just don't tell the little lady in Chicago you married Fred in iOwa...

One good thing... Finally iOwans can escape iOwa @ 79 mph. And they will!!!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
Better than spending money paying unemployment to those workers.

Not at all.

In your opinion. The side that shares that opinion lost the election.

Paying any possible hires unemployment will be a fraction the cost of building and maintaining this boondoggle. But i dont expect you to understand that as your only justification for your own opinion is that your side won in Nov.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
Better than spending money paying unemployment to those workers.

Not at all.

In your opinion. The side that shares that opinion lost the election.

Paying any possible hires unemployment will be a fraction the cost of building and maintaining this boondoggle. But i dont expect you to understand that as your only justification for your own opinion is that your side won in Nov.

I'd rather pay people more to improve infrastructure, than to pay them less to sit on their butt all day and do nothing.
You are only looking on the cost side, not the cost and benefit side. Typical conservative myopia.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I think there's some confusion. Whatever they're proposing technically isn't high speed rail, according to Wikipedia HSR is the US is above 90MPH. A true HSR project would probably require laying new track and would be very expensive. It sounds like they're just planning to retrofit existing track for "high speed" passenger rail, which is why the project is relatively inexpensive ($30 mil). True HSR like a mag lev would probably cost a lot more.

No, there is no "confusion", that is why I put "high speed" in quotes because BHO and co are pushing this as "high speed" and it's anything but high speed especially with multiple stops.

When perpetually confused right wingers say there is no "confusion" all I can do is chuckle.
It's high speed compared to what's there now.
If you want Japan or Europe style high speed rail, need to build new lines, very expensive. But can also upgrade existing rail lines to handle higher speed rail for a small sum, in comparison.

:laugh: I see you are confused as always. 79 MAX is not "high speed" - not even close. As mentioned earlier in the thread the average will be MUCH MUCH lower. So I recommend you get your boy BHO to stop trying to "confuse" people (read: lie to people) that this is "high speed".

There is NOTHING now so yes, it's more "high speed" compared to zero mph but a person can travel by car much faster and more economically, especially if there is more than 1 person in the vehicle.

I am sorry if you were expecting Shinkansen or Maglev to Iowa on a shoestring budget. That would cost tens of billions of dollars, and then you'd be b!tching about the cost. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

Uh... this pile of crap is the enemy of good. We don't need it, nor want it. Why should our tax dollars be spent on this when it won't be used? It's just a gigantic waste of money as much of BHO's "stimulus" is.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
Better than spending money paying unemployment to those workers.

Not at all.

In your opinion. The side that shares that opinion lost the election.

Paying any possible hires unemployment will be a fraction the cost of building and maintaining this boondoggle. But i dont expect you to understand that as your only justification for your own opinion is that your side won in Nov.

I'd rather pay people more to improve infrastructure, than to pay them less to sit on their butt all day and do nothing.
You are only looking on the cost side, not the cost and benefit side. Typical conservative myopia.

Sure you would love pay people to build infrastrucuture projects that serve nobody. It makes you feel warm inside I am sure. But it doesnt accomplish anything except give these people a short term job and saddle tax payers with a needless service. The amount of traffic between these two cities is most likely comical compared to the costs of the project. If Obama knew wtf he was blabbing about he would have proposed a Minneapolis -- Chicago line. But then his politicial interest and allies reside in Iowa.

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: sportage
Well... one could rail to iOwa, take advantage of same sex marriage laws, rail back to Chicago. Just don't tell the little lady in Chicago you married Fred in iOwa...

One good thing... Finally iOwans can escape iOwa @ 79 mph. And they will!!!

let me disappoint you, I live in eastern Iowa, and we are getting more and more people escaping Chicagoland and settling here - cheaper, safer, more jobs, good education, etc.

bigger is not better for everybody. Yes, I am aware that Chicago is great place to be if you have decent income, that is.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
Better than spending money paying unemployment to those workers.

Not at all.

In your opinion. The side that shares that opinion lost the election.

Paying any possible hires unemployment will be a fraction the cost of building and maintaining this boondoggle. But i dont expect you to understand that as your only justification for your own opinion is that your side won in Nov.

I'd rather pay people more to improve infrastructure, than to pay them less to sit on their butt all day and do nothing.
You are only looking on the cost side, not the cost and benefit side. Typical conservative myopia.

Sure you would love pay people to build infrastrucuture projects that serve nobody. It makes you feel warm inside I am sure. But it doesnt accomplish anything except give these people a short term job and saddle tax payers with a needless service. The amount of traffic between these two cities is most likely comical compared to the costs of the project. If Obama knew wtf he was blabbing about he would have proposed a Minneapolis -- Chicago line. But then his politicial interest and allies reside in Iowa.

A Chicago to Minneapolis line is in the HSR (110mph service) plan.

The Des Moines-Chicago route as proposed is regional rail and a service that could be selected to receive 110mph service at a later time.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Genx87
Is there a huge demand for commuting between Chicago and Des Moines? At 5 hour commute that is laughable. Take you under an hour by plane. Shit one could probably get on a plane, to their meeting, and be back in Des Moines by the time the train even arrives in Chicago.

Hell, you could get there faster by car.

My fiance and I live in Des Moines but she's originally from a NW suburb of Chicago. Takes about 6 - 6.5 hours by car I imagine, but I've never actually gone from downtown to downtown.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: sportage
Well... one could rail to iOwa, take advantage of same sex marriage laws, rail back to Chicago. Just don't tell the little lady in Chicago you married Fred in iOwa...

One good thing... Finally iOwans can escape iOwa @ 79 mph. And they will!!!

let me disappoint you, I live in eastern Iowa, and we are getting more and more people escaping Chicagoland and settling here - cheaper, safer, more jobs, good education, etc.

bigger is not better for everybody. Yes, I am aware that Chicago is great place to be if you have decent income, that is.

It might be like that in eastern Iowa, but most of the Chicagoans I'm familiar with in central Iowa are either students or people basically transplanted due to section 8. I believe the City of Ames just had a vote as to whether national background checks should be performed on the Chicago transplants before they are given section 8 benefits in the overbuilt complexes. The city felt this was racist and will not be doing these checks.

I consider myself to be quite progressive, but that decision was just retarded. Due to tax breaks and out-of-state developers we are accepting a lot of Chicago's impoverished. I would at least like to know if these are people with felony histories.

 

[Jack Flash]

I'd like to see the money spent on faster trains in more populated areas. That's just me.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jack Flash
I'd like to see the money spent on faster trains in more populated areas. That's just me.

Yep, I'd like each area to spend their own damn money on faster trains if they want them. That's just me.... well actually it's not just me.... just sayin'

 

[Fear No Evil]

We should spend our money on infrastructure people actually use. Roads, bridges, power lines, etc. Not choo-choo trains.