I can't wait to get my extra 13$ a week. . . .personally. . .

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Imdmn04
Why don't they do a one time gift card that forces you to spend it or else lose it?

Nobody is even gonna notice 13 bucks/month.

Hey! I've already switched from Maruchan to Top Ramen in anticipation! I'll be rollin' in dough soon!

 

[heyheybooboo]

A high speed rail corridor has been identified from Atlanta to Washington, DC (one of 11 nationally that were identified in the early 1990s). Average speed (including stops) is around 100-110mph (faster if some stops are eliminated) - something like 80mph design for 'curves' and 130mph for 'straights'.

The cost of a 110 mph train would be about $10-$12 million per mile for track upgrades - new urban Interstate highway projects are around $20 million per mile (not sure what 'widening' costs per mile but will guess it is more expensive than $20 million per mile).

North Carolina has closed more than 60 rail crossings - The Amtrak from Charlotte to Raleigh now takes only 20 minutes longer than driving (around 3 1/2 hours for the trip). Track improvements could reduce that to as little as 2 hours but most likely (including stops) will settle in around 2 1/2 hours.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Hey...$13 is better than a sharp stick in the eye...I'll gladly take it!

/agree

Every little bit helps, especially those of us in the red or just treading water. These days, those situations are a lot more common.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: BuckNaked

- $1,000,000,000 for an already bloated Amtrak. Oink-oink!

If anything this is one of the answers to stopping oil dependency, and one of the biggest needed infrastructure upgrades, sorry I do not see the problem.
Taking a train is much better then driving x100. Even in the underfunded wrecks we call a passenger train network here in the states.
It is plain embarrassing taking a train and have our European neighbors also riding ask us WTF is wrong with us to have such crap rail when we have oil problems.

Trains are not, and never will be a meaningful form of passenger transport for people in the US outside of the few who can use them to commute and the bored and/or poor who don't mind spending four months to traverse the country in one. This is not Europe; geography is vast and trains are no future for passenger travel in a meaningufl way.

I disagree. Trains are great for regional travel needs. National? Probably not so much compared to Europe because of the relative population densities. Take the Crescent line for example. The NE/Atlantic areas are very useful, but once you pass Tennessee it becomes a kind of dead-zone until New Orleans. If Birmingham and other cities along this route actually had public transport systems worth a damn then you bet people would be using Amtrak to travel. The problem is that even though you can get to these cities easily and cheaply, you pretty much have to have a car to travel around in them. This is the problem. Besides, Amtrak has had record ridership for the past few consecutive years. Passenger rail has been ignored for far too long. Hell, I'd use it if they didn't shutter the station in Mobile...

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
I disagree. Trains are great for regional travel needs. National? Probably not so much compared to Europe because of the relative population densities. Take the Crescent line for example. The NE/Atlantic areas are very useful, but once you pass Tennessee it becomes a kind of dead-zone until New Orleans. If Birmingham and other cities along this route actually had public transport systems worth a damn then you bet people would be using Amtrak to travel. The problem is that even though you can get to these cities easily and cheaply, you pretty much have to have a car to travel around in them. This is the problem. Besides, Amtrak has had record ridership for the past few consecutive years. Passenger rail has been ignored for far too long. Hell, I'd use it if they didn't shutter the station in Mobile...

Trains have their purpose. I've used them several times to criss-cross the country. My parents use Amtrak twice a year for cross-continent travel (all over the US and Canada). Trains are nice that you can just arrive 5 minutes before departure, have no security checks, you can take any amount of luggage that you want, and you can relax in a mostly-glass lounge car watching the scenery or watching movies. Heck, we'd often get drunk playing cards while travelling.

But Amtrak as a company is a lost cause. Like you pointed out, in order for it to really work, we'd need to completely redo just about every city's mass transportation (ie trillions of dollars would be needed). Long distance rail is a joke, it takes nearly a week to cross the US. Trains are notoriously late, often by 8 hours or more; so you never know when you will leave nor when you will arrive. That makes planning your trip impossible including arranging your transportation and hotel at your destination. For all these problems, you'd think rail would be cheaper. Nope. Costs are higher than airplanes as well (and this is with heavy government rail subsidies). Add in the fact that you pay through the nose on your week long trip for every meal and suddenly rail travel is about double what it costs to fly. Amtrak will never turn a profit, and will never even come close to doing so. Of course, neither do rail systems in Europe.

Rail is only a good idea in certain local regional trips. The rest of Amtrak is less than worthless. It only really has a purpose for those terrified of flying like my dad.

 

[mugs]

Because of the way people mentally compartmentalize money, it seems likely to me that the $13 a week is more likely to be spent than a $500 check.

 

[episodic]

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: SammyJr
Link to a health insurance policy that can be had for $13/week with a low enough deductible that one wouldn't go bankrupt from a serious injury or illness. If its $13/week with a $20,000 deductible, that's worthless.

Last month I signed up for this health insurance, option #1. The cost for me is $8.27 a week (mostly healthy, non-smoker, with just one permanent disease, age 31). Yes, it is a $5000 deductable, but $5k shouldn't put anyone into bankruptcy. I average roughly $20 a year in health bills, so there is no reason for a low deductible $200/month plan for me. The premium savings alone will pay for the $5000 deductable every 2.5 years.

But, if you want to fall into the false math of low deductibles, then option #3 was under $17 a week with $3000 deductibles, it has free yearly preventative care, small copays, and max $6k out of pocket in a serious injury or illness. Or, option #4 is under $19 a week with $0 deductible.

I've got denied for every 'buy it yourself' plan I've ever looked at. Reason? Congenital problem that requires meds. . . I really don't get a 'reason' - just a 'no'. . .

I notice that there was no reply to this - as usual.


Don't provide government health care the conservatives cry! It'll bankrupt the country. It's amazing to me most of Europe provides decent healthcare with longer life expectancies and lower infant mortality rates - yet, they seem to be doing pretty well. Most of the workers there get alot more time off and have a markedly better standard of living. I'd sure trade places if it were that easy.

You see, you are quite correct, you can get insurance for dirt cheap as long as you are not costly to the insurance company. If you are costly to them, like me - then you have to pay a huge share - think unreasonable share - of your income or are at the mercy of being employed and getting whatever plan they have bought into - at an increasingly unreasonable share of your income. Every year it seems my employer plan goes up 100$ or more a month as many people I know plans do. In 10 short years, I won't have a paycheck left almost literally if this continues.

And don't give me the "I'm rich, I want care NOW" argument. . . I'd rather have some safety net than none at all. Health care should be a right in a 1st world country and it should not be tied to one's job - as when people get really sick they tend to loose their job (don't even mention COBRA - you know when you mention it the average person could not afford monthly premiums on COBRA while unemployed). . .

 

[TallBill]

It's to bad that my grocery bills are going to go up $20 a month in the meantime.

 

[KentState]

Be happy, I get $0 extra a month.

 

[QueBert]

$600 was only if you had a kid right? A lot of single people I know got something like $300, and hell I know many who didn't get a stimulus check at all and are still waiting for the IRS to sort shit out. I'm not good with math but $13 a week for a year will be $624, which is $24 more than Bush would have gave you, assuming you 1. had a child and 2. actually ever got the damn check. If you have no kids like me, I would have been looking at like $300, so effectively $13 a week will work out to be over twice as much money.

DAMN OBAMA for giving me more money! And as I said in another thread, $13 a week will be gas and food and necessities for me. Gimme $600 at once, it's definitely going towards a useless electronic gadget with the last $30 going on 2 pizza from Pizza Hut.

I'm not an economics major, but wouldn't $13 a week spent by me stimulate the economy than $300 all at once? In the long run it's much more money spent.

 

[Colt45]

Wait... People are bitching about dems making a tax cut? wtf?

 

[episodic]

No, I'm 'complaining' about the lack of equity that people get versus corporations. Corporations get mega money to waste - we have to deal with increasing fuel prices, food prices, stagnating economy, loss of real dollars in out pockets, prospects of rising unemployment and underemployment, globalization, lackluster health plans which depend on jokingly our health to keep them (hey as long as you are healthy, it is cheap to insure you - when you get sick, they can cut you loose when you loose your job) and that is just for starters.

No really - thanks for the 13$ per week. I'm sure my health insurance premiums will go up enough in October where I just loose 80 more dollars a month in real take home pay vs. 93$.

Thanks.