Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 38    Average: 3.8/5]
99 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 18971
Rating: 3.8
Category:
Date: 11/17/11 01:15 PM

99 Responses to Hey America, Your Train Infrastructure SUCKS [Pic]

  1. Profile photo of M3chan1caL
    M3chan1caL Male 18-29
    178 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 1:17 pm
    Link: Hey America, Your Train Infrastructure SUCKS -
  2. Profile photo of Swaywithme
    Swaywithme Female 18-29
    3696 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 1:21 pm
    I approve of this rebuilding, economy saving idea!
  3. Profile photo of donthaveone
    donthaveone Male 30-39
    953 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 1:25 pm
    Sure we`ll just pull that money out of our asses!
  4. Profile photo of DuckBoy87
    DuckBoy87 Male 18-29
    3144 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 1:25 pm
    The trains in my town wouldn`t be able to be the super fast trains of elsewhere as they haul coal, not people, and travel right through the middle of town.
  5. Profile photo of tvremote
    tvremote Male 18-29
    447 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 1:30 pm
    Derp Acela derp. Also America developed the interstate system which has largely supplanted railroads. Besides the Autobahn, which that system was based on, Europe has no real comparison to the interstate system in the US. But I know the real purpose of this post is just to provoke a flame war, so let me be of help.

    Darr well u europens are just a bunch of surrender nazi jerks. Amurica is the best coutnry evar. Retards.
  6. Profile photo of msieg007
    msieg007 Male 18-29
    2035 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 1:33 pm
    The thing is though, America is so entrenched in the automobile culture that passenger trains are largely a thing of the past. It just wouldn`t be economically responsible to pour so much money into something that not a lot of people use.
  7. Profile photo of Lameworld
    Lameworld Male 18-29
    51 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 1:33 pm
    Seriously the US infrastructure is on its way to failing
  8. Profile photo of a1butcher
    a1butcher Male 40-49
    4812 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 1:35 pm

    This is the first thing that popped into my head when I saw this...


  9. Profile photo of SarahofBorg
    SarahofBorg Female 18-29
    3564 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 1:36 pm
    Too late, we already sunk all our money into the interstate system. We can`t afford to build a new infrastructure when we can barely afford to maintain the aging interstate system we already have. What are taxpayers more interested in: fixing crumbling bridges or building a better railroad? Anyway, we made the wrong decision back in the 50s. Trains are a far superior form of mass transportation than cars. Enjoy your traffic jams.
  10. Profile photo of SarahofBorg
    SarahofBorg Female 18-29
    3564 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 1:38 pm
    Also, how exactly will this save our economy? Somebody explain to me where our government, which is already trillions of dollars in debt (more than $100,000 per person), is going to find the money to pay construction for this when we can`t even afford basic health care?
  11. Profile photo of tvremote
    tvremote Male 18-29
    447 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 1:40 pm



    Huh that trains looks a lot like the European ones in the picture. Could it be? Could the internet have taken pictures out of context in order to make a point/troll 12 year olds? Nah couldn`t happen.
  12. Profile photo of hwkiller
    hwkiller Male 18-29
    490 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 1:43 pm
    But... we don`t use trains. We have the interstates and highways.
  13. Profile photo of DrProfessor
    DrProfessor Male 18-29
    3894 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 1:49 pm
    Passenger trains would be great... if anyone would actually think to use them. It`s a better option than going by car, for sure, but I`ve lived 19 years without ever having been on a train.

    (and if we had better trains with access to more areas, *I* would use them, but most people are too used to driving.)
  14. Profile photo of uunxx
    uunxx Male 30-39
    120 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 1:51 pm
    Regular trains in these countries don`t look like that
  15. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 1:53 pm
    This country is also much larger then any posted.Why not b**ch to Canada for not having the same? Isn`t this one of Obamas ideas?
  16. Profile photo of BenTheBug
    BenTheBug Male 18-29
    1195 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 1:57 pm
    This is the local train I use:

  17. Profile photo of inversegrav
    inversegrav Male 30-39
    770 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 1:57 pm
    there was a plan to build a high speed rail system between Greensburg and Pittsburgh. People protested it so much the plan was scrapped. The most common reason given for the protests:

    "It will scare the cows."
  18. Profile photo of aikiman
    aikiman Male 40-49
    255 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 2:02 pm


    What you need is a monorail..
  19. Profile photo of RPGillespie
    RPGillespie Male 13-17
    217 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 2:12 pm
    American`s don`t need trains! Most of us just sit around getting fat, and if we need to go to McDonalds, we all have cars or we can have it delivered to our houses! Silly Europeans!
  20. Profile photo of HalfSandwich
    HalfSandwich Male 18-29
    145 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 2:14 pm
    Trains worked very well in America in the 1800`s but then we entered the modern age. Seriously, why would I want to get on a train and be restricted by the times and stops. If I drive a few hours to NYC or Philly I often stop at several other places along the way. I know restaurants I like to visit (places for ice cream and hot dogs in the summer, hot apple cider in the fall). There are specialty shops and small mom and pop stores I would probably never have visited or known of if it weren`t for those drives. All of them off the beaten trail.

    So yes if I was in Europe or Asia and there are only 2 cities in my crappy country which are worth visiting, sure trains might work. However, given the vastness of America and the many great places that exist along the road today, most Americans would not want to be restricted by the train. The best part about driving somewhere is the freedom to change your plans, try something new, or even just go someplace else.
  21. Profile photo of dirtysteve00
    dirtysteve00 Male 30-39
    373 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 2:17 pm
    `This country is also much larger then any posted`

    russia? Almost twice the area, and often through much harsher conditions.
  22. Profile photo of Rawrg
    Rawrg Male 18-29
    934 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 2:18 pm
    This country is also much larger then any posted.Why not b**ch to Canada for not having the same? Isn`t this one of Obamas ideas?

    Russia.
  23. Profile photo of donax
    donax Male 30-39
    14 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 2:20 pm
    Hasn`t it been proven time and time again that America has the biggest dick therefore doesn`t need to have a flashy train
  24. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 2:26 pm
    Russia: Private Company
    Japan: Private Company
    Germany: Private Company
    France: Public
    China: Private Company
    USA: Public

    Hmmmm...

  25. Profile photo of donax
    donax Male 30-39
    14 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 2:27 pm
    Also this is a photo of one of the trans siberian trains russia uses


  26. Profile photo of bentley22
    bentley22 Male 30-39
    244 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 2:30 pm
    I prefer the chugga chugga woot woot of our trains vs zoomy mczoom of those new fangled contraptions
  27. Profile photo of Ruffiana
    Ruffiana Male 30-39
    506 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 2:45 pm
    Motor Vehicles per 1,000 people:
    China = 37
    Russia = 245
    Germany = 534
    France = 575
    Japan = 593
    US = 828

    Convince Americans to give up their cars, and we might have a more pressing need for updated railways.
  28. Profile photo of duckinfuh
    duckinfuh Male 18-29
    891 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 2:45 pm
    Trains in Europe and Asia are primarily used for transporting people, which aren`t as heavy as, say, steal beams. They are shorter and don`t require nearly as much pulling power. Because they carry less weight, they can move faster. Since they can move faster, they need to be more aerodynamic to increase efficiency. People all over their respective countries depend on them every day to get them to work and school on time.

    American trains haul cargo. They haul a LOT of cargo. They can get to be on the order of a mile long. Because they pull so much weight, they can`t go as fast, so they don`t need to be aerodynamic. Riding a train in America is mostly a novelty, since most people would rather drive themselves.

    If anything, you should compare American subway systems to the train systems in other countries. Which is still crap, anyway, but more apples-to-apples.
  29. Profile photo of Ruffiana
    Ruffiana Male 30-39
    506 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 2:47 pm
    How about instead of blowing mony on trying to keep up with other countries fancy trains, we focus on our roads & bridges which we actually use.
  30. Profile photo of nettech98
    nettech98 Male 50-59
    1043 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 2:50 pm
    Showing trains and talking about railroad infrastructure is the same as showing cars and talking about highway infrastructure. Infrastructure and the vehicles that use them are not the same thing.

    If you want to show pictures of crappy bridges, tunnels, rails, etc., we can talk...
  31. Profile photo of osirisascend
    osirisascend Male 40-49
    3039 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 2:55 pm
    Um... Submitter is either trolling, or a complete idiot. Amtrak`s Acela has been operating in the U.S. for nearly 11 years:



    I`d say idiot troll.
  32. Profile photo of Justin9235
    Justin9235 Male 18-29
    1582 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 2:59 pm
    Who the drat uses trains?
  33. Profile photo of TKD_Master
    TKD_Master Male 18-29
    4794 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 3:36 pm
    "`This country is also much larger then any posted`

    russia? Almost twice the area, and often through much harsher conditions."

    Yes, but they are russians.
  34. Profile photo of mykunter
    mykunter Male 40-49
    2424 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 3:40 pm
    Never been on a train. If it`s too far to drive, I fly.
  35. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 3:52 pm
    The Russian and Chinese trains cost overruns were in the billions and neither of them makes money.

    Amtrak ridership is low as it is and is not profitable. This has all been studied and is published in governmental reports showing that it would not be worthwhile.
  36. Profile photo of Edgarska19
    Edgarska19 Male 18-29
    1045 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 4:27 pm
    Hey, I love the Amtrak.
  37. Profile photo of nogroupthink
    nogroupthink Male 30-39
    45 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 4:31 pm
    what a f`cking stupid post
  38. Profile photo of Edgarska19
    Edgarska19 Male 18-29
    1045 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 4:32 pm
    Also, this is what the newer trolleys look like in San Diego
  39. Profile photo of grindinblade
    grindinblade Male 18-29
    234 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 4:44 pm
    @CrakrJak, High speed rails do make money, they don`t see immediate return in the first year but no investment does. Also consider that Amtrak ridership is low because our current rail system is so outdated, a previous poster showed a picture of Acela that runs between D.C and NYC, which has turned profit.

    For more see here, here, and here
  40. Profile photo of Orchideous
    Orchideous Male 18-29
    361 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 4:47 pm
    Who uses a train?
  41. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 5:04 pm
    The USA needs high-speed passenger trains because...why, exactly?

    You only need a high-speed passenger train for large numbers of people travelling medium distances. Too short a distance between stops and the speed of the train is meaningless. Too far and a plane makes more sense. So it`s for intermediate length journeys. For which people in the USA use cars, which the USA has the infrastructure for.

    Someone mentioned traffic jams. True, that`s a problem with cars. But how many traffic jams do you get in the USA on major roads between major cities, i.e. the travel that a high-speed passenger rail system would serve?
  42. Profile photo of RyanHake
    RyanHake Male 18-29
    2690 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 5:10 pm
    Nobody cares about trains here, nice try.
  43. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 5:10 pm
    Holy crap. I just looked up the cost of the very high speed line built to connect London to the channel tunnel. Not far shy of £100 million per mile. Just so that the trains can do ~185mph instead of ~140mph.
  44. Profile photo of grindinblade
    grindinblade Male 18-29
    234 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 5:14 pm
    Angilion have you seen Seattle traffic? Trains would definitely serve a purpose for commuting to/from work that people would never want to take a plane for. Not to mention planes are more expensive, and waste a lot of time with loading, check in etc.
    I`m surprised being from Europe you don`t like the high speed rails there. I loved the Eurorail when I vacationed there, it makes travel very easy.
  45. Profile photo of stk5m
    stk5m Male 18-29
    322 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 5:18 pm
    I think not our trains break the freaking sound barrier
  46. Profile photo of LazyMe484
    LazyMe484 Male 18-29
    10443 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 5:19 pm
    lol USA you jelly?
  47. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3907 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 5:23 pm
    The only "Train" I`ve ever used, and most likely will ever use is the subway in NYC. Most of the metropolitan areas have either subways or trolley`s that are used to get around the city & that`s all we really need. Why would I want to take a "high speed train" from here in NYC to Boston, Hartford, Philly, etc, when it`s easier and, depending on your vehicle`s fuel efficiency, cheaper to just drive and not have to deal with some d-bag who smells like a fart-sack sitting next to me?!
  48. Profile photo of beelzebob
    beelzebob Male 40-49
    1 post
    November 17, 2011 at 5:23 pm
    Here`s the Acela which runs from Boston to Washington D.C., It doesn`t reach the speeds of the European / Asian bullet trains, but that is mostly due to the problem of right of ways. The track system in the northeast portion of the U.S. does not have very many straightaways which would allow maximum speeds. In order for them to be able to straighten out the tracks, it would be necessary for Amtrak to take over hundreds, if not thousands, of homes though eminent domain. Given a recent eminent domain land grab in the area, and the negative press which the local governments and the company involve incurred, I don`t see that happening in the near future, at least in the northeastern part of the US. They could builds a nice system in the mid-west but the ridership may not be there (it`s not here on the east coast, so the gov. throws butt loads of $$ in subsidies at this monstrosity every year)
  49. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 5:46 pm
    Angilion have you seen Seattle traffic? Trains would definitely serve a purpose for commuting to/from work that people would never want to take a plane for. Not to mention planes are more expensive, and waste a lot of time with loading, check in etc.

    I doubt if there are many people who have a long enough commute for a plane to make sense for it.

    I didn`t say that the USA didn`t have a use for trains. I said that it didn`t seem to have a use for high speed passenger trains. If 100-120mph is too slow for your commute to work, your commute to work is too long. Seattle isn`t *that* big.

    I`m surprised being from Europe you don`t like the high speed rails there. I loved the Eurorail when I vacationed there, it makes travel very easy.

    I`m not from Europe. IAB crappiness strikes again - where I live isn`t on the list of places when you set up an IAB account.
  50. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 5:48 pm

    I`m from England. Most trains here do 125mph. There are small short-distance trains that are slower, basically like fast buses on rails for short trips with lots of stops. It`s more efficient to run a few of them than one full-size train, for that sort of trip. They do about 80mph.

    And that`s all that`s needed here. High speed passenger railways make sense in some places and not in others.
  51. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14544 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 5:55 pm
    You should see our trains in England; not much better than the Hogwarts Express.
  52. Profile photo of Crabes
    Crabes Male 30-39
    1285 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 6:04 pm
    america= land of the car not the trains
  53. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36176 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 6:56 pm

    California is building a high speed train.
    No one wants it.
    No one will ride it.
    But since when do politicians listen to people? The developers and lobbyists and Corporations want the contracts so they are damn well gonna have one!

    Waste
  54. Profile photo of jtrebowski
    jtrebowski Male 40-49
    3348 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 6:56 pm
    I have a question. America used to be the leader in manufacturing, transportation, healthcare, space travel, etc, etc etc....
    What are we the leaders of now?
  55. Profile photo of ForSquirel
    ForSquirel Male 30-39
    2048 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 6:59 pm
    @trebowski - I heard it`s being fat or something
  56. Profile photo of Angelmassb
    Angelmassb Male 18-29
    15511 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 7:02 pm
    Forget darn trains, where is my hover car??
  57. Profile photo of Runemang
    Runemang Male 30-39
    2676 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 7:04 pm
    No one rides big (ie non local/commuter) trains in the US anyway. They`re slow as a car, expensive as airfare - worst of both worlds. There`s no point other than a relaxed scenic tour ... not purposeful transportation.
  58. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 7:28 pm
    grindinblade: From one of your own sources, "...only the main Shinkansen line in Japan (Tokyo-Osaka) and the main TGV line in France (Paris-Lyon) — of all high-speed lines everywhere in the world — have turned a profit."

    It`s income must be a lot more than to just "cover operating costs", to be truly profitable you have to be able to payback, at least the interest on, the billions of dollars in loans required to build it.

    It`s like saying you can afford the gas and oil for your car, but you can`t afford the car loan payments, the insurance, or the license fees.
  59. Profile photo of defendors87
    defendors87 Male 18-29
    570 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 7:33 pm
    yes, let`s repeat the whole U.S. train fiasco again. not...
  60. Profile photo of ajd121
    ajd121 Male 18-29
    625 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 7:35 pm
    We had flying trains back in 1988, suck it Europe


  61. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 7:39 pm
    jtrebowski: "What are we the leaders of now?"

    Corporate kickbacks to politicians (for non-sense like these trains)

    and

    News media spin and cover up of such waste and fraud.
  62. Profile photo of Baelzar
    Baelzar Male 40-49
    1399 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 7:44 pm
    Every time someone rides the light rail in my city, it only costs the taxpayers $84.

    WHAT A BARGAIN!
  63. Profile photo of mechonga
    mechonga Female 18-29
    43 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 8:14 pm
    meh, you should see argentina`s
  64. Profile photo of grindinblade
    grindinblade Male 18-29
    234 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 8:29 pm
    lol crakrjak you prove that you only pick out points from my article to prove your own. The quote starts "according to conventional wisdom" and then shows how that statement is wrong. EPIC FAIL
  65. Profile photo of Yaezakura
    Yaezakura Female 18-29
    385 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 8:41 pm
    What people seem to be forgetting is that revamping the US rail system would change the vast majority of negatives associated with current rail travel. The rides would be faster, more comfortable, and incur lower operating costs per passenger, thus resulting in better trips for lower prices.

    And for those saying "no one uses trains", that`s a fact that is never going to change until we have a rail system worth using. Of course no one uses trains when all the trains friggin` suck.
  66. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 9:09 pm
    grindinblade: The statement is NOT wrong, the article you referred tried to spin the narrative with adding the qualifying words "operating costs" to make it seem like Acela is `profitable`, to which I addressed the inherent falsehood in doing so.

    You can`t be profitable if all you can cover is operating costs, there are many other costs that have to factored in as well.
  67. Profile photo of grindinblade
    grindinblade Male 18-29
    234 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 9:13 pm
    did you check the other site with figures on operating cost, revenue, and net gain from high speed trains. Acela nets 100mil/year
  68. Profile photo of grindinblade
    grindinblade Male 18-29
    234 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 9:21 pm
    As I said you can`t expect the loan to build the high speed rails to be paid back immediately. It is an investment, and since Acela covers operating cost in excess of 100mil it is paying back the cost to build it.
    How much do you think the interstate highway system cost to build? It wasn`t paid back in a year, or even 5 years.
  69. Profile photo of OutWest
    OutWest Male 50-59
    546 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 9:54 pm
    The High Speed rail is not profitable in the USA, most of our passenger trains have to be subsidized by public money, with pressure provided by liberal lobby groups.

    Unless they can be self-sufficient and a chosen form of transportation by our citizens, why bother? We are not Europe or Japan.

    In fact I read somewhere that only one or two of the high speed rail systems in the world do cover their own costs. Most have to rely on taxes on everyone to satisfy the wishes and needs of a few.
  70. Profile photo of Raisin_Hell
    Raisin_Hell Male 18-29
    277 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 10:12 pm
    I don`t know if this has been said before or not, but most of those countries are a ton smaller the US in terms of metropolis areas being spread out (exception of China, but a lot is unpopulated as well).
  71. Profile photo of Yaezakura
    Yaezakura Female 18-29
    385 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 10:41 pm
    In fact I read somewhere that only one or two of the high speed rail systems in the world do cover their own costs. Most have to rely on taxes on everyone to satisfy the wishes and needs of a few.
    And what do you think pays for road maintenance and construction? Gold generated by asphalt-loving pixies?

    A rejuvenated rail system means less road wear, and thus lower maintenance costs for the road system. It`ll also cut down on the need to expand many existing roads. It`ll give us better cargo options for coast-to-coast shipping, which currently has to either be sent via ship through the Panama Canal, or carried piecemeal by truck, both of which are far less fuel efficient options than rail.

    There are certainly worse things to spend taxes on. Like a massively bloated military budget and tax breaks for the wealthiest people and companies in the nation.
  72. Profile photo of TheBuzzer
    TheBuzzer Male 18-29
    472 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 11:16 pm
    i think they are making a high speed rail for california, not sure did they start yet
  73. Profile photo of onoffonoffon
    onoffonoffon Male 30-39
    2308 posts
    November 17, 2011 at 11:59 pm
    Hey, we have a crap load of planes instead. Uncomfortable, loud, claustrophobic, fuel wasting planes.
  74. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3876 posts
    November 18, 2011 at 12:27 am
    You can always tell who hasn`t traveled in Europe when the conversation of high speed trains for America comes up. I would love to see a high speed train from Vancouver to Seattle to Portland to LA to San Diago.
  75. Profile photo of MrLill
    MrLill Male 18-29
    371 posts
    November 18, 2011 at 1:22 am
    even Russia?! >.<
  76. Profile photo of Vimto
    Vimto Male 40-49
    2852 posts
    November 18, 2011 at 1:32 am
    Isle of Wight:



    Yup, we have to put up with old tube trains. A few years back they swapped out the 40 year old ones for 20 year old ones, thats progress for you.
  77. Profile photo of MrAtari
    MrAtari Male 40-49
    1562 posts
    November 18, 2011 at 2:46 am
    They have this in Germany too, but it`s still experimental. So if the USA really wants to own the rest of the world they have to use maglev trains:
  78. Profile photo of robosnitz
    robosnitz Male 40-49
    2737 posts
    November 18, 2011 at 2:52 am
    There`s a group of peoples that mess with the tracks of trains in the US and typically try to derail them. Usually just container cars.There`s been a few de-railings in North central Florida that happened by my old house in Lake city that I know about. Hate to see what would happen to one of those bullet trains being derailed. Jeez.
  79. Profile photo of Flibmeister
    Flibmeister Female 18-29
    833 posts
    November 18, 2011 at 4:12 am
    FGWR in the uk are using trains which were designed in the 1950s and built in the 1970s... in fact this:



    The Tornado is the most modern train in the UK (by its age at least)
  80. Profile photo of MikeyNiv
    MikeyNiv Male 18-29
    697 posts
    November 18, 2011 at 5:18 am
    UK`s have a front like a wall
  81. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    November 18, 2011 at 5:24 am
    People, the rail option doesn`t have to be profitable.

    It just needs to operate at equal or less cost than the equivalent tax-funded road option (which doesn`t generate a profit).

    Rail probably isn`t a replacement for the coast-to-coast flights that operate now, but it can easily be a cost-effective replacement for many people`s daily commute, mid-range road trips that are too short to justify flying, or the trans-continental transport of freight.

  82. Profile photo of burbclaver
    burbclaver Male 50-59
    878 posts
    November 18, 2011 at 6:57 am
    @TheBuzzer: No they haven`t started the rail link. It`s been in litigation for many years and is expected to take at least another ten years to resolve. If you think it would be cool to travel the Western US by rail, don`t bother. Many of the lines are single track and the few passenger trains are routinely sent into sidings for hours to let giant freight trains pass by. When I was in England recently, I traveled everywhere by train - it was easy and comfortable. (Of course, it was summer, so no wrong type of snow or leaves on the track.)
  83. Profile photo of elgrappa
    elgrappa Male 18-29
    96 posts
    November 18, 2011 at 7:32 am
    the U.S. and the U.K. have like a private system or something, and it thus allows anyone to build railroad tracks anywhere they want. In most countries, like the ones mentioned in the picture, the government takes care of building the tracks. What I think is going on is that, for example, Amtrak does not have enough money to buy new trains because they spend a lot of money on fees and sh*t that they have to pay in order to make use of the tracks. I think that, that is also the reason why Amtrak tickets are so damn expensive.
  84. Profile photo of hiptothemax4
    hiptothemax4 Female 18-29
    95 posts
    November 18, 2011 at 9:04 am
    I work for a Research Transportation Center at a University in Detroit (one of the only "major" US cities not to have a public subway/train transportation system), and we lost funding from the federal government, and were forced to "choose" a concentration in which we must research, with 10 other universities, across the US. We are no longer allowed to "waste time/money" on several different research projects that could potentially revitalize our transportation in the US, but it`s not like the government ever picked up any of the projects our researchers propose, because they rather bitch and moan about the economy than actually fix it.
  85. Profile photo of grapehead
    grapehead Male 18-29
    408 posts
    November 18, 2011 at 1:47 pm
    Yeah, we just drating fly instead
  86. Profile photo of Commentator
    Commentator Male 40-49
    270 posts
    November 18, 2011 at 2:37 pm
    Backwards trains for a backward culture, game over.

  87. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 18, 2011 at 3:15 pm
    Trains are still good for cargo, and there are some small tourist lines still in operation.

    Perhaps one day super conductive maglev will be economically viable for passenger transport, but steel rail is over 150 years old and is not worth spending many billions on.
  88. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 18, 2011 at 5:02 pm
    UK`s have a front like a wall

    The main routes in the UK have been served by high speed trains since the 1970s. People are picking out other examples deliberately. The high speed trains are, of course, more aerodynamic.

    Faster ones have been looked at, but it`s not worth the horrendous cost of replacing all the track, rerouting some of it to make it straighter (which would require compulsory purchase orders in many case, which are a big deal) *and* buying a fleet of new trains.
  89. Profile photo of guywithaswor
    guywithaswor Male 18-29
    3 posts
    November 18, 2011 at 5:14 pm
    Population density is the reason why our rail is undeveloped. If you don`t look at this map and immediately understand why we wouldn`t focus on rail, you have no knowledge of logistics and/or economics. It`s simply not feasible here due to the huge area and relatively low density of most areas.
  90. Profile photo of Fwoggie2
    Fwoggie2 Male 30-39
    1803 posts
    November 18, 2011 at 6:28 pm
    Living in Germany, I took an ICE 3 train recently (the one in the pic; latest generation). Took me 39 minutes to get from Sieburg to Frankfurt airport. That`s 143.3km, or 89 miles. In 39 minutes. You average (that`s start to top speed to stop) 220kmh, which is 136mph. You gotta take it to believe it, the gradients on that line are insane.

    For those of you yanks which are claiming population density renders HSL`s useless, toss out HI, AK and the middle depopulated states and start arguing the toss agin with the land area and av population left. But think about your argument carefully, I have a degree in this field from one of the worlds best transport Uni`s.
  91. Profile photo of guywithaswor
    guywithaswor Male 18-29
    3 posts
    November 18, 2011 at 6:38 pm
    Did your degree tell you that less than half our population lives in the area you describe? Over half is in the widely distributed areas. Even a glance at Europe and America`s maps will show you how drastic the difference is between the two.

    That said, your argument is correct as it applies to those areas. Rail makes sense there and actually sees considerably more use there. But in the area where I live, most people drive 10m(16km) to work. But it`s not from one highly populated area to another. Little Rock`s workforce is distributed over about 60-70square miles. Rail would be an absolute waste of money here.
  92. Profile photo of mithraela
    mithraela Female 18-29
    535 posts
    November 18, 2011 at 9:22 pm
    Well when you spend so much money going to war and then the people in your country can`t even afford to drive across it, you don`t get new trains. You get higher taxes.
  93. Profile photo of guywithaswor
    guywithaswor Male 18-29
    3 posts
    November 18, 2011 at 11:04 pm
    Again, misinformation and misconception by those who don`t know the facts. Yes the wars have been tremendously wasteful. That said, however, defense is 15% of our overall budget. Sizable, but by no means the sole cause of our problems. Here`s a breakdown:

    US Federal Budget

    I`m not defending the war per se, but it has become a marvelous scapegoat for longstanding fiscal flaws a-la-Greece that need remedied immediately. Totally eliminated our military STILL wouldn`t be enough to solve the problem.
  94. Profile photo of Dessic
    Dessic Male 30-39
    8 posts
    November 19, 2011 at 5:27 am
    High-Speed Rail Boondoggles

    Pretty much goes over the reasons why high-speed rail travel works better in all of those places than it would in the U.S.
  95. Profile photo of Yaezakura
    Yaezakura Female 18-29
    385 posts
    November 19, 2011 at 6:15 am
    @guywithaswor

    I do realize defense is only a portion of our overall budget. That does not change the fact that its funding is drastically bloated for our needs. The US comprises roughly 5% of the total world population, but roughly 50% of the total world military budget. And in case you haven`t noticed, we`re bordered by nothing but oceans and allies.

    In short, our military budget is not aimed at protecting the American people, which could be done for a far more reasonable price. As it stands, we spend as much on our military as the entire rest of the world combined, yet somehow can`t even afford to give our soldiers the best equipment available.

    I would never suggest cutting all funding to the military. Nevertheless, it is currently a money pit that soaks up massive amounts of cash for little actual gain. Reasonable cuts to the military budget are not only possible, but pretty much required by any rational standard.
  96. Profile photo of tacks
    tacks Female 18-29
    155 posts
    November 19, 2011 at 7:39 pm
    I want phallic trains :(
  97. Profile photo of number43
    number43 Male 70 & Over
    759 posts
    November 19, 2011 at 9:55 pm
    Right, because Russia has such a great infrastructure.
  98. Profile photo of mithraela
    mithraela Female 18-29
    535 posts
    November 22, 2011 at 8:50 pm
    We don`t "use" trains as a "major" form of travel here in the states. Were we to build one it might not even be cost effective to build because people in America who are gung ho about travel that is cost effective and easier on the environment are more likely to look into options that help them maintain their independence, such as motorcycles, scooters, bicycles, smart cars, electric cars, etc. I think it is also a sign that despite the schitty looking trains, our economy is still "good" enough that we do not "have to" rely so much on public transportation. It may be no longer valid, but i`d heard the cost for fuel in many places in Europe makes Americans look like whiny little bitches in comparison because we have it decent still. So are the trains we use a sign of our "failure"? NO. We use them "mostly" for CARGO. We generally have our own GOD DAMN CARS still. I am not a crazy patriot but i have eyes and a brain.

Leave a Reply