Posted on 10/30/2008 9:27:11 PM PDT by Dagney Taggert
We need TRAINS in this country!!
I honestly believe if McCain/Palin would have included TRAINS as part of their Campaign - it would have resonated BIG with Americans and perhaps "cinched" the election for them. There are so many advantages/benefits to this mode of transportation........especially at this particular time/juncture we find ourselves in. Think of the time savings, increased productivity, far less pollution, enormous fuel/energy saved, millions of local/national American jobs created, infrastructure investment (new deal), etc. etc.
I hope you mean for transport of goods. That’s true.
For people, not so much. Come ride Chitcago’s El. Considered one of the most “efficient” public transit systems in the country (after NY and DC I believe), meaning the variable costs are about $8 a ride (vs. the $1.50-$2 people pay, oh and that’s if you assume the capital costs, which are roughly equal to the variable costs, are magically free because they come from the feds).
I agree...railroads are the ultimate example of conservatism in transportation. They build, expand and maintain their physical plant at their own expense. Only passenger operations receive any public support.
Other forms of transportation such as water, air and motor carriers rely on publicly-funded and maintained infrastructure. Despite government support for these other forms of transportation, railroads survived and prospered, especially when outdated and ruinous economic regulation ended in 1980.
You’re talking about things which take two or three days to get from A to B in trucks taking months via trains and more unionism in place of existing private truck owners and drivers who are basically small businessmen. The only real need is for our own sources of fuel for the trucks.
Are you nuts? We have trains. I hear one a couple of miles away right now. If we needed more, the free enterprise system would have produced them. People do not want to ride trains, and neither you nor Obama should either (1) force people to ride them or (2) force people to pay for them.
You really think “trains” is the winning issue for this campaign? If so, I hope you’re a Democratic strategist...
Rails — ridiculously expensive to build.
That said, I wish we a had a reliable, clean, safe, passenger only rail system.
Newbie, what is this "clinched it for them"? Shouldn't it be, "clinched it for us"?
Trains? They’re not that popular in Texas these days.
Nice vanity, newbie.
You spelled your name wrong, too.
I agree with you in terms of moving goods from point a to b. Studies have proven trains can move the goods more efficiently in terms of fuel costs, etc. PLus that is that many trucks off of our roads. Alot of smart money is pouring into train stocks - I just read an article about it not too long ago...
Specially when you're talking intermodal (containers).
Like you said, for people, not so much. While I truely enjoyed a couple of cross the nation trips on Amtrak, the train was always behind schedule & we're talking days instead of hours.
Yeah...more trains...like Amtrak...jeesh!
If there was really a market for passenger trains you would see more of them.
Might just as well include them, they are crap just like all the rest of your “alternate energy” garbage!!!
I support transcontinental rail shipment of goods. Passenger service is another matter. I don’t know of any system that is paying its own way. Here in California we are voting on a measure to authorize $10 billion in bonds to begin construction of a high-speed rail connection between LA and San Francisco. They have already spent $60 million studying the concept. The voter guide indicates the following fiscal impact on California voters: “State costs of $19.4 billion, assuming 30 years to pay both principal and interest costs of the bonds. Payments should average $647 million per year. When constructed, unknown operation and maintenance costs, probably over $1 billion annually; at least partially and potentially fully offset by passenger fares.” Anyone want to guess what fares between LA and San Francisco would have to be to fully offset $1 billion per year? (Some estimate the real cost would come closer to $50 billion, all for passengers to ride from those two main cities.)
The argument in favor of the measure is that traffic will be removed from the highways, airports will be less congested, and California will be the first in the nation to have high-speed railway service, just like Europe or Japan. As one commentator has indicated, Californians don’t have trouble getting from Los Angeles to San Francisco, they have trouble getting to work each day. The state has more or less put a moratorium on new or expanded roads and has allowed the infrastructure to crumble, making commuting a daily nightmare for so many. This is one voting household who will vote no on this measure.
I was referring to high speed “Passenger” trains - like those found in Europe.
It’s a great idea and the “option” should be available! And there are millions who, instead of driving, would “prefer” to: work/relax/eat/sleep/read etc, etc.
He'd already spent 20 minutes talking about how trains were such an excellent economical solution for moving people around. I really couldn't stand it anymore, so I stuck my hand up and asked him why this would be such a swell idea for Nebraska (I was a student at UNL at the time). I pointed out that they're only good in densely populated urban centers, and there are only a couple of those on the eastern end of the state.
“Why do you suppose trains would be a transportation solution for a thinly populated state like Nebraska? Why would they even be relevant here?”, I asked.
I remember that he stared at me for what seemed like 20 seconds and then moved on to another subject.
He never answered my question, but I did pass the course.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.