i always wondered why there were no train tracks laid along the main east/west interstates when they were madeI like the independence of driving my own car on my own time and dime, stopping wherever and whenever I please. Baggage in tow, body unscanned, toiletries over 2oz in abundance.
Such a rail system would necessarily become as much a hassle as the airlines. And not as fast.
Bicycles are the most fuel efficient method. It’s just that there is this thing in the world called the value of time. Now for socialist, unionists, hacks, losers, the unemployed, Willie Green, time isn’t valuable, but for the rest of us, and historically, time is money. Fed=Ex, McDonalds, broadband, microwaves ovens, and a million other products and services all show the quickest, fastest is preferred. This is why no one travels by foot, oxen, Castoga wagon, Clipper ships, canal barge anymore.
That’s why loser, hack, subsidized, union, government featherbedding and political hack stuffing money pits like even Amtrack’s Boston to Washington corridor not only still lose money, they would lose money if every seat of every trip was filled.
Willie, being a Democrat, naturally wants train avoiding, train non preferred free Americans to have money they worked for and earned, taken by tax force, guile and any other method, away from them, making them poorer, and transferred to his union, Democrat politician hiring, and hack contractor friends.
Attah boy Willie!
And how much in yearly federal subsidies is it going to cost to provide security along the entire length of this 186 MPH track?
I've pretty much concluded there is no need for high speed rail based on who needs it and why?
Major cities are connected to .... major cities.
It ain't like New Yawkers want to take a break and visit Buffalo, is it?
Atlanta and DC?
It's all smoke and mirrors (again) waiting for the failed gorebull warming hoax to re-appear after enough time (remember the '70's ?) passes and it can be resurrected.
Come quickly Lord Jesus.
LOL. The commute from home to the train station = 1/2 to 1 hour each way.
The commute from the train station to work = 1/4 to 1/2 hour each way.
So the commute outside of the train would be (1 to 2) + (1/2 to 1) = 1.5 to 3 hours each day,
plus the 90 minutes on the train.
This is 3 to 4.5 hours a day commuting.
Not gonna work.
Cheers!
Very funny.
Right now, not thirty years in the future, I-95 between Boston and Northern Virgina does 55 million riders in.....
........A week.
So, we are to spend money away from something that presently is doing 56 times( 5,600 percent more) times more riders for something that ....might...maybe...in thirty years or forty years..or fifty years of more taxes, pensions, hacks...maybe do, maybe what is now done in a week.
Yeah. Great.
i always wondered why there were no train tracks laid along the main east/west interstates when they were madeFine. Build it with your money, not mine.
Where does this plan put a station on LI? Woodside?
Does it replace the Hell Gate bridge?
I love trains. I have lots of ‘em in the basement. But the idea of a multi-trillion dollar eminent domain seizure of the homes and estates of the richest and most powerful people in the planet in NJ and Westchester/Fairfield counties is just a ridiculous fantasy.
I thought trains were far more efficient that that.
Wow, spend billions to save 20- 25% ?
I'm even less inclined than before. As if my opinion counted.
Where will the money come from?
Daily Willie Green Choo-Choo thread.
Promoting 19th Century technology for the 21st Century.
Hi Willie,
Always enjoy the threads. Here’s what I see on the train thing.
Most people have access to a vehicle. The motor vehicle is a jack of all trades. Also, most of the costs of a motor vehicle are fixed at the point of purchase. Driving a car costs a lot less than owning a car. If you have a car, you already have car payments and insurance payments, plus maintenance. Driving a car is relatively inexpensive once you figure that most of the costs are fixed and won’t go down if you use public transportation.
Any form of mass transit has significant downside. The downsides are:
1. Moving stuff. Something as simple as bringing groceries from the store becomes very complicated using mass transit.
2. Safety. In a vehicle, you are far less likely to be mugged than you are walking from a subway, train or bus. You can go from point to point. There are also risks from being mugged on the subway.
3. Time. Except for a few large cities where there is no parking, it’s always quicker to drive. When I was working for Austin Fire, the city issued a directive that city employees should use public transportation. A firefighter was sent to travel at another station. It would have been a half hour drive. He didn’t have his car (wife dropped him off) so he took the city buses. Took him over three hours. Cities have gone to putting sun screens on the windows of buses so citizens won’t be able to tell that most city buses (at least here in Texas) practically never have more than three people on them, including the driver.
4. Weather. Show up for work soaked a few times. Employers don’t like it.
5. Politics. A few years ago, a San Antonio mall got raked over the coals by the press because they revoked the city’s permission to pick up and drop off passengers at the mall. The mall’s reason was that all the buses were dropping off and picking up were gang bangers. These gang bangers were driving off the regular mall customers. When Austin started their big public transit push, the first planned lines were from the heart of welfare country. Like it or not, as long as public transportation is perceived as the transportation of the welfare class, people who pay the freight won’t use it.
If, instead, they ran light rail from the international airport in a big loop, with stops at major hotels, the convention center, the Frank Erwin Center, the downtown restaurant area and one or two of the malls (the destinations picking up the tab for covered stops in these areas), plus a couple of stops at exterior parking spots, it’s probably full all day long. They won’t do that though. It’s one stop at the projects, one stop downtown.
This is the same reason vehicles like Smart Cars have so much trouble getting traction. A Smart Car gets 40 mpg. However, it only carries two and practically no cargo. It’s unsafe on the highway. At $16K, payments would be about $300 per month. I currently have a Chevy Silverado that transports four comfortably, six in a pinch, plus a cargo bed. It gets around 18 mpg. Driving 1,000 miles per month, I’d save around $80 using the Smart Car (gas at $2.75.) Even discounting the extra insurance, it would take about twelve years to break even, assuming I needed pickup functionality enough to also own a pickup.
Long post, but trains don’t become popular until owning a private vehicle becomes too painful. Until then, a private vehicle provides people with far more flexibility and functionality.
Those 1st Classe train experiences can't happen here.