Reply With Quote
The USA destroyed their public rail infrastructure almost 70 years ago
bull . How can you compare when there is no TGV system in USA?
The USA destroyed their public rail infrastructure almost 70 years ago
And a TVG system would be even more costly than the comparison with 110 MPH high speed rail.
electric trains are cheaper than the US's diesel-electric kludges.
You REALLY think the TSA would leave high speed rails alone?
My God man.
You bring up an article comparing electric trains to fuel, with fuel prices as a reason to go with trains. I simply point out electricity prices rise also.
Buy a clue please.
As soon as they because a potentially large killer, I think these would be as difficult to board as a plane.
I've seen places in near SE Portland where the asphalt is worn down to the old trolly tracks.
of course not. TSA plans to metastasize everywhere.
If the USA had high-speed regional rail, it would kill a lot of air passenger traffic and congestion at airports, which is why the airline industry will kill US rail, like Southwest killed the TX triangle TGV project.
Excuse me if I don't believe your BS.
"Southwest Airlines was granted intervenor status for the franchise application hearing process." WTF?
"Lack of federal support and lobbying against the HSR plan by Southwest Airlines were among the reasons that no other franchise applications were awarded and a high-speed rail system was not built."
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/tslac/20071/tsl-20071.html
the TX TGV was the perfect fit for the HOU-DAL-SAT-AUS triangle, the distances covered, and would have take a ton of traffic from Southwest and other airlines flying within TX.
And the ticket prices would have likely been greater than an airlies ticket.
Got a link for that?
Here is the link I meant to put in post #45:
http://reason.org/blog/show/californ...-rail-2014-bus
http://theconversation.com/why-is-th...ortation-56788But when the U.S. ranks 16th for infrastructure quality, easily outranked by countries such as France and Spain, then we should start worrying.
There are substantial costs to the decline of our public transportation system. Closures, accidents and inefficiencies cost individuals and companies and reduce the efficiency of our national economy. Poor infrastructure means Americans spend $120 billion each year in extra fuel and lost time.
To some extent, this state of affairs should be no surprise.
Our compe ors are out-investing us in the vital infrastructure necessary to make our economy efficient and internationally compe ive. Even when our public infrastructure spending is higher than our compe ors, it is less well-targeted because decisions are more politically motivated than based on economic rationality.
We seem unwilling to pay for public services. Our declining road system, for example, is funded by the Highway Trust Fund, which is derived from a gas tax of 18.4 cents per gallon. It has not been raised since 1993, and more fuel-efficient vehicles means less revenue. Raising the gas tax is not considered politically feasible, even in a time of declining gas prices.
as cities were designed to meet the needs of the motorist, mass transit systems that had been owned by private companies were abandoned or effectively dismantled in the late 1940s and throughout the 1950s because they were losing money.
As a result, many mass transit systems were taken over by municipalities. This led to a high-cost, low-revenue system dependent on the vagaries of federal, state and city funding. Meanwhile, car drivers were economic free riders, not charged for the social costs of their accidents, pollution and congestion.
Certainly, BigOil and BigAuto lobbied for decades, at all govt levels, against public transport (and railroads), both wanting to sell more cars and more fuel.
iow, just another way, out of very many ways, all y'all's revered BigCorp has ed up America.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions