Glory Days wrote:

Al Bundy wrote: Just go with a monorail

haha i already know what it is without even opening it. monorail...monorail...monorail...mono

I hope I am wrong, but I just have visions of a rail system being as successful as Springfield's monorail.

No one is going to pay $120 for a family of 4 to travel from Columbus to Cleveland when you can divide gas for about for way less than that, maybe $7-8 a person. Unless gas prices absolutely take off, a rail system will be bankrupt, and you can take that to the bank.

stlouiedipalma wrote: I expected to hear all of the reasons why it won't work, but so far we have heard precious little on the irony of China showing us how to do it. Of course, if developing high-speed rail were proposed at C-PAC then everyone here would be raving about it.

I see no irony in China showing us how to use a system that is not economically feasible for our country, the technology be damned.

If it were economically feasible, the technology would have been developed here and it would be in use. That's how the market system works; but it seems to many of you have forgotten that since the federal government seems intent on subsidizing everything these days.

And you're dead wrong. Most of us would say the same thing regardless of who is proposing it.

It's a major boondoggle and a drain on taxpayers waiting to happen.

If you think otherwise, just watch as The Strickland Express carries him out of the governorship this fall.

The problem with the plan in Ohio is that the train will go 45 mph so there is no convenience offsetting the cost.

LJ wrote: The problem with the plan in Ohio is that the train will go 45 mph so there is no convenience offsetting the cost.

And yet the Democrats -- led by Gov. Strickland -- are riding this boondoggle as far as they can. If we let them, it will end up being greatly subsidized by the taxpayers and another example of why government is much worse than the private sector when it comes to developing/maintaining projects like these.

LJ wrote: The problem with the plan in Ohio is that the train will go 45 mph so there is no convenience offsetting the cost.

You're joking? Tell me you're kidding? I haven't seen any stories about the plan for Ohio, but the freaking trains aren't going to go any faster than 45 MPH? Not 145, but 45? That's so stupid, I can't even put it into words. Why the hell would anyone spend billions of dollars on train infrastructure that doesn't go faster than normal highway speeds? Unbelievable.

tk421 wrote:

LJ wrote: The problem with the plan in Ohio is that the train will go 45 mph so there is no convenience offsetting the cost.

You're joking? Tell me you're kidding? I haven't seen any stories about the plan for Ohio, but the freaking trains aren't going to go any faster than 45 MPH? Not 145, but 45? That's so stupid, I can't even put it into words. Why the hell would anyone spend billions of dollars on train infrastructure that doesn't go faster than normal highway speeds? Unbelievable.

Yeah 45mph average.

150+ would have a large convenience factor that would offset some of the passenger costs.

I thought the 45mph was the average with stops included?

Unless it's 150+, intercity travel by train will be impractical.

Sykotyk

CenterBHSFan wrote: I think America should worry about people in Applachia getting water lines (as I've mentioned before) rather than worry about high speed railroads.

But, that's practical instead of fantastical.
....................


Cbus, I wouldn't count on it.

I have to hand it to Center here. She is correct we should absolutely worry about water lines.

We are already 50 years behind in technology so we should get water to people first ROARING LAUGHTER!!

While Japan has high speed rail ..............and water to all its people.... The US needs to get water to its people.

tk421 wrote: High speed rail in the U.S. will be a major fail. Amtrak Mark 2.0. Unless they are planning to have trains that go at least 250-300 MPH, no one is going to bother. Shorter trips can use a car and longer trips will still be quicker by plane.

your post makes little sense ...... Since HIGH SPEED RAIL means 250-300 MPH.

I know that the folks here in Ohio are close to Amish roots but the rest of the world is blowing past us in technology, HENCE CHINA having better technology that the US which should not happen EVER EVER EVER.

BCSbunk wrote: While Japan has high speed rail ..............and water to all its people.... The US needs to get water to its people.

Don't forget we subsidize Japan's defense capability.

BCSbunk wrote:

tk421 wrote: High speed rail in the U.S. will be a major fail. Amtrak Mark 2.0. Unless they are planning to have trains that go at least 250-300 MPH, no one is going to bother. Shorter trips can use a car and longer trips will still be quicker by plane.

your post makes little sense ...... Since HIGH SPEED RAIL means 250-300 MPH.

I know that the folks here in Ohio are close to Amish roots but the rest of the world is blowing past us in technology, HENCE CHINA having better technology that the US which should not happen EVER EVER EVER.

That's exactly my point. High speed rail is 250-300 MPH. That's not what the U.S. wants to build. Thus, our version of "high speed" rail will be a huge failure. Trains that go 100-110 MPH are not "high speed".

majorspark wrote:

BCSbunk wrote: While Japan has high speed rail ..............and water to all its people.... The US needs to get water to its people.

Don't forget we subsidize Japan's defense capability.

No excuses for stupidity in technology, which is the point of the post.

China has the technology and WE do NOT!

We actually subsidize Japan and do not provide water for our people?

The Right wing is scum beyond words.

tk421 wrote:

BCSbunk wrote:

tk421 wrote: High speed rail in the U.S. will be a major fail. Amtrak Mark 2.0. Unless they are planning to have trains that go at least 250-300 MPH, no one is going to bother. Shorter trips can use a car and longer trips will still be quicker by plane.

your post makes little sense ...... Since HIGH SPEED RAIL means 250-300 MPH.

I know that the folks here in Ohio are close to Amish roots but the rest of the world is blowing past us in technology, HENCE CHINA having better technology that the US which should not happen EVER EVER EVER.

That's exactly my point. High speed rail is 250-300 MPH. That's not what the U.S. wants to build. Thus, our version of "high speed" rail will be a huge failure. Trains that go 100-110 MPH are not "high speed".

No China wants to teach and help us build REAL high speed rail......My prediction. The right wing fanatic freaks will not allow technology to increase unless it is to bomb other nations so the infrastructure will suffer.

Why would we use tax dollars for this?

Warren Buffet is diving head first into the railroads, let him do it.

SQ_Crazies wrote: Why would we use tax dollars for this?

Warren Buffet is diving head first into the railroads, let him do it.

We should not..... embrace the Amish lifestyle compared to other nations. LOL

We should trial in technology LMAO!

That's what I'm sayin', let him trial then he loses his money and not ours.

BCSbunk wrote: No excuses for stupidity in technology, which is the point of the post.

China has the technology and WE do NOT!

BCSbunk wrote: How can socialism work? China is socialist. They are helping the US with infrastructure?

Yes China is leaps and bounds ahead of the US in infrastructure and technology. Perhaps we can have them come over and show us how to build buildings as well.

http://www.alertnet.org/db/crisisprofiles/CN_EAR.htm

China's worst earthquake in more than 30 years struck southwest China on May 12, 2008, killing more than 80,000 people, including thousands of children who were crushed to death when their schools collapsed on them

Public anger has focused on the poor state of school buildings, with many blaming lax building controls and corruption for shoddy construction.

China says 5,335 schoolchildren were killed while other estimates have put the figure at between 7,000 and 9,000. Grieving parents have likened the school buildings to soft "tofu dregs". They accuse officials or builders of cutting corners and pocketing money meant to be used to construct stronger classrooms

Or your beloved Chicoms can lend us a hand with our water problem.

Looks like they have some major water issues to face in the 21st century.

http://dailyreckoning.com/investing-in-water/

There are few industrial countries in the world feeling that scarcity more acutely than China. Its water needs are more critical than its much ballyhooed power needs. I did not fully appreciate this until I visited China myself and talked to Chinese business people. Even Chinese officials - prone to covering up or understating the extent of problems - sound alarmist when it comes to water.

One official recently said China’s problem is “more serious and urgent than [in] any other country in the world.” China’s rapid industrialization has outpaced its water infrastructure, which is on the verge of collapse. As Minister of Water Resources Wang Shucheng noted, “The price of China’s economic boom is being paid in water.” Two-thirds of China’s 600 largest cities don’t have enough water; half of these cities have polluted groundwater. Less than 15% of China’s population has safe drinking water from tap

In an attempt to avert crisis, China plans to build hundreds of new water treatment plants. But for now, bottled water is the preferred choice – even among the Chinese, at least among those who can afford it. When I was in China, bottled water was nearly everywhere. As the Monitor points out, consumption of bottled water nearly quadrupled between 1997-2002

I wonder where the bottled water comes from?

Another company is Watts Water Technologies, which has been doing business in China since 1995. The company produced valves used in China’s Three Gorges Dam project on the Yangtze River. In November, the company increased its commitment to China by acquiring Changsha Valve Works

Wow American technology helping the Chinese with their water issues.

http://www.wattswater.com/_company/history.asp

In the 1960's Watts entered the international market, opening manufacturing plants in Canada and the United Kingdom. Since then Watts has greatly expanded its international presence including the formation of its first joint venture in Tianjin, China in 1994. Today, Watts' European and Chinese operations have expanded significantly and constitute a significant portion of Watts' total revenue

I have an idea... don't live where there is not a water source. Or dig a well. Where I grew up we had a deep well (200 feet). When the deep well dryed up, we had another one drilled. While installing a pump, a fiberglass pole was dropped down it and we could never use it. So we drilled 4 point wells. All the while, city water is piped right across our front yard. Even with all of the wells and points drilled, and a water softer installed since the water points were drawing hard water, it was still cheaper than tieing into the city water across the front of our property.

I'm not even including the cost to the taxpayer to put the pipe across our front yard. Why would we all pay to pipe water to Apalachia again?

For high speed rail, do not forget to add the dollars and time for the cab or bus (if the route is along the stop you want) ride after you get to the city you are going to. Then factor in the parking and drive (or bus and cab) to the Rail station to get on the train. Then add the inconvenience of being on the train's schedule. I never ever see these things factored in on comparisons.

I was in France 3 weeks ago. An American family stayed in Paris for a River Cruise, so they missed our (Coach) back to the town we were staying in that was about an hour (by Coach) out of Paris. France's High Speed Rail (true high speed) would have taken longer than 1 cab ride due to having to cab to the station, then cab to the town we were in. Not to mention schedule issues. They cabbed back in less than an hour for $300+ Euros! If you don't live by the stations, but have a car, Rail is useless outside of major Metropolitan areas that have major grid lock. This would be New York City to Boston, and throw DC in their for Biden. That is about it.

If Rail goes through, the first thing Govt. will do is drain Highway Dollars to redirect somewhere else, all in the name of supporting the environmentally friendly rail.

captain_obvious wrote: For high speed rail, do not forget to add the dollars and time for the cab or bus (if the route is along the stop you want) ride after you get to the city you are going to. Then factor in the parking and drive (or bus and cab) to the Rail station to get on the train. Then add the inconvenience of being on the train's schedule. I never ever see these things factored in on comparisons.

I was in France 3 weeks ago. An American family stayed in Paris for a River Cruise, so they missed our (Coach) back to the town we were staying in that was about an hour (by Coach) out of Paris. France's High Speed Rail (true high speed) would have taken longer than 1 cab ride due to having to cab to the station, then cab to the town we were in. Not to mention schedule issues. They cabbed back in less than an hour for $300+ Euros! If you don't live by the stations, but have a car, Rail is useless outside of major Metropolitan areas that have major grid lock. This would be New York City to Boston, and throw DC in their for Biden. That is about it.

If Rail goes through, the first thing Govt. will do is drain Highway Dollars to redirect somewhere else, all in the name of supporting the environmentally friendly rail.

Precisely why we have no American companies who specilize in this technology. It will hemorage cash. The only entity willing to hemorrhage cash is the government.

BCSbunk wrote: While Japan has high speed rail

Looks like the Japanese have found a way to be efficient and economical when it comes to mass transit via train.





Maybe they can send over someone to teach us how to train stuff.

Because someone else does it is not a valid reason to move forward.

if there is a need and if it's economically feasible then it would be silly not to proceed. I am not yet convinced that either of these are the case yet but am curiously reading.

captain_obvious wrote: I have an idea... don't live where there is not a water source. Or dig a well. Where I grew up we had a deep well (200 feet). When the deep well dryed up, we had another one drilled. While installing a pump, a fiberglass pole was dropped down it and we could never use it. So we drilled 4 point wells. All the while, city water is piped right across our front yard. Even with all of the wells and points drilled, and a water softer installed since the water points were drawing hard water, it was still cheaper than tieing into the city water across the front of our property.

I'm not even including the cost to the taxpayer to put the pipe across our front yard. Why would we all pay to pipe water to Apalachia again?

That's cool.
I had well water also while I was growing up (we lived on a farm).
Can't say as I miss it, though.

But I think you missed my point, which was that America needs to prioritize what it needs to spend money on first.

Agree or disagree?