Slashdot Mirror
Is a US High-Speed Railway Economically Feasible?
An anonymous reader writes "The federal government has committed at least $8-billion (and counting) for the development of a nationwide high-speed intercity passenger railway system in almost three-dozen states. Rail advocates have long dreamed of an extensive railway grid that will provide clean, speedy, energy-efficient travel. The high-speed rail program is also expected to create thousands of desperately needed jobs, while reducing the nation's dependence on foreign oil and easing gridlocked highways and congested air-space. However, this noble, ambitious, multi-year plan faces a multitude of obstacles — including costs that will no doubt escalate as the years pass by; and an American public that may be reluctant to relinquish the independence and convenience of their beloved automobiles for a train."
Willy Wonka is fit to run a chocolate factory, not a long-distance rail network in the south-western united states.
Emotions! In your brain!
are they highspeed rails? Nope. So, irrelevant, really.
Good point, Allah wouldn't look too kindly to speeding whilst martyring yourself.
Why is this asshole troll modded up?
And you wonder why other sites are eating your lunch, /.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Few of us live in those sparsely populated regions (hence "sparse"), and nearly none of us work on the farms. Those farms are worked by the lowest paid people working in America, largely immigrants, who are largely illegal immigrants. If they had the power to demand more money for any reason, they already would, so clearly they don't, so can't, and won't.
Despite the best efforts of the very same people who want more trains instead of unlimited cars that are killing us, farm workers don't have the power to make our lives more expensive when there are more trains. And besides, it's the people in the densely populated coasts who pay to keep those Red States in the interior alive already.
Cities are not subsidized. Cities subsidize the rural areas, and always have, ever since we paid to invade, colonize and develop them.
--
make install -not war
Tough shit. Living in a dense, urban area has certain economy-of-scale advantages over rural areas
Does that advantage extend to stealing money from rural areas so you can feel smug about your high-speed rail that no-one actually uses?
It's rather funny how the OP cries to cut of subsidies while backing something that only 10% of the people who will use actually pay for.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The "tradgedy of the commons" are mostly a myth. Commons can have better results than "free markets". But M.Friedman would call global warming an "externity". (It's completed redderick of course, but virtually all captialist problems can be excused as "externity" or alternatively as "information asymmetry".)
Man, you're an idiot.
You're asking the rural areas to indirectly subsidize your trains by paying higher taxes on vehicles.
These vehicles ship your fucking food to you.
These rural areas grow and raise your fucking food.
If you put the squeeze on them, all you'll do is hurt your OWN fucking wallet whenever you try to fucking feed yourself or maintain your neourbanite hipster lifestyle by buying useless shit.
Hey retard, I said no such thing.
LOL RETARD
I didn't imply it.
You incorrectly inferred it.
DERP DERP DERP DERP