Slashdot Mirror
Obama Calling For $53B For High Speed Rail
Antisyzygy writes "President Obama is calling for $53B to be appropriated for the construction of high-speed rail in the United States over the next 6 years. Assuming Congress approves this plan, the funding would be spent on developing and/or improving trains that travel at approximately 250 miles/hour, as well as spent on connecting existing rail lines to new developed high speed lines."
This is a great idea, but how is he going to pay for it?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Unless you start cutting some spending...quit fucking trying to spend more!!!! We are OUT of money.....geez, how long does it take these idiots to figure out they need to go on a serious budget before they completely fuck up the countries whole economy?
At this point I"m starting to think the only two reasons they don't see it is
A They're idiots
B. They are doing it on purpose for some nefarious reason.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Mass transport is a highly inefficient means of travel - I don't mean energy use. I mean time wasted at either end waiting for the damn bus or metro. As example:
My former boss took 1.5 hours to get to work on the VA train. It took me half an hour by car. The reason it took him longer was because of the half-hour walk to the station, and another half hour to the job.
I always prefer the faster route over the slower route (in terms of my personal travel time).
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
This isn't a troll, I would really like someone to explain the situations where a high speed train is better than an airplane or a car.
The security will be just as bad as at an airport if the government runs it, especially considering that just as many trains get bombed by terrorists as airplanes. So the speed gain would only show up in a few very specific cases, like maybe LA to Vegas.
Wouldn't we be better served either putting that 53 Billion into our roads and infrastructure? Or not spending it at all?
I bet that most emerging countries don't have this problem! Truly pathetic! I often tell my friends in Europe that the US is a weird mix between a 1st and a 3rd world country.
This isn't modded troll yet?
You're praising "emerging countries" for building superior rail lines by appropriating real estate and otherwise building where there is no existing infrastructure while the starvation and famine of their population takes a back seat?
>>>like they do in France or Japan
Why would we want to imitate two countries that have spent the last 15+ years in economic decline (called "the lost decade" in Japan)? That would be akin to saying, "Let's model our system on the fallen empire of Rome." Um. No thanks.
Cars offer more flexibility than trains do (you can hop in your car in the middle of the night - can't do that with a train). Cars also offer more options (can drive to the beach tomorrow - can't do that with a train). And now that cars have become cleaner, the environmental argument is also invalid.
My Honda Insight was ranked *cleaner* than the EV1 or Prius, equal to a Natural Gas Civic, and the new 200 MPG car from Volkswagen would be about three times cleaner than the insight. In contrast trains put-out as many pollutants as a 25 mpg sedan (2002 study), since they often run empty and that drags down their overall average.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall