>>125160
God, I hope

mono- d'oh!

except it is mostly light rail, which is quite fail when you want dedicated transit. Get trains!
Also looking over the networks being built I cant help but notice that working class and poor parts of cities and communities are being curiously ignored.

>>125195
What maps are you looking at, here? Do you have a source for the tracks, as well as the socioeconomic status of those areas? Not that I disbelieve you, I'd just like more than one man's opinion.

>>125163
why? you will be old by the time the cool shit rolls around? plan on taking daytime trips every chance you get after a breakfast at ihop?

>>125200
>source for the track
they are all lightrail vehicles, that is what the source is! You do know what that means, you do know how that is different to a train - right?
>socioeconomic status
Its a sure bet the two most recent, SeattleLink and Phoenix Metro aren't going through working class or poor areas.
>>125202
they can build their military junk pretty quick

>>125208
You... didn't actually name any sources. You just told me that light rail is different than commuter or high-speed rail, which I think we're all well aware of. I was asking for a source on where the track is being laid to give a visual reference on where/how it's avoiding poorer areas, not what they are. And how is it a sure bet? You didn't *cite* anything.

>>125208
>SeattleLink
>aren't going through working class or poor areas.

Rainier Beach is a poor/working class area.

>on its way to a halfway-decent national network in a few decades?
we already have an excellent national rail network

>>125316
I was talking more about speed and ridership than the actual network put in place in the latter half of the 19th century. I'm not really counting Amtrak in this scenario, at least in its current form.

>>125316
>Amtrak
>excellent

>>125215
>which I think we're all well aware of.
then why'd you dispute the difference.

>>125318
http://www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNews/idUSSIB27628520080612

>>125319
I think he was more disputing your suggestion that light rail projects are intentionally avoiding lower-class neighborhoods than arguing definitions.

>>125321
Exactly. But rather than stick to one moron's incomprehension, what do the rest of you think? What will really sell the idea on the American public that we need a national high-speed network? $7-a-gallon gas? More? Less?

>>125368
partly, but also an example that can be pointed to of a well run comprehensive public transportation system.

I suspect high prices alone would only see more bogus clean car stuff, demands for any sort of taxes or tarifs removed, insane projects like coal-to-oil (which they're planning on doing in Victoria Australia), and so on - burying heads in the sand in other words.

Only if, like the rest of the industrialized world, the U.S. decreases its gas subsidies and increases its investment in rail.

The main problem is that there's just too much open space and not enough people. The Northeast is densely populated, and so the rail is decent if expensive. But what returns are there on the overnight train from Bumblefuck, Nebraska to Bumblefuck, Idaho?

So, probably not. But maybe metro areas will see more commuter trains, and I could see California building up its rail effectively. So 50% success.

>>125544
Thats inter-state travel you're talking about.
Lets put that aside for a moment and focus on the public transportation INSIDE Bumblefuck, Nebraska and Bumblefuck, Idaho.
Regional railways in a state and commuter rail to/from a city-surrounding urban environment-surrounding suburbs.
I live in Australia where interstate rail is ridiculous (~12 hours Melbourne to Sydney) BUT in each state there are regional railways and city commuter railways, also rapid transit in Sydney & trams in Melbourne, that range from okay to great.

Except Tasmania, no rail but freight.

>>125406
Why is coal to oil(or rather diesel) insane?

>>125565
the energy required, the pollution generated.