Agree. We need a better rail system in America.

Unless they outlaw niggers and spics from riding it, it will fail.

I also agree. I do know that in California they are building a high-speed train from SF to LA in the near future.

Yes, I'd rather ride on a train than take a plane

Fucking shit rhymed too

So it must be true

why? sounds shitty to me

>>492238

>implying niggerfuxed USA can actually build things anymore

Shouldn't they make the Chicago-California line high speed too?

original

>>492261
>implying we haven't always had blacks
>implying the country wasn't built with the help of blacks

>>492259
>>492261
obvious troll is obvious

>>492265
highspeed rail is good for less than 1,000km. The Paris to Marseille is 750km and done in 3 hours, Wuhan to Gangzhau is 968km and done in 3 hours, etc.
Chicago-California is quite a bit more than that.
I'd love to see it across the country but the practical reality is coast to coast would be better serviced by planes and inter-city/region by train.
Maybe one day when Maglevs are doing 500km/h or more.

Yeah, it'd be cool to go from ATL to SFO, but air travel is still more efficient. Unless I can get to SFO from here, round trip, for less than $400, by train, then it is not worth the money.

I would fucking kill for this

I'VE GOT SOMETHING I THINK YOU FOLKS MIGHT THINK IS SWELL

>>492275
>the country wasn't built with the help of blacks

Of course it wasn't.

Blacks did menial tasks like picking cotton. They did not build anything or do anything at all which required any knowledge or skill.

>>492275

>implying enslaved blacks are the same as savage nigger beasts

thanks for no atlanta connect :(

Americas great vast railways of the 19th century were built with Chinese slave labor

>>492321
Were you sent here by the devil?

>>492329
whats around it connect it too? All I saw was a lot of nothing. Anyway from what I understand your city and regional public transportation leaves a lot to desire, the Amtrak station isn't even connected to the local railways, people wouldn't be able to interchange!

>>492351
You mean there's more to Georgia than Atlanta? What manner of madness do you speak of?

>>492329
Happy? But I expect these states to match federal & private investment dollar for dollar!

>>492259
interior of a spanish highspeed train
its classy bitch

>>492275
They did pick cotton. Their ape like fingers couldn't do much else other than steal.

1) pull military out of useless war in middle east
2) put troops and military budget to work building railroad network instead (better than throwing money at mexifags to build stuff)
3) feels good man

So wtf is stopping some asshole from blowing themselves up or bombing the fucking tracks ?

>>492461
The same thing that stops them from doing it to our roads and airports.

>>492441
Sounds like a good idea. However, I don't see the possibility of withdrawal in the near future.

>>492461
or airports? or highways? or anything? better just barricade your home and never leave!
the railways are usually fenced or walled in and patrolled to ensure they're fine and working

>>492435
lol I also forgot europeans were bad at stealing gold from the americas.

>>492435
you do realize that, being an ape, you have ape-like fingers as well, right?

i would get rid of my car if i could

retool all those closed autoplants and employer their unemployeed former workers to build the rolling stock

>>492476
Airport? grats you maybe kill 50 people at most at the security line
Highway? yeah, blow themselves up infront of a car, car brakes do wonders.

Trains are a ten times worse than those combined, you blow the tracks, the train derails and everyone in it is FUCKED.

That map uses data from 1990
whats it like today?

>>492571
I'd like to see car brakes help against a car bomb

and for every security measure added at the airport, someone figures out how to outsmart it and sneak something dangerous in

in california we are already trying to building a rail faggot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail

>>492571
In Earthquake-prone Japan the Shinkensen has been in operation for 45 years and has had just one derailment.
There were not fatalities.
Try again sir.

Yes? No?

Maglevs and high speed lines are expensive to maintain so air travel will remain supreme for most routes, we have to be realistic. After a major capital investment to make the rails straight and level then essentially we have the most efficient or fastest ground travel between major cities possible (all things considered) this will obviously interest a lot of industries and services, we could then extend the same principle to freight lines.

>>492585
Car bombs sure kills masses of people at once, I guess thats why we see them all the ti-

>>492602
moving passengers to highspeed lines would clear up traditional railways for more freight
We should ignore maglev for the moment, it can not be intergrated with existing rail infrastructure like highspeed trains can.

wouldn't a broken rail mess up the electrification of it?

I mean, I've never heard of an incident caused by that.

>>492602
a lot of that pink could be a lot more than 200kph
and Maglev can a lot more than 400kph

>>492592
Theres a difference between a pussy earthquake and a fucking planned bomb to the control cart of the train while it goes over 300 mph with over 1000 passengers.

Unlike the incident you mentioned with a measly 154 people.

Try again sir

>>492624
highspeed lines use overhead electrification not third rail
as for a broken rail well like it was said earlier the highspeed railways are closely monitored to prevent faults

Why does every trip have to be from Chicago to LA?
We would build a network from LA to Denver, Denver to St. Louis, etc. etc.
High Speed rails aren't exclusively for cross-country travel, even NY to Boston would produce an incredible amount of economical benefit.

Fuck domestic high speed rail. If it were as wonderful as tree huggers want us to believe it is, a private company would have dug up the capital and built it already. Why hasn't it happened? Because it wouldn't be fucking profitable in the US. Our culture has lead us to design not only our cities, but even our megalopoli are not organized in a way that an interstate railway would be useful.

You really want useful trains? Fine. How about a vactrain linking the US to Europe. THAT would be useful.

>>492638
>Japan
>pussy earthquake

also how are they going to put a bomb in the control car? I suppose the fault prevention system would activate the breaks in the rest of the rail carriages if control was interrupted. Stop trying to look for excuses not to do this.
Next you'll be worrying about commercial planes being used as missiles and demand action be taken to clear the skies of all these potential weapons

>>492649
>Fuck domestic high speed rail. If it were as wonderful as tree huggers want us to believe it is, a private company would have dug up the capital and built it already.
In 1991 the Texas High Speed Rail Authority awarded a 50-year high speed rail franchise to the Texas TGV Corporation - a consortium of Morrison Knudsen (USA), Bombardier (Canada), Alstom (France/UK), Crédit Lyonnais (France), Banque IndoSuez (France), Merrill Lynch (USA), and others. Texas TGV won the franchise after more than two years of litigation instigated by a rival consortium backing German ICE technology.
The plan was to connect the "Texas Triangle" (Houston - Dallas/Fort Worth - San Antonio) with a privately financed high speed train system which would quickly take passengers from one city to the next at prices designed to compete with or beat other transport options. This was the same model Southwest Airlines used 20 years earlier to break in to the Texas market where it served the same three cities.
Funding for the project was to come entirely from private sources, since Texas did not allow the use of public money. The original estimated cost was $5.6 billion, but the task of securing the necessary private funds proved extremely difficult.
Southwest Airlines, with the help of lobbyists, created legal barriers to prohibit the consortium from moving forward and the entire project was eventually scuttled in 1994, when the State of Texas withdrew the franchise.

More recently SNCF, Frances national rail company, has gotten involved in the initiatives to introduce highspeed rail in the Mid West Chicago Hub area http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwest_Regional_Rail_Initiative#2009_SNCF_proposal , they've priced it at $68 billion and recommend 54% of that be public and the rest private. The public funds could be recovered from revenues in about 15 years.

>>492649
>dismisses practical rail application
>champions ridiculous proposal

>>492655
Place bomb under tracks
control cart of train goes over
???
profit

Ah /new/

Someone makes a possible good thread that has alot of points to talk about.

And you guys turn it into racism.

Bravo.

>>492700
it wouldn't be too difficult to make something that automatically detects faults in the railway

they're fenced and walled for security and noise reduction and they're monitored and patrolled for fault prevention, and they're pretty sturdily built so you'd be needing some heavy construction equipment to be digging up the area and the driver would see something odd with the tracks

>>492700
hijack plane
fly it into buildng
???
profit

guess we better shut down air travel.

>>492714
they already do, standard feature in all highspeed railways
in fact in Europe since each country has their own unique system it can prove a barrier to rolling out cross-country travel until they work out a unified approach or a train control system that can operate with both

>>492622
>>492630
Well obviously a company would have to start on the most profitable lines first before expanding. The problem is rail needs to be pushed to it's limits in order to become popular again and compete, people like to have their cars with them when they reach another city, or they want to travel there at 700 km/h, it not only has to be faster or more efficient but by a wide margin and also convenient. The doctrine should be to accept that it will be a huge capital investment to construct the straight level lines, dedicated trains and services but that this is worthwhile since it will be a permanent near perfect connection between major cities, almost a monopoly in it's own right and freight lines can be added cheaply alongside it.

Key lines are NY-Chicago and Boston-NY-DC, if they are straight instead of the squiggly lines we have now this is 800 kms, under 3 hours for regular high speed conventional trains.

>>492719
they increased security because they were capable of doing so at the airports. I would love to here your proposal for a security plan for tracks of a train going from new york to LA let alone any track coming from a major population city to another.

One plane gets hijacked? boo hoo theres thousands a day, one train gets demolished? there whole fucking infrastructure and idea for transnational trains is fucked. I would love to see the economic benefit for these types of trains after a bomb attempt goes off on one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_protection_system

>>492700
Well why hasn't this been done in the last few centuries Amtrak has been in place?

What happened to the transcontinental railroad?

>>492649
I guess you don't like the interstate system much

>>492684
SNCF proposal:
Chicago–Milwaukee–Madison–Eau Claire–Minneapolis/St. Paul
Chicago–Bloomington/Normal–Springfield–St. Louis
Chicago–Gary–Lafayette–Indianapolis–Cincinnati
Chicago–Gary–Fort Wayne–Toledo–Detroit
Chicago–Gary–Fort Wayne–Toledo–Cleveland
designed to integrate with the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative which is upgrading a number of existing routes to 110 to 80 mph

having moved from a german city to an equal size american city - well, they sure fucked things up here. Public transportation is a joke. At the same time the roads here are congested as hell.

>>492754
trains tend to be rather massive

>>492773

What is this 'public transportation' you are talking about?

SMELLS LIKE SOCIALISM TO ME.

>>492746
>I would love to here your proposal for a security plan for tracks of a train going from new york to LA let alone any track coming from a major population city to another.
>new york to LA
who here has a proposed a new york to LA train? It is the many cities and region in the North East and Mid West. And now because there is no New York to LA proposal, this proves it cant work. Wonderful strawman argument you've constructed.
As for rail security thats been explained several times and you are insisting on ignoring them.

>>492747
Relies on a computer on the train receiving signals, bomb the cart with the computer.

>>492792
You could bomb a bridge that has a shit ton of cars on it too what is your fucking point

>>492792
what is his cart you speak of? its called a carriage you moron.
And how are they going to get a bomb on board a train?
If the locomotive was disabled the breaks would activate.

>>492799
comparable examples with other means of transportation are of no use to him. He demands rail not be implemented and looks for any excuse.

>>492785
I haven't ignored any of your statements on the trains security, i'm simply saying how useless they are when a bomb knocks out the main control center? I have mentioned this like 3 times now. Yet, you're calling me strawman? talk about a hypocrite

>>492684
public pays 54% of $68.5 billion? That is $36.99 billion yes?
Well its not much more than the $29 billion spent to develop the V-22 Osprey Lemon and the $6.9 billion spent to develop the RAH-66 Comanche which was ultimately canceled for just two examples of out of control military expenditure.

>>492803
on the tracks, not the train itself

It'll create jobs.

Which is good.

this is america. we drive cars and trucks. fuck off.

>>492848
how would they put it on the track?
They're fenched off and often walled for noise pollution reduction. They're monitored with cameras and patrolled for fault prevention and tampering or suicide attempts and obvious security.
The drive would see something on the tracks.
So how is this going to happen?

>>492863
cant drive 750km in 3 hours

>>492891
sure is 'never driven an american muscle car' in here

>>492906
that car is doing, and maintaining, 250km/h?

>>492906
traffic

>>492883
Tracks look the exact same, I would love to see a main operator distinguish something bomb in a brown bad from brown tracks while going 300 mph, let alone being 100% focused on the tracks at all times.

Train fences? I have never heard of such a thing nor seen any on the internet. Please provide pics

Security spanning 100s of miles through cameras that can be easily tampered isn't going to stop someone.

>something bomb in a brown bad from brown tracks

1. a carbon tax accounting for the environmental damage resulting from burning jet fuel would make air travel much more expensive

2. the resulting need for high speed travel would make high speed rail profitable for the private industry

3. ????

4. profit

P.S.
This is the best way to create environmentally friendly high speed rail without letting the government fuck everything up like it currently does with amtrack. furthermore, you can use the profits from the gas tax to fund useless entitlements if you're a liberal, or just give it to rich people, if you're a conservative

>>492926
...yes?

>>492936
yeah if you live in some crowded shit state like connecticut

>>492971
woot, I win

Ok, people can take a train to a city that's a bit off from them, for like a day trip. Problem is that they arrive with not many supplies and end up having to walk 5+ miles to their destination. How do you fix that?

Honestly, even for /new/, this is retarded.

How the fuck is this proposal debatable to some of you?
Clean, super fast transport, 1st major national infrastructure project in fucking forever = national employment, and on, and on.

>>493001

Public transportation is public.

Therefore, Communism Nazism.

>>492988
wut

>>492948
220mph, not 300
you're getting kilometers and miles confused
yes drivers do focus on the track ahead, they dont have their head up in the sky
of course you've never heard of it - there is no highspeed rail in America!
Ordinarily most cameras are mounted up on poles that are securely fixed in place

Just admit you've looking for any excuse to refute rail

>>492988

If I understand what you are getting, you mean to ask how someone can take a train, but then need a car, which they dont have, to get around the city?

Taxi's, Buses, or like in Europe, cities that didnt require cars.

What's wrong with using airports? They're faster than any train any we already have them built.

I think some people are just obsessed with the romance of trains.

Trains are filled with niggers. Also, fuck spending more money.

>>492973
Amtrak is not fuckedup, thats a rightwing talking point
read this interview:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSIB27628520080612

>>493021

Faster doesnt mean better.

Think about costs.

>>493020

Yes but these European cities are ancient and were first created with foot traffic in mind.

American cities are almost all designed with the idea that people have cars and live in the suburbs.

Most of what you linked isn't just 900 KM of eachother. You probably just chained around 1100KM of rail alone.

I do agree though. Boston is working on it but the main problem with high speed rail is that it's a pain in the ass to build for it + requires lots of money that these states just don't have.

>>493016
pics of said fences please

and you're right I am purposly refuting it. Then again is that a bad thing? to come up with reasons why something is a bad idea? I guess I should just agree with something because it sounds so obviously beneficials without actually thinking for a second of the realistic outcomes.

>>492988
Subway

>>493039

I didnt say we should rebuild. You are correct, American cities were made for cars, especially during the baby boom.

But now with the cost of oil and rising population, that decision may come to bite us in the ass.

>>493020
fuck i hope you're not an america.

have you ever been to an american city?

>>493030
Well, it's more expensive for me to buy a train ticket than fly from New Orleans to DC and takes about 10 times longer too. Getting new high speed trains and laying rail to support them would only add to this cost and would still be slower.

airports are faster and cheaper you dumb bitches. and amtrak is literally a money pit.

San Antonio to Boston is 1700 miles.

Good luck with that.

>>493074

BUT MOTHER GAIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GLOBAL WARMING!

CARBON CREDITS!

>>492988
>Ok, people can take a train to a city that's a bit off from them, for like a day trip. Problem is that they arrive with not many supplies and end up having to walk 5+ miles to their destination. How do you fix that?
In sane places the highspeed line stops at a major interchange where you can debark the highspeed train and cross over to another platform and catch any of numerous regional train lines to outlying areas, any of numerous commuter train lines through the city to surrounding urban and suburban area, in a large enough city any of numerous metro/rapid-transit lines around the city.
Also often trams/streetcars or lightrail right outside.
This is a major advantage rail has over flying.

However in quite a few American cities and regions this is quite limited or even non existent. Houston has a 12km lightrail and nothing else except billions of dollars of highways & freeways.
So that is a problem that needs to be fixed too.

>>493030
$98 London to Paris.

>>493080
and electric trains that get their power from coal plants are so much better...?

If I have to ride a fucking train to go anywhere like a fucking European peasant 20 years from now I swear to god I am going to derail those mother fucking trails with you on them.

Planes and cars are the fucking OPTIMAL means of travel. Stop envying European peasants that don't own cars and have to take the fucking bus/train and ride their bike to get anywhere.

>>493039
>Yes but these European cities are ancient and were first created with foot traffic in mind.
>American cities are almost all designed with the idea that people have cars and live in the suburbs.
>implying people were driving cars in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries
>implying many major American cities didn't have extensive streetcar systems until the 1950s

>>493100
>HURR DURR AMURRCA DA BEST
>WE DUN NEED NO DAMN TRAINS!11

>>493091
london to paris is about 125 miles. you know much it would cost me to drive that far in america?

less than $10.

>>493100

Says the angry man on his couch eating cheetos.

A lot of people dont use trains because then they have to rent a car and thats not free like driving the car you already own.

Why is it that politicians get such huge boners over rail systems?

Build some more airports, FFS.

>>493042
Yes it is bad when the exact same arguments can be made about planes and highways and you dismiss them as irrelevant

The trains only work because all of the things worth seeing in Western Europe are crammed into an area the size of a single American state.

It won't work in America, we're too fuck hueg.

As long as they could make it cheaper than flying, I wouldn't mind the extra time. I am all for new rails.

Jet here, just being cheaper and faster than high-speed rail.

>>493117

Politicians love trains for the following reasons:

1. they are insanely expensive
2. they create many thousands of permanent jobs, government jobs, jobs that are secure and dump federal funds into their home territory
3. they are long lasting and create a "legacy", they can even have a train station or something named after themselves (REMEMBA ME!!!!!!!!!!!!)
4. Environmentalist propaganda/climate change bullshit

>>493119
Of course they can be made for planes etc. But this thread is about trains. I am keeping to the subject at hand. Trying to refute my points with an entirely different subject or set of circumstances that do work is completely straw man.

>>493098
burning fossil fuels to power electric trains is a more efficient use of resources than putting those people in cars or planes.
And there is no law of nature requiring the power plant be coal.

>>493117
yeah, ok

brb /new/, imma go ask /sci/ about some shadowy illuminati conspiracy shit called PEAK OIL.
brb

>>493115

pretty much this

>>493100
This. Fuck, I have no desire to ride on trains.

>>493117
>>493134
Politicans love trains? Really? Are you sure? Don't want to consider everything thats been put into Highways & Freeways? And everything done to kill rail in America?

>>493106
yes because we can afford things like CARS and AIRPLANE TICKETS because were not taxed to hell and back and we're not scared of a 40/hr+ workweek

Get back to me when they have trains that I can pull my car onto, put in park and sit in, and then pull off of when I get to my destination with my car, and all the luggage that fits into the trunk.

If they had a train that would haul my car and my ass from Burbank to Irvine, I'd use it every week, because sitting in traffic is faggots.

>>493115

Not like you don't have to rent a car if you fly somewhere.

But the solution is to build up local rail again as well. High speed, long distance rail is only one link in the chain of rail transit. You also need regional commuter rail and local rapid transit and light rail.

>>493102

Yes, we HAD streetcar systems, but they aren't going to suburbs, they aren't picking people up and taking them to the nearest train station from their home, etc.

The problem is that the idea is to take people to some single point in a city and expect them to just walk however many miles to their destination within that city/metro area. Most American cities aren't designed to the point you can walk to wherever you want, at least not easily.

The problem arises when you say you each city "Yeah you'll get a train system, but now you have to fund tons of public transportation to facilitate what we said is an obvious and easy answer to mass transport."

Cities don't like having to pay for that shit, and in my experience, try to cut back on buses and what not as much as they can.

What do you do about the people who are traveling to somewhere just outside another city? The train isn't very useful for them because they could just use a car to traverse the whole distance. Now they have to get there, get their luggage, rent a car, etc. It's the conundrum of the last mile.

>>493156
Uh, hey, man. Did you just steal a funky looking car from a crazy old guy and a kid in a life preserver? It's 2010, bro.

>>493162
Or you could catch a separate train when you arrive
Have you demanded the auto industry produce a car that fits your living room and bedroom and kitchen so you never have to leave?

>>493180

Cars do have TVs now...

>>493171
>The problem is that the idea is to take people to some single point in a city and expect them to just walk however many miles to their destination within that city/metro area.
Interchange.
At an interchange the the highspeed train, the regional trains, the commuter trains, the metro all pass through.
You get off one, you go to another platform, you get on.
This isn't an alien concept. It is done in places in America with a reasonable degree of public transportation.

i dont think you guys get it: nobody would use it

we have to pump taxpayer dollars into amtrak just to keep it alive because nobody is using it

>>493190

I'd take a train if it meant no more fucking traffic jams...

>>493189

You still have to traverse a distance after any train station. They are not always conveniently located. This is not a real solution.

>>493156
Rail died because it was made obsolete over long distances by the advent of passenger aircraft. You might as well bitch that politicians killed the horse and buggy industry.

Passenger rail is worthless. The only reason it gets any money is because it is adored by politicians and train romantics who think everyone should pay for their hobby.

>>493171
>What do you do about the people who are traveling to somewhere just outside another city?
Once they arrive at the other city on the highspeed train, at the interchange they catch either a commuter train or regional train depending on the distance.

Im probably the only American who lives in Europe so Ill try to explain the train dilemma.

One trains can be nice. A friend of mine lives near Berlin and she took a 7 hour train ride down here in Southern Germany where I live and I picked her up at the train station. Was pretty cheap too ONLY CONSIDERING the traveling was done for her. Trains give people the ability to sit and wait and sleep even for a few hours and later your there no driving needed.

But my wife and I are going to Italy this July on a vacation and we are going to drive. Why? Because after considering fuel costs (were in the military its cheap for us we pay maybe 80 euro cent a liter) its easier than taking a train, then hiring a taxi, then renting a car once we arrive if we go by train.

The problem with trains for vacations is the way your going to need to travel after you get off which means taxis/rental cars. OR even worse more public transportation like a bus or subway, which becomes so annoying people would rather pay more for a taxi - but at this point just fucking drive and save the money needed for rentals or taxis and save time too and most importantly save on frustration which is something none of us desire for vacations.

For a job public transportation is iffy. I mean I can understand taking trains to different parts of Germany for a job but at that point why are you working so fucking far away from home.

I'd take a train if they didn't do retarded shit like put the stations out of the way, making you drive to them just to take a train.

Train- have to go to train station, pay for parking or the bus trip there, adhere to schedules, when I get to my destination, get a cab to the nearest car rental, rent a car, repeat the process in reverse when I go home.

Driving a car- Whee! I'm traveling where I want to, when I want to, with as much luggage as I can carry! I can fit my whole family in this thing, and the additional expenses for doing so were negligible! When I get to my destination, I don't have to rent a car because, lol, I brought my own! I got here faster too, because I didn't have to stop 20 times along the way to pick up and drop off people! It was awesome!

We could try walking and not be so fat.

>>493209

see

>>493201

Also sounds more complicated than one train, one destination, which is the whole appeal to this system. Again, not much of a solution when cars and air travel address most of the issues.

My car is superior because it isn't filled with niggers.

>>493201
>You still have to traverse a distance after any train station. They are not always conveniently located. This is not a real solution.
the fuck are you talking about? These are not seperate stations. Platforms are arraged parrlel to one another, you walk ~100 at most if you have the unfortunate luck of getting off a train at one end and have to catch a train at the other end.
If this is too much for you then how can you even leave the house because you're obvious a mammoth fucking fatty.

>>493227

No one is saying we can remove cars and airlines, but I think everyone would agree reducing the amount of cars on the road would benefit everyone.

>>493248
it doesnt work like that. cars and planes are superior. the reason rail is so popular in europe is because they cant afford shit like that, and they tax the fuck out of the rich, and you cant exactly make cars a public service.

and europe is packed as fuck.

>>493248
You think wrongly.

I'm morally opposed to any form of transportation that isn't an automobile.

I just like to drive my SUV with the A/C blasting and the windows down, and that's my right as an American.

>>493256

Uhm, Europeans are not poor.

Are you fucking retarded?

>>493248
That doesn't mean invest in rails. If you want to improve the quality of our highway system, you can simply invest in that. Build more highways, subsidize hybrids or carpooling: whatever you think is the best solution. You could do a lot with all the money you save from not building an entire new rail system.

>>493202
>Rail died because it was made obsolete over long distances by the advent of passenger aircraft.
It died because the streetcar companies in major cities were bought up the auto industry and closed down.
The USA was actually the original home of highspeed rail, before the 1950s that is. Look up the Zephyr and Electroliner.
Then the FRA began making dubious safety regulations restricting speeds to 79mph and mandating excessive weight and strengths for locomotives, DMUs, and electric locomotives, and etc.

>>493264

Then tell me the benefiit of our freeways being congested as all fuck.

I've never been stuck in traffic and gone "Boy howdy, know what this needs? More cars!"

The one thing trains are good for is shipping. Thats it.

>>493270

Do both then.

A few years ago, I crunched the numbers to get my wife and I from LA to Chicago and back.

Amtrak. $1400 per person, round trip. Trip time, 3.5 days each way.
Plane. $240 per person round trip on special. Travel time, 6 hours each way.
Drive. $400 in gas. Travel time 30 hours each way.

We drove. We should have flown, but I wanted to take my 2 Great Danes with. I'll never do that again.

>>493222
>adhere to schedules
yeah every 10 to 30 minutes is such a fucking drag

>>493244

The fuck I am talking about is the fact that any terminating station will not be right next to where you need to end up at. Say I want to go to a concert in a suburb of a city. I take the main train to the city, then I take the magic interchange to the suburb. I arrive at the suburb but I still have to find a way from the final train station to my destination. I have to hope the suburb has public transportation, or that there's a taxi service, or I know someone who lives there and will cart me to my destination.

It's still inconvenient compared to just driving to the concert myself. I can take however much luggage I want and I don't have to fret about schedules and other things.

This train idea has to have mass appeal. It won't survive if it doesn't fit to the American lifestyle, and the American lifestyle has spent the last 100 years working around the use of extremely limited, inner-city rail and extended, cross-country car use. Cars take us everywhere, the interstate and roads go everywhere, we just haven't had a need for rail for anything other than freight.

>>493211
What you're complaining about there is primarily cross-country travel, obviously that can be a problem.
Last time I checked the USA was one country.

>>493299

You have no idea what your talking about do you.

>>493227
>Also sounds more complicated than one train, one destination, which is the whole appeal to this system.
A high speed train can not make a stop everywhere. Rather defeats the intention of being high speed.
It goes to major cities or population centres and then you debark and catch the regional trains or commuter trains or metros to complete your journey.

>>493274
When I drove from LA to Chicago and back, I didn't encounter much congestion....I've also driven all over the eastern U.S. The only time it gets slow is when you're in a major city. Everywhere else is usually clear, except for the occasional accident, construction, whatever.

>>493256
It's not that they "can't afford it", it's that Europe has a much higher population density than the US. Rail is a great way to transport a large amount of people over short distances. But the distances in the US are too large and the population too small.

>>493227
>Also sounds more complicated than one train, one destination, which is the whole appeal to this system. Again, not much of a solution when cars and air travel address most of the issues.
Flying would take him to directly to some regional town? No. He'd have to hire a car or get a taxi.

>>493256
>and europe is packed as fuck.
unlike the North East and Mid West as seen in OP map

>>493316

see

>>493296

It's not as simple as you want it to be. A nice pitch, but it can't hold up to scrutiny.

>>493286
>A few years ago, I crunched the numbers to get my wife and I from LA to Chicago and back.
Thats funny because nobody suggested an LA to Chicago train. I dont see it any map posted in here do you?
What has been discussed are linking the many many many places that are 700 to 900km away from one another, principally the North East and Mid West as seen in the original map.
So your argument is a strawman.

Hey Enviro-fags,

I'm going on a road trip in May/June and covering about 6,000 miles on America's awesome highway system. Driving from the East coast to the West coast to see everything from the Grand Canyon to the Pacific Ocean to Yellow Stone etc.

U mad?

>>493346

No, people do it all the time. Have fun.

Trains suck.

>>493296
Several times I took the train into Chicago from the suburbs to get to a ballgame. Here's how it went.
1. take car to train station.
2. wait for train.
3. get on train.
4 go, stop, go, stop, go, stop, go, stop etc.
5. arrive at downtown station.
6. walk 1 mile to nearest elevated "L" train.
7. figure out which one I needed to be on.
8 get on L
9 go, stop, go, stop, go, stop etc.
10. Arrive.
11. repeat in reverse.

We'd only do it because we didn't have driver's licenses yet. Here's the process with a car.
1. get in car
2. drive to game.
3. pay for parking.
4 see game
5. drive home.

>>493326

The plane also goes to places a local train cannot, and they do it faster and cheaper.

You can point out that the plane won't take you directly to your location like I said the train didn't, but the train is going to be way more expensive and distance prohibitive.

>>493273
>It died because the streetcar companies in major cities were bought up the auto industry and closed down.

That was a symptom, not a cause. I've lived in both New Orleans and Houston. New Orleans never lost its street cars and Houston recently has built a new system. Both are under utilized and only kept around due to subsidies.

And what do street cars have to do with rail like amtrak anyway? They're completely different systems with different purposes.

>>493341
I'm sorry, I don't give a fuck.

>>493341

God get the fuck over it the system can not work in America, its not even wildly popular in Europe like everyone thinks.

The problem is that there is no middle room for trains.

Long distance you take a plane. Short to medium distances you can take a car.

If you can't afford a car or plane trip, you definitely can't afford the train.

>>493296
>The fuck I am talking about is the fact that any terminating station will not be right next to where you need to end up at.
Because Grand Central Station is in the middle of nowhere in upstate New York.
>I take the main train to the city, then I take the magic interchange to the suburb.
Its a station not a train. You'd be catching a commuter train.
>It's still inconvenient compared to just driving to the concert myself.
You want to drive 200 to 900km, be my guest.

>>493296
>and the American lifestyle has spent the last 100 years
No only since the '50s

>>493314
Italy and Germany are one country? I didn't know the Holy Roman Empire was still around!

ITT: OP has an raging boner for rail systems and is an annoying envirofaggot. As such he or she is impervious to reality or logic.

>>493324
look a the population density maps

>>493375

The point still stands. It's been more than 50 years that we've had interstates and the car has existed for 100+ years. The American culture is ingrained around the use of the automobile.

>>493384

I didnt know them being seperate countries changed the fact my wife and I know its cheaper and easier to drive there and save the money on rental cars and taxis after taking a train to italy. You are clearly mad and not an adult so Im done, get over it I live here I see it first hand you dont your wrong.

GOD TIER:
Flying
MID TIER:
Driving
BOTTOM TIER
Train
SHIT TIER
Bus

>>493400
and what's wrong with that?

>>493390
OK, here's one. It confirms what I said. The US is less dense than Europe.

>>493356
obviously there is a problem in that they are not connected to one another, is there an active community group tying to get something done about this?
as for go, stop, go, stop well fuck buddy its not a private train.

>>493361
>Houston recently has built a new system.
A single 12km lightrail.
Oh my stop the fucking presses!
Thats going to solve everything for them isn't it!

>>493415
no, and it would suck a whole lot less if there was no go, stop etc, but that's what you get with a train. There really isn't a way around that.

>>493400
I'm not sure what you're implying. The interstate highway system didn't kill the train. Hell, there were plenty of highways before it.

I think the problem here is that people are pretending the US population and centres are spread out across the country thousands of miles away from one another, when a look at population distribution like the original map demonstrates this is not the case and trains traveling 700-900km in 3 hours will link quite a a lot of places to one another.

>>493425

If it doesnt work in Houston where do you think it will work?

Did someone say rail?

>>493414
North East and Mid West Chicago Hub?

I agree OP, we really need some more outrageous spending projects. But hey, at least we'll be putting thousands of truckers out of business :)

MONORAIL!

>>493425
It goes between downtown, the medical center, and the city's two main universities. And still has a fraction of the riders that were projected.

>>493455

>truckers

Exactly. The shipping industry in Europe is why trains are still functioning so well.

This is how you build a tram/streetcar or lightrail system: 245km of track in your city centre and surounding urban area.
To build 12km in a cut off area of your city and expect that to be it and then complain when it doesn't work goes well beyond mere negligence, thats deliberately setting out to fail.

>>493455
Outrageous spending, you say?

I don't have to be around other people inside my car, so I will always choose my car when I can.

>>493453
Like I've said before, rail in the north east seems reasonable. But even connecting that to Chicago is dubious: the Great Lakes area has one quarter the population density of continental Europe. And it'd be insane to have rail anywhere else.

Why, look at these booming metropolises, all thanks to integrated passenger rail systems!

>>493474

OP give it up. Its clear you made this thread with no intention of changing your mind or opinion at all. American history and market progression say your wrong. Modern American say your wrong. People who live in Europe are telling you its not so hot. Modern examples of rails - like Houston - failed. You will argue until your blue in the face but reasonable peoeple dont. Enjoy being ignored.

>>493484
you got assburgers?

>>493495
They don't already have it?

HURP DURP WE NEED TO CONNECT THE CAPITAL CITIES OF IDAHO, WYOMING, NORTH DAKOTA, MONTANA, SOUTH DAKOTA, AND UTAH TO CHICAGO AND DALLAS VIA HIGH SPEED RAIL

>>493510
where as people are now responding with hardarse attitudes with no intention of changing their ridiculous arguments

>>493372

Grand Central Station is in the middle of New York. Obviously it doesn't apply to the last mile conundrum because New York has a fuckton of public transportation, taxis, and most shit is within walking distance on the huge sidewalks.

Be it commuter train or string of elephants, it's still not taking me the last few miles that are often the most difficult and more complicated than straight line travel from A to B. Am I supposed to walk there on foot? What happens if the concert is over and I have to walk back to the station at 3 AM? I've got traveling money on me. Crime potential is too much, I'd rather drive.

I'll take a plane if it's going to be 900 km away, lol. I'd still get there faster, cheaper, and probably have a reason to be in this place longer (so I'd get a hotel) than just traveling to a nearby city for a day.

The whole point of this is for short periods of city to city travel, but it just doesn't make sense to take a train when you can go in a car.

Furthermore, the infrastructure costs and public transportation that cities would have to adopt just to make this feasible to a base of people large enough to keep the system funded are too high. It wouldn't palatable to budget-minded city officials and I'd doubt they'd buy into it.

I'd travel on such a train system for the novelty and to help the environment, sure, but the pragmatic dilemmas that pop up for the average traveler are too many for me to say it's a great idea.

At least with buses it's simple to change routes and stops as needed.

>>493511
Not as far as I know. I don't enjoy being around people more than I have to.

>>493510
>People who live in Europe are telling you its not so hot.
one dipshit American doesn't count.
>Modern examples of rails - like Houston - failed.
A single 12km lightrail cut off from everything is not an example.
Lets try the Croydon Tramlink in South London instead. 28km over three routes, one stop connecting with the underground and six stops connecting the commuter lines.

this program is already go, right?

i heard they're doing the northeast first

It'd be nice for tourism, but I just don't see how you could justify spending that kind of money when Americans do most of their business relatively close to home and there's already a massive shipping infrastructure in place. And tbh for the people that do travel from city to city on business, they need to be there in a matter of hours (ie plane), not spending half the day on a train.

If it were better metro systems WITHIN cities though, I think that'd be awesome and a lot more practical.

before we do this, let's get intra-city transportation down first

only new york city's subway system isn't a total embarrassment

here in seattle we have a shitty ass light reail that from from the airport to a shitty mall and that's it

>>493543

Ive used trains before - Im telling you its not great. Less and less people use trains on average ever year in Europe. Want to know why trains even exist here still? Shipping. Its not because gas is too expensive or its easier (its not).

If that rail cant work in Houston of all places where in the world do you think it will work and be profitable enough to justify the billions of dollars needed to make your so called ingenious system works across multiple states.

Sorry man cars won and they won this game a long time ago.

>>493522
Grand Central is but one example, anywhere with public transportation is going to have a central terminus.
You must be in Atlanta, that is a quite unusual place where the Amtrak station is not part of the metro and in fact its outside the city proper away from everything and you would need to catch a bus from it to the Atlanta Metro terminus Five Point Station. Obviously the Amtrak should be stopping there not outside town.

Plainly this situation is not what I am in favour of, and you seem to be under the impression it is the norm.

>>493522
>Furthermore, the infrastructure costs and public transportation that cities would have to adopt just to make this feasible to a base of people large enough to keep the system funded are too high. It wouldn't palatable to budget-minded city officials and I'd doubt they'd buy into it.
No just make the necessary adjustments for the railway that would be carrying the Highspeed train in.
Even without it they ought to be expanding their existing and building more public transportation.

>>493474
Dude, you're saying that if Houston builds TWENTY times as much track, it will have a good rail system for a city 2/3 its size.

ASSUMING people would even use such a rail system (and that's a big IF), at some point you have to step back and ask yourself if it's worth the cost.

Man some leftards sure do have problems letting go of their shitty pet issues.

>>493550
>half the day
No Sir. Highspeed trains travel 700km-900km in 3 hours. Even with a same-day return trip thats quite a bit less than half a day.

>>493557

Washinton DC has a decent set-up. hell, Portland and Vancouver, BC both have much better public transport infastructure. if you dipshits hadn't been chasing that monorail for the last decade maybe you would have something resembling a competent public transport network.

Also, the initiative/referendum/direct demoracy situation in Washington can and will prevent anything from ever happening, ever. enjoy your SLUT.

>>493558
>Less and less people use trains on average ever year in Europe.
TGV Passenger Ridership:
2008: 128 million
2007: 120 million
2006: 97 million
2005: 94 million
2004: 90.8 million
2003: 86.7 million
2002: 87.9 million
2001: 83.5 million
2000: 79.7 million
1999: 74 million
1998: 71 million
1997: 62.6 million
1996: 55.73 million
1995: 46.59 million
1994: 43.91 million
1993: 40.12 million
1992: 39.3 million
1991: 37 million
1990: 29.93 million

You will stop lying NOW.

>>493558
>If that rail cant work in Houston of all places
A SINGLE SHITTY 12KM LINE IS NOT AN EXAMPLE
LOOK AT MELBOURNE AUSTRALIA: 245KM

Since notebooks and iPhone/iPad everywhere train rides are > flying

surfing 4chan, IMing, watching videos at the station waiting and on the train itself -> it's like my room is traveling with me in it.

>>493649
There are loads of annoying people and niggers in my room.

>>493599
streetcars/lightrail are one component. Americans seem to think the build a couple km of lightrail and thats it. No.
You need a multimodal system of regional rail, metro if the city is large enough, commuter trains, streetcars/lightrail and buses.
You cant just build one tiny little thing and then declare it didn't work and go back to roads.
Of course it didn't work!
Its 12km!
Downtown!
How the hell is anyone supposed to use it?!

ITT one guy who wont let go of ideas that have been tossed around since the 90s. it wont happen youll never get the money I look forward to this threads deletion

I wish the government would fund things I think are cool.

>>493599
>ASSUMING people would even use such a rail system (and that's a big IF)
Melbourne trams had 178 million passenger trips in 2008
And the commuter trains had 201 million, surpassing a record set in the 1950s.

>>493697
one troll denies it

>>493701
And thats in spite of the government doing everything it can since 1969 to move people out of public transportation and on to roads.

people would definitely use it for <4 hour routes. But only if there are no security checks, like in Europe. Question is how many decades it would take to overcome the initial investment. I don't think anyone here would experience it in their lifetime.

>>493706

It will never happen and you will never get the money for it. Enjoy.

>>493716
They'd just become giant money pits like most everything else.

>>493716
SNCF said the government investment in their Chicago Hub proposal would be paid back in 15 years.

>>493722
except they're not anywhere else

>>493734

What works in places other than America must work here guize trust me ok. Just give me 90 billion dollars and it will work trust.

>Trains are cool. Lets piss away money on them even though people probably won't even use them.

>>493743

Only 90 billion?

That's chump change.

If we can give 1 trillion to the banks for NO REASON we can surely throw away a measly 90 billion on high speed rail.

Really, is that all it would cost? 90 billion? That's nothing, a joke.

I say let's do it.

SHOVEL READY JOBS! AMERICA!

>>493743
700km is 700km whether its in France or Japan or China or Spain or America
Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, DC, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit, Columbus, Cincinnati, Louisville, Indianapolis, Chicago, St Louis, and so on - all can be linked in the distances that have been discussed.

AMTRAK IS A FUCKING FAILURE

AMTRAK IS EVERYTHING THAT IS WRONG WITH AMERICA (and britney spears)

DROP THE THREAD ALREADY

>>493773
NO, IT WILL WORK THIS TIME!

>>493756

>for NO REASON

lol enjoy being intellectually stunted

>>493773
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSIB27628520080612
nothing is wrong with amtrak

>>493783
amtrak isnt turning over a profit you dipshit

>>493783
The article you cite describes Amtrak as "struggling."

>>493799
>>493800
billions upon billions poured in subsidizing and directly paying for highways and airports
and Amtrak gets a pittance

>>493780

Oh, sorry. We gave the bankers 1 trillion plus dollars of tax payer money because they wanted it and they run America and own our political system.

There ya go.

>>493811

Those banks are paying back with interest, trains can not make money back because no one will use them. Again enjoy getting laughed at for asking for easily 100 billion dollars or more for funding something that wont even come close to every paying back.

>>493808
And so we should piss away money on yet another failure.

>>493820
>Those banks are paying back with interest, trains can not make money back because no one will use them
Except that they do.
And the SNCF proposal for Chicago Hub would pay back the government money in 15 years.

>>493830
But what could the people who runs Frances railways possibly know about the cost and returns of a highspeed rail system? Absolutely nothing thats what.

>>493808
Amtrak has gotten tens of billions of dollars over decades. It was expected to start making a profit in 1974. Has Amtrak EVER made a profit in the 39 years it has existed?

>>493830

Except that assumes people will use it, and they wont.

>>493840
yeah nobody here travels anywhere

>>493846

It wont happen, cars are more convenient and work on anyones schedule, and cheaper, and dont requires billions of dollars to invest that wont return the money.

>>493855
He doesn't care, he just wants his trains.

>>493855
>and dont requires billions of dollars to invest that wont return the money.
How do I Interstate Highway System?
Original cost is $450 billion adjusted for inflation, how much has been spent since?
Then theres the cost to the consumer in petrol, the cost to society of the environmental degradation, and it just goes on.

>>493872

Interstate highway system is why shipping is cheap in America, and helps the military, more importantly its cheaper than trains. Oh and actually has jobs.

Get over it your not getting your wasteful trains. I can do this all day too. You wont get the funding get over it.

>>493895
>Interstate highway system is why shipping is cheap in America
a lot of that is on rail and more should be
>and helps the military
That is a myth. The autobahn was of no help to either military in WWII, Germans shipped their stuff on rails.
And is the way you would move military equipment in the USA if you had to mobilize. As for emergency airfields, that is a bad joke.
>more importantly its cheaper than trains.
700 people on a train vs 700 cars.
>Oh and actually has jobs.
No one is employed building & maintaining a railway or the rolling stock?
I think what you meant to say is that its a great way to transfer the public wealth into private hands.