3 ms·

I'll preorder my ticket. If it was easier, why hasn't it been done yet? Our rail lines are ancient compared to the rest of the world. We spent too much money

by fnid2 17y ago

I'll preorder my ticket. If it was easier, why hasn't it been done yet? Our rail lines are ancient compared to the rest of the world. We spent too much money on outdated infrastructure for cars and we are about to be leapfrogged. The same thing happened with wireless. Imagine if we had spent that money and energy building something efficient instead of catering to the individual and hugely inefficient cars. Regarding the politics, you know Russia, Iran, and China are friends right? Turkey needs to do more for their place in the EU. Germany wants a bigger market for its products. Poland can be bought and China will pay more to build the rail than the U.S. will pay to prevent it. Kazakhstan is still trying to shake the Borat image. They are poor and they want to increase their wealth. This is their ticket! Besides, poland is in the north and they only need one way in so resistance is reduced through parallel resistors. The U.S. can't even build a fence to keep out immigrants -- not that I think they should. I wish there was something in the U.S. that was at all exciting. What are we doing?? We're blowing all our cash on guns and we are running out of butter!

enjo 17y ago
I see the assertion that far-flung rail is superior to air or car travel. I've lived in Europe, and while I admittedly used the rail system quite a bit... it was more a matter of economics. With Southwest flying basically anywhere in the nation, why does far flung high speed rail make sense? High speed commuter rail, sure. Connecting Portland to Seattle? Absolutely. But we have the most sophisticated flight network in the world. Why is that such a bad thing?
- fnid2 17y ago
  It's not "bad," but trains are better. For example, it's very easy to work on a laptop on a train and very difficult on a plane. At best your bag is under the seat in front of you and cramping you and you get interrupted to take off and land. Outlets are difficult, so batteries die. Trains have plugs and wireless internet, sometimes. It's easier to pack more stuff. The process is easier, no lines to wait in, just get on the train.
mseebach 17y ago
Comparing high-speed rail to cars is a bit of a fallacy. The premise of HSR is in competing with 1-2 hours flights, not commuting in cars. Sure, a good commuter rail system is good, but that wouldn't be high-speed rail.

by fnid2 17y ago

enjo 17y ago

I see the assertion that far-flung rail is superior to air or car travel. I've lived in Europe, and while I admittedly used the rail system quite a bit... it was more a matter of economics. With Southwest flying basically anywhere in the nation, why does far flung high speed rail make sense? High speed commuter rail, sure. Connecting Portland to Seattle? Absolutely. But we have the most sophisticated flight network in the world. Why is that such a bad thing?

fnid2 17y ago
It's not "bad," but trains are better. For example, it's very easy to work on a laptop on a train and very difficult on a plane. At best your bag is under the seat in front of you and cramping you and you get interrupted to take off and land. Outlets are difficult, so batteries die. Trains have plugs and wireless internet, sometimes. It's easier to pack more stuff. The process is easier, no lines to wait in, just get on the train.

mseebach 17y ago

Comparing high-speed rail to cars is a bit of a fallacy. The premise of HSR is in competing with 1-2 hours flights, not commuting in cars. Sure, a good commuter rail system is good, but that wouldn't be high-speed rail.