4 ms·

Just to put Iraq in perspective, the government has already spent or committed $12.8 trillion this year alone to hold off a deeper recession: http://www.bloombe

• omouse 18y ago
  I'd rather have trains move people than cars. One can hold many more people than the other and doesn't clog up the highways and most likely produces less pollution...
  • kirse 18y ago
    There is absolutely no benefit to taking a train instead of a bus. Name one. (And I'm not talking about subway vs. bus) Buses cost less, are equally as cramped, and take less time to arrive at their destination. 99% of people don't care about pollution when deciding to ride a train or bus. They're asking "how long will it take and how much will it cost?"
    • ryanwaggoner 18y ago
      You're comparing buses to current trains, which is a bit of a straw man, as we're talking about high-speed trains. Additionally, trains are nowhere near as cramped as buses, at least the ones I've ridden. They're considerably roomier in terms of the seats and the areas to walk around in, and often have food and beverage areas as well.
      • kirse 18y ago
        Ok, you're correct on that point. Now here's what I want you to do... Go on to Amtrak.com and configure a trip for yourself. You'll notice that riding on Amtrak costs MORE than a plane ticket. For a round-trip from Philadelphia to Austin, TX it's $500. I can go on Southwest.com right now and book the exact same trip for the exact same price. The difference? With Amtrak you're riding in a train for 56 hours. Now tell me exactly how a high-speed train (one with advanced infrastructure) is going to be cheaper than Amtrak? Trains are a lose-lose compromise between buses and planes. They cost way more than buses and for the price range you might as well use air travel which saves 2 days of seat time.
        • gcheong 18y ago
          Trains can have stops at smaller cities along the way making them more accessible to people who don't live in major cities. Case in point. My mother-in-law lives in Klamath Falls, OR. The planes costs more than the train if you do the regular train fare or about the same if you get the small sleeper. There are no direct flights from SF to KFalls, so that means I usually have to fly to Seattle or Portland and then transfer to a smaller commuter which can make trip time almost as long. With the train, I get on at 9pm, go to sleep and wake up in Klamath Falls the next morning.
        • frossie 18y ago
          Did you read that article at all? First, there is no point looking at current prices, because it is a service running on relatively unsubsidised ifrastructure. The point here is to subsidise infrastructure. Secondly and even more importantly, yeah dude, if I want to go Paris to Shanghai I am better off flying than taking a train. Does that mean there is no point in building a high speed rail network in France? It's not Philadelphia to Austin that is the aim here, it is journeys at the 300 mile sweetspot where a high speed train is a more optimal solution than either car or plane. I am really sorry but I am starting to think that anybody who doesn't see the benefits of a high-speed rail network has simply not been on one. And that's even before you throw in the environmental cost.
          • kirse 18y ago
            300 mile sweetspot Yet again, Southwest.com is $200 from Philly to Pittsburgh, and Amtrak is $110. Except then I'm spending 14 hours on a train round-trip. If I'm going to spend 14 hours on my trip, then I might as well drive to Pittsburgh which takes me 10 hours round trip and about $30 less, not to mention I have a car to get me around. Of course we could build the high speed network and subsidize the benefits to cut that down to ~5 hours, but then we get to pay the additional cost anyway come every April 15th. Trains are still a lose-lose. The highway system is already subsidized and we lose money on that, there's no reason to subsidize more transportation. Pardon me for trying to cut the fat when I'm going to be paying my country's debt for the next 20 years.
    • gcheong 18y ago
      Speed? As in high-speed rail? Also, with a train I'm pretty much guaranteed a seat.
      • dhs 18y ago
        Not in Germany. Seat reservation costs extra.
        • otto 18y ago
          You can generally find a seat. The only issue I ever ran into was finding a group of seats together; in that case you might want to reserve seats(otherwise you get to hotbox with a cigarette smoking Japanese businessman!)
    • omouse 18y ago
      I don't know what concept of time you're using, but if you're traveling from one city to another, I'm 99% sure a train will be faster simply because it doesn't have to deal with traffic. The time it takes isn't as important either. One train can hold many more people than a bus and that's much more important. Buses cost less at first, but then you need many more of them to accomodate more passengers. Their speed is also limited and varies quite a lot. Haven't you ever played that game Transport Tycoon Deluxe? You buy one train and it makes waaaaaay more money than 4-10 passenger buses!
    • carbon8 18y ago
      "take less time to arrive at their destination." Paris to Marseille by road: at least 7 hours Paris to Marseille by TGV: about 3 hours, can arrive in center of city Paris to Marseille by plane: 1:15 to 1:30 hours + 1 to 2 hours spent at airports and travel time to and from each airport High speed rail is more comparable to flying but without the hassle, and it's definitely far faster than a bus.
    • halo 18y ago
      My personal experience is that trains are much quicker, less cramped, much more comfortable, more reliable, and easier to catch. The main downside is they are more expensive and can't offer local services (although trams and the tube are preferable to buses if the option is there). Since I don't drive I've been on plenty of coach/bus and train journeys, both long and short, and I can assure you given the choice I'd always choose train. This is particularly true for long-distance journeys: I wouldn't want to take the journey from London-Paris by coach again, but I've only had positive experiences taking the Eurostar and the TGV.
    • RiderOfGiraffes 18y ago
      In the UK at least, trains are more roomy, you can easily walk around, have a shop, multiple toilets, and get there in less than half the time of buses. The same things apply in Australia when you're travelling any significant distances. Yes, within large suburban sprawls the trains are often inferior in some ways to buses, but for longer distances, trains win in most countries. Japan, Australia, France, Gernmany, Denmark, Sweden, the UK, etc. Mostly they can also use power supplies that are getting cleaner and more efficient as time goes by.
    • mdakin 18y ago
      Your claim is of sync with reality at least with respect to travel between Boston and New York City. Acela Express is much roomier than a bus. Has laptop power connections. Some seats have desks/tables. You can get up and walk around. You can buy food or a drink. Completely different experience. And this is why they can charge airline-level prices (or even more). It beats the planes because you get on at South Station in Boston and you get off at Penn Station in NYC rather than some airport off in the hinterlands.
      • colins_pride 18y ago
        You might want to check out Bolt Bus. Between DC, Philly, NY, Boston it is now my preferred method of travel. Power outlets, wireless for the laptop, trips every hour, good city center locations, online booking, and super-low prices make it essentially unbeatable. Edit: I'm not arguing bus over train; just trying to help folks out by presenting an interesting alternative
        • kiddo 18y ago
          Try traveling those routes on a holiday weekend when traffic on the highways is barely moving. Even without heavy road traffic, though, the train is faster. Plus you can get up and walk around on the train, there's more legroom, and food service.
        • mdakin 18y ago
          Very interesting. Perhaps next time I'm back East I'll try them out!
• gjm11 18y ago
  You'd get less drive-by downvoting if you didn't say stupid things. Who knows, you might get less if you didn't keep complaining about it. (Trains can be much faster than buses, carry much bigger loads, and use less fuel to do so. They are not useless. If the trains you've got in the US at the moment seem useless, that would be because they've been very poorly invested in over the last several decades. Oh, and that $12.8 trillion, while it's certainly a terrifyingly large figure, is not directly comparable with what's being spent in Iraq, e.g. because much of it is not spending but guarantees of the form "if institution X collapses, you'll get back at least the first $Y it owes you", and much of the rest is loans. Even in the present economic climate, what you lend you're quite likely to get back, not to mention that you get paid interest on it while it's lent.)
• jobeirne 18y ago
  I'm with you. We should be talking about knocking out our incredulous debt before we even think of expanding infrastructure.