Global warming

[Old Man Jingles]

That’s my point. We can’t seem to get it done.

Probably because politicians are involved and in charge.

 

[El Correcto]

I think your ideas are constrained by stubbornness.

It’s constrained by logic. We don’t need another public sector union and bureaucrats doing what the private sector does more price efficiently and without raising our taxes.

 

[JL 0513]

I think your ideas are constrained by stubbornness.

Just based in reality. At best, high speed rail could only be viable in parts of California, and the Northeast (which already has the Acela Express running between Boston and DC).

Japan has a population density of 334 people per sq km.
The UK has 268 per sq km. The US? 33 people per sq km.

The US has the most expansive highway system in the world.

Most Americans own cars and love the freedom of cars.

Gas is much cheaper in America than elsewhere.

Flying is affordable for long distance trips.

All these factors = a big no for high speed rail.

 

[Babagounj]

I want to know who will be charged for making a huge carbon foot print by attacking and burning those 2 oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman ?

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

I want to know who will be charged for making a huge carbon foot print by attacking and burning those 2 oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman ?

Thanks a lot Trump.

 

[newfie]

It's not that we can't do it, it's that Americans don't like taking trains or that the locked destinations aren't very convenient. Plus, even if we do it, it's only somewhat practical in the most populated areas. Our country is set up a lot different than those across the pond.

agree americans like riding around in their big trucks and SUV's

 

[newfie]

.. and of course you and your ilk know better than the voters.

if only we could get him to put the grenades down and fix something

 

[bbsam]

agree americans like riding around in their big trucks and SUV's

Nobody is saying they should get rid of them.

 

[newfie]

Just based in reality. At best, high speed rail could only be viable in parts of California, and the Northeast (which already has the Acela Express running between Boston and DC).

Japan has a population density of 334 people per sq km.
The UK has 268 per sq km. The US? 33 people per sq km.

The US has the most expansive highway system in the world.

Most Americans own cars and love the freedom of cars.

Gas is much cheaper in America than elsewhere.

Flying is affordable for long distance trips.

All these factors = a big no for high speed rail.

every now and then someone actually posts something useful here. well done

 

[newfie]

Nobody is saying they should get rid of them.

i'm not totally disagreeing with you. i like my suv and I wouldnt mind having high speed options to give me a choice.

 

[bbsam]

Just based in reality. At best, high speed rail could only be viable in parts of California, and the Northeast (which already has the Acela Express running between Boston and DC).

Japan has a population density of 334 people per sq km.
The UK has 268 per sq km. The US? 33 people per sq km.

The US has the most expansive highway system in the world.

Most Americans own cars and love the freedom of cars.

Gas is much cheaper in America than elsewhere.

Flying is affordable for long distance trips.

All these factors = a big no for high speed rail.

Look at a map. Des Moines, Quad Cities, Twin Cities, Chicago, Kansas City, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Detroit.

How is that not prime high speed rail territory? You aren’t going to find many flights for those that don’t take you way out of the way for a layover or transfer.

Don’t be so coastal-centric.

 

[bbsam]

i'm not totally disagreeing with you. i like my suv and I wouldnt mind having high speed options to give me a choice.

I agree. I love my pickup but downtown Chicago in 45 minutes without traffic and parking headaches? Yeah. I’d be there every weekend.

 

[Fred's Myth]

I agree. I love my pickup but downtown Chicago in 45 minutes without traffic and parking headaches? Yeah. I’d be there every weekend.

It's not high speed rail here, but a round trip ticket to the front gate of the AAC is faster and cheaper than driving/parking yourself. Just good old-fashioned rail service, if made convenient and affordable, is more realistic than a bullet train.

 

[cachmeifucan]

Global warming 70 degrees in chiraq on June 13th. May as well be a ice age coming.

 

[bbsam]

Global warming 70 degrees in chiraq on June 13th. May as well be a ice age coming.

It’s obvious you don’t do science.

 

[Brown echo]

I reported this image because it shows female breasts.

 

[vantexan]

Look at a map. Des Moines, Quad Cities, Twin Cities, Chicago, Kansas City, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Detroit.

How is that not prime high speed rail territory? You aren’t going to find many flights for those that don’t take you way out of the way for a layover or transfer.

Don’t be so coastal-centric.

A number of those, especially Chicago, Minneapolis, and Detroit, and KC, have direct flights from all over. Including international flights.

 

[bbsam]

A number of those, especially Chicago, Minneapolis, and Detroit, and KC, have direct flights from all over. Including international flights.

Not regionally.

 

[vantexan]

Not regionally.

American Eagle, United Express, Great Lakes, and others.

 

[rod]

Not regionally.

I live 125 miles from the Minneapolis airport and we have a flight to and from Mpls at least 3 times a day and in the summer 5 times a day. Mpls is Deltas hub and has a whole concourse dedicated to regional flights going to Wisc, Iowa, North and South Dakota and probably 20 cities in Minnesota. Mpls is also an international hub with flights direct to Europe and Asia. If I fly out of the local airport (Air Link owned by Delta) and use a connecting flight offered by Delta it is cheap and parking at the local airport is FREE.