In article ,
says...

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 13:13:05 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 07:50:39 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Uh, highway travel is "subsidized," too. And when you ride your bicycle
on city streets, the cost of those streets, why it is subsidized, too.

Highways are supposed to be funded by gas tax money and most are. It
is when the politicians divert that money to mass transit that we need
additional tax money.

STILL a subsidy.

It is not a subsidy if it is taxed directly from the user.

http://tinyurl.com/l2sgahq

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 13:18:09 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

Bunch of old retirees that are afraid of change!

Cite? :)

John (Gun Nut) H.

Wow, must you be shown everything? He

http://bit.ly/18Auhqn

You really should learn how to do a little research yourself.

Kevin is a heluva googler but not much of a reader

"Florida has almost 3.3 million seniors and they are 17.3 percent of
the population."

Hardly enough to swing a vote, particularly a vote taken 9 years ago
when the retiree number was lower.

Cite?

In article , says...

On 9/3/13 7:39 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...

On 9/2/13 8:46 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


"BAR" wrote in message
. ..


I just went to the WAMATA.com web site and plugged in my home
address
and my work address to
see what it would take to get from home to work. It will take 1 hour
and
7 minutes and I get
to ride a bus to the Metro station, take a train a couple of stops
and
then take another bus
ride. It would take me 1 hour and 7 minutes and cost me $3.20. If I
drive it takes 25 minutes
and about 1/4 of a gallon of gas. Even figuring in insurance and
maintenance I would pay
about $2 at the most and I would get to work in less than 1/2 the
time.

-----------------------------

Just for kicks, I went to the Amtrak website and priced the
*cheapest*
one-way fare from Boston to Charleston, SC.


Train would leave Boston at 9:30 pm and arrive in Wash DC at about
7 am
the next morning.
Then a three hour layover in DC with a connection leaving at 9:55
am.
Arrive in Charleston, SC at 7:15 pm.

Total travel time: 22 hours. Cost: $289.00
I can fly there in 2.5 hours for less than that.
I can drive it in about 15-16 hours and not need to rent a car when
I
got there.

A high-speed train would have to be non-stop and average almost 400
mph
to be competitive with the airlines, time-wise.





We can't do it because we can't do it because we can't do it. I get
it.
We can't do anything anymore, and that's another example of why
conservatism is killing America, because we can't have nice trains, we
can't keep our interstates in good shape, we can't repair our bridges,
whatever, we can't do it because...we can't do it.

When we take the train to Jax, it usually works out to be a 13 hour
train trip. We leave in the evening and arrive the next morining,
after
a good night's sleep aboard the train. No long waits to clear security
at the origin, no long wait for luggage at the termination.
Compartment
includes private toilet, two bunk beds and two pretty decent meals.
Takes about the same time as driving, if I felt like driving without
an
overnight stop, which I don't like doing. Would take much less time if
trackage and equipment were a lot better, but the trackage south of DC
is mostly CSX, and it doesn't give a **** about high speed passenger
rail.

No worries about all the crap that accompanies airline travel.

About $700 round trip for two adults. Much more comfy than even first
class on a plane. Takes longer, sure, but it's overnight and you have
to
sleep. Oh, and two first class airline tickets would be about $1000.

But we can't improve passenger rail transportation because this is
America and we can't things like that anymore. I get it.

---------------------------------


Part of the cost of your travel to Jax is subsidized by taxpayers
although Amtrak has done better this year, requiring only $1.3 billion
in federal subsidizes compared to $1.4 billion in 2012.

Air travel is subsidized as well.

Sure, anything is possible if you throw enough money at it but the
demand needs to warrant the investment.

Just look at air travel as an example.

Why is it that liberals think there's simply no limit to what
taxpayers should be willing to spend to benefit a few?

Are only "liberals" willing to subsidize air travel?



Uh, highway travel is "subsidized," too. And when you ride your bicycle
on city streets, the cost of those streets, why it is subsidized, too.

Specious argument.

I posit that train travel of all sorts would be more popular if there
were more of it, if it were faster, and if the equipment were better.

And, as far as subsidies go, it is amazing what this country could
accomplish in rebuilding itself if the military budget were cut in half
and half of what is cut were dedicated to infrastructure improvement.

How is highway travel subsidized? The government gets its money from th individual's and
corporations pocket's the subsidy is from the working people of the USA who actually pair
their fair share of taxes. You are the last person who should be talking about subsidies and
taxes.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 13:26:56 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 9/3/13 12:43 PM, wrote:

Japan? We would never live like that

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XfVl6_R7_k



Right...we can't do it because we can't do it because we can't do it.
Got it.

Trains are financially successful in Japan because the people will
tolerate being stuffed in by force. Do you see that working here?
Do you even believe the lawyers would allow it?

People here tolerate being stuffed into airplanes as well...

On 9/2/2013 12:51 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 9/2/2013 11:36 AM, Hank© wrote:
On 9/2/2013 11:16 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 9/2/13 10:27 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...

...can't compete with this:

Japan Railway Comp. (JR Tokai) (TYO:9022) (aka. "The Central Japan
Railway Comp.) is responsible for ferrying close to 400,000 passengers
a day between some of the largest cities in central Japan. While its
fastest bullet trains can cut the transit time from Tokyo to Osaka from
about 6 hours by car to about 2 hours and 20 minutes by bullet train, JR
Tokai is dreaming of a next generation maglev system that could go even
faster, completing the 500+ kilometer (310+ mile) journey in under an
hour.



When you don't waste your money on the military, you can have nice
things.

--------------------------------

Funds have been approved to develop high speed rail corridors in the US
however the Department of Transportation is still working on the safety
standards that will apply. Right now, the "crash worthiness" spec for
the trains is more than double (in terms of forces than can be
withstood without frame deformation) than the standards used in Europe
and Japan's high speed rail systems, i.e. almost 900,000 lbs versus
350,000 lbs.

The cost of designing and manufacturing such trains is a major
impediment, as is the cost of the rail system itself. Right now there
are Amtrak trains between Boston and Wash DC capable of doing over 200
mph however there are very limited stretches of track that would allow
speeds of even 150 mph. Plus, even if they could run at high speed,
they would never be able to sustain the speed very long without having
to stop at stations along the way. Not enough passenger usage for "non
stop" tracks.



Yeah, I've heard and read every excuse here for at least the last 20
years. The fact remains that in the operation of high speed trains,
we're still in the caboose.

And why is that?

Geography, and our business model... Trains just don't work here. Even
the fast one on the shoreline. It doesn't change traffic one bit down
the CT coastline, it really serves a few folks who find it easier to
commute between Boston, NYC, and DC from what i can see... but it's
never crowded, I can't see how it could ever be profitable.

The naysayers, the ones against progress, innovation and invention.

If it's a good idea, it will be profitable. If there is a dollar to
be made private industry will build it.
We don't need to borrow any more money from China to build a rail
system that will need taxpayer subsidization forever.
Mikek

US, $17,000,000,000 in debt. That's only what is shown, doesn't include
all the unfunded pension plans, health plans, deteriorating
infrastructure, etc. We in big trouble.
This is just the tip,

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ation/2573457/

On 9/4/2013 8:38 AM, amdx wrote:
On 9/2/2013 12:51 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 9/2/2013 11:36 AM, Hank© wrote:
On 9/2/2013 11:16 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 9/2/13 10:27 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...

...can't compete with this:

Japan Railway Comp. (JR Tokai) (TYO:9022) (aka. "The Central Japan
Railway Comp.) is responsible for ferrying close to 400,000
passengers
a day between some of the largest cities in central Japan. While its
fastest bullet trains can cut the transit time from Tokyo to Osaka
from
about 6 hours by car to about 2 hours and 20 minutes by bullet
train, JR
Tokai is dreaming of a next generation maglev system that could go
even
faster, completing the 500+ kilometer (310+ mile) journey in under an
hour.



When you don't waste your money on the military, you can have nice
things.

--------------------------------

Funds have been approved to develop high speed rail corridors in
the US
however the Department of Transportation is still working on the
safety
standards that will apply. Right now, the "crash worthiness"
spec for
the trains is more than double (in terms of forces than can be
withstood without frame deformation) than the standards used in
Europe
and Japan's high speed rail systems, i.e. almost 900,000 lbs versus
350,000 lbs.

The cost of designing and manufacturing such trains is a major
impediment, as is the cost of the rail system itself. Right now
there
are Amtrak trains between Boston and Wash DC capable of doing over
200
mph however there are very limited stretches of track that would
allow
speeds of even 150 mph. Plus, even if they could run at high speed,
they would never be able to sustain the speed very long without
having
to stop at stations along the way. Not enough passenger usage for
"non
stop" tracks.



Yeah, I've heard and read every excuse here for at least the last 20
years. The fact remains that in the operation of high speed trains,
we're still in the caboose.

And why is that?

Geography, and our business model... Trains just don't work here. Even
the fast one on the shoreline. It doesn't change traffic one bit down
the CT coastline, it really serves a few folks who find it easier to
commute between Boston, NYC, and DC from what i can see... but it's
never crowded, I can't see how it could ever be profitable.

The naysayers, the ones against progress, innovation and invention.

If it's a good idea, it will be profitable. If there is a dollar to
be made private industry will build it.
We don't need to borrow any more money from China to build a rail
system that will need taxpayer subsidization forever.
Mikek

US, $17,000,000,000 in debt. That's only what is shown, doesn't include
all the unfunded pension plans, health plans, deteriorating
infrastructure, etc. We in big trouble.
This is just the tip,

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ation/2573457/



You left out a few zeros.

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...


Because they weren't intended to be interstate bridges.

------------------------------

A bridge on *Interstate Route 95" is not an interstate bridge?

Whoooosh...... I'll try again. In cities, where interstates were
extended, added, spurs, etc. were placed long after the original
interstate system was in place. A lot of these add ons were aligned to
take advantage of in-place roadways including bridges, tunnels etc.
These in-place infrastructures were not intended to carry the traffic
that interstate travel imposes.

-----------------------------

Sorry. I don't buy that at all. As pointed out in a previous post, a
roadway or bridge that is "added" to the federal interstate roadway
system must be built or upgraded to the specifications contained in
DOT and specifically the Federal Highway Commission requirements.
The requirements and specs today are much more stringent than they
were back in the 50's and certainly more stringent than those for
non-federal, local roads.

Go ahead and type your four-letter word starting with "C".

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..

In article ,
says...

On 9/3/13 11:30 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 09:57:25 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

No, it's mostly a stigma, people think elevated trains, they
think
noise, they think unsafe, etc. Add to that that for some reason
beyond
me, there are a LOT of people in the U.S. who just fear and
loathe any
new technology.

Elevated trains ARE noisier and if they derail, over a major road,
they are a lot more dangerous.
We are not talking about the Lake Street El here. You want that
train
going 150 MPH or more.

BTW you keep saying "innovation" and "new technology" but this is
200
year old technology and every plan I have heard involves buying
existing technology from Europe or Japan. Were is the innovation?

Bringing high speed trains over from Europe would be new technology
for
this country, because we have no capability anymore for passenger
rail
innovation. We'd have to reverse engineer what they are doing across
the
big pond.

If they change the octane of gasoline and it makes cars go faster is
that new technology or
an improvement on an existing technology. Fixed track trains are 200
years old and they only
thing that has changed is how the locomotive is powered.

------------------------------

Well, some things on the train tracks have changed. Railroad "ties"
are typically concrete now and the rail butts are welded and smooth.
Ever notice that the "clackity-clack" sound of a train travelling
down the track has disappeared?

On 9/4/13 9:12 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


------------------------------

Well, some things on the train tracks have changed. Railroad "ties" are
typically concrete now and the rail butts are welded and smooth. Ever
notice that the "clackity-clack" sound of a train travelling down the
track has disappeared?


Depends on where you are. The trackage from here to NYC and beyond is
pretty decent, and so is the trackage out to Chicago. I've not been
further west than Chicago on a train.

The trackage is absolutely miserable between here and Florida. I mean,
TERRIBLE. The rails are as crooked and bumpy as you can get and in some
places, you have to wonder why the rail car just doesn't hop off the
rails. CSX owns the rails and whatever the minimum is for upkeep, it
obviously spends less.

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...


Because they weren't intended to be interstate bridges.

------------------------------

A bridge on *Interstate Route 95" is not an interstate bridge?

Whoooosh...... I'll try again. In cities, where interstates were
extended, added, spurs, etc. were placed long after the original
interstate system was in place. A lot of these add ons were aligned to
take advantage of in-place roadways including bridges, tunnels etc.
These in-place infrastructures were not intended to carry the traffic
that interstate travel imposes.

-----------------------------

Sorry. I don't buy that at all. As pointed out in a previous post, a
roadway or bridge that is "added" to the federal interstate roadway
system must be built or upgraded to the specifications contained in
DOT and specifically the Federal Highway Commission requirements.
The requirements and specs today are much more stringent than they
were back in the 50's and certainly more stringent than those for
non-federal, local roads.

Go ahead and type your four-letter word starting with "C".

I've never used Scotty's word, where do you get that idea? Also, I
posted an example of a bridge that was re-purposed and certainly does
not meet federal DOT guidelines. Where did you get the idea that they
must be upgraded to meet those guidelines?