Standing room only on airplanes now
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
You do understand the same people complaining about no legroom in airplanes, will be the same people who complain about govt. involvement in funding high speed rail.
These people are confused, but well organized. A marginal fringe group who are motivated to vote, thereby magnifying their stupid voices.
Their logic is why we have had disastrous crooked leaders in place and the primary reason why we are where are today.
These people are confused, but well organized. A marginal fringe group who are motivated to vote, thereby magnifying their stupid voices.
Their logic is why we have had disastrous crooked leaders in place and the primary reason why we are where are today.
Does anyone know of cost per pessenger mile on airplane vrs that on the high speed rail.
Bottom of it all, am pretty sure studies have reflected the impact of high speed rails on other industries, jobs and final impact on the economy. How many industries will a new industry shut/reduce down and leave 100s of thousands to pursue new skill.
Btw, It takes good $1M to make 1 mile of highway, but do not know about 1 mile of hs-rail tracks.
Just got it from web
http://www.megarail.com/pdf/current/UHSR-2e.pdf
Bottom of it all, am pretty sure studies have reflected the impact of high speed rails on other industries, jobs and final impact on the economy. How many industries will a new industry shut/reduce down and leave 100s of thousands to pursue new skill.
Btw, It takes good $1M to make 1 mile of highway, but do not know about 1 mile of hs-rail tracks.
Just got it from web
http://www.megarail.com/pdf/current/UHSR-2e.pdf
It is likely profitable when all aspects are considered, however my understanding is that in most places high speed rail, or passenger rail in general, is tax subsidized.
Nevertheless, it is sorely needed. It is far more energy efficient to move people or goods from one point to another by rail at say 200 Mi/Hr then by plane at say 550 Mi/Hr assuming the same load factors.
AmTrak is pointed to by its detractors as a failed experiment, but it was set up for failure from the
beginning by those with vested interests in the auto and air transport industries. I mean, how stupid to appoint a military fossil to head it up, then let the trains be operated by the freight company with the car attendents working for a different company (AmTrak), and let the freight companies dictate who gets to use what track when. The organization was a disaster from the outset. Though some things have been "fixed" you still may have to wait on a rail siding to let a freight train pass. It should be the other way round.
A scheme that would make a lot of sense would be to gradually move the defense manufacturing industry from weapons production to designing and building high speed rail. The same engineering capability is required by both. There is no reason that a company that can design and build an F-111 can't also design and build a high speed rail system. This can be the bone to toss to the defense industry and its Senator supporters to get the US out of the endless, useless weapon production loop it's been stuck in.
Furthermore, though it would be politically very unpopular, it would make much sense to tax motor fuel up to some parity value, say for example $2.50/ gal Whenever the price of refined product dropped below 2.50 revenue would be raised to bring the price back up to 2.50 and the revenue used to subsidize high speed rail. This is similar to what is done in Europe were motor fuel taxes subsidize mass transport. The net result is highly progressive. It discourages use of inefficient transportation in favor of more efficient.
And to those who are going to come back with the rejoinder that these are socialist ideas let me say that i personally have no objection to your riding a horse to avoid the taxes so long as you do your own poop scooping.
Quote from TraderZones:
if i had the power to prevent the person in front of me from leaning back, I would not be having the problems.
Maybe they should make one side with fixed seatbacks, and the other with movable seatbacks.
You heard it here first
Get your seat behind the seats next to the exits, those seats don't go back.
The airlines with a history of being badly run seem to be the ones reducing the space for passengers. It seems that by adding seats and therefore passengers they will also need to add a flight attendant. All-in-all the advantages of the change seem nebulous. Will I trust American, Delta, and United management over Southwest and JetBlue? I think not.