hey I got a great idea

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Yeah, Spence. The train is great if you don't mind a long ride in a crowded compartment with a bunch of strangers. It's even better if you can limit your travel between a handful of cities along specific corridors of the US. While you're riding the rails, why don't you go back to wearing peasant pants and a derby hat?

Funny, I usually take the train to NYC and have never had that experience.

Also, just because we have better train service DOESN'T MAKE IT MANDATORY.

-spence

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by spence

Funny, I usually take the train to NYC and have never had that experience.

Also, just because we have better train service DOESN'T MAKE IT MANDATORY.

-spence

I've taken the train to NYC as well and would rather either drive or fly. As much as 95 south in CT is terrible, if you time it right, you can make it to NY faster than on the train.

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishbones

I've taken the train to NYC as well and would rather either drive or fly. As much as 95 south in CT is terrible, if you time it right, you can make it to NY faster than on the train.

No way, not if you're going into Manhatten. I'll never drive again...faster to ride the Acela in business class where I can work the entire ride instead of dodging semi's. Even with zero traffic it's faster to take the express from Providence.

-spence

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by spence

No way, not if you're going into Manhatten. I'll never drive again...faster to ride the Acela in business class where I can work the entire ride instead of dodging semi's. Even with zero traffic it's faster to take the express from Providence.

-spence

I think it's spelled Manhattan, and Acela goes to Penn station only doesn't it? When we've gone to visit my wife's aunt in Manhattan, we've flown and driven. If you're flexible, you can fly for about the same or less than the express train. Also, when we've driven it hasn't been too bad. I can do the drive in right around 4 hours. The Acela is about 3 hours and then the cab to Manhattan, plus the drive to Providence and parking. I've taken the regular Amtrak to NYC and it takes about 3.5 hours and costs about $100. I don't mind the trains, but I prefer to drive or fly.

Of course, when I go to NYC it's not for business. I could definitely understand taking a train over driving if you want to get some work done or relax.

My only complaint about putting money into the rail systems now is that to me, there are areas where the money could better be used. The rails are used by a very small percentage of people. I'm all for less auto emissions and less traffic, but right now there are bigger fish to fry than the choo choo's.

[justplugit]

High speed Overhead Mono Rail trains over existing major highways
connecting cities would do alot for cutting traffic and polution imho.

That coupled with more work at home and staggerd work hours would
go along way in helping stop and go congestion.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

Funny, I usually take the train to NYC and have never had that experience.

Also, just because we have better train service DOESN'T MAKE IT MANDATORY.

-spence

Right! Its only mandatory that I PAY FOR IT !!!!!!!!!!!

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Right! Its only mandatory that I PAY FOR IT !!!!!!!!!!!

Good point...

RIJIMMY, you're officially banned from driving on any of MY roads. I also assume you're going to opt out of Medicare when you retire.

-spence

[Raven]

RI JIMMY ?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.


.


.



.



.



.



.



.



.




.



.



.




.




.keep them great ideas coming

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

Good point...

RIJIMMY, you're officially banned from driving on any of MY roads. I also assume you're going to opt out of Medicare when you retire.

-spence

I mean I'm paying for a "new" high speed rail which will provide VERY little impact to the problems O is trying to address. It wont be mandatory, but it wont be successful either.

Instead of trying to attack me, please tell me how a multi-billion dollar investment in rail is the way to go? Its a waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere. What happened to the "Manhattan like-Project" to find a solution to oil? I'd support billions for that. TO me, I thought that was the big "change" we'd get from Obama. Not some re-hashed attempt to revitalize a dying industry.
Its weak and a waste of money, please convince me otherwise.

[Mike P]

Sooner or later, you have to spend money on infrastructure. The federal interstate highway system was begun 50 years ago, and parts of the major N/S and E/W routes are almost that old. Pretty soon we're going to be dropping a bridge a week into major rivers across the country if we don't start throwing money into it. Or developing an alternative. As much as it will cost to build high speed rail links between major cities, it will cost 10 times as much to rebuild the entire Eisenhower Interstate system, and 100 times as much to build its replacement.

Have you drven over the Braga Bridge lately??--tell me that your knuckles don't get a little white when you look up, see all that rust on the superstructure and grab the wheel a little tighter. Trucks with more than two axles can't cross a bridge on the major N/S Interstate route between Boston and NY, as we speak.

There aren't any easy answers. Train travel between cities is going to look mighty attractive come the day that we spend as much money per gallon on gas as the Europeans do, or we piss off the wrong sheik and have to spend 2 hours in line on odd/even days waiting to get enough fuel to get to Grandma's for Thanksgiving.

The big problem is, we ignored it for too long. We should have been looking for solutions like this 36 years ago when our dependence on foreign oil was brought to light by the first embargo.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Mike P

There aren't any easy answers. Train travel between cities is going to look mighty attractive come the day that we spend as much money per gallon on gas as the Europeans do, or we piss off the wrong sheik and have to spend 2 hours in line on odd/even days waiting to get enough fuel to get to Grandma's for Thanksgiving.

The big problem is, we ignored it for too long. We should have been looking for solutions like this 36 years ago when our dependence on foreign oil was brought to light by the first embargo.

For sure. Typical, wait till it's too late and too expensive.

ex. What happened to all the talk of drilling, or not, when gas was $4 a gallon.
Now that it's under $2 ,talk has ceased until it goes up to $5 in the future and
no cheap alternative energy sources have been developed.
Imho drilling for domestic oil has to be ,at least in the 10year plan, if there is such a thing.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by justplugit

For sure. Typical, wait till it's too late and too expensive.

ex. What happened to all the talk of drilling, or not, when gas was $4 a gallon.
Now that it's under $2 ,talk has ceased until it goes up to $5 in the future and
no cheap alternative energy sources have been developed.
Imho drilling for domestic oil has to be ,at least in the 10year plan, if there is such a thing.

If I remember correctly, offshore drilling and drilling in Alaska is not financially beneficial until oil is over $60 a barrel.

People are stupid. They focus on what's happening this second. This country doesn't hold the capability of thinking about tomorrow.