Forum Discussion
103 Replies
NYCgrrl wrote:
The Amtrak NE corridor's revenue and usage, surpasses and supports the ENTIRETY of the system. The portion of the ride going from Boston to DC pretty much requires advance reservation for NE Regional and Acela due to popularity which in part is due to it's speed. It could go even faster if new track was laid in parts of the run and gosh the way I hear most RV.net posters comment faster is generally better:B.
How this country got so far behind the rest of the world in developing and maintaining a long distance rail system is a bit perplexing and anti progressive to me yet we are certainly a good half a century behind from what I can see.
Fair enough... but you quoted MY text and gave a response pretty unrelated to my argument.
And by the way, Amtrak received #1.3 BILLION in federal grants last year alone. https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0249 Thats a far cry from your statement that the NE Corridor revenue is sufficient to pay for costs of the entire system.
The United States isn't like the European countries that you reference. The mode of transport in the US is far different than those countries. There are plenty of things that are different between the two and plenty of reasons as to why we don't a high speed rail system. We don't need it and the majority of the country doesn't want it (at least they aren't willing to pay the cost that it would take to get it). We aren't a Socialist country (yet). You want to get from NY to LA, you gotta do it yourself, its not going to be subsidized by MY tax dollars.- CA raising taxes again is news?
- Sure getting off track. What part of fuel taxes being used to provide services for those that want something for nothing don't we understand? Buying votes with fuel tax and not using that money for the exusive benefit of the provider is theft. If you want to provide transportation for others, rich or poor, by all means send your check.
minnow wrote:
NYCgrrl wrote:
minnow wrote:
spoon059 wrote:
NYCgrrl wrote:
Of course the reverse can be said of car-less citizens who pay for roads they have no direct use for. In some parts of the country mass transit is the norm and car ownership unusual.
The difference is that those roads are used to transport freight, police and fire fighters... services that the car-less citizens still use. Those are essential services that benefit everyone in society and are part of the core goals of the federal government.
High speed transit that costs an exorbitant amount of money and benefits very few people is not a core goal of government...
And that shows the dichotomy between a blue state liberal living in a city and the rest of us that reside in the real world.
Not sure what you think that adds to the conversation besides your apparent disdain for people with different ideas than your own but truly some people think it's all about them and their ways.
So be it....but just as a heads up- there's a heck of a lot more people living in urban areas than not. By your way of thinking guess the majority rules and we should take your pig farm subsidy away from you just cause we don't understand the value of swine.
I worked in NYC for 3 years - saw many a swine there too.
Yeehup. We got all kinds of beasties up here as well. Personally, I find certain types of "sooey" just begging to be slaughtered, fried and laid to the side w/ a nice squirt of Frank's; tasty.
Not a fan of boors though.NYCgrrl wrote:
minnow wrote:
spoon059 wrote:
NYCgrrl wrote:
Of course the reverse can be said of car-less citizens who pay for roads they have no direct use for. In some parts of the country mass transit is the norm and car ownership unusual.
The difference is that those roads are used to transport freight, police and fire fighters... services that the car-less citizens still use. Those are essential services that benefit everyone in society and are part of the core goals of the federal government.
High speed transit that costs an exorbitant amount of money and benefits very few people is not a core goal of government...
And that shows the dichotomy between a blue state liberal living in a city and the rest of us that reside in the real world.
Not sure what you think that adds to the conversation besides your apparent disdain for people with different ideas than your own but truly some people think it's all about them and their ways.
So be it....but just as a heads up- there's a heck of a lot more people living in urban areas than not. By your way of thinking guess the majority rules and we should take your pig farm subsidy away from you just cause we don't understand the value of swine.
I worked in NYC for 3 years - saw many a swine there too.spoon059 wrote:
NYCgrrl wrote:
Mass transit IS essential to any community that is not simply thinking of the currently able bodied.
Children, certain physically challenged people, the poor, senior citizens, come to mind off the top of my head and least this way it isn't regulated solely to them.
A high speed transit between cities is not "mass transit" of a city. The state of New York doesn't extend a high speed subway to Albany so that "disabled people" or children can easily get to Manhattan. You are comparing 2 VASTLY different things here.
I have to agree. I can't think of one country that we have visited that uses high speed trains as some sort of mass transit. They are almost always used as long range travel in lieu of air travel. It is more convenient as it is down town to down town so no expensive cab ride or crazy airport parking fees. Much more comfortable, less stressfull in every regard, more room, bar car, restaurant, reclining seats with a table, usually a movie and usually half the price. I can't think of anyone anywhere that would fly instead of taking the AVE or TGF. From Barcelona to Sevilla it takes about the same time for the train as it does for the plane once you factor in the 2 hour security stuff and the can rides etc. to each his own but air travel is not in the same league as High Speed Train travel...in my opinion.minnow wrote:
spoon059 wrote:
NYCgrrl wrote:
Of course the reverse can be said of car-less citizens who pay for roads they have no direct use for. In some parts of the country mass transit is the norm and car ownership unusual.
The difference is that those roads are used to transport freight, police and fire fighters... services that the car-less citizens still use. Those are essential services that benefit everyone in society and are part of the core goals of the federal government.
High speed transit that costs an exorbitant amount of money and benefits very few people is not a core goal of government...
And that shows the dichotomy between a blue state liberal living in a city and the rest of us that reside in the real world.
Not sure what you think that adds to the conversation besides your apparent disdain for people with different ideas than your own but truly some people think it's all about them and their ways.
So be it....but just as a heads up- there's a heck of a lot more people living in urban areas than not. By your way of thinking guess the majority rules and we should take your pig farm subsidy away from you just cause we don't understand the value of swine.spoon059 wrote:
NYCgrrl wrote:
Of course the reverse can be said of car-less citizens who pay for roads they have no direct use for. In some parts of the country mass transit is the norm and car ownership unusual.
The difference is that those roads are used to transport freight, police and fire fighters... services that the car-less citizens still use. Those are essential services that benefit everyone in society and are part of the core goals of the federal government.
High speed transit that costs an exorbitant amount of money and benefits very few people is not a core goal of government...
And that shows the dichotomy between a blue state liberal living in a city and the rest of us that reside in the real world.westernrvparkowner wrote:
mileshuff wrote:
You are 100 percent correct. What works in NYC or Boston has no chance of succeeding in Los Angeles, Dallas or Hungry Horse Montana. That is why the Federal and State Government fails when it comes to dealing with local issues. There is no "one size fits all" answer to transportation, education, welfare, housing etc. But government believes they can conjure up a sweeping proposal and solve all the ills. It cannot happen.NYCgrrl wrote:
Mass transit IS essential to any community that is not simply thinking of the able bodied.
A mass transit system that is mainly used by the disabled isn't very practical and efficient.
Mass transit works great in cities where large population centers move daily from a housing districts to a work districts. Cities like San Francisco is a good example moving people from the east and south bays to SF and back every day. Mass transit fails in the majority of our nations cities where jobs and housing are scattered citywide without concentrations of either.
Then there is the question of whether or not more money will actually make better roads, or will they just spend the extra money on fancier looking bridges, higher pay for highway workers, public transportation where it is not wanted or needed and showcase projects that never pan out (anyone want a Monorail? Bueller? Anyone?).
I agree that every public transport solution should vary by a locale's needs and geography. See just that up the road from me on the CT shore and Westchester county, both places where one family w/ multiple car ownership is the norm. I suspect that times of higher fuel costs boosted ridership but even now with lower gas prices ridership continues to grow. Their system uses buses of varying sizes and commuter trains w/ tracks maintained by Amtrak. I believe they are funded by 3 different levels of govt.Gdetrailer wrote:
2oldman wrote:
I don't care.
And THAT is the "crux" of the problem.. Entirely TOO MANY people who don't care just how much of their hard earned money is vacuumed out of their pockets!
Each time the cost of something goes up (like taxes) and the income stays the same you lose...
You lose BUYING POWER, your money buys LESS, you get less VALUE out of your time and time IS MONEY.
You cannot "redistribute" wealth via taxes from those who have jobs or income to those WITHOUT jobs or income without the entire house of cards eventually collapsing when the cost of living goes up faster than the income..
In short ALL BECOME "POOR" with the exception of those who WROTE THE LAWS OF THE TAXES!
Where's the "like" button? You hit the nail squarely on the head.
