Why can't America have high-speed trains? (Page 2): I believe you're correct in the cost does not justify that means of t***sportation, but it may be in the marketing and how to make...

Morgan

pappadeux wrote:

Most modern day railroads are the state of the art. However since we have a gazillion cars and reduced rail service due lake of passengers and unionized workers it is most difficult for the railroads to break even much less make a profit. If it wasn't for the freight hauling, the railroads would go bankrupt if not already.

I believe you're correct in the cost does not justify that means of t***sportation, but it may be in the marketing and how to make it more appealing, and increasing the arrival time which would happen with high-speed trains would help. But I would still encourage this form of t***sportation as traffic continues to get more congested.

Quakerwidow Loc: Chestertown, MD

Morgan wrote:

More and more cars and trucks, more and more expanding highways still with traffic jams, we are far behind other countries when it comes to rail systems. Between layover times, security lines, government bail outs, expense, and airport hassles, why do we not move towards more energy efficient train systems. Is it due to the control of the oil industries? Some thoughts...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/03/opinions/smart-high-speed-trains-america/index.html

Partly control issues, partly oil industry. Oil industry destroyed light rail (trolley systems) back in the last century. A combination of high speed and light rail such as they have in Europe COULD work, but not so long as the oil and auto industries are subsidized.

Morgan

Quakerwidow wrote:

Partly control issues, partly oil industry. Oil industry destroyed light rail (trolley systems) back in the last century. A combination of high speed and light rail such as they have in Europe COULD work, but not so long as the oil and auto industries are subsidized.

I concur. At one point this industry propelled us forward, now in their own self-interest, they're hindering us.

Wolf counselor Loc: Heart of Texas

Morgan wrote:

They come to you for comfort advice? What's your shingle...truck stop counseling here...That's a great idea!

I completely respect your choice, I'm only wishing we had more choices for everyone. Driving a big truck is fun.

I understand you don't give a hoot about fuel efficiency, but it comes down to being more energy independent, and considering the air we all breathe.

The shingle reads, " Wolf Counselor "

I hope you get your high speed train.

Maybe you should write the president and share your ideas.

You're welcome to come to Texas and my wife can take you off road in her F250 4×4.

Morgan

Wolf counselor wrote:

The shingle reads, " Wolf Counselor "

I hope you get your high speed train.

Maybe you should write the president and share your ideas.

You're welcome to come to Texas and my wife can take you off road in her F250 4×4.

Maybe I should tweet him, it would be faster, LOL

Well gee Wolf thank you for the invite, I'd love to go off road with your better half

We use to have a mud truck, won championship in eastern regional back some years, it was actually my thirteen year old son who drove it and was the youngest driver in its history to win it. He's grown now and the truck has been sold, but the need for speed I believe came from his Mama,

...and he now has a truck like yours

. He's not let me drive it yet... I don't know why

How you folks doing down there your way?

Wolf counselor Loc: Heart of Texas

Morgan wrote:

Maybe I should tweet him, it would be faster, LOL ... (show quote)

We're doing great.

Thanks.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Capital? We are 20 trillion in debt. Who's capital?

saltwind 78 wrote:

Morgan, We should have two hundred mile per hour t... (show quote)

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Quakerwidow wrote:

Partly control issues, partly oil industry. Oil industry destroyed light rail (trolley systems) back in the last century. A combination of high speed and light rail such as they have in Europe COULD work, but not so long as the oil and auto industries are subsidized.

I believe it stems more from the independence of Americans. We like to be able to travel in our vehicles wherever we want. I agree the oil and car industries are subsidized and shouldn't be.

Morgan

JFlorio wrote:

Capital? We are 20 trillion in debt. Who's capital?

You're confused, using "capital", is not borrowing money from the government, or being subsidised, but using private entrepreneurs, as is the mindset of what the right are proponents of, correct.You do recall the name Vanderbilt, AKA the Commodore? The only draw back with this is the possible creation of more robber barons, as in the past and now presently.

Morgan

Wolf counselor wrote:

We're doing great.

Thanks.

Big Bass

Morgan wrote:

More and more cars and trucks, more and more expanding highways still with traffic jams, we are far behind other countries when it comes to rail systems. Between layover times, security lines, government bail outs, expense, and airport hassles, why do we not move towards more energy efficient train systems. Is it due to the control of the oil industries? Some thoughts...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/03/opinions/smart-high-speed-trains-america/index.html

Trains are an efficient method of t***sportation. However, in order to put in a decent infrastructure to make them worthwhile, the costs would be prohibitive - acquiring land for rail lines, etc., disruption of people and property, etc. Would it not make more sense to improve existing infrastructure, roads, at a tiny fraction of the cost and relatively minute disruption of people and property?

bggamers Loc: georgia

Morgan wrote:

How about some new tracks with new destinations...how far behind do we want to get?

Last time I took a train to Texas as a matter of fact from NC, took me thirteen hours in all.

I could have driven there and been less hassled with less expense.

Takes me 10.5 hours to dr straight through to see sister. Would be nice to go by train. Dont mean to be nosey how much does it cost its been 52 years since I road a train.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Morgan wrote:

More and more cars and trucks, more and more expanding highways still with traffic jams, we are far behind other countries when it comes to rail systems. Between layover times, security lines, government bail outs, expense, and airport hassles, why do we not move towards more energy efficient train systems. Is it due to the control of the oil industries? Some thoughts...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/03/opinions/smart-high-speed-trains-america/index.html

That might not be a bad idea, as long as the government doesn't run it.

I'm with Mr. Counselor on this one though. I would never (well maybe) ride one. I will get in the flying tube if I have to, but I'd rather drive myself. I don't even like to ride with my wife driveng, and she drives a truck for a living.
Maybe it is a control thing. But that's the way it is.

Weewillynobeerspilly Loc: North central Texas

Morgan wrote:

How about some new tracks with new destinations...how far behind do we want to get?

Last time I took a train to Texas as a matter of fact from NC, took me thirteen hours in all.

I could have driven there and been less hassled with less expense.

well, that's the problem we would have with our trains...too many stops, we have some fairly high speed commuter ones in my area, going from Fort Worth to Dallas......the plus is no traffic, the multiple stops along the way does not save much time....just money for fuel.

They are building a new stop 1 mile from my house.....too bad it will not be used like they are thinking.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Exactly why I asked who's capital?

Morgan wrote:

You're confused, using "capital", is not borrowing money from the government, or being subsidised, but using private entrepreneurs, as is the mindset of what the right are proponents of, correct.You do recall the name Vanderbilt, AKA the Commodore? The only draw back with this is the possible creation of more robber barons, as in the past and now presently.