Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Moldy Rutabaga]

You can have high-speed rail and highways. No one is saying that after they are built people cannot drive if they want to.

The idea that it hasn't happened simply because of economics isn't true. it hasn't happened because of powerful auto interests in congress who have blocked the large front money that is required to build such systems -- the same interests who bought out and shut down streetcar systems in the 1930s. In the long run they can be and are profitable.

I understand that a Butte - Duluth link probably isn't going to be sustainable, but the west and east coasts are not spread out and have high densities. Los Angeles to Las Vegas is an irritating and slow drive; I've done it enough. Build a rail from LA to the strip, where people don't need cars, and it would be packed. LA to San Diego is always a traffic jam. LA to San Francisco would be a scenic oceanside ride. But these things require a change in thinking.

[steveinincheon]

First of all there is already high-speed (well sort of high-speed at least) rail in the DC-Boston corridor, and it is being upgraded so trains can run up to 150 mph (250k/h) between these cities. Elsewhere in the country, it just doesnt seem that trains could be too cost effective, compared to flying or driving unless oil prices skyrocket. Trains were once the main form of intercity travel in the US, but that was back before the modern highway system had been built, and back before suburbanization and urban sprawl.

Building a truly efficient public transit system is next to impossible in places like metro Atlanta, LA, and Detroit, and its hard to see people willingly giving up their cars in these areas. High speed rail could be implemented in places like the midwest corridor (from Chicago to other Midwestern cities) and along the West coast, but it would take a huge initial investment, and ticket prices would probably be high unless heavily subsidized. Many urban centers across the US are continuing to lose population to the suburbs and exurbs. Unless this trend reverses, I don't see how public transit can really catch on in the US like it has in smaller more densely populated countries.

[Street Magic]

[djsmnc]

[Bloopity Bloop]

People from back home are too attached to their cars for this to ever happen, imo.

9 times out of 10, people will tell me one of the things they miss most about home is being able to drive everywhere. And as much as I enjoy the subway sometimes, I have to agree with this sentiment.

I enjoy driving and having my own space and going in as a direct route as I can to my destination.

I certainly wouldn't mind having both systems in place, though. I'm from the Bay Area and feel as though we have a pretty good body of transportation. BART + CalTrain + Muni... yeah, all a bit dodgy, but I love it.

[Juregen]

[Juregen]

[Rusty Shackleford]

It's just boring when specific groups want to have their pet project enacted, whilst at the same time claiming to represent everyone. You do realise that govt can only get its cash from one place? If you are so enamored with railways, why don't you put up some of your own money to start a company that builds them? If they are such a great idea you will be rich, and everyone will be happy.

[eamo]

[Rusty Shackleford]

[Moldy Rutabaga]

>My point is, if it was such a great idea, and it would make money, people would do it without govt funds.

But highways and roads do not make money directly (outside of tolls), and are done with government funds. If this were not so, there would not be many roads.

I am not criticizing the use of automobiles, but this assumption that cars are my own choice at my own expense and rail is a meddling government intrusion needs to be exploded. Both cars and trains require public funds in order to create infrastructure.

Having more trains would not prevent people from driving. In fact, it would make highway driving a more enjoyable activity because roadways would be less stressed and less jammed.

[seonsengnimble]

I would be down for some decent trains. I wouldn't mind spending a little more time on a train than on an airplane either. Riding a train is considerably more enjoyable than riding in an airplane and going through airports.

As someone who has ridden way too many greyhound buses, a train would be a decent alternative.

[Stewz]

All the energy we need has been given - for free, and we're struggling to find it.
-hardyandtiny

[AmericanExile]

High speed trains between Chicago and Minneapolis/Milwaukee/St.Louis/Indianapolis/Detroit was discussed as part of the infrastructure upgrade if Chicago got the 2016 Olympics. All of which would be faster or close to the same time as a plane after all the waiting involved with planes. There was even some suggestion of a line to New York.

For me the question is price. Part of the problem with current American passenger rail system is it costs almost as much to take the train as a plane and is much slower. A bad deal. However, as fast or faster, for a good price, with the greater comfort and convenience that comes with a train - now you have something.

Also, there is new system I saw detailed on some science program that has individual vehicles that enter the rail system and then hook up to other individual vehicles and a larger train. It looked interesting, but wasn't practical yet. Still, a car/train vehicle might fit the American lifestyle better.

[pianowill]