|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Konglishman
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:41 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
So, by that same last piece of logic, people must not take flights between Los Angeles and Tampa. After all, they would be stranded upon arrival.
Sarcasm aside, if you really think there are no large countries which have put large investments into long distance trains and so forth, then you really need to look no further than China to change your mind.
| Kuros wrote: |
I mostly agree with Fox as to cars. The two-car family lifestyle grates me here in America. Not so much that people chose to have two cars, that's their choice, but that families need two cars so both wage-earners can work.
That said, this is less the result of a consumption-driven culture than necessity. America is wide and in many places sparsely populated. Furthermore, decentralization and Federalism makes a great network of trains less advantageous because high speed rail to cities like Los Angeles or Tampa just aren't a good idea. Both cities have refrained from serious investment in mass transit infrastructure. So while one might get there by high speed rail, one would be stranded when navigating each city. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Konglishman wrote: |
So, by that same last piece of logic, people must not take flights between Los Angeles and Tampa. After all, they would be stranded upon arrival.
Sarcasm aside, if you really think there are no large countries which have put large investments into long distance trains and so forth, then you really need to look no further than China to change your mind.
| Kuros wrote: |
I mostly agree with Fox as to cars. The two-car family lifestyle grates me here in America. Not so much that people chose to have two cars, that's their choice, but that families need two cars so both wage-earners can work.
That said, this is less the result of a consumption-driven culture than necessity. America is wide and in many places sparsely populated. Furthermore, decentralization and Federalism makes a great network of trains less advantageous because high speed rail to cities like Los Angeles or Tampa just aren't a good idea. Both cities have refrained from serious investment in mass transit infrastructure. So while one might get there by high speed rail, one would be stranded when navigating each city. |
|
Either flying or by train you'd have to rent a car. But flying is much faster and therefore more competitive with driving than traveling by train.
As for China, its much more administratively centralized than America when it would like to be. It is similar in size, although most of China which is covered by high speed rail would fit snugly east of the Mississippi if transposed over the United States.
By the way, I'm not arguing strictly against high-speed rail in the United States. The Acela Corridor seems like a natural candidate for high-speed rail. I am suggesting that the United States presents specially challenges to passenger rail infrastructure construction and operation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
There are places that certainly could use high speed trains as stated by other posters.
but in some areas there is a substantial infrastructure/economy that would be devastated by high speed trains. florida where the hotel restaraunt busines along roads employs thousands of people and produces billions in income whould take a huge hit. This was something they did not have to worry about in China.
the settlement pattern is just different in the U.S |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rollo wrote: |
the settlement pattern is just different in the U.S |
Right, but the settlement pattern is dictated by the choice to commit to a mass fuel consumption economic model. Yes, a shift in model will result in some businesses losing out in the short term, but others will flourish in their place. Continuing to consume fuels at a ridiculous rate for the sake of the road-side hospitality industry is as unwise as continuing to splurge on defense spending for the sake of the defense industry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
