|
|
| Re: Train was going 80MPH in 30MPH zone (1459477) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Train was going 80MPH in 30MPH zone |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Fri Dec 22 23:09:02 2017, in response to Re: Train was going 80MPH in 30MPH zone, posted by Steamdriven on Fri Dec 22 17:48:33 2017. Where did that rant come from? If you look at the numbers, railroads have been screwed on federal funding for the last 6 or 7 decades. Absolutely screwed. The highways have gotten massive federal subsidies, as have the airports, while the railroads get a comparative pittance. Either they all should get proportionally equal subsidies, or none should get subsidies at all. I think it would be better if all forms of transportation had to survive on their own. Road tolls would be much higher, but traffic might not be as bad. However, even in a system like that, rail would need a lump sum of TRILLIONS of dollars in subsidies to catch up to air and roads in the subsidies that they have gotten over the previous decades.All the government pays for is the road? The road costs BILLIONS and BILLIONS and costs far more per passenger mile than trains do, when you add all the costs up. If you suppose that the government should continue to subsidize air and road travel, then subsidizing rail travel far more is the only logical conclusion that you can come to. You make rail sound like it operates in a vacuum, but that's simply not true. Rail is the most cost effective and energy efficient per passenger mile, and currently our roads and airline systems are taking a huge chunk of the load that should naturally belong to rail. There is no reason for hour or two short-haul flights, that should be the domain of high speed rail. There are many long car drives that could be replaced by rail travel. Further, these methods of transportation do not exist in a vacuum. Even if someone doesn't USE rail themselves, the argument that they don't benefit from rail transportation is total BS unless they never leave their house or maybe their town. Rail avoids having to spend more on widening highways, and reduces congestion on the highways that we do have, and helps the economy as well. If anything, rail should be subsidized the most, highway less, and airline the least. How is someone so uninformed posting on this board? Trains are not quaint at all. Look at France's TGV, China's high speed rail system, or Japan's Shinkansen. All are extremely modern, clean, efficient, and highly functional methods of transit. Just because our trains suck doesn't mean that trains in general suck. Passenger rail can absolutely be a fine experience in 2017, even if it's not exactly like it was in 1935. We would be far better off in the US if we built a high speed rail network for passengers, and created multi-modal transit hubs in every city to tie high speed rail, local mass transit networks, airports, bus routes, ridesharing, and car rentals all together. |
|
|
|