The Off Topic Topic

[jimmy olsen]

packed full of dirty chinamen. kekeke

They also have that stereotype here.

"Chinguk dirty teacher! Dirty!"

[Neil]

Just read an opinion piece in the NYT arguing against high speed rail subsidies.  Author claims there are only two high speed rail lines in the world that operate without a subsidy: Paris-Lyon and Tokyo-Osaka.

Hard for me to believe that the Seoul to Busan line needs subsidies. It's always packed.

Subsidies aren't always a matter of need.  Sometimes, they're about political clout allowing you to fleece the taxpayer.

[Admiral Yi]

Hard for me to believe that the Seoul to Busan line needs subsidies. It's always packed.

How much do they charge?

[jimmy olsen]

Hard for me to believe that the Seoul to Busan line needs subsidies. It's always packed.

How much do they charge?

Never been to Busan, so I don't know. I will assume that taking the highspeed from Seoul to Busan is the most expensive ticket on the board though, which is 46,000

[Josquius]

sounds cheap

[DGuller]

Just read an opinion piece in the NYT arguing against high speed rail subsidies.  Author claims there are only two high speed rail lines in the world that operate without a subsidy: Paris-Lyon and Tokyo-Osaka.

I agree.  Obama's fetish with high speed rail is hard to understand, and it will remove credibility from any further infrastructure projects, or Obama himself.  America is too sparsely populated, and lacks mass transit in most places, to make rail anywhere near viable, except in the Northeast Corridor, where it already exists.

To me, a much bigger bang for buck can be had in developing mass transit, like light rail.  Good mass transit can really reverse the trend of urban sprawl, which will in turn reduce our reliance on oil.

[CountDeMoney]

America is too sparsely populated, and lacks mass transit in most places, to make rail anywhere near viable, except in the Northeast Corridor, where it already exists.

Nonsense.  There are plenty of urban hubs that would be ideally connected via highspeed rail;  trips too long or expedient for cars, too short for flights and airport bullshit, and not just in the Northeast.  Houston-Dallas-Austin-San Antonio, Indy-Chicago-St. Louis, San Fran-LA-San Diego, etc.

To me, a much bigger bang for buck can be had in developing mass transit, like light rail.  Good mass transit can really reverse the trend of urban sprawl, which will in turn reduce our reliance on oil.

Nonsense. Mass transit stuck specifically in an urban setting, especially light rail, simply doesn't work in America. People like their cars.

[DGuller]

America is too sparsely populated, and lacks mass transit in most places, to make rail anywhere near viable, except in the Northeast Corridor, where it already exists.

Nonsense.  There are plenty of urban hubs that would be ideally connected via highspeed rail;  trips too long or expedient for cars, too short for flights and airport bullshit, and not just in the Northeast.  Houston-Dallas-Austin-San Antonio, Indy-Chicago-St. Louis, San Fran-LA-San Diego, etc.

To me, a much bigger bang for buck can be had in developing mass transit, like light rail.  Good mass transit can really reverse the trend of urban sprawl, which will in turn reduce our reliance on oil.

Nonsense. Mass transit stuck specifically in an urban setting, especially light rail, simply doesn't work in America. People like their cars.

Ok, so you take a train from one Texan city to another.  How do you get around once you get there?  Take a taxi everywhere?

As for mass transit, sure, everyone like their cars.  I like my car as well.  However, if I have to travel a short distance in NYC, I'd rather avoid the horrendous traffic and the terrible parking situation.

[Tonitrus]

Nonsense.  There are plenty of urban hubs that would be ideally connected via highspeed rail;  trips too long or expedient for cars, too short for flights and airport bullshit, and not just in the Northeast.  Houston-Dallas-Austin-San Antonio, Indy-Chicago-St. Louis, San Fran-LA-San Diego, etc.

The only reasons I could see one would want to go from San Antonio to Houston/Austin, is for short-range tourist reasons (events in Houston, or parties//college girls in Austin).

Access to college chicks may be great and all, but probably not enough to justify high-speed rail.

[CountDeMoney]

Ok, so you take a train from one Texan city to another.  How do you get around once you get there?  Take a taxi everywhere?

Of course you do.  That's why God invented expense reports.

As for mass transit, sure, everyone like their cars.  I like my car as well.  However, if I have to travel a short distance in NYC, I'd rather avoid the horrendous traffic and the terrible parking situation.

There's perhaps a half-dozen cities where metro is actually effective.

[alfred russel]

There's perhaps a half-dozen cities where metro is actually effective.

I think until that is solved high speed rail isn't going to work. I think part of the reason that rail works in Europe is that having a car is such a pain in the ass in a lot of the cities. And expensive.

[sbr]

America is too sparsely populated, and lacks mass transit in most places, to make rail anywhere near viable, except in the Northeast Corridor, where it already exists.

Nonsense.  There are plenty of urban hubs that would be ideally connected via highspeed rail;  trips too long or expedient for cars, too short for flights and airport bullshit, and not just in the Northeast.  Houston-Dallas-Austin-San Antonio, Indy-Chicago-St. Louis, San Fran-LA-San Diego, etc.

To me, a much bigger bang for buck can be had in developing mass transit, like light rail.  Good mass transit can really reverse the trend of urban sprawl, which will in turn reduce our reliance on oil.

Nonsense. Mass transit stuck specifically in an urban setting, especially light rail, simply doesn't work in America. People like their cars.

Ok, so you take a train from one Texan city to another.  How do you get around once you get there?  Take a taxi everywhere?

What do you do when you fly somewhere, take a taxi everywhere?

[alfred russel]

What do you do when you fly somewhere, take a taxi everywhere?

Not DGuller, but in the US, rent a car. I can't imagine going to Houston or Dallas and staying for more than a few days without one. Considering the hastle and cost of renting a car, plus going to and from a train station, a high speed train is going to have to be very fast to make rail more attractive than driving.

[garbon]

What do you do when you fly somewhere, take a taxi everywhere?

Not DGuller, but in the US, rent a car. I can't imagine going to Houston or Dallas and staying for more than a few days without one. Considering the hastle and cost of renting a car, plus going to and from a train station, a high speed train is going to have to be very fast to make rail more attractive than driving.

[Eddie Teach]

To me, a much bigger bang for buck can be had in developing mass transit, like light rail.  Good mass transit can really reverse the trend of urban sprawl, which will in turn reduce our reliance on oil.

I think real estate values are the main force behind sprawl. If anything, a more developed mass transit system may ease the traffic burden making it easier to commute.