Also don't we use all of our rail infrastructure for freight
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;40100126]Well, California is managing to turn an A - B railway project into an 8 billion dollar monster, nearly 3x as much as the original budget. They could build an airport to service every state around them with that money, instead of a linear track that hardly services the cities it's in. This ontop of California not being in the best financial shape, and the operating and usage costs being more than what it would be for air travel, plus the question of exactly how many people will actually use it. It just sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.[/QUOTE]
What about public-private co-op agreements (e.g. State owns the track, stations and maintenance facilities, private company operates them), reduced amount of oil the US needs to guzzle everyday (just increase power generation) and higher capacity / frequency (plus, the stations are usually in the city center)? Sadly though it's too late for things like this in the USA. They should have done this at least 30 years ago.
[QUOTE=zeromancer;40097000]it usually takes me 3 and a half blowjobs.[/QUOTE]
Soooooooooo 35 seconds?
[QUOTE=proch;40108584]Soooooooooo 35 seconds?[/QUOTE]
I'm just that good.
Oh.. you mean... ohh
[QUOTE=proch;40108629]Oh.. you mean... ohh[/QUOTE]
;)
[QUOTE=Jsm;40099343]This shouldn't be the situation though. You shouldn't be flying the sort of distances over land that you guys do, trains are designed for that sort of thing.[/QUOTE]
US Transportation infrastructure is generally very unfriendly towards railway. Our cities are too spread out, our suburbs are sprawling and loose. comprehensive train networks would be massive, complicated, and inefficient for our urban design. I'm a big fan of rail travel, but most cities in the US have urban "planning" that seems to display a marked lack of "plan."
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
