The rest of the world is leaving America behind

Return of Dune said:
Existing rail beds?
Even if over land were needed, it wouldn't be "stolen". It would be bought and paid for.
Click to expand...

Question.... do our existing rails qualify for use by a bullet train? If not, what do you propose we do with our current shipping via train while we tear up old tracks and put in new? When done by unions that type of project could last a couple dozen decades.
 
apple0154 said:
But the value of your home would have dropped if/when the highway went through so what's the difference? Let's say you refused to sell and the highway was built. Your home would have been worth 1/2 it's current value anyway unless you feel you have right to dictate how property other than yours is used and tried to prevent others from selling and the government building a highway.
Click to expand...

Again, incorrect. If they had never chose to build the highway my value would not have dropped. If I am forced to sell I should, at the very least, get that level of compensation rather than the level that is set after the plans devalue my home. And that is the "very least" that a person should receive for being forced to give up their property for the "good of society".
 
SmarterThanYou said:
highways and roadways are NECESSAY public use. high speed railways will be privately owned and operated.
Click to expand...

High speed rail will very likely (at the very least) be heavily subsidized so that it can compete with air travel in pricing otherwise it will fail, it is not cost effective to build and maintain high speed railways when air travel is so much cheaper for personal travel. Rails are best used for freight if you want cost effectiveness, and speed is usually not all that urgent for freight.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Why is it any different to Compulsory Purchase Orders? You can appeal in court but if it goes against you then you're out. This is particularly poignant now as the arguments start about the route for HS2. On the subject of rabbits, I wasn't aware that there were no rabbits in the US. Isn't Bugs Bunny a wabbit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HS2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_USA
Click to expand...

Um... we have rabbits in the US. We breed them, eat them, show them, have them as pets, shoot them as pests eating our garden.
 
Superfreak said:
Question.... do our existing rails qualify for use by a bullet train? If not, what do you propose we do with our current shipping via train while we tear up old tracks and put in new? When done by unions that type of project could last a couple dozen decades.
Click to expand...

No they wouldn't as they have to be welded and laid onto an extremely level surface. They have special machines which can remove the old track and replace it with new welded track, here is a video of one at work. The days of thousands of men laying tracks are long gone.

http://www.wimp.com/traintrack/

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MODULE_8.jpg
[/URL]
 
Last edited:
Aoxomoxoa said:
Um... I was responding to Low who stated there were no rabbits in the US, only hares. That's why I asked him about Bugs Bunny.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I ignored that bit in his post, but I wanted to make sure that people understand that it was a wrong assumption or it was incorrect knowledge.

There are about 50 species of rabbits and hares in the world, almost all of them are native to North America.
 
Damocles said:
Yeah. I ignored that bit in his post, but I wanted to make sure that people understand that it was a wrong assumption or it was incorrect knowledge.

There are about 50 species of rabbits and hares in the world, almost all of them are native to North America.
Click to expand...

I just think you are splitting hares now!!
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
No they wouldn't as they have to be welded and laid onto an extremely level surface. They have special machines which can remove the old track and replace it with new welded track, here is a video of one at work. The days of thousands of men laying tracks are long gone.

http://www.wimp.com/traintrack/
Click to expand...

Yes, but that does nothing to dispute my point. With the contracts going to unions, it could take a couple dozen decades.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/high-speed-rail-hardly-an-investment-in-future

Would like your take on the above. Why should we 'invest' in something that has proven to not be economically viable in most locations?
 
Cornholio said:
I'm amazed at how short-sighted anti-rail folks are. Even if you don't use rail and never will, increase rail benefits you.
Click to expand...

Not when it is heavily subsidized by tax payers. Economic viability should be a key to putting these in place. I agree there are some, like NYC to Boston that would seem to make sense. But according to the AMTRAK study of high speed lines in Europe, only two broke even. The rest lost money.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/high-speed-rail-hardly-an-investment-in-future
 
Superfreak said:
Not when it is heavily subsidized by tax payers. Economic viability should be a key to putting these in place. I agree there are some, like NYC to Boston that would seem to make sense. But according to the AMTRAK study of high speed lines in Europe, only two broke even. The rest lost money.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/high-speed-rail-hardly-an-investment-in-future
Click to expand...

High speed trains are investments in infrastructure, apart from toll roads are highways expected to pay for themselves?
 
Alias said:
Where do we get the money?
Click to expand...
We get the money from the American people. How do we convince them? We tell them that we need to invest in American to make it competitive and to be competive we need to modernize our nations infrastructre and that this would be a sound investment in our future and what better investment can you make then in America?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top