|
Post by NotMyKid on Feb 12, 2009 10:07:19 GMT -6
In late-stage talks, Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., pressed for $8 billion to construct high-speed rail lines, quadrupling the amount in the bill that passed the Senate on Tuesday. Reid's office issued a statement noting that a proposed Los Angeles-to-Las Vegas rail might get a big chunk of the money. news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090212/ap_on_go_co/congress_stimulus
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Feb 12, 2009 10:20:01 GMT -6
If you've ever try to make that drive on a holiday weekend, you wouldn't think it was pork.
|
|
|
Post by 101 on Feb 12, 2009 10:37:40 GMT -6
He's just looking for a faster way to suck the $$$ out of the LA basin.
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Feb 12, 2009 10:45:01 GMT -6
They should have spent 80 billion on high speed rail. They need one from Denver to the mountains too. The traffic on I-70 is brutal.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Feb 12, 2009 10:49:05 GMT -6
They should have spent 80 billion on high speed rail. They need one from Denver to the mountains too. The traffic on I-70 is brutal. No freaking doubt. A nice high speed network the next level infrastructure item that could help America out tremendously and could probably come close to breaking even, but then you hurt the airlines. Gotta be careful. I can't wait until Obama builds these unbreakable levies. If he had been President in 2004, Cedar Rapids would not have flooded.
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Feb 12, 2009 11:41:49 GMT -6
They should have spent 80 billion on high speed rail. They need one from Denver to the mountains too. The traffic on I-70 is brutal. No freaking doubt. A nice high speed network the next level infrastructure item that could help America out tremendously and could probably come close to breaking even, but then you hurt the airlines. Gotta be careful. I can't wait until Obama builds these unbreakable levies. If he had been President in 2004, Cedar Rapids would not have flooded. I hear the argument a lot that high speed rail won't fly in the US because America is too vast. Well, yeah, this isn't Europe, but that's what jets are for. And interstate highways. But between relatively proximate metro areas or metro-resort kind of arrangements, high speed rail is a no-brainer. Once it's accepted, it might actually go longer distances. Maybe the airlines should invest in it if they fear it. They are in the transportation business, after all.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Feb 12, 2009 11:54:23 GMT -6
No freaking doubt. A nice high speed network the next level infrastructure item that could help America out tremendously and could probably come close to breaking even, but then you hurt the airlines. Gotta be careful. I can't wait until Obama builds these unbreakable levies. If he had been President in 2004, Cedar Rapids would not have flooded. I hear the argument a lot that high speed rail won't fly in the US because America is too vast. Well, yeah, this isn't Europe, but that's what jets are for. And interstate highways. But between relatively proximate metro areas or metro-resort kind of arrangements, high speed rail is a no-brainer. Once it's accepted, it might actually go longer distances. Maybe the airlines should invest in it if they fear it. They are in the transportation business, after all. It's too vast for some routes - like NY, DC or Boston to Cali, but there's no reason there shouldn't be a full bullet train up and down each one of the coasts where there are major population centers or between Chicago and New York. I would think FedEx and UPS could also become significant beneficiaries as they would have an alternative to flying their rapid delivery packages around assuming they adjusted their models. The airline industry has ALWAYS been a net destroyer of capital. Those guys have no money to invest.
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Feb 12, 2009 12:22:46 GMT -6
On a side note, I took the chunnel train from London to Paris a couple of years ago. 185 mph at ground level catches one's attention.
You're right about the airlines. They destroy capital like Orkin destroys termites. The only reason they still exist is because they are so essential (or perceived to be) to economic activity.
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Feb 12, 2009 12:24:56 GMT -6
They should have spent 80 billion on high speed rail. They need one from Denver to the mountains too. The traffic on I-70 is brutal. Completely agree with Thunder and BTR on this one. Constructing a light rail system in certain heavily populated parts of this country is the next phase in America's transportation evolution. What the interstate system construction was after WWII, the light rail system should be that project of the early 21st century.
|
|
|
Post by 101 on Feb 12, 2009 12:26:29 GMT -6
BTR is right in that for most American cities, the distances are too vast for high-speed rail. It isn't that it can't be done but who is going to take a high-speed train from Chicago to LA when you can hop a flight and be there in 4 hours.
There is no reason on the other hand that we don't have a good, frequent and reliable high-speed network in the northeast US (and don't talk about Acela either) as well as some routes in the midwest and certainly between SFO and LAX/SAN.
Let the airlines manage needs on the longer haul routes or those where demand for rail doesn't justify the cost. Why the hell fly an airplane from Chicago to Milwaukee in the first place?
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Doofenshmirtz (Heywood) on Feb 12, 2009 12:30:52 GMT -6
A rail line would be wonderful from Des Moines to Chicago, through Iowa City. I really don't like driving to Osceola or Ottumwa to get on Amwreck. It would also help the commute for Hawkeye games.
|
|
|
Post by 101 on Feb 12, 2009 13:10:57 GMT -6
Bingo. A rail line would be wonderful from Des Moines to Chicago, through Iowa City. I really don't like driving to Osceola or Ottumwa to get on Amwreck. It would also help the commute for Hawkeye games.
|
|
|
Post by NotMyKid on Feb 12, 2009 13:44:28 GMT -6
A rail line would be wonderful from Des Moines to Chicago, through Iowa City. I really don't like driving to Osceola or Ottumwa to get on Amwreck. It would also help the commute for Hawkeye games. I agree but other then home Iowa games how many people would actually use it on a regular basis? I would assume there have been many studies on that.
|
|
|
Post by 101 on Feb 12, 2009 13:49:38 GMT -6
The DSM-CHI travel market is rather strong (having not factored in any of the economic downturn impacts). It's one of those where it's a bit long to drive from a business perspective, but extremely expensive to fly (due to little or no competition on the route). From an air travel perspective, it is one of the highest cost-per-mile routes in the U.S.
High speed rail, if conveniently times would have some strong mass appeal. The current problem with Amtrak is that they routed the line through a low-population part of Iowa. They have done numerous studies that they could increase ridership significantly by moving the route between Omaha and Chicago to route more so along I-80 including Des Moines, Iowa City (also very reasonable for Cedar Rapids), through the Quad Cities and then into Chicago. That is very significant in comparison to Osceola, Ottumwa and Mt. Pleasant (yawn....)
That initiative will take signifant $$$ for infrastructure to be built up, but I suspect it's the smart move in the long run. Maybe they can use some of the stimulus $$$ for that.
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Doofenshmirtz (Heywood) on Feb 12, 2009 14:13:12 GMT -6
The DSM-CHI travel market is rather strong (having not factored in any of the economic downturn impacts). It's one of those where it's a bit long to drive from a business perspective, but extremely expensive to fly (due to little or no competition on the route). From an air travel perspective, it is one of the highest cost-per-mile routes in the U.S. High speed rail, if conveniently times would have some strong mass appeal. The current problem with Amtrak is that they routed the line through a low-population part of Iowa. They have done numerous studies that they could increase ridership significantly by moving the route between Omaha and Chicago to route more so along I-80 including Des Moines, Iowa City (also very reasonable for Cedar Rapids), through the Quad Cities and then into Chicago. That is very significant in comparison to Osceola, Ottumwa and Mt. Pleasant (yawn....) That initiative will take signifant $$$ for infrastructure to be built up, but I suspect it's the smart move in the long run. Maybe they can use some of the stimulus $$$ for that. Ron took the words right out of my mouth.
|
|
|
Post by socal on Feb 12, 2009 16:53:31 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Norm "racerhawk" Parker on Feb 12, 2009 17:42:53 GMT -6
detroit-chicago-milwaukee-madison-minneapolis would be cool.
or just chicago-milwaukee-minneapolis
or chicago -st louis-kansas city
Driving between chicago and milwaukee has become silly. Additionally, I drive between Chicago and points north frequently, and it's getting pretty busy. Busy, and slow. I forgot to add inefficient with everyone averaging 20mph in large metro areas. I can ride a bicycle faster than that.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Storm on Feb 12, 2009 20:08:13 GMT -6
A rail line would be wonderful from Des Moines to Chicago, through Iowa City. I really don't like driving to Osceola or Ottumwa to get on Amwreck. It would also help the commute for Hawkeye games. Yeah, that's likely.
|
|
|
Post by twinegarden on Feb 12, 2009 22:35:29 GMT -6
A rail line would be wonderful from Des Moines to Chicago, through Iowa City. I really don't like driving to Osceola or Ottumwa to get on Amwreck. It would also help the commute for Hawkeye games. Yeah, that's likely. Maybe the U of I will just extend the Hawkeye Express about 250 miles east and west.
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Doofenshmirtz (Heywood) on Feb 13, 2009 8:04:55 GMT -6
A rail line would be wonderful from Des Moines to Chicago, through Iowa City. I really don't like driving to Osceola or Ottumwa to get on Amwreck. It would also help the commute for Hawkeye games. Yeah, that's likely. I never said it would happen, just that it would be nice.
|
|
|
Post by mattahawk on Feb 13, 2009 10:20:35 GMT -6
It may be pork in the true definition but that don't necessarily make it a bad idea. We need something faster than driving a damn car but cheaper than flying a stupid airplane. It is 17-18 hours from here to San Antonio, Tx. An airplane tix' costs usually costs about 400 give or take. If I could get a highspeed train ride there in about 1/3rd the time of driving and say half the cost of an airplane ticket I would do it in a minute.
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Feb 13, 2009 15:21:52 GMT -6
In late-stage talks, Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., pressed for $8 billion to construct high-speed rail lines, quadrupling the amount in the bill that passed the Senate on Tuesday. Reid's office issued a statement noting that a proposed Los Angeles-to-Las Vegas rail might get a big chunk of the money. news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090212/ap_on_go_co/congress_stimulusI'm not against constructing new high speed rail lines at all. However, I thought that the small amount of stimulus money going to infrastructure improvements was to go to "shovel ready" projects. Harry's rail line doesn't fit the bill. W signed a bill about four months ago giving $45 million to fund environmental studies (which I believe haven't even started) for the first leg of the proposed route. It will be a minimum of a few years, if not longer, before construction begins (if feasable). This is nothing but a big, yummy pork sanny for Harry.
|
|
|
Post by mattahawk on Feb 13, 2009 17:00:53 GMT -6
There was one old republican senator on there talking about the pork and he said a couple of them. Green golf carts? Can't remember the other one. He and another senator thought it quite odd that a 1,000 page bill was dropped on their desk at 11 last night and they vote today. Tom Harkin came out today and said some of the money will most likely be misused/abused but it can't be helped. Huh?
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Feb 13, 2009 17:38:40 GMT -6
There was one old republican senator on there talking about the pork and he said a couple of them. Green golf carts? Can't remember the other one. He and another senator thought it quite odd that a 1,000 page bill was dropped on their desk at 11 last night and they vote today. Tom Harkin came out today and said some of the money will most likely be misused/abused but it can't be helped. Huh? This shit cracks me up. It's not a Republican/Democrat issue. It goes both ways. 9/11 happens. PATRIOT Act passed nearly immediately thereafter. Lehman fails. TARP passes right away (the 3 page proposal Paulson had was better than the final). Economy really hits the shitter - giant stimulus bill that no one has read passes instantly. I guess it doesn't really matter how much time there is for debate. Half of these fucktards are too fucktarded to think critically about the laws they are writing anyway, but at least humor us. If you're going to draft a 1000 page bill that allocates damn near a trillion dollars, give it some thought. I'd be much more in favor of saying here's $100 billion that will hop into the economy in the next 2 months and a short bill, let's get it passed right now rather than saying here's a trillion dollars and a thousand pages of paybacks. For someone who promised change, it seems like a lot of business as usual.
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Feb 13, 2009 18:31:27 GMT -6
|
|