- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why won't a train system like Europe ever worked in US?
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:06 pm to theantiquetiger
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:06 pm to theantiquetiger
Because who the frick wants to ride a train across the country? Trains are for poors.
2
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:07 pm to theantiquetiger
2 reasons:
The government monopolized passenger rail but allowed the freight rail companies to still control the lines and be responsible for maintaining and upgrading the infrastructure, literally creating the worst possible outcome.
Our cities are too far apart for rail transportation to be more convenient than driving or flying.
The government monopolized passenger rail but allowed the freight rail companies to still control the lines and be responsible for maintaining and upgrading the infrastructure, literally creating the worst possible outcome.
Our cities are too far apart for rail transportation to be more convenient than driving or flying.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:09 pm to Barstools
quote:
Because who the frick wants to ride a train across the country? Trains are for poors.
I did it once. It was pretty fun. You really need to get a sleeper, though, which makes it pretty expensive.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:10 pm to theantiquetiger
quote:
I understand it's big in the NE and NW (maybe) but why not nation wide? High speed trains between every major (and minor) city in the country. Use each major city as a hub.
Um, no.
Air travel works great, is amazingly safe, and there's no particular reason to spend billions building rail to replace that.
Rail does work well in very dense areas, like the DC - Boston corridor. I live in the DC area and have taken many trains to NYC. Not once to Boston though, a plane flight is just faster.
Every now and then I do fly back South (in fact I'm doing that tomorrow) and there's no way in hell I'm paying the same price to take all day to get to my destination when I can just fly there in half the time (including waiting at the airport).
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:11 pm to theantiquetiger
We are more spread out and would have a hard time keeping up with all the train locations.
Somebody may figure a way to track it.
Somebody may figure a way to track it.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:12 pm to theantiquetiger
Our country is too big, you'll still need a car to get around. Europe is smaller and more congested. Train system may work in cali or north east but thats about it
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:12 pm to theantiquetiger
Lot's of good answers. The population density stuff is real.
The southern baw wants to drive his truck and SUV everywhere so it will never make sense here.
The southern baw wants to drive his truck and SUV everywhere so it will never make sense here.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:15 pm to kingbob
quote:
Our cities are too far apart for rail transportation to be more convenient than driving or flying.
No they are not. I'm talking from major city to major city.
If I want to go to NYC or LA, yes I will fly. But a high speed train from BR to NO, Houston, or Memphis, that would cost me $20-30 each and be there in 30 mins, 1.5 hrs, & 2.5 hrs, I'm taking a train. You can fly to Houston but you gonna wait an hour+ at the airport, driving is 3+ hours, and the fuel will run you that much.
It is slowly happening, Houston to Dallas, talks of BR to NO, I think LA has one to San Fran.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:15 pm to theantiquetiger
Compare the size of Europe to the size of the US.
All of the countries in Europe that participate in it share the burden of paying for it. We wouldn’t have that.
All of the countries in Europe that participate in it share the burden of paying for it. We wouldn’t have that.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:22 pm to theantiquetiger
quote:
If I want to go to NYC or LA, yes I will fly. But a high speed train from BR to NO, Houston, or Memphis, that would cost me $20-30 each and be there in 30 mins, 1.5 hrs, & 2.5 hrs, I'm taking a train.
The difference is between Houston and BR in the US and Europe is that there’s 25M people on the same type of routing.
Here that’s maybe 1.5M between the two.
So you don’t need to fill the train up with just people going BR-HOU.
This post was edited on 3/1/18 at 7:23 pm
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:22 pm to theantiquetiger
I can't speak for everyone else, but the thought of using public transportation and having to interact with the dregs of American society anymore than I currently have to is a horrifying prospect.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:24 pm to Roll Tide Ravens
I just looked it up.
Amtrak from New Orleans to Memphis is $62 one way for coach. It a 8+ hour trip. You can drive to Memphis in 5.5 hours, so of course no one wants to do that. But if it was $25 and took 3 hours or less, it would be utilized a lot more.
Amtrak from New Orleans to Memphis is $62 one way for coach. It a 8+ hour trip. You can drive to Memphis in 5.5 hours, so of course no one wants to do that. But if it was $25 and took 3 hours or less, it would be utilized a lot more.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:27 pm to theantiquetiger
quote:
But if it was $25 and took 3 hours or less,
High speed rail lines tend to be pretty expensive. Given the reduced population pool compared to western Europe I don't think you could get the tickets down to that price without massive subsidies.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:29 pm to theantiquetiger
And again. Between NO and MEM is Jackson.
Between Frankfurt and Düsseldorf is Mainz, Bonn, Cologne, and another 4 or 5 cities of over 100,000 people.
Between Frankfurt and Düsseldorf is Mainz, Bonn, Cologne, and another 4 or 5 cities of over 100,000 people.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:37 pm to theantiquetiger
While I agree trains are great in Europe, the difference is even their small towns have centers now. America is spread out, even if you took a train from city to city how many people would that help? In Houston for example from Baton Rouge? Almost no one would take it as who would go city center to city center?
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:40 pm to theantiquetiger
The US is a hell of a lot more spread out than Europe. But then China has a decent network brewing..
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:42 pm to theantiquetiger
Baws have to show off their new F350’s. frick the train.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:44 pm to ellishughtiger
quote:
West coast and North East trains are affordable and common. People down south would never want their tax dollars go toward such a progressive thing like this.
Gee I wonder why. Could it be that New York, Boston, Philly, Baltimore, and DC are all right there close to each other?
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:48 pm to JackieTreehorn
quote:
Baws have to show off their new F350’s. frick the train.
We could hang truck nuts off the back of every train
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:50 pm to theantiquetiger
With our African population, we would need a ton of police presence, and that would be expensive.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News