Author Topic: primitives discuss antiquated mean of transport (Read 1192 times)

franksolich · « **on:** June 08, 2009, 04:17:12 PM »

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5800606

Oh my.

It's a very big bonfire.

The orange marmalade primitive:

Quote

marmar (1000+ posts) Sun Jun-07-09 04:18 PM
Original message

I took Amtrak from Detroit to Chicago this weekend....My train was 45 minutes late.....on the outbound, and 45 minutes late on the return. Amtrak doesn't own the rails in the Michigan-Indiana-Illinois corridor, so the trains have to constantly stop to let the freight trains, which have priority, pass.

Also, the bar/snack car was sad, with watered-down coffee for $1.80 and a CAN of Mountain Dew for $2. The bathrooms on board the train weren't particularly pleasant. And the lines to board trains at Chicago's Union Station bordered on anarchy.

And you know what, it was still 100x more pleasant than flying.

That said, the 250-mile trip from Detroit to Chicago shouldn't take 5 1/2 hours (and that's if it runs on time). London to Paris, which is a longer trip in miles, takes 2 hours flat, from St. Pancras Station to Gare du Nord.

HIGH SPEED RAIL NOW !!!

Four airlines fly more than 40 flights a day between Detroit and Chicago.....and I-94 could use a break from traffic. This is long overdue, and I hope Congress fully funds Obama's high-speed rail plan.

Right away:

Quote

auntAgonist (1000+ posts) Sun Jun-07-09 04:22 PM
Response to Original message

3. I agree. And as a side note we're planning on going from Jackson MI to Chicago via Amtrak. Never done it, but it sounds like it's not that pleasant, although better than driving.

I travel I94 to Ann Arbor EVERY day and I'd love to see LESS traffic on the highway.

Okay, folks, there it is, yet another example of the Democrat, liberal, and primitive mind-set. The primitive wants trains for "everbody else" to use, while the primitive has the luxury of personal automobile with less traffic on the highway.

Then the primitives, who have no taste, pan King's Cross in London, and then:

Quote

Bigmack (1000+ posts) Mon Jun-08-09 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #4

102. Yeah, but you have to remember...

Them furriners have all them fancy trains and depots and like that, but we have the best nuklar subs and fighter planes in the world.

USA! USA! We're #1!

(But rapidly headed from 1st world to 3rd world)

With Ma and Pa Kettle in the White House, we're headed that direction?

Then the primitives gripe about no places to sit down while waiting.

Quote

Horse with no Name (1000+ posts) Mon Jun-08-09 03:06 AM
Response to Original message

62. I hate to fly but I would love to ride a high-speed rail.

I just hope that IF they become reality, they aren't overregulated and become overly intrusive like flying is.

One asks Ms. Ed who does the over-regulating.

As mentioned, it's a very large bonfire, with a hodgepodge of issues; if one's into travel by train, one should haul out the boat and row over to Skins's island to see the bonfire in its entirety.

Ralph Wiggum · « **Reply #1 on:** June 08, 2009, 04:19:48 PM »

Quote

HIGH SPEED RAIL NOW !!!

Um, no. People simply don't want it. People love their cars. End of story.

DumbAss Tanker · « **Reply #2 on:** June 08, 2009, 04:35:46 PM »

There is some utility in keeping Amtrak as a warm-based capability, and in the Northeast Corridor it is quite valulable. However the level of investment to do interurban high-speed rail could never pay off. We had (relative to its competition) high-speed interurban rail all over the place 100 years ago, but the proliferation of less-comfortale, less-reliable, and slower cars killed almost all of it off by about 1926. It's one of those ideas that sounds great in a macroeconomic way, but fails dismally on the micro level.

JohnnyReb · « **Reply #3 on:** June 08, 2009, 04:48:20 PM »

High speed rail now, huh...........well, if you could drive your car down to the station and up on a flat car....then leave almost immediately at 300 mph for far off points while a good looking girl on roller skates came by your car to take your order for food and drinks......it might work. Until then, forget about it.

Thor · « **Reply #4 on:** June 08, 2009, 04:51:08 PM »

AMTRAK is owned and operated by our wonderful Govt. That should tell them something, right there.

miskie · « **Reply #5 on:** June 08, 2009, 04:57:20 PM »

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3xGtjhZ_Yg&feature=related[/youtube]

Monorail!

Chris · « **Reply #6 on:** June 08, 2009, 06:07:55 PM »

Quote

And you know what, it was still 100x more pleasant than flying.

Yet all you do is complain.

"Amtrak sucks! The solution to the problem is MORE AMTRAK!"

See how stupid that is?

Chris_ · « **Reply #7 on:** June 08, 2009, 07:12:44 PM »

Quote

marmar (1000+ posts) Sun Jun-07-09 04:18 PM
Original message

I took Amtrak from Detroit to Chicago this weekend....My train was 45 minutes late.....on the outbound, and 45 minutes late on the return. Amtrak doesn't own the rails in the Michigan-Indiana-Illinois corridor, so the trains have to constantly stop to let the freight trains, which have priority, pass.

HIGH SPEED RAIL NOW !!!

You pay for it shit for brains.

AprilRazz · « **Reply #8 on:** June 08, 2009, 10:12:18 PM »

You all should see the mess they are in here in Norfolk with all the light rail crap.

Chris · « **Reply #9 on:** June 08, 2009, 10:14:30 PM »

We have a light rail that runs from the football stadium downtown out to Lebanon. I'm not sure what the regular rider % is, but they seem to do well when there's a game in town. I'd be interested in seeing if those millions made any difference on the traffic on I-40 that the train was supposed to relieve.

The next planned branch of the train runs down to Columbia, along I-65 South. Traffic on 65 is absolute shit... I made the mistake of getting stuck out there during rush hour and it took me 2 hours to get home.

Texacon · « **Reply #10 on:** June 08, 2009, 10:31:03 PM »

They seem to forget that you could stuff about 40 of those little ol' countries inside the US. Hell 20 of them would fit inside the borders of Texas alone. A rail system here would not work quite the same way as it does oversees.

KC

RobJohnson · « **Reply #11 on:** June 08, 2009, 11:09:34 PM »

Quote

HIGH SPEED RAIL NOW !!!

Vagabond · « **Reply #12 on:** June 08, 2009, 11:15:36 PM »

A train ticket costs more than a plane ticket, DUmmies.

RobJohnson · « **Reply #13 on:** June 08, 2009, 11:17:48 PM »

Quote from: Vagabond on June 08, 2009, 11:15:36 PM

A train ticket costs more than a plane ticket, DUmmies.

Sometimes, it depends

Chris · « **Reply #14 on:** June 08, 2009, 11:26:47 PM »

I priced an Amtrak ticket from Detroit to Chicago... $60, round trip. I priced the same ticket from Birmingham, AL (the closest station to me)... it was nearly $500. I was prudent and got a quote for three months in advance, with a one-week stop.

RobJohnson · « **Reply #15 on:** June 08, 2009, 11:43:38 PM »

Quote from: Chris on June 08, 2009, 11:26:47 PM

I priced an Amtrak ticket from Detroit to Chicago... $60, round trip. I priced the same ticket from Birmingham, AL (the closest station to me)... it was nearly $500. I was prudent and got a quote for three months in advance, with a one-week stop.

My family used Amtrak a few times between where we lived in IL and my sisters in NE. My sisters family did the same. One advantage was, the train station was about 3 hours closer to her house, then the nearest major airport at the time...so that would wack off two round trip 6 hour drives to the airport....

I took it once, round trip was $118. It was like a trailer park on wheels....

Chris · « **Reply #16 on:** June 08, 2009, 11:46:18 PM »

I guess it was easier for my parents to load three kids up in the Suburban than to catch a train ride; Amtrak doesn't go to Nashville. That '77 Suburban wasn't bad, but if it had had a second bench seat it would have been perfect. A 12-hour drive to Sarasota jammed next to a brother and a sister was okay for a while, but it wasn't so great after about eight hours.

The Village Idiot · « **Reply #17 on:** June 09, 2009, 03:05:11 AM »

Quote from: Ralph Wiggum on June 08, 2009, 04:19:48 PM

Um, no. People simply don't want it. People love their cars. End of story.

didn't Rush just mention a study saying trains pollute more than if people just used their cars?

Chris · « **Reply #18 on:** June 10, 2009, 02:34:50 PM »

Why, yes... he did.

Train can be worse for climate than plane

Quote

A new study compares the "full life-cycle" emissions generated by 11 different modes of transportation in the US. Unlike previous studies on transport emissions, Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath of the University of California, Berkeley, looked beyond what is emitted by different types of car, train, bus or plane while their engines are running and includes emissions from building and maintaining the vehicles and their infrastructure, as well as generating the fuel to run them.

Including these additional sources of pollution more than doubles the greenhouse gas emissions of train travel. The emissions generated by car travel increase by nearly one third when manufacturing and infrastructure are taken into account. In comparison to cars on roads and trains on tracks, air travel requires little infrastructure. As a result, full life-cycle emissions are between 10 and 20 per cent higher than "tailpipe" emissions.

Rebel · « **Reply #19 on:** June 10, 2009, 02:49:28 PM »

Damn, you nawthuners are some spoiled f'ers. 280 miles....I drive. I can make it in 4 hours and in the comfort of my own vehicle.

SSG Snuggle Bunny · « **Reply #20 on:** June 10, 2009, 03:13:12 PM »

Quote

That said, the 250-mile trip from Detroit to Chicago shouldn't take 5 1/2 hours (and that's if it runs on time). London to Paris, which is a longer trip in miles, takes 2 hours flat, from St. Pancras Station to Gare du Nord.

I'm sure you would love it if Obama would get the trains to run on time.

Quote

Bigmack (1000+ posts) Mon Jun-08-09 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #4

102. Yeah, but you have to remember...

Them furriners have all them fancy trains and depots and like that, but we have the best nuklar subs and fighter planes in the world.

And they can afford their infrastructure because they pay less for defense because we guard their houses for them.

Of course if high-speed rail were such a great idea it would pay for itself...not that you people have ever allowed economics get in the way of your ideas.

Rebel · « **Reply #21 on:** June 10, 2009, 03:32:23 PM »

Hitler made the trains run on time; maybe that's what they want?

BTW, I've come to the conclusion that some people on this ball of dirt really NEED to be ruled. Some aren't capable of living as free people. Case in point, the DUmp.

Vagabond · « **Reply #22 on:** June 10, 2009, 04:46:22 PM »

Quote from: RobJohnson on June 08, 2009, 11:17:48 PM

Sometimes, it depends

I remember checking a plane ticket versus a train ticket from Tucson, AZ to Pensacola, FL in 1997. I can't remember the exact prices involved, but the train took three days instead of part of one, and cost a lot more than the plane. I remember the plane ride because that was the first time I ever rode a passenger plane.

DumbAss Tanker · « **Reply #23 on:** June 10, 2009, 05:01:16 PM »

Quote from: Rebel on June 10, 2009, 03:32:23 PM

Hitler made the trains run on time; maybe that's what they want?

The fundamental difference between maximizing security in society vs. maximizing individual liberty in it is the root distinction between Liberals and Conservatives.

RobJohnson · « **Reply #24 on:** June 10, 2009, 11:45:59 PM »

One advantage of the train is the view. You can really see some neat stuff. I seen all types of wildlife.

News:

Author Topic: primitives discuss antiquated mean of transport (Read 1192 times)