30-07-2003 22:08									#61
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Why would you nationalize the rail lines to accomodate 2% of rail traffic (according to the stats given by AS)?

	30-07-2003 22:08									#62
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: But why should South Dakota pay money to get people to work in DC?

I thought we lived in one country.

	30-07-2003 22:11									#63
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Only when it benefits you.

	30-07-2003 22:13									#64
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Sprayber Then you get someone from South Dakota wondering why part of their money is going to improve track from DC to NY when they don't even operate in their state. I think the idea of regional areas may solve that. But why should South Dakota pay money to get people to work in DC?

They currently help pay for roads in every other state and besides this is a farsical situation. A place like South Dakota gets many, many, many times out of the system then they ever put into the system. Rural places get subsidies from populous places not the other way around.

If Californians and New Yorkers have to pitch in "for the national good" to build roads in ND then the Dakotans can at least shut their traps about a train. Remember the balance of payments is heavily in their favor.

	30-07-2003 22:17									#65
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Sava I thought we lived in one country.

You know those South Dakotans. They are so anal on states rights


Seriously though, you know that will be the major argument. Most of the opposition is from rural states that won't get those new fancy rails that you see in popular science. When I was in Italy we took the train to most places and found it easier to get along then in a car. Id love to have passenger train service around in the South. But the result is that Amrak will hover around the Northeast and possiblily California while everyone is paying something that they will have to drive a thousand miles to actually use..

	30-07-2003 22:19									#66
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Why would you nationalize the rail lines to accomodate 2% of rail traffic (according to the stats given by AS)?

No, not just 2% but 100% of traffic both freight and passanger will benifit. You see here in lays the true genius of my plan. Currently, one train line owns all the freight lines into and out of most cities thus they have complete monopoly control over prices, schedules, speeds, warehousing costs, compensation for late arrivals (or lack there of), and what not. If the tracks were government owned then ANY registered service provider could service a town just as we have multiple airlines servicing towns now. This extra competition WILL lower prices and improve service. As an added bonus the rail carriers will only have to pay a user fee for the rail line instead of having to pay 100% of the maintenance no matter if they use the line or not.

Cheaper freight, cheaper passenger services, and better service for both. There is no down side to my proposal.

	30-07-2003 22:21									#67
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin They currently help pay for roads in every other state and besides this is a farsical situation. A place like South Dakota gets many, many, many times out of the system then they ever put into the system. Rural places get subsidies from populous places not the other way around. If Californians and New Yorkers have to pitch in "for the national good" to build roads in ND then the Dakotans can at least shut their traps about a train. Remember the balance of payments is heavily in their favor.

I don't know how it is in Cali, but in Arkansas most of the roads are state and local ones. Once in a great while the Feds lower themselves to patch I40 that runs through the state. It took nearly 10 years for the state to get matching fed money that was proimised. So unless Amrak is going to put some rail lines through the deep south I think I'll pass.

Or maybe they need to have a meeting with Southern Pacific or other freight lines on how to run a rail.

	30-07-2003 22:23									#68
	Put an end to popups!

Come on folks. Distance travel on trains sucks. Otherwise people would use it. I'm for more mass transit, but not distance travel.

	30-07-2003 22:24									#69
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Id love to have passenger train service around in the South. But the result is that Amrak will hover around the Northeast and possiblily California while everyone is paying something that they will have to drive a thousand miles to actually use..

Amtrak is big in the Chicago area.

And in 2001, I took a trip to AZ. We stopped in every little bum**** town you could imagine. The trains stop in rural areas, but nobody gets on them.

	30-07-2003 22:25									#70
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Sprayber I don't know how it is in Cali, but in Arkansas most of the roads are state and local ones. Once in a great while the Feds lower themselves to patch I40 that runs through the state. It took nearly 10 years for the state to get matching fed money that was proimised. So unless Amrak is going to put some rail lines through the deep south I think I'll pass

Federal grants pay for something like 50% of all state highway costs plus the Feds pay for 100% of all interstates. Further the Feds provide grants to cities to help them maintain and build road ways.

Face it, the ND has no right to complain when they get $1 out of the system and have to put $0.01 back in it.

	30-07-2003 22:25									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: No, not just 2% but 100% of traffic both freight and passanger will benifit. You see here in lays the true genius of my plan. Currently, one train line owns all the freight lines into and out of most cities thus they have complete monopoly control over prices, schedules, speeds, warehousing costs, compensation for late arrivals (or lack there of), and what not. If the tracks were government owned then ANY registered service provider could service a town just as we have multiple airlines servicing towns now. This extra competition WILL lower prices and improve service. As an added bonus the rail carriers will only have to pay a user fee for the rail line instead of having to pay 100% of the maintenance no matter if they use the line or not. Cheaper freight, cheaper passenger services, and better service for both. There is no down side to my proposal.

Freight lines also compete with air freight and truck freight. I agree that some things must be transported only on rails, but most of the other goods can be either trucked or flown. Thats where the competition is. I dont think that you necessairly need many different rail companies. Maybe two or three, because if they try to increase the price too much, people will switch to trucks or planes, or maybe even ships.

	30-07-2003 22:25									#72
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Come on folks. Distance travel on trains sucks. Otherwise people would use it. I'm for more mass transit, but not distance travel.

You are wrong. I took a trip from Chicago to Arizona in 2001, it was the best trip I've ever been on. After stopping in Flagstaff, my family and I took another train to the Grand Canyon. Train travel is great, and even better on long distances.

	30-07-2003 22:32									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Sprayber Id love to have passenger train service around in the South. But the result is that Amrak will hover around the Northeast and possiblily California while everyone is paying something that they will have to drive a thousand miles to actually use..

I remember reading a newsweek about three years ago which talked about a feasability study that Amtrak did for bullet train service. They found 22 routes all over the country (including one going through Kentucky and Tennessee as well as two in Texas) which have or are expected to have enough ridership to support bullet trains. The problem is Congress wouldn't supply the funds to build the trains & tracks so nothing came of it.

You cannot starve an oppuration like Amtrak to success any more then you can starve an automaker to success. Instead you have to come out with better products and services so more people will ride and revenue will increase. If we do that and force Amtrak to break up their worthless unions then we'd have a great service.

	30-07-2003 22:33									#74
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Come on folks. Distance travel on trains sucks. Otherwise people would use it. I'm for more mass transit, but not distance travel.

This is not true. Train travel is probably the most enjoable form of travel bar first class service in planes and ships. The problem is that it is too expensive. I can fly to Chicago and back to Jacksonville in four hours for $227 or take two days on the train for $260, without benefit of a sleeper car.

For short routes, if's pretty in expensive. It was $35 round trip from Chicago to Indy, and after the first two or three trips we took, it was always packed, such that we had to get there early if we wanted to sit together.

	30-07-2003 22:34									#75
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Imran: Fair enough, however, you didn't answer the other question. Clearly Congress sabataged Amtrak so wouldn't you agree it is hypocritical in the extreme for Congress to get mad about Amtrak not being profitable. Don't you also feel Congress should try repealing the outlawing of cutting unprofitable routes before we go through with Bush's plan to liquidate Amtrak?

But after all there are possible Benefits gained from letting Amtrak die.
People who in past times would ride on a train to work or just from A to B and have no car are now forced to buy and use a car, so it benefits the Car Industry and especially the Oil Industry (as I think more Oil (in form of gasoline) is used by the additional cars on the highways and by the additional flights wchich Airlines will set up, as the additional passengers require more Transport Capacity.)
SO, if you haven´t yet invested into Oil Companies, now it my be time to buy Oil stocks, after all they seem to have a great future

	30-07-2003 22:36									#76
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin I remember reading a newsweek about three years ago which talked about a feasability study that Amtrak did for bullet train service. They found 22 routes all over the country (including one going through Kentucky and Tennessee as well as two in Texas) which have or are expected to have enough ridership to support bullet trains. The problem is Congress wouldn't supply the funds to build the trains & tracks so nothing came of it.

Apparently in 1998, Floridiots passed a Constitutional amendment to set up high speed rail service in the state by 2006. The Republican government, however, has basically ignored it.

It's too bad. I'd really like to live somwehere besides Jax and still be able to work here, sompleace like Orlando. Hell, with Orlando as a high speed hub, you could live there and work just about anywhere in the peninsula.

	30-07-2003 22:36									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: This is not true. Train travel is probably the most enjoable form of travel bar first class service in planes and ships. The problem is that it is too expensive. I can fly to Chicago and back to Jacksonville in four hours for $227 or take two days on the train for $260, without benefit of a sleeper car.

It depends on the person I guess. I hate the stress of air-travel. When we went to AZ, it was first-class all the way. We had a two room sleeper suite. 3 great meals a day (it took just under 2 days), and free drinks and snacks included. I brought a laptop with and played Civ2, read, and even wrote while watching the beautiful scenery of the American country-side. It's incredibly relaxing.

	30-07-2003 22:36									#78
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Federal grants pay for something like 50% of all state highway costs plus the Feds pay for 100% of all interstates. Further the Feds provide grants to cities to help them maintain and build road ways. Face it, the ND has no right to complain when they get $1 out of the system and have to put $0.01 back in it.

Is that why it takes a decade to build a simple highway or repair one. If the folks in the Northeast or Chicago want to have a really nice train service then they should pay for it. If the people of the mid west want one then they should pay for it. If a couple of states want to get together and fund a system then fine. But by placing the federal goverment into things, you esure one thing. Delays and over spending. I say one thing because the two always accompany each other.

But hey, we got money to burn.

	30-07-2003 22:39									#79
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Come on folks. Distance travel on trains sucks. Otherwise people would use it. I'm for more mass transit, but not distance travel.

I agree. Trains aren't for long distance any more then ships are for long distance passanger service (the exception is a few wealthy people who truly enjoy it and will pay for it). Trains do work well at local and medium distances though (say LA to Vegas or New York to DC) and the government should be building those routes up by coughing up the case for Japanese or French style bullet trains.

When I went to Japan it took 20 minutes to travel the 60 miles from Norita (the main airport) to downtown Tokyo. The ticket only cost me $7.50. Why can they do that? Because the Japanese, like the French, understand efficiency and that the public good is served when a pratical, affordable, and timely multimethod national transportation system is in place.

	30-07-2003 22:42									#80
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: I agree. Trains aren't for long distance any more then ships are for long distance passanger service (the exception is a few wealthy people who truly enjoy it and will pay for it).

My family isn't wealthy. IIRC, for the 4 of us, it was $500 bucks for that Arizona trip. 2 days in a sleeper suite??!! I think that's great. And definitely less expensive than flying... and less of a hassle. Plus, on a train, you can get up and walk around, stretch, and aren't cramped into some cattle car like most flights.

Trains
planes

	30-07-2003 22:45									#81
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin I remember reading a newsweek about three years ago which talked about a feasability study that Amtrak did for bullet train service. They found 22 routes all over the country (including one going through Kentucky and Tennessee as well as two in Texas) which have or are expected to have enough ridership to support bullet trains. The problem is Congress wouldn't supply the funds to build the trains & tracks so nothing came of it. You cannot starve an oppuration like Amtrak to success any more then you can starve an automaker to success. Instead you have to come out with better products and services so more people will ride and revenue will increase. If we do that and force Amtrak to break up their worthless unions then we'd have a great service.

If Amtrak sets forth a proposal that includes service to most areas of the country ( i dont expect every rinky dink town to get it ) I will be the first ones that writes to my Congressman asking for Amtrak infrastructure funding. But what I'm hearing is lots of people paying for the service to a few.

BTW, if I had my way there would be more toll roads so that people would be paying for the roads they use.

	30-07-2003 22:49									#82
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Sprayber Is that why it takes a decade to build a simple highway or repair one. If the folks in the Northeast or Chicago want to have a really nice train service then they should pay for it. If the people of the mid west want one then they should pay for it. If a couple of states want to get together and fund a system then fine. But by placing the federal goverment into things, you esure one thing. Delays and over spending. I say one thing because the two always accompany each other. But hey, we got money to burn.

Sparayber: If you want to go that route then if North Dakota wants really nice roads then they should pay for it themselves. There's no reason the rest of us should have to pay for roads we'll never use.

The fact is we recognize roads as being an important government service. I have to pay for roads in 49 other states which I will probably never get to use but I pay it any way because it is in the national interest to do so. These ****ers who whine "I don't want to pay for something I don't directly benifit for" are greedy fools. I'd say 25 states in the Union pay 90%+ of all the Federal expenditures and yet the 25 who pay 10% *****, whine, and moan about every thing that doesn't revolve around them.

They should take a hard look at how much we pump into their economy and stop worrying about whither they will have to pay ) 0.05% of a rail project.

	30-07-2003 22:55									#83
	Inflate your Upload Space

Read my post right before yours.

BTW. Roads are used everywhere. The question is, will Amtrak be operated in a wide ranging areas, or will it be clustered? All I am hearing is about cutting service.

	30-07-2003 23:00									#84
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

You have a point about clustering. Passenger train service only makes sense in densely populated areas so it will have to be clustered around where people live.

I'm all for cutting unprofitable routes and breaking these unreasonable union contracts. Allowing them to cut routes just requires a change in the law while breaking contracts and making sure the new ones don't become as outragious as the last ones will require more competetion. How do you create that competetion if you don't use my plan?

	30-07-2003 23:06									#85
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Sava Trains planes

So say lots of people, but when it comes down to it they fly instead usually.

	30-07-2003 23:10									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: but when it comes down to it they fly instead usually.

I don't have any stats, but I suspect more air-travel is business related than vacation related. And most people don't even know about train trips. Most dumbasses just think flying is the only way. And this is really an irrelevant point anyways. It's like saying more people watch American Idol, so we should cut the History Channel. Just because something is popular, doesn't make it superior.

	30-07-2003 23:15									#87
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Sava I don't have any stats, but I suspect more air-travel is business related than vacation related. And most people don't even know about train trips. Most dumbasses just think flying is the only way. And this is really an irrelevant point anyways. It's like saying more people watch American Idol, so we should cut the History Channel. Just because something is popular, doesn't make it superior.

Air travel is superior though. The train takes too long. Why would you want to spend a large part of your vacation on the train when you could be at your destination?

	30-07-2003 23:18									#88
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Personally, as long as air travel is both cheaper and significantly faster, I'm taking the plane.

-Arrian

	30-07-2003 23:21									#89
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

On the up side if Bush kills Amtrak (which he probably will) then California might actually be able to work with Nevada and FINALLY build some sort of regional high speed train service.

Lines connecting LA to Vegas, SF to Reno, San Diego up the coast to Santa Barbara, and maybe another going from San Diego up the center of the state to Sacramento (thus tieing the whole system togeather) would be a good send. In order to compete though the trains would have to go at least 200mph and there would have to be experse trains as well as communter trains (I hate having to sit and wait at every stop).

	30-07-2003 23:22									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Air travel is superior though. The train takes too long. Why would you want to spend a large part of your vacation on the train when you could be at your destination?

The trip IS part of the vacation. I would hate to start a vacation with a stressful day filled with rushing to get to an airport, spending hours in security and waiting, then spending more hours sitting next to some fat, smelly, drunken business traveler... not to mention the safety concerns. It's too much of a hassle.

Arrian: our trip to Arizona was cheaper by train; more comfortable, and less of a hassle. We left at 8 AM on a Monday, and arrived 8 PM (local time) in Arizona on Tuesday. That day was great. We also stopped in Albequerqe for an hour and had lunch while the train was getting maintenance.

oh yeah, and there was 0% chance of a terrorist crashing the train into a skyscraper.