He is right about our rail system, at least the passenger rail part.

If there is a way for the new lines to actually be built soon enough to benefit the economy, this could be good.

Unfortunately, anything like this takes YEARS of planning and by then it will be too late for the kin of spending we need to have much effect.

Score about a 2 out of 10 on this one, President Obama.

kin = kind. Before 101 calls me retarded again.

kin = kind. Before 101 calls me retarded again.

#2 | Posted by axe

With posters like Oozie Ozbuns, Ish Kabibble, and Theo Nebs around, we should probably all be a bit more judicious with the use of that term.

kin = kind. Before 101 calls me retarded again.

#2 | Posted by axe at 2009-04-16 04:28 PM | Reply

A simple typo is one thing. Pretending to be an expert on "caymens" is another.

101 is really pissed off because I claimed he had BL2 syndrome.

"Mr. Obama said the $8 billion included for high-speed rail projects"

$800 billion wouldn't be enough.

I'd like to see realistic numbers from a non-partisan group on the number of people who would actually ride a "high speed" rail system from, say, Eastern Texas to Western Alabama. My gut says that if significant demand existed for such a system, a private company would have already built the lines and made money off them.

I don't disagree with transit per se, but money like this definitely should only be spent in areas where the trains will actually be used on a consistent basis. The Northeast makes sense, I guess.

Sheesh Obama. How about we take a break from trying to revamp everything in America?

joe, if the train went fast enough like the bullet train.

i would take it.

and it costs toooo much to lay down the tracks... only the government can do that.

private companies would buy the actual trains and use the lines.

If there were one here that would run from Chicago to Detroit, I would ride it all the time.

The problem is all the old railroad right of ways are turning into bike paths.

We have a network of airports and superhighways. These should be maintained first.

Cummuter trains, whether high speed or not, make more sense. High speed rails need many riders to support them and rights of ways. Maybe they should improve the Amtrak they've got first.

There goes nutcase thinking again.

If we don't start high speed rail we will certainly keep falling farther and farther behind in the mass transit industry.

Yeah they passed a bill here in CA for billions of dollars over the next 20 years to build a bullet train from LA to San Fran that will take 2 hours.

The cost to fly one way is $49.00 and takes an hour and 15 minutes.

There are not enough people to ride this thing to pay for itself. So it will end up subsidized and an empty hole to throw more money.

Why don't they do upgrades on the towers and computers to run the planes?

But he believes a "high speed rail" is a line of coke mixed with meth and snorted really fast.

Beat you to it 101 =P

"But he believes a "high speed rail" is a line of coke mixed with meth and snorted really fast."

Watch your speed, Kanrei Jones.

I'll agree with Nutcase. We probably should improve on the Amtrak we have first.

The average age of the current fleet of Amtrak railcars is getting toward 25 years old. Locomotives somewhat newer. But, more than a little long in the tooth... getting toward simply unreliable. 3 or 4 million miles does that. And, not nearly enough rolling stock to add capacity on lines and runs that need more seats.

A 3-hour trip is not going to bring in that many more people than a 4 or 5 hour trip. Two or three (not so fast) trains a day will convince a lot more people than one high-speed train.

Other needs... better reservations and ticketing. Power to every seat, and wireless internet onboard every train as soon as possible. Sleeping accommodation on overnight cars between the current 'roomette' and the current coach. (I don't need a toilet to myself, just a bunk or a capsule-hotel style berth). Possibly abandon the dining services for vending and call-ahead trackside delivery stops?

They've been talking about a high speed train between Grand Junction and Denver for 20 years. I wish they'd just shut up and do it, already. I'd ride it several times a year.

Murphy,

That $49 one way flight at 1 hour 15 minutes dosn't look so good when you consider the raping you go thru paying for airport parking, and the hour or so you have to arrive early for TSA crap. Then you get to sit next to a sweaty cow or two.

High speed rail at two hours for twice the ticket price would run the airlines out of business on that route.

Eminent Domain will be the Akele's Heal. No one will want this going through their backyard.

Great idea but sucks to be around.

Trains already exist where they make sense: relatively short distance with a high concentration of people. Places like the Eastern Coast, Chicago, and the corridor between San Jose and San Francisco.

That's also why trains make sense in Europe and Japan.

Murphy's right: We already have high-speed, long-distance mass transit. It is called airplanes.

That $49 one way flight at 1 hour 15 minutes dosn't look so good when you consider the raping you go thru paying for airport parking, and the hour or so you have to arrive early for TSA crap. Then you get to sit next to a sweaty cow or two.

#19 | Posted by axe at 2009-04-16 11:00 PM | Reply

Of course, parking at a train station will be free! Hell, they might even pay you!

And there won't be any security at a train station! Axe knows this because he saw a movie once (made in 1953) where people just hopped on at the last minute!

And only attractive, interesting people will be on the trains! No fat people! No sweaty people, and certainly no babies!

Vernon,

Ask any of the millions who use commuter rail about the parking cost and security wait at train stations.

We'll wait for you to get back to us.

Vern. Poster boy for the great wit of the GOP.

I think the train is a great option for travel in certain instances. New York to Boston or Philly . LA to SD or SF. Portland To Seattle or SF to Seattle. LA to NY it's probably better to fly. I'd much rather get 4 hours of sleep on a train than fly 3 hours but be cramped as hell.

Europe and Japan have creamed the US on this on.

Road the TGV in France when I was 15 years old, that's fucking ages ago.

Spain has high speed rail from Madrid to Seville, Barcelona, Malaga and soon Valencia, all cutting air traffic substantially.

Japan's Bullet is just beautiful to watch.

The US: old Amtrak snail-pace garbage ready for scrap.

Now someone mentioned that $8 billion would not be enough. Yep Obama is in dream land. Not enough even to buy the engines from Alstom, Bombardier or some Chinese piece of shit.

Main reason why high speed rail has not been established and probably never will: the US domestic travel market is just too mind boggling huge.

Crisis

Ask any of the millions who use commuter rail about the parking cost and security wait at train stations.

#23 | Posted by axe at 2009-04-17 01:32 AM | Reply

The subject isn't commuter trains dimwit. It's a new federal high-speed rail system which would likely be operated much like the FAA -- you know, the guys who run our airports?

You display your considerable ignorance; every time someone points out that you are a racist, an idiot or just uninformed, you get all puffed up and accuse them of working for the GOP.

They've been talking about a high speed train between Grand Junction and Denver for 20 years. I wish they'd just shut up and do it, already. I'd ride it several times a year.

#18 | Posted by Whatsleft
* * * *

That's great. We've got you down for about $200 a year.

Just $9,999,999,800 to go.

Ayn Rand must be laughing in her grave. The State will fuck it up like they did in Atlas Shrugged. They still can't run Amtrack without subsidies.

Amtrack could be run without subsidies but then a train wouldn't stop at every bumfuck town. Then again that is your point Ray. I also learned about a funny thing, in the summer the track gets too hot and soft and they have to slow the trains down. I had a two and a half hour delay because of that crap once. Oh how I longed for a track of Rearden metal.

Of course the fact that I can fly to Philly in 2 hours for 66 bucks or take the train for 6 hours and 149 doesn't help Amtrack's case either.

A profit seeking corporation would invest its capital where it can see a profit. Public corporations aren't sensitive to profit, instead to public popularity.

Of course the fact that I can fly to Philly in 2 hours for 66 bucks or take the train for 6 hours and 149 doesn't help Amtrack's case either.

My point exactly. Passenger service along the Boston to Washington corridor is a loser. I believe the trains run more than half empty. Also, Amtrack is not keeping up with rail maintenance.

Obama is promoting projects with high public approval, regardless of cost effectiveness. Mussolini was famous for keeping the trains running on time while the rest of Italy fall apart.

I do think that some of the lines could be useful. One on the East Coast, one on the West Coast, and the Midwest Connector maybe. The current plan shows the East Coast one stopping in Greenville, SC which is near me, and I'd take the train to DC or New York for a weekend visit. Because to fly anywhere at a decent price I have to fly out of Charlotte or Atlanta which adds a couple hours to the door to door time. Plus you'll probably get the eco-nuts using it and people like my mother who are deadly terrified of flying. Plus if the airlines keep adding on the fees and upping their prices people might be willing to sacrifice time for money.

Still I don't know if the government is going to follow through on this. I can't see it happening.

I think we need to start thinking in this direction, all the usual naysayers aside. Sure, there are huge logistical and monetary issues to overcome, but good for Obama to open this up to discussion.

They've been talking about a high speed train between Grand Junction and Denver for 20 years.

#18 | Posted by Whatsleft

Grand Junction/Denver? Perhaps ski train crap for people with too much disposable income. No other reason. There is nowhere near enough population to support anything like a full-time commuter line.

Guv Lamm wanted to do up the Front Range with commuter rail back in the late 70s/80s., Pueblo to Cheyenne, ultimately stretching down over The Rat to Santa Fe and Albuquerque. Then, they were looking a 10 to 15 billion dollars just for the Front Range. Add another zero for today.

I think this is a stupid idea. Think about it we in the United States don't maintain the Regular rail lines like we should. What makes You think we would maintain these High Speed Rail Lines any better, We need to fix our regular rail service before we even THINK about getting High Speed Rail

Larry

"I think this is a stupid idea."

#34 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-04-17 09:00 AM | Reply | Flag: No shit, Sherlock.

#34 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-04-17 09:00 AM | Reply | Flag: No shit, Sherlock.

Posted by Zatoichi

Coffee Zat, coffee.

Sad to hear all of the dissent here. I had great experiences with rail transit in Germany and the Netherlands. I'm a transportation engineer here, and am very hopeful that the US will give rail a chance (not just because of the $$ I'll earn, but it does help :-)

Rail is a really great way to travel - no waiting for security, you can take more luggage, including bikes for little to no extra cost. No stress involved with the trip. And for most trips, including those mentioned here, the travel time from point A to point B is less on a train, mostly because of security. And rail travel can end up being far less if you use it frequently and get a year pass. Many trips we took would have been longer in a car, as the train doesn't stop for lights and travels between cities at 200 km/hr.

I like high speed rail, but there's one reason and only one reason we don't have it.. Amtrak.

The best way to get high speed rail is to kill Amtrak and its unions. What I fear is the Amtrak model is going to be used, regardless of what Obama says, and if it is, high speed rail will never happen.

The Air Traffic Controllers union has stalled upgrades to the air system for decades, and are still stalling. The rail unions are worse.

Anyone supporting high speed rail, and I'm one of them, should be lobbying congress to kill Amtrak. (It would be cheaper on most Amtrak runs, to buy every single passenger an airplane ticket.. that's how inefficient Amtrak is)

It's a national disgrace, and every American, regardless of party should be infuriated by it.

US will give rail a chance

#37 | Posted by illumin

That's okay-fine for Europe, very densely populated. Plus, despite high ridership, Euro rail systems are also highly subsidized by the various governments (thorough of course, taxes).

As was stated above, in the high-pop urban corridors, it makes sense, to a degree. But in the Mid-West, West (not including the Left Coast), Southwest, North, with local exceptions, there is far too little population density to make a passenger supported rail system viable.

#39 | POSTED BY ZOT AT 2009-04-17 09:49 AM

Grand Rapids, Lansing, Detroit, Chicago, Kalamazoo - as the Michigan economy begins to turn around, these cities could thrive w/ rail options. Many travelers daily take their cars from GR and SE Michigan to Chicago. Same w/ the Detroit-Chicago corridor. Riding rail is far more efficient and can be cheaper.

Could you please link support showing that rail in Europe is subsidized? I was under the impression that the German rail system, owned and operated by a private company, was a profitable enterprise. They even sponsor a football team...

#40 | Posted by illumin

Deutsche Bahn, the main German rail provider is state-owned. There are some privately owned regional providers also.

Could you please link support showing that rail in Europe is subsidized? I was under the impression that the German rail system, owned and operated by a private company, was a profitable enterprise.

#40 | Posted by illumin

You can start by wading through this report.

Size, structure and distribution of transport subsidies in Europe

New York to Chicago to Seattle would be nice, but that would probably be 50 years from now, after first getting the regional inter-urban lines established. Get the rail on the West Coast, East Coast, and in the MidWest, for starters.

"The Air Traffic Controllers union has stalled upgrades to the air system for decades, and are still stalling... It's a national disgrace, and every American, regardless of party should be infuriated by it." #38 | Posted by nmg_no

You almost sound like you know what you are talking about.

One Track Wonders

"No mass people transport system can stand on its own without hefty influx of government monies or else the use costs become prohibitive for average Joes and Janes to use them."

Agreed, but back in the 80's and 90's the Japan rail system became privatized.

They did some wonderful things once privatized. They built hotels/malls right inside the stations. Similar to the Orlando airport. This benefited business in the city itself.

We can't just think building the tracks is all that is needed. We need to think about it as a travel system.

I would like to see that happen... I would also like to see tram like systems that can go intracity as well.... That is one thing I miss about Europe... the ease of mass transit. It was so much easier... and right now we are fighting our City Council for a stinking bus system.. and we are a city of over 300k people.. :/

Anyone supporting high speed rail, and I'm one of them, should be lobbying congress to kill Amtrak. (It would be cheaper on most Amtrak runs, to buy every single passenger an airplane ticket.. that's how inefficient Amtrak is)

~~~

I agree on that... I thought about taking AMTRAK to Ohio to see my extended family and it was cheaper for me to fly... even when I was going from Boston to Columbus...

High-speed trains to .... no where?

Do you really trust our corrupt and inept elected government to do this right?

You have got to be insane.

The earmarks, corruption, and waste would doom this before the first shovel of dirt was thrown.

If the President really wanted to change things for the better, he would work to convert the U.S. from oil to ethanol.

I worked for a company that wanted to do that in Texas. They put in a bunch of money and then went tits up.

High speed rail across the US, my ass.

EXCERPT FROM WIKIPEDIA

Privatisation project

The planned privatisation is subject of a highly controversial political discussion in Germany. Whereas the government claims the need for fresh capital and efficiency improvements in favour of the privatisation, the opponents fear a deterioration of service in many less economic sectors. The main question is whether privatisation should be carried out with the railway system (integrated model) or without (split model). A political trade-off is likely, with the split model as basis, but DBAG having the right to operate the railway system for 15 years. An open question is the matter of compensation for investments into the system during this time.
The Social-Democrat Minister Wolfgang Tiefensee was to present a law project before the council of ministers which envisioned selling 25% of DBAG beginning in 2008. At term, the state should retain control by owning a 51% stake. Deutsche Bahn AG is evaluated at 20 billion [10]. However, the railways are evaluated at 200 billion[11].
In October 2007 the railroad engineer's strike was another problem for the privatisation plans. The engineers' union GDL has refused to accept the labor contracts between DBAG and other unions, claiming a 31% pay rise for its members. The strike was the first nationwide railway strike since 1992 [12].

No where else does it even reference the fact that this is government-subsidized. My impression is that it requires gov't support only because they are forced to run lines to rural areas where it is inefficient. That would NOT be the case if we only built high-speed rail. They would (should) only connect high density areas.

If the President really wanted to change things for the better, he would work to convert the U.S. from oil to ethanol.

#49 | Posted by BENDOR

Do you have any idea how many square miles of corn we would have to grow to do that??? I guess you don't.

I am actually in favor of a huge overhaul of our rail systems. I live in the central portion of IL so I do tak ethe trian to St. Louis, and Chicago to see bands/shows/games quite often. High speed rail would slash the travel time for these trip with me and friends.

Do you have any idea how many square miles of corn we would have to grow to do that??? I guess you don't.

#52 | POSTED BY SNIPER AT 2009-04-17 11:57 AM

It's off-topic, but

Do you have any idea how many different agricultural products (many of which are more real-estate-efficient) we can use to produce ethanol?

Ethanol is really just chemical solar power that works in our existing transportation structure.

Most supporters of ethanol recognize that using corn exclusively is not possible because it is a major food source. Using algae is far more practical and productive.

Do you have any idea how many square miles of corn we would have to grow to do that??? I guess you don't.

#52 | Posted by Sniper

Actually I do.

Corn, by the way, happens to be one of the least productive feed stocks for ethanol production.

Corn is used now for purely political reasons - not technical ones.

All plant life uses photosynthesis which converts sunlight and nutrients into sugar-based carbohydrates.

Ethanol is simply a bi-product of yeast eating those sugars.

Every area of the U.S. has its own unique plant types that could be used for ethanol production.

For example,

cattails 2500 gals. per acre
sorghum 3500 gals. per acre
cassava 2000 gals. per acre
sugarcane 900 gals. per acre
corn 300 gals. per acre
... many, more.

Think of it, community-based energy production. With local farmers providing the feedstocks.

Just like we used to do it in the 1910-20's here in the U.S.

Thats right! Henry Fords cars were all flex-fuel vehicles. And 99% of the "gas stations" pumped ethanol.

Ethanol is 105 octane, burns cooler with less vibration, less flammable in accidents (NASCAR), 98% pollution-free, and does not clog engines with carbon deposits (increasing engine life).

An ethanol-based U.S. would be REAL change. Exactly why it won't happen.

Best of all.

Ethanol is produced from a solar powered renewable resource - plants.

Something not controlled by Kings who need to be kissed and bowed down to by our Presidents.

Bendor once again proves he is a fucking moron.

Ethanol is a scam perpetrated by Monsanto and the other mega-agribusinesses and enabled by larcenous politicians of both parties to rob the American taxpayer. It takes more petroleum to fuel the machines that plant, custivate and harvest the corn than the ethanol returns. Without the stolen tax dollars subsidizing this scam, there would be no way to make money producing ethanol.

Go back under you rock, fool!!!

Sniper, check out the link below.

I think you might be surprised when you learn more about the possibilities of ethanol!

Peace.

At least a project like this would build something tangible that will benefit regular people for a while. Don't get me wrong, we'll never get back the money we put in. I'm just saying that if it is a given that government is going to throw a trillion dollars around, I'd rather it be on roads, bridges, dams, railways and other infastructure than on bailing out thieves.

Bendor once again proves he is a fucking moron.

Ethanol is a scam perpetrated by Monsanto and the other mega-agribusinesses and enabled by larcenous politicians of both parties to rob the American taxpayer. It takes more petroleum to fuel the machines that plant, custivate and harvest the corn than the ethanol returns. Without the stolen tax dollars subsidizing this scam, there would be no way to make money producing ethanol.

Go back under you rock, fool!!!

#57 | Posted by axe

Axe, axe, axe...

Once again, your post proves who the idiot is.

Do a little more research before you open your ignorant mouth.

And Bendor's an idiot if he thinks the corrupt politicians and big agribusiness will allow one dime to be spent on any form of ethanol production other than corn.

Ethanol is a scam worth billions to these thieves any they will kill to protect it.

Why is the guy who defaults to conspiracy theories about "big agribusiness" and their secret cabals calling other people "idiots"?

Why is the guy who defaults to conspiracy theories about "big agribusiness" and their secret cabals calling other people "idiots"?

#62 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao at 2009-04-17 12:43 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)Funny

Ethanol is valid I think, obviously not corn. But from what I hear from my peers, quite a few of the folks in the aero industry are looking at algae for ethanol production. You wouldn't even have to use farmable land to produce it.

Why is the guy who defaults to conspiracy theories about "big agribusiness" and their secret cabals calling other people "idiots"?

#62 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao

Because Axe is a partisan Democrat who can't stand any other points of view.

Even when he would probably sometimes agree (with this one for example) if he let his brain do his thinking for him.

Before engaging his ignorant mouth.

Algae is one of hundreds of plants that could be used for ethanol production.

Algae is also one of the leading areas of current research.

An ethanol-based U.S. would be REAL change. Exactly why it won't happen.

#55 | Posted by BENDOR

We consume about 10.5 million bbls of gasoline per day. Corn produces about 10 bbls of fuel per acre. Do the math!!! That is a little over 1 million acres required to make one days gasoline consumption.

You tell me why it won't happen!

Ethanol is valid I think, obviously not corn.

I agree.

There's millions of acres on the South Plains alone that could be taken out of cotton production and seeded in switchgrass or lovegrass (high biomass). They already do it in the CRP programs. That country had no business seeing a plow in the first place, and needs to be placed back into grass. It would save water, save topsoil, make habitat, and increase the amount of rangeland available for beef cattle production.

"... and increase the amount of rangeland available for beef cattle production."

Yummy, steak, no complaints here.

We consume about 10.5 million bbls of gasoline per day. Corn produces about 10 bbls of fuel per acre. Do the math!!! That is a little over 1 million acres required to make one days gasoline consumption.

You tell me why it won't happen!

#66 | Posted by Sniper

But it has happened Sniper.

Brazil is an ethanol-based country. The U.S. and Germany once were as well.

Like I stated, corn is probably the worst feedstock we could use.

Like I stated, corn is probably the worst feedstock we could use.

#69 | Posted by BENDOR

I guess you don't want to do the math so I will.

So use the best. that would be 1/2 million acres for one days consumption assuming you could provide the water required for that. The dry west would not produce that kind of grass without irrigation.

Back to being reasonable. Lets see, 1 million acres per day times 365 days per year. Damn, that is only 365,000,000 acres. 365 million acres is, oh hell, only 573,438 square miles. Just for gasoline replacement. I don't see any problem with that.

Food for fuel is insanity.

Sniper! Zap! Read the posts!

Corn: 300 gals/acre
Sorghum: 3500 gals/acre

genetically modified algae is supposed to be even better. How much algae do you eat, Zap?

#67 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao

That is very true... Even though the ag land there is still predominately cotton, ethanol plants are popping up all over the place in that area... and it's really helped the area as far as income.

And I wholeheartedly agree that it should never have seen a plow... I am from the Lubbock area and it's atrocious on the degredation of the soil... not to mention that there is only one aquifer in that area that can supply ground water, no rivers and the only two lakes there are resevoirs.

Corn: 300 gals/acre
Sorghum: 3500 gals/acre

#72 | Posted by illumin

Where did thoes numbers come from? The one for corn is 3 times higher than the ones I have seen.

there are = that are.

Sniper, nice mental gymnastics but your premise is based on faulty assumptions, not facts that are germane to the issue.

The U.S. has 3,718,695 square miles which is 2,379,964,800 acres.

Of which, the U.S. uses 434,164,946 acres for cropland.

Some of the most efficient ethanol feedstocks - swithgrass, sorghum, and mesquite - do not require cropland nor do they any require irrigation.

The U.S. has vast areas of agriculturally "worthless" land that could be used for renewable energy production. Without requiring ANY irrigation water.

Myths and misconceptions concerning ethanol are the greatest obstacles to achieving true energy independence.

In all fairness, I encourage you to dig a little deeper. Do some of your own research.

Here's a good website to wet your appetite. Watch some of the videos, read some of the material.

Peace.

no rivers

Shit....

You've never done a whitewater trip down Yellowhouse?

I am from the Lubbock area

I probably know you, then.

The U.S. has vast areas of agriculturally "worthless" land that could be used for renewable energy production. Without requiring ANY irrigation water.

It's a fair guess that they are government lands locked up by environmental regulation.

The largest irrigated crop by dry weight in the U.S.?

Grass clippings!

In California, grass clippings alone could supply 15% of the states auto fuel needs.

Not a practical solution of course, but it does help to illustrate the potential of ethanol.

The sources of potential feedstocks are almost limitless.

Anyone ever see the "Monorail" episode on the Simpsons? BO surely fits the slick, salesman, mode down to the letter.

Expect the left to be raising their hands in the air singing, "MONORAIL, MONORAIL, MONORAIL" whether it's a good idea or not.

I'd like to see that actually....

Some of the most efficient ethanol feedstocks - swithgrass, sorghum, and mesquite - do not require cropland nor do they any require irrigation.

The U.S. has vast areas of agriculturally "worthless" land that could be used for renewable energy production. Without requiring ANY irrigation water.

I got really excited about ethanol early on.. and one of my best friends is a consultant to this industry.. but friend, it ain't that cut and dried.. if we were to switch to significant ethanol use right now.. we'd be importing food instead of oil.. (and a lot of us walking to work leaving our cars at home with empty fuel tanks, assuming we still had any jobs to walk to)

Lots of potential there, and it needs to be worked on.. but there's no viable substitute for oil in yours or my lifetime probably.. alternative energy is a generation away..

...should only be spent in areas where the trains will actually be used on a consistent basis. The Northeast makes sense, I guess. -- #7 | Posted by JOE

I suspect trains would be used a lot more in other places if they were reliable. On much of the West Coast, the freight trains own the rails and there aren't enough places to pull over -- so Amtrak spends a lot of time parked in the middle of the route. (One Easter I sat on the tracks *6 hours* in the middle of what was supposed to be a 2-hour trip b/c the freight people had left a train in the way, and couldn't be bothered to move it.)

The highways are so congested, though, that I'd be surprised if other people didn't welcome an alternative.

#77 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao

Nope... haven't gone done to Yellowhouse.. :p I actually forgot about it, but now that you reminded me that will have to be a trip to go on, I am more of a rock climbing/repelling person... I keep thinking of places like the White "river" which is now just a river bed that breeds sparrows... wait, I mean mosquitoes after it rains.

I probably know you, then.
Maybe... I don't live there now but we (my husband and I) do try to go out there once a month to see our parents...

On much of the West Coast, the freight trains own the rails...

Oh -- and the irony is that a lot of West Coast-ers beat their chests a lot about being green and actually believe they're environmentally conscious, as they're getting into their SUV's. I'd bet C02 emissions per capita in many "green" WC cities is at least double those in NYC.

Some of the most efficient ethanol feedstocks - swithgrass, sorghum, and mesquite - do not require cropland nor do they any require irrigation.

Myths and misconceptions concerning ethanol are the greatest obstacles to achieving true energy independence.

#76 | Posted by BENDOR

You are correct. There are many myths. The biggest is how many gallons of fuel you can get per acre. Thoes high numbers are from control plots that get the best fertlizer and the correct amount of water.

Averages from acutal farm land is a much better indication of what can be expected. Please try to use a little common sense in your arguements.

For starters, if it is so great, why does the industry need so much government money to work?

Why does it take a government mandate and higher pump prices for us to use as little as 10% in our gasoline?

If it is so great, why don't all the energy companies rush to it? After all, they are all there to increase their profits and using something cheeper to replace gasoline would make them a 'shit pile' of money.

Sniper, your questions make great starting points for some of the kind of research I suggest you do.

Do the research; I think you will be surprised by what you discover.

I could tell you the answers but I know I can't expect you to take my word for it.

Your questions are excellent - and they all have surprising answers.

Here's a hint though: politics.

Oh, by the way, distillers grains make so of the best animal feed and organic fertilizer that money can buy.

Yes let's invest in amtrak because it has been such a great return on the money blindly thrown into the Abyss

I have done quite a bit of reasearch on the subject and I can't find one bit of evidence that it is profitable. Help me out on that one.

Would you rather be given:

A. A $20,000 car
b. A $20,000 vocher for high-speed train tickets

If more people would answer a. then high-seed rail might be sustainable.

For example, in Japan more people would probably answer a. Commuter trains wind that country like wire on motor magnets.

For all you would-be haters. Let me be the first to say I fucked my last post all up.

Hopefully you ascertained the meaning anyway.

Sorry about that, I will be more careful next ttime :0

Re: Rails

I'll believe it when I see it.

And I hope I see it.

With posters like Oozie Ozbuns, Ish Kabibble, and Theo Nebs around, we should probably all be a bit more judicious with the use of that term.

#3 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2009

how disappointing ..is this the BEST you can do

in fact this is one item that I wouldnt be against until we know more details
I have said for a long time that here in houston we should have been building rail or subways for a long time.
the answer is always how much it will cost and every year you let go by saying that the price only goes up.

OF course we probably should look at the history of amtrak but I guess you could also say that there would be more people using this rail and it wouldnt cost an arm and a leg

BUT...if you have never gotten POON On a moving train..

well its just like in the movie "silver streak"

oh that motion is a nice backdrop.

Would you rather be given:

A. A $20,000 car
b. A $20,000 vocher for high-speed train tickets

#89 | Posted by BENDOR

You have come up with another way to spend my tax dollars.

Do you ever stop and think where the "government's money" comes from? You know they don't produce anything, they just take what they want at the point of a gun.

they dont give a shit about where any money comes from but at least I can see something worthwhile on this issue rather than money for the murder of innocent life around the world and such.

That's great. We've got you down for about $200 a year.

Just $9,999,999,800 to go.

#27 | Posted by rightisright

I'd guess that I'd be paying more like $2000.00 per year and with several ski areas in between on the mentioned +/- 250 mile route, I think it could easily be justified. Frankly, I think the ski areas should pony up a significant portion of the $$ if they want to stay in business.

It doesn't matter. This country is so f---ing slow to do anything that I'll never see it in my lifetime, and traffic will just continue to get worse.

Look no further than Amtrak and it's 11 Billion $ plus bail outs. More Union votes secured at taxpayer's expense.