Why Do Conservatives oppose High Speed Rail?

http://www.seattlemonorail.com/

There is zero difference between a monorail and a train in terms of the routes. Both are rail systems except one has one rail and the other has two rails. And monorail can be elevated above ground while it is rare for trains to be elevated...

 

But high speed rail is a viable alternative to short and medium distance air on many more routes than conventional rail is now. As was noted, rail competes successfully with air on the west and east coasts.

Even at the height of railroading, most destinations did not give you a variety of choices of carriers. If you were going from Chicago to New York, you had choices. Or to the West coast. But taht was about it.

The same is increasingly true of air travel, although you wouldn't know it, not being someone who travels. Increasingly, the gates at major airports are being controlled by one or two carriers.

Rail offers the business traveller a real choice, and one that leaves on a regular basis.

Amtrak doesn't cancel trips if it doesn't have enough passengers on board when it's departure time.

Airlines do it every day.

 

You do realize the Concorde suffered massively from rising fuel costs? Going faster on FUEL is going to be a hell of a lot more expensive.

 

The article said 'taken as a whole' they are profitable but the short routes are funded by the profits from the Northeast Corridor profits.

I don't really care how many carriers there are as long as it makes sense. If it's a profitable business arena then others will compete for this business. If they're not profitable you get what you get as long as other parts of the business can fund the losses. They're private businesses and can do what they wish...it's up to the consumers to accept the status quo or find other travel arrangements.

The gates at airports are now hubs in which a few carriers operate. If you look around you'll also find smaller independent carriers as well.

How many air flights have been cancelled due to not enough passengers??

 

It's blaringly obvious that you don't travel!!!!!!!

You would have never asked that question if you did!!!!!! (ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

They do it ALL THE TIME!!!!!!!!!

Oh, yes, they'll refund your fare, or rebook you.

But if you wind up rebooked through two or three connecting flights and arrive hours later, too bad!!!!

I was at a conference in August where thirty people got stranded because the one airline that controlled most of the air travel in and out of the terminal cancelled the flight for exactly that reason. I've had it done to me several times.

Of, course, the more frequent abuse is overbooking, which is rampant in the industry. I've lost count of the times I've been booked on overbooked flights.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. It hasn't got anything to do with reality, that's for sure!

Finally, you're right that we need to look in the mirror to find the solutions to our problems, but you won't see the future in your rear view mirror, no matter how hard you stare!

 

As if it's any big deal but I have flown hundreds of times and NEVER had a flight cancelled due to lack of passengers.

It is imperative that the actual planes be in the right locations at the right time in order to maintain the thousands of connecting flights at hundreds of locations, therefore, medium and long haul flights are rarely cancelled. BTW; there are approximately 60 million flights per year in the USA and except in very rare situations, the last thing you would do is take planes out of the system.

Now on some short-haul flights like between SF and LA and between PHX and LA, in which they have round-trip flights every hour or so, it's easier to take a plane out of the system but even then it will cause huge problems because that plane is also needed at the next airport.

It was rare but I remember being on a couple of flights when there was only 10-12 passengers.

So while you are ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...I suspect you don't really know the frequency of flights being cancelled solely due to a lack of passengers...

 

I still believe we could solve our problem with a simple federal Standard of 100 miles per hour minimum for any new tracks.

 

I have, and I am only 24.

Weather screws up the network because almost every airline (save Southwest, why they are profitable) is hub and spoke routing.

Depends entirely on the volume of flight traffic between the two cities. SF / LA / PHX yes and on the east coast, but those are all in HSR range as well.

Doesn't happen much at all anymore. Those flights lose too much money. If a plane isn't full, they aren't making any profit.

They are better at booking. Every flight out of the airports I travel are 100% full this past year of my traveling. Anything less than that would not surprise me if they cancelled. Airlines aren't profiting well at all, so they need to be as full as possible. The planes only make money if they are full and in the air.

 

I would have just said, hundreds of times? When? Back in the 60's?

 

They hate any progress.

 

FOURTH highest GDP of ALL the states again where did you get the notion Floridia was a barren economic wasteland of retiress?

And the bleeding continues
http://m.therepublic.com/view/story/5509c49062be47df94aff104b2d159af/NY-Town-Loses-Factory

200 jobs moving from NY to FL. Between 1990 and 2006 NY lost 42% of its manufucturing base versus 18 for FL.

So do you just make this stuff up on the fly?

 

Scheduled airlines, part 121 carriers, cannot cancel flights unless it is a mechanical or technical reason. Those schedules are put out months in advance. Only charter carriers can cancel for lack of pax's.

I flew for business for over 25 years 2 to 3 times a month and NEVER had flight cancelled for lack of passengers. Excuse us if we take your claim with the same veracity as the others you have posted here.

 

It may require upgrading our infrastructure.

 

If selling tickets to use it would actually pay for it then I am certainly for it. But as far as I know this would be far from the case. Amtrak has been in business for decades operating at a loss and is heavily subsidized by taxes. Which makes me ask the question:

Why are Liberals so foolish with money and the economy?

 

Taxcutter says:
No.

It requires staggeringly expensive all-new infrastructure that does nothing else.

 

You mean like our InterState highway system?

 

Do me a favor. Go to Amtrak.com and check if they have a train that goes over 400 miles without making a stop. In other words, do a little research before you post stupid statements.

 

Ugh, LOL. Get your weight up, Florida.

New York - GDP per capita - $57,423
California - GDP per capita - $51,914

Florida - GDP per capita - $40,106

Yea, despite Florida passing NY in population in 2014, Florida's total GDP is nearly 30% lower than NY, and GDP per capita lags far behind NY, California, and most of the northern states.

Yeah, Florida the land of opportunity!!!

Look up the definition of the word SNOWBIRD.

- - - Updated - - -

The same is true of major airlines. Your point?

 

Yes Florida FOURTH HIGHESt IN THE NATION, in spite of your attempts to portray it as a land without economic opportunity. That means more opportunity than 46 other states.

200 jobs moving from NY to FL. Between 1990 and 2006 NY lost 42% of its manufucturing base versus 18% for FL.

So where is this land of opportunity up North?

I live on the gulf coast, I don't just visit, I know of snowbirds far more than you.

 

It has the 3rd highest population, and one of the WORST GDPs per capita. LMAO. Young professionals aren't flocking Florida for economic prosperity, buddy.

200 jobs? That's it? LOL!!!!

You don't need to educate a Buffalo, New York resident on snowbirds. I live in the Golden Horseshoe.. there are 10 million potential snowbirds within 100 miles from me. My father is a snowbird.

 

What are you talking about? Airlines are not paid tax money to run their business like Amtrak is.

 

bailouts

 

Sure after 911 there was a bailout because of the artificial disparity to the airlines immediately after that. That is not the same as year after year of government subsidy of Amtrak that can never make a profit on its own. Its not the same at all and you can tell when a Liberal is losing an argument because they answer with single words and vagueness.

If high speed rail was an effective and profitable solution to travel a business would have already sprung up. Jet planes are more effective.

 

No private business has the capital to fund a massive HSR infrastructure system.

Hell, no private business even has the capital to fund toll roads anymore. It requires bonds. There just isn't enough start up capital. California's HSR is projected to cost $85 billion. Name one company that has that kind of capital sitting around.

More liberal jabs.

The interstate highway system doesn't make profit, so why does Amtrak or HSR have to?

 

The interstate highway system is a much better example for you than the airlines. The reason I do not like the funding of a high speed railroad is that is a massively expensive venture and it is not more efficient at moving people that are jets. Jets are flexible. as a comparison I ask why do we see so many semi trucks on the roads moving goods at great distances when there are railroads all over the place? Why are freight lines shrinking rather than expanding if trains are so wonderful and efficient?