Sign in to follow this  
BackUpTheTruck

AOC Thread

377 posts in this topic

You mean she wants to invest in high speed rail, which has much lower carbon emissions, would create tons of jobs to build, and not to mention is far more enjoyable.

I'm guessing it wouldn't replace or get rid of coast-to-coast flight, just the shorter ones (e.g. LA to SF, Boston to NY, etc) that wouldn't take much more time via high speed trains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Angelsjunky said:

You mean she wants to invest in high speed rail, which has much lower carbon emissions, would create tons of jobs to build, and not to mention is far more enjoyable.

I'm guessing it wouldn't replace or get rid of coast-to-coast flight, just the shorter ones (e.g. LA to SF, Boston to NY, etc) that wouldn't take much more time via high speed trains.

"High speed rail" means "the government is going to steal your land"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

You mean she wants to invest in high speed rail, which has much lower carbon emissions, would create tons of jobs to build, and not to mention is far more enjoyable.

I'm guessing it wouldn't replace or get rid of coast-to-coast flight, just the shorter ones (e.g. LA to SF, Boston to NY, etc) that wouldn't take much more time via high speed trains.

Yes im sure business will be fine with that 45 minute flight turning into like 3 or 4 hours at best.
Have we learned nothing from the high speed clusterfuck in CA thats ballooned its budget and still might never happen?  
Its easy to think of these things in theory, reality is another matter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 12:23 PM, UndertheHalo said:

At least she’s serious about putting a vision forward.  They’re already lying about what she’s proposing. 

97899C93-2511-4AD8-9364-5FD949298CCA.jpeg

You mean everyone doesn't already do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2019 at 11:51 PM, floplag said:

Yes im sure business will be fine with that 45 minute flight turning into like 3 or 4 hours at best.
Have we learned nothing from the high speed clusterfuck in CA thats ballooned its budget and still might never happen?  
Its easy to think of these things in theory, reality is another matter. 

A 3-4 train ride may actually be quicker (or no time difference) when you consider the hassle and waiting for an airplane.  It’s certainly more relaxing.

I’m on a train in Austria right now.

6B88EF0E-0A2D-4F21-B4A8-2D961EEADC42.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, calscuf said:

A 3-4 train ride may actually be quicker (or no time difference) when you consider the hassle and waiting for an airplane.  It’s certainly more relaxing.

I’m on a train in Austria right now.

6B88EF0E-0A2D-4F21-B4A8-2D961EEADC42.jpeg

i agree partially, assuming you have all the connections in a convenient manner, which are often not the case.  Unless the train drops you off within walking distance of destination you still have other logistical concerns and costs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, floplag said:

i agree partially, assuming you have all the connections in a convenient manner, which are often not the case.  Unless the train drops you off within walking distance of destination you still have other logistical concerns and costs. 

...none of which is a concern at all when using air travel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RallyMo said:

...none of which is a concern at all when using air travel.

One of my favorite features about United and Southwest is that they will personally drop me off directly in front of my destination, either at home, or smack dab in front of a building in downtown Houston.  Never before has air travel been so accommodating.

They really go the extra mile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, the dude abides said:

One of my favorite features about United and Southwest is that they will personally drop me off directly in front of my destination, either at home, or smack dab in front of a building in downtown Houston.  Never before has air travel been so accommodating.

They really go the extra mile.

Dayum. That's gonna be hard for a train to beat. Here in San Antonio, they're only able to have locale specific stops in certain neighborhoods. It's not that precise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, the dude abides said:

One of my favorite features about United and Southwest is that they will personally drop me off directly in front of my destination, either at home, or smack dab in front of a building in downtown Houston.  Never before has air travel been so accommodating.

They really go the extra mile.

Frontier does the same thing.

But they ask you to bring your own parachute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, RallyMo said:

...none of which is a concern at all when using air travel.

Actually not, not really.   Yes you have the same logistical concerns but air hubs are built around such things, trains are not.

Ive taken amtrack and such often personally, and there simply isnt the same availability of access or connections.   One more thing that would have to somehow be paid for with whatever the monopoly money shes using would fund this clusterfuck.

The answer isnt to replace it, its to make it more efficient.  Were long past going back to the 19th century and using rail as a primary transport. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, floplag said:

Actually not, not really.   Yes you have the same logistical concerns but air hubs are built around such things, trains are not.

Ive taken amtrack and such often personally, and there simply isnt the same availability of access or connections.   One more thing that would have to somehow be paid for with whatever the monopoly money shes using would fund this clusterfuck.

The answer isnt to replace it, its to make it more efficient.  Were long past going back to the 19th century and using rail as a primary transport. 

Why did you take Amtrak when you could have taken an airplane? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RallyMo said:

Why did you take Amtrak when you could have taken an airplane? 

Cost, choice, convenience as i live 10 mins from my local depot and had a ride waiting on the other side.... take your pick.  Plus i wasnt in a hurry last time as it was to my in-laws, lol 
If it was anything urgent i would not have considered it as the train often takes longer than simply driving yourself due to the stops and locations of the stations.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried using the train to work. I had to change from Amtrak to Metro Rail at Unuon station then two stops later change Metro lines. In all it took 2 hours to get to my destination 40 miles from home and that didn't included driving to and from the rail station. Not convenient, cost efficient or enjoyable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  


  • AngelsWin.com Ad-free Membership Options