Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

SummerSnow

(12,608 posts)

6. Exactly. Money used for high speed trains can be best used for weapons of mass destruction.

Reply to Dwayne Hicks (Reply #4)

Thu May 14, 2015, 04:18 PM

May 2015

This is what they want

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

37 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why can't America have high-speed trains? [View all] KamaAina May 2015 OP

I think it would be great, but I'm not sure they would move the ball very far in terms of numbers. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #1

The Eastern seaboard is plenty crowded enough for a high speed rail system. -none May 2015 #7

Yeah, i kind of said the same thing. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #13

You're saying 1 person per 10 squire miles might not be enough? -none May 2015 #15

And how many trains per day per direction would they be able to run on the tracks? Warren DeMontague May 2015 #17

They can run more often than you think spinbaby May 2015 #35

As long as the MIC beast continues to be fed we'll never have nice things. bluesbassman May 2015 #2

NYC to LA is pretty impractical hifiguy May 2015 #3

Vancouver BC to Eugene OR seems more likely Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin May 2015 #30

Because Dwayne Hicks May 2015 #4

Exactly. Money used for high speed trains can be best used for weapons of mass destruction. SummerSnow May 2015 #6

took the fast train last month from Barcelona to Madrid . . . then to Sevilla DrDan May 2015 #5

When I visited France in 2003 hifiguy May 2015 #10

because we suck tk2kewl May 2015 #8

Fits the repug pattern of wanting to leave everything up to the private sector Cirque du So-What May 2015 #9

This message was self-deleted by its author olddots May 2015 #11

We can't have nice things because rich people need tax breaks. Vinca May 2015 #12

How can we get a project like that LuvNewcastle May 2015 #14

Because our normal speed passenger engines are burning? HereSince1628 May 2015 #16

Allocating money towards an actual public service and good? Daniel537 May 2015 #18

Lots of reasons. SheilaT May 2015 #19

$277.5 billion dollars. Xithras May 2015 #20

So we'd have to choose infrastructure and transport over military industry. KittyWampus May 2015 #26

its a matter of priorities. drray23 May 2015 #28

Thanks. Good to see the real numbers and facts. elleng May 2015 #33

We do have a world class freight system. 1939 May 2015 #21

Where is CHI? KamaAina May 2015 #23

And the freight carriers, Santa Fe and others at the time, elleng May 2015 #32

The railroads tried 1939 May 2015 #34

Because We Can't Have Nice Things ProfessorGAC May 2015 #22

Where are you going to get the track from? MicaelS May 2015 #24

Acela Express is hardly "high-speed" by world standards. KamaAina May 2015 #25

True Acela is not by world standards.. MicaelS May 2015 #27

Thanks for this personal, up-close reponse, elleng May 2015 #31

This country's too big. elleng May 2015 #29

America won't have decent infrastructure until Skidmore May 2015 #36

Because Americans are lazy B Calm May 2015 #37