Running high-speed rail through Rochester allows higher speeds

How about great tax dollars needed to subsidized a big train ride?

It was just years ago that Mayo did not want trains coming through town as it could interfere with patient care. Now it is the greatest thing since slice bread.

We forget that MPR wanted these high speed trans as well. No they say no as noise may interfere with their broadcasts.

Just say no no Choo Choo Trains!!

Lite Rail from St Paul to MPLS is 11 miles and will cost $2639.20 for every inch of Rail. This States Politicoes are getting Huge Kick Backs on Rail! Just look at our Past Governer,(The Grand Father of Rail) The Big Bald dope smoker. Where is he Now? BaHa Mexico, trying to pay off the Mexican Government to keep tourist out of the southern tip of BaHa where his Home is. Rail, Pay Off.

It's pretty obvious that this high-speed railroad study did not take into consideration the monetary costs to a person on welfare who is coming to Minnesota from Chicago to pick-up their welfare check. It is pretty arrogant of the study group to think the person on welfare should have to spend some of their Illinois welfare check to buy a ticket for high speed rail to the Twin Cities. A Greyhound bus ticket is bad enough! Have some sympathy for our poor downtrodden population.

Pat from Blaine wrote:

How about great tax dollars needed to subsidized a big train ride?

Pat from Blaine?:
Look at where high speed rail exists in other countries, it's making money! Yes, subsidies will be needed yo build it and getit rolling but look at what the future holds for HSR.
The US is behind other countries in high speed rail technology but needed fear we can catch-up and surpass what has been accomplished so far.
Present rail technology needs to be vastly improved to meet future transportation needs.
Besides, airspace is being overcrowded daily while our roads infrastructure can not meet or exceed future demands. At least with subsidies the transportation infrastructures and industry can create new jobs, related industrial supports, and provide for a better way of getting around this nation.
At least our tax monies will be going for something constructive and useful for society.
gtV

Mayo NO TRAINS Clinic wrote:

It was just years ago that Mayo did not want trains coming through town as it could interfere with patient care. Now it is the greatest thing since slice bread.

They saw the light and benefits of high speed rail through Rochester. The future of transportation was revealed and realized by the soothsayers!

gtVoyageur wrote:

<quoted text>
Pat from Blaine?:
Look at where high speed rail exists in other countries, it's making money! Yes, subsidies will be needed yo build it and getit rolling but look at what the future holds for HSR.
The US is behind other countries in high speed rail technology but needed fear we can catch-up and surpass what has been accomplished so far.
Present rail technology needs to be vastly improved to meet future transportation needs.
Besides, airspace is being overcrowded daily while our roads infrastructure can not meet or exceed future demands. At least with subsidies the transportation infrastructures and industry can create new jobs, related industrial supports, and provide for a better way of getting around this nation.
At least our tax monies will be going for something constructive and useful for society.
gtV

I know of a Country where You would fit in! China! You are a bumbling IDIOT! Turn off WCCO and MSNBC, YOU have BRAN ROT.

I hate to break it you but high speed rail is a vast deep money pit.

Study after study only provers this yet people see a pretty train and really believe it moves move people than building a road or adding a road.

Ask the people that drive higway 55 in morning how train only slows them down.

High speed train move less people at a higher costs.

I am not in favor of high speed train financed by governments.

Noone should if they use logic and think it thru.

Pat from Blaine wrote:

I hate to break it you but high speed rail is a vast deep money pit.
Study after study only provers this yet people see a pretty train and really believe it moves move people than building a road or adding a road.
Ask the people that drive higway 55 in morning how train only slows them down.
High speed train move less people at a higher costs.
I am not in favor of high speed train financed by governments.
Noone should if they use logic and think it thru.

Bullet trains are excellent at moving people quickly and efficiently. One only needs to look at bullet trains in other countries to see that this is true.

The problem is what they're talking about would not be a true high speed train it would be only a higher speed train. It would not be fast enough to obtain the benefits because a true bullet train could not be run on the tracks that already exist. The tracks that exist could not take the strain.

While there might be parts of the route they're considering that could be high speed because they would have to lay down track, unless the whole route was new track made especially for bullet trains, it simply wouldn't be fast enough to justify.

Either they do it right and lay new track capable of handling the strain for the entire route or don't do it at all.

How about one of those tiny trains the kids ride on interconnecting alot of the prominent drinking establishments in Rochester, have a spur that runs up to Class Act in Cannon Falls. Put captain seats in them with a cup holders.

So Pat basically you want to build more roads - oh yeah thats worked so well hasn't it. Lets displace more people, more business and more tax revenue for another freeway system, so even more people can sit idiling in their cars for hours on end. We need an alternative solution that has proven to work in other cities.

Pat from Blaine wrote:

I hate to break it you but high speed rail is a vast deep money pit.
Study after study only provers this yet people see a pretty train and really believe it moves move people than building a road or adding a road.
Ask the people that drive higway 55 in morning how train only slows them down.
High speed train move less people at a higher costs.
I am not in favor of high speed train financed by governments.
Noone should if they use logic and think it thru.

Pat from Blaine:
Look at the stats from countries that have high speed rail[HSR]! HSR moves people efficiently when sound business and usage principles are applied to the system.

The HSR benefits outweigh the initial subsidies costs. History bears this out.
gtV

Leap Frog wrote:

<quoted text>
I know of a Country where You would fit in! China! You are a bumbling IDIOT! Turn off WCCO and MSNBC, YOU have BRAN ROT.

Leap Frog:
When are YOU leaving? I will see you off to your new country home. Otherwise, I would help to purchase a horse and buggy for you since you want to live and travel in the extreme distant past.

Where would you be if the automobile and/or Interstate Highway System wasn't constructed? Where would you be without the advances of the sciences and technologies that have improved our lives? Where would you be if 'you' and your attitudes stopped Progress all together?

Somewhere progress has to be maintained to improve all our lives. We just can't intellectually and ethically just stagnate with extreme selfish, singular Neolithic thinking.

Wake up! Smell the coffee! Help humankind improve its lot. Otherwise, I feel sorry for your extremist selfishness.
gtV.

Sporty2 wrote:

So Pat basically you want to build more roads - oh yeah thats worked so well hasn't it. Lets displace more people, more business and more tax revenue for another freeway system, so even more people can sit idiling in their cars for hours on end. We need an alternative solution that has proven to work in other cities.

Sporty2,

Yes I want ot build roads that have more lanes. Look at the waste dspace we have on our highways.

Also I like the idea of fast lanes that are designed to allow cars to go one way durin grush hour traffic in am and later the road goes the other way for pm rush hour traffic. I think I saw this in Chicago.

Wherever high speed rail goes in on elane that is taken away from cars and is more expensive.

Also I do not buy the idea it is cost efficient and making money.
Government does not have any incentive to provide efficenticies as there are no shareholders to account to and they believe most people don't know or care what they do.

I would like one study done to prove LRT or high speed choo choo's actually preform how they are proposed. Until then I am a disbeliever. An dno reports from a government funded entity that has stake in matter.

Sarah D wrote:

<quoted text>
Bullet trains are excellent at moving people quickly and efficiently. One only needs to look at bullet trains in other countries to see that this is true.
The problem is what they're talking about would not be a true high speed train it would be only a higher speed train. It would not be fast enough to obtain the benefits because a true bullet train could not be run on the tracks that already exist. The tracks that exist could not take the strain.
While there might be parts of the route they're considering that could be high speed because they would have to lay down track, unless the whole route was new track made especially for bullet trains, it simply wouldn't be fast enough to justify.
Either they do it right and lay new track capable of handling the strain for the entire route or don't do it at all.

Bullet trains are an excellent idea in the right situation. Most trains in other countries are travelling in a far more compact area. The trains being proposed are not as fast, and would be travelling over a larger distance.

The ONLY reason I take the train to Chicago is because of the beautiful ride along the Mississippi River.

gtVoyageur wrote:

<quoted text>
Pat from Blaine?:
Look at where high speed rail exists in other countries, it's making money! Yes, subsidies will be needed yo build it and getit rolling but look at what the future holds for HSR.

What a load of nonsense. Passenger rail "makes money" absolutely NOWHERE in advanced industrial countries. NOWHERE.

Sarah D wrote:

<quoted text>
Bullet trains are excellent at moving people quickly and efficiently. One only needs to look at bullet trains in other countries to see that this is true.

Bull. The subsidies are ENORMOUS.

Cybear wrote:

<quoted text>
What a load of nonsense. Passenger rail "makes money" absolutely NOWHERE in advanced industrial countries. NOWHERE.

Hey Cybear,

I did not write this dribble about passenger rail making money.
I believe passenger rails cost more money than passengers pay and therefore non using taxpayers fund the difference.

Hey - can anybody show a study that proves me wrong? I wold love to see this study. But let's face it - this conclusion does not exist.