I have been on Amtrak trains. They’re fine. The drinks are bottom shelf and overpriced, the cocktails are a little basic, the seats don’t all recline, but they’re fine.
Another advantage: you can move agricultural products on train! Livestock, even! Sounds like a pretty good case for having trains, and Amtrak uses the same rail standards as freight, not that Amtrak is the only option for having a train.
Why do they have an airport but no train station? Train stations can be pretty minimal. They’re not hard to build. Maybe they should get on that. Especially if they’re so poor. Trains really seem like the way to go. This is a bizzaire state of affairs to defend.
I’m vegan and mostly eat fruit recently BTW. I probably don’t eat anything from there, and I paid for it if I did. Those vile chuds did not compensate me for the ecological damage of their bizzaire transportation decisions.
I’ve been on Amtrak too and have firsthand experience with them also. The goalpost wasn’t if they were “fine” or not. I was quite happy to use it, but was not in a hurry to get to my destination. Your ascertain was they are fast. For longhaul travel (which is what the flight replaces), Amtrak is not fast.
Why do they have an airport but no train station? Trains really seem like the way to go. This is a bizzaire state of affairs to defend.
Because of lots of the infrastructure, rail capacity, rolling stock availability that makes a passenger rail line isn’t viable to be self sustaining for that small a population without subsidies, and you’re already given them the finger on anything that costs you something.
I probably don’t eat anything from there, and I paid for it if I did. Those vile chuds did not compensate me for the ecological damage of their bizzaire transportation decisions.
This is a strange level of hate for people you’ve never met just trying to live their lives. Brother, you need some socialism in your life and empathy for your fellow man. We’re in this together.
I’m vegan and mostly eat fruit recently BTW.
Ahh, okay. Thank you for this critical information. I have a MUCH better understanding of your positions now. Thank your for conversing up to now. Have a great day.
So the thing about trains is they need tracks. Building tracks involves a lot of carbon output. You need to make steel, you need concrete, you need lumber, you need gravel. You need to ship all of these things to wherever you want to build the tracks. You need to buy the land that you’re going to build the tracks on. If you want high speed rail, the tracks have to be very straight and have very specific routes. If you want to electrify the train, you need even more metal for wires.
All that infrastructure, versus just an airport. It would take a lot of math to convince me one is better than the other, here. Once we have electric planes (the tech is mature, you can ride zero emissions planes in Canada right now, we’re just waiting on FAA approval in the USA), I think the balance will be clearly in their favor.
I love trains, but I think there’s room for both trains and planes in an environmentalist future.
I have been on Amtrak trains. They’re fine. The drinks are bottom shelf and overpriced, the cocktails are a little basic, the seats don’t all recline, but they’re fine.
Another advantage: you can move agricultural products on train! Livestock, even! Sounds like a pretty good case for having trains, and Amtrak uses the same rail standards as freight, not that Amtrak is the only option for having a train.
Why do they have an airport but no train station? Train stations can be pretty minimal. They’re not hard to build. Maybe they should get on that. Especially if they’re so poor. Trains really seem like the way to go. This is a bizzaire state of affairs to defend.
I’m vegan and mostly eat fruit recently BTW. I probably don’t eat anything from there, and I paid for it if I did. Those vile chuds did not compensate me for the ecological damage of their bizzaire transportation decisions.
I’ve been on Amtrak too and have firsthand experience with them also. The goalpost wasn’t if they were “fine” or not. I was quite happy to use it, but was not in a hurry to get to my destination. Your ascertain was they are fast. For longhaul travel (which is what the flight replaces), Amtrak is not fast.
Because of lots of the infrastructure, rail capacity, rolling stock availability that makes a passenger rail line isn’t viable to be self sustaining for that small a population without subsidies, and you’re already given them the finger on anything that costs you something.
This is a strange level of hate for people you’ve never met just trying to live their lives. Brother, you need some socialism in your life and empathy for your fellow man. We’re in this together.
Ahh, okay. Thank you for this critical information. I have a MUCH better understanding of your positions now. Thank your for conversing up to now. Have a great day.
So the thing about trains is they need tracks. Building tracks involves a lot of carbon output. You need to make steel, you need concrete, you need lumber, you need gravel. You need to ship all of these things to wherever you want to build the tracks. You need to buy the land that you’re going to build the tracks on. If you want high speed rail, the tracks have to be very straight and have very specific routes. If you want to electrify the train, you need even more metal for wires.
All that infrastructure, versus just an airport. It would take a lot of math to convince me one is better than the other, here. Once we have electric planes (the tech is mature, you can ride zero emissions planes in Canada right now, we’re just waiting on FAA approval in the USA), I think the balance will be clearly in their favor.
I love trains, but I think there’s room for both trains and planes in an environmentalist future.
Just as soon as we get those carbon capture factories working!