8 thoughts on “All Abort!

  1. Well the contract signing party Doyle had over the weekend before the elections could be considered “high Speed”…

  2. Even that characterization is quite beautiful. A fixed rail system in an increasingly mobile society is not feasible. Lefties have never liked cars and yet accuse conservatives of being backward. Were trains not the main form of mass transit in the 19th century?

    Walker is right on this one. Take the money and use it for roads. Remember the “shovel-ready” jobs that the stimulus was supposed to create. The Hoan Bridge, the Zoo Interchange, and the Marquette Interchange all need some work…

  3. I support high speed rail systems. 120-150 mph or more is fine with me.

    Would anyone change their opinion if they were high speed?

    1. It would certainly change the math. The train would then have a significant, competitive advantage over driving and even more so, over Badger Bus.

      On a less logical, more visceral level, paying $800 million for a train that actually goes faster than cars, for tracks that are actually current century technology is certainly more appealing. But then, I guess, if we were to actually do legitimate high speed rail, it would probably be double the price.

      1. Actually, when I read the details they’re actually building it for high speed period thus the price – just for some reason they’re making a slower moving train. Maybe they’re thinking of something gradual.

        The rails themselves are being built for high speed, but it’s a case of the trains being slower. ¯\(º_o)/¯ I don’t get it either, possibly to save money?

    2. I know a few who would honestly, to me it’s sounds like they’re laying down the groundwork to eventually go high speed. Despite people saying “A fixed rail city in our society will not work!” there’s a slight problem with that, a lot of us hate the Highway. You don’t know how much of the people who remember the trains up here miss them and used to exist up here in our state, if you even look at it historically Wisconsin was a crazy train hub and on some levels it still is with how many tracks there are.

      I have to ask these people – have they drove to Minneapolis or Chicago on a highway during business meetings? Several times? You have to constantly keep your eyes on the road, you have to watch people who say things like “Oh I can drive faster than that stupid train” and go over the speed limit running right in front of you where you could nearly kill yourself and them in the process. Furthermore, have they flown to those areas by plane? It gets ridiculously expensive, on both sides because I often have clients to speak with down there. Not only that, I sometime have to go to meetings and get there at time fairly early too to boot to the point I sometimes don’t get any sleep making me a risk on a road. I wouldn’t mind falling asleep there, or having convenience to to go the bathroom whenever I want. While a plane offers that as well, a plane’s prices are growing even more ridiculously expensive except for those ridiculously uncomfortable seats that I can’t fit in because of my height. (Although I’m fairly skinny as a rail.)

      A train for the most part is predictable and reliable. Connecting it from Madison to Milwaukee. Madison to Minneapolis, Milwaukee to Chicago, or even – Milwaukee to the Fox Cities. It helps many people like me, who not only have relations in those huge cities but also a lot of clients. Furthermore, it would be interesting if they bring on a way to actually take a car along on a cart so if you’re simply going around that area you can save your gas money yet you can still ultimately choose to drive around. (Yes,I know this is a little bit of a stretch, but it could someday be a reality.)

      However, I suppose the people who can actually afford gas when it’s not three flying fucking dollars a gallon probably don’t really know what I’m getting at at how sometimes I see a plane as more cost effective and even that is getting bad.

Comments are closed.