I thought it said trans enthusiasts.
4Finally, a community I can be a part of.
1
I am five of those
3I was about to ask why they put Leftists on there 8 times, but maybe it's just us!
2Excuse me most leftist I know prefer cannabis or psychedelics, not cocaine
1
Car enthusiasts who dislike traffic as well
2Any road to Vegas is a high speed rail
2I'm pretty sure coke addicts don't want speed in their coke
1I do believe this was a pun about the impact of cocaine on sexual activity
1I'm pretty sure it's because a line of coke can also be called a rail.
1
Cocain addicts made me chuckle. What what does “bottom” mean?
1daddy pls... (´ • ω • `) my bussy needs a High-speed Rail...
3Being railed, I assume.
2receiver of penis in anus
1
It's difficult to build a high speed railway without making it go through some green space, so environmentalists won't always be happy :P
1Wait why weebs
0So that we spend less time on transit and more time on watching anime :>
1I guess because they like Japan, and Japan has a really good rail network.
1
Seattle got a light rail and it’s great.
0-
I got a light, gentle, loving rail and it was quite nice (obligatory 196 horny comment)
-
For cities I really like the light rail, metro service. No fixed times, but regular enough that it can be relied on to commute is perfect for encouraging mode shift from car use, and using majority line of sight rather than signalling makes things much cheaper. God I love trams.
1-
It is. I do wonder if a good portion of the sound transit board is secretly opposed to public transit. Why is the light rail not a flat fair? Why is the monthly pass such a train wreck? Honestly the whole system should be one flat fair?
Personal antidote. I had a easier time buying a day pass for Paris' metro (I don't speak French) than I did buying a day pass in Seattle.
0No one I know has bought a pass to use it.I did move away a year ago but it seemed like they never checked during that time because they just wanted people to use it
1
Metro rail has its place, particularly in large metropolitan areas. $20 to go from San Diego to Oceanside with AC outlets yet without I-5 traffic is superb. I'm a fan of the WMATA Metro (DC area) as well.
For an inter-city high-speed offering, I'm fairly skeptical. We have Amtrak and compared to air travel it costs just as much yet takes several times as long to move me across the country. It would have to be a high-volume route with a proven market for me to support it.
0Try looking at somewhere that does have high-speed rail, rather than only considering Amtrak's broken offering.
As an example; consider the journey from Paris to Nice. It's a 580 mile drive taking ~9 hours, a 1.5 hour flight costing £129 or a 5.5 hour train ride costing £71.
Once you include the hassle and time required for airport security, the gap between the train and plane closes significantly. 1.5 hours flying plus 2 hours at the airport before takeoff and another half hour after landing takes it up to 4 hours already, rather than the train where you can just walk into the station and get on. Then there's the comfort and facilities on-board. A cramped economy flight Vs a comfortable train with leg room, space to move around, charging plugs, etc.
When you look at it like this, is it worth spending nearly twice as much for a slightly faster but less comfortable journey? High speed trains excel over middle-distance journeys, too long to comfortably drive but too short for flying to really make sense. Imagine a train that would take you from the San Diego to the centre of San Fransisco in less than 5 hours, running 10+ times per day and costing less than flying. That's the reality of high speed rail in many countries. Can you really not see a market for it in the USA?
06-8 hours is not a pleasant drive from around San Francisco to around Los Angeles
I would take a train
1
