The GAT Thread

Kurke_Aumea · Post by **Kurke_Aumea** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:06 pm

Apium wrote:
Waucod Meesman wrote:
Kurke_Aumea wrote:Just to settle the argument, I was laughing at Waucod's comment about misspelling Europe.

Anyways, do you guys think I should start a political thread? I know, it's a can of worms. But, I'm bored out of my mind and I'm looking for an interesting thread to start. Yes, there would be ground rules and anyone who broke them would face severe punishment.

On that note, if anyone starts a political thread I will lock it. Sorry, I have to make a decision about it first before anyone can start one of those topics.

Take that Auvair!!!!!!!

DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT!!!!!!

pfft

As to the voting thing. Instead of running all these ads about getting people to vote, how about we educate people on who they could vote for?

I agree Apium. I really got a kick out of the '04 Presidential election. Remember how big of a drive there was to get people under 25 signed up to vote? For all the new people the registered to vote, the same number of people in the age group showed up as did in the previous election... Still, I would love to see much better initiatives to help voters understand the issues they are voting on.

Of course, why would a politician want to educate a voter when they can just use a voter's ignorance to obtain a vote?

Leviathen · Post by **Leviathen** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:44 pm

Go for the whole political thread. I'd enjoy that.

And our mass transit system blows :/

Waucod Meesman · Post by **Waucod Meesman** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 6:18 am

Leviathen wrote:And our mass transit system blows :/

Whatever thats supposed to mean...

Leviathen · Post by **Leviathen** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 7:53 am

in reference to Kurke saying that Europian cities have good mass transit systems.

Waucod Meesman · Post by **Waucod Meesman** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 7:57 am

ok...

Kurke_Aumea · Post by **Kurke_Aumea** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:04 am

Look at Western Europe and compare their mass transit to ours. It is far superior. Only a few of our largest cities have a subwy sytem. Our mid-sized cities have some light-rail passenger systems, but nothing on the scale that they need to be to efficiently move a large amount of people. Most cities rely on a busing system, but those are only useful for inner-city, short distance transportation.

What the U.S. really needs is a few high speed rail lines that connect our larger cities (any city around 500,000 and larger). I mean, imagine if you could travel from New York City to LA in 6 hours or so by rail? Or instead of a straight thru train from NY to LA, you could have one that travels to your major cities such as Ny, Cleveland, Chicago, St. Louis, Kansas City, Las Vegas, and LA.

Why we don't have such a rail system is kind of baffling. With the amount of highway congestion we have and the air system in shambles as it is, a high speed rail system could reduce traffic on our interstate systems, reduce usage of our over-used air system, and greatly reduce pollution.

Leviathen · Post by **Leviathen** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:21 am

Rail systems are expensive and just don't work in North America though.

Look at the trans-canada railway for example. Its important in our history and all that, and was definatly part of the founding of this country, but it has since become impractical and expensive. It costs just as much if not more to take the train accross Canada as it does to fly. Granted it isn't a highspeed train, but I am sure if they thought they could make a profit they'd make it a highspeed rail line.

I don't know much about US geography, but I think the Rockies do stretch down that far correct? A train going through that can't go at very high speeds.

Ri'Me · Post by **Ri'Me** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:23 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILjJDcI2Em8&NR

New game released!

Leviathen · Post by **Leviathen** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:05 am

He wont steal your bike. Anyone who likes ytmnd knows what I am talking about.

Kurke_Aumea · Post by **Kurke_Aumea** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:22 am

Leviathen wrote:Rail systems are expensive and just don't work in North America though.

Look at the trans-canada railway for example. Its important in our history and all that, and was definatly part of the founding of this country, but it has since become impractical and expensive. It costs just as much if not more to take the train accross Canada as it does to fly. Granted it isn't a highspeed train, but I am sure if they thought they could make a profit they'd make it a highspeed rail line.

I don't know much about US geography, but I think the Rockies do stretch down that far correct? A train going through that can't go at very high speeds.

It could work, Americans just have to be willing to change their mindset. In their eyes, trains are impractical. But, if you show that you can travel from the east coast to the west coast in the same time as an airplane for roughly the same cost, Americans could slowly change their minds. This is especially true with gas prices set to go higher in the long term and terrorism at the forefront of the American mindset. People need alternative modes of travel. Even if it isn't a high speed rail system, we do need better methods of mass transportation.

As for the Rocky Mountains standing in the way, they can be dealt with. If we can build interstates under water and send a man to the moon, we can build a high speed rail system through the Rocky's.

Dragonus · Post by **Dragonus** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:27 am

Kurke_Aumea wrote:
Leviathen wrote:Rail systems are expensive and just don't work in North America though.

Look at the trans-canada railway for example. Its important in our history and all that, and was definatly part of the founding of this country, but it has since become impractical and expensive. It costs just as much if not more to take the train accross Canada as it does to fly. Granted it isn't a highspeed train, but I am sure if they thought they could make a profit they'd make it a highspeed rail line.

I don't know much about US geography, but I think the Rockies do stretch down that far correct? A train going through that can't go at very high speeds.

It could work, Americans just have to be willing to change their mindset. In their eyes, trains are impractical. But, if you show that you can travel from the east coast to the west coast in the same time as an airplane for roughly the same cost, Americans could slowly change their minds. This is especially true with gas prices set to go higher in the long term and terrorism at the forefront of the American mindset. People need alternative modes of travel. Even if it isn't a high speed rail system, we do need better methods of mass transportation.

As for the Rocky Mountains standing in the way, they can be dealt with. If we can build interstates under water and send a man to the moon, we can build a high speed rail system through the Rocky's.

/agree ... specially if traveling by train includes a decent tasty meal ..

Ri'Me · Post by **Ri'Me** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:41 am

Kurke_Aumea wrote:
Leviathen wrote:Rail systems are expensive and just don't work in North America though.

Look at the trans-canada railway for example. Its important in our history and all that, and was definatly part of the founding of this country, but it has since become impractical and expensive. It costs just as much if not more to take the train accross Canada as it does to fly. Granted it isn't a highspeed train, but I am sure if they thought they could make a profit they'd make it a highspeed rail line.

I don't know much about US geography, but I think the Rockies do stretch down that far correct? A train going through that can't go at very high speeds.

It could work, Americans just have to be willing to change their mindset. In their eyes, trains are impractical. But, if you show that you can travel from the east coast to the west coast in the same time as an airplane for roughly the same cost, Americans could slowly change their minds. This is especially true with gas prices set to go higher in the long term and terrorism at the forefront of the American mindset. People need alternative modes of travel. Even if it isn't a high speed rail system, we do need better methods of mass transportation.

As for the Rocky Mountains standing in the way, they can be dealt with. If we can build interstates under water and send a man to the moon, we can build a high speed rail system through the Rocky's.

Kinda like Thunder Run at Canada's Wonderland!

Leviathen · Post by **Leviathen** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 12:11 pm

Kurke_Aumea wrote:As for the Rocky Mountains standing in the way, they can be dealt with. If we can build interstates under water and send a man to the moon, we can build a high speed rail system through the Rocky's.

oh I know they can, but they can't make it cost effective. I've never heard of anyone here opting to take the trans-can rather than flying from Toronto to BC or anywhere else out west.

Ri'Me wrote:Kinda like Thunder Run at Canada's Wonderland!

I love that ride, nothing tops Wild Beast though.

Kurke_Aumea · Post by **Kurke_Aumea** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 1:39 pm

I have no doubt that the capital needed to construct such a project ould be astronomical, but if the U.S. government can afford to spend the money they have on Iraq, then they can afford to build a high speed, cross-continental rail system. Well, unless Richard Branson hasa change i taste and decides to build a rail system over a few space ships...

I think such a system could easly compete with the air lines. For what airlines charge you to travel and the hassle you have to go through at an airport, a rail system could easily compete. Remember, a train can carry more passengers than any airplane. So assuming you can fill a train and charge prices copetitive with that of airlines, a rail system could be profitable I believe.

If done in a similar manner as the Europeans, an American rail system could work well. The hardest part will be converting the thoughts that the air is better.

Post by **Lexx Yovel** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 2:21 pm

Yes, but how many trains would you need? Trains may hold more but there are more planes flying east to west than there are trains railing the same distance. Maybe I'm wrong :lol:

Also, trains can only go from point A to point B whereas planes can reach specific destinations from specific locations.