Why don't we use the boycotting-air-travel idea to push for high-speed rail in the US?

[lildreamer316]

Maybe we could turn the movement into a push for more high-speed rail/a comprehensive country-wide rail line.
Just a thought...

[MBS]

1. Good idea--

and, in the immediate term, support funding (and usage) of the trains that do exist now.

[BlueIris]

2. Sympathetic K&R.

Because I don't think many of us are done being pissed about Gropergate yet to think about other productive actions.

[sufrommich]

3. I would love to have train travel as an option. nt

[stray cat]

4. Why not promote walking ie from NY to CA - no more weight problems

[sarcasmo]

5. Direct route high speed rail.

[MineralMan]

12. Exactly! I want a route direct from Saint Paul to Santa Barbara.

I go there a couple of times a year. I'm sure Congress will support that route. And I want it to have no more than two stops, too. And tickets should be no more than $100 each way. I'm on board for that.

[sarcasmo]

15. We might not be able to get that route, but Chicago to Indy, Chicago to St Paul

Chicago to Detroit, well you get the idea. There is no excuse for this country to not have direct rail the way the system is now in order for me to go from Western Michigan to Detroit I have to go to Chicago then to Detroit, makes no sense.

[MineralMan]

16. I never go to Chicago, so that route would be worthless to me.

You see, that's the problem. We cannot have high-speed train routes from everywhere to everywhere else. And yet, I can fly from St. Paul to Santa Barbara without any problem at all. The reason is that no train tracks are needed. That route doesn't get a lot of passengers, so the flights aren't frequent. But, it exists. No such high-speed train route will every exist. It would not be at all practical.

I can go from here to Chicago on the train now. I can actually go from Chicago to Santa Barbara, although there's a change of train on the route. It's hardly high-speed, though, and costs far more than a plane ticket. So, I'll go by air.

Air travel is affordable, convenient, and can go from small airports to any point on the planet. The train is very limited, very slow, and does not run on a schedule that suits that many travelers. It's an anachronism. High-speed trains are not high-speed at all when compared to air travel, and will never go to all the places that airlines go.

Waste of money, if you ask me.

[MindPilot]

6. Because boycotting air travel is just not feasible

Say for example my SO just found out her sister has breast cancer. My SO lives in California and her sis lives in Texas. She can:

a) fly, and be able to spend time with her sister and not miss more than a couple days of work.

b) drive, spend more than flying and at least 3 to 4 days of travel time.

c) take the train which is the same as driving except it costs more and takes longer...assuming a train even goes from here to there.

I think not flying is an option not available to enough people to be effective. And if we did have decent rail in this country whose to say they wouldn't make the grope & poke a condition of riding the high-speed?

[HipCat]

19. Say what?

It certainly is feasible. That's nothing but an excuse for inertia.

The number of trips for real reasons, like the one in your hypothesis, is tiny. The overwhelming majority of air trips are optional. And if we would regain our identity as a country that's on the cutting edge, instead of handing it off to China, France, and pretty much the rest of the industrialized world, we'd have high-speed rail which would also make your hypothetical irrelevant. I'm ashamed and embarrassed the rest of the world is beating us all to hell on high-speed rail.

Your information about train travel is inaccurate as well. It does take as long as driving, but it costs much less than air travel. And it is so comfortable, and civilized, it's like a day in the country after the punitive experience that air travel has come to be.

[MindPilot]

27. Wrong. The fact is we don't have high-speed rail.

And even if we did, the TSA would likely extend their security theater to that venue as well.

So what is exactly an "optional trip"? When my employer tells me I need to be on the other coast tomorrow for a seminar? When a family member is ill?
When I have a seven-day cruise planned and one week of vacation?

You make it sound like 90% of the people at the airport are there for the pure pleasure of a plane ride.


And nothing against the train...I like the train and have taken many train trips, BUT the train is only good if the entire purpose of your trip is to take a train ride. Just to give you an example of a trip I take frequently--San Diego to Denver--is $255 one way on Southwest about 2 hours of flying time. The train? $267 and 30+hours. (I've driven that before in 20 hours) That is for a seat only, no meals and no place to lay down for 30 hours. Oh and four of those "so comfortable, and civilized" hours are on a bus because a train does not go from San Diego or LA to Denver.

Tell me again how easy it is to get around the country without flying.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

7. take the train to england? india?

[Kaleva]

17. Why not?

[HipCat]

20. Stay home.

If you had to, you'd figure out a way to travel to where you want to go. People have been doing it for hundreds of years.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

21. Yes,I have figured it out. It's called flying.

[HipCat]

23. Like I said.

That's just an excuse for not doing anything. You're saying "I want what I want and I don't care if it makes the world a better or a worse place. What matters is my convenience."

Which is okay. A certain percentage of people will always think like that. I'd just like to see the current dismal ratio of activists/non-activists reversed, that's all.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

24. Yes,I do want to get from a to b as conveniently as possible.

Also you have no idea how much time I spend in real activism not some internet warrior type activism

[La Lioness Priyanka]

25. yes, because i wont fly is clearly the answer

[MadMaddie]

8. It's a good thought

but we would still have to revisit security. Until sane and wise experts are actually used instead of knee jerk(TSA) type responses we will have the same problem.

This could be a jobs works program that could put many people across the country back to work.

[Sirveri]

9. Because High Speed Rail doesn't currently exist.

Boycotts are generally only effective if you can actually boycott the product in question. Screaming how you want X, while still being required to use Y through vagaries of circumstance makes a boycott of Y totally ineffective.

[LisaL]

10. I am all for high-speed rail.

But what is to stop TSA from doing the same things on trail? Remember TSA stands for transportation security, not just airport security.

[guardian]

11. Not a solution

Janet "lumberjack" Napolitano will just declare "riding a train is not a right" and institute screening and gropings to board a train. This issue is government abuse of control over you. Any mass transit is susceptible to the TSA abuse. PRIVATE transportation is your best protection.

The government-corporate cabal have too much invested in the whole TSA bureaucracy and the manufacturing of the scanning machines. If everyone boycotted flying tomorrow they would just move to abusing passengers on trains and buses.

[HipCat]

22. I think it is a solution.

You do have a point. But if we were to succeed in making our voices heard by a real boycott, yes, they might just turn their barbarian methods to trains, but it would still be a crucial victory in the war to put the psychopaths in charge of this country out on the street once and for all.

We used to be able to unite and make things happen. We ended a war that way once. We forced them to enfranchise ALL American citizens. Now, we all sit at home and play blogger's "ain't it awful." So help me God, if we were actually unite for the good of this country again, wonderful things could happen.

The day we actually accomplish something again -- outside of Washington -- will be a good day indeed. Change has always come from the bottom up. It never, ever comes from the top -- they've got it just the way they want it

[madinmaryland]

13. I normally teleport to wherever I need to go. Saves time and energy,

and I don't get groped, unless I hit the wrong button on the transducinator.

[AngryAmish]

14. blowing up a high speed train would almost be as bad as a large jet

Plus it is harder to defend than an airplane. The old cinderblock on the rails can do some damage )actually more like a cement ruck but you get the point.

[Xenotime]

26. wow. you do a lot of thinking

[HipCat]

18. I'm in.

It's about time we did something, as a people, to protest the endless outrages. A boycott is a time-honored way to regain control of our lives. It's a great idea.

[kctim]

28. Why don't we?

The support isn't there.
You can push for 'high-speed' rail until you are blue in the face, but Americans don't want to ride stupid trains.

[ecstatic]

29. Who cares if pilots and flight attendants

and countless other people lose their jobs?! Only a select few jobs matter!

:sarcasm:

[Taverner]

30. Sounds like a good idea. Of course good ideas are usually punished in the US

So good luck with that

[cbdo2007]

31. Because no one wants high speed rail.

[blondeatlast]

32. Agree on principle--but HSR would be just as vulnerable to exploitation by the powers that be.

But as someone who's traveled in Europe, I'm enthusiastically in favor of HSR and all forms of ground public transit.