Suddenly it's 1960 -- What would you miss?

[GentlemanJim]

I'd miss the advances we've made in transportation. in 1960, the interstate system was in it's infancy. It's true that the interstates are sterile and boring, and taking the local routes is far more interesting. But the fact remains if you simply need to "get someplace", the interstates will make the duration of the journey much shorter.

And, while jet airplanes existed in 1960, they were far less prevalent. If you were going to fly out of my town, you'd surely be inside a propeller driven craft...roughly doubling your travel time (compared to a jet between the same two points)

True,there were far more passenger trains available back then. But a simple trip from Chicago to LA will be 3 days, with meals and a surcharge for a sleeper, unless you want to sleep in a chair for the duration.
Compare that to a jet that will get you there in under 4 hours.

[Penny Lane]

The Beatles and The British Invasion and all of the music that followed

The internet

Microwave ovens

classic tv shows from the 70's and 80's

Painless Dentistry

[Little_stinker]

Originally Posted by opus

Is it April 23,1960? I'd rush to Delaware to see the coming of the glory.

I am sure that is the day that Opus arrived in this life. Right?

[stevea]

Originally Posted by Little_stinker

I am sure that is the day that Opus arrived in this life. Right?

It's VB day!

[Caroline13]

As I see it, our world has gotten so ugly and this ole grandma who NEVER used the F word prior to 3 yrs ago, uses it way way way too much. Would have never heard or said it in my old days. I had an incident last night with a market employee about a mistake and I shouted out to him "oh F"....sure wish I had not.

[Mr. Television]

If it was January 23th I'd see my parents Marriage. lol

[biffbronson]

My parents were married in '60, later in the year.

At the risk of offending those here who consider microwave food "nuked," I would miss microwave ovens. I also like digital tuning for car radios and radio in the house, and that tech didn't exist then. DVDs and other video recordings would also be absent and missed a lot, along with the ability to catch dozens of TV channels and look up info easily on internet.

[Coffeecup]

One item that wasn't so prevelent was soda in coffee type shops. Coffee, Tea, milk, and water were so much more drunk. There was sodas then but it seemed you saw more people specially people over age 25 drank the first few items. Now everyone drinks more sodas. As for train rail service I wouldn't mind a leisurely trip and see some scenery. You didn't hear too many stories of angry grumbly passengers on trains but you sure do on plane travel.

[Dude111]

Originally Posted by stevea

It's VB day!

Yes thats a good day,I love VBB Stevie

[Bonniegirl]

Originally Posted by GentlemanJim

I believe that was the day that Eddie Van Halen's former wife started gaining weight.

Yeah, she was anywhere between 6 to 8 pounds about !

In 1960 was 11 and 12 years old !!

[JamesG]

Originally Posted by GentlemanJim

I'd miss the advances we've made in transportation. in 1960, the interstate system was in it's infancy. It's true that the interstates are sterile and boring, and taking the local routes is far more interesting. But the fact remains if you simply need to "get someplace", the interstates will make the duration of the journey much shorter.

And, while jet airplanes existed in 1960, they were far less prevalent. If you were going to fly out of my town, you'd surely be inside a propeller driven craft...roughly doubling your travel time (compared to a jet between the same two points)

True,there were far more passenger trains available back then. But a simple trip from Chicago to LA will be 3 days, with meals and a surcharge for a sleeper, unless you want to sleep in a chair for the duration.
Compare that to a jet that will get you there in under 4 hours.

I wonder why the U.S. doesn't have high-speed (bullet) trains like they do over in Asia and Europe?

It would be neat if we had those trains that go straight from NY - LA, and other major cities here.

[GentlemanJim]

Originally Posted by JamesG

I wonder why the U.S. doesn't have high-speed (bullet) trains like they do over in Asia and Europe?

It would be neat if we had those trains that go straight from NY - LA, and other major cities here.

That's a hugely contested issue in some circles. And one can make the answer as simple, or complex, as one has the will to debate the facts.

But greatly distilled it's a politics vs money issue.

Almost all of the nations that have thrown their hat into the high speed passenger rail arena are countries where the central government actively spends money creating jobs. Call it "workfare". And it's just not as popular to do that sort of thing in the USA.

Second, passenger rail is almost always a money loser, requiring generous subsidies to just survive. Amtrak is notorious for this, and other than Acela in the northeast corridor, most of Amtraks routes are over track owned by freight railroads that are not up to the standard that High Speed Passenger Rail (HSPR) requires. and dedicated track that meets the standard required , is hella expensive to build.

So, there is a high barrier to entry, to get into a business where you're sure to lose money.

Other factors is that LA to New York really is a bit longer than most people have the patience to ride...'even at high speed. The countries that have built HSPR, have destinations more inn the 800-1200 mile range.

The people who are willing to ride from NY to LA on a train with a smile on their faces the whole way, are amusement seekers, and the conventional wisdom is that if they want to ride an amusement ride, then let them pay for it, it's not the taxpayers responsibility to pay their fare on the Ferris wheel. ( which I agree with, thrill seekers do not deserve a subsidy out of my pocket).

NOW, there are hybrid possibilities being explored. There is a company down in Florida called "Brightline" that is pioneering a new business model building a HSPR line between Miami and Orlando. Where their gimmick is that they own all the land around their stations, and are building apartments, office buildings, and shopping centers. And they expect to make their profit off the real estate aspect having easy access to mass transit. The trains are just a draw in other words.

Lots of people are looking at that as a harbinger of great things to come...a new paradigm. But, I have to point out this isn't the first time people have hatched "can't fail" get rich quick schemes on Florida real estate.

On an optimistic note, I recall there is a significant surcharge added to plane fare for people flying into Miami...every ticket in fact.

SO, if Brightline fare is cheaper than the Miami surcharge on air travel, it might make sense for Miami bound snowbirds to book a flight to Orlando instread, and take the train the last few miles.

[GentlemanJim]

You might be tempted to point out that Amtrak provides coast to coast rail passenger service, under the assumption that the service somehow defeats my logic stated above.

It doesn't. Amtrak was born out of a deal with the devil, it was a ploy to relieve the freight railroads from their obligation to provide passenger service. Passenger rail was costing the railroads so much money they were going broke. The compromise, Amtrak, was a known money loser before the first train left the station. But the goal was to allow the freight railroads to avoid bankruptcy. AND the Federal Government was willing to spend money for that.

It was intended as a stall tactic that was supposed to only last 20 years or so, at first. A way to protect congressmen from their citizens dependent upon rail for their transit.

The original legislation was that if Amtrak was not profitable in so many years, it was to be killed off entirely. And that deadline has repeatedly been pushed back, by people too scared to face the music.

[GentlemanJim]

California is currently building a HSPR line between LA and San Francisco.

Do a search for "California High Speed Passenger Rail", and you'll see that almost no one, other than the contractors being paid to build it, are happy.

Every few years the hucksters and con artists come to indiana with their grandiose architectural drawings and illustrations of sleek, modern trains, with the pitch "OH Indiana YOU ARE SO LUCKY, we're going to build a high speed passenger rail line between Chicago and the east coast, and we're gonna come right thru here. All you gotta do is ante up the equivalent of $1,000 per taxpayer, per year, for 30 years, and you can join the 21st century!"

Now, if you happen to live reasonably near one of the proposed stations, and you frequently travel to one of the online destinations....that whole deal likely sounds just swell.

But, what if you live 100+ miles from the line, and/or only seldom travel the way they are going? Is it such a bargain now? "Lucky" indeed..... yet they need your money too if the 21st century is gonna happen.

And here's the rub.. HSPR is only an advantage IF the trains are moving at High Speed. Meaning the stations need to be spread fairly far apart to allow the train to attain high speed, and make the most of it. So, adding extra stations in between so that more people are comfortable paying into the up front cost, is self defeating.

Proponents of High Speed Passenger Rail are mostly flim flam artists that should be shot on sight, IMO.
They've just discovered that people are suckers for pretty pictures and tall promises. So they pay some illustrator $10,000 to produce some nice pictures, and take their little circus act to the people.

[GentlemanJim]

I would miss being able to wear Gucci "Guilty" for men, and seeing the women I pass in the stores cop a double take while trying to appear nonchalant.