I'm in the Teamsters Union, and they send us a montlhy magazine. A couple months ago, they had several articles about the Trans-Texas Corridor and how it would impact the labor unions and the trucking industry in general. (I don't think I have that issue anymore, I may have tossed it.) Basically this gist of it was that the TTC is just part of a much larger "NAFTA Superhighway" that will run all the way down to the western coast of Mexico (and then up through the Midwest all the way to Canada), which will allow the shipping companies to bypass the ports on the West Coast of the U.S. and instead ship everything in through the Mexican ports so they can take advantage of the cheaper labor. Sounds like a screw-job of massive proportions to me.
    Have they actually begun construction on this, or is it still just in the planning stages yet?


The legislature has already voted on it, its approved. As for whether or not actual construction has begun yet, I don't know.

And you're right, the real purpose of the whole thing is to make it easier to ship in cheap crap directly from Mexico. Its to be part of a super highway that will come out of Mexico, go through Texas and the central U.S. and way up into Canada. So yeah, a "NAFTA highway". Hello American Union. One passport, one currency, one economy from Panama to Alaska. No wonder the politicans don't seem to care about the illegal immigration problem. :(


I expect that, like most zany overplanned ideas the government cooks up, it will end up only happening in a small way before the money runs out.


That didn't seem to happen with the freeway.

And you're right, the real purpose of the whole thing is to make it easier to ship in cheap crap directly from Mexico. Its to be part of a super highway that will come out of Mexico, go through Texas and the central U.S. and way up into Canada. So yeah, a "NAFTA highway". Hello
Technically there already is a "NAFTA Highway" (which is supposed to run all the way from Laredo to Winnepeg), and the only gap in it is through Nebraska, though they've been working on some major  highway upgrades there as well.

My. F*cking. God.

THIS is a map of the entire system they're building.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/uploads/cooridors.jpg

Bye bye Miss American pie...

I'm in the Teamsters Union, and they send us a montlhy magazine. A couple months ago, they had several articles about the Trans-Texas Corridor and how it would impact the labor unions and the trucking industry in general. (I don't think I have that issue anymore, I may have tossed it.) Basically this gist of it was that the TTC is just part of a much larger "NAFTA Superhighway" that will run all the way down to the western coast of Mexico (and then up through the Midwest all the way to Canada), which will allow the shipping companies to bypass the ports on the West Coast of the U.S. and instead ship everything in through the Mexican ports so they can take advantage of the cheaper labor. Sounds like a screw-job of massive proportions to me.
    Have they actually begun construction on this, or is it still just in the planning stages yet?


I am in the logistics business and I can tell you that trucking within Texas is absurdly expensive.  And trucking in Mexico is even more expensive.  And any imprter would rather have all of his teeth pulled out, one by one, than have to bring a TRUCK up from Mexico.  It is expensive and the paperwork is a killer.  I know, I do this for a living.

No way that sending an ocean vessel to Mexico and then trucking it up thru Texas is gonna be cheaper than West Coast entry.

My. F*cking. God.

THIS is a map of the entire system they're building.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/uploads/cooridors.jpg

Most of those routes appear to be along existing routes in the Interstate Highway System.

Still, I do think it would be cool if they built that freeway up to Alaska. That would be one hell of a road trip!  :)

My. F*cking. God.

THIS is a map of the entire system they're building.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/uploads/cooridors.jpg

Bye bye Miss American pie...


I would recommend that they build these roads to China instead.

As it turns out, no country has lost more jobs to China than Mexico.

Most of those routes appear to be along existing routes in the Interstate Highway System.



The east coast route looks like 95 until you get around Georgia.  Wonder if there will be work for an Operating Engineer.

The east coast route looks like 95 until you get around Georgia.  Wonder if there will be work for an Operating Engineer.
I wonder, why the gap between Atlanta and Talahassee?

Yeah, but you're thinking of decades past when the government set out to do a project and meant to get it done.  This to me sounds more like a way for private contractors to rip off taxpayers for thirty years and leave such a mess that other contractors will get to rip off taxpayers doubly trying to clean it up.

This thing makes the Big Dig look like a mousefart. 

Private contractors for the government can't even build anything in Iraq, and there are no rules over there!  Imagine the red tape involved in environmental impact studies alone! 

This is the opposite of the image of Texas I used to have.  Texans didn't like big government and interlopers messing around with their state.  I'm surprised all those ranchers aren't down in Austin threatening an insurrection of this corporate give-away scheme goes through.

For every expensive question, there's a more expensive answer.  What about emergency services on the ultra-limited access corridor.  The answer?  Helicoptor ports everywhere!
::)

I would recommend that they build these roads to China instead.

As it turns out, no country has lost more jobs to China than Mexico.


Funny you should mention that.  As an engineer, you may have heard the zany idea of building a bridge across the Bering Strait.  That's right, a bridge across the Bering Strait.

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/08/rudolf.gif

Never mind the complications of building a sixty mile bridge across one of the coldest, roughest, stormiest seaways on the globe.  Never mind what kind of the laws of physics and those minor kinks our boys in the engineering department can work out over the weekend.  If you built a bridge across the Bering Strait you could conceivably drive from St. John's to London!  Imagine the commercial possibilities.  I don't mean just the Dezhnev to Moscow freeway.  You could also truck goods from Beijing to New York without using a boat!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/nut.gif

Never mind the complications of building a sixty mile bridge across one of the coldest, roughest, stormiest seaways on the globe.  Never mind what kind of the laws of physics and those minor kinks our boys in the engineering department can work out over the weekend.  If you built a bridge across the Bering Strait you could conceivably drive from St. John's to London!  Imagine the commercial possibilities.  I don't mean just the Dezhnev to Moscow freeway.  You could also truck goods from Beijing to New York without using a boat!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/nut.gif
I wish they'd just hurry up and invent teleportation already, for Pete's sake.  ::)

I wish they'd just hurry up and invent teleportation already, for Pete's sake.  ::)

Always wondered on Star Trek how the machine knew what atoms to dematerialize and rematerialize.  Can the machine do your luggage?  It must if it can do your clothes.  Be a bit embarrassing to have go in the nude!
;D

  If you built a bridge across the Bering Strait you could conceivably drive from St. John's to London!  Imagine the commercial possibilities. 


Screw the commercial possibilities.

Imagine doing 200 miles an hour in a Tesla Roadster trying to evade everyone from the RCMP to the FSB as you try to win the Cannonball Run 2040!

Screw the commercial possibilities.

Imagine doing 200 miles an hour in a Tesla Roadster trying to evade everyone from the RCMP to the FSB as you try to win the Cannonball Run 2040!

Well, that's the other thing.  Even if they built the Bering Straits bridge, it would be underwater by 2040 as the last of the polar ice melts forever!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/09/smhair1.gif

Screw the commercial possibilities.

Imagine doing 200 miles an hour in a Tesla Roadster trying to evade everyone from the RCMP to the FSB as you try to win the Cannonball Run 2040!
I'm there, baby!

Except I'd get an old Dodge van and paint it up like an ambulance. Then, me and my other 4 crew members would disguise ourselves as doctors and a patient and...oh wait, that's already been done.  ::)

Each segment of the corridor will contain:

    *

      Six 12-foot Passenger Vehicle Lanes (80mph); 112-feet in aggregate width with shoulders.
    *

      Four 13-foot Truck Lanes; 84-feet in aggregate width with shoulders.
    *

     Two Tracks for 200mph High-Speed Passenger Rail. (All depots are contained within the corridor.)
    *

      Two Tracks for 80mph Commuter Passenger Rail.
    *

      Two Tracks for 80mph Freight Rail.
    *

      A 200-foot Utility Zone for large underground water lines, natural gas and petroleum pipelines, telecommunication cables and overhead high-voltage electric transmission lines.
    *

      Operational Maintenance Zone.
    *

      Safety Zones sufficient to accommodate future roadway expansion.



6 rail lines? I don't know the demands of Texas, but that seems excessive. I've taken an Amtrak exactly twice in my life, and would never take one again. Too cramped, too many stops, and it actually took longer to get from VA to FL than driving does (19hrs vs <16). If "Commuter Passenger Rail" is a fancy way of saying "subway", it still seems a waste given how far from major cities this corridor would be.

At nearly 1/4 a mile wide, it seems they should trim up somewhere, or perhaps make it a double stack. High speed rail could be underground (no emissions from electromagnets).

How will those road signs look, anyway?

Welcome To Texas
Population: 21,000,000
Deficit: $300,000,000,000!

Yeah, but you're thinking of decades past when the government set out to do a project and meant to get it done.  This to me sounds more like a way for private contractors to rip off taxpayers for thirty years and leave such a mess that other contractors will get to rip off taxpayers doubly trying to clean it up.

This thing makes the Big Dig look like a mousefart. 

Private contractors for the government can't even build anything in Iraq, and there are no rules over there!  Imagine the red tape involved in environmental impact studies alone! 

This is the opposite of the image of Texas I used to have.  Texans didn't like big government and interlopers messing around with their state.  I'm surprised all those ranchers aren't down in Austin threatening an insurrection of this corporate give-away scheme goes through.

For every expensive question, there's a more expensive answer.  What about emergency services on the ultra-limited access corridor.  The answer?  Helicoptor ports everywhere!
::)


Exactly. This will just be some giant mess a la the Big Dig that will never be completed and will be a fiasco of titanic proportions. Not everything proposed will happen...never works out that way.

I wonder, why the gap between Atlanta and Talahassee?



I noticed that, too.  They shoot you back up to the north, then connect you with another artery, imagine the gridlock on that stretch of road!



6 rail lines? I don't know the demands of Texas, but that seems excessive. I've taken an Amtrak exactly twice in my life, and would never take one again. Too cramped, too many stops, and it actually took longer to get from VA to FL than driving does (19hrs vs <16). If "Commuter Passenger Rail" is a fancy way of saying "subway", it still seems a waste given how far from major cities this corridor would be.

At nearly 1/4 a mile wide, it seems they should trim up somewhere, or perhaps make it a double stack. High speed rail could be underground (no emissions from electromagnets).




I love Amtrak.  We have gone from Boston to Florida, Chicago, Vermont, Maine, and Los Angeles on it. There isn't any fighting over who gets to drive and who gets the window, but admit they have more than a few problems.  They have to upgrade to make it feasible, going coach sucks, first class(now called business) is better, and on some of the trains they have "quiet cars" which really means no whining, crying kids and no cell phones. I think it would be forward thinking if they were to incorporate a high speed rail line on each of the segments.

6 rail lines? I don't know the demands of Texas, but that seems excessive. I've taken an Amtrak exactly twice in my life, and would never take one again. Too cramped, too many stops, and it actually took longer to get from VA to FL than driving does (19hrs vs <16). If "Commuter Passenger Rail" is a fancy way of saying "subway", it still seems a waste given how far from major cities this corridor would be.



Further reading about this plan has shown me that the passenger trains they are planning will be infact bullet trains like in Japan. :o :o

These things go like, what, 200 miles per hour? Its about a hundred miles from here to Dallas, so if I were to take a bullet train it'd take only half an hour! :D I'd say thats definitely faster than driving, which usually takes 1 to 1 and a half hours.

Me and my uncle were discussing this plan and how its supposed to link up all of the major metro areas and points inbetween by passenger rail- and I've come to this conclusion this plan is not just for the NAFTA highway(although thats definitely a large chunk of it's purpose) but its also infrastructure for one day when all the Texas metro areas grow together.

See, San Antonio, Austin, Dallas/Ft. Worth and Houston all form a big circle if you look at how they are laid out. And there are small metros in between them as well(Tyler, Longview, Lufkin, Nacogdoches, Waco, Bryan/College Station...) and I have read that over the next 20-30 years they are going to grow together and become a meglapolis. Just like "BosWash" on the East coast. Your going to have a giant ring of metro area covering the state of Texas that will have over 20 million people living in it.

Building a super highway to connect to them and putting in bullet trains fast enough to carry people inbetween in a fairly short amount of time is a way of getting the infrastructure in line for when it gets that way. Hell it would just take a little over an hour to get from Houston to Dallas on those trains- thats a fairly typical commute time! That means you'll probably have people living in say Houston but working in Dallas, or vice verse. I'm DEFINITELY sure you'll have a lot of people commuting between Austin and San Antonio, since they are more than twice as close as Houston and Dallas.

Further reading about this plan has shown me that the passenger trains they are planning will be infact bullet trains like in Japan. :o :o

These things go like, what, 200 miles per hour? Its about a hundred miles from here to Dallas, so if I were to take a bullet train it'd take only half an hour! :D I'd say thats definitely faster than driving, which usually takes 1 to 1 and a half hours.

Me and my uncle were discussing this plan and how its supposed to link up all of the major metro areas and points inbetween by passenger rail- and I've come to this conclusion this plan is not just for the NAFTA highway(although thats definitely a large chunk of it's purpose) but its also infrastructure for one day when all the Texas metro areas grow together.

See, San Antonio, Austin, Dallas/Ft. Worth and Houston all form a big circle if you look at how they are laid out. And there are small metros in between them as well(Tyler, Longview, Lufkin, Nacogdoches, Waco, Bryan/College Station...) and I have read that over the next 20-30 years they are going to grow together and become a meglapolis. Just like "BosWash" on the East coast. Your going to have a giant ring of metro area covering the state of Texas that will have over 20 million people living in it.

Building a super highway to connect to them and putting in bullet trains fast enough to carry people inbetween in a fairly short amount of time is a way of getting the infrastructure in line for when it gets that way. Hell it would just take a little over an hour to get from Houston to Dallas on those trains- thats a fairly typical commute time! That means you'll probably have people living in say Houston but working in Dallas, or vice verse. I'm DEFINITELY sure you'll have a lot of people commuting between Austin and San Antonio, since they are more than twice as close as Houston and Dallas.


If this works out. Something I've learned over time is to not give much credence to projection or prediction.

I noticed that, too.  They shoot you back up to the north, then connect you with another artery, imagine the gridlock on that stretch of road!

I love Amtrak.  We have gone from Boston to Florida, Chicago, Vermont, Maine, and Los Angeles on it. There isn't any fighting over who gets to drive and who gets the window, but admit they have more than a few problems.  They have to upgrade to make it feasible, going coach sucks, first class(now called business) is better, and on some of the trains they have "quiet cars" which really means no whining, crying kids and no cell phones. I think it would be forward thinking if they were to incorporate a high speed rail line on each of the segments.

You're old enough to remember the way they deliberately killed off passenger rail service in the 1960s.  Hey, oil is cheap, everybody can afford a car, and we've got the Interstate highway system, who needs passenger trains?  That was foolish and short-sighted in 1965.  Now it's just stupid.  Oil is not cheap anymore.  People spend outrageous sums buying and maintaining cars.  The provate passenger car is extremely ineffecient and wasteful.  It did make the suburbs possible, but the suburbs--as we know them--are the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of mankind!

Boy, do we ever need a comprehensive rail network! 

But concerning the Trans Texas Corridor, why do they need it?  There's the NAFTA factor, of course, but the whol project seems unwieldy and inflexible.  Why not upgrade roads when and where they need upgrades?  I'm all for bullet trains.  But there are ways and ways of designing rail networks and the Trans Texas way is the wrong way!
::)

You're old enough to remember the way they deliberately killed off passenger rail service in the 1960s.   Hey, oil is cheap, everybody can afford a car, and we've got the Interstate highway system, who needs passenger trains?  That was foolish and short-sighted in 1965.  Now it's just stupid.  Oil is not cheap anymore.  People spend outrageous sums buying and maintaining cars.  The provate passenger car is extremely ineffecient and wasteful.  It did make the suburbs possible, but the suburbs--as we know them--are the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of mankind!

Boy, do we ever need a comprehensive rail network! 

But concerning the Trans Texas Corridor, why do they need it?  There's the NAFTA factor, of course, but the whol project seems unwieldy and inflexible.  Why not upgrade roads when and where they need upgrades?  I'm all for bullet trains.  But there are ways and ways of designing rail networks and the Trans Texas way is the wrong way!
::)


And the urban and inner-ring suburban light rail systems were killed, too.

And the urban and inner-ring suburban light rail systems were killed, too.

In the 1950s you could take light rail from Boston to Washington DC..  You didn't even have to buy a ticket on one of the major rail systems.  That's how comprehensive the network of interconnected railways rings was!  There were some awfully influential corporate interests who were less than enthusastic about this set-up, you know, Firestone, Esso, companies like that!
::)

In the 1950s you could take light rail from Boston to Washington DC..  You didn't even have to buy a ticket on one of the major rail systems.  That's how comprehensive the network of interconnected railways rings was!  There were some awfully influential corporate interests who were less than enthusastic about this set-up, you know, Firestone, Esso, companies like that!
::)


You used to be able to get from my school to downtown Newark by light rail, and from downtown Newark to New York and all the way out to the Long Island Beaches. However, you can still take commuter rail and some light rail around the 'burbs here, or down to the Shore for a day at the beach.

If this works out. Something I've learned over time is to not give much credence to projection or prediction.


The free way worked out.




But concerning the Trans Texas Corridor, why do they need it?  There's the NAFTA factor, of course, but the whol project seems unwieldy and inflexible.  Why not upgrade roads when and where they need upgrades?  I'm all for bullet trains.  But there are ways and ways of designing rail networks and the Trans Texas way is the wrong way!
::)


I agree that this isn't the right way to implement statewide public transport.

But I don't think thats the REAL reason. I'm sure the ultimate purpose of this thing is to create a NAFTA highway. Thanks Bill. ::)

You're old enough to remember the way they deliberately killed off passenger rail service in the 1960s.  Hey, oil is cheap, everybody can afford a car, and we've got the Interstate highway system, who needs passenger trains?  That was foolish and short-sighted in 1965.  Now it's just stupid. 
::)
You may be more knowledgeable on this subject than I, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that passenger rail service was never profitable for the railroads to begin with, and that the popularity of rail travel declined sharply in the 60's as air travel became more cost-effective and affordable to the average citizen (and much faster than rail service), and the railroads were only too happy to end passenger service and let the government take over. I can see where express commuter rail could be an effective form of transportation on the Eastern Seaboard, where the population is more densely concentrated and the major metropolitan areas have more intricate networks of public transportation (buses, subways, and the like), but once you get further out west everything is so spread out that rail service just isn't an efficent way to get around anymore.
    I don't believe that there was any deliberate conspiracy to kiil off passenger rail service. I just think that its time had passed and that it became obsolete. I mean, sure if you were going to travel from, say Boston to New York, then the trains would be as good of a means of travel as any. But if you were gonna go from Boston to Denver, and you had a choice between going by train or flying (and I'm not 100% positive, but I'm pretty sure that anymore it's cheaper to fly than it is to take Amtrak), and you could finish your trip in a matter of hours by plane vs. at least a day or two by train (which, aside from traveling at a much slower speed, also has to make countless stops along the way), which would you choose?
    It seems to me that the only reason Amtrak exists outside the East Coast is simply for purposes of nostalgia.

    It seems to me that the only reason Amtrak exists outside the East Coast is simply for purposes of nostalgia.



That probably was true pre 9/11, but since then there has been an increase in the numbers, it is a rare day that I have used Amtrak and have been on a less than full train, and for long distance I always get an advance ticket, the trains do sell out.  There is also a concerted effort by the government to privatize the whold system, turning each segment over to the states that they are in.  It doesn't sound right to me, each state would have jurisdiction over the rails within its respective border, talk about a right of way nightmare. 

That probably was true pre 9/11, but since then there has been an increase in the numbers, it is a rare day that I have used Amtrak and have been on a less than full train, and for long distance I always get an advance ticket, the trains do sell out.  There is also a concerted effort by the government to privatize the whold system, turning each segment over to the states that they are in.  It doesn't sound right to me, each state would have jurisdiction over the rails within its respective border, talk about a right of way nightmare. 
How far do you usually travel on Amtrak?

The expansion of U.S. Routes, the Interstate Highway network, the affordability of the automobile, and air travel all led to a precipitous decline in railroad ridership after WWII.  In fact ridership began to decline as far back as the late 1920s when the network of paved road ways made auto and bus travel feasible.  Both the Great Depression and WWII reduced the number of people who could afford to buy and maintain private automobiles. 

Remember, prior to the 1920s, the railroads had no competition.  The mileage of drivable roadway depended varied.  Cars were still an urbane luxury.  In the countryside, you were better off with horse and buggy.  My late grandfather could recall automobile trips from Williamstown to Boston in the 1910s.  It was an adventure and an ordeal with numerous tire blowouts, road blockages, and mechanical problems.  As the crow flies, it's about 130 miles from Williamstown, Mass., to Boston.  In the 1910s, the journey by car took a couple of days.  A team of horses and a comfortable buggy was more reliable, much less headache, and just as fast in the end.  Of course, you could do the same trip in just a few hourse by rail.  By 1930, this had all changed.  Compare the Internet in 1990 to the Internet in 2005.

Competition from the internal combustion engine and the paved highway network forced the railroads to gin up their appeal to passengers.  The various rail lines invested in faster locomotives and more on-board amenities.  It worked, but briefly.  The post-war economic boom brought automobile back bigger and better than ever.*  Government subsidies favored the oil companies, the rubber companies, and the automobile manufacturers themselves.  The government also paid for all the highways.  The development of the airlines was a partnership between the government and private business. 

It is true the railroads were always subsidized.  So were the airlines.  The only thing about the automobile that was not subsidized was purchasing one for yourself.  The autombile was the great class divider.  It allowed you to live in the 'burbs.  Mind you, the GI Bill gave suburban development a shot in the arm, another government subsidy there.  Lest I veer off into class polemics, I will only say the automobile created a sort of class apartheid in America which persists today.

The airlines have seen a 1-2 punch over the past 30 years.  Congress voted to deregulate them in the 1970s.  Fares got cheaper, but safety and service declined.  And then there was terrorism.  When I was a kid, it was a treat to fly.  Today it's a frikkin' nusiance. 

The country needs a sort of Marshall Plan for modernized railways.  We need to take our cues from Germany, Switzerland, France, and Japan.  We need those electromagnetic bullet trains that can accelerate to over 200 mph.  It would be so much more facile than air travel.  What if every time you thought of a car, you thought of a Model T?  That's the problem Americans have when they think about trains.  Rail technology is a whole different beast from what it was in the heyday of the American railroad, 1935!

It's not that trains are immuned to terrorists.  Far from it.  Trains have a distinct advantage.  They're at ground level.  When a terrorist has hijacked a metal tube at forty thousand feet above the ground, he's at a distinct advantage. 

Furthermore, air travel is statistically safer than car travel, but when the engines on the jet fail, you can't just pull over to the road shoulder.  You go down in a ball of flames and everybody dies.  In the old days our railroads were fraught with accidents.  Today, we could build a railroad infrastructure statistacally less accident-prone than airplanes.  I think that's what we need to do.  I wouldn't mind seeing the airlines go the way of the Zeppelin!

Max, that is a wonderful idea if you think about it. Switching back to trains for national travel, in this case, bullet trains, could lessen the danger of terrorist attacks. It could help deal with the reality of high gas prices and emissions, and it would be a boon to people lower on the economic rung who are currently struggling.

The lack of public transport now is a pain in the azz to working people because its this thing you pretty much HAVE to own in order to survive(unless you live somewhere like NYC or San Francisco), and its a hassle to maintain(high gas prices, expensive to have work done on it) and an even bigger hassle to replace if you don't have much extra money in the first place. For someone who lives month-to-month, losing their only transportation(whether due to mechanical problems or a bad wreck) can simply ruin them.

^  I hate cars.  I love driving.  But I hate cars.  That is, driving is a pleasurable activity.  Owning a car and all its expenses and all the damn rules and regs is just nuisance!  But...I have to have one, so I drive a beat up old Honda Accura so I don't hafta make no payments.  It's no chick magnet, but I'm not looking for chicks.  I'm looking for women.  Unfortunately, there's a shortage around these parts.  Chicks-a-plenty though!

I did go through an American male car enthusiast phase in which I read Motor Trend magazine, watched NASCAR and Formula 1, and kept up with all the new models.  Unfortunately, that ground to a halt long before I was even old enough to drive!  By the time I was of driving age, I was a socialist who believed the automobile is a classist instrument that perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.
;)

^  I hate cars.  I love driving.  But I hate cars.  That is, driving is a pleasurable activity.  Owning a car and all its expenses and all the damn rules and regs is just nuisance!  But...I have to have one, so I drive a beat up old Honda Accura so I don't hafta make no payments.  It's no chick magnet, but I'm not looking for chicks.  I'm looking for women.  Unfortunately, there's a shortage around these parts.  Chicks-a-plenty though!

I did go through an American male car enthusiast phase in which I read Motor Trend magazine, watched NASCAR and Formula 1, and kept up with all the new models.  Unfortunately, that ground to a halt long before I was even old enough to drive!  By the time I was of driving age, I was a socialist who believed the automobile is a classist instrument that perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.
;)


I've never been enamored with automobiles. Even as a little boy. I was just apathetic to them then. I wasn't a hot wheels person. :D

I've never been enamored with automobiles. Even as a little boy. I was just apathetic to them then. I wasn't a hot wheels person. :D

I had dozens of Matchbox cars.  Loved to smash 'em too!
  http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/08/sagrin.gif

I love rail travel, and wish I could do it more often.  I'd love to take an Amtrak train up the I-95 corridor and see NYC and Boston .  Get myself a sleeper cabin, cozy up to the window and enjoy the sights.