By the way the insult of "Those who can do and those who can't teach" runs completely afoul of years of proven facts. For example: In World War Two, the United States routinely rotated their best fighter pilots AWAY from front line service so they could train other pilots. This as opposed to the German and Japanese practice of "Fly till you die"
Perhaps you should look at the fucking world full of people who get things done. All of this shit didn't fall out of the sky. First @Faceman shows me he is lower than the slime in my drain and now you want me to prove that industry advances? Do I have to prove the sun is in the sky or water is wet to you also? I know your type. You are an expert in everything, but really everyone around you is cleaning up your screw ups. No one called up your school out of the blue to badmouth your. Someone there found out about your little online escapades and showed it to your superiors. You are like the dog that get's surprised by it's own tail. Be thankful we don't cleanse the gene pool and allow you to live your fucked little life. You won't do that, but it would make you a lot happier.
In other words you don't have a clue about what you are talking about regarding high speed rail. Just as I thought.......
Yes and no. It has all the big money interests you would find in D.C. but on a smaller budget. This results in some terrible political pandering and cronyism. Combine that with some poorly thought out good in tensions and you get a place just as dysfunctional and fucked up as DC. We do have the proposition system to bipass all that with direct democracy but that is also open to abuse by moneyed interests.
Instead of spending $68 to $100+ billion on a choo choo, why not buy 625 Douglas DC-3's for about $100 million? They could shuttle 20,000 people per trip between SF and LA and they're faster than the proposed train. At 3 trips per plane per day, they'd match some of the ridership estimates and at a total operating cost of about $835 million a year. They could operate for 80 years and still stay under the HSR's construction budget.
Way to not have any sort of argument. You do it well. BTW why did you come back? We have a regular parade of village idiots so we do not need you. Really it is a bit pathetic. You know they let you back in out of pity. You came back here to suck up all this abuse. You are one fucked up little dude.
Does anyone else think watching Dayton and Terererererererererererun argue is like staring at a blank wall?
How can you say that? Tererun being one of the self declared "big brains" of WF? Frankly you deserve a warning for that insolence....
For Tererun http://www.economist.com/node/16636101 and more http://spendmatters.com/2015/01/08/chinas-freight-system-future-is-a-high-speed-rail-possible/
I prefer Woody Allen's version of that adage, from "Annie Hall", which I believe is: “Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. And those who can't teach, coach.”
Most places in the world didn't see the cheap gas prices following the end of WWII and thus never became almost solely dependant on cars for trasportation. That said, California is roughly the same size as mainland Japan and it's two biggest cities are less than a seven hour drive from one another. If this limited stop, high speed train had happened the way it was planned, this could've been a win for everyone. Hell, I could theoretically commute from SD to Silicon Valley and back in the same time it takes to drive to LA on a Saturday night.
It will probably take 20 years to build it and as soon as it is done we are going to expand it. The San Diego to OC will still need building, the SF to Sacramento section (eventually to be expanded to Reno), the Sac north to Eureka section (eventually expanded north to Portland), the LA to Vegas section (this one will be done by China's state owned railway without public money), and I would love to see the I5 corridor finally completed so the original vision can become reality. Theoretically you could also build a San Diego to Phoenix line but I doubt there would be enough demand. It would be nice though.
Just wondering, why do you need high speed rail over land when basically EVERY major Californian population center is along the coast? Couldn't a high speed hovercraft system be faster to implement and far, far cheaper?
It doesn't. It only needs to go to 4-6 high density large cities and it would be a success as long as service is fast enough. The problem is Republicans want it to stop at every small little town, all of which will add fuck all in terms of ridership, which will make it far too slow to be competitive. It is supposed to be an express train between large dense cities with high ridership not a commuter train for local service. What Republicans are doing essentially amounts to sabotage.
Isn't it more because "large urban areas vote Democratic while small town semi rural areas vote Republican"? Why should the GOP ask their voters to help finance faster commutes for Democratic voters?
No, it is because high speed rail only works profitably when it is fast, when the volume of passengers is high, and when the route is as close to a straight line as possible (which means max speeds can be reached especially if there are few stops). That means the big cities which get most of the business traffic and virtually all of the tourist traffic. It is not some political conspiracy but a matter of mathematics. Even you should be able to understand that. Rural areas simply don't result in the ridership numbers needed and servicing them slows the high profit, high volume passenger areas down. The rural areas need to be serviced by commuter rail, if at all, and not harm express service to the dense high volume cities. The bread winner is service between the large cities with lots of traffic; if 6ou do that faster than planes at a similar price the service is financially successful but fail that and it is not. It is as simple as that.
Because it goes both ways. Unless you favor getting rid of all road funding that isn't based on either tolls or a gas tax. I'd be willing to bet that the state spends a lot more to subsidize the average rural voter's driving than the average urban voter's.
We subsidize money pit rural areas to bring up living standards and to keep rural areas financially viable so they can bring raw materials to market. For mass transit you need density and lots of riders and neither of those things are found in rural areas. It is simple mathematics; it costs so much per mile to build the thing so you need X number of riders to pay for everything. Big cities generate those riders while rural areas do not. The idea is you build an express system of high speed rail along high passenger corridors and then, later, you build local commuter train service to feed into the HSR system. The commuter rail is the slow service which stops in every little town while the express service only goes between large high passenger city centers.
Has anyone answered my question about ocean going hovercraft? That said Dinner I actually agree with you about the mathematics of the situation. I'm talking about the politics of the situation.
Of the 14 stops on the San Francisco-Anaheim route (including the end stations), exactly 4 are in Republican districts, and they include the 5th (Fresno) and 9th (Bakersfield) largest cities in the state.
I don't think a hovercraft is a good solution, especially if you want to go anywhere other than S.F. and L.A.
Boats go much slower than HSR even hovercraft. No way to make it work. From LA you can get a "high speed" boat out to Santa Catalina island but it still takes 2 hours to go 60 miles. HSR goes 200-300 mph when you plane it right without lots of turns and without lots of stops. No where near the same speeds.
You idiot, it's not about politics. Such trains serve no purpose stopping in low population places that are near nothing but more of the same. They are only useful between medium distance pairs of large urban centers. There are things built in rural areas of no direct benefit to cities, yet we build those things, too.
Roads are one of the the best means of transit for rural areas, and rail is one of the best means of transit for urban areas. We build both of them, together, because we're not a bunch of squabbling little fiefdoms, no matter how much some Tea Party whackadoodles might like us to be.
There are 24stops, dude. Try again. Also recall that several red districts went blue in 2012 because our state Republican party were such colossal fuck ups and because the ungerrymandering rules changed a lot of districts purple. The hard right loons were so far out to the extreme when their districts got ungerrymandered and become purple they all got voted out in mass. Most of the dark blue districts also became purple but since dems are pretty centrist while Republicans are extremists the dems survived while the Republicans didn't. The state Republican Party is still trying to figure out how to compete in a purple world. Their primaries result in the regular right wing nutjobs who then lose the election. Until they figure out how to nominate moderates they will struggle in this state.
