That explains it. Those who can do, those who can't teach. Teaching is a fucking joke. In the real world you are expected to be able to teach people what to do. We call it on the job training. Computers can do a better job teaching kids today than the teachers. All school really is is socialization training. It is not very good at it at all.
It's not really a question of design, it's a question of where points A and B are for all the freight being shipped. The freight is starting out somewhere deep in LA or the port of Long Beach. The destinations are scattered all over the US. To route the freight it has to be shuffled in LA as individual cars get hooked up by destination (considering drop off points and whatnot). Then they have to move through LA at fairly low speeds so as not to make a mess off road traffic. Then they head out to other rail hubs in distant cities, where they'll get sorted again in a rather slow process. A high speed section within a small portion of California doesn't buy much reduction in the total delivery time for most shipments.
Astonishing ignorance. Your "big brain" seems to be failing you bwana. A good teacher can be extremely effective in the development of children in many more ways than simply relaying facts and offering socialisation. Not that I am claiming Dayton is such a teacher...
You are still using the old design for it. You do not have to do it the old ways. Yes, if I wanted to ship something from SF to San Diego there would be a huge advantage to using high speed rail.
Pretty sure that's what he said he did, so he may not be totally ignorant on the subject (unlike most of the subjects he opines on).
Passenger rail is not freight so HSR would really compete against flying or driving. Also, yes, both the roads and the rails here can be quite congested at times so freight will be shipped from one port to another with in state.
Give me a non-partisan source that says Republicans picked the route of the train, and that the route of the train is responsible for the massive budget overruns and the reduced performance specs on the system.
The High Speed Rail blog covered this issue extremely well back in the years immediately after the vote. If you want look there but, no, I will not hunt through hundreds of posts to find it for you. Also this was extremely well covered in local media because Republicans said they opposed it on principle but in sessions said they would vote for it if it went through their districts. The result was the logical straight line with minimal stops (basically just four stops in the state) got turned into the tortured mess we have now with far too many stops to ever be considered high speed. The original concept approved by voters was great but partisan politics combined with pork barrel seeking are killing it.
Yep. You don't want to freely mix freight and passenger service or you can really make a mess. I sat in Chicago for an extra hour in a switching yard while they hooked freight cars to us to send west. I saw cows! The requirements and demands are quite different. Passengers want something as convenient as a New York subway, while freight is freight and will look much the same as it did in the 1800's except for the flat cars carrying semi-trailers to expedite final delivery and reduce loading and unloading (it makes little sense to have a crew load a semi-trailer, then unload it, then load it back into a railroad car, then unload the railroad car and load the boxes back into a semi-trailer, which then goes somewhere to get unloaded). But semi-trailers on flat cars aren't really happy going a hundred and forty miles an hour. Most of the bulk goods, which are cheap to load and unload, aren't very time sensitive and can stay on the old freight tracks. Most of the time sensitive shipments are going to be on pallets or in boxes and have diverse destinations. HSR might cut into that market based on the costs relative to a cargo flight between LA and SF, especially for heavier items. But you'd want the freight system streamlined so that the train is carrying a couple of extra cars that are always loaded and ready when the passengers are, instead of treating the passengers like an afterthought on a freight run, where it's okay to have them sit around an extra hour while you hook up 30 cars full of cattle. The question is whether the slight improvements in transport modes are really worth $68 to $100+ billion dollars. You're already talking about $2,000 per Californian to build the system.
A second seporate issue is that at all levels of government permit and land user rules have gotten completely out of control and allow everyone from NIMBYs to special interests to abuse the system, drag things out for years, and drive up costs. That shit very much needs to change.
I did not use the qualifier of good for a fucking reason. Your attempt to say I was referring to good teachers is not what I said. When you are adding words to what I say so you can make a point you are playing a game with me that I am not going to play. I am able to use the word good when I want to. If you do not see it in the future assume that I did not make that group. This is why you should not play with the big brains. Your little attempts to make me argue an eronious point because that would make it easy for you is exactly what I was talking about with you.
You do realize that Democrats hold 65 percent of the seats in each house of the California legislature, along with holding the governorship? The California Republicans don't have the power to do much of anything but whine.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail The wiki contains a lot of good information and basically the bloat caused by pork barrel politics has been amazing. It went from a straight line with just four stops (the downtowns of SF, San Jose, LA, and SD) to a zig zag with 24 stops. The union requirements should also go because that is causing massive price increases just like it did with the L.A. subway system's construction.
Right. this is why no other place on the planet has high speed rails and they do not go fast. :rollseyes: I'm much more inclined to believe political sabotage than impossibly high costs and low ROI.
Now, but back when this was being decided they did not just like we also had a Republican governor who was pushing for the Republican desires. After Republicans got voted out for repeatedly shutting down the state government they lost the political game so they switched to legal harassment by filing hundreds of lawsuits on dozens of issues. This is their current strategy for obstructionism. You don't seem to know much about the internal politics of the state government.
In other words you have no idea how it would be done just "there must be an engineering solution". deux ex machina much...
The engineering solution is probably the Hyperloop. Though the Hyperloop might not have some huge difficulties of its own. When you make a tracked system and keep pushing vehicle speeds into the high subsonic regime, a two or three inch straightness error starts to feel like a midair collision. In some areas the tracks will have to be adjustable relative to their supports to compensate for soil subsidence and shifting. And of course as you push past 200 mph, an earthquake means you'll have a smoking train full of corpses. Too much of that and ridership suffers, or else speeds are reduced to not much more than present trains - and ridership suffers.
I actually have a very good idea about shipping and logistics. That is why I know it is not that hard to ship freight along HSR.
