Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by Ancalagon, Feb 27, 2021.
As LA has shown, the answer to traffic is just more lanes.
Great use of funds.
Ain't no way Texas can build enough new lanes to keep up with growth. Florida had a chance to get out in front with high speed rail, but Rick Scott killed that...ah...dont' get me started...
If even California couldn't get a high speed rail in place, good luck anywhere else.
Found this within a reply:
And I thought the 405 was bad.
Or the 401.
Seriously, if TxDOT wants to widen the Katy, model it more on the MacDonald-Cartier and make it a 4+3+3+4, not a 5+2+2+5 (to say nothing of the 3+3 frontage lanes ubiquitous in Texas). Also, there needs to be a 4 car light rail line attached to that somehow, whether elevated or as a subway.
And I say this as someone who loves uber-wide freeways
(Hint to TxDOT: They don't work as well as we'd like)
The funds went to California and ten years plus billions of dollars later, still hasn't happened. .
I'd say Florida dodged a huge bullet with that one.
Other than the scenic Don Valley, East York is the largely the shitty part of Toronto.
They should bulldoze the whole neighbourhood and put affordable housing there instead.
I'd say that since people have posted here repeatedly that Republicans are to blame for deliberately turning the California rail program being a train wreck, and nobody ever refuting that viewpoint, that passenger trains aren't the bullet that needs dodging.
Yep. It was a combination of NIMBYs and smaller Central Valley counties insisting the rail also make stops in their one-horse towns that that bloated the damn thing until lawmakers said the hell with all of it. A bullet train been LA and SF in under 2 hours would have been amazing and we were robbed.
I never heard that bit about California considering a statewide Olympic bid. Really, state-level or even regional Olympic hosting would make so much more sense, given the negative effect that hosting tends to have on cities long-term.
I'd have an easier time believing that old excuse if Democrats hadn't been in complete control of California state government for the paste 10 years. It's also hard to take that old chestnut seriously when you have democratic lawmakers on record as being against it.
And here is where the real rubber always meets the road and why we didn't want it in Florida..
Rail advocates are like people who have fine wine tastes, but don't realize that they only have beer money. Even a large state like California can't tax their way to making it work. Fixed rail is too high a cost to build and maintain. Period.
So........sorry. But you can't blame Republicans when you have all the power in the state and your own Democrats are so publicly against it.
By the way, Newsom won and became Governor three years after this article came out. Might have had something to do with his strong support from the Sierra Club. The environmentalists didn't want that train either.
Using California as an example of why Florida should be glad not to have a bullet train is specious at best. The initial route between Orlando and Tampa on the I-4 corridor is at grade and the rights of ways are already in hand. Compare that to California where the routes and rights of ways were just pipe dreams. The Tampa/Orlando route should have been built and running with the Tampa/Miami route well under construction. You can't build lanes fast enough in Florida to keep up with growth. Period.
Somebody should have told the French that, before they went ahead and did it. We have high-speed rail lines linking all the major cities, and ordinary rail lines to all but the real small towns.
If only the French had someone like you to tell them it doesn't work, they could just put an end to the whole program.
At a guess, @T.R has never been outside the U.S. Maybe not even beyond the boundaries of his own state.
dude do you not understand the concept of geography and distances? The denser the population the more efficient rail travel is. That's why rail actually works (to a point) in the northeast part of America. There are more paying riders for X amount of area to cover.
The only reason the US does not have high speed rail like other more advanced countries is because of the shitlicking airlines stopping it. It would cut into their business and it would suck up government welfare for their tired flying sardine cans. Even slow rail is more luxurious than first class air travel for the same levels. Even traveling coach is an awesome way to go. You have dining cars where you can get menus and food, and a diner like snack car where you can get alcohol and foods you would get from a convenience store. You can bring your own food and drinks. You have an electrical plug for your devices and wifi or your own hotspot you never need to turn off. You can lay back and sleep and have leg room for more than a dwarf. You can get bedrooms. You have bathrooms that are open the whole flight. You have smoke breaks every few stops. You do no9t have someone sticking a wand up your ass and making you take off your shoes to get on. You can check more than one small bag, and you can bring huge bags with you for the trip.
Even with america's rail system you can do trips from NY to DC in less time than the plane considering how long you have to wait to have them examine your privates on a shuttle. It would be nicer if there were high speed, but the idea that rail is some sub standard way of travel shows someone has not used it. HS rail would be great for middle country cities as hubs. You should have seattle to SD and Boston to Miami HS rail. You should also have Atlanta to SD through texas cities. You could probably also do a northern line.
Oh, and I do not know why TR rejects something that was produced to travel to all states a hundred years ago. Now we could employ some people in every state to improve our infrastructure with an option that easily could be used for people and heavy equipment and materials. If you did it right you might even run some electric and internet lines for redundancy in the case of massive outages like the texass storm.
But, we want to keep giving welfare to the failed airlines who love planes that fly into the ground and have their engines explode while jamming you into a seat that my skinny ass can barely fit into. That is not even considering I need to remove my legs and sling them over my shoulder to comfortable sit. I get less bruises on my knees sucking dick for three hours than flying 45 minutes on a fucking prop plane from WW2 from NY to Phili. The railroad does not lose planes either like Delta lost my plane and it's crew that trip. If the trains need to add more seats they can just toss another car on.
Oh, and had the white nationalists been shouting at people on Amtrak they would have never made it to the DC coup or back. The conductors would have played wack a moron and tossed them off at the next stop.
France doesn't actually exist. England is just operating a big wine-and-cheese production facility a few miles off the coast of Dover.
You're posting from the same Hollywood sound stage as @Ancalagon, who has been living there ever since Black Lives Matter and Antifa reduced Seattle to a smoldering husk last July.
True, but France has a whole lot of rural territory (I've only been there once, more than 20 years ago, but I distinctly remember looking out a train window and going "oh my god, we're in Iowa").
France's population density is less than that of Iowa and, indeed, the majority of U.S. states.
This is where they make the wine:
The cheese is produced on a different platform, which also has a small production studio that makes films of men moodily smoking cigarettes.
I agree. Someone should have told them what a money pit those things are and how they wouldn't be able to compete with planes.
The French along with the rest of Europe can keep high speed rail. I'll stick to the automobile and airplanes.
So is that where the people's bodies are housed, or is that just where the France matrix servers are?
Okay, now you've done it. That was supposed to be a secret! Ever since WW2, there has been a huge government cover-up so no one will find out where all those GIs actually went off on extended R&R, and you go blurt it out on a message board!
I can't believe it!
I like how I talk about infrastructure, and you respond with a post about the SNCF, and think they are the same thing.
The SNCF is a joke. The French rail system is a marvel. Your ignorance about the difference between the two of them is typical.
Up through WWII and even into the 1950s we had a pretty nice rail system in the US, tho it wasn't what's thought of as "high speed rail" in modern times. Then two things happened: the explosion of private automobile ownership combined with the construction of the interstate highway system, and the massive growth and government subsidizing of the airlines. Passenger rail couldn't compete with private cars over short distances in terms of convenience. It also couldn't compete with the airlines on transcontinental distances in terms of speed. And the US is a huge country, so the airlines came to dominate what should have been the railroads' market.
In terms of fuel efficiency vs ton-per-mile, nothing can compete with rail transport, which is why bulk cargo is still mostly shipped by rail inside the US. Only barge traffic on the navigable bits of the country's rivers comes close to that efficiency, but that only works where the rivers are.
Who would think multiple methods of transportation would make a good infrastructure. Not the capitalists. It would be the socialists.
Short sightedness and greed during a livertarian dream era when laisez fare (sp?) was the rule of the day killed an industry.
Nah, didn't kill it. We still have freight rail and some passenger rail. And if you count things like the NYC subway system and other light rail, there's a good amount of it around. But a bullet-train style passenger service between major cities sure would be nice. Maybe Elon's Hyperloop will do it.
The funny thing is that SNCF walked away from CAHSR (California High Speed Rail). When the work first kicked off they set up a US subsidiary in California, did some studies, had a basic construction and operations plan and even had private financing* lined up.
But only if it went direct LA-SF mostly using I-5 right of way. When CAHSR (went with the bullshit Central Valley route, stoping at every town with a crossroads) they leaked their report to the LA Times on how that route wasn’t economically feasible.
The head of CAHSR fired back with ‘Yeah; Well they carried Jews to concentration camps so fuck them.’
And here we are. Failing to even build the initial Fresno to Bakersfield segment (a super high demand corridor!).
*A bit of a misnomer. It was likely what in US infrastructure project speak a P3 loan (Public Private Partnership). In order to diversify risk (by spreading to private companies and the FedGov) and get around statutory limits on debt coverage ratios, a sub-Federal government agency basically sells a revenue stream (in this case it would be multiple: tax stream, fares, advertising, concessions, etc etc) for a set amount of years to go build and then operate the piece of infrastructure. Usually something like 30+5+5: 30 years and then the infrastructure turns back to public with two different 5 year options for exclusive operating rights (if certain metrics are met). The FedGov then backs those loans.
Separate names with a comma.