Calif Train to Nowhere Cost At $77B and

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Very successful venture in Japan for years. This can be done.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

being competitive with regular auto traffic should reduce congestion on our freeways.

Numerous studies done in Europe have proven that is not the case. High-speed trains following the main highways in Europe did not reduce traffic on the highways. Those high-speed trains in Europe also lose money.

True. Here in America Amtrak has been running in the red since it was founded in the early '70s and has required massive gov't. subsidies, despite being almost as expensive as flying. Long-distance passenger trains will NEVER make a profit in America because of basic geography: distances in America are so massive that flying is simply more practical because it only takes a matter of hours to get around large swaths of this country in a plane.

Remember we also fund the railroad industy. Nothing new.

 

[danielpalos]

It just shows how brain-addled liberals are that they actually THINK any train route can compete with the most heavily traveled and one of the cheapest air routes on this planet: Bay Area to LA Area. Between the 3 Bay Area major airports and the 5 LA Area airports, there are literally flights every couple of minutes throughout the day. For less than $100 each way, sometimes far cheaper if you shop around. Which takes less than an hour.

Given the overall costs and its normal operating costs, Brown's ridiculous choo-choo will have to charge a fuck of a lot more than $100 each way just to make ends meet. Now using human-nature-logic, why the fuck would a person pay a huge amount of money to get from SF-LA in three hours when they could pay a much, much smaller amount and get there in only one hour on a plane? The project itself defies basic common sense in more ways than I can even keep track of.

being competitive with regular auto traffic should reduce congestion on our freeways.

A hundred-trillion-gazillion airplane flights a day between these two metro area already do that. Three times faster and fairly cheap compared to this hypothetical leftist choo-choo. A train (which will never be completed anyway) very few people would use, is not going to have a significant effect on car traffic between SF and LA.

I would rather ride a train if it could mean an hour cut in commute time. I could be spending that time more productively on a train. A Sacramento to San Francisco line would definitely ease congestion on our freeways.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

As was stated by the leftist,the camp fire battle was hindered by heavy winds.
Not all fires are hindered by high winds. This of course would allow more man power to be put in place in areas that couldnt be fought by air.
They may not need 300 of these aircraft but several dozen extras would be helpful considering California's wildfire history.

Please name the major fires in California which were NOT hindered by high winds.

Rather than spending the incredible amount necessary to maintain 30 giant tankers, after the purchase of the tankers, they could easily do controlled burns for several years and drastically reduce the intensity of their fires of today.

You're the one claiming that all fires are hampered by high winds.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

As was stated by the leftist,the camp fire battle was hindered by heavy winds.
Not all fires are hindered by high winds. This of course would allow more man power to be put in place in areas that couldnt be fought by air.
They may not need 300 of these aircraft but several dozen extras would be helpful considering California's wildfire history.

Please name the major fires in California which were NOT hindered by high winds.

Rather than spending the incredible amount necessary to maintain 30 giant tankers, after the purchase of the tankers, they could easily do controlled burns for several years and drastically reduce the intensity of their fires of today.

Or they could allow the dead wood to be collected and sold for firewood. I'm sure California has some law against burning fires, but outside in free America, there are plenty of real Americans willing to buy it.

Not practical. I live near the Apalachicola National Forest in the Florida Panhandle. It is over 632,000 acres. In a prior life, I raced Enduros. We also held them here in the National Forest. We could easily lay our an 80 to 120-mile course and maybe cross two or three National Forest Roads while covering areas inaccessible to anything other than a motorcycle or on foot.

The biggest problem isn't fallen trees which would be nearly impossible to remove but the branches, twigs, and leaves which trees drop constantly. All that build up is a tinderbox of fuel.

We also have the Tall Timbers Research Station just to the North of us. For decades they have been doing research on the short and long-term effects of regular controlled burns. There are few if any negatives. The burns reduce forest fires, enhances wildlife conditions, flowering plants, reduces CO2 emissions, the list is endless.

Tall Timbers Research Station | Stewards of Wildlife & Wildlands

From what I know Florida isn't plagued by wildfires,just like Texas isnt,it's way too damp.
Cali on the other hand.....,.
The only option in Cali is to let fires burn to keep the underbrush under control.
If thats not possible I dont see what can be done to stop the major damage caused by wildfires.

 

[Papageorgio]

No emotion on my part, we WORK for the Good of our Republic and those that WORK for the Good of our Republic should be rewarded and compensation for the WORK. The lazy are not working period and so no Good comes of that to us or to the Republic.

Have anymore fallacy BS you want to try to pass off?

I am all for helping the poor and the disabled Americans in our country, I will not support the lazy that are able to work and decide they don't want to.

that only works in right wing special pleading. Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment merely for the sake of the capital bottom line. That places a Burden on Labor.

Sorry, if you want a job in today's economy you will find one, if you want to sit on your ass and say you can't find one, it is because you aren't trying at all.

Our company is hiring and can't find enough people to work and we are paying over $20 an hour for those jobs.

If you are lazy and don't look for work, then you earn what you get, nothing.

You can't hire everyone who wants to work, even if you tried. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.

Only capital need circulate to improve the efficiency of our economy.

Look, there are jobs for those that want to work, you can give all the excuses you choose, however capitalism allows us to create our own jobs should chose. I don't buy your theory.

It isn't a theory. It is a proven fact that capital Must circulate to produce a positive multiplier effect.

That wasn’t the theory, I believe people have a right to spend their hard EARNED money. No one should steal hard workers money.

 

[Papageorgio]

It just shows how brain-addled liberals are that they actually THINK any train route can compete with the most heavily traveled and one of the cheapest air routes on this planet: Bay Area to LA Area. Between the 3 Bay Area major airports and the 5 LA Area airports, there are literally flights every couple of minutes throughout the day. For less than $100 each way, sometimes far cheaper if you shop around. Which takes less than an hour.

Given the overall costs and its normal operating costs, Brown's ridiculous choo-choo will have to charge a fuck of a lot more than $100 each way just to make ends meet. Now using human-nature-logic, why the fuck would a person pay a huge amount of money to get from SF-LA in three hours when they could pay a much, much smaller amount and get there in only one hour on a plane? The project itself defies basic common sense in more ways than I can even keep track of.

being competitive with regular auto traffic should reduce congestion on our freeways.

A hundred-trillion-gazillion airplane flights a day between these two metro area already do that. Three times faster and fairly cheap compared to this hypothetical leftist choo-choo. A train (which will never be completed anyway) very few people would use, is not going to have a significant effect on car traffic between SF and LA.

I would rather ride a train if it could mean an hour cut in commute time. I could be spending that time more productively on a train. A Sacramento to San Francisco line would definitely ease congestion on our freeways.

Those that use it need to subsidize the trip with their own money and not the taxpayers which largely will never be able to use the train. Use a bus, it is energy efficient and the cost per mile is a lot less burden on the hard working taxpayers

 

[Markle]

As was stated by the leftist,the camp fire battle was hindered by heavy winds.
Not all fires are hindered by high winds. This of course would allow more man power to be put in place in areas that couldnt be fought by air.
They may not need 300 of these aircraft but several dozen extras would be helpful considering California's wildfire history.

Please name the major fires in California which were NOT hindered by high winds.

Rather than spending the incredible amount necessary to maintain 30 giant tankers, after the purchase of the tankers, they could easily do controlled burns for several years and drastically reduce the intensity of their fires of today.

You're the one claiming that all fires are hampered by high winds.

I asked you to name which ones were NOT made more fierce by high winds. You could not. Thank you.

 

[Markle]

From what I know Florida isn't plagued by wildfires,just like Texas isnt,it's way too damp.
Cali on the other hand.....,.
The only option in Cali is to let fires burn to keep the underbrush under control.
If thats not possible I dont see what can be done to stop the major damage caused by wildfires.

I don't know about Texas, but I know here in Florida we use controlled burns effectively to keep wildfires under control. Something California's naturists have refused to do for decades. They believe everything should happen NATURALLY.

We in Florida also have droughts along with huge forests.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

As was stated by the leftist,the camp fire battle was hindered by heavy winds.
Not all fires are hindered by high winds. This of course would allow more man power to be put in place in areas that couldnt be fought by air.
They may not need 300 of these aircraft but several dozen extras would be helpful considering California's wildfire history.

Please name the major fires in California which were NOT hindered by high winds.

Rather than spending the incredible amount necessary to maintain 30 giant tankers, after the purchase of the tankers, they could easily do controlled burns for several years and drastically reduce the intensity of their fires of today.

You're the one claiming that all fires are hampered by high winds.

I asked you to name which ones were NOT made more fierce by high winds. You could not. Thank you.

I was told the Camp fire was hampered by high winds.
If it was the case that all fires in california were hampered by high winds why didnt they say so?

 

[Markle]

Very successful venture in Japan for years. This can be done.

Japan population 126.44 million people on 145,925 square miles

America population 325 million people on 3.80 MILLION square miles

More important, the Tokaido line connects three of the world’s largest and densest metropolitan areas: Tokyo, with 21 million people in 1965, 33 million today; Osaka, with 13 million in 1965, 17 million today; and Nagoya, with 6 million people in 1965, 9 million today. Few other places in the developed world have such concentrations of people located a few hundred miles apart.

Furthermore, in the early 1960s, Japan did not have the problem of attracting people out of their automobiles. As of 1960, when Shinkansen construction began, trains provided 77 percent of all passenger travel while autos provided just 5 percent.36 Instead, the problem was keeping people from buying and driving autos—and in this, the Shinkansen failed miserably. Between 1965 and 2005, per-capita driving increased by more than 900 percent, while per-capita rail travel increased by a meager 19 percent.

[…]

By 1987, expansion of bullet-train service and other below-cost operations had swelled Japanese National Railways’ debt to more than $350 billion. (By comparison, General Motors’ debt shortly before its bankruptcy was $35 billion.) This led to a financial crisis that significantly contributed to the nation’s economic woes of the last two decades. To understand this crisis, it is important to understand Japan’s corporate system, which seemed unbeatable in the 1980s.

[…]

Meanwhile, as attractive as the bullet trains are to American tourists, residents of Japan hardly use them. Japanese travel by train more than the people of any other nation in the world—about 1,950 miles per person per year. But high-speed rail carries only about 20 percent of that travel, or less than 400 miles per person. Japanese travel as much on domestic airlines and almost as much by bus as by high-speed rail, and they travel by car (including tiny cars known as “light motor vehicles”) ten times as many miles per year as by highspeed rail.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

From what I know Florida isn't plagued by wildfires,just like Texas isnt,it's way too damp.
Cali on the other hand.....,.
The only option in Cali is to let fires burn to keep the underbrush under control.
If thats not possible I dont see what can be done to stop the major damage caused by wildfires.

I don't know about Texas, but I know here in Florida we use controlled burns effectively to keep wildfires under control. Something California's naturists have refused to do for decades. They believe everything should happen NATURALLY.

Which is what should be happening in cali.
We do use controlled burns in Texas but we dont do it often due to the wet and humid conditions.
There has only been one bad wildfire in Texas in recent memory.
That was in 2011 in Bastrop County,it only burned 34k acres.

 

[danielpalos]

that only works in right wing special pleading. Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment merely for the sake of the capital bottom line. That places a Burden on Labor.

Sorry, if you want a job in today's economy you will find one, if you want to sit on your ass and say you can't find one, it is because you aren't trying at all.

Our company is hiring and can't find enough people to work and we are paying over $20 an hour for those jobs.

If you are lazy and don't look for work, then you earn what you get, nothing.

You can't hire everyone who wants to work, even if you tried. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.

Only capital need circulate to improve the efficiency of our economy.

Look, there are jobs for those that want to work, you can give all the excuses you choose, however capitalism allows us to create our own jobs should chose. I don't buy your theory.

It isn't a theory. It is a proven fact that capital Must circulate to produce a positive multiplier effect.

That wasn’t the theory, I believe people have a right to spend their hard EARNED money. No one should steal hard workers money.

so what. We have a Constitution. Why should I care about Your, "reinvention of a social wheel" in a vacuum of special pleading.

 

[danielpalos]

It just shows how brain-addled liberals are that they actually THINK any train route can compete with the most heavily traveled and one of the cheapest air routes on this planet: Bay Area to LA Area. Between the 3 Bay Area major airports and the 5 LA Area airports, there are literally flights every couple of minutes throughout the day. For less than $100 each way, sometimes far cheaper if you shop around. Which takes less than an hour.

Given the overall costs and its normal operating costs, Brown's ridiculous choo-choo will have to charge a fuck of a lot more than $100 each way just to make ends meet. Now using human-nature-logic, why the fuck would a person pay a huge amount of money to get from SF-LA in three hours when they could pay a much, much smaller amount and get there in only one hour on a plane? The project itself defies basic common sense in more ways than I can even keep track of.

being competitive with regular auto traffic should reduce congestion on our freeways.

A hundred-trillion-gazillion airplane flights a day between these two metro area already do that. Three times faster and fairly cheap compared to this hypothetical leftist choo-choo. A train (which will never be completed anyway) very few people would use, is not going to have a significant effect on car traffic between SF and LA.

I would rather ride a train if it could mean an hour cut in commute time. I could be spending that time more productively on a train. A Sacramento to San Francisco line would definitely ease congestion on our freeways.

Those that use it need to subsidize the trip with their own money and not the taxpayers which largely will never be able to use the train. Use a bus, it is energy efficient and the cost per mile is a lot less burden on the hard working taxpayers

A high speed option could cater to Commerce.

 

[Papageorgio]

Sorry, if you want a job in today's economy you will find one, if you want to sit on your ass and say you can't find one, it is because you aren't trying at all.

Our company is hiring and can't find enough people to work and we are paying over $20 an hour for those jobs.

If you are lazy and don't look for work, then you earn what you get, nothing.

You can't hire everyone who wants to work, even if you tried. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.

Only capital need circulate to improve the efficiency of our economy.

Look, there are jobs for those that want to work, you can give all the excuses you choose, however capitalism allows us to create our own jobs should chose. I don't buy your theory.

It isn't a theory. It is a proven fact that capital Must circulate to produce a positive multiplier effect.

That wasn’t the theory, I believe people have a right to spend their hard EARNED money. No one should steal hard workers money.

so what. We have a Constitution. Why should I care about Your, "reinvention of a social wheel" in a vacuum of special pleading.

I’m not pleading or reinventing and it will stay my way because you are lazy. Thank you!

 

[Papageorgio]

It just shows how brain-addled liberals are that they actually THINK any train route can compete with the most heavily traveled and one of the cheapest air routes on this planet: Bay Area to LA Area. Between the 3 Bay Area major airports and the 5 LA Area airports, there are literally flights every couple of minutes throughout the day. For less than $100 each way, sometimes far cheaper if you shop around. Which takes less than an hour.

Given the overall costs and its normal operating costs, Brown's ridiculous choo-choo will have to charge a fuck of a lot more than $100 each way just to make ends meet. Now using human-nature-logic, why the fuck would a person pay a huge amount of money to get from SF-LA in three hours when they could pay a much, much smaller amount and get there in only one hour on a plane? The project itself defies basic common sense in more ways than I can even keep track of.

being competitive with regular auto traffic should reduce congestion on our freeways.

A hundred-trillion-gazillion airplane flights a day between these two metro area already do that. Three times faster and fairly cheap compared to this hypothetical leftist choo-choo. A train (which will never be completed anyway) very few people would use, is not going to have a significant effect on car traffic between SF and LA.

I would rather ride a train if it could mean an hour cut in commute time. I could be spending that time more productively on a train. A Sacramento to San Francisco line would definitely ease congestion on our freeways.

Those that use it need to subsidize the trip with their own money and not the taxpayers which largely will never be able to use the train. Use a bus, it is energy efficient and the cost per mile is a lot less burden on the hard working taxpayers

A high speed option could cater to Commerce.

Buses are more efficient and are less costly. Why should people that will never use the train pay for the train? Seems you want hard working Americans to pay for your toys.

 

[danielpalos]

You can't hire everyone who wants to work, even if you tried. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.

Only capital need circulate to improve the efficiency of our economy.

Look, there are jobs for those that want to work, you can give all the excuses you choose, however capitalism allows us to create our own jobs should chose. I don't buy your theory.

It isn't a theory. It is a proven fact that capital Must circulate to produce a positive multiplier effect.

That wasn’t the theory, I believe people have a right to spend their hard EARNED money. No one should steal hard workers money.

so what. We have a Constitution. Why should I care about Your, "reinvention of a social wheel" in a vacuum of special pleading.

I’m not pleading or reinventing and it will stay my way because you are lazy. Thank you!

in other words, just the subjective value of morals instead of economics; i got it, right wingers.

 

[danielpalos]

being competitive with regular auto traffic should reduce congestion on our freeways.

A hundred-trillion-gazillion airplane flights a day between these two metro area already do that. Three times faster and fairly cheap compared to this hypothetical leftist choo-choo. A train (which will never be completed anyway) very few people would use, is not going to have a significant effect on car traffic between SF and LA.

I would rather ride a train if it could mean an hour cut in commute time. I could be spending that time more productively on a train. A Sacramento to San Francisco line would definitely ease congestion on our freeways.

Those that use it need to subsidize the trip with their own money and not the taxpayers which largely will never be able to use the train. Use a bus, it is energy efficient and the cost per mile is a lot less burden on the hard working taxpayers

A high speed option could cater to Commerce.

Buses are more efficient and are less costly. Why should people that will never use the train pay for the train? Seems you want hard working Americans to pay for your toys.

A high speed option means improved "time to market". time=money under Capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

One version:

More optimal upgrade and use of the land being used for our aqueducts, could be an option, with a State Corps of Engineers to engineer the way.