gher 0
mpohl got an opportunity to speak at a recent convention:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEitwcZa3k4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEitwcZa3k4
QuoteWhat places have you taken yourself to recently? Other than your suburb and county
I see. I had no idea that having a home and a job to do in one place was lame. Next weekend when I've got my kids at Disneyland, perhaps I'll de-lame myself and stick around. OR maybe I'll keep going someplace. I apologize for my lameness. But I also thought people like me were needed to pay taxes.
QuoteI mean you are even afraid of high-speed train travel
Where did fear come into it? I said it was going to me moderate speed, far more expensive than budgeted and ridership will not be near the numbers they are hoping. Fear? No. Hence, I even wrote of one of the proposals that I think will work.
QuoteSuffice it to say that, in your opinion, it doesn't work. Not for Germany. Or France. Or Spain. Or Japan. Or China!!!
No. Perhaps if you actually READ what I wrote instead of inflicting your own ideas on things you'd realize that I said it won't work here because they are doing it wrong. Not that it hasn't worked elsewhere. It has worked and continues to work. Doesn't mean it'll work here, especially considering how they are trying to do it (everybody wanting a slice of that pie).
QuoteI really despise you and the narrow-mindedness for which you stand!
It's called realism. And I have a problem with the arrogance of anybody that suggests everybody should do things the way they would. Your life works for you. That's good. But I wouldn't trade places with you ever because I find your life to be shallow and nihilistic. But if it works for you, hey, more power to you.
QuoteWHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF???
Clowns. But I'm facing my fear in this very post.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
kbordson 8
One of the main reasons that I visit this forum so infrequently now is due to "discussions" like this one. What could be an interesting topic is a chaotic ranting.
mpohl, I PERSONALLY know Lawrocket. I do not know you. But based on your attacks against his integrity, I can assume that you prefer to post lies and mis-truths. Opinionated debates should be defended with facts. Until that ONE SIMPLE task can be accomplished, this is all sound and fury... signifying ...
mpohl, I PERSONALLY know Lawrocket. I do not know you. But based on your attacks against his integrity, I can assume that you prefer to post lies and mis-truths. Opinionated debates should be defended with facts. Until that ONE SIMPLE task can be accomplished, this is all sound and fury... signifying ...
Quotempohl got an opportunity to speak at a recent convention:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEitwcZa3k4
Doooooood.....
QuoteNow, take the proPosed SFO to LAX rail line. It would make no sense to spend that kind of money on a high speed line if it's going to stop five times enroute. Start with an express rail line that goes nonstop direct (say 60-70 Mph) or only makes one stop halfway where there's a lot if ridership going to either end. If that works out well and takes off, then you look at upgrading the rail line.
The central valley gets shafted most of the time by LA and NorCal concerns. They would find it silly, and rightfully so, to have a high speed option traveling right through their area and not be able to use it. They also frequently travel to/from these two metropolises.
5 stops over a 450 mile stretch is not going to kill it. As I mentioned, I took the TGV from Amsterdam to Paris and I think it had 3 or 4 stops. But these are very short stops - 3-4 minutes. For the California use, this may not be achievable - more luggage I suspect. If it passes 5 minutes, it becomes a problem. But I don't see how it can be done without stops for Bakersfield and Fresno, and probably one stop in the section between Gilroy and Los Banos.
mnealtx 0
An express line making the straight shot a couple times a day backed up by other trains making more stops should certainly be an achievable goal.
As for luggage, commuters wouldn't carry much to begin with, and limiting other luggage to a degree similar to airline carry-on would go a long way toward easing any other problems in that regard.
As for luggage, commuters wouldn't carry much to begin with, and limiting other luggage to a degree similar to airline carry-on would go a long way toward easing any other problems in that regard.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Iago - you're missing the part of the discussion about LA and Bay Area not having airport capacity to grow. And the central valley population will continue to grow substantially. This $100B boondogle may be one of the few, if not only, option to meaningfully expand capacity. The choke points at the Grapeveine, Altamont Pass, and Pachecho Pass are especially painful.
Mike pointed out the obvious solution of not having every train stop at every station. A zipper solution (every other train) is an easy one, or doing regular versus limited. I don't think it would be palatable to have their only option be the stop every where train.
Mike pointed out the obvious solution of not having every train stop at every station. A zipper solution (every other train) is an easy one, or doing regular versus limited. I don't think it would be palatable to have their only option be the stop every where train.
billvon 2,400
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>If high speed stops multiple times through the Cental valley, guess what? It become LOW SPEED.
So have an express and a local. Seems to work fine in a great many places.
>8 planes a day times 150 is 1200 seats a day.
1200 passengers a day isn't enough to justify any sort of project like this.
But 100,000 a day is. The LIRR main branch carries that number on two tracks - one nominally east, one nominally west. At those rates you make your $200/passenger back in 2 years. And overall that's about four times more people carried than two more lanes of highway (one in each direction) would carry.
In general long distance rail doesn't work unless you have a very dedicated route that a lot of people travel. (Amtrak's Northeast corridor routes are an example.) Thus the proposals for LA-Vegas or LA-SFO routes. A train that averaged 120mph, similar to Acela speeds, would make the LAX-SFO trip in three to four hours - competitive with air travel when airport delays are taken into account.
So have an express and a local. Seems to work fine in a great many places.
>8 planes a day times 150 is 1200 seats a day.
1200 passengers a day isn't enough to justify any sort of project like this.
But 100,000 a day is. The LIRR main branch carries that number on two tracks - one nominally east, one nominally west. At those rates you make your $200/passenger back in 2 years. And overall that's about four times more people carried than two more lanes of highway (one in each direction) would carry.
In general long distance rail doesn't work unless you have a very dedicated route that a lot of people travel. (Amtrak's Northeast corridor routes are an example.) Thus the proposals for LA-Vegas or LA-SFO routes. A train that averaged 120mph, similar to Acela speeds, would make the LAX-SFO trip in three to four hours - competitive with air travel when airport delays are taken into account.
pirana 0
QuoteNever before in the MODERN history of our great nation has the disparity of income been so great. The last time a disparity of such magnitude was visible was a little before the great depression. Internationally before that was the French revolution.
You have been fixated on god, gays and guns.....all of which do not put food on the table or funds in your pockets....but god, guns and gays keep you up at night and ensure warm angry thoughts.
That is a pretty accurate rant; especially the part about them getting the huddled masses all tied in knots over moral/emotional issues. Morality needs no engineering; and when you see leadership pandering to the public with promises of correcting moral issues, you can be sure the real interest they have in mind is not yours.
The elite have gone to new levels never before experienced in hijacking pretty much every avenue of meaningful redress available other than significant levels of violence. And they have even planned for how to head that off, knowing as far back as the 70's that disparity was going to get much worse within and between nations, with real risk of social upheaval. Rockefeller and Mr Big saw this coming long ago and laid the foundations for a cutthroat no holds barred economic environment. The Reagan administration then finalized execution, sytematically declawing as much of the public protection as they could. I know hindsight is 20/20; but I still find it amazing the public as a whole sat back and watched it happen. Throw little chickens enough crumbs and they'll follow anybody. Then even the crumbs start to run thin and people go "Hey, wait a minute!"
Our systems have been perfectly designed for the results being produced, and that is no accident.
Is there really anybody out there that thinks we got where we are by accident? Puhlease - open your eyes, quit wearing your emotions on your sleeves, and plug in your brains.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley
rehmwa 2
QuoteThen you see leadership pandering to the public with promises of correcting moral issues, you can be sure the real interest they have in mind is not yours.
.
.
.
.
Our systems have been perfectly designed for the results being produced, and that is no accident.
first off: +1 on that entire rant p-man
morality belongs to the individual and the farther we get away from the individual, the less power MUST adhere to government - so local is fine for a little bit, state, a little less, feds? absolutely none
The original system was designed to avoid this pitfall by emphasizing individuals, state's rights over feds, and private property rights.
point is, the founders TRIED to do it right.
The point of the system being designed for the quagmire of the populace being diverted by social background noise and power accumulating in the hands of the powerful? I'd say it's been "perfectly and on purpose REdesigned" - and that is no accident
what kills me is that so many are brainwashed into thinking the fix to this is pushing power even more to the feds rather than exactly the opposite way (to the locals and individuals)
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
billvon 2,400
>But upgrading that to a high speed rail? For what? It's too short.
Right. But keep in mind that even the Acela isn't considered high speed rail, since it's a more or less standard train on standard track. There are even grade crossings which is a huge no-no for high speed rail. It's sort of in between.
In any case the LIRR doesn't benefit from the speed in terms of getting people to the city faster - but it would certainly benefit from speed in terms of increasing capacity (which is currently a problem.) However this is best done on short stretches of heavily used track, not in trying to make the whole system into high speed rail.
Right. But keep in mind that even the Acela isn't considered high speed rail, since it's a more or less standard train on standard track. There are even grade crossings which is a huge no-no for high speed rail. It's sort of in between.
In any case the LIRR doesn't benefit from the speed in terms of getting people to the city faster - but it would certainly benefit from speed in terms of increasing capacity (which is currently a problem.) However this is best done on short stretches of heavily used track, not in trying to make the whole system into high speed rail.
QuoteOur systems have been perfectly designed for the results being produced, and that is no accident.
Indeed! And the system is being produced by policies designed to fight poverty.
“Wealth redistribution” is not an accurate term. The “redistribution” of wealth actually means the “diminution” of it. We’ve had since the mid-late sixties a welfare state that has moved trillions of dollars in the name of the poor. From this, there has been some profit by individuals and businesses that provided these services. However, it has not done a scintilla for wealth creation among those in poverty that the policies were designed to help.
Rather than serving as a system that encourages individual accomplishment, the system serves to provide a subsistence standard for the poor. What if the poor can get a subsistence-level job? Well, the poor lose their benefits, are living in subsistence, but are working. From a self-interest point-of-view, it does not make much sense to work when they can get the same thing for not working.
Penn and Teller did an interesting bit on wealth redistribution. Teller had a pie and Penn had a slice, saying, “I’m not taking pie from you. I’m giving pie to me.” Then Penn had another slice. And another, repeating the same thing. The pie was gone, and Penn told Teller that they should move on to someone who has more pie.
I thought it a fine example. The pie represented wealth that Teller had. Penn redistributed the “wealth” and consumed it. The wealth was gone. Teller had no more “wealth” to raid and the consumer produced no pie himself.
In a system such as that, what happens? It’s like business – the bigger the business, the greater the ability to absorb a loss. Those with the most wealth outlast those with less wealth, which decreases competition. The less wealthy lose all wealth, the wealthier lose some wealth. What was once “One guy with wealth of 100 and ten guys with cumulative wealth of 100 and 100 guys with cumulative wealth of zero” now becomes “One guy with wealth of 50 and five guys with cumulative wealth of 10, and 105 guys with cumulative wealth of zero.” Wealth has decreased on all sides, but the disparity increases. The focus then does not become, “look what has happened to the disappearing wealth” but “Look at how much disparity there is!” Which is understandable because power is a zero-sum game.
It is without question that the increasing wealth disparity correlates with the increase in government spending and revenue. I will go further and aver that there is a causation factor, in that increased wealth redistribution causes increased wealth disparity. Money doesn’t go where the market dictates. Money goes where the government tells it to go. And money also comes from where the government wants it. The welfare state has, in my opinion, CAUSED the welfare state. They create a feedback loop. Bigger welfare state means more poverty means more welfare state which means more poverty.
This is why I am concluding that the welfare state is misanthropic. 45 years of it has not cured poverty. If the government and political left are to be believed, poverty is worse now than it has been and wealth disparity is worse now that it ever has been. This comes on the heels of wealth redistribution that is greater now than it ever has been. Seizing wealth and giving it out for subsistence DESTROYS wealth. The wealth is consumed by subsistence and by its very nature subsistence is anathema to wealth creation.
I think that it is time to try a different approach. What we’ve been doing isn’t working. It’s making poverty more pervasive and wealth disparity more extreme. What we are doing is CAUSING what it says it is trying to prevent.
Our system truly is perfectly designed for the results we are seeing.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
rehmwa 2
QuoteIndeed! And the system is being produced by policies designed to fight poverty.
I'd say the "intent" is to design to fight poverty. The results are exactly the opposite.
So either it's really insidious, or really incompetent.
I'd error on the side of good intentions, but lousy ability to separate real effect from intended effect. Or at least denial that intentions didn't 'really' happen.
Human nature to be reactive to info - that's why people buy stock that's gone up for while instead of buying low, etc etc etc. Same reason why social programs "feel" like they should work, but eventually exacerbate problems even worse.
Edit: And then I read the rest of your post. Nicely done.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
You obviously do not read or pay attention real well. Lawrocket has done a lot of traveling.
SO now that you got your name calling and character bashing out, how about the thread topic? any thing real there to add?
Or just trolling again?
Matt
So, start being safe, first!!!