# been screaming for this for years



## bigdaddygtr

and now , yes - "My Boy" Obama is going to do it.  I personally don't give a damn that this site is filled with so many Obama haters, I love that he's the Prez and something like this, even as small as it is, is exactly why I love him - forward thinking

Obama unveils high-speed passenger rail plan - CNN.com


----------



## KittenKoder

I foresee ... another monorail fiasco ... only this time nation wide!


----------



## Sarah G

High speed rail is a good idea on several levels.  

I support it.


----------



## DiamondDave

Well.. is every citizen going to be taxed equally for it?

No..


Once again another pet project on the backs of the few....


----------



## DiamondDave

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3xGtjhZ_Yg[/ame]


----------



## KittenKoder

They thought extending the monorail across Western Washington was a great idea to ... it wasn't until after all the hidden costs built it up to twice what the proposed cost would be that people finally got smart about it. The problem is people jump unto things too quickly, just because it "sounds good". What are the other options? What are all the costs? Trust me, I doubt they are telling us everything yet.


----------



## Sarah G

DiamondDave said:


> Well.. is every citizen going to be taxed equally for it?
> 
> No..
> 
> 
> Once again another pet project on the backs of the few....



I think objections like this one are fairly short sighted.  Getting the economy back on track with an eye toward the future by creating jobs in this area is a good thing.  More jobs mean more revenue.

It will also help alleviate impossible traffic problems and stress on people attempting to get from one place to another and also on roads and bridges that are crumbling under the pressure.


----------



## KittenKoder

Sarah G said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well.. is every citizen going to be taxed equally for it?
> 
> No..
> 
> 
> Once again another pet project on the backs of the few....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think objections like this one are fairly short sighted.  Getting the economy back on track with an eye toward the future by creating jobs in this area is a good thing.  More jobs mean more revenue.
> 
> It will also help alleviate impossible traffic problems and stress on people attempting to get from one place to another and also on roads and bridges that are crumbling under the pressure.
Click to expand...


Actually they are not as short sighted as you think. Who pays for it will be important, considering most of these projects have been failing, and cities that have tried anything like this go bankrupt, hurting the poor and middle class. What insurance do we have it will work? Where are they getting the money from? These are important issues because if it does fail then how it will effect the nation is VERY important.


----------



## midcan5

That is great news. Bicycle, subway, monorail, and your two feet, the greenest of all worlds. Some will complain but thankfully we left the cave long ago.


----------



## WillowTree

All Democrats are cracking up to be is gimmme gimmmie gimmmie people. dosen't say much for or about you. cept gimmie!


----------



## KittenKoder

midcan5 said:


> That is great news. Bicycle, subway, monorail, and your two feet, the greenest of all worlds. Some will complain but thankfully we left the cave long ago.



Wait, you think monorail and subway are "green"? Too much koolaid ... they are supported by "green" scientists because the companies that build, operate, and maintain them funnel a bunch of "donations" to their research. Monorail is cost ineffective, complete waste of money, destructive to the ecosystem, and requires a LOT more space to build than they will tell you. For the subway, that's just too easy to find flaws with, just think about it a moment. The subway is still better than the monorails though, at least they don't drive the city into poverty.


----------



## editec

I think high speed mag lev rails are_ long_ overdue.

So that project actually would be a very good use of stimulus money.

However I doubt that a mere $740 billion is enough to really create an effective system of such rail lines.

But it would be a good start.

Jet liners are a STUPID way to travel.

They pollute like crazy, and traveling by Jet is hardly convenient anymore.


----------



## WillowTree

Amtrak.. giant assed bankrupt money hole.


----------



## Sarah G

KittenKoder said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well.. is every citizen going to be taxed equally for it?
> 
> No..
> 
> 
> Once again another pet project on the backs of the few....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think objections like this one are fairly short sighted.  Getting the economy back on track with an eye toward the future by creating jobs in this area is a good thing.  More jobs mean more revenue.
> 
> It will also help alleviate impossible traffic problems and stress on people attempting to get from one place to another and also on roads and bridges that are crumbling under the pressure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually they are not as short sighted as you think. Who pays for it will be important, considering most of these projects have been failing, and cities that have tried anything like this go bankrupt, hurting the poor and middle class. What insurance do we have it will work? Where are they getting the money from? These are important issues because if it does fail then how it will effect the nation is VERY important.
Click to expand...


Kit, I don't think most of them have been failing.  We have been failing to remain focused on this mode of transportation.

Infrastructure is the wave of the future as far as job creation goes along with the high tech industry and research.  We have to get better at moving people.


----------



## KittenKoder

editec said:


> I think high speed mag lev rails are_ long_ overdue.
> 
> So that project actually would be a very good use of stimulus money.
> 
> However I doubt that a mere $740 billion is enough to really create an effective system of such rail lines.
> 
> But it would be a good start.
> 
> Jet liners are a STUPID way to travel.
> 
> They pollute like crazy, and traveling by Jet is hardly convenient anymore.



It's a trade off, not an improvement really. Pollution isn't just exhaust fumes, there's oil used to lubricate, space for tracks, cleaning chemicals for the mechanical and magnetic components (magnetic components require a lot more maintenance unless you like having the train fly off the track at 500 mph), etc.. No better, no worse, just different types of pollution.


----------



## Annie

KittenKoder said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is great news. Bicycle, subway, monorail, and your two feet, the greenest of all worlds. Some will complain but thankfully we left the cave long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, you think monorail and subway are "green"? Too much koolaid ... they are supported by "green" scientists because the companies that build, operate, and maintain them funnel a bunch of "donations" to their research. Monorail is cost ineffective, complete waste of money, destructive to the ecosystem, and requires a LOT more space to build than they will tell you. For the subway, that's just too easy to find flaws with, just think about it a moment. The subway is still better than the monorails though, at least they don't drive the city into poverty.
Click to expand...


Indeed, the complete text at site:

"High-Speed Rail: The Wrong Road for America" by Randal O&#039;Toole (Cato Institute: Policy Analysis)



> High-Speed Rail: The Wrong Road for America
> 
> by Randal O'Toole
> 
> 
> In the face of high energy prices and concerns about global warming, environmentalists and planners offer high-speed rail as an environmentally friendly alternative to driving and air travel. California, Florida, the Midwest, and other parts of the country are actively considering specific high-speed rail plans.
> 
> Close scrutiny of these plans reveals that they do not live up to the hype. As attractive as 110-to 220-mile-per-hour trains might sound, even the most optimistic forecasts predict they will take few cars off the road. At best, they will replace for profit private commuter airlines with heavily subsidized public rail systems that are likely to require continued subsidies far into the future.
> 
> Nor are high-speed rail lines particularly environmentally friendly. Planners have predicted that a proposed line in Florida would use more energy and emit more of some pollutants than all of the cars it would take off the road. California planners forecast that high-speed rail would reduce pollutionand greenhouse gas emissions by amere 0.7 to 1.5 percentbut only if ridership reached the high end of projected levels. Lower ridership would nullify energy savings and pollution reductions.
> 
> These assessments are confirmed by the actual experience of high-speed rail lines in Japan and Europe. Since Japan introduced high-speed bullet trains, passenger rail has lost more than half its market share to the automobile. Since Italy, France, and other European countries opened their high-speed rail lines, rail's market share in Europe has dwindled from 8.2 to 5.8 percent of travel. If high-speed rail doesn't work in Japan and Europe, how can it work in the United States?
> 
> As megaprojectsthe California high-speed rail is projected to cost $33 to $37 billionhigh-speed rail plans pose serious risks for taxpayers. Costs of recent rail projects in Denver and Seattle are running 60 to 100 percent above projections. Once construction begins, politicians will feel obligated to throw good taxpayers' money after bad. Once projects are completed , most plans call for them to be turned over to private companies that will keep any operational profits,while taxpayers will remain vulnerable if the trains lose money.
> 
> In short, high-speed rail proposals are high cost, high-risk megaprojects that promise little or no congestion relief, energy savings, or other environmental benefits. Taxpayers and politicians should be wary of any transportation projects that cannot be paid for out of user fees.


----------



## KittenKoder

Sarah G said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think objections like this one are fairly short sighted.  Getting the economy back on track with an eye toward the future by creating jobs in this area is a good thing.  More jobs mean more revenue.
> 
> It will also help alleviate impossible traffic problems and stress on people attempting to get from one place to another and also on roads and bridges that are crumbling under the pressure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually they are not as short sighted as you think. Who pays for it will be important, considering most of these projects have been failing, and cities that have tried anything like this go bankrupt, hurting the poor and middle class. What insurance do we have it will work? Where are they getting the money from? These are important issues because if it does fail then how it will effect the nation is VERY important.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kit, I don't think most of them have been failing.  We have been failing to remain focused on this mode of transportation.
> 
> Infrastructure is the wave of the future as far as job creation goes along with the high tech industry and research.  We have to get better at moving people.
Click to expand...


This breaks down the proposed costs we were told:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/25/us/25monorail.html

The fiasco went like this:

After they pushed out a LOT of businesses through imminent domain for the project, the company then asked for several million more. Then after another few months they changed their plan and decided they would use an inferior track layout because it "woould cost too much". Then they asked for several million more and ran even more business out to make space to hold the construction equipment. It wasn't until the bill almost reached a billion that we finally told them enough, no track was built a year later with no possibility of any track being built within the next ten years because they kept dragging their asses and expected us to keep funneling them money. The total upkeep per year was I think 30+ million with the final proposal using almost less than half the track they had originally said. With the millions lost in taxes from the businesses they ran out of town to "almost start" and the millions we lost to the company, we can't get any of it back. Seattle tried to fight it but gave up when they realized it would cost more to take them to court. It's not worth it, never was, but the light rail, as annoying and slow as it is, is at least happening and costing a LOT less, too bad we didn't go with that plan first huh?


----------



## editec

KittenKoder said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think high speed mag lev rails are_ long_ overdue.
> 
> So that project actually would be a very good use of stimulus money.
> 
> However I doubt that a mere $740 billion is enough to really create an effective system of such rail lines.
> 
> But it would be a good start.
> 
> Jet liners are a STUPID way to travel.
> 
> They pollute like crazy, and traveling by Jet is hardly convenient anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a trade off, not an improvement really. Pollution isn't just exhaust fumes, there's oil used to lubricate, space for tracks, cleaning chemicals for the mechanical and magnetic components (magnetic components require a lot more maintenance unless you like having the train fly off the track at 500 mph), etc.. No better, no worse, just different types of pollution.
Click to expand...

 

You're guessing.

Of course so am I.

That said,  I _suspect_ that jet travel pollutes a lot worse (per passenger mile, at least) than mag lev rail.


----------



## KittenKoder

editec said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think high speed mag lev rails are_ long_ overdue.
> 
> So that project actually would be a very good use of stimulus money.
> 
> However I doubt that a mere $740 billion is enough to really create an effective system of such rail lines.
> 
> But it would be a good start.
> 
> Jet liners are a STUPID way to travel.
> 
> They pollute like crazy, and traveling by Jet is hardly convenient anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a trade off, not an improvement really. Pollution isn't just exhaust fumes, there's oil used to lubricate, space for tracks, cleaning chemicals for the mechanical and magnetic components (magnetic components require a lot more maintenance unless you like having the train fly off the track at 500 mph), etc.. No better, no worse, just different types of pollution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're guessing.
> 
> Of course so am I.
> 
> That said,  I _suspect_ that jet travel pollutes a lot worse (per passenger mile, at least) than mag lev rail.
Click to expand...


No, I'm not guessing. I am using logic and knowledge of mechanics and electronic technology which I happen to excel at. Programming is just part of what I know about when dealing with technology. You are just swallowing hype.


----------



## Sarah G

editec said:


> I think high speed mag lev rails are_ long_ overdue.
> 
> So that project actually would be a very good use of stimulus money.
> 
> However I doubt that a mere $740 billion is enough to really create an effective system of such rail lines.
> 
> But it would be a good start.
> 
> Jet liners are a STUPID way to travel.
> 
> They pollute like crazy, and traveling by Jet is hardly convenient anymore.



I agree with all of this.  It's a good start.


----------



## DiamondDave

Sarah G said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well.. is every citizen going to be taxed equally for it?
> 
> No..
> 
> 
> Once again another pet project on the backs of the few....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think objections like this one are fairly short sighted.  Getting the economy back on track with an eye toward the future by creating jobs in this area is a good thing.  More jobs mean more revenue.
> 
> It will also help alleviate impossible traffic problems and stress on people attempting to get from one place to another and also on roads and bridges that are crumbling under the pressure.
Click to expand...


Again... selective equality from a lefty...

You want civic or infrastructure improvement.. fine.. I am not against road systems and other necessary infrastructure... what I am against is unequal taxation to achieve things... supplying something on the backs of the few, so that others gain the benefit without putting a damn thing into it

You suggest an equal % tax on all citizens to build this... fine... you want some to pay for it and others not.. not fine.. I also want to know what bullshit programs you are willing to get rid of to fund such a thing, because more taxation (when many people are already paying more than 50% of their income in total taxation (fed, state, local, sales, entertainment, all kids of taxes) into this wasteful federal government) is not a good thing


----------



## DiveCon

if this was something that was financially viable, they wouldnt need a dime of tax payer money to get it started
the project would fund itself with private investment


----------



## DiamondDave

DiveCon said:


> if this was something that was financially viable, they wouldnt need a dime of tax payer money to get it started
> the project would fund itself with private investment



true 'nuff


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

DiveCon said:


> if this was something that was financially viable, they wouldnt need a dime of tax payer money to get it started
> the project would fund itself with private investment



Exactly.

And this isn't going to "create jobs," because the government can't create jobs.  All they're going to do is take money from productive areas and put it into this unproductive area.


----------



## editec

KittenKoder said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a trade off, not an improvement really. Pollution isn't just exhaust fumes, there's oil used to lubricate, space for tracks, cleaning chemicals for the mechanical and magnetic components (magnetic components require a lot more maintenance unless you like having the train fly off the track at 500 mph), etc.. No better, no worse, just different types of pollution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're guessing.
> 
> Of course so am I.
> 
> That said, I _suspect_ that jet travel pollutes a lot worse (per passenger mile, at least) than mag lev rail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not guessing. I am using logic and knowledge of mechanics and electronic technology which I happen to excel at. Programming is just part of what I know about when dealing with technology. You are just swallowing hype.
Click to expand...

 
Yeah, do the math then and get to me.

Until then? You're guessing.


----------



## editec

DiveCon said:


> if this was something that was financially viable, they wouldnt need a dime of tax payer money to get it started
> the project would fund itself with private investment


 
That was NOT true for the transcontinental railroad.

That was NOT true for space exploration.

That is NOT true for many enormous projects which ultimately can serve the public interests.

Your understanding of the power of public and private interests to do *grand projects* that serve the private industries _and the public good_ is fairly weak, and certainly NOT based on history.


----------



## DiveCon

editec said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> if this was something that was financially viable, they wouldnt need a dime of tax payer money to get it started
> the project would fund itself with private investment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was NOT true for the transcontinental railroad.
> 
> That was NOT true for space exploration.
> 
> That is NOT true for many enormous projects which ultimately can serve the public interests.
> 
> Your understanding of the power of public and private interests to do *grand projects* that serve the private industries _and the public good_ is fairly weak, and certainly NOT based on history.
Click to expand...

please tell me when NASA starts a shuttle bus to the stars for public transport


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

editec said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> if this was something that was financially viable, they wouldnt need a dime of tax payer money to get it started
> the project would fund itself with private investment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was NOT true for the transcontinental railroad.
> 
> That was NOT true for space exploration.
> 
> That is NOT true for many enormous projects which ultimately can serve the public interests.
> 
> Your understanding of the power of public and private interests to do *grand projects* that serve the private industries _and the public good_ is fairly weak, and certainly NOT based on history.
Click to expand...


The government subsidized transcontinental railroads were inefficient, politicized, and corrupt.  James J. Hill's privately-financed Great Northern Railroad being the exception.


----------



## WorldAHope

DiamondDave said:


> Well.. is every citizen going to be taxed equally for it?
> 
> No..
> 
> 
> Once again another pet project on the backs of the few....


Equal taxation, meaing, you and I pay the same in taxes, even tho I might earn and have far more assets than you? 
Or is this a matter of usage ? As in, 
"since I only drive on 3 roads in California, I will only pay a small portion of taxes". 
"And I never ride a train, so I will not pay taxes for that". 
"And I graduated from school and the kids are all grown, so I will not pay school taxes".
And, since I have never seen a terrorist or been attacked, and have never been to Iraq, I refuse to contribute any taxes to that effort" 

The list goes on.

Question is: are you going to be a contributing part of a healthy society, 
or a grumpy useless hermit ?


----------



## DiamondDave

WorldAHope said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well.. is every citizen going to be taxed equally for it?
> 
> No..
> 
> 
> Once again another pet project on the backs of the few....
> 
> 
> 
> Equal taxation, meaing, you and I pay the same in taxes, even tho I might earn and have far more assets than you?
> Or is this a matter of usage ? As in,
> "since I only drive on 3 roads in California, I will only pay a small portion of taxes".
> "And I never ride a train, so I will not pay taxes for that".
> "And I graduated from school and the kids are all grown, so I will not pay school taxes".
> And, since I have never seen a terrorist or been attacked, and have never been to Iraq, I refuse to contribute any taxes to that effort"
> 
> The list goes on.
> 
> Question is: are you going to be a contributing part of a healthy society,
> or a grumpy useless hermit ?
Click to expand...


Equal taxation as in for every dollar you earn, and every dollar I earn, the same % goes towards the operation of government

I contribute to society and I have actually served society... I have served dutifully in our military, with honor... I contribute to worthwhile causes of my choice.. I work in an industry that a vast majority of people use and rely on... I buy products (both needed and wanted) and put my efforts and earnings into the things that provide many people jobs.. I do things in my community and for those in my community

Have you?


----------



## WorldAHope

DiamondDave said:


> WorldAHope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well.. is every citizen going to be taxed equally for it?
> 
> No..
> 
> 
> Once again another pet project on the backs of the few....
> 
> 
> 
> Equal taxation, meaing, you and I pay the same in taxes, even tho I might earn and have far more assets than you?
> Or is this a matter of usage ? As in,
> "since I only drive on 3 roads in California, I will only pay a small portion of taxes".
> "And I never ride a train, so I will not pay taxes for that".
> "And I graduated from school and the kids are all grown, so I will not pay school taxes".
> And, since I have never seen a terrorist or been attacked, and have never been to Iraq, I refuse to contribute any taxes to that effort"
> 
> The list goes on.
> 
> Question is: are you going to be a contributing part of a healthy society,
> or a grumpy useless hermit ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal taxation as in for every dollar you earn, and every dollar I earn, the same % goes towards the operation of government
> 
> I contribute to society and I have actually served society... I have served dutifully in our military, with honor... I contribute to worthwhile causes of my choice.. I work in an industry that a vast majority of people use and rely on... I buy products (both needed and wanted) and put my efforts and earnings into the things that provide many people jobs.. I do things in my community and for those in my community
> 
> Have you?
Click to expand...

I thank you for your service. I too served in the US military, proudly, as does my elder son. 
And I own a couple businesses that employ more than 200 people. Several retail stores and a firm that specializes in real estate renovation and management. 
I pay personal and corporate taxes and fees out the ass, and my accountant has assigned a fulltime accountant to handle my increasingly complex affairs. Taxes and fees and legal and clerical expenses are costs of doing business, like fuel and electricity and tools and materials.

We rely upon public services and agencies more than most people or companies.
We have more and more been acquiring foreclosed and vacant properties and renovating. That requires a lot of time talking turkey to local officials about tax credits, and grants and utilities and zoning and building codes and so on. 

As you might know, the military is the ultimate socialist/communist enterprise. Soldiers are not asked to purchase their own food adn weapons and supplies, to provide their own transportation and clothing and lodging. They are totally subsidized by the State. Every action and expense of the military is paid by your taxes and mine. 
Should we alter that ? Every man for himself, the devil takes the hindmost.  

There are important structures that serve a necessary communal functions that individual citizens cannot afford, that require our common agreement to invest governemt funds. 
Parks, utilities, municipal buildings, military and law emforcement,  Highways, schools, irrigation, etc etc.  
There are many boondoggle projetcs that are government failures, or plain stupid or rife with corruption. That is why citizens must be involved and have input over OUR taxpayer money. 
But that does not mean we just say NO to all taxpayer funded projects. 

Improving our national transportation is crucial. We need to examine how to IMPROVE our national transportation, which is more expensive and more dysfunctional than our northern neighbor, Canada, and Europe's. Those are to some degree, taxpayer subsideized infrstructures that improve the nation as a whole. Same as military and dams and parks and highways, and all other major investments. 
If you have been to Europe and travelled the rails, you know the potential. The US is vast, would benefit from a better rail system. 
But the trick is - and this is the gist of many posters comments - do it smartly, with eyes open and facts laid out, do NOT make an expensive useless  boondoggle. 
Back in the 1980s, Buffalo NY built a subway, because that was what the Federal government was handing out funds for. Above ground bus or rail would have been far less expensive, and more capable, but subway it was forced to be. 
Buffalo lays on deep bedrock, so they had to blast and tunnel every inch of that one rail line through dolomite. It was the most expensive subway, per mile, in the world. 
Today, that single rail line is a nice empty railway tunnel. Underused, costing the city and county millions each year to maintain. A poorly concieved boondoggle, deluxe. 

We can improve transportation, to reduce the cost of moving people and goods, but we must do it smartly. THis will take time, and 
we need to pay attention to how our taxes are being spent. 
But spend, we should, when we can get a positive return to society as a whole. 
If my taxes pay for water conservation and filtration in drought areas, it is needed, I don't complain.


----------



## DiamondDave

Ahhh.. the misconception of the military being socialist... I will have to tear this myth apart again later during a break, for about the 4000th time


----------



## midcan5

All the negative comments are amusing but wrong. 

Cato is hardly a source for well reasoned fair minded analysis, any organization supported by corporations or ideology needs to viewed in that light.

How many have ridden the Metro in Washington? In Philly, we have the Frankford Elevated and the Broad street subway, both well used. 

Go to Paris and ride their Metro, or Spain's metro or train service, Barcelona even has bikes for quick trips in busy areas. Paris is the best I have seen, but we are heading to England on our fortieth. 

You ostriches lost the election, and continue to lose credibility as you stand still and the cobwebs grow and bind you tighter. Time to move into the future and alternative means of getting from here to there.


----------



## midcan5

DiamondDave said:


> Ahhh.. the misconception of the military being socialist... I will have to tear this myth apart again later during a break, for about the 4000th time



Dave, this is rhetorical use of language and as such it is certainly socialist in terms of a home a bed, a job, healthcare, pension, facilities for everything. One could live on base fort or depot and never leave. Been there, done that.


----------



## Newby

midcan5 said:


> That is great news. Bicycle, subway, monorail, and your two feet, the greenest of all worlds. Some will complain but thankfully we left the cave long ago.



Funny that you talk about leaving the cave while talking about the 'greenest of all worlds'.  Isn't that how you would have us all live in order to support your utopia?  Like cave men?


----------



## Newby

Annie said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is great news. Bicycle, subway, monorail, and your two feet, the greenest of all worlds. Some will complain but thankfully we left the cave long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, you think monorail and subway are "green"? Too much koolaid ... they are supported by "green" scientists because the companies that build, operate, and maintain them funnel a bunch of "donations" to their research. Monorail is cost ineffective, complete waste of money, destructive to the ecosystem, and requires a LOT more space to build than they will tell you. For the subway, that's just too easy to find flaws with, just think about it a moment. The subway is still better than the monorails though, at least they don't drive the city into poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, the complete text at site:
> 
> "High-Speed Rail: The Wrong Road for America" by Randal O'Toole (Cato Institute: Policy Analysis)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High-Speed Rail: The Wrong Road for America
> 
> by Randal O'Toole
> 
> 
> In the face of high energy prices and concerns about global warming, environmentalists and planners offer high-speed rail as an environmentally friendly alternative to driving and air travel. California, Florida, the Midwest, and other parts of the country are actively considering specific high-speed rail plans.
> 
> Close scrutiny of these plans reveals that they do not live up to the hype. As attractive as 110-to 220-mile-per-hour trains might sound, even the most optimistic forecasts predict they will take few cars off the road. At best, they will replace for profit private commuter airlines with heavily subsidized public rail systems that are likely to require continued subsidies far into the future.
> 
> Nor are high-speed rail lines particularly environmentally friendly. Planners have predicted that a proposed line in Florida would use more energy and emit more of some pollutants than all of the cars it would take off the road. California planners forecast that high-speed rail would reduce pollutionand greenhouse gas emissions by amere 0.7 to 1.5 percentbut only if ridership reached the high end of projected levels. Lower ridership would nullify energy savings and pollution reductions.
> 
> These assessments are confirmed by the actual experience of high-speed rail lines in Japan and Europe. Since Japan introduced high-speed bullet trains, passenger rail has lost more than half its market share to the automobile. Since Italy, France, and other European countries opened their high-speed rail lines, rail's market share in Europe has dwindled from 8.2 to 5.8 percent of travel. If high-speed rail doesn't work in Japan and Europe, how can it work in the United States?
> 
> As megaprojectsthe California high-speed rail is projected to cost $33 to $37 billionhigh-speed rail plans pose serious risks for taxpayers. Costs of recent rail projects in Denver and Seattle are running 60 to 100 percent above projections. Once construction begins, politicians will feel obligated to throw good taxpayers' money after bad. Once projects are completed , most plans call for them to be turned over to private companies that will keep any operational profits,while taxpayers will remain vulnerable if the trains lose money.
> 
> In short, high-speed rail proposals are high cost, high-risk megaprojects that promise little or no congestion relief, energy savings, or other environmental benefits. Taxpayers and politicians should be wary of any transportation projects that cannot be paid for out of user fees.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


They don't care about facts Annie, if the media tells them it's a 'green' initiative then they're all for it.  I still love your avatar.


----------



## cunclusion

Basically this does make alot of sense, but like others say with planning and effiecient implementation it could help alleviate traffic issues and when the cost of energy goes back up which we all know it will this will be a good, cheap and green  alternative for travelers.


----------



## Jon

This is something I could get on board with. I would much rather have seen all the stimulus money go to projects like this.

But this is not something we can build in a matter of years. For one, we can't afford it. Two, we have to make sure it will be efficient in our society. But it's something that certainly can begin implementation within this administration.


----------



## WorldAHope

midcan5 said:


> All the negative comments are amusing but wrong.
> 
> Cato is hardly a source for well reasoned fair minded analysis, any organization supported by corporations or ideology needs to viewed in that light.
> 
> How many have ridden the Metro in Washington? In Philly, we have the Frankford Elevated and the Broad street subway, both well used.
> 
> Go to Paris and ride their Metro, or Spain's metro or train service, Barcelona even has bikes for quick trips in busy areas. Paris is the best I have seen, but we are heading to England on our fortieth.
> 
> You ostriches lost the election, and continue to lose credibility as you stand still and the cobwebs grow and bind you tighter. Time to move into the future and alternative means of getting from here to there.


Every transportation infrastructure requires government investment. User fees cover all costs of NONE of the any nation's rail systems. Highways are far more inefficient and costly to taxpayers, yet we hear little discussion or complaint about that whopper budgetary burden. 

If anyone has flown lately, you've found yourself asking, "why do I torture myself like this ? 
wish there was a different to get there way without having to drive...or take a bus..." 

High speed rail is just one improvement we need to look at. It is not mandatory, nor is it a panacea. 
Some areas would benefit better from improved Intracity and intercity light rails, trolley systems, relatively less expensive and lower speed  - as many towns and citiies once had, before cars became so prevalent. 
CATO is not the only opinion, but that was a well reasoned essay. Should governments commit to
annual maintenance of systems ? Bus ridership is significantly up in every city over the last year.
Every city that has a municpal bus system is paying the difference between fare/ad reveneue and expenses. 
Should these increasingly BUSY bus systems be shut down, or raise their fares so they cover all expenses - well past the affordability point ?
CATO's argument is purely theoretical - meaning it is counter to prevailing practise by virtually all municipal and national rail systems. 

NO BOONDOGGLES !!!


----------



## DiveCon

jsanders said:


> This is something I could get on board with. *I would much rather have seen all the stimulus money go to projects like this.*
> 
> But this is not something we can build in a matter of years. For one, we can't afford it. Two, we have to make sure it will be efficient in our society. But it's something that certainly can begin implementation within this administration.


 you mean as opposed to studying why pigs smell for BILLIONS


i cant argue on that point, for sure, something like this would be far more worthy
what i oppose is the WAY they do it
if a national high speed passenger rail service is something deserving of federal tax payer monies, put it in its OWN bill and have a YES/NO vote on it in congress
with nothing else attached to it
then have those congress people support it to their constituents
dont just stick it into a massive misnamed bill and sneak it through


----------



## DiamondDave

midcan5 said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh.. the misconception of the military being socialist... I will have to tear this myth apart again later during a break, for about the 4000th time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dave, this is rhetorical use of language and as such it is certainly socialist in terms of a home a bed, a job, healthcare, pension, facilities for everything. One could live on base fort or depot and never leave. Been there, done that.
Click to expand...


No... it is not...

Benefits for service earned.. you are also still in ownership of what is yours... differences in earnings, responsibility, etc... there is not a status of to each according to their need and from each according to their ability

Many jobs offer housing or housing allowance.. food or food allowance... pensions.. healthcare coverage.. etc... but with these things, it does not make them a socialist organization

The military is an organization with a set mission that requires that it be self sufficient.. to feed, clothe, requisition, and supply for that mission.. it is an organization of earned rank structure that is not, however, in socialistic control of all assets and production for egalitarian or equal distribution... there is indeed differences in what each individual will derive from the military...

If the military is a socialist style organization, then so is a baseball team that owns the stadium, provides housing and food during service, distributes equipment for completion of the mission, etc... just because the military is run by the government and is supplied by the government for all of it's needs, does not make it socialist in nature


----------



## manu1959

california voted this in awhile back.....

taking private land to build public rail line will piss a bunch of people off....

not to mention amtrack is so successful....


----------



## Indiana Oracle

May have this wrong, but to my knowledge no passenger railroad in any country is profitable on its own revenues.  

Having lived in western Europe for many years, I thought the rail system was the best thing going and used it all the time. But Europe and the US are not comparable geographically or demographically. Were we to undertake an equivalent facility, the cost would be staggering, not counting the cost of all the legal entanglements.  

Targeting a segment of the east coast, as it is a specific space and densely populated, makes sense.  Implementing it, funding it, and running it at breakeven will be the challenges.  My guess is, like many of The Prophet's social concepts, his consituency will benefit and the rest of the country will pay for it but receive little in return.


----------



## WorldAHope

DiamondDave said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh.. the misconception of the military being socialist... I will have to tear this myth apart again later during a break, for about the 4000th time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dave, this is rhetorical use of language and as such it is certainly socialist in terms of a home a bed, a job, healthcare, pension, facilities for everything. One could live on base fort or depot and never leave. Been there, done that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... it is not...
> 
> Benefits for service earned.. you are also still in ownership of what is yours... differences in earnings, responsibility, etc... there is not a status of to each according to their need and from each according to their ability
> 
> Many jobs offer housing or housing allowance.. food or food allowance... pensions.. healthcare coverage.. etc... but with these things, it does not make them a socialist organization
> 
> The military is an organization with a set mission that requires that it be self sufficient.. to feed, clothe, requisition, and supply for that mission.. it is an organization of earned rank structure that is not, however, in socialistic control of all assets and production for egalitarian or equal distribution... there is indeed differences in what each individual will derive from the military...
> 
> If the military is a socialist style organization, then so is a baseball team that owns the stadium, provides housing and food during service, distributes equipment for completion of the mission, etc... just because the military is run by the government and is supplied by the government for all of it's needs, does not make it socialist in nature
Click to expand...

I think there are a couple definitions of "socialism"  that are conflicting each other.

1) in saying military system is not socialism, you describe socialism in its most feudal system, where all are equal in servitude to the state, where no citizen has possesions or can improve their lot in life, get promoted or accumulate personal wealth. And all decisions are made, top down, by the state. 
That is an extreme application of "socialism" practised only by totalitarian states that either failed or will fail or changed from that apporach: North Korea, China in the 40's - 70s, Albania in the 70s - 90s, Stalin-era Russia, Romania, East Germany, N.Vietnam before 1990, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, to some extent Castro's Cuba. 

2) The "Socialism" being instituted by the Obama adminsitration's budgetary and stimulus bills, and other policies. 
You yourself did not state in this thread that Obama's policies were an effort to make the USA  'socialist',  but that is a very common assertion, that Obama is forcing or directing this nation towards "socialism". 

Definition 1) does not apply to anything Obama has proposed. His stated goals and policies for America are not even remotely like that fictitious Orwellian prison society you described. 

By your own definition of "socialism" you defeat every statement in the accusations that Obama is trying to make us a "socialist" nation. 

Thank you. 

I still say that the military is the closest thing we have created and maintained to being socialist. 
It is not a PURE feudal collective of the dispiritted and downtrodden, as you have described your idea of "socialism" to be. But our military has in place all the structural pieces and working parts, with the added touches of good old American know how and just enough democracy to make our military function more effectively.

If Obama re-creates construction battalion civilian work corps, similar to what FDR's New Deal had going in the 1930s, the WPA, CCC, the NRA etc, 
would that be establishing "socialism", even though such programs would be,  like the Peace Corps and the New Deal programs, 
modelled after the military ? 

Imprecise definitions and labels can bring down an argument as surely as an unstable and unusable foundation of crumbly cinderblocks will fail to support a house.


----------



## WorldAHope

Indiana Oracle said:


> May have this wrong, but to my knowledge no passenger railroad in any country is profitable on its own revenues.
> 
> Having lived in western Europe for many years, I thought the rail system was the best thing going and used it all the time. But Europe and the US are not comparable geographically or demographically. Were we to undertake an equivalent facility, the cost would be staggering, not counting the cost of all the legal entanglements.
> 
> Targeting a segment of the east coast, as it is a specific space and densely populated, makes sense.  Implementing it, funding it, and running it at breakeven will be the challenges.  My guess is, like many of The Prophet's social concepts, his consituency will benefit and the rest of the country will pay for it but receive little in return.


I agree, to some extent. That is why such massive project proposals need to be designed to benefit the most. Europe's rails are government subsidized, and are very heavily used, are heavily relied upon. 
America's cargo trains are good, and we can improve that system and gain from that effort as much if not more than a limitted expansion of high speed passenger trains. 
The technology exists, thanks to Japan, Europe, China, to build such fast trains. 
We are a nation addicted to and heavily invested in automobile and truck transportation, which are relatively very inefficient. 
Gasoline will not become cheap, a sit was in the 50s adn 60s and 70s. 
We need to develop future transportation, and do it wisely. 
IF we can develop a widespread but slower passenger train system, using existing rail beds that have been abandoned, and can bring that service to more towns and cities, as was the case up to the 1950s, that would appeal to me more spending the same amount to install 200 MPH passenger trains that go between just a few locations. 
We aren't made of money, and we don't seem to have a lot of future prospects for being a wealthy nation, as we once were. 
Spending has to be carefully scrutinized.


----------



## oreo

The problem:   While a great Idea--11 billion is only a smidgen of the money needed to build these projects.

It's so great to know that we're paying 1.9 million dollars for that clean-up of pig stink in Iowa--which would have helped build more high speed trains--along with the 640 million Harry Reid got for his train from Disneyland to Las Vegas.

_It's just our incompetent government at work again!_


----------



## Indiana Oracle

WorldAHope said:


> Indiana Oracle said:
> 
> 
> 
> May have this wrong, but to my knowledge no passenger railroad in any country is profitable on its own revenues.
> 
> Having lived in western Europe for many years, I thought the rail system was the best thing going and used it all the time. But Europe and the US are not comparable geographically or demographically. Were we to undertake an equivalent facility, the cost would be staggering, not counting the cost of all the legal entanglements.
> 
> Targeting a segment of the east coast, as it is a specific space and densely populated, makes sense. Implementing it, funding it, and running it at breakeven will be the challenges. My guess is, like many of The Prophet's social concepts, his consituency will benefit and the rest of the country will pay for it but receive little in return.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, to some extent. That is why such massive project proposals need to be designed to benefit the most. Europe's rails are government subsidized, and are very heavily used, are heavily relied upon.
> America's cargo trains are good, and we can improve that system and gain from that effort as much if not more than a limitted expansion of high speed passenger trains.
> The technology exists, thanks to Japan, Europe, China, to build such fast trains.
> We are a nation addicted to and heavily invested in automobile and truck transportation, which are relatively very inefficient.
> Gasoline will not become cheap, a sit was in the 50s adn 60s and 70s.
> We need to develop future transportation, and do it wisely.
> IF we can develop a widespread but slower passenger train system, using existing rail beds that have been abandoned, and can bring that service to more towns and cities, as was the case up to the 1950s, that would appeal to me more spending the same amount to install 200 MPH passenger trains that go between just a few locations.
> We aren't made of money, and we don't seem to have a lot of future prospects for being a wealthy nation, as we once were.
> Spending has to be carefully scrutinized.
Click to expand...

 
Agree completely.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

What IS it about radical lefties and and their love for rail mass transit?



> Rail mass transit was born in sin, the political sort. There was not one scintilla of factual data to support the concept in the early 1980s when the idea was floated by radical activists. The need was a lie. Back then the Triangle was hardly the Triangle at all. Even after hooking up Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill (and some tangential counties) the population didn't hit 500,000; and that was spread over acres of empty land. Rail mass transit requires population density at least five times higher than density in this area. Even more asinine was that what population density we had was spread out among three cities-four if you count Cary. The lie inside the enigma of rail transit is based on false propaganda from the environmental Left saying that the US is due to starve and die due to over-population, a theory famously purported by professor Paul Erlich in 1968 that has proved to be totally untrue. Yet it is believed: Actually 2209 of the 3141 counties in the US have a population of 50,000 or less. Not only is rail transit absurd today, it doesn't even work in the future. Populations in the West are declining, not increasing.
> &#8230;.
> Here are the reasons we must act to stop this train:
> 
> 1. No public entity in the region has voted to have rail transit. The money is coming from the federal government-that siphons off our gas tax money in Washington for mass transit before sending it back to the state for road-building-and the NC Legislature that granted funds after back channel lobbying by transit activists. Neither the Feds nor the State asked us in the Triangle if we wanted it.
> 
> 2. Rail fanatics have worked to stop road projects in order to create gridlock to make their point that we must have rail transit. One example among many: Raleigh's mayor Charles Meeker, when first elected to the City Council in 1992, brazenly attempted to cut off funding for the second year allocation for the I-540 Outer Loop. Had he succeeded, the project would have ceased. He deliberately attempted to create traffic congestion to push the need for rail transit. Another example: a two-person environmental group in Durham held up the widening on I-40 at the Durham Expressway for 10 years. That work is now in progress but the traffic problems due to the purposeful delay was successful in convincing the uninformed that rail transit is necessary.
> 
> 3. The cost of the rail transit debacle is monumental, yet the worst is still to come. Assuming the first line is completed from downtown Durham to Downtown Raleigh and the estimated $775 million now predicted to finish it out is funded, what happens when the system is complete? For one thing, the citizens in Raleigh and Durham will have to subsidize its operations, as ridership will, at best, cover maybe 30 percent of the cost. The taxpayer bill will strangle us, stopping road-building and causing the curtailment of other services.
> 
> 4. This is connected to an appalling lack of will on the part of elected leaders in the region. I asked a Raleigh Councilman: Do we have a liaison committee communicating with TTA so we can confront the issues that will arise down the road? The answer was no, and accompanied by a retort: why do you care? It's free money. This so-called "free money" is going to cost us a bundle.
> 
> Folks, don't say I didn't warn you. The transit holocaust is here.
> My Usual Charming Self | Bernie Reeves | The Horror Of Rail Mass Transit
> 
> *Please Follow Copyright Guidelines*


----------



## KittenKoder

editec said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're guessing.
> 
> Of course so am I.
> 
> That said, I _suspect_ that jet travel pollutes a lot worse (per passenger mile, at least) than mag lev rail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not guessing. I am using logic and knowledge of mechanics and electronic technology which I happen to excel at. Programming is just part of what I know about when dealing with technology. You are just swallowing hype.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, do the math then and get to me.
> 
> Until then? You're guessing.
Click to expand...


Really .... tell me one part of my contention that is not based on fact, just one (besides the exaggerated 500 mph).


----------



## KittenKoder

ScreamingEagle said:


> What IS it about radical lefties and and their love for rail mass transit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rail mass transit was born in sin, the political sort. There was not one scintilla of factual data to support the concept in the early 1980s when the idea was floated by radical activists. The need was a lie. Back then the Triangle was hardly the Triangle at all. Even after hooking up Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill (and some tangential counties) the population didn't hit 500,000; and that was spread over acres of empty land. Rail mass transit requires population density at least five times higher than density in this area. Even more asinine was that what population density we had was spread out among three cities-four if you count Cary. The lie inside the enigma of rail transit is based on false propaganda from the environmental Left saying that the US is due to starve and die due to over-population, a theory famously purported by professor Paul Erlich in 1968 that has proved to be totally untrue. Yet it is believed: Actually 2209 of the 3141 counties in the US have a population of 50,000 or less. Not only is rail transit absurd today, it doesn't even work in the future. Populations in the West are declining, not increasing.
> .
> Here are the reasons we must act to stop this train:
> 
> 1. No public entity in the region has voted to have rail transit. The money is coming from the federal government-that siphons off our gas tax money in Washington for mass transit before sending it back to the state for road-building-and the NC Legislature that granted funds after back channel lobbying by transit activists. Neither the Feds nor the State asked us in the Triangle if we wanted it.
> 
> 2. Rail fanatics have worked to stop road projects in order to create gridlock to make their point that we must have rail transit. One example among many: Raleigh's mayor Charles Meeker, when first elected to the City Council in 1992, brazenly attempted to cut off funding for the second year allocation for the I-540 Outer Loop. Had he succeeded, the project would have ceased. He deliberately attempted to create traffic congestion to push the need for rail transit. Another example: a two-person environmental group in Durham held up the widening on I-40 at the Durham Expressway for 10 years. That work is now in progress but the traffic problems due to the purposeful delay was successful in convincing the uninformed that rail transit is necessary.
> 
> 3. The cost of the rail transit debacle is monumental, yet the worst is still to come. Assuming the first line is completed from downtown Durham to Downtown Raleigh and the estimated $775 million now predicted to finish it out is funded, what happens when the system is complete? For one thing, the citizens in Raleigh and Durham will have to subsidize its operations, as ridership will, at best, cover maybe 30 percent of the cost. The taxpayer bill will strangle us, stopping road-building and causing the curtailment of other services.
> 
> 4. This is connected to an appalling lack of will on the part of elected leaders in the region. I asked a Raleigh Councilman: Do we have a liaison committee communicating with TTA so we can confront the issues that will arise down the road? The answer was no, and accompanied by a retort: why do you care? It's free money. This so-called "free money" is going to cost us a bundle.
> 
> Folks, don't say I didn't warn you. The transit holocaust is here.
> My Usual Charming Self | Bernie Reeves | The Horror Of Rail Mass Transit
Click to expand...


The extremists are willing to swallow anything that makes them "feel good" without ever considering all the possibilities, sad as that is.


----------



## Shadow

KittenKoder said:


> I foresee ... another monorail fiasco ... only this time nation wide!



Exactly..our stupid roadrunner train in NM is a money sponge.  It loses millions a year.


----------



## FactFinder

bigdaddygtr said:


> and now , yes - "My Boy" Obama is going to do it.  I personally don't give a damn that this site is filled with so many Obama haters, I love that he's the Prez and something like this, even as small as it is, is exactly why I love him - forward thinking
> 
> Obama unveils high-speed passenger rail plan - CNN.com



High speed passenger rail.....hmmmmm what is so marvelous about that? Is it a matter of keeping up with the Jones' (er I mean Japanese) or what?

Would I still get to my destination if I took a slightly slower train? or perhaps walked or rode a bike or drove my SUV? What per se would have any magnificence connected with this? Is it just a matter of adding more to my grandkids debt level? Is the wonder "How high can we burden the poor souls?" "Can we entirely ruin the country before they come of age?" Thanks, but I see a slightly more moral set of goals.


----------



## Xenophon

Barak Obama:

19th century solutions for a 21st century world.


----------



## DiveCon

Xenophon said:


> Barak Obama:
> 
> 19th century solutions for a 21st century world.


actually, there are a lot of technologies from the 19th century that have been updated for the 21st century that we SHOULD be using, like the newer hydro turbines that dont even require the building of a dam to harness the energy in the water flowing down a river
clean coal tech
wind power


----------



## editec

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> if this was something that was financially viable, they wouldnt need a dime of tax payer money to get it started
> the project would fund itself with private investment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was NOT true for the transcontinental railroad.
> 
> That was NOT true for space exploration.
> 
> That is NOT true for many enormous projects which ultimately can serve the public interests.
> 
> Your understanding of the power of public and private interests to do *grand projects* that serve the private industries _and the public good_ is fairly weak, and certainly NOT based on history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government subsidized transcontinental railroads were inefficient, politicized, and corrupt. James J. Hill's privately-financed Great Northern Railroad being the exception.
Click to expand...

 
True...but without that government subsidizdd help they'd have not been built at all.

There really are projects so vast that government can play a role in their development and should play a role in their development, too.

Now unless you think that we should privatize the military, too, I really think your position about such things is inconsistent and less than reality based, too.

Government has valid role in national development.

You disagree, and I understand that.

What more can either of us say?


----------



## InrXeyelArkvst

DiamondDave said:


> ...The military is an organization with a set mission that requires that it be self sufficient...


At billions in off-OMB $upplemental infusion, ledgerless streams from other allotments, and trillions never antisipated after action costs it can hardly be deemed self sufficient. 

How many are actually aware that the resurgent SpanAm War inspired LD tax finally had what's hoped to be it's definitive sunset in '06?

What are the Plan-Bs for the loss of such unthoughtabout streams? 

Opoid revenue from the Peshawar-Irkutsk Mule Train?

​


----------



## garyd

High speed rail works great in Europe where the population density is about 20 to 30 times what it is here and the distance are much shorter. The Baltimore to Atlanta corridor could and ought to have a highspeed rail system but trying to run the thing between the mountains from coast to coast is just insanity. The problem with highspeed rail over long distances is track maintenance. Track problems you don't notice at sixty or seventy miles and hour will kill people at 160. At 200 mph assuming a high speed express with no stops in between New York to LA is still going to be 15 hours. and you can fly it in five.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Mass rail transit is nothing more than a tool for socialists.  Socialists hate American individualism....which is the enemy of their collectivism.  What could be more free and individual than you in your own car?  Thats why socialists hate cars...cars represent indvidual freedom....for socialists the less cars the better.   They would rather you lived in a dense population center where they can control you.   Because you know.socialists are smart and they know what is best for you

ObamaDrama cracked a joke that by using rail transit one wouldnt need to take his shoes off.what an idiot.....mass rail transit would become a prime target for terrorists.hey BOremember the train and subway bombings in Europe?..and who is going to pay for the additional high cost of protection on top of the high cost to build plus the high cost of upkeep?

And what working person on vacation is going to take a train across the country when he can fly in 1/10th the time?  Even at 150 mph it will still take at least 20 hours to cross the country...that's a big waste of time when you'd rather be spending your week off at Disneyland....we are not like Europe....America is BIG....maybe that's why not too many use Amtrak...besides, travel in a car is very comfortable...you can stop at McDonald's any time you feel like it...   

In fact, who is going to take the train anywhere when it's easier to drive where you need to go?  When you need your car to do errands after work or you want to go someplace other than where the rail lines go?  Unless you live in high population areas where it makes sense forget it.but here we get back to the radicals goal.they want us to live in dense rabbit warrens.they hate suburbia and small town America.you knowwhere the rednecks livethey want to force us all into regulated green urban population centers

Forcing rail transit on America is nothing more than another socialist commie step to control us and take away our liberties.and Maobama is leading the way...


----------



## WorldAHope

ScreamingEagle said:


> Mass rail transit is nothing more than a tool for socialists.  Socialists hate American individualism....which is the enemy of their collectivism.  What could be more free and individual than you in your own car?  Thats why socialists hate cars...cars represent indvidual freedom....for socialists the less cars the better.   They would rather you lived in a dense population center where they can control you.   Because you know.socialists are smart and they know what is best for you
> 
> ObamaDrama cracked a joke that by using rail transit one wouldnt need to take his shoes off.what an idiot.....mass rail transit would become a prime target for terrorists.hey BOremember the train and subway bombings in Europe?..and who is going to pay for the additional high cost of protection on top of the high cost to build plus the high cost of upkeep?
> 
> And what working person on vacation is going to take a train across the country when he can fly in 1/10th the time?  Even at 150 mph it will still take at least 20 hours to cross the country...that's a big waste of time when you'd rather be spending your week off at Disneyland....we are not like Europe....America is BIG....maybe that's why not too many use Amtrak...besides, travel in a car is very comfortable...you can stop at McDonald's any time you feel like it...
> 
> In fact, who is going to take the train anywhere when it's easier to drive where you need to go?  When you need your car to do errands after work or you want to go someplace other than where the rail lines go?  Unless you live in high population areas where it makes sense forget it.but here we get back to the radicals goal.they want us to live in dense rabbit warrens.they hate suburbia and small town America.you knowwhere the rednecks livethey want to force us all into regulated green urban population centers
> 
> Forcing rail transit on America is nothing more than another socialist commie step to control us and take away our liberties.and Maobama is leading the way...


So....all those decades the US was fairly smothered in an extensive and reliable passenger rail transit network, up to the 1950s, 
we were a nation of "Socialists" ? All those robber barons were actually closet commies ? 

I don't think we should 'force' rail transit upon any city or region, but IF we can invest in such a way to reduce our dependence upon oil, make transportation better, that is good. 
Trains are more safe and more efficient than cars and trucks and planes, you realize.

And are you aware that the budget for building and maintaing the highway system is enormous ? 
Isn't that socialist, putting all that government attention and money into roads and highways ?
And levess and dams and bridges and all forms of govenment assisted transportation would be socialist as well. 

What is NOT socialist to you ?


----------



## Avatar4321

Looking at the surface I see no reason to object to the project. I am all for speeding up travel as long as it's safe. And this seems to be a project that would be legitimately authorized by the Constitution in the governments job to govern interstate commerce.

Of course, I havent seen the hidden costs involved. Nor the specific benefits of it. But with a brief look at the matter, It may not be bad.


----------



## DiveCon

WorldAHope said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mass rail transit is nothing more than a tool for socialists.  Socialists hate American individualism....which is the enemy of their collectivism.  What could be more free and individual than you in your own car?  Thats why socialists hate cars...cars represent indvidual freedom....for socialists the less cars the better.   They would rather you lived in a dense population center where they can control you.   Because you know.socialists are smart and they know what is best for you
> 
> ObamaDrama cracked a joke that by using rail transit one wouldnt need to take his shoes off.what an idiot.....mass rail transit would become a prime target for terrorists.hey BOremember the train and subway bombings in Europe?..and who is going to pay for the additional high cost of protection on top of the high cost to build plus the high cost of upkeep?
> 
> And what working person on vacation is going to take a train across the country when he can fly in 1/10th the time?  Even at 150 mph it will still take at least 20 hours to cross the country...that's a big waste of time when you'd rather be spending your week off at Disneyland....we are not like Europe....America is BIG....maybe that's why not too many use Amtrak...besides, travel in a car is very comfortable...you can stop at McDonald's any time you feel like it...
> 
> In fact, who is going to take the train anywhere when it's easier to drive where you need to go?  When you need your car to do errands after work or you want to go someplace other than where the rail lines go?  Unless you live in high population areas where it makes sense forget it.but here we get back to the radicals goal.they want us to live in dense rabbit warrens.they hate suburbia and small town America.you knowwhere the rednecks livethey want to force us all into regulated green urban population centers
> 
> Forcing rail transit on America is nothing more than another socialist commie step to control us and take away our liberties.and Maobama is leading the way...
> 
> 
> 
> So....all those decades the US was fairly smothered in an extensive and reliable passenger rail transit network, up to the 1950s,
> we were a nation of "Socialists" ? All those robber barons were actually closet commies ?
> 
> I don't think we should 'force' rail transit upon any city or region, but IF we can invest in such a way to reduce our dependence upon oil, make transportation better, that is good.
> Trains are more safe and more efficient than cars and trucks and planes, you realize.
> 
> And are you aware that the budget for building and maintaing the highway system is enormous ?
> Isn't that socialist, putting all that government attention and money into roads and highways ?
> And levess and dams and bridges and all forms of govenment assisted transportation would be socialist as well.
> 
> What is NOT socialist to you ?
Click to expand...

but all those train lines are going out of business because they cant compete
why should the government be taking them over and wasting tax dollars on runing a system that cant even stay in business


----------



## KittenKoder

Avatar4321 said:


> Looking at the surface I see no reason to object to the project. I am all for speeding up travel as long as it's safe. And this seems to be a project that would be legitimately authorized by the Constitution in the governments job to govern interstate commerce.
> 
> *Of course, I havent seen the hidden costs involved. Nor the specific benefits of it. But with a brief look at the matter, It may not be bad*.



This is the problem, the governments rarely look at those themselves and jump on the band wagon without considering the long term effects, costs, or risks involved. Then wonder why all the tax payers are upset when these project fail and cost too much later on.


----------



## raceright

editec said:


> I think high speed mag lev rails are_ long_ overdue.
> 
> So that project actually would be a very good use of stimulus money.
> 
> However I doubt that a mere $740 billion is enough to really create an effective system of such rail lines.
> 
> But it would be a good start.
> 
> Jet liners are a STUPID way to travel.
> 
> They pollute like crazy, and traveling by Jet is hardly convenient anymore.



Pollute  your talking about polluting..My God do you not realize that Cities are the places where most pollution is already and now lets ad somemore with rails..Ok new rails with only solar or wind power just like the left campaign said...Got a better idea eliminate cities 
have people move back to the country and this would probably do more to relieve pollution than any thing else.


----------



## Gunny

bigdaddygtr said:


> and now , yes - "My Boy" Obama is going to do it.  I personally don't give a damn that this site is filled with so many Obama haters, I love that he's the Prez and something like this, even as small as it is, is exactly why I love him - forward thinking
> 
> Obama unveils high-speed passenger rail plan - CNN.com



It's a waste of money.  As if we have plenty to throw around.


----------



## garyd

Save is the problem here avatar.  We already have a High speed rail system from Boston to DC. Half the time it doesn't run at top end because of rail and road bed problems. Multiply the distance by about four and the dificulties in keeping up the road bed by about ten and figure on a good day half your time will be spent at speeds well below best due to track problems. Keep in mine the distance between London and Berlin via the Chunnel is actually less than the distance fromBoston to Atlanta.


----------



## Annie

midcan5 said:


> All the negative comments are amusing but wrong.
> 
> Cato is hardly a source for well reasoned fair minded analysis, any organization supported by corporations or ideology needs to viewed in that light.
> 
> How many have ridden the Metro in Washington? In Philly, we have the Frankford Elevated and the Broad street subway, both well used.
> 
> Go to Paris and ride their Metro, or Spain's metro or train service, Barcelona even has bikes for quick trips in busy areas. Paris is the best I have seen, but we are heading to England on our fortieth.
> 
> You ostriches lost the election, and continue to lose credibility as you stand still and the cobwebs grow and bind you tighter. Time to move into the future and alternative means of getting from here to there.



Ah, going the way of Truthmatters aka oxymoron, in not including who you are responding to. Perhaps because it would be too easy to dismantle your points?

In honor of your mention, we turn to Wiki:

Cato Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C.
> The Institute's stated mission is "to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets, and peace" by striving "to achieve greater involvement of the intelligent, lay public in questions of (public) policy and the proper role of government." Cato scholars conduct policy research on a broad range of public policy issues, and produce books, studies, op-eds, and blog posts. They are also frequent guests in the media.
> 
> The Cato Institute is non-partisan, and its scholars' views are not consistently aligned with either major political party. For example, Cato scholars were sharply critical of the Bush administration on a wide variety of issues, including the Iraq war, civil liberties, education, health care, agriculture, energy policy, and excessive government spending. However, on other issues, most notably Social Security,[1][2] global warming,[3][4] tax policy,[5] and immigration,[6][7][8][9][10] Cato scholars had praised Bush administration initiatives. During the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Cato scholars criticized both major-party candidates, John McCain[11][12] and Barack Obama.[13][14]...


----------



## neurosport

this issue is way too complex for you morons

i won't even read through this thread - it is already obvious it goes way over your heads

one thing is for sure - it won't help the economy

it WILL reduce CO2 emissions though - which is pointless of course

in end he's doing it because it's just something that Americans psychologically will feel good about.  he wants us happy about getting robbed.

he should have built the Autobahn instead.  nobody gives a fuck for any bullet trains in France or Japan or wherever.  but Autobahn is the shit !

so you see the difference between Hitler and Obama is that Hitler built the cool Autobahn while Obama will build a very lame fucking train ...


----------



## Bfgrn

WillowTree said:


> All Democrats are cracking up to be is gimmme gimmmie gimmmie people. dosen't say much for or about you. cept gimmie!




And you're proving FDR was right...


A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. 
*Franklin D. Roosevelt*


----------



## editec

*Screaming Eagle asks a good question:*



> What IS it about radical lefties and and their love for rail mass transit?


 
Two things, I think...

Efficiency of rails and our disgust for what the automobile society has done to our nation.

Not only is the auto society bankrupting us, but just look at what it's done to our cities, our national landscape, our air and water and so on and so forth.

That's why we think mass transit makes sense.

The REAL COST of the automobile society is staggering and what's more it IS unsustainable.

We_ all_ like our cars and the freedom it bring us.

But the costs, the _real costs to society_ are too high to justify it.


----------



## neurosport

editec said:


> We_ all_ like our cars and the freedom it bring us.
> 
> But the costs, the _real costs to society_ are too high to justify it.



it was only yesterday that i said you hate freedom and here you go again - saying freedom cannot be justified

freedom doesn't need to be justified ...

you are a Fascist.  what did you think ?  did you think Fascists thought they were "bad" or "evil" ?  They were like you - brainwashed little lemmings.


----------



## garyd

The cost of the automobile society is directly tied to the luddite lefts unwillingness to enmbrace new technologies in almost every field of energy production.


----------



## KittenKoder

garyd said:


> The cost of the automobile society is directly tied to the luddite lefts unwillingness to enmbrace new technologies in almost every field of energy production.



The what?


----------



## Evangelical

bigdaddygtr said:


> and now , yes - "My Boy" Obama is going to do it.  I personally don't give a damn that this site is filled with so many Obama haters, I love that he's the Prez and something like this, even as small as it is, is exactly why I love him - forward thinking
> 
> Obama unveils high-speed passenger rail plan - CNN.com



Dude...

The highspeed rail will not improve business to Las Vegas, at all.

The highspeed rail will take a decade to build.

The highspeed rail will create maybe a few thousands jobs, or ten thousand jobs at most.

And you just cry with joy that this is happening...why?


----------



## Gunny

editec said:


> I think high speed mag lev rails are_ long_ overdue.
> 
> So that project actually would be a very good use of stimulus money.
> 
> However I doubt that a mere $740 billion is enough to really create an effective system of such rail lines.
> 
> But it would be a good start.
> 
> Jet liners are a STUPID way to travel.
> 
> They pollute like crazy, and traveling by Jet is hardly convenient anymore.



I disagree.  A good use of stimulus money would be to pay off necessities and fund only necessities.


----------



## Gunny

KittenKoder said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think high speed mag lev rails are_ long_ overdue.
> 
> So that project actually would be a very good use of stimulus money.
> 
> However I doubt that a mere $740 billion is enough to really create an effective system of such rail lines.
> 
> But it would be a good start.
> 
> Jet liners are a STUPID way to travel.
> 
> They pollute like crazy, and traveling by Jet is hardly convenient anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a trade off, not an improvement really. Pollution isn't just exhaust fumes, there's oil used to lubricate, space for tracks, cleaning chemicals for the mechanical and magnetic components (magnetic components require a lot more maintenance unless you like having the train fly off the track at 500 mph), etc.. No better, no worse, just different types of pollution.
Click to expand...


But different types of pollution are acceptable.  They have no problem building thousands of windmills, blotting the landscape and upsetting eco-systems just so long is it hasn't oil wells which take up no more space and are no more unsightly.

Now we're going to replace air travel with electric trains.  You left out the cost of maintaining those eletrical power plants and the amount of fossil fuels required to maintain each one.  

All paid for with nonexistent money.


----------



## Gunny

Bfgrn said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> All Democrats are cracking up to be is gimmme gimmmie gimmmie people. dosen't say much for or about you. cept gimmie!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you're proving FDR was right...
> 
> 
> A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward.
> *Franklin D. Roosevelt*
Click to expand...


Walking forward, groping in the dark as you lefties do usually results in breaking your nose on a wall or going over a cliff.


----------



## Bfgrn

garyd said:


> The cost of the automobile society is directly tied to the luddite lefts unwillingness to enmbrace new technologies in almost every field of energy production.



Did you mother drop you on your head? 

ALL you need to do is look at the posts of your right wing comrades... the right is against change, new ideas and new technologies...

The clinical name for what you are doing is *projection*... 


A liberal on his way to the next NASCAR event...


----------



## KittenKoder

NASCAR rules!


----------



## editec

*MagLev Economics*



> The Shanghai maglev cost 9.93 billion yuan (US$1.2 billion) to build.[17] This total includes infrastructure capital costs such as manufacturing and construction facilities, and operational training. At 50 yuan per passenger[18] and the current 7,000 passengers per day, income from the system is incapable of recouping the capital costs (including interest on financing) over the expected lifetime of the system, even ignoring operating costs[_citation needed_].
> 
> China aims to limit the cost of future construction extending the maglev line to approximately 200 million yuan (US$24.6 million) per kilometer.[17]
> The United States Federal Railroad Administration 2003 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed Baltimore-Washington Maglev project gives *an estimated 2008 capital costs of 4.361 billion US dollars for 39.1 miles, or 111.5 million US dollars per mile* (69.3 million US dollars per kilometer). The Maryland Transit Authority (MTA) conducted their own Enviromental Impact Statement, and put the pricetag at 4.9 billion dollars for construction, and 53 million a year for operations. [2]
> While high-speed maglevs are expensive to build, they are less expensive to operate and maintain than traditional high-speed trains, planes or intercity buses.[_citation needed_] Data from the Shanghai maglev project indicates that operation and maintenance costs are covered by the current relatively low volume of 7,000 passengers per day.[_citation needed_] Passenger volumes on the Pudong International Airport line are expected to rise dramatically once the line is extended from Longyang Road metro station all the way to Shanghai's downtown train depot.
> The proposed Ch&#363;&#333; Shinkansen maglev in Japan is estimated to cost approximately US$82 billion to build, with a route blasting long tunnels through mountains. A Tokaido maglev route replacing current Shinkansen would cost some 1/10th the cost, as no new tunnel blasting would be needed, but noise pollution issues would make it infeasible.
> The only low-speed maglev (100 km/h) currently operational, the Japanese Linimo HSST, cost approximately US$100 million/km to build.[19] Besides offering improved operation and maintenance costs over other transit systems, these low-speed maglevs provide ultra-high levels of operational reliability and introduce little noise and zero air pollution into dense urban settings.
> As maglev systems are deployed around the world, experts expect construction costs to drop as new construction methods are innovated along with economies of scale.


 
I think there's a future for this tecnology particularly along the East Coast and West Coast population centers.

At $11.5 million per mile, the cost to build a Boston to Washinton Trail which stops in New York Philadelphia Baltimore and Washinton would be about 

440miles x $111.5 million per mile = $490,660,000,000

FWIW, that's about 11.5 times more expensive than building another a four lane superhighway per mile.

Sound like a good investment to me.

We're investing more in 100 year old tecnology (roads and auto infrastructure) than we should.

We ought to be thinking about phasing out the automobile society.

We're not going to be able to susptain it much longer anyway, if our population continues to grow at the rate it's been growing.


----------



## DiveCon

Bfgrn said:


> garyd said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of the automobile society is directly tied to the luddite lefts unwillingness to enmbrace new technologies in almost every field of energy production.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you mother drop you on your head?
> 
> ALL you need to do is look at the posts of your right wing comrades... the right is against change, new ideas and new technologies...
> 
> The clinical name for what you are doing is *projection*...
> 
> 
> A liberal on his way to the next NASCAR event...
Click to expand...

so, we have another hypocrite liberal that doesnt practice what they preach


----------



## krotchdog

bigdaddygtr said:


> and now , yes - "My Boy" Obama is going to do it.  I personally don't give a damn that this site is filled with so many Obama haters, I love that he's the Prez and something like this, even as small as it is, is exactly why I love him - forward thinking
> 
> Obama unveils high-speed passenger rail plan - CNN.com




I rode the Amtrack from chicago to los angeles, nice, very nice, except the train was filled with a bunch of low life scum. Gang members, white trash, all talking about thier next crime, literally. It was disgusting, I could not believe it. Amtrack has always lost money. A big hole to dump cash, completely subsidized, they even haul mail on it in order to bounce the books and make Amtrack not so deep in the red. 

I guess this will be built to Joe Biden's house so he dont have to spend so much time on the old Amtrack.

So whats it going to be powered by, solar panels on the roof, or a windmill on each end? Most likely the will put three or four liberal statists on the back yelling, you lousy fucking bush supporting ignorant anti gay rignts wont let us kill babies backward HATING conservatives, that ought to move it along at high speed.

Anyhow its subsidized transportation for ACORN and every other crack head I saw on the Amtrack.


----------



## DiveCon

krotchdog said:


> bigdaddygtr said:
> 
> 
> 
> and now , yes - "My Boy" Obama is going to do it.  I personally don't give a damn that this site is filled with so many Obama haters, I love that he's the Prez and something like this, even as small as it is, is exactly why I love him - forward thinking
> 
> Obama unveils high-speed passenger rail plan - CNN.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I rode the Amtrack from chicago to los angeles, nice, very nice, except the train was filled with a bunch of low life scum. Gang members, white trash, all talking about thier next crime, literally. It was disgusting, I could not believe it. Amtrack has always lost money. A big hole to dump cash, completely subsidized, they even haul mail on it in order to bounce the books and make Amtrack not so deep in the red.
> 
> I guess this will be built to Joe Biden's house so he dont have to spend so much time on the old Amtrack.
> 
> So whats it going to be powered by, solar panels on the roof, or a windmill on each end? Most likely the will put three or four liberal statists on the back yelling, you lousy fucking bush supporting ignorant anti gay rignts wont let us kill babies backward HATING conservatives, that ought to move it along at high speed.
> 
> Anyhow its subsidized transportation for ACORN and every other crack head I saw on the Amtrack.
Click to expand...

now if that were true, Amtrak should be profitable
LOL


----------



## Old Rocks

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> if this was something that was financially viable, they wouldnt need a dime of tax payer money to get it started
> the project would fund itself with private investment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> And this isn't going to "create jobs," because the government can't create jobs.  All they're going to do is take money from productive areas and put it into this unproductive area.
Click to expand...


I see. Building all those B-17s and B-24s created no jobs at all? Those Liberty ships and carriers just grew in the shipyards? Kevin, your ideological arguements just get more rediculous.


----------



## Old Rocks

Gunny said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> All Democrats are cracking up to be is gimmme gimmmie gimmmie people. dosen't say much for or about you. cept gimmie!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you're proving FDR was right...
> 
> 
> A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward.
> *Franklin D. Roosevelt*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walking forward, groping in the dark as you lefties do usually results in breaking your nose on a wall or going over a cliff.
Click to expand...


Sure, Gunny, sure. Eight years, two failed wars, the murderer of 3000 Americans on American soil still alive and free, the economy damned near in the Second Great Republican Depression. You guys have such a wonderful track record. You crashed the nation, aren't you so proud?


----------



## Old Rocks

garyd said:


> The cost of the automobile society is directly tied to the luddite lefts unwillingness to enmbrace new technologies in almost every field of energy production.



Really? Seems to me that it is the Conservatives that have been fighting the idea of alternative energy. 

And we already have a model for how to move people in an Urban setting. The Portland light rail system really shined when the gas went to $4. Not only that, many have continued to use the system even though the price has dropped back to $2.


----------



## Old Rocks

krotchdog said:


> bigdaddygtr said:
> 
> 
> 
> and now , yes - "My Boy" Obama is going to do it.  I personally don't give a damn that this site is filled with so many Obama haters, I love that he's the Prez and something like this, even as small as it is, is exactly why I love him - forward thinking
> 
> Obama unveils high-speed passenger rail plan - CNN.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I rode the Amtrack from chicago to los angeles, nice, very nice, except the train was filled with a bunch of low life scum. Gang members, white trash, all talking about thier next crime, literally. It was disgusting, I could not believe it. Amtrack has always lost money. A big hole to dump cash, completely subsidized, they even haul mail on it in order to bounce the books and make Amtrack not so deep in the red.
> 
> I guess this will be built to Joe Biden's house so he dont have to spend so much time on the old Amtrack.
> 
> So whats it going to be powered by, solar panels on the roof, or a windmill on each end? Most likely the will put three or four liberal statists on the back yelling, you lousy fucking bush supporting ignorant anti gay rignts wont let us kill babies backward HATING conservatives, that ought to move it along at high speed.
> 
> Anyhow its subsidized transportation for ACORN and every other crack head I saw on the Amtrack.
Click to expand...


Font Size: PrintEmail TweetThis By Jeff St. John

Southern California Edison has finished California's largest commercial rooftop solar panel installation to date  the first step in its $875 million plan to put 250 megawatts of solar panels on two square miles of rooftops.

The utility said Monday that its installation on a 600,000-square-foot roof of a Fontana, Calif. distribution warehouse owned by ProLogis (PLD) will generate enough electricity to power 1,300 homes in Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

Phoenix, Ariz.-based First Solar (FLSR), which supplied the 33,700 thin-film panels for the Fontana project, said it would generate 2 megawatts of electricity (see First Solar Scores SCE Panel Bid).

Applied Materials (AMAT) and Google (GOOG) have rooftop solar installations at their respective California corporate campuses that generate 1.9 megawatts and 1.6 megawatts respectively. Both of those installations are made from crystalline solar cells. There is also a 14 megawatt ground-mounted solar installation at Nellis Air Force Base. Japan and Germany also sport several large privately-owned solar installations.

First Solar, which now holds a lead in the thin-film solar panel market with its cadmium-telluride panels, will also supply Southern California Edison's next solar rooftop project, a 1-megawatt installation on an industrial building owned by Multi-Employer Property trust in Chino, Calif.

Southern California Edison made waves in March when it unveiled its massive-scale commercial rooftop plans, meant to supply enough electricity to power 165,000 homes. The utility hasn't announced any other sites for its solar rooftops projects beyond the first two.

California Solar Rooftop Project Hits Milestone -- Seeking Alpha


----------



## krotchdog

Old Rocks said:


> krotchdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigdaddygtr said:
> 
> 
> 
> and now , yes - "My Boy" Obama is going to do it.  I personally don't give a damn that this site is filled with so many Obama haters, I love that he's the Prez and something like this, even as small as it is, is exactly why I love him - forward thinking
> 
> Obama unveils high-speed passenger rail plan - CNN.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I rode the Amtrack from chicago to los angeles, nice, very nice, except the train was filled with a bunch of low life scum. Gang members, white trash, all talking about thier next crime, literally. It was disgusting, I could not believe it. Amtrack has always lost money. A big hole to dump cash, completely subsidized, they even haul mail on it in order to bounce the books and make Amtrack not so deep in the red.
> 
> I guess this will be built to Joe Biden's house so he dont have to spend so much time on the old Amtrack.
> 
> So whats it going to be powered by, solar panels on the roof, or a windmill on each end? Most likely the will put three or four liberal statists on the back yelling, you lousy fucking bush supporting ignorant anti gay rignts wont let us kill babies backward HATING conservatives, that ought to move it along at high speed.
> 
> Anyhow its subsidized transportation for ACORN and every other crack head I saw on the Amtrack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Font Size: PrintEmail TweetThis By Jeff St. John
> 
> Southern California Edison has finished California's largest commercial rooftop solar panel installation to date  the first step in its $875 million plan to put 250 megawatts of solar panels on two square miles of rooftops.
> 
> The utility said Monday that its installation on a 600,000-square-foot roof of a Fontana, Calif. distribution warehouse owned by ProLogis (PLD) will generate enough electricity to power 1,300 homes in Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
> 
> Phoenix, Ariz.-based First Solar (FLSR), which supplied the 33,700 thin-film panels for the Fontana project, said it would generate 2 megawatts of electricity (see First Solar Scores SCE Panel Bid).
> 
> Applied Materials (AMAT) and Google (GOOG) have rooftop solar installations at their respective California corporate campuses that generate 1.9 megawatts and 1.6 megawatts respectively. Both of those installations are made from crystalline solar cells. There is also a 14 megawatt ground-mounted solar installation at Nellis Air Force Base. Japan and Germany also sport several large privately-owned solar installations.
> 
> First Solar, which now holds a lead in the thin-film solar panel market with its cadmium-telluride panels, will also supply Southern California Edison's next solar rooftop project, a 1-megawatt installation on an industrial building owned by Multi-Employer Property trust in Chino, Calif.
> 
> Southern California Edison made waves in March when it unveiled its massive-scale commercial rooftop plans, meant to supply enough electricity to power 165,000 homes. The utility hasn't announced any other sites for its solar rooftops projects beyond the first two.
> 
> California Solar Rooftop Project Hits Milestone -- Seeking Alpha
Click to expand...


California needs 52,000 gwh, to pump water, 20% of our electical needs.

2 x 52000 = 260,000 gmw

Your measly little rooftop project, which is using inflated estimates, is insignificant.

Southern California has also just anounced its rates are going up. 

Time to leave california.

You know, I know this sounds like a flame but I dont intend it to, but, is that all you can do is post someone elses data. You got to be able to look at the big picture. Higher electrical rates means higher costs for everything from food to water.

The greenee meanees do not care, there basic idea is people are bad and the earth would be better off without people. That is without all the people but the greenee meanees.

I had a woman I work with share a book like this, in it was a lot of false ideas on what would happen to things like nuclear power plants. I dont own the book so I wont paraphrase or try to quote but I work in nuclear power plants and pointed out some complete falsehoods this professor wrote.

Some quick links if you want to check and see for yourself 

The World Without Us - Alan Weisman

Imagine Earth without people - environment - 12 October 2006 - New Scientist

An Earth Without People: Scientific American


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Old Rocks said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> if this was something that was financially viable, they wouldnt need a dime of tax payer money to get it started
> the project would fund itself with private investment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> And this isn't going to "create jobs," because the government can't create jobs.  All they're going to do is take money from productive areas and put it into this unproductive area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see. Building all those B-17s and B-24s created no jobs at all? Those Liberty ships and carriers just grew in the shipyards? Kevin, your ideological arguements just get more rediculous.
Click to expand...


No, I'm afraid my "ideological" arguments are sound.  By taking money out of the private sector to create those B-17's and B-24's and Liberty ships and carriers the government hurts the economy.  Where would that money have gone had the government not stolen it?  Maybe somebody would have bought a car, or a new suit, or any number of possibilities.  So now those industries suffer because the government took the money away from where it was supposed to go, and put it somewhere else.  Also, those weapons of war have no value to anyone here at home because we have no use for them.


----------



## DiveCon

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> And this isn't going to "create jobs," because the government can't create jobs.  All they're going to do is take money from productive areas and put it into this unproductive area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see. Building all those B-17s and B-24s created no jobs at all? Those Liberty ships and carriers just grew in the shipyards? Kevin, your ideological arguements just get more rediculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm afraid my "ideological" arguments are sound.  By taking money out of the private sector to create those B-17's and B-24's and Liberty ships and carriers the government hurts the economy.  Where would that money have gone had the government not stolen it?  Maybe somebody would have bought a car, or a new suit, or any number of possibilities.  So now those industries suffer because the government took the money away from where it was supposed to go, and put it somewhere else.  Also, those weapons of war have no value to anyone here at home because we have no use for them.
Click to expand...

well, it was better put into those things than just giving it to someone for doing nothing


----------



## Bfgrn

DiveCon said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> garyd said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of the automobile society is directly tied to the luddite lefts unwillingness to enmbrace new technologies in almost every field of energy production.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you mother drop you on your head?
> 
> ALL you need to do is look at the posts of your right wing comrades... the right is against change, new ideas and new technologies...
> 
> The clinical name for what you are doing is *projection*...
> 
> 
> A liberal on his way to the next NASCAR event...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, we have another hypocrite liberal that doesnt practice what they preach
Click to expand...


I was using irony, but now I've changed it to sarcasm...


----------



## Old Rocks

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> And this isn't going to "create jobs," because the government can't create jobs.  All they're going to do is take money from productive areas and put it into this unproductive area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see. Building all those B-17s and B-24s created no jobs at all? Those Liberty ships and carriers just grew in the shipyards? Kevin, your ideological arguements just get more rediculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm afraid my "ideological" arguments are sound.  By taking money out of the private sector to create those B-17's and B-24's and Liberty ships and carriers the government hurts the economy.  Where would that money have gone had the government not stolen it?  Maybe somebody would have bought a car, or a new suit, or any number of possibilities.  So now those industries suffer because the government took the money away from where it was supposed to go, and put it somewhere else.  Also, those weapons of war have no value to anyone here at home because we have no use for them.
Click to expand...


At present I understand a little German. Had we not built those planes and ships, I would know either a lot of German or Japanese. And you would not have had to worry about your ideological windmill tilting. Your ideology would have been decided for your, no deviations allowed.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Old Rocks said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see. Building all those B-17s and B-24s created no jobs at all? Those Liberty ships and carriers just grew in the shipyards? Kevin, your ideological arguements just get more rediculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm afraid my "ideological" arguments are sound.  By taking money out of the private sector to create those B-17's and B-24's and Liberty ships and carriers the government hurts the economy.  Where would that money have gone had the government not stolen it?  Maybe somebody would have bought a car, or a new suit, or any number of possibilities.  So now those industries suffer because the government took the money away from where it was supposed to go, and put it somewhere else.  Also, those weapons of war have no value to anyone here at home because we have no use for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At present I understand a little German. Had we not built those planes and ships, I would know either a lot of German or Japanese. And you would not have had to worry about your ideological windmill tilting. Your ideology would have been decided for your, no deviations allowed.
Click to expand...


Regardless of whether you think those things were a good investment or not, the fact remains that government spending, and especially war-time spending, is harmful to the economy.


----------



## garyd

How many lefties are there in favor of Nuclear Power Numbnutz? How about Clean coal. Most of the green weanies are uber Luddites who frankly thing we should all go back to living in caves and freezing in the dark.

And Kevin on this one you are wrong. WWII was an exception to the standard rule if for no other reason than the fact that prior to it no one was buying anything. And almost no one had a job. In the fifties the economy was driven almost entirely by military spending at the Fed level and a housing boom driven by federally guaranteed home loans for ex GI's.  There is a major difference between that sort of spending and the sort of spending we are doing now. It got factories up and running and people gainfully employed. 

The spending we are doing now isn't making anyone gainfully employed or getting factories up and runnng infact it is counter productive to that end.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

garyd said:


> And Kevin on this one you are wrong. WWII was an exception to the standard rule if for no other reason than the fact that prior to it no one was buying anything. And almost no one had a job. In the fifties the economy was driven almost entirely by military spending at the Fed level and a housing boom driven by federally guaranteed home loans for ex GI's.  There is a major difference between that sort of spending and the sort of spending we are doing now. It got factories up and running and people gainfully employed.
> 
> The spending we are doing now isn't making anyone gainfully employed or getting factories up and runnng infact it is counter productive to that end.



There are no exceptions to the rule.  You're not factoring time into the equation.  Perhaps people were saving or "hoarding" their money for the time being, on account of uncertainty of the times, but eventually that money would have been spent.  They were forgoing present spending for future spending, and the same principle applies.  Whoever would have received that money did not because the government spent it elsewhere, and thus they suffer that loss.


----------



## garyd

No one had anything to save. My dad and mom lived though it. Most people though scarcely all had enough to eat simply because this was still very much an agrarian society. Until we went to war against the Nazis and to not do so was a horrible idea on several levels. For instance the weapons that defeated the Nazis were the liberty ship and the 2-1/2 ton truck. Absent those Hitler wins.

People for the most part had damn little to horde. The chief advantage of the war economically however was that it got people's minds off the crap that was right in front of them and got it onto something else. And that could well have been as important as anything else.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

garyd said:


> No one had anything to save. My dad and mom lived though it. Most people though scarcely all had enough to eat simply because this was still very much an agrarian society. Until we went to war against the Nazis and to not do so was a horrible idea on several levels. For instance the weapons that defeated the Nazis were the liberty ship and the 2-1/2 ton truck. Absent those Hitler wins.
> 
> People for the most part had damn little to horde. The chief advantage of the war economically however was that it got people's minds off the crap that was right in front of them and got it onto something else. And that could well have been as important as anything else.



It doesn't matter if you think what the government spends the money on is good or not, the fact remains that it always hurts the economy because the government takes its money from the private sector.  If they hadn't taken the money spent on WW2 out of the private sector what might it have been spent on?  Who knows, but those people suffered because the government did take that money and spent it elsewhere.

Also, I don't think it was an advantage for people to have to worry about their brother, son, cousin, father, husband, etc... potentially getting killed in a war on top of all the economic troubles at home.


----------



## Old Rocks

DiveCon said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> if this was something that was financially viable, they wouldnt need a dime of tax payer money to get it started
> the project would fund itself with private investment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was NOT true for the transcontinental railroad.
> 
> That was NOT true for space exploration.
> 
> That is NOT true for many enormous projects which ultimately can serve the public interests.
> 
> Your understanding of the power of public and private interests to do *grand projects* that serve the private industries _and the public good_ is fairly weak, and certainly NOT based on history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> please tell me when NASA starts a shuttle bus to the stars for public transport
Click to expand...


You are truly a halfwit. The very instrument you post your idiocy on is a result of the space program.


----------



## DiveCon

Old Rocks said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was NOT true for the transcontinental railroad.
> 
> That was NOT true for space exploration.
> 
> That is NOT true for many enormous projects which ultimately can serve the public interests.
> 
> Your understanding of the power of public and private interests to do *grand projects* that serve the private industries _and the public good_ is fairly weak, and certainly NOT based on history.
> 
> 
> 
> please tell me when NASA starts a shuttle bus to the stars for public transport
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are truly a halfwit. The very instrument you post your idiocy on is a result of the space program.
Click to expand...

fuck off rockhead


----------



## HUGGY

KittenKoder said:


> I foresee ... another monorail fiasco ... only this time nation wide!



Christ...you and that stupid monorail.  There are thousands of transportation systems in the world and most of em work fine.  But no you have to bring up the only one that was a fuckin *PROP* for a worlds fair 50 years ago.

You are obsessed.


----------



## GHook93

DiamondDave said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3xGtjhZ_Yg



LOL that is was great episode!


----------



## xsited1

bigdaddygtr said:


> been screaming for this for years



I thought you were going to say 'A Male Prostitute'.


----------



## garyd

Again what part of road bed troubles are keeping the current highspeed train on the east coast from operating at high speed more often than not did you not get?


----------



## editec

Rail is more efficent way of moving stuff than automobiles or trucks, folks.

Sooner rather than later, I hope we reinvigorate that industry.

Of course it will be epensive to launch, but then too, so was building millions of miles of roads and the infrastructure we need to house and park cars, too.


----------



## Sarah G

editec said:


> Rail is more efficent way of moving stuff than automobiles or trucks, folks.
> 
> Sooner rather than later, I hope we reinvigorate that industry.
> 
> Of course it will be epensive to launch, but then too, so was building millions of miles of roads and the infrastructure we need to house and park cars, too.



Yeah, I think that is the main thrust of their thinking.  I have been seeing ads suddenly concerning how little fuel it takes to run a train and how efficient it really is.


----------



## k2skier

KittenKoder said:


> I foresee ... another monorail fiasco ... only this time nation wide!



But the monorail idea was shut down, Seattle went with the standard light rail.


----------



## sitarro

editec said:


> I think high speed mag lev rails are_ long_ overdue.
> 
> So that project actually would be a very good use of stimulus money.
> 
> However I doubt that a mere $740 billion is enough to really create an effective system of such rail lines.
> 
> But it would be a good start.
> 
> Jet liners are a STUPID way to travel.
> 
> They pollute like crazy, and traveling by Jet is hardly convenient anymore.



Oh but a train is convenient ....... How very Euro of you and your buddies here. Trains are loud, dangerous, kill animals and people, use a tremendous amount of land, slow, irritating and expensive. They are very 20th century........ but most of all, they are an easy target for any asshole extremist that wants to destroy a section of track and get headlines.

Maybe we should go back to taking a boat to Europe, have a fun 2 weeks.


----------



## k2skier

sitarro said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think high speed mag lev rails are_ long_ overdue.
> 
> So that project actually would be a very good use of stimulus money.
> 
> However I doubt that a mere $740 billion is enough to really create an effective system of such rail lines.
> 
> But it would be a good start.
> 
> Jet liners are a STUPID way to travel.
> 
> They pollute like crazy, and traveling by Jet is hardly convenient anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh but a train is convenient ....... How very Euro of you and your buddies here. Trains are loud, dangerous, kill animals and people, use a tremendous amount of land, slow, irritating and expensive. They are very 20th century........ but most of all, they are an easy target for any asshole extremist that wants to destroy a section of track and get headlines.
> 
> Maybe we should go back to taking a boat to Europe, have a fun 2 weeks.
Click to expand...


You are obviously unfamiliar with mag lev.

And airplanes are not a good target, lol, foot in mouth.


----------

