High Speed Rail Between LA and Vegas

I suspect a high-speed rail between LA and Vegas will lead to some multi-billion dollar high speed accidents. There is something called rayleigh waves associated with high speed rail. They are the train equivalent of a perpetual sonic boom that can destabilize the tracks on soft ground. I am guessing there is a lot of soft ground in the desert.
 
I suspect a high-speed rail between LA and Vegas will lead to some multi-billion dollar high speed accidents. There is something called rayleigh waves associated with high speed rail. They are the train equivalent of a perpetual sonic boom that can destabilize the tracks on soft ground. I am guessing there is a lot of soft ground in the desert.

Actually, the earth in the desert is highly packed and often no more than a thin level of soil above rocks

I remember camping in the Mojave desert and how tough it was to dig a hole for a fire.
 
Great another train that will lose money and have to be propped up by the taxpayers
 
Great another train that will lose money and have to be propped up by the taxpayers

The truth is that it's a deal Dingy Harry is behind and it's designed to make money for he and his buddies. Won't start in LA and won't end in Vegas.
 
Great another train that will lose money and have to be propped up by the taxpayers

The truth is that it's a deal Dingy Harry is behind and it's designed to make money for he and his buddies. Won't start in LA and won't end in Vegas.

Of course it will make the pols rich it's just going cost the taxpayers as well

This is par for the course in government. How else do you think people with modest net worth become multi millionaires after a few terms in congress despite the fact they only make 175K a year?
 
High Speed Rail= Tax payer money suckhole. Give companies tax incentives and they will build it if there is a market for the service. Don't waste the citizens hard earned money on something shiny.
 
High Speed Rail= Tax payer money suckhole. Give companies tax incentives and they will build it if there is a market for the service. Don't waste the citizens hard earned money on something shiny.

We must keep up with Europe. The last time we decided to keep up with Europe, we passed the Financial Services Modernization Act that allowed banks to get too big to fail and that worked out fantastic for us. This high speed rail things will be the same, Silly Boy. Guaranteed success.
 
When the ethnic majority of California will switch from Mexican to Chinese, the train will be built. More trains too. California tax payers will keep propping it of course, but the majority stake holder will be Beijing. Modern world takeovers are not done on battle fields but by population engineering. And Americans think it is Isis that comes to take over control of their country.
 
Great another train that will lose money and have to be propped up by the taxpayers

That's the attitude, everything shouldn't be done because it might not work out. Let's just stick to the problems we already have instead of trying to fix them.

The US has to have some of the worst public transport in the world. It's easier to get public transport in 3rd world countries than in the US.
 
Great another train that will lose money and have to be propped up by the taxpayers

That's the attitude, everything shouldn't be done because it might not work out. Let's just stick to the problems we already have instead of trying to fix them.

The US has to have some of the worst public transport in the world. It's easier to get public transport in 3rd world countries than in the US.
The US is the car capital of the world. What public transport do you mean? ... Oh I got it, selling more cars to the public.
 
Great another train that will lose money and have to be propped up by the taxpayers

That's the attitude, everything shouldn't be done because it might not work out. Let's just stick to the problems we already have instead of trying to fix them.

The US has to have some of the worst public transport in the world. It's easier to get public transport in 3rd world countries than in the US.

So what?

Tell you what you show me a train that pays for itself and I'll be all for it.

Pay people a fair price for the land that will be taken from them in claims of eminent domain

And then show me that people will actually use the train.

My bet is people would rather drive than take a cattle car
 
Great another train that will lose money and have to be propped up by the taxpayers

That's the attitude, everything shouldn't be done because it might not work out. Let's just stick to the problems we already have instead of trying to fix them.

The US has to have some of the worst public transport in the world. It's easier to get public transport in 3rd world countries than in the US.
The US is the car capital of the world. What public transport do you mean? ... Oh I got it, selling more cars to the public.

Cars have gained supremacy for a long time. J-Walking existed because the early car industry decided it would be a good idea to have cars supreme on the roads. The govt of the day decided to go with industry over citizens then, and it has done it ever since.
 
Great another train that will lose money and have to be propped up by the taxpayers

That's the attitude, everything shouldn't be done because it might not work out. Let's just stick to the problems we already have instead of trying to fix them.

The US has to have some of the worst public transport in the world. It's easier to get public transport in 3rd world countries than in the US.
The US is the car capital of the world. What public transport do you mean? ... Oh I got it, selling more cars to the public.

Cars have gained supremacy for a long time. J-Walking existed because the early car industry decided it would be a good idea to have cars supreme on the roads. The govt of the day decided to go with industry over citizens then, and it has done it ever since.

So in your mind putting citizens first would be telling them they had to use public transportation thereby telling them they could only travel on someone else's schedule and go only where the cattle cars take them

giving people the freedom to travel in their own vehicles wherever and whenever they want is putting people first
 
Great another train that will lose money and have to be propped up by the taxpayers

That's the attitude, everything shouldn't be done because it might not work out. Let's just stick to the problems we already have instead of trying to fix them.

The US has to have some of the worst public transport in the world. It's easier to get public transport in 3rd world countries than in the US.

So what?

Tell you what you show me a train that pays for itself and I'll be all for it.

Pay people a fair price for the land that will be taken from them in claims of eminent domain

And then show me that people will actually use the train.

My bet is people would rather drive than take a cattle car

What I'm saying is that sometimes things need to develop. You don't just expect day one of something to be full with people all going about their lives. Often transport links can take a while to develop, for people to get used to them, then they start making money.

Would people prefer to drive? Maybe in the US, because that's what people are used to, because they don't actually have much alternative. And no alternative because the alternatives aren't given the chance to work.

Years ago I went Amtrack from NY-Chicago-New Orleans-Atlanta-Philly-NY and people used the train, but it was too slow, it was quicker to go by bus. So it wasn't a great alternative. Now it's all about planes, which produce a ton of pollution.

Why are planes cheaper? Because they've been given the chance to work. Rail works slightly differently as you need the railway line to be built first, airports already existed for longer distance travel already.

Look at other countries. Where rail travel is a viable alternative, people use it.

1280px-Rail_density_map.png


The US actually has the second largest freight rail tonnage per kilometer in the world behind China, mainly because they're large countries. But falls behind Canada, Russia Latvia, Estonia and Switzerland when it comes to % of freight that uses rail.

When it comes to passengers the US falls to 22nd in the world. Belgium has more, look for Belgium on that map, it's like the size of Rhode Island or something. But people use rail, because it's there.

Amtrack reported 30 million passengers in 2014. China had 17,116 million, with 4-5 times the population.

Japan has a great high speed rail system, it has 7,289 million passengers, Belarus, Malaysia (a country split in two parts that aren't that big), Hungary, South Korea, Poland, many countries have many more passengers.

Rail is used because it's there and it's convenient. They don't use it in the US because it's not there.
 
Great another train that will lose money and have to be propped up by the taxpayers

That's the attitude, everything shouldn't be done because it might not work out. Let's just stick to the problems we already have instead of trying to fix them.

The US has to have some of the worst public transport in the world. It's easier to get public transport in 3rd world countries than in the US.

So what?

Tell you what you show me a train that pays for itself and I'll be all for it.

Pay people a fair price for the land that will be taken from them in claims of eminent domain

And then show me that people will actually use the train.

My bet is people would rather drive than take a cattle car

What I'm saying is that sometimes things need to develop. You don't just expect day one of something to be full with people all going about their lives. Often transport links can take a while to develop, for people to get used to them, then they start making money.

Would people prefer to drive? Maybe in the US, because that's what people are used to, because they don't actually have much alternative. And no alternative because the alternatives aren't given the chance to work.

Years ago I went Amtrack from NY-Chicago-New Orleans-Atlanta-Philly-NY and people used the train, but it was too slow, it was quicker to go by bus. So it wasn't a great alternative. Now it's all about planes, which produce a ton of pollution.

Why are planes cheaper? Because they've been given the chance to work. Rail works slightly differently as you need the railway line to be built first, airports already existed for longer distance travel already.

Look at other countries. Where rail travel is a viable alternative, people use it.

1280px-Rail_density_map.png


The US actually has the second largest freight rail tonnage per kilometer in the world behind China, mainly because they're large countries. But falls behind Canada, Russia Latvia, Estonia and Switzerland when it comes to % of freight that uses rail.

When it comes to passengers the US falls to 22nd in the world. Belgium has more, look for Belgium on that map, it's like the size of Rhode Island or something. But people use rail, because it's there.

Amtrack reported 30 million passengers in 2014. China had 17,116 million, with 4-5 times the population.

Japan has a great high speed rail system, it has 7,289 million passengers, Belarus, Malaysia (a country split in two parts that aren't that big), Hungary, South Korea, Poland, many countries have many more passengers.

Rail is used because it's there and it's convenient. They don't use it in the US because it's not there.

It's used because people don't have a choice
 
Great another train that will lose money and have to be propped up by the taxpayers

That's the attitude, everything shouldn't be done because it might not work out. Let's just stick to the problems we already have instead of trying to fix them.

The US has to have some of the worst public transport in the world. It's easier to get public transport in 3rd world countries than in the US.
The US is the car capital of the world. What public transport do you mean? ... Oh I got it, selling more cars to the public.

Cars have gained supremacy for a long time. J-Walking existed because the early car industry decided it would be a good idea to have cars supreme on the roads. The govt of the day decided to go with industry over citizens then, and it has done it ever since.

So in your mind putting citizens first would be telling them they had to use public transportation thereby telling them they could only travel on someone else's schedule and go only where the cattle cars take them

giving people the freedom to travel in their own vehicles wherever and whenever they want is putting people first

No, I didn't say anything about telling people they have to use it. You said that.

Giving people the CHOICE to take their car, or use public transport is PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST.

A car limits people too. You have to pay for it, drive it, do all of that.
 
Great another train that will lose money and have to be propped up by the taxpayers

That's the attitude, everything shouldn't be done because it might not work out. Let's just stick to the problems we already have instead of trying to fix them.

The US has to have some of the worst public transport in the world. It's easier to get public transport in 3rd world countries than in the US.
The US is the car capital of the world. What public transport do you mean? ... Oh I got it, selling more cars to the public.

Cars have gained supremacy for a long time. J-Walking existed because the early car industry decided it would be a good idea to have cars supreme on the roads. The govt of the day decided to go with industry over citizens then, and it has done it ever since.

So in your mind putting citizens first would be telling them they had to use public transportation thereby telling them they could only travel on someone else's schedule and go only where the cattle cars take them

giving people the freedom to travel in their own vehicles wherever and whenever they want is putting people first

No, I didn't say anything about telling people they have to use it. You said that.

Giving people the CHOICE to take their car, or use public transport is PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST.

A car limits people too. You have to pay for it, drive it, do all of that.

History has shown that Americans don't want t use public transportation other than within cities

If people wanted trains everywhere we would have them by now

Building them and wasting tax payer money on them then paying for ridiculously expensive ad campaigns to try to convince people that they really do want trains is a waste of time and money
 

Forum List

Back
Top