Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

retrofade

Newsom gives up on California High Speed Rail

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

Sure. So have I. But the train could be made faster with a tiny fraction of the HSR expenditure along a route where people actual want to travel. And anyone wanting to drive between SD and SLO has got to get through LA. I’d rather sit on a train working or having a beer. 

Not to mention the Hollister Ranch to Jalama Beach stretch + Vandenberg Air Force Base. Stretches with some of the prettiest coastline, that is inaccessible to the general public. Amtrak takes you right through it with spectacular scenery.

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

This is what communists do, they want to build 18th century tech to solve a modern problem.

18th century tech?  :rotflmfao:

That's what they have now, with passenger trains sharing track with freight. No one other than a Tool and his legal dabbler yes man would think bullet trains in Europe and Asia are 18th century technology.

Try picking up a book sometime, Tool.  Learn something!

51t4uwlffaL._SL160_SS150_.jpg324804241_0b7c67b2af_m.jpg

BCS is to Football what Fox News is to Journalism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Boise fan said:

18th century tech?  :rotflmfao:

That's what they have now, with passenger trains sharing track with freight. No one other than a Tool and his legal dabbler yes man would think bullet trains in Europe and Asia are 18th century technology.

Try picking up a book sometime, Tool.  Learn something!

So you think the army should issue muskets and we should add sail to all our aircraft carriers too.  Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

So you think the army should issue muskets and we should add sail to all our aircraft carriers too.  Right?

Your understanding of technology is as bad as your understanding of life.  But hey, you are a Libertarian, so it's to be expected.

So your argument is diesel rail is ancient?  It's not rail itself, because in your examples both guns and aircraft carriers are still valid.  But to you diesel rail is a musket, or a wind powered aircraft carrier...(!)...which seems very odd indeed, but hey, it came out of your noggin.  And your ideal of non-ancient technology is....a modern gun, and a modern aircraft carrier.  :rotflmfao:

Didn't you argue in another thread that aircraft carriers were archaic?  :lol:  Sorry, I digress.

That aside, given your stellar analogy, the logical examples of "modern" or "futuristic" tech to counter your examples of ancient would be....high capacity, high fire rate guns, and non-wind dependent aircraft carriers.  Though funny enough there were no sail powered carriers to begin with.  But let's go with your mindset and parallel diesel trains being archaic, then diesel aircraft carriers would be too. So the cutting edge of technology would be a autonomous powered carrier, say like nuclear powered?

Wow, good thing that super advanced tech to support your analogy hasn't been around a long time, huh?

And given your analogy, exactly how would a bullet train not be modern tech for rail?

 

51t4uwlffaL._SL160_SS150_.jpg324804241_0b7c67b2af_m.jpg

BCS is to Football what Fox News is to Journalism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Boise fan said:

Your understanding of technology is as bad as your understanding of life.  But hey, you are a Libertarian, so it's to be expected.

So your argument is diesel rail is ancient?  It's not rail itself, because in your examples both guns and aircraft carriers are still valid.  But to you diesel rail is a musket, or a wind powered aircraft carrier...(!)...which seems very odd indeed, but hey, it came out of your noggin.  And your ideal of non-ancient technology is....a modern gun, and a modern aircraft carrier.  :rotflmfao:

Didn't you argue in another thread that aircraft carriers were archaic?  :lol:  Sorry, I digress.

That aside, given your stellar analogy, the logical examples of "modern" or "futuristic" tech to counter your examples of ancient would be....high capacity, high fire rate guns, and non-wind dependent aircraft carriers.  Though funny enough there were no sail powered carriers to begin with.  But let's go with your mindset and parallel diesel trains being archaic, then diesel aircraft carriers would be too. So the cutting edge of technology would be a autonomous powered carrier, say like nuclear powered?

Wow, good thing that super advanced tech to support your analogy hasn't been around a long time, huh?

And given your analogy, exactly how would a bullet train not be modern tech for rail?

 

Japan built the first bullet train in 1964.  More than 50 years ago.  Trains and diesel power are centuries old.

Do you think a 67 Studebaker is a modern car?

Do you think black and white television is a modern television.

 

If you want modern ground transportation you don't buy a studebaker or build a train system.  You do something that is faster, and uses less energy.  There are several options and you would at least move to Maglev systems which is a proven system or Hyperloop which promises many times faster travel than the fastest train.   Now of course governments won't do these things because they have no ability to actually produce something modern.  They are just too ineffective.   So like you communist they think 18th century tech is great because maybe they can do it.   But maybe not as we found out in California.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

Japan built the first bullet train in 1964.  More than 50 years ago.  Trains and diesel power are centuries old.

Do you think a 67 Studebaker is a modern car?

Do you think black and white television is a modern television.

 

If you want modern ground transportation you don't buy a studebaker or build a train system.  You do something that is faster, and uses less energy.  There are several options and you would at least move to Maglev systems which is a proven system or Hyperloop which promises many times faster travel than the fastest train.   Now of course governments won't do these things because they have no ability to actually produce something modern.  They are just too ineffective.   So like you communist they think 18th century tech is great because maybe they can do it.   But maybe not as we found out in California.

Lulz.  You were the one who defined the analogy Tool.  You compared trains to muskets and sail powered aircraft carriers.  Love how you try and dismiss and yet you swing and a miss again! 

"Faster and uses less energy."  Lol!  Sorry Tool, Star Trek transporters are not currently available.  Rail is still a cost effective means of moving both goods and people.  Far more energy efficient than air or truck.

I skewered your argument by showing that bullet trains were exactly the "modern" version of rail that would fit your bizarre analogy.  The power source could come from a variety of means - electric, maglev, whatever.  I didn't delve into power sources.  I was too busy laughing at your ridiculous analogy.

Sail powered aircraft carriers.  :hmmm::lol:

Libertards gonna libertard! 

51t4uwlffaL._SL160_SS150_.jpg324804241_0b7c67b2af_m.jpg

BCS is to Football what Fox News is to Journalism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, smltwnrckr said:

I agree. Though I do think that it's still hard to compete with cars when we start talking regional transportation. I mean, it's tough to beat a ride in your own car. Your schedule. Your space. Your music. I'm sure there's a magic metric that identifies a threshold where someone who lives in Lathrop is willing to take a regional transit system over their car regularly. But I wonder if that point is further out than we think it is. I dunno.

When I started commuting 30 years ago from Modesto, it took me 55 minutes to get to work. Now the afternoon ride is about an hour and 40 minutes, with the backup being the Altamont pass, and more recently in the last couple years the 205,  580 south of Tracy, 120 and 99. I reach that pain point at the beginning of this year. Yes it takes longer to take the commuter train, but in the morning I get over an hour of work in, clean out my emails, get organized for the day, and perform some light tasks. Afternoon, I do personal stuff, surf the Internet, listen to music, take a nap.

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Boise fan said:

Lulz.  You were the one who defined the analogy Tool.  You compared trains to muskets and sail powered aircraft carriers.  Love how you try and dismiss and yet you swing and a miss again! 

"Faster and uses less energy."  Lol!  Sorry Tool, Star Trek transporters are not currently available.  Rail is still a cost effective means of moving both goods and people.  Far more energy efficient than air or truck.

I skewered your argument by showing that bullet trains were exactly the "modern" version of rail that would fit your bizarre analogy.  The power source could come from a variety of means - electric, maglev, whatever.  I didn't delve into power sources.  I was too busy laughing at your ridiculous analogy.

Sail powered aircraft carriers.  :hmmm::lol:

Libertards gonna libertard! 

How goes it driving that Studebaker big rig?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...