The rail debt added more than 10 percent to the national debt. This is akin to adding $1.4 trillion to the U.S. national debt.
Wow, given how high the debt of Japan is, that’s some serious money. And given that we have a sterling example of failure, why should we want high speed rail?
“You shouldn’t gamble your life savings away in Vegas — that’s why we need a high-speed rail from LA to… um… Vegas…”
The William Shatner character on “Boston Legal” has this verbal tic of blurting out the character’s name “Denny Crane!” Attorney and Shatner alter-ego Denny Crane has a rather high opinion of himself, and this is his way of reminding people that they “are in the presence of greatness.” The Denny Crane character, as the show progresses, exhibits early signs of losing his mental sharpness and starts blurting out “Denny Crane!” at odd moments.
Given that we are flat-out tapped-out broke, for President Obama to blurt out in the State of the Union “High Speed Train!” is also a non-sequitur. Mr. Obama is way to young to have a “senior moment”, but to advance High Speed Trains at this time suggests some decoupling from fiscal reality.
High Speed Train!
Forget high speed train. Having ridden the low speed one I can say that just the standard rail infrastructure needs upgrade, stat.
The monorail is still the way to be better than Shelbyville.
You misunderestimate the plan. When gas is $7/gal. high speed rail and the pat down before traveling will look pretty good.
Doesn’t work because high-speed rail doesn’t go far enough in terms of reducing travel times. Maglev, which wouldn’t be too difficult to get to 350-400 mph, might actually compete with air travel for medium-length journeys. After all, journey time includes the many miles in bumper-to-bumper traffic getting to the airport; maglev stations might well be a lot closer in.
In addition, rail of any variety has the potential of reducing dependence on fossil fuels and hence reducing the amount of jizyah being given to Islamic nutcases who want to kill or enslave us. Maybe the potential for saving on defence costs ought to be considered here, too.
Hey, how about Federally-funded riverboats? We could build an American version of the ekranoplan. Unfortunately, this idea, unlike “high-speed” rail, is 1) technically feasible 2) requires minimal infrastructure and 3) could actually serve most of the population. Clearly a non-starter.
Jay, please explain how I would get from Reno to Sacramento via riverboat.
Mr. Manifold – Like Duane said. Also, ekranoplans (although they use less of it) still use as fuel something that finances theocratic nutcases.
I think there could be a better case made for using canals (where possible) for bulk transport of non-perishable freight.
Also, ekranoplans (although they use less of it) still use as fuel something that finances theocratic nutcases.
And maglev’s run on what? Fairy dust?
I agree ekranoplan’s aren’t viable for most routes. However, just because a train or car runs on electricity doesn’t mean it requires less Middle East oil. The US has cut off most mining for clean coal and the current administration is blocking efforts to store spent nuclear fuel. Some states, like Texas, are adopting more wind power. Still, much of US electricity comes from oil.
Riverboats make just as much sense as high-speed rail. If you don’t live it the right place and don’t like paying taxes for it, tough! Can I go to Washington now?
And maglev’s run on what? Fairy dust?
The most reasonable (but still not economical) maglev scheme I’ve seen for the US uses aluminum guideways, permanent magnet dynamic levitation (“Halbach Arrays”), and jet engines (!) for propulsion.
Still, much of US electricity comes from oil.
Very little US electricity comes from oil. It’s mostly limited to low duty cycle diesel peaking units.
Jay, please explain how I would get from Reno to Sacramento via riverboat.
I got this one:
1. Dig a riverbed
2. Fill riverbed with water
3. Put boat on river
You’re welcome.
Still, much of US electricity comes from oil.
According to this source, less than 2% of US electricity production uses petroleum. Natural gas (which we have a lot of) makes up 20%, nuclear provides 19%, and coal provides almost 50%.
My bad, majority of US power does come from natural gas. While coal and nuclear come next, and as stated previously, the supply of fuel there is being restricted. But…
and jet engines (!) for propulsion.
Yeah… I stand corrected… sort of…
Fletch, I hate to break it to you, but canals were a flash-in-the-pan idea even in the early 19th century when most of them were built – and went bust. Railroads were better for most freight and people put up with them for passenger travel too, until something better – cars and planes – came along.
The progressive nostalgiasts of the Left like trains because they are easily controllable by statist busybodies like themselves. Cars are anarchic – all these damned people going wherever they want, at all hours of the day and night without so much as a by-your-leave to their natural betters; maddening, intolerable!
Canals! America could be one big giant Venice! (looks outside at ice-covered Dallas County) I’m sure Sea Ray could make an icebreaker attachment for its cabin cruisers. And the guys who build water parks could work out cloverleaf intersections.
I’ve wondered where Obama got the 80% figure – the percentage of Americans who could get access to high-speed rail. That’s roughly the percentage of the population in urban areas (per 2000 census).
Maybe high-speed rail is not a bad plan in certain areas. If ridership fees are low enough, Californians could live in the more tax-friendly states of Arizona or Utah and commute to their CA jobs. Of course, CA would simply enact an Interstate Job Commuters Tax.
Say, I have an idea. Let’s get some really high-speed trains, traveling at 500 MPH or so, powered by efficient turbofan engines. At those speeds we can put wings on them and they’ll self-levitate, without needing special rails, or indeed rails at all.
Not only that, but they can levitate to arbitrary altitudes, so we could have them travel in the stratosphere, reducing air resistance, eliminating the need to buy costly right-of-way under their travel path, and elimating the exposure of people along their travel path to the inevitable noise.
High-speed Stratospheric Rail (HSSR), friends. It’s the future!
Of course, CA would simply enact an Interstate Job Commuters Tax.
I think they’d build checkpoints at the border, stop all the trains coming in, and do the shakedown on the spot. The stations on either side would soon be suspiciously busy from people sneaking in – or out – on foot.
Titus, there is an elevation difference between Reno and Sacramento. You forgot to include locks.
I must have taken a quantum leap. Didn’t Josh say, just call planes trains and be done with it? I know I don’t see a comment from Josh here (but I remember it???)
I think they’d build checkpoints at the border, stop all the trains coming in, and do the shakedown on the spot. The stations on either side would soon be suspiciously busy from people sneaking in – or out – on foot.
And a wall, designed by the best German engineers.
And this sign, where I-10 meets the western bank of the Colorado River:
YOU ARE NOW LEAVING THE ARIZONA SECTOR
F@#! locks, Ken — I’m making water run uphill!
“Didn’t Josh say, just call planes trains and be done with it? I know I don’t see a comment from Josh”
Heh, yea I said that in a post last week I think. With the way this administration has taken great liberties with the meanings of words I’ll be surprised if they don’t actually try to pull this off at some point in the future.
Oops, Eastern. Unless we make the Californians build it and prop it up on their side of the wall.
The rail debt added more than 10 percent to the national debt. This is akin to adding $1.4 trillion to the U.S. national debt.
Wow, given how high the debt of Japan is, that’s some serious money. And given that we have a sterling example of failure, why should we want high speed rail?
“You shouldn’t gamble your life savings away in Vegas — that’s why we need a high-speed rail from LA to… um… Vegas…”
The William Shatner character on “Boston Legal” has this verbal tic of blurting out the character’s name “Denny Crane!” Attorney and Shatner alter-ego Denny Crane has a rather high opinion of himself, and this is his way of reminding people that they “are in the presence of greatness.” The Denny Crane character, as the show progresses, exhibits early signs of losing his mental sharpness and starts blurting out “Denny Crane!” at odd moments.
Given that we are flat-out tapped-out broke, for President Obama to blurt out in the State of the Union “High Speed Train!” is also a non-sequitur. Mr. Obama is way to young to have a “senior moment”, but to advance High Speed Trains at this time suggests some decoupling from fiscal reality.
High Speed Train!
Forget high speed train. Having ridden the low speed one I can say that just the standard rail infrastructure needs upgrade, stat.
The monorail is still the way to be better than Shelbyville.
You misunderestimate the plan. When gas is $7/gal. high speed rail and the pat down before traveling will look pretty good.
Doesn’t work because high-speed rail doesn’t go far enough in terms of reducing travel times. Maglev, which wouldn’t be too difficult to get to 350-400 mph, might actually compete with air travel for medium-length journeys. After all, journey time includes the many miles in bumper-to-bumper traffic getting to the airport; maglev stations might well be a lot closer in.
In addition, rail of any variety has the potential of reducing dependence on fossil fuels and hence reducing the amount of jizyah being given to Islamic nutcases who want to kill or enslave us. Maybe the potential for saving on defence costs ought to be considered here, too.
Hey, how about Federally-funded riverboats? We could build an American version of the ekranoplan. Unfortunately, this idea, unlike “high-speed” rail, is 1) technically feasible 2) requires minimal infrastructure and 3) could actually serve most of the population. Clearly a non-starter.
Jay, please explain how I would get from Reno to Sacramento via riverboat.
Mr. Manifold – Like Duane said. Also, ekranoplans (although they use less of it) still use as fuel something that finances theocratic nutcases.
I think there could be a better case made for using canals (where possible) for bulk transport of non-perishable freight.
Also, ekranoplans (although they use less of it) still use as fuel something that finances theocratic nutcases.
And maglev’s run on what? Fairy dust?
I agree ekranoplan’s aren’t viable for most routes. However, just because a train or car runs on electricity doesn’t mean it requires less Middle East oil. The US has cut off most mining for clean coal and the current administration is blocking efforts to store spent nuclear fuel. Some states, like Texas, are adopting more wind power. Still, much of US electricity comes from oil.
Riverboats make just as much sense as high-speed rail. If you don’t live it the right place and don’t like paying taxes for it, tough! Can I go to Washington now?
And maglev’s run on what? Fairy dust?
The most reasonable (but still not economical) maglev scheme I’ve seen for the US uses aluminum guideways, permanent magnet dynamic levitation (“Halbach Arrays”), and jet engines (!) for propulsion.
Still, much of US electricity comes from oil.
Very little US electricity comes from oil. It’s mostly limited to low duty cycle diesel peaking units.
I got this one:
1. Dig a riverbed
2. Fill riverbed with water
3. Put boat on river
You’re welcome.
Still, much of US electricity comes from oil.
According to this source, less than 2% of US electricity production uses petroleum. Natural gas (which we have a lot of) makes up 20%, nuclear provides 19%, and coal provides almost 50%.
My bad, majority of US power does come from natural gas. While coal and nuclear come next, and as stated previously, the supply of fuel there is being restricted. But…
and jet engines (!) for propulsion.
Yeah… I stand corrected… sort of…
Fletch, I hate to break it to you, but canals were a flash-in-the-pan idea even in the early 19th century when most of them were built – and went bust. Railroads were better for most freight and people put up with them for passenger travel too, until something better – cars and planes – came along.
The progressive nostalgiasts of the Left like trains because they are easily controllable by statist busybodies like themselves. Cars are anarchic – all these damned people going wherever they want, at all hours of the day and night without so much as a by-your-leave to their natural betters; maddening, intolerable!
Canals! America could be one big giant Venice! (looks outside at ice-covered Dallas County) I’m sure Sea Ray could make an icebreaker attachment for its cabin cruisers. And the guys who build water parks could work out cloverleaf intersections.
I’ve wondered where Obama got the 80% figure – the percentage of Americans who could get access to high-speed rail. That’s roughly the percentage of the population in urban areas (per 2000 census).
Maybe high-speed rail is not a bad plan in certain areas. If ridership fees are low enough, Californians could live in the more tax-friendly states of Arizona or Utah and commute to their CA jobs. Of course, CA would simply enact an Interstate Job Commuters Tax.
Say, I have an idea. Let’s get some really high-speed trains, traveling at 500 MPH or so, powered by efficient turbofan engines. At those speeds we can put wings on them and they’ll self-levitate, without needing special rails, or indeed rails at all.
Not only that, but they can levitate to arbitrary altitudes, so we could have them travel in the stratosphere, reducing air resistance, eliminating the need to buy costly right-of-way under their travel path, and elimating the exposure of people along their travel path to the inevitable noise.
High-speed Stratospheric Rail (HSSR), friends. It’s the future!
I think they’d build checkpoints at the border, stop all the trains coming in, and do the shakedown on the spot. The stations on either side would soon be suspiciously busy from people sneaking in – or out – on foot.
Titus, there is an elevation difference between Reno and Sacramento. You forgot to include locks.
I must have taken a quantum leap. Didn’t Josh say, just call planes trains and be done with it? I know I don’t see a comment from Josh here (but I remember it???)
I think they’d build checkpoints at the border, stop all the trains coming in, and do the shakedown on the spot. The stations on either side would soon be suspiciously busy from people sneaking in – or out – on foot.
And a wall, designed by the best German engineers.
And this sign, where I-10 meets the western bank of the Colorado River:
YOU ARE NOW LEAVING THE ARIZONA SECTOR
F@#! locks, Ken — I’m making water run uphill!
“Didn’t Josh say, just call planes trains and be done with it? I know I don’t see a comment from Josh”
Heh, yea I said that in a post last week I think. With the way this administration has taken great liberties with the meanings of words I’ll be surprised if they don’t actually try to pull this off at some point in the future.
Oops, Eastern. Unless we make the Californians build it and prop it up on their side of the wall.