REMINDER: Siteowner has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, Siteowner reserves the right to review the Materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such Materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. Siteowner has no obligation to display or post any Materials provided by you. Siteowner reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or Materials that Siteowner deems necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. To further read the rules and terms of agreement of this Forum, click here.

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 13 1 2 3 4 12 13
Re: AOC: Building high speed rail so that air travel is no longer necessary in the next 10 years [Re: casa_mugrienta] #2910118
02/07/19 06:37 PM
02/07/19 06:37 PM
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 24,339
A
afoaf Offline
Duke status
afoaf  Offline
Duke status
**
A

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 24,339
Originally Posted By: casa_mugrienta
Originally Posted By: manbearpig


Also nowhere does it say that it would replace air travel.


You can't read.


it literally does not say it will replace it

it says it won't be necessary

you can kennit the difference, right?


It’s like the GZA coming on after U-God
Re: AOC: Building high speed rail so that air travel is no longer necessary in the next 10 years [Re: afoaf] #2910134
02/07/19 06:48 PM
02/07/19 06:48 PM
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 21,140
Petak Island
C
casa_mugrienta Offline OP
Duke status
casa_mugrienta  Offline OP
Duke status
**
C

Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 21,140
Petak Island
Originally Posted By: afoaf
Originally Posted By: casa_mugrienta
Originally Posted By: manbearpig


Also nowhere does it say that it would replace air travel.


You can't read.


it literally does not say it will replace it

it says it won't be necessary


GOOD POINT.

I mean, lots of people are still moving west by wagon train.

Rail and air travel never replaced anything I guess! Just made it so it's "not necessary."





Re: AOC: Building high speed rail so that air travel is no longer necessary in the next 10 years [Re: casa_mugrienta] #2910138
02/07/19 06:53 PM
02/07/19 06:53 PM
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 24,339
A
afoaf Offline
Duke status
afoaf  Offline
Duke status
**
A

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 24,339
it is not necessary for me to drive to the store

I can ride my bike

I can walk

however, walking and riding my bike have not replaced driving

do you really think wagon train is a comparable analogy to high speed rail?

if you want to keep it contemporary, you could acknowledge that people
still drive vehicles cross country.



It’s like the GZA coming on after U-God
Re: AOC: Building high speed rail so that air travel is no longer necessary in the next 10 years [Re: casa_mugrienta] #2910140
02/07/19 06:56 PM
02/07/19 06:56 PM
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 23,852
Carlsbad
G
GDaddy Offline
Duke status
GDaddy  Offline
Duke status
**
G

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 23,852
Carlsbad
Air and Bus routes are scalable and flexible. Rail isn't.


#sowhat
Re: AOC: Building high speed rail so that air travel is no longer necessary in the next 10 years [Re: ifallalot] #2910147
02/07/19 07:01 PM
02/07/19 07:01 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 49,840
The Bar
K
Kento Offline
Duke status
Kento  Offline
Duke status
**
K

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 49,840
The Bar
I would love it if mass transit was consistent, fast, and reliable. I'd use it all the time.

I remember watching that one Anthony Bourdain show where he was in Myanmar (?) with the ultra-slow, bouncy, rickety train. I thought, "Aha! That's where San Diego bought the Coaster trains from!"

For trains in urban environments, you need multiple stops, they need to be consistent (i.e. every 10 minutes from 5:30 AM to 3:30 AM, especially in areas where nightlife exists), and it has to go fast, much faster than what you would be driving on the freeway. The only way it will work is if it cheaper than gas and faster than driving.

LA to SF in 2 hours? That would work. But you can't stop in every pissant burg (i.e. Merced, Pixley, etc) on the way through the central valley. Besides, how many people would be going from Lost Hills to SF? Three?

LA to Vegas makes a hell of a lot more sense although never happen because the Indian Casino lobby (aka mafia) would kneecap the hell out of people for even suggesting that train. Pala, Rincon, those casinos make Circus Circus in Vegas look like Monte Carlo and their buffets make Arby's look awesome by comparison. No one would go to them, not if Vegas was an hour and a half away by train with booze on board.


Nothing is obscene provided it is done in bad taste.

Russ Meyer
Re: AOC: Building high speed rail so that air travel is no longer necessary in the next 10 years [Re: casa_mugrienta] #2910153
02/07/19 07:10 PM
02/07/19 07:10 PM
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 14,765
in the bathroom
M
manbearpig Offline
Tom Curren status
manbearpig  Offline
Tom Curren status
**
M

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 14,765
in the bathroom
Originally Posted By: casa_mugrienta
Originally Posted By: afoaf
Originally Posted By: casa_mugrienta
Originally Posted By: manbearpig


Also nowhere does it say that it would replace air travel.


You can't read.


it literally does not say it will replace it

it says it won't be necessary


GOOD POINT.

I mean, lots of people are still moving west by wagon train.

Rail and air travel never replaced anything I guess! Just made it so it's "not necessary."





You cant do reading comprehension.

Re: AOC: Building high speed rail so that air travel is no longer necessary in the next 10 years [Re: manbearpig] #2910157
02/07/19 07:14 PM
02/07/19 07:14 PM
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 24,339
A
afoaf Offline
Duke status
afoaf  Offline
Duke status
**
A

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 24,339
arguing against the person, not the point.

the pattern repeats.

it's strange.


It’s like the GZA coming on after U-God
Re: AOC: Building high speed rail so that air travel is no longer necessary in the next 10 years [Re: casa_mugrienta] #2910164
02/07/19 07:20 PM
02/07/19 07:20 PM
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 8,272
Your mom�s house
D
Duffy Offline
Kelly Slater status
Duffy  Offline
Kelly Slater status
**
D

Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 8,272
Your mom�s house
Originally Posted By: casa_mugrienta
Just a small part of the Green New Deal. roflmao

Discuss.


We start as soon as the high speed rail in California is finished.

Cant wait to take a train to Hawaii.

Also in the plan to upgrade ALL buildings in the country to be energy efficient. Do they have any idea how much energy it will take to do that (and build a rail system to replace air travel)?


�No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn�

- The Wasp
Re: AOC: Building high speed rail so that air travel is no longer necessary in the next 10 years [Re: afoaf] #2910168
02/07/19 07:21 PM
02/07/19 07:21 PM
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 8,272
Your mom�s house
D
Duffy Offline
Kelly Slater status
Duffy  Offline
Kelly Slater status
**
D

Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 8,272
Your mom�s house
Originally Posted By: afoaf
Originally Posted By: casa_mugrienta
Originally Posted By: manbearpig


Also nowhere does it say that it would replace air travel.


You can't read.


it literally does not say it will replace it

it says it won't be necessary

you can kennit the difference, right?


Replace, make unnecessary...

Either way, absurd.


�No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn�

- The Wasp
Re: AOC: Building high speed rail so that air travel is no longer necessary in the next 10 years [Re: Kento] #2910172
02/07/19 07:24 PM
02/07/19 07:24 PM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 22,746
CA
R
rice Offline
Duke status
rice  Offline
Duke status
**
R

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 22,746
CA
Originally Posted By: Kento


The only way it will work is if it cheaper than gas and faster than driving.


Make gas $10/gallon. smile2

Re: AOC: Building high speed rail so that air travel is no longer necessary in the next 10 years [Re: Duffy] #2910174
02/07/19 07:27 PM
02/07/19 07:27 PM
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 24,339
A
afoaf Offline
Duke status
afoaf  Offline
Duke status
**
A

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 24,339
China is investing pretty heavily in this

other developed (albeit geographically smaller) nations have it

nowhere does she say that rail will supplant air

claiming so is..absurd.


It’s like the GZA coming on after U-God
Re: AOC: Building high speed rail so that air travel is no longer necessary in the next 10 years [Re: casa_mugrienta] #2910185
02/07/19 07:40 PM
02/07/19 07:40 PM
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 13,668
S
StuAzole Offline
Tom Curren status
StuAzole  Offline
Tom Curren status
**
S

Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 13,668
Looks like Doc Thompson really hated the idea of trains - so much so he tried to tackle one:

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/co...by-amtrak-train


Bock you
Re: AOC: Building high speed rail so that air travel is no longer necessary in the next 10 years [Re: rice] #2910195
02/07/19 07:47 PM
02/07/19 07:47 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 49,840
The Bar
K
Kento Offline
Duke status
Kento  Offline
Duke status
**
K

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 49,840
The Bar
Originally Posted By: rice
Originally Posted By: Kento


The only way it will work is if it cheaper than gas and faster than driving.


Make gas $10/gallon. smile2


That's one way to do it.

Better yet, a large percentage of non-customer service jobs (fast-food workers, bellhops, etc.) could easily be done by telecommuting. Why more companies don't encourage this is beyond me. Increased productivity (by a LONG shot), less distractions, less overhead (no need to lease office space), less pollution, etc. etc. Plus, for those with kids in school, after-school programs, sports, etc., it makes it so much easier so you don't have to drive back and forth to pick them up from one place, drop them off somewhere else, while trying to race to and from work.

Now all that unused office space? Sounds like an opportunity to ease the housing crisis.


Nothing is obscene provided it is done in bad taste.

Russ Meyer
Re: AOC: Building high speed rail so that air travel is no longer necessary in the next 10 years [Re: Kento] #2910198
02/07/19 07:49 PM
02/07/19 07:49 PM
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 13,668
S
StuAzole Offline
Tom Curren status
StuAzole  Offline
Tom Curren status
**
S

Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 13,668
Originally Posted By: Kento
Originally Posted By: rice
Originally Posted By: Kento


The only way it will work is if it cheaper than gas and faster than driving.


Make gas $10/gallon. smile2


That's one way to do it.

Better yet, a large percentage of non-customer service jobs (fast-food workers, bellhops, etc.) could easily be done by telecommuting. Why more companies don't encourage this is beyond me. Increased productivity (by a LONG shot), less distractions, less overhead (no need to lease office space), less pollution, etc. etc. Plus, for those with kids in school, after-school programs, sports, etc., it makes it so much easier so you don't have to drive back and forth to pick them up from one place, drop them off somewhere else, while trying to race to and from work.

Now all that unused office space? Sounds like an opportunity to ease the housing crisis.


Which brings us back to the "just work closer to home" argument everyone thinks is so impossible. If you don't want to commute, work where you live, or go live where you work. Easy.


Bock you
Re: AOC: Building high speed rail so that air travel is no longer necessary in the next 10 years [Re: Duffy] #2910199
02/07/19 07:50 PM
02/07/19 07:50 PM
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 14,765
in the bathroom
M
manbearpig Offline
Tom Curren status
manbearpig  Offline
Tom Curren status
**
M

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 14,765
in the bathroom
Originally Posted By: Duffy
Originally Posted By: afoaf
Originally Posted By: casa_mugrienta
Originally Posted By: manbearpig


Also nowhere does it say that it would replace air travel.


You can't read.


it literally does not say it will replace it

it says it won't be necessary

you can kennit the difference, right?


Replace, make unnecessary...

Either way, absurd.

How is an additional way to travel absurd? Both air and train have their issues, everyone knows that.

Think about the process it takes to just get to the plane vs just getting to the train, price difference and frequency; train wins all of those. NO ONE is saying to replace, its simply another option.

Page 2 of 13 1 2 3 4 12 13

Moderated by  Groundswell, Nameless60, r32