- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: CA officially abandons plan for high speed rail connecting sf to la
Posted on 2/12/19 at 3:24 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
Posted on 2/12/19 at 3:24 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
There’s multiple airports in Los Angeles with service to Oakland, sfo and San Jose. It’s less than a 60 minute flight. Flights are dirt cheap.
It seems this high speed rail line was a solution in search of a problem.
It seems this high speed rail line was a solution in search of a problem.
3
Posted on 2/12/19 at 4:32 pm to 632627
quote:
There’s multiple airports in Los Angeles with service to Oakland, sfo and San Jose. It’s less than a 60 minute flight. Flights are dirt cheap.
It seems this high speed rail line was a solution in search of a problem.
True, but rail is still cheaper and easier. Travel between Detroit and Chicago and Boston and Washington DC both via air and rail and then tell us which is cheaper, easier, with much less hassle and a better experience.
Posted on 2/12/19 at 4:39 pm to 632627
quote:
There’s multiple airports in Los Angeles with service to Oakland, sfo and San Jose. It’s less than a 60 minute flight. Flights are dirt cheap.
It seems this high speed rail line was a solution in search of a problem.
And at $220 million/mile it's a hell of a deal!!
Posted on 2/12/19 at 4:45 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Meanwhile, $50 billion can fund the State of Louisiana’s entire 30-year Coastal Restoration Master Plan, for perspective.
Amazing how a more expensive, optional plan gets serious consideration for California, but a plan to reverse the literal washing away of a state can’t get fully funded.
Amazing how a more expensive, optional plan gets serious consideration for California, but a plan to reverse the literal washing away of a state can’t get fully funded.
Posted on 2/12/19 at 4:50 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Saaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy, has not there been much spoken on social media over the last few years and more about a certain U.S. Senator from California whose husband received certain contracts and requisite remuneration from this project?
I think it sounds like
I think it sounds like
Posted on 2/12/19 at 6:42 pm to SpqrTiger
quote:
Amazing how a more expensive, optional plan gets serious consideration for California, but a plan to reverse the literal washing away of a state can’t get fully funded.
I agree. But most people in LA don't care about coast restoration. They think it is part of a socialist plot related to the global warming scam.
Posted on 2/12/19 at 6:54 pm to RedPop4
quote:
Saaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy, has not there been much spoken on social media over the last few years and more about a certain U.S. Senator from California whose husband received certain contracts and requisite remuneration from this project?
Her and Pelosi. Look at their net worth before they held office. Then after.
Strangely enough both have husbands who magically hit it rich in the real estate market after their wives won office.
I'm SURE it's a pure coincidence though.
Posted on 2/12/19 at 6:56 pm to SpqrTiger
quote:
plan to reverse the literal washing away of a state can’t get fully funded.
1. Policy up river prevents flooding. Less soil in river.
Unlikely to change.
Levees all up river.
Kentucky dam and Barkley keeping Paducah safe but it prevents northern Alabama mud from going to the Mississippi.
2. Ocean shall (or may) rise.
I think the chances of 1 and 2 resolving in favor of restoration are no good.
Long article in BBC yesterday about the changing economy of of greenland. The glaciers are melting. Two more months of open water. Was 3 months historically. Greenland was settled by Danes 1,000 c.e.
Now its 5 months open water.
Mackerel are in the seas there.
New catch. They are glad of it.
Greenland glaciers have enough water for 18 feet of rise to the ocean. If only 5 feet of it goes it will eliminate much of the southern tier of parishes.
Calcasieu starts at 8 feet above sea level. North of l.c. Is 10. New Iberia would be gone.
This post was edited on 2/12/19 at 7:02 pm
Posted on 2/12/19 at 6:57 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
But Ocasio-Cortez is going to build one for the whole country so that we can eliminate air travel.
Posted on 2/12/19 at 7:01 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
quote:
I agree. But most people in LA don't care about coast restoration. They think it is part of a socialist plot related to the global warming scam.
It's poor taste to upvote your own posts, ralph
Posted on 2/12/19 at 7:01 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Once it is built it is good forever basically, with some very minor upkeep cost
Says someone who know how nothing fricking works.
Posted on 2/12/19 at 7:04 pm to Roll Tide Ravens
quote:
But Ocasio-Cortez is going to build one for the whole country so that we can eliminate air travel.
A mere 5,000 miles would cost over a trillion dollars if we use the CA figures as a model. In contrast, Union Pacific alone has 32,000 miles of track.
Posted on 2/12/19 at 7:09 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
quote:
True, but rail is still cheaper and easier. Travel between Detroit and Chicago and Boston and Washington DC both via air and rail and then tell us which is cheaper, easier, with much less hassle and a better experience
Ehhh, lax fricking sucks, but smaller airports such as Burbank and Long Beach (which serve very populous areas) are a piece of cake. If carrying on, you can show up at Burbank 30 minutes before your flight and be on time.
I’d bet southwest alone has at least 50 flights per day from la to the Bay Area.
eta- WTF are you talking about. a train from DC to Boston is 7 hours. even if it's more pleasant than flying, your statement makes no sense. I've taken a train from NYC to Boston and its 4 hours. a flight is about an hour and roughly the same cost.
This post was edited on 2/12/19 at 7:33 pm
Posted on 2/12/19 at 7:12 pm to 632627
John Wayne FTW
Posted on 2/12/19 at 7:21 pm to 632627
quote:
It seems this high speed rail line was a solution in search of a problem.
People driven by idealism and ingorant of economics love high speed rail prospects in the USA.
Posted on 2/12/19 at 7:39 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
People driven by idealism and ingorant of economics love high speed rail prospects in the USA.
That sums it up.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News