Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: California High Speed Rail - Let's keep moving forward

Posted 1 year ago on Sept. 30, 2012, 4:29 p.m. EST by TommyNYC (730)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Here's something positive in the news for a change.

Surprise: The governor who is supporting high speed rail in California is not a Republican.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/california-high-speed-rai_n_1898611.html

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- The Federal Railroad Administration gave its approval Wednesday for construction on the first phase of California's high-speed rail system, clearing the final technical hurdle for construction to start next year on a 65-mile span from Merced to Fresno.

The decision supports the California High-Speed Rail Authority's so-called hybrid alternative, which state officials say is the least costly approach and the one that is least harmful to the environment. Rail authority Chief Executive Officer Jeff Morales said the federal decision will allow the project to break ground next year.

"This is now a statewide rail modernization plan which will not only deliver high-speed rail but also will invest billions of dollars of improvements to local and regional rail systems around the state immediately," Morales said.

Federal officials reviewed the plan to ensure compliance with dozens of federal regulations, including the Endangered Species Act, U.S. Fish and Wildlife regulations and the National Historic Preservation Act. The plan also requires the rail authority to provide financial compensation for environmental damage such as increased pollution or harm to wetlands and water sources.

Lawmakers approved the first phase of the planned 800-mile line this summer, allowing the state to begin selling $2.6 billion in bonds for construction of the initial 130-mile segment of the bullet train in the Central Valley. It also allowed the state to tap $3.2 billion from the federal government.

The total cost of the project that would eventually connect Northern and Southern California is at least $68 billion.

The project still faces significant legal challenges that could delay next year's planned construction start. Groups representing Central Valley farmers claim in lawsuits that the state failed to conduct thorough environmental reviews, as required by California law.

"We're not seeking necessarily to stop the project entirely, but we do think the project should be stopped until some of these environmental issues, and their severity, are addressed," said Anja Raudabaugh, executive director of the Madera County Farm Bureau.

The bureau is among the groups that last week petitioned Sacramento County Superior Court for a preliminary injunction that would speed up hearings on their claims.

Voters approved issuing $10 billion in bonds for the project in 2008, but public support for the plan has dwindled in recent years as the project's expected costs have soared.

Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, remains a champion of the project.

Edit: For those of you who think that the Huff Post is "state run propoganda" lol

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/20/uk-usa-california-rail-idUSLNE88J00V20120920

178 Comments

178 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (21785) 1 year ago

I am glad to see that it is on track.

[-] 1 points by flip (5005) 1 year ago

in the park in corning ny is a brick (they tell the history of corning) that says "in 1896 12,000 trains went through corning. a little hick town. we had a rail system that was the envey of the world. in the 1920's the trains were doing 100moh - we do not really need high speed rail - it takes too many resources - revamp the old system and we are good to go - trains use 1/40 the energy of trucks!

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

High speed trains should replace commuter jet flights, though.

[-] 3 points by flip (5005) 1 year ago

yes but if the world is running out of oil maybe we could all travel a bit slower - it would be easier and less expensive (from a resource point of view) to revamp the old rail system

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Not to split hairs, but slower travel is not necessarily more energy efficient.

[-] 1 points by flip (5005) 1 year ago

you are right but i think high speed rail is a big project while rebuilding old rail lines is not (from the point of view of money and resources). not really something to beat to death - if obama calls me to ask advice i will check with you before i give it to him - i would hope you would do the same!!

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Haha supe np. So from a point of view of conserving resources refurbishing the old trains is better. From a point of view of spending to increase employment, an all new high speed rail sounds better (or both, for that matter).

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

This may help clarify the issue that flip is referring to; http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/courses/OCN330/Fall2011/peak_everything.pdf

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

That's a good point. Converting our diesel powered trains to electric would also be wise.

[-] 2 points by flip (5005) 1 year ago

i guess if we can convert electric power generation to gas or renewable that would make sense - we have a lot of work to do

[-] 0 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

I think there would be an efficiency gain even with the current generation sources. Another way to look at it is that sooner or later,( I'm thinking sooner) the price of oil will make diesel, cost prohibitive.

[-] 1 points by flip (5005) 1 year ago

energy will be more expensive for sure down the road - coal is not only very dirty but the low hanging fruit has been picked. we are facing an enegry shortage fairly soon i am afraid

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

Yes, and the fact that oil prices remain high despite recession and demand destruction, is significant.

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Or even bio-deisel to fight petroleum dependency? Electric is better of course.

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

It's only wise if you run on 100% renewable clean otherwise all you do is move the pollution to another location

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

Here's the key point from the article below....." And because electric motors are three to four times more efficient than internal combustion engines, an immediate improvement will precede introducing renewable energy into transportation"........ http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/18/world/how-green-is-hsr/index.html

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

That ele. Has to come from somewhere and if you knew what the power plant that provides that energy is using to do so all your doing is shifting the pollution.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

No, there is still less net pollution. Power doesn't tend to come from one power plant , but from the aggregate of "the grid"

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Perhaps a feel good amount less but not really worth bragging about. If its powers with solar or wind Now something to stand up and crow about. I just get less enthusiastic about shifting the pollution.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

There's no doubt solar and/ or wind would be even better. On that we can agree. Still, an improvement is an improvement.

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

True should be happy with an inch (even though I wanted a mile)

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

Also, if trains are E powered from the start, then later greening of the grid will render greater benefit as opposed to having to waste the energy and resources to convert them from diesel.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

or go back to caves

With the money WS stole from us, we could have HSR coast to coast, free college, health care, and chickens in pots for life.

HSR is efficient, effective, green and productive, and we should have had it 20 years ago! But some idiots just hate any kind of progress!

[-] 1 points by flip (5005) 1 year ago

20 yrs ago it would have been a good idea but our political system and economic system cannot see very far into the future. i think it is a waste of steel and energy and for no reason except to get you to cali faster. we are running out of steel and energy - faster than most think

[-] 0 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

No, you don't pass on progress just because a few idiots held us back, you strive for progress and catch up. Just like our backward health care.

[-] 1 points by flip (5005) 1 year ago

you seem to be missing the point - high speed rail is expensive (in terms of real things - steel and energy not money) and is not needed. you should take a deep breath - you do not always have the whole picture in your head - we agree on health care but resource scarcity is a real problem

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

In China, they are already starting to do so.

[-] 0 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Link?

[-] 3 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Ask and you shall receive:

China's high-speed rail threatens domestic airlines

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2011-04/08/c_13819685.htm

[-] 0 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Great article! Very relevant, thanks. Looks like China gets it.

[-] -1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Glad you liked it. The US should be doing the same thing. Then, there's also the project to link the railways of North America to Asia, across the Bering Strait near Alaska:

Chronology of Bering Strait Project

http://larouchepac.com/node/1045

This would greatly increase trade and travel. There are also plans for a "New Silk Road", a land bridge that would link all of Asia and Europe by rail:

The Eurasian Land-Bridge: The Most Important Stategic Question Today

http://larouchepac.com/node/14728

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Is larouche a progressive or a socialist?

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

More of a paranoid technocornicopian.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Yes, I went over some of his craziness with arturo months ago.

The video of the debate between barney frank and the young girl who was running as a larouche candidate was some good entertainment.

[-] -3 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

He's a conservative democrat, like JFK or FDR.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

He's a crazy RW nut bag!

[-] -1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

And you were just about to paste some quotes here from his website clearly revealing this to be so, weren't you? Or were you just babbling giberish once again.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Lyndon Larouche? Are you serious? Were you born last week? Why not the crazy Muslim hating preacher in Florida? He's probably more sane. NUTBAG!

What "babbling gibberish" do you speak of, truth? "He's a conservative democrat, like JFK or FDR." There's your babbling gibberish! LR is not even on the same planet as JFK and FDR who are great Americans.

You don't know how to google?

First page: http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/

[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Can't do it huh? Like I said, you're babbling gibberish.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21785) 1 year ago

I am for this providing it isn't abandoned half way through. It has the capacity to reduce urban sprawl, it is rebuilding infrastructure, auto use may decrease, and less gas may be used. If they don't jack people around then some people may actually get to work again.

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

The way to make sure that it gets completed, it to support it whole-heartedly.

Auto-use and commercial airline flights will decrease, saving fuel. Jobs will be created. This is exactly what the US needs.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21785) 1 year ago

I have to wonder if we don't find that the fight to stop it is being promoted from the airlines. It isn't like it hasn't been done before.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I think the airlines are against High speed rail, as well as big oil since using rail would replace auto use as well.

Rail is better for the environment! It will be faster than cars for many trips. It will be safer than planes, & it will be an economic boon, in terms of jobs & cheaper freight costs.

gotta do it. It only makes sense!

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21785) 1 year ago

Yeah. I wonder too, if the Right to Travel would hold here far better than the airlines. Then the TSA could stuff it?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

TSA has to be reeled in. We have to stop living in fear. maybe trains could help step back from the fear mongering that facilitates the military action, & constitutional rights violations we've allowed.

Maybe that's a stretch!

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

People are generally less scared of trains. I don't see how the TSA could justify draconian security measure on trains.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I long for the day when all security measures are scaled back and we live in a country that is not so scared shit!

That fear allows the govt (neocons) to trample our rights and freedom!

[-] 0 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

JB is smart. He's going small at first to show our uninformed masses. The rest of the modern world loves HSR.

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Watch, all of those workers are going to start going to Starbucks and Quizno's. The economy is so bad is that region that anything positive is going to be felt.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

We need more progress to catch up from at least 20 years of regress between Raygun, the Bushes and GOP obstruction.

[-] 0 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

rim shot

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21785) 1 year ago

snicker

I couldn't resist.

[-] 3 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

:)

Only precariously though! Could still get derailed...

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Where are the envionrmental protestere - I guess it's ok to damage the evniornment and increase pollution - Let a republican try it and he would be hung.

The plan also requires the rail authority to provide financial compensation for environmental damage such as increased pollution or harm to wetlands and water sources

[-] 0 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

All in all, trains are much better for the environment than other forms of travel. The project has passed al kind of environmental impact tests.

No, I don't agree that environmental concerns would be the major opposition to a R trying such a project. The main opposition to a R backing such a project would be the fiscal conservatives in their own party.

[-] -1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

I don't know anything about high speed rail but riding MetroNorth is miserable.

Have their been studies on the demand for such a thing? I feel like Americans, especially those of us in the suburbs, really do not like public transportation. I see your point about all the jobs but our infrastructure is such a mess those billions of $$ may be better spent elsewhere.

[-] 0 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

I think that the main reason for rail travel being so unpopular in the US is that the trains here are so sub-par.

There are tons of benefits to rail going in. One example is that suburban real-estate values go up when rail stations are built nearby.

I think that we need to start looking 20-30 years in the future. That's plenty of time for public tastes to change.

[-] 1 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

If the "state run propaganda" remark was directed at me from our conversations last week, take note that in the Huffington Post piece, only the positives are given with a slight mention of legal challenges at the end of the piece but in the reuters piece both the positives and the negatives are given. Journalists and news organizations are supposed to report the news and give all sides without bias as in the reuters piece, not a partial story from one side as in the Huffington Post piece. By providing both sides, the reader can make an informed opinion of the project.

Thanks for offering the more informative, unbiased version link at the end of your post that shows the entire picture with regards to this project. :)

[-] 0 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Both articles covered the controversy. I counted 6 sentences in the Reuters vs. 4 sentences in the Huff Post article, hardly making the later significantly more "biased".

Responsible journalism doesn't need to expand on every single conservative op-ed talking point that exists on a particular issue.

[-] 1 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

The point I was making was that the first article didn't mention any of the cons of the project. The Reuters article did. The project may be a great project but if the people it affects don't know all the pros and cons, they can't make an informed decision of how they feel about it or if they want it. A media outlet with integrity will show all sides to inform the public responsibly.

This has nothing to do with talking points but has everything to do with informing the public.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Hey Jethro, everything has risks, EVERYTHING!

This has been studied, and is currently being successful and enjoyed in several countries.

We are behind!

[-] 0 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Yeah I heard you the first time. I looked at both articles and I felt that the differences weren't very substantial.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown does it again! Even after the CA debacle of Raygun, Dukmejian, Wilson and Das Guvinator.

Leading the nation with progress. Let's follow, and catch up with the rest of the world! and soar!

Love his exchange with Chris "Tubster" Christie, calling him a "has been" and JB challenging him to a mile run with a "has been."

The progress and vision of JB makes up for the regress and toadyism of Christie, Snot Walker, Rick Scott, and that POS in Indiana.

JB for best governor ever!

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

fitness contest lol

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

I know it's just soo good.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Check this behemoth leviathan out, full of great stuff, but I think it leans to the tin foil: http://www.slideshare.net/kynize/we-the-sheeple-vs-the-banksters-14113946

What do you think?

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

I just skimmed and saw a quote from Milton Friedman blaming the severity of Depression on the Fed. Then I saw a quote from Ayn Rand. Right above a quote from MLK, lol.

I would double check any of the sources in there, but yeah it looks like there's some interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing.

[-] 1 points by TheRazor (-329) 1 year ago

Its a horrible boondoggle. You can book a roundtrip light SF to LA for aboout $100. the cost of a subsidized train tik will be $50 or more, one way.

[-] 0 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

That airline ticket is subsidized too.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-532311.html

And no, a ticket is more like $150. And on a train you don't have airline security, checked bags.

And airliners pollute like crazy.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

I hesitated to comment because of the party reference but this is actually one of the deficit spending proposals I agree with. I think this should be a national system however instead of targeting states. If O had some balls he would set it up as a federal spending program like the interstates under the new deal.

[-] 2 points by stevebol (1239) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

I think Eisenhower was thinking about national defense with the interstates.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

He certainly was.

As a soldier, he saw how important access was for a mobile military riding on trucks and trailers.

[-] 1 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

sure insult Obama - always a plus
and where would "he" get the money?
tax the 1% - but grover won't allow it
WE can "allow it" only
if we vote for representatives who did not sign grover's pledge

OMG - did I say vote ?

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

Every bit of your short statement was based on party line talking points and not your own ideas. Just assume the predetermined counter talking points for your predetermined talking points and call is MSM.

[-] 0 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

reality is

[-] -2 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Ironically your anti-partisanship is just as close-minded as you accuse your imagined "partisans" of being. What do you suppose would be the reaction if Obama were to propose a national rail program in the current political climate?

After seeing quite a few of your comments you seem like a smart guy, and your heart is in the right place. But the grudge that you bear against the Dems and the president really seems personal. It appears to be based on apathy and bitterness, and supported by hyperbole. Ironically, that just about describes the MSM.

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

I am a registered Dem and I voted for Obama. But! My approach within Occupy is to not alienate supporters with a different political affiliation, and I think it's good for Occupy if everyone shows the same restraint.

[-] 0 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

I agree. I always show respect here for Marxists, anarchists, Dems, socialists, whatever.

What I do have a problem with is free-market rhetoric. I believe that it's our collective responsibility to call out those who espouse laissez faire policies and spread myths about the economy. To not do so would be contrary to the goals of occupy.

My observation about you is that your ratio of criticism to support for the president does not seem to be in line with you actual values or beliefs on policy. If you were a libertarian or Marxist than I wouldn't question your denunciation of him.

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

Allow me to clear that up. I have my ideas, and I compare that to what the political figure is offering, and go from there. What I do not do is say, I like that person, now it's my job to get their agenda across because election victory is what is now in my interest.

At no point does my interest play second fiddle to the interest of the political figure. If there is common ground, awesome.

[-] -2 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

That sounds totally reasonable. I'm not sure if that's what I've actually seen from you in practice though.

For example, I might make the following statement in one of my comments:

"The current congressional Republicans are particularly treasonous."

Then you might jump in with:

"Great. More partisan MSM talking points."

I have read several of your comments now, and I don't see how you could possibly reject a statement like that. Would you seriously have people believe that there is no discernible difference between O and the Repubs in congress?

The above comment by eric is a perfect example. How were those talking points, and not just valid points? How is "tax the 1%" MSMish?

I understand if you can get a bit cantankerous on the forum and I'm sure I can too. I've just noticed that everything you disagree with is "partisan" or "MSM". I think thats why I thought you were a libertarian conspiracy-nut, you use there same lingo.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

Did you really just try to support MSM talking points via social pressure? As in, if I disagree with you, then I'm a nut?

Really? :-|

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

No. You're constantly accusing others of being "partisan" or sounding "MSM".

In what way did I support MSM talking points?

I can disagree with someone without saying that they are "mainstream". To me that is not pejorative. This is politics, not indy rock.

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

indy thinker? hmmmmm....

[-] 0 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

I'm glad we agree for a change.

Maybe if we got behind these types of projects more vocally, O would have the political will required to put them in place.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Did you know that all those wind turbins that have been installed across the country in the name of "green energy" are killing thousands and thousands of birds each year.

Where are the protesters? I guess it's ok because it's green energy and to kill thousands of birds is the price we have to pay for it.

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

You make a point. Domestic cats are like the biggest threat to native bird populations.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

Yes, that's what the article points out.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

High speed rail in California is a no-brainer. You could find a thousand libertarian op-eds against it and I wouldn't blink.

Commuter flights are terrible for the environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviation

Besides, we need employment. Employment creates demand.

[-] 0 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

OK, I just clicked the SF Gate link, and there is nothing in that article about environmental impact.

Are you just trolling now?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

"Thus the California high-speed rail system can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but may do so only over a very long period, and will do so in exchange for other air emissions.This dilemma illustrates the potential pitfall of tackling reductions of one pollutant, like carbon emissions, without considering other emissions."

http://www.uctc.net/access/37/access37_assessing_hsr.pdf

http://gspp.berkeley.edu/programs/highspeedrail/2011pdfs/Panel%201_The%20Vision%20of%20HSR%20in%20California/Panel%201_Deakin.pdf

[-] 0 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Even if it was a wash environmentally (which I find very hard to believe), the HSR project is still a good idea.

1) It relieves congestion from the highways and airports.

2) It creates a ton of jobs, which

3) in turn creates consumer demand that promotes growth, which

4) will boost employment in the private sector.

5) It gets the US going in the right direction. The more trains the better.

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Aircraft and autos more readily adapt to changing consumer destination demand. What do you do with a train if in 10 years people no longer wish to travel along its rout? What if they never frequent the rout? Airlines help the consumer because they benefit from competitive price pressure, The CA train is a monopoly subsidized by the Gov with no motivation for improving price or service.

Trains in the NE US have been a losing proposition for 40 years; propped up by taxpayer subsidies (Poor people pay for rich people to travel between NYC and Washington). Trains are not as convenient as cars or planes, they actually take longer to get from place to place, and no one accounts for the massive use of fuel (and more importantly, time) expended getting large groups of people from a station to a final destination.

It seems like the CA high speed train project is done not for the utility but out of some weird need to demonstrate misplaced environmental do-good-ism. In the end the train may do more damage to the environment than if they instead did nothing.

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

LA to SF has been the major route for the last 100 years, and thats not gonna change.

If you study the history of rail since the 1950s, you will see that the auto industry has done sneaky politics to make sure that rail is not updated in a convenient way.

In short, your comment reads like a pro-auto, pro-airline, pro-oil, libertarian op-ed in a right wing newspaper. Several shallow arguments backed up with conservative and pseudo-populist talking points.

Keep trying to hold the US behind the rest of the developed world, and see where that gets us.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Trains are much better than cars & trains. Especially in terms of pollution.

" no one accounts for the massive use of fuel (and more importantly, time) expended getting large groups of people from a station to a final destination. "

Trains arrive IN the city of destination! There is a much shorter distance to go from station to final destination. Therefore much less pollution.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Interesting argument for the use of inter-city buses instead of high speed trains:

http://mostlyeconomics.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/buses-vs-high-speed-trainscars-vs-cycles-which-is-better/

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Thanks. I support electric buses/streetcar/trolleys for short trips. I prefer electric high speed rail for longer distances.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

But there is a lot of evidence that buses are better for longer trips. Better than high speed trains in terms of cost, environmental damage, and ability to adapt. The buses are really nice these days. TV, WIFi, assigned seats, non-stop, and in many areas like NYC they get their own fast lanes so they are quicker than trains.

Also, the cost of development is taken on by private industry and the risk of failure is lower (buses are a lot cheaper than trains and train infrastructure).

I am confounded by this obsession with antiquated technology like trains , windmills, and compost piles.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

In NYC the fastest way around is the subway (electric trains)! Not pollution machine buses with their own lanes. So that makes my argument. Sorry.

You're against windmills, and composting too? Why?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I agree with you that the NYC subway is the best way to get around the city. The argument is about travel between cities (NYC to Wash for example. Buses are cheaper, less polluting (particularly natural gas powered), can adapt to changing consumer demand, and don't cost the taxpayers. Trains for this application are just a bad idea (as evidenced by the failure of Amtrak) .

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Good luck to them!

HSR is comin. It should. We will be better for it. And your buses will survive and provide another option.

America! I love it!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I disagree.

Buses are not faster, or cleaner between cities, and there ain't gonna be any change in consumer demand between NYC, & DC except an increase in ridership.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Bolt and Megabus are taking riders from Amtrak every day.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Buses are a much better solution than trains. They are faster. They get closer to the departure and destination points (more depots, some are just surface streets). Routs are variable and can adapt to changing consumer demand. Routs are competitive (new bargain providers like Bolt and Megabus) instead of a taxpayer subsidized monopoly with no pressure to reduce prices and improve service.

Taxpayers do not have to subsidize buses (corps pay for bus and depot production) and the infrastructure is in place with bus corps paying road maintenance taxes. Buses produce less pollution than trains per destination (especially natural gas fired versions) . No additional environmental damage from rail construction and power line development.

Altogether buses are a much better solution than trains.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I disagree. Buses cannot compete with high speed rail.

I support electric buses/streetcar/trolleys for short trips. I prefer electric high speed rail for longer distances.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

What evidence do you have that they can't compete? Wash to NYC is $ 20 on the Bolt Bus, $85 on Amtrak (and that is the Gov subsidized price).

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Takes a lot longer by bus. And we haven't implemented High speed yet.

I love going to DC by Acela. It's fast, I don't have to go to the airport, The train drops me in the center of the city.

We disagree. That's all. No biggie. I prefer trains than planes. Buses are fine if they are electric and used for short distances. They cannot compete with HSR speed, & comfort.

Sorry.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Amtrak Departs: 5:05 PM Wed Oct 03 2012 Washington, DC - Union Station (WAS) Station News Arrives: 8:39 PM Wed Oct 03 2012 New York, NY - Penn Station (NYP) Duration: 3 hr, 34 min $ 242

BoltBus Departs 5:30 PM Washington (Union Station) Arrives: 9:25 PM New York 33rd and 7th by Sbarro's Duration: 3 hr, 55 min $ 25

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Then you should not ride the Acela!

Good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Take the Acela.

Train you can get up, go to the food car. Maybe a drink, more leg room. Man the leg room is Amazing.

It's just better. Sorry!

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The Acela is a dastardly example of poor people being forced to pay for rich people to travel in fancy trains. I would be ashamed to ride in one.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/266575/amtrak-40-years-40-billion-tom-schatz

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Interesting argument for the use of inter-city buses instead of high speed trains:

http://mostlyeconomics.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/buses-vs-high-speed-trainscars-vs-cycles-which-is-better/

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago
[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Not enough detail in the thread to know for sure, but I would err on the side liberty and agree with the court ruling.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Very generous of you.

Thx.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

We should protect from Gov infringement of our liberties, including the right to assemble and protest.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Agreed. Let's sue the govt and arrest the police!

Who watches the watchmen?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The best way to minimize the effect of Gov on our lives is to cut their funding, including their ability to borrow.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You sent me a story almost 20 years old! Is that joke?

The $2500 cost listed is not a tuition number. It is a cost estimate for the purpose of the catholic school offer to the city.

So that was not even the actual tuition costs 2 decades ago!

As I searched through current numbers I found 1 private school at almost $8000, but most $20,000 and above.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Very few people depend on the govt for survival.

There will always be a govt, & therefore something for corp 1% plutocrats to collude for. You would leave that in place and suggest there will be no largess to suck up. Not true.

If individuals & groups get a hold of these responsibilities like food safety, corps will corrupt them. If one group controls housing or education some groups will be frozen out. Where do you think the lines will be drawn?
. C'mon we know what happens when the private sector does what ever it wants. Profits go up & people suffer.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

More than 50%of the people in the US get aid from the Gov. 50%. This is how slaves are made.

If a corp does a crappy job fire them. You can't fire the Gov.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

PErhaps set up some kind of a gran program that is tied to grades in Community College. I would say high school, but with the amount of shitty parenting out there, I dont think that would be fair to the kids.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

No said to get rid of the loans. I have no problem taking out some loans to get some very well qualified people training me for a career.

But its turned into a mill of mindless teachers teaching mindless students, who many have no real desire to be there, except that its part of "the plan".

Making it free will not solve that problem.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We cannot run schools like businesses because then we have to consider only profit.

Public schools/non profit schools must be responsive to parents! We don't have to charge tuition to create accountability.

And we do not have enough schools to allow every parent to choose which school to send our kids. We must be able to correct problems that exist in our schools.

How wasteful is it to have enough schools (options/choices) so that everyone can just send their kids somewhere else.

This is another fantasy. Sorry. What must happen is we must end the discriminatory treatment of poor/minority schools.

When I was kid (& now as well) the better public school I was transfered to and existed were all in wealthier neighborhoods.

Suburbs have fine public schools. We don't need to end public schools, or cut all govt funding of public schools, you don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Fix what is broken. Stop the discrimination. Create real accountability.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

"govt out of the business of education" There lies your problem.

Education is not and should not be a business! Public school has improved the lives of millions of Americans, As public school was introduced, and expanded over the last 200 years the entire American society has benefited and improved.

That is the fact. Our current educational problems are simply that the poorest & especially minorities have been shortchanged.

Public education must be expanded and provided fairly and the American people & society will benefit and improve.

As always! Of course.

You are ignore 2 centuries of facts. Correcting the discriminatory treatment of large numbers of poor & minorities is easier & cheaper than your proposal of cutting govt spending on education and leave everyone to fend for themselves. That will only hurt the poor and minority even more. We will have more ignorant people and we will all suffer as a result. Pennywise & dollar foolish. Education is an investment.

But you don't care about that. As long as your taxes go down right?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I understand that the use of the word business in this forum is like throwing a turd in the punch bowl. I will refrain whenever possible.

Education does not have to be a business, but it should be run like one. It should have goals that are measurable, achievable, and time phased, And if the goals are not met (or if some schools do better than others) parents should have the option of selecting the best. Poor performing schools get no students and go out of business.

There are many not-for-profit schools that do a wonderful job and compete well for students. But poor families have little chance at those schools. Give them a choice.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I disagree that it is average, and I submit that the average is irrelevant!

The reality in the areas where poor people live is relevant. And the reality is a lot more than $3700 a year.

Maybe govt can just pay all the tuition for the poor people to go to private school. Would you support that?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Actually Catholic School is only $2500 in NYC.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/6_3_a2.html

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Catholic school tuition is a lot more than $3700 a year in NYC. So you are just wrong.

My extended family tried to gather money together to send me to catholic school. They could do it for 1 1/2 years. My single mom could not afford it even if she sacrificed eating everyday.

They moved me to a "better" public school. In a "better" neighborhood where I had to deal with brutal racism against me. But I finished the year or so of the "better" middle school, then got back to Manhattan for an excellent public high school.

Your suggestions are fantasies. You are out of touch with the realities of the life of the poor.

And the suggestion that sacrifice and families is the way poorest people are being sent to private schools is not accurate. They ain't. 2 Parents,working hard, getting breaks from the catholic schools, maybe some govt assistence. But there are large numbers of the poorest that I am talkin about that have no possibility of going to private school.

Why haven't you mentioned the voucher programs for private/charter schools?

Do you support that inadequate program?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Catholic school tuition is a lot more than $3700 a year in NYC. So you are just wrong

Average tuition:

http://www.ncea.org/news/annualdatareport.asp

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Why do we suppose that every little town and city, that are inept at collecting the trash, can be trusted to provide the education necessary for our children to compete with the rest of the world in 2012? It is idiotic!

Get the Gov out of the business of education and leave it to the professionals. Give the parents the choice to send their kids to the best schools they can find. This competition for parent $ will drive down the cost in improve the equality. It is axiomatic.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Your experience is exactly what I am taking about.

Your family spent the money to move to a better school district. They invested and sacrificed (as did you) for a better education. That sacrifice motivated you to excel and demand performance from the educators.

Why do we force people to have to up-root and move just to get away from crappy schools? Give the parents choice as to which school to send their children, public, private, home-school, it must be the parents choice.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Private school teachers have also been predators. Do you think that this phenomenon is public school related?

What a joke.

Don't you think that it has more to do with the position of authority teachers hold. The closeness they have to the students. They awareness predators have a students weaknesses, vulnerabilities?

Maybe.

Do you think teachers who have access to more kids (Every kid goes to school, very few in comparison are exposed to priests) are therefore more likely to include predators.

Priests are not equivalent to private school teachers. And private schools also have predator problems. We just had one occur at a private school in the bronx.

In fact I would submit there are as many in private schools but they are more likely to successfully cover it up. That is part of the elitism. They got a lot of money to pay people off.

So your weak attempt to try to claim public schools create more child molestation is not accurate. You will say anything to support you efforts to cut all govt spending. That is your only priority. And you would use the molestation of children to take money from the poor who need it.

LMFAO.

Epic fail!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

More poor kids are successful in public school than private school! Period.

The high tuition cost is not what creates the motivation to push poor kids to succeed! Lack of money, poverty, is the motivator. I know from 1st hand experience.

You are sadly mistaken.

You proposed a possible way to have poor parents pay the obscene tuition costs of these elitist private schools. Wonderful. Doesn't make sense that you specified cutting rent with property tax but whatever, you propose something.

I didn't ask how you propose we pay for poor kids private school tuition though. I asked, & I ask again how HAVE the poor families paid for these private tuition. None are getting their rent cut, I assure you of that. How are they paying for the tuition?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Sacrifice. They sacrifice because they love their children and want the best for them. They don't want to send them to the crappy local public school so they sacrifice to send their children to low-cost private schools (Ave tuition at a Catholic primary school is $3700 . Catholic schools account for half of the private education enrollment in the US)

BTW many kids have extended family that help with the payments. Those grandparents also push for excellence.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

There is no evidence that poor kids do better BECAUSE of the costs of private school.

If the success rate in private school IS better perhaps it is related to the freedom private schools have in picking and choosing the students they accept. Public schools must take everyone equally, fairly! Are you familiar with that concept?. It is wrong for money to be the most important measure.

If more public school students do poorly it isn't BECAUSE there is no tuition. It is for all the reasons we know, unfair resources in poor neighborhoods, dilapidated schools/neighborhoods, destitution, misery, broken homes, hopelessness, no parental involvement, hunger. Teachers who don't care, violence.

The fact is there have been many, many more successful public school kids than private school kids.

I understand and believe in the "free stuff not appreciated" theory. I've often used free school lunch as an example, but actual education is not related. Too many have had great success, & the reasons for those who fail are well known.

Sorry those are the facts.

And all these successful POOR kids in private school, where do they get the money for private school tuition.?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

BTW private school would also protect students from predators in the story below. Predators that were protected by public school administrators (where is the NYT lead story?) . A child is 100 times more likely to be molested by a public school teacher than by a Catholic priest. Where is the outrage?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/three-teachers-two-admini_n_1941022.html

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

There is no evidence that poor kids do better BECAUSE of the costs of private school.

It is not the cost of private school that causes them to do better. It is the fact that parents must pay to send their children. If they have to pay then they push for excellence from students and educators. They have skin in the game.

Where does the money come from? Every parent pays some form of property tax (either directly or via rent). Let the parent keep that money and use it to send their child to the school of their choice.The parent must write the check for that payment. Give poor 99% parents the same option that rich 1 % parents get (The 1% Obama children go to Sidwell Friends at $30k per year) .

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

50%? That is ridiculous. what aid are you talkin about?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Grade 1 -12 of public education does not suffer from the unappreciation of free stuff theory. College can be the same.

If you cut funding for college aid you will hurt poor and lower middle class people.

You suggest cutting aid would help poor/middle class, I don't believe that or you. You have been clear that your only priority is to cut, cut, cut. You find convenient excuses to do so. You twist logic to make ridiculous suggestions that cutting aid will help the people you cut if from.

It's laughable. You ain't kiddin me. You're suggestions to cut have nothing to do with helping poor people.

LMFAO

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

"Grade 1 -12 of public education does not suffer from the unappreciation of free stuff theory. College can be the same."

Really? Why do kids (particularly low income kids) in private school do so much better than in public school? It is because the parents (and students) value the product more because they are sending those checks every month. So they push for excellence from both students and educators. Also if the school does a crappy job they fire them and go somewhere else, an option unavailable to kids in public school.

If you give people something for nothing that is the value that they will place on it.

BTW it is not necessary for them to carry the entire cost but there should be some out-of-pocket expense. Also home schooled children do even better because the parents are really invested in the result.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/inexpensive-private-schools-better-than-public-schools-the-fraser-institute

http://parentables.howstuffworks.com/family-matters/study-finds-homeschoolers-outperform-traditionally-schooled-kids.html

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

So you say we should eliminate/defund college aid?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

IF you cut all the aid, the kids wont be able to afford it and the schools will be forced to lower their costs to what is managable.

These schools are running their programs like businesses, the education level just gets shittier and shittier, because they have the backing of 100% by the US gov, and could care less who repays the loans or not, because they are going to get theirs.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I suppose it will be very difficult to change the govt and remove the corrupting influence of the corp 1% plutocrats.

How it happens in fact I think can be more than 1 way. I suggest : replacing pro 1% conservatives with pro 99% progressives, & protesting for real change that benefits the 99%.

I'm open to suggestions. But I don't think defunding govt is going to change the corrupting influence of the 1% plutocrats.

Should we just ignore the corrupt 1% plutocrats who control of our govt?

That is no option. I can't just give up. And surrender my govt to corps.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Runway college costs are caused mainly by one thing: availability of cheap student loans.

The college bubble is about to burst and only the schools with the largest following (and largest endowments) will survive. The failures are happening already.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/real-financial-trouble-one-third-of-colleges-universities-going-broke/

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Defunding will help in the following ways:

  • Corps will not bother trying to collude with corrupt Gov officials if those officials have nothing to give.

  • As power leaves Gov it will be taken by individuals and groups that will make improvements (like schools for example) and if they do a lousy job they get fired. You can't easily fire the Gov.

  • The elimination of dependency on Gov will give people the freedom to vote for the best candidate for the job, not the candidate that gives them the best free stuff. When we depend on the Gov for our living, for our very survival, we become slaves.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

The govt should be made to serve the people.

Private colleges have raised prices well above the rate of inflation. They have locked out most Good hard working Americans. So no they're not doing a good job. Their doing a piss poor job. Unless you think being an elitist school is a good think.

I trust no religions, who by the way get a whole lot of money from govt directly and through non tax status.

Non profits (non religious) usually do fine work. Of course their priority is not profit so that is what I prefer on some things.

But the govt is not the enemy or the problem. The corps who have corrupted the govt are the problem. Govt can be made to serve the 99% and things will be fine.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

After the US Gov what is the most benevolent organization on the planet, supplying more aid and charity to people than any other org, private or public?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I have heard others say that we should demand excellence from our Gov, but I see little evidence that this is possible.

How do you propose forcing the Gov serve the people? What specific, realistic actions could be taken to fix the US Fed Gov? Keep in mind that if you just ask for new laws, term limits, constitutional amendments, and the like it will require the willing cooperation of the very people that you are trying to eviscerate.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Sorry gotta sue. It comes out of everyones pocket. Not just mine. And it will therefore be the mechanism to get people interested & outraged. They will vote for pols who will uphold the rights of American citizens otherwise they will be burdened by lawsuit awards.

See how that works.? Lawsuits are powerful tools for the people.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

The private sector is interested in only 1 thing. Profits. Some things require that we prioritize people as well.

Health, police, fire, food safety, environment, education.

You give that to private sector and they will screw it all up in the name of profit.

So sorry. I can't support that. I support cutting waste/fraud/abuse everywhere, I support cutting the defense budget by 50%. I support cutting corp welfare, I support cutting wealthy deductions, loopholes, & shelters, I support creating a 90% tax rate for income over a million dollars.

But i certainly don't trust the private sector. I see the big 1% plutocrat corps as criminals. Mainly.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I actually like profit as a motive. People work hard for profits and tend to do a good job. If they fail they go out of business. Gov can go on forever producing lousy products, charging high prices, and providing crappy service. They are the worst kind of monopoly because there is no way to stop it.

That said there are many worthwhile not-for-profit private sector organizations including:

  • Most major private universities, colleges, primary, and secondary schools. (Generally doing a much better job than the public sector BTW, and if they don't they get fired)

  • Most religious organizations

  • Charitable clubs and Orgs like: The Red Cross , Girl Scouts, Goodwill, Elks, Rotary Club, Shriners, NAACP, UNCF, CARE, the list is endless.

Americans are a good, hard working, and generous people. Let them be free from Gov to continue their good works.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I like sueing them, extracting huge painful legal awards! and putting people in jail for a long time when they violate an Americans civil rights.

that'll learn 'em.

you seem to be a one note song. High speed rail? cut funding! Police/govt overreach cut funding. LOL.

I get it. you are all about cutting govt spending. I don't mind my govt spending money on the priorities I support.

Do you support cuts in the defense budget?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I disagree. If you eliminate all college aid you will keep poor and lower middle class people out of college. The society will suffer because the cost of ignorance is a lot higher than college. College should be free like grades 1 - 12. I think the high cost of salaries, other costs and naked greed is probably a more accurate reason for the ridiculous increase in tuition costs.

If you give something to people for nothing, that is what they think it is worth. Make them work for it just like you had to. They will value it more and it will drive down the cost.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

You can put Gov officials in jail for committing crimes but suing them is pointless. The money paid comes out of your pocket.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Get rid of high speed rail, cut defense, half the Fed departments could go and not be missed.Take back power from the Gov and give it to the people. Elect who you want but the only way to do this is to cut off Gov funding.

Donate (or better yet invest) the money that you save in taxes to private sector enterprises that carry out the priorities that you support. The private sector almost always does a better job than Gov. They are faster, more efficient, and more pleasant to deal with.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Cheap loans yes, but the Gov backing them all 100% so the schools could care less if anyone is going to be able to pay them is, in my opinion, a bigger cause.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Exactly!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I disagree. If you eliminate all college aid you will keep poor and lower middle class people out of college. The society will suffer because the cost of ignorance is a lot higher than college.

College should be free like grades 1 - 12.

I think the high cost of salaries, other costs and naked greed is probably a more accurate reason for the ridiculous increase in tuition costs.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

We just need every state to have the same rail guage in Australia.

That would be a start.

[-] 0 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Why is the Australian gage better?

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

I mean, every state in Australia has a different rail guage.

Ridiculous, I know. There is one trans-continental line, east-west, and the Ghan, which links Adelaide in the south, with Darwin in the North.

[-] 0 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

LOL I get it. You have to change trains every time you want to cross state lines then?

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Naaah, the two lines I mentioned are recent additions to what was a rather stupid system.

Apparently we had a similar situation to your North versus South thing here. New South Wales and Victoria decided on different rail guages, because they didn't much like eachother.

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1239) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

I was hoping to get high speed rail in my state but I live in Wisconsin so you know how that goes. We're leading the nation in alcoholism, drunk driving, teen pregnancy. You know, the important stuff.

[-] 0 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

What about pregnant teens drinking while driving?

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1239) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

Of course, we have them. We have a football team too somewhere.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1239) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

You feelin' OK?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (21785) 1 year ago

I about fell out.

[-] 0 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

No interest here in high speed rail?

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by CitizenofAmerika (-71) 1 year ago

A train already massively over budget from the asshole to the unwashed taint of California. Yeah. Great idea. Gods some of you are gullible!

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

The project will span from SF to LA, connecting Northern to Southern California via high speed rail.