I'd go with less as far as the balanced budget goes. We were running a deficit for a long time before Clinton came on the scene and that was with a better economy.

Assuming your cyanide doesn't leak out or get into something you don't want, it works for the moment. Call it unintended side effects. They usually are present with any action. But lets say you get the easy part done. What next? If you insist on bring scorpions back, you are back to square 1, aren't you? Saying "You're FIRED" is easy and satisfying. Hiring the right replacement is going to be more tricky considering the pool of candidates that will submit their names for the job. Ideally you want a strong benevolent dictator who can do what is necessary to get the job done without worrying about the political fallout. It would be much easier to build yourself a 10 lane expressway from California to Hawaii than to find such an impossibility. Even getting the sun to rise in the West might be easier.

Yes, I could do this consistently.

Where's the option for, "I'll just drive"?

A car will consistently beat a plane for trips up to about 200 miles or so, and it's not until about 300 miles that the plane is clearly a quicker way to travel. If we reformed speed limits the car would probably win out to 300+ miles.

The idea of taking my car on a train and having it to drive at my destination sounds somewhat appealing, but I wonder how the cost would compare to flying and then renting a plastic POS.

What was the tab to amtrak haul the car form Miami to philly?

Now that the cost has ballooned greatly past what was represented to the electorate, I think it needs to go back on the ballot. People need to understand that they were lied to about the actual cost and to understand that at this point what they approved won't even get them to the Grapevine (from either direction).


I do like that they are starting it in the middle of nowhere. That way when funds run out, it will be completely useless, other than as a testament to government boondoggles.

To what end? Even if there is a testament, nobody will listen. It is always the video game mentality. Put another quarter and the game starts all over again. If not, people have to become more skeptical and not get so easily entranced by vague promises. Right now, they can promise the world, the voters can sit back happy knowing that they didn't scam their kids into paying for their own goodies. It's not that we don't learn. We don't want to learn. The truth sucks. If they learned the truth, they will not be able to ask for goodies. This way, they can honestly tell their kids "Well, I'm sorry that this bunch of BS hit you but when we approved it at the time, we honestly thought it was going to be good."

* It sucks when you have to do without... *
 

Amtrash's issues are myriad...subsidation isn't/hasn't been the answer. And when they're using someone else's tracks, considering the fact that many areas are so under-maintained, you're lucky they even allow passenger-carrying cars through those areas.

NOW, AS FOR THE HSR-FLIM-FLAM SHOW...

Wisconsin got a Governor that did the right thing and $h!t-canned that black-hole of a project.

1st off, the HSR was an "$800M" shot in the tax-payers' @$$ because it only connected the SE corner of Wisconsin with Madison...they hadn't decided if the the rest of the route was to go through either La Crosse or Eau Claire before it terminated in Minneapolis. Currently, Amtrash has a route through La Crosse onward toward the West, following up the Mississippi River through Winona and Red Wing, but that's it on the Wisconsin Western front.

Secondly, NOTHING was ever mentioned about the rest of the costs concerned with connecting the HSR to Minneapolis from Madison...we had a dog-damned debate about how the route should go from either Madison to La Crosse, or from Madison to Minneapolis-via-Eau Claire. The La Crosse route favored using the current Amtrash corridor and the Eau Claire alternative would have resulted in a whole new rail corridor...probably along the I-System route. Needless to say, it's a moot point now.

Third, but MOST IMPORTANTLY: The Maintainance/Infrastructure Issues: NO MENTION OF IT, WHATSOEVER. Hell, sweep that baby under the dirt after the bathwater and kid have been thrown out the back door during the "Smoke-filled Union/Kickback Back-Room" meetings have all been completed. AAMOF, try to ask that question N O W and see what kind of "politi-speak" response you're going to get. It will be, at least, enough pablum to drown an experienced swimmer in an Olympic-sized pool.

AND, if someone is stupid and dumb enough to attempt to put some numbers out there, I can ALMOST guarantee you that the numbers will be about 1/10 (I'm trying to be conservative with that fraction...) of what the actual costs will end up to be. NO WHERE have we seen ANY GOVERNMENTAL PROJECT come in at, near or even within a moon-shot of the original cost-estimates. Hell, even the $800M that was being bandied about for the Chicago/Milwaukee/Madison fiasco would have ended up running closer to $2B...and I'm probably about $1B short on that amount. :rolleyes:

Trains are quaint little items for the old folks and those on pensions being funded by those still working. They're OK west of Chicago, slower than frick east of the Windy and Only-Dog-Knows how shakey anywhere else. HSR might work just fine in a country like Japan where a "motel" is nothing more than a bee-hive worth of tubes stacked on one another and in European countries, each countries' borders are no more than "Ohio-sized" in width and length.

But, in the US, where we haven't TOTALLY sunk the family budget into snake-oil mono-rail scams and we haven't been told (yet! :rolleyes:) that we're seeking multi-billion $$$$ loans from the IMF to keep the International bankers in gold-plated homes, it makes more sense to $h!t-can these debacles before they get a hound-dog's hold on the leg of common sense and responsible spending.

Simply put...

They are not needed.

Fix what you have. Bank for the future.

Yep. Just like the cheating spouse that has been doing it since the beginning and now promises "But Honey. This time it will be different." Sure.

Back in 1979 two guys named Dave managed to average 87 mph from New York to LA in spite of the 55 mph speed limit. Read about it here: Cannonball Baker Sea-To-Shining-Sea Memorial Trophy Dash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They may not work well in flyoveria, and no one is seriously proposing building a high-speed rail line across the country. They work fine in populated corridors -- Boston <-> NYC <-> DC and SF <-> LA <-> San Diego are actually perfect for them since the population density is similar to Europe over a fairly large area.

And actually, they're pretty fast east of Chicago as well -- I can either drive to my family's place in Virginia or take the train from NYC. The train takes about a half hour to an hour's less time (including the engine change at DC Union station, would be even faster if the line were electrified south of DC) plus I can do work or read on the train. The car ride via the mountains is fun and interesting, but gets old after the first few times.

I don't travel much. The last time I arrived at an airport and took transit was in Mexico City. Now that's a system to envy. Try that at SFO and you have to take a tram to San Bruno then BART to Millbrae and you're still within a mile of the airport! Everywhere I go in SoCal isn't convenient for transit. Many times we're a big group and they don't have enough Suburbans and full size vans. And hey, there's a perfectly good Suburban sitting in my driveway. This oversimplifies it but California high speed rail is over $90B now without a foot of track laid and remains unappealing to me. A ramp and a rail car would get me off I-5.

Sixto
87 300D

You're closer to SoCal than I am, and even I just get in my car and drive if I need to go there. I was making it to NAB Coronado from my house in 9 hours in a 240D when I was working down there. The trip back uphill took a little longer.

Your point could have been well made without resorting to the "retard" cracks. :rolleyes:

Well, they've acted like they lack something in the brain. What should I call them -- "geniuses on par with Einstein and Curie?"

IF they are retarded, what does that say of the voters? After all, they got elected legally.