Hello "Ding Dongs", AKA: Recently elected governors of Ohio (Kasich),
Wisconsin(Walker) and Florida(Scott).

You don't want high speed rail research projects in your states, no
problem.

The money you are rejecting has been committed, so the Feds are simply
redirecting your funds to us here in California.

We'll take it

Maybe there are some more governors who don't want high speed rail in
their states.

If so, mind telling them we like high speed rail here in California?

We'll accept their money.

Wonder how your decisions will play when you stand for reelection?

Welcome To The World Of Big Time Politics "Ding Dongs".

Lew

In article om, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Hello "Ding Dongs", AKA: Recently elected governors of Ohio (Kasich),
Wisconsin(Walker) and Florida(Scott).

You don't want high speed rail research projects in your states, no
problem.

The money you are rejecting has been committed, so the Feds are simply
redirecting your funds to us here in California.

We'll take it

Maybe there are some more governors who don't want high speed rail in
their states.

If so, mind telling them we like high speed rail here in California?

We'll accept their money.

Wonder how your decisions will play when you stand for reelection?

Welcome To The World Of Big Time Politics "Ding Dongs".

Lew

Apparently you folks in California haven't figured out what was pretty obvious
to us here in the Midwest: those rail projects might be *built* mostly with
federal funds -- but the states would have to pay to *maintain* them, and the
states decided they couldn't afford that. It's also apparent that you haven't
realized yet that California is broke. News flash: if Wisconsin and Ohio --
which are solvent -- can't afford the maintenance, then California -- which
isn't -- can't afford it either.

Let's see how well those decisions play out in a few years when California has
to start paying even more money that it doesn't have to maintain these
"high-speed" rail lines that really aren't. There is *no* true high-speed rail
anywhere in the U.S., and, given the condition of our tracks, there isn't
likely to be in my lifetime, either.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 04:17:47 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote:

In article om, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Hello "Ding Dongs", AKA: Recently elected governors of Ohio (Kasich),
Wisconsin(Walker) and Florida(Scott).

You don't want high speed rail research projects in your states, no
problem.

The money you are rejecting has been committed, so the Feds are simply
redirecting your funds to us here in California.

We'll take it

Maybe there are some more governors who don't want high speed rail in
their states.

If so, mind telling them we like high speed rail here in California?

We'll accept their money.

Wonder how your decisions will play when you stand for reelection?

Welcome To The World Of Big Time Politics "Ding Dongs".

Lew

Apparently you folks in California haven't figured out what was pretty obvious
to us here in the Midwest: those rail projects might be *built* mostly with
federal funds -- but the states would have to pay to *maintain* them, and the
states decided they couldn't afford that. It's also apparent that you haven't
realized yet that California is broke. News flash: if Wisconsin and Ohio --
which are solvent -- can't afford the maintenance, then California -- which
isn't -- can't afford it either.

According to Scott, the state might be on the hook for as much as $3B in
construction costs, as well.

Let's see how well those decisions play out in a few years when California has
to start paying even more money that it doesn't have to maintain these
"high-speed" rail lines that really aren't. There is *no* true high-speed rail
anywhere in the U.S., and, given the condition of our tracks, there isn't
likely to be in my lifetime, either.

They'll come whining to the rest of us to bail them out.

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Hello "Ding Dongs", AKA: Recently elected governors of Ohio (Kasich),
Wisconsin(Walker) and Florida(Scott).

You don't want high speed rail research projects in your states, no
problem.

The money you are rejecting has been committed, so the Feds are simply
redirecting your funds to us here in California.

We'll take it

Maybe there are some more governors who don't want high speed rail in
their states.

If so, mind telling them we like high speed rail here in California?

We'll accept their money.

Wonder how your decisions will play when you stand for reelection?

Welcome To The World Of Big Time Politics "Ding Dongs".


You might want to read the Florida governor's letter rejecting the
Tampa-Orlando rail project. In it he pointed out:

* Cost overruns, as much as $3 billion, would be borne by Florida
* Ridership and revenue have been overestimated for EVERY rail project in
the country since time immemorial. For example, proponents claim ridership
to be over 3 million annually. The Acela train linking Boston to D.C., and
points in between, had 3.2 million passengers in 2010 despite a population
eight times larger than the Tampa-Orlano run.
* There are more worthy projects. For example, enlarging Florida's ports to
be ready for the enhanced Panama Canal shipping.
* If, for any reason, (think too expensive) the project has to be shut down,
Florida would have to return $2.4 billion to the feds.

You can read his letter at:
http://www.flgov.com/2011/02/16/flor...gh-speed-rail/

I'd welcome your comments after you do.

This is the only thing I agree with that Idiot Kasich about. Rail
service would get very little use here. And it was not high speed. 35
MPH with all the stops they planned. You can drive from Columbus to
Cincinnati or Cleveland faster.

Mike in Ohio

On 02/16/2011 10:28 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Hello "Ding Dongs", AKA: Recently elected governors of Ohio (Kasich),
Wisconsin(Walker) and Florida(Scott).

You don't want high speed rail research projects in your states, no
problem.

The money you are rejecting has been committed, so the Feds are simply
redirecting your funds to us here in California.

We'll take it

Maybe there are some more governors who don't want high speed rail in
their states.

If so, mind telling them we like high speed rail here in California?

We'll accept their money.

Wonder how your decisions will play when you stand for reelection?

Welcome To The World Of Big Time Politics "Ding Dongs".

Lew

On 2/17/2011 9:15 AM, Michael Kenefick wrote:
This is the only thing I agree with that Idiot Kasich about. Rail
service would get very little use here. And it was not high speed. 35
MPH with all the stops they planned. You can drive from Columbus to
Cincinnati or Cleveland faster.

Mike in Ohio

On 02/16/2011 10:28 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Hello "Ding Dongs", AKA: Recently elected governors of Ohio (Kasich),
Wisconsin(Walker) and Florida(Scott).

You don't want high speed rail research projects in your states, no
problem.

The money you are rejecting has been committed, so the Feds are simply
redirecting your funds to us here in California.

We'll take it

Maybe there are some more governors who don't want high speed rail in
their states.

If so, mind telling them we like high speed rail here in California?

We'll accept their money.

Wonder how your decisions will play when you stand for reelection?

Welcome To The World Of Big Time Politics "Ding Dongs".

Lew


That is like high speed air. There is a distance at which it is faster
to drive that it is to take an airplane. I have children that live
about 600 miles from us. By the time you drive to the airport, get
there two hours before flight time to get your tummy rubbed by security,
flight a couple of stretches with the waits in between, find
transportation and final get where you are going; You can make the same
trip in your car in the same amount of time, FOR LESS MONEY AND HARASSMENT.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
eb.com...
Hello "Ding Dongs", AKA: Recently elected governors of Ohio (Kasich),
Wisconsin(Walker) and Florida(Scott).

You don't want high speed rail research projects in your states, no
problem.

The money you are rejecting has been committed, so the Feds are simply
redirecting your funds to us here in California.

We'll take it

Maybe there are some more governors who don't want high speed rail in
their states.

If so, mind telling them we like high speed rail here in California?

We'll accept their money.

Wonder how your decisions will play when you stand for reelection?

Welcome To The World Of Big Time Politics "Ding Dongs".

Lew


If it is from the government, it must be FREE! Gullible and California go
together well.

In article , knuttle wrote:

That is like high speed air. There is a distance at which it is faster
to drive that it is to take an airplane. I have children that live
about 600 miles from us. By the time you drive to the airport, get
there two hours before flight time to get your tummy rubbed by security,
flight a couple of stretches with the waits in between, find
transportation and final get where you are going; You can make the same
trip in your car in the same amount of time, FOR LESS MONEY AND HARASSMENT.

Amen to that. I once had a company that wanted to fly me from Indianapolis to
Dayton for a job interview. They were surprised, to say the least, when I said
I'd rather drive. That is, until I explained that I lived nearly an hour's
drive from the Indy airport, and less than two hours' drive from their site
northwest of Dayton. Driving saved them several hundred dollars, and saved me
several hours and a lot of hassle.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
eb.com...

Hello "Ding Dongs", AKA: Recently elected governors of Ohio (Kasich),
Wisconsin(Walker) and Florida(Scott).

You don't want high speed rail research projects in your states, no
problem.

The money you are rejecting has been committed, so the Feds are simply
redirecting your funds to us here in California.

We'll take it

China has 19,000 miles of high speed rail lines, and by high speed I mean
faster than anything in Japan or France. More than 50 cities in China are
now linked by high speed rail. And guess whose money paid for it all?

So America's infrastructure rots away because according to some folks we
can't afford to repair it or upgrade it, not if it means their taxes might
go up. Good thing they weren't around when Eisenhower was building the
interstate system, or we'd still be driving on two-lane gravel roads.

In article , "DGDevin" wrote:
China has 19,000 miles of high speed rail lines, and by high speed I mean
faster than anything in Japan or France. More than 50 cities in China are
now linked by high speed rail. And guess whose money paid for it all?

WalMart customers.

So America's infrastructure rots away because according to some folks we
can't afford to repair it or upgrade it, not if it means their taxes might
go up. Good thing they weren't around when Eisenhower was building the
interstate system, or we'd still be driving on two-lane gravel roads.

If high-speed rail were commercially viable in the United States, it would
already exist.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

If high-speed rail were commercially viable in the United States, it would
already exist.

Urban rail systems in America disappeared in large part because after WWII
the automobile and petroleum industries saw far greater profits to be made
selling cars and buses and the fuel to run them, not because streetcars
weren't a good form of public transport.

And looking at how air travel is going these days, the idea of high speed
rail is starting to look pretty good. In recent years my wife and I have
elected to make 1,500 mile road trips rather than set foot in an airport,
and that was before air travellers had to choose between being groped or
x-rayed.

Fuel prices are going to have the final say on this issue. When gas
eventually gets back to five (or ten) bucks a gallon the train is going to
be a lot more attractive at any speed. A lot of things happened because gas
was cheap, but the clock is ticking on that situation.

OT? You mean high speed rail doesn't use wooden ties?


--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation
with the average voter. (Winston Churchill)

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

In article , "DGDevin" wrote:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

If high-speed rail were commercially viable in the United States, it would
already exist.

Urban rail systems in America disappeared in large part because after WWII
the automobile and petroleum industries saw far greater profits to be made
selling cars and buses and the fuel to run them, not because streetcars
weren't a good form of public transport.

... and in even greater part because a booming economy made cars both
plentiful and affordable, and people decided they preferred the freedom and
convenience of private transport to public transport.

And looking at how air travel is going these days, the idea of high speed
rail is starting to look pretty good.

Except for the hundreds of gigabucks -- that we don't have -- required to
build the infrastructure.

In recent years my wife and I have
elected to make 1,500 mile road trips rather than set foot in an airport,
and that was before air travellers had to choose between being groped or
x-rayed.

Fuel prices are going to have the final say on this issue. When gas
eventually gets back to five (or ten) bucks a gallon the train is going to
be a lot more attractive at any speed. A lot of things happened because gas
was cheap, but the clock is ticking on that situation.

If gasoline becomes that expensive, high speed rail may become commercially
viable; if so, someone will see that there's money to be made, and build it.
The more likely outcome of $10/gallon gasoline, IMHO, is explosive growth in
electric cars and new technology for powering them (e.g. ultracapacitors
instead of batteries), with an accompanying increase in the construction of
nuclear power plants.

In article , (Larry W) wrote:
OT? You mean high speed rail doesn't use wooden ties?

Actually, it doesn't. Concrete or steel are the materials of choice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_tie

On Feb 17, 4:22*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"Doug Miller" *wrote in message

...

If high-speed rail were commercially viable in the United States, it would
already exist.

Urban rail systems in America disappeared in large part because after WWII
the automobile and petroleum industries saw far greater profits to be made
selling cars and buses and the fuel to run them, not because streetcars
weren't a good form of public transport.

And looking at how air travel is going these days, the idea of high speed
rail is starting to look pretty good. *In recent years my wife and I have
elected to make 1,500 mile road trips rather than set foot in an airport,
and that was before air travellers had to choose between being groped or
x-rayed.

But WHO is going to pay for it? HOW are we going to pay for it?
Right after WWII, the United States had the only real, working economy
in the world. We built everything for everybody. We rebuilt other
nations so they could fend for themselves. We were bringing money
INTO this country hand over fist.

What is happening now? The money is pouring out of this country. How
does China pay for its high speed rail? By the money you and I pay
for all the freaking goods they produce and sell in places like Wal-
Mart, Home Depot, Best Buy and all those other stores. Because we, as
consumers, have demanded "the Chine Price" for so freaking long that
we have almost pushed manufacturing and other businesses that used to
bring money into this country out to places like China (especially
China).

Another way China is getting money to build those things is from all
the freaking interest this country is paying them on the Federal bonds
they are buying from us. So to answer your question, it is really the
NEXT GENERATION of Americans who will be funding just about *every*
publicly funded project in China.





Fuel prices are going to have the final say on this issue. *When gas
eventually gets back to five (or ten) bucks a gallon the train is going to
be a lot more attractive at any speed. *A lot of things happened because gas
was cheap, but the clock is ticking on that situation.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...


.. and in even greater part because a booming economy made cars both
plentiful and affordable, and people decided they preferred the freedom
and
convenience of private transport to public transport.

Sure, and because General Motors and other companies made a point of putting
streetcars out of business, even if they had to buy the companies running
them (using front companies) and replace streetcars with buses. At one time
America had over 1,200 electric light rail operations. GM alone converted
900 of these to buses. Of course the American fascination with the
automobile was part of the process, but it got a big push from companies
that wanted to sell cars and buses.

And looking at how air travel is going these days, the idea of high speed
rail is starting to look pretty good.

Except for the hundreds of gigabucks -- that we don't have -- required to
build the infrastructure.

We can afford to build damn near anything the Pentagon says it needs, but we
can't afford to refurb the national rail system? We can give tax breaks to
the oil companies, but we can't afford high speed rail? We're still sending
foreign aid to *China* of all places, but we can't upgrade our own transport
systems? Something doesn't add up here.

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article ,
(Larry W) wrote:
OT? You mean high speed rail doesn't use wooden ties?

Actually, it doesn't. Concrete or steel are the materials of choice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_tie

Indeed, no wood.
Comparing Europe rail travel with rail travel in the NE Corridor. In
crowded western Europe, there is still relatively more open space than in
the Washington-Boston megalopolis. Therefore, it was fairly easy to take
rights of way for straight routes that don't have level crossings with
roads etc. I have traveled the Thalys between Holland and Paris, and
south of Brussels the speed of the train is astonishing. Large stretches
north of Brussels are fast, but not all are real TGV speed.

Generating routes like that in the megalopolis will involve long fights
with eminent domain expropriations. Moreover, we live more dispersed, so
getting to and from the "central" station will take more time, just like
the aggravating travel to and from airports.

Nevertheless, if travel by train were faster and cheaper, I'd use the
train more, especially since I'm retired now. I can walk to the station
here in Jersey, and use the T in Boston, so getting back and forth to my
son and family in Boston will be a cinch. But as of now, car travel is
cheaper and faster ... And then I have a car over there.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article , "DGDevin" wrote:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...


.. and in even greater part because a booming economy made cars both
plentiful and affordable, and people decided they preferred the freedom
and
convenience of private transport to public transport.

Sure, and because General Motors and other companies made a point of putting
streetcars out of business, even if they had to buy the companies running
them (using front companies) and replace streetcars with buses. At one time
America had over 1,200 electric light rail operations. GM alone converted
900 of these to buses. Of course the American fascination with the
automobile was part of the process, but it got a big push from companies
that wanted to sell cars and buses.

And looking at how air travel is going these days, the idea of high speed
rail is starting to look pretty good.

Except for the hundreds of gigabucks -- that we don't have -- required to
build the infrastructure.

We can afford to build damn near anything the Pentagon says it needs, but we
can't afford to refurb the national rail system? We can give tax breaks to
the oil companies, but we can't afford high speed rail? We're still sending
foreign aid to *China* of all places, but we can't upgrade our own transport
systems? Something doesn't add up here.

We can't really afford *any* of those things...

On 2011-02-17 19:05:49 -0500, "Lew Hodgett" said:

What is your game plan for the operating revenues derived from high
speed rail (HSR) once it's built and operating?

Governor Mitch will sell the public asset to private industry,
preferably one with foreign ownership.

Hoosiers voted this *&^(&* into office -- twice! Now he's being touted
for Presidential candidacy, because he's so "well-connected and
best-funded" of the potential candidates. Small wonder.

Some of us weren't fooled the first time, let alone the second.

On 2011-02-17 17:30:09 -0500, (Doug Miller) said:

Urban rail systems in America disappeared in large part because after
WWII the automobile and petroleum industries saw far greater profits to
be made selling cars and buses and the fuel to run them, not because
streetcars weren't a good form of public transport.

.. and in even greater part because a booming economy made cars both
plentiful and affordable, and people decided they preferred the freedom
and convenience of private transport to public transport.

In part, sure. Now, throw in good highway systems (think Interstate, et
al), Levittown(s), the GI bill, and pent-up consumer demand unleashed
after WWII. Result: the cities emptied, and work, school, and shopping
all became more remote from the home. The car became a necessity
because public ransportation either did not expand to meet new
realities, or was actively dismantled (a la Los Angeles).

Indiana at one time had an Interurban system that spanned the state,
meaning that a salesman could live in Columbus (an hour southest of
Indianapolis) and still easily call on customers in Lafayette (an hour
norhtwest of Indy). Or you could work in Indianapolis and live in Terre
Haute. (God knows why you'd want to do that!) Try either today without
a car...

Some predict a "new urbanism" with suburbanites fleeing back to the
city -- you can see it in Indianapolis, with luxury apartments and
condos being built along Indiana Avenue* in what was until not terribly
long ago a stable and historic Black community.

*Immortalized as Leroy Carr's "Shady Avenue," and home to music halls
featuring such luminaries as Wes Montgomery, Lionel Hampton, and yes,
James Hendrix as a backing musician -- his only Indianapolis appearance.

On 2011-02-17 22:04:23 -0500, (Doug Miller) said:

We can afford to build damn near anything the Pentagon says it needs,
but we can't afford to refurb the national rail system? We can give
tax breaks to the oil companies, but we can't afford high speed rail?
We're still sending foreign aid to *China* of all places, but we can't
upgrade our own transport systems? Something doesn't add up here.
We can't really afford *any* of those things...

True, Doug, but we fund the military because those vendors "own" the
pols, who in turn buy votes with jobs propped up by military spending.

As long as we can't afford bombs, wouldn't it make more sense to
instead build high-speed rail we can't afford, but which would become
an infrastructure asset remaining in our country, and which would
benefit us not only from the jobs provided, but from enhanced
transportation capability?

Further, we've managed to **** off an awful lot of the world's
population by trying to blow 'em up or shoot 'em. Doubt high-speed rail
would anger many outside the US.

On 2011-02-17 17:55:41 -0500, busbus said:

What is happening now? The money is pouring out of this country. How
does China pay for its high speed rail? By the money you and I pay
for all the freaking goods they produce and sell in places like Wal-
Mart, Home Depot, Best Buy and all those other stores. Because we, as
consumers, have demanded "the Chine Price" for so freaking long that
we have almost pushed manufacturing and other businesses that used to
bring money into this country out to places like China (especially
China).

We could have "the China price" for US-made goods, except that business
has forgotten its intitial impetus. Used to be that a company was
started to provide a needed good or service. Not so today -- a
company's main purpose, at least for publicly-held companies, is the
"enhancement of shareholder value."

The economy -- buying and selling real goods adn services for real mony
-- has been replaced with the "financial economy", generating inflated
"value" for an asset. (How much air can you beat into a gallon of ice
cream before it becomes just air? Oh, sorry, you don't get a gallon
anymore -- the half-gallon has become something like 1.56 quarts,
before you even consider the added air.)

The final factor operating against a decent price for a US-made good is
executive compensation. The CEO makes 300, or 3,000 times the salary of
the working stiff? Till me how THAT makes us competitive, or,
ultimately, how we'll even be able to buy China's "China-priced" goods.

"Steve" wrote in message
g.com...
On 2011-02-17 19:05:49 -0500, "Lew Hodgett" said:

What is your game plan for the operating revenues derived from high speed
rail (HSR) once it's built and operating?

Governor Mitch will sell the public asset to private industry, preferably
one with foreign ownership.

privatization (pri-vah-ti-za-shun) (n): meaning to profiteer at the
expense of the public.

Dave in Houston

On 2/17/2011 10:54 PM, Steve wrote:

The economy -- buying and selling real goods adn services for real mony
-- has been replaced with the "financial economy", generating inflated
"value" for an asset. (How much air can you beat into a gallon of ice
cream before it becomes just air? Oh, sorry, you don't get a gallon
anymore -- the half-gallon has become something like 1.56 quarts, before
you even consider the added air.)

The final factor operating against a decent price for a US-made good is
executive compensation. The CEO makes 300, or 3,000 times the salary of
the working stiff? Till me how THAT makes us competitive, or,
ultimately, how we'll even be able to buy China's "China-priced" goods.

During WWII there was a secret government project to develop methods to
train "managers" to facilitate the ramping up of manufacturing for the
(still thriving) "war industry". Prior to that, company "management"
generally came up through the ranks, gaining a thorough knowledge and
understanding of the product, and the business, in the process.

Subsequently, and with the resultant advent of MBA programs (the basis
of which is that you really don't need to know much about a product to
"manage" the company that produces it), successful "management" has now
been subverted to little more than wielding tools like 'price point
engineering', "acquisition', and 'marketing strategy' to foist an
inferior product onto an increasingly stupid, easily manipulated
consumer (hint: does the picture of that hamburger really need to look
anything like what the consumer ultimately pays for/consumes, or even
has to contain the expected ingredients? ... not in the least!)

A true "manager" has the power to make an exception to policy to solve a
problem. Just try to find one with that power on the floor of a
corporate chain grocery store or retail outlet these days ... or even on
the phone for that matter.

Today's corporate management culture, focusing on bottom line first and
foremost (and ultimately, 'executive compensation'), has also arguably
(and successfully) insulated themselves from both the product and the
consumer, _by design_.

A neat trick, especially since you can get away with it ... but only for
a while.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Doug Miller wrote:

Amen to that. I once had a company that wanted to fly me from
Indianapolis to
Dayton for a job interview. They were surprised, to say the least,
when I said
I'd rather drive. That is, until I explained that I lived nearly an
hour's
drive from the Indy airport, and less than two hours' drive from
their site
northwest of Dayton. Driving saved them several hundred dollars, and
saved me
several hours and a lot of hassle.

I'll wager you didn't get the job; too "nonconformist" and too much of a
"trouble-maker" for their tastes.

On Feb 17, 11:54*pm, Steve wrote:

The final factor operating against a decent price for a US-made good is
executive compensation. The CEO makes 300, or 3,000 times the salary of
the working stiff? *Till me how THAT makes us competitive, or,
ultimately, how we'll even be able to buy China's "China-priced" goods.


I could go on and on and on about a number of factors OTHER than
corporate executive pay. That is not the only reason our goods cost
more. Far, far from it. The average American worker gets paid a hell
of a lot more than the average Chinese worker. But that still doesn't
cover everything. Corporations get taxed out the wahzoo here and you
know what? They pass that cost along to the consumers in terms of how
much a product costs. Corporations also need to make sure everything
is so freaking environmentally clean and such and it plain costs more
to produce a widget with environmental and other governmental
restrictions that do not exist on other countries.

Don't get me wrong, it is not like I want the fish to all die or the
birds to fall out of the sky or forcing seven-year-olds to work The
fact of the matter is that we are competing against societies that
allow this and the final result is that the products are just plain
cheaper coming out of those countries than they are coming out of
ours.

And there is mo we sort of need to have higher salaries because we
have more to maintain here in terms of existing infrastructure likes
roads and schools and utilities and whatnot.

I think we are veering off-topic of the original off-topic subject:
implementing high-speed rail through government subsidies. There have
been arguments, and good ones at that, saying we don't really need it
and, if we did, it would have been done already by some private firm
because there would be money to be made. There obviously is not the
wanton need nor desire for such a thing. The bottom line is that
there is no money in the till to do this thru government. If a State
is billions of dollars in the hole, how is throwing more money at
something that will produce lukewarm results (at best) help the
State? It will be even further in debt. It will be forced to
maintain another piece of infrastructure. And, in the long run,
certainly be worse off.

Swingman makes a number of good points about how accountants and the
MBA program has all but crippled American corporations because they
are being run by people who look at the bottom line and only as far
out as the next quarter. The people who really understand the
business aren't running them. As a result, you get what you got.

Before we invest in more things that aren't really going to help us
but are, rather, a luxury in this day and age, we need to get us out
of the hole we are in. We need to understand that 8-, 10-, 12-percent
and more returns are not everlasting. I firmly believe we have gotten
to this point because of this mentality that set in whenever we had
years of such returns throughout the 90s. T'ain't that way no more,
McGee. Both the private and public sectors will be better off once we
realize that.

DGDevin wrote:


And looking at how air travel is going these days, the idea of high
speed rail is starting to look pretty good. In recent years my wife
and I have elected to make 1,500 mile road trips rather than set foot
in an airport, and that was before air travellers had to choose
between being groped or x-rayed.

Ugh... at 1500 miles, I'll still fly. We've done plenty of those long trips
by car, and despite the opportunity to see the country, stop where we want,
etc. I'll still fly over drive. I just hate driving anywhere these days.


Fuel prices are going to have the final say on this issue. When gas
eventually gets back to five (or ten) bucks a gallon the train is
going to be a lot more attractive at any speed. A lot of things
happened because gas was cheap, but the clock is ticking on that
situation.

Not in the good old USA. As fuel prices rise, so will rail fares. As fuel
prices drop, rail fare will stay where they climbed to.

--

-Mike-

DGDevin wrote:


Sure, and because General Motors and other companies made a point of
putting streetcars out of business, even if they had to buy the
companies running them (using front companies) and replace streetcars
with buses. At one time America had over 1,200 electric light rail
operations.

And all of these got you exactly where they went - not necessarily where you
were going. They were problematic in their own rite. Cities were a tangle
of overhead wires, the street cars could not alter course for any reason,
they were not easy to swap out if one required maintenance.


GM alone converted 900 of these to buses. Of course the
American fascination with the automobile was part of the process, but
it got a big push from companies that wanted to sell cars and buses.

"The American facination with the automobile" is a really tired cliche.
Sure, it's true to a point, but the automobile has stirred facination all
around the world. Nothing so uniquely American about it. The fact that it
took hold so well in America, and has resisted such alternatives as rail
over the years has been discussed to death as well. Rail just did not work
to mobilize the American society. That's not even unique to America.



We can afford to build damn near anything the Pentagon says it needs,
but we can't afford to refurb the national rail system? We can give
tax breaks to the oil companies, but we can't afford high speed rail?
We're still sending foreign aid to *China* of all places, but we
can't upgrade our own transport systems? Something doesn't add up
here.

I do agree with those statements. There is a lot of spending done by
Washington that is just plain upside down. So - you're supporting the idea
of Washington spending more money on a national rail system? Scarey
thought...

--

-Mike-

On Feb 18, 9:19*am, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:
DGDevin wrote:

Sure, and because General Motors and other companies made a point of
putting streetcars out of business, even if they had to buy the
companies running them (using front companies) and replace streetcars
with buses. *At one time America had over 1,200 electric light rail
operations.

And all of these got you exactly where they went - not necessarily where you
were going. *They were problematic in their own rite. *Cities were a tangle
of overhead wires, the street cars could not alter course for any reason,
they were not easy to swap out if one required maintenance.

GM alone converted 900 of these to buses. *Of course the
American fascination with the automobile was part of the process, but
it got a big push from companies that wanted to sell cars and buses.

"The American facination with the automobile" is a really tired cliche.
Sure, it's true to a point, but the automobile has stirred facination all
around the world. *Nothing so uniquely American about it. *The fact that it
took hold so well in America, and has resisted such alternatives as rail
over the years has been discussed to death as well. *Rail just did not work
to mobilize the American society. *That's not even unique to America.



We can afford to build damn near anything the Pentagon says it needs,
but we can't afford to refurb the national rail system? *We can give
tax breaks to the oil companies, but we can't afford high speed rail?
We're still sending foreign aid to *China* of all places, but we
can't upgrade our own transport systems? *Something doesn't add up
here.

I do agree with those statements. *There is a lot of spending done by
Washington that is just plain upside down. *So - you're supporting the idea
of Washington spending more money on a national rail system? *Scarey
thought...

--

-Mike-


If a railway system focuses on freight alone and get those damned
trucks off the major arteries, we'd be ahead by quite a bit.
An intelligent hub & spoke system.
The math is simple. Fuel to move a given quantity of freight X
miles...train vs truck.
Nothing to talk about.
Fast too.

ANY kind of government will turn this into a political pork-barrel
football.
Private industry vs a much BIGGER private industry (oil) is what we're
up against.

Mike Marlow wrote:
DGDevin wrote:


Sure, and because General Motors and other companies made a point of
putting streetcars out of business, even if they had to buy the
companies running them (using front companies) and replace streetcars
with buses. At one time America had over 1,200 electric light rail
operations.

And all of these got you exactly where they went - not necessarily
where you were going. They were problematic in their own rite. Cities
were a tangle of overhead wires, the street cars could not
alter course for any reason, they were not easy to swap out if one
required maintenance.

GM alone converted 900 of these to buses. Of course the
American fascination with the automobile was part of the process, but
it got a big push from companies that wanted to sell cars and buses.

"The American facination with the automobile" is a really tired
cliche. Sure, it's true to a point, but the automobile has stirred
facination all around the world. Nothing so uniquely American about
it. The fact that it took hold so well in America, and has resisted
such alternatives as rail over the years has been discussed to death
as well. Rail just did not work to mobilize the American society. That's
not even unique to America.

note also that the introduction of cheap cars to countries without a 'car
fixation' or a car infrastructure is causing those countries to change their
ideas also.

to wit: india and china, which are growing their car population by leaps and
bounds.



We can afford to build damn near anything the Pentagon says it needs,
but we can't afford to refurb the national rail system? We can give
tax breaks to the oil companies, but we can't afford high speed rail?
We're still sending foreign aid to *China* of all places, but we
can't upgrade our own transport systems? Something doesn't add up
here.

I do agree with those statements. There is a lot of spending done by
Washington that is just plain upside down. So - you're supporting
the idea of Washington spending more money on a national rail system?
Scarey thought...

On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 23:54:27 -0500, Steve
wrote:

On 2011-02-17 17:55:41 -0500, busbus said:

What is happening now? The money is pouring out of this country. How
does China pay for its high speed rail? By the money you and I pay
for all the freaking goods they produce and sell in places like Wal-
Mart, Home Depot, Best Buy and all those other stores. Because we, as
consumers, have demanded "the Chine Price" for so freaking long that
we have almost pushed manufacturing and other businesses that used to
bring money into this country out to places like China (especially
China).

We could have "the China price" for US-made goods, except that business
has forgotten its intitial impetus. Used to be that a company was
started to provide a needed good or service. Not so today -- a
company's main purpose, at least for publicly-held companies, is the
"enhancement of shareholder value."

Sickening, isn't it? There was always a profit motive, but now it's
the ONLY motive.


The economy -- buying and selling real goods adn services for real mony
-- has been replaced with the "financial economy", generating inflated
"value" for an asset. (How much air can you beat into a gallon of ice
cream before it becomes just air? Oh, sorry, you don't get a gallon
anymore -- the half-gallon has become something like 1.56 quarts,
before you even consider the added air.)

The final factor operating against a decent price for a US-made good is
executive compensation. The CEO makes 300, or 3,000 times the salary of
the working stiff? Till me how THAT makes us competitive, or,
ultimately, how we'll even be able to buy China's "China-priced" goods.

Don't forget union wages and added perks, such as health insurance,
which quintuple paid-wage figures.

--
Happiness comes of the capacity to feel deeply, to enjoy
simply, to think freely, to risk life, to be needed.
-- Storm Jameson

"Steve" wrote in message
g.com...
On 2011-02-17 17:55:41 -0500, busbus said:

What is happening now? The money is pouring out of this country. How
does China pay for its high speed rail? By the money you and I pay
for all the freaking goods they produce and sell in places like Wal-
Mart, Home Depot, Best Buy and all those other stores. Because we, as
consumers, have demanded "the Chine Price" for so freaking long that
we have almost pushed manufacturing and other businesses that used to
bring money into this country out to places like China (especially
China).

We could have "the China price" for US-made goods, except that business
has forgotten its intitial impetus.

From time to time I hear someone say this. It is total BS.
I've been in manufacturing for 25 years. Working for businesses with
employee counts from 2 to thousands. Never a union shop though. I have
worked it from the shop floor to the engineering department. I think I'm
qualified to say what it would take to compete with China. If everyone in a
manufacturing facility were to work for free, the Chinese would still under
cut our prices. Operating costs alone, without adding in labor, is higher in
the US than the entire process, including labor, is in China.
BTW, anytime someone brings up the subject of manufacturing, people always
point to the auto or aircraft industries. Fact is, 90% of all manufacturing
done in the US is done in shops with 25 or less employees. No mufti million
dollar CEOs in these places. I have worked for shops where I made more than
the owner and I'm damn sure a long way from being rich.

?
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Doug Miller wrote:

Amen to that. I once had a company that wanted to fly me from
Indianapolis to
Dayton for a job interview. They were surprised, to say the least,
when I said
I'd rather drive. That is, until I explained that I lived nearly an
hour's
drive from the Indy airport, and less than two hours' drive from
their site
northwest of Dayton. Driving saved them several hundred dollars, and
saved me
several hours and a lot of hassle.

I'll wager you didn't get the job; too "nonconformist" and too much of a
"trouble-maker" for their tastes.


I figure the break even point is five hours driving time. In some cases,
even 8 hours driving can be faster than flying.

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...


"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
eb.com...

Hello "Ding Dongs", AKA: Recently elected governors of Ohio (Kasich),
Wisconsin(Walker) and Florida(Scott).

You don't want high speed rail research projects in your states, no
problem.

The money you are rejecting has been committed, so the Feds are simply
redirecting your funds to us here in California.

We'll take it

China has 19,000 miles of high speed rail lines, and by high speed I mean
faster than anything in Japan or France. More than 50 cities in China are
now linked by high speed rail. And guess whose money paid for it all?

So America's infrastructure rots away because according to some folks we
can't afford to repair it or upgrade it, not if it means their taxes might
go up. Good thing they weren't around when Eisenhower was building the
interstate system, or we'd still be driving on two-lane gravel roads.


Its a good thing that when Eisenhower was president the governmant was not
$11,000,000,000,000.00 in debt. Yup that is 12 zeros to the left of the
decimel point.

"Leon" wrote in message
...

Its a good thing that when Eisenhower was president the governmant was not
$11,000,000,000,000.00 in debt. Yup that is 12 zeros to the left of the
decimel point.

I think Leon is forgetting what the marginal tax rates were in the
Eisenhower administration.

Dave in Houston

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...


Sure, and because General Motors and other companies made a point of
putting streetcars out of business, even if they had to buy the
companies running them (using front companies) and replace streetcars
with buses. At one time America had over 1,200 electric light rail
operations.

And all of these got you exactly where they went - not necessarily where
you were going.

Well, there was a time when Americans weren't terrified of walking a few
blocks to get to their final destination, back when they didn't look they
were on their way to audition for The Biggest Loser.

GM alone converted 900 of these to buses. Of course the
American fascination with the automobile was part of the process, but
it got a big push from companies that wanted to sell cars and buses.

"The American facination with the automobile" is a really tired cliche.

Which doesn't make it any less appropriate.

We can afford to build damn near anything the Pentagon says it needs,
but we can't afford to refurb the national rail system? We can give
tax breaks to the oil companies, but we can't afford high speed rail?
We're still sending foreign aid to *China* of all places, but we
can't upgrade our own transport systems? Something doesn't add up
here.

I do agree with those statements. There is a lot of spending done by
Washington that is just plain upside down. So - you're supporting the
idea of Washington spending more money on a national rail system? Scarey
thought...

Or you could consider that I meant not wasting money on foreign aid to
China, gold-plated weapons that don't always work, and tax breaks for the
oil companies and *instead* spending that money on transportation
infrastructure in America that will benefit the whole nation for
generations, rather than adding to the existing budget.

In article , "DGDevin" wrote:

Or you could consider that I meant not wasting money on foreign aid to
China, gold-plated weapons that don't always work, and tax breaks for the
oil companies and *instead* spending that money on transportation
infrastructure in America that will benefit the whole nation for
generations, rather than adding to the existing budget.

Or you could consider that this should not be regarded as an either-or choice,
and that the options should include "none of the above" -- which, not
coincidentally, describes exactly which of these things we have the money
available to do.

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:38:52 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

?
"HeyBub" wrote in message
om...
Doug Miller wrote:

Amen to that. I once had a company that wanted to fly me from
Indianapolis to
Dayton for a job interview. They were surprised, to say the least,
when I said
I'd rather drive. That is, until I explained that I lived nearly an
hour's
drive from the Indy airport, and less than two hours' drive from
their site
northwest of Dayton. Driving saved them several hundred dollars, and
saved me
several hours and a lot of hassle.

I'll wager you didn't get the job; too "nonconformist" and too much of a
"trouble-maker" for their tastes.


I figure the break even point is five hours driving time. In some cases,
even 8 hours driving can be faster than flying.

Thirty years ago six hours was my "break even" point (at the time, anywhere NE
of a line from Washington to Buffalo). The hassle factor at least doubles
that, now.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

Or you could consider that I meant not wasting money on foreign aid to
China, gold-plated weapons that don't always work, and tax breaks for the
oil companies and *instead* spending that money on transportation
infrastructure in America that will benefit the whole nation for
generations, rather than adding to the existing budget.

Or you could consider that this should not be regarded as an either-or
choice,
and that the options should include "none of the above" -- which, not
coincidentally, describes exactly which of these things we have the money
available to do.

So what is America supposed to do, retire as a nation? Sure, that $14
trillion debt has to be paid down, but that doesn't mean every dime possible
has to be dedicated solely to that cause. Potholes still have to be filled,
somebody still needs to show up when we call 911, and private industry can't
be counted on to build everything the nation needs built.

Failing to invest in the future is a good way to ensure there won't be one.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 07:16:39 -0600, "Leon" wrote:


"DGDevin" wrote in message
om...


"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
eb.com...

Hello "Ding Dongs", AKA: Recently elected governors of Ohio (Kasich),
Wisconsin(Walker) and Florida(Scott).

You don't want high speed rail research projects in your states, no
problem.

The money you are rejecting has been committed, so the Feds are simply
redirecting your funds to us here in California.

We'll take it

China has 19,000 miles of high speed rail lines, and by high speed I mean
faster than anything in Japan or France. More than 50 cities in China are
now linked by high speed rail. And guess whose money paid for it all?

So America's infrastructure rots away because according to some folks we
can't afford to repair it or upgrade it, not if it means their taxes might
go up. Good thing they weren't around when Eisenhower was building the
interstate system, or we'd still be driving on two-lane gravel roads.


Its a good thing that when Eisenhower was president the governmant was not
$11,000,000,000,000.00 in debt. Yup that is 12 zeros to the left of the
decimel point.

You're debt estimate is over 25% low ($14B). Barry has been busy.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/