[kttam186290]

Originally Posted by RWNLV

I think the train is a great start. S. California residents are our main source of tourists

At least you're finally acknowledging it.

Originally Posted by RWNLV

...and how long will they put up with 5 or 6+ hours car rides to go home? Build it before the tourist say it's not worth it to visit Las Vegas.

They're already saying it. That, and they're tired of paying for your public works wishlist (stadiums, roads, convention centers, schools, etc) because you won't pony up the money yourselves.

[jetgraphics]

How to Revive Rail

Instead of public subsidy, with its partisan politicking and waste, do the opposite - don't take money from it.
Zero Tax Liability for any company that manufactures, installs, operates or maintains electric traction rail mass transit.
Ditto, for labor.

The only way companies will make money is to get paying passengers from Point A to Point B.
Rail will recover profitability across the nation, once the government is out of the way.

[ddrhazy]

The railway system when it was first built was a massive grift. The companies that built out the railroad overcharged the government, got free lands. They made a killing. Watch Hell on Wheels and you'll get an idea of the scope of corruption and theft and expand that over 100 some years.

To this day rail is lousy because the rail companies do not allow Amtrak priority on the lines, lines that were paid for by American tax payers long ago.

So no. Private rail bad. Government rail is the way forward. If you dislike government, that is not an argument for making private rail, that is for making government better.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by ddrhazy

So one guy gets something wrong and that throws out the other plethora of the body of science and scientists warning that the situation is getting worse?

You sure are a smart guy.

What evidence is there that the climate is "worse" - and what is the baseline for "normal"?
Remember, climate is what you expect - weather is what you get.

So far, the highest recorded temperature has NOT been exceeded, so there's no evidence of "heat being trapped."
And frankly, the atmosphere cools the planet by 30%.
Which brings into question all the "scientific consensus" that we have AGW/AGCC.
All the DIRE predictions made in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010s, have not occurred.

So there is no "science" but speculation, and that's wholly wrong.
But don't let that stop you from worshiping in the Church of the Warming Planet. Blasphemers need not attend.

[ddrhazy]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

What evidence is there that the climate is "worse" - and what is the baseline for "normal"?
Remember, climate is what you expect - weather is what you get.

So far, the highest recorded temperature has NOT been exceeded, so there's no evidence of "heat being trapped."
And frankly, the atmosphere cools the planet by 30%.
Which brings into question all the "scientific consensus" that we have AGW/AGCC.
All the DIRE predictions made in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010s, have not occurred.

So there is no "science" but speculation, and that's wholly wrong.
But don't let that stop you from worshiping in the Church of the Warming Planet. Blasphemers need not attend.

Nah. It's getting warmer. And there's no point in arguing this anymore because almost all scientists that study climate are saying the same thing. The only thing that they are not sure about is what sort of diminished eco system and quality of life will remain if we continue on our path.

When we have more wildfires in California every year and now fires in Australia that are pushing Koala bears to the brink of extinction...what you are REALLY saying is that you won't be affected that much, because you know...you live in one of the richest countries in the world and are insulated from rising temperatures more than other people.

The only thing that will really kick you in the pants to demand change from your government is if a hurricane or a fire landed right on top of you. That's the libertarian sh** head way, right?

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by ddrhazy

The railway system when it was first built was a massive grift. The companies that built out the railroad overcharged the government, got free lands. They made a killing. Watch Hell on Wheels and you'll get an idea of the scope of corruption and theft and expand that over 100 some years.

To this day rail is lousy because the rail companies do not allow Amtrak priority on the lines, lines that were paid for by American tax payers long ago.

So no. Private rail bad. Government rail is the way forward. If you dislike government, that is not an argument for making private rail, that is for making government better.

Perhaps you have a different set of history books to support your claims. Please don't tell us your historical reference is a television series.

And it appears you are confusing the Transcontinental railroad, a government funded project, with ALL private rail in America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_...ental_Railroad

The First Transcontinental Railroad (known originally as the "Pacific Railroad" and later as the "Overland Route") was a 1,912-mile (3,077 km) continuous railroad line constructed between 1863 and 1869 that connected the existing eastern U.S. rail network at Council Bluffs, Iowa with the Pacific coast at the Oakland Long Wharf on San Francisco Bay. The rail line was built by three private companies over public lands provided by extensive US land grants. Construction was financed by both state and US government subsidy bonds as well as by company issued mortgage bonds.

. . .

Despite the transcontinental success and millions in government subsidies, the Union Pacific faced bankruptcy less than three years after the Last Spike as details surfaced about overcharges that Crédit Mobilier had billed Union Pacific for the formal building of the railroad. The scandal hit epic proportions in the 1872 United States presidential election, which saw the re-election of Ulysses S. Grant and became the biggest scandal of the Gilded Age. It would not be resolved until the death of the congressman who was supposed to have reined in its excesses but instead wound up profiting from it.

. . .
In most cases, the government did not give any funding to the private enterprise railroads. In fact, they taxed them far more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_t..._United_States

State governments granted charters that created the business corporation and gave a limited right of eminent domain, allowing the railroad to buy needed land, even if the owner objected.

(From Wiki article on AMTRAK)

. . . railroads carried a substantial tax burden. A World War II era excise tax of 15% on passenger rail travel survived until 1962. Local governments, far from providing needed support to passenger rail, viewed rail infrastructure as a ready source for property tax revenues. In one extreme example, in 1959, the Great Northern Railway, which owned about a third of one percent (0.34%) of the land in Lincoln County, Montana, was assessed more than 91% of all school taxes in the county. To this day, railroads are generally taxed at a higher rate than other industries, and the rates vary greatly from state to state.

Railroads also faced antiquated work rules and inflexible relationships with trade unions. Work rules did not adapt to technological change. Average train speeds had doubled from 1919 to 1959, but unions resisted efforts to modify their existing 100- to 150-mile work days. As a result, railroad workers' average work days were roughly cut in half, from 57½ hours in 1919 to 23½ hours in 1959. Labor rules also perpetuated positions that had been obviated by technology. Between 1947 and 1957, passenger railroad financial efficiency dropped by 42% per mile.

(End of excerpt)


SPECIAL INTERESTS

For a cogent example of the political power of the “road gang” consider this - In 1963, Alweg proposed to the city of Los Angeles a monorail system that would be designed, built, operated and maintained by Alweg. Alweg promised to take all financial risk from the construction, and the system would be repaid through fares collected. The City Council rejected the proposal in favor of no transit at all... thanks to the pressure from Standard Oil (Exxon, today).
“A former Alweg engineer once told me that there was much excitement for the proposal at the time, that is until Standard Oil got involved. Practically overnight support for the project disappeared amongst LA politicians.”

LA's Worst Transit Decision
http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/0..._monorails.php


IMHO, get government OUT OF THE WAY, so America can get BACK ON TRACK.
End all public subsidies and penalties, so that the most efficient form of land transport can revive.

[RationalExpectations]

Originally Posted by ddrhazy

The only thing that will really kick you in the pants to demand change from your government is if a hurricane or a fire landed right on top of you.

What change do you demand?

Antiwar protestors demanded an end to the war. That is actionable.
#MeToo protestors demanded an end to sexual harassment. That is actionable.

What action do you demand? "Change" isn't actionable.

[ddrhazy]

Private interests will always grift consumers and the government as much as possible. It doesn't matter the industry. The government needs to regulate or you get things like 2008 housing crash or data caps on internet or medical insurance plans that are absolute garbage.

If you dislike the government so much, why do you live in USA? Why not move to one of those tax evasion islands?

[ddrhazy]

Originally Posted by RationalExpectations

What change do you demand?

Antiwar protestors demanded an end to the war. That is actionable.
#MeToo protestors demanded an end to sexual harassment. That is actionable.

What action do you demand? "Change" isn't actionable.

A stop on all DOT highway and road widening projects for one. That's a start.

[Freedom4Nevada]

Originally Posted by ddrhazy

Nah. It's getting warmer. And there's no point in arguing this anymore because almost all scientists that study climate are saying the same thing. The only thing that they are not sure about is what sort of diminished eco system and quality of life will remain if we continue on our path.

When we have more wildfires in California every year and now fires in Australia that are pushing Koala bears to the brink of extinction...what you are REALLY saying is that you won't be affected that much, because you know...you live in one of the richest countries in the world and are insulated from rising temperatures more than other people.

The only thing that will really kick you in the pants to demand change from your government is if a hurricane or a fire landed right on top of you. That's the libertarian sh** head way, right?

Fires are caused by many things but this “warming” you relish is not sufficient to start fires as for climate, look no further than the bright ball of gas up there before looking at anything else. California’s situation is primarily caused by intentional human mismanagement. Before we arrived, fire played an important role in keeping nature in balance. Many plants and animals rely on the systems that respond to stimuli during and after a fire. We changed that. We no like fire. We smarter than fire. We love nature so we keep nature from being nature. That is the problem here.

California trains to Vegas will not cut down on the interstate mess and Californians live here and do not pay Nevada taxes/fees/permits. They still send their money back to California DMV for example. Have a good one!