From the SOTU speech last night:
This could allow you to go places in half the time it takes to travel by car. For some trips, it will be faster than flying — without the pat-down.
-----
Anybody else felt terribly insulted when he dropped that line?
Printable View
From the SOTU speech last night:
This could allow you to go places in half the time it takes to travel by car. For some trips, it will be faster than flying — without the pat-down.
-----
Anybody else felt terribly insulted when he dropped that line?
Joking about universally objectionable personal invasion by HIS TSA? Yeah, NOT FUNNY, but no insulting.
He doesn't know his own TSA and its corrupting buddies like Chertoff in private industry.
TSA will take over train inspections, too. In fact, terrorists blowing up trains and buses has already occurred many time in Europe. Take the TGV between Paris and London to experience airline-style security checks and scanners at each end.
Eh, were an enema bomber successful, there'd be clamoring for full cavity searches.
Didn't bother me.
Chump, only if I did the searching, and she was pretty and she would respect me in the morning.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
(and appreciated my abilities)
:lol
And lest we forget, Obama promised a million new electric
cars, so we can travel in comfort, for 40 miles.
I don't even really understand the line, tbh. Is it faster than flying BECAUSE there's no pat down, or faster than flying even if you don't factor in the airport pat-down?
Faster than driving, slower than flying, but without the humiliation of the latter modus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
He was mentioning High Speed Rail, which for certain distances is proven to be faster than flying (and has even made some airplanes routes obsolete in Europe and Japan).Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Faster than flying because flying from San Antonio to Houston is the same as driving when you factor in airport bullshit.
A train system connecting San Antonio, Houston, Austin and Dallas seems like an eventual good idea to me.
I take a commuter train a few times a week. About 20-30 minutes longer on a 50-55 minute drive but it also means I get work done during that time as opposed to driving.
Shit. Damn the f'n second half of the sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by balli
A Texas TGV was in works, but Southwest Airlines did what was best for its corporation, but bad for TX, got the TX TGV killed nearly 20 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-sp...d_States#Texas
You just don't know how much I would love this! I hated hated hated driving up and down I-35 for 2 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
"High Speed Rail, which for certain distances is proven to be faster than flying"
HSR is faster up to about 400 miles, I remember reading, but that was a long time ago. That's why HSR works so well in smaller, denser Europe vs the vast emptiness of UCA.
eg, Paris-London 210 miles under the channel is about SA-Houston, or SA-DAL
Paris Berlin 550 miles, 3.5 hours at 150 mph.
Usually cellphone and internet access all the way,meals, sleeping.
Gotcha, so faster than flying... AND there's no pat-down.Quote:
Originally Posted by balli
That's what I get for reading the speech instead of watching it. Still worth it to skip the applause.
Also illustrates the stupidity of TSA's part in the War on Terror. Why WOULDN'T we need pat-downs on high speed rails? Wouldn't those be just as compelling a target for a potential terrorist as an airplane? But I guess it was a funny joke. Har har.
Fuck watching that speech. I cant' remember the last time I watched a SOTU. It all bullshit anyway.
Elitist!Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
Nah, he's being a capitalist. He'd be an elitist if he was reading a college textbook.
...
What if he was reading a college textbook on an iPad?Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Poseur?
Sure, for short distances. But without a dedicated rail, they will be slowed down by freight train schedules, plus, the track maintenance will skyrocket.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
This is a costly proposal that will never occur as advertised.
Especially when it becomes a political rally cry instead of the intent.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
The link references a file says:Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
Opening the PDF file (note 45), I would like you to show us those legal barriers. Would you say they were warranted or not?Quote:
Southwest Airlines, with the help of lobbyists, created legal barriers to prohibit the consortium from moving forward and the entire project was eventually scuttled in 1994, when the State of Texas withdrew the franchise.[45]
Its been a fucking rally forever. What the fuck are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Works for other countries... and has effectively replaced certain plane routes for them. I don't think it's a solution that works everywhere, but can work for certain regions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
What's costly about it? Do you have a breakdown of what are the associated costs vs benefits? Let's see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
When Reagan used to do it, it was something else entirely. In fact, only the GOP know what it was intended for and use it correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
HSR, like France TGV, all runs on seamless/welded/dedicated track. There is no competition with bulk freight, although French post office runs its own TGV trains (not freight trains). There is a track for each direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
And You Lie about track maintenance.
HSR rail won't happen in US because the corps will block, just like Southwest bought enough politicians to kill the TX TGV.
The "cost" will be lost revenues to airline and fuel corporations, NOT the cost of building HSR.
Anyway, UCA is too weak, too impoverished, too corrupt to execute an national infrastructure project like the Interstate Highway system again.