[llama66]

Me too. I took the train from K-W to Toronto a couple of times, and I love it. I would be great to have a HSR or Hyperloop that ran from St. John's to Victoria, Tuktoyaktuk to Toronto. Cost is the big issue. #MRGA

[llama66]

$1:

all there is for choice is drive, or take the bus.

With Greyhound pulling out of Western Canada we don't even have Bus (in/to many places) anymore. Maybe cross country rail needs to be reexamined.

[peck420]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

The dream will be needing federal funds then?

Show me the receipts for the house you paid for, with your own funds, upfront?

Or are you another commy pinko that had to borrow from a bank?

Ironically, asking for your own money back should be something encouraged by the hard right, no? Oh, you forgot that California is a net contributor to US federal funding.

Whoops.

[DrCaleb]

llama66 llama66:

Me too. I took the train from K-W to Toronto a couple of times, and I love it. I would be great to have a HSR or Hyperloop that ran from St. John's to Victoria, Tuktoyaktuk to Toronto. Cost is the big issue. #MRGA

When i worked at Syncrude, they flew the corporate jet from Calgary, to Edmonton, to Fort Mac every day, then the reverse at night. This let up to 12 people take advantage of the low (!) housing costs in the big cities, but still work in Fort Mac. You still commuted an hour to work, but lived 1000 km away.

They have since had to increase the little 12 seater to a full on 737-100.

Might make sense if they got on board and ate some of the ticket prices for 10 - 20 years. I don't know if it would be economical for them or not.

[llama66]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

llama66 llama66:

Me too. I took the train from K-W to Toronto a couple of times, and I love it. I would be great to have a HSR or Hyperloop that ran from St. John's to Victoria, Tuktoyaktuk to Toronto. Cost is the big issue. #MRGA

When i worked at Syncrude, they flew the corporate jet from Calgary, to Edmonton, to Fort Mac every day, then the reverse at night. This let up to 12 people take advantage of the low (!) housing costs in the big cities, but still work in Fort Mac. You still commuted an hour to work, but lived 1000 km away.

They have since had to increase the little 12 seater to a full on 737-100.

Might make sense if they got on board and ate some of the ticket prices for 10 - 20 years. I don't know if it would be economical for them or not.

I loaded that fucking 737 at Ft. Mac international.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

California didn't have the balls to do what needed to be done (for high speed rail). When speculators started buying up the land the rail project was going to need, they should have seen through that charade and posted that land would be bought under imminent domain for a fixed price, except in rare circumstances. If you owned the land after the announcement of the project minus 5 years, too bad. If you've had a family run farm on it for generations, well that's different.

The problem with California HSR started about twenty years ago when France's SNCF led a consortium to build a direct HSR line between San Francisco and LA. They proposed building it on mostly state-owned land adjacent to Interstate Five which would reduce costs. They also proposed to 100% finance it and then operate it at a profit for fifty years and then hand over the whole thing to the state at the end of fifty years.

Naturally the Democrats shit all over the idea.

So they came up with the idea that the government should build, own, and operate the line.

And then after the voters voted for the original French alignment and proposal of a 90-minute trip from SF to LA the Democrats swapped the route. They moved it from state-owned land along I-5 to private land along State Route 99. They also ran it into the various cities along the eastern side of the San Joaquin Valley and then added a dogleg up into the Mojave Desert.

That dogleg included a station in California City

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Californi ... California

The point of the dogleg into the Mojave was to make almost worthless land valuable because with HSR California City could become a suburb of LA and the land value of the area was projected to increase by as much as one trillion dollars.

A shitload of Democrats are invested in California City.

Anyway, long story short: CHSR squandered its money on buying up land that had been bought by Democrat connected speculators (and a lot of Democrat politicians) and now they have no money to finish the damned thing.

Oh, and the original 90-minute trip the French proposed was now looking more like a five hour trip that is not competitive with the airlines. Or driving.

Thus even Gov. Gavin Newsom came out against it and he's killed it. I'll note here that Newsom is a Northern California Democrat who is not tied into the whole Southern California Democrat real estate and water cartel. He's actually a good guy in this drama.

Now the LA Democrats are faced with paying for their end of HSR on their own and they won't do it.

The upside of the failure of the CHSR project is that people are talking about the original private proposal again and there's a chance it may come back and we'll see a real HSR take shape along the original alignment and with the originally proposed 90 minute travel time.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

California didn't have the balls to do what needed to be done (for high speed rail). When speculators started buying up the land the rail project was going to need, they should have seen through that charade and posted that land would be bought under imminent domain for a fixed price, except in rare circumstances. If you owned the land after the announcement of the project minus 5 years, too bad. If you've had a family run farm on it for generations, well that's different.

The problem with California HSR started about twenty years ago when France's SNCF led a consortium to build a direct HSR line between San Francisco and LA. They proposed building it on mostly state-owned land adjacent to Interstate Five which would reduce costs. They also proposed to 100% finance it and then operate it at a profit for fifty years and then hand over the whole thing to the state at the end of fifty years.

Naturally the Democrats shit all over the idea.

So they came up with the idea that the government should build, own, and operate the line.

And then after the voters voted for the original French alignment and proposal of a 90-minute trip from SF to LA the Democrats swapped the route. They moved it from state-owned land along I-5 to private land along State Route 99. They also ran it into the various cities along the eastern side of the San Joaquin Valley and then added a dogleg up into the Mojave Desert.

That dogleg included a station in California City

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Californi ... California

The point of the dogleg into the Mojave was to make almost worthless land valuable because with HSR California City could become a suburb of LA and the land value of the area was projected to increase by as much as one trillion dollars.

A shitload of Democrats are invested in California City.

Anyway, long story short: CHSR squandered its money on buying up land that had been bought by Democrat connected speculators (and a lot of Democrat politicians) and now they have no money to finish the damned thing.

Oh, and the original 90-minute trip the French proposed was now looking more like a five hour trip that is not competitive with the airlines. Or driving.

Thus even Gov. Gavin Newsom came out against it and he's killed it. I'll note here that Newsom is a Northern California Democrat who is not tied into the whole Southern California Democrat real estate and water cartel. He's actually a good guy in this drama.

Now the LA Democrats are faced with paying for their end of HSR on their own and they won't do it.

The upside of the failure of the CHSR project is that people are talking about the original private proposal again and there's a chance it may come back and we'll see a real HSR take shape along the original alignment and with the originally proposed 90 minute travel time.

Yep, California sure screwed the pooch on HSR.

I don't know why the left hates P3s so much - Alberta sped up construction of our ring roads and several other projects through P3 contracts and they seem to work just fine. Someone else builds and operates a piece of infrastructure for a few decades and then it goes back to government ownership. What's not to love?

And I agree, Gavin Newsom seems like a pretty decent guy, even if he is a politician.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The upside of the failure of the CHSR project is that people are talking about the original private proposal again and there's a chance it may come back and we'll see a real HSR take shape along the original alignment and with the originally proposed 90 minute travel time.

That would be awesome!

<em>bootlegga</em> <em>bootlegga</em>:

I don't know why the left hates P3s so much - Alberta sped up construction of our ring roads and several other projects through P3 contracts and they seem to work just fine. Someone else builds and operates a piece of infrastructure for a few decades and then it goes back to government ownership. What's not to love?

23rd ave interchange in Edmonton comes to mind. Finished early, and under budget!

[peck420]

Screwing the pooch?

Interesting.

Calfornia's HSR is currently tracking better than Edmonton's LRT expansion, in terms of original plan to current date and achieving milestones self set by said plans.

[N_Fiddledog]

peck420 peck420:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

The dream will be needing federal funds then?

Show me the receipts for the house you paid for, with your own funds, upfront?

Or are you another commy pinko that had to borrow from a bank?

Ironically, asking for your own money back should be something encouraged by the hard right, no? Oh, you forgot that California is a net contributor to US federal funding.

Whoops.

I can only suggest the possibility that you may be wrong in your assumptions concerning me, personally. That's as far as I'll go.

In any case it doesn't matter. My interest in establishing that the Dreamers will need to make this a federal responsibility is only something I'd like to establish for the case where this discussion goes on to discuss how federal responsibility would also imply control.

As I've said before my belief is this push for control of the global temperature is not actually about that. It's only about control. You seem to be telling me dreams such as high speed rail demand the ultimate control of funds be Federal, is that it?

So AOC says these massive shifts in control must be done within 12 years and you appear to be telling me it must be done federally, right?

That's a start, I guess. What do you think of the idea that ultimately the Green control dream is global?

[peck420]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

That's a start, I guess. What do you think of the idea that ultimately the Green control dream is global?

Whoops, I cut off a bit too much of the quote here, should have left in the 12 years part.

Option a) Continue doing what we are doing and we all die (as a species, not individually, as I will be long dead before the majority of the worst comes).

Option b) Make changes, right or wrong, introduce a chance of survival.

I will take option b each and every time regardless of the validity of the claims made. A chance at survival is infinitely better than assured death.

Is the new deal the plan I would have written? Nope. Does that matter? Not even a little as I have never even attempted to put myself in a position where I would be capable of doing the writing. Aka, unless I am helping write better deals I won't belittle those at least trying to make things better.

So, do the changes have to global? Yes. Having a major power like the US spearhead it kind of assures that.

Do I agree with all of the dates? Nope. Mostly alarmist, but change does need to be made. See above for why I won't rag on them too much.

[N_Fiddledog]

peck420 peck420:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

That's a start, I guess. What do you think of the idea that ultimately the Green control dream is global?

Option a) Continue doing what we are doing and we all die (as a species, not individually, as I will be long dead before the majority of the worst comes).

Option b) Make changes, right or wrong, introduce a chance of survival.

But that's assuming you believe as AOC believes - that the world will end in 12 years unless you put her or people like her in total control.

So what it would come to is, which danger do we consider is more likely to become a problem - AOC or somebody like her controlling the lives of millions, perhaps billions, or Warmageddon in 12 years that only the global socialist nightmare can save us from.

Me...nice weather doesn't scare me. Global socialists do. If some tragedy such as depleting coastlines should become a problem I'm for adaptation over mitigation as the solution. I don't believe fantasy claims from those in AOC's set that they can reset the global temperature.

She's not Jorel. Lets' stop pretending she is.

[llama66]

Probably can't fix the planet at this point... probably best to start developing the means to colonize mars and the moon as a way to get through the great filter. Probably have 100 years before things get super fucked. I'm so happy I'll be dead.

[peck420]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

But that's assuming you believe as AOC believes - that the world will end in 12 years unless you put her or people like her in total control.

I believe that the world will have major issues within that time span. We already missed the boat on that change. The only real question is if we will be directly or indirectly affected.

$1:

So what it would come to is, which danger do we consider is more likely to become a problem - AOC or somebody like her controlling the lives of millions, perhaps billions, or Warmageddon in 12 years that only the global socialist nightmare can save us from.

Warmageddon is coming. Unfortunately, it has been hastened by the likes of Trump and rise of nationalism. We can play make believe about our borders and who controls what and where all we want, it doesn't change the simple fact that we are all on one boat, and our quests for dominance over said boat are sinking it.

$1:

Me...nice weather doesn't scare me. Global socialists do. If some tragedy such as depleting coastlines should become a problem I'm for adaptation over mitigation as the solution. I don't believe fantasy claims from those in AOC's set that they can reset the global temperature.

I know, I have seen you deny what is coming up down and sideways. Always doing your best to turn it into some pedantic argument over insignificant shit like local weather.

I am far more concerned with global food production, air that doesn't hurt to breathe, etc. You know, the simple things.

Look, we can save this ship. Literally, we can. But, it is going to take sacrifice, and by nature of where we live/born (top of the fiscal heap) that sacrifice falls on us. We didn't get anymore say in that than those born in the shit got say into theirs. It doesn't change the fact that change needs to happen. We can not continue to extract energy(everything eventually boils down to energy) to suit our current lifestyles. There just isn't enough energy to do it. So, we change, or we die. Just like any animal that hits their resource cap in their given ecosystem.

[N_Fiddledog]

The weather not climate thing from me is recent. It's a response to the deluge of 'Summer from Hell' articles we saw last summer. No apologies there.

As to the rest of it are you familiar with the idea of 'adaptation over mitigation' as solution?

https://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLK482242._CH_.2420