CERN plans to build what the U.S. should have 23 years ago

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486

On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486

And the US could still build such a thing, except for all the wasteful projects such as the "bullet train," for example:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fed...t-bullet-train

It would save a few hours over driving on a trip from LA to SF but won't go from San Diego to Phoenix. If you're in THAT much of a hurry, you can fly, at a cost to the environment, but not your conscience, if you are a hypocritical greenie.

wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486

And the US could still build such a thing, except for all the wasteful
projects such as the "bullet train," for example:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fed...t-bullet-train

It would save a few hours over driving on a trip from LA to SF but won't
go from San Diego to Phoenix. If you're in THAT much of a hurry, you can
fly, at a cost to the environment, but not your conscience, if you are a
hypocritical greenie.



Travelling by high speed train is a much more pleasant experience than
flying or driving. A few years ago I had a holiday in Italy with a stopover
in Switzerland. Because of severe traffic problems we arrived at Ebbsfleet
station only 10 minutes before the departure of the Eurostar train to
Paris. We got through all embarkation procedure in nine minutes and were on
the platform when the train arrived. Try doing that at an airport.
High speed train coaches are much more pleasant than the cabins of
airliners. You can move around easily, there are large windows so you can
look at the scenery (or lack of scenery while you’re in the channel
tunnel).
Changing trains at Paris was a much less stressful experience than
airport transfers. And very much better than a transfer at Paris Charles de
Gaul airport, the worst airport I’ve ever been to. Arriving in Venice by
train where you the station entrance opens on to the Grand Canal is far
superior to flying to the nearby airport.

On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 9:12:12 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486

And the US could still build such a thing, except for all the wasteful
projects such as the "bullet train," for example:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fed...t-bullet-train

It would save a few hours over driving on a trip from LA to SF but won't
go from San Diego to Phoenix. If you're in THAT much of a hurry, you can
fly, at a cost to the environment, but not your conscience, if you are a
hypocritical greenie.



Travelling by high speed train is a much more pleasant experience than
flying or driving.

[anecdotal opinions deleted]

Absolutely not. Flying is faster for long hauls, and for short or medium hauls driving gives great flexibility along the route and at the destination.. Trains have the inflexibility of flying and the time savings are only somewhat better than what a car can manage if the train doesn't go to your destination.

That train is going to cost each Californian $2500 (not including the cost of the tickets) assuming they ever have reason to ride it at all.

On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 9:12:12 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486

And the US could still build such a thing, except for all the wasteful
projects such as the "bullet train," for example:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fed...t-bullet-train

It would save a few hours over driving on a trip from LA to SF but won't
go from San Diego to Phoenix. If you're in THAT much of a hurry, you can
fly, at a cost to the environment, but not your conscience, if you are a
hypocritical greenie.



Travelling by high speed train is a much more pleasant experience than
flying or driving.

[anecdotal opinions deleted]

Absolutely not. Flying is faster for long hauls, and for short or medium hauls driving gives great flexibility along the route and at the destination.. Trains have the inflexibility of flying and the time savings are only somewhat better than what a car can manage if the train doesn't go to your destination.

That train is going to cost each Californian $2500 even if they never have reason to ride it at all.

wrote:
On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 9:12:12 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486

And the US could still build such a thing, except for all the wasteful
projects such as the "bullet train," for example:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fed...t-bullet-train

It would save a few hours over driving on a trip from LA to SF but won't
go from San Diego to Phoenix. If you're in THAT much of a hurry, you can
fly, at a cost to the environment, but not your conscience, if you are a
hypocritical greenie.



Travelling by high speed train is a much more pleasant experience than
flying or driving.

[anecdotal opinions deleted]

Absolutely not. Flying is faster for long hauls, and for short or medium
hauls driving gives great flexibility along the route and at the
destination. Trains have the inflexibility of flying and the time savings
are only somewhat better than what a car can manage if the train doesn't
go to your destination.

That train is going to cost each Californian $2500 even if they never
have reason to ride it at all.



Have you ever travelled by high speed train in Europe? Have you even been
on the ridiculously slow trains in the USA? Flying is not a good experience
and the waiting to fly, even in a first class lounge is tedious. If you
haven’t been on a high speed train in Europe you can’t have any idea of how
the journey goes.
If an aircraft doesn’t go to your destination you need transfers from the
airport. This could be train, bus, tram, underground, hired car, taxi.
You have one less option if you go by train.

Mike Collins wrote in

rnal-september.org:

wrote:
On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 9:12:12 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins
wrote:
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, RichA
wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486

And the US could still build such a thing, except for all the
wasteful projects such as the "bullet train," for example:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fed...oming-for-cali
fornias-over-budget-bullet-train

It would save a few hours over driving on a trip from LA to
SF but won't go from San Diego to Phoenix. If you're in THAT
much of a hurry, you can fly, at a cost to the environment,
but not your conscience, if you are a hypocritical greenie.



Travelling by high speed train is a much more pleasant
experience than flying or driving.

[anecdotal opinions deleted]

Absolutely not. Flying is faster for long hauls, and for short
or medium hauls driving gives great flexibility along the route
and at the destination. Trains have the inflexibility of flying
and the time savings are only somewhat better than what a car
can manage if the train doesn't go to your destination.

That train is going to cost each Californian $2500 even if they
never have reason to ride it at all.



Have you ever travelled by high speed train in Europe? Have you
even been on the ridiculously slow trains in the USA? Flying is
not a good experience and the waiting to fly, even in a first
class lounge is tedious. If you haven’t been on a high speed
train in Europe you can’t have any idea of how the journey
goes. If an aircraft doesn’t go to your destination you need
transfers from the airport. This could be train, bus, tram,
underground, hired car, taxi. You have one less option if you go
by train.

A friend of mine took the train from San Franciso to Los Angeles a
few years back, about 400 miles. The published schedule said eight
hours. It took well over 12 hours, and part of it was by bus.

The US does not have the ability to build passenger trains, largely
because nobody wants them. That's what makes them so attractive as
pork. The unions get billions in dollars, nothing is actually
completed, and everybody is relieved when it's cancelled.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 4:36:19 PM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 9:12:12 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486

And the US could still build such a thing, except for all the wasteful
projects such as the "bullet train," for example:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fed...t-bullet-train

It would save a few hours over driving on a trip from LA to SF but won't
go from San Diego to Phoenix. If you're in THAT much of a hurry, you can
fly, at a cost to the environment, but not your conscience, if you are a
hypocritical greenie.



Travelling by high speed train is a much more pleasant experience than
flying or driving.

[anecdotal opinions deleted]

Absolutely not. Flying is faster for long hauls, and for short or medium
hauls driving gives great flexibility along the route and at the
destination. Trains have the inflexibility of flying and the time savings
are only somewhat better than what a car can manage if the train doesn't
go to your destination.

That train is going to cost each Californian $2500 even if they never
have reason to ride it at all.



Have you ever travelled by high speed train in Europe? Have you even been
on the ridiculously slow trains in the USA?

Trains in the US aren't "ridiculously slow" they just have to make many stops along the way. The Acela train gets from Boston to Washington at average speeds close to what the trains in Europe can offer, but that is one of the few routes that are practical in the US, given the country's low population density.

The Acela can be great if you are a solo traveler needing to get back and forth along the Bos-Wash corridor on a regular basis, but that train will never get your family to Nashville from anywhere, and certainly not economically.

insipid statement about flying deleted

If you
haven’t been on a high speed train in Europe you can’t have any idea of how
the journey goes.

Yes, it takes ages to get anywhere, costs a small fortune, lacks flexibility, doesn't provide security for luggage, doesn't take you to your destination and then dumps you in a city with poor and expensive transportation options.

If an aircraft doesn’t go to your destination you need transfers from the
airport. This could be train, bus, tram, underground, hired car, taxi.
You have one less option if you go by train.

Yes, we in the US are aware about how to get to and from an airport.

Mike Collins wrote in

nal-september.org:

wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, RichA
wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486

And the US could still build such a thing, except for all the
wasteful projects such as the "bullet train," for example:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fed...ing-for-califo
rnias-over-budget-bullet-train

It would save a few hours over driving on a trip from LA to SF
but won't go from San Diego to Phoenix. If you're in THAT much
of a hurry, you can fly, at a cost to the environment, but not
your conscience, if you are a hypocritical greenie.



Travelling by high speed train is a much more pleasant
experience than flying or driving.

Pity the US isn't capable of building any high speed trains, only
dumping billions into welfare projects for unions that will never be
completed, and nobody will ride if they are.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 11:59:16 AM UTC-5, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
Mike Collins wrote in

nal-september.org:

wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, RichA
wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486

And the US could still build such a thing, except for all the
wasteful projects such as the "bullet train," for example:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fed...ing-for-califo
rnias-over-budget-bullet-train

It would save a few hours over driving on a trip from LA to SF
but won't go from San Diego to Phoenix. If you're in THAT much
of a hurry, you can fly, at a cost to the environment, but not
your conscience, if you are a hypocritical greenie.



Travelling by high speed train is a much more pleasant
experience than flying or driving.

Pity the US isn't capable of building any high speed trains, only
dumping billions into welfare projects for unions that will never be
completed, and nobody will ride if they are.

The US is technologically capable of building fast trains, but the economics don't work. Almost everyone who could afford to ride such trains would rather fly or drive. Flying is faster and driving is almost always more flexible and convenient.