|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
CERN plans to build what the U.S. should have 23 years ago
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
CERN plans to build what the U.S. should have 23 years ago
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
CERN plans to build what the U.S. should have 23 years ago
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
CERN plans to build what the U.S. should have 23 years ago
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
CERN plans to build what the U.S. should have 23 years ago
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
CERN plans to build what the U.S. should have 23 years ago
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
CERN plans to build what the U.S. should have 23 years ago
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
CERN plans to build what the U.S. should have 23 years ago
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
CERN plans to build what the U.S. should have 23 years ago
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
CERN plans to build what the U.S. should have 23 years ago
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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a baseon the moon | Sergio | Astronomy Misc | 3 | April 18th 16 08:27 AM |
The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon | Robert Clark[_5_] | History | 1 | April 8th 16 06:36 PM |
Tomorrow, the 30-th of March, despite to our protests, CERN plans toperform the first collisions of protons with the energy 3.5 TeV per proton (7TeV per collision). | Magnetic | Policy | 5 | April 1st 10 03:24 AM |