Post: #26

(09-02-2011 07:53 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

(09-02-2011 04:00 PM)basilransom Wrote:  Since when do laws stop thugs?

http://www.break.com/index/dude-mugged-o...-bus1.html

And beatings may not even be that common. But it's the psychic cost, of going into the bus every day and sitting in fear of an attack, of bracing yourself constantly and casing the joint for possible threats. Every American city has enough criminals to make public transport dangerous at night. And even during the day, if there isn't a critical mass of normal people riding it, public transport is seen as sketchy.

There will always be cases like that happening. That's what happens when you dress like a preppy Parisian dude and get on a bus with a bunch of lower-class immigrants who despise you just for being better off. At a certain point they were even poking fun at him by bringing up "Chanselise".

I'm not defending those thugs actions, but there is a level of street smarts that needs to be expected of someone. It's like someone from the Upper East Side getting on the G Train to Crown Heights dressed in preppy attire expecting to not get picked on.

Anyway, my point is that the video strikes more of an emotional point than anything. How many times have I gone on a bus from Downtown to Westwood, drunk out of my mind, taking the 720 express to the Village unscathed? Well, one actually, but that's beside the point

I have Parisian friends who live in the better parts of Paris who never get beaten up, and they rely solely on public transportation and walking-- and they go in and out of the center, so they deal with a lot of the undesirables. They might get harassed every now and then, but that's basically a given in city life where things are so diverse and crazy.

My question is why do they allow in low class immigrants if they cause so much trouble?!?

Post: #27

(09-02-2011 09:43 PM)torontokid Wrote:  

(09-02-2011 07:53 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

(09-02-2011 04:00 PM)basilransom Wrote:  Since when do laws stop thugs?

http://www.break.com/index/dude-mugged-o...-bus1.html

And beatings may not even be that common. But it's the psychic cost, of going into the bus every day and sitting in fear of an attack, of bracing yourself constantly and casing the joint for possible threats. Every American city has enough criminals to make public transport dangerous at night. And even during the day, if there isn't a critical mass of normal people riding it, public transport is seen as sketchy.

There will always be cases like that happening. That's what happens when you dress like a preppy Parisian dude and get on a bus with a bunch of lower-class immigrants who despise you just for being better off. At a certain point they were even poking fun at him by bringing up "Chanselise".

I'm not defending those thugs actions, but there is a level of street smarts that needs to be expected of someone. It's like someone from the Upper East Side getting on the G Train to Crown Heights dressed in preppy attire expecting to not get picked on.

Anyway, my point is that the video strikes more of an emotional point than anything. How many times have I gone on a bus from Downtown to Westwood, drunk out of my mind, taking the 720 express to the Village unscathed? Well, one actually, but that's beside the point

I have Parisian friends who live in the better parts of Paris who never get beaten up, and they rely solely on public transportation and walking-- and they go in and out of the center, so they deal with a lot of the undesirables. They might get harassed every now and then, but that's basically a given in city life where things are so diverse and crazy.

My question is why do they allow in low class immigrants if they cause so much trouble?!?

How would they know they are low class? On immigration, I doubt any immigrant when asked what their intent is in the country they are immigrating to will say:
"I am coming to rob and beat up the civilians"

Post: #28

It's painstackingly obvious. Immigrants were allowed by the DROVES to come to the West regardless of their "quality" or origin because of the political correctness that arose in reaction to the patriotism of WWI and fascism that followed thereafter.

People, especially middle of the road politicians, were so ashamed they'd agreed with fascists on as many points as they did during the 1930's, they ended up doing a 180 and kowtowing to the communists and New Left, who demanded tribute for having opposed fascism all along (with 1939-1941 as a notable, not-oft mentioned exception) - really anything to weaken the West vis-a-vis the USSR, either by doing deliberate damage politically or pressuring people into adopting more progressive attitudes.

An example of this is the UN declaration after WWII that all races were of equal intelligence, which was nonsensical, so shouldn't have done any damage, but did anyways. It was like saying all people are of equal intelligence, which everyone knows is not true. Within all population groups are variations above and below means, but these distributions don't say anything about a person's character, the real measure of their worth (moral worth), nor do they say anything about your intelligence, except that you can expect that any Chinese/Korean/Japanese you meet will have a 50% chance of having an IQ above 106, whereas any Jamaican you meet you can expect a 50% chance of an IQ above 80. This says nothing about whether the individual you do meet does have an IQ of 106 or 80, and it would be wrong of you to judge a person on that expectation - at least in our culture.

Of course, these distinctions are hard points to make in heated discussions where emotions rather than common sense determine who is right. Again, a total by-product of female emancipation.

Thus, even when immigrants of "low quality" were obviously becoming a bigger and bigger problem to society's overall well-being, voicing this concern was totally unacceptable. For instance, Cuban immigrants to the US have by and large done very well, whereas Hispanics from Mexico and Central America are having a much harder time moving up the social ladder. George Borjas, a professor of Economics at Harvard, writes extensively on these subjects.

Don't bother reading Michelle Maklin, she's retarded. So is Philip Legrain - he is yet another example of why libertarianism is going to destroy the West.

Post: #29

(09-02-2011 07:53 PM)kerouac Wrote:  There will always be cases like that happening.

That's a total 180 from what you said earlier, that the French have 'laws to deal with it.' And in fact in this case, the police officer who released the video got in trouble for releasing it. The government's sympathies lie with the criminals, and not with justice.

(09-02-2011 07:53 PM)kerouac Wrote:  That's what happens when you dress like a preppy Parisian dude and get on a bus with a bunch of lower-class immigrants who despise you just for being better off. At a certain point they were even poking fun at him by bringing up "Chanselise".

I'm not defending those thugs actions, but there is a level of street smarts that needs to be expected of someone. It's like someone from the Upper East Side getting on the G Train to Crown Heights dressed in preppy attire expecting to not get picked on.

Anyway, my point is that the video strikes more of an emotional point than anything. How many times have I gone on a bus from Downtown to Westwood, drunk out of my mind, taking the 720 express to the Village unscathed? Well, one actually, but that's beside the point

I don't know what your point is, except to contradict your previous comments. You've just outlined why public transportation sucks, because you have to check your ass constantly.

I am in fact, a preppy white guy who has taken the train to Crown Heights several times. I never honestly felt in danger, but I was always leery. But I'd rather not worry about it. It's vastly preferable to get into a car or taxi without having to clench your asshole for an hour straight. Sort of like how having the right to carry a concealed weapon and defend yourself is great, but never needing it is even better.

After thinking about public transportation in this thread, every time I hear someone sing it's praises, I'm going to call bullshit. Hell, every time someone in L.A. brings it up, ask them "So, will you use it?" and they are sure to answer "No, I have no reason to." Everyone wants to build it in the hopes that all the poor schmucks get off the 405. They, of course, will continue driving.

(09-04-2011 09:51 AM)Moma Wrote:  

(09-02-2011 09:43 PM)torontokid Wrote:  My question is why do they allow in low class immigrants if they cause so much trouble?!?

How would they know they are low class? On immigration, I doubt any immigrant when asked what their intent is in the country they are immigrating to will say:
"I am coming to rob and beat up the civilians"

It's not hard. If they required all immigrants say, to have college degrees, it wouldn't happen. It's just that the ruling powers despise their own country; they put the interests of third world immigrants over the physical welfare of their own countrymen.

Without the poor, the rich can't feel very rich. Immigration provides a pool of domestic servants. Without immigration, they'd be left trying to recruit servants from the natives, who cost more and probably don't like taking menial orders as much.

Post: #30

(09-04-2011 09:51 AM)Moma Wrote:  

(09-02-2011 09:43 PM)torontokid Wrote:  

(09-02-2011 07:53 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

(09-02-2011 04:00 PM)basilransom Wrote:  Since when do laws stop thugs?

http://www.break.com/index/dude-mugged-o...-bus1.html

And beatings may not even be that common. But it's the psychic cost, of going into the bus every day and sitting in fear of an attack, of bracing yourself constantly and casing the joint for possible threats. Every American city has enough criminals to make public transport dangerous at night. And even during the day, if there isn't a critical mass of normal people riding it, public transport is seen as sketchy.

There will always be cases like that happening. That's what happens when you dress like a preppy Parisian dude and get on a bus with a bunch of lower-class immigrants who despise you just for being better off. At a certain point they were even poking fun at him by bringing up "Chanselise".

I'm not defending those thugs actions, but there is a level of street smarts that needs to be expected of someone. It's like someone from the Upper East Side getting on the G Train to Crown Heights dressed in preppy attire expecting to not get picked on.

Anyway, my point is that the video strikes more of an emotional point than anything. How many times have I gone on a bus from Downtown to Westwood, drunk out of my mind, taking the 720 express to the Village unscathed? Well, one actually, but that's beside the point

I have Parisian friends who live in the better parts of Paris who never get beaten up, and they rely solely on public transportation and walking-- and they go in and out of the center, so they deal with a lot of the undesirables. They might get harassed every now and then, but that's basically a given in city life where things are so diverse and crazy.

My question is why do they allow in low class immigrants if they cause so much trouble?!?

How would they know they are low class? On immigration, I doubt any immigrant when asked what their intent is in the country they are immigrating to will say:
"I am coming to rob and beat up the civilians"

No, but they can choose immigrants who are educated/skilled/ or bring something to the table.
If you have somebody who's going to struggle very badly(economically) in a new country from a violent country they're probably not going to become a perfect citizen. They're going to feel disconnected from society and this will lead them to struggle.
On the other hand, if they have skills to do well they're probably not going to cause much trouble. Especially if they have young kids since the kids will have a stable family.

Post: #31

France like a lot of other European countries has screwed itself with regards to immigration,particularly backward Muslims.. the same for the UK with large and evergrowing communities from the backwoods of Pakistan.

But it's too late to go back,all they can do is put a stop on further access;but then if the habit is to go back "home" for an arranged marriage even putting a stop to newbies doesn't work.20,000-30,000 arrive every year in the UK through marriage alone.So,kids born here turn up at primary school hardly speaking English.

That's the legacy.

Then there's the people saying how wonderful and diverse it is,when most native people know what is actually happening to their areas... i.e. Fast turning into a multicultural shithole!

This article about John Cleese saying he didn't feel London was an English city anymore has all the do gooders coming out of the woodwork.

Of course,he is right.

The unpresidented ,uncontrolled immigration over the last 20 years,legal and illegal,with authorities either too incompetent or understaffed or tied up in European human Rights legislation to remove people has altered the London and others to a vast extent,some good...most bad,and not asked for by the general native populace.

Listening to the radio discussing it,people calling up saying it was a racist statement...I guess expecting the dominant /host culture to be predominant is racist these days:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...mpics.html

At least in Paris,the dregs are kept at the periphery and it still feels predominantly French...you can walk whole patches of London without hearing English!

Mark Steyn nail it in this monolgue....I don't agree with all his views but on this he's pretty spot on

I hear canada's going down the same route.

Post: #32

Well.., after WWII, Eisenhower was impressed with the autobahn system in Germany and when he became president he pushed the interstate highway system. There's a reason it's actually called the Eisenhower interstate highway system.

I agree that coast to coast rail isn't economically feasible. It's cheaper and quicker to hop on an airplane.

Yes, Big Oil does have a grip on politicians. So until some sort of technology arrives that makes it an absolutely no brainer to get away from cars/the internal combustible engine, Big Business, ie. Detroit, will continue to pump out those inefficient internal combustible engines in some way shape or form.

I for one love a good and reliable public trans system for a city.

Post: #33

Resurrecting this old thread.

Just watched a few videos on Youtube about some high speed rails currently in development, most notably "All Aboard Florida" which will connect Miami and Orlando and eventually add on Tampa and Jacksonville (apparently to be up and running this year), the other is "Texas Central Railway" which should connect Houston and Dallas Ft Worth area maybe going out to college station later (looks like its scheduled for 2021). Pretty interesting stuff as to which locomotives they will be running (Diesel @ 125 mph vs Electric at 205 mph) and how they are going about making these viable and profitable. California also has infamously proposed a high speed rail but it's government funded and is an absolute mess first section to be completed in 2029 between like Fresno and Bakersfield I think. I was really against this in the past, yeah our passenger rail sucked but we have top notch freight system in the USA, and flying our driving was either cheaper faster or more convenient or what have you. But now I'm thinking along the lines of if it's privately funded as TX and FL railways are, have at it, more competition the better. If they can turn a profit it might be nice to have some alternatives to sitting in traffic or having to spend so much time at airports going through security. I don't think we will see any nationwide network anytime in the foreseeable future but who knows maybe if enough of these cities get connected.

I have always wanted to ride bullet train or some other high speed rail, maybe its the kid in me coming out now.

Thoughts 6 years later?

Post: #34

(08-31-2011 11:35 PM)Saladin Wrote:  The US doesn't subsidize rail enough.....
They should, it would make a helluva lot of sense especially in the Northeast. It lowers traffic and is a lot more comfortable and convenient than taking a flight.
Air travel only wins For long distance travel. Anything in the NE corridor is pretty short to mid range. If the tickets were cheaper more people would take these trains(which is why Amtrak would need higher subsidies and funding).

Its environmentally much friendlier and personally I find it much more comfortable. The benefits outweigh the costs. Lower traffic + Lower pollution + Lower airport congestion is worth the extra funding.

I do agree that it doesn't make sense for spread out cities but thats a function of the automobile culture. I prefer European cities that are more accessible by public transportation rather than vast spread out cities with huge tracts of suburbs. I'm sure most players on this forum agree since the logistics are simpler and cheaper in the first case.

The Conservative party has been screaming about "Socialist Amtrak" for decades and trying to slash its funding ever since its inception - it's been a constant easy target that's been pig-piled on by the media again and again as well.

Groups like the Cato institute have suggested it be privatized and it's not a bad idea at this point, as the company is more profitable than it's ever been. Unfortunately if I were Amtrak's new private CEO the thing I'd do day one, the only thing that's logical to do, would be to immediately slash all the money-losing routes in the West and Midwest.

A private Amtrak is Blue State Rail. It might be good for the bottom line and ideology, but I'm not sure it's good for America.

And basically nobody ever said a word about the billions that get (literally) pumped into the airlines to prop them up. Delta Airlines has been essentially a non-profit operation for the past 30 years, too.

(08-31-2011 12:13 PM)Kish Wrote:  Also it would bie less profits for big oil companies. They own our politicians and will make sure there is never a fast efficient train from dc to up and down the NE corridor.

There is one, for some definitions of "fast." One of the main sticking points is that there isn't really any good place to put it. If you want to travel over say 200 mph you need essentially laser-straight tracks for a significant part of the distance, and how will one accomplish this at a reasonable cost anywhere within one of the most populated conurbations in the world?

It's easier for China. They just say "We're doing it" and you, the resident along the right-of-way, don't have a lot of say in the matter. They'll have cross-country maglevs long before we ever got the environmental impact studies complete.

There are upsides and downsides to not being China.

(02-19-2017 05:26 PM)Razgriz Wrote:  Resurrecting this old thread.

I have always wanted to ride bullet train or some other high speed rail, maybe its the kid in me coming out now.

Thoughts 6 years later?

I think it's difficult but doable and important for America's future. We can beat China on this one - they've got one white elephant maglev that IIRC went absurdly overbudget and doesn't go much of anywhere. And every dollar sent to the Saudis is offensive to me; as I've said before it was shameful they ever got a penny from us after 9/11.

Post: #35

We have the same issue here in Australia. No high speed railway system! Oil companies won't allow it!

Post: #36

(02-19-2017 06:56 PM)easternwomenrule Wrote:  We have the same issue here in Australia. No high speed railway system! Oil companies won't allow it!

Bullshit. Japan has 5 times the population and is 20 times smaller than Australia. And a high speed rail ticket there still costs a fortune. It's significantly cheaper just to fly.

Post: #37

Have you ever taken Amtrak before? If so, you'll see why it makes zero sense. Delays galore with shared rail and mechanical issues and it would be extremely expensive to build a dedicated rail system for that service.

Post: #38

I've ridden Amtrak before, I know the issues but thats why I think the private sector funding is interesting some are building their own dedicated track. Like I said I don't think we will have a nationwide system. But a few links between major cities I think would be good.

Post: #39

We once had a thriving passenger rail system in this country. It died largely due to over-regulation and cronyism. I am not sure how it would have fared in a truly free market. Unfortunately, we will never know. It's also unlikely that the trains will come back now that the tracks have been ripped out and covered.

Post: #40

(02-19-2017 09:54 PM)puckerman Wrote:  We once had a thriving passenger rail system in this country. It died largely due to over-regulation and cronyism. I am not sure how it would have fared in a truly free market. Unfortunately, we will never know. It's also unlikely that the trains will come back now that the tracks have been ripped out and covered.

Sadly I have to agree. Living in Germany for a bit I really enjoyed taking the D-Bahn around. You could buy a 50% off pass for the entire year and it made things quite nice. Buses were still cheaper, but train travel was a bit more relaxing and central.

To get to my point, within Germany and other select corridors, train travel was great, but that's because they had long ago established routes and corridors, and kept them even after the war, possibly upgrading them, because it was commonly understood that train travel was required. They are even building a a new high speed rail line from Stuttgart towards Munich. Switzerland just finished the longest tunnel in the world and you can go from Stuttgart to Milan in like 3 hours or something silly. Even if the airplane ticket is cheaper, the sheer hassle you save from not getting anally probed in the airport, having to arrive 2 hours early etc... makes it well worth it.

In the states, as far as I know at one point train travel was the way to travel, but those days are gone and it's simply too far gone from peoples consciousness to become popular again. That and the infrastructure would need radical and serious improvement. You can even see an example of this WITHIN Europe, where Train travel becomes much more long and cumbersome as soon as you travel from Germany to Eastern Europe. The connection lines and corridors are just not there and you have to wait for ever to transfer.

A good analogy would be why F-150s will never as be popular in Europe as in the US.

Post: #41

This video answers this question as comprehensively and capably as you could possibly want. Anybody with an interest in the topic should take 10 minutes and watch. It is an absolute must-see on this issue:





Summary of some of the points made in this video:

1. Relatively low population density generally makes train travel a loser in all but a few densely populated parts of the USA. It is cheaper, faster (or, very often, cheaper AND faster) to fly in the vast majority of cases.

2. The vast majority of railway in the USA is owned not by passenger services like Amtrak, but by freight lines like Union Pacific. Nearly all of Amtrak's routes (save for those in the Northeast corridor, where they own a decent amount of track) run on freight lines. The freight companies give their trains priority, meaning passenger trains are forced to wait. This makes rail travel in the USA substantially slower than it might otherwise be. Many of the countries that rail advocates point to as models for the USA to emulate simply do not have this problem. In France (a nation very commonly cited as an example), the national rail company owns all of the track, and passenger trains can get priority over freight trains. This helps speed things up and enhances cost/time efficiency.

3. Not much of Europe's freight is moved by rail (8%). In the USA, just under 40% of freight moves by rail. This means the tracks the USA has are more heavily occupied by freight trains than they are elsewhere. Even if passenger rail did take priority, the USA's relatively heavy reliance on rail for the movement of freight would create more congestion than you see in Europe, hence slower/poorer service and less viability of passenger rail services in the nation.

4. Shit's expensive in the American context due to the way our cities are built. While I mentioned above that the USA generally just isnt suited for high speed rail with its low population density, the fact is that there are areas where high speed rail makes sense. The Northeast Corridor is shaped ideally for it and has several major cities lined up in a straight line. A more modern high speed rail line here (better than the Acela, which is child's play compared to what exists abroad) would not only be plausible, but would make tremendous sense: it might actually be cheaper than flying and would possibly be faster too.

The problem is that rail is johnny-come-lately to this debate. The US rail network was heavily built up before high speed rail was ever a consideration, and cities in the Northeast corridor are so densely populated that there's not much empty space. There simply hasn't been any planning for railway expansion in the way the area has been built up. This means the tracks they do have are of lower standard, leading to slower speeds and relatively higher costs. Upgrading tracks between DC and NYC to the standard we see in places like france would literally cost hundreds of billions. Amtrak can't afford that, and even if they could there's no incentive since the relatively slow routes they already run in the area make money right now. They could be FAR better, sure, but the effort to make them so just isn't considered worth the cost.

That's just a summary of the basic reasons. I'm a big advocate of high speed rail and, were I king, I'd push for better rail services in the USA. I don't think high speed rail makes sense everywhere, but I do believe it should exist where it does (and in many parts of the Northeast, it definitely does). Realistically, though, we're not likely to see the quality of passenger rail service in the USA improve more than incrementally in our lifetimes barring some dramatic and very expensive changes to the fundamental realities seen in the USA today. The cost is just too high and the current obstacles are just too firmly entrenched.

Post: #42

High speed rail is simply not economical feasible given our vast borders and low population density. Remember, there's a reason why our consumer goods are the cheapest in the world. Low shipping costs via rail is part of the equation. Also why we have relatively low taxes. The only rail system makes sense is the NE (already done) and perhaps LA, SD, SF and dallas / houston.

Post: #43

People have a sort of nostalgic love affair for all things rail which is woefully misplaced.

Outside of commuting into a city center, driving a car, taking a bus (direct), or flying will always be faster or cheaper (depending on time needs) than taking a train.

I am finishing up a month long european excursion which I did by car. Curiously, i looked up how much it would be to travel by train.

Train travel was as expensive as flying but took as long as a bus. You get none of the benefits of flying and none of the cost savings of a bus. To me this is pointless.

If Europe didn't price themselves out of driving automobiles for the obvious liberal environmentard reasons trains would go the way of the transatlantic boat crossings.

Car and plane travel are far superiour, bar none.

Post: #44

(02-20-2017 06:08 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  Car and plane travel are far superiour, bar none.

Bar Vactrain. That would be awesome.

Frankly though I don't even like cars. Sitting in an effing unabandonable cage in traffic is the most aggravating thing in the world. Motorbike is the bare minimum to enjoy the road.

Also high speed train is way better than air. No check-in, security, and waiting bullshit (and no turbulence). Just walk into the station and hop on the train with your bag. If cost isn't a factor, I'll take a high speed rail over a car or plane any day.

Post: #45

(02-19-2017 08:22 PM)Razor Beast Wrote:  Have you ever taken Amtrak before? If so, you'll see why it makes zero sense. Delays galore with shared rail and mechanical issues and it would be extremely expensive to build a dedicated rail system for that service.

For a lot of my life I had an (irrational) aversion to flying, so I've probably ridden Amtrak a hundred times by this point and overall have been pleased by the experience. The farthest I've ever taken it was a couple times in my teens and early 20s to visit a relative out west, nearly across the entire country from NYC to Vegas.

Not practical to do every week, but it's a "bucket list" experience to see America like that. When I talk to people about it I'm remembering winding through the Rocky Mountains 7,000 feet up eating a salmon dinner in the dining car with a nice family from Nebraska, much better than anything I was used to at home, thinking what an incredible feat everything I saw around me was.

And they're saying "What? You have to be on the train for two days? And like...sleep near other people? And you don't even have your own shower?"

They definitely don't get it. It will be a shame if and when it's gone.

(02-19-2017 11:35 PM)Robert High Hawk Wrote:  A good analogy would be why F-150s will never as be popular in Europe as in the US.

It's not even a practical vehicle in the US in almost all cases. Americans buy it because they want to look flash while going into debt. Outside of landscaping and construction, businesses in the US that actually make money drive Isuzu and Mitsubishi flat beds and box trucks, same as anywhere else.

A fairly basic work truck F-150: 8' bed, V8 engine, regular cab, black paint job and no other options has an MSRP of nearly 40k these days. If you actually need to haul cargo you can get two Isuzu flatbeds on the used market for that.

Post: #46

Sorry to necro-bump this thread, but since it is a very ever present discussion, here is a great article that summarizes the latest new public rail debacle in the US:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-04...nt-go-well

In short: Florida lawmakers thought that a Miami-Tampa-Orlando rail project would be good (which actually doesn't sound all too far fetched on face value), but no funding and opposition led to a scaled down commuter rail project in Metropolitan Orlando.

thanks to the 2008 post financial crisis stimulus package which allocated $750 million for nation wide rail projects, things got moving and "SunRail" became a reality in 2014 after two years of construction.

Now, ridership is so low, they are not even covering the costs of printing tickets. Can't make this stuff up.

Sad!

Great overall article actually...