XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.railroad, misc.transport.rail.europe   
   XPost: sac.politics   
      
   In article <0fb75f62-e044-4fb6-a7b0-   
   202a2c76b737@googlegroups.com>   
   trainguard  wrote:   
   >   
   > On Saturday, 14 January 2017 16:00:07 UTC, Byker  wrote:   
   >   
   > That he is another idiot who doesn't know what a HST is........   
      
   Homosexual Syphilis Test, something Euro homos specialize in.   
      
   > We have them in Europe, but dumb Americans who live in shit holes never get   
   that far....   
      
   Let's refine that, "dumb democrat Americans who live in shit   
   holes never get that far...."   
      
   Now it's accurate.   
      
   > > "Steve"  wrote in message news:rfuj7c5375knpklrhp0h0vmr034g0   
   r2mr@4ax.com...   
   > > >   
   > > > Canyon Note:  Thankfully, Florida turned this Federal boondoggle down and   
   > > > gave it to California..   
   > > >   
   > > > http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-cost-   
   verruns-20170106-story.html   
   > >   
   > > I swear, ever since Japan introduced its "bullet" train fifty years ago,   
   > > there's been talk about setting one up in the U.S., usually in California.   
   > > These programs never get off square one, no matter how much money and   
   > > enthusiasm is thrown at them, primarily because there can be no grade   
   > > crossings.  All traffic would have to go under it or over it, and cities   
   > > would have to be gutted to make way for high-speed rails that can only be   
   > > used by high-speed trains.  As it stands now, only a third of the route   
   from   
   > > L.A. to Frisco can be used for high speed, because it's primarily farmland.   
   > > I suppose they'll try to use "eminent domain" laws to clear everything else   
   > > out of the way (fat chance).   
   > >   
   > > A Google search tells it all: http://tinyurl.com/p66jk9h   
   >   
   > God, that's funny!   
   >   
   > >   
   > > Even if it was built, it would still be faster to fly from LAX to SFO...   
   >   
   > Bollocks!   
      
   Not bollocks, fact you math deficient knuckle-dragger.   
      
   On the fastest train (AmTrak) it takes 9 hours and 45 minutes to   
   get up there, mostly because of the mountains out of Los   
   Angeles, lack of tangent track, and all the stops it has to   
   make.  Depending on your route, you might even have to take a   
   fucking bus from the station in LA to Bakersfield.  Tehachapi   
   will see AmTrak #11 & #14 for two weeks in 2017 amongst all the   
   freight.  Other PAX trains go up the coast route.   
      
   As for flying, it's not much better.   
      
   You spend 2 hours at the airport with the useless TSA union   
   asswipes before you get to board the plane, 1.5 hours flight   
   time with no delays, another hour to get your bags, rental car   
   or transportation to BART.  It will be another 30 minutes, hour,   
   or two hours before reaching your destination in the congested   
   San Francisco/bay area.  That's 5-6+ hours from start to finish   
   and you get there all pissed off, usually late.  Flying is a   
   horrible trip in the modern era.   
      
   It is 5 h 30 min (379 miles) drive time between LAX and SFO   
   assuming you average around 70 MPH.   
      
   If you average between 75-80 MPH as many of us do, you can get   
   there in a little less than 5 hours.  I know that for a fact   
   because I've done it numerous times in rental cars.   
      
   On a Kawaski KZ motorcycle my best time is 3 hours and 52   
   minutes. On a bike I average about 4 hours 20-30 minutes between   
   LA from the 101/405 interchange and fringes of SF.   
      
   I can ride a motorcyle to SF, fix hardware, and get back to the   
   SoCal region in less than 12 hours.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)