by Newfie » Mon 10 Feb 2014, 21:43:46
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', '
')SOME light rail makes sense....Can we agree on that?
Of course. Thats what I've been saying all along.
Glad to see you agree with me.
I'd go another step and say SOME high speed rail makes sense. Can we agree on that too?
CHEERS!
Whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosssssssshhhhhhhh! No!
But I see you don't care to work on anything cooperatively.
by Plantagenet » Mon 10 Feb 2014, 22:04:12
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'S')OME high speed rail makes sense. Can we agree on that too?
CHEERS!
No!
OK. You say "No!" to high speed rail, and I'm a supporter. Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree then.
Back to the thread topic---Do you have any thoughts on how the NE could cut carbon pollution by 75% without switching to light rail, HSR, and other forms of mass transit?

by Keith_McClary » Tue 11 Feb 2014, 00:30:43
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'B')ack to the thread topic---Do you have any thoughts on how the NE could cut carbon pollution by 75% without switching to light rail, HSR, and other forms of mass transit?
In
Fissures in G.O.P. as Some Conservatives Embrace R E$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'Y')es, its even the job of government to build railroads. Almost all railroads have been paid for or subsidized by government.
In the US in the 19th century private companies built railroads across the continent, but the work was supported by huge subsidies and direct land grants to the railroads from the federal government. The federal government put up the money for the railroads even then.
Every city wants an airport (preferably international) with lots of connecting flights. This is perceived to boost the local economy. They also demand better highway connections for the same reasons. But there does not seem to be a similar political demand for passenger rail. That may be partly because the subsidized railroads ended up in private hands and they consider passenger service an obstacle to their more profitable freight business.
Facebook knows you're a dog.
by Keith_McClary » Tue 11 Feb 2014, 01:43:54
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'B')ut Peak Oil is going to change the economy. In the future oil and gas prices are going to go way up.
Air travel will become much more expensive. Travel in private automobiles will become much more expensive.
Mass transit, including train travel, will become more popular as rising gasoline prices put driving and flying beyond the reach of most people.
You're sounding like KJ with his space colony religion. It will happen just because people want it.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '[')img]http://theplanetd.com/images/train-travel-Sri-Lanka-9.jpg[/img]
mass transit via train in Sri Lanka
The guy in the striped shirt looks familiar.
Facebook knows you're a dog.
by Newfie » Tue 11 Feb 2014, 23:27:45
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'S')OME high speed rail makes sense. Can we agree on that too?
CHEERS!
No!
OK. You say "No!" to high speed rail, and I'm a supporter. Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree then.
Back to the thread topic---Do you have any thoughts on how the NE could cut carbon pollution by 75% without switching to light rail, HSR, and other forms of mass transit?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '.') Newfie said....
I do believe there are areas where we could agree.
SOME light rail makes sense.
HVDC conversion makes sense.
Can we agree on that?
Assuming we do agree, so what? How will that change anything?
Seriously. Find the areas where we all agree, then we can put concentrated effort into that.
Or are we here solely for the purpose of picking a fight?