Green Maned Lion
Engineer
That would depend on the highway. In some cases, you'd probably have to straighten it a bit in places, increase curve radii, and flatten grades. I admit my comment was an over simplification
Joe Biden Rides Amtrak
- Thread starter PaulLev
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
sky12065
Conductor
Fair enough. Thank you! B)
PaulLev
Train Attendant
But that doesn't mean that the VP is irrelevant on an issue like Amtrak. In fact, a VP taking Amtrak and train travel in America under his (or her) wing could be the best way a resurgence of train travel could helped by the gov - a little under the radar, but with a powerful enough base of support.
sky12065
Conductor
I hope you're right about that, but I won't bank on it! BTW, I heard this morning that McCain could pick a pro-Amtrak VP. However, I don't know if I heard it on Fox news or on another posting on this forum. But if it's true it could just be a win-win situation no matter who is elected! Another BTW, irrevelent to this posting, but for those on this forum that think Fox News is biased, I heard Gov. Randell (D-PA) a Hillary and now Obama supporter, last night personally state that Fox news is defininately Fair and Balanced. Just thought I'd mention it!
PaulLev
Train Attendant
Meanwhile, I assume everyone heard Biden mention his position vs. McCain about Amtrak last night?
sky12065
Conductor
I'm sure many did, but do we really know if his words will result in a better Amtrak anymore that McCains words will result in a status quo or worse? I don't think that this question will truly be answered until we know what Amtrak's situation is four years down the road.
Last edited by a moderator:
I
IndyCars
Guest
Rough life for the common man Biden. He has to rides the Acela Express for $146.00 one way from DC to Wilmington. I wonder how he makes ends meet. It has to be rough sitting next to all the other commuters and crying babies on his way to work! He is just like me, Not!
PaulLev
Train Attendant
He still has more in common with most Americans than Republicans who do their best to see that oil companies make record profits. Any one who rides the rails, including Acela, is building the way to a better transportation system in this country.
I wonder how many AGR points he has???
Joel N. Weber II
Engineer
That's a select city pair, right? So, 750 points each way or 1500 round trip. But perhaps he redeems points every time he has enough for an Acela first class ticket, thus limiting how many points he accumulates.
Nope, Wilmington - DC is not a select city pair. So he'd only be earning 2 X $ in points for each trip.
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
Please, if you are going to rail, quote facts, not nonsense. It hurts your case. Low bucket for WIL to WAS is $83 on the Acela, and the highest price for tomorrow (today, actually) is $125. $146.00 my arse.
As for his monetary position, he IS one of the least wealthy members of the Senate. I don't think he's poor or anything of the sort, but he's a lot more connected to the average person than the very wealthy Mr. McCain. Not that it really is proof of much either way. I've met wealthy people who are quite connected with the reality of life. I've met poor people who aren't. I mean I've met Americans who can't afford to put their children through college, or even buy decent food, yet live in a house that has over 4500 sq ft of living space and drive a brand new BMW. I personally think that person has their connections to reality a little skewed, don't you?
You'd be better served picking on things that are true, primarily involving specific policy issues. But whatever.
J
Just Sayin
Guest
Here's what I cam up with for a first class round trip back on Aug 25th. http://i38.tinypic.com/2lt11sy.jpg $362 round trip.
At least one Republican, the new VP nominee, isn't for that. In fact, she's been criticized for the windfall tax on oil company profits she put in place in Alaska, which has resulted in oil companies actually reducing their exploration up here and instead concentrating on exploring the Gulf of Mexico because it's not as profitable to drill here anymore. The new law she championed for building a natural gas pipeline from the North Slope, AGIA (the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act), has been criticized as too restrictive to the oil companies, which have now formed their own pipeline coalition (Denali: The Alaska Gas Pipeline) that will attempt to proceed without state funding.
So, if anything, Sarah's too much for the people and doesn't give in to the oil companies' demands. I'd hardly call that wanting to put more money in the coffers of "Evil Big Oil"...
Dutchrailnut
Conductor
according to this :
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/opinion/...tml?ref=opinion
New York Times
September 3, 2008
And Then There Was One
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Op-Ed Columnist
As we emerge from Labor Day, college students are gathering back on
campuses not only to start the fall semester, but also, in some cases, to
vote for the first time in a presidential election. There is no bigger issue on
campuses these days than environment/energy. Going into this election, I
thought that — for the first time — we would have a choice between two
“green” candidates. That view is no longer operative — and college
students (and everyone else) need to understand that.
With his choice of Sarah Palin — the Alaska governor who has advocated
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and does not believe
mankind is playing any role in climate change — for vice president, John
McCain has completed his makeover from the greenest Republican to run
for president to just another representative of big oil.
Last edited by a moderator:
G
Guest_George Harris_*
Guest
Remember, Friedman has an axe to grind here. That is he is strongly pro-Obama. Not to mention I have long ago lost any belief of ANYTHING that appears in the New York Bird Cage Liner. As to the belief that mankind does or does not play any role in climate change, the current fad, the jury is still out on that one and likely will be for several years more. I am sure that Friedman is promoting his view toward college students in the thought that this is a group that has not yet developed sufficient scepticism toward politicians that know how to sound good and have very little to back it up.
sky12065
Conductor
G.H., I thought similarily, but you will note that the article at least identified Friedman as an "OP-ED Columnist" which by definition means that the content is "his personal opinion." So what does OP-ED mean under the banner of the NY Times? It means make sure to have the cool-aid tested before you drink it!
Just because Sarah supports opening ANWR and is skeptical that global warming is a man-made problem doesn't equal that she's a shill for the oil companies. That's baseless speculation, whereas I've seen her decisions and policies with my own eyes over the last two years and I've heard the oil company execs squirm in her presence and lambaste her for her policies. They don't like her! Her reasons for wanting ANWR open are purely to support the economy of the state of Alaska and provide wealth and resources for the general population. Even in the brief conversation I had with her personally during her campaign, she didn't try to schmooze me and get my vote by lying that she would support my issue: she told me, to my face, that she did not currently believe it was the best use of our limited resources, but if it turned out to be a good deal for the people of Alaska, she would throw her weight behind it. That's how she operates. As far as his portrayal of Palin goes, Friedman's piece is a load of horse pucky.
(Oh, and if the northern edge of my state is falling into the Arctic Ocean, then Los Angeles is going to be shaken off into the Pacific Ocean during the next earthquake...I'm sorry, but Friedman lost all credibility with that line.)
G
Guest_George Harris_*
Guest
To give credit where credit is due, that was not Friedman's line, but his quotation of Carl Pope, the executive director of the Sierra Club, where he is quoted as saying, among other things, "While the northern edge of her state literally falls into the rising Arctic Ocean, Sarah Palin says, ‘The jury is still out on global warming.’ ”
If this guy belives that melting sea ice results in rising ocean levels, he needs to watch what happens when the ice melts in a level full glass of ice tea. Guess what: It does NOT overflow or rise, not even a hair. So regardless of source, it is an exposition of scientific ignorance, if not downright stupidity. I would regard LA being shaken off into the Pacific in an earthquake as being more likely.
Dutchrailnut
Conductor
you obviously failed Physics in school with global warming your right about north pole, its floating ice.
The south pole is land Ice and will add to surface water of the world, so does melting of all Ice on Glaciers like in Switserland and Austria , which by the way are melting at alarming rate.
G
Guest_George Harris_*
Guest
Then you must have failed reading. Did you notice I said SEA ICE.
So far, as far as the effect of glacial melting all I have seen is arm waving and running around in circles and wild numbers being thrown out with no back up. Lets see some real numbers by some real scientists that include such things as
1. Volume of ice in glaciers
2. Surface area of ocean at current elevation and plus 1 foot, 2 foot, etc elevation so that the volume necessary for a foot of rise can be calculated.
3. Volume of sea water lost due to evaporation, as warmer temperatures increases both the ability of the air to hold water and the amout evaported from the ocean surface, plus higher rainfall over various land masses will result in more water in lakes, rivers, and the ground.
And, while we are at it, lets see comparisons of previous projectsion with observed reality, such as, take the prujections made say 10 year ago and compare with the observations over that period, then 20 years ago and do the same and so forth. That is the only way there can be any confirmation of the reasonableness of the projection modeling.
When we see these things, then it can be determined if there is any credibility to these "global warming" related claims of impending disaster, and not before.
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
First of all, I don't think anyone is denying global warming is happening. If you are, you're kinda dumb. The question is, "did we cause it, and if so, what can we do about it?"
That being said, we should be operating on the basis that there is something we can do about it. Why? Because if there is, we shouldn't wait until its too late. If there isn't, ok, we wasted some money. Good lord, we're Americans. Wasting money is what we do. If we fail on this, we all die much sooner than we are sitting here thinking about.
That being said, we should be operating on the basis that there is something we can do about it. Why? Because if there is, we shouldn't wait until its too late. If there isn't, ok, we wasted some money. Good lord, we're Americans. Wasting money is what we do. If we fail on this, we all die much sooner than we are sitting here thinking about.
G
Guest
Guest
And this is the typical response of anyone believing in global warming when anyone asks for back up of their assertions. Name calling. Skip this nonsense and the insults and try for some facts, or simply go away until you do have some facts and knowledge of whereof you speak.
Actually, there are a lot of people with serious scientific credentials that question whether or not "global warming" is real on the one hand and that the disaster scenarios that are postulated are real even if the warming itself is real on the other hand. They just do not get the press that the others do.
No. the first question is, is it real or a short term statistical blip.
Doing the wrong thing is frequently worse than doing nothing at all. First and foremost, IS IT REAL? If it is, then do serious scientific analysis rather than try to find some feel-good quick fix.
As I said before, global warming or no global warming, we must start treating oil and other fossil fuels as finite resources to be conserved, and spend serious efforts on determining alternate methods of generating electricity and alternate sources of fuel that can be used reliably and in huge quantities. Doing anything else is simply trying to look like you are doing something.
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
Pfui.
Here's a question for you. If ya have a snow ball rolling down a hill that may or may not hit your house, at what point do you decide it is going to hit, and at that point, can you still actually stop it?
In any case, there really isn't a disadvantage to generally moving towards lower impact forms of technology on the whole. But meh. You're just arguing with me because you enjoy arguing with me.
Here's a question for you. If ya have a snow ball rolling down a hill that may or may not hit your house, at what point do you decide it is going to hit, and at that point, can you still actually stop it?
In any case, there really isn't a disadvantage to generally moving towards lower impact forms of technology on the whole. But meh. You're just arguing with me because you enjoy arguing with me.
G
Guest_George Harris_*
Guest
GML, I am not arguing with you for the sake of doing it, although I might suspect you of that. I am in full agreement with the first sentence of your last paragraph, In fact if you read mine, you would see,
"As I said before, global warming or no global warming, we must start treating oil and other fossil fuels as finite resources to be conserved, and spend serious efforts on determining alternate methods of generating electricity and alternate sources of fuel that can be used reliably and in huge quantities. Doing anything else is simply trying to look like you are doing something."
My concern is that if we start conserving and looking for alternatives because we fear GLOBAL WARMING, is that if Global Warming turns out to nonsense it will discredit the need to conserve and find alternate fuels because the main justification proposed proved to be false. We must start taking our rate of fuel consumption very seriously, global warming or no global warming. If we do it because the supply is finite and the import of fuel is both bleeding our own economy white and supporting some of the worst nut case governments in the world, those reasons stand, global warming or no global warming.
I do put my money where my mouth is on this. That is one of the primary reasons I have spent most of my working life in rail, mostly urban rail transit and long distance rail passenger systems, plus a little on the freight side. And, oh by the way, am currently living carless in San Francisco.
- Status
