Jump to content
Rover

The "Green" New Deal solves HS Rail Travel

Recommended Posts

If the US is to be carbon-neutral, air travel via jet fuel must be drastically reduced, if not eliminated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will never happen, and only serves to diminish the credibility of whoever advocates for it.

12 minutes ago, chrsjrcj said:

How about a source from a less obviously biased website? 

There is a link to a PDF in the article, which appears to be the talking points the authors plan to use.

Interestingly, the text of the resolution is far less expansive; its points on transportation are "overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in—
(i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing;
(ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and
(iii) high-speed rail."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fail to see how any of that diminishes the credibility of whoever advocates for it. I figured most here would support high speed rail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, chrsjrcj said:

How about a source from a less obviously biased website? 

No kidding. We've got some serious strawman-ing happening here. :rolleyes:

Edited by cpotisch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chrsjrcj said:

How about a source from a less obviously biased website? 

Thirded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, chrsjrcj said:

I fail to see how any of that diminishes the credibility of whoever advocates for it. I figured most here would support high speed rail. 

It depends on the execution.  If the goal was to build out high speed rail to point where air travel stops being necessary for itineraries below, I don't know, 500 miles or something, 800 if you want to get ambitious, whatever, that I can get behind.  But the idea that ground transportation is adequate to serve the entirety of a country as large as the United States is foolish.  Air travel will always win out on transcontinental trips, and probably on inter-regional travel as well (Texas to pretty much anywhere, Northeast--Florida/Caribbean, Midwest--West Coast, etc) based on travel time, even in a universe where we had infrastructure capable of supporting 300 mph trains.  And because we don't have that infrastructure, how can it be justified to pour the money and resources into building rail lines that become more costly and resource-intensive as they become longer and less competitive with air?  How many trillions of cubic yards of concrete would it take, how much diesel burned in the construction equipment, how much wildlife destroyed to punch the rails through?  And how in the world do you pay for it?

The goal should be to better integrate America's various modes of transportation in ways that they support each other to make the whole system as efficient as possible.  Rail lines should be anchored by significant population points, with buses or personal vehicles feeding them from outlying areas.  In turn, in addition to serving city centers, rail lines should be laid into major airports to feed trans- and intercontinental flights, replacing inefficient regional aircraft and allowing greater overall passenger capacity through airports as larger aircraft on major long haul routes can take slots used by short haul flights now.  Trying to make a single mode of transport the default doesn't work in a country and travel market as large as the US.  It doesn't work for cars and airplanes, but it also doesn't work for rail.  The idea that rail travel, at any speed, can somehow be a magic bullet that works for everyone is never going to happen, and trying to make it happen is only going to waste unfathomable sums of money and make lots of people very, very unhappy.

49 minutes ago, Ryan said:

Thirded.

Am I shouting at the wind here?

1 hour ago, keelhauled said:

Interestingly, the text of the resolution is far less expansive...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, chrsjrcj said:

How about a source from a less obviously biased website? 

 

5 hours ago, keelhauled said:

This will never happen, and only serves to diminish the credibility of whoever advocates for it.

There is a link to a PDF in the article, which appears to be the talking points the authors plan to use.

Interestingly, the text of the resolution is far less expansive; its points on transportation are "overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in—
(i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing;
(ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and
(iii) high-speed rail."

 

5 hours ago, cpotisch said:

No kidding. We've got some serious strawman-ing happening here. :rolleyes:

 

4 hours ago, Ryan said:

Thirded.

If you go the .pdf link mentioned in the opening paragraph of the story, https://www.atr.org/sites/default/files/assets/greennewdeal.pdf you will see, if you read, on page 5, this, and I quote:

Quote

Totally overhaul transportation by massively expanding electric vehicle manufacturing, build charging stations everywhere, build out highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary, create affordable public transit available to all, with goal to replace every combustion-engine vehicle.

 

Edited by Rover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read the actual resolution (linked just above yours), the quote isn't there.  Primary sources and all that jazz.  Emphasis mine:

Edit:  Here's a reason that the code editor would be helpful.  These quotes are all horked up with no obvious way to fix them.

 

Quote

overhauling transportation systems in

the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in—

(i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing;

(ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and

(iii) high-speed rail;

3 hours ago, keelhauled said:

Am I shouting at the wind here?

I don't know the word for fourth.  Fourthded? :D

Edited by Ryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, the part I was quoting was from the Resolution Summary. Regardless of what the Bill says, this Summary is a statement of what they want, however unlikely it is they could get that to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s not a bill, it’s a resolution, and it’s a pretty poor summary if it includes things that aren’t in the actual resolution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAICS the resolution has merit. The article is a poorly written clickbait red meat thrown at you know what type worthy of being disposed in a trashbin. Just IMHO of course.

 

BTW, too bad no mention of railway electrification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ryan said:

It’s not a bill, it’s a resolution, and it’s a pretty poor summary if it includes things that aren’t in the actual resolution. 

It's a resolution from which to build several "bills".

Edited by VentureForth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm well aware of that, and never claimed otherwise.

Have any of the bills been written?  No.

Do any of the unwritten bills have the end of air travel in them?  See above.

I'll avoid the partisan hype and evaluate this on what's actually written down, not what people say about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2019 at 4:57 AM, jis said:

AFAICS the resolution has merit. The article is a poorly written clickbait red meat thrown at you know what type emoji57.png worthy of being disposed in a trashbin. Just IMHO of course.

 

BTW, too bad no mention of railway electrification.

Just so I know, what unpartisan source do you recommend for bringing forth a topic that people will take sides on??

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rover said:

Just so I know, what unpartisan source do you recommend for bringing forth a topic that people will take sides on??

Just because a topic is partisan doesn't mean that all sources are equally partisan. ATR is a highly biased source that makes no clear effort to mitigate its biases.

Look for an actual news/journalism outlet, not advocacy groups with a clear agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just so I know, what unpartisan source do you recommend for bringing forth a topic that people will take sides on??

 

The actual resolution would be most appropriate. Let people decide based on the original text instead of being fed someone else’s opinion about it with random occasionally outrageous extensions that has little to do with the original resolution.

 

I thought this should have been elementarily obvious, but I guess not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, cpotisch said:

Just because a topic is partisan doesn't mean that all sources are equally partisan. ATR is a highly biased source that makes no clear effort to mitigate its biases.

Look for an actual news/journalism outlet, not advocacy groups with a clear agenda.

 

4 hours ago, jis said:

The actual resolution would be most appropriate. Let people decide based on the original text instead of being fed someone else’s opinion about it with random occasionally outrageous extensions that has little to do with the original resolution.

 

I thought this should have been elementarily obvious, but I guess not. emoji57.png

Okay, I get what you're saying. I'll do better next time. I was lazy, and just went with the first news article that came up.

Edited by Rover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2019 at 3:08 PM, chrsjrcj said:

How about a source from a less obviously biased website? 

Still a column, but at least appearing in recognized media:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-socialist-that-could-11549583738?shareToken=stabaf68e3df124de095dde6ef8e7e2f09&ref=article_email_share

Fair Use:

And that might be the easy part. According to an accompanying fact sheet, the Green New Deal would also get rid of combustion engines, “build charging stations everywhere,” “upgrade or replace every building in U.S.,” do the same with all “infrastructure,” and crisscross the nation with “high-speed rail
Edited by GBNorman
Add Fair Use quotation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, GBNorman said:

That is an opinion piece written by a woman known to be very right-wing (Kimberley Strassel), and once again, we have a serious straw man happening. I don't see why it's so hard to post an actual article or primary source, and not a column or op-ed with an agenda.

So here is the actual, official resolution, which objectively shows what is being suggested. Take from it what you wish.

Edited by cpotisch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Potisch, because I was unable to locate such in my weekly stack of Times and Journals. The first thing I could locate was Ms. Strassel's column, which  I have to believe you must acknowledge appeared within recognized media.

Be it noted, however, that I carefully reported the material was a column.

However, with that said, I thank you for locating a source document, and to which I will add REPORTING by the two major national print news sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/climate/green-new-deal.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/green-new-deal-democrats-position-climate-change-as-central-issue-in-2020-11549630802?shareToken=st02ae8ddc386948c988d9214df35130f0&ref=article_email_share

 

Edited by GBNorman
Additional Content

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 6:48 PM, Ryan said:

I'll avoid the partisan hype and evaluate this on what's actually written down, not what people say about it.

Its creation was hyper-political.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VentureForth said:
On 2/8/2019 at 6:48 PM, Ryan said:

I'll avoid the partisan hype and evaluate this on what's actually written down, not what people say about it.

Its creation was hyper-political.

Sure, but that still doesn't mean we should be basing our own opinions on this from extremely right wing sources. Conclude yourself what its merits are and are not from what is actually being proposed. Can you give me any reason why we should be basing our opinions on this deal off of someone else's obviously biased opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×