The "Green" New Deal solves HS Rail Travel

Discussion in 'High Speed and Other Non-Amtrak Intercity Rail' started by Rover, Feb 7, 2019.

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

  1. Feb 7, 2019 #1

    Rover

    Rover

    Rover

    Lead Service Attendant AU Supporter

    Joined:
    May 13, 2015
    Messages:
    399
    Location:
    N. Texas
  2. Feb 7, 2019 #2

    Pere Flyer

    Pere Flyer

    Pere Flyer

    Lead Service Attendant

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2016
    Messages:
    312
    Location:
    Providence, R.I.; Grand Rapids, Mich.
    If the US is to be carbon-neutral, air travel via jet fuel must be drastically reduced, if not eliminated.
     
    AcrossTheOcean likes this.
  3. Feb 7, 2019 #3

    chrsjrcj

    c

    chrsjrcj

    OBS Chief

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    West Palm Beach, FL
    How about a source from a less obviously biased website? 
     
  4. Feb 7, 2019 #4

    keelhauled

    k

    keelhauled

    OBS Chief

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2014
    Messages:
    802
    Location:
    Camorr
    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. Feb 7, 2019 #5

    chrsjrcj

    c

    chrsjrcj

    OBS Chief

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    West Palm Beach, FL
    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. 
     
  6. Feb 7, 2019 #6

    cpotisch

    cpotisch

    cpotisch

    Conductor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2017
    Messages:
    7,513
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    No kidding. We've got some serious strawman-ing happening here. :rolleyes:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 7, 2019
  7. Feb 7, 2019 #7

    Ryan

    Ryan

    Ryan

    Conductor

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Messages:
    16,727
    Location:
    OTN
    Thirded.
     
  8. Feb 7, 2019 #8

    keelhauled

    k

    keelhauled

    OBS Chief

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2014
    Messages:
    802
    Location:
    Camorr
    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.

    Am I shouting at the wind here?

     
  9. Feb 8, 2019 #9

    Rover

    Rover

    Rover

    Lead Service Attendant AU Supporter

    Joined:
    May 13, 2015
    Messages:
    399
    Location:
    N. Texas



    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:

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 8, 2019
  10. Feb 8, 2019 #10

    Ryan

    Ryan

    Ryan

    Conductor

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Messages:
    16,727
    Location:
    OTN
    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.

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 8, 2019
  11. Feb 8, 2019 #11

    Rover

    Rover

    Rover

    Lead Service Attendant AU Supporter

    Joined:
    May 13, 2015
    Messages:
    399
    Location:
    N. Texas
    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.
     
  12. Feb 8, 2019 #12

    Ryan

    Ryan

    Ryan

    Conductor

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Messages:
    16,727
    Location:
    OTN
    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. 
     
  13. Feb 8, 2019 #13

    jis

    jis

    jis

    Conductor AU Lifetime Supporter Gathering Team Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Messages:
    23,882
    Location:
    Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
    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.
     
  14. Feb 8, 2019 #14

    VentureForth

    VentureForth

    VentureForth

    Conductor

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,796
    Location:
    Richmond Hill, GA
    It's a resolution from which to build several "bills".
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 8, 2019
  15. Feb 8, 2019 #15

    Ryan

    Ryan

    Ryan

    Conductor

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Messages:
    16,727
    Location:
    OTN
    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.
     
  16. Feb 9, 2019 #16

    Rover

    Rover

    Rover

    Lead Service Attendant AU Supporter

    Joined:
    May 13, 2015
    Messages:
    399
    Location:
    N. Texas
    Just so I know, what unpartisan source do you recommend for bringing forth a topic that people will take sides on??
     
  17. Feb 9, 2019 #17

    cpotisch

    cpotisch

    cpotisch

    Conductor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2017
    Messages:
    7,513
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    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.
     
  18. Feb 9, 2019 #18

    jis

    jis

    jis

    Conductor AU Lifetime Supporter Gathering Team Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Messages:
    23,882
    Location:
    Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
    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.
     
  19. Feb 10, 2019 #19

    Rover

    Rover

    Rover

    Lead Service Attendant AU Supporter

    Joined:
    May 13, 2015
    Messages:
    399
    Location:
    N. Texas

    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.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 10, 2019
  20. Feb 10, 2019 #20

    GBNorman

    G

    GBNorman

    OBS Chief AU Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2017
    Messages:
    573
    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:

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 10, 2019
  21. Feb 10, 2019 #21

    cpotisch

    cpotisch

    cpotisch

    Conductor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2017
    Messages:
    7,513
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    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.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 10, 2019
  22. Feb 10, 2019 #22

    GBNorman

    G

    GBNorman

    OBS Chief AU Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2017
    Messages:
    573
    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
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 10, 2019
  23. Feb 12, 2019 #23

    VentureForth

    VentureForth

    VentureForth

    Conductor

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,796
    Location:
    Richmond Hill, GA
    Its creation was hyper-political.
     
  24. Feb 12, 2019 #24

    cpotisch

    cpotisch

    cpotisch

    Conductor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2017
    Messages:
    7,513
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    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?
     
  25. Feb 12, 2019 #25

    Ryan

    Ryan

    Ryan

    Conductor

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Messages:
    16,727
    Location:
    OTN
    It’s easy to base you opinions on someone else’s biased opinion when you agree with that biased opinion. 
     

Share This Page



arrow_white