MindzEye
Wayward Ditch Pig
As usual, you've managed to miss the point.
OT: The News Thread
- Thread starter MindzEye
- Start date
As usual, you've managed to miss the point.
Bleedsblue&white
Well-known member
Don't laugh. Think of how big this country is and how much money it costs to maintain roads heading North that in the end may only have a few thousand people living there.
We'll just make everybody in Canada live along one road from Vancouver to the tip of Nfld. What the hell do you want to live up there for anyway?
JohnnyHolmes
Banned
That is pretty much already the case.
Up north they can drive on ice roads.
Up north they can drive on ice roads.
Volcanologist
Well-known member
He's only done things like this a million times(ie post a quote from some article he obviously didn't read the rest of).
theREALkoreaboy
New member
you people are complete idiots. one of you clowns thinks they have a brainwave, and the rest of you trip over yourselves trying to out-smug each other with a stupid comment along the same lines.
people have many different options when they want to travel from point A to point B. in NA for most of the past 100 years, rail has been well down on the list when people make that choice. its a sexy mode of transport for the green crowd, but it isnt popular with consumers. proof? it loses money and isn't self-sustainable. so, when there are other viable alternatives that are easy to pick, you go with them.
and comparing schools to amtrak is just lunacy.
people have many different options when they want to travel from point A to point B. in NA for most of the past 100 years, rail has been well down on the list when people make that choice. its a sexy mode of transport for the green crowd, but it isnt popular with consumers. proof? it loses money and isn't self-sustainable. so, when there are other viable alternatives that are easy to pick, you go with them.
and comparing schools to amtrak is just lunacy.
mbow30
Spudmeister Supreme
hilarious how you post a quote that in fact disproves your argument... and then have the audacity to call everybody else idiots.
do you realize that popularity and profitability are two entirely separate things?
the proof that rail in fact IS popular with consumers was provided... BY YOU.
there are problems with the business structure but that says absolutely NOTHING about its popularity as a mode of transport.
do you realize that popularity and profitability are two entirely separate things?
the proof that rail in fact IS popular with consumers was provided... BY YOU.
there are problems with the business structure but that says absolutely NOTHING about its popularity as a mode of transport.
theREALkoreaboy
New member
if it was a viable mode of transportation that was economically efficient it would make money. it isnt, and it doesnt.
MindzEye
Wayward Ditch Pig
Follow the only road!
theREALkoreaboy
New member
and you understand that if something has really low numbers for a long time, that "a record year" doesnt mean a whole lot, right?
MindzEye
Wayward Ditch Pig
Again...the Amtrak northeast corridor is profitable.
Amtrak as an organization with a political mandate to provide sprawling train service to the entire country, isn't.
There's 2 major factors that have changed recently that renders your "it's always been this way" argument moot. High speed rail, and high gas prices. Case in point, since the north east corridor introduced the Acela train, and since fuel became expensive, train travel in the north east corridor is profitable.
mbow30
Spudmeister Supreme
theREALkoreaboy
New member
theREALkoreaboy
New member
i would agree that sustained, lasting high gas prices would make rail more profitable. but is the replacement for the gasoline engine going to come faster and more efficiently than huge new investment in rail?
MindzEye
Wayward Ditch Pig
Who needs a huge new investment? Modern high speed trains run on the same track as standard trains do, and run 220+ kph....whatever replaces the gasoline engine isn't in direct competition with that. High speed rail is a fantastic, cost effective method of moving people between large urban centres located medium distance to each other. Amtrak is the proof of that, not the proof of the opposite that you continue to suggest. Their Acela lines are profitable and heavily traveled.
theREALkoreaboy
New member
we're going to continue to disagree about what constitutes "cost effective". i say amtrak's history proves otherwise. the city of ottawa seemed to disagree when it scrapped its plans for rail.
johnunit
New member
A replacement that is useable on long trips and significantly cheaper and less exposed to oil prices?
I can say with a great deal of certainty it's farther away than the time it would take to build high-speed from Toronto to Montreal.
Remember, even if you think electric cars "work" for a 10 km trip to work, we're probably decades away from a battery pack that'll take a car from Toronto to Ottawa or Montreal. Everything else is still in various way exposed to oil price fluctuations and is nearing the law of diminishing returns as far as efficiency.
corksens
Legend
wrong. flat out wrong.
you. dont. know. what. you. are. talking. about.
hopeychange. regan. teachers are saints.
Volcanologist
Well-known member
something that isn't profitable clearly isn't popular.
you morons have obviously never taken Baggynomics.
you morons have obviously never taken Baggynomics.
MindzEye
Wayward Ditch Pig
Which only proves that you're living in the past and don't know what the **** you're talking about
Which only proves that you're living in the past and don't know what the **** you're talking about
Which only proves that you're living in the past and don't know what the **** you're talking about