Will Climate Get Some Respect Now?
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: October 31, 2012 170 Comments
President Obama and Mitt Romney seemed determined not to discuss climate change in this campaign. So thanks to Hurricane Sandy for forcing the issue: Isn’t it time to talk not only about weather, but also about climate?
It’s true, of course, that no single storm or drought can be attributed to climate change. Atlantic hurricanes in the Northeast go way back, as the catastrophic “snow hurricane” of 1804 attests. But many scientists believe that rising carbon emissions could make extreme weather — like Sandy — more likely.
“You can’t say any one single event is reflective of climate change,” William Solecki, the co-chairman of the New York City Panel on Climate Change, told me. “But it’s illustrative of the conditions and events and scenarios that we expect with climate change.”
In that sense, whatever its causes, Sandy offers a window into the way ahead.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York says he told President Obama the other day that it seems “we have a 100-year flood every two years now.” Indeed, The Times has reported that three of the 10 biggest floods in Lower Manhattan since 1900 have occurred in the last three years.
So brace yourself, for several reasons:
• Hurricanes form when the ocean is warm, and that warmth is their fuel. The Atlantic waters off the East Coast set a record high temperature this summer. Presumably most of that is natural variation, and some is human-induced climate change.
• Computer models suggest that hurricanes won’t necessarily become more frequent, but they may become stronger. As the United States Global Change Research Program, a collaboration of federal agencies, puts it, “The intensity of these storms is likely to increase in this century.”
• Climate change adds moisture to the atmosphere, which may mean that storms come with more rain and more flooding.
• Sandy was particularly destructive because it was prevented from moving back out to sea by a “blocking pattern” associated with the jet stream. There’s debate about this, but one recent study suggested that melting sea ice in the Arctic may lead to such blocking.
• Rising seas create a higher baseline for future storm surges. The New York City Panel on Climate Change has projected that coastal waters may rise by two feet by 2050 and four feet by the end of the century.
I was schooled in the far-reaching changes under way several years ago by Eskimos in Alaska, who told me of their amazement at seeing changes in their Arctic village — from melting permafrost to robins (for which their Inupiat language has no word), and even a (shivering) porcupine. If we can’t see that something extraordinary is going on in the world around us, we’re in trouble.
“Of the 10 warmest summers on record for the contiguous United States, seven have occurred since 2000,” notes Jake Crouch of the National Climatic Data Center.
They include this summer’s drought in the United States, the worst in more than half a century.
“For the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change,” James E. Hansen, a NASA climate scientist, recently wrote in The Washington Post.
Politicians have dropped the ball, but so have those of us in the news business. The number of articles about climate change fell by 41 percent from 2009 to 2011, according to DailyClimate.org.
There are no easy solutions, but we may need to invest in cleaner energy, impose a carbon tax or other curbs on greenhouse gases, and, above all, rethink how we can reduce the toll of a changing climate. For example, we may not want to rebuild in some coastal areas that have been hammered by Sandy.
We’ll also need a stronger FEMA — which makes Romney’s past suggestions that FEMA be privatized particularly myopic.
(That’s almost as bizarre as Michael Brown, the FEMA director during Hurricane Katrina, scolding Obama for responding to Sandy “so quickly.”)
Democrats have been AWOL on climate change, but Republicans have been even more recalcitrant. Their failure is odd, because in other areas of national security Republicans pride themselves on their vigilance. Romney doesn’t want to wait until he sees an Iranian nuclear weapon before acting, so why the passivity about climate change?
Along with eight million others, the Kristofs have lost power, so I’ve been sending Twitter messages on my iPhone by candlelight — an odd juxtaposition that feels like a wake-up call. In the candlelit aftermath of a future hurricane, I’m guessing, we’ll look back at the silence about climate in the 2012 election and ask: “What were they thinking?”
it's because humankind is innately stupid and selfish. if they don't see an immediate and direct result or solution from their action, they don't give a shit. and especially if there's nothing in it for them personally. how many people actually fucking take the time to recycle their tomato soup cans? not one of those people is going to sell their car and ride the bus to work in the winter, or spend thousands of dollars to green up their home.
not gonna happen. we're fucked.
Wow- Honestly- these are great points here.
"Humankind is innately stupid": For the most part the last ten thousand years of our being here: stupid and fucked up. The three million years before that? Lately I've been reading that those years very well may have been mostly good and we were in balance with the rest of the deal. Maybe there are things we can learn from that.
Instant gratification: we're addicted to it. That's a hard habit to kick but the alternative offers better rewards.
Recycling: Silly isn't it? Such a basic first step. It's not universally done? That's difficult to digest- but true.
When I lived in the city: no car. Why drive there?
Here- it's pretty much a necessity although ride sharing, no drive days, excellent fuel efficiency help.
Insulation can be bought by the rich and scavenged but the not rich. Water temp and usage is easy to monitor- go camping now and then- good practice.
Yes, we're pretty much fucked but not for good I don't think. I'm guessing Mother Nature still has some balancing acts up her sleeve. And doing what we can to slow the collapse of things down makes more sense to me than major melt downs.
it's because for most of humankind's existence, our species took and used what we needed. You didn't see a caveman killing a mammoth just for fun. he had to work for it, respected the circle of life, and killed what he needed for food and clothing. we don't need that shit anymore, but we do it MORE.
"I need to drive a 10 ton tank around because I may haul one 2x4 every month or so". They wanna look like that tough guy on the Dodge Ram commercial.
I do my best to recycle everything that should be. But as, I think it was polaris, maybe someone else, said, we're all hypocrites. I leave my computer on overnight sometimes, if I'm downloading something or if I plain out forget. I leave lights on sometimes. I take my mini van when I could take my compact car.
it's a culture of wants and we're all guilty of it, it just depends on degree. Some people don't care at all, and are downright reckless, some care a little, and some live like gypsys (I have a friend who reuses her bathwater for her kids for a week). Unfortunately, those that do the most in this world are seen by the masses as freaks who are a subculture of society, when in reality, they are the ones who should be revered for their dedication to our survival.
Without Earth, we die. But since it's almost certain to happen after we're gone, it's not immediate enough to worry about for most. And when it is immediate enough to take action, it will be WAY too late.
As Awnold once said: "it's in your nature to destroy yourselves". too bad we're taking every other living being with us.
.... It's really not that hard. Sometimes I'm shocked at how addicted to extreme convenience people are (even in a place where everything is SO convenient just with the essentials). I do not and never have owned a car. I walk and take public transit. I feel happy that I have never become addicted to a car, because all those who have one are ADDICTED to them. Meanwhile, news keeps coming out about how traffic congestion is getting worse and worse and people are stuck in their cars more and more, and whining about gas prices and repairs... yet no one will get out of their cars, and have every excuse in the book. I'm getting sick of all the excuses. They are almost all just bullshit (yes of course there is still true necessity for some). I mean, for things to really change, people have to plan their LIVES in a way so they can live greener. Better planning as to where they live vs where they work, decisions on what they really need vs what they want (I.e. energy efficient condo or two-level house with three bathrooms and an outrageous heating bill?), not try and fit green into lives that don't accommodate it. But very, very few people are actually willing to do that. Until people are, yeah, we're fucked.
Recycling? Seriously? All one needs to do is set aside the recyclable materials and carry them outside. Not exactly back breaking. Yet some people are apparently too lazy even for that? :fp:
I do not own a home computer, which are major energy suckers. Why? I don't need a PC at home to do my job, so why have one and gobble electricity when a computer can fit in my pocket and use only a tiny amount of rechargeable battery power, and that uses a small fraction of materials to be produced?? There is a green solution, though, that no one is willing to take up. Why? Oh, because the screen is too small. Oh, but i can't play WoW on a smartphone. Boo hoo hoo. :roll:
And really, turning off the lights is so basic, yet people still seem to think this needs mention, leading me to believe a lot of people don't? Crazy man. Just crazy.
People are not willing to sacrifice anything that actually means anthing, and frankly, if i even suggest they ought to put in more effort, I'm sure I'd be met with indignant anger and such arguements as "yeah, but you eat meat and wear clothes and watch TV so fuck you! ... yes people; i have a footprint too... i too am only doing the easy stuff so that i can live a cushy life - I am no more above reproach than anyone). So by all means, please don't take this as any suggestion that you should actually do anything I've decided to do, because I truly don't expect people to do these things. My point is simply that people will NEVER do what actually needs doing. And that is that. But we do need to TRY HARDER.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,408
Recycling is good, reduce use is better. You are encouraging the deforestation of the world through your business practices.
Sooner or later I'll catch on to you sense of humor, Cincy. I'm a little slow these days- you might say a little tattered and dog eared myself. But you have to admit, your post did sound like a personal attack. Did I not say we are all part of the problem? Did I not say we could all do better? And if I have ever said that I am better than anyone else, call me on it- but I don't ever recall doing that.
Reading used books does reduce so I'm still not sure I get your point. I try to maintain a carefully selected inventory of quality books. I also spend what often seems like a ridiculous amount of time mending good books that I believe are worth the effort to keep in circulation. Using less includes keeping what's already out there going as long as possible. I do that with everything I own.
Missoula resident and writer Richard Manning said in his book Rewilding the West,
"Almost any competent scientist could develop a system of rules and a schedule of harvests that would make either logging or commercial fishing sustainable."
This hasn't happened, of course, but it could. There is no reason building housing or printing books needs to deforest the world.
And Manning knows his stuff. His work has done much to save parts of Montana from reckless industrial abuse. But in case you get the impression that Manning is just another milk toast urban environmentalist, it is a fact that he would fit in with and be more comfortable in a red neck bar in Lincoln Montana than he would in a juice bar in Marin, CA.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
.... It's really not that hard. Sometimes I'm shocked at how addicted to extreme convenience people are (even in a place where everything is SO convenient just with the essentials). I do not and never have owned a car. I walk and take public transit. I feel happy that I have never become addicted to a car, because all those who have one are ADDICTED to them. Meanwhile, news keeps coming out about how traffic congestion is getting worse and worse and people are stuck in their cars more and more, and whining about gas prices and repairs... yet no one will get out of their cars, and have every excuse in the book. I'm getting sick of all the excuses. They are almost all just bullshit (yes of course there is still true necessity for some). I mean, for things to really change, people have to plan their LIVES in a way so they can live greener. Better planning as to where they live vs where they work, decisions on what they really need vs what they want (I.e. energy efficient condo or two-level house with three bathrooms and an outrageous heating bill?), not try and fit green into lives that don't accommodate it. But very, very few people are actually willing to do that. Until people are, yeah, we're fucked.
Recycling? Seriously? All one needs to do is set aside the reachable materials and carry them outside. Not exactly back breaking. Yet some people are appareny my too lazy even for that? :fp:
I do not own a home computer, which are major energy suckers. Why? Indon't need a PC at home to do my job, so why have one and gobble electricity when a computer can fit in my pocket and use only a tiny amount of rechargeable battery power?? There is a green solution, though, that no one is willing to take up. Why? Oh, because the screen is too small. Oh, but i can't play WoW. Boo hoo hoo. :roll:
And really, turning off the lights is so basic, yet people still seem to think this needs mention, leading me to believe a lot of people don't? Crazy man. Just crazy.
People are not willing to sacrifice anything that actually means anthing, and frankly, if i even suggest they ought to put in more effort, I'm sure I'd be met with indignant anger and such arguements as "yeah, but you eat meat and wear clothes and watch TV so fuck you! ... yes people; i have a footprint too... i too am only doing the easy stuff so that i can live a cushy life - I am no more above reproach than anyone). So by all means, please don't take this as any suggestion that you should actually do anything I've decided to do, because I truly don't expect people to do these things. My point is simply that people will NEVER do what actually needs doing. And that is that. But we do need to TRY HARDER.
no, it's not hard at all to do many of these things. it's just not hard wired into society yet to be consious of them. And I don't know how many generations it will take to be hard wired. and by then, will it be too late?
all we can all do is try, right, and hope that everyone eventually figures out that every little thing does actually add up, good and bad.
in the city I live in, Winnipeg, with 2 young girls and a wife, it is getting increasingly difficult to honestly sustain our lives without a car. We are having trouble after just getting rid of our second one. Our transit system sucks, we have no subway, so it can be VERY difficult to get around.
For example, my wife works until 5:15 every day. She works about a 30-45 minute commute from home, depending on the weather and traffic. So she doesn't get home with our van until close to or at 6, in the winter, sometimes later. I pick up my oldest daughter from daycare on the bus. So I get off the bus, walk to her daycare, walk back and wait for another bus with her, get on it, and go home. On thursdays, she has catechism at 6:15. where she takes it would be 3 buses away from us. which is doable, yes, if I don't want her to eat supper and if we want to spend 3 hours getting to catechism and back. But then she has homework to do. So it's nearly impossible on days like this to rely completely on public transit.
and therein lies a big part of the issue. the governments need to put in place these services for people to utilize so it realistically can become normal to not own a car. As my city stands right now, it isn't. When I was a single guy, it was a non-issue for me.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Bloomberg puts his support behidn Obama largely because of the climate and hurricane
“Our climate is changing,” he wrote. “And while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk that it may be — given the devastation it is wreaking — should be enough to compel all elected leaders to take immediate action.”
.... It's really not that hard. Sometimes I'm shocked at how addicted to extreme convenience people are (even in a place where everything is SO convenient just with the essentials). I do not and never have owned a car. I walk and take public transit. I feel happy that I have never become addicted to a car, because all those who have one are ADDICTED to them. Meanwhile, news keeps coming out about how traffic congestion is getting worse and worse and people are stuck in their cars more and more, and whining about gas prices and repairs... yet no one will get out of their cars, and have every excuse in the book. I'm getting sick of all the excuses. They are almost all just bullshit (yes of course there is still true necessity for some). I mean, for things to really change, people have to plan their LIVES in a way so they can live greener. Better planning as to where they live vs where they work, decisions on what they really need vs what they want (I.e. energy efficient condo or two-level house with three bathrooms and an outrageous heating bill?), not try and fit green into lives that don't accommodate it. But very, very few people are actually willing to do that. Until people are, yeah, we're fucked.
Recycling? Seriously? All one needs to do is set aside the reachable materials and carry them outside. Not exactly back breaking. Yet some people are appareny my too lazy even for that? :fp:
I do not own a home computer, which are major energy suckers. Why? Indon't need a PC at home to do my job, so why have one and gobble electricity when a computer can fit in my pocket and use only a tiny amount of rechargeable battery power?? There is a green solution, though, that no one is willing to take up. Why? Oh, because the screen is too small. Oh, but i can't play WoW. Boo hoo hoo. :roll:
And really, turning off the lights is so basic, yet people still seem to think this needs mention, leading me to believe a lot of people don't? Crazy man. Just crazy.
People are not willing to sacrifice anything that actually means anthing, and frankly, if i even suggest they ought to put in more effort, I'm sure I'd be met with indignant anger and such arguements as "yeah, but you eat meat and wear clothes and watch TV so fuck you! ... yes people; i have a footprint too... i too am only doing the easy stuff so that i can live a cushy life - I am no more above reproach than anyone). So by all means, please don't take this as any suggestion that you should actually do anything I've decided to do, because I truly don't expect people to do these things. My point is simply that people will NEVER do what actually needs doing. And that is that. But we do need to TRY HARDER.
no, it's not hard at all to do many of these things. it's just not hard wired into society yet to be consious of them. And I don't know how many generations it will take to be hard wired. and by then, will it be too late?
all we can all do is try, right, and hope that everyone eventually figures out that every little thing does actually add up, good and bad.
in the city I live in, Winnipeg, with 2 young girls and a wife, it is getting increasingly difficult to honestly sustain our lives without a car. We are having trouble after just getting rid of our second one. Our transit system sucks, we have no subway, so it can be VERY difficult to get around.
For example, my wife works until 5:15 every day. She works about a 30-45 minute commute from home, depending on the weather and traffic. So she doesn't get home with our van until close to or at 6, in the winter, sometimes later. I pick up my oldest daughter from daycare on the bus. So I get off the bus, walk to her daycare, walk back and wait for another bus with her, get on it, and go home. On thursdays, she has catechism at 6:15. where she takes it would be 3 buses away from us. which is doable, yes, if I don't want her to eat supper and if we want to spend 3 hours getting to catechism and back. But then she has homework to do. So it's nearly impossible on days like this to rely completely on public transit.
and therein lies a big part of the issue. the governments need to put in place these services for people to utilize so it realistically can become normal to not own a car. As my city stands right now, it isn't. When I was a single guy, it was a non-issue for me.
The vast majority of us never be able to ditch our cars...in Canada everything is too spread out and we don't have the population to support the type of transit to get people to stop using their car. It works in Europe mainly because of large population smaller countries. Canada's a vast country with smaller population than most European countries. Thats why you only see good transit in larger urban centres.
Looked at taking Via rail to visit my sister in Toronto...it was going to cost something like 250...for my wife and I...and 41/2 train ride...I can drive to TO and back in 4 hour and half that in gas. Until they close the cost gap I don't expect public transit to get people out of their cars anytime soon.
Even locally...I live just outside Windsor...we have small bus service...nobody hardly uses it...same thing cost.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,408
The vast majority of us never be able to ditch our cars...in Canada everything is too spread out and we don't have the population to support the type of transit to get people to stop using their car. It works in Europe mainly because of large population smaller countries. Canada's a vast country with smaller population than most European countries. Thats why you only see good transit in larger urban centres.
Looked at taking Via rail to visit my sister in Toronto...it was going to cost something like 250...for my wife and I...and 41/2 train ride...I can drive to TO and back in 4 hour and half that in gas. Until they close the cost gap I don't expect public transit to get people out of their cars anytime soon.
Even locally...I live just outside Windsor...we have small bus service...nobody hardly uses it...same thing cost.
We really do need to improve mass transit in all of north America. And not necessarily high speed rail. Our rail system was once widespread and efficient. People literally set their watches to trains. Conventional railroads are capable of moving more passengers and freight per unit of fuel than cars, trucks, buses, airplanes and ships. This is a well documented fact.
Much of the track is still out there. In today's economy, we could expand rail service back to the way it was several decades ago for less money than it would now take to build high speed rail We could have excellent rail service all around the country. A few lines of high speed might be appropriate for some areas but we would do well to focus on rejuvenating and expanding existing lines. The biggest argument against conventional rail service is speed. It's true- conventional railways will not smash us into the coming proverbial brick wall nearly as quickly as other modes of mechanical transportation.
Very few people are talking about moving back to conventional rail service. James Howard Kunstler and a few others have but once again, a very logical solution is overlooked.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
The vast majority of us never be able to ditch our cars...in Canada everything is too spread out and we don't have the population to support the type of transit to get people to stop using their car. It works in Europe mainly because of large population smaller countries. Canada's a vast country with smaller population than most European countries. Thats why you only see good transit in larger urban centres.
Looked at taking Via rail to visit my sister in Toronto...it was going to cost something like 250...for my wife and I...and 41/2 train ride...I can drive to TO and back in 4 hour and half that in gas. Until they close the cost gap I don't expect public transit to get people out of their cars anytime soon.
Even locally...I live just outside Windsor...we have small bus service...nobody hardly uses it...same thing cost.
We really do need to improve mass transit in all of north America. And not necessarily high speed rail. Our rail system was once widespread and efficient. People literally set their watches to trains. Conventional railroads are capable of moving more passengers and freight per unit of fuel than cars, trucks, buses, airplanes and ships. This is a well documented fact.
Much of the track is still out there. In today's economy, we could expand rail service back to the way it was several decades ago for less money than it would now take to build high speed rail We could have excellent rail service all around the country. A few lines of high speed might be appropriate for some areas but we would do well to focus on rejuvenating and expanding existing lines. The biggest argument against conventional rail service is speed. It's true- conventional railways will not smash us into the coming proverbial brick wall nearly as quickly as other modes of mechanical transportation.
Very few people are talking about moving back to conventional rail service. James Howard Kunstler and a few others have but once again, a very logical solution is overlooked.
It's really very sad that we don't have viable mass transit systems. Even in a city of 1 million, we have bus service but it generally takes about 2 hours to get to a destination about 20 minutes by car. If we had light rail and a better bus system, I would gladly park my car. However, I am sure I am in the minority. Why don't we cut spending in other areas of the federal budget and use that money to rebuild and create new infrastructure, like mass transit systems, that will benefit us all?
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
The vast majority of us never be able to ditch our cars...in Canada everything is too spread out and we don't have the population to support the type of transit to get people to stop using their car. It works in Europe mainly because of large population smaller countries. Canada's a vast country with smaller population than most European countries. Thats why you only see good transit in larger urban centres.
Looked at taking Via rail to visit my sister in Toronto...it was going to cost something like 250...for my wife and I...and 41/2 train ride...I can drive to TO and back in 4 hour and half that in gas. Until they close the cost gap I don't expect public transit to get people out of their cars anytime soon.
Even locally...I live just outside Windsor...we have small bus service...nobody hardly uses it...same thing cost.
We really do need to improve mass transit in all of north America. And not necessarily high speed rail. Our rail system was once widespread and efficient. People literally set their watches to trains. Conventional railroads are capable of moving more passengers and freight per unit of fuel than cars, trucks, buses, airplanes and ships. This is a well documented fact.
Much of the track is still out there. In today's economy, we could expand rail service back to the way it was several decades ago for less money than it would now take to build high speed rail We could have excellent rail service all around the country. A few lines of high speed might be appropriate for some areas but we would do well to focus on rejuvenating and expanding existing lines. The biggest argument against conventional rail service is speed. It's true- conventional railways will not smash us into the coming proverbial brick wall nearly as quickly as other modes of mechanical transportation.
Very few people are talking about moving back to conventional rail service. James Howard Kunstler and a few others have but once again, a very logical solution is overlooked.
I think maybe more freight can be moved by rail for sure. In the States rail makes sense as far as moving people...your population 330 million or higher...correct? does make that possible. In Canada we only have 33 million...I just don't know how much more we can do...at the end of the day economics have to be there in order to make it work.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,408
The vast majority of us never be able to ditch our cars...in Canada everything is too spread out and we don't have the population to support the type of transit to get people to stop using their car. It works in Europe mainly because of large population smaller countries. Canada's a vast country with smaller population than most European countries. Thats why you only see good transit in larger urban centres.
Looked at taking Via rail to visit my sister in Toronto...it was going to cost something like 250...for my wife and I...and 41/2 train ride...I can drive to TO and back in 4 hour and half that in gas. Until they close the cost gap I don't expect public transit to get people out of their cars anytime soon.
Even locally...I live just outside Windsor...we have small bus service...nobody hardly uses it...same thing cost.
We really do need to improve mass transit in all of north America. And not necessarily high speed rail. Our rail system was once widespread and efficient. People literally set their watches to trains. Conventional railroads are capable of moving more passengers and freight per unit of fuel than cars, trucks, buses, airplanes and ships. This is a well documented fact.
Much of the track is still out there. In today's economy, we could expand rail service back to the way it was several decades ago for less money than it would now take to build high speed rail We could have excellent rail service all around the country. A few lines of high speed might be appropriate for some areas but we would do well to focus on rejuvenating and expanding existing lines. The biggest argument against conventional rail service is speed. It's true- conventional railways will not smash us into the coming proverbial brick wall nearly as quickly as other modes of mechanical transportation.
Very few people are talking about moving back to conventional rail service. James Howard Kunstler and a few others have but once again, a very logical solution is overlooked.
I think maybe more freight can be moved by rail for sure. In the States rail makes sense as far as moving people...your population 330 million or higher...correct? does make that possible. In Canada we only have 33 million...I just don't know how much more we can do...at the end of the day economics have to be there in order to make it work.
Yeah, your population is mostly in compact but far spread areas. I've heard the Trans-Canadian system works pretty well- what about local light rail?
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
We really do need to improve mass transit in all of north America. And not necessarily high speed rail. Our rail system was once widespread and efficient. People literally set their watches to trains. Conventional railroads are capable of moving more passengers and freight per unit of fuel than cars, trucks, buses, airplanes and ships. This is a well documented fact.
Much of the track is still out there. In today's economy, we could expand rail service back to the way it was several decades ago for less money than it would now take to build high speed rail We could have excellent rail service all around the country. A few lines of high speed might be appropriate for some areas but we would do well to focus on rejuvenating and expanding existing lines. The biggest argument against conventional rail service is speed. It's true- conventional railways will not smash us into the coming proverbial brick wall nearly as quickly as other modes of mechanical transportation.
Very few people are talking about moving back to conventional rail service. James Howard Kunstler and a few others have but once again, a very logical solution is overlooked.
I think maybe more freight can be moved by rail for sure. In the States rail makes sense as far as moving people...your population 330 million or higher...correct? does make that possible. In Canada we only have 33 million...I just don't know how much more we can do...at the end of the day economics have to be there in order to make it work.
Yeah, your population is mostly in compact but far spread areas. I've heard the Trans-Canadian system works pretty well- what about local light rail?
First of all I do want say I'm not against public transit...I'm all for it if it makes sense...
As for light rail in my area...I've given that a lot of thought...I live just outside of Windsor and there is a 30 - 40 KM stretch of a heavy population and I have said to my wife that they need a light rail or something similar to Detroit's People Mover running along there...the traffic along that stretch is just ridiculous and only getting worse (unfortunately), the real problem I see is getting people to use it (education). Where I live public transit is only used as an option if you don't own vehicle. I believe there is 2 reasons for that...1 you can always get parking in Windsor (unlike Toronto where parking is 20-30 and not always easy to obtain and congested) 2 and Transit Windsor is terrible, often times running behind schedule etc., a local university student developed an app for transit Windsor and offered it to them, they declined and many comments from people in the local paper said it was because people would realize how often they are behind schedule.
But yes I do believe light rail is possible...I never understood why they keep expanding our highways but never expand our public transit (improve upon it).
As for rail as a means of travelling long distances...I really think the price needs to come down before it'll be people's first option.
I would like to see high speed rail studied...and people might pay a premium for high speed rail...if for say I could get to Toronto in say 2 hours, take the train home after a concert...it would save me hotel expenses and all the other jazz that goes with spending a night at a hotel...it would be worth it.
But we definitely lag behind many other countries in terms of public option.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
high speed rail is definitely part of the solution ... especially if its electrified ... it would make economic sense to develop this system in sections ...
the US northeast ... it's absurd that there isn't a high speed rail network connecting boston, ny, philly, dc, baltimore ...
in ontario - windsor to ottawa/montreal ...
lukin ... as far as your trip to toronto ... i think via is about the same as the greyhound and you get wi-fi included ... i do think you are looking at it wrong in terms of economics ... i mean ... we have ttc here ... if i have 5 people ... it's always gonna be cheaper by car ... these mass transit systems are never going to beat a car out ... and it shouldn't be evaluated like that ... you need to factor in that you and your wife can read a book, play cards, play tonsil hockey ... whatever and not worry about traffic and the boring stretch of the 401 through chatham ... you don't have to worry about parking your car in the city and dealing with potential congestion ...
this is the thing with the environment ... we have to move beyond the short sighted evaluations and look at the entire picture ...
high speed rail is definitely part of the solution ... especially if its electrified ... it would make economic sense to develop this system in sections ...
the US northeast ... it's absurd that there isn't a high speed rail network connecting boston, ny, philly, dc, baltimore ...
in ontario - windsor to ottawa/montreal ...
lukin ... as far as your trip to toronto ... i think via is about the same as the greyhound and you get wi-fi included ... i do think you are looking at it wrong in terms of economics ... i mean ... we have ttc here ... if i have 5 people ... it's always gonna be cheaper by car ... these mass transit systems are never going to beat a car out ... and it shouldn't be evaluated like that ... you need to factor in that you and your wife can read a book, play cards, play tonsil hockey ... whatever and not worry about traffic and the boring stretch of the 401 through chatham ... you don't have to worry about parking your car in the city and dealing with potential congestion ...
this is the thing with the environment ... we have to move beyond the short sighted evaluations and look at the entire picture ...
In our case it wouldn't have worked...we had a concert at night and few other things to do...I think the earliest train out of Windsor is 8 am doesn't arrive in Toronto till 2 or 2:30...they cut Via rails schedule down here.
Thats why high speed rail makes sense...get to Toronto from here in what 2 hours?
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
In our case it wouldn't have worked...we had a concert at night and few other things to do...I think the earliest train out of Windsor is 8 am doesn't arrive in Toronto till 2 or 2:30...they cut Via rails schedule down here.
Thats why high speed rail makes sense...get to Toronto from here in what 2 hours?
it's only like 375 km to Toronto and the trains go 300 km/h ... so, i would say 2 hrs is about right when factoring stops and slow spots ... the thing with the train is you show up 5 mins before it leaves and you're good to go ... no security bs like at the airport ...
In our case it wouldn't have worked...we had a concert at night and few other things to do...I think the earliest train out of Windsor is 8 am doesn't arrive in Toronto till 2 or 2:30...they cut Via rails schedule down here.
Thats why high speed rail makes sense...get to Toronto from here in what 2 hours?
it's only like 375 km to Toronto and the trains go 300 km/h ... so, i would say 2 hrs is about right when factoring stops and slow spots ... the thing with the train is you show up 5 mins before it leaves and you're good to go ... no security bs like at the airport ...
I agree about the security...that would be nice.
I do think high speed would be a big hit, a lot of jays and leaf fans along that corridor, concert in Toronto, shopping,etc...done right with the scheduling I think a lot more people would use it for day trips.
But right now we have a federal government that has no interest in that sort of stuff, and before them the liberals did not show much interest...so I expect nothing to happen on that front anytime soon. I do wonder why they didn't take that stimulus spending and invest in high speed rail then...would have been the perfect time then.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I do think high speed would be a big hit, a lot of jays and leaf fans along that corridor, concert in Toronto, shopping,etc...done right with the scheduling I think a lot more people would use it for day trips.
But right now we have a federal government that has no interest in that sort of stuff, and before them the liberals did not show much interest...so I expect nothing to happen on that front anytime soon. I do wonder why they didn't take that stimulus spending and invest in high speed rail then...would have been the perfect time then.
why!? ... cuz there was no corporate lobbyist looking for the contract ... we'd have to hire Siemans or some company from Germany ... if big oil was into making these trains - they'd be all over the place ...
but yeah ... i'd definitely visit montreal and ottawa more if it was there ...
high speed rail is definitely part of the solution ... especially if its electrified ... it would make economic sense to develop this system in sections ...
the US northeast ... it's absurd that there isn't a high speed rail network connecting boston, ny, philly, dc, baltimore ...
in ontario - windsor to ottawa/montreal ...
lukin ... as far as your trip to toronto ... i think via is about the same as the greyhound and you get wi-fi included ... i do think you are looking at it wrong in terms of economics ... i mean ... we have ttc here ... if i have 5 people ... it's always gonna be cheaper by car ... these mass transit systems are never going to beat a car out ... and it shouldn't be evaluated like that ... you need to factor in that you and your wife can read a book, play cards, play tonsil hockey ... whatever and not worry about traffic and the boring stretch of the 401 through chatham ... you don't have to worry about parking your car in the city and dealing with potential congestion ...
this is the thing with the environment ... we have to move beyond the short sighted evaluations and look at the entire picture ...
I thought there were commuter trains connecting those cities.. no??
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I thought there were commuter trains connecting those cities.. no??
ya ... via rail ... it's actually not too bad ... just looked online and you can get a $39 ticket from windsor to toronto ... just over 4 hrs ...
still tho - with high speed rail ... it would be half the time which means if I wanted to go to say montreal for the weekend ... i can be there for like a late dinner as opposed to late at night and can return sunday evening as opposed to sunday afternoon ...
and plus - a lot less people would have to fly ...
I thought there were commuter trains connecting those cities.. no??
ya ... via rail ... it's actually not too bad ... just looked online and you can get a $39 ticket from windsor to toronto ... just over 4 hrs ...
still tho - with high speed rail ... it would be half the time which means if I wanted to go to say montreal for the weekend ... i can be there for like a late dinner as opposed to late at night and can return sunday evening as opposed to sunday afternoon ...
and plus - a lot less people would have to fly ...
when I was looking it wasn't 39...are they like airlines...rates vary. Doesn't really matter...when I was only going overnight and had multiple task to do...getting in at 2 or 2:30 made taking the train challenging.
High speed rail would certainly make it an easier decision...
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I thought there were commuter trains connecting those cities.. no??
ya ... via rail ... it's actually not too bad ... just looked online and you can get a $39 ticket from windsor to toronto ... just over 4 hrs ...
still tho - with high speed rail ... it would be half the time which means if I wanted to go to say montreal for the weekend ... i can be there for like a late dinner as opposed to late at night and can return sunday evening as opposed to sunday afternoon ...
and plus - a lot less people would have to fly ...
I would love to travel by train instead of fly, but leaving from Vancouver that is considered a part of the vacation rather than transportation, and it actually costs more than airfare to go anywhere beyond Seattle (and no where in Canada)! That's SO stupid.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
when I was looking it wasn't 39...are they like airlines...rates vary. Doesn't really matter...when I was only going overnight and had multiple task to do...getting in at 2 or 2:30 made taking the train challenging.
High speed rail would certainly make it an easier decision...
i dunno ... i just went to the website to see how long the train ride was and seeing as we were talking about it ... i decided to punch in a windsor to toronto ticket ... it says it was a web only price ... $39 x 2 x 2 (assuming you can get a return ticket at same price) + hst = $176 ... that's not bad for a 4hr train ride for 2 return ...
when I was looking it wasn't 39...are they like airlines...rates vary. Doesn't really matter...when I was only going overnight and had multiple task to do...getting in at 2 or 2:30 made taking the train challenging.
High speed rail would certainly make it an easier decision...
i dunno ... i just went to the website to see how long the train ride was and seeing as we were talking about it ... i decided to punch in a windsor to toronto ticket ... it says it was a web only price ... $39 x 2 x 2 (assuming you can get a return ticket at same price) + hst = $176 ... that's not bad for a 4hr train ride for 2 return ...
But, you can spend $75 in gas.
I think trains, etc are far more convenient and cost effective with less people. You would easily rather have a car full of 4 drive then pay $350.
I would love to travel by train instead of fly, but leaving from Vancouver that is considered a part of the vacation rather than transportation, and it actually costs more than airfare to go anywhere beyond Seattle (and no where in Canada)! That's SO stupid.
i've traveled a lot of the world and train is definitely the best ...
when I was looking it wasn't 39...are they like airlines...rates vary. Doesn't really matter...when I was only going overnight and had multiple task to do...getting in at 2 or 2:30 made taking the train challenging.
High speed rail would certainly make it an easier decision...
i dunno ... i just went to the website to see how long the train ride was and seeing as we were talking about it ... i decided to punch in a windsor to toronto ticket ... it says it was a web only price ... $39 x 2 x 2 (assuming you can get a return ticket at same price) + hst = $176 ... that's not bad for a 4hr train ride for 2 return ...
I agree the price is reasonable...but unfortunately they cut the early train, so now the train don't leave till around 8...so its 2-2:30 before you get to Toronto.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I agree the price is reasonable...but unfortunately they cut the early train, so now the train don't leave till around 8...so its 2-2:30 before you get to Toronto.
when i did a search ... all the trains were just over 4 hrs ... how do you leave at 8 and get in at 2 or 2:30?
I think trains, etc are far more convenient and cost effective with less people. You would easily rather have a car full of 4 drive then pay $350.
ya ... i guess you missed the original part of the conversation where i talked about how that evaluation doesn't factor everything in ... it's always gonna be cheaper with more people to drive .. but you have to consider everything like no one actually has to drive ... you can read, do work, etc. on the train ... you don't have the wear and tear of 750 km drive ... you don't have to pay for parking the entire weekend ... not worry about congestion ... etc ...
Comments
Dead trees of course, although you might take into consideration that they are all recycled. I only sell used books. Do you have an issue with that?
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
You know I;m kidding right?
Recycling is good, reduce use is better. You are encouraging the deforestation of the world through your business practices.
Will Climate Get Some Respect Now?
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: October 31, 2012 170 Comments
President Obama and Mitt Romney seemed determined not to discuss climate change in this campaign. So thanks to Hurricane Sandy for forcing the issue: Isn’t it time to talk not only about weather, but also about climate?
It’s true, of course, that no single storm or drought can be attributed to climate change. Atlantic hurricanes in the Northeast go way back, as the catastrophic “snow hurricane” of 1804 attests. But many scientists believe that rising carbon emissions could make extreme weather — like Sandy — more likely.
“You can’t say any one single event is reflective of climate change,” William Solecki, the co-chairman of the New York City Panel on Climate Change, told me. “But it’s illustrative of the conditions and events and scenarios that we expect with climate change.”
In that sense, whatever its causes, Sandy offers a window into the way ahead.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York says he told President Obama the other day that it seems “we have a 100-year flood every two years now.” Indeed, The Times has reported that three of the 10 biggest floods in Lower Manhattan since 1900 have occurred in the last three years.
So brace yourself, for several reasons:
• Hurricanes form when the ocean is warm, and that warmth is their fuel. The Atlantic waters off the East Coast set a record high temperature this summer. Presumably most of that is natural variation, and some is human-induced climate change.
• Computer models suggest that hurricanes won’t necessarily become more frequent, but they may become stronger. As the United States Global Change Research Program, a collaboration of federal agencies, puts it, “The intensity of these storms is likely to increase in this century.”
• Climate change adds moisture to the atmosphere, which may mean that storms come with more rain and more flooding.
• Sandy was particularly destructive because it was prevented from moving back out to sea by a “blocking pattern” associated with the jet stream. There’s debate about this, but one recent study suggested that melting sea ice in the Arctic may lead to such blocking.
• Rising seas create a higher baseline for future storm surges. The New York City Panel on Climate Change has projected that coastal waters may rise by two feet by 2050 and four feet by the end of the century.
I was schooled in the far-reaching changes under way several years ago by Eskimos in Alaska, who told me of their amazement at seeing changes in their Arctic village — from melting permafrost to robins (for which their Inupiat language has no word), and even a (shivering) porcupine. If we can’t see that something extraordinary is going on in the world around us, we’re in trouble.
“Of the 10 warmest summers on record for the contiguous United States, seven have occurred since 2000,” notes Jake Crouch of the National Climatic Data Center.
They include this summer’s drought in the United States, the worst in more than half a century.
“For the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change,” James E. Hansen, a NASA climate scientist, recently wrote in The Washington Post.
Politicians have dropped the ball, but so have those of us in the news business. The number of articles about climate change fell by 41 percent from 2009 to 2011, according to DailyClimate.org.
There are no easy solutions, but we may need to invest in cleaner energy, impose a carbon tax or other curbs on greenhouse gases, and, above all, rethink how we can reduce the toll of a changing climate. For example, we may not want to rebuild in some coastal areas that have been hammered by Sandy.
We’ll also need a stronger FEMA — which makes Romney’s past suggestions that FEMA be privatized particularly myopic.
(That’s almost as bizarre as Michael Brown, the FEMA director during Hurricane Katrina, scolding Obama for responding to Sandy “so quickly.”)
Democrats have been AWOL on climate change, but Republicans have been even more recalcitrant. Their failure is odd, because in other areas of national security Republicans pride themselves on their vigilance. Romney doesn’t want to wait until he sees an Iranian nuclear weapon before acting, so why the passivity about climate change?
Along with eight million others, the Kristofs have lost power, so I’ve been sending Twitter messages on my iPhone by candlelight — an odd juxtaposition that feels like a wake-up call. In the candlelit aftermath of a future hurricane, I’m guessing, we’ll look back at the silence about climate in the 2012 election and ask: “What were they thinking?”
•
Recycling? Seriously? All one needs to do is set aside the recyclable materials and carry them outside. Not exactly back breaking. Yet some people are apparently too lazy even for that? :fp:
I do not own a home computer, which are major energy suckers. Why? I don't need a PC at home to do my job, so why have one and gobble electricity when a computer can fit in my pocket and use only a tiny amount of rechargeable battery power, and that uses a small fraction of materials to be produced?? There is a green solution, though, that no one is willing to take up. Why? Oh, because the screen is too small. Oh, but i can't play WoW on a smartphone. Boo hoo hoo. :roll:
And really, turning off the lights is so basic, yet people still seem to think this needs mention, leading me to believe a lot of people don't? Crazy man. Just crazy.
People are not willing to sacrifice anything that actually means anthing, and frankly, if i even suggest they ought to put in more effort, I'm sure I'd be met with indignant anger and such arguements as "yeah, but you eat meat and wear clothes and watch TV so fuck you! ... yes people; i have a footprint too... i too am only doing the easy stuff so that i can live a cushy life - I am no more above reproach than anyone). So by all means, please don't take this as any suggestion that you should actually do anything I've decided to do, because I truly don't expect people to do these things. My point is simply that people will NEVER do what actually needs doing. And that is that. But we do need to TRY HARDER.
Sooner or later I'll catch on to you sense of humor, Cincy. I'm a little slow these days- you might say a little tattered and dog eared myself.
Reading used books does reduce so I'm still not sure I get your point. I try to maintain a carefully selected inventory of quality books. I also spend what often seems like a ridiculous amount of time mending good books that I believe are worth the effort to keep in circulation. Using less includes keeping what's already out there going as long as possible. I do that with everything I own.
Missoula resident and writer Richard Manning said in his book Rewilding the West,
"Almost any competent scientist could develop a system of rules and a schedule of harvests that would make either logging or commercial fishing sustainable."
This hasn't happened, of course, but it could. There is no reason building housing or printing books needs to deforest the world.
And Manning knows his stuff. His work has done much to save parts of Montana from reckless industrial abuse. But in case you get the impression that Manning is just another milk toast urban environmentalist, it is a fact that he would fit in with and be more comfortable in a red neck bar in Lincoln Montana than he would in a juice bar in Marin, CA.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
no, it's not hard at all to do many of these things. it's just not hard wired into society yet to be consious of them. And I don't know how many generations it will take to be hard wired. and by then, will it be too late?
all we can all do is try, right, and hope that everyone eventually figures out that every little thing does actually add up, good and bad.
in the city I live in, Winnipeg, with 2 young girls and a wife, it is getting increasingly difficult to honestly sustain our lives without a car. We are having trouble after just getting rid of our second one. Our transit system sucks, we have no subway, so it can be VERY difficult to get around.
For example, my wife works until 5:15 every day. She works about a 30-45 minute commute from home, depending on the weather and traffic. So she doesn't get home with our van until close to or at 6, in the winter, sometimes later. I pick up my oldest daughter from daycare on the bus. So I get off the bus, walk to her daycare, walk back and wait for another bus with her, get on it, and go home. On thursdays, she has catechism at 6:15. where she takes it would be 3 buses away from us. which is doable, yes, if I don't want her to eat supper and if we want to spend 3 hours getting to catechism and back. But then she has homework to do. So it's nearly impossible on days like this to rely completely on public transit.
and therein lies a big part of the issue. the governments need to put in place these services for people to utilize so it realistically can become normal to not own a car. As my city stands right now, it isn't. When I was a single guy, it was a non-issue for me.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
“Our climate is changing,” he wrote. “And while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk that it may be — given the devastation it is wreaking — should be enough to compel all elected leaders to take immediate action.”
The vast majority of us never be able to ditch our cars...in Canada everything is too spread out and we don't have the population to support the type of transit to get people to stop using their car. It works in Europe mainly because of large population smaller countries. Canada's a vast country with smaller population than most European countries. Thats why you only see good transit in larger urban centres.
Looked at taking Via rail to visit my sister in Toronto...it was going to cost something like 250...for my wife and I...and 41/2 train ride...I can drive to TO and back in 4 hour and half that in gas. Until they close the cost gap I don't expect public transit to get people out of their cars anytime soon.
Even locally...I live just outside Windsor...we have small bus service...nobody hardly uses it...same thing cost.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
We really do need to improve mass transit in all of north America. And not necessarily high speed rail. Our rail system was once widespread and efficient. People literally set their watches to trains. Conventional railroads are capable of moving more passengers and freight per unit of fuel than cars, trucks, buses, airplanes and ships. This is a well documented fact.
Much of the track is still out there. In today's economy, we could expand rail service back to the way it was several decades ago for less money than it would now take to build high speed rail We could have excellent rail service all around the country. A few lines of high speed might be appropriate for some areas but we would do well to focus on rejuvenating and expanding existing lines. The biggest argument against conventional rail service is speed. It's true- conventional railways will not smash us into the coming proverbial brick wall nearly as quickly as other modes of mechanical transportation.
Very few people are talking about moving back to conventional rail service. James Howard Kunstler and a few others have but once again, a very logical solution is overlooked.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
It's really very sad that we don't have viable mass transit systems. Even in a city of 1 million, we have bus service but it generally takes about 2 hours to get to a destination about 20 minutes by car. If we had light rail and a better bus system, I would gladly park my car. However, I am sure I am in the minority. Why don't we cut spending in other areas of the federal budget and use that money to rebuild and create new infrastructure, like mass transit systems, that will benefit us all?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
I think maybe more freight can be moved by rail for sure. In the States rail makes sense as far as moving people...your population 330 million or higher...correct? does make that possible. In Canada we only have 33 million...I just don't know how much more we can do...at the end of the day economics have to be there in order to make it work.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Yeah, your population is mostly in compact but far spread areas. I've heard the Trans-Canadian system works pretty well- what about local light rail?
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
First of all I do want say I'm not against public transit...I'm all for it if it makes sense...
As for light rail in my area...I've given that a lot of thought...I live just outside of Windsor and there is a 30 - 40 KM stretch of a heavy population and I have said to my wife that they need a light rail or something similar to Detroit's People Mover running along there...the traffic along that stretch is just ridiculous and only getting worse (unfortunately), the real problem I see is getting people to use it (education). Where I live public transit is only used as an option if you don't own vehicle. I believe there is 2 reasons for that...1 you can always get parking in Windsor (unlike Toronto where parking is 20-30 and not always easy to obtain and congested) 2 and Transit Windsor is terrible, often times running behind schedule etc., a local university student developed an app for transit Windsor and offered it to them, they declined and many comments from people in the local paper said it was because people would realize how often they are behind schedule.
But yes I do believe light rail is possible...I never understood why they keep expanding our highways but never expand our public transit (improve upon it).
As for rail as a means of travelling long distances...I really think the price needs to come down before it'll be people's first option.
I would like to see high speed rail studied...and people might pay a premium for high speed rail...if for say I could get to Toronto in say 2 hours, take the train home after a concert...it would save me hotel expenses and all the other jazz that goes with spending a night at a hotel...it would be worth it.
But we definitely lag behind many other countries in terms of public option.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
the US northeast ... it's absurd that there isn't a high speed rail network connecting boston, ny, philly, dc, baltimore ...
in ontario - windsor to ottawa/montreal ...
lukin ... as far as your trip to toronto ... i think via is about the same as the greyhound and you get wi-fi included ... i do think you are looking at it wrong in terms of economics ... i mean ... we have ttc here ... if i have 5 people ... it's always gonna be cheaper by car ... these mass transit systems are never going to beat a car out ... and it shouldn't be evaluated like that ... you need to factor in that you and your wife can read a book, play cards, play tonsil hockey ... whatever and not worry about traffic and the boring stretch of the 401 through chatham ... you don't have to worry about parking your car in the city and dealing with potential congestion ...
this is the thing with the environment ... we have to move beyond the short sighted evaluations and look at the entire picture ...
In our case it wouldn't have worked...we had a concert at night and few other things to do...I think the earliest train out of Windsor is 8 am doesn't arrive in Toronto till 2 or 2:30...they cut Via rails schedule down here.
Thats why high speed rail makes sense...get to Toronto from here in what 2 hours?
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
it's only like 375 km to Toronto and the trains go 300 km/h ... so, i would say 2 hrs is about right when factoring stops and slow spots ... the thing with the train is you show up 5 mins before it leaves and you're good to go ... no security bs like at the airport ...
I agree about the security...that would be nice.
I do think high speed would be a big hit, a lot of jays and leaf fans along that corridor, concert in Toronto, shopping,etc...done right with the scheduling I think a lot more people would use it for day trips.
But right now we have a federal government that has no interest in that sort of stuff, and before them the liberals did not show much interest...so I expect nothing to happen on that front anytime soon. I do wonder why they didn't take that stimulus spending and invest in high speed rail then...would have been the perfect time then.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
why!? ... cuz there was no corporate lobbyist looking for the contract ... we'd have to hire Siemans or some company from Germany ... if big oil was into making these trains - they'd be all over the place ...
but yeah ... i'd definitely visit montreal and ottawa more if it was there ...
:fp:
USA! USA!
How dumb is this audience?
What a great answer to this important question.
USA! USA!
:fp:
ya ... via rail ... it's actually not too bad ... just looked online and you can get a $39 ticket from windsor to toronto ... just over 4 hrs ...
still tho - with high speed rail ... it would be half the time which means if I wanted to go to say montreal for the weekend ... i can be there for like a late dinner as opposed to late at night and can return sunday evening as opposed to sunday afternoon ...
and plus - a lot less people would have to fly ...
when I was looking it wasn't 39...are they like airlines...rates vary. Doesn't really matter...when I was only going overnight and had multiple task to do...getting in at 2 or 2:30 made taking the train challenging.
High speed rail would certainly make it an easier decision...
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
i dunno ... i just went to the website to see how long the train ride was and seeing as we were talking about it ... i decided to punch in a windsor to toronto ticket ... it says it was a web only price ... $39 x 2 x 2 (assuming you can get a return ticket at same price) + hst = $176 ... that's not bad for a 4hr train ride for 2 return ...
But, you can spend $75 in gas.
I think trains, etc are far more convenient and cost effective with less people. You would easily rather have a car full of 4 drive then pay $350.
i've traveled a lot of the world and train is definitely the best ...
I agree the price is reasonable...but unfortunately they cut the early train, so now the train don't leave till around 8...so its 2-2:30 before you get to Toronto.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
when i did a search ... all the trains were just over 4 hrs ... how do you leave at 8 and get in at 2 or 2:30?
ya ... i guess you missed the original part of the conversation where i talked about how that evaluation doesn't factor everything in ... it's always gonna be cheaper with more people to drive .. but you have to consider everything like no one actually has to drive ... you can read, do work, etc. on the train ... you don't have the wear and tear of 750 km drive ... you don't have to pay for parking the entire weekend ... not worry about congestion ... etc ...