CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7953
PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:00 pm
 


Still a fraction of a percent of the whole. Cars, and Ships generate more. We should probably ban them too. Thank god we'll soon have the Green New Deal and the LEAP manifesto to save us!


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 120
PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:15 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
herbie wrote:
We CANNOT within the course of this decade set a man on the surface of the moon abd return him safely to Earth. Let alone fight major war single-handed and guarantee civil rights at the same time.
It's EITHER jobs or the environment.

Tonight on PBS: Cantservative folk songs of the 1960s.


Herbie, bottom line here is that if high speed rail was such a great idea then private companies would have done it already. Ditto electrifying the railroads.

If it really was cheaper and more efficient then it would also be PROFITABLE.

But it isn't.

And you can pound your head and throw all the temper tantrums you want and you still won't be able to change that reality.



I'm going to turn your argument on its head. Given that airports and roads are absolutely essential why are they not built by the private sector? Much of our infrastructure is created by government since that is simply the most efficient and cheapest way to do it.

Almost all high speed rail services world wide were constructed by government. There are a number of reasons for this. One is that land used for the service needs to be appropriated as generally high speed links are not built on existing roadbeds. Another is that private construction would be piecemeal at best and would probably result in competing and overlapping lines, much like the early railroad industry. If you want a national system government is the only way to go.
And another is cost. Nation and international transport systems cost billions. That is simply too much for the private sector it risk.

There are a number of areas in Canada and the US where high speed rail would make a difference. One is the Montreal-Toronto corridor and another is the link between New York City and Washington, DC.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8732
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 10:16 am
 


Why waste all those billions on highspeed rail corridors when you can spend it sensibly on Skytrain from 152th St all the way to 160th? :twisted:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13983
PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2019 11:31 am
 


Quote:
Almost all high speed rail services world wide were constructed by government.
Yep, and only TWO of them actually generate a profit. All the rest operate at a loss.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13983
PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:22 pm
 


Douwe wrote:
llama66 wrote:


No, but the tar sands makes your mining site image look pristine by comparison. And in case you missed it the mention of the LOTR in the article was tongue in cheek. Mining for lithium cannot compare to the destruction caused by the oil industry. Perhaps it will be easier to understand this.

Alberta's oilsands industry is a huge source of harmful air pollution, study says

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/oils ... -1.3599074
Which is HILARIOUS. Even at the height of Alberta's oil production, the entire country of Canada generated around half the GHGs of international maritime shipping. IN the UK alone, that shipping is responsible for around 20,000 deaths a year among people who live in port cities.

But what's funny is much of the maligning of Canada's oil comes from people who live in this state:

Image

Image

Image

This is a fun one. It's an active oil field right smack in the heart of L.A.
Image


They've joined the Russians and Saudis. And between the three of them, they all worked to prevent Canada from getting its oil to market. California because they're a bunch of hypocritical twat waffles. Saudi Arabia because let's face it, would you rather buy terror oil or nice blood-free oil? And the Russians who prefer Europe to be supplied with Russian oil instead of Canadian oil.
Meanwhile, as Obama was busy putting the kibosh to the Keystone XL because of Canada's "dirty oil, he opened up Utah's oil sands for exploration and exploitation. I guess those oil sands are super clean by dint of St. Barry blessing them or something.

It's sad how many 'tards out there are mistaking protectionism for environmentalism.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1974
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:28 am
 


PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:
Douwe wrote:
llama66 wrote:


No, but the tar sands makes your mining site image look pristine by comparison. And in case you missed it the mention of the LOTR in the article was tongue in cheek. Mining for lithium cannot compare to the destruction caused by the oil industry. Perhaps it will be easier to understand this.

Alberta's oilsands industry is a huge source of harmful air pollution, study says

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/oils ... -1.3599074
Which is HILARIOUS. Even at the height of Alberta's oil production, the entire country of Canada generated around half the GHGs of international maritime shipping. IN the UK alone, that shipping is responsible for around 20,000 deaths a year among people who live in port cities.

But what's funny is much of the maligning of Canada's oil comes from people who live in this state:

Image

Image

Image

This is a fun one. It's an active oil field right smack in the heart of L.A.
Image


They've joined the Russians and Saudis. And between the three of them, they all worked to prevent Canada from getting its oil to market. California because they're a bunch of hypocritical twat waffles. Saudi Arabia because let's face it, would you rather buy terror oil or nice blood-free oil? And the Russians who prefer Europe to be supplied with Russian oil instead of Canadian oil.
Meanwhile, as Obama was busy putting the kibosh to the Keystone XL because of Canada's "dirty oil, he opened up Utah's oil sands for exploration and exploitation. I guess those oil sands are super clean by dint of St. Barry blessing them or something.

It's sad how many 'tards out there are mistaking protectionism for environmentalism.

I am sorry but blaming outsiders for Canada's inability to get its oil to foreign markets is laughable. Outside powers do not have to conspire to keep Canada down, Canadians do an excellent job of that on their own. No one has to look any further than this forum to see that. Venezuela is a third world shit hole that is breaking apart at the seams. A third world shithole going through a revolution, that has had real problems with Uncle Sam. The whole shithouse is going up in flames down there, yet they still manage to get their oil to market. Canada has no excuse whatsoever.

Canadians elect weak men to run the federal government. Weak men who are on one big apology tour. They go around kissing the whole worlds ass, at the expense of the average Canadian. They want to be seen as likeable. They are certainly never going to offend a Frenchman, FN, Muslim, minority, gay, transgender, immigrant, you name it. All it takes is one of these protected class people complaining to shut down the whole pipeline and you know it. Pipeline gets cancelled, reparation checks get wrote, Truedope gives an apology before the U.N., doubles the amount of refugees allowed into Canada, and submits to a sentencing circle to beg for forgiveness. The fact of the matter is that your federal government does not have the balls to get a pipeline built. Thats on you. As much as I agree with your assessment of the phony California lefttards, they are not the reason that Canada cannot get its oil to foreign markets. That buck stops with you Canadians.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 120
PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2019 11:14 pm
 


PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:
Quote:
Almost all high speed rail services world wide were constructed by government.
Yep, and only TWO of them actually generate a profit. All the rest operate at a loss.



Right, and how much money do highways make? Not everything is aimed at making a profit. Sometimes serving the greater good comes first. The EU and Japan didn't build high-speed rail to make money; they did it because it is an efficient way to move large numbers of people quickly without continually enlarging airports.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1974
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2019 2:22 am
 


Douwe wrote:
PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:
Quote:
Almost all high speed rail services world wide were constructed by government.
Yep, and only TWO of them actually generate a profit. All the rest operate at a loss.



Right, and how much money do highways make? Not everything is aimed at making a profit. Sometimes serving the greater good comes first. The EU and Japan didn't build high-speed rail to make money; they did it because it is an efficient way to move large numbers of people quickly without continually enlarging airports.

The EU and Japan have some built in advantages over North America that help with the success of high speed rail. They are tiny countries with huge populations. They are much older than North America. Their cities were already crowded before the invention of the automobile. Parking is scarce and expensive in a lot of cases. The cost of petrol is outrageous by North American standards. The cost of petrol is higher in Canada than it is in the U.S. Spend some time driving in Europe and you cannot wait to get back to Canada. You will never bitch about the cost of petrol again. Auto insurance, very strict inspections, etc., make owning a car in Europe very expensive. I never owned one when I was living there. I took the trains.

The U.S. spends about 2 billion a year keeping Amtrak afloat. The only region of the U.S. where Amtrak could survive on their own is the northeast corridor. The northeast corridor is similar to Europe. Old big cities that were built before the automobile. Parking is scarce and expensive. Many people do not own a car as their cities have subways, commuter rail, buses, etc., When I lived in Mass. I owned a car, but never drove into Boston. It was easier to take the commuter rail and subway. We have a group of large cities fairly close to each other with low auto ownership rates stretching from Washington D.C. to Boston. The train is always going to work in that area. Do they need to spend billions of dollars to cut a little time off of the trip? Do they even have any free area to put new rail lines in? These are the questions that need to be discussed when it comes to adding high speed rail to the only area in the U.S. where passenger rail can survive on its own.

The rest of the country is a disaster for passenger rail. We have vast distances between major population centers. I actually like taking trains from my time in Europe and a VIA trip from Quebec to Windsor and back. I like being able to get up and move around. I like being able to socialize and hang out in the bar car. I wanted to introduce my daughter to rail travel when she was young. I was disenchanted to find out that a rail trip out west was almost the same cost as flying and took 4 days instead of 6 hours. That would burn up 8 days of vacation just getting there and back. Not to mention the extremely high cost of eating and drinking on the train. Throw in the fact that you have no shower for 4 days and you can see the appeal of air travel. I can get non stop flights from the east coast to the west coast and be there in 6 hours. Any rail service is going to want to stop along the way to add some more passengers. I see that high speed rail has speeds of up to 160 MPH. Jet aircraft are moving at 600 MPH. That is almost 4 times as fast with no stops. The cost of rail travel is really going to have to be substantially cheaper to make people choose it over flying. The problem with the left is that they like to pick the winners and losers. When they cannot make what they want to succeed better and cheaper, they get angry. They attack what they dislike and add artificial surcharges to punish what they do not like. They would start adding several hundred dollar surcharges to flying to encourage people to take the high speed rail. We would spend billions of dollars building a service that no one wants. Our travel times would increase. Stress would increase. More time wasted getting where we want to go. I am sorry but I do not see high speed rail working in North America without massive subsidies and massive surcharges on the cost of flying. Just my opinion.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13540

Warnings: (20%)
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2019 6:45 am
 


DrCaleb wrote:

Make up your mind. Do you want me to read deeper meanings into sentences that are absolutely clear, or do you want me to try to pan for nuggets of wisdom where you didn't intend any?

And yes. That's exactly what you did. By not seeing the hidden meaning in "I’m 41, I think I’ll see petrochemicals become a secondary energy source during my lifetime. ", I must not be smart enough for university was a pretty lame attempt at an insult. Git gud scrub.

If you didn't make your meaning clear in that sentence, own it Beave. Dragging this out for a couple more pages isn't going to make that sentence look any more factual. And I'm perfectly willing to drag this out for a few more pages, just to prolong the discomfort. :twisted:


You missed my point. The comment about university was not an insult to imply you’re not educated, it was to state that I don’t believe you couldn’t figure out what was meant by “petrochemical”. Interestingly, in a post where you claim to be wholly incapable of making any sort of inference if so much as one word is slightly off the correct technical term, you then chose to make a huge inference about the subtext of my comments

I maintain my original position, which is you knew what I meant to say but instead of correcting me that ‘petrochemical’ is not the correct term for oil and gas, you played dumb and now you’re just doubling down to save face when even though you lost none to begin with.

I like you Dr. C, I don’t really want to argue with you especially over something so silly. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13540

Warnings: (20%)
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2019 6:49 am
 


PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:
Quote:
Almost all high speed rail services world wide were constructed by government.
Yep, and only TWO of them actually generate a profit. All the rest operate at a loss.


It’s not the role of government to provide services at a profit, that’s what the private sector is for.

Government’s job is to provide the public with necessary services that the that the private sector can’t, usually because they are not profitable.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9310

Warnings: (40%)
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:19 am
 


PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:
Douwe wrote:
llama66 wrote:


No, but the tar sands makes your mining site image look pristine by comparison. And in case you missed it the mention of the LOTR in the article was tongue in cheek. Mining for lithium cannot compare to the destruction caused by the oil industry. Perhaps it will be easier to understand this.

Alberta's oilsands industry is a huge source of harmful air pollution, study says

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/oils ... -1.3599074
Which is HILARIOUS. Even at the height of Alberta's oil production, the entire country of Canada generated around half the GHGs of international maritime shipping. IN the UK alone, that shipping is responsible for around 20,000 deaths a year among people who live in port cities.

But what's funny is much of the maligning of Canada's oil comes from people who live in this state:

Image

Image
Code:
[size=150][color=#FF0000][/color][/size]

Image

This is a fun one. It's an active oil field right smack in the heart of L.A.
Image


They've joined the Russians and Saudis. And between the three of them, they all worked to prevent Canada from getting its oil to market. California because they're a bunch of hypocritical twat waffles. Saudi Arabia because let's face it, would you rather buy terror oil or nice blood-free oil? And the Russians who prefer Europe to be supplied with Russian oil instead of Canadian oil.
Meanwhile, as Obama was busy putting the kibosh to the Keystone XL because of Canada's "dirty oil, he opened up Utah's oil sands for exploration and exploitation. I guess those oil sands are super clean by dint of St. Barry blessing them or something.

It's sad how many 'tards out there are mistaking protectionism for environmentalism.

Leftist Tardism Hypocrisy!


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13540

Warnings: (20%)
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2019 3:23 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
Douwe wrote:
Electric locomotives are already widely used in Europe and there is no reason why they could not be used in the US and Canada, especially if these two countries decide to modernize their rail systems with high speed rail.


1. High speed rail? In Canada? Really?

No, not really: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/h ... -1.4915058

2. As far as the US is concerned high speed rail is a raging clusterfuck. California pooched it big time with the costs ballooning from $9bn in 2008 to over $100bn today. And this past week the new Governor declared that the system will not be built out any further than the current phase that's under construction and due to be completed in just another fourteen years. :roll:

3. High speed rail is not going to occur across the USA or Canada due to the fact that the trains would be too slow and too expensive compared to airplanes.

4. Rail across the USA and Canada will never be electrified because neither country will pay the price to electrify 137,000 and 31,000 miles of rail (respectively).

5. Canada will never electrify its railroads for the same idiotic reasons you people can't build a fucking warship, fighter, airliner, or etc. Your politicians (any party) will so fuck up the plan that it will die on the vine but only after untold billions are squandered on the damn thing.

:idea:

There’s an electrification project already underway for the local commuter rail in the Toronto area, due for completion in 2025. Already the express train from Union Station to Pearson Airport is electric.

I’m not aware of any plan to electrify the entire national rail network, but most passenger rail routes are probably all going to be gradually electrified in the next couple of decades.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13540

Warnings: (20%)
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2019 3:29 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
herbie wrote:
We CANNOT within the course of this decade set a man on the surface of the moon abd return him safely to Earth. Let alone fight major war single-handed and guarantee civil rights at the same time.
It's EITHER jobs or the environment.

Tonight on PBS: Cantservative folk songs of the 1960s.


Herbie, bottom line here is that if high speed rail was such a great idea then private companies would have done it already. Ditto electrifying the railroads.

If it really was cheaper and more efficient then it would also be PROFITABLE.

But it isn't.

And you can pound your head and throw all the temper tantrums you want and you still won't be able to change that reality.


The cost of building the infrastructure and changing from the status quo is what makes it unprofitable for business. Once the taxpayers pony up that cost, watch the Republicans and their corporate cronies scramble to privatize it and hand it over to the private sector for next to nothing.


Last edited by BeaverFever on Sun Feb 24, 2019 5:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 27544
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2019 5:01 pm
 


Yeah, it'll end up exactly like the great electrical & heating utility rip-off turned out. Decades worth of taxpayer money put in to build something up that was never meant to be for profit to begin with, sold off for a song by some elected Ayn Rand acolytes to a bunch of creeps who then jack up the prices as high as they can, and often beyond the reach of affordability for a significant percentage of people who were already struggling with the set prices the government charged. Whatever. Economic Darwinism & shareholder value uber alles as usual, eh? Adapt or perish, losers! :evil:


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 120
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2019 8:11 pm
 


rickc wrote:
The EU and Japan have some built in advantages over North America that help with the success of high speed rail. They are tiny countries with huge populations. They are much older than North America. Their cities were already crowded before the invention of the automobile. Parking is scarce and expensive in a lot of cases. The cost of petrol is outrageous by North American standards. The cost of petrol is higher in Canada than it is in the U.S. Spend some time driving in Europe and you cannot wait to get back to Canada. You will never bitch about the cost of petrol again. Auto insurance, very strict inspections, etc., make owning a car in Europe very expensive. I never owned one when I was living there. I took the trains.

The U.S. spends about 2 billion a year keeping Amtrak afloat. The only region of the U.S. where Amtrak could survive on their own is the northeast corridor. The northeast corridor is similar to Europe. Old big cities that were built before the automobile. Parking is scarce and expensive. Many people do not own a car as their cities have subways, commuter rail, buses, etc., When I lived in Mass. I owned a car, but never drove into Boston. It was easier to take the commuter rail and subway. We have a group of large cities fairly close to each other with low auto ownership rates stretching from Washington D.C. to Boston. The train is always going to work in that area. Do they need to spend billions of dollars to cut a little time off of the trip? Do they even have any free area to put new rail lines in? These are the questions that need to be discussed when it comes to adding high speed rail to the only area in the U.S. where passenger rail can survive on its own.

The rest of the country is a disaster for passenger rail. We have vast distances between major population centers. I actually like taking trains from my time in Europe and a VIA trip from Quebec to Windsor and back. I like being able to get up and move around. I like being able to socialize and hang out in the bar car. I wanted to introduce my daughter to rail travel when she was young. I was disenchanted to find out that a rail trip out west was almost the same cost as flying and took 4 days instead of 6 hours. That would burn up 8 days of vacation just getting there and back. Not to mention the extremely high cost of eating and drinking on the train. Throw in the fact that you have no shower for 4 days and you can see the appeal of air travel. I can get non stop flights from the east coast to the west coast and be there in 6 hours. Any rail service is going to want to stop along the way to add some more passengers. I see that high speed rail has speeds of up to 160 MPH. Jet aircraft are moving at 600 MPH. That is almost 4 times as fast with no stops. The cost of rail travel is really going to have to be substantially cheaper to make people choose it over flying. The problem with the left is that they like to pick the winners and losers. When they cannot make what they want to succeed better and cheaper, they get angry. They attack what they dislike and add artificial surcharges to punish what they do not like. They would start adding several hundred dollar surcharges to flying to encourage people to take the high speed rail. We would spend billions of dollars building a service that no one wants. Our travel times would increase. Stress would increase. More time wasted getting where we want to go. I am sorry but I do not see high speed rail working in North America without massive subsidies and massive surcharges on the cost of flying. Just my opinion.


I believe in my post that I named the region between Boston and Washington as the obvious choice for high speed rail. I've got no idea why it wasn't done years ago given the fact that Europe has clearly shown the advantage of the system.

Also measuring the speed of rail against aircraft does not tell the whole story. Getting to and from airports is a major slowdown. Rail gets passengers downtown to downtown with a minimum of lost time. In fact if you check travel times in Europe using Google you will find that rail compares very well with air travel. Paris to Rome, for example claims 90 minutes for travel between the two points by plane, but if you add on three or four hours for airport navigation the advantage shrinks. And on shorter distances like Paris to Marseille the time is almost the same. I recall an episode of Top Gear in which the three stooges raced one another from London to some place in Northern Italy (I forget which city) each using a different mode of transport (car, plane, and train) and they all came in within a few minutes of one another.

As for acquiring land for rail I guess you would have to ask the Europeans how they do it. I don't expect it would be difficult given that rail lines already exist. I believe for whatever reasons the US missed the boat on high speed rail.

In any case I am not going to worry about just one aspect of green technology. You can argue about high speed rail all you want, but it takes nothing away from the other half dozen or so advantages green tech has over conventional technology.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 77 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.