musashi1600: The problem with that chart is that while all those cities have rail transit systems that would probably qualify as light rail under FTA rules, a number of those are also heritage streetcar lines that are operated with historic equipment. The bottom four systems on that list, River Rail Streetcar (Little Rock), MATA Trolley (Memphis), the Kenosha Streetcar, and the Galveston Island Trolley are all heritage systems operated with restored historic vehicles on short systems (about 10 miles or less of total track.) In comparison, the four top systems, the San Diego Trolley, MAX (Portland), TRAX (Salt Lake City), and MetroLink (St. Louis) are all much larger systems (35-53 miles of track each) with contemporary vehicles (that are presumably more energy-efficient.) The top four cities are also much larger and denser than the bottom four cities, and since the chart is based on energy use per passenger-mile (1 passenger carried 1 mile), it's also much easier for them to attract higher ridership to offset the vehicles' energy consumption.
GeneralJim: Well, farktard, the SCIENCE is what is falsifying all the panic-mongers trying for higher taxes and more control. The SCIENCE has proven, in several different ways, that carbon dioxide released by humans WILL NEVER pose any threat to the climate.
Moonfisher: As someone who lost a friend to an 87 year old driver that "just didn't see him" in broad daylight, leaving behind a wife and two small children, I can totally get behind this. The worst part was that he was riding his motorcycle home from the shop, and his wife and kids were following him home in the car, so they saw everything.
GeneralJim: Well, farktard,
jayphat: whidbey: Nice, but we really should be putting all of our resources into establishing a decent regional/national public rail transportation system. Then we wouldn't have to be worrying so much about who or who would not be driving in our bright future.Lol no. Given the size/scope of the united states, and the population density, a national/regional rail system makes zero sense.
whidbey: jayphat: whidbey: Nice, but we really should be putting all of our resources into establishing a decent regional/national public rail transportation system. Then we wouldn't have to be worrying so much about who or who would not be driving in our bright future.Lol no. Given the size/scope of the united states, and the population density, a national/regional rail system makes zero sense.LOL yes. I love the ridiculous argument that no one would be served on one hand, while on the other hand asserting the need to drive long distances because there is decent public transportation system.You also ignore that much of the country did travel by rail, and in great numbers, before the car was mass marketed and the freeways were built.The math is simple:If millions of people can drive by car, then they can ride by train. It doesn't matter how expensive it is, and it doesn't have to meet some ridiculous business model where the service makes money within an X number of years.The savings of taking people off the road, and using our resources wisely are more than an even break.
DemonEater: Also, you're ignoring the other benefits of mass transit - for every 100 people who take a bus, tram, underground, or train to work, that's 100 less cars on the road trying to go the same place, and 100 less downtown parking spots needed. Efficient mass transit cuts commute times for everybody, and means you don't have to drive round in circles for half an hour trying to find an empty spot or open garage. Or, you know, pay like $20/day for parking.
Earguy: Fine. EVERYBODY gets the test, if it takes a lot of senile drivers off the road.
GeneralJim: The SCIENCE has proven, in several different ways, that carbon dioxide released by humans WILL NEVER pose any threat to the climate.
RandomRandom: Warlordtrooper: Gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected right. Unless somebody has been convicted of a felony, they can't be deprived of their rights.Uh, no. That's not how our system works. We all have a constitutionally protected right against warrant-less searches, yet DUI checkpoints have been ruled constitutional by the supreme court as have a great many other forms of warrant-less searches.There then is the very large question as to what constitutes a firearm suitable for public ownership. Most Republicans consider themselves to be constitutional orientalists, except when it comes to the 2nd amendment. Because when the constitution was originally written, firearms were single shot, very slowly hand-reloading muskets. The framers of the constitution could not possibly have meant for the 2nd amendment to include semi-automatic weapons, as those weapons simply did not exist.Would it therefore be constitutional for the government to rule that semi-automatic weapons were unfit for public ownership? Yes! Absolutely! In fact, the supreme court has already ruled the government has the constitutional right to limit the ownership of certain types of firearms. Were the government to expand the types of firearms so restricted, it would not require new Supreme Court review, the rulings already exist.Will semi-automatic weapon ownership be greatly limited? Probably not. Would such limits be constitutional under the supreme court's current interpretation of the constitution? Yes.
crabsno termites: Fade2black: smitty04: "This is about saving their lives, as well as the lives of others on the road,"Locking up all Black people would cut crime in half.Both are examples of discrimination.So? Discrimination is a natural part of society, even if you won't admit to it. Not everyone is equal.Example: My 89 yr old mother who has had a stroke and uses a walker is routinely singled out nfor 'further screening' by TSA. She's a farking security threat? What about all the 15 - 50 yr old semitic-appearing passengers who are routinely passed through without question? 'Racial profiling'? How 'bout farking common sense?
DemonEater: Also, you're ignoring the other benefits of mass transit - for every 100 people who take a bus, tram, underground, or train to work, that's 100 less cars on the road trying to go the same place, and 100 less downtown parking spots needed. Efficient mass transit cuts commute times for everybody, and means you don't have to drive round in circles for half an hour trying to find an empty spot or open garage. Or, you know, pay like $20/day for parking.I wonder about that in practice. Melbourne has been adding more public transport services yet average commute times have increased. It is typical to drive 20 miles in an hour through most of the city if you can use the highways. The average distance driven per year is decreasing each year and the accidents per mile drive is increasing sharply. Melbourne and Sydney both have wonderful public transport yet parking is $20 an hour in their downtown areas. Most of the roads in Melbourne carry less passengers per hour than other major cities because the trams block cars. Of course some say the cars block the trams but the reality is they they both block each other which leads to gridlock spreading through a massive area. Melbourne is smaller than Chicago yet seems to have much higher transport costs in money, time, taxes, inconvenience and stress. I think it is partially because of the good public transport, planning involves most office jobs being in the cubicle farms in the downtown area and people living an hour away unlike most US cities where a majority of jobs are around the outer interstate ring roads and some downtown.
This is a thread about elderly drivers... oh well.GeneralJim: The SCIENCE has proven, in several different ways, that carbon dioxide released by humans WILL NEVER pose any threat to the climate.[blogs.loc.gov image 340x180]I won't hold my breath for anything useful - since that statement is patently false.
If the science has proven any such thing(as opposed to proving quite the opposite), then why does NEARLY EVERY scientist feel different?
[www.desmogblog.com image 798x542]Do you REALLY think that nearly all scientists of the world are on the take(from the green energy sector), or is it just a bit more likely and feasible that a small fraction are on the take (from the MUCH larger, richer oil industry sector)? Think man.
jayphat: The savings of taking people off the road, and using our resources wisely are more than an even break.8/10. Thats a great effort there. Unless you're serious in which case you need to look at the basic math of it. Removing millions of cars off the road won't happen. Simply because of geography. Once we get from point A to point B, we still need transportation in most places we go. Which requires in most instances, a car.
Want more stories with less ads? Try
It's what the cool kids are doing.It's also how we pay the bills.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2018 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jan 16 2018 18:50:25
Runtime: 0.366 sec (365 ms)