Livefyre Profile

Activity Stream

"Virginia is being used as a transportation corridor only," [Fred] Millar said. "We get all of the risks and no benefits."

Wow; I never realized petroleum products weren't used in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Now I know!

Thanks, Fred.

Garl B. Latham


4 months ago on Conversation @ http://www.governing.com/news/headlines/Oil-Train-Derailment-Sparks-Fire-Spill-and-Calls-for-Change.html

Reply

 @inertius1 

 

Good point!

 

Therefore, based upon that reasoning, if a "real economic return" concerning roadway construction truly exists - which I have NEVER seen outlined in detail, by the way* - then we should "let private money do it!"

 

NO MORE ROADWAYS BUILT OR MAINTAINED BY THE TAXPAYERS until it can be conclusively proven they're all "profitable"!

 

What's sauce for the goose...

 

G.B.L.

 

*For that matter, the concept is "not even addressed" in planning proposals for new and expanded roads; it is simply assumed. That's obviously unfair and must needs be changed - unless, of course, the "economic return" argument is simply a ruse.

 

Hmmm...

 

 

1 year, 9 months ago on Creating a ‘trail of prosperity’ with high-speed Atlanta—Savannah rail

Reply

 @The Last Democrat in Georgia 

 

For the sake of meaningful discussion, we probably need to adopt technical railroad terminology as traditionally defined. What is being discussed here has NOTHING to do with "commuter" operations.

 

Having said that, I completely agree with you concerning the need to establish conventional intercity passenger train services BEFORE constructing true high-speed lines.

 

Garl B. Latham

Dallas, Texas

 

1 year, 9 months ago on Creating a ‘trail of prosperity’ with high-speed Atlanta—Savannah rail

Reply

 @SteveBrown 

 

Mr. Brown,

 

If concepts such as dreaming and emotion were completely removed from the world of transportation, very few automobiles would be sold! In fact , what seems to feed autocentrism as much as anything else is the (artificial) concept of "personal freedom" which, naturally (according to that industry), is only available by way of motor vehicle technology.

 

By the way, I must congratulate you on being the first contributor in this thread to use the pejorative "boondoggle."

 

Garl B. Latham

Dallas, Texas

 

1 year, 9 months ago on Creating a ‘trail of prosperity’ with high-speed Atlanta—Savannah rail

Reply

Many true high speed lines around the world have proven quite effective when competing head-to-head against commercial airline service. In fact, there are several examples where airway alternatives have eventually disappeared. However, this should have little to do with our discussion.

 

1. The primary competition - for both airlines and railways - is the private automobile. Rail-based passenger service should concentrate upon tapping into THAT market (at least initially).

 

2. When we consider that conventional intercity passenger train service between Atlanta and Savannah hasn't even EXISTED for 41 1/2 YEARS, why must we think planning efforts begin with the formation of a new-from-the-ground-up high speed line?!

 

3. The airport should embrace the NEED for rail-based connections - of  ALL types - and reserve the rights-of-way within its property for trackage and station facilities, even if expanded train service seems to be stuck in the formative stage.

 

4. Why is "intermodalism" such a foreign (and frightening) concept? Moreover, why should the general public allow special interests (such as those being protected by Tom Nissalke and the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport) to drive planning efforts?

 

5. Presuming Mr. Nissalke's statement concerning the F.A.A. is accurate, that agency's failure to REQUIRE railroad connectivity in ALL future airfield plans simply indicates an institutional failure on the part the U.S. D.O.T. to oversee the work of its component parts.

 

My disgust knows no bounds.

 

Garl B. Latham

Dallas, Texas

 

 

1 year, 9 months ago on High-speed rail not a consideration in Atlanta airport’s master plan

Reply