Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And in today's intolerant political environment, that's a bad thing? So if change is needed, we should not change? Stick to the old way(s) that made the USA strong (whatever that means)? What?
I'm not going to read thru the entire thread but I think I can offer the definitive answer.
A local lefty politician, I think it was Dwight Pelz, now chairman of the Washington state democratic party. He was asked why he supported rail over more cost-effective and flexible expansion of buses. "No rubber-tire solution," he railed (pun intended) will do what we need. Buses, let alone private autos, were too flexible, they could mess up his brilliant urban planning. Rail would ensure control over peoples' lives that he wanted. Once in place, it could not easily be moved, and development would take place as the elites planned.
It's just like why libs love gun control. It's not about guns, it's about CONTROL.
The coefficient of rolling resistance for steel railroad wheels on steel rails is 0.0002 to 0.0010 whereas for rubber automobile tires on concrete it is 0.010 to 0.015. Thus the rubber tired vehicles have more than 10 times the rolling resistance of steel on steel.
In short, it takes less energy to move trains.
If we wish to maintain our ability to move goods and people, the obvious answer is to use the most efficient form.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.