It WAS part of MY debate, so

 

 

You're a true Republican. Always diverting the topic.

You're a true Republican. Always diverting the topic.

And rather you realize it or not, you're a true Democrat. Always twisting what a Republican was saying. :lol:

I think you are all right! Its gonna take all of the above. We need more mass transit in this country...but we also need alternative fuels...natural gas being one of them. But, we DO NOT need CNG! We need GTL! Can you imagine every home with a gas compressor? Talk about homeland security issues. BTW...CNG means compressed natural gas and GTL means gas to liquids (not trying to insult, but some might not know). Why GTL is better is that it can be blended with other forms of diesel. You can then have a diversity of coal to liquids, GTL, and Biodiesel. By going this way...you can start phasing in your bio-crops. Also, by using a gasifier to combine all of the hydro carbons you can control your emmissions. You can capture the C02 and pump it too algae farms to help grow this source of fuel. As a matter of fact...there is a KY company working on this "energy farm" as we speak.

I posted FACTS of the COST of expanding rail, but you chose to ignore it, so...

 

I also posted it makes more sense to change to natural gas for fuel, but you chose to ignore it, so...

 

 

I missed your earlier post with the cost information. For that I apologize.

 

 

At an average cost per barrel of $100, we are spending $730 billion a year on oil, most of which is imported from countries who wish us ill. U.S. Federal Railroad Administration spending is currently about $1.5 billion per year, most of which goes to support Amtrak operation. Passenger trains are 4 times as fuel efficient as cars or airplanes. Much of the infrastructure (rights of way, passenger stations) for passenger rail is already in place, although some improvements would be needed to increase capacity.

 

With 3/4 of a trillion dollars being spent on oil every year, and a much more efficient mode of passenger transportation staring us in the face, I don't know how anyone can seriously say we can't afford to spend more than the pittance we presently spend on passenger rail.

 

And, by the way, I agree it makes sense to convert some of our highway vehicles to natural gas (I think T. Boone Pickens' idea of replacing natural gas with wind (and nuclear) for electrical generation is a good idea).

Edited September 25, 200818 yr by H

I missed your earlier post with the cost information. For that I apologize.

 

 

At an average cost per barrel of $100, we are spending $730 billion a year on oil, most of which is imported from countries who wish us ill. U.S. Federal Railroad Administration spending is currently about $1.5 billion per year, most of which goes to support Amtrak operation. Passenger trains are 4 times as fuel efficient as cars or airplanes. Much of the infrastructure (rights of way, passenger stations) for passenger rail is already in place, although some improvements would be needed to increase capacity.

 

With 3/4 of a trillion dollars being spent on oil every year, and a much more efficient mode of passenger transportation staring us in the face, I don't know how anyone can seriously say we can't afford to spend more than the pittance we presently spend on passenger rail.

 

And, by the way, I agree it makes sense to convert some of our highway vehicles to natural gas (I think T. Boone Pickens' idea of replacing natural gas with wind (and nuclear) for electrical generation is a good idea).

What I'm getting at is the cost for light rail and more rail for Amtrak and such, that would not be a pittance IMO. I agree it's cheaper to ship on a train than by truck and things of that nature, but I just don't see this country using rail the way Europe does, we are too hung up on our automobiles.

And rather you realize it or not, you're a true Democrat. Always twisting what a Republican was saying. :lol:

I hate it when Mommy and Daddy fight. :cry: