3 ms·

If you live in an area with poor rail infrastructure, the solution is to improve it.

arpa 4y ago
any fool can do it! brb, building a railway.
b112 4y ago
Why? Yet before we get into that, you should realise what you've done. This whole thread was just about how sad these exessive delays are. Now I have no problem with diverging threads, my initial comment did just that! However, you're definitely talking about "where you think we should be" vs "right now". And right now, you're saying all short hop flights should be banned. Yet as many have indicated here, that is just not feasable in some cases. Even if you believe rail is always better (it isn't, not for all flights compared to all rail), you actually need rail before banning short hops. And as others have indicated, loads of people driving, instead of short prop plane hops, is worse than that plane ride by far! Is your goal to harm the environment? If not, then "just ban it" isn't sensible. You need to plan first. And really, just ban it means you support just banning all cars, the concept is the same, yet this is literally impossible for many, many reasons. For example, banning all cars would mean an end to rural livability, and a further exodus from rural Canada. Canada, whos crops and meat feed massive parts of the world. Are you planning to force people to farm? Make them stay, and work, if they are entirely isolated without cars? Of not that, then is your goal to cause world wars, and death, and destruction, and likely the release of tailored plagues, and nuclear weapons? Because in a world pf starvarion, the knives come out very fast and strong. Yet this is what wide sweeping car bans could mean, as it is already hard to keep farms manned, and profitable, without banning things from a city centric view. Would you also ban short hops for prop planes, from rural areas too? It would be a disaster to put trains everywhere. Literallly bad for the environment, to run a rail line for 50 people a day. A prop plane is far, far more energy efficient, than maintaining all that rail infrastructure for so few people, through hundreds of km of forest. Just the regular chainsaw usage alone, to prune back trees, makes it worse. What are you thinking?? Hurting the environment like this, suggesting policies which end in plague, nuclear war, death, destruction!! Think of the whole cost, or you may kill us all!!
- rglullis 4y ago
  We were talking within the context of a connection between Ottawa and Toronto, not some two random corners of Manitoba. Nice try at argumentum ad absurdum, though...
  - b112 4y ago
    Yet you were making wider sweeping statements, too. My argument has some merit, just look at Sri Lanka! https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/07/world/asia/sri-lanka-organic-farming-fertilizer.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/07/world/asia/sri-lanka-orga... The connection is more direct for them, but some say that all we did, with environmental targets and oil, was to outsource it all to crazy Putin. He now uses that cash to slaughter and kill. And may yet, as a result, bring about a world war. That is a real, direct outcome of a positive environmental policy(reduce production), causing mayhem, death, destruction. Of course, bad things often happen regardless. I admit to this, yet, I feel short sightedness got us into these environmental issues, and trying to get us out must not make the same mistake. We must play the long game.
    - rglullis 4y ago
      You're doubling down on the Chewbacca defense, please stop. No one is saying that we should "reduce production". Of course, any ban on short-haul flight could only be enacted after there was a better/cheaper infrastructure available. And it so happens that for a lot of cases, the infrastructure exists, it is mostly a matter of ending up with subsidizes and ensuring that government policy accounts for all externalities. For North America, even if proper rail does not exist yet, intercity buses usually are a feasible alternative, and they also have no-to-little waiting times, they can also drop passengers at the city center and are more fuel-efficient per person than flying or driving solo. It makes no sense to have flights between Toronto/Ottawa/Montreal, much like it makes no sense to have flights between Boston/NYC, LA/SF/Las Vegas, Seattle/Vancouver. And this is just off the top of my head.
      - b112 4y ago

arpa 4y ago

any fool can do it! brb, building a railway.

b112 4y ago

Why? Yet before we get into that, you should realise what you've done. This whole thread was just about how sad these exessive delays are. Now I have no problem with diverging threads, my initial comment did just that! However, you're definitely talking about "where you think we should be" vs "right now". And right now, you're saying all short hop flights should be banned. Yet as many have indicated here, that is just not feasable in some cases. Even if you believe rail is always better (it isn't, not for all flights compared to all rail), you actually need rail before banning short hops. And as others have indicated, loads of people driving, instead of short prop plane hops, is worse than that plane ride by far! Is your goal to harm the environment? If not, then "just ban it" isn't sensible. You need to plan first. And really, just ban it means you support just banning all cars, the concept is the same, yet this is literally impossible for many, many reasons. For example, banning all cars would mean an end to rural livability, and a further exodus from rural Canada. Canada, whos crops and meat feed massive parts of the world. Are you planning to force people to farm? Make them stay, and work, if they are entirely isolated without cars? Of not that, then is your goal to cause world wars, and death, and destruction, and likely the release of tailored plagues, and nuclear weapons? Because in a world pf starvarion, the knives come out very fast and strong. Yet this is what wide sweeping car bans could mean, as it is already hard to keep farms manned, and profitable, without banning things from a city centric view. Would you also ban short hops for prop planes, from rural areas too? It would be a disaster to put trains everywhere. Literallly bad for the environment, to run a rail line for 50 people a day. A prop plane is far, far more energy efficient, than maintaining all that rail infrastructure for so few people, through hundreds of km of forest. Just the regular chainsaw usage alone, to prune back trees, makes it worse. What are you thinking?? Hurting the environment like this, suggesting policies which end in plague, nuclear war, death, destruction!! Think of the whole cost, or you may kill us all!!

rglullis 4y ago
We were talking within the context of a connection between Ottawa and Toronto, not some two random corners of Manitoba. Nice try at argumentum ad absurdum, though...
- b112 4y ago
  Yet you were making wider sweeping statements, too. My argument has some merit, just look at Sri Lanka! https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/07/world/asia/sri-lanka-organic-farming-fertilizer.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/07/world/asia/sri-lanka-orga... The connection is more direct for them, but some say that all we did, with environmental targets and oil, was to outsource it all to crazy Putin. He now uses that cash to slaughter and kill. And may yet, as a result, bring about a world war. That is a real, direct outcome of a positive environmental policy(reduce production), causing mayhem, death, destruction. Of course, bad things often happen regardless. I admit to this, yet, I feel short sightedness got us into these environmental issues, and trying to get us out must not make the same mistake. We must play the long game.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    You're doubling down on the Chewbacca defense, please stop. No one is saying that we should "reduce production". Of course, any ban on short-haul flight could only be enacted after there was a better/cheaper infrastructure available. And it so happens that for a lot of cases, the infrastructure exists, it is mostly a matter of ending up with subsidizes and ensuring that government policy accounts for all externalities. For North America, even if proper rail does not exist yet, intercity buses usually are a feasible alternative, and they also have no-to-little waiting times, they can also drop passengers at the city center and are more fuel-efficient per person than flying or driving solo. It makes no sense to have flights between Toronto/Ottawa/Montreal, much like it makes no sense to have flights between Boston/NYC, LA/SF/Las Vegas, Seattle/Vancouver. And this is just off the top of my head.
    - b112 4y ago