Build more rails - lots more rails.
That can be changed, too, and should. Hell, they're using fuel tax money to build mbutt transit in cities where only that city's residents can use it - why not build rails that everyone could benefit from?
It does make economic sense, it is just that the money is unavailable, and the laws are too slanted toward NIMBYs in order to get anything done. Make rails a public use, and then emminant domain can be used and the NIMBYs can be dealt with, too.
rude drivers nope. rude TRUCKERS... 1944Brink ranted. . . Y'know, we are just as upset by bad drivers as you are. That's why we oppose every state law that supports split speed limits. If all traffic, trucks, cars, RV's whatever are...
All of these supposed untransportable by rail items would do quite nicely between any two points where the train ran 80 - 100 mph, could be loaded on and started on its journey in minutes (no fiddling around making up a train over a long time period). Now, the only task is to reinvent the rail system to act like that - no waiting to commence the journey, high average speed, no stopping before getting to that particular item's destination.
And it should be put on the rails once, and go where its supposed to get to without stopping. It just needs a new rail system, that's all. No, you can't do that with an engine pulling railcars, but you can do it with self-powered railcars (from nuclear-generated electricity).
Yes, I know about the losing sleep part - that's one reason we have to keep dodging them when they come over into our lanes unexpectedly - they go to sleep while driving. Just f'in great.
Just makes me want to change the system in order to enable it to replace trucks on the interstate highways. This will happen, eventually. The sooner, the better, that's all.
The 2 that ran me off the road in 2003 were not "out there for me" - they were just too damn lazy to look beside them when they changed lanes. As I said, trucks are incompatible with car traffic.
Dave Head
