Honourable Forum: Hooray! What ecologists (not to mention other scientists) need is more cross-fertilization of disciplines, especially railroaders (npi) and other industry and commerce people and their special knowledge. I have met some real sensitive-to-ecosystems bulldozer operators.
I would like to hear more about ecosystem-effect tradeoffs in even more detail, and some analysis of the data in that respect. I wonder about predicting push-pull relationships with respect to service and equipment balances with demand and vice-versa. How do distances affect the picture? Routes? Commercial synergies, such as break-bulk point effects like food and lodging, entertainment, etc.? I would not object to paying better salaries, even to "management," if we could get excellent management in the bargain. My direct experience with "modern" management is a bit "old," but I don't know how out-of-date it is. From what my cubicle-rat friends tell me, so-called "management" is even worse now than it was a quarter-century ago. If only we could run trains (or anything else) on Management BS, generated in such unlimited quantities by bloated MBA's and their ilk, our energy woes might be over. (Pardon my rant.) PS: [WARNING: Do not read--contains the "R" word.] I saw or felt no "rant" here, but I did pick up on how sensitized people who post to listservs are to the potential for "flaming." Anyone who speaks inconvenient truths runs a risk of stirring up a hornet's nest of wails from the wounded, folks caught with their intellectual hands in the cookie jar. That's why I think it's so important to stick to ISSUES, and avoid personalities entirely (except for reference to authors and perhaps some other limited common-sense exceptions). David no doubt does a good job of screening personal posts, as this list is outstanding for its maturity. It is crucial that listserv moderators, like David, recognize this crucial distinction and let posts on issues go through that are bound to be controversial--after all, that's where the cutting edge of any intellectual endeavor lies. Moderators can, and probably should in most cases, filter out personal attack-posts from folks who take statements about issues personally. However, while I agree that David's approach is probably better than mine might be, I might just let some ranting repostes (pun incidental) go through--especially if they advance the debate and reveal the temperament of the ranter. But, David is probably still right, because rants that make it through the moderator usually kill the discussion--at least among the reasonable. The issue "baby" gets thrown out with rant bathwater. Most objectors to my posts (it happens, even though I try to walk the line without compromising the point) have the good taste to direct their personal rants off-list. I used to object to such off-list posts, because I felt that I should be chastised in public for my errors in the interest of transparency and moving the debate, but now, on balance, I no longer hold that view. Perhaps, when a particular ranter urgently wants hisher email posted, a warning on the subject line might be required--just kidding; I'm an anarchist. "Disagree without being disagreeable." --Unknown "'Tis friction's brisk rub that provides the vital spark." --Anon. (Perhaps the author was intimidated by objectors to rants?) At 09:35 PM 8/6/2007, Tom Schweich wrote: >To avoid apparent conflict of interest, I disclose that I worked for a >railroad for a 27 years. However, the question of passenger service >quality has to do with money, or lack thereof. We, in the US, choose >not to invest in the rail infrastructure necessary to provide a pleasant >passenger train experience. We insist that passenger service mix with >freight service, with a few exceptions. Then we try to squeeze out every >last maintenance dollar. We also have some geographical issues, >especially in the West, with long distances between major cities, that >increase costs. Perhaps the statement is apocryphal, but we used to say >that Amtrak could save money by giving every rail passenger a free >Greyhound bus ticket, instead of running trains. Yes, I've ridden trains >in Europe, including commuter trains in the Netherlands, and the Madrid >Metro, Talgo, Altaria, and AVE trains in Spain. They're wonderful, >especially the AVE. However, the Spanish have made a tremendous >investment in infrastructure for the AVE (it has its own tracks) and the >fare is still high. The cheapest fare on the AVE is about $200 from >Madrid to Sevilla, roundtrip. You can fly for $226, roundtrip. If we >really wanted good passenger service, we would invest in the >infrastructure, pay good management salaries, pay for the maintenance, >and be willing to pay higher fares. > >Sorry, I got no rant control ... > >Tom >-- >Tom Schweich http://www.schweich.com >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Malcolm McCallum wrote: > > Riding the train is a great experience, unfortunately, Amtrack is so > > mismanaged that it detracts from the experience. I hope some brilliant > > millionaire sees the opportunity that Amtrack is throwing down the toilet > > and puts together a cross-country train that actually works. I love the > > train, but I hate what it has become. My Great Great Grandfather was > > --------------8<------------ (snip)-----------------------------------
