All the spoiled babies who want everything RIGHT NOW will fight those wonderful ideas tooth and nail, if not to the death.

Corporate greed is also an issue. My rail crews say that even though rail is the most efficient use of power, railroads don't want to deal with what they consider 'small orders', they only want to deal in carloads (if necessary), but what they really want to concentrate on is trainloads, entire trains of one commodity, like coal and grain. Conservation is not an issue to be considered.

With the American mindset of overwhelming greed, big business no longer sees the connection between service and profit. And they don't care if their country's economy goes down the toilet as long as they get their cut.

Like one of my rails said, "Railroads make money in spite of themselves, no matter what they do, no matter how they screw up. Can you imagine how much money they would make if they used some common sense in their decisions?"

In America, every decent-sized town used to have a rail depot, so it isn't like it's never been done.

The biggest problem is that so many people see Art's suggestions as a step backward, even if that step has more benefits than drawbacks.


As for those who want nuclear:
1) True accidents
2) Human carelessness and stupidity
3) Failure of equipment
4) Human carelessness and stupidity
5) Damage during transport
6) Human carelessness and stupidity
7) Radioactive material that is lost, stolen, abandoned.

When proponents argue how 'safe' it is, they only count deaths, not total negative results. And they never want the waste deposited near them (like their garbage); they always want it sent to Nevada or somewhere, which transport leaves it open to accident/theft/sabotage. They seem to confuse 'safe' with 'not visible'.

Sue