 |
Re: If Washington state wants to keep its title as a trade state
Author: Reality-based foamer
Date: 05-05-2017 - 19:57
The Realist Wrote:
One would think the powers-that-be in
> this state would be all-in on rebuilding that
> section (with the proper connecting segments on
> each end) and showing the entire trading world
> that Washington State means business when it comes
> to international trade.
>
> But nooooooo .... they'd rather it be a rail-trail
> for hikers and slackers than to use it for it's
> original intended purpose, aka optimize the flow
> of interstate commerce.
When were the "powers that be" presented with a realistic plan to reestablish a railroad in the former Milwaukee Road corridor which could withstand a legal challenge from BNSF if public money was going to be used to invest in a competing rail line? Unless you can demonstrate that such a plan was put forth to Washington elected officials and transportation staff, you have no basis for stating what they'd "rather" do.
Even if a viable plan was developed, would it make sense to reestablish a railroad for international trade given the Trump Administration's stated intentions to scrap trade agreements?
On what basis do you make the claim that trail users are "slackers?" The opposite is true - trail users are using their own energy to get from point A to point B.
One would think the powers-that-be in
> this state would be all-in on rebuilding that
> section (with the proper connecting segments on
> each end) and showing the entire trading world
> that Washington State means business when it comes
> to international trade.
>
> But nooooooo .... they'd rather it be a rail-trail
> for hikers and slackers than to use it for it's
> original intended purpose, aka optimize the flow
> of interstate commerce.
When were the "powers that be" presented with a realistic plan to reestablish a railroad in the former Milwaukee Road corridor which could withstand a legal challenge from BNSF if public money was going to be used to invest in a competing rail line? Unless you can demonstrate that such a plan was put forth to Washington elected officials and transportation staff, you have no basis for stating what they'd "rather" do.
Even if a viable plan was developed, would it make sense to reestablish a railroad for international trade given the Trump Administration's stated intentions to scrap trade agreements?
On what basis do you make the claim that trail users are "slackers?" The opposite is true - trail users are using their own energy to get from point A to point B.
| Subject | Written By | Date/Time (PST) |
|---|---|---|
 If Washington state wants to keep its title as a trade state
|
Paul | 05-04-2017 - 07:39 |
|
Re: If Washington state wants to keep its title as a trade state
|
BN Oly | 05-04-2017 - 18:34 |
|
Re: If Washington state wants to keep its title as a trade state
|
The Realist | 05-05-2017 - 17:50 |
|
Re: If Washington state wants to keep its title as a trade state |
Reality-based foamer | 05-05-2017 - 19:57 |
|
Re: If Washington state wants to keep its title as a trade state
|
The Realist | 05-05-2017 - 23:47 |
|
Re: If Washington state wants to keep its title as a trade state
|
Reality-based foamer | 05-06-2017 - 05:21 |
|
Re: If Washington state wants to keep its title as a trade state
|
The Realist | 05-06-2017 - 14:43 |
|
The Realist is a Trumpanzee
|
the other realist | 05-06-2017 - 15:05 |
|
Re: If Washington state wants to keep its title as a trade state
|
Reality-based foamer | 05-06-2017 - 20:35 |
|
Re: If Washington state wants to keep its title as a trade state
|
ex-BN | 05-07-2017 - 16:10 |