Re: NCRA - Senate Bill 86 vetoed
Author: about trucks?
Date: 10-13-2007 - 14:48

What trucks? The non-exsistant containers from the "proposed" container port? Or the non-exsistant gravel from the "proposed" mines in Willits, Island Mountain and beyond. These are the reasons the NWP wants to operate, and the number of train cars is estimated to be 10 times or more the "exsisting" frieght such as garbage and lumber. So the argument that we need the NWP is to get "trucks of the road" is bogus. If they really operate under those conditions they will cause more air and noise pollution and congestion at the over 150 at-grade crossings without a significant impact on the traffic levels of 101.



Subject Written By Date/Time (PST)
  NCRA - Senate Bill 86 vetoed Bit 10-11-2007 - 22:45
  Re: NCRA - Senate Bill 86 vetoed WAF 10-12-2007 - 06:42
  Re: NCRA - Senate Bill 86 vetoed Mike Swanson 10-12-2007 - 08:28
  Re: NCRA - Senate Bill 86 vetoed Rich Hunn 10-12-2007 - 10:19
  Re: NCRA - Senate Bill 86 vetoed Mike Jenkins 10-12-2007 - 12:00
  Re: NCRA - Senate Bill 86 vetoed broken rail 10-13-2007 - 10:01
  Re: NCRA - Senate Bill 86 vetoed about trucks? 10-13-2007 - 14:48
  Re: NCRA - Senate Bill 86 vetoed Q 10-13-2007 - 19:58
  Re: NCRA - Senate Bill 86 vetoed fred b 10-13-2007 - 20:06
  Re: NCRA - Senate Bill 86 vetoed X 10-13-2007 - 22:51


Go to: Message ListSearch
Subject: 
Your Name: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
  ******   **     **  ********    ******   **     ** 
 **    **  **     **  **     **  **    **   **   **  
 **        **     **  **     **  **          ** **   
 **        *********  ********   **           ***    
 **        **     **  **         **          ** **   
 **    **  **     **  **         **    **   **   **  
  ******   **     **  **          ******   **     ** 
This message board is maintained by:Altamont Press
You can send us an email at altamontpress1@gmail.com