784
A more realistic future (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/dankmemes@lemmy.world
114 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Okay, okay, I get it: you're a special snowflake and you'll spring whatever previously unmentioned random BS on us in order to move the goalposts to pretend your position -- which to be clear, is that some fucking dog is more important than proper public transit -- is somehow anything short of ridiculous.

But sure, I'll play along in good faith: FYI, getting rid of level grade crossings does not necessarily involve tunnels; bridges are a thing too. Therefore, your argument fails.

What histrionic excuse for your train hate are you going to come up with next?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You do realize that trains have to run along almost perfectly level ground right?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You do realize that the street can be the thing that changes elevation instead, right?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Street? You're funny!

    I'm talking near two of the top ten industrial facilities in the United States, where trains run parallel to a major highway, road and rail structure is designed around the major highways, major water ways, and major high rise bridges.

    They're not about to rebuild all that shit, because absolutely nothing that crosses the rails is called a silly street, they're all major highways, or at minimum major roads or bridges.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I’m talking near two of the top ten industrial facilities in the United States

    Sure, I already pointed out how you started out making a broad, sweeping generalization ('trains bad because noisy, in general'), then shifted the goalposts narrowing it to just train horns at level grade crossings, then just to level grade crossings in a flood zone. The fact that you continued to retreat to talking about next to a city park (in another branch of the discussion responding to somebody else), and now finally to talking about some particular singular site in your response to me, is utterly unsurprising.

    Thank you for demonstrating my point about how you're arguing in bad faith.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago

    No, trains can be good, but they shouldn't share the same rails between freights and passengers.

    I can guarantee you they will not stop running freight on our rails, and I already know they're planning to share those same rails for passenger trains.

    Now, how many train cars derailed over the past few years? While they wanna dual-purpose freight and passenger trains on our same worn out rails, where every couple weeks a broke down train has to literally park on the tracks, blocking all traffic?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent