-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
TRAVEL BAN -- Mass and CT
- Thread starter bdfreetuna
- Start date
ScottySkis
Well-known member
Take the train.
abc
Well-known member
Say what you can. Just look at what happened in Long Island, where they did NOT impose a travel ban, vs CT/MA where they did. The LIE didn't re-open until Monday morning, ~36hr after the storm and 24hrs later than I-95 which was re-open and functional less than 12 hr after the storm subsided! The biggest difference was all the disabled cars blocking/slowing the plows!!!
So I'm NOT scratching my head about the ban. The result shows it's hugely beneficial to the majority of population, even if it inconvenienced the much smaller skiing populations.
ScottySkis
Well-known member
Oh the train yes.. what train
We should have more trains going to the hills in winter like Europe.
Wow so freedom to move about being restricted does not bother you at all? Many people including myself have vehicles that can easily handle three feet of snow. I see it as a serious infringement on my rights. Even the highest resort areas may make you chain up or close specific roads until they are cleared. To make travel ILLEGAL for an entire state punishable by up to a year in jail overreach.
Whats up with Blue York anyway? Enjoy your big gulp:beer:
Yes that would be neat. We could call it the Boondoggle express :beer:
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
It's a lot more complicated than that. You have to consider an areas normal ability/resources to handle such a problem in the first place, as well as it's capacity to get outside help/resources when and if the **** hits the fan. Long Islands being, well, an island, was a bigger problem than "stuck cars". Frankly, most people arent inclined to travel in such weather to begin with, and I doubt those that do take such a risk give a ratz azz about a "travel ban" they heard on a radio.
ScottySkis
Well-known member
It's a lot more complicated than that. You have to consider an areas normal ability/resources to handle such a problem in the first place, as well as it's capacity to get outside help/resources when and if the **** hits the fan. Long Islands being, well, an island, was a bigger problem than "stuck cars". Frankly, most people arent inclined to travel in such weather to begin with, and I doubt those that do take such a risk give a ratz azz about a "travel ban" they heard on a radio.
Why worst idea ever? I don't want to drive to North Vermont because I be to tired, but if their was reliable train service I would get a season pass up their because it snows a lot up their. Just get on train no worries about sleeping while driving. Drink on the train and enjoy north VT more then my average once a season.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
1) Because America is already $16 TRILLION in debt
2) Because the USD is already a trainwreck (and will get worse)
3) Because Money doesnt grow on a magical tree with fruity gumdrops
4) Because even if the train could be built for "free" (manufactured in Fruity Gumdrop World) the ridership numbers would not even come close to making the train economically sustainable.
I'll stop at 4 reasons why it's a terrible idea, but there are many more.
ScottySkis
Well-known member
People stop driving so much with gas prices going up, they might and have been taking more train rides.
timm
New member
I don't think such a train is even remotely possible -- people in this country really hate trains for some reason. As far as the "economically sustainable" argument -- roads aren't and not too many people are complaining about the lack of revenue generation there.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
Not to derail the thread into a finance seminar, but "revenue generation" is not the only factor in an economics analysis. Roads are financially critical to the US economy. A winter ski train stopping at Jay Peak is not.
timm
New member
When people start talking about "economic sustainability" in regards to public works that is basically code for that a project should be self supporting. If that's not how you were using it, fair enough.
There's no reason a train that could be used by skiers is a "winter ski train" any more than highways that go to ski areas are "winter ski roads". We're talking about competing infrastructures. But like I said it is never going to happen in the US so I'll just agree to disagree to keep from derailing the thread further.
There's no reason a train that could be used by skiers is a "winter ski train" any more than highways that go to ski areas are "winter ski roads". We're talking about competing infrastructures. But like I said it is never going to happen in the US so I'll just agree to disagree to keep from derailing the thread further.
What about zeppelins.. they could actually drop you off at the top of the hill after your jaunt through the clouds fully reclined, peanuts in one hand and a nice frosty glass of hopps in the other.. you could probably convince the pilot to open the doors and just swing in by the face chutes:beer:
St. Bear
New member
timm
New member
Why not a giant sling shot? 
St. Bear
New member
All this argument is wasted anyway. In a few years, we'll just be able to teleport wherever we want to go.
The only issue I see is if we can only teleport living tissue, and not objects. Then we'd all arrive at the mountain naked.
The only issue I see is if we can only teleport living tissue, and not objects. Then we'd all arrive at the mountain naked.
