Yet before we get into that, you should realise what you've done. This whole thread was just about how sad these exessive delays are.
Now I have no problem with diverging threads, my initial comment did just that!
However, you're definitely talking about "where you think we should be" vs "right now".
And right now, you're saying all short hop flights should be banned.
Yet as many have indicated here, that is just not feasable in some cases. Even if you believe rail is always better (it isn't, not for all flights compared to all rail), you actually need rail before banning short hops.
And as others have indicated, loads of people driving, instead of short prop plane hops, is worse than that plane ride by far!
Is your goal to harm the environment? If not, then "just ban it" isn't sensible. You need to plan first.
And really, just ban it means you support just banning all cars, the concept is the same, yet this is literally impossible for many, many reasons.
For example, banning all cars would mean an end to rural livability, and a further exodus from rural Canada.
Canada, whos crops and meat feed massive parts of the world.
Are you planning to force people to farm? Make them stay, and work, if they are entirely isolated without cars?
Of not that, then is your goal to cause world wars, and death, and destruction, and likely the release of tailored plagues, and nuclear weapons?
Because in a world pf starvarion, the knives come out very fast and strong.
Yet this is what wide sweeping car bans could mean, as it is already hard to keep farms manned, and profitable, without banning things from a city centric view.
Would you also ban short hops for prop planes, from rural areas too?
It would be a disaster to put trains everywhere. Literallly bad for the environment, to run a rail line for 50 people a day. A prop plane is far, far more energy efficient, than maintaining all that rail infrastructure for so few people, through hundreds of km of forest.
Just the regular chainsaw usage alone, to prune back trees, makes it worse.
What are you thinking?? Hurting the environment like this, suggesting policies which end in plague, nuclear war, death, destruction!!
The connection is more direct for them, but some say that all we did, with environmental targets and oil, was to outsource it all to crazy Putin.
He now uses that cash to slaughter and kill. And may yet, as a result, bring about a world war.
That is a real, direct outcome of a positive environmental policy(reduce production), causing mayhem, death, destruction.
Of course, bad things often happen regardless. I admit to this, yet, I feel short sightedness got us into these environmental issues, and trying to get us out must not make the same mistake.
You're doubling down on the Chewbacca defense, please stop.
No one is saying that we should "reduce production". Of course, any ban on short-haul flight could only be enacted after there was a better/cheaper infrastructure available.
And it so happens that for a lot of cases, the infrastructure exists, it is mostly a matter of ending up with subsidizes and ensuring that government policy accounts for all externalities. For North America, even if proper rail does not exist yet, intercity buses usually are a feasible alternative, and they also have no-to-little waiting times, they can also drop passengers at the city center and are more fuel-efficient per person than flying or driving solo.
It makes no sense to have flights between Toronto/Ottawa/Montreal, much like it makes no sense to have flights between Boston/NYC, LA/SF/Las Vegas, Seattle/Vancouver. And this is just off the top of my head.
It makes sense time wise, flights are much, much faster.
So to realistically do this, you need fast and cheap rail. No one is going to take rail, which stops at 10+ stops, and takes 7 hours for the trip.
Right now, Ottawa->Toronto isn't too bad, compared to car. Schedule says 4 1/2 to 5 hours.
Yet, you have to get to the rail station, and get from the rail station at each end.
Were I to visit my uncle in Toronto, this means a 30 minute drive to the station, and a cab to my uncle's house, another 30+ minutes.
A car removes some of this, and removes the waiting at each end. And if you drive, you don't need to rent a car, it is more convenient at the other end.
So to compete realistically, to get many people who would drive, to use the train, you need incentive. Not punishment, incentive.
So high speed rail would be good here.
This means loads of infrastructure must be build, which means you must ensure success. This means it has better not be more expensive than a car, and if you and your wife, or family are travelling, this means 10 bucks, maybe 20 per person.
Otherwise a car is far, far cheaper. Current ticket costs are silly.
Now I agree, train is better than car. But is train better than car, or plane, if it costs a gazillion to build, and maintain, and it is barely used?
And yet you're also talking about Seattle/Vancouver, in comparison to SF/LA or Vegas, where the plane is much, much faster than rail or car. So much faster.
So it has better really be fast rail here.
Yet have you looked at the fuel efficiency of fast rail? It is not as good as you think.
And the bus! Let's replace a personal car, with a hot, smelly, loud, uncomfortable bus which most people hate.
You.must be joking.
If you think the only metrix is the environment, you will 100% fail at enacting change.
I will give you another counter example here.
Dams.
For the longest time, environmentalists complained about dams. Lost habitat, they said. And yes, it is true!
Yet compared to anything, anything at all, a dam is best for the environment. Better than nuclear, solar, wind, anything!
And it is is not as if the environment is destroyed, just altered. Some animals go away, to be replaced by different wildlife.
For god sakes, beavers make lakes and dams which can be seen from space!
It is another example of short sightedness. We must enact change in a way that it takes hold, and desired.
Not if takes at least 45 minutes to get to the airport, plus 1-2 hours waiting to board, plus 20-30 minutes to leave the plane and yet another 45 minutes to get to your destination. The 1-hour flight just became a 4-5 hour journey, full of stress and discomfort.
> I will give you another counter example here. Dams.
That's the third strike at Chewbacca defense. I'm really done here.
Yet before we get into that, you should realise what you've done. This whole thread was just about how sad these exessive delays are.
Now I have no problem with diverging threads, my initial comment did just that!
However, you're definitely talking about "where you think we should be" vs "right now".
And right now, you're saying all short hop flights should be banned.
Yet as many have indicated here, that is just not feasable in some cases. Even if you believe rail is always better (it isn't, not for all flights compared to all rail), you actually need rail before banning short hops.
And as others have indicated, loads of people driving, instead of short prop plane hops, is worse than that plane ride by far!
Is your goal to harm the environment? If not, then "just ban it" isn't sensible. You need to plan first.
And really, just ban it means you support just banning all cars, the concept is the same, yet this is literally impossible for many, many reasons.
For example, banning all cars would mean an end to rural livability, and a further exodus from rural Canada.
Canada, whos crops and meat feed massive parts of the world.
Are you planning to force people to farm? Make them stay, and work, if they are entirely isolated without cars?
Of not that, then is your goal to cause world wars, and death, and destruction, and likely the release of tailored plagues, and nuclear weapons?
Because in a world pf starvarion, the knives come out very fast and strong.
Yet this is what wide sweeping car bans could mean, as it is already hard to keep farms manned, and profitable, without banning things from a city centric view.
Would you also ban short hops for prop planes, from rural areas too?
It would be a disaster to put trains everywhere. Literallly bad for the environment, to run a rail line for 50 people a day. A prop plane is far, far more energy efficient, than maintaining all that rail infrastructure for so few people, through hundreds of km of forest.
Just the regular chainsaw usage alone, to prune back trees, makes it worse.
What are you thinking?? Hurting the environment like this, suggesting policies which end in plague, nuclear war, death, destruction!!
Think of the whole cost, or you may kill us all!!