<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_08_0041205</id>
	<title>Analysis Says Planes Might Be Greener Than Trains</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1244473140000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>New Scientist has an interesting piece up about the calculable energy costs per mile for various forms of transportation. Despite the headline ("<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17260-train-can-be-worse-for-climate-than-plane.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&amp;nsref=online-news">Train can be worse for climate than plane</a>"), the study it describes deals with highway-based vehicles, too: the authors attempted to integrate not just the cost at the tailpipe (or equivalent) for each mode of transport, but also the costs of developing and supporting the associated infrastructure, such as rails, highways and airports. Such comparisons are tricky, though; a few years back, a <a href="http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/print\_item.asp?NewsID=188">widely</a> <a href="http://onemansblog.com/2007/03/27/prius-outdoes-hummer-in-environmental-damage/">circulated</a> <a href="http://www.economistblog.com/2008/03/20/lifetime-energy-cost-per-mile-prius-v-hummer-h3/">report</a> <a href="//hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/20/1858204&amp;tid=232">claimed that the Toyota Prius had a higher per-mile lifetime cost</a> than the Hummer (see that earlier Slashdot post for good reason to be skeptical of the methodology and conclusions). I wonder how the present comparison would be affected by a calculation of (for instance) how much it would cost to move by plane the freight currently carried by trains.</htmltext>
<tokenext>New Scientist has an interesting piece up about the calculable energy costs per mile for various forms of transportation .
Despite the headline ( " Train can be worse for climate than plane " ) , the study it describes deals with highway-based vehicles , too : the authors attempted to integrate not just the cost at the tailpipe ( or equivalent ) for each mode of transport , but also the costs of developing and supporting the associated infrastructure , such as rails , highways and airports .
Such comparisons are tricky , though ; a few years back , a widely circulated report claimed that the Toyota Prius had a higher per-mile lifetime cost than the Hummer ( see that earlier Slashdot post for good reason to be skeptical of the methodology and conclusions ) .
I wonder how the present comparison would be affected by a calculation of ( for instance ) how much it would cost to move by plane the freight currently carried by trains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New Scientist has an interesting piece up about the calculable energy costs per mile for various forms of transportation.
Despite the headline ("Train can be worse for climate than plane"), the study it describes deals with highway-based vehicles, too: the authors attempted to integrate not just the cost at the tailpipe (or equivalent) for each mode of transport, but also the costs of developing and supporting the associated infrastructure, such as rails, highways and airports.
Such comparisons are tricky, though; a few years back, a widely circulated report claimed that the Toyota Prius had a higher per-mile lifetime cost than the Hummer (see that earlier Slashdot post for good reason to be skeptical of the methodology and conclusions).
I wonder how the present comparison would be affected by a calculation of (for instance) how much it would cost to move by plane the freight currently carried by trains.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248155</id>
	<title>Re:Environmental Research Letters?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244451720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, it is customary with a page charge, even for very high impact journals.<br>The paper still looks crap, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it is customary with a page charge , even for very high impact journals.The paper still looks crap , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it is customary with a page charge, even for very high impact journals.The paper still looks crap, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28253043</id>
	<title>infrastructure</title>
	<author>pikine</author>
	<datestamp>1244485440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What puzzles me is that, intuitively, the cost of infrastructure construction is amortized to be negligibly small over many runs of freight. However, the report still claims that it is a significant factor. Also, data are shown only up to regional commuter rail, but high speed trains are not compared in this report. On the other hand, they show data for large commercial aircrafts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What puzzles me is that , intuitively , the cost of infrastructure construction is amortized to be negligibly small over many runs of freight .
However , the report still claims that it is a significant factor .
Also , data are shown only up to regional commuter rail , but high speed trains are not compared in this report .
On the other hand , they show data for large commercial aircrafts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What puzzles me is that, intuitively, the cost of infrastructure construction is amortized to be negligibly small over many runs of freight.
However, the report still claims that it is a significant factor.
Also, data are shown only up to regional commuter rail, but high speed trains are not compared in this report.
On the other hand, they show data for large commercial aircrafts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250867</id>
	<title>Rethinking is fine, but we're already built</title>
	<author>swb</author>
	<datestamp>1244475240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Maybe we need to rethink the way we plan cities. </i></p><p>That's a great idea if we can rewind the calendar to 1790 and start over.  The big problem is that re-thinking how we plan cities is that by and large our cities are already built and already have massive infrastructure investments already built and in use, with signficant economies built around the infrastructure arrangement.</p><p>What we need to do is think about how we can *adapt* our cities &amp; infrastructure in incremental ways that increase energy efficiency, decrease congestion and provide better-service incentives to motivate people to use them.</p><p>Incrementalism is important because we can't afford to change overnight and we need to give time to both people and organizations to get in sync with the program.</p><p>It's also critical that the systems put in place provide *better* service than existing methods.  The religious converts to environmentalism will put up with worse systems for their philosophical/moral value, but most other people won't, which often leads to either failure for projects or punitive changes that create political backlash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe we need to rethink the way we plan cities .
That 's a great idea if we can rewind the calendar to 1790 and start over .
The big problem is that re-thinking how we plan cities is that by and large our cities are already built and already have massive infrastructure investments already built and in use , with signficant economies built around the infrastructure arrangement.What we need to do is think about how we can * adapt * our cities &amp; infrastructure in incremental ways that increase energy efficiency , decrease congestion and provide better-service incentives to motivate people to use them.Incrementalism is important because we ca n't afford to change overnight and we need to give time to both people and organizations to get in sync with the program.It 's also critical that the systems put in place provide * better * service than existing methods .
The religious converts to environmentalism will put up with worse systems for their philosophical/moral value , but most other people wo n't , which often leads to either failure for projects or punitive changes that create political backlash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe we need to rethink the way we plan cities.
That's a great idea if we can rewind the calendar to 1790 and start over.
The big problem is that re-thinking how we plan cities is that by and large our cities are already built and already have massive infrastructure investments already built and in use, with signficant economies built around the infrastructure arrangement.What we need to do is think about how we can *adapt* our cities &amp; infrastructure in incremental ways that increase energy efficiency, decrease congestion and provide better-service incentives to motivate people to use them.Incrementalism is important because we can't afford to change overnight and we need to give time to both people and organizations to get in sync with the program.It's also critical that the systems put in place provide *better* service than existing methods.
The religious converts to environmentalism will put up with worse systems for their philosophical/moral value, but most other people won't, which often leads to either failure for projects or punitive changes that create political backlash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28252205</id>
	<title>Re:One way to solve this.</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1244482140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This has to be done globally otherwise it is tremendously unfair for companies that are in a country that taxes its companies compared with those that are in a country that doesn't tax its companies.</p></div><p>Which is why carbon taxes will never work, or at least not in any sort of timeframe that would make a difference and help us avoid the most severe environmental consequences. As long as China and India take the, "you in the west had your century of emissions and economic growth and now we want ours" approach anything that we do in the United States to mitigate greenhouse gases with a global effect will be completely nullified and canceled out by economic growth in China and India from new dirty coal fired plants (China was, before the economic slump, building a new coal fired power plant every few days now on average) and other 20th century "business as usual". Personally, I don't think that the world will be able to avoid any significant consequences from climate change by changing our ways (which we seem unable to do without violence). I think that at some point during this next century the population will stabilize at a new equilibrium after mass starvation, resource wars, and other nastiness brings the human population level back in line with what a hotter and more arid Earth can support. The Chinese especially will never agree to change their ways (especially if doing so would tamp down economic growth and prevent the bread and circuses situation from continuing) and if you doubt that then look at what happened the last time the people in China proposed a serious change (i.e. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen\_Square\_protests\_of\_1989" title="wikipedia.org">Tiananmen</a> [wikipedia.org]).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This has to be done globally otherwise it is tremendously unfair for companies that are in a country that taxes its companies compared with those that are in a country that does n't tax its companies.Which is why carbon taxes will never work , or at least not in any sort of timeframe that would make a difference and help us avoid the most severe environmental consequences .
As long as China and India take the , " you in the west had your century of emissions and economic growth and now we want ours " approach anything that we do in the United States to mitigate greenhouse gases with a global effect will be completely nullified and canceled out by economic growth in China and India from new dirty coal fired plants ( China was , before the economic slump , building a new coal fired power plant every few days now on average ) and other 20th century " business as usual " .
Personally , I do n't think that the world will be able to avoid any significant consequences from climate change by changing our ways ( which we seem unable to do without violence ) .
I think that at some point during this next century the population will stabilize at a new equilibrium after mass starvation , resource wars , and other nastiness brings the human population level back in line with what a hotter and more arid Earth can support .
The Chinese especially will never agree to change their ways ( especially if doing so would tamp down economic growth and prevent the bread and circuses situation from continuing ) and if you doubt that then look at what happened the last time the people in China proposed a serious change ( i.e .
Tiananmen [ wikipedia.org ] ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has to be done globally otherwise it is tremendously unfair for companies that are in a country that taxes its companies compared with those that are in a country that doesn't tax its companies.Which is why carbon taxes will never work, or at least not in any sort of timeframe that would make a difference and help us avoid the most severe environmental consequences.
As long as China and India take the, "you in the west had your century of emissions and economic growth and now we want ours" approach anything that we do in the United States to mitigate greenhouse gases with a global effect will be completely nullified and canceled out by economic growth in China and India from new dirty coal fired plants (China was, before the economic slump, building a new coal fired power plant every few days now on average) and other 20th century "business as usual".
Personally, I don't think that the world will be able to avoid any significant consequences from climate change by changing our ways (which we seem unable to do without violence).
I think that at some point during this next century the population will stabilize at a new equilibrium after mass starvation, resource wars, and other nastiness brings the human population level back in line with what a hotter and more arid Earth can support.
The Chinese especially will never agree to change their ways (especially if doing so would tamp down economic growth and prevent the bread and circuses situation from continuing) and if you doubt that then look at what happened the last time the people in China proposed a serious change (i.e.
Tiananmen [wikipedia.org]).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28249023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28249499</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>$1uck</author>
	<datestamp>1244466960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've always had weird insane imaginings of blimp trains.  Long snaking trains of airships that could carry passengers/cargo cross country with out the need for laying down roads/rails.   They could moor to skyscrapers downtown to drop off passengers goods.

I'm sure there are many reasons why this just isn't feasible, but damn I think it would be cool.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always had weird insane imaginings of blimp trains .
Long snaking trains of airships that could carry passengers/cargo cross country with out the need for laying down roads/rails .
They could moor to skyscrapers downtown to drop off passengers goods .
I 'm sure there are many reasons why this just is n't feasible , but damn I think it would be cool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always had weird insane imaginings of blimp trains.
Long snaking trains of airships that could carry passengers/cargo cross country with out the need for laying down roads/rails.
They could moor to skyscrapers downtown to drop off passengers goods.
I'm sure there are many reasons why this just isn't feasible, but damn I think it would be cool.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28252597</id>
	<title>Re:Reeedeeculous number-crunching!</title>
	<author>ChrisMaple</author>
	<datestamp>1244483520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article gave environmental costs for passenger-miles, not ton-miles. The difference between the two is substantial.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article gave environmental costs for passenger-miles , not ton-miles .
The difference between the two is substantial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article gave environmental costs for passenger-miles, not ton-miles.
The difference between the two is substantial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247399</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>uid7306m</author>
	<datestamp>1244399880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, except that rail isn't cheap for passengers.  Here in the UK, you can fly to the South of France for the price of a rail ticket to Scotland.  (I.e. On rail, it costs about GBP100 = US$160 to go 350 miles.)</p><p>If rail is so efficient for passengers (it presumably *is* for bulk freight) why ain't it cheap?</p><p>Certainly rail's fuel costs are small, but what about the carbon costs of all those guys standing around in fluorescent yellow vests?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , except that rail is n't cheap for passengers .
Here in the UK , you can fly to the South of France for the price of a rail ticket to Scotland .
( I.e. On rail , it costs about GBP100 = US $ 160 to go 350 miles .
) If rail is so efficient for passengers ( it presumably * is * for bulk freight ) why ai n't it cheap ? Certainly rail 's fuel costs are small , but what about the carbon costs of all those guys standing around in fluorescent yellow vests ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, except that rail isn't cheap for passengers.
Here in the UK, you can fly to the South of France for the price of a rail ticket to Scotland.
(I.e. On rail, it costs about GBP100 = US$160 to go 350 miles.
)If rail is so efficient for passengers (it presumably *is* for bulk freight) why ain't it cheap?Certainly rail's fuel costs are small, but what about the carbon costs of all those guys standing around in fluorescent yellow vests?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246953</id>
	<title>Environmental Research Letters?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244394120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is ERL for real? Is it customary nowadays for journals to <a href="http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/-page=extra.artcharge/erl" title="iop.org" rel="nofollow">charge</a> [iop.org] $1900 to to publish an article?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is ERL for real ?
Is it customary nowadays for journals to charge [ iop.org ] $ 1900 to to publish an article ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is ERL for real?
Is it customary nowadays for journals to charge [iop.org] $1900 to to publish an article?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635</id>
	<title>Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244390940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can see the logic that large airships which are held aloft passively by lighter than air gases, requiring fuel only for movement being economical, but it might be different with standard planes which require fuel to generate lift.</p><p>Yes, rail travel requires resources of iron and such to lay down infrastructure, but that infrastructure is used and maintained for many years and pays off over the long haul.  Once down, a diesel locomotive can move immense amounts of cargo for a lot less per mile than other modes of transportation, so it should balance out.</p><p>There is the cost of regulations too.  An aircraft has a large amount of money put in due to upkeep, far more than a diesel locomotive requires.  This isn't to say that a locomotive is completely maintenance free, but it can go a lot more miles than a plane can before requiring service.</p><p>Finally, there is the amount of cargo a plane carries versus a train.  For example, a $150,000 plane usually can carry less than a $15,000 pickup truck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see the logic that large airships which are held aloft passively by lighter than air gases , requiring fuel only for movement being economical , but it might be different with standard planes which require fuel to generate lift.Yes , rail travel requires resources of iron and such to lay down infrastructure , but that infrastructure is used and maintained for many years and pays off over the long haul .
Once down , a diesel locomotive can move immense amounts of cargo for a lot less per mile than other modes of transportation , so it should balance out.There is the cost of regulations too .
An aircraft has a large amount of money put in due to upkeep , far more than a diesel locomotive requires .
This is n't to say that a locomotive is completely maintenance free , but it can go a lot more miles than a plane can before requiring service.Finally , there is the amount of cargo a plane carries versus a train .
For example , a $ 150,000 plane usually can carry less than a $ 15,000 pickup truck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see the logic that large airships which are held aloft passively by lighter than air gases, requiring fuel only for movement being economical, but it might be different with standard planes which require fuel to generate lift.Yes, rail travel requires resources of iron and such to lay down infrastructure, but that infrastructure is used and maintained for many years and pays off over the long haul.
Once down, a diesel locomotive can move immense amounts of cargo for a lot less per mile than other modes of transportation, so it should balance out.There is the cost of regulations too.
An aircraft has a large amount of money put in due to upkeep, far more than a diesel locomotive requires.
This isn't to say that a locomotive is completely maintenance free, but it can go a lot more miles than a plane can before requiring service.Finally, there is the amount of cargo a plane carries versus a train.
For example, a $150,000 plane usually can carry less than a $15,000 pickup truck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248753</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1244458320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its because you live in the UK. Seriously what is cheap over there?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its because you live in the UK .
Seriously what is cheap over there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its because you live in the UK.
Seriously what is cheap over there?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250461</id>
	<title>Re:Environmental Research Letters?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244473020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Point of reference, the cost of publishing in a PLOS journal is <a href="http://www.plos.org/journals/pubfees.html" title="plos.org" rel="nofollow">$1300-$2850</a> [plos.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Point of reference , the cost of publishing in a PLOS journal is $ 1300- $ 2850 [ plos.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Point of reference, the cost of publishing in a PLOS journal is $1300-$2850 [plos.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248425</id>
	<title>Re:City planning</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1244454480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I lived in a rural Scottish town for a short while that had public transportation options that were lightyears better than anything I can get living in NJ</p></div></blockquote><p>Like.. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpER141-ujI" title="youtube.com">a bus stop to rival any other bus stop</a> [youtube.com]?

</p><p>Pray tell, <em>which</em> "rural Scottish town" had these legendary public transport options?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I lived in a rural Scottish town for a short while that had public transportation options that were lightyears better than anything I can get living in NJLike.. a bus stop to rival any other bus stop [ youtube.com ] ?
Pray tell , which " rural Scottish town " had these legendary public transport options ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I lived in a rural Scottish town for a short while that had public transportation options that were lightyears better than anything I can get living in NJLike.. a bus stop to rival any other bus stop [youtube.com]?
Pray tell, which "rural Scottish town" had these legendary public transport options?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28252067</id>
	<title>Re:City planning</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1244481420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know too much about it but some counties have vans that pick you up based on a phone call, they tell you to wait at X spot between Y and Z times and they'll scoop you and take you to a bus route or even your destination if it's in the right range. It costs the same as any other fare.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know too much about it but some counties have vans that pick you up based on a phone call , they tell you to wait at X spot between Y and Z times and they 'll scoop you and take you to a bus route or even your destination if it 's in the right range .
It costs the same as any other fare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know too much about it but some counties have vans that pick you up based on a phone call, they tell you to wait at X spot between Y and Z times and they'll scoop you and take you to a bus route or even your destination if it's in the right range.
It costs the same as any other fare.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28249929</id>
	<title>Re:The best analysis</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1244470080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p> The best analysis is the one run in the real world, in real time, called the market</p></div></blockquote><p>Utter nonsense. Markets <b>provably</b> do not find the best solution, because they don't take into account externalities. (Also for the reasons Planesdragon pointed out).</p></div><p>He didn't say that the market was perfect, he said it was the best analysis. Markets may not find the <b>best</b> solution, but I know of no case where an implemented solution chosen by the market was not superior to that chosen by any other method.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The best analysis is the one run in the real world , in real time , called the marketUtter nonsense .
Markets provably do not find the best solution , because they do n't take into account externalities .
( Also for the reasons Planesdragon pointed out ) .He did n't say that the market was perfect , he said it was the best analysis .
Markets may not find the best solution , but I know of no case where an implemented solution chosen by the market was not superior to that chosen by any other method .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The best analysis is the one run in the real world, in real time, called the marketUtter nonsense.
Markets provably do not find the best solution, because they don't take into account externalities.
(Also for the reasons Planesdragon pointed out).He didn't say that the market was perfect, he said it was the best analysis.
Markets may not find the best solution, but I know of no case where an implemented solution chosen by the market was not superior to that chosen by any other method.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246789</id>
	<title>Other benefits</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244392320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>To me, it seems transportation by trains has benefits that extend well beyond how much energy they use.  For example, being able to use electricity generated in any way, rather than being dependent on av-gas, provides a stability and flexibility that planes just can't.  While coal may be an ugly way to make power, for America, its supply is certainly more dependable than oil looking forward.  Also, being able to reach into the centre of big cities provides a big convenience factor, in my opinion.  And trains would seem to be safer (at least in properly made and maintained, grade separated systems).</htmltext>
<tokenext>To me , it seems transportation by trains has benefits that extend well beyond how much energy they use .
For example , being able to use electricity generated in any way , rather than being dependent on av-gas , provides a stability and flexibility that planes just ca n't .
While coal may be an ugly way to make power , for America , its supply is certainly more dependable than oil looking forward .
Also , being able to reach into the centre of big cities provides a big convenience factor , in my opinion .
And trains would seem to be safer ( at least in properly made and maintained , grade separated systems ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me, it seems transportation by trains has benefits that extend well beyond how much energy they use.
For example, being able to use electricity generated in any way, rather than being dependent on av-gas, provides a stability and flexibility that planes just can't.
While coal may be an ugly way to make power, for America, its supply is certainly more dependable than oil looking forward.
Also, being able to reach into the centre of big cities provides a big convenience factor, in my opinion.
And trains would seem to be safer (at least in properly made and maintained, grade separated systems).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28251813</id>
	<title>Analysis should also mention</title>
	<author>tthomas48</author>
	<datestamp>1244480100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This might quickly become a moot point if fuel costs continue to rise since electric trains date back to the turn of last century and electric jumbo jets...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This might quickly become a moot point if fuel costs continue to rise since electric trains date back to the turn of last century and electric jumbo jets.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This might quickly become a moot point if fuel costs continue to rise since electric trains date back to the turn of last century and electric jumbo jets...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250885</id>
	<title>When Boolean Logic is Applied, and Ignored</title>
	<author>LifesABeach</author>
	<datestamp>1244475300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone knows that if one part of a Boolean equation is false, then the entire equation is false.  For those that beat the drum for transporting goods at ANY cost, TFA is a fog generator in the battle to keep their livelihoods.  Humanity has heated up the planet, there is no question of it.  One only needs to see a photo of the polar regions to quickly notice that the ice is disappearing.  The missing water is going somewhere, and only a fool, or a show-off would casually ignore this fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows that if one part of a Boolean equation is false , then the entire equation is false .
For those that beat the drum for transporting goods at ANY cost , TFA is a fog generator in the battle to keep their livelihoods .
Humanity has heated up the planet , there is no question of it .
One only needs to see a photo of the polar regions to quickly notice that the ice is disappearing .
The missing water is going somewhere , and only a fool , or a show-off would casually ignore this fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows that if one part of a Boolean equation is false, then the entire equation is false.
For those that beat the drum for transporting goods at ANY cost, TFA is a fog generator in the battle to keep their livelihoods.
Humanity has heated up the planet, there is no question of it.
One only needs to see a photo of the polar regions to quickly notice that the ice is disappearing.
The missing water is going somewhere, and only a fool, or a show-off would casually ignore this fact.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246677</id>
	<title>The best analysis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244391360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The best analysis is the one run in the real world, in real time, called the market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The best analysis is the one run in the real world , in real time , called the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best analysis is the one run in the real world, in real time, called the market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250563</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?  First link!</title>
	<author>WarlockD</author>
	<datestamp>1244473740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was trying to find the interview that had and one of the searches "dundee rep pink limo" from google came up with THIS comment back.:P</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was trying to find the interview that had and one of the searches " dundee rep pink limo " from google came up with THIS comment back .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was trying to find the interview that had and one of the searches "dundee rep pink limo" from google came up with THIS comment back.
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28257349</id>
	<title>Re:City planning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244458560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's no reason why we can't change our zoning laws to encourage new development to be constructed in a more practical fashion.</p></div><p>Four words: Not in my backyard (NIMBY for short).</p><p>In much of suburbia, people would go to great lengths to stop the encroach of higher density. I know of a new water main project (I don't recall if it was axed or not) that faced incredible opposition because it would "bring in higher density."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no reason why we ca n't change our zoning laws to encourage new development to be constructed in a more practical fashion.Four words : Not in my backyard ( NIMBY for short ) .In much of suburbia , people would go to great lengths to stop the encroach of higher density .
I know of a new water main project ( I do n't recall if it was axed or not ) that faced incredible opposition because it would " bring in higher density .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no reason why we can't change our zoning laws to encourage new development to be constructed in a more practical fashion.Four words: Not in my backyard (NIMBY for short).In much of suburbia, people would go to great lengths to stop the encroach of higher density.
I know of a new water main project (I don't recall if it was axed or not) that faced incredible opposition because it would "bring in higher density.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28259823</id>
	<title>Re:FIRST POST</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244471460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone forget to check "Post Anonymously"?</p><p>LOL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone forget to check " Post Anonymously " ? LOL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone forget to check "Post Anonymously"?LOL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247049</id>
	<title>fuCker</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244395200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>told reporters, BSD machines 3ay. It used to be Result of a quarrel a GAY NIGGER thing for the Channel, you might</htmltext>
<tokenext>told reporters , BSD machines 3ay .
It used to be Result of a quarrel a GAY NIGGER thing for the Channel , you might</tokentext>
<sentencetext>told reporters, BSD machines 3ay.
It used to be Result of a quarrel a GAY NIGGER thing for the Channel, you might</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250343</id>
	<title>Re:City planning</title>
	<author>chrysrobyn</author>
	<datestamp>1244472540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Maybe we need to rethink the way we plan cities. Suburban-oriented development needs to stop NOW. We don't have the space or the resources to support it. There's no reason why we can't change our zoning laws to encourage new development to be constructed in a more practical fashion.</p></div></blockquote><p>I wholly disagree.  I think the suburban design is very close to being a system of capillaries needed to support the arteries.  A van could circulate through the main roads of my subdivision in 30 minutes and drop people off at a stop on "the main draw".  A traditional bus could then pick everybody up an head to the next stop.  Down that main draw, my work is only 7 miles away -- a 15 minute ride if we have to stop a few times.  Say I'm halfway through the route in my subdivision (I am), that would be a 30 minute commute.  Twice my normal commute, sure, but still reasonable.  I'd take it, if it were economical.  If they took everybody like me who was willing if it were made smart, then they'd have enough funds to start operating more vehicles and it would be even better for everybody (the second vehicle could to in the opposite circle).</p><p>Instead, a bus comes by my house once an hour, and instead of going to the main artery, heads down the interstate 5 miles to a park and ride.  After taking that 45 minute bus ride, I could take the 30 minute bus to work.  That's insane.</p><p>Instead of rethinking suburbia, telling people where to live based on where they work, essentially planning to rip up 75-90\% of metropolitan areas and replace it with some urban planned concept, we need smarter people running mass transit.  Instead of allowing them to hand-pick people who are already on the bus and finding ways for their lives to be better, they need to pick people in major population centers (subdivisions) and come up with some different ideas.  Around here, if you can drive to a park and ride, the only thing that makes any sense at all is a cross-town bus, and they have high ridership.  The local routes are exclusively for the people who can't afford their own transportation and for the people who are mandated by the court not to drive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe we need to rethink the way we plan cities .
Suburban-oriented development needs to stop NOW .
We do n't have the space or the resources to support it .
There 's no reason why we ca n't change our zoning laws to encourage new development to be constructed in a more practical fashion.I wholly disagree .
I think the suburban design is very close to being a system of capillaries needed to support the arteries .
A van could circulate through the main roads of my subdivision in 30 minutes and drop people off at a stop on " the main draw " .
A traditional bus could then pick everybody up an head to the next stop .
Down that main draw , my work is only 7 miles away -- a 15 minute ride if we have to stop a few times .
Say I 'm halfway through the route in my subdivision ( I am ) , that would be a 30 minute commute .
Twice my normal commute , sure , but still reasonable .
I 'd take it , if it were economical .
If they took everybody like me who was willing if it were made smart , then they 'd have enough funds to start operating more vehicles and it would be even better for everybody ( the second vehicle could to in the opposite circle ) .Instead , a bus comes by my house once an hour , and instead of going to the main artery , heads down the interstate 5 miles to a park and ride .
After taking that 45 minute bus ride , I could take the 30 minute bus to work .
That 's insane.Instead of rethinking suburbia , telling people where to live based on where they work , essentially planning to rip up 75-90 \ % of metropolitan areas and replace it with some urban planned concept , we need smarter people running mass transit .
Instead of allowing them to hand-pick people who are already on the bus and finding ways for their lives to be better , they need to pick people in major population centers ( subdivisions ) and come up with some different ideas .
Around here , if you can drive to a park and ride , the only thing that makes any sense at all is a cross-town bus , and they have high ridership .
The local routes are exclusively for the people who ca n't afford their own transportation and for the people who are mandated by the court not to drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe we need to rethink the way we plan cities.
Suburban-oriented development needs to stop NOW.
We don't have the space or the resources to support it.
There's no reason why we can't change our zoning laws to encourage new development to be constructed in a more practical fashion.I wholly disagree.
I think the suburban design is very close to being a system of capillaries needed to support the arteries.
A van could circulate through the main roads of my subdivision in 30 minutes and drop people off at a stop on "the main draw".
A traditional bus could then pick everybody up an head to the next stop.
Down that main draw, my work is only 7 miles away -- a 15 minute ride if we have to stop a few times.
Say I'm halfway through the route in my subdivision (I am), that would be a 30 minute commute.
Twice my normal commute, sure, but still reasonable.
I'd take it, if it were economical.
If they took everybody like me who was willing if it were made smart, then they'd have enough funds to start operating more vehicles and it would be even better for everybody (the second vehicle could to in the opposite circle).Instead, a bus comes by my house once an hour, and instead of going to the main artery, heads down the interstate 5 miles to a park and ride.
After taking that 45 minute bus ride, I could take the 30 minute bus to work.
That's insane.Instead of rethinking suburbia, telling people where to live based on where they work, essentially planning to rip up 75-90\% of metropolitan areas and replace it with some urban planned concept, we need smarter people running mass transit.
Instead of allowing them to hand-pick people who are already on the bus and finding ways for their lives to be better, they need to pick people in major population centers (subdivisions) and come up with some different ideas.
Around here, if you can drive to a park and ride, the only thing that makes any sense at all is a cross-town bus, and they have high ridership.
The local routes are exclusively for the people who can't afford their own transportation and for the people who are mandated by the court not to drive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247085</id>
	<title>In other news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244395500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Analysis says Spinning Heel Kick to the body more painful than Overhand Right to the face.<br>Conclusion: avoid Spinning Heel Kick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Analysis says Spinning Heel Kick to the body more painful than Overhand Right to the face.Conclusion : avoid Spinning Heel Kick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Analysis says Spinning Heel Kick to the body more painful than Overhand Right to the face.Conclusion: avoid Spinning Heel Kick.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250179</id>
	<title>Re:Environmental Research Letters?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244471700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep its for real. Pretty new, but respected editorial board and good authors. Impact factor 1.2, which isn't that bad for a new journal. Many open access journals charge for publishing. In return they don't charge exorbitant prices for reading the articles, they are for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep its for real .
Pretty new , but respected editorial board and good authors .
Impact factor 1.2 , which is n't that bad for a new journal .
Many open access journals charge for publishing .
In return they do n't charge exorbitant prices for reading the articles , they are for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep its for real.
Pretty new, but respected editorial board and good authors.
Impact factor 1.2, which isn't that bad for a new journal.
Many open access journals charge for publishing.
In return they don't charge exorbitant prices for reading the articles, they are for free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247447</id>
	<title>Look at it from another angle</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1244400540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Earlier this year I flew from Paris to Bangkok and was reading the information sheet of the Boeing 777-200 on which I was flying. The 777-200 is one of the most fuel-efficient long-haul aircrafts there is. So the consumption is 0.022l of Kerosene per (km*passenger) (liters per kilometer per passenger). That's better than many cars, if you drive alone, which most people, sadly, do. So if you look at it from this angle, the 777-200 is more fuel-efficient.</p><p>But here comes the kick: from Paris to Bangkok is nearly 10.000Km. So to ship my white ass between the two points, I was responsible for consuming some 200l of Kerosene! I felt rather bad when we landed, as I imagined 200 liters of kerosene burned up in the atmosphere, just for my enjoyment (I was consoled rather quickly, though, as Thai women are the most beautiful in the world. If there was any justice, we'd have all the Miss World winners from Thailand.).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Earlier this year I flew from Paris to Bangkok and was reading the information sheet of the Boeing 777-200 on which I was flying .
The 777-200 is one of the most fuel-efficient long-haul aircrafts there is .
So the consumption is 0.022l of Kerosene per ( km * passenger ) ( liters per kilometer per passenger ) .
That 's better than many cars , if you drive alone , which most people , sadly , do .
So if you look at it from this angle , the 777-200 is more fuel-efficient.But here comes the kick : from Paris to Bangkok is nearly 10.000Km .
So to ship my white ass between the two points , I was responsible for consuming some 200l of Kerosene !
I felt rather bad when we landed , as I imagined 200 liters of kerosene burned up in the atmosphere , just for my enjoyment ( I was consoled rather quickly , though , as Thai women are the most beautiful in the world .
If there was any justice , we 'd have all the Miss World winners from Thailand .
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Earlier this year I flew from Paris to Bangkok and was reading the information sheet of the Boeing 777-200 on which I was flying.
The 777-200 is one of the most fuel-efficient long-haul aircrafts there is.
So the consumption is 0.022l of Kerosene per (km*passenger) (liters per kilometer per passenger).
That's better than many cars, if you drive alone, which most people, sadly, do.
So if you look at it from this angle, the 777-200 is more fuel-efficient.But here comes the kick: from Paris to Bangkok is nearly 10.000Km.
So to ship my white ass between the two points, I was responsible for consuming some 200l of Kerosene!
I felt rather bad when we landed, as I imagined 200 liters of kerosene burned up in the atmosphere, just for my enjoyment (I was consoled rather quickly, though, as Thai women are the most beautiful in the world.
If there was any justice, we'd have all the Miss World winners from Thailand.
).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28254347</id>
	<title>Re:Context is a funny thing</title>
	<author>DavidTC</author>
	<datestamp>1244491440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Empty seats on a bus makes it worse than an SUV, so stop riding the bus and get an SUV, right? Empty seats on a light rail makes it almost as bad as a plane, so go take a plane to work, right?</i> </p><p>
Bingo.</p><p>
The trick isn't to switch, the trick is to optimize. Whenever large groups of people need to get from one place to another, they should be together, on the most efficient method.</p><p>
Anyone looking at one aspect of this is just being silly or, as in this case, deliberately misleading.</p><p>
Likewise, no one's ever sure how much traffic is 'movable' to some other time or place or method.</p><p>
For example, rush hour traffic...we are fairly sure that's not movable in time or space, but we could have them use another method. (If they could do that trip at some other time, they almost certainly would have already.)</p><p>
OTOH, a pickup truck with a chest of drawers in the back of it can't be done any other method or space, but could possible change the time it happens at. (Although people are smart enough to do that already.)</p><p>
But you can sit and watch 10 cars drive by a certain point, and you never know exactly who would have been willing to take a bus, and who would be willing to take a 'tolley-like bus', and who would be willing to take a subway, and whatnot. And you can look at the number of plane tickets and never know how many people would have been willing to spend an extra 50\% longer on the train. Statistics won't tell us that.</p><p>
Hell, <b>people</b> won't tell us that, cause they don't know. An important part of leaving your car behind is the assurance you won't need it, and you won't feel you won't need it until the system has reached a certain size and reliability, a very large Catch-22 if fools are trying to make the mass transit system 'fund itself'.</p><p>
This is why New York, for example, is continually expanding mass transit. It reached that tipping point such a long time back that personal cars are unimaginable. (And New York demonstrates, I think, that the first step to having mass transit is, ironically, taxis. Plenty of cheap taxis let people have a 'safety net' and actually get to where they're going, quickly, when the mass transit system fails them.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Empty seats on a bus makes it worse than an SUV , so stop riding the bus and get an SUV , right ?
Empty seats on a light rail makes it almost as bad as a plane , so go take a plane to work , right ?
Bingo . The trick is n't to switch , the trick is to optimize .
Whenever large groups of people need to get from one place to another , they should be together , on the most efficient method .
Anyone looking at one aspect of this is just being silly or , as in this case , deliberately misleading .
Likewise , no one 's ever sure how much traffic is 'movable ' to some other time or place or method .
For example , rush hour traffic...we are fairly sure that 's not movable in time or space , but we could have them use another method .
( If they could do that trip at some other time , they almost certainly would have already .
) OTOH , a pickup truck with a chest of drawers in the back of it ca n't be done any other method or space , but could possible change the time it happens at .
( Although people are smart enough to do that already .
) But you can sit and watch 10 cars drive by a certain point , and you never know exactly who would have been willing to take a bus , and who would be willing to take a 'tolley-like bus ' , and who would be willing to take a subway , and whatnot .
And you can look at the number of plane tickets and never know how many people would have been willing to spend an extra 50 \ % longer on the train .
Statistics wo n't tell us that .
Hell , people wo n't tell us that , cause they do n't know .
An important part of leaving your car behind is the assurance you wo n't need it , and you wo n't feel you wo n't need it until the system has reached a certain size and reliability , a very large Catch-22 if fools are trying to make the mass transit system 'fund itself' .
This is why New York , for example , is continually expanding mass transit .
It reached that tipping point such a long time back that personal cars are unimaginable .
( And New York demonstrates , I think , that the first step to having mass transit is , ironically , taxis .
Plenty of cheap taxis let people have a 'safety net ' and actually get to where they 're going , quickly , when the mass transit system fails them .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Empty seats on a bus makes it worse than an SUV, so stop riding the bus and get an SUV, right?
Empty seats on a light rail makes it almost as bad as a plane, so go take a plane to work, right?
Bingo.
The trick isn't to switch, the trick is to optimize.
Whenever large groups of people need to get from one place to another, they should be together, on the most efficient method.
Anyone looking at one aspect of this is just being silly or, as in this case, deliberately misleading.
Likewise, no one's ever sure how much traffic is 'movable' to some other time or place or method.
For example, rush hour traffic...we are fairly sure that's not movable in time or space, but we could have them use another method.
(If they could do that trip at some other time, they almost certainly would have already.
)
OTOH, a pickup truck with a chest of drawers in the back of it can't be done any other method or space, but could possible change the time it happens at.
(Although people are smart enough to do that already.
)
But you can sit and watch 10 cars drive by a certain point, and you never know exactly who would have been willing to take a bus, and who would be willing to take a 'tolley-like bus', and who would be willing to take a subway, and whatnot.
And you can look at the number of plane tickets and never know how many people would have been willing to spend an extra 50\% longer on the train.
Statistics won't tell us that.
Hell, people won't tell us that, cause they don't know.
An important part of leaving your car behind is the assurance you won't need it, and you won't feel you won't need it until the system has reached a certain size and reliability, a very large Catch-22 if fools are trying to make the mass transit system 'fund itself'.
This is why New York, for example, is continually expanding mass transit.
It reached that tipping point such a long time back that personal cars are unimaginable.
(And New York demonstrates, I think, that the first step to having mass transit is, ironically, taxis.
Plenty of cheap taxis let people have a 'safety net' and actually get to where they're going, quickly, when the mass transit system fails them.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247725</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247725</id>
	<title>Context is a funny thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244404140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Taken at face value this study is all doom and gloom about how much exhaust is generated.</p><p>But what I keep seeing is those empty seats, and last I checked there are empty seats everywhere. Empty seats on a bus makes it worse than an SUV, so stop riding the bus and get an SUV, right? Empty seats on a light rail makes it almost as bad as a plane, so go take a plane to work, right?</p><p>It seems odd that thier findings talk about the tailpipe exhaust but do they take into account the costs of using various forms of transport? If you want to drill down on the cost, shouldn't you factor in how much pollution it takes for someone to buy the plane ticket in the first place? Let's see, if the plane to work is $100.00 (for simplicity's sake) and the bus to work is $1.00 (again for simplicities sake) and you make $10.00/hour in Boston where "82 per cent of electricity... is generated by burning fossil fuels" then a 10 hour day of e;ectrical use more than likely destroys all savings from the bus with only 5 people on it.</p><p>I still find it odd that people try to quantify things but only so much that they can skew the numbers to thier desired effect.</p><p>Truth is, how much worse would we be environmentally if we took away all the trains and put it all on planes? Imagine those 100+ coal cars now needing to be flown from the mine to the power plant. So now we need an airport at both ends, and the long runways, and the environmental impact there. Yes, there are probably better solutions to some of our transportation needs, but studies like these don't really do anything to address them when they sensationalize thier results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Taken at face value this study is all doom and gloom about how much exhaust is generated.But what I keep seeing is those empty seats , and last I checked there are empty seats everywhere .
Empty seats on a bus makes it worse than an SUV , so stop riding the bus and get an SUV , right ?
Empty seats on a light rail makes it almost as bad as a plane , so go take a plane to work , right ? It seems odd that thier findings talk about the tailpipe exhaust but do they take into account the costs of using various forms of transport ?
If you want to drill down on the cost , should n't you factor in how much pollution it takes for someone to buy the plane ticket in the first place ?
Let 's see , if the plane to work is $ 100.00 ( for simplicity 's sake ) and the bus to work is $ 1.00 ( again for simplicities sake ) and you make $ 10.00/hour in Boston where " 82 per cent of electricity... is generated by burning fossil fuels " then a 10 hour day of e ; ectrical use more than likely destroys all savings from the bus with only 5 people on it.I still find it odd that people try to quantify things but only so much that they can skew the numbers to thier desired effect.Truth is , how much worse would we be environmentally if we took away all the trains and put it all on planes ?
Imagine those 100 + coal cars now needing to be flown from the mine to the power plant .
So now we need an airport at both ends , and the long runways , and the environmental impact there .
Yes , there are probably better solutions to some of our transportation needs , but studies like these do n't really do anything to address them when they sensationalize thier results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taken at face value this study is all doom and gloom about how much exhaust is generated.But what I keep seeing is those empty seats, and last I checked there are empty seats everywhere.
Empty seats on a bus makes it worse than an SUV, so stop riding the bus and get an SUV, right?
Empty seats on a light rail makes it almost as bad as a plane, so go take a plane to work, right?It seems odd that thier findings talk about the tailpipe exhaust but do they take into account the costs of using various forms of transport?
If you want to drill down on the cost, shouldn't you factor in how much pollution it takes for someone to buy the plane ticket in the first place?
Let's see, if the plane to work is $100.00 (for simplicity's sake) and the bus to work is $1.00 (again for simplicities sake) and you make $10.00/hour in Boston where "82 per cent of electricity... is generated by burning fossil fuels" then a 10 hour day of e;ectrical use more than likely destroys all savings from the bus with only 5 people on it.I still find it odd that people try to quantify things but only so much that they can skew the numbers to thier desired effect.Truth is, how much worse would we be environmentally if we took away all the trains and put it all on planes?
Imagine those 100+ coal cars now needing to be flown from the mine to the power plant.
So now we need an airport at both ends, and the long runways, and the environmental impact there.
Yes, there are probably better solutions to some of our transportation needs, but studies like these don't really do anything to address them when they sensationalize thier results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247501</id>
	<title>Re:City planning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244401440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The sad truth is that most American cities are ill-suited to public transportation at the fundamental design level.</p></div><p>Maybe we need to rethink the way we plan cities.  Suburban-oriented development needs to stop NOW.  We don't have the space or the resources to support it.  There's no reason why we can't change our zoning laws to encourage new development to be constructed in a more practical fashion.</p><p>Many recently constructed suburbs (ie. anything around DC) don't even offer the typical advantages that the suburban lifestyle promised.  Houses are crammed onto tiny lots in a traffic-congested area that provides no businesses or services within walking distance.  It is <i>literally</i> the worst-case scenario.</p><p>The "insufficient" population density argument is <b>bullshit</b>.  New Jersey has a higher population density than all of the European states and Japan, and yet most of the state has zero access to a public transportation system that will deliver them somewhere other than New York or Philadelphia.  I lived in a rural Scottish town for a short while that had public transportation options that were <i>lightyears</i> better than anything I can get living in NJ, just across the river from NYC.</p><p>France has one of the best high-speed rail networks in the world (and has had it since the 70s).   Most of France is extremely rural, and yet the TGV system provides access to a huge portion of the country.  The eastern seaboard of the US has 4 major cities <i>arranged in a straight line</i>, and we somehow can't figure out how to provide reasonable rail transportation between them.  The Acela is barely faster than driving, and costs 10x as much.</p><p>I lived in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia for a while, and attempted to do my commute via public transportation at first.  Geographically, the area is composed of a narrow peninsula (~10-15 miles wide) connecting Richmond to Virginia Beach.  The 60mi stretch from Williamsburg to VB is very densely populated.  The situation practically <i>cries</i> for a commuter rail line down the peninsula, with a few well-placed bus routes around the urban centers.  Instead, we have numerous 4-lane traffic-clogged highways, and the world's most disjointed bus network.  My fairly straightforward commute to work (25 minutes by car, basically on one road) took over 2 hours by bus.</p><p>It's often said that only poor people ride the bus.  In the case of Hampton Roads, I was tempted to believe that the people on the bus were poor because they never got to work on time.</p><p>The naysayers are wrong.  The US isn't terribly special.  We CAN fix this.  Yes, we've made a few bad urban planning decisions over the past 40 years, although much of the rest of the world made those same mistakes.</p><p>The costs are justified.  The economy can't survive another prolonged $5/gal gas spike.  Fixing the means by which transportation works in America is far more important than any war we're fighting (and coincidentally, would have <i>prevented</i> the one we're currently embroiled in)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The sad truth is that most American cities are ill-suited to public transportation at the fundamental design level.Maybe we need to rethink the way we plan cities .
Suburban-oriented development needs to stop NOW .
We do n't have the space or the resources to support it .
There 's no reason why we ca n't change our zoning laws to encourage new development to be constructed in a more practical fashion.Many recently constructed suburbs ( ie .
anything around DC ) do n't even offer the typical advantages that the suburban lifestyle promised .
Houses are crammed onto tiny lots in a traffic-congested area that provides no businesses or services within walking distance .
It is literally the worst-case scenario.The " insufficient " population density argument is bullshit .
New Jersey has a higher population density than all of the European states and Japan , and yet most of the state has zero access to a public transportation system that will deliver them somewhere other than New York or Philadelphia .
I lived in a rural Scottish town for a short while that had public transportation options that were lightyears better than anything I can get living in NJ , just across the river from NYC.France has one of the best high-speed rail networks in the world ( and has had it since the 70s ) .
Most of France is extremely rural , and yet the TGV system provides access to a huge portion of the country .
The eastern seaboard of the US has 4 major cities arranged in a straight line , and we somehow ca n't figure out how to provide reasonable rail transportation between them .
The Acela is barely faster than driving , and costs 10x as much.I lived in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia for a while , and attempted to do my commute via public transportation at first .
Geographically , the area is composed of a narrow peninsula ( ~ 10-15 miles wide ) connecting Richmond to Virginia Beach .
The 60mi stretch from Williamsburg to VB is very densely populated .
The situation practically cries for a commuter rail line down the peninsula , with a few well-placed bus routes around the urban centers .
Instead , we have numerous 4-lane traffic-clogged highways , and the world 's most disjointed bus network .
My fairly straightforward commute to work ( 25 minutes by car , basically on one road ) took over 2 hours by bus.It 's often said that only poor people ride the bus .
In the case of Hampton Roads , I was tempted to believe that the people on the bus were poor because they never got to work on time.The naysayers are wrong .
The US is n't terribly special .
We CAN fix this .
Yes , we 've made a few bad urban planning decisions over the past 40 years , although much of the rest of the world made those same mistakes.The costs are justified .
The economy ca n't survive another prolonged $ 5/gal gas spike .
Fixing the means by which transportation works in America is far more important than any war we 're fighting ( and coincidentally , would have prevented the one we 're currently embroiled in )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sad truth is that most American cities are ill-suited to public transportation at the fundamental design level.Maybe we need to rethink the way we plan cities.
Suburban-oriented development needs to stop NOW.
We don't have the space or the resources to support it.
There's no reason why we can't change our zoning laws to encourage new development to be constructed in a more practical fashion.Many recently constructed suburbs (ie.
anything around DC) don't even offer the typical advantages that the suburban lifestyle promised.
Houses are crammed onto tiny lots in a traffic-congested area that provides no businesses or services within walking distance.
It is literally the worst-case scenario.The "insufficient" population density argument is bullshit.
New Jersey has a higher population density than all of the European states and Japan, and yet most of the state has zero access to a public transportation system that will deliver them somewhere other than New York or Philadelphia.
I lived in a rural Scottish town for a short while that had public transportation options that were lightyears better than anything I can get living in NJ, just across the river from NYC.France has one of the best high-speed rail networks in the world (and has had it since the 70s).
Most of France is extremely rural, and yet the TGV system provides access to a huge portion of the country.
The eastern seaboard of the US has 4 major cities arranged in a straight line, and we somehow can't figure out how to provide reasonable rail transportation between them.
The Acela is barely faster than driving, and costs 10x as much.I lived in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia for a while, and attempted to do my commute via public transportation at first.
Geographically, the area is composed of a narrow peninsula (~10-15 miles wide) connecting Richmond to Virginia Beach.
The 60mi stretch from Williamsburg to VB is very densely populated.
The situation practically cries for a commuter rail line down the peninsula, with a few well-placed bus routes around the urban centers.
Instead, we have numerous 4-lane traffic-clogged highways, and the world's most disjointed bus network.
My fairly straightforward commute to work (25 minutes by car, basically on one road) took over 2 hours by bus.It's often said that only poor people ride the bus.
In the case of Hampton Roads, I was tempted to believe that the people on the bus were poor because they never got to work on time.The naysayers are wrong.
The US isn't terribly special.
We CAN fix this.
Yes, we've made a few bad urban planning decisions over the past 40 years, although much of the rest of the world made those same mistakes.The costs are justified.
The economy can't survive another prolonged $5/gal gas spike.
Fixing the means by which transportation works in America is far more important than any war we're fighting (and coincidentally, would have prevented the one we're currently embroiled in)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247329</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1244398860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Yes, rail travel requires resources of iron and such to lay down infrastructure, but that infrastructure is used and maintained for many years and pays off over the long haul.</i> </p><p>You have to build the road anyway.</p><p> Rail is very good at moving bulk freight. The mile long unit train that shuttles back and forth from the coal mine to the power plant.</p><p>Breaking bulk - dropping off a boxcar for the occasional pickup at every local factory, every rural hamlet, reaching deep into the inner city - that's hard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , rail travel requires resources of iron and such to lay down infrastructure , but that infrastructure is used and maintained for many years and pays off over the long haul .
You have to build the road anyway .
Rail is very good at moving bulk freight .
The mile long unit train that shuttles back and forth from the coal mine to the power plant.Breaking bulk - dropping off a boxcar for the occasional pickup at every local factory , every rural hamlet , reaching deep into the inner city - that 's hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, rail travel requires resources of iron and such to lay down infrastructure, but that infrastructure is used and maintained for many years and pays off over the long haul.
You have to build the road anyway.
Rail is very good at moving bulk freight.
The mile long unit train that shuttles back and forth from the coal mine to the power plant.Breaking bulk - dropping off a boxcar for the occasional pickup at every local factory, every rural hamlet, reaching deep into the inner city - that's hard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246597</id>
	<title>FIRST POST</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244390700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>COCK</htmltext>
<tokenext>COCK</tokentext>
<sentencetext>COCK</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246797</id>
	<title>Freight trains are still greener, though.</title>
	<author>MtViewGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1244392440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're talking current infrastructure, freight trains are still <b>WAY</b> more environmentally friendly than trucks.</p><p>Remember, you only need four modern 4,000 bhp diesel-electric locomotives to pull 180 loaded 53" trailers, not 180 trucks spewing <b>WAY</b> more exhaust emissions (assuming each truck has about 400 bhp pulling power).</p><p>The problem with airplanes is that because so much of the structure is needed for aerodynamic lift, the result is a much lower freight load per pound of structure compared to a freight train. That's why interest in super large lighter-than-air vehicles have never completely waned, since they could carry a lot of load per pound of structure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're talking current infrastructure , freight trains are still WAY more environmentally friendly than trucks.Remember , you only need four modern 4,000 bhp diesel-electric locomotives to pull 180 loaded 53 " trailers , not 180 trucks spewing WAY more exhaust emissions ( assuming each truck has about 400 bhp pulling power ) .The problem with airplanes is that because so much of the structure is needed for aerodynamic lift , the result is a much lower freight load per pound of structure compared to a freight train .
That 's why interest in super large lighter-than-air vehicles have never completely waned , since they could carry a lot of load per pound of structure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're talking current infrastructure, freight trains are still WAY more environmentally friendly than trucks.Remember, you only need four modern 4,000 bhp diesel-electric locomotives to pull 180 loaded 53" trailers, not 180 trucks spewing WAY more exhaust emissions (assuming each truck has about 400 bhp pulling power).The problem with airplanes is that because so much of the structure is needed for aerodynamic lift, the result is a much lower freight load per pound of structure compared to a freight train.
That's why interest in super large lighter-than-air vehicles have never completely waned, since they could carry a lot of load per pound of structure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28251565</id>
	<title>Re:City planning</title>
	<author>DavidTC</author>
	<datestamp>1244478600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to disagree with you. While most American cities are ill-suited to public transportation, subways were invented for exactly that niche...putting mass transit into places when it didn't fit.</p><p>
Obviously, not every 'green' measure is a good idea, but it's entirely possible you live in a city where there's sane behavior. Let me tell you a story:</p><p>
I live in Georgia. North Georgia. About an hour and a half north of Atlanta. There are three roads going north from Atlanta. I-75, I-85, and SR-400. These roads are packed, every single day. I an up SR-400.</p><p>
Atlanta has a pretty good subway system. A lot of people use it. Unfortunately, it stops, basically, at Atlanta. On SR-400, they've even built a northmost station that is an 'exit', only accepting incoming cars from the north and dumping them back out northward. (I.e., the train only goes south from there, the roads only go north when you leave the station.) The station is packed every day.</p><p>
Sadly, this train station is about an hour south of me, almost in Atlanta. Why?</p><p>
Because of idiotic politics, that's why. It could be another 60 miles up the road and still be packed. They could build another one 60 miles up the road and they would both be packed. Cars are bumper to bumper for another <b>thirty miles</b> past this train station.</p><p>
I get a little tired of people who live in 'green' cities talking about how we don't need more mass transit. Maybe you folks don't...but some cities really do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to disagree with you .
While most American cities are ill-suited to public transportation , subways were invented for exactly that niche...putting mass transit into places when it did n't fit .
Obviously , not every 'green ' measure is a good idea , but it 's entirely possible you live in a city where there 's sane behavior .
Let me tell you a story : I live in Georgia .
North Georgia .
About an hour and a half north of Atlanta .
There are three roads going north from Atlanta .
I-75 , I-85 , and SR-400 .
These roads are packed , every single day .
I an up SR-400 .
Atlanta has a pretty good subway system .
A lot of people use it .
Unfortunately , it stops , basically , at Atlanta .
On SR-400 , they 've even built a northmost station that is an 'exit ' , only accepting incoming cars from the north and dumping them back out northward .
( I.e. , the train only goes south from there , the roads only go north when you leave the station .
) The station is packed every day .
Sadly , this train station is about an hour south of me , almost in Atlanta .
Why ? Because of idiotic politics , that 's why .
It could be another 60 miles up the road and still be packed .
They could build another one 60 miles up the road and they would both be packed .
Cars are bumper to bumper for another thirty miles past this train station .
I get a little tired of people who live in 'green ' cities talking about how we do n't need more mass transit .
Maybe you folks do n't...but some cities really do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to disagree with you.
While most American cities are ill-suited to public transportation, subways were invented for exactly that niche...putting mass transit into places when it didn't fit.
Obviously, not every 'green' measure is a good idea, but it's entirely possible you live in a city where there's sane behavior.
Let me tell you a story:
I live in Georgia.
North Georgia.
About an hour and a half north of Atlanta.
There are three roads going north from Atlanta.
I-75, I-85, and SR-400.
These roads are packed, every single day.
I an up SR-400.
Atlanta has a pretty good subway system.
A lot of people use it.
Unfortunately, it stops, basically, at Atlanta.
On SR-400, they've even built a northmost station that is an 'exit', only accepting incoming cars from the north and dumping them back out northward.
(I.e., the train only goes south from there, the roads only go north when you leave the station.
) The station is packed every day.
Sadly, this train station is about an hour south of me, almost in Atlanta.
Why?
Because of idiotic politics, that's why.
It could be another 60 miles up the road and still be packed.
They could build another one 60 miles up the road and they would both be packed.
Cars are bumper to bumper for another thirty miles past this train station.
I get a little tired of people who live in 'green' cities talking about how we don't need more mass transit.
Maybe you folks don't...but some cities really do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247919</id>
	<title>Re:Environmental Research Letters?</title>
	<author>Cymurgh</author>
	<datestamp>1244492640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Author-side payment is one funding model (or one element of funding models) for open access journals, pioneered by PLoS and New Journal of Physics. Articles are made freely available on the internet. I have seen estimates placing the cost of publishing a scientific article well above $1900. Whatever the truth of that -- publishers have to recoup their costs somewhere and the traditional model of selling subscriptions (at comparably breathtaking rates) to research libraries is slow, restrictive, and also favors rich institutions in rich countries. Under many (full) open access models, at least author charges are waived for Third World researchers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Author-side payment is one funding model ( or one element of funding models ) for open access journals , pioneered by PLoS and New Journal of Physics .
Articles are made freely available on the internet .
I have seen estimates placing the cost of publishing a scientific article well above $ 1900 .
Whatever the truth of that -- publishers have to recoup their costs somewhere and the traditional model of selling subscriptions ( at comparably breathtaking rates ) to research libraries is slow , restrictive , and also favors rich institutions in rich countries .
Under many ( full ) open access models , at least author charges are waived for Third World researchers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Author-side payment is one funding model (or one element of funding models) for open access journals, pioneered by PLoS and New Journal of Physics.
Articles are made freely available on the internet.
I have seen estimates placing the cost of publishing a scientific article well above $1900.
Whatever the truth of that -- publishers have to recoup their costs somewhere and the traditional model of selling subscriptions (at comparably breathtaking rates) to research libraries is slow, restrictive, and also favors rich institutions in rich countries.
Under many (full) open access models, at least author charges are waived for Third World researchers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28253573</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>cheier</author>
	<datestamp>1244488320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like the comparison you make here, but in reality, it is even worse.  For the most part, a $150,000 plane can barely take my family (2 adults, 2 small children) and some luggage with a full load of fuel (legally).  I also burn about 22 Gallons of fuel or so on a 206nm flight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like the comparison you make here , but in reality , it is even worse .
For the most part , a $ 150,000 plane can barely take my family ( 2 adults , 2 small children ) and some luggage with a full load of fuel ( legally ) .
I also burn about 22 Gallons of fuel or so on a 206nm flight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like the comparison you make here, but in reality, it is even worse.
For the most part, a $150,000 plane can barely take my family (2 adults, 2 small children) and some luggage with a full load of fuel (legally).
I also burn about 22 Gallons of fuel or so on a 206nm flight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247495</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>polar red</author>
	<datestamp>1244401380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If rail is so efficient for passengers (it presumably *is* for bulk freight) why ain't it cheap?</p></div><p>because kerosene is not taxed</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If rail is so efficient for passengers ( it presumably * is * for bulk freight ) why ai n't it cheap ? because kerosene is not taxed</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If rail is so efficient for passengers (it presumably *is* for bulk freight) why ain't it cheap?because kerosene is not taxed
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247013</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244394780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anonymous Coward here, pointing out FAIL.</p><p>The article regarding the trains is dealing with the emission of greenhouse gasses.  The Prius article and timothy both talk about costs (how much money it takes).  Emission of greenhouse gasses is not the same as how much money it takes to produce and use something.</p><p>If you don't understand what I'm talking about, that is ok.  The government does not want you to be smart enough to understand that.  Otherwise, our school systems wouldn't suck.</p><p>Signing off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anonymous Coward here , pointing out FAIL.The article regarding the trains is dealing with the emission of greenhouse gasses .
The Prius article and timothy both talk about costs ( how much money it takes ) .
Emission of greenhouse gasses is not the same as how much money it takes to produce and use something.If you do n't understand what I 'm talking about , that is ok. The government does not want you to be smart enough to understand that .
Otherwise , our school systems would n't suck.Signing off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anonymous Coward here, pointing out FAIL.The article regarding the trains is dealing with the emission of greenhouse gasses.
The Prius article and timothy both talk about costs (how much money it takes).
Emission of greenhouse gasses is not the same as how much money it takes to produce and use something.If you don't understand what I'm talking about, that is ok.  The government does not want you to be smart enough to understand that.
Otherwise, our school systems wouldn't suck.Signing off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28269559</id>
	<title>how could it be?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244576520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is that possible if train transportation is 12 times more effective than car transportation. It is absolutely sensless. To build railway can cost large amount of energy, but after it will return quickly because electricity powered train consumes a fraction of energy that plane consumes. I think this is one of those articles ordered by some stupid big company. Same as those about dangers of smoking or cell phone radiations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is that possible if train transportation is 12 times more effective than car transportation .
It is absolutely sensless .
To build railway can cost large amount of energy , but after it will return quickly because electricity powered train consumes a fraction of energy that plane consumes .
I think this is one of those articles ordered by some stupid big company .
Same as those about dangers of smoking or cell phone radiations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is that possible if train transportation is 12 times more effective than car transportation.
It is absolutely sensless.
To build railway can cost large amount of energy, but after it will return quickly because electricity powered train consumes a fraction of energy that plane consumes.
I think this is one of those articles ordered by some stupid big company.
Same as those about dangers of smoking or cell phone radiations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28277035</id>
	<title>Why are construction costs in the PKT figures?!</title>
	<author>elFisico</author>
	<datestamp>1244629860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can you convert construction costs into figures that amount to something-per-year or -per-kilometer?! You have to assume a life-time, but how long is that? One year? Ten years? A thousand years?</p><p>For cars or busses or trains or aircraft you can do this, because those things have a defined lifetime after which they are scrapped.</p><p>But you cannot do that for roads or rails, because they won't be scrapped and rebuild anew, they will be maintained and reworked! So the construction costs are one-time only and cannot be included in the figures.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can you convert construction costs into figures that amount to something-per-year or -per-kilometer ? !
You have to assume a life-time , but how long is that ?
One year ?
Ten years ?
A thousand years ? For cars or busses or trains or aircraft you can do this , because those things have a defined lifetime after which they are scrapped.But you can not do that for roads or rails , because they wo n't be scrapped and rebuild anew , they will be maintained and reworked !
So the construction costs are one-time only and can not be included in the figures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can you convert construction costs into figures that amount to something-per-year or -per-kilometer?!
You have to assume a life-time, but how long is that?
One year?
Ten years?
A thousand years?For cars or busses or trains or aircraft you can do this, because those things have a defined lifetime after which they are scrapped.But you cannot do that for roads or rails, because they won't be scrapped and rebuild anew, they will be maintained and reworked!
So the construction costs are one-time only and cannot be included in the figures.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28251947</id>
	<title>Re:City planning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244480820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry as a German resident I must correct some things here.</p><p>There is currently no single system that has all of German public transport options. There is one in development but it isn't finished. If you live in a larger city the German Railway Company has access to the public transport data though and you can use their website for planning.</p><p>Secondly, I live in two cities with about 500+ K people (which is considered large for Germany) and no one would apologize that there is a hole in the schedule at 2.30AM / 3.30AM. Our public transport system is great but it's not some miraculous wonder-machine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry as a German resident I must correct some things here.There is currently no single system that has all of German public transport options .
There is one in development but it is n't finished .
If you live in a larger city the German Railway Company has access to the public transport data though and you can use their website for planning.Secondly , I live in two cities with about 500 + K people ( which is considered large for Germany ) and no one would apologize that there is a hole in the schedule at 2.30AM / 3.30AM .
Our public transport system is great but it 's not some miraculous wonder-machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry as a German resident I must correct some things here.There is currently no single system that has all of German public transport options.
There is one in development but it isn't finished.
If you live in a larger city the German Railway Company has access to the public transport data though and you can use their website for planning.Secondly, I live in two cities with about 500+ K people (which is considered large for Germany) and no one would apologize that there is a hole in the schedule at 2.30AM / 3.30AM.
Our public transport system is great but it's not some miraculous wonder-machine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28249397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247417</id>
	<title>Solar flight</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244400060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, this is not about the study, but there are guys around the world flying solar-electric sailplanes ( http://solar-flight.com/ ). This is definitely greener than any internal-combustion engine car, or even greener than a electric car charged with electricity from coal powerplant.<br>Plus, sailplanes go above clouds, so they have power as long as they want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , this is not about the study , but there are guys around the world flying solar-electric sailplanes ( http : //solar-flight.com/ ) .
This is definitely greener than any internal-combustion engine car , or even greener than a electric car charged with electricity from coal powerplant.Plus , sailplanes go above clouds , so they have power as long as they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, this is not about the study, but there are guys around the world flying solar-electric sailplanes ( http://solar-flight.com/ ).
This is definitely greener than any internal-combustion engine car, or even greener than a electric car charged with electricity from coal powerplant.Plus, sailplanes go above clouds, so they have power as long as they want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250757</id>
	<title>Re:Does it make sense...</title>
	<author>Deadstick</author>
	<datestamp>1244474640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Does it make sense to, for example, haul coal on planes? </i> <p>
Under certain unusual conditions...google "Berlin Airlift".</p><p>
rj</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it make sense to , for example , haul coal on planes ?
Under certain unusual conditions...google " Berlin Airlift " .
rj</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it make sense to, for example, haul coal on planes?
Under certain unusual conditions...google "Berlin Airlift".
rj</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250689</id>
	<title>Yah, but 53-inch trailers don't carry much.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244474400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sorry, sorry, sorry</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sorry , sorry , sorry</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sorry, sorry, sorry</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246777</id>
	<title>City planning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244392260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This research is essentially stating that what is and is not "green" transportation is significantly dependent on the context of the layout of the region it is located in. This should be obvious but it is not hard to find people that think forcing everyone into the same transportation options regardless of objective context is sound environmental policy. Or in other words, attempting to force people to be "green" often generates more pollution than doing nothing at all, and if you do not change the underlying equilibrium that created the original distribution you will just piss people off as a bonus to your non-accomplishment.</p><p>The sad truth is that most American cities are ill-suited to public transportation at the fundamental design level. It would be like trying to make MS-DOS function as an enterprise server environment, the impedance mismatch is extreme. You can't hack an effective and economic public transportation system onto them, and taking a wrecking ball to three-quarters of the American landscape would be expensive beyond belief for a very modest benefit -- you would see more pollution reduction by simply shutting down coal power plants and building nuclear power plants.  You have to build the green cities before you can demand people live in them, but for some reason politicians often seem to get that backward.</p><p>Even though I am all for green cities, punishing people who live in car-only suburbs is a non-solution because for the most part Americans have no practical choice but to live in such places.  For some reason, the same people that refuse to allow the building of green cities as a matter of policy (or at a minimum show a complete lack of political will to propose such things) have no problem coming up with punishments for not living in cities they would not allow to be built.  It is a bipartisan failing, even the extreme "environmental progressives" that control the politics where I live rabidly oppose any city development that does not look an awful lot like crappy suburban sprawl.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This research is essentially stating that what is and is not " green " transportation is significantly dependent on the context of the layout of the region it is located in .
This should be obvious but it is not hard to find people that think forcing everyone into the same transportation options regardless of objective context is sound environmental policy .
Or in other words , attempting to force people to be " green " often generates more pollution than doing nothing at all , and if you do not change the underlying equilibrium that created the original distribution you will just piss people off as a bonus to your non-accomplishment.The sad truth is that most American cities are ill-suited to public transportation at the fundamental design level .
It would be like trying to make MS-DOS function as an enterprise server environment , the impedance mismatch is extreme .
You ca n't hack an effective and economic public transportation system onto them , and taking a wrecking ball to three-quarters of the American landscape would be expensive beyond belief for a very modest benefit -- you would see more pollution reduction by simply shutting down coal power plants and building nuclear power plants .
You have to build the green cities before you can demand people live in them , but for some reason politicians often seem to get that backward.Even though I am all for green cities , punishing people who live in car-only suburbs is a non-solution because for the most part Americans have no practical choice but to live in such places .
For some reason , the same people that refuse to allow the building of green cities as a matter of policy ( or at a minimum show a complete lack of political will to propose such things ) have no problem coming up with punishments for not living in cities they would not allow to be built .
It is a bipartisan failing , even the extreme " environmental progressives " that control the politics where I live rabidly oppose any city development that does not look an awful lot like crappy suburban sprawl .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This research is essentially stating that what is and is not "green" transportation is significantly dependent on the context of the layout of the region it is located in.
This should be obvious but it is not hard to find people that think forcing everyone into the same transportation options regardless of objective context is sound environmental policy.
Or in other words, attempting to force people to be "green" often generates more pollution than doing nothing at all, and if you do not change the underlying equilibrium that created the original distribution you will just piss people off as a bonus to your non-accomplishment.The sad truth is that most American cities are ill-suited to public transportation at the fundamental design level.
It would be like trying to make MS-DOS function as an enterprise server environment, the impedance mismatch is extreme.
You can't hack an effective and economic public transportation system onto them, and taking a wrecking ball to three-quarters of the American landscape would be expensive beyond belief for a very modest benefit -- you would see more pollution reduction by simply shutting down coal power plants and building nuclear power plants.
You have to build the green cities before you can demand people live in them, but for some reason politicians often seem to get that backward.Even though I am all for green cities, punishing people who live in car-only suburbs is a non-solution because for the most part Americans have no practical choice but to live in such places.
For some reason, the same people that refuse to allow the building of green cities as a matter of policy (or at a minimum show a complete lack of political will to propose such things) have no problem coming up with punishments for not living in cities they would not allow to be built.
It is a bipartisan failing, even the extreme "environmental progressives" that control the politics where I live rabidly oppose any city development that does not look an awful lot like crappy suburban sprawl.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246867</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244393280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correct.  The study is obviously flawed, economically speaking.  In a real life study done years ago, trains moved freight for about 7 cents per ton/mile, and trucks moved the same freight for about 28 cents per ton/mile.  As I recall, that included investment in tractor/locomotive and trailer/railcars, but did NOT include the highway/rail infrastructure.</p><p>Obviously, MOST people and corporations moving freight find that rail and truck are both more economical than air - witness the fact that millions of tons of freight roll down the tracks and the highways each and every night, whereas air freight is reserved for small, high priority shipments.  (In fact, shipping by truck is often faster than shipping by air, but I won't go into that here)</p><p>If we were to build fleets of aircraft like the Hercules to move our groceries around the continent that demanded high quality aviation fuel (JP-5 or whatever it is they use) the cost of ALL fuels would increase because the refineries would simply shift their methods to yield more JP-5 and less diesel fuel and gasoline.</p><p>And, in the end, those planes would still be emitting pollutants, probably worse than what we are doing right now.  Not to mention, the trucks would still be around to get the groceries from the airport to the market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct .
The study is obviously flawed , economically speaking .
In a real life study done years ago , trains moved freight for about 7 cents per ton/mile , and trucks moved the same freight for about 28 cents per ton/mile .
As I recall , that included investment in tractor/locomotive and trailer/railcars , but did NOT include the highway/rail infrastructure.Obviously , MOST people and corporations moving freight find that rail and truck are both more economical than air - witness the fact that millions of tons of freight roll down the tracks and the highways each and every night , whereas air freight is reserved for small , high priority shipments .
( In fact , shipping by truck is often faster than shipping by air , but I wo n't go into that here ) If we were to build fleets of aircraft like the Hercules to move our groceries around the continent that demanded high quality aviation fuel ( JP-5 or whatever it is they use ) the cost of ALL fuels would increase because the refineries would simply shift their methods to yield more JP-5 and less diesel fuel and gasoline.And , in the end , those planes would still be emitting pollutants , probably worse than what we are doing right now .
Not to mention , the trucks would still be around to get the groceries from the airport to the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct.
The study is obviously flawed, economically speaking.
In a real life study done years ago, trains moved freight for about 7 cents per ton/mile, and trucks moved the same freight for about 28 cents per ton/mile.
As I recall, that included investment in tractor/locomotive and trailer/railcars, but did NOT include the highway/rail infrastructure.Obviously, MOST people and corporations moving freight find that rail and truck are both more economical than air - witness the fact that millions of tons of freight roll down the tracks and the highways each and every night, whereas air freight is reserved for small, high priority shipments.
(In fact, shipping by truck is often faster than shipping by air, but I won't go into that here)If we were to build fleets of aircraft like the Hercules to move our groceries around the continent that demanded high quality aviation fuel (JP-5 or whatever it is they use) the cost of ALL fuels would increase because the refineries would simply shift their methods to yield more JP-5 and less diesel fuel and gasoline.And, in the end, those planes would still be emitting pollutants, probably worse than what we are doing right now.
Not to mention, the trucks would still be around to get the groceries from the airport to the market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247921</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244492700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet another study funded by the airline cartel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another study funded by the airline cartel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another study funded by the airline cartel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246889</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244393460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about taxing carbon emissions, and letting the market figure things out?</p><p>If that's not good enough because people cheat by importing materials from China, then you can tax the "embodied emissions" (i.e. the estimated tax that should have been payed) at the border. You could give a symmetric tax refund to exporters, based on the same sort of estimate.</p><p>I'm suggesting using a top down estimate, based on materials in the import / export rather than a paper-trail based rebate. Otherwise people will fudge their paperwork<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and try to push all their emissions taxes into exportable goods via accounting tricks to get a rebate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about taxing carbon emissions , and letting the market figure things out ? If that 's not good enough because people cheat by importing materials from China , then you can tax the " embodied emissions " ( i.e .
the estimated tax that should have been payed ) at the border .
You could give a symmetric tax refund to exporters , based on the same sort of estimate.I 'm suggesting using a top down estimate , based on materials in the import / export rather than a paper-trail based rebate .
Otherwise people will fudge their paperwork ... and try to push all their emissions taxes into exportable goods via accounting tricks to get a rebate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about taxing carbon emissions, and letting the market figure things out?If that's not good enough because people cheat by importing materials from China, then you can tax the "embodied emissions" (i.e.
the estimated tax that should have been payed) at the border.
You could give a symmetric tax refund to exporters, based on the same sort of estimate.I'm suggesting using a top down estimate, based on materials in the import / export rather than a paper-trail based rebate.
Otherwise people will fudge their paperwork ... and try to push all their emissions taxes into exportable goods via accounting tricks to get a rebate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247337</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>thefringthing</author>
	<datestamp>1244398920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>*checks watch*
ZEPPELIN!</htmltext>
<tokenext>* checks watch * ZEPPELIN !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*checks watch*
ZEPPELIN!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247747</id>
	<title>Re:City planning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244404380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would really make more sense to start an electric bus and cab fleet than to roll out high speed rail, at least in the immediate term. Long term, the nation needs a plan - something on the level of the highway system, something that will work and can actually be implemented - that can satisfy mass transit and rapid transit needs while keeping them affordable. Air transport is already very expensive and relatively inaccessible, and the price only goes up with oil. The same, I learned a few years ago, goes for Amtrak.<br><br>Here's a stupid idea:<br><br>Say you have a bus. Some kind of crazy miracle WTF electric bus that can roll onto an electrified track like a rail truck, connect to the third rail, travel one way at a high speed on this line (while recharging, maybe) but then decouple in an instant with the rail and go over the road. The bus fleet can already serve a city as it is, over the road, but then say you start putting high speed lines between places where you'd usually have, say, a monorail. (Got one of these in Indy for the hospitals.) Sure, it's a glorified street car, but it's not confined to the line, no wrecking balls on day one for this one. But you COULD put the tracks in over time. You COULD upgrade the service. You MIGHT be able to diversify it for truck freight. We already stick extra lanes on highways all the time, so why not use one of those lanes as ballast for a dedicated super-light track?<br><br>It'd sure cut down on the truck related accidents here if the things were hard to derail, and at the ends of the track or at given decoupling points it could just drive onto the road. Oh, look, the track lane is ending, let's just merge onto the highway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would really make more sense to start an electric bus and cab fleet than to roll out high speed rail , at least in the immediate term .
Long term , the nation needs a plan - something on the level of the highway system , something that will work and can actually be implemented - that can satisfy mass transit and rapid transit needs while keeping them affordable .
Air transport is already very expensive and relatively inaccessible , and the price only goes up with oil .
The same , I learned a few years ago , goes for Amtrak.Here 's a stupid idea : Say you have a bus .
Some kind of crazy miracle WTF electric bus that can roll onto an electrified track like a rail truck , connect to the third rail , travel one way at a high speed on this line ( while recharging , maybe ) but then decouple in an instant with the rail and go over the road .
The bus fleet can already serve a city as it is , over the road , but then say you start putting high speed lines between places where you 'd usually have , say , a monorail .
( Got one of these in Indy for the hospitals .
) Sure , it 's a glorified street car , but it 's not confined to the line , no wrecking balls on day one for this one .
But you COULD put the tracks in over time .
You COULD upgrade the service .
You MIGHT be able to diversify it for truck freight .
We already stick extra lanes on highways all the time , so why not use one of those lanes as ballast for a dedicated super-light track ? It 'd sure cut down on the truck related accidents here if the things were hard to derail , and at the ends of the track or at given decoupling points it could just drive onto the road .
Oh , look , the track lane is ending , let 's just merge onto the highway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would really make more sense to start an electric bus and cab fleet than to roll out high speed rail, at least in the immediate term.
Long term, the nation needs a plan - something on the level of the highway system, something that will work and can actually be implemented - that can satisfy mass transit and rapid transit needs while keeping them affordable.
Air transport is already very expensive and relatively inaccessible, and the price only goes up with oil.
The same, I learned a few years ago, goes for Amtrak.Here's a stupid idea:Say you have a bus.
Some kind of crazy miracle WTF electric bus that can roll onto an electrified track like a rail truck, connect to the third rail, travel one way at a high speed on this line (while recharging, maybe) but then decouple in an instant with the rail and go over the road.
The bus fleet can already serve a city as it is, over the road, but then say you start putting high speed lines between places where you'd usually have, say, a monorail.
(Got one of these in Indy for the hospitals.
) Sure, it's a glorified street car, but it's not confined to the line, no wrecking balls on day one for this one.
But you COULD put the tracks in over time.
You COULD upgrade the service.
You MIGHT be able to diversify it for truck freight.
We already stick extra lanes on highways all the time, so why not use one of those lanes as ballast for a dedicated super-light track?It'd sure cut down on the truck related accidents here if the things were hard to derail, and at the ends of the track or at given decoupling points it could just drive onto the road.
Oh, look, the track lane is ending, let's just merge onto the highway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247097</id>
	<title>Re:Freight trains are still greener, though.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244395680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The key is that diesel engines get more efficient as they scale up.  This is why 1-2 diesel engines on a rail can pull so much compared to 400 semis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The key is that diesel engines get more efficient as they scale up .
This is why 1-2 diesel engines on a rail can pull so much compared to 400 semis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key is that diesel engines get more efficient as they scale up.
This is why 1-2 diesel engines on a rail can pull so much compared to 400 semis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247445</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>ThePromenader</author>
	<datestamp>1244400480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In order to get a complete model of what costs what economically/environment-wise, one must include in their calculation every aspect of a mode of transportation, everything from the energy/cost/pollution needed to create the transportation  through its maintenance and management, and not only the energy/pollution needed for the completed mode of transport per se.</p><p>For example, most all trains here (France) run on electric power, but most electric power is generated in nuclear power plants, but the creation of the latter required X amount of fossil fuels (mining, construction equipment, other forms of transport for materials and nuclear fuel). So if I wanted to compare this model to, say, air travel, I would have to measure the consumption/pollution created by plane production and plane fuel, and study not just the consumption/transport capabilites of the plane itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In order to get a complete model of what costs what economically/environment-wise , one must include in their calculation every aspect of a mode of transportation , everything from the energy/cost/pollution needed to create the transportation through its maintenance and management , and not only the energy/pollution needed for the completed mode of transport per se.For example , most all trains here ( France ) run on electric power , but most electric power is generated in nuclear power plants , but the creation of the latter required X amount of fossil fuels ( mining , construction equipment , other forms of transport for materials and nuclear fuel ) .
So if I wanted to compare this model to , say , air travel , I would have to measure the consumption/pollution created by plane production and plane fuel , and study not just the consumption/transport capabilites of the plane itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order to get a complete model of what costs what economically/environment-wise, one must include in their calculation every aspect of a mode of transportation, everything from the energy/cost/pollution needed to create the transportation  through its maintenance and management, and not only the energy/pollution needed for the completed mode of transport per se.For example, most all trains here (France) run on electric power, but most electric power is generated in nuclear power plants, but the creation of the latter required X amount of fossil fuels (mining, construction equipment, other forms of transport for materials and nuclear fuel).
So if I wanted to compare this model to, say, air travel, I would have to measure the consumption/pollution created by plane production and plane fuel, and study not just the consumption/transport capabilites of the plane itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247313</id>
	<title>Re:The best analysis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244398620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> The best analysis is the one run in the real world, in real time, called the market</p></div></blockquote><p>Utter nonsense. Markets <b>provably</b> do not find the best solution, because they don't take into account externalities. (Also for the reasons Planesdragon pointed out).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The best analysis is the one run in the real world , in real time , called the marketUtter nonsense .
Markets provably do not find the best solution , because they do n't take into account externalities .
( Also for the reasons Planesdragon pointed out ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The best analysis is the one run in the real world, in real time, called the marketUtter nonsense.
Markets provably do not find the best solution, because they don't take into account externalities.
(Also for the reasons Planesdragon pointed out).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246677</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28257537</id>
	<title>JETPACKS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244459220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine when we all have jetpacks as our mode of transportation. That will be AWESOME, except there will be no privacy in your back yard anymore.</p><p>Screw the negative! Jetpacks yay!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine when we all have jetpacks as our mode of transportation .
That will be AWESOME , except there will be no privacy in your back yard anymore.Screw the negative !
Jetpacks yay !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine when we all have jetpacks as our mode of transportation.
That will be AWESOME, except there will be no privacy in your back yard anymore.Screw the negative!
Jetpacks yay!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247073</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244395320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not well versed at all in transport logistics. If you have nothing better to do, I think I would be quite interested in a discussion on why truck transport of material is often faster than air transport. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who read your comment and thought, "Hmm, interesting!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not well versed at all in transport logistics .
If you have nothing better to do , I think I would be quite interested in a discussion on why truck transport of material is often faster than air transport .
And I 'm sure I 'm not the only one who read your comment and thought , " Hmm , interesting !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not well versed at all in transport logistics.
If you have nothing better to do, I think I would be quite interested in a discussion on why truck transport of material is often faster than air transport.
And I'm sure I'm not the only one who read your comment and thought, "Hmm, interesting!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28251867</id>
	<title>more details</title>
	<author>jamescford</author>
	<datestamp>1244480340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The conclusion that a train may be "less green" than a plane is somewhat dependent on what you look at. The article notes that this is because the particular train they looked at, the Green Line in Boston, uses local power that is being generated from carbon-emitting sources. Actually, even that is only part of the story... you can read the original research (http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/4/2/024008/erl9\_2\_024008.html) if you have some kind of institutional subscription to Environmental Research Letters. It shows that the energy use is actually lower or the train, and that another train (SF muni) does beat the "large aircraft" (the small aircraft is much worse).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The conclusion that a train may be " less green " than a plane is somewhat dependent on what you look at .
The article notes that this is because the particular train they looked at , the Green Line in Boston , uses local power that is being generated from carbon-emitting sources .
Actually , even that is only part of the story... you can read the original research ( http : //www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/4/2/024008/erl9 \ _2 \ _024008.html ) if you have some kind of institutional subscription to Environmental Research Letters .
It shows that the energy use is actually lower or the train , and that another train ( SF muni ) does beat the " large aircraft " ( the small aircraft is much worse ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The conclusion that a train may be "less green" than a plane is somewhat dependent on what you look at.
The article notes that this is because the particular train they looked at, the Green Line in Boston, uses local power that is being generated from carbon-emitting sources.
Actually, even that is only part of the story... you can read the original research (http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/4/2/024008/erl9\_2\_024008.html) if you have some kind of institutional subscription to Environmental Research Letters.
It shows that the energy use is actually lower or the train, and that another train (SF muni) does beat the "large aircraft" (the small aircraft is much worse).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247621</id>
	<title>This article is obviously not about moving freight</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1244402640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article clearly compares the environmental impact on the basis of passenger miles (per kilometre for each traveller on board).  You can't measure freight hauling in passenger miles.  You are not talking about the same thing as the article.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article clearly compares the environmental impact on the basis of passenger miles ( per kilometre for each traveller on board ) .
You ca n't measure freight hauling in passenger miles .
You are not talking about the same thing as the article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article clearly compares the environmental impact on the basis of passenger miles (per kilometre for each traveller on board).
You can't measure freight hauling in passenger miles.
You are not talking about the same thing as the article.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28251473</id>
	<title>more than trains and planes</title>
	<author>iamtheprincess</author>
	<datestamp>1244478240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I also believe in taxing the carbide emissions.
Some one should check to see how poisonous school buses are.
I drive one for a living and the hundreds of thousand of buses in this country running off of diesel is disgusting.
Check into those and you will see what is helping to destroy the environment</htmltext>
<tokenext>I also believe in taxing the carbide emissions .
Some one should check to see how poisonous school buses are .
I drive one for a living and the hundreds of thousand of buses in this country running off of diesel is disgusting .
Check into those and you will see what is helping to destroy the environment</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also believe in taxing the carbide emissions.
Some one should check to see how poisonous school buses are.
I drive one for a living and the hundreds of thousand of buses in this country running off of diesel is disgusting.
Check into those and you will see what is helping to destroy the environment</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28252397</id>
	<title>Re:City planning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244482920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for 7 miles, a bicycle would be faster. or a smart car.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for 7 miles , a bicycle would be faster .
or a smart car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for 7 miles, a bicycle would be faster.
or a smart car.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248549</id>
	<title>Re:City planning</title>
	<author>Graymalkin</author>
	<datestamp>1244456100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not so much suburban building needs to stop it just needs to be done better. The early suburban growth of the US was based entirely around mass transit systems. You had both railroad and streetcar suburbs. Railroad suburbs were often small towns that railroads had built stations in. When a small town got its rail link to the bigger nearby city the upper and middle class city workers would often emigrate from the cities to the smaller towns and then commute back into the city by day to work. Streetcar suburbs were similar but were based around streetcars (horse, cable, and electric). Cities would build extensions in the agricultural or unused outskirts of town and then connect the extension to the city's streetcar lines. The streetcar suburbs were closer to the city than the railroad suburbs and tended to be compressed much like the inner city though on a bit smaller of a scale.</p><p>In railroad suburbs you basically had a self sufficient town that saw an influx of commuters move in. Since these were small towns (until their population boomed) local transportation could easily be done on foot. Railroad suburbs developed around the local train stations. Streetcar suburbs were more linearly set up since streetcars ran on rails on existing streets. They were at least zoned such that houses and shops were all within walking distance of each other. The streetcar suburb would often be rows of houses along a street car line with shops at or near intersections of those lines. In both cases the suburbs provided an easy and relatively cheap commute into the heart of the city and really anywhere people needed to go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not so much suburban building needs to stop it just needs to be done better .
The early suburban growth of the US was based entirely around mass transit systems .
You had both railroad and streetcar suburbs .
Railroad suburbs were often small towns that railroads had built stations in .
When a small town got its rail link to the bigger nearby city the upper and middle class city workers would often emigrate from the cities to the smaller towns and then commute back into the city by day to work .
Streetcar suburbs were similar but were based around streetcars ( horse , cable , and electric ) .
Cities would build extensions in the agricultural or unused outskirts of town and then connect the extension to the city 's streetcar lines .
The streetcar suburbs were closer to the city than the railroad suburbs and tended to be compressed much like the inner city though on a bit smaller of a scale.In railroad suburbs you basically had a self sufficient town that saw an influx of commuters move in .
Since these were small towns ( until their population boomed ) local transportation could easily be done on foot .
Railroad suburbs developed around the local train stations .
Streetcar suburbs were more linearly set up since streetcars ran on rails on existing streets .
They were at least zoned such that houses and shops were all within walking distance of each other .
The streetcar suburb would often be rows of houses along a street car line with shops at or near intersections of those lines .
In both cases the suburbs provided an easy and relatively cheap commute into the heart of the city and really anywhere people needed to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not so much suburban building needs to stop it just needs to be done better.
The early suburban growth of the US was based entirely around mass transit systems.
You had both railroad and streetcar suburbs.
Railroad suburbs were often small towns that railroads had built stations in.
When a small town got its rail link to the bigger nearby city the upper and middle class city workers would often emigrate from the cities to the smaller towns and then commute back into the city by day to work.
Streetcar suburbs were similar but were based around streetcars (horse, cable, and electric).
Cities would build extensions in the agricultural or unused outskirts of town and then connect the extension to the city's streetcar lines.
The streetcar suburbs were closer to the city than the railroad suburbs and tended to be compressed much like the inner city though on a bit smaller of a scale.In railroad suburbs you basically had a self sufficient town that saw an influx of commuters move in.
Since these were small towns (until their population boomed) local transportation could easily be done on foot.
Railroad suburbs developed around the local train stations.
Streetcar suburbs were more linearly set up since streetcars ran on rails on existing streets.
They were at least zoned such that houses and shops were all within walking distance of each other.
The streetcar suburb would often be rows of houses along a street car line with shops at or near intersections of those lines.
In both cases the suburbs provided an easy and relatively cheap commute into the heart of the city and really anywhere people needed to go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248481</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>iwein</author>
	<datestamp>1244455200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, rail travel requires resources of iron and such to lay down infrastructure, but that infrastructure is used and maintained for many years and pays off over the long haul.  Once down, a diesel locomotive can move immense amounts of cargo for a lot less per mile than other modes of transportation, so it should balance out.</p></div><p>Yeah, it should shouldn't it... so why are you avoiding any kind of quantitative arguments about it? The point is to figure out if it *does* balance out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , rail travel requires resources of iron and such to lay down infrastructure , but that infrastructure is used and maintained for many years and pays off over the long haul .
Once down , a diesel locomotive can move immense amounts of cargo for a lot less per mile than other modes of transportation , so it should balance out.Yeah , it should should n't it... so why are you avoiding any kind of quantitative arguments about it ?
The point is to figure out if it * does * balance out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, rail travel requires resources of iron and such to lay down infrastructure, but that infrastructure is used and maintained for many years and pays off over the long haul.
Once down, a diesel locomotive can move immense amounts of cargo for a lot less per mile than other modes of transportation, so it should balance out.Yeah, it should shouldn't it... so why are you avoiding any kind of quantitative arguments about it?
The point is to figure out if it *does* balance out.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28268257</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>init100</author>
	<datestamp>1244572080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For passengers, it's more environmentally-friendly to ride a plane than a train for distances more than a few hundred miles.</p></div><p>Assuming the train is powered by diesel fuel, or possibly electricity generated at a coal power plant. If the electricity comes from sources such as hydro power, I have a hard time believing that planes are still more environmentally friendly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For passengers , it 's more environmentally-friendly to ride a plane than a train for distances more than a few hundred miles.Assuming the train is powered by diesel fuel , or possibly electricity generated at a coal power plant .
If the electricity comes from sources such as hydro power , I have a hard time believing that planes are still more environmentally friendly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For passengers, it's more environmentally-friendly to ride a plane than a train for distances more than a few hundred miles.Assuming the train is powered by diesel fuel, or possibly electricity generated at a coal power plant.
If the electricity comes from sources such as hydro power, I have a hard time believing that planes are still more environmentally friendly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28252019</id>
	<title>Re:City planning</title>
	<author>DavidTC</author>
	<datestamp>1244481240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Subdivisions provide the perfect place for a bus pickup at the front. I always thought, in addition to that, they should have golf carts on every street, and people could just grab one and ride back and forth to their house. (With some sort of ignition disabling GPS that keeps it from being driven out of the subdivision.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Subdivisions provide the perfect place for a bus pickup at the front .
I always thought , in addition to that , they should have golf carts on every street , and people could just grab one and ride back and forth to their house .
( With some sort of ignition disabling GPS that keeps it from being driven out of the subdivision .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Subdivisions provide the perfect place for a bus pickup at the front.
I always thought, in addition to that, they should have golf carts on every street, and people could just grab one and ride back and forth to their house.
(With some sort of ignition disabling GPS that keeps it from being driven out of the subdivision.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250775</id>
	<title>Re:Environmental Research Letters?</title>
	<author>petermgreen</author>
	<datestamp>1244474760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Afaict there are two main types of journal now. Conventional journals are cheap or free to publish in and make thier money from subscriptions. Open access journals make thier money from article publication fees and make the articles freely availible (which means more people can read it).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Afaict there are two main types of journal now .
Conventional journals are cheap or free to publish in and make thier money from subscriptions .
Open access journals make thier money from article publication fees and make the articles freely availible ( which means more people can read it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Afaict there are two main types of journal now.
Conventional journals are cheap or free to publish in and make thier money from subscriptions.
Open access journals make thier money from article publication fees and make the articles freely availible (which means more people can read it).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246645</id>
	<title>Planes help wildlife</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244391000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As we saw recently in Brazil, airplanes make great fish-food dispensers.  French cuisine, mai oui!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As we saw recently in Brazil , airplanes make great fish-food dispensers .
French cuisine , mai oui !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As we saw recently in Brazil, airplanes make great fish-food dispensers.
French cuisine, mai oui!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28252027</id>
	<title>Re:City planning</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1244481300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My fairly straightforward commute to work (25 minutes by car, basically on one road) took over 2 hours by bus.</p></div><p>Which is precisely why most working people cannot use the bus or any other public transportation for commuting purposes. The bottom line with public transportation is that it must make sense and be competitive <i> <b>on the merits</b> </i> (i.e. no government mandates that people cannot drive on certain days or similar bullshit) or the commuting public will stay in their cars. Personally, it would take a lot more than $5 per gallon gas to get me out of my car (which is fast, clean, fuel-efficient, and private) and especially if the alternative is our present public transportation fiasco. The greenies and the public transportation boosters spend too much time, IMHO, trying to make cars inconvenient (i.e. traffic calming, even/odd day bans on cars in urban areas, high petrol taxes, etc) instead of trying to improve public transportation and make it more appealing. This "hair shirt" approach to getting people to "choose" (is it really a "choice" if one is <i>forced</i>?) public transportation is a big part of what turns the car people off to the whole idea (among other undesirable attributes of public mass transit).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My fairly straightforward commute to work ( 25 minutes by car , basically on one road ) took over 2 hours by bus.Which is precisely why most working people can not use the bus or any other public transportation for commuting purposes .
The bottom line with public transportation is that it must make sense and be competitive on the merits ( i.e .
no government mandates that people can not drive on certain days or similar bullshit ) or the commuting public will stay in their cars .
Personally , it would take a lot more than $ 5 per gallon gas to get me out of my car ( which is fast , clean , fuel-efficient , and private ) and especially if the alternative is our present public transportation fiasco .
The greenies and the public transportation boosters spend too much time , IMHO , trying to make cars inconvenient ( i.e .
traffic calming , even/odd day bans on cars in urban areas , high petrol taxes , etc ) instead of trying to improve public transportation and make it more appealing .
This " hair shirt " approach to getting people to " choose " ( is it really a " choice " if one is forced ?
) public transportation is a big part of what turns the car people off to the whole idea ( among other undesirable attributes of public mass transit ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My fairly straightforward commute to work (25 minutes by car, basically on one road) took over 2 hours by bus.Which is precisely why most working people cannot use the bus or any other public transportation for commuting purposes.
The bottom line with public transportation is that it must make sense and be competitive  on the merits  (i.e.
no government mandates that people cannot drive on certain days or similar bullshit) or the commuting public will stay in their cars.
Personally, it would take a lot more than $5 per gallon gas to get me out of my car (which is fast, clean, fuel-efficient, and private) and especially if the alternative is our present public transportation fiasco.
The greenies and the public transportation boosters spend too much time, IMHO, trying to make cars inconvenient (i.e.
traffic calming, even/odd day bans on cars in urban areas, high petrol taxes, etc) instead of trying to improve public transportation and make it more appealing.
This "hair shirt" approach to getting people to "choose" (is it really a "choice" if one is forced?
) public transportation is a big part of what turns the car people off to the whole idea (among other undesirable attributes of public mass transit).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247385</id>
	<title>I bet someone misuses the part about empty buses</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1244399520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article points out the full buses (such as during rush hour) are more efficient than mostly empty buses during off-peak hours. Unfortunately, that kind of analysis tends to be misused, leading people into looking at individual bus routes and trips on those routes when allocating resources, rather than thinking about the system as a whole.</p><p>What they overlook is that a bus saves <b>nothing</b> over my car if I'm taking my car, not the bus. To entice my out of my car regularly, I must be able to rely on the bus. If I take the bus, say, to go out to dinner, and then decide on a whim to catch a movie afterward, I need to be able to know, without having to stop and study a bunch of schedules, that I will be able to get a bus home shortly after the movie lets out. I need to be able to know that I can go to this corner near the theater, and within 15 minutes catch a bus home, without worrying that someone decided when I wasn't paying attention that the routes after 11pm were not cost effective and cut them.</p><p>Only by committing to a regular schedule that does not cut trips--even if a particular run of a particular route gets poor ridership for months or years--can a bus system become a real alternative to cars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article points out the full buses ( such as during rush hour ) are more efficient than mostly empty buses during off-peak hours .
Unfortunately , that kind of analysis tends to be misused , leading people into looking at individual bus routes and trips on those routes when allocating resources , rather than thinking about the system as a whole.What they overlook is that a bus saves nothing over my car if I 'm taking my car , not the bus .
To entice my out of my car regularly , I must be able to rely on the bus .
If I take the bus , say , to go out to dinner , and then decide on a whim to catch a movie afterward , I need to be able to know , without having to stop and study a bunch of schedules , that I will be able to get a bus home shortly after the movie lets out .
I need to be able to know that I can go to this corner near the theater , and within 15 minutes catch a bus home , without worrying that someone decided when I was n't paying attention that the routes after 11pm were not cost effective and cut them.Only by committing to a regular schedule that does not cut trips--even if a particular run of a particular route gets poor ridership for months or years--can a bus system become a real alternative to cars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article points out the full buses (such as during rush hour) are more efficient than mostly empty buses during off-peak hours.
Unfortunately, that kind of analysis tends to be misused, leading people into looking at individual bus routes and trips on those routes when allocating resources, rather than thinking about the system as a whole.What they overlook is that a bus saves nothing over my car if I'm taking my car, not the bus.
To entice my out of my car regularly, I must be able to rely on the bus.
If I take the bus, say, to go out to dinner, and then decide on a whim to catch a movie afterward, I need to be able to know, without having to stop and study a bunch of schedules, that I will be able to get a bus home shortly after the movie lets out.
I need to be able to know that I can go to this corner near the theater, and within 15 minutes catch a bus home, without worrying that someone decided when I wasn't paying attention that the routes after 11pm were not cost effective and cut them.Only by committing to a regular schedule that does not cut trips--even if a particular run of a particular route gets poor ridership for months or years--can a bus system become a real alternative to cars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28249093</id>
	<title>Re:Environmental Research Letters?</title>
	<author>nyctopterus</author>
	<datestamp>1244462580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they are open access, yes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they are open access , yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they are open access, yes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28249201</id>
	<title>Re:City planning</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1244463900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The sad truth is that most American cities are ill-suited to public transportation at the fundamental design level. It would be like trying to make MS-DOS function as an enterprise server environment, the impedance mismatch is extreme.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Hmmm, do you have a car analogy for that? Oh, wait...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The sad truth is that most American cities are ill-suited to public transportation at the fundamental design level .
It would be like trying to make MS-DOS function as an enterprise server environment , the impedance mismatch is extreme .
Hmmm , do you have a car analogy for that ?
Oh , wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sad truth is that most American cities are ill-suited to public transportation at the fundamental design level.
It would be like trying to make MS-DOS function as an enterprise server environment, the impedance mismatch is extreme.
Hmmm, do you have a car analogy for that?
Oh, wait...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248305</id>
	<title>Concrete is a very energy intensive product</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1244453160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rail infrastructure isn't made from wood, or iron. These days it is concrete, steel and glass. All of which are highly energy intensive to produce.</p><p>This is for example, the German cathedral to rail:<br><a href="http://www.hdr-photos.com/data/media/17/Hauptbahnhof---750x499.jpg" title="hdr-photos.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.hdr-photos.com/data/media/17/Hauptbahnhof---750x499.jpg</a> [hdr-photos.com]</p><p>Now, if you want to run freight over wooden sleepers at 30mph, go right ahead. Try that with a 150mph passenger train and you'll have a lot of grieving families to explain to. The result is that rail infrastructure is very energy intensive, for thousands of miles.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rail infrastructure is n't made from wood , or iron .
These days it is concrete , steel and glass .
All of which are highly energy intensive to produce.This is for example , the German cathedral to rail : http : //www.hdr-photos.com/data/media/17/Hauptbahnhof---750x499.jpg [ hdr-photos.com ] Now , if you want to run freight over wooden sleepers at 30mph , go right ahead .
Try that with a 150mph passenger train and you 'll have a lot of grieving families to explain to .
The result is that rail infrastructure is very energy intensive , for thousands of miles .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rail infrastructure isn't made from wood, or iron.
These days it is concrete, steel and glass.
All of which are highly energy intensive to produce.This is for example, the German cathedral to rail:http://www.hdr-photos.com/data/media/17/Hauptbahnhof---750x499.jpg [hdr-photos.com]Now, if you want to run freight over wooden sleepers at 30mph, go right ahead.
Try that with a 150mph passenger train and you'll have a lot of grieving families to explain to.
The result is that rail infrastructure is very energy intensive, for thousands of miles.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247205</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244397240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The letter refers to moving people not freight (I think, I can't find it in the journal). The commuter trains weight is dominated by the rolling stock which has to be accelerated after each stop making it far less efficient than for freight.
<br> <br>
I've done some quick calculations in the past and come to the same conclusions more or less. The CO2 emitted per person per mile by planes, fairly full light rail and efficient cars is remarkably similar. I guess this isn't too surprising since the total cost per mile (for people) is also similar. Carpooling makes driving fairly environmentally friendly compared to rail.  By far the most green form of transport is a full bus, but that doesn't happen often, especially where I live in LA.
<br> <br>
The bigger problem with planes is that this is all per mile and you can travel 8000 miles in a day - equivalent to most peoples years commute.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The letter refers to moving people not freight ( I think , I ca n't find it in the journal ) .
The commuter trains weight is dominated by the rolling stock which has to be accelerated after each stop making it far less efficient than for freight .
I 've done some quick calculations in the past and come to the same conclusions more or less .
The CO2 emitted per person per mile by planes , fairly full light rail and efficient cars is remarkably similar .
I guess this is n't too surprising since the total cost per mile ( for people ) is also similar .
Carpooling makes driving fairly environmentally friendly compared to rail .
By far the most green form of transport is a full bus , but that does n't happen often , especially where I live in LA .
The bigger problem with planes is that this is all per mile and you can travel 8000 miles in a day - equivalent to most peoples years commute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The letter refers to moving people not freight (I think, I can't find it in the journal).
The commuter trains weight is dominated by the rolling stock which has to be accelerated after each stop making it far less efficient than for freight.
I've done some quick calculations in the past and come to the same conclusions more or less.
The CO2 emitted per person per mile by planes, fairly full light rail and efficient cars is remarkably similar.
I guess this isn't too surprising since the total cost per mile (for people) is also similar.
Carpooling makes driving fairly environmentally friendly compared to rail.
By far the most green form of transport is a full bus, but that doesn't happen often, especially where I live in LA.
The bigger problem with planes is that this is all per mile and you can travel 8000 miles in a day - equivalent to most peoples years commute.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247565</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>rolfwind</author>
	<datestamp>1244401980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I can see the logic that large airships which are held aloft passively by lighter than air gases, requiring fuel only for movement being economical, but it might be different with standard planes which require fuel to generate lift.</p></div></blockquote><p>Lighter than air has several problems.</p><p>One, two lift something, the balloon part has to be very big in comparison.  It will never replace rail moving cars upons cars of freight.</p><p>Two, helium will get very expensive.  Unless you want to go with flammable hydrogen, which at least has the benefit of greater lifting power.  But having watched mythbusters, it wasn't really the skin that set it ablaze....</p><p>Three, ground crew.  The Hindenburg needed dozens to hundreds of ground crew (luckily, they always had volunteers).  Zeppelins/Dirigibles/Blimps are not good in windy conditions and on landing you always need extra precaution.  Lockheed Martin and others designed heavier than air blimps that get 80\% lift from a lighter-than-air gas and the other 20\% through aerodynamic flight, eliminating the need for ground crew in a smart and cool way (but how much can it lift?)<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-791" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-791</a> [wikipedia.org]<br><a href="http://www.metacafe.com/watch/907865/lockheed\_martin\_turbo\_super\_blimp/" title="metacafe.com">http://www.metacafe.com/watch/907865/lockheed\_martin\_turbo\_super\_blimp/</a> [metacafe.com]</p><p>Anyway, this report is BS.  Government reports have long shown that train is much cheaper than truck is much cheaper than air.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see the logic that large airships which are held aloft passively by lighter than air gases , requiring fuel only for movement being economical , but it might be different with standard planes which require fuel to generate lift.Lighter than air has several problems.One , two lift something , the balloon part has to be very big in comparison .
It will never replace rail moving cars upons cars of freight.Two , helium will get very expensive .
Unless you want to go with flammable hydrogen , which at least has the benefit of greater lifting power .
But having watched mythbusters , it was n't really the skin that set it ablaze....Three , ground crew .
The Hindenburg needed dozens to hundreds of ground crew ( luckily , they always had volunteers ) .
Zeppelins/Dirigibles/Blimps are not good in windy conditions and on landing you always need extra precaution .
Lockheed Martin and others designed heavier than air blimps that get 80 \ % lift from a lighter-than-air gas and the other 20 \ % through aerodynamic flight , eliminating the need for ground crew in a smart and cool way ( but how much can it lift ?
) http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-791 [ wikipedia.org ] http : //www.metacafe.com/watch/907865/lockheed \ _martin \ _turbo \ _super \ _blimp/ [ metacafe.com ] Anyway , this report is BS .
Government reports have long shown that train is much cheaper than truck is much cheaper than air .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see the logic that large airships which are held aloft passively by lighter than air gases, requiring fuel only for movement being economical, but it might be different with standard planes which require fuel to generate lift.Lighter than air has several problems.One, two lift something, the balloon part has to be very big in comparison.
It will never replace rail moving cars upons cars of freight.Two, helium will get very expensive.
Unless you want to go with flammable hydrogen, which at least has the benefit of greater lifting power.
But having watched mythbusters, it wasn't really the skin that set it ablaze....Three, ground crew.
The Hindenburg needed dozens to hundreds of ground crew (luckily, they always had volunteers).
Zeppelins/Dirigibles/Blimps are not good in windy conditions and on landing you always need extra precaution.
Lockheed Martin and others designed heavier than air blimps that get 80\% lift from a lighter-than-air gas and the other 20\% through aerodynamic flight, eliminating the need for ground crew in a smart and cool way (but how much can it lift?
)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-791 [wikipedia.org]http://www.metacafe.com/watch/907865/lockheed\_martin\_turbo\_super\_blimp/ [metacafe.com]Anyway, this report is BS.
Government reports have long shown that train is much cheaper than truck is much cheaper than air.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28251959</id>
	<title>Re:City planning</title>
	<author>DavidTC</author>
	<datestamp>1244480940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To compare, let's look at Marietta, Georgia, a city with <b>twenty</b> times the people, also ran busses every half-hour...on some routes, and sometimes they space them out to an hour, and they all shut down at about 10.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To compare , let 's look at Marietta , Georgia , a city with twenty times the people , also ran busses every half-hour...on some routes , and sometimes they space them out to an hour , and they all shut down at about 10 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To compare, let's look at Marietta, Georgia, a city with twenty times the people, also ran busses every half-hour...on some routes, and sometimes they space them out to an hour, and they all shut down at about 10.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28249397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246829</id>
	<title>What matters is the additional cost *you* incur</title>
	<author>physicsphairy</author>
	<datestamp>1244392800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While this study seems a much better reflection of the total (environmental) cost of each type of transportation, it's important to remember that the <em>marginal</em> cost of you buying a plain ticket or driving your car is not necessarily proportional to the total cost.</p><p>For example, to drive one car across the continent may require a massive investment of infrastructure to create a suitable road, but if that road is already there, the infrastructure cost of driving a second car on the same road is essentially zero: you aren't buying any additional infrastructure because of the second car.</p><p>I honestly can't imagine ever doing away with our network of highways, regardless of any increase in the popularity of air travel, so a large portion of that infrastructure cost may have nothing to do with whether you personally choose to drive instead of fly.  The innercity roads are also a permanent feature: it's not like the plane is going to drop you off at your apartment complex.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While this study seems a much better reflection of the total ( environmental ) cost of each type of transportation , it 's important to remember that the marginal cost of you buying a plain ticket or driving your car is not necessarily proportional to the total cost.For example , to drive one car across the continent may require a massive investment of infrastructure to create a suitable road , but if that road is already there , the infrastructure cost of driving a second car on the same road is essentially zero : you are n't buying any additional infrastructure because of the second car.I honestly ca n't imagine ever doing away with our network of highways , regardless of any increase in the popularity of air travel , so a large portion of that infrastructure cost may have nothing to do with whether you personally choose to drive instead of fly .
The innercity roads are also a permanent feature : it 's not like the plane is going to drop you off at your apartment complex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While this study seems a much better reflection of the total (environmental) cost of each type of transportation, it's important to remember that the marginal cost of you buying a plain ticket or driving your car is not necessarily proportional to the total cost.For example, to drive one car across the continent may require a massive investment of infrastructure to create a suitable road, but if that road is already there, the infrastructure cost of driving a second car on the same road is essentially zero: you aren't buying any additional infrastructure because of the second car.I honestly can't imagine ever doing away with our network of highways, regardless of any increase in the popularity of air travel, so a large portion of that infrastructure cost may have nothing to do with whether you personally choose to drive instead of fly.
The innercity roads are also a permanent feature: it's not like the plane is going to drop you off at your apartment complex.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247105</id>
	<title>Reeedeeculous number-crunching!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244395800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's amazing what you can do with a spreadsheet.  Fudge things just right, and you can overcome a wall of facts, even a 8 times disadvantage.<br>Awesome.</p><p>But back in the real world, trains and ships can move stuff for pennies a ton-mile, at useful and quiet speeds, with very low emissions, and requiring relatively low-energy infrastructure of wood and iron.<br>While air transport moves stuff at a cost of almost a dollar a ton-mile, while emitting a whole lot more noise near the endpoints, and requiring a lot more ecological modification, including many square miles of flat and clearcut land for airports.   Not to mention the use of huge amounts of electricity to refine the aluminum for the airframes.</p><p>Next up,   these guys should prove how the optimum diet is one of steak and cherry pie.  It can be done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's amazing what you can do with a spreadsheet .
Fudge things just right , and you can overcome a wall of facts , even a 8 times disadvantage.Awesome.But back in the real world , trains and ships can move stuff for pennies a ton-mile , at useful and quiet speeds , with very low emissions , and requiring relatively low-energy infrastructure of wood and iron.While air transport moves stuff at a cost of almost a dollar a ton-mile , while emitting a whole lot more noise near the endpoints , and requiring a lot more ecological modification , including many square miles of flat and clearcut land for airports .
Not to mention the use of huge amounts of electricity to refine the aluminum for the airframes.Next up , these guys should prove how the optimum diet is one of steak and cherry pie .
It can be done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's amazing what you can do with a spreadsheet.
Fudge things just right, and you can overcome a wall of facts, even a 8 times disadvantage.Awesome.But back in the real world, trains and ships can move stuff for pennies a ton-mile, at useful and quiet speeds, with very low emissions, and requiring relatively low-energy infrastructure of wood and iron.While air transport moves stuff at a cost of almost a dollar a ton-mile, while emitting a whole lot more noise near the endpoints, and requiring a lot more ecological modification, including many square miles of flat and clearcut land for airports.
Not to mention the use of huge amounts of electricity to refine the aluminum for the airframes.Next up,   these guys should prove how the optimum diet is one of steak and cherry pie.
It can be done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28254307</id>
	<title>It DOES NOT Say Planes are Greener Than Trains!</title>
	<author>careysub</author>
	<datestamp>1244491260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If one actually reads the article, and in particular looks carefully at Figure 1, which compares the different modes of transportation, the allegedly counterintuitive results are absent.</p><p>What is actually shows:</p><ul>
<li>ALL of the rail options investigated beat out ALL of the aircraft, with the sole exception of "large aircraft" being marginally better than "SF Muni" light rail. Now if you can take a 747 across downtown San Francisco, do tell me where the stops are because I want to try it for sure.</li>
<li>All mass transit options (with the sole exception of Off Peak Urban Diesel Bus) beats the pant off all of the conventional gasoline road vehicles (sedan, pickup and SUV). It would be better perhaps if they had presented an average for buses instead of just the best and worst case (Peak Urban Diesel Bus  beats the pants off everything else) since one does not usually operate a bus line only at peak hours, and never only at off peak hours.</li>
</ul><p>In short: if you are looking for surprising counter-intuitive results, you'll have to look elsewhere. This really just confirms the truth in conventional wisdom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If one actually reads the article , and in particular looks carefully at Figure 1 , which compares the different modes of transportation , the allegedly counterintuitive results are absent.What is actually shows : ALL of the rail options investigated beat out ALL of the aircraft , with the sole exception of " large aircraft " being marginally better than " SF Muni " light rail .
Now if you can take a 747 across downtown San Francisco , do tell me where the stops are because I want to try it for sure .
All mass transit options ( with the sole exception of Off Peak Urban Diesel Bus ) beats the pant off all of the conventional gasoline road vehicles ( sedan , pickup and SUV ) .
It would be better perhaps if they had presented an average for buses instead of just the best and worst case ( Peak Urban Diesel Bus beats the pants off everything else ) since one does not usually operate a bus line only at peak hours , and never only at off peak hours .
In short : if you are looking for surprising counter-intuitive results , you 'll have to look elsewhere .
This really just confirms the truth in conventional wisdom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If one actually reads the article, and in particular looks carefully at Figure 1, which compares the different modes of transportation, the allegedly counterintuitive results are absent.What is actually shows:
ALL of the rail options investigated beat out ALL of the aircraft, with the sole exception of "large aircraft" being marginally better than "SF Muni" light rail.
Now if you can take a 747 across downtown San Francisco, do tell me where the stops are because I want to try it for sure.
All mass transit options (with the sole exception of Off Peak Urban Diesel Bus) beats the pant off all of the conventional gasoline road vehicles (sedan, pickup and SUV).
It would be better perhaps if they had presented an average for buses instead of just the best and worst case (Peak Urban Diesel Bus  beats the pants off everything else) since one does not usually operate a bus line only at peak hours, and never only at off peak hours.
In short: if you are looking for surprising counter-intuitive results, you'll have to look elsewhere.
This really just confirms the truth in conventional wisdom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248525</id>
	<title>Jesus Christ... Passenger rail is NOT freight</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244455800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least compare apples with apples.</p><p>1: An express passenger train requires megawatts to run. They run (here in Germany) at 200mph, not 30mph. That's a lot more energy. Power has to increase with the square of velocity for rail, in *exactly* the same way as with air travel.</p><p>2: You cannot run 200mph passenger trains over old freight lines. How many dead bodies do you want on your hands? That means thousands of miles of concrete and steel, both of which are *very* energy intensive to produce.</p><p>The difference between high speed rail and planes isn't nearly as clear cut. Why not try comparing a horses and carts against a jet and see which is more environmentally friendly.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least compare apples with apples.1 : An express passenger train requires megawatts to run .
They run ( here in Germany ) at 200mph , not 30mph .
That 's a lot more energy .
Power has to increase with the square of velocity for rail , in * exactly * the same way as with air travel.2 : You can not run 200mph passenger trains over old freight lines .
How many dead bodies do you want on your hands ?
That means thousands of miles of concrete and steel , both of which are * very * energy intensive to produce.The difference between high speed rail and planes is n't nearly as clear cut .
Why not try comparing a horses and carts against a jet and see which is more environmentally friendly .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least compare apples with apples.1: An express passenger train requires megawatts to run.
They run (here in Germany) at 200mph, not 30mph.
That's a lot more energy.
Power has to increase with the square of velocity for rail, in *exactly* the same way as with air travel.2: You cannot run 200mph passenger trains over old freight lines.
How many dead bodies do you want on your hands?
That means thousands of miles of concrete and steel, both of which are *very* energy intensive to produce.The difference between high speed rail and planes isn't nearly as clear cut.
Why not try comparing a horses and carts against a jet and see which is more environmentally friendly.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247433</id>
	<title>Renewable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244400180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another thing it doesn't get into is the existing technology for running trains directly from electric lines.  If you think about it, rail is the only freight transportation method which can be powered DIRECTLY from renewable energy sources like wind, solar and hydro, using existing tested and proven technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another thing it does n't get into is the existing technology for running trains directly from electric lines .
If you think about it , rail is the only freight transportation method which can be powered DIRECTLY from renewable energy sources like wind , solar and hydro , using existing tested and proven technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another thing it doesn't get into is the existing technology for running trains directly from electric lines.
If you think about it, rail is the only freight transportation method which can be powered DIRECTLY from renewable energy sources like wind, solar and hydro, using existing tested and proven technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28251247</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244477160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure why the price matters here but you can purchase 182's in the ballpark of the $50's. Granted, that's going to be a well used aircraft, a high time engine, and likely nothing but basic avionics.</p><p>The major price of aircraft is the avionics they carry.  Its not uncommon for the cost of avionics to equal the price of the rest of the aircraft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure why the price matters here but you can purchase 182 's in the ballpark of the $ 50 's .
Granted , that 's going to be a well used aircraft , a high time engine , and likely nothing but basic avionics.The major price of aircraft is the avionics they carry .
Its not uncommon for the cost of avionics to equal the price of the rest of the aircraft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure why the price matters here but you can purchase 182's in the ballpark of the $50's.
Granted, that's going to be a well used aircraft, a high time engine, and likely nothing but basic avionics.The major price of aircraft is the avionics they carry.
Its not uncommon for the cost of avionics to equal the price of the rest of the aircraft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246891</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28251627</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1244479020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Obviously, MOST people and corporations moving freight find that rail and truck are both more economical than air - witness the fact that millions of tons of freight roll down the tracks and the highways each and every night, whereas air freight is reserved for small, high priority shipments. (In fact, shipping by truck is often faster than shipping by air, but I won't go into that here)</i> <br> <br>You'd be surprised at how much heavy stuff goes air cargo. We routinely have servers shipped air freight for instance. Ford at one point in the 90's was selling cars so fast that they were building engines in Cleveland and flying them across Lake Erie to the assembly plant in Canada because it was cheaper to fly the engine than it was to lose the sales. That of course is taking JIT manufacturing to the extreme and a buffer of engines at the assembly plant might have been preferable to allow more efficient transportation of new engines, but there are definitely carrying costs to having that extra inventory and the storage space for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously , MOST people and corporations moving freight find that rail and truck are both more economical than air - witness the fact that millions of tons of freight roll down the tracks and the highways each and every night , whereas air freight is reserved for small , high priority shipments .
( In fact , shipping by truck is often faster than shipping by air , but I wo n't go into that here ) You 'd be surprised at how much heavy stuff goes air cargo .
We routinely have servers shipped air freight for instance .
Ford at one point in the 90 's was selling cars so fast that they were building engines in Cleveland and flying them across Lake Erie to the assembly plant in Canada because it was cheaper to fly the engine than it was to lose the sales .
That of course is taking JIT manufacturing to the extreme and a buffer of engines at the assembly plant might have been preferable to allow more efficient transportation of new engines , but there are definitely carrying costs to having that extra inventory and the storage space for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously, MOST people and corporations moving freight find that rail and truck are both more economical than air - witness the fact that millions of tons of freight roll down the tracks and the highways each and every night, whereas air freight is reserved for small, high priority shipments.
(In fact, shipping by truck is often faster than shipping by air, but I won't go into that here)  You'd be surprised at how much heavy stuff goes air cargo.
We routinely have servers shipped air freight for instance.
Ford at one point in the 90's was selling cars so fast that they were building engines in Cleveland and flying them across Lake Erie to the assembly plant in Canada because it was cheaper to fly the engine than it was to lose the sales.
That of course is taking JIT manufacturing to the extreme and a buffer of engines at the assembly plant might have been preferable to allow more efficient transportation of new engines, but there are definitely carrying costs to having that extra inventory and the storage space for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246593</id>
	<title>Dead Great Grandmother!!!!1</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244390640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I fucked your dead great grandmother on a train and on a plane!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I fucked your dead great grandmother on a train and on a plane !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fucked your dead great grandmother on a train and on a plane!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250433</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1244472840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tracks take a lot of up keep.<br>What I didn't see was this about freight or people.<br>It could be that aircraft are better at moving people than rail when you look at the costs, resources used, and pollution.  I don't see it for freight unless that freight is time sensitive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tracks take a lot of up keep.What I did n't see was this about freight or people.It could be that aircraft are better at moving people than rail when you look at the costs , resources used , and pollution .
I do n't see it for freight unless that freight is time sensitive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tracks take a lot of up keep.What I didn't see was this about freight or people.It could be that aircraft are better at moving people than rail when you look at the costs, resources used, and pollution.
I don't see it for freight unless that freight is time sensitive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248327</id>
	<title>o'rly?</title>
	<author>velen</author>
	<datestamp>1244453340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't RTFA, but the entire premise is stupid as observed by various other posters.  In India, the railways transports over 18 million passengers and more than 2 million tonnes of freight daily. Also consider the fact that you have locomotives powered by electricity and not diesel at the metros.  Their energy efficiency is directly related to the grid.</p><p>What next?  Walking is more energy efficient than flying?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't RTFA , but the entire premise is stupid as observed by various other posters .
In India , the railways transports over 18 million passengers and more than 2 million tonnes of freight daily .
Also consider the fact that you have locomotives powered by electricity and not diesel at the metros .
Their energy efficiency is directly related to the grid.What next ?
Walking is more energy efficient than flying ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't RTFA, but the entire premise is stupid as observed by various other posters.
In India, the railways transports over 18 million passengers and more than 2 million tonnes of freight daily.
Also consider the fact that you have locomotives powered by electricity and not diesel at the metros.
Their energy efficiency is directly related to the grid.What next?
Walking is more energy efficient than flying?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246883</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244393400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For example, a $150,000 plane usually can carry less than a $15,000 pickup truck.</p></div><p>That's because any plane you find for $150,000 isn't designed to carry more than a couple people and their luggage. A cargo plane costs a few million dollars, but it can carry a few $15,000 pickups and their cargo. But anyway, this article isn't about money, it's about emissions. I can assure you that a plane will use far less fuel to carry a full load 2000 miles than a pickup would.</p><p>And as for people comparing planes to cargo trains... that's also not what the article is about. Of course a cargo train can carry more a longer distance for lower cost..... and that's why they're used far more often for everything from chemicals to materials to packages than planes. They're talking about passengers. For passengers, it's more environmentally-friendly to ride a plane than a train for distances more than a few hundred miles.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , a $ 150,000 plane usually can carry less than a $ 15,000 pickup truck.That 's because any plane you find for $ 150,000 is n't designed to carry more than a couple people and their luggage .
A cargo plane costs a few million dollars , but it can carry a few $ 15,000 pickups and their cargo .
But anyway , this article is n't about money , it 's about emissions .
I can assure you that a plane will use far less fuel to carry a full load 2000 miles than a pickup would.And as for people comparing planes to cargo trains... that 's also not what the article is about .
Of course a cargo train can carry more a longer distance for lower cost..... and that 's why they 're used far more often for everything from chemicals to materials to packages than planes .
They 're talking about passengers .
For passengers , it 's more environmentally-friendly to ride a plane than a train for distances more than a few hundred miles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, a $150,000 plane usually can carry less than a $15,000 pickup truck.That's because any plane you find for $150,000 isn't designed to carry more than a couple people and their luggage.
A cargo plane costs a few million dollars, but it can carry a few $15,000 pickups and their cargo.
But anyway, this article isn't about money, it's about emissions.
I can assure you that a plane will use far less fuel to carry a full load 2000 miles than a pickup would.And as for people comparing planes to cargo trains... that's also not what the article is about.
Of course a cargo train can carry more a longer distance for lower cost..... and that's why they're used far more often for everything from chemicals to materials to packages than planes.
They're talking about passengers.
For passengers, it's more environmentally-friendly to ride a plane than a train for distances more than a few hundred miles.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248597</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>xaxa</author>
	<datestamp>1244456700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's partly politics (the train companies usually have monopolies on their routes in the UK), but you're also not making a fair comparison -- you're using the air fare booked a month in advance (and for a specific flight with no flexibility or chance of a refund) with the train fare when you appear 10 minutes before the train leaves (and full flexibility etc). Booked in advance, a train from London to Edinburgh can be as little as &pound;12.</p><p>Also, the train companies are subsidising unused service. There are 23 trains a day to Edinburgh from London, and most of them won't be anywhere near full, but planes are only run on routes that will be sufficiently full all the time -- there's little flexibility for the passenger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's partly politics ( the train companies usually have monopolies on their routes in the UK ) , but you 're also not making a fair comparison -- you 're using the air fare booked a month in advance ( and for a specific flight with no flexibility or chance of a refund ) with the train fare when you appear 10 minutes before the train leaves ( and full flexibility etc ) .
Booked in advance , a train from London to Edinburgh can be as little as   12.Also , the train companies are subsidising unused service .
There are 23 trains a day to Edinburgh from London , and most of them wo n't be anywhere near full , but planes are only run on routes that will be sufficiently full all the time -- there 's little flexibility for the passenger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's partly politics (the train companies usually have monopolies on their routes in the UK), but you're also not making a fair comparison -- you're using the air fare booked a month in advance (and for a specific flight with no flexibility or chance of a refund) with the train fare when you appear 10 minutes before the train leaves (and full flexibility etc).
Booked in advance, a train from London to Edinburgh can be as little as £12.Also, the train companies are subsidising unused service.
There are 23 trains a day to Edinburgh from London, and most of them won't be anywhere near full, but planes are only run on routes that will be sufficiently full all the time -- there's little flexibility for the passenger.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28251967</id>
	<title>Re:City planning</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1244480940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The "insufficient" population density argument is bullshit. New Jersey has a higher population density than all of the European states and Japan</p></div></blockquote><p>Bullshit. If you had visited Japan you'd realize that no way in hell does New Jersey have anything nearing the population density of Japan. The densest area I can think of is the Fort Lee/Edgewater area. That area is comparable to the suburbs of Yokohama/Tokyo. This means single-family comes on tiny plots of land and the occasional apartment tower. Even Manhattan has a misleadingly high population density because of all it's high-rise towers. Japan, and much of Asia manages similar high densities with considerably lower buildings. This means many more structures crammed together, separated by narrow streets that would barely pass for alleys in America.</p><p>That said, Japan has huge, sprawling suburbs. They are generally more dense than their American counterparts, but they're suburbs nonetheless and spread out in every direction from city cores. So logistically, they face the same issues with transportation that any American city would. The difference is that Americans love to piss and moan about every little change. You've either got people worried about the impact a big project will have to their neighborhood's character or some luddite environmentalists pissing themselves over some threat to mother earth. We can get anything done without excessive and pointless impact studies which end with researchers stating the obvious. Then there's all the excessive regulation. These might all be sensible measures to take, but they're constantly abused and in the end serve to cripple the country.</p><p>Bear in mind that the major railways in Japan are private, for profit companies. They're extremely successful and their service is impeccable. Government-owned Amtrak, on the other hand, is a pathetic joke. The other government managed garbage we have to put up with around here is Metronorth. A poorly run entity which can barely keep trains in running order. With a system like this why would anyone choose taking the train over driving?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " insufficient " population density argument is bullshit .
New Jersey has a higher population density than all of the European states and JapanBullshit .
If you had visited Japan you 'd realize that no way in hell does New Jersey have anything nearing the population density of Japan .
The densest area I can think of is the Fort Lee/Edgewater area .
That area is comparable to the suburbs of Yokohama/Tokyo .
This means single-family comes on tiny plots of land and the occasional apartment tower .
Even Manhattan has a misleadingly high population density because of all it 's high-rise towers .
Japan , and much of Asia manages similar high densities with considerably lower buildings .
This means many more structures crammed together , separated by narrow streets that would barely pass for alleys in America.That said , Japan has huge , sprawling suburbs .
They are generally more dense than their American counterparts , but they 're suburbs nonetheless and spread out in every direction from city cores .
So logistically , they face the same issues with transportation that any American city would .
The difference is that Americans love to piss and moan about every little change .
You 've either got people worried about the impact a big project will have to their neighborhood 's character or some luddite environmentalists pissing themselves over some threat to mother earth .
We can get anything done without excessive and pointless impact studies which end with researchers stating the obvious .
Then there 's all the excessive regulation .
These might all be sensible measures to take , but they 're constantly abused and in the end serve to cripple the country.Bear in mind that the major railways in Japan are private , for profit companies .
They 're extremely successful and their service is impeccable .
Government-owned Amtrak , on the other hand , is a pathetic joke .
The other government managed garbage we have to put up with around here is Metronorth .
A poorly run entity which can barely keep trains in running order .
With a system like this why would anyone choose taking the train over driving ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "insufficient" population density argument is bullshit.
New Jersey has a higher population density than all of the European states and JapanBullshit.
If you had visited Japan you'd realize that no way in hell does New Jersey have anything nearing the population density of Japan.
The densest area I can think of is the Fort Lee/Edgewater area.
That area is comparable to the suburbs of Yokohama/Tokyo.
This means single-family comes on tiny plots of land and the occasional apartment tower.
Even Manhattan has a misleadingly high population density because of all it's high-rise towers.
Japan, and much of Asia manages similar high densities with considerably lower buildings.
This means many more structures crammed together, separated by narrow streets that would barely pass for alleys in America.That said, Japan has huge, sprawling suburbs.
They are generally more dense than their American counterparts, but they're suburbs nonetheless and spread out in every direction from city cores.
So logistically, they face the same issues with transportation that any American city would.
The difference is that Americans love to piss and moan about every little change.
You've either got people worried about the impact a big project will have to their neighborhood's character or some luddite environmentalists pissing themselves over some threat to mother earth.
We can get anything done without excessive and pointless impact studies which end with researchers stating the obvious.
Then there's all the excessive regulation.
These might all be sensible measures to take, but they're constantly abused and in the end serve to cripple the country.Bear in mind that the major railways in Japan are private, for profit companies.
They're extremely successful and their service is impeccable.
Government-owned Amtrak, on the other hand, is a pathetic joke.
The other government managed garbage we have to put up with around here is Metronorth.
A poorly run entity which can barely keep trains in running order.
With a system like this why would anyone choose taking the train over driving?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246891</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>crazyjimmy</author>
	<datestamp>1244393460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A $150k plane, at a guess, would be a two-seater (I was wrong, you can get a 4 seater.). Something like a Cessna. Here, lemmie actually check...<br>
<br>
The best answer to this <a href="http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070712100535AAPywYN" title="yahoo.com" rel="nofollow">Yahoo Question</a> [yahoo.com] (not really a great source, I know, but good enough for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.) lists a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna\_182" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Cessna 182</a> [wikipedia.org] @ 150k<br>
<br>
This wouldn't be able to carry as much as a pick-up. It would probably match up to your average sedan, though.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P <br>
<br>
--Jimmy</htmltext>
<tokenext>A $ 150k plane , at a guess , would be a two-seater ( I was wrong , you can get a 4 seater. ) .
Something like a Cessna .
Here , lemmie actually check.. . The best answer to this Yahoo Question [ yahoo.com ] ( not really a great source , I know , but good enough for / .
) lists a Cessna 182 [ wikipedia.org ] @ 150k This would n't be able to carry as much as a pick-up .
It would probably match up to your average sedan , though .
: P --Jimmy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A $150k plane, at a guess, would be a two-seater (I was wrong, you can get a 4 seater.).
Something like a Cessna.
Here, lemmie actually check...

The best answer to this Yahoo Question [yahoo.com] (not really a great source, I know, but good enough for /.
) lists a Cessna 182 [wikipedia.org] @ 150k

This wouldn't be able to carry as much as a pick-up.
It would probably match up to your average sedan, though.
:P 

--Jimmy</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247637</id>
	<title>Distance depends on transport mode</title>
	<author>driptray</author>
	<datestamp>1244402880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article neglects the way that the transportation infrastructure affects how much transport is needed.  If you rely on cars and trucks for most transport you end up with low-density sprawl and hence a very high number of miles travelled. If you rely on trains and bicycles you end up with high-density development and hence a much lower number of miles travelled.</p><p>In other words, when comparing transport modes you can't assume that the amount of miles will be the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article neglects the way that the transportation infrastructure affects how much transport is needed .
If you rely on cars and trucks for most transport you end up with low-density sprawl and hence a very high number of miles travelled .
If you rely on trains and bicycles you end up with high-density development and hence a much lower number of miles travelled.In other words , when comparing transport modes you ca n't assume that the amount of miles will be the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article neglects the way that the transportation infrastructure affects how much transport is needed.
If you rely on cars and trucks for most transport you end up with low-density sprawl and hence a very high number of miles travelled.
If you rely on trains and bicycles you end up with high-density development and hence a much lower number of miles travelled.In other words, when comparing transport modes you can't assume that the amount of miles will be the same.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28251679</id>
	<title>bus vs car</title>
	<author>uiuyhn8i8</author>
	<datestamp>1244479320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also interesting to compare bus versus car. Figure 3 in the report shows, for example, that a normal gasoline car with five people is better in most respects, for energy consumption and emissions, than a bus filled to about 75\%. Only when a bus is 100\% full does it get better numbers than a full car, and then only by a small margin.

</p><p>But of course that doesn't matter for the environmental fundamentalist filling my town with those damn buses. Never mind that here the buses are mostly full of students who would walk or ride a bicycle around this small 100K town if there were no buses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also interesting to compare bus versus car .
Figure 3 in the report shows , for example , that a normal gasoline car with five people is better in most respects , for energy consumption and emissions , than a bus filled to about 75 \ % .
Only when a bus is 100 \ % full does it get better numbers than a full car , and then only by a small margin .
But of course that does n't matter for the environmental fundamentalist filling my town with those damn buses .
Never mind that here the buses are mostly full of students who would walk or ride a bicycle around this small 100K town if there were no buses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also interesting to compare bus versus car.
Figure 3 in the report shows, for example, that a normal gasoline car with five people is better in most respects, for energy consumption and emissions, than a bus filled to about 75\%.
Only when a bus is 100\% full does it get better numbers than a full car, and then only by a small margin.
But of course that doesn't matter for the environmental fundamentalist filling my town with those damn buses.
Never mind that here the buses are mostly full of students who would walk or ride a bicycle around this small 100K town if there were no buses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28251125</id>
	<title>Re:Environmental Research Letters?</title>
	<author>Idarubicin</author>
	<datestamp>1244476620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Is it customary nowadays for journals to charge $1900 to to publish an article?</p></div></blockquote><p>
Sometimes, yes.  Open access journals generally charge page charges to offset their cost of operations.  (The fee for <i>PLoS Medicine</i> is 2850 USD, for instance.)
</p><p>
Even the old-school journals often levy page or color charges (for color figures and for papers beyond a certain length).  <i>PNAS</i> asks for 70 USD per page, plus 300 USD per color figure, plus 250 USD for publication of supporting information not part of the paper itself, plus an (optional) 1200 USD if you want <i>PNAS</i> to waive subscription or article charges and make your paper open access.
</p><p>
That's not to say that all journals charging publication fees are legitimate, only that such fees are not, by themselves, an indication of shenanigans.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it customary nowadays for journals to charge $ 1900 to to publish an article ?
Sometimes , yes .
Open access journals generally charge page charges to offset their cost of operations .
( The fee for PLoS Medicine is 2850 USD , for instance .
) Even the old-school journals often levy page or color charges ( for color figures and for papers beyond a certain length ) .
PNAS asks for 70 USD per page , plus 300 USD per color figure , plus 250 USD for publication of supporting information not part of the paper itself , plus an ( optional ) 1200 USD if you want PNAS to waive subscription or article charges and make your paper open access .
That 's not to say that all journals charging publication fees are legitimate , only that such fees are not , by themselves , an indication of shenanigans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it customary nowadays for journals to charge $1900 to to publish an article?
Sometimes, yes.
Open access journals generally charge page charges to offset their cost of operations.
(The fee for PLoS Medicine is 2850 USD, for instance.
)

Even the old-school journals often levy page or color charges (for color figures and for papers beyond a certain length).
PNAS asks for 70 USD per page, plus 300 USD per color figure, plus 250 USD for publication of supporting information not part of the paper itself, plus an (optional) 1200 USD if you want PNAS to waive subscription or article charges and make your paper open access.
That's not to say that all journals charging publication fees are legitimate, only that such fees are not, by themselves, an indication of shenanigans.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28275859</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244573760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"How about taxing carbon emissions,"...</p><p>
&nbsp; Fuel is already taxed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" How about taxing carbon emissions , " .. .   Fuel is already taxed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"How about taxing carbon emissions,"...
  Fuel is already taxed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247807</id>
	<title>type of train</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244491440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>In less developed countries like USA the major part of all trains run on diesel and oil. Here in Sweden almost all trains run on electricity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In less developed countries like USA the major part of all trains run on diesel and oil .
Here in Sweden almost all trains run on electricity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In less developed countries like USA the major part of all trains run on diesel and oil.
Here in Sweden almost all trains run on electricity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28258111</id>
	<title>Re:Does it make sense...</title>
	<author>MavEtJu</author>
	<datestamp>1244461320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't, but it has been done during the Berlin blockade for nearly a year. See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin\_Blockade" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin\_Blockade</a> [wikipedia.org] for details.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't , but it has been done during the Berlin blockade for nearly a year .
See http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin \ _Blockade [ wikipedia.org ] for details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't, but it has been done during the Berlin blockade for nearly a year.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin\_Blockade [wikipedia.org] for details.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28260111</id>
	<title>some words</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244473320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>trains can be powered by<br>wind-generated electricity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>trains can be powered bywind-generated electricity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>trains can be powered bywind-generated electricity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28262473</id>
	<title>ludicris</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244579160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Again The Chem Trail is skipped right over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Again The Chem Trail is skipped right over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Again The Chem Trail is skipped right over.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246589</id>
	<title>Last!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244390640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last post... so far...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last post... so far.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last post... so far...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28249015</id>
	<title>Re:I bet someone misuses the part about empty buse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244461560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What they overlook is that a bus saves <b>nothing</b> over my car if I'm taking my car, not the bus. To entice my out of my car regularly, I must be able to rely on the bus. If I take the bus, say, to go out to dinner, and then decide on a whim to catch a movie afterward, I need to be able to know, without having to stop and study a bunch of schedules, that I will be able to get a bus home shortly after the movie lets out. I need to be able to know that I can go to this corner near the theater, and within 15 minutes catch a bus home, without worrying that someone decided when I wasn't paying attention that the routes after 11pm were not cost effective and cut them.</p></div><p>You overlook some things as well, or rather, you sound as if you do your best to overlook them and woudn't give good public transport a chance even if it were available. When you use public transport on a regular basis you know perfectly well how frequent the connections are and when the last bus home will depart. And if you don't yet know this you look it up before you go to dinner. You won't need to re-study the schedules untill they change, which will be at predictable moments once or twice a year and will be well publicized. You'll accept a less then 15 minute interval because it won't come as a surprise and having a good time will be worth it. If you have to wait long enough to allow it you will probably drink another beer with your friends after the movie, which you can safely do because you don't have to drive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What they overlook is that a bus saves nothing over my car if I 'm taking my car , not the bus .
To entice my out of my car regularly , I must be able to rely on the bus .
If I take the bus , say , to go out to dinner , and then decide on a whim to catch a movie afterward , I need to be able to know , without having to stop and study a bunch of schedules , that I will be able to get a bus home shortly after the movie lets out .
I need to be able to know that I can go to this corner near the theater , and within 15 minutes catch a bus home , without worrying that someone decided when I was n't paying attention that the routes after 11pm were not cost effective and cut them.You overlook some things as well , or rather , you sound as if you do your best to overlook them and woud n't give good public transport a chance even if it were available .
When you use public transport on a regular basis you know perfectly well how frequent the connections are and when the last bus home will depart .
And if you do n't yet know this you look it up before you go to dinner .
You wo n't need to re-study the schedules untill they change , which will be at predictable moments once or twice a year and will be well publicized .
You 'll accept a less then 15 minute interval because it wo n't come as a surprise and having a good time will be worth it .
If you have to wait long enough to allow it you will probably drink another beer with your friends after the movie , which you can safely do because you do n't have to drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What they overlook is that a bus saves nothing over my car if I'm taking my car, not the bus.
To entice my out of my car regularly, I must be able to rely on the bus.
If I take the bus, say, to go out to dinner, and then decide on a whim to catch a movie afterward, I need to be able to know, without having to stop and study a bunch of schedules, that I will be able to get a bus home shortly after the movie lets out.
I need to be able to know that I can go to this corner near the theater, and within 15 minutes catch a bus home, without worrying that someone decided when I wasn't paying attention that the routes after 11pm were not cost effective and cut them.You overlook some things as well, or rather, you sound as if you do your best to overlook them and woudn't give good public transport a chance even if it were available.
When you use public transport on a regular basis you know perfectly well how frequent the connections are and when the last bus home will depart.
And if you don't yet know this you look it up before you go to dinner.
You won't need to re-study the schedules untill they change, which will be at predictable moments once or twice a year and will be well publicized.
You'll accept a less then 15 minute interval because it won't come as a surprise and having a good time will be worth it.
If you have to wait long enough to allow it you will probably drink another beer with your friends after the movie, which you can safely do because you don't have to drive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250163</id>
	<title>Shutting trains off</title>
	<author>++augahyde</author>
	<datestamp>1244471580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Frederick, MD is one of the spots where the MARC Train (http://www.mtamaryland.com/services/marc/) has its endpoints. While the trains only run during the mornings and afternoon during the week, the trains are left running all weekend. Don't know the impact of shutting a train off for the weekend, but you can certainly hear the diesels running and spewing toxins into the air.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Frederick , MD is one of the spots where the MARC Train ( http : //www.mtamaryland.com/services/marc/ ) has its endpoints .
While the trains only run during the mornings and afternoon during the week , the trains are left running all weekend .
Do n't know the impact of shutting a train off for the weekend , but you can certainly hear the diesels running and spewing toxins into the air .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frederick, MD is one of the spots where the MARC Train (http://www.mtamaryland.com/services/marc/) has its endpoints.
While the trains only run during the mornings and afternoon during the week, the trains are left running all weekend.
Don't know the impact of shutting a train off for the weekend, but you can certainly hear the diesels running and spewing toxins into the air.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248377</id>
	<title>Re:Environmental Research Letters?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244453880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A great many academic journals charge for publications. It's a way of getting universities and companies to partially the existence of the journals, which, unlike mainstream magazines,  typically don't carry much, if any, advertising. In the journals I've published in, the charge has often been voluntary, with institutions expected to pay but the occasional non-affiliated individual not expected to foot such a large bill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A great many academic journals charge for publications .
It 's a way of getting universities and companies to partially the existence of the journals , which , unlike mainstream magazines , typically do n't carry much , if any , advertising .
In the journals I 've published in , the charge has often been voluntary , with institutions expected to pay but the occasional non-affiliated individual not expected to foot such a large bill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A great many academic journals charge for publications.
It's a way of getting universities and companies to partially the existence of the journals, which, unlike mainstream magazines,  typically don't carry much, if any, advertising.
In the journals I've published in, the charge has often been voluntary, with institutions expected to pay but the occasional non-affiliated individual not expected to foot such a large bill.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28249221</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244464080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; trains moved freight for about 7 cents per ton/mile, and trucks<br>&gt; moved the same freight for about 28 cents per ton/mile.</p><p>citation needed.  i think these numbers are suspect.</p><p>let's do a little math.  a semi weighs weighs ~10t-15t and<br>can carry 25-30t.  diesel is ~$3.50/gal.  so the cost per<br>ton-mile is 1.2-1.4 cents/mile.  calculating this another way<br>shipping costs are generally ~$2/mile.  that's about 8 cents/<br>ton-mile.  i think you're numbers are off by a large margin</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; trains moved freight for about 7 cents per ton/mile , and trucks &gt; moved the same freight for about 28 cents per ton/mile.citation needed .
i think these numbers are suspect.let 's do a little math .
a semi weighs weighs ~ 10t-15t andcan carry 25-30t .
diesel is ~ $ 3.50/gal .
so the cost perton-mile is 1.2-1.4 cents/mile .
calculating this another wayshipping costs are generally ~ $ 2/mile .
that 's about 8 cents/ton-mile .
i think you 're numbers are off by a large margin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; trains moved freight for about 7 cents per ton/mile, and trucks&gt; moved the same freight for about 28 cents per ton/mile.citation needed.
i think these numbers are suspect.let's do a little math.
a semi weighs weighs ~10t-15t andcan carry 25-30t.
diesel is ~$3.50/gal.
so the cost perton-mile is 1.2-1.4 cents/mile.
calculating this another wayshipping costs are generally ~$2/mile.
that's about 8 cents/ton-mile.
i think you're numbers are off by a large margin</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246859</id>
	<title>Prius vs Hummer Report was load of crap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244393100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone who has read the report (instead of just read articles which summarized it) I can definitively say that that report was, is, and always will be a load of crap.</p><p>First off, that report came from a marketing firm, not a serious research organization.  Since when are marketing firms experts on lifetime costs.</p><p>Secondly, their estimates were that the bulk of the energy costs for each of these cars was in the cost of recycling and/or disposing of the cars.  Specifically, for the Prius, a $20,000 car, they estimated that it would take over $100,000 worth of energy to recycle or dispose of it.</p><p>Right off, that doesn't pass the simple common-sense test.  If it costs $100,000 to recycle or dispose of a Prius, then who is going to be paying that?  For all of the cars on the road, they estimated that disposal and/or recycling would cost at least tens of thousands of dollars.  Which is to say, if the report is to be believed, scrap yards are all operating at gargantuan loses, since, generally most of them will pay you for your car rather than charge you to haul it away.</p><p>My best guess as to the justification of their lunacy is that they're assuming that all of the plastics in a vehicle will be somehow incinerated at some huge temperature or something (rather than simply put in a landfill, which costs way less energy) and they've slipped a digit or two somewhere.  But in the end, it's impossible to judge because although they claim to have some very specific break-downs which justify their numbers for each category of the life-cycle, those break-downs are only available if you spend several thousand dollars to purchase the complete version of the report from them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who has read the report ( instead of just read articles which summarized it ) I can definitively say that that report was , is , and always will be a load of crap.First off , that report came from a marketing firm , not a serious research organization .
Since when are marketing firms experts on lifetime costs.Secondly , their estimates were that the bulk of the energy costs for each of these cars was in the cost of recycling and/or disposing of the cars .
Specifically , for the Prius , a $ 20,000 car , they estimated that it would take over $ 100,000 worth of energy to recycle or dispose of it.Right off , that does n't pass the simple common-sense test .
If it costs $ 100,000 to recycle or dispose of a Prius , then who is going to be paying that ?
For all of the cars on the road , they estimated that disposal and/or recycling would cost at least tens of thousands of dollars .
Which is to say , if the report is to be believed , scrap yards are all operating at gargantuan loses , since , generally most of them will pay you for your car rather than charge you to haul it away.My best guess as to the justification of their lunacy is that they 're assuming that all of the plastics in a vehicle will be somehow incinerated at some huge temperature or something ( rather than simply put in a landfill , which costs way less energy ) and they 've slipped a digit or two somewhere .
But in the end , it 's impossible to judge because although they claim to have some very specific break-downs which justify their numbers for each category of the life-cycle , those break-downs are only available if you spend several thousand dollars to purchase the complete version of the report from them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who has read the report (instead of just read articles which summarized it) I can definitively say that that report was, is, and always will be a load of crap.First off, that report came from a marketing firm, not a serious research organization.
Since when are marketing firms experts on lifetime costs.Secondly, their estimates were that the bulk of the energy costs for each of these cars was in the cost of recycling and/or disposing of the cars.
Specifically, for the Prius, a $20,000 car, they estimated that it would take over $100,000 worth of energy to recycle or dispose of it.Right off, that doesn't pass the simple common-sense test.
If it costs $100,000 to recycle or dispose of a Prius, then who is going to be paying that?
For all of the cars on the road, they estimated that disposal and/or recycling would cost at least tens of thousands of dollars.
Which is to say, if the report is to be believed, scrap yards are all operating at gargantuan loses, since, generally most of them will pay you for your car rather than charge you to haul it away.My best guess as to the justification of their lunacy is that they're assuming that all of the plastics in a vehicle will be somehow incinerated at some huge temperature or something (rather than simply put in a landfill, which costs way less energy) and they've slipped a digit or two somewhere.
But in the end, it's impossible to judge because although they claim to have some very specific break-downs which justify their numbers for each category of the life-cycle, those break-downs are only available if you spend several thousand dollars to purchase the complete version of the report from them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28249121</id>
	<title>Makes sense, actually.</title>
	<author>Smidge204</author>
	<datestamp>1244462880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If all the anecdotal accounts of air travel are anything to go by, planes spend so much time grounded due to weather, mechanical problems, sitting on the tarmac for hours <i>after</i> boarding and/or <i>before</i> unboarding, etc... or flights cut short due to diversions that they hardly spend any time flying and thus burning fuel.</p><p>It's not just a shitty way to travel, is a shitty and <i>environmentally friendly</i> way to travel!<br>=Smidge=</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If all the anecdotal accounts of air travel are anything to go by , planes spend so much time grounded due to weather , mechanical problems , sitting on the tarmac for hours after boarding and/or before unboarding , etc... or flights cut short due to diversions that they hardly spend any time flying and thus burning fuel.It 's not just a shitty way to travel , is a shitty and environmentally friendly way to travel ! = Smidge =</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If all the anecdotal accounts of air travel are anything to go by, planes spend so much time grounded due to weather, mechanical problems, sitting on the tarmac for hours after boarding and/or before unboarding, etc... or flights cut short due to diversions that they hardly spend any time flying and thus burning fuel.It's not just a shitty way to travel, is a shitty and environmentally friendly way to travel!=Smidge=</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247515</id>
	<title>ticket price</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244401620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's one really simple metric for measuring this. The cost of the ticket in economy class. It's not scientifically accurate but it should give a rough idea. And currently in many cases trains are more expensive for long distances. But for cargo they're obviously much cheaper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's one really simple metric for measuring this .
The cost of the ticket in economy class .
It 's not scientifically accurate but it should give a rough idea .
And currently in many cases trains are more expensive for long distances .
But for cargo they 're obviously much cheaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's one really simple metric for measuring this.
The cost of the ticket in economy class.
It's not scientifically accurate but it should give a rough idea.
And currently in many cases trains are more expensive for long distances.
But for cargo they're obviously much cheaper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28249397</id>
	<title>Re:City planning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244466000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The "insufficient" population density argument is bullshit. New Jersey has a higher population density than all of the European states and Japan, and yet most of the state has zero access to a public transportation system that will deliver them somewhere other than New York or Philadelphia. I lived in a rural Scottish town for a short while that had public transportation options that were lightyears better than anything I can get living in NJ, just across the river from NYC.</p></div><p>There are lots of details that are wrong with public transport in the U.S. When I was in the Bay Area around 2000, I was trying to look up a public transport connection from St. Clara to San Francisco. Coming from Europe, I expected a website somewhere, where I entered starting and ending point, and the system then would look up the timetables and put out a schedule, as I knew it from Germany. But no! Not even the timetables of the different busses were reachable from a single site, I had to look up several public transportation maps and had to figure out what company is serving which line and then hoping I could get a timetable on the website of the company. No information about connections to other lines, no links to partner companies within the BART system... It was horrible.</p><p>At the same time nearly all train, streetcar, bus and ferry schedules of Germany, covering municipal, federal and private transportation companies, were reachable within a single system, and it even was possible to enter a point of interest or an address as starting or ending point, and it would put out a nice schedule including walking distances and traffic fares.</p><p>And on a side note: I am currently living in a village with ~8300 inhabitants, and I was considering buying an appartement in another village with ~2500 inhabitants. When I asked the seller about bus schedules, he was apologizing. Yes, there was a bus station just over the street, and it was regularily served by busses from and to the next bigger town (about 20 mls away), but sadly... there was a hole in the schedule during the night. No bus between 2.30 am and 3.30 am in the morning! Before and after that busses were going each 30 mins in both directions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " insufficient " population density argument is bullshit .
New Jersey has a higher population density than all of the European states and Japan , and yet most of the state has zero access to a public transportation system that will deliver them somewhere other than New York or Philadelphia .
I lived in a rural Scottish town for a short while that had public transportation options that were lightyears better than anything I can get living in NJ , just across the river from NYC.There are lots of details that are wrong with public transport in the U.S. When I was in the Bay Area around 2000 , I was trying to look up a public transport connection from St. Clara to San Francisco .
Coming from Europe , I expected a website somewhere , where I entered starting and ending point , and the system then would look up the timetables and put out a schedule , as I knew it from Germany .
But no !
Not even the timetables of the different busses were reachable from a single site , I had to look up several public transportation maps and had to figure out what company is serving which line and then hoping I could get a timetable on the website of the company .
No information about connections to other lines , no links to partner companies within the BART system... It was horrible.At the same time nearly all train , streetcar , bus and ferry schedules of Germany , covering municipal , federal and private transportation companies , were reachable within a single system , and it even was possible to enter a point of interest or an address as starting or ending point , and it would put out a nice schedule including walking distances and traffic fares.And on a side note : I am currently living in a village with ~ 8300 inhabitants , and I was considering buying an appartement in another village with ~ 2500 inhabitants .
When I asked the seller about bus schedules , he was apologizing .
Yes , there was a bus station just over the street , and it was regularily served by busses from and to the next bigger town ( about 20 mls away ) , but sadly... there was a hole in the schedule during the night .
No bus between 2.30 am and 3.30 am in the morning !
Before and after that busses were going each 30 mins in both directions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "insufficient" population density argument is bullshit.
New Jersey has a higher population density than all of the European states and Japan, and yet most of the state has zero access to a public transportation system that will deliver them somewhere other than New York or Philadelphia.
I lived in a rural Scottish town for a short while that had public transportation options that were lightyears better than anything I can get living in NJ, just across the river from NYC.There are lots of details that are wrong with public transport in the U.S. When I was in the Bay Area around 2000, I was trying to look up a public transport connection from St. Clara to San Francisco.
Coming from Europe, I expected a website somewhere, where I entered starting and ending point, and the system then would look up the timetables and put out a schedule, as I knew it from Germany.
But no!
Not even the timetables of the different busses were reachable from a single site, I had to look up several public transportation maps and had to figure out what company is serving which line and then hoping I could get a timetable on the website of the company.
No information about connections to other lines, no links to partner companies within the BART system... It was horrible.At the same time nearly all train, streetcar, bus and ferry schedules of Germany, covering municipal, federal and private transportation companies, were reachable within a single system, and it even was possible to enter a point of interest or an address as starting or ending point, and it would put out a nice schedule including walking distances and traffic fares.And on a side note: I am currently living in a village with ~8300 inhabitants, and I was considering buying an appartement in another village with ~2500 inhabitants.
When I asked the seller about bus schedules, he was apologizing.
Yes, there was a bus station just over the street, and it was regularily served by busses from and to the next bigger town (about 20 mls away), but sadly... there was a hole in the schedule during the night.
No bus between 2.30 am and 3.30 am in the morning!
Before and after that busses were going each 30 mins in both directions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28249023</id>
	<title>One way to solve this.</title>
	<author>rew</author>
	<datestamp>1244461620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that these comparisons are difficult to do. The only way to accurately allow estimations of such climate-efficiency is to impose climate-taxes.</p><p>Make every company pay for their emissions into the environment. So the costs of producing electricity will go up because the electricity company has to pay for their CO2 emissions. Similarly the steel mill producing the steel for the hummer will charge higher prices because of the CO2 they produce, and to compensate for the higher electricity bill.</p><p>Eventually throughout industry a new price-level will stabilize and in the train tickets and airline tickets their relative climate-efficiency will show through. People will feel the climate-inefficiency of the hummer (or the prius if you believe that report) in the amount they have to pay.</p><p>Oh, because taxing all citizens for the CO2 that their cars produce is not feasable, you add a tax on the fuels: The amount of CO2 per gallon of fuel is easy to calculate.</p><p>And... because this will shift prices significantly, it is not feasible to start these taxes all at once. So besides that the eventual rates should be known in advance, so that companies can change their investment patterns to for example build more CO2 efficient plants in the years that ramp up the cost of emitting CO2 into the environment.</p><p>There are some difficult problems: What is the CO2 equivalent price of radioactive wastes? This depends a lot on for example the cost of "suppose 100 years from now the storage facility generates a leak causing 100 square miles of our country to become inhabitable". The chances of that happening are small, difficult to estimate, but the resulting cost to the environment so enormous that they do make a contribution to the "global-environmental-cost" of using nuclear energy.</p><p>Another problem is that this doesn't make sense to do in just one country. This has to be done globally otherwise it is tremendously unfair for companies that are in a country that taxes its companies compared with those that are in a country that doesn't tax its companies. (You might be able to add those taxes at the border. So competition inside a country becomes fair. And the "other country" will see that the taxes that they could've charged end up being charged at the border, and flow into the foreign government, providing an incentive for them to implement the taxes....)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that these comparisons are difficult to do .
The only way to accurately allow estimations of such climate-efficiency is to impose climate-taxes.Make every company pay for their emissions into the environment .
So the costs of producing electricity will go up because the electricity company has to pay for their CO2 emissions .
Similarly the steel mill producing the steel for the hummer will charge higher prices because of the CO2 they produce , and to compensate for the higher electricity bill.Eventually throughout industry a new price-level will stabilize and in the train tickets and airline tickets their relative climate-efficiency will show through .
People will feel the climate-inefficiency of the hummer ( or the prius if you believe that report ) in the amount they have to pay.Oh , because taxing all citizens for the CO2 that their cars produce is not feasable , you add a tax on the fuels : The amount of CO2 per gallon of fuel is easy to calculate.And... because this will shift prices significantly , it is not feasible to start these taxes all at once .
So besides that the eventual rates should be known in advance , so that companies can change their investment patterns to for example build more CO2 efficient plants in the years that ramp up the cost of emitting CO2 into the environment.There are some difficult problems : What is the CO2 equivalent price of radioactive wastes ?
This depends a lot on for example the cost of " suppose 100 years from now the storage facility generates a leak causing 100 square miles of our country to become inhabitable " .
The chances of that happening are small , difficult to estimate , but the resulting cost to the environment so enormous that they do make a contribution to the " global-environmental-cost " of using nuclear energy.Another problem is that this does n't make sense to do in just one country .
This has to be done globally otherwise it is tremendously unfair for companies that are in a country that taxes its companies compared with those that are in a country that does n't tax its companies .
( You might be able to add those taxes at the border .
So competition inside a country becomes fair .
And the " other country " will see that the taxes that they could 've charged end up being charged at the border , and flow into the foreign government , providing an incentive for them to implement the taxes.... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that these comparisons are difficult to do.
The only way to accurately allow estimations of such climate-efficiency is to impose climate-taxes.Make every company pay for their emissions into the environment.
So the costs of producing electricity will go up because the electricity company has to pay for their CO2 emissions.
Similarly the steel mill producing the steel for the hummer will charge higher prices because of the CO2 they produce, and to compensate for the higher electricity bill.Eventually throughout industry a new price-level will stabilize and in the train tickets and airline tickets their relative climate-efficiency will show through.
People will feel the climate-inefficiency of the hummer (or the prius if you believe that report) in the amount they have to pay.Oh, because taxing all citizens for the CO2 that their cars produce is not feasable, you add a tax on the fuels: The amount of CO2 per gallon of fuel is easy to calculate.And... because this will shift prices significantly, it is not feasible to start these taxes all at once.
So besides that the eventual rates should be known in advance, so that companies can change their investment patterns to for example build more CO2 efficient plants in the years that ramp up the cost of emitting CO2 into the environment.There are some difficult problems: What is the CO2 equivalent price of radioactive wastes?
This depends a lot on for example the cost of "suppose 100 years from now the storage facility generates a leak causing 100 square miles of our country to become inhabitable".
The chances of that happening are small, difficult to estimate, but the resulting cost to the environment so enormous that they do make a contribution to the "global-environmental-cost" of using nuclear energy.Another problem is that this doesn't make sense to do in just one country.
This has to be done globally otherwise it is tremendously unfair for companies that are in a country that taxes its companies compared with those that are in a country that doesn't tax its companies.
(You might be able to add those taxes at the border.
So competition inside a country becomes fair.
And the "other country" will see that the taxes that they could've charged end up being charged at the border, and flow into the foreign government, providing an incentive for them to implement the taxes....)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246861</id>
	<title>Does it make sense...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244393100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does it make sense to, for example, haul coal on planes?  I don't believe you can replace trains with planes, or planes with trains.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it make sense to , for example , haul coal on planes ?
I do n't believe you can replace trains with planes , or planes with trains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it make sense to, for example, haul coal on planes?
I don't believe you can replace trains with planes, or planes with trains.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246615</id>
	<title>I'll take the one with fewer niggers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244390820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll take whichever form of transportation has the fewest niggers.</p><p>Airplanes have few niggers, presumably because porch monkeys don't fly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll take whichever form of transportation has the fewest niggers.Airplanes have few niggers , presumably because porch monkeys do n't fly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll take whichever form of transportation has the fewest niggers.Airplanes have few niggers, presumably because porch monkeys don't fly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247729</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>Registered Coward v2</author>
	<datestamp>1244404140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Correct.  The study is obviously flawed, economically speaking.  In a real life study done years ago, trains moved freight for about 7 cents per ton/mile, and trucks moved the same freight for about 28 cents per ton/mile.  As I recall, that included investment in tractor/locomotive and trailer/railcars, but did NOT include the highway/rail infrastructure.</p></div><p>While your freight numbers may be correct, the study referenced referred to passenger movement, not freight.  The study basically states if you include infrastructure related emissions, the emissions of various modes of transportation increase.  If a mode is lightly used its total emissions may be worse than a mode that has higher tailpipe emissions; i.e. an off peak bus with a few passengers is worse than a car or SUV carrying the same number of passengers.
</p><p>Without seeing the analysis I can't comment on the methodology, but the conclusions make sense; the question is their accuracy, which depends on the assumptions used to calculate emissions.
</p><p>One interesting note is the impact of the fuels used to produce electricity - switching from fossil to sources with much lower emissions would change the results in for electric mass transit vehicles in a favorable manner.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct .
The study is obviously flawed , economically speaking .
In a real life study done years ago , trains moved freight for about 7 cents per ton/mile , and trucks moved the same freight for about 28 cents per ton/mile .
As I recall , that included investment in tractor/locomotive and trailer/railcars , but did NOT include the highway/rail infrastructure.While your freight numbers may be correct , the study referenced referred to passenger movement , not freight .
The study basically states if you include infrastructure related emissions , the emissions of various modes of transportation increase .
If a mode is lightly used its total emissions may be worse than a mode that has higher tailpipe emissions ; i.e .
an off peak bus with a few passengers is worse than a car or SUV carrying the same number of passengers .
Without seeing the analysis I ca n't comment on the methodology , but the conclusions make sense ; the question is their accuracy , which depends on the assumptions used to calculate emissions .
One interesting note is the impact of the fuels used to produce electricity - switching from fossil to sources with much lower emissions would change the results in for electric mass transit vehicles in a favorable manner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct.
The study is obviously flawed, economically speaking.
In a real life study done years ago, trains moved freight for about 7 cents per ton/mile, and trucks moved the same freight for about 28 cents per ton/mile.
As I recall, that included investment in tractor/locomotive and trailer/railcars, but did NOT include the highway/rail infrastructure.While your freight numbers may be correct, the study referenced referred to passenger movement, not freight.
The study basically states if you include infrastructure related emissions, the emissions of various modes of transportation increase.
If a mode is lightly used its total emissions may be worse than a mode that has higher tailpipe emissions; i.e.
an off peak bus with a few passengers is worse than a car or SUV carrying the same number of passengers.
Without seeing the analysis I can't comment on the methodology, but the conclusions make sense; the question is their accuracy, which depends on the assumptions used to calculate emissions.
One interesting note is the impact of the fuels used to produce electricity - switching from fossil to sources with much lower emissions would change the results in for electric mass transit vehicles in a favorable manner.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247079</id>
	<title>Re:City planning</title>
	<author>dbcad7</author>
	<datestamp>1244395380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most US cities have some form of public transportation, mostly bus.. but some intercity rail.. The real problem isn't on the design of cities, it's that there has been zero investment in connecting cities by rail. Even connecting to the outskirts, such as many airports would be something. My own limited Amtrak experience, is that it sucks.. what is a 2 hour drive by car, takes 5 hours.. They stop at small nothing towns that often don't make sense.. They should stick to the major cities, offering bus connections and speed things up so that people don't feel stupid traveling by train.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most US cities have some form of public transportation , mostly bus.. but some intercity rail.. The real problem is n't on the design of cities , it 's that there has been zero investment in connecting cities by rail .
Even connecting to the outskirts , such as many airports would be something .
My own limited Amtrak experience , is that it sucks.. what is a 2 hour drive by car , takes 5 hours.. They stop at small nothing towns that often do n't make sense.. They should stick to the major cities , offering bus connections and speed things up so that people do n't feel stupid traveling by train .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most US cities have some form of public transportation, mostly bus.. but some intercity rail.. The real problem isn't on the design of cities, it's that there has been zero investment in connecting cities by rail.
Even connecting to the outskirts, such as many airports would be something.
My own limited Amtrak experience, is that it sucks.. what is a 2 hour drive by car, takes 5 hours.. They stop at small nothing towns that often don't make sense.. They should stick to the major cities, offering bus connections and speed things up so that people don't feel stupid traveling by train.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247041</id>
	<title>the money line that I'm sure we can pick apart</title>
	<author>Raleel</author>
	<datestamp>1244395080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>from TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Cars emitted more than any other form of transport with the notable exception of off-peak buses, which often carry few passengers. Passengers on the Boston light rail, an electric commuter train, were found to emit as much or marginally more than those on mid-size and large aircraft. This is because 82 per cent of electricity in Massachusetts is generated by burning fossil fuels.</p></div><p>So, if you are burning lots of fossil fuels to run your light rail, then yes, it is like a coal fired plane<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>TFA also talks about building trains into major population centers to eliminate the need for infrastructure for cars to \_get\_ to the train. It also talks about how trains have a different power problem than air/car/bus, and one that, honestly, I think we're a lot closer to solving.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>from TFA : Cars emitted more than any other form of transport with the notable exception of off-peak buses , which often carry few passengers .
Passengers on the Boston light rail , an electric commuter train , were found to emit as much or marginally more than those on mid-size and large aircraft .
This is because 82 per cent of electricity in Massachusetts is generated by burning fossil fuels.So , if you are burning lots of fossil fuels to run your light rail , then yes , it is like a coal fired plane : ) TFA also talks about building trains into major population centers to eliminate the need for infrastructure for cars to \ _get \ _ to the train .
It also talks about how trains have a different power problem than air/car/bus , and one that , honestly , I think we 're a lot closer to solving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from TFA:Cars emitted more than any other form of transport with the notable exception of off-peak buses, which often carry few passengers.
Passengers on the Boston light rail, an electric commuter train, were found to emit as much or marginally more than those on mid-size and large aircraft.
This is because 82 per cent of electricity in Massachusetts is generated by burning fossil fuels.So, if you are burning lots of fossil fuels to run your light rail, then yes, it is like a coal fired plane :)TFA also talks about building trains into major population centers to eliminate the need for infrastructure for cars to \_get\_ to the train.
It also talks about how trains have a different power problem than air/car/bus, and one that, honestly, I think we're a lot closer to solving.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246801</id>
	<title>I wouldn't be caught dead in a plane...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244392560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...unless it was Air France A330.</p><p>Too soon?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...unless it was Air France A330.Too soon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...unless it was Air France A330.Too soon?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246955</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244394120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who gives a damn which releases more CO2?  The whole greenhouse thing is a crock dreamed up by the Europeans and Japanese because they used all their coal already and own all the patents for nuclear power generation.  Deforestation is the real issue and it's getting ignored because of the carbon nonsense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who gives a damn which releases more CO2 ?
The whole greenhouse thing is a crock dreamed up by the Europeans and Japanese because they used all their coal already and own all the patents for nuclear power generation .
Deforestation is the real issue and it 's getting ignored because of the carbon nonsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who gives a damn which releases more CO2?
The whole greenhouse thing is a crock dreamed up by the Europeans and Japanese because they used all their coal already and own all the patents for nuclear power generation.
Deforestation is the real issue and it's getting ignored because of the carbon nonsense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248245</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>Gordonjcp</author>
	<datestamp>1244452500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Yeah, except that rail isn't cheap for passengers. Here in the UK, you can fly to the South of France for the price of a rail ticket to Scotland. (I.e. On rail, it costs about GBP100 = US$160 to go 350 miles.)</i> </p><p>Recently there was a show at the <a href="http://www.dundeereptheatre.co.uk/" title="dundeereptheatre.co.uk">Dundee Rep</a> [dundeereptheatre.co.uk] that had a pre-show involving the main characters appearing at the entrance in pink stretched limo.  At the end of the run, the crew were pricing up train tickets to go from Dundee to Aberdeen - about 70 miles by road - for the next run.  It was going to cost about &pound;50 per person for eight of them.</p><p>"Hang on a minute", said one of the crew, "How much are we paying for the limo?"  So for 200 quid they travelled to the next show in the limo.</p><p>When it costs half as much to hire a limo than go by train...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , except that rail is n't cheap for passengers .
Here in the UK , you can fly to the South of France for the price of a rail ticket to Scotland .
( I.e. On rail , it costs about GBP100 = US $ 160 to go 350 miles .
) Recently there was a show at the Dundee Rep [ dundeereptheatre.co.uk ] that had a pre-show involving the main characters appearing at the entrance in pink stretched limo .
At the end of the run , the crew were pricing up train tickets to go from Dundee to Aberdeen - about 70 miles by road - for the next run .
It was going to cost about   50 per person for eight of them .
" Hang on a minute " , said one of the crew , " How much are we paying for the limo ?
" So for 200 quid they travelled to the next show in the limo.When it costs half as much to hire a limo than go by train.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, except that rail isn't cheap for passengers.
Here in the UK, you can fly to the South of France for the price of a rail ticket to Scotland.
(I.e. On rail, it costs about GBP100 = US$160 to go 350 miles.
) Recently there was a show at the Dundee Rep [dundeereptheatre.co.uk] that had a pre-show involving the main characters appearing at the entrance in pink stretched limo.
At the end of the run, the crew were pricing up train tickets to go from Dundee to Aberdeen - about 70 miles by road - for the next run.
It was going to cost about £50 per person for eight of them.
"Hang on a minute", said one of the crew, "How much are we paying for the limo?
"  So for 200 quid they travelled to the next show in the limo.When it costs half as much to hire a limo than go by train...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28276915</id>
	<title>Re:City planning</title>
	<author>elFisico</author>
	<datestamp>1244628540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The sad truth is that most American cities are ill-suited to public transportation at the fundamental design level. You can't hack an effective and economic public transportation system onto them, and taking a wrecking ball to three-quarters of the American landscape would be expensive beyond belief for a very modest benefit</p></div><p>aww, I have done that in simcity several times, you just need the infinite-money-cheat for that...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The sad truth is that most American cities are ill-suited to public transportation at the fundamental design level .
You ca n't hack an effective and economic public transportation system onto them , and taking a wrecking ball to three-quarters of the American landscape would be expensive beyond belief for a very modest benefitaww , I have done that in simcity several times , you just need the infinite-money-cheat for that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sad truth is that most American cities are ill-suited to public transportation at the fundamental design level.
You can't hack an effective and economic public transportation system onto them, and taking a wrecking ball to three-quarters of the American landscape would be expensive beyond belief for a very modest benefitaww, I have done that in simcity several times, you just need the infinite-money-cheat for that...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247003</id>
	<title>the only thing that is really made of "green"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244394720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is my marijuana cigarette with 2 grams of cannabis rolled up by cheap cigar paper.  also known in the streets as a "blunt".</p><p>this is a sentence for the blunted, use linux for it is created by god!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is my marijuana cigarette with 2 grams of cannabis rolled up by cheap cigar paper .
also known in the streets as a " blunt " .this is a sentence for the blunted , use linux for it is created by god !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is my marijuana cigarette with 2 grams of cannabis rolled up by cheap cigar paper.
also known in the streets as a "blunt".this is a sentence for the blunted, use linux for it is created by god!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246917</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244393760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;While I am not sure what kind of plane $150k will get you</p><p>You could get a Cessna 182 with about 1000 airframe hours on it.</p><p>If you really had to, you could carry about 1,100 pounds including yourself and your passengers.<br>You'd be painfully aware of this load while flying.</p><p>&gt;I imagine something deemed a cargo plane</p><p>Say, a Boeing 737 for 20-50 million, and a few million a year for maintenance?</p><p>&gt;will carry a lot more than even a full-size extended bed pickup.</p><p>Of course it will.  But $50 million is a fleet of tractor-trailer rigs and a network of warehouses and fuel depots.  Not only can you carry more capacity, but you can get your payload between arbitrary points A&amp;B far more efficiently than a plane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; While I am not sure what kind of plane $ 150k will get youYou could get a Cessna 182 with about 1000 airframe hours on it.If you really had to , you could carry about 1,100 pounds including yourself and your passengers.You 'd be painfully aware of this load while flying. &gt; I imagine something deemed a cargo planeSay , a Boeing 737 for 20-50 million , and a few million a year for maintenance ? &gt; will carry a lot more than even a full-size extended bed pickup.Of course it will .
But $ 50 million is a fleet of tractor-trailer rigs and a network of warehouses and fuel depots .
Not only can you carry more capacity , but you can get your payload between arbitrary points A&amp;B far more efficiently than a plane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;While I am not sure what kind of plane $150k will get youYou could get a Cessna 182 with about 1000 airframe hours on it.If you really had to, you could carry about 1,100 pounds including yourself and your passengers.You'd be painfully aware of this load while flying.&gt;I imagine something deemed a cargo planeSay, a Boeing 737 for 20-50 million, and a few million a year for maintenance?&gt;will carry a lot more than even a full-size extended bed pickup.Of course it will.
But $50 million is a fleet of tractor-trailer rigs and a network of warehouses and fuel depots.
Not only can you carry more capacity, but you can get your payload between arbitrary points A&amp;B far more efficiently than a plane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28252963</id>
	<title>Agreed, but for GHG emissions</title>
	<author>Burz</author>
	<datestamp>1244485020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not just CO2 emissions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not just CO2 emissions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not just CO2 emissions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28249023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28256473</id>
	<title>Re:type of train</title>
	<author>frogzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1244455200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It looks like Sweden is indeed doing better than many countries in the electric power generation game.  Renewables in this case are primarily hydro-electric?<br>-</p><p>"Primary Energy Supply<br>Swedish primary energy supply depends mainly on nuclear energy, oil and renewable sources. The share of nuclear<br>energy (37\%), as well as the share of renewable sources (26\%), is much higher than the corresponding EU-27 average<br>percentage (14\% and 6\% respectively). The consumption of solid fuels (6\% share) and gas (2\% share) is significantly<br>lower than the EU-27 average (18\% and 24\% respectively)" -- ec.europa.eu/energy/energy\_policy/doc/factsheets/mix/mix\_se\_en.pdf</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks like Sweden is indeed doing better than many countries in the electric power generation game .
Renewables in this case are primarily hydro-electric ? - " Primary Energy SupplySwedish primary energy supply depends mainly on nuclear energy , oil and renewable sources .
The share of nuclearenergy ( 37 \ % ) , as well as the share of renewable sources ( 26 \ % ) , is much higher than the corresponding EU-27 averagepercentage ( 14 \ % and 6 \ % respectively ) .
The consumption of solid fuels ( 6 \ % share ) and gas ( 2 \ % share ) is significantlylower than the EU-27 average ( 18 \ % and 24 \ % respectively ) " -- ec.europa.eu/energy/energy \ _policy/doc/factsheets/mix/mix \ _se \ _en.pdf</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks like Sweden is indeed doing better than many countries in the electric power generation game.
Renewables in this case are primarily hydro-electric?-"Primary Energy SupplySwedish primary energy supply depends mainly on nuclear energy, oil and renewable sources.
The share of nuclearenergy (37\%), as well as the share of renewable sources (26\%), is much higher than the corresponding EU-27 averagepercentage (14\% and 6\% respectively).
The consumption of solid fuels (6\% share) and gas (2\% share) is significantlylower than the EU-27 average (18\% and 24\% respectively)" -- ec.europa.eu/energy/energy\_policy/doc/factsheets/mix/mix\_se\_en.pdf</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247807</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28252331</id>
	<title>Biodeisel?</title>
	<author>plopez</author>
	<datestamp>1244482740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since they are diesel engines, I assume trains could run on bio diesel. Anyone know anything on this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since they are diesel engines , I assume trains could run on bio diesel .
Anyone know anything on this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since they are diesel engines, I assume trains could run on bio diesel.
Anyone know anything on this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246767</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244392140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>A cargo plane could haul a lot more than half a cord of wood, where a pickup truck cannot.  While I am not sure what kind of plane $150k will get you, I imagine something deemed a cargo plane will carry a lot more than even a full-size extended bed pickup.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A cargo plane could haul a lot more than half a cord of wood , where a pickup truck can not .
While I am not sure what kind of plane $ 150k will get you , I imagine something deemed a cargo plane will carry a lot more than even a full-size extended bed pickup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A cargo plane could haul a lot more than half a cord of wood, where a pickup truck cannot.
While I am not sure what kind of plane $150k will get you, I imagine something deemed a cargo plane will carry a lot more than even a full-size extended bed pickup.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247161</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244396580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about this.... "This is from Gary Sease, a CSX spokesman:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; On average, railroads can move one ton of freight 423 miles on one gallon of fuel. This is a rail industry statistic calculated by dividing the 2006 annual revenue ton miles (1.772 trillion) by the fuel consumed (4.192 billion), which equates to the industry average of one ton of freight 423 miles on one gallon of fuel. (The 2006 data was the last full year for which total industry data are available.)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Revenue ton miles are those miles for which railroads are compensated for moving freight. (We move empty cars to reposition them, and we move company materials for which we are not compensated). The industry did not include fuel consumed by passenger trains -- just freight trains."</p><p>http://lucididiocyblog2.blogspot.com/2008/03/423-miles-gallon.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about this.... " This is from Gary Sease , a CSX spokesman :         On average , railroads can move one ton of freight 423 miles on one gallon of fuel .
This is a rail industry statistic calculated by dividing the 2006 annual revenue ton miles ( 1.772 trillion ) by the fuel consumed ( 4.192 billion ) , which equates to the industry average of one ton of freight 423 miles on one gallon of fuel .
( The 2006 data was the last full year for which total industry data are available .
)         Revenue ton miles are those miles for which railroads are compensated for moving freight .
( We move empty cars to reposition them , and we move company materials for which we are not compensated ) .
The industry did not include fuel consumed by passenger trains -- just freight trains .
" http : //lucididiocyblog2.blogspot.com/2008/03/423-miles-gallon.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about this.... "This is from Gary Sease, a CSX spokesman:
        On average, railroads can move one ton of freight 423 miles on one gallon of fuel.
This is a rail industry statistic calculated by dividing the 2006 annual revenue ton miles (1.772 trillion) by the fuel consumed (4.192 billion), which equates to the industry average of one ton of freight 423 miles on one gallon of fuel.
(The 2006 data was the last full year for which total industry data are available.
)
        Revenue ton miles are those miles for which railroads are compensated for moving freight.
(We move empty cars to reposition them, and we move company materials for which we are not compensated).
The industry did not include fuel consumed by passenger trains -- just freight trains.
"http://lucididiocyblog2.blogspot.com/2008/03/423-miles-gallon.html</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28253113</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1244485740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>How about taxing carbon emissions, and letting the market figure things out?</i></p><p>Because by itself, taxing emissions is a rather poor solution to the problem:</p><p>1) It's reactive, not proactive<br>2) If a high gas tax is part of the package, it will be highly regressive</p><p>And when you've already broken the free-market cherry with a sin tax on carbon, why not skip the fiddle farting around with incentives or "public-private partnerships", and <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/03/06/neoliberalism/index.html" title="salon.com">Just Do It Already:</a> [salon.com] </p><blockquote><div><p> Barack Obama's bold, ambitious budget plan proves that he is the true heir of Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal. Consider Obama's Rooseveltian energy plan. In 1939, President Roosevelt decided to mobilize Americans to create a new source of energy: atomic power. Although he was urged to focus on government-funded R&amp;D, FDR chose a different route. He wisely encouraged private capital to invest in atomic energy research by a variety of tax incentives. To make atomic power investment more palatable to private capital, FDR boldly chose to make all other forms of energy in the U.S. uneconomical, by slapping high taxes on kerosene and coal. With the money from the new federal Kerosene Cap and Trade system, President Roosevelt and Congress funded a small-scale federal research program, in the hope of attracting much greater private investment<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Wait. What's that you say? FDR didn't do that? He poured federal money into the all-public Manhattan Project and created the first atomic bomb in a couple of years? He didn't tax kerosene to make it uneconomical and to encourage private investment in atomic power?</p><p>Oh. OK. Never mind.</p><p>But what about Social Security? In 1935, FDR signed the historic Social Security Act. It created a complex "retirement mandate" system, forcing all elderly Americans to buy expensive annuities from private insurance companies, without, however, imposing price controls on the insurance companies<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>What? FDR didn't force the elderly to subsidize private annuity brokers? He imposed a single, simple, efficient tax to pay for a single, simple, efficient public system of retirement benefits?</p><p>All right, then, forget FDR. He was a socialist, anyway. Let Dwight Eisenhower serve as a model for the Obama administration. President Eisenhower authorized the biggest infrastructure program in American history, when he signed the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956. The interstate highway act created an elaborate system of private tax incentives and public-private partnerships (PPPs) to encourage private corporations to build national highways. To begin with, all U.S. highways were leased to domestic and foreign corporations for a period of decades. Second, all U.S. highways were set up with toll booths, so that American drivers would be forced to repay the corporate owners of the national highways every few dozen miles. Finally, a system of high-speed lanes with higher tolls was created, so that the rich could whiz down the road while middle-class and poor Americans were stuck in traffic jams<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about taxing carbon emissions , and letting the market figure things out ? Because by itself , taxing emissions is a rather poor solution to the problem : 1 ) It 's reactive , not proactive2 ) If a high gas tax is part of the package , it will be highly regressiveAnd when you 've already broken the free-market cherry with a sin tax on carbon , why not skip the fiddle farting around with incentives or " public-private partnerships " , and Just Do It Already : [ salon.com ] Barack Obama 's bold , ambitious budget plan proves that he is the true heir of Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal .
Consider Obama 's Rooseveltian energy plan .
In 1939 , President Roosevelt decided to mobilize Americans to create a new source of energy : atomic power .
Although he was urged to focus on government-funded R&amp;D , FDR chose a different route .
He wisely encouraged private capital to invest in atomic energy research by a variety of tax incentives .
To make atomic power investment more palatable to private capital , FDR boldly chose to make all other forms of energy in the U.S. uneconomical , by slapping high taxes on kerosene and coal .
With the money from the new federal Kerosene Cap and Trade system , President Roosevelt and Congress funded a small-scale federal research program , in the hope of attracting much greater private investment ...Wait .
What 's that you say ?
FDR did n't do that ?
He poured federal money into the all-public Manhattan Project and created the first atomic bomb in a couple of years ?
He did n't tax kerosene to make it uneconomical and to encourage private investment in atomic power ? Oh .
OK. Never mind.But what about Social Security ?
In 1935 , FDR signed the historic Social Security Act .
It created a complex " retirement mandate " system , forcing all elderly Americans to buy expensive annuities from private insurance companies , without , however , imposing price controls on the insurance companies ...What ?
FDR did n't force the elderly to subsidize private annuity brokers ?
He imposed a single , simple , efficient tax to pay for a single , simple , efficient public system of retirement benefits ? All right , then , forget FDR .
He was a socialist , anyway .
Let Dwight Eisenhower serve as a model for the Obama administration .
President Eisenhower authorized the biggest infrastructure program in American history , when he signed the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956 .
The interstate highway act created an elaborate system of private tax incentives and public-private partnerships ( PPPs ) to encourage private corporations to build national highways .
To begin with , all U.S. highways were leased to domestic and foreign corporations for a period of decades .
Second , all U.S. highways were set up with toll booths , so that American drivers would be forced to repay the corporate owners of the national highways every few dozen miles .
Finally , a system of high-speed lanes with higher tolls was created , so that the rich could whiz down the road while middle-class and poor Americans were stuck in traffic jams .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about taxing carbon emissions, and letting the market figure things out?Because by itself, taxing emissions is a rather poor solution to the problem:1) It's reactive, not proactive2) If a high gas tax is part of the package, it will be highly regressiveAnd when you've already broken the free-market cherry with a sin tax on carbon, why not skip the fiddle farting around with incentives or "public-private partnerships", and Just Do It Already: [salon.com]  Barack Obama's bold, ambitious budget plan proves that he is the true heir of Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal.
Consider Obama's Rooseveltian energy plan.
In 1939, President Roosevelt decided to mobilize Americans to create a new source of energy: atomic power.
Although he was urged to focus on government-funded R&amp;D, FDR chose a different route.
He wisely encouraged private capital to invest in atomic energy research by a variety of tax incentives.
To make atomic power investment more palatable to private capital, FDR boldly chose to make all other forms of energy in the U.S. uneconomical, by slapping high taxes on kerosene and coal.
With the money from the new federal Kerosene Cap and Trade system, President Roosevelt and Congress funded a small-scale federal research program, in the hope of attracting much greater private investment ...Wait.
What's that you say?
FDR didn't do that?
He poured federal money into the all-public Manhattan Project and created the first atomic bomb in a couple of years?
He didn't tax kerosene to make it uneconomical and to encourage private investment in atomic power?Oh.
OK. Never mind.But what about Social Security?
In 1935, FDR signed the historic Social Security Act.
It created a complex "retirement mandate" system, forcing all elderly Americans to buy expensive annuities from private insurance companies, without, however, imposing price controls on the insurance companies ...What?
FDR didn't force the elderly to subsidize private annuity brokers?
He imposed a single, simple, efficient tax to pay for a single, simple, efficient public system of retirement benefits?All right, then, forget FDR.
He was a socialist, anyway.
Let Dwight Eisenhower serve as a model for the Obama administration.
President Eisenhower authorized the biggest infrastructure program in American history, when he signed the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956.
The interstate highway act created an elaborate system of private tax incentives and public-private partnerships (PPPs) to encourage private corporations to build national highways.
To begin with, all U.S. highways were leased to domestic and foreign corporations for a period of decades.
Second, all U.S. highways were set up with toll booths, so that American drivers would be forced to repay the corporate owners of the national highways every few dozen miles.
Finally, a system of high-speed lanes with higher tolls was created, so that the rich could whiz down the road while middle-class and poor Americans were stuck in traffic jams ...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250783</id>
	<title>Re:Does it make sense...</title>
	<author>petermgreen</author>
	<datestamp>1244474820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Does it make sense to, for example, haul coal on planes?</i><br>we (as in Britan France and the USA)did actually supply half a city by air once including rather large ammounts of coal. It only made sense because of very unusual circumstances though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it make sense to , for example , haul coal on planes ? we ( as in Britan France and the USA ) did actually supply half a city by air once including rather large ammounts of coal .
It only made sense because of very unusual circumstances though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it make sense to, for example, haul coal on planes?we (as in Britan France and the USA)did actually supply half a city by air once including rather large ammounts of coal.
It only made sense because of very unusual circumstances though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28251445</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>GooberToo</author>
	<datestamp>1244478180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And, in the end, those planes would still be emitting pollutants, probably worse than what we are doing right now. Not to mention, the trucks would still be around to get the groceries from the airport to the market.</i></p><p>Here's some interesting tidbits. Jet engines only reach peak efficiency at high altitudes; usually in the 30k-45k foot range. When at altitudes lower than their cruise, fuel consumption goes up. This means those commuter planes are generally a huge waste of fuel. This is also why you typically see turbo-prop planes used for commuter flights - as they are more efficient at lower altitudes. Interestingly enough, many light GA, single engine aircraft are actually far more efficient people movers than are turbo props - especially for hops less than three or four hundred miles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And , in the end , those planes would still be emitting pollutants , probably worse than what we are doing right now .
Not to mention , the trucks would still be around to get the groceries from the airport to the market.Here 's some interesting tidbits .
Jet engines only reach peak efficiency at high altitudes ; usually in the 30k-45k foot range .
When at altitudes lower than their cruise , fuel consumption goes up .
This means those commuter planes are generally a huge waste of fuel .
This is also why you typically see turbo-prop planes used for commuter flights - as they are more efficient at lower altitudes .
Interestingly enough , many light GA , single engine aircraft are actually far more efficient people movers than are turbo props - especially for hops less than three or four hundred miles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And, in the end, those planes would still be emitting pollutants, probably worse than what we are doing right now.
Not to mention, the trucks would still be around to get the groceries from the airport to the market.Here's some interesting tidbits.
Jet engines only reach peak efficiency at high altitudes; usually in the 30k-45k foot range.
When at altitudes lower than their cruise, fuel consumption goes up.
This means those commuter planes are generally a huge waste of fuel.
This is also why you typically see turbo-prop planes used for commuter flights - as they are more efficient at lower altitudes.
Interestingly enough, many light GA, single engine aircraft are actually far more efficient people movers than are turbo props - especially for hops less than three or four hundred miles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28249887</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1244469960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>$150K seems a lot; a little while ago they were selling off the aircraft I trained in for under &#194;&pound;10K (around &#194;&pound;7.5K, as I recall).  Adjusting for inflation, this is around the $20K that one of the replies in the Y! page gives.  The $80/hr to operate also sounds about right, including fuel and maintenance costs, although hangar space costs per flying hour depends a lot on how much you fly.  These had a very small amount of carrying space though; think two-seater sports car, rather than sedan.  <p>
These were two-seaters with a cruising speed of 140 knots (around 160mph).  This works out to about 50&#194;/hour, which is roughly on a par with a car.  Depending on the origin and destination, a plane may be able to take a much more direct path than a ground vehicle.  Visiting my mother by train or car, for example, requires me to travel around 8 times further than if I took a plane, including the distance from my nearest airfield to hers (sadly, I don't have a plane, so I have to go the long way around).  The same is true for trips from the south-west of England to the north-west of France.</p><p>
The Wkipedia page for the 182 gives a useable load of 517Kg, which works out to about 130Kg per person, including their own weight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 150K seems a lot ; a little while ago they were selling off the aircraft I trained in for under     10K ( around     7.5K , as I recall ) .
Adjusting for inflation , this is around the $ 20K that one of the replies in the Y !
page gives .
The $ 80/hr to operate also sounds about right , including fuel and maintenance costs , although hangar space costs per flying hour depends a lot on how much you fly .
These had a very small amount of carrying space though ; think two-seater sports car , rather than sedan .
These were two-seaters with a cruising speed of 140 knots ( around 160mph ) .
This works out to about 50   /hour , which is roughly on a par with a car .
Depending on the origin and destination , a plane may be able to take a much more direct path than a ground vehicle .
Visiting my mother by train or car , for example , requires me to travel around 8 times further than if I took a plane , including the distance from my nearest airfield to hers ( sadly , I do n't have a plane , so I have to go the long way around ) .
The same is true for trips from the south-west of England to the north-west of France .
The Wkipedia page for the 182 gives a useable load of 517Kg , which works out to about 130Kg per person , including their own weight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$150K seems a lot; a little while ago they were selling off the aircraft I trained in for under Â£10K (around Â£7.5K, as I recall).
Adjusting for inflation, this is around the $20K that one of the replies in the Y!
page gives.
The $80/hr to operate also sounds about right, including fuel and maintenance costs, although hangar space costs per flying hour depends a lot on how much you fly.
These had a very small amount of carrying space though; think two-seater sports car, rather than sedan.
These were two-seaters with a cruising speed of 140 knots (around 160mph).
This works out to about 50Â/hour, which is roughly on a par with a car.
Depending on the origin and destination, a plane may be able to take a much more direct path than a ground vehicle.
Visiting my mother by train or car, for example, requires me to travel around 8 times further than if I took a plane, including the distance from my nearest airfield to hers (sadly, I don't have a plane, so I have to go the long way around).
The same is true for trips from the south-west of England to the north-west of France.
The Wkipedia page for the 182 gives a useable load of 517Kg, which works out to about 130Kg per person, including their own weight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246891</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247911</id>
	<title>Re:City planning</title>
	<author>mellon</author>
	<datestamp>1244492580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What does this have to do with the article?   Are you proposing that people commute by airplane instead?</p><p>Sprawl gets built because for a variety of reasons it makes short-term economic sense.   In fact most modern wood-frame houses are only good for a relatively short time, so it's a problem that will ultimately take care of itself.   Just because you are "forced" to live in sprawl right now does not mean that when your house has to be rebuilt because of shoddy construction, the right thing for you to do will be to rebuild on site.   Indeed, there are many examples of sprawl development right now that simply can't be sold because no-one wants to live in them.   Some of this housing stock is being bulldozed because it's cheaper than keeping it around.</p><p>So the idea that you must always commute by car simply isn't true.   What is more true is that if the cost of commuting by car rises enough, it will make sense to run a rail line out to your suburb.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What does this have to do with the article ?
Are you proposing that people commute by airplane instead ? Sprawl gets built because for a variety of reasons it makes short-term economic sense .
In fact most modern wood-frame houses are only good for a relatively short time , so it 's a problem that will ultimately take care of itself .
Just because you are " forced " to live in sprawl right now does not mean that when your house has to be rebuilt because of shoddy construction , the right thing for you to do will be to rebuild on site .
Indeed , there are many examples of sprawl development right now that simply ca n't be sold because no-one wants to live in them .
Some of this housing stock is being bulldozed because it 's cheaper than keeping it around.So the idea that you must always commute by car simply is n't true .
What is more true is that if the cost of commuting by car rises enough , it will make sense to run a rail line out to your suburb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does this have to do with the article?
Are you proposing that people commute by airplane instead?Sprawl gets built because for a variety of reasons it makes short-term economic sense.
In fact most modern wood-frame houses are only good for a relatively short time, so it's a problem that will ultimately take care of itself.
Just because you are "forced" to live in sprawl right now does not mean that when your house has to be rebuilt because of shoddy construction, the right thing for you to do will be to rebuild on site.
Indeed, there are many examples of sprawl development right now that simply can't be sold because no-one wants to live in them.
Some of this housing stock is being bulldozed because it's cheaper than keeping it around.So the idea that you must always commute by car simply isn't true.
What is more true is that if the cost of commuting by car rises enough, it will make sense to run a rail line out to your suburb.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248497</id>
	<title>Re:Blimps maybe?</title>
	<author>iwein</author>
	<datestamp>1244455500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>TFA is not about freight, it is about travel. By comparing travel with freight you have ended the discussion I'm affraid. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's\_law" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's\_law</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA is not about freight , it is about travel .
By comparing travel with freight you have ended the discussion I 'm affraid .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin 's \ _law [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA is not about freight, it is about travel.
By comparing travel with freight you have ended the discussion I'm affraid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's\_law [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248179</id>
	<title>so what...</title>
	<author>l3v1</author>
	<datestamp>1244452020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... sincerely, so what ? How come, calculations of fuel consumption and pollution of army vehicles (planes, trucks, ships, submarines, carriers (!)) and of industries are less frequently slapped in our face than those of public transport and cars? They frequently preach us about how much pollution our cars produce, but all of it pales in comparison to army pollution. Also, there are very many trains that carry more people than most smaller planes, and they travel more frequently, and even more so on smaller distances. Who gives a rat's ass whether a plane pollutes less when there's no option to go with a plane on a gazillion routes?<br> <br>
Now let's talk about some topic that matters even less (if you can find one).</htmltext>
<tokenext>... sincerely , so what ?
How come , calculations of fuel consumption and pollution of army vehicles ( planes , trucks , ships , submarines , carriers ( !
) ) and of industries are less frequently slapped in our face than those of public transport and cars ?
They frequently preach us about how much pollution our cars produce , but all of it pales in comparison to army pollution .
Also , there are very many trains that carry more people than most smaller planes , and they travel more frequently , and even more so on smaller distances .
Who gives a rat 's ass whether a plane pollutes less when there 's no option to go with a plane on a gazillion routes ?
Now let 's talk about some topic that matters even less ( if you can find one ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... sincerely, so what ?
How come, calculations of fuel consumption and pollution of army vehicles (planes, trucks, ships, submarines, carriers (!
)) and of industries are less frequently slapped in our face than those of public transport and cars?
They frequently preach us about how much pollution our cars produce, but all of it pales in comparison to army pollution.
Also, there are very many trains that carry more people than most smaller planes, and they travel more frequently, and even more so on smaller distances.
Who gives a rat's ass whether a plane pollutes less when there's no option to go with a plane on a gazillion routes?
Now let's talk about some topic that matters even less (if you can find one).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28252597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28256473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28252397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28249023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28252963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28253043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28253573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28252067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28276915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28257349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28251565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28252019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28249887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28268257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247725
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28254347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28253113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250783
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28251445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28249221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28249929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28249023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28252205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28249201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28249093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28251967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28258111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28275859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28251627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28252027
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28251247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28251125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28259823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28249397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28251959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28249499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28249397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28251947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_0041205_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28249015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_0041205.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247637
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_0041205.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246859
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_0041205.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28249023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28252205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28252963
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_0041205.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247105
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248305
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28252597
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_0041205.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246677
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247313
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28249929
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_0041205.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250689
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_0041205.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247447
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_0041205.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250163
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_0041205.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250775
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28249093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247919
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28251125
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_0041205.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247725
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28254347
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_0041205.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246789
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_0041205.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247041
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_0041205.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247385
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28249015
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_0041205.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246767
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246917
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247445
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246891
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28251247
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28249887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28253573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247565
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246889
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28275859
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28253113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247161
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28249499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246883
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28268257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246867
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28251445
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28249221
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248525
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247729
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247073
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28251627
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28253043
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247205
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248497
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247399
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248753
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248597
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247495
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248245
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250563
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247329
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_0041205.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28256473
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_0041205.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246589
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_0041205.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246777
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28249201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247501
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250343
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28252067
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28252397
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28252019
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250867
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248425
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28252027
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28248549
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28251967
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28257349
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28249397
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28251959
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28251947
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28276915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28251565
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28247747
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_0041205.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250757
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28258111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28250783
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_0041205.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246615
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_0041205.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246829
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_0041205.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246593
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_0041205.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28251679
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_0041205.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28246597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_0041205.28259823
</commentlist>
</conversation>
