ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Fire the rocket train

| Tuesday, June 10, 2008

The Trib recently posed the question of should we build a rocket train from New York City to Washington, D.C. (" A rocket train: Investment opportunity? ," Editorial, May 31 and

Of course we should build the rail line, as quickly as possible, and not just for the obvious reasons.

Contrary to popular myth, CO2 is not the most significant greenhouse gas -- water vapor is. Methane is second and CO2 may be third.

A study done on the temperature effect of the three-day air traffic ban on Sept. 11, 2001, and after indicated a full two-degree increase in radiational cooling when water vapor from jet contrails was absent.

Providing a "greener" alternative to short-hop jet traffic would do more to curtail greenhouse gas production than all the cap-and-trade schemes our politicians can imagine.

The second question concerning private investment vs. government subsidy is somewhat different.

Our private airlines don't build the airports and air-traffic control grid, our private trucking companies don't build the interstate highways and our private shipping and barge lines don't build the ports, locks and dams.

The government should build and maintain the rocket rail line and find private firms to own and operate the rolling stock. (We should have done this with Amtrak and Conrail, and maybe even the original transcontinental rail lines.)

Craig B. Clemmens

Washington Township

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me