Stay tuned, there will be more news about this later this year, as this could produce a welcomed synergy of economic development and transportation between West Chester and Media.
Tedman
WEST CHESTER BOROUGH:
PRESS RELEASE
A SEPTA train idles at West Chester Station, August 2, 1986, approximately six weeks before passenger service ended.
June 27, 2014
BOROUGH COUNCIL SELECTS RESTORATION OF RAIL SERVICE AD-HOC COMMITTEE
On June 24th , 2014 Borough Council selected the completed interviews and selected the first members of the Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee for the Restoration of the Rail Service to West Chester.
The Committee consists of 7 members, 3 of which are residents of the Borough and all with very impressive credentials. “We have a very talented group of people with diverse backgrounds who will all help to achieve the overall goal of someday soon restoring rail service to West Chester”, said Borough Council President, Jordan Norley.
Members named include David Thurston, Michael Thurston, JoAnn Kelton, John Young, Joe Lorini, Tom Hickey, and Craig Blizzard.
The purpose of the Committee is to cause, as soon as possible the reestablishment of rail service to West Chester through some of the following activities:
• Compiling information and data on issues relating to the return of the rail service
• Preparing a history of the rail line
• Advising Council of County, State, regional, national and private plans, actions, meetings, hearings, and conferences as they develop that have or may have a bearing on the return of the rail service
• Ascertaining what groups, organizations, individuals and the like,
that are, or are likely to become, allied in securing reestablishment of rail service to West Chester
• Attending and/or participating in activities and gatherings, at the
request of Council, in furtherance of reestablishing rail service
• Serve as advocates for the return of the rail service at events and forums
The initial meeting of the committee will be in July 23, 2014, at 7:00 p.m.
It's distressing to think how many commuter rail lines disappeared in the Philly suburbs that we could really use today to reduce traffic congestion and emissions and further strengthen our reinvigorated towns.
ReplyDeleteI seem to remember reading about the many commuter rail lines in this area that went bust because of the development of the internal combustion engine. Maybe its time to start phasing out this 'atmospheric killer' in favor of reestablishing these rail lines. Many of the rights-of-way are still in place and could be developed into modern fast rail service.
ReplyDeleteSo you're telling me that the very same gas we as humans exhale is an "atmospheric killer." Sir, I ask you to ponder that statement and seriously question its merits. The only pollution that occurs is by failing to ask why we allow ourselves and our brains to be trampled with this incoherent manipulation of reason. The earths atmosphere is mainly composed of Nitrogen (78%), Oxygen (21%), CO2 (.036%), and others that make up a small percentage. Carbon Dioxide only takes up less than one-half of a percent of the atmosphere. Please, do not spout off what you hear on the mainstream news networks as they are deeply flawed and biased. To think that we as humans are creating "climate change" is as deeply arrogant and ignorant as one can be. It's not seeded in logic. Let's stop repeating what we hear and use what the good Lord provided. Our brains. It's time to question liberal bias.
ReplyDeleteI am guessing science wasn't your best subject in school was it John? Earth science, as taught to 8th graders when I was in school, measured exhaled C02 at 4% of the gas exhaust of the human body. C02 from a car's exhaust is 14% of the gas emitted. So I am also guessing that you should get a washcloth for that egg on your face while you pansy up some other bit of nonsensical party line propaganda.
DeleteI owe nothing to political parties. Why so hostile? Have some decorum, ma'm!
DeleteWow John! We have a real live climatologist here! When and where did you get your degree? Or did you simply stay at a Holiday Inn last night?
ReplyDeleteWhy would I need a degree sir? I happen to be an autodidact. Wish to debate sometime?
ReplyDeleteYes, why on earth would you need a degree to talk about something you know nothing about otherwise, other than what the dumpsters on right wing radio have told you? For starters you might realize that cars put out more than just carbon dioxide....
DeleteIt is nothing more than a scheme to redistribute wealth from those who pay utilities to the likes of All Gore and his ilk. Poor do not pay for their utilities and rich only profit. Too bad they weren't able to manipulate well intentioned gullibles of this during the past climate changes when humans weren't around.
DeleteHey! Someone who uses reason and logic. Welcome my friend! I couldn't agree more.
DeleteWhat do you want me to tell you, Geoff? OK fine. So don't drive your car anymore? What are you doing specifically to combat "climate change" then?
DeleteFacts are facts, you can ignore them until the wind and water wash away all that you care about. Makes no difference to them. 1000s of intelligent scientists have come to this conclusion: Climate Change is Here and the Cause is HUMAN BEINGs. Dare I say more intelligent than you.
ReplyDeleteWe should get together and debate this. Seriously. People quickly try to silence and mock me on an open blog forum. Let's get together sometime. Tedman, would you facilitate this?
ReplyDeleteJohn McDonald while you are correct that humans exhale Carbon Dioxide, the vast amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not a result of exhalation. Rather, the burning of fossil fuels for energy is a huge contributor to the CO2 in the atmosphere. The burning or combustion of any alkane has at least two byproducts: CO2 and water vapor. Depending upon the purity of that alkane, there may also be Nitrogen, Sulfur, or Phosphorous compounds (oxides for example), many of which themselves can contribute to acid rain and/or poor air quality. The more internal combustion engines on the road, the more CO2 in the atmosphere; the more coal fired power plants brought online, the more CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, that is, this dense gas, along with other greenhouse gases, prevents the Earth from shedding the heat it absorbs from the sun's solar radiation. As such, global temperatures rise, the polar ice caps melt, and sea levels rise.
ReplyDeleteAmen. See that was a well thought out post. Cudos to you. But my question is, what is it called this week? Is it global cooling like it was in the 70's, global warming like it was in the 90's, or is it climate change as dear leader likes to call it? It's a political invention used to excercise more call control. Man, I'm loving this. I need to get off this tablet and back to my BBQ. Let's keep this going! The more we talk about it the more we can realize how much we're being cooped into more regulation. PS: I'm not looking forward to paying my PECO bill in the next few years. RIP coal plants.
ReplyDeleteI posted at 537. I understand your frustration with the terminology. I believe "climate change" to be the most accurate of the descriptors used, because through study of global temperature records and analysis of ice cores from the polar regions, there is evidence of rising global temperatures. The change however is not just in air temperatures. There has been some evidence of ocean temperature changes. It is the differential between the cold and warm layers of ocean which drives the jet stream, so it is possible the changes to the temperatures of the ocean are impacting weather patterns.
DeleteClimate change skeptics always enjoy moving the goal posts.
DeleteGet over all this Bull Crap ... when l moved to the Media area there was a train that went to West Chester.. this is a good idea .. people would love and use this !!! This is the way it should be !!
ReplyDeleteHigh praise to this group! I spent my high school years in Lima, but went to high school in Devon. I'd take 2 commuter trains (the Media local and the Main Line train) for after-school activities. Often, the Media Local's run would end in Media and I'd hoof it along the tracks a couple miles out to Lima (I think maybe the station on Pennell Road was named Glen Riddle?) I only rarely get back to Media anymore, but it seems to me that part of the world is still growing and the commuter train maybe the best way to accommodate growth without bankrupting ourselves with more expensive highways and cars.
ReplyDeleteI guess John you didn't notice that four former heads of the EPA under Reagan and Bush just said climate change is real and needs to be addressed.
ReplyDeleteWhat are you insinuating anonymous? Let's not try and label me as some blindly loyal partisan hack if that's what you're saying. I owe no allegiance to the republican brand. If you must label me, you can say that I'm a proud constitutional conservative. So by you making reference to Bush and Reagan addressing climate change, it dies not injure me. I can call a spade as spade. Furthermore, I do not deny "climate change." I do, however unequivocally deny the premise that it is I and the rest if humanity that is causing it. Is climate, weather or is weather, climate?
ReplyDeleteI guess you all missed the four republican EPA heads who said climate change is real. They worked under Reagan and Bush. However, let's not get the facts in the way.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a good debate. I think that most rational people can agree with the science that Anon 537 explains: the cycle of CO2 in the atmosphere and its resulting affects as a greenhouse barrier. That is pretty well understood. The real issue and the real debate lies not in the science but in the scale to which humans are responsible: are our actions contributing to the change or are we so insignificant that we don’t really have an effect on natural fluctuations? Personally, I believe that we are in fact having an impact: I think it is impossible to remove us a variable to the equation and any argument that tries to do so is flawed from the start. Given that, I tend to err on the side of conservatism. Why NOT assume that we are contributors and why NOT explore common sense best practices to lower the amount of fossil fuels we use and explore other renewable energy sources? Even if we are NOT having a significant effect, this seems like prudent course of action if not for the global environment than for my personal lungs Lol. If you are put off by the hubris of climate change advocates thinking humans are more impactful than we are, fine…but I don’t think that should be your only determining factor regarding the types of fuels that we use. Don’t let you distaste of climate change advocates cloud decisions that might be better for you and your family on a smaller, more personal level.
ReplyDeleteAnother way to think about this on a personal level: Ask yourself: Would you rather that you and your family breathe the air in Beijing or Delhi? Or in Missoula, Montana? What is the difference? The difference is air quality affected (mostly) by fossil pollutants. And those fossil pollutants are not being generated naturally. So forget global climate change: think more locally. Which air would you rather breath and why? If you choose cleaner air to breath, wouldn’t it make sense to work towards having that clean air be the standard? Otherwise, we are all just NIMBYS saying that is OK to pollute the air with carbon emissions and lower government regulations for corporations…but just don’t do it where I live and breathe.
DeleteTM- I would love to see this happen but I'm sure you realize it has absolutely no shot. In the big picture of transportation priorities in PA and particularly SEPA --- well this isn't even close. It's sad but true. Oh... Global Warming / Climate Change is here.
ReplyDelete