| |
 |
|
| Travel Forum Index » Canada Travel Forum » Montreal to Quebec: where to eat? |
|
Page 7 of 9 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Andrew Kirschner |
 Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: Je suis pret a parier que ca aurait coute moins cher de faire une un chemin
de fer a 2 tracks qu'une route sur le meme parcours.
To translate (courtesy of Babelfish):
Quote: I am pret has to bet that Ca would have coute less expensive to make a railroad has 2 >tracks than a road on the same course.
That would presumably acomplish the task of bringing the cost of living
down, since obviously rail freight is much cheaper than air frieght,
especially for short hauls. There are already several outlying
communities in central-eastern Canada that are served by rail and not
by road, namely Churchill, MB (currently the only community on Hudson
Bay served by ground transportation), Moosonee, ON, and Schefferville,
QC. Yet passenger rail for communities this small, this far apart, this
distant from the major population centers, is anything but efficient.
Though I'm all for rail in urban and suburban communities, here road
seems to make more sense.
--Andrew |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Steve A. |
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
D. A. Tsenuf wrote:
Quote: "Carl Rogers" <carl-mtr@calrog.com> wrote in message
news:m9_Yg.13658$GR.12471@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Andrew Kirschner wrote:
Indulge me please. I have a weird facination with this topic:
http://www.nunatsiaqnews.com/news/nunavik/61013_03.html
October 13, 2006
James Bay Cree promote road to northern Quebec
Link to south could bring lower prices, other economic benefits
JANE GEORGE
Within 10 years, you may be able to drive from Nunavik all the way to
Montreal.
But with the price tag for a road south from Kuujjuaq estimated at $1
billion, the idea of building a less expensive and shorter road for
$250 million to the start of Quebec's road network in La Grande from
the twin Inuit and Cree communities of Great Whale is gaining momentum.
C'est assez cher; mais si on peut traverser une bonne route sans
problèmes d'une route avec les graviers, on peut trouver un meilleur
àccès en route à la baie Hudson!
Je suis pret a parier que ca aurait coute moins cher de faire une un chemin
de fer a 2 tracks qu'une route sur le meme parcours.
Mais pour un chemin de fer, meme qu'il coute plus d'un route pave,
c'est la compagnie privee qui le maintien.
(It should cost less to build the highway than two rail tracks along
the same route, he says, and I respond in broken French that in the
case of rail, at least the private rail company is the one maintaining
the right of way, which of course should reduce the long-term costs.)
Aussi, c'est probable qu'on ne doit pas avoir plus d'un track.
(Also, you probably only need one track, since traffic would be so low.) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| D. A. Tsenuf |
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Andrew Kirschner" <andrewkirschner@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1161104483.176855.215210@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote: Je suis pret a parier que ca aurait coute moins cher de faire une un
chemin
de fer a 2 tracks qu'une route sur le meme parcours.
To translate (courtesy of Babelfish):
I am pret has to bet that Ca would have coute less expensive to make a
railroad has 2 >tracks than a road on the same course.
That would presumably acomplish the task of bringing the cost of living
down, since obviously rail freight is much cheaper than air frieght,
especially for short hauls. There are already several outlying
communities in central-eastern Canada that are served by rail and not
by road, namely Churchill, MB (currently the only community on Hudson
Bay served by ground transportation), Moosonee, ON, and Schefferville,
QC. Yet passenger rail for communities this small, this far apart, this
distant from the major population centers, is anything but efficient.
Though I'm all for rail in urban and suburban communities, here road
seems to make more sense.
Why don't you ask for a translation instead of getting drivel from babelflop
Literally the text is
I am willing to bet that it would have cost less to build a 2 track
railroad than a road on the same path.
The biggest problem with current rail service is that the design of engines
and cars is OVER-large.
With a 2 track railway, using small engines runiing relatively light loads,
it would be cost effective to do daily runs.
Think in terms of a larger pickup truck as an engine with one or two of 40
Ft trailers hauling people or cargo.
Your trucks (the wheel components) or rail cars could also be much smaller
and lighter, since they wouldn't need to support such heavy loads.
The rail beds would also be subjected to less stress because of the reduced
loads they would be supporting.
Unfortunately, no one in the rail business has thought along those lines.And
it would require some MAJOR changes in current rail regulations as well. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| D. A. Tsenuf |
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Steve A." <zoningpermit@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161104517.290049.165750@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
D. A. Tsenuf wrote:
Quote: "Carl Rogers" <carl-mtr@calrog.com> wrote in message
news:m9_Yg.13658$GR.12471@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Andrew Kirschner wrote:
Indulge me please. I have a weird facination with this topic:
http://www.nunatsiaqnews.com/news/nunavik/61013_03.html
October 13, 2006
James Bay Cree promote road to northern Quebec
Link to south could bring lower prices, other economic benefits
JANE GEORGE
Within 10 years, you may be able to drive from Nunavik all the way to
Montreal.
But with the price tag for a road south from Kuujjuaq estimated at $1
billion, the idea of building a less expensive and shorter road for
$250 million to the start of Quebec's road network in La Grande from
the twin Inuit and Cree communities of Great Whale is gaining momentum.
C'est assez cher; mais si on peut traverser une bonne route sans
problèmes d'une route avec les graviers, on peut trouver un meilleur
àccès en route à la baie Hudson!
Je suis pret a parier que ca aurait coute moins cher de faire une un
chemin
de fer a 2 tracks qu'une route sur le meme parcours.
Mais pour un chemin de fer, meme qu'il coute plus d'un route pave,
c'est la compagnie privee qui le maintien.
(It should cost less to build the highway than two rail tracks along
the same route, he says, and I respond in broken French that in the
case of rail, at least the private rail company is the one maintaining
the right of way, which of course should reduce the long-term costs.)
Aussi, c'est probable qu'on ne doit pas avoir plus d'un track.
(Also, you probably only need one track, since traffic would be so low.)
The advantage of 2 tracks is that you could have 2-way traffic ALL the time.
The cost of laying 2 tracks side-by-side is not double the cost of a single
track.
And it would eliminate the cost of managing traffic that you have with a
single track. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Steve A. |
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
D. A. Tsenuf wrote:
Quote: "Steve A." <zoningpermit@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161104517.290049.165750@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
D. A. Tsenuf wrote:
"Carl Rogers" <carl-mtr@calrog.com> wrote in message
news:m9_Yg.13658$GR.12471@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Andrew Kirschner wrote:
Indulge me please. I have a weird facination with this topic:
http://www.nunatsiaqnews.com/news/nunavik/61013_03.html
October 13, 2006
James Bay Cree promote road to northern Quebec
Link to south could bring lower prices, other economic benefits
JANE GEORGE
Within 10 years, you may be able to drive from Nunavik all the way to
Montreal.
But with the price tag for a road south from Kuujjuaq estimated at $1
billion, the idea of building a less expensive and shorter road for
$250 million to the start of Quebec's road network in La Grande from
the twin Inuit and Cree communities of Great Whale is gaining momentum.
C'est assez cher; mais si on peut traverser une bonne route sans
problèmes d'une route avec les graviers, on peut trouver un meilleur
àccès en route à la baie Hudson!
Je suis pret a parier que ca aurait coute moins cher de faire une un
chemin
de fer a 2 tracks qu'une route sur le meme parcours.
Mais pour un chemin de fer, meme qu'il coute plus d'un route pave,
c'est la compagnie privee qui le maintien.
(It should cost less to build the highway than two rail tracks along
the same route, he says, and I respond in broken French that in the
case of rail, at least the private rail company is the one maintaining
the right of way, which of course should reduce the long-term costs.)
Aussi, c'est probable qu'on ne doit pas avoir plus d'un track.
(Also, you probably only need one track, since traffic would be so low.)
The advantage of 2 tracks is that you could have 2-way traffic ALL the time.
The cost of laying 2 tracks side-by-side is not double the cost of a single
track.
And it would eliminate the cost of managing traffic that you have with a
single track.
Well, two tracks requires additional right of way, and it requires
additional ballast, steel, and ties. Those costs are indeed
considerable, especially if you're asking the railroad company itself
to do it all. There is no need to have two-way traffic on this line
because the region isn't a big enough generator. An occasional siding
would allow traffic to pass whenever necessary, and the railroad
company itself could schedule that. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Steve A. |
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
D. A. Tsenuf wrote:
Quote: The biggest problem with current rail service is that the design of engines
and cars is OVER-large.
With a 2 track railway, using small engines runiing relatively light loads,
it would be cost effective to do daily runs.
Think in terms of a larger pickup truck as an engine with one or two of 40
Ft trailers hauling people or cargo.
Your trucks (the wheel components) or rail cars could also be much smaller
and lighter, since they wouldn't need to support such heavy loads.
The rail beds would also be subjected to less stress because of the reduced
loads they would be supporting.
All this is true, but are you then asking to build a small-gauge track?
If the track is compatible with other tracks, it's much more
cost-effective to use the same cars as on other tracks - i.e.
286,000-pound cars. Using smaller cars (200,000 are the smallest left
in any quantity) could work, but means that goods would have to be
re-loaded before entering the main rail network (in the interest of
maximizing capacity per car).
The only problem with your reasoning is that you're assuming this line
can stand alone, when in reality it needs to be fully compatible with
the connecting lines and will be sharing much of its equipment with
them. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| D. A. Tsenuf |
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Steve A." <zoningpermit@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161124113.152449.131590@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
D. A. Tsenuf wrote:
Quote: "Steve A." <zoningpermit@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161104517.290049.165750@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
D. A. Tsenuf wrote:
"Carl Rogers" <carl-mtr@calrog.com> wrote in message
news:m9_Yg.13658$GR.12471@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Andrew Kirschner wrote:
Indulge me please. I have a weird facination with this topic:
http://www.nunatsiaqnews.com/news/nunavik/61013_03.html
October 13, 2006
James Bay Cree promote road to northern Quebec
Link to south could bring lower prices, other economic benefits
JANE GEORGE
Within 10 years, you may be able to drive from Nunavik all the way to
Montreal.
But with the price tag for a road south from Kuujjuaq estimated at $1
billion, the idea of building a less expensive and shorter road for
$250 million to the start of Quebec's road network in La Grande from
the twin Inuit and Cree communities of Great Whale is gaining
momentum.
C'est assez cher; mais si on peut traverser une bonne route sans
problèmes d'une route avec les graviers, on peut trouver un meilleur
àccès en route à la baie Hudson!
Je suis pret a parier que ca aurait coute moins cher de faire une un
chemin
de fer a 2 tracks qu'une route sur le meme parcours.
Mais pour un chemin de fer, meme qu'il coute plus d'un route pave,
c'est la compagnie privee qui le maintien.
(It should cost less to build the highway than two rail tracks along
the same route, he says, and I respond in broken French that in the
case of rail, at least the private rail company is the one maintaining
the right of way, which of course should reduce the long-term costs.)
Aussi, c'est probable qu'on ne doit pas avoir plus d'un track.
(Also, you probably only need one track, since traffic would be so low.)
The advantage of 2 tracks is that you could have 2-way traffic ALL the
time.
The cost of laying 2 tracks side-by-side is not double the cost of a
single
track.
And it would eliminate the cost of managing traffic that you have with a
single track.
#
# Well, two tracks requires additional right of way, and it requires
# additional ballast, steel, and ties. Those costs are indeed
# considerable, especially if you're asking the railroad company itself
# to do it all. There is no need to have two-way traffic on this line
# because the region isn't a big enough generator. An occasional siding
# would allow traffic to pass whenever necessary, and the railroad
# company itself could schedule that.
Well, in the cost of building a road for cars and other vehicles that has to
be 2 lanes.
I would estimate that the cost of a 2-track railway would be less in the
long-run. and last a lot longer too. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| D. A. Tsenuf |
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Steve A." <zoningpermit@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161124351.778482.226140@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
D. A. Tsenuf wrote:
All this is true, but are you then asking to build a small-gauge track?
If the track is compatible with other tracks, it's much more
cost-effective to use the same cars as on other tracks - i.e.
286,000-pound cars. Using smaller cars (200,000 are the smallest left
in any quantity) could work, but means that goods would have to be
re-loaded before entering the main rail network (in the interest of
maximizing capacity per car).
The only problem with your reasoning is that you're assuming this line
can stand alone, when in reality it needs to be fully compatible with
the connecting lines and will be sharing much of its equipment with
them.
I'm just blue-skying here.
1) I would build the rail to the same specs.So no, no narrow-gauge track
2) While traffic is low, build only one track that needs siding to go
both ways.
3) There will be a point where trafffic will make 2 one-way tracks
justifiable.
3) Equipement cost, both purchase and operation is a major cost
So build smaller an lighter gear and less powerfulll engines to make
it more cost-effective on routes that are lower volume for freight and
passengers
Airlines have no problem doing that
Bigger, more powerfull planes for the long hauls
Smaller, less powerfull for commuter traffic
4) With smaller tractors, you may take longer to get up to speed, but
once there, you only have to overcome wind and rolling resistance.
So use a bigger pickup, or a small flatbed truck as the basis for
your engines
5) Design lighter "trucks" AKA wheel carriages for this use.
Als make the wheel carriage "trucks" daisy-chainable. So that you
can easily build as long or as short a train as you need.
6) Use a standard shipping container as your basic size of flatbed
"trailer"
Use it as an open flatbed
Or attach a variety of boxes to it, including a passenger
compartment built to the same size
7) Build a tractor that could pull 5-10 of them MAX.
 Design the engine to also have a passenger compartment, just like a
bus. Unlike rail, buses only need a driver.
There is no need to keep with the current heavy equipement and standards for
such heavy equipment on low-density routes, which will NOT use all that
power
Build low-power and capacity equipment to run on such routes.
It's been successfully done with trucks and airlines
Why can't it be done with rail ?
.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Steve A. |
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
D. A. Tsenuf wrote:
Quote: "Steve A." <zoningpermit@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161133799.241299.34720@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
D. A. Tsenuf wrote:
5) Design lighter "trucks" AKA wheel carriages for this use.
Als make the wheel carriage "trucks" daisy-chainable. So that you
can easily build as long or as short a train as you need.
It would be nice to have lighter trucks, but that means lower-capacity
rail cars, and it's much more expensive to order new custom-built cars
that can't be exchanged with other rail companies compared to ordering
slightly-used interchangeable cars.
I think you're not thinking outside of the box
And that has been the problem with railroads for the last 60+ years.
On the less trafficked routes, it makes a lot of sense to go with smaller,
lighter and thus less expensive equipement that is only used on such a route
Look at the run to Churchill
For the volume of traffic on that line, they do NOT need a FULL-sized engine
or rail car.
I suspect that running lighter equipment on a dedicated route would
reduce operating, maintenance and investment costs.
Well, I'm thinking practicality is all, and interchangeability of
equipment saves money in the long run. Since cars are interchanged far
more often than engines, I agree with your small-engine small-train
concept. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| D. A. Tsenuf |
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Steve A." <zoningpermit@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161169981.853983.98230@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
D. A. Tsenuf wrote:
"Steve A." <zoningpermit@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161133799.241299.34720@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
D. A. Tsenuf wrote:
5) Design lighter "trucks" AKA wheel carriages for this use.
Als make the wheel carriage "trucks" daisy-chainable. So that
you
can easily build as long or as short a train as you need.
It would be nice to have lighter trucks, but that means lower-capacity
rail cars, and it's much more expensive to order new custom-built cars
that can't be exchanged with other rail companies compared to ordering
slightly-used interchangeable cars.
I think you're not thinking outside of the box
And that has been the problem with railroads for the last 60+ years.
On the less trafficked routes, it makes a lot of sense to go with
smaller,
lighter and thus less expensive equipement that is only used on such a
route
Look at the run to Churchill
For the volume of traffic on that line, they do NOT need a FULL-sized
engine
or rail car.
I suspect that running lighter equipment on a dedicated route would
reduce operating, maintenance and investment costs.
Well, I'm thinking practicality is all, and interchangeability of
equipment saves money in the long run. Since cars are interchanged far
more often than engines, I agree with your small-engine small-train
concept.
The problem is that today, railroads have very few advantages and very
serious limitations over trucks.
And they see themselves as long-haulers and have willingly walked away from
the short "regular hauls
But building a rail line, is usually far cheaper over it's lifetime than
building a road through the same area
The other problem is rail has always gone bigger heaver, and consequently
more expensive
The airlines, realized that it's possible to go smaller and cheaper, both to
buy and operate
There is also a need to change rail to the subway car concept
You collect the fare BEFORE you get on and then you only have attendants in
the more expensive seating areas
2nd class is cheap and cattle car.
You have vending machines and a biffy
1st class is like the airlines,
Pampering all the way. The toilet even rinses yout butt. :-)
As I said, this is blue-skying.
But as greyhound is folding, and airport waits are getting longer, medium
and short-haul rail could have an opening |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Andrew Kirschner |
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
One thing to remember here with the railroad option is the geography.
It could conceivably work on the eastern flank. Since a railroad
already exists to Schefferville, a few hundred more kilometers to
Kuujjuaq is not altogether out of the question-in fact it's not
significantly more rail from Schefferville than it would be gravel from
the northeast end of the Trans-taiga Road in Caniapiscau.
The west flank is another story. The nearest railroad is in Moosonee,
ON, at the southern end of James Bay. I don't know the exact distance
to Whapmagoostui and Kuujjuaraapik, but it must be approaching 1000 km.
Meanwhile there are roads in Radisson and Chisassibi, maybe 250 km
away.
Also remember that a key reason for the road is for Hydro Quebec to put
the northern communities on its power grid. I would assume that the
power company would prefer to have a road next to its proposed power
lines rather than rail.
---Andrew |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| AlmostBob |
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
We live on the main line from Halifax to Maine, largest goods traffic east
of wherever etc, and passengers, and thats only a single line, with sidings
for passing, and they are pulling up the second tracks elsewhere on the
line, trains up to 100s cars long use it in both directions,
I think you're right, only going to need a single line with loops,
--
If at first you dont succeed
try try try again
If at first you do succeed
try not to look surprised
_
"D. A. Tsenuf" <DA@Tsenuf.com> wrote in message
news:12jap662vh0nl6b@corp.supernews.com...
Quote:
"Steve A." <zoningpermit@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161124113.152449.131590@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
D. A. Tsenuf wrote:
"Steve A." <zoningpermit@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161104517.290049.165750@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
D. A. Tsenuf wrote:
"Carl Rogers" <carl-mtr@calrog.com> wrote in message
news:m9_Yg.13658$GR.12471@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Andrew Kirschner wrote:
Indulge me please. I have a weird facination with this topic:
http://www.nunatsiaqnews.com/news/nunavik/61013_03.html
October 13, 2006
James Bay Cree promote road to northern Quebec
Link to south could bring lower prices, other economic benefits
JANE GEORGE
Within 10 years, you may be able to drive from Nunavik all the way
to
Montreal.
But with the price tag for a road south from Kuujjuaq estimated at
$1
billion, the idea of building a less expensive and shorter road for
$250 million to the start of Quebec's road network in La Grande
from
the twin Inuit and Cree communities of Great Whale is gaining
momentum.
C'est assez cher; mais si on peut traverser une bonne route sans
problèmes d'une route avec les graviers, on peut trouver un meilleur
àccès en route à la baie Hudson!
Je suis pret a parier que ca aurait coute moins cher de faire une un
chemin
de fer a 2 tracks qu'une route sur le meme parcours.
Mais pour un chemin de fer, meme qu'il coute plus d'un route pave,
c'est la compagnie privee qui le maintien.
(It should cost less to build the highway than two rail tracks along
the same route, he says, and I respond in broken French that in the
case of rail, at least the private rail company is the one maintaining
the right of way, which of course should reduce the long-term costs.)
Aussi, c'est probable qu'on ne doit pas avoir plus d'un track.
(Also, you probably only need one track, since traffic would be so low.)
The advantage of 2 tracks is that you could have 2-way traffic ALL the
time.
The cost of laying 2 tracks side-by-side is not double the cost of a
single
track.
And it would eliminate the cost of managing traffic that you have with a
single track.
#
# Well, two tracks requires additional right of way, and it requires
# additional ballast, steel, and ties. Those costs are indeed
# considerable, especially if you're asking the railroad company itself
# to do it all. There is no need to have two-way traffic on this line
# because the region isn't a big enough generator. An occasional siding
# would allow traffic to pass whenever necessary, and the railroad
# company itself could schedule that.
Well, in the cost of building a road for cars and other vehicles that has
to
be 2 lanes.
I would estimate that the cost of a 2-track railway would be less in the
long-run. and last a lot longer too.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David Gee |
| Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"mrk" <vlep@hotREMOVEmailTHIS.com> wrote in message
news:4qb2i3Fmem6aU1@individual.net...
Quote: "Anna Blatch"
Where is the best area to stay in vancouver for first timers- close
to restaurants and shopping. I am currently leaning towards Hyatt or
Sutton Place?
I enjoyed my stay in the Best Western Downtown. Not fancy but allright
and near Granville Island.
Mrk
Look up the Sylvia Hotel on Beach Ave. Old-fashioned seaside hotel,
next to Stanley Park, very comfortable, moderate prices, lots of
restaurants, quick transit bus ride to Downtown shops, dining, art
galleries, etc.
Holiday Inn West Broadway has spectacular views, moderate prices, quick
transit bus ride across bridge to Downtown. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rik Brown |
| Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: I am staying at hotels in Vancouver, Marriott / Best Western / Hilton
/ Holiday Inn. They all seem to require photo id on checkin. I am a
Canadian citizen. Is it a legal requirement for them to verify photo
ID, or is it just common practice in Canada? I have observed that
hotels in UK and France do not typically require ID, whereas hotels
in
Florida do require photo ID on checkin.
What are the rules in Canada?I've stayed in several cities in Canada over the past 3-4 years and have
never been asked for a photo ID (I'm a U.S. citizen). The most recent
was a stay at the Marriott in Vancouver. There, I was only required to
show the credit card for which I reserved the hotel and on which I
would be billed at the conclusion of my stay.
Cheers! -- Rik
--
Rik Brown |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rik Brown |
| Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 4:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: Hotels -- or other businesses -- increasingly need to know the identity
of their customers, for a variety of reasons. First among these is the
need to prevent fraud due to "identity theft", the use of stolen or
forged credit cards. The best way for a merchant to do this is to ask
for photo ID that matches the credit card.
And if the hotel burns down, the owners can give the authorities an
accurate list of guests!I totally agree and would never mind if anyone asked for photo I.D. as
it is mutually a protection to my credit card on my behalf as well as a
protection for the hotel.
Cheers! -- Rik
--
Rik Brown |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 08, 2009 3:43 am
|
|