Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow. That's such a bad argument. "blah blah blah and then the class wars began". A bit of an apocalyptic tone there, huh?
You do realize that most services in the US began as private enterprise? Problem was that the "private" enterprise only protected those with money. So the rich had security (aka police), firemen, and pretty much anything they wanted. Everyone else got diddly squat, and got stomped on.
That's why "class wars" have always existed. Be it an Egyptian slave, a Roman seamstress, a British cobbler, a colonial tea seller in Boston, a Wild West ranch hand, or a Massey mine worker, the "poor" kept getting taken advantage off, and had no recourse. The guy with the $$$ made the rules and literally got away with murder. Eventually, that leads to conflict.
Why do you think Europe doesn't have ruling monarchies anymore? Why do you think we kicked Britain's butt? All our history is riddled with conflicts where the rich oppressed the rest, and the end result was some sort of uprising.
Government had to get involved because without having the "safety net" you so despise, we wouldn't be able to have a working democracy. We'd still have government overthrows (ala Latin/South America or certain Asian countries) every decade or two. Wanna know why the safety net grows every few decades? Read the previous paragraphs.
It's not exactly a difficult thing to understand. If you actually thought about it, anyway.
And the usual throwing the Constitution into the mix... It's like a sinner quoting God and the bible. Just because he's quoting God and the bible don't make him a saint, or mean he understand anything of what he's talking about.
Totally agree. There used to be no "police service" at all. Rich people had private security detail (guards) at their house. Middle class and poor people had nothing.
It was only the racous celebration of the mid winter feast (Christmas) brought to the US by immigrants from Europe where the rich people got worried because their private security detail couldn't protect themselves from the excessive celebration, which included something similar to Mardi Gras celebrations that have occurred recently in Seattle or St. Louis (New Orleans knows how to handle crowds) where shops get their windows broken in.
So the response to that was the creation of a "police department" which was formed specifically to address excessive holiday celebration, at Christmas time and St. Patrick's Day as well. Then the ruling class, after having the police forces subdue the overwhelming crowds, systematically eliminated said holidays as they were and "victorianized" them. Hence all the Santa Claus, gift giving, etc... which worked for the rich as now the working class was buying stuff for Xmas instead of partying.
Fire departments were not much different. Rich people had their own fire protection service but the problems were all the fires that started in the working neighborhoods wouldn't get contained and would eventually spread to the rich part of town, and their little firekeepers couldn't stop the fires from consuming their property. So, comprehensive fire coverage began.
What about roads? Roads were mostly private tolled roads, but a lot of them went under because not enough people drove on them, so the rich owners got the government to buy them out so they were made into "public roads". Of course, at that point a lot of them went from being tolled to non-tolled, but many toll roads remained. Many interstates, such as the PA turnpike were of this nature...
Railroads were the same. Funded by private companies but many lines were unprofitable and railroad tycoons convinced the government to "nationalize" them so they wouldn't go bankrupt on them.
Now when the financial / healthcare system is in the process of being "nationalized" people are saying this is something new and America is becoming socialized, but we've been doing it since the founding of the country...
Interesting stuff when you read more about what happened...
The issue is the us is much bigger with a lot less density of population.
Japan has around 1550 miles of high speed rail with a population density of about 873 people/sq mile.
The us has a population density of around 80/sq mile.
Germany is 600/sq mile
UK is 650/sq mile
Spain is 235/sq mile
The other euro countries are pretty comparable around 500/sq mile
New york state has a population density of about 400/sq mile
New england in general is around 200/sq mile
To further compound your point, Texas cities are waaay too spread out for such a rail system to benefit anyone. With no rail infrastructure in any Texas city, you generally are left with very few stopping points for trains. Then what? Get dropped off in Houston/SA and have to call ahead/wait for a cab, spend $100 to get across town and back (maybe more) and still be at the mercy of city traffic. It really doesn't solve much of a problem.
I've seen these systems attempted in the past and often times the plans are shot down because the long-term costs are hard to predict, the ridership rarely comes close to covering expenses and as I mentioned, people run into major problems once they get to their destination city.
Mass transit should probably be a build-out operation. Get usable mass transit in Austin, SA, Houston and THEN figure out how to connect the cities.
To further compound your point, Texas cities are waaay too spread out for such a rail system to benefit anyone. With no rail infrastructure in any Texas city, you generally are left with very few stopping points for trains. Then what? Get dropped off in Houston/SA and have to call ahead/wait for a cab, spend $100 to get across town and back (maybe more) and still be at the mercy of city traffic. It really doesn't solve much of a problem.
I've seen these systems attempted in the past and often times the plans are shot down because the long-term costs are hard to predict, the ridership rarely comes close to covering expenses and as I mentioned, people run into major problems once they get to their destination city.
Mass transit should probably be a build-out operation. Get usable mass transit in Austin, SA, Houston and THEN figure out how to connect the cities.
"No rail infrastructure in any Texas city"
What about DART in Dallas/Ft. Worth and MetroRail in Austin and Houston? Or Amtrak via the Texas Eagle?
And how would the situation be any different for air passengers going from city to city within Texas? They would still have to rent a car if they did not take public transit.
Unlike airports rail can have many stops in urban areas as well as the advantage of having stops in the center of cities.
Rail and HSR can also use electricity for power, which can be gotten from a myriad of sources including renewable energy. Air transport may never be able to break its fossil fuel addiction and the price swings that go with it.
We had better start thinking about some alternatives to driving/flying. The cheap oil age is done. All forms of transportation are subsidized, we just don't like to admit it in the U.S.. The aviation and highway building lobbies are very strong here.
Originally Posted by CptnRn
Everyone pretty much agrees that you can't get around Austin without having a car. I don't believe San Antonio is much better. So it wouldn't make much sense to take the rail to get to either place when you are still going to need a car once you get there. Businesses in Austin are located all over town, same is true for San Antonio. Riding the rail to a central location in either place not going to get most people to their final destination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by verybadgnome
Regarding high speed rail the same could be said about plane travel but airports are even worse in that they are usually in the boonies versus a train station that could be downtown.
Problem is most Texas cities don't have adequate public transportation to get the business traveller where they need to go. We used to travel regularly to Houston on business. By the time we got to the airport, caught a plane, flew to Houston, got a rental car and drove to our destination, we had spent more money and it took us longer then driving from Austin. So we drove instead of flying. Rail would have the same deficiencies and lack of advantages.
Problem is most Texas cities don't have adequate public transportation to get the business traveller where they need to go. We used to travel regularly to Houston on business. By the time we got to the airport, caught a plane, flew to Houston, got a rental car and drove to our destination, we had spent more money and it took us longer then driving from Austin. So we drove instead of flying. Rail would have the same deficiencies and lack of advantages.
You are certainly right comparing rail to autos which is why auto is king.
Of course if you come into Austin for a convention downtown and stayed at a nearby hotel there isn't much reason to rent a car, pay for gas and parking.
I spent a week in San Diego and relied on their bus from/to the airport, light rail, walking and biking. If I proposed renting a car I may have never gone on that trip due to the expense (I actually found inexpensive accommodations). Also only having liability insurance on my vehicle at home means I get raped for an extra $25 a day at the rental car place.
I think a cost people forgot when comparing auto to other modes is safety. Case in point:
"Already, IH 35 through the Austin-San Antonio Corridor is
the deadliest and most congested highway in America, with over
100 fatalities a year just in the 110 miles between Georgetown and
San Antonio."
From wiki:
Japan's Shinkansen: "During the Shinkansen's 45-year, nearly 7 billion-passenger history, there have been no passenger fatalities due to derailments or collisions, despite frequent earthquakes and typhoons. Injuries and a single fatality have been caused by doors closing on passengers or their belongings;"
France's TGV: "In almost three decades of high-speed operation, the TGV has not recorded a single fatality due to accident while running at high speed."
So yes in Texas we have the freedom of the road at our disposal but it comes at a very high price with regards to life and limb. And that doesn't even start addressing the environmental costs that are subsidized throughout our economy.
The world's best HSR systems have indeed proven to be very safe. I have ridden both the Shinkansen and the TGV. Very impressive.
I think a looming issue for ALL rail systems is terrorism. That doesn't mean don't build or use them. But the risk of terrorism will grow as other targets become more difficult or less lucrative (for the terrorists).
Security is nonexistent on these rail systems (as it is for the US Acela). It is only a matter of time before something very unpleasant happens to one of these systems.
What about DART in Dallas/Ft. Worth and MetroRail in Austin and Houston? Or Amtrak via the Texas Eagle?
What about them? I don't think reasonable people visiting any of these cities would call those usable mass transit solutions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by verybadgnome
And how would the situation be any different for air passengers going from city to city within Texas? They would still have to rent a car if they did not take public transit.
The situation would not be any different, which is why I don't see the logic behind a several-hundred-million dollar rail system to simply run in parallel to regional flights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by verybadgnome
Unlike airports rail can have many stops in urban areas as well as the advantage of having stops in the center of cities.
In theory, yes. In practice, not so likely. The reason why the above-mentioned "commuter rail" systems in Texas are unusable? They don't penetrate enough of the areas that commuters need to travel. They largely use existing rail lines. There's far too much cost involved in expanding rail in an urban area. You can either dig under the city (ask Boston how they liked their Big Dig road project) or go on the surface side and have to reroute existing roadways, move buildings, etc. Sure it would be great to have trains taking you within a 20 minute walk of any part of San Antonio, but the logistics/financials of pulling that off are nearly impossible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by verybadgnome
Rail and HSR can also use electricity for power, which can be gotten from a myriad of sources including renewable energy. Air transport may never be able to break its fossil fuel addiction and the price swings that go with it.
All hypothetical arguments considering less than 15% of our energy sources in Texas are renewable.
That said, I don't think these rail ideas are bad, just not practical. Only a small percentage of people regularly commute between cities. A huge percentage commute within the city. Usable public transit initiatives could have an enormous impact, especially considering Austin, Dallas, Houston are home to some of the worst traffic in the US.
The world's best HSR systems have indeed proven to be very safe. I have ridden both the Shinkansen and the TGV. Very impressive.
I think a looming issue for ALL rail systems is terrorism. That doesn't mean don't build or use them. But the risk of terrorism will grow as other targets become more difficult or less lucrative (for the terrorists).
Security is nonexistent on these rail systems (as it is for the US Acela). It is only a matter of time before something very unpleasant happens to one of these systems.
The same can be said for the Highways , but its unlikely that an attack on our Transit systems will happen. There is alot of security on our Northeastern systems , fences and gates surround the yards and lines. Although if you get past one of these systems , you'll probably die in the process due to the Catenary or 3rd Rail.... 99.7% of the time its a drunk or crazy person who gets past security and usually ends up dead.... You can't really access the control panels on a train there protected by a strong steel door and all trains are controlled by computers.
It would be very easy for a suicide bomber to walk on any one of these trains. The threat of death means nothing to these people. A person in a business suit could board the Acela in Boston headed for NYC and easily cause a huge problem.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
