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.
Okay, I still would like less of the name calling. In fairness, that goes for me too as far as calling you elitist and all that. As for where the trains went, for a time trains were definitely less economical for everyday use than cars, which were cheap and affordable at even the very low end of the economic ladder, and roads were cheap too. That's not always the case anymore, and car related development, particularly when it comes to parking lots, proves to be a less economical use of space in cities than transit related development. So trains disappear for awhile when they're less sound economically, now they're coming back as wages have stagnated and the cost of cars has gone beyond the means of many and the desirability of cars has gone down even among those who have the means. In both the fall and resurrection of trains, it's been simple economics causing the shifts.
I think the resurgence of interest in trains is simply Euro-envy. We have a lot of folks here who wish they lived in Europe. they have idealized the socialist societies of northern Europe and the simple village life with trains as a charming part of it. And, from the postcards, these socialist countries look good.
But, this is America. We stand up for ourselves. The government doesn't tell us what time we can go to Chicago or where we stop on the way. We get in the car and take off - at our speed and in our good time. And we have lunch when we want to. Not when the train stops in Indy.
And, some cities like Portlandia have enough of these Euro-envy people to make it a policy rather than a dream. Good for them.
I think the resurgence of interest in trains is simply Euro-envy. We have a lot of folks here who wish they lived in Europe. they have idealized the socialist societies of northern Europe and the simple village life with trains as a charming part of it. And, from the postcards, these socialist countries look good.
But, this is America. We stand up for ourselves. the government doesn't tell us what time we can go to Chicago or where we stop on the way. We get in the car and take off - at our speed and in our good time. and we have lunch when we want to. Not when the train stops in Indy.
And, some cities like Portlandia have enough of these Euro-envy people to make it a policy rather than a dream. Good for them.
Yup. Many in my family left Sweden, Norway and Denmark to come to the USA during the Depression to find a better way of life. And they did. Europe is what it is and we don't need to create the same mistakes in our country. Unfortunately some are taking us down that road right now. Oddly enough, Sweden has been slowly getting more privatization of its services over the last couple of decades because they found the Cradle to Grave social welfare state was too much of a burden on the finances of the country. We are going in the opposite direction.
Trains have their place in our country in certain areas. And I still maintain that if mass transit has so much appeal in Cincy and Indy then don't more people use the bus? Because they would rather drive. Until people start using the bus in these cities, it literally proves they have little desire to use mass transit rendering train travel a mere novelty and an expensive one at that. The Slight Rail system in Cincy is already proof of that.
I think the resurgence of interest in trains is simply Euro-envy. We have a lot of folks here who wish they lived in Europe. they have idealized the socialist societies of northern Europe and the simple village life with trains as a charming part of it. And, from the postcards, these socialist countries look good.
But, this is America. We stand up for ourselves. The government doesn't tell us what time we can go to Chicago or where we stop on the way. We get in the car and take off - at our speed and in our good time. And we have lunch when we want to. Not when the train stops in Indy.
And, some cities like Portlandia have enough of these Euro-envy people to make it a policy rather than a dream. Good for them.
Euro-envy only goes so far in explaining the rise of train use and construction. Too many cities and states (including Atlanta, Houston, SLC, republican controlled Michigan, etc..,) are investing in it to have that argument make much sense. Too many systems are seeing double digit percentage increases in riders at the same time auto use is either stagnating or declining. It's not like we're talking about a few isolated cases such as Portland where hipsters have taken over, but a gamut of cities that see economic benefits and revenue expansion that trains bring outweigh the expense of building them. It's a shifting market reality, not some idealized dream anymore.
Maybe Cincy will be ready for it in a decade. But based upon what I see in the use of mass transit (number of riders) there it is going to be a while before that occurs.
Yup. Many in my family left Sweden, Norway and Denmark to come to the USA during the Depression to find a better way of life. And they did. Europe is what it is and we don't need to create the same mistakes in our country. Unfortunately some are taking us down that road right now. Oddly enough, Sweden has been slowly getting more privatization of its services over the last couple of decades because they found the Cradle to Grave social welfare state was too much of a burden on the finances of the country. We are going in the opposite direction.
Trains have their place in our country in certain areas. And I still maintain that if mass transit has so much appeal in Cincy and Indy then don't more people use the bus? Because they would rather drive. Until people start using the bus in these cities, it literally proves they have little desire to use mass transit rendering train travel a mere novelty and an expensive one at that. The Slight Rail system in Cincy is already proof of that.
It proves no such thing. That's like saying, until enough people in a city eat oranges, we know they won't eat strawberries. And given that the bus transit in Cincinnati is so poorly run and designed, it's like saying unless people eat oranges from this two month old crate, it proves they won't eat strawberries. It's a false equivalence either way, however.
Yup. Many in my family left Sweden, Norway and Denmark to come to the USA during the Depression to find a better way of life. And they did. Europe is what it is and we don't need to create the same mistakes in our country. Unfortunately some are taking us down that road right now. Oddly enough, Sweden has been slowly getting more privatization of its services over the last couple of decades because they found the Cradle to Grave social welfare state was too much of a burden on the finances of the country. We are going in the opposite direction.
Poor Sweden. Their entire system was based on the homogeneous population of smart, honest, well motivated people who would not have gamed the system for the life of them. And, the care of the less fortunate among them, the ill, disabled, widowed and orphaned, were naturally to be taken care of in the tradition of family responsibility so ingrained in Northern European culture and ethics.
But, today, hoardes of immigrants with no sense of industry or responsibility have tested Sweden to the breaking point. It is a walking dead country. Just a few generations from being Greece.
Quote:
Trains have their place in our country in certain areas. And I still maintain that if mass transit has so much appeal in Cincy and Indy then don't more people use the bus? Because they would rather drive. Until people start using the bus in these cities, it literally proves they have little desire to use mass transit rendering train travel a mere novelty and an expensive one at that. The Slight Rail system in Cincy is already proof of that.
Yes, the Xpress bus from Kenwood is a great illustration of why no commuter rail is needed here. Its really a marvelous bus. Quiet, a/c civilized people on board, nice place to park and drive, great drop off location. For the entire rush hour about as many people ride it as pass a spot on I-71 in cars every three seconds.
I oppose this proposed rail system to Chicago for the following reasons:
1) Not particularly speedy, as with the multiple stops and getting around Indy, it will take longer than driving.
2) Not enough ridership to offset the cost to the environment, namely, jamming the right of way through the heartland of Indiana.
3) Really hard to justify investing in a massive new infrastructure, when our Interstate bridges and other major highway systems are crumbling. Fix the Brent Spence first?
Commuter rails are usually electrical. There is some lines, like the Nashville or Albuquerque-Santa Fe that uses Diesel. That of course is oil based. I'm not sure what the new Line in Orlando uses.
Commuter trains in Chicago, Albuquerque, Utah, Los Angeles, Seattle, Minnesota and many other paces use Diesel power. Though it is diesel-electric, the diesel engine generating electricity then transferred to the traction motors on the wheels.
New York partially electrified, Philadelphia entirely. San Francisco - San Jose now Diesel but reportedly plans to go electric.
Dismissal of another person's assertions by denigration, especially when you know next to nothing about them is a loser's parting shot. If I thought this meant you were giving up this ill advised mission, I would happily take the insult. But, I am sure it is only temporary.
Try posting some surveys about how much LIRR commuters love their train. Or how the Japanese like to go to work pretending to be sardines. Or, how in Europe, the more wealthy and in control of their own lives people become, the more likely they are to ride the rails as opposed to the personal car. I doubt you will find those things to be true, but that is how you might make an intelligent argument.
We all know that a leisurely train trip across the Alps would be nice. At least we could agree to that part. And, I am sure that there are some hipsters in Portlandia who love their subsidized rail rides to school or down to the aquarium to smoke pot and watch the fish.
You have done everything you can to avoid answering direct questions and discussing real facts brought up about rail and car infrastructure, and waxed on and on about how awesome cars are. So it's not really rocket science to figure that you have limited (or zero) experience with rail travel, yet you speak about it as some kind of authority. Even if you do have experience riding, if you don't actually do any research into how the different forms are financed and the impacts they have, which is what this discussion is really about, then it doesn't matter.
Also, opinion surveys, regardless of whether the results would be favorable or unfavorable towards rail, wouldn't mean as much as you think. They wouldn't necessarily be indicative of the value of rail, but more about the state of the infrastructure and how it's run. You may not see a difference there, but it's an incredibly important distinction. For example, someone may prefer to ride rail, but the current system in place is subpar or the private/public companies running the system may be flawed themselves. I see complaints all the time about highway/road construction and traffic, yet that doesn't necessarily mean anything that system, either. There's no such thing as a form of transit that people don't complain about or that is going to be perfect, and setting the bar that high ensures it's going to fail expectations. I get the sense from some of you that rail should be all or nothing, perfect or shouldn't exist.
Also, I find it ironic how you think that a packed train means no one wants to ride it. It's of the "It's too crowded now. No one goes there anymore," kind of thinking.
Your last paragraph is probably the most revealing thing you've yet said about how you really feel about rail and why you're so opposed to it. And if that's supposed to pass for intelligent debate, we've got problems.
Actually if anyone read a couple of my earlier posts I indicated that my friend's father and also the husband of my mother's friend used to take the train to work in Manhattan from Connecticut. And these were executives, not working class people.
I think you are putting words into Wilson's keyboard. I don't see anything suggesting class warfare here but you seem to be bringing that up.
Busses are more practical in the long run than new rail. If they can find a way to use existing rail lines then I might be in favor of a HSR line from Chicago to Cincy. At least try it under those conditions and if it can't break even or come close to it, close it. I just don't want to see the taxpayers get hosed again for billions and billions of dollars given the amount of debt this nation has. We are rapidly becoming insolvent due to reckless spending in personal lives and the government.
Yet you have yet to come out against wasteful road projects. I've mentioned some and there are countless others. Why not? Even if you think roads are always an absolute necessity, it's unrealistic at best to believe that roads deserve a blank check and that that's being fiscally responsible with public money.
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.
