U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Ohio > Cincinnati
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 01-21-2010, 02:22 PM
 
Location: cleveland
1,072 posts, read 1,861,594 times
Reputation: 480
Ride RTA 1981 AnsaldoBreda LRT Car #814 - AOL Video. light-rail in clevelands eastern suburbs. cincy could have this !

 
Old 01-21-2010, 02:32 PM
 
Location: cleveland
1,072 posts, read 1,861,594 times
Reputation: 480
RedLine Rapid - AOL Video. example of clevelands heavy-rail, university circle station.
 
Old 01-21-2010, 03:49 PM
 
Location: Mason, OH
8,320 posts, read 5,710,469 times
Reputation: 1632
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
Based on the population doubling roughly every 50 years, we can expect a quadrupling of population every century.

2010: 6.7 billion.
2110: 28 billion (est.)

The problem of a finite surface area and a geometric growth curve can be partially ameliorated with expanding the surface area - "thickening" the life bearing volume.

In other words, consolidation of population into more dense urban areas, and served by the most space / fuel efficient transportation. (hint, hint - electric rail).

The long term solution is not population control, but environmental amplification, via engineering the planet's surface.
  1. Multistory construction w/ reservation of surface for wildlife and agriculture (flat roof gardens, terraces, verticulture)
  2. Reclamation of suburban sprawl
  3. Floating cities along riverbanks and coasts
  4. Terracing of mountains
  5. Subterranean expansion of human habitat to preserve surface conditions
You live on a another planet and in another eutopia than I do.
 
Old 01-21-2010, 08:39 PM
 
8,233 posts, read 10,902,692 times
Reputation: 5913
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
I'd preface my reply with the note that the demise of urban electric rail mass transit was due to many factors, not the least were corruption and conspiracy.
The Streetcar Conspiracy - How General Motors Deliberately Destroyed Public Transit (http://saveourwetlands.org/streetcar.htm - broken link)



Public transportation option relieves congestion pressures, and has a host of benefits. For example, cities that have a robust urban rail system have very low or no DWI incidents.

There is no public road that operates subsidy free. Should the government give the roads back?

If you roll back the calendar to before the income tax, private urban railways were certainly profitable.

You may be surprised.
strickland.ca (www.strickland.ca)

Passenger miles / gallon (equivalent)
Full capacity:
Rail - 2000
Bus - 280
Auto - 100

Typical:
Rail - 600
Bus - 78
Auto - 21
So 1000 autos at single occupancy would consume 1000 times as much fuel per passenger moved when compared to full load rail.

And in terms of the amount of surface area required by 1000 autos versus the equivalent in train cars, it's no contest. . . RAIL WINS. Only rail offers scalability to handle ever growing passenger loads.

By some estimates one train track has the equivalent carrying capacity of a nine lane superhighway. Which means that only rail can cope with ever growing populations in gridlocked cities.
The automobile requires a huge amount of surface area, for travel and for parking - at either end of its trip. Rail does not.
In NYC's Subway system, over 6 million people are moved daily, by an average of 6000 cars (1000 / car daily avg).
(NYC has a four track system, equivalent to a 36 lane superhighway)
Can you imagine finding 6 million parking spaces if there was no urban rail?

The rate of wear and tear on rail is minimal when compared to the wear and tear on paved roads.
Rail lifetime is measured in decades and centuries, while paved roads need repaving and repair practically every other year.

PCC streetcar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The PCC streetcar had 4 x 55 hp motors. 220 hp.

2010 Ford F-150 has a 320 hp engine.

A PCC streetcar (crush load : 100 passengers) consumes LESS POWER than a Ford pickup truck.

100 Ford F-150 pickups hauling 100 people, twice a day, and parked, would still waste far more fuel than a PCC streetcar hauling 2 crush loads, and cruising empty for the remainder of the day.
(Assuming 2 roundtrips per hour, or 16 per day; 1/2 hr commute for trucker)
100 x 320 hp/hr = 32,000 hp/hr per day (Ford Truck)
8 x 220 hp/hr = 1,760 hp/hr per day

I hope you change your mind.

As Stickland.ca site reminds us:
A transportation system that relies on a "non-renewable" resource is bound for collapse - the only question is whether we adapt in time, not whether we need to adapt.
I think I need to clarify my question. What we were talking about was the typical commuter train with a locomotive and three or four cars.
 
Old 01-22-2010, 11:36 AM
 
Location: Prepperland
7,740 posts, read 3,901,300 times
Reputation: 3169
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilson1010 View Post
I think I need to clarify my question. What we were talking about was the typical commuter train with a locomotive and three or four cars.
Are you referring to interurban trains or light rail?

Though there is some overlap, in general, the electric interurban trains of the early 20th century were single or multicar, self powered or pulled by a locomotive. Modern Light rail is usually composed of multiple cars, powered, but not pulled by a locomotive.

From wikipedia (light rail):
Since a light rail track can carry up to 20,000 people per hour as compared with 2,400 people per hour for a freeway lane, light rail could theoretically deliver 4 times the congestion-reduction potential per dollar as incremental freeway lanes in congested urban areas.

Last edited by jetgraphics; 01-22-2010 at 12:12 PM..
 
Old 01-22-2010, 11:44 AM
 
Location: Prepperland
7,740 posts, read 3,901,300 times
Reputation: 3169
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjbrill View Post
You live on a another planet and in another eutopia than I do.
Thank you for the compliment. Apparently you have no facts in rebuttal, and must resort to ridicule to hide your embarrassment.
 
Old 01-22-2010, 03:36 PM
 
Location: Pleasant Ridge, Cincinnati, OH
1,039 posts, read 633,684 times
Reputation: 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
As a recent convert to the Way of Steel (Ferrovia), and the gospel of steel wheel on steel rail, the argument for electric rail is thus:

1. Laws of Physics,
2. Finite fuel supply,
3. Finite surface area,
4. Growing population.

With respect to land transportation, the most energy, space, and resource efficient is electric rail. No other land transport mode will out perform it.

The biggest obstacle to getting America "Back on Track" is the GOVERNMENT and its taxation and regulation burden.

Suggested solution:
[] Instead of politicians mismanaging things, let's get government out of the way. If you want efficient electric rail, give a blanket tax exemption to rail companies and their employees. I suspect that investors will flock to fund it, if only to earn tax exempt profits. At the least, it won't cost the taxpayers one dime.

But you and I know that governments are loathe to give up power - and revenue - so it's probably never going to happen... unless YOU tell them to get "Back on Track".
You've raised a lot of points, and I don't have time to address them all right now. However, I'd like to point out that my argument for buses over light railways is purely economic. I absolutely agree that commuter trains are more energy efficient in operation. But, in order for a public transportation system to be useful, it has to be substantially less expensive than buying a car and driving yourself.

However, tracks are extraordinarily expensive (and require a lot of energy to produce). Asphalt, requires a much lower investment. It' the most widely recycled material in the United States, and relatively inexpensive to maintain.

A bus that runs on an express bus lane can freely be allocated to be used on a different route, whereas a rail-car is pretty much stuck going where the tracks go.

While, I concede that rails don't suffer the same types of failures (or frequency of failures) as asphalt, railway failures are much more expensive to fix (and can be much more dangerous). Asphalt failures are routine and would require no specialized equipment to maintain - companies already maintain all of the rest of the roads. You get an economy of scale from choosing roads over rails.

When it comes to noise, I'm not sure that it's valid to argue that steel wheels on steel tracks are somehow quieter than buses. On routes where noise is a concern, electric buses can be utilized. Electric buses also have the benefit of not producing exhaust (which would help address the smog problem that we have in Cincinnati).

I do, however, like your suggestion to privatize local transit. Perhaps, if private companies were allowed to choose which method of local transit they would like to invest in, they would choose rail, bus, helicopter, hovercraft, or whatever more smartly than any of us (since their money is on the line). Residents wouldn't have to pay a tax to subsidize it. If the government did choose to subsidize local transit for people with disabilities or low income people, they could simply provide transportation vouchers - hence taxpayers wouldn't have to support the management structure (read "bureaucracy") of the government. There's no reason that the government has to be the sole provider of local transit.
 
Old 01-22-2010, 04:32 PM
 
Location: Mason, OH
8,320 posts, read 5,710,469 times
Reputation: 1632
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
Thank you for the compliment. Apparently you have no facts in rebuttal, and must resort to ridicule to hide your embarrassment.
And exactly what facts did you provide! I am trying to avoid personal attacks, but anyone who does not believe the population explosion is a grave danger to everyone has to be the proverbial ostrich with its head buried in the sand.
 
Old 01-22-2010, 09:45 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
7,740 posts, read 3,901,300 times
Reputation: 3169
Quote:
Originally Posted by flash3780 View Post
YI'd like to point out that my argument for buses over light railways is purely economic. I absolutely agree that commuter trains are more energy efficient in operation. But, in order for a public transportation system to be useful, it has to be substantially less expensive than buying a car and driving yourself.
True.
But in the case where there IS a robust mass transit system, like NYC, it is far cheaper to use the rails than to own a car.

MTA/New York City Transit - Fares and MetroCard
$89 ( reduced fare $44.50) for unlimited monthly fare card. ($3/day)

Car ownership:
[] Initial purchase (can vary widely, depending on new or used, etc)
Let's say you paid $15000, and used the car for five years, which comes out to $250 / month. (Or you keep it for ten years - $125 / month) (Loan fees omitted)
[] Insurance ($400 - 800 / year)
[] Taxes / registration (varies, depending on state) $10 / month (est)
[] Hidden taxes when you buy gasoline
U.S. Gasoline Taxes by State
Ranges from $0.63/gallon to $0.32/gallon.
If you drive 12,000 miles/year @ 25 mpg, you bought 480 gallons of fuel, and paid between $150 to $300 / year.
And if gasoline hits $3/gallon, you'll be spending $1440 / year.
[] Parking fees - variable, but still a nuisance.
[] Repair and upkeep - oil changes, new filter, new tires, batteries, brake shoes, etc, let's say $50/month budget.
[] Traffic tickets

Let's say between $250 - $350 month... roughly $10 / day.

MARTA - Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
$60 for 30 day unlimited pass ($2/day)

An automobile is a convenience - no argument there. But at what cost?

Quote:
However, tracks are extraordinarily expensive (and require a lot of energy to produce). Asphalt, requires a much lower investment. It' the most widely recycled material in the United States, and relatively inexpensive to maintain.
Light rail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The cost of light rail construction varies widely, largely depending on the amount of tunneling and elevated structures required. A survey of North American light rail projects shows that costs of most LRT systems range from $15 million per mile to over $100 million per mile.
By comparison, a freeway lane expansion typically costs $20 million per lane mile for two directions.

An 8 lane superhighway would cost 8 x $20 million, or $160 million / mile.
A two track system ($15 to $100 million) would be far cheaper, and have higher carrying capacity.

(It could be worse - it could be the BIG DIG!. 22 billion dollars for less than ten miles of road.)

Quote:
A bus that runs on an express bus lane can freely be allocated to be used on a different route, whereas a rail-car is pretty much stuck going where the tracks go.
Since buildings rarely move, and passengers rely on consistent stops and locations, it's not a persuasive reason.

Quote:
While, I concede that rails don't suffer the same types of failures (or frequency of failures) as asphalt, railway failures are much more expensive to fix (and can be much more dangerous). Asphalt failures are routine and would require no specialized equipment to maintain - companies already maintain all of the rest of the roads. You get an economy of scale from choosing roads over rails.
Typical estimates for rail maintenance and replacement (heavy rail) run from 10 to 25 years to as long as 100 years.

Currently, there are automated track laying machines that a single operator can manage. And that MOW machine can lay from 1 to 1.5 miles per day (assuming 8 hour shift). You won't find an asphalt laying crew that is 'one man'.



Quote:
When it comes to noise, I'm not sure that it's valid to argue that steel wheels on steel tracks are somehow quieter than buses. On routes where noise is a concern, electric buses can be utilized. Electric buses also have the benefit of not producing exhaust (which would help address the smog problem that we have in Cincinnati).
Some researchers quantified the "annoyance" factor and found that though rail clack rates a high dB spike, overall it is less annoying than standard truck and bus noise. But that is a subjective measurement.

PCC streetcar wheels were steel and rubber to reduce wheel noise. They also employed hypoid gearing, too.

Quote:
I do, however, like your suggestion to privatize local transit. Perhaps, if private companies were allowed to choose which method of local transit they would like to invest in, they would choose rail, bus, helicopter, hovercraft, or whatever more smartly than any of us (since their money is on the line). Residents wouldn't have to pay a tax to subsidize it. If the government did choose to subsidize local transit for people with disabilities or low income people, they could simply provide transportation vouchers - hence taxpayers wouldn't have to support the management structure (read "bureaucracy") of the government. There's no reason that the government has to be the sole provider of local transit.
Blame the "progressives" (socialists) of the 20th century for "grabbing" America's infrastructure. Before 1900, most infrastructure was privately owned and operated - for profit - by the private sector. Everything from toll roads, toll bridges, toll ferries, railroads, canals, funiculars, electric rail, and so on.

Here's an article that describes a local bridge being taken over by the county:
In 1908, free to cross river | The Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA

Of course, we all know that America's infrastructure is dire need of repair. The question is - what makes us believe that past mismanagement of the "public infrastructure" by government should be rewarded with more tax monies?
Maybe it should be sold off - entirely!


--------------
The "Bottom line" ...
The U.S.A. was redeveloped, after 1950, to rely upon automobiles. In the mid 20th century, the U.S.A. was still queen of oil, and it made sense.
Now?
We're importing 75% of our consumption. We're running out of space to expand roads to accommodate population growth. Our cities are gridlocked and the air is filled with choking fumes.

The only viable solution is electric rail mass transit.

To make rail mass transit functional will require a new development strategy, not too different than the 1890 - 1920 period, when urban rail was predominant. It will require population consolidation, high population density, and mixed use communities.

An interesting reference is the "Streetcar Suburb":
Streetcar suburb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Before the automobile suburb, the streetcar influenced the expansion of "Bedroom communities" surrounding the "Big Cities".


----------
Streetcar track: 34,404 miles by 1907
Interurban track: 18,000 miles by 1917

At $15 million / mile, to rebuild the same length would cost: 786 060 000 000 (786 billions)

Now THAT would be an economic recovery project that would make sense.

Last edited by jetgraphics; 01-22-2010 at 10:33 PM..
 
Old 01-22-2010, 10:21 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
7,740 posts, read 3,901,300 times
Reputation: 3169
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjbrill View Post
And exactly what facts did you provide! I am trying to avoid personal attacks, but anyone who does not believe the population explosion is a grave danger to everyone has to be the proverbial ostrich with its head buried in the sand.
Every civilization groused about "overpopulation" and the need to get rid of "useless eaters". (See: Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal", perhaps the most notable satire in English, suggesting that the Irish should engage in cannibalism. Written in 1729)
Hitler argued that Germany needed conquests for "living room".

Soylent Green - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1973 movie made the same arguments that you're raising.
Which was based on a 1966 novel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_Room!_Make_Room!
Set in then-future August 1999, the novel explores trends in the proportion of world resources used by the United States and other countries compared to population growth, depicting a world where the global population is seven billion, subject to overcrowding, resource shortages and a crumbling infrastructure.

Current world population is 6.7 billions. And no, we're not 'busting out' like NYC, in "Soylent Green". Check out Hong Kong, for an example of a "working" city awash in people.

I do not subscribe to the "Environmental Status Quo". We need to amplify the environment to support more life per unit of surface area. So far, the only creatures capable of 'thickening' the life bearing volume are humans.

I would prefer that we make preparations for our future progeny, and not plan to kill them off, in haste.

The long term solution is not population control, but environmental amplification, via engineering the planet's surface.
  1. Multistory construction w/ reservation of surface for wildlife and agriculture (flat roof gardens, terraces, verticulture)
  2. Reclamation of suburban sprawl
  3. Floating cities along riverbanks and coasts
  4. Terracing of mountains
  5. Subterranean expansion of human habitat to preserve surface conditions
Of course, over the decades, we may also expand into space exploitation, but I won't go into that.


List of countries and dependencies by population density - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Population / sq mi.
Hong Kong 16,442
India 926
Japan 875
UK 657
Germany 594
Italy 517
Switzerland 487
China 360
Denmark 331
Greece 221
Mexico 142
U.S.A. 83
Russia 21
Canada 8.8

Take each figure and quadruple it - and that's what 2110 may hold for us.
The U.S.A. may have 332 people per square mile - on par with present day Denmark. Would that be 'horribly' overcrowded?
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.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Ohio > Cincinnati

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top