U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-21-2009, 09:58 AM
 
3,628 posts, read 9,027,777 times
Reputation: 2013

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by backfist View Post
I agree; I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to take regular 1000-mile train rides. I do, however, think it's reasonable to expect that regular travelers of 500 miles or less, take the train instead of a plane.
Especially if there is an investment in true high speed rail, it would make a 500 mile trip seem like nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-21-2009, 10:10 AM
 
3,088 posts, read 7,637,166 times
Reputation: 2024
Amtrack is the biggest POS! If there was a high speed bullet train I would take it across country. But once I get to my destination how would I get around? First cities that would be connected via train need to implement public transportation so once you get off said train you are not left scratching your head.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2009, 10:17 AM
 
Location: Oak Park, IL
5,520 posts, read 11,976,063 times
Reputation: 3820
Quote:
Originally Posted by nitokenshi View Post
Amtrack is the biggest POS! If there was a high speed bullet train I would take it across country. But once I get to my destination how would I get around? First cities that would be connected via train need to implement public transportation so once you get off said train you are not left scratching your head.
Although good in-city public transit is the best option, as a stop gap measure, there's no reason why we can't have rental cars available at train stations much like we do at airports.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2009, 11:02 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,087,798 times
Reputation: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by sukwoo View Post
Although good in-city public transit is the best option, as a stop gap measure, there's no reason why we can't have rental cars available at train stations much like we do at airports.
We do along the Amtrak corridor. Furthermore Boston, New York, Philly, Washington all provide mass transit to the train station. Mass transit is a different responsibility however.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2009, 01:42 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,122 posts, read 9,210,319 times
Reputation: 8988
Quote:
Originally Posted by supernerdgirl View Post
But you have to admit those "streetcar suburbs" are much, MUCH denser than the ones further out away from the city. There's a HUGE difference between the streetcar/rail oriented development and the car-centric development.
Yup. The "automobile" suburb had to have "elbow room" for the car and its supporting infrastructure. In fact, most zoning has changed so that "streetcar suburbs" are not possible.

THAT will have to change - ASAP.

-----------
Elephant - a mouse built to government specifications.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2009, 01:59 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,122 posts, read 9,210,319 times
Reputation: 8988
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
You aren't going to get business people to do this. I'm a businessman who embraces the train. I travel to New York from Washington reasonably often and I rarely take the plane, but there's really no way that I'm going to try to travel 1000+ miles by rail much less 3000.
When petroleum cost / availability drives up the cost of "flying the friendly skies", what else will you do?

strickland.ca - transportation energy efficiency (fuel consumption) (http://strickland.ca/efficiency.html - broken link)
Aircraft: 50 passenger-miles / gallon
Highway coach : 170 passenger-miles / gallon
Diesel‑electric commuter rail : 200 passenger-miles / gallon
High Speed Electric Train (300 km/h) : 380 passenger-miles / gallon

A seven fold cost differential in energy consumption between air travel and rail travel does not bode well for the airline industry.

Eventually economic costs will shift the bulk of long distance traveling from air to rail (electric, hopefully).

Check out Hitchcock's "West by Northwest"(1959)

An 80 MPH Sleeper train could serve business clientele on routes greater than 640 miles, and offer synergetic benefits.

A 160 MPH Sleeper train could double that minimum distance, easily, and still provide synergetic benefits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2009, 02:01 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,122 posts, read 9,210,319 times
Reputation: 8988
Quote:
Originally Posted by backfist View Post
I agree; I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to take regular 1000-mile train rides. I do, however, think it's reasonable to expect that regular travelers of 500 miles or less, take the train instead of a plane.
When the difference in fuel consumption is factored in, and the ticket price goes up by a factor of seven or more, folks will suddenly look upon rail transport as desirable.

strickland.ca - transportation energy efficiency (fuel consumption) (http://strickland.ca/efficiency.html - broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2009, 02:40 PM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,087,798 times
Reputation: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
When petroleum cost / availability drives up the cost of "flying the friendly skies", what else will you do?

strickland.ca - transportation energy efficiency (fuel consumption) (http://strickland.ca/efficiency.html - broken link)
Aircraft: 50 passenger-miles / gallon
Highway coach : 170 passenger-miles / gallon
Diesel‑electric commuter rail : 200 passenger-miles / gallon
High Speed Electric Train (300 km/h) : 380 passenger-miles / gallon

A seven fold cost differential in energy consumption between air travel and rail travel does not bode well for the airline industry.

Eventually economic costs will shift the bulk of long distance traveling from air to rail (electric, hopefully).

Check out Hitchcock's "West by Northwest"(1959)

An 80 MPH Sleeper train could serve business clientele on routes greater than 640 miles, and offer synergetic benefits.

A 160 MPH Sleeper train could double that minimum distance, easily, and still provide synergetic benefits.
It might interest you to know that Boeing has an advanced biofuels program designed to decouple airplane travel and petroleum costs.

Regardless, to answer your question, I'd either pay the cost of flying or teleconference. 1000 mile business trip by train is a non starter. For one thing, it's a two day trip one out and one back. By plane it's an out in the morning back that night.

The other issue is passenger density. The fixed cost of high speed rail are substantial. The economics are going to be very difficult outside the area of high density -- east coast, west coast and selected city pairs in the Midwest. There won't be enough traffic density to make Springfield IL to Omaha NE work by rail.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2009, 03:05 PM
 
Location: Oak Park, IL
5,520 posts, read 11,976,063 times
Reputation: 3820
Air travel will never disappear, but can probably be supplanted by rail for trips less than 500 miles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2009, 05:18 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,122 posts, read 9,210,319 times
Reputation: 8988
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
It might interest you to know that Boeing has an advanced biofuels program designed to decouple airplane travel and petroleum costs.

Regardless, to answer your question, I'd either pay the cost of flying or teleconference. 1000 mile business trip by train is a non starter. For one thing, it's a two day trip one out and one back. By plane it's an out in the morning back that night.

The other issue is passenger density. The fixed cost of high speed rail are substantial. The economics are going to be very difficult outside the area of high density -- east coast, west coast and selected city pairs in the Midwest. There won't be enough traffic density to make Springfield IL to Omaha NE work by rail.
And given the choice between growing food and not flying or starving but flying, which choice makes the most sense? (Granted, that's an extreme point - but you see the underlying flaw in their logic).

High Speed Rail, or any electrified rail, has a substantial fixed cost.

However, delaying the transition to an electrified rail system because we "may" have alternatives that allow for the fuel wasting automobile and airplane to stretch out the dwindling supplies of hydrocarbon fuels is contrary to reason.

And population density is not a deterrent to rail. In fact, reviving the old ROWs will reinvigorate the many small towns that went dormant with the demise of rail, following the 1960s and 1970s.

Based on a finite amount of fuel / power, budgeting that fuel to move the most cargo and passengers for the least amount of fuel makes sense.

Water transportation is the most energy efficient - but where there are no navigable waterways, the winner for land transportation is electrified rail.

BTW - there are also low fuel consumption aircraft, like compound gyroplanes / gyrocopters that may finally become economical to develop.
(a complement to high speed rail, which would handle a higher passenger load, at lower cost). See Fairey Rotodyne for a 1950's version.
(
YouTube Video )

A modern variation -
Carter Aviation Technologies - Home Page
Though slower than jet aircraft, but faster than helicopters, V/STOL
airliners using the city to city mode will save hours of time and airport
inconvenience.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top