U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
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)
 
Old 02-13-2010, 08:57 PM
 
116 posts, read 61,174 times
Reputation: 84

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by SJ49 View Post
Yeah I tend to agree, 300mph is just not fast enough to go across the US or even halfway, But for shorter trips between cities that aren't more than 400 miles distant from each other(Anaheim CA to Las Vegas NV is about 269 miles), That should be do able, Even at 220mph, Although I'd love to see 300mph. More speed Scotty!
It could probably work at least on the east coast / to the Midwest. If we had trains that'd reach at least 200mph, traveling by train between cities such as New York and Washington DC would be faster than flying. This is because:

1) Usually, trains travel right to the heart of a particular city, so as soon as you get off, you're basically there. Airports are usually a long way out of town and you have the hassle of having to get a taxi or rent a car.

2) Air travel is a hassle, in the sense of checking your luggage in and out and having to go through a million layers of security, then the dreaded baggage claims (often losing your luggage, especially on a connecting flight). Train travel is far easier -- you just take your luggage with you, store it above you on the train and you're good to go.

3) Trains are less likely to be affected by bad weather.

Then, when you take into account that electric trains are far less damaging to the environment than planes, everyone wins.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-13-2010, 09:21 PM
 
Location: Yermo, Calif
30 posts, read 46,847 times
Reputation: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revol100 View Post
It could probably work at least on the east coast / to the Midwest. If we had trains that'd reach at least 200mph, traveling by train between cities such as New York and Washington DC would be faster than flying. This is because:

1) Usually, trains travel right to the heart of a particular city, so as soon as you get off, you're basically there. Airports are usually a long way out of town and you have the hassle of having to get a taxi or rent a car.

2) Air travel is a hassle, in the sense of checking your luggage in and out and having to go through a million layers of security, then the dreaded baggage claims (often losing your luggage, especially on a connecting flight). Train travel is far easier -- you just take your luggage with you, store it above you on the train and you're good to go.

3) Trains are less likely to be affected by bad weather.

Then, when you take into account that electric trains are far less damaging to the environment than planes, everyone wins.
Oh yeah, LA is famous for Its loooong parking lots(Freeways), LAX is on the coast, Downtown is a ways away, LA to SF is supposed to take about 2.5hrs @ 220mph, You'd spend 2 hours just taking off or orbiting to land, not to mention security(maybe 2-3hrs before takeoff), Even If the flight took 1 minute(not likely I know), The train would beat the plane before the plane took off from the airport. I foresee some smaller airlines will either cutback or go out of business in CA eventually after the system is built, The long distance stuff will still be profitable though so planes will still fly there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2010, 09:37 PM
 
116 posts, read 61,174 times
Reputation: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJ49 View Post
Oh yeah, LA is famous for Its loooong parking lots(Freeways), LAX is on the coast, Downtown is a ways away, LA to SF is supposed to take about 2.5hrs @ 220mph, You'd spend 2 hours just taking off or orbiting to land, not to mention security(maybe 2-3hrs before takeoff), Even If the flight took 1 minute(not likely I know), The train would beat the plane before the plane took off from the airport. I foresee some smaller airlines will either cutback or go out of business in CA eventually after the system is built, The long distance stuff will still be profitable though so planes will still fly there.
Connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco by HSR might be feasible, but connecting west coast cities with cities further east wouldn't be feasible, due to the enormous distance. California might benefit from a rail network of its own and Los Angeles would certainly benefit from a far better suburban rail network.

Trains are a great way to travel people. Besides, train travel is a LOT more enjoyable than flying. For starters, you see a lot more in terms of scenery and the hassle and stress factor is significantly less. Don't believe me? Hop over to France and take a TGV....those things will turn you into a train enthusiast in no time!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2010, 09:49 PM
 
Location: Yermo, Calif
30 posts, read 46,847 times
Reputation: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revol100 View Post
Connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco by HSR might be feasible, but connecting west coast cities with cities further east wouldn't be feasible, due to the enormous distance. California might benefit from a rail network of its own and Los Angeles would certainly benefit from a far better suburban rail network.

Trains are a great way to travel people. Besides, train travel is a LOT more enjoyable than flying. For starters, you see a lot more in terms of scenery and the hassle and stress factor is significantly less. Don't believe me? Hop over to France and take a TGV....those things will turn you into a train enthusiast in no time!
Yeah east-west or vice-versa is too slow, the only east-west route feasible so far is Anaheim to Las Vegas and even then It needs either Maglev to climb the Cajon pass along the I15 freeway or HSR and expensive tunneling and so far the only HSR proposed goes from Victorville to Las Vegas and only @ 150mph(And DesertXpress may not be compatible with the CHSRA equipment and voltages), Even the proven Maglev can go faster than that(310mph average is suggested in rural areas, 186mph average in rural areas).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2010, 10:37 PM
 
48,519 posts, read 81,013,914 times
Reputation: 17978
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
How many people's private cars "pay for themselves"? Most Americans are paying around $600 a month for car payments, gas, insurance, maintenance, etc, and at least half have two cars, so double that. That's $20 a day per driver.. Could you and your spouse get where you need to go on public transportation, supplemented by taxis when necessary, and an occasional rental, for $40 a day?

But they pay for them;they don't ask the taxpayers to pay for them I have no problem with trains if they pay for themselves.Price the ticket accordingly.That is the trouble with Am Trak its a private limited system serving little of the country yet wants the taxpayer to foot the bill. Build the train systems but let them pay for themselves. We have too much on the federal taxpayer now and certainly can't afford it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2010, 11:37 PM
 
Location: Yermo, Calif
30 posts, read 46,847 times
Reputation: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
But they pay for them;they don't ask the taxpayers to pay for them I have no problem with trains if they pay for themselves.Price the ticket accordingly.That is the trouble with Amtrak its a private limited system serving little of the country yet wants the taxpayer to foot the bill. Build the train systems but let them pay for themselves. We have too much on the federal taxpayer now and certainly can't afford it.
Actually Amtrak is like Conrail was, Government Dependent, Sort of like the Post Office is, Of course It doen't have any dedicated rail lines of Its own outside of the northeast, If Amtrak could build It's own rail lines like with Maglev that could do maybe 450mph then things might be different, Currently the Maglev WR speed is 361mph, It is a proven technology as is HSR as long as either one does not share rail lines with slower older passenger(commuter) or slow Freight traffic like Amtrak does now, Freight companies make Amtrak wait no matter what, Even If an Amtrak train could pass, Freight companies say no, as the rails belong to the Freight railroads and those Railroads don't want Amtrak on their rails.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2010, 10:51 AM
 
48,519 posts, read 81,013,914 times
Reputation: 17978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revol100 View Post
Connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco by HSR might be feasible, but connecting west coast cities with cities further east wouldn't be feasible, due to the enormous distance. California might benefit from a rail network of its own and Los Angeles would certainly benefit from a far better suburban rail network.

Trains are a great way to travel people. Besides, train travel is a LOT more enjoyable than flying. For starters, you see a lot more in terms of scenery and the hassle and stress factor is significantly less. Don't believe me? Hop over to France and take a TGV....those things will turn you into a train enthusiast in no time!
I liike Rods too but that does mean it makes econmic sense. Trains make sense for freight because of teh cost does not cahnge with distance like moving human does. and the weight they can pull. If it makes sense for humans in the air age their would be competeing trainsprivately owned and AM trak at subsidized price would be much more pop[ular. Rail could even compete for any thing but touist really and business is out for any long distance not only for price but time. Looking at air it has gotten cheaper since the 50's when it was quite high.Even then rial like AmTrak has still gotten highwer and will do so i teh future.I thnik that commuter rail now makes sense to bring people form the burbs intot eh city tho and that can be doen as it is on a local basis. Even bues cannot make it economic these times and they are realivelt cheap compared trinas. If there become a econmically feasible need and want for trins they will happen privtely has those tourist trains privtely own have aroufd the nations. For most they are too expensive as is AM Trax trains even subsidised heavily. The only reason it exist is politcal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2010, 11:40 AM
 
116 posts, read 61,174 times
Reputation: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
I liike Rods too but that does mean it makes econmic sense. Trains make sense for freight because of teh cost does not cahnge with distance like moving human does. and the weight they can pull. If it makes sense for humans in the air age their would be competeing trainsprivately owned and AM trak at subsidized price would be much more pop[ular. Rail could even compete for any thing but touist really and business is out for any long distance not only for price but time. Looking at air it has gotten cheaper since the 50's when it was quite high.Even then rial like AmTrak has still gotten highwer and will do so i teh future.I thnik that commuter rail now makes sense to bring people form the burbs intot eh city tho and that can be doen as it is on a local basis. Even bues cannot make it economic these times and they are realivelt cheap compared trinas. If there become a econmically feasible need and want for trins they will happen privtely has those tourist trains privtely own have aroufd the nations. For most they are too expensive as is AM Trax trains even subsidised heavily. The only reason it exist is politcal.
If operated correctly, rail does make economic sense though. The problem with Amtrak is that 1) it's not marketed well enough (or at all) and 2) the network is slow, outdated and the rolling stock is old.

What needs to happen is that the tracks themselves need to be kept under public ownership, but Amtrak eventually needs to be fully privatized. If we spent the money now upgrading tracks, expanding the network and upgrading to HSR, suddenly you'd have a very viable, far more environmentally friendly alternative to flying that would actually be 10 times more convenient to those who normally travel by plane.

In the long-term and if successful, other operators could also compete with Amtrak, bringing in healthy competition. Like I said though, the track itself should still be maintained by state or local governments (as with highways).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2010, 12:05 PM
 
Location: Yermo, Calif
30 posts, read 46,847 times
Reputation: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
I like Railroads too but that does mean it makes economic sense. Trains make sense for freight because the cost does not change with distance like moving human does, and the weight they can pull. If it makes sense for humans in the air age their would be competing trains privately owned and Amtrak at subsidized price would be much more popular. Rail could even compete for any thing but tourist really and business is out for any long distance not only for price but time. Looking at air it has gotten cheaper since the 50's when it was quite high. Even then rail like Amtrak has still gotten higher and will do so I the future.I think that commuter rail now makes sense to bring people from the burbs into the city though and that can be done as it is on a local basis. Even buses cannot make it economic these times and they are relatively cheap compared trains. If there become a economically feasible need and want for trains they will happen privately has those tourist trains privately own have around the nations. For most they are too expensive as is Amtrak trains even subsidized heavily. The only reason it exist is political.
Ok now then, Lets See

Planes=Subsidized
Passenger Trains=Not Subsidized
Freeways=Subsidized

The reason Mainline Railroads stopped offering Passenger Service was cause the Railroads did not want to Invest in Separate tracks(Rails) for Passenger Trains nor did the Railroads want Fast Passenger Trains, As they were happy and early on Airlines weren't considered a real threat. Instead Railroads did cheap improvements which didn't attract hardly anybody, So in the late 60's the Railroads started to stop doing Passenger service and and not too long after this Amtrak was created by Congress so as to Preserve Passenger service as not all areas could be served by Airlines, As the Airlines real Advantage was speed and not too many planes.

Today It's different, Planes are getting bigger, Airports are maxed out and traffic on the Freeways in States like California are clogged with vehicle traffic, High Speed Rail is not Amtrak, It is Segregated from Freight and from Amtrak, As HSR is not merely a little faster or just slow, It's extremely FAST, 220mph or 310mph or even 186mph is not slow on a 300-400 mile trip by Train, It's faster than an Airplane, Why?

Simple, At the Airport You have to go through Security and how long can that take? Maybe 2 hours.

Then Once You've boarded the Airliner(If It's on Time or not delayed or canceled) You have to wait in line for Takeoff for at least 1 hour.

Then If one goes to SFO from LAX(Los Angeles) It might take an 1 hour(I'm guessing on the flight time as I've never flown to SFO).

Then when one reaches SFO(San Francisco) You have to orbit for an 1 hour before landing.

So that's let see 2+1+1+1=5.0 hours for the Airliner...

Now for the Train from LA Union Station to SF Station is supposed to take 2.5 hours(@ 220mph on average). The Shinkansen(the Bullet Train) in Japan gets to their destination within 6 seconds of their posted time, It used to be 18 seconds though.

So I'd say If the Ticket were the same price, Which would You take?

Hint: 2.5 hours is better than 3 to 5 hours any day, Unless You just like spending lots of time doing nothing.

I'd take the Train, You get scenery as a bonus, On the plane You get clouds or if You're really lucky a view of what ants look like...

Some things here are from My flight to the east coast and planes don't move any faster now than they did back then and they never will.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2010, 07:09 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,116 posts, read 9,202,467 times
Reputation: 8988
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJ49 View Post
The reason Mainline Railroads stopped offering Passenger Service was cause the Railroads did not want to Invest in Separate tracks (Rails) for Passenger Trains nor did the Railroads want Fast Passenger Trains, As they were happy and early on Airlines weren't considered a real threat.
That's not quite correct. Property taxes on railroad rights of way triggered the destruction of many miles of track. Mainline railroads were desperate to cut costs - even pulling up their own capital investment in track.
*** Peak rail mileage: 254,000 miles (less than 160,000 miles today)

The government, federal, state and local, was and is the culprit in this case.

Consider that before the rise of the nefarious income tax, electric rail transit was booming (1890 - 1915). As the taxes began to creep up, and up, suddenly the streetcar and interurban rail companies were becoming unprofitable.

Add in the destructive efforts of the Streetcar Conspiracy of Big oil, etc., and you have a real mess.
(Over 40,000 miles of urban and interurban electric powered rail track were lost, thanks to their efforts.)
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
Similar Threads
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