Cities with unfair repuations (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh: to rent, how much, buying)

[SteelCityRising]

Awesomo, please do not leave. You, ainulinale, Hopes, Katiana, and a few others first convinced me through your wonderful essays, photos, memories, reviews, etc. to go scope out Pittsburgh again recently for the first visit to the Steel City I've taken in over a decade. It was thanks to this visit that I now want to live in the city someday. If it hadn't been for you all giving me that little "push" through your positive commentary on the city (even if you all didn't realize what you were doing at the time), then I never would have visited Pittsburgh again, fallen in love with it from afar, and decided to become a productive and upstanding part of its society in the future!

One thing I WILL say though is that if Pittsburghers in general don't stop being so downright NEGATIVE about everything and being so insular towards tourists and newcomers, then you're going to have a difficult time advancing into the 21st Century. Honestly, an innkeeper and shopkeeper practically LAUGHING AT ME because I was in the city for "pleasure?" Stop nailing yourselves to the cross, Pittsburgh! You have an awesome city!

[user_id]

Originally Posted by pman

I'd pay taxes for a high speed train, it's the taxes that I don't know where they're spent that make me angry.

The taxes to support such a system would be high, so you may support them but most would not. Even in California where they phrased the prop in terms of "Bond sales" with no mention of ahem paying the bonds, the prop hardly past. It won largely because the bay area liberals. No way would the people in PA agree to pay for this.

Also, the point of mentioning standard trains is that there are already ways to get from metro-to-metro. You can travel by car, by train or by plane. Each have their own advantage. A high speed rail does not add that much additional value and its rather costly and is really looking backwards technologically wise. Perhaps 40~50 years ago it would've made sense, but now with the increasing power of the internet and ever more sophisticated video chat etc etc its out dated.

[pman]

Originally Posted by user_id

The taxes to support such a system would be high, so you may support them but most would not. Even in California where they phrased the prop in terms of "Bond sales" with no mention of ahem paying the bonds, the prop hardly past. It won largely because the bay area liberals. No way would the people in PA agree to pay for this.

Also, the point of mentioning standard trains is that there are already ways to get from metro-to-metro. You can travel by car, by train or by plane. Each have their own advantage. A high speed rail does not add that much additional value and its rather costly and is really looking backwards technologically wise. Perhaps 40~50 years ago it would've made sense, but now with the increasing power of the internet and ever more sophisticated video chat etc etc its out dated.

there's tons of assumptions n here I'm not sure have any basis. people travel in Penn and of course it adds value. it gets planes out of the congested airport (in Philly and NYC) and people out of their cars. It may or may not be expensive to maintain (probably not since it'd be well used) but it would be expensive to build. I'm not sure you have to be a liberal to support an idea like that, unless it's liberal to improve transportation infrastructure. It really makes no sense to say "each has their own advantage" and then say it doesn't apply to high speed rail.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by pman

I'm not sure you have to be a liberal to support an idea like that, unless it's liberal to improve transportation infrastructure.

I never said you had to be liberal to support it, but it is most supported by liberals. Just look how Californians voted for prop 1A on the county level this last election.

Many that support it seem to be of the "Lets make America like Europe" types.

Originally Posted by pman

It really makes no sense to say "each has their own advantage" and then say it doesn't apply to high speed rail.

I never said it does not apply to high speed rails. They have been used successfully in other countries, but we've already built our transportation infrastructure without them. Suitable alternatives already exist.

Anyhow, the Pittsburgh area is way too small to make efficient use of a high speed rail. The rail being proposed between LA and SF is even under some estimates not going to have the sort of ridership necessary to make it cost efficient. But between Pittsburgh and another Metro area? No way.

The only areas where I think a high speed rail makes any sense are on the west coast, east coast (Already has the acela) and Texas, connecting small cities with high speed rails is not cost effective. That is why Pennsylvania leaders are not pushing for it.

[Yac]

Everybody calm down, relax and get back on topic.
You're senior members yet You get pulled into personal, off topic debates so easy ... think about it
Yac.

[Yac]

Everybody calm down, relax and get back on topic.
You're senior members yet You get pulled into personal, off topic debates so easy ... think about it
Yac.

[pman]

Originally Posted by user_id

Many that support it seem to be of the "Lets make America like Europe" types.

too often in this country it's either "let's make it europe" vs/ "any idea from europe is bad." (mind you, asia has HSR as well and now turkey is getting in on it)

Originally Posted by user_id

I never said it does not apply to high speed rails. They have been used successfully in other countries, but we've already built our transportation infrastructure without them. Suitable alternatives already exist.

and this is where we disagree. planes aren't necessarily suitable alternatives and, in many areas, planes fly in congested airspace. moreover, each type of transportation encourages it's own kind of development. high speed rail would be good for cities and pittsburgh, being the gateway to the east/midwest as well as close enough to make the connection to the east coast useful, woudl benefit immensely from it. From the state's perspective, it's a good way to reinvigorate pittsburgh (preventing what'shappened to upstate NYS). It woudl also help people "discover" Pittsburgh and alleviate the "unfair reputation." quite frankly, Pennsylvania's beauty could sell itself, but not from an airplane. "the ridership necessary" is somewhat up for debate.
Acela isn't really high speed rail. not in the same ballpark as what CA is proposing.
(there, I tied it back in yac)

[Awesomo.2000]

God forbid if we do something like Europe. This is where this country has got to grow up. We will never get further ahead if we keep acting like this. Europe destroys us in many catagories like Healthcare, transportation, education, and many others. However, the conservative idea in America is, "We's cants be like them there Frenchy french. I'm American. I'm not for inovation anymore like my grandfathers generation was. Guns N beer man, guns n beer."

Maglev will be a huge upfront cost, but the long run savings would be huge. It is a great technology that would greatly benefit this state, and this city. But I will never see it in my life time, because it is "Frenchy Like".

Also, Maglev would greatly work in Pittsburgh. It is only suppose to start here, then make its way to Philly, then to N.Y., Boston, and so on While it makes its way west to Chicago, ST. louis, and so on. Local flights would never compete with local high speed train like Maglev. Liek Pman said, the fly zones are getting so congested that would help limit the number of annoying local flights that largly delay long distance international flights.

[BrianTH]

The countries that have high speed rail (HSR) of course have cars and airplanes too. From studying HSR in those countries, we can thus get a fairly good idea of under what circumstances HSR serves as a worthwhile competitor and/or complement to cars or airplanes.

That is a complex subject, but one thing to keep in mind is that unlike with airplanes, you can aggregate demand with railways. For example, if there was a line that went from Philly to Chicago via Pittsburgh and Cleveland, the stretch from Philly to Pittsburgh wouldn't just be carrying people travelling between those two cities, but also Philly and Chicago or Cleveland. Add in a few more stops along the way (not too many, though, because you want to keep this high speed), plus connecting services (Philly to NYC, Boston, Baltimore, and DC; Cleveland and Chicago to all over the Midwest), and you add even more people travelling the stretch from Philly to Pittsburgh without necessarily having either of those cities as an origination or destination.

[pman]

Originally Posted by Awesomo.2000

God forbid if we do something like Europe. This is where this country has got to grow up. We will never get further ahead if we keep acting like this. Europe destroys us in many catagories like Healthcare, transportation, education, and many others. However, the conservative idea in America is, "We's cants be like them there Frenchy french. I'm American. I'm not for inovation anymore like my grandfathers generation was. Guns N beer man, guns n beer."

Europe is made up of many different countries, it would be incorrect to say they're all ahead in healthcare (there are serious costs to the socialized healthcare they have that many lefties overlook, such as being put in a queue with no regard for your actual health). secondary education is largely superior but not so with their university system. transportation is one area they seem to be gaining ground. after airline deregulation in europe, they now have an excellent network of air, rail, and car. that said, it's frustrating when peole write things off simply because it's frome europe or pittsburgh.

Originally Posted by Awesomo.2000

Maglev will be a huge upfront cost, but the long run savings would be huge. It is a great technology that would greatly benefit this state, and this city. But I will never see it in my life time, because it is "Frenchy Like".

I think you have to build to to Philly or not at all. the chinese built a magleve from shanghai airport but because of cost constraints (it needs to be very straight) they couldn't get it to the city center so you have to switch to the subway which, of course, is besides the point of the mag leve to being with. if you spend all that money on a small demonstration system to get to pittsburgh airport from pittsburgh, it'll likely not have enough riders and ruin potential future lines. And for the money, you could have an incredible high speed train to Philly. that said, it's rumored that some new innovations in the mag lev tech have lowered the maintenance and build out costs. If true, maybe it's worth exploring. In Philly there's a reasonably wide ROW entering the city from the west that could accomodate another set of tracks. Still, conventional HSR can be built in phases. For example, it would be a new tunnel through the alleghenies connecting with the current Harrisburg line which could be straightened out later (there are at least two curves that would have to be eliminated). It's important to get the project right because if it goes to nowhere, the tech will never live it down. IMO, and then it would have an unfair reputation.