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.
.................The US will ALWAYS need the automobile. It was invented here for a reason and that reason has not gone away.
I agree. We are far too spread out and many areas are still considered rural. A lot of towns don't even have bus systems. Also, and I can't speak for everyone in here, but not all of us have the kind of money it would take to upgrade to an electric vehicle or even electric heating costs.
It is a nice starting point.....but certainly not a cure all. Even with a tax break, I wouldn't have the money to change over.
rail would not work in the us like it does in the much smaller european countries.
what do you do when you get off the train? Not everyone is going to work near a train station.
what about cross country?
i really doubt people are going to spend days on a train when they could be there in hours on a plane, nevermind the ticket prices for days of travel compared to air.
the us will always need the automobile.
it was invented here for a reason and that reason has not gone away.
1. It could work like it did prior to the subsidy of the automobile. Check out the history for 1890 - 1920 period.
2. Streetcars (at grade) are an essential part of a robust electric traction mass transit system. There needs to be mainline (heavy freight, light HSR), interurban (between major centers), urban subways / trolleys / streetcars (local and express). In addition, employers might offer shuttle bus service from the plant to the nearest station. With multiple passengers, the overall efficiency would be reasonable.
3. See above.
4. HSR (Shinkansen lines run at speeds in excess of 260 km/h (160 mph); in China, top speeds of 350 km/h (220 mph)) versus Boeing 747 (Typical Cruise Speed at 35000 feet, 0.85 Mach 567 mph (913 km/h)). Though slower, a train from city center to city center may take less overall time than an airplane, on trips less than 400 miles.
5. Yes - but not over 200 million of them. In the coming decades, I suspect that number will fall to less than 20 million private autos in America. Suburbs not served by rail are in for rough times.
6. The resource situation in the late 19th and 20th century has changed. Sadly, our oil dependent civilization may have consumed a substantial portion of the world's fossil fuel supply in less than 2 centuries. The luxury of consuming fuel to move 2500 lbs of shell around a single occupant may not be affordable for much longer.
It won't take the place of low speed* urban rail, but for interurban and long distance, it may be a winner. (* to levitate, it has to go above a certain speed. Stop and go operation will not be advisable.)
Myself and other posters clearly have pointed out that's what we have R&D for.
And given the innovations that have come out of gubmint, GPS, internet/www even the A-bomb (though not something I'm proud of), yes I would say they have a pretty good track record of making things possible.
The problem with your retort is that there is no R&D that gets around the known limitations such as the Laws of Physics. At best, they can adapt solutions within those frameworks.
When you examine the data, the most cost effective, energy efficient, and resource efficient mode is electric traction steel wheel on steel rail.
In terms of rolling resistance, rail beats rubber tire.
In terms of surface area, rail beats automobile.
In terms of energy efficiency, electric rail beats diesel electric rail.
In terms of infrastructure, rail durability beats pavement durability.
In terms of longevity, rail cars last far longer than cars, buses, and trucks.
And last, but not least, TRAFFIC CONGESTION.
A single track has the potential carrying capacity up to nine lanes of superhighway.
A four track system (2 local, 2 express), would have the equivalent carrying capacity of over 100,000 passengers per hour (replacing 50 lanes of superhighway). http://www.city-data.com/forum/14266844-post38.html
And, no, the government did not "give us" those innovations.
They took taxpayer money and paid for it, taking a hefty slice for their own.
Last edited by jetgraphics; 09-13-2010 at 02:00 PM..
I agree. We are far too spread out and many areas are still considered rural. A lot of towns don't even have bus systems. Also, and I can't speak for everyone in here, but not all of us have the kind of money it would take to upgrade to an electric vehicle or even electric heating costs.
It is a nice starting point.....but certainly not a cure all. Even with a tax break, I wouldn't have the money to change over.
Not many people do have the money to switch over to anything. I live in one of those areas where there is hardly any public transportation for your everyday stuff. I can't get to work with it and I can barely get to enough stores with it. I HAVE to drive.
I'd like to ask the greenies something:
If we get off of fossil fuels, how do you get your online orders to your doorstep, especially if it is coming from over seas? Electric jets and electric UPS/Fedex trucks?
Costs are high. The government has estimated that a battery with a 100-mile range costs about $33,000 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100913/ap_on_bi_ge/us_electric_cars - broken link), although stimulus money could bring that down to $10,000 by the end of 2015.
1. It could work like it did prior to the subsidy of the automobile. Check out the history for 1890 - 1920 period.
2. Streetcars (at grade) are an essential part of a robust electric traction mass transit system. There needs to be mainline (heavy freight, light HSR), interurban (between major centers), urban subways / trolleys / streetcars (local and express). In addition, employers might offer shuttle bus service from the plant to the nearest station. With multiple passengers, the overall efficiency would be reasonable.
3. See above.
4. HSR (Shinkansen lines run at speeds in excess of 260 km/h (160 mph); in China, top speeds of 350 km/h (220 mph)) versus Boeing 747 (Typical Cruise Speed at 35000 feet, 0.85 Mach 567 mph (913 km/h)). Though slower, a train from city center to city center may take less overall time than an airplane, on trips less than 400 miles.
5. Yes - but not over 200 million of them. In the coming decades, I suspect that number will fall to less than 20 million private autos in America. Suburbs not served by rail are in for rough times.
6. The resource situation in the late 19th and 20th century has changed. Sadly, our oil dependent civilization may have consumed a substantial portion of the world's fossil fuel supply in less than 2 centuries. The luxury of consuming fuel to move 2500 lbs of shell around a single occupant may not be affordable for much longer.
It all looks good on paper, but it would not work well outside of the cities and the towns near the rail. It would be the most expensive project ever undertaken in the entire world to turn the expansive USA into an interconnected metropolis. I think we need to look at ALL of our options,, hydrogen, NG, etc. That is more practical at the moment. Besides, our number 1 priority should be to get off of foregin oil THEN address the fossil fuel issue. We need to crawl before we can walk.
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.
..and I totally agree...
