Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 02-10-2011, 10:09 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,398,176 times
Reputation: 9618

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggy001 View Post
A lot of American cities and especially the older ones on the east coast have very good public transit whether that be commuter rail or subways. Now, what do Europeans do when they get a train to London or Paris? They hop on the tube or the metro or they grab a cab. It isn't rocket science.

Now lets talk about airline tickets. First you have to get from the city out to the airport. That will cost anywhere from $25-$50 on both sides of the trip. Then you have those extra fees ... for your checked bags, to sit by a window, etc.. You don't get that on trains. Compare like with like and then factor in speed, comfort and risk of delays and, for trips up to 250 miles the train wins every time. For trips up to 400 miles, HSR wins.

Of course, right now, the airlines are whining about increased fuel costs. How long before they have their hands out for our money again? Funny how Americans complain about money for rail but have been doling it out to the airlines for years with barely a whimper.

the problem is efficiency...


which would you rather....... I live 12 miles from work...........
1) to drive when there is no traffic (maybe 2am) it would take me 15 minutes.....but during rush hour it takes me almost 1 hr, I use a tank of gas (14 gallons) a week (at $3/gallon, that's $42 a week or 168 a month)....................
.......
or..........

2)...to take mass transit I would have to DRIVE 3 miles to the train-station(belmore), then wait for a train, to get to the terminal (jamaica station) to wait to get picked up the subway (to flushing), then hop on a bus to get to work, and it would take me over 2 and a half hours......and a monthly ticket for the long island railroad is over $300 a month...plus the subway and the bus


that is the problem with mass transit ( its at least twice the time and 4 times the cost) unless you live and work only blocks away...its actually cheaper, easier, and less time consuming(and time is money) to drive, especially since you need a car( so you will already have the 'startup' cost of a car anyhow) for the other things in life (other than the work commute) life going to the beach or out to wine country.


and a highspeed would do nothing for the new york metro area, unless you ar talking about an express (non-stop ) from montauk to nyc...or a express from NYC to boston or washington DC.....or a HS from NYC to Miami with stops at the major cities down the coast
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-10-2011, 10:17 AM
 
7,006 posts, read 6,975,064 times
Reputation: 7059
Obama's High-Speed Boondoggle
High Speed Fantasy
Railroads made Chicago, and now a Chicago-rich White House wants to return the favor: remaking rail with a huge new federal investment in high-speed passenger trains.

The $787.2 billion economic recovery bill — to be signed by President Barack Obama on Tuesday — dedicates $8 billion to high-speed rail, most of which was added in the final closed-door bargaining at the instigation of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

It’s a sum that far surpasses anything before attempted in the United States — and more is coming. Administration officials told Politico that when Obama outlines his 2010 budget next week, it will ask for $1 billion more for high-speed rail in each of the next five years.
boon·dog·gle a project funded by the federal government out of political favoritism that is of no real value to the community or the nation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2011, 10:25 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,744,599 times
Reputation: 12341
Commuting
I moved to Dallas from San Francisco in 1997. While in SFO, I used BART. For that, I had to drive about two miles to the nearest station (could have taken bus as well). After a 45 minute ride, I walked a mile to my office in downtown, picking up my breakfast on the way. The ticket cost was about $9/day.


I could have dealt with traffic issues, paid toll on the bridges and paid for parking, and of course gas. Driving, simply, was not just more expensive, it was impractical. Perhaps because I didn’t mind walking, considering that I see a lot of people pull out their SUVs to run to the neighborhood grocers.
Having arrived at Dallas, driving became a necessity. DART was extremely limited, and did not serve my commute route. Then, there was an expansion. I was able to take bus to work, which I did. I was able to read or work while riding, or just relax. Now, Dallas area public transit has grown considerably in size, and popularity. If my venue happens to be on a train route, I prefer it to driving. The expansion continues and why is it happening? Because THAT is the future and the city/suburbs are growing along public transit lines, especially trains.


High speed rail
About a decade ago, I saw us lagging behind in cell phone technologies. We finally caught up. I see the same with the railway network (or the lack of). My business trips to the north east provide me the opportunities to visit friends or just take a weekend trip. I never drive. Amtrak works wonderfully. I would use rail service virtually every time I had to visit Houston or Austin or San Antonio. Amtrak does provide a service to the latter two cities, but a lame duck service. It is almost third world.
It is a shame that a lot of Americans do not recognize the benefits of the railways. Someday they will, and hopefully before it is too late. Because, railways aren’t just about going from point A to point B, but also about reducing energy dependency.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2011, 10:28 AM
 
25,024 posts, read 27,842,561 times
Reputation: 11790
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
A lot of assumptions. Look no further than the developed world in Europe and Asia. IMO, USA stopped being progressive in the 1950s, it cruised on its laurels for couple of decades and since then, friction with the demand of taking the country back is keen on putting it to the final resting ground.
You know why Americans don't buy a lot of reasons liberals give for HSR? Because they keep mentioning look at the Europeans, look at the Asians. We're not either of them. If you want to convince people that HSR is a good thing, you have to think like the average American and answer the most important question, "What's in it for me? Why should I care?" And the answer is not because the Japanese, Chinese, and Europeans do it. Believe me I want HSR in the U.S. and forego airplane travel and I already do to a small extent. When I went to go to NYC or Philly I drive half an hour to my nearest train station and take the Amtrak.

But people here are too conditioned to use their cars wherever they go, because part of the reason is that public transit options are limited in most cities. You need to improve intracity transit options before you can start down with intercity rail, and then sell the idea to the American public of WHY HSR is better than airplane travel. And I'll say it again, saying that everyone else does it, and it reduces greenhouse gases, will immediately turn off most Americans. Planners need to stop thinking like liberals, and think like conservatives and moderates, which make up 80% of the voting public.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggy001 View Post
A lot of American cities and especially the older ones on the east coast have very good public transit whether that be commuter rail or subways. Now, what do Europeans do when they get a train to London or Paris? They hop on the tube or the metro or they grab a cab. It isn't rocket science.

Now lets talk about airline tickets. First you have to get from the city out to the airport. That will cost anywhere from $25-$50 on both sides of the trip. Then you have those extra fees ... for your checked bags, to sit by a window, etc.. You don't get that on trains. Compare like with like and then factor in speed, comfort and risk of delays and, for trips up to 250 miles the train wins every time. For trips up to 400 miles, HSR wins.

Of course, right now, the airlines are whining about increased fuel costs. How long before they have their hands out for our money again? Funny how Americans complain about money for rail but have been doling it out to the airlines for years with barely a whimper.
Jaggy, most cities in the east coast, much less the U.S. don't have extensive transit like they do in NYC and Philly and Chicago. Add to that the fact that a lot of the transit agencies are not too good at providing convenient transit options. In other words, many places you have to moe about 10 or more points to get to point A, and to get to point B. When you live in a country that gets very cold in winter and very hot in summer, not many people are willing to do that. If you can improve public transit to the point that it'll take people up to or close to the doors of their homes and place of work, none of these pie-in-the-sky ideas will ever take off unless gas hits $7+ per gallon.

Again, people are willing to put up with checked bag fees, toilet fees, breathing fees, etc. if it means they can get to their destination in a few hours. The only HSR option that can compete with the speed of airplanes, so far, is maglev. But here's the kicker. Whenever companies or the government want to build something, the environmentalists on your side block these projects for YEARS and add millions of dollars in required environmental impact studies and litigation. So ironically, liberals want to expand HSR in this country, but it's the liberal environmental lobby that are blocking these plans from coming to fruition.

Because, like I said, Americans want SPEED. And they will sacrifice convenience and hassle as long as it gets them there in as fast a time as possible. Same with car travel. They will put up with traffic jams if it means they can park their car right at the front door of their office



Now HSR will come to this country. But give it time. No one's going to bat an eyelid if airline ticket prices are manageable in price, and gas prices remain under $7 per gallon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2011, 10:30 AM
 
14,249 posts, read 17,870,733 times
Reputation: 13807
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
the problem is efficiency...


which would you rather....... I live 12 miles from work...........
1) to drive when there is no traffic (maybe 2am) it would take me 15 minutes.....but during rush hour it takes me almost 1 hr, I use a tank of gas (14 gallons) a week (at $3/gallon, that's $42 a week or 168 a month)....................
.......
or..........

2)...to take mass transit I would have to DRIVE 3 miles to the train-station(belmore), then wait for a train, to get to the terminal (jamaica station) to wait to get picked up the subway (to flushing), then hop on a bus to get to work, and it would take me over 2 and a half hours......and a monthly ticket for the long island railroad is over $300 a month...plus the subway and the bus


that is the problem with mass transit ( its at least twice the time and 4 times the cost) unless you live and work only blocks away...its actually cheaper, easier, and less time consuming(and time is money) to drive


and a highspeed would do nothing for the new york metro area, unless you ar talking about an express (non-stop ) from montauk to nyc
Everyone's situation is different. When I lived near White Plains, NY, it was 15 mins to the station, 35 mins into NYC and then a two block walk. The cost was $22/round trip including parking. Driving involved 20 miles, toll on the Henry Hudson, $23 for parking and at least 60 mins door to door.

Now, to go from White Plains to Boston, there were 3 choices. Drive ... about 3 hours, fly from either LGA or Westchester County ... probably about the same, or drive to Stamford and pick up Amtrak. That one was a bit slower but not much.

I would usually take the train. Why? Mainly two reasons. First, there was less risk of delay and it was always nice to see the traffic backed up on I95 as we went past. Second, I could read, work, doze, go to the bar car for a beer or just daydream. The train was far and away the least stressful way to go. If HSR knocked an hour off that trip it would be a major win.

The other thing HSR needs to do in the NY area is to take the NY Penn bottleneck out of the picture. Amtrak trains spend too long in Penn station to make it a good option for people going from the northern suburbs to Philly, Baltimore and DC. And they need an interchange with Metro North between Stamford and Penn to serve those suburbs. But these are all details and can be easily fixed.

As I said earlier, rail and HSR should be seen as part of an integrated transportation infrastructure and not a stand-alone solution. The north east is very crowded and congested as it is and you cannot easily widen I95, add another bridge across the Hudson, etc. etc. The airports are just as crowded and delays are endemic. If it makes economic sense to add an HSR right of way then why not?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2011, 10:34 AM
 
14,249 posts, read 17,870,733 times
Reputation: 13807
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed View Post
You know why Americans don't buy a lot of reasons liberals give for HSR? Because they keep mentioning look at the Europeans, look at the Asians. We're not either of them. If you want to convince people that HSR is a good thing, you have to think like the average American and answer the most important question, "What's in it for me? Why should I care?" And the answer is not because the Japanese, Chinese, and Europeans do it. Believe me I want HSR in the U.S. and forego airplane travel and I already do to a small extent. When I went to go to NYC or Philly I drive half an hour to my nearest train station and take the Amtrak.

But people here are too conditioned to use their cars wherever they go, because part of the reason is that public transit options are limited in most cities. You need to improve intracity transit options before you can start down with intercity rail, and then sell the idea to the American public of WHY HSR is better than airplane travel. And I'll say it again, saying that everyone else does it, and it reduces greenhouse gases, will immediately turn off most Americans. Planners need to stop thinking like liberals, and think like conservatives and moderates, which make up 80% of the voting public.



Jaggy, most cities in the east coast, much less the U.S. don't have extensive transit like they do in NYC and Philly and Chicago. Add to that the fact that a lot of the transit agencies are not too good at providing convenient transit options. In other words, many places you have to moe about 10 or more points to get to point A, and to get to point B. When you live in a country that gets very cold in winter and very hot in summer, not many people are willing to do that. If you can improve public transit to the point that it'll take people up to or close to the doors of their homes and place of work, none of these pie-in-the-sky ideas will ever take off unless gas hits $7+ per gallon.

Again, people are willing to put up with checked bag fees, toilet fees, breathing fees, etc. if it means they can get to their destination in a few hours. The only HSR option that can compete with the speed of airplanes, so far, is maglev. But here's the kicker. Whenever companies or the government want to build something, the environmentalists on your side block these projects for YEARS and add millions of dollars in required environmental impact studies and litigation. So ironically, liberals want to expand HSR in this country, but it's the liberal environmental lobby that are blocking these plans from coming to fruition.

Because, like I said, Americans want SPEED. And they will sacrifice convenience and hassle as long as it gets them there in as fast a time as possible. Same with car travel. They will put up with traffic jams if it means they can park their car right at the front door of their office



Now HSR will come to this country. But give it time. No one's going to bat an eyelid if airline ticket prices are manageable in price, and gas prices remain under $7 per gallon.

Let me just emphasize that I do not see HSR as an alternative to flying but as part of an integrated transportation infrastructure. HSR makes sense up to 400 miles. Beyond that flying makes more sense. I am not advocating rail instead of air travel or road travel but as another option. I am also suggesting that it can make more economic sense in certain areas than spending money on widening highways or building new runways. This is not an either/or thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2011, 10:40 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,398,176 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggy001 View Post
As I said earlier, rail and HSR should be seen as part of an integrated transportation infrastructure and not a stand-alone solution. The north east is very crowded and congested as it is and you cannot easily widen I95, add another bridge across the Hudson, etc. etc. The airports are just as crowded and delays are endemic. If it makes economic sense to add an HSR right of way then why not?
unfortunately federal regulations get in the way sometimes too

look at I95, I81, I20, I70...most have a very nice median in the middle of the two directions(except within the cities, that's why many of the interstates that go through cities have been expanded with "outer" loops(bypasses))............why hasnt anyone thought to put up a elevated HSR, with solar panels in the middle , with built in charging points at the ground level inner shoulder (for the risers for the el) for electric cars..all cableing could be underground, and solar 'wings' on the platform of the el could at least power some of it............but no one in DC (neither party) can have the COMMON SENSE to think of that
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2011, 10:45 AM
 
25,024 posts, read 27,842,561 times
Reputation: 11790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggy001 View Post
Let me just emphasize that I do not see HSR as an alternative to flying but as part of an integrated transportation infrastructure. HSR makes sense up to 400 miles. Beyond that flying makes more sense. I am not advocating rail instead of air travel or road travel but as another option. I am also suggesting that it can make more economic sense in certain areas than spending money on widening highways or building new runways. This is not an either/or thing.
In that sense, I do agree. Right now the only places where HSR can make a big impactfrom DC to Baltimore (with spurs running to York, PA and Harrisburg, PA since thousands of people commute the Harrisburg-Baltimore-Washington corridor daily) to Philly to Boston. And I imagine the same can be said of the San Diego-San Francisco corridor
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2011, 10:55 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,744,599 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed View Post
You know why Americans don't buy a lot of reasons liberals give for HSR? Because they keep mentioning look at the Europeans, look at the Asians. We're not either of them. If you want to convince people that HSR is a good thing, you have to think like the average American and answer the most important question, "What's in it for me? Why should I care?" And the answer is not because the Japanese, Chinese, and Europeans do it. Believe me I want HSR in the U.S. and forego airplane travel and I already do to a small extent. When I went to go to NYC or Philly I drive half an hour to my nearest train station and take the Amtrak.
Why do you assume that an average American can’t admire progression in other countries? I doubt that an average American wants to live under a rock. America used to lead and now it lags. I can understand people not getting it if they haven’t stepped out of even their state. It just may be futility to try making a point about “what is in it for me”. Most people don’t look far enough, either by choice or by capacity.


Quote:
But people here are too conditioned to use their cars wherever they go, because part of the reason is that public transit options are limited in most cities. You need to improve intracity transit options before you can start down with intercity rail…
That was the point I made. In ten years, Dallas has seen a rapid expansion of its commuter rail network and work continues. Urban developments have increased along train lines. Obviously, it can’t get people who choose to live under the rock to move, but I’m sure even they will be out pending an inevitable kick in the rear.


Quote:
sell the idea to the American public of WHY HSR is better than airplane travel.
There are the stupid and there are those who know or are willing to learn. And for them all, it shouldn’t be about which is better, but having choice of both. Once again, I’ve used airlines, roadways and railways in Europe interchangeably. In many regards, I find the American trio to be extremely lacking.


Quote:
And I'll say it again, saying that everyone else does it, and it reduces greenhouse gases, will immediately turn off most Americans.
Well, you can’t help the stupid. If they prefer to live in smog, and enjoy the consequences of ozone days, more power to them. You can only hope they will catch up someday. But the desire to have an advanced railway network (not just HSR, but commuter, freight and beyond) is also about realities that include reducing oil consumption, and preferably moving away from it.


Quote:
Planners need to stop thinking like liberals, and think like conservatives and moderates, which make up 80% of the voting public.
“Planning” by itself is a forward looking. It is progressive by nature. Conservatives resist change. And when there is a desire for status quo, there is no need for planning into the future. If what you say is correct, that 80% of Americans are anti-progressiveness, then not only does it push us closer as a country to many conservative third world countries, it also suggests that America never looked forward into the future, adapting and evolving.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2011, 11:01 AM
 
Location: NE CT
1,496 posts, read 3,377,318 times
Reputation: 718
If all these people want high speed rail, and I would like it is as well, then let the private industry supply it and compete for the rail lines and rail lanes, and let the public bear the fares. There is no reason whatsoever taxpayers should subsidize high speed passenger railroads in the US.
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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top