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 the usual suspects - stricken with a severe case of collective amnesia - will be whining about how Obama isn't doing enough to promote alternative transport
Perhaps we should turn the question around: why do some conservatives hate any type of train you can actually ride, insist nobody will ride even after trains are filled with riders and claim train riders are evil? I challenge one of them to get in a chauffeured limousine at rush hour and try to beat the train from Naperville to downtown Chicago. And that is not even a high speed train! Of course someone like that would be shocked to find that some of the passengers read theWall Street Journal!
Order goes to chaos, not the opposite.
Heat goes to cold, not the opposite.
Every process or transformation has waste, and is never 100% efficient.
The extraction of useful work from a fuel is often measured in terms of percentage.
Electrical motors are 95% efficient.
Internal combustion engines (otto cycle) are about 35% efficient. Purportedly, six stroke engines claim 50% efficiency.
For a unit of fuel, you can get 2.7 (.95/.35) times as much work done by electrical motors than with internal combustion engines.
Ignoring all other factors, for any finite supply of fuel, you can do almost 3 times as much with electrical powered machinery than with gasoline engine powered machinery.
An electric locomotive, powered by overhead catenary supply will be at least 3 times more efficient than a diesel-electric locomotive, because the diesel also has to carry its fuel supply, as well as the dead weight of the powerplant.
In the post SHTF, post petroleum world, I foresee electric powered rail as the dominant transportation system.
Rail : 2000 passenger miles / gallon
Diesel Bus: 280 passenger miles / gallon
Ford Explorer : 100 passenger miles / gallon (*fully loaded with passengers)
I am not aware of any. We are far to intelligent to squander money on stuff that nobody wants to use. Freeways, highways, roads, avenues etc., designed for POVs
NOBODY?
Ah, a universal. So you only count people who think exactly as you do.
I sure hope that Rs in DC and other areas only drive POVs.
Perhaps we should turn the question around: why do some conservatives hate any type of train you can actually ride, insist nobody will ride even after trains are filled with riders and claim train riders are evil? I challenge one of them to get in a chauffeured limousine at rush hour and try to beat the train from Naperville to downtown Chicago. And that is not even a high speed train! Of course someone like that would be shocked to find that some of the passengers read theWall Street Journal!
I am not opposed to trains in itself - but they don't work for all situations.
It seems as though those on the left say that rail is always the answer for transportation issues. My first hunch is follow the money. Who gets paid for manufacturing rail systems?
I do know that there will be a push to get scanners in place with the rail systems - which means the Soros company OSI would get that contract.
Rail : 2000 passenger miles / gallon
Diesel Bus: 280 passenger miles / gallon
Ford Explorer : 100 passenger miles / gallon (*fully loaded with passengers)
It's possible that Hitler's fascistnation with socialism was its purported "efficiency".
To some, people are freight.
Everyone worked to stop Hitler from building a train to Moscow.
He was finally derailed in Germany by the fascists.
Whether it's a national high speed rail system, or local rail in a spread out southern city - why do Democrats like rail so much? It is not feasible in every locale.
So why is Obama still so determined to push the high-speed boondoggle? Largely it’s a deadly combination of theology and money. Powerful rail construction interests, notably the German giant Siemens, are spreading cash like mustard on a bratwurst to promote the scheme. Add to that construction unions and the ever voracious investment banks who would love to pocket fees for arranging to sell the bonds and you have interests capable of influencing either party.
Then there’s what might be called the “density lobby” — big city mayors, construction firms and the urban land owners. These magnates, who frequently extort huge public subsidies for their projects, no doubt think it grand to spend billions of public funds on something that might also increase the value of their real estate.
And finally there are the true believers, notably planners, academics, green activists and an army of rail fans. These are people who believe America should be more like Europe — denser, more concentrated in big cities and tied to the rails. “High speed rail is not really about efficient transport,” notes California transit expert and accountant Tom Rubin. “It’s all about shaping cities for a certain agenda.”
They want more government union employment and pay back from the unions with donations to the Democrat party.
Most of the cities in the US were founded around water transport and later connected by early railroads. Eventually the cities expanded by using in city and interurban electric trolley systems. The suburbs, especially in and around Los Angeles, CA, were built up around these light rail systems. These were the dominant form of transportation until the systems were bought up and scrapped by a consortium of the oil and automobile companies. This was done to eliminate the competition and to force the governments to finance auto roads to replace the rails.
After WW2 the suburbs (Levittown’s) on Long Island, NY were purposely built on a road system, The Long Island Turnpike, which even excluded busses. By requiring families to have enough money not only to buy the houses but also own automobiles one of the most effective systems of economic and racial segregation was created. I consider it an auto apartied.
Also after WW2 the aircraft industry developed for the war effort needed to stay in business and expand as much as possible. This was another customer for the oil pushers so both industries combined to get the government(s) to turn over existing military airfields to commercial use but to build many new facilities. The railroad passenger traffic diminished as the business passenger traffic took to the air. With the advent of jet engines the cost dropped enough to allow the rest of the middle class to fly instead of ride to vacation spas. The advantages of speed, along with the tremendous government subsidies, caused the long distance passenger rail business to collapsed.
Now as the petroleum industry can no longer supply cheap fuel; airline tickets are becoming more expensive as is automobile fuel. There is and will be increasing demand for less expensive transport for both commuters and intercity passengers. As a nation we can supply this demand by building both commuter and intercity High Speed Rail (HSR is not new. There were 100 mph passenger trains in 1910). The major opponents to this are the same as always, oil, auto, highway builders, with the Military complex fearful of getting shoved off the government teat, as the need for domestic investment is increased.
I believe building a new transportation infrastructure, as well as repairing the existing, is needed now. This expenditure would prevent the massive dislocation when foreign petroleum prices climb way over the $300 per bbl level. Paying for this investment could be done with increased taxes on road diesel fuel as well as gasoline. Research money could be diverted from Military spending (ending the petroleum wars would free up huge amounts of money) to enhanced HSR transport.
I would prefer my country invest in itself than borrow for bullets.
BTW - I do not expect to ride on the HSR system except for a vacation trip from Boston to Washington DC some springtime on the existing system.
And the usual suspects - stricken with a severe case of collective amnesia - will be whining about how Obama isn't doing enough to promote alternative transport
I'm an ultra-conservative and I love rail. It's my preferred mode of travel.
However, Obama's plan is crap.
If he had any intelligence and would quit rim-jobbing union bosses, he would start an initiative to move 85% of all freight to rail within 10 years.
You want jobs, there you go. Not only will no one lose their job, you'll create new jobs and those are jobs that cannot be exported or off-shored.
You also would benefit from lower prices on food and non-food stuffs, since rail isn't subject to diesel/oil price-shock like truck freight is.
With passenger rail, you have to apply a little common sense. You want to put high speed rail on the interstate corridors (New York/Miami - Detroit/Tampa - Chicago/Dallas - Seattle/San Diego - DC/Chicago) that's fine. You can put your vehicle on the rail car and tote it with you.
It's astounding that Europe can run cost-effective, efficient, safe rail services affordable for everyone, and the US is just totally discombobulated.
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.
