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.
Hydrogen cars is a better investment I think. They are much more viable than HSR, which will bleed money outside of California and the Northeast. I still think the only possible way to consider HSR in the U.S. is to take the Japanese route, and split Amtrak up into different private companies managing different regions.
As far as subjecting ourselves to enemies, it doesn't have to be this way. We have plenty of oil here that is not being drill.
And if I may ask, how much is this plenty of oil you speak of?
Quote:
People picture trains that are full of people all of the time - but that is not the case outside of rush hour. It most cases, I bet that outside of rush hour, the trains are pretty empty - yet they run and run and run - pretty inefficient. Even in rush hour, the train is full one way, and is virtually empty on the return trip to go pick up the next full load.
That is largely because oil is cheaper than water. As I can personally attest to, the demand for commuter rail grew substantially when gas prices jumped to about $4/gallon in 2008. People were having tough time getting rid of their gas guzzlers.
Most people aren't smart enough to be pro-active. They tend to be reactive. Should a government be? Who takes the blame if gas prices do go up to $5/gallon (which they surely will in a few years) and the economy tanks because of it?
Hydrogen cars is a better investment I think. They are much more viable than HSR, which will bleed money outside of California and the Northeast. I still think the only possible way to consider HSR in the U.S. is to take the Japanese route, and split Amtrak up into different private companies managing different regions.
Agree on both accounts. However, Amtrak really works in the north east, on its own infrastructure. The rest of the country really doesn't have the Amtrak infrastructure to be made available, as was the case in Germany and in Japan. The infrastructure in those countries was well in place before the services were privatized.
As for hydrogen cars, I'd love to have Honda Clarity in my garage but it will be a while before their proliferation can be expected. Besides that, road based infrastructure can't be expanded for ever.
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.”
Maybe it's because they like to embrace ideas that are 100 years out of date. They haven't figured out by now that we have airplanes...and they just want to ride the train. That's what socialism does for you--it kills inspiration and new technology.
And if I may ask, how much is this plenty of oil you speak of?
An Associated Press computer analysis of Bureau of Land Management records found that 80 percent of federal lands leased for oil and gas production in Wyoming are producing no oil or gas. Neither are 83 percent of the leased acres in Montana, 77 percent in Utah, 71 percent in Colorado, 36 percent in New Mexico and 99 percent in Nevada.
As far as subjecting ourselves to enemies, it doesn't have to be this way. We have plenty of oil here that is not being drill.
We currently only produce something like 1/3rd of the oil consumed in this country. So to match current consumption we would need to triple current production. There is plenty of untapped oil sources in this country, but the majority aren't economically viable until the price of a barrel of oil rises well over $100 a barrel. Once oil gets to that price, the consumption of oil will drop because the demand will drop from being too expensive. Our economy is completely dependent on oil, if the price of oil rises too high, there will at the very least be a slowing economy, and at worst a recession/depression.
When the price of oil went up so highly in 2008, practically everyone who drove a vehicle was trying to get the federal government to intervene in the market, to give the price of gas some set value.
Basically, we cannot increase oil production to meet our current needs, unless we can tap the oil reserves that are more costly to tap. So inevitably we are forced to either import most of our oil, or to reduce consumption.
Importing oil obviously is not a good thing, so we need to lower our rate of consumption. To do that without shocking our economy would require either everyone to drive much smaller vehicles, to drive much shorter distances, or for more people to use public transportation.
Most people drive larger vehicles to feel more safe, but safe from what? Well, the other large vehicles on the road. I blame a large part of this on the overabundance of "freight transport" vehicles that are on the road. These freight transport vehicles(mostly semi trucks) would not be on our highways at all if it wasn't for heavily subsidized diesel. Did you know, a single fully-loaded semi truck(weighing about 100,000 pounds), does as much damage to a road as 40,000 passenger cars. If most of the large vehicles were removed from our roadways, and these large transport/delivery vehicles were instead put on a web of rail. The size of automobiles would fall quickly. Throw in higher-priced gasoline, and the size of automobiles would fall very very quickly.
When the price of oil shot up, the number of people living in ex-urban areas dropped dramatically. But Suburban areas were largely unchanged. I worked for the railroad and most of the railroad guys drove huge dualie pickup trucks, and they lived on a couple acres usually almost an hour from where they worked. And none of them were farmers btw, they made about $60-100k a year working for the railroad. The cost of fuel caused a number of them to either move into the city/suburbs or to think about moving closer to the city.
As for mass-transit, if you take NYC, you have very wealthy and very poor people who ride the public transit system. Even millionaires/billionaires have been known to frequent public transportation. A properly administered and convenient system can be almost as practical as a person automobile, and is usually far far cheaper. But the main issue with public-transit is basically a catch 22, you can't have public-transit without high density, and you can't have high density without public-transit. The reason NYC has such an extensive rail network is a combination of it being an island, and because the city is old, so it was highly dense before cars became readily available.
Quote:
What's wrong with liking your vehicle and buying cheap gas? Plenty of people on the east coast choose the train over vehicles. It's a choice.
I understand it should be a choice, what I am saying is, the government can play a role in someone decision-making. Take ethanol subsidies for instance. The government created ethanol subsidies to make ethanol more attractive, because it is produced in this country. This made gas cheaper, but it actually increased overall consumption rather than lowered it, while driving up the costs of corn, which is both human food, and also a food stock for livestock.
When the government makes gas prices artificially low, then they are actively promoting the growth of the car culture. If government makes gas prices artificially high then they are actively promoting density and the mass-transportation/conservation culture. Currently government is keeping gas prices artificially low, by paying for much of the automobile-related expenses from income that does not come from the gas tax.
If you look at even the property tax in state and local governments. A huge chunk of the tax goes to building roads and paying for schools. So what if you don't drive and you don't have any children?
Obviously you can make the argument that public-education is a public good and deserves to be "subsidized" by people who don't have children in school. But can you really make the same argument for roads?
An Associated Press computer analysis of Bureau of Land Management records found that 80 percent of federal lands leased for oil and gas production in Wyoming are producing no oil or gas. Neither are 83 percent of the leased acres in Montana, 77 percent in Utah, 71 percent in Colorado, 36 percent in New Mexico and 99 percent in Nevada.
From 2004 - Most oil leases on public lands go unused
I would guess that those figures have not changed much. And these figures do not include Alaska.
Agree on both accounts. However, Amtrak really works in the north east, on its own infrastructure. The rest of the country really doesn't have the Amtrak infrastructure to be made available, as was the case in Germany and in Japan. The infrastructure in those countries was well in place before the services were privatized.
As for hydrogen cars, I'd love to have Honda Clarity in my garage but it will be a while before their proliferation can be expected. Besides that, road based infrastructure can't be expanded for ever.
Like you, I hate traffic, and I think that we should do more to expand rail service and find ways to make it more efficient. I don't like buses because they get crowded and not comfortable, but trains can be built much wider than what a road will allow, and they do. Which is how Amtrak can have wide, comfortable seats and plenty of aisle space. The key to making crosscountry HSR viable is to pretty much have gas prices at the European level. My fiancee's dad's car costs around $100 (about £60-£70) to fill up when I was there in December. The trains there from Slough to London-Paddington are full up even outside of rush hour back and forth. But remember, they live extremely clustered together gas is expensive as hell, and the roads are narrow and too few because there's a serious lack of space
Maybe it's because they like to embrace ideas that are 100 years out of date. They haven't figured out by now that we have airplanes...and they just want to ride the train. That's what socialism does for you--it kills inspiration and new technology.
That isn't exactly a fair statement. Airplanes are less fuel-efficient than trains, and they will never surpass the efficiency of a train in moving a given amount of cargo. And the shorter the trip, the efficiency of a plane drops considerably.
What planes lack in efficiency they make up for in speed. Which is why planes tend to be much more popular, and why they don't require almost endless government subsidies to stay in business.
Planes are usually very "full" compared to trains. The occupancy rates for airplanes are usually around 90%, whereas trains are typically only about 30-40%. Airplanes are very compact, with short ceilings, and even less leg-room. Trains are usually much less compact and comfortable.
Airplanes are more convenient because of their speed. But high-speed rail COULD be cheaper, while using far less fuel. And would actually be faster than airplanes for shorter trips.
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed
Hydrogen cars is a better investment I think. They are much more viable than HSR, which will bleed money outside of California and the Northeast. I still think the only possible way to consider HSR in the U.S. is to take the Japanese route, and split Amtrak up into different private companies managing different regions.
Hydrogen cars are stupid. Hydrogen is not a fuel persay, it is an energy storage system(basically it is a sort of battery). The "hydrogen battery" is charged with electricity, with a certain amount of conversion loss. The only reason hydrogen cars are even remotely a novel idea, is because actual battery technology is so poor right now that it is impractical to drive an "electric car". But the future is undoubtedly the electric car. The hydrogen car is nothing but a short-lived transition to the electric car.
As for splitting up Amtrak into regional companies, what is the point anyway? If they are split into different regions, they won't actually compete with each other. A non-publicly-funded Amtrak simply couldn't exist anywhere outside of the Northeast. It reminds me of how the broke up AT&T. What did it actually do anyway? I have a friend who has been working for SBC since the breakup, and he never understood it.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 02-22-2011 at 01:58 PM..
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.
