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 OP is a bit preachy, and roads and cars offer many advantages that rail does not offer, not the least of which is personal autonomy and the ability to get to your destination directly - like it or not roads are a more "modular" network than heavy rail is, and buildings located away from rail lines are here to stay.
Automobiles are the most convenient form of land transportation. Unfortunately, they are also most expensive. And they are heavily subsidized.
Assuming that trends continue, it will become increasingly more difficult to afford private automobiles and their infrastructure costs. That will also exclude electric and electric hybrid automobiles as they are even more expensive.
That leaves us with electric traction rail, to move the most passengers and / or cargo for our finite transportation budget.
Assuming that 80 to 90% of land transport will be rail based, expectations will have to change, and developers will need to adapt.
Last edited by jetgraphics; 04-18-2013 at 09:47 AM..
The OP is a bit preachy, and roads and cars offer many advantages that rail does not offer, not the least of which is personal autonomy and the ability to get to your destination directly - like it or not roads are a more "modular" network than heavy rail is, and buildings located away from rail lines are here to stay. However, I'm a fan of railroads and subways myself, since it certainly suits the needs of a large number of people, is energy-efficient, and can reduce congestion on roadways (more people on trains = less people on roads). Even if oil was cheap and plentiful, the U.S. would be missing out if it didn't have more of a rail system. Rapid transit in particular is efficient for getting around in urban areas, but are underutilized in the United States, as demonstrated on this map of metro systems worldwide. There are many cities over 1 million in population with no subway system. Heavy rail is nice, too, but to be viable as a competitor for long-distance commuters it would have to be fast, up to the level of high-speed rail. Regions with high levels of super-commuting may be particularly suited to high-speed rail. If I recall correctly, high speed rail is most competitive in the 100-500 mile range, which overlaps with super-commutes.
As for myself, I'm not really interested in boarding a slow train, especially if driving there would be as fast or faster. I would be interested in a higher-speed train, so if the poll was still open I'd vote for >65 mph.
Private transporation is definitely more comfortable, we all know it! Private Jet is even better.
But the environment, natural resource and infrastructure cannot support so many automobiles.
To deal with the problem, new technology + public transportation = ultimate solution. New enegy still has a very long way to go， which left public transportation as the only viable way to combat the problem effectively. At least, make public transporation an option for those who are willing to sacrifice the convenience of private transporation and allow car owners to keep their cars.
Private transporation is definitely more comfortable, we all know it! Private Jet is even better.
But the environment, natural resource and infrastructure cannot support so many automobiles.
To deal with the problem, new technology + public transportation = ultimate solution. New enegy still has a very long way to go， which left public transportation as the only viable way to combat the problem effectively. At least, make public transporation an option for those who are willing to sacrifice the convenience of private transporation and allow car owners to keep their cars.
A combination of faster trains and parking charges, already fait accompli in some cities, would encourage use. Of course drivers who don't mind paying more and wasting time in traffic would have that option. Private jet? Even the super rich would only use that for long trips.
Automobiles are the most convenient form of land transportation. Unfortunately, they are also most expensive. And they are heavily subsidized.
You get what you pay for . And also, the automobiles themselves are not heavily subsidized*, although the roads they drive on are, since they were built by the government using tax money. Also, one should realize that rail travel is also subsidized by the government, perhaps even more so than roads seeing as the government often runs the trains as well as builds the tracks.
*There are cases like General Motors, but that's the exception, not the rule. Most car companies are self-sustaining and profitable corporations, much like railroad companies were in the 19th century.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ag77845
But the environment, natural resource and infrastructure cannot support so many automobiles.
That's what I call bunk. It's not as if we're going to run out of steel or aluminum any time soon, the road infrastructure was designed and built for the express purpose of supporting a multitude of automobiles, and automobiles have little direct impact on the environment. They are a big contributor to the indirect impact of carbon emissions, but that problem comes from how the car is powered, not the car itself (c.f. alternative fuel vehicles).
Like it or not private transportation offers many advantages over public transportation, and it is neither practical nor desirable to have rail be the exclusive means of transporting people and goods everywhere. It is also not desirable to have automobiles be the exclusive means of transportation - public transportation and rail systems are simply more efficient in certain situations, which is why I would support the basic thrust of this sentence even in the absence of environmental concerns:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ag77845
At least, make public transporation an option for those who are willing to sacrifice the convenience of private transporation and allow car owners to keep their cars.
You get what you pay for. And also, the automobiles themselves are not heavily subsidized*, although the roads they drive on are, since they were built by the government using tax money. Also, one should realize that rail travel is also subsidized by the government, perhaps even more so than roads seeing as the government often runs the trains as well as builds the tracks.
I disagree. You get [...] for the amount you pay.
Automobiles ARE subsidized as well as the infrastructure. It's just not obvious.
(GM bailout, Union sweet heart deals, Chrysler bail out, financing, tax benefits and deductions, etc, etc.)
As to AMTRAK, that is a unique situation of conflicting mismanagement, regulatory abuse, and triggered by the collapse of the private carriers in the BOSWASH corridor.
From the middle 19th century until approximately 1920, nearly all intercity travelers in the United States moved by rail. The rails and the trains were owned and operated by private, for-profit organizations.
For a long time after 1920, passenger rail's popularity diminished and there was a series of pullbacks and tentative recoveries. Rail passenger revenues declined dramatically between 1920 and 1934 because of the rise of the [subsidized] automobile. In the same period, many travelers were lost to interstate bus companies such as Greyhound Lines
. . .
During the war, troop movements and restrictions on automobile fuel generated a sixfold increase in passenger traffic from the low point of the Great Depression. After the war, railroads rejuvenated overworked and neglected fleets with fast and often luxurious streamliners – epitomized by the Super Chief and California Zephyr – which inspired the last major resurgence in passenger rail travel. The postwar resurgence was short-lived
. . .
The causes of the decline of passenger rail in the United States were complex. Until 1920, rail was the only practical form of intercity transport, but the industry was subject to government regulation and labor inflexibility. By 1930, the railroad companies had constructed, with private funding, a vast and relatively efficient transportation network, but when the federal government began to construct the National Highway System, the railroads found themselves faced with unprecedented competition for passengers and freight with automobiles, buses, trucks, and aircraft, all of which were heavily subsidized by the government road and airport building programs.
... railroads carried a substantial tax burden. A World War II–era excise tax of 15% on passenger rail travel survived until 1962. Local governments, far from providing needed support to passenger rail, viewed rail infrastructure as a ready source for property tax revenues. In one extreme example, in 1959, the Great Northern Railway, which owned about a third of one percent (0.34%) of the land in Lincoln County, Montana, was assessed more than 91% of all school taxes in the county. To this day, railroads are generally taxed at a higher rate than other industries, and the rates vary greatly from state to state.
NOTE: Private rail rights of way were NOT subsidized but TAXED, while its competitors infrastructure was paid for by the taxpayers.
In addition to the tax penalty, railroads were usually required to maintain any road that their tracks crossed, submit to strict regulation on routes and fares, and were hit doubly hard by the income tax.
This was compounded by the conspiracy to destroy electric traction rail mass transit in cities.
The political clout wielded by the automobile / petroleum / road construction bloc was illustrated
in 1963. That year, Alweg proposed to the city of Los Angeles a monorail system that would be designed, built, operated and maintained by Alweg. Alweg promised to take all financial risk from the construction, and the system would be repaid through fares collected. The City Council rejected the proposal in favor of no transit at all. LA's Worst Transit Decision
The bottom line - corruption and politics have done much of the damage to America's once dominant railroad system.
Instead of public subsidy of rail, I advocate ending all subsidies to its competitors, and ending all taxes on rail transport. Economic pressures will correct things ASAP.
Last edited by jetgraphics; 04-23-2013 at 09:08 PM..
IThe political clout wielded by the automobile / petroleum / road construction bloc was illustrated
in 1963. That year, Alweg proposed to the city of Los Angeles a monorail system that would be designed, built, operated and maintained by Alweg. Alweg promised to take all financial risk from the construction, and the system would be repaid through fares collected. The City Council rejected the proposal in favor of no transit at all. LA's Worst Transit Decision
The bottom line - corruption and politics have done much of the damage to America's once dominant railroad system.
Instead of public subsidy of rail, I advocate ending all subsidies to its competitors, and ending all taxes on rail transport. Economic pressures will correct things ASAP.
I love rail but rail has some real disadvantages over other forms of travel. Trains are tied to their rails and to their time tables. This makes road travel much more flexible and desirable both for business and private use. Rail became dominate in the 19th century because it was the only game in town. A horse and carriage is slower and more expensive for long haul travel. Water travel is still the cheapest form of travel but limited to waterways.
Even with the train the horse and the carriage remained for personal travel by those who could afford it and taxi’s for those who needed a quick ride. They also still hauled cargo before the advent of trucks and cars. Heck cable cars and latter trolleys replaced the horse drawn omnibus!
The reason for the decline and the subsidization is because other forms of travel are much more useful in certain situations. In the case of the automobile it is cheap enough that many people can afford to have their own and it isn’t limited to the time table of a train or bus and rail was never for door to door delivery outside of maybe some very large factories.
In the case of the bus cheaper to run for public transit because you no longer need to pay to keep up rail and power systems for trolleys. Trolleys are still useful in limited situations where there is enough demand to warrant them. Busses are easier to reroute around accidents, street work or just changes in demand. There are streets in my town where busses run that never had Trolley Service!
In the case of the truck door to door pick up and delivery whenever a company wants it. Rail can be cheaper over longer distances and companies still purchase rail cars of stuff but much less often now.
Oh and the car, bus, and truck can all run on the same road where as trolleys were not much use for cargo transport.
In the case of air travel much faster than rail turning trips that would take days or most of the day by rail to hours and again flexible. All you need is a runway compared to the problems of running rail(i.e. to run rail you need a route that can support the rail i.e. Ground able to support the train, not too many hills, not too many bodies of water to cross ect…). Rail is better at being cheaper than flying which is good for cargo not people.
You can not fit a 19th century world into an 21st centaury one. Things have changed and things that were economical and practical then are not now.
The reason for the decline and the subsidization is because other forms of travel are much more useful in certain situations. In the case of the automobile it is cheap enough that many people can afford to have their own and it isn’t limited to the time table of a train or bus and rail was never for door to door delivery outside of maybe some very large factories.
These other forms of you travel you mention are also heavily subsidized.
These other forms of you travel you mention are also heavily subsidized.
And provide greater benifit to society in the form of faster or more flexable travel and the only reason why rail was not subsidized(although it did get a lot of governmet favors via free land/cheap land for tracks and union stations built with tax payer money) is becase it was the only game in town. A monopoly very often. Rail is a major leap over the horse and carrage in terms of capability and speed but not so much over road travel via automobile, bus or truck.
Also taxes have paided for roads since the dawn of time. The only difference is that a road is built to a much higher standard for a car vs. a horse.
These other forms of you travel you mention are also heavily subsidized.
Quantify heavily subsidized. All transportation from Amtrak to city buses to air travel to the automobile to the bicycle to just simply walking are subsidized when you get right down to it. Sacramento's transit district operates at less than 25% farebox recovery. So for a monthly user ($100/month), the direct subsidy just to operate transit is $3,600 per user each year or a real cost of $4,800 per year.
The simple fact is that's not really any cheaper than operating a car. If you bought a 5-10 year old Civic/Corolla type car and just drove it a few thousand miles a year (which is what a transit user most likely uses) you could probably do it for less than that, save time, use less gas.
Now, if you look at the regional hopper service, that's between $75 and $120 per month (depending on route, does not allow use of other bus services). Subsidies are between $8,100 per year and $12,960 depending on route. Total cost is $9,000 to $14,440 per year. It'd certainly be cheaper to drive.
Let's take when I was going to school after returning to the States. Bus service on both ends plus hopper would have a cost to me of $2,880 and a full cost of around $18,000. For $18,000 (subsidy of $15,000 a year) I'd get a service that would take 2 1/2 to 3 hours instead of one.
Quantify heavily subsidized. All transportation from Amtrak to city buses to air travel to the automobile to the bicycle to just simply walking are subsidized when you get right down to it.
Indeed. The trick is figuring out the net subsidy. Which turns out to be ridiculously difficult to do with any level of detail.
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 also, the automobiles themselves are not heavily subsidized*, although the roads they drive on are, since they were built by the government using tax money. Also, one should realize that 
