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.
who's going to pay for a passenger transnational and regional choo-choo system? i? not likely.
Oh yeah, you're gonna pay. They're called t a x e s, and they're not optional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by multitrak
i have no use traveling by commercial airlines now, much less by trains on a regular basis. private enterprise? been there, done that. government? can you say amtrak? and what's going to be the cost? a trillion? two? more, eventually a whole lot more. when you get to your destination or transfer point, what are you going to drive? that's right, a good ole gas or moonshine burning car/truck/suv.
First, it's about the teeming masses. It's not about you personally. And what has already been done is becoming increasingly irrelevant, as circumstances they are a-changin'. Remember the role the train and the stagecoach once played? As cars become less affordable, the tax base needed to maintain road networks dwindles. Am I saying we're on our way to dirt paths? No, but I don't think we won't be able to afford anywhere near all the road networks we have today. Today it costs around $200,000 per mile to re-surface a 2-lane asphalt (HBP) road. And it's ~$675,000 per mile to put an asphalt overlay on a 4-lane interstate. Per mile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by multitrak
plus with real inflation running 5+% annually (can you say enormous cost overuns?), increased food production and expansion now is a greater priority than a multi-trillion dollar rail boondoggle that benefits only a handful of states, not the entire nation. train travel is a romantic holdover from a bygone past. if buffett loves trains so much, then let him build the damn thing...
Rail utilization is already increasing...and it's already used as a means of moving food to market, and food industry input products (fertilizer, seed, packing materials etc), among other things. As a teenager I worked in a fruit and vegetable processing plant that loaded carrots and melons onto railroad cars as well as trucks.
When a plane ticket from Chicago to New York gets to $1,000 (in today's dollars), that train will look more attractive. Especially if you can take your electric or hybrid car (only suitable for local travel) with you on the train. There are lots of possibilities that use far less energy than an airplane.
who's going to pay for a passenger transnational and regional choo-choo system? i? not likely. i have no use traveling by commercial airlines now, much less by trains on a regular basis. private enterprise? been there, done that. government? can you say amtrak? and what's going to be the cost? a trillion? two? more, eventually a whole lot more. when you get to your destination or transfer point, what are you going to drive? that's right, a good ole gas or moonshine burning car/truck/suv. if it can't run without a subsidy, then it will never get built out. and without subsidies, it will not be profitable. plus with real inflation running 5+% annually (can you say enormous cost overuns?), increased food production and expansion now is a greater priority than a multi-trillion dollar rail boondoggle that benefits only a handful of states, not the entire nation. train travel is a romantic holdover from a bygone past. if buffett loves trains so much, then let him build the damn thing...
Whatever the cost, it will be far cheaper in the long run than what we spend on the current morass of a transportation system that we are now trying to support. One of the most pernicious things about the highway and air travel system of the US is that so much of its costs are hidden from the general public in other taxes and cost inefficiencies, not to mention the untold environmental and security costs that it imposes. Our current transportation "system," without doubt, represents one of the greatest dupings of the American people that has ever been perpetrated upon them.
Freight and--eventually--most medium-distance and commuter traffic is going to go back to the rails. The only question is whether it can be effected in some sort of cost-effective and orderly manner, or whether it comes as a panicked, expensive, and disorderly reaction--AFTER a catastrophic economic meltdown caused by the failure of our current automobile/air-dependent transportation system.
PS--Anyone who holds Amtrak up a reason to NOT have a passenger rail system doesn't understand how Amtrak has been capital-starved and mis-managed from its inception. The best description I can give is this: Much of Amtrak's equipment is 25-30 years old or more, for which Amtrak has been only able to afford minimal maintenance since its purchase. Amtrak has no money to purchase newer, more reliable equipment, even though it is commonly available. (Anybody know that one of the US's premier passenger rail car builders in located in Fort Lupton, Colorado? I didn't think so.) Amtrak must share most of it routes with thousands freight trains, over rights-of-way operated and maintained pretty much exclusively for the freight trains, with Amtrak's presence there sort of an afterthought. Of the zillions of miles of railroad, Amtrak is only permitted to operate on a few of them, and must travel at the predominant speed of the freight trains, which is usually much slower than a passenger train (not talking high-speed rail here, just a plain ol' conventional passenger train) is capable of running. Because of this, it is often inconvenient or outright impossible to use Amtrak to get where you need to go. When Amtrak asks for some money to buy new equipment, expand its routes, or to be given higher priority on the railroads--it is pilloried for asking for a "pork-barrel" subsidy, while Amtrak's automobile and air competitors get far more public monies lavished on them for a much more inefficient system--and are praised for "making an investment in public infrastructure."
In that environment, is it any wonder that Amtrak is not a shining example of what rail travel could be?
Oh yeah, you're gonna pay. They're called t a x e s, and they're not optional.
it's as optional as tax avoidance, and perfectly legally. as always, people can vote no with their feet and pocketbooks.
Quote:
First, it's about the teeming masses. It's not about you personally. And what has already been done is becoming increasingly irrelevant, as circumstances they are a-changin'. Remember the role the train and the stagecoach once played? As cars become less affordable, the tax base needed to maintain road networks dwindles. Am I saying we're on our way to dirt paths? No, but I don't think we won't be able to afford anywhere near all the road networks we have today. Today it costs around $200,000 per mile to re-surface a 2-lane asphalt (HBP) road. And it's ~$675,000 per mile to put an asphalt overlay on a 4-lane interstate. Per mile.
so what's going to be the cost per mile to build and obtain the right of way access for transcontinental passenger rails? 5-10 times of what you quoted for highway maintenance? i have no idea, but it will cost double to triple of the projected initial cost (don't forget the lesson of the trans-alaskan pipeline). let your "teeming masses" pay for it then. in retrospect, dirt roads don't sound too bad to me... remember that you guys preach constantly that the country is broke. maybe the chinese, who largely built the first railroads, will finance a newer version with that $1.5 trillion dollars they hold in reserve. yeah, right...
Quote:
Rail utilization is already increasing...and it's already used as a means of moving food to market, and food industry input products (fertilizer, seed, packing materials etc), among other things. As a teenager I worked in a fruit and vegetable processing plant that loaded carrots and melons onto railroad cars as well as trucks.
freight doesn't mind going an average of 50 mph across the country, but people do!
Quote:
When a plane ticket from Chicago to New York gets to $1,000 (in today's dollars), that train will look more attractive. Especially if you can take your electric or hybrid car (only suitable for local travel) with you on the train. There are lots of possibilities that use far less energy than an airplane.
microjets look really good to me now. share the costs like carpooling and it's much cheaper than commercial flying and without the indignity of strip and cavity searches. and about hybrid cars, a long range fuel cell/ice vehicle might be available in the not too distant future.
Freight and--eventually--most medium-distance and commuter traffic is going to go back to the rails. The only question is whether it can be effected in some sort of cost-effective and orderly manner, or whether it comes as a panicked, expensive, and disorderly reaction--AFTER a catastrophic economic meltdown caused by the failure of our current automobile/air-dependent transportation system.
freight is currently profitable, so no problem there. but if we get rails by politician, then it will be as noxious and convoluted as war by politician...vietnam.
As mandated by Congress, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) performed a commercial feasibility study (CFS) of high-speed ground transportation. The CFS results are summarized in a report titled High Speed Ground Transportation for America(U.S. Federal Railroad Administration, Sept. 1997). Estimated costs from the CFS and similar State-sponsored studies are $300,000, $550,000, $3 million, and $5 million per mile to upgrade existing railroad to operate at 90, 110, 125 and 150 mph respectively.
Last edited by multitrak; 04-23-2008 at 12:03 PM..
Reason: link addition
No, but I don't think we won't be able to afford anywhere near all the road networks we have today.
The correct statement is that we can't afford to maintain the road network we have RIGHT NOW.
Fact is, our road infrastructure--especially the really expensive stuff like bridges, overpasses, and all of that--is deteriorating faster than it can be repaired and rebuilt.
People like multitrak will never understand that driving a hybrid down the road will not solve that problem, because not only does the car burn oil--the road itself is MADE OUT OF OIL. End of cheap oil--end of cheap road. And, as you point out, Bob, right now the roads aren't cheap to fix.
Let's look at rail vs. road: Average asphalt life on a highway - 7-10 years.
Average concrete life on a highway - 15-30 years.
Asphalt - non-renewable resource, difficult to recycle
Concrete - energy-intensive resource, difficult to recycle
Average rail life on a railroad - 25-100 years
Average tie life on a railroad - 20-40 years (wood); 25-50 years (concrete)
Wood - renewable and recyclable
Steel - non-renewable, but easily and nearly completely recyclable.
Oh yeah, railroads do not need the width of right-of-way that roads do, are less labor-intensive to maintain, and take one-third of the fuel to move a ton a mile than a truck does.
Isn't it funny that the so many otherwise "free-marketers" gloss over the fact that, with few exceptions, nearly all of the US road network must be publicly built, publicly maintained, and massively taxpayer-subsidized; while nearly all of the railroads (freight railroads, at least) are efficient enough that they are privately-owned, privately maintained, privately operated, and actually pay property taxes on their rights-of-way and equipment while they are at it--and still manage to make a profit for their shareholders.
it's as difficult as breaking up the old pavement, recycling it on-site, and using it for the underlying sub-base and new pavement.
Quote:
Recycling of concrete pavement is a relatively simple process. It involves breaking, removing and crushing concrete from an existing pavement into a material with a specified size and quality.
There are no restrictions on the types of concrete pavements that can be recycled. Successful and economical recycling projects have included jointed plain pavement, jointed reinforced pavement, continuously reinforced pavement and even airport pavement over 17 inches thick.
In terms of the overall environment, recycling concrete greatly saves energy compared to mining, processing and transporting new aggregates.
it's not that i don't get it as much as i don't believe it, the "it" being rails as our transportation salvation!
Last edited by multitrak; 04-23-2008 at 12:32 PM..
Reason: addition
it's as difficult as breaking up the old pavement, recycling it on-site, and using it for the underlying sub-base and new pavement.
Partly right. Absolutely, recycling of concrete is much less energy-intensive than making it new (cement production is extremely energy-intensive), but still requires substantial energy to recycle. A friend who worked in highway construction told me that recycling concrete takes basically the same energy as crushing new rock for sub-base; where the energy-savings comes in is the fuel saved by not having to transport new crushed rock to the site. If the crushed concrete can not be recycled on site, the economics become much worse.
I will also agree with you, multitrak, that a massive government boondoggle to build high-speed rail is a mis-investment. What is needed is a concerted effort to build capacity to accommodate 70-90 mph passenger rail speeds on as much of the existing rail network as possible (current 30-year old Amtrak passenger equipment is 90 mph-capable without modification; most mainline US freight trackage is already 79 mph passenger-speed capable if slower traffic does not slow the passenger train). That was the system in place from the 1920's-1950's in the US, and it was fast and efficient. It would also be fast enough to compete effectively with both autos and air on medium-haul (150-500 mile) routes. It would be the biggest bang we could get for the buck to reduce air and highway congestion, drastically reduce oil use, and to curtail air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and viewshed destruction caused by highways. It would also be sustainable and affordable, compared to our current highway network that is neither.
it's not that i don't get it as much as i don't believe it, the "it" being rails as our transportation salvation!
Delta Airlines, down $6.39 Billion in Q1 08
United Airlines, down $537 million in Q1 08
Northworst Airlines, down $191 million in Q1 08
AMR, down $328 million Q1 08
Frontier Airlines, now operating in Chapter 11 bankruptcy
ATA Airlines, ceased operating in Chapter 13
Skybus, ceased operating in Chapter 13
The news just keeps getting worse. Keep in mind these guys are burning fuel at prices contracted a year ago, so we know their gas is going to be 30% more expensive still this time next year when they're paying today's price for their fuel. And there is no sign anywhere that fuel prices are unlikely to stick at the higher levels. This, folks, is a fact of life now, and we'd better start getting used to it.
As they mark up their fares to reflect costs, demand will drop. As demand drops, all that expensive tin on the ramp becomes underutilized, and their cost basis climbs, forcing rates even higher, forcing demand to drop...
I remember when being part of the "jet set" implied movie-star like wealth...in the 1960s the average Joe just didn't hop on a DC-8 and go see Grandma Millie in New York when the urge hit. Those days appear to be approaching again. I just hope that means we'll have trim attractive flight attendants again, rather than overweight battleaxes and the cutesy Boy George types that add to the TSA pain when duty forces me to fly the friendly skies.
Right now rail looks to be the best probable option for long-distance travel in a $200+/bbl world.
Please, everyone, get back to focusing on Colorado.
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.
as always, people can vote no with their feet and pocketbooks.
remember that you guys preach constantly that the country is broke. maybe the chinese, who largely built the first railroads, will finance a newer version with that $1.5 trillion dollars they hold in reserve. yeah, right...