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.
I'm not much of a fan of trains as people movers. Either urban or city to city. The one experience I had was in Portland, Or. They built a rapid train system there. Called it Fast Area Rapid Transit (FART) or something like that. It ran along side the freeway and was suppossed to relieve congestion on it. It did nothing of the sort. They took the normal bus lines out of service for that area and route. So mostly, only the people who took the bus in the first place used it. They installed hugh parking lots for park and ride and the lot was covered with broken glass from all the car break ins while the commuters were at work. The FART system worked two ways. It allowed the people from the suburbs to ride public transit to work but by the same token it gave inner city criminals the cheap means to get to the suburbs where all the money was. They were taking the FART system and riding to the lots where people parked their cars during the day and stealing them. Ultimately the state taxpayers subsidized the ticket price to the tune of 10.75 for each rider. A giant boondoggle. The freeways were just as packed as before.
If the feds want to get a bang for their buck, they should invest in small shuttles that travel a route that is totally interconnected for a one fare price and use natural gas as the fuel. They could stack the buses on certain high density routes at peak times and schedule accordingly. Basicly a city wide shuttle system like the trolleys of old. A true consumer friendly system would entail a person walking no more than two blocks from their home and board a local shuttle that could transfer to any part of the city.
All these tracked, rapid transit systems are political boondoggles that sound good from the political soapbox but deliver nothing but taxpayer funded subsidies in the end.
I agree that anything planned, conceived and implemented by any partisan political committee is more likely to be a disaster than a solution.
Freeways will be packed, as long as people can afford to pay for infrastructure, fuel, automobiles, supporting industries, loss of usable surface area, health problems from pollution, and so on. The "marketers" of light rail and high speed rail tend to overstate the wrong issue, in trying to sell "sizzle" instead of the "steak". And substituting buses for rail is only economical if you assume that the costs for infrastructure are bearable - but 99% of road damage is done by trucks and buses. Natural gas may very well become more available, however, even the most optimistic projections still come up with only a 20 year respite... then the spigot is turned way down.
Here's the issue, plain and simple:
Any fossil fuel is a finite resource, that will become progressively more expensive and less available, as time goes on.
At this time, biofuel development has little hope of substituting for the billions of gallons consumed by Americans.
Electric automobiles will not be a substitute for the petroleum powered automobile, based on current state of the art in battery (or ultracapacitor) technology. Plus, electric cars still require the expensive and wasteful infrastructure.
Is government funding the solution?
[Excremental expletive deleted] NO.
Government is the real problem, skewing everything into a game to gather more revenue and more power.
Getting government out of the way is nigh impossible, after three generations of incremental national socialism. Even those who wish to run for office, have to comply with so many regulations that it is an exercise in futility to buck the system.
However, "after the collapse", it may be painfully obvious that whatever civilization remains, it will have to deal with facts, the laws of physics, and getting the most done with the least resources.
I may be in error, but relying on the available data, Americans have to transition from the paved road - petroleum - rubber tire mode of transportation as the dominant form of land transportation.
Since jet packs and sky cars are not going to be available, and magnetic levitation is far too expensive (even those using Halbach arrays), it leaves us with [] electric powered [] steel wheel on steel rail based transportation... in all its forms.
And any present or future development that assumes the gas-guzzling automobile will be still dominant, is contrary to reason... which means any escalation in expenditures for highway expansion, etc, is suicidal.
Though most Americans do not embrace the necessity of it, as time goes on, it will become painfully obvious that we must reverse our course down the "road" of suburban sprawl, strip malls, shopping centers. We will have to "Go Back To The Future", as in partying like it's 1899, without a future of cheap and plentiful fossil fuels before us.
In short, population consolidation, into more compact cities, towns, and villages, served by electric rail (mainline, interurban, urban, high speed rail, whatever), with the dwindling fossil fuels prioritized to mechanized agriculture and aircraft. And that's the "best case scenario". You don't want to think about the "worst case scenario" - like worldwide conflict over petroleum - with no one winning.
Without the MTA & NJ Transit ("urban rail"), New York would grind to a halt. Fly to Chicago and get the subway from the airport into town ..... so much quicker and cheaper than a cab. Fly to Baltimore and get the train into DC ... again cheap and quick. And there are plenty of other examples.
You're right about the viability of these systems. They were put in place with the original infrastructure of the urban areas involved. Subways in NYC are critical and effective. The El in Chicago is the same. Areas out west where there was no initial planning for these systems at the front end, not so much.
After reading the pros of the rail, I might be more for it if there was some kind of way to plan out a country-wide rail system, like how the interstates are. Of course it would link the big cities first and then expand from there. But at this point, from what I've heard, just having little sections built first, and subsidized by the feds, I don't really like the idea so much.
Country-wide rail isn't the best approach to build critical mass. Very few people would take the train from San Francisco to Denver/Chicago or NY. But many people travel between SF and Sacramento. Or SF to LA or San Diego. Focusing on interconnecting metros where there is already a good deal of travel between makes good economic sense, since you can convert the plane or car rides into train rides.
The only profitable train line outside of the northeast is actually the "Capital Corridor" that travels from Sacramento to San Jose, about a 150 mile route. Even though it is significantly more than driving the distance it is faster. And more relaxing frankly. I take the train about 6-8x per year instead of driving to visit my parents. Commuters use the time on board to work or have happy hour since the train has wifi during the week.
Quote:
I'd also like to see a projected ridership of some of these and get cost estimates and what it would take to break even on operating costs. I have a feeling the Milwaukee to Madison rail wouldn't have a whole lot of riders. I already don't understand the Hiawatha line from Milwaukee to Chicago. It takes 1.5 hours via rail and 1 hour 50 minutes by car, adding another 20 when traffic is bad. This calculation is go to from station station and does not include driving time to/from the stations, waiting for a cab after arrival in Chicago, etc. It's $22 each way. ...
So it essentially costs more than twice as much to take the train from Milwaukee to Chicago, just to shave off 20 or maybe 40 minutes if traffic is bad. Plus if you're traveling with more than one person in your party, the cost of gas and parking is split.
Anyway, after that long spiel, I still fail to see how a train is more efficient than a car if you're commuting. If it would have a large ridership, which would bring prices down, and if there were more trains interconnected so people could avoid planes without having to pay 10 times the price, it might be a good idea to look into. I should also add the the Hiawatha line is subsidized by both the WI and IL gov'ts, so even with high ticket prices, it still doesn't pay for itself.
We have been disincentivized to take transit. And we all feel entitled to drive everywhere, driving is as american as apple pie. We need to decrease our reliance on cars for environmental and health reasons. Unfortunately we do not realize how much driving is subsidized here, and factoring in options for people who do not drive isn't a priority. We've focused on making driving easier, and not on multi-mode transit.
I am happy to see Obama taking the first step for building a beter country be investing in alternate infrastructure. We need to do this to reduce our reliance on oil and improve our health. This is a good first step.
And substituting buses for rail is only economical if you assume that the costs for infrastructure are bearable - but 99% of road damage is done by trucks and buses.
Road damage is roughly proportional to the fourth power of the axle load. A 20,000 lb. axle causes 16 times as much damage as a 10,000 lb. axle, and 160,000 times as much damage as a 1,000 lb axle (wider tires mitigate the effect slightly). 99% of the traffic damage to roads and highways comes from trucks and buses. Removing as many trucks and buses as possible (by shifting cargo and passengers to Electrified Rail) is the best hope for keeping road maintenance affordable in the coming decades.
In fact, if buses and trucks had to pay their true cost for damaging the infrastructure, they would cease to be cost competitive with rail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
Electric automobiles will not be a substitute for the petroleum powered automobile, based on current state of the art in battery (or ultracapacitor) technology. Plus, electric cars still require the expensive and wasteful infrastructure.
The electric powered automobile may have a large role to play if it can tap into a municipal power grid while traveling, as in the case of overhead power wires. Trolley buses have a long history of operation, so it's not a stretch to have short haul trucks, municipal vehicles, buses, and automobiles tapping into the power grid.
That's the only way I can see a battery limited electric car having any chance of replacing the family gas guzzler.
We have an empty train to nowhere that runs twice a day in Austin.
And they want to build a second line now.
Would a private company have done this ? Would a private company's planners played around with numbers to make it look good on paper so that it would pass and be built anyway ?
Would a private company go and build a second line based on the failure of the first line ?
Send rail to your airport. I was in Austin last month and spent about $30 taking a cab to my hotel downtown. Your public transit is as bad as it is here in SD.
If people do not want to ride it, it will not support itself, so private industry wants nothing to do with it. Why should the gov't step in and say "Hey, yeah, even though no private business wants to take a risk, we'll take it and if it fails, oh, well." Yet another wasteful spending project that people won't even use. The gov't doesn't feel the pain like a business would if it were to fail.
What vision am I supposed to have? Delusions of grandeur that every major city will be connected through a gov't-run HSR within the next 20 or so years? That's all fine and dandy, except for the "gov't-run" part. If people want it and there is a demand, a private company would be stupid to NOT step in and build the thing. That is not the case here, though.
the national highway system wasn't exactly profitable for most of the country either...are you saying that shouldn't have happened?
Some of the new conservatives have offered to return the money allocated to their states for this boondoggle back to the government to pay off the federal debt. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has flatly told these upstanding people looking out for our best interest that this money cannot be returned to pay off the federal debt. If states do not want their high speed boondoggle money, the money will go back into the boondoggle pot, to be dispersed to other states for their high speed boondoggles.
I am frankly sick of this spending! When will it end?
True conservatives are the only hope for this country. Why do we need rail when our roads work just fine?
Is this a serious question? LOL...uh, a LOT of people come into the city everyday. Just because YOU don't know them doesn't mean that they don't. My brother and his wife live in Ann Arbor and drive to the city daily in two separate cars.
Not enough to justify the costs. And as stated, people would still have to drive (or take a taxi) to get to their designated point or to get home since the stations aren't planned to be near the bus stations. And many people don't live in anreas that have a bus system, at all. Besides, the proposed HSR from A2 to Detroit is stated to be ran at only certain times of the day, so it wouldn't benefit everyone anyway.
As I said, it can't remain the way it is. But I think many people want to change our mode of transportation to equal that of Europe's and face it, the infrastructure is nothing alike. The U.S does not have the density (other than pockets of the northeast and maybe parts of the west coast) that the EU has.
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.
When will it end?
