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.
You ALWAYS avoid answering this question (including when previously asked in this thread): Would NYC be better off replacing its railways network with roadways? Would your life and commute?
No, of course. Even if you could build enough highways to handle all the traffic, the cars would need to leave the highways onto the city streets to arrive at their workplace. The streets of Manhattan are congested enough as it is without the additional traffic. It would be impossible gridlock. And where would these cars park? You could bulldoze buildings for parking and wider streets but some point NYC would lose its New Yorkness. Lots of businesses would have to move for the burbs and New York's center would much less lively.
Why do I like light rail? Well, tonight my very well-maintained twelve-year-old Acura TL was totaled when a young man in an SUV hit me, and because the damage most likely far exceeds the car's book value, I'm potentially now in the market for another stupid car. Huge hassle and expense, even with insurance. My spouse rides the train to and from work, so his life won't be similarly disrupted. It sucks, but that's the price I pay for needing the damn thing.
Last edited by formercalifornian; 09-22-2011 at 10:23 PM..
Originally Posted by bobtn Rail costs are NEVER judged accurately. I love to read subsidy of $20 mill for this system, and volla, no mention of the additional COSTS we would incur were riders to get in their CARS, and add add'l wear and tear to roads (sar).
EinsteinsGhost"How do you judge the cost of any infrastructure? By how much one can charge to use it? Or, the impact it has on commerce and convenience? Not everything around you must have a price tag with profits calculated on it. Some benefits are hidden and realized via means that aren't directly visible."
That was my point, the savings on road repairs are a HIDDEN savings, which is hard to calculate,as are the extra GDP from NEW economic activity due to its presence, but these should be estimated, and the project cost s/b (Initial Cost + Operating cost for estimated life - Fares Collected for estimated life - Road repairs AVOIDED over operating life - EXTRA GDP generated due to its availability over useful life). The last two steps are what we as a society FAIL to notice.
Why do I like light rail? Well, tonight my very well-maintained twelve-year-old Acura TL was totaled when a young man in an SUV hit me, and because the damage most likely far exceeds the car's book value, I'm potentially now in the market for another stupid car. Huge hassle and expense, even with insurance. My spouse rides the train to and from work, so his life won't be similarly disrupted. It sucks, but that's the price I pay for needing the damn thing.
Light rail is certainly an appropriate means of mass transportation in high population density areas, such as major cities. However, beyond those major cities trains have little value west of the Mississippi because of the distances between major cities.
For example, nobody lives in Los Angeles and has a 9-5, M-F, job in San Diego or San Francisco. Unlike in lots of places throughout Europe, where it is common to live in Mannheim, for example, and work in Heidelberg or Worms, Germany. The towns and cities in Europe are not more than 20 miles apart, and many are within 10 miles of each other.
We simply do not have that level of population density west of the Mississippi River.
We simply do not have that level of population density west of the Mississippi River.
Before sprawl set in, rail WAS the dominant form of transportation west of the Mississippi, and populations settled accordingly.
To illustrate: Streetcar suburb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
LOS ANGELES
Angelino Heights, built around the Temple Street horsecar (later upgraded to electric streetcar as part of the Los Angeles Railway Yellow Car system), was the first suburban development outside of downtown Los Angeles.
Highland Park developed along the Figueroa Street trolley lines and railroads linking downtown Los Angeles and Pasadena. The old right-of-way was reopened in 2003 as part of the Los Angeles County Transit Authority Metro Gold Line light rail.
Leimert Park, a later streetcar suburb planned by the Olmsted Brothers firm, touted both its automobile accessibility and location along the 6 line of the Yellow Car.
Much of South Central Los Angeles first developed as streetcar suburbia, served by the Yellow Car's Vermont Avenue, Broadway, and Central Avenue lines.
West Hollywood, California was marketed by developers in the late 19th and early 20th century for its proximity, by streetcar, both to Downtown Los Angeles and Pacific Ocean beaches.
As fuel costs escalate, the pressures to economize will tend to support rail. Fuel-Efficiency - CSX
CSX trains (diesel-electric) averaged 468 miles per gallon per ton. (2000 lbs.)
If you imagine substituting 5 passengers (each : 400 lbs), that's 2340 passenger - miles per gallon fuel.
A Ford Explorer *(full load) runs 100 passenger - miles per gallon, by comparison.
The Oil Drum | Multiple Birds
"... Electrifying existing rail freight would trade 2.6 to 3 BTUs of diesel for one BTU of electricity."
Electric traction rail may have the potential to increase efficiency from 2340 passenger - miles per gallon (equiv) to as much as 7000 passenger-miles per gallon.
That is a potential 70:1 advantage over an automobile.
That's why America has to get back on track.
With a finite budget for transportation, to move the most people / cargo for the least cost, go rail.
Before sprawl set in, rail WAS the dominant form of transportation west of the Mississippi, and populations settled accordingly.
To illustrate: Streetcar suburb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
LOS ANGELES
Angelino Heights, built around the Temple Street horsecar (later upgraded to electric streetcar as part of the Los Angeles Railway Yellow Car system), was the first suburban development outside of downtown Los Angeles.
Highland Park developed along the Figueroa Street trolley lines and railroads linking downtown Los Angeles and Pasadena. The old right-of-way was reopened in 2003 as part of the Los Angeles County Transit Authority Metro Gold Line light rail.
Leimert Park, a later streetcar suburb planned by the Olmsted Brothers firm, touted both its automobile accessibility and location along the 6 line of the Yellow Car.
Much of South Central Los Angeles first developed as streetcar suburbia, served by the Yellow Car's Vermont Avenue, Broadway, and Central Avenue lines.
West Hollywood, California was marketed by developers in the late 19th and early 20th century for its proximity, by streetcar, both to Downtown Los Angeles and Pacific Ocean beaches.
As fuel costs escalate, the pressures to economize will tend to support rail. Fuel-Efficiency - CSX
CSX trains (diesel-electric) averaged 468 miles per gallon per ton. (2000 lbs.)
If you imagine substituting 5 passengers (each : 400 lbs), that's 2340 passenger - miles per gallon fuel.
A Ford Explorer *(full load) runs 100 passenger - miles per gallon, by comparison.
The Oil Drum | Multiple Birds
"... Electrifying existing rail freight would trade 2.6 to 3 BTUs of diesel for one BTU of electricity."
Electric traction rail may have the potential to increase efficiency from 2340 passenger - miles per gallon (equiv) to as much as 7000 passenger-miles per gallon.
That is a potential 70:1 advantage over an automobile.
That's why America has to get back on track.
With a finite budget for transportation, to move the most people / cargo for the least cost, go rail.
I use to ride the Figueroa Street trolley before it was canceled in the 1960s. I also worked on the Metro-Rail project in Los Angeles during the late 1980s. Rail travel was never "dominant" west of the Mississippi. What you are referring to is light rail isolated only to the major cities. All the passenger trains between major cities west of the Mississippi were phased out by the late 1960s.
Electric traction rail may have the potential to increase efficiency from 2340 passenger - miles per gallon (equiv) to as much as 7000 passenger-miles per gallon.
That is a potential 70:1 advantage over an automobile.
.
But if rail doesn't take me where I want to go it doesn't matter what the gas mileage is, does it.
We are facing uncertainty regarding energy in general. Our current consumption of oil is high and growing. Our air and water is polluted from emissions (e.g. from coal and gas). Our dependence on oil from foreign sources has us entrenched in billion dollar conflicts in several middle eastern countries. Our mining of coal is causing untold environmental damage and still many want to drill for oil here to supposedly reduce foreign dependency.
Opponents of travel / energy alternatives (The Auto Club, fiscal conservatives and big oil?) poo poo high speed and light rail and green energy in general saying they are not feasible (not cost effective or efficient?). Major centers like Los Angeles are too spread out and not suited for such systems?
Really? When we measure the cost of doing business, or not doing it, and the quality of life, it would seem we would need to account for long term environmental effects. Simply put...all the oil in the world won't make up for unhealthy air and water. Quality of life drops dramatically when those two essentials are negatively affected.
As stated by another poster, and chronicled in historical accounts, places like LA once had thriving rail systems that were effectively obsolete when the California dream of the auto / open highway was sold to us all by the auto / oil industry. LA's "sprawl" is largely due to the choice of replacing rails with autos. Maybe a switch back to rails might eventually result in more business centers.
It would seem we can't continue this lifestyle without major negative consequences. There will be costs of course (winners and losers) but what choice do we have? And it isn't just here in the US. China is experiencing severe environmental problems from their hyperbolic rate of growth and yet they are supposedly building coal plants at an unprecedented rate and may be exporting sh*tloads of coal from us.
Something needs to be done or life as we know it will be f***ed. It may not be a "multi- billion dollar boondoggle" but then what?
But if rail doesn't take me where I want to go it doesn't matter what the gas mileage is, does it.
I think that may have been the Auto Club's motto back in the day.
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.
Hope this doesn't get me labelled a "tree hugger"
