Honest question - What is the fascination with rail systems amongst those left of center? (enemies, activist)
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.
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.”
Rail is more efficient than personal automobiles on so many levels. The amount of roads in rural areas is sickening. Something like 1/3rd of all land in a city is dedicated to roads or parking. The alternative to public transportation is personal automobiles, which promote urban sprawl, and mass consumption of oil. Which puts us in the pocket of people who don't like us, forcing us to get involved in foreign nations(especially the arab world).
A city like NYC uses FAR less energy per capita than less-dense cities, without even trying. NYC could become even more efficient by updating some of their old buildings insulation.
People like their automobiles, cry when theres traffic and demand roads with more lanes, and more highways. The reason cars are as attractive as they are, is because gasoline is relatively cheap. If gasoline was as expensive as it is in most other countries, you would see a very sudden drop in the number of personal automobiles, and a call for more public-transportation and an increasing density of cities.
The real problem with cars is, the real costs of driving are being subsidized by a combination of direct government subsidies, through people who don't personally drive, or people who don't drive often. The gas tax needs to be much higher than it currently is, to pay for the real cost of roads.
I used to work for the railroad, if you look at freight for instance. A loaded train is the equivalent of hundreds of semi trucks. And to move that train takes a fraction of the amount of fuel as it takes to move those semi trucks.
The real problem with rail though, is that it has become so prohibitively expensive to implement that only governments can afford to create the system. Compare that to the first public-transportation systems being entirely privately financed and cheap.
The cost of the system has been bloated by regulations and unions. So the costs are so expensive, there is no real competition. There is just political interests paid for by private companies, who would benefit from the fat government contracts.
I don’t think this is a democrat versus republican issue. This is progressive versus conservative issue. As a progressive, I believe in conservation, looking farther into the future. I am a supporter of a proper railway infrastructure, long distance, short distance, high speed and commuter rail.
Take commuter rail, for example. I moved to Dallas from San Francisco in 1997. The urban sprawl in the Bay Area was friendly to commuter rail development. And BART works. I never had to deal with traffic and toll and parking in downtown SFO.
Dallas area is perhaps one of the best examples of urban sprawl. DART light rail was virtually non-existent at the time. Trinity Railway Express (commuter rail) connecting Ft Worth and Dallas downtowns just started, and it quickly became my favorite mode of transportation to either downtown, and (especially) to watch the Dallas Mavericks. No parking and traffic mess.
A little over a decade later, the light rail service has been greatly expanded. The demand grew rapidly over last 3-4 years. In couple of years, virtually every corner will be connected, or so it seems. This is natural progression in a society that is aware of limited natural resources. What was non-existent now has red line, blue line, green line, yellow line and orange line, criss-crossing the metro. The urban development has accelerated along the lines. What is not to like about it?
As far as the points made against High Speed Rail are concerned, they are primarily non-sense. German, French and Chinese have an upper hand now because they didn’t have their head stuck in the sand. Do their firms not benefit from, say, airline-related developments and subsidies? Could the same “excuses” not be made for highway and oil subsidies?
While I’m quite passionate about railways, as a progressive I also find the need to reduce our thirst for oil. And railways can help do that.
Excluding the political boondoggle of government subsidized (i.e., controlled, mismanaged, milked) electric traction rail mass transit...
Ideal for high population density locations - and since population is still doubling every 40 - 50 years, it makes sense.
Most efficient form of land transportation. (fuel consumption, rolling resistance, surface area, pollution free, scalable)
Can operate when the petroleum spigot is turned off.
Before the age of petroleum, there were boats and trains.
After the age of petroleum, there will be boats and electric trains.
Not sure about the petroleum spigot statement - in that many products that the train needs requires oil for manufacture. And what about manufacturing costs - do they play into the equation?
I can understand the bulk transport of people in east coast cities. Definitely not as feasible where the populace is spread out.
Rail is more efficient than personal automobiles on so many levels. The amount of roads in rural areas is sickening. Something like 1/3rd of all land in a city is dedicated to roads or parking. The alternative to public transportation is personal automobiles, which promote urban sprawl, and mass consumption of oil. Which puts us in the pocket of people who don't like us, forcing us to get involved in foreign nations(especially the arab world).
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
A city like NYC uses FAR less energy per capita than less-dense cities, without even trying. NYC could become even more efficient by updating some of their old buildings insulation.
People like their automobiles, cry when theres traffic and demand roads with more lanes, and more highways. The reason cars are as attractive as they are, is because gasoline is relatively cheap. If gasoline was as expensive as it is in most other countries, you would see a very sudden drop in the number of personal automobiles, and a call for more public-transportation and an increasing density of cities.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
The real problem with cars is, the real costs of driving are being subsidized by a combination of direct government subsidies, through people who don't personally drive, or people who don't drive often. The gas tax needs to be much higher than it currently is, to pay for the real cost of roads.
What?? Subsidized?? I don't get it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
I used to work for the railroad, if you look at freight for instance. A loaded train is the equivalent of hundreds of semi trucks. And to move that train takes a fraction of the amount of fuel as it takes to move those semi trucks.
The real problem with rail though, is that it has become so prohibitively expensive to implement that only governments can afford to create the system. Compare that to the first public-transportation systems being entirely privately financed and cheap.
The cost of the system has been bloated by regulations and unions. So the costs are so expensive, there is no real competition. There is just political interests paid for by private companies, who would benefit from the fat government contracts.
I can agree w/ the last paragraph.
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.
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.
