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.
Perhaps you don't know what the word "theory" means - it's speculation.
There was a federal court case where the defendants LOST, thus it wasn't speculation, but a fact.
There WAS a conspiracy to replace streetcars with buses, etc., etc.
Keep trying to ignore facts, and distract readers. It may just work.
P.S. - in every case where buses were substituted for streetcars, ridership DROPPED. Goes to show how popular the change was. But it sure boosted sales of automobiles.
It means it is untrue. People invested in automobiles, governments invested in automobiles, and the automobile industry invested in automobiles because it was better, more equitable, and people preferred it. Street cars are a niche solution. Roads, interstates, cars, buses and trucks literally make the world go round.
Now there is some truth that people prefer rail to buses. There's something psychological about the fixed nature of rail, making it easier to understand where it's going and where it stops. Trains are also very cool. You'll definitely notice that tourists in major cities prefer rail to buses, even though the buses likely provide a better, faster route. But this applies more to subways than even streetcars and much less so than regional rail. For example, I take the subway in NYC. I rarely take the bus and would never take the LIRR (even though it was a faster option from JFK to Manhattan than the subway, too much hassle. In Toronto, where they have a subway, buses, and streetcars, I could never figure out a reason to use the streetcars. They seemed just as intimidating as the buses. I mostly used the subway and the airport train.
Anyway, I'm not sure what the Roger Rabbit streetcar conspiracy theory has to do with commuter rail. Even in the heyday of streetcars in the Triangle, were people taking trains to commute between communities? I'm pretty sure the answer is they didn't. They lived and worked in the same neighborhood and that didn't change until the automobile opened up the world to them.
Of course it is, but that's not the quote I was replying to, reread what i was quoting in my post. The user is making a claim that the only people that ride the toll road are those that have moved here where toll roads are common.
I'm NOT claiming "the only people". All I'm saying is that we have had a good influx of people from areas where toll roads are a way of life and have no objection to paying a toll, and that THOSE PEOPLE will thus jump on far more readily than locals who have lived with never having toll roads in this area will do.
Being one of those "not from an area with toll roads", When I was working in an area where I could have saved myself a couple minutes by taking the toll road, but I wasn't ready to shell out an extra $5/day ($100/mo) to do it. I did take it a couple of times when I-40 had a 15+ minute delay and I needed to get somewhere at a specific time, but those instances are rare. And I've spoken with many other "locals" who feel and do the same. However, when talking to those that have moved here from a toll roads area since NC-540 was built, they have no qualms about spending the money to save a couple minutes.
Now, when 2 minutes of my time is worth $5, and I can make that extra by using NC-504, then I'll jump on it regularly myself
I don't know what to think about Norfolk Southern these days? Everything I read
and hear says they are having a meltdown. Lots of derailments and a lot of trains
tied down because they don't have any crews for them. Who knows?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NC Observer
NCRR has two customers: Norfolk Southern and Amtrak.
To add some additional perspective, Triangle-centric projects that negatively impact NS and freight service state-wide are going to be opposed by NCRR. It's easy for leaders in the Triangle to look at the NCRR as an asset to be leveraged to achieve local mass transit goals, but they're not going to find a shared vision there at NCRR. NCRR is going to expect them to pay the "full freight" costs to improve the infrastructure to eliminate any disruption to freight. I doubt that cost is factored in to the cost numbers we've seen and could end up doubling the cost.
As you've mentioned, NCRR's mission is much broader and I can only imagine this project looks parasitic to them.
Perhaps you should do more research before posting.
Go Triangle is approaching this from a completely different perspective than the failed Durham-Chapel Hill Light Rail gig. They learned from their mistakes. Go Triangle, NCRR and NS signed a contractual agreement to work out solutions to achieving Commuter Rail. They are addressing the assumed objections upfront, and regarding Norfolk Southern , Go Triangle has committed to construct new rail lines in addition to using existing NCRR lines. Since NS doesn’t own the rail lines, they have to “play niceâ€. Amtrak probably irritates them, and no doubt that the Commuter Rail will irritate them big time. Yawn.
Regarding the previous comments stating that there was a conspiracy amongst automakers to kill off mass transit, that is complete nonsensical rubbish.
It means it is untrue. People invested in automobiles, governments invested in automobiles, and the automobile industry invested in automobiles because it was better, more equitable, and people preferred it. Street cars are a niche solution. Roads, interstates, cars, buses and trucks literally make the world go round.
Now there is some truth that people prefer rail to buses. There's something psychological about the fixed nature of rail, making it easier to understand where it's going and where it stops. Trains are also very cool. You'll definitely notice that tourists in major cities prefer rail to buses, even though the buses likely provide a better, faster route. But this applies more to subways than even streetcars and much less so than regional rail. For example, I take the subway in NYC. I rarely take the bus and would never take the LIRR (even though it was a faster option from JFK to Manhattan than the subway, too much hassle. In Toronto, where they have a subway, buses, and streetcars, I could never figure out a reason to use the streetcars. They seemed just as intimidating as the buses. I mostly used the subway and the airport train.
Anyway, I'm not sure what the Roger Rabbit streetcar conspiracy theory has to do with commuter rail. Even in the heyday of streetcars in the Triangle, were people taking trains to commute between communities? I'm pretty sure the answer is they didn't. They lived and worked in the same neighborhood and that didn't change until the automobile opened up the world to them.
I’m with you in that I prefer to ride rail in those large cities that have it, rather than try and drive in downtowns. (When visiting NYC from my sister’s home in central NJ, I park in Secaucus and take NJ Transit to Penn Station and then on the subway. I don’t remember the last time I was on a bus in NYC.)
Anyway, Here’s a good write-up on debunking the GM National City Lines theory of buying up the streetcars to push people to cars. The data shows that was already happening (some was forcing the significantly corrupt streetcar owners to live up to their contracts.)
The NYC subway system was originally built to LESSEN density, especially in the Bowery, as the large number of people living there was unhealthy. The first line opened up northern Manhattan for residential development allowing people to spread out (not depend on living quite as close to the jobs.). So, “sprawl†was happening before the auto became dominant. (Of course, the unhealthy circumstances of the early 1900s is mostly gone and the density able to be supported in areas like Manhattan is substantial.)
The density required to make rail reasonable is not likely to ever happen in the Triangle. Ive written here before that I think the bus transit in Raleigh is more flexible long-term, especially as it could accommodate CAV (especially if transit here as we know it goes away, and is replaced by a public fleet of automatic vehicles that allow passengers to travel on THEIR schedule, not a fixed route/schedule with rail and/or buses.)
“The decline of the streetcar after World War I — when cars began to arrive on city streets — is often cast as a simple choice made by consumers. As a Smithsonian exhibition puts it, "Americans chose another alternative — the automobile. The car became the commuter option of choice for those who could afford it, and more people could do so." Yawn
"By the '50s, planners put a priority on bringing cars into cities with new urban highways," Norton says. "That really made streetcars truly impractical to get around on." Yawn
By the 1950s, virtually all streetcar companies were in terrible shape. Some were taken over by new municipal bus companies, while a total of 46 transit networks were bought up by National City Lines — the holding company linked to GM, as well as oil and tire companies, that's at the center of all the conspiracy theories.
While it's true that National City continued ripping up lines and replacing them with buses — and that, long-term, GM benefited from the decline of mass transit — it's very hard to argue that National City killed the streetcar on its own. Streetcar systems went bankrupt and were dismantled in virtually every metro area in the United States, and National City was only involved in about 10 percent of cases.
"and is replaced by a public fleet of automatic vehicles that allow passengers to travel on THEIR schedule, not a fixed route/schedule with rail and/or buses. " Yes. George Jetson. Yes.
The most important point that a 1990s Triangle Transit planner told me, and which I'll reiterate: future rail transit will capture future trips, not current trips. What rail / BRT will let us do is to build new places, where new people who are making new trips will have transport choices. Those of us who drive from A to B today obviously have found a mode (driving) that works for their origin & destination (A & B) very well.
But as we grow, new places and new people will arrive, and they will also be making decisions about how to travel. We could continue to force them to drive, and therefore create even worse traffic for everybody, or we can give them choices, and make them compelling choices. That means transit service, transit / walk / bike facilities, and transit-oriented development so that there are places to go to.
As a child in the 1990s reading these reports and talking to very kind planners, I was just dumbfounded at their projection that in 2020 Wake County alone would have 1M+ people. Yet here we are, with 500,000 more residents than we had then, living in nobody's idea of a well-planned million-person city. And yet ready or not, the new jobs, the new children, the new arrivals keep coming.
So it's blindered to evaluate a 2035 transit proposal just based on your daily trips in 2021. The trips you and I and our neighbors will make in 2035 will hopefully be very different ones - that's the entire point!
Quote:
Originally Posted by NC Observer
Go Triangle is approaching this from a completely different perspective than the failed Durham-Chapel Hill Light Rail gig. They learned from their mistakes. Go Triangle, NCRR and NS signed a contractual agreement to work out solutions to achieving Commuter Rail.
I also get the sense from people adjacent to those discussions that the approach is far more conciliatory towards NCRR than the earlier attempts were. Also, NCRR and NCDOT leadership are warmer to the potential, as well - as evidenced by both organizations floating their own schemes about commuter rail operations.
I also get the sense from people adjacent to those discussions that the approach is far more conciliatory towards NCRR than the earlier attempts were. Also, NCRR and NCDOT leadership are warmer to the potential, as well - as evidenced by both organizations floating their own schemes about commuter rail operations.
The most important point that a 1990s Triangle Transit planner told me, and which I'll reiterate: future rail transit will capture future trips, not current trips. What rail / BRT will let us do is to build new places, where new people who are making new trips will have transport choices. Those of us who drive from A to B today obviously have found a mode (driving) that works for their origin & destination (A & B) very well.
But as we grow, new places and new people will arrive, and they will also be making decisions about how to travel. We could continue to force them to drive, and therefore create even worse traffic for everybody, or we can give them choices, and make them compelling choices. That means transit service, transit / walk / bike facilities, and transit-oriented development so that there are places to go to.
As a child in the 1990s reading these reports and talking to very kind planners, I was just dumbfounded at their projection that in 2020 Wake County alone would have 1M+ people. Yet here we are, with 500,000 more residents than we had then, living in nobody's idea of a well-planned million-person city. And yet ready or not, the new jobs, the new children, the new arrivals keep coming.
So it's blindered to evaluate a 2035 transit proposal just based on your daily trips in 2021. The trips you and I and our neighbors will make in 2035 will hopefully be very different ones - that's the entire point!
I also get the sense from people adjacent to those discussions that the approach is far more conciliatory towards NCRR than the earlier attempts were. Also, NCRR and NCDOT leadership are warmer to the potential, as well - as evidenced by both organizations floating their own schemes about commuter rail operations.
While there's some common sense behind planning for future trips, there's also the fundamental problem that we're asking the "current trip" people to prioritize and pay for this. We're asking people to support something contrary to their own interests. This is why the airport thing keeps coming up and why, despite there being a lot of good arguments against it, excluding the airport is so stupid. Even if the value is to future trips, you need to give people something to point to for how this is benefitting them. Otherwise, it's just a boondoggle.
Also, I remember NCRR being plenty warm on the DO-LRT until they started to weigh in on the engineering plans. Then they started making demands that would drastically increase cost. When we start to get down to brass tacks, we're going to see $2B turn into $4B turn into who knows. Meanwhile, the feds and state will keep their share of the cost fixed and all of a sudden a project that was a gift from Washington turns into several billion dollars of local cost. I was warm on LRT way back when we voted on the 1/2 cent sales tax. It's when you get down to the details that the problems emerge and you can say, "is this worth it?"
Last edited by BullCity75; 12-30-2021 at 07:34 AM..
I don't know what to think about Norfolk Southern these days? Everything I read
and hear says they are having a meltdown. Lots of derailments and a lot of trains
tied down because they don't have any crews for them. Who knows?
NS, like CSX, implemented a new style of operation called PSR. One aspect of it is that they run fewer, but longer freight trains. They have also cut back on the number of freight yards. Needless to say, the labor unions don't like it and are complaining vociferously. So are some customers. The politicians and the regulatory agency, the Surface Transportation Board, have taken note. NS recently announced a change in CEO. https://www.railwayage.com/regulator...-expectations/
Employee attrition is a factor, and so is COVID-19. The labor unions say that NS and the other RRs brought the attrition problem on themselves, and to some extent that's true. The large RRs pay well but working conditions are brutal.
It's undisputable, though, that PSR has greatly increased the profitability of NS. Wall Street loves PSR.
I think it's objectively true that a lot of the freight is taking longer to get across the system, but that's not necessarily true for all freight. Single-track lines that carry a lot of freight tend to be the ones where the delays happen because the sidings aren't long enough to hold the longer trains. It's a good thing that NCDOT paid to restore all the missing segments of track #2 between Charlotte and Greensboro.
As for derailments, these things happen from time to time and I have not seen any statistics proving that there are more derailments under PSR than before. Labor unions will say that the longer trains are more likely to derail. There is some indication that it took the engineers a while to adjust to the longer trains and the new technology that allows locomotives to be placed in the middle or at the end of the train as well as the front. People unfamiliar with railroading don't know how much skill it takes to run a 10,000-ton train that is over 2 miles long.
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.
