Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 Fire department, no. But it's a fair comparison to roads & airports. I honestly don't know if a fair study comparing different modes of public transit have ever been done. There are a lot of variables to consider, ranging from the existing railroad infrastructure and rights of ways to trying to retrofit them for vehicular use and dumping more cars on the roads leading into cities which can't handle the traffic load. For that reason, railroads may still be the best alternative in heavily populated areas. Problem: we are a CAR culture, not a train culture.
Gary M Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 It's a fantastic idea conceptually speaking. The government takes tax dollars and spends them on projects that will put a few people into jobs making goods and services that no one wants and will only use if the government takes more tax dollars and subsidizes the users of those goods and services in order to incent their use. They never talk about any studies or polls that show there is interest in riding these things. How many people go from Buffalo to Albany every day? Then there is the fact that they will have to stop at every town along the way, how the heck wil they ever go top speed? Of course if Obama gets the gas to $8/gal everyone will be begging for the trains.
GG Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 Problem: we are a CAR culture, not a train culture. We are. But there is a trade off to consider in balancing the needs of the population to have the freedom of a personal car vs maintaining the infrastructure to support it. Populations multiply, but the real estate remains constant. Something has got to give. There's no way that heavily populated cities in the Northeast can handle the traffic deluge without off loading a lot of that capacity to public transportation.
Dan Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 And that is the heart of the issue. privately owned airlines see a unprofitable route they raise the price. No one wants to buy? Discontinue the route. But the Government will just keep throwing money at it, and sending empty trains across the country. This is a somewhat disparate comparison. The problem with rail lines is that once they're built, they're built. It's not so easy to just discontinue a route and start up a new one. It's an inherent problem with any rail system which makes it harder to drop less used routes and add newly needed routes similar to the airline industry. Problem: we are a CAR culture, not a train culture. That's the big problem as I see it. According to the maps I quickly googled... link1, link 2; the trains would eventually connect most major US Cities. But, IMO, the only way it becomes successful is if they convince people to use the rail system rather than fly. So, how will the airlines feel about that? Because you can't use the system for "casual" traffic because few of those major cities have adequate public transportation. So, when I get there I need a way around. Air travelers are used to that; most others are not. On one hand, it's a great idea to connect most of our major Cities with a high speed rail system that's cheaper and faster than the current interstate system or air travel. However, there's quite a few inherent problems that have to be addressed; otherwise, its destined to fail. Americans are a car culture. We value the independence the vehicle gives us. Add to that the lack of decent public transportation in most US cities and there's a steep hill to climb to get people to accept it. But then again, it's only $53million. What's the big deal? Congress appropriates that much money before most of us get out of bed.
OCinBuffalo Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 This is a somewhat disparate comparison. The problem with rail lines is that once they're built, they're built. It's not so easy to just discontinue a route and start up a new one. It's an inherent problem with any rail system which makes it harder to drop less used routes and add newly needed routes similar to the airline industry. That's the big problem as I see it. According to the maps I quickly googled... link1, link 2; the trains would eventually connect most major US Cities. But, IMO, the only way it becomes successful is if they convince people to use the rail system rather than fly. So, how will the airlines feel about that? Because you can't use the system for "casual" traffic because few of those major cities have adequate public transportation. So, when I get there I need a way around. Air travelers are used to that; most others are not. On one hand, it's a great idea to connect most of our major Cities with a high speed rail system that's cheaper and faster than the current interstate system or air travel. However, there's quite a few inherent problems that have to be addressed; otherwise, its destined to fail. Americans are a car culture. We value the independence the vehicle gives us. Add to that the lack of decent public transportation in most US cities and there's a steep hill to climb to get people to accept it. But then again, it's only $53million. What's the big deal? Congress appropriates that much money before most of us get out of bed. And they wonder how we ended up with the Federal Debt we have...and why we are so pissed off at them for creating it, primarily due to this very attitude that is shamelessly evident. I have lived in many US cities, and the public transportation problems are about laziness and ineffectiveness. You want high speed rail to succeed? First thing: get the government completely out of the picture except safety. Since when, Dan, is that your 53 million to bandy about? Do you know what entrepreneurs could do with that 53 million? What if the government hadn't taken that away, or, what if the government gives it to 3 entrepreneurs? Instead, you want to spend it on f'ing about with Amtrak? I rode Amtrak every day from Philly to NYC for 10 months. You are outside of your mind if you think spending a single additional dollar on those clowns, who failed to get me to work on time at least once every...single...week, represents a "solution". It's not a f'ing difficult job Dan, as we are doing the exact same thing, and going the same place, as yesterday. The rails part makes it even easier, as it takes away 2 dimensions, and reduces the options to "forward and back". Such a difficult decision: deciding between Stay, Forward, and Back. Back is interesting: many times we had to ride "back" to Philly because someone had put another train on "forward" that wasn't supposed to be there. Yes, your government employees that you love so much, find a way to f up their jobs on a weekly basis, and almost a daily one. But, we should give them money, cause, it's only 53 million anyway. What a clown.
Chef Jim Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 Hard to say, because Amtrak was forced to maintain a lot of unprofitable routes (ie transcontinental). But there are a lot of routes, especially in very heavily traveled corridors where it could make a profit. But very few public transportation units make a profit, so that's not a fair way to look at it. I can fly to soCal for around $100 in about an hour. Why would I even consider taking a high speed train?
boyst Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 I can fly to soCal for around $100 in about an hour. Why would I even consider taking a high speed train? Exactly.
Peace Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 I can fly to soCal for around $100 in about an hour. Why would I even consider taking a high speed train? I can fly to DC in 45 mins from Philly and the train takes, let's say, 2 hours. But the train is so easy and erases all the airplane hassle. I take the train to the train station so no expensive airport parking. I show up at the train station 10 minutes before the train leaves, walk on the train as it arrives. I can plug in my laptop and work with a ton of leg room. For a longer route (say to Boston) there's food and beer as much as I want. I arrive in a downtown area instead of some inconvenient suburban hub. You'd have a hard time convincing me to deal with an airport in the NE corridor cities (DC, Baltimore, Wilmington, Philly, NY, Boston).
KD in CA Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 You'd have a hard time convincing me to deal with an airport in the NE corridor cities (DC, Baltimore, Wilmington, Philly, NY, Boston). The problem is that 95% of people don't agree with you and gladly put up with airport hassles for quicker travel. Out of the dozens of people I've known that regularly travel between BOS-NY-WAS, exactly one of them routinely takes the train. And you are simply never going to have a 250 mph train blasting through densely populated NJ, CT, MA, MD, VA, etc.
RkFast Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) If high speed rail can't survive on it's own business plan without tax payer help and bail outs then it does not deserve to succeed And if that was the postion through time, wed all be driving on dirt roads right now. Im not sure if THIS project is a great idea, but the notion of pushing back on govt. subsidized infrastructure improvements out of hand is woefully short-sighted. Go for a drive on any pothole-filled road or sit in traffic on a highway interchange that hasnt been updated or expanded since the 50s and tell me the US transportation system as a whole doesnt need MASSIVE updating. Heck....look at the Northeast AMTRAK corridor. Ever think that MAYBE the reason it sucks so bad is becuase the last time the track and switch system was upgraded or streamlined was during the Roosevelt Administration? The FIRST one? Edited February 9, 2011 by RkFast
Dan Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) And they wonder how we ended up with the Federal Debt we have...and why we are so pissed off at them for creating it, primarily due to this very attitude that is shamelessly evident. I have lived in many US cities, and the public transportation problems are about laziness and ineffectiveness. You want high speed rail to succeed? First thing: get the government completely out of the picture except safety. Since when, Dan, is that your 53 million to bandy about? Do you know what entrepreneurs could do with that 53 million? What if the government hadn't taken that away, or, what if the government gives it to 3 entrepreneurs? Instead, you want to spend it on f'ing about with Amtrak? I rode Amtrak every day from Philly to NYC for 10 months. You are outside of your mind if you think spending a single additional dollar on those clowns, who failed to get me to work on time at least once every...single...week, represents a "solution". It's not a f'ing difficult job Dan, as we are doing the exact same thing, and going the same place, as yesterday. The rails part makes it even easier, as it takes away 2 dimensions, and reduces the options to "forward and back". Such a difficult decision: deciding between Stay, Forward, and Back. Back is interesting: many times we had to ride "back" to Philly because someone had put another train on "forward" that wasn't supposed to be there. Yes, your government employees that you love so much, find a way to f up their jobs on a weekly basis, and almost a daily one. But, we should give them money, cause, it's only 53 million anyway. What a clown. Nice rant... really. But, seriously, did you read what I wrote? Most of what I posted was an argument against the train. And that last jab... about the $53mill.. I thought was obvious sarcasm. Apparently not. Just a quick thought... you asked when is that my $53mill to bandy about. Well, as a taxpayer paying city, state, and federal taxes, at least a portion of that money is mine. But, that's neither here nor there. Just thought you should take that into consideration when you throw statements like that out there. The problem is that 95% of people don't agree with you and gladly put up with airport hassles for quicker travel. Out of the dozens of people I've known that regularly travel between BOS-NY-WAS, exactly one of them routinely takes the train. And you are simply never going to have a 250 mph train blasting through densely populated NJ, CT, MA, MD, VA, etc. But, in most every instance rail travel, on a high speed train only connecting major cities, would be far and away faster than air travel. Yes, the flight from Philly to DC may only be 45 minutes. But, try getting to PHL 45 minutes minutes before a flight and you'll be darn lucky to get on the plane. The 45 minute flight easily takes 2-3 hours out of your day. So, you'd save time. As is the case... for short distances like that you're almost always able to save time by driving and high speed rail would cut the drive time down considerably. Of course, most people don't routinely make that drive because time driving isn't always seen as valuable as time flying. OC, before you blast me mercilessly again, don't take any of that as an argument in support of the train system. I'm merely stating opinion that a high speed train would be faster (and almost certainly cheaper) than flying from Philly to DC. I will offer this for rebuttal though... who paid for the nation's interstate and intrastate highway system? How is that the train system has to be privatized and the highways don't? Edited February 9, 2011 by Dan
GG Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 I can fly to DC in 45 mins from Philly and the train takes, let's say, 2 hours. But the train is so easy and erases all the airplane hassle. I take the train to the train station so no expensive airport parking. I show up at the train station 10 minutes before the train leaves, walk on the train as it arrives. I can plug in my laptop and work with a ton of leg room. For a longer route (say to Boston) there's food and beer as much as I want. I arrive in a downtown area instead of some inconvenient suburban hub. You'd have a hard time convincing me to deal with an airport in the NE corridor cities (DC, Baltimore, Wilmington, Philly, NY, Boston). Unfortunately that's the issue. Trian travel is convenient only to businessmen and city residents. It's usually a pain to pick up & drop off families at the train stations. If I'm going to be a homer about it, I'd say that passenger railway service doesn't make sense anywhere in the US oustide the DC - Boston corridor, and all that railroad money should go to building a new set of tracks, because Amtrak has to share its track with the commuter railroads. Instead of supporting useless inter city lines, more focus should be placed on commuter railroads or building bus only lanes in metro areas. Problem is that you're fully out of real estate in the Northeast.
DC Tom Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 If I'm going to be a homer about it, I'd say that passenger railway service doesn't make sense anywhere in the US oustide the DC - Boston corridor, I'll second that, on the principle that people think of the European/Japanese model when they talk about "high speed rail", and that model simply isn't going to work outside of a few areas (the northeast corridor, maybe the CA coast between San Diego and SF, maybe Atlanta-to-Miami) in the US, as we're so much more spread out. It's even less "we're a car culture" than it is "we're not a train geography".
finknottle Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 The problem is that 95% of people don't agree with you and gladly put up with airport hassles for quicker travel. Out of the dozens of people I've known that regularly travel between BOS-NY-WAS, exactly one of them routinely takes the train. And you are simply never going to have a 250 mph train blasting through densely populated NJ, CT, MA, MD, VA, etc. Make that two. I always take the Acela when I travel between DC and NYC. Which is not to say I think government-driven expansion of rail is a good idea. I am fully sympathetic to the localities who find they cannot maintain the public transportation (whether rail or metro) that others decided it would be a good idea to saddle them with.
Nanker Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 Make that two. I always take the Acela when I travel between DC and NYC. Which is not to say I think government-driven expansion of rail is a good idea. I am fully sympathetic to the localities who find they cannot maintain the public transportation (whether rail or metro) that others decided it would be a good idea to saddle them with. Exactly. The Acela goes to Beantown too. It's capable of going over 150 mph, but it only approaches 100 mph I believe in the NE corridor. They can't run it any faster because of the track conditions and the densely populated areas it travels through.
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 I hear those things are awfully loud It glides as softly as a cloud.
Peace Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 The problem is that 95% of people don't agree with you and gladly put up with airport hassles for quicker travel. Out of the dozens of people I've known that regularly travel between BOS-NY-WAS, exactly one of them routinely takes the train. And you are simply never going to have a 250 mph train blasting through densely populated NJ, CT, MA, MD, VA, etc. Airport travel on the NE corridor is not faster than the train door to door. Maybe it's faster from DC to Boston but I can't imagine it is any other route. And the travel is no hassle. Arrive. Step on train. Plug in laptop. Make calls. Surf web. Grab a beer in the dining car. Stretch your legs out in seat. Be on time. Clearly it only works in a handful of cities but in those cities, it works. I don't know anyone who takes a plane from Philly to ny dc or Boston instead of the train. You'd have to be mentally impaired to make that choice. Other mentally impaired people drive but that's because some people hate public transport. Not an argument in favor of public Amtrak funds btw. Just saying that we on the NE corridor love it.
IDBillzFan Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 If I'm going to be a homer about it, I'd say that passenger railway service doesn't make sense anywhere in the US oustide the DC - Boston corridor... LA to Vegas. There's always a plan, and never a train.
Chef Jim Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 LA to Vegas. There's always a plan, and never a train. That is the only route that I see as a good money maker. The booze car alone would be profitable for the week by lunch time Monday.
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) LA to Vegas. There's always a plan, and never a train. Could they unlock the on board slot machines after crossing the state line? Now thats a money maker. Edited February 10, 2011 by Jim in Anchorage
Recommended Posts