daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Railways

Railways (Inter)national commuter and freight trains



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


View Poll Results: Should the US build or improve it's HSR network?
Yes 249 89.57%
No 29 10.43%
Voters: 278. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old September 15th, 2012, 05:42 PM   #3581
aquaticko
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 1,995
Likes (Received): 1030

Quote:
Originally Posted by China Hand View Post
You aren't posting facts you are posting opinions and your presumed objective knowledge is wrong because I lived there and you didn't and what you say is factually incorrect.

The fact is that all of you in favour of HSR in California and the NE Corridor of the USA have zero experience with those locations. You haven't driven them, you don't know the traffic patterns and behaviours, you have never spoken to anyone who drives those routes.

You are living in an academic fantasy land that ignores all that informs you why HSR does not exist in the USA.

You have no idea what you are talking about other than what you have read in a book or on a website.

Well, USA traffic patterns differ from what you learned in a book or 500 level course.
I'm from Manchester, NH. I need to drive a car daily to get anywhere. I drove from my home here to my cousin's wedding near Buffalo, NY last month, drive down to Boston about every other weekend, and try to take the train to New York City from Boston twice a year. I also went to university in Boston and used both public transportation and a car to get around the city and the Northeast megalopolis. I'll admit I've never been to California, but the rest is clearly nothing more than you talking out of your ass, not that that's any different from the norm.

And I've not ignored what makes HSR difficult now. I readily concede that at present, it's not a perfect fit for almost anywhere in the country. But as SilverSwordsman pointed out, it fits well enough, and as we saw with the car, development patterns change in response to transportation availability (among other things, of course). You are the one who is ignoring reality, attempting to dismantle anything that goes against your broader worldview; the two of us have already discussed that as far as seems likely to be productive to do so. I find it particularly interesting that the tropes you used to argue with me then are the same as you do now, clear evidence that you are arguing ideology, not facts.

If you are not going to attempt to be balanced and impartial, please do not try to contribute.

Now, I am going to try earnestly to ignore any further posts you have in this thread. I strongly suggest that everyone else do the same.

Last edited by aquaticko; September 15th, 2012 at 11:26 PM.
aquaticko no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old September 15th, 2012, 07:50 PM   #3582
phat11
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 386
Likes (Received): 0

Romney Promises to Revive Stealth Jet, But It Won’t Happen
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney promised that if elected, he would restart production of Lockheed Martin’s F-22 Raptor stealth fighter. “I would add more F-22s,” the former Massachusetts governor said in Virginia on Saturday. Don’t buy it.

The plan, if you can call it that, is totally possible. But just because a Raptor resurrection is possible doesn’t mean it’s realistic — let alone a good idea.

It’s actually easier to return the F-22 to production than it is to restart most discontinued warplanes. Lockheed and the Air Force carefully preserved all the tooling and blueprints to make the radar-evading jet. Usually, warplane manufacturers usually dismantle the bulky factory tooling once production wraps on a particular model. Still, reviving the F-22 would cost billions before a single new jet even entered production. It would also upend the Air Force’s carefully laid plans for producing new drones, tankers, bombers and — oh yeah — the cheaper and arguably more capable F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

It’s not clear how serious Romney is about his proposed Raptor re-start. According to Time, Romney mentioned the idea at a rally in the “rather modest” Military Aviation Museum outside Virginia Beach. “Perhaps he was just channeling the good vibes he was getting from all the museum pieces,” Time quipped.

Building more Raptors is not impossible. As production of the last of 196 F-22s ended at Lockheed’s Marietta, Georgia plant in December, the company packed all the specialized machinery — 30,000 items in all — into air-conditioned shipping containers and sent them to the U.S. Army’s Sierra depot in northern California for long-term storage. To preserve production techniques, Lockheed photographed and videotaped workers at their stations and transcribed worker testimony, programming the resulting information into 80 iPad-like devices encompassing all aspects of Raptor assembly.


Officially, the Air Force wants F-22 production materials preserved so it can make new spare parts for the existing stealth fleet. In past years the flying branch had fought for more Raptors — 243, to be exact — but in 2009 former Defense Secretary Robert Gates held the line at 187 plus nine prototypes — and President Barack Obama signed off on the lower number. “There’s no chance of revisiting that decision,” Gen. Norton Schwartz, the recently retired Air Force chief of staff, said in July.

What would it take to bring back the F-22? “In a national emergency, I would say anything is possible,” Schwartz said. Lockheed could retrieve the shipping containers, set up a new factory somewhere (the old F-22 assembly plant is now building cargo planes) and bring back Raptor workers, most of whom are still with the company.

In 2010 the think-tank RAND estimated it would cost an extra $90 million per plane, on top of the existing $137 million price tag per plane, to restart production and build 75 more Raptors following a two-year shut-down. But Romney’s F-22 v2.0 would begin assembly in 2013 at the earliest, meaning the restart would be at least a year later than RAND’s model and costs would surely be higher. The Air Force bought most of its Raptors in annual lots of around 20 jets. If a Romney administration bought a batch in each of its four years, the total cost for up to 80 new F-22s could top $20 billion.

That might seem like a lot, but Romney’s F-22 numbers do add up … in the abstract. The candidate has proposed spending 4 percent of U.S. gross domestic product on the military, which amounts to adding at least $100 billion a year to the Pentagon’s current $500-billion-plus budget. Romney’s defense plans involve adding another 100,000 active-duty troops, requiring some $25 billion annually; and an boosting Navy shipbuilding by six new ships a year, costing probably $8 billion combined annually. More Raptors could easily fit within the remaining $65 billion per year Romney said he would add to Pentagon coffers, with plenty of money left over to staff and operate the new F-22 squadrons.

The problem is, the Romney budget scheme is itself looks like wishful thinking, particularly in light of the candidate’s pledge to reduce taxes below today’s modern lows and still erase a trillion-dollar annual budget deficit. “If you pursue this, how are you going to balance the budget?” Lawrence Korb, a defense wonk at the liberal Center for American Progress, said of the Romney defense plan.

In the real world, it’s unlikely Romney’s grand budget scheme would receive congressional backing. A Romney administration could probably boost defense spending somewhat, but $100 billion per year seems like an unrealistic figure. In that case, F-22s seem a lot less affordable — unless Romney is prepared to revise the Air Force’s stated priorities.

Of all the hardware the Air Force is buying, at a cost of around $40 billion a year, the most urgent is the new KC-46 tanker, followed by the F-35; drones; a new stealth bomber; and satellites, according to the flying branch. The tanker is already running over budget, the F-35 has run out of cash reserves and the bomber is at serious risk of a multi-billion-dollar cost overrun. Drones and satellites have budgetary problems, too. There’s not a lot of room to slip in $5 billion a year in F-22s without jeopardizing other production lines.

It’s not clear the Air Force would want to displace its current in-production fighter, the F-35, with the revived F-22. For all its stealth, speed and agility, the F-22 has drawbacks. For one, it might still be choking its pilots owing to apparent faults in the pilots’ vests or the jet’s oxygen system. Moreover, the Raptor lacks modern datalinks for securely swapping information with any other aircraft besides another F-22 — a weakness that forced the Raptor to sit out the Libya war. The F-35 has none of those flaws, though it has plenty of of problems of its own.

Most importantly, at $110 million per copy the F-35 — even though it’s the most expensive weapon program in human history – is cheaper on a unit basis than the F-22. And the Air Force is gearing up to buy many, many more of them: 1,763, enough to replace all of today’s aged F-15s and F-16s. The F-35 “is our future,” Lt. Col. Lee Kloos, commander of the first F-35 training squadron, remarked on Tuesday.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012...ey-more-f-22s/


Hey Romney instead to throw out the statement that a stealth aircraft can be consolidated to create a high-speed train, the American people are better than me. China's high-speed rail than the U.S. move closer to a million times.


Americans must choose between orders combat aircraft to the job only for a time, but the fighters are not generating economic returns nothing, but will increase the cost of the blank, or to establish a high-speed train. create more permanent. And long-term economic benefits to America to choose which one that Romney has made ​​few arms dealers are conducive not only to the American people.

or
phat11 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2012, 08:51 PM   #3583
trainrover
:-x
 
trainrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,787
Likes (Received): 738

I suspect that fecal smear needn't be reminded of its claims ... besides quoting its --uhm-- snippets anulls its subscription to my Ignore List ... well, partially at least
__________________
.
hee hee
.

Last edited by trainrover; September 15th, 2012 at 08:58 PM.
trainrover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 16th, 2012, 12:14 AM   #3584
Silly_Walks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,974
Likes (Received): 836

Phat11 seems to be a Google Translate poster :P
Silly_Walks está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old September 16th, 2012, 06:06 AM   #3585
phoenixboi08
Registered User
 
phoenixboi08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,550
Likes (Received): 798

Needless to say that HSR is meant for connecting large population centers (not everything in between them)...

To ask whether HSR is "viable" here is a bit odd. The point is constructing a network that works. The US is similar to China is population density and distribution (if you've ever overlayed maps of China over that of the US, you'd clearly see that).

The only thing I'm worried about is it seems people aren't adding the caveat that HSR needs to work in concert with conventional rail. Which is why I believe a better approach would have been to improve existing infrastructure and services, while focusing on key HSR corridors - Piedmont, Keystone, California, and NEC and move from there.

People will naturally shift modes based upon economic indicators (i.e. what is cheapest). No one WANTS to drive long distance, that's ridiculous. I live 2 hours from New Orleans. If I could get there by train, even if that train weren't HSR, I'd still take it.

*Also, there are other dense regions, not just the NEC...
phoenixboi08 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 16th, 2012, 06:48 AM   #3586
trainrover
:-x
 
trainrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,787
Likes (Received): 738

It's far from being ridiculous, what about the mostly-American road-trip phenomenon..."
__________________
.
hee hee
.
trainrover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 16th, 2012, 07:02 AM   #3587
G5man
High Speed Rail fan
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 337
Likes (Received): 37

Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenixboi08 View Post
Needless to say that HSR is meant for connecting large population centers (not everything in between them)...

To ask whether HSR is "viable" here is a bit odd. The point is constructing a network that works. The US is similar to China is population density and distribution (if you've ever overlayed maps of China over that of the US, you'd clearly see that).

The only thing I'm worried about is it seems people aren't adding the caveat that HSR needs to work in concert with conventional rail. Which is why I believe a better approach would have been to improve existing infrastructure and services, while focusing on key HSR corridors - Piedmont, Keystone, California, and NEC and move from there.

People will naturally shift modes based upon economic indicators (i.e. what is cheapest). No one WANTS to drive long distance, that's ridiculous. I live 2 hours from New Orleans. If I could get there by train, even if that train weren't HSR, I'd still take it.

*Also, there are other dense regions, not just the NEC...
That has been the big question. Go from top down in development or bottom up approach? We drive only because it is the most convenient option. People will choose the option that is the most convenient for them. It is why so many commuters choose to use a vehicle is because of a system incentivized to it. The fact is, cheap oil is not going to last forever so we need to improve all of our options for travel that are not oil based. If we build the most successful systems first, that should lead to more people coming up saying "I want this in my town" rather than the NIMBYs.
G5man no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 16th, 2012, 07:16 AM   #3588
FM 2258
Registered User
 
FM 2258's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,438
Likes (Received): 612

Quote:
Originally Posted by trainrover View Post
It's far from being ridiculous, what about the mostly-American road-trip phenomenon..."
I love driving long distances but hell if I could have the option of taking a 217 mph train from Austin to Houston, that would be awesome. Paying for gas even for my little 2004 Sentra is annoying. I love to speed so having to watch out for police kinda sucks. Trains have no traffic to deal with if they're on a dedicated line. I feel there is some other agenda going on that the government doesn't want us to know about. Higher gas prices for me has taken a lot of joy I use to have with driving. I love our Interstate system but we need more alternatives.

In the past 6 years I've visited 11 different countries and more and more I feel, what the **** is going on with the United States? Other countries seem to have their stuff together with respect to public transportation including Jamaica.
FM 2258 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 16th, 2012, 07:51 AM   #3589
particlez
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 532
Likes (Received): 106

The US, like most every other place would benefit from HSR. Polling has consistently indicated that the public is supportive of HSR, yet it's constantly being held back. There are a never-ending number of quibbles:

-Fears about the dreaded useless line between Ogdenville and North Haverbrook
-Fears that any central planning is inherently inefficient and leads to socialism
-Fears that no one would choose to take HSR over those awesome short haul flights

One by one, the objections can be refuted. Unless the planners are utterly insane and inept and corrupt, no one is proposing lines from nowhere to nowhere. Planning of one sort or another has ALWAYS been done. Don't let the Von Hayek inspired libertarian/neoliberal monetarists divert you with half-baked ideology that ignores empirical evidence. Last week I flew between LAX and SFO. It was hell. Getting to the airport, passing security, being delayed, flying into SFO, waiting for luggage. And then there's the commute to and from the airports. Going from Union Station to that thing in the Embarcardero would be a godsend.

So you wonder about the people/organizations who raise objections to HSR. Vested interests are quick to maintain their own territory and block out potential competitors. Airlines? Oil companies? The FIRE industries and the various monopolies and cartels who wield the most financial and political power?

Then there's the financial argument. If building practical infrastructure is seen as wasteful, could they explain the previous investment in the interstate system, public education, water, electricity, and sewer grids? Would their libertarian utopia be devoid of these wasteful trappings? While we're on the subject, if HSR is unnecessary of wasteful, why is money spent on quantitative easing and the military?
particlez no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 16th, 2012, 04:39 PM   #3590
phoenixboi08
Registered User
 
phoenixboi08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,550
Likes (Received): 798

Quote:
Originally Posted by trainrover View Post
It's far from being ridiculous, what about the mostly-American road-trip phenomenon..."
A road trip is one thing....but if I could easily get from where I live to nearby cities (Atlanta, New Orleans, etc) in far less time than driving, I would go more often.

I would love to visit Chicago and other cities 500mi>700mi but it's too expensive to fly and I wouldn't want to drive that far. It's one thing when it's a leisure, family trip, but when it's just getting from point A to point B (like traveling between home and university) I believe most people would say driving is a nuisance.
phoenixboi08 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 16th, 2012, 05:37 PM   #3591
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,525
Likes (Received): 21227

Quote:
Originally Posted by particlez View Post
The US, like most every other place would benefit from HSR. Polling has consistently indicated that the public is supportive of HSR, yet it's constantly being held back. There are a never-ending number of quibbles:

-Fears about the dreaded useless line between Ogdenville and North Haverbrook
-Fears that any central planning is inherently inefficient and leads to socialism
-Fears that no one would choose to take HSR over those awesome short haul flights
I think there is a difference between "supporting" an infrastructure project, like HSR, and be actually willing to pay for it. I bet most Americans would be totally in favor or HSR, subways, ultrahighspeed fiber Internet - if it would be built entirely with private money.

I'm not saying that if it couldn't be built with private money it shouldn't be built, but that between "supporting" the idea of HSR and be willing to pay for it with extra taxes there is a growing distance.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 16th, 2012, 07:15 PM   #3592
trainrover
:-x
 
trainrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,787
Likes (Received): 738

You wrote ridiculous...
__________________
.
hee hee
.
trainrover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 16th, 2012, 08:20 PM   #3593
aquaticko
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 1,995
Likes (Received): 1030

No, he's quite right. The disconnect between what most Americans want and what most will pay for is, frankly, stupid. People don't understand that even without increasing services, taxes will have to increase to account for the increasing age of basic infrastructure. In my view, it seems like if taxes are going to be raised anyway, why not forget all about trying to reduce them and instead try to find a happy medium between what you want and what you'll pay for. It seems like lowering taxes is rarely the solution to anything (gasp!).
aquaticko no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 16th, 2012, 08:52 PM   #3594
trainrover
:-x
 
trainrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,787
Likes (Received): 738

It wrote ridiculous...pay attention...besides, this poll closed ages ago...talk yourselves blue in the face for all I care...many of you remind me of those dogs going mad at chasing their own tails around in circles, non-stop...
__________________
.
hee hee
.
trainrover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 16th, 2012, 09:52 PM   #3595
particlez
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 532
Likes (Received): 106

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
I think there is a difference between "supporting" an infrastructure project, like HSR, and be actually willing to pay for it. I bet most Americans would be totally in favor or HSR, subways, ultrahighspeed fiber Internet - if it would be built entirely with private money.

I'm not saying that if it couldn't be built with private money it shouldn't be built, but that between "supporting" the idea of HSR and be willing to pay for it with extra taxes there is a growing distance.
Did private money fund the airports, and the roads? Why would the private enterprise air carriers receive bailout funds?

If you're going to shill for simplistic ideology, at least present a better argument. Unless you want the US to regress into some sort of third world feudalism, your argument does not make sense.
particlez no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 16th, 2012, 11:52 PM   #3596
XAN_
Registered User
 
XAN_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,034
Likes (Received): 760

Well, Suburbanist is right, people just doesn't understand how this world works.

But that doesn't mean that everyone should just follow the thought of an average citizen. As a good friend of mine states: "No one discuss work-mode of nuclear reactor on a referendum - there are the specialist for that. Same goes for transport planning"
__________________
"I'm lost but still I know//There is another world"
-H. Kürsch, 1995
"Well, we all know there's no other side"
-H. Kürsch, 2002
XAN_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2012, 01:14 AM   #3597
KingNick
Make Wu'bar Great Again
 
KingNick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 6,035
Likes (Received): 8709

At least they are now investing some 300 billion Dollars in renewing their nuclear arsenal to fight the Russians back in the 80s.
__________________
Europa per gli europei
KingNick no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2012, 01:20 AM   #3598
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,525
Likes (Received): 21227

Quote:
Originally Posted by particlez View Post
Did private money fund the airports, and the roads? Why would the private enterprise air carriers receive bailout funds?

If you're going to shill for simplistic ideology, at least present a better argument. Unless you want the US to regress into some sort of third world feudalism, your argument does not make sense.
I didn't say HSR shouldn't be built because private money alone can't do it! I actually support government involvement in building tracks and stations (but not operating trains directly) like I support government building highways or airports (but not operating buses or airplanes directly).

What I said was that the current political climate in US is just an anti-tax hysteria. A hysteria that was absent when most highway construction took place in the 1940s-1970s for instance.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2012, 10:07 AM   #3599
gramercy
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,823
Likes (Received): 799

The political climate will indeed have to change for things to change. The republican party has essentially moved into a mental asylum while the democratic party has become the republican party of the 70s and 80s: somewhat sane but mostly corrupt.
gramercy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 21st, 2012, 01:11 AM   #3600
Woonsocket54
PC LOAD LETTER
 
Woonsocket54's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: East Millinocket, Maine
Posts: 5,634
Likes (Received): 5734

Quote:
Originally Posted by gramercy View Post
The republican party has essentially moved into a mental asylum
I remember when Aaron Sorkin said that; it must have been in one of those few periods when he wasn't high on 'shrooms.
Woonsocket54 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
amtrak, desertxpress, fly california, high speed rail, northeast corridor, texas triangle, united states

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium