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.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old August 17th, 2012, 10:03 PM   #2381
Nexis
Dark Wolf
 
Nexis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Along the Rails of North Jersey..
Posts: 15,688
Likes (Received): 17037

__________________
My FLICKR Page < 54,100+ Photos of Urban Renewal , Infrastructure , Food and Nature in the Northeastern US
Visit the Reorganized New York City Section
My Photography Website
Visit the New Jersey Section
Nexis no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old August 26th, 2012, 06:16 AM   #2382
trainrover
:-x
 
trainrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,787
Likes (Received): 738

__________________
.
hee hee
.
trainrover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2012, 12:54 PM   #2383
sekelsenmat
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,139
Likes (Received): 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Only fanboys whose main concern is that a network looks "nice" in a map and politicians wanting a gold-plated service in their counties support the "strategic" need of these routes.
What a disgusting argumentation: Attempting to ridicularise those that defend long-distance rail as "fanboys". You are the most irritating and persistent troll I have ever seen.
__________________
True Democracy for Android - A realistic political simulation game where you are the premier/president and guides your country competing against other political parties =)

My blog about trains, politics and urbanism.
sekelsenmat no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2012, 03:17 PM   #2384
aquaticko
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 2,000
Likes (Received): 1034

No, he's very much right on this one. Anyone with the slightest understanding of the passenger rail market in the U.S. knows that the long-distance routes are nothing more than a drain on Amtrak's limited resources. If they could be shut down, it would be a boon to the organization and the rail corridors that are actually useful.
aquaticko no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 28th, 2012, 11:31 AM   #2385
sekelsenmat
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,139
Likes (Received): 50

!?!? When did Skyscraper city got dominated by anti-rail biggots?

If you don't care about rail, why discuss here at all? Just keep to the road forum.

If you care about rail, then you know that long distance Amtrak is very important.
__________________
True Democracy for Android - A realistic political simulation game where you are the premier/president and guides your country competing against other political parties =)

My blog about trains, politics and urbanism.
sekelsenmat no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 28th, 2012, 03:39 PM   #2386
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

Anyone who uses ad hominem when discussing anything is unlikely to have a balanced outlook. The problem is with the USA is that the long term strategy for rail transport has been based on just such irrational ways of thinking. Add to that the average armchair critic is applying just as bad logic to the bad logic coming from the government and the result is one of the most nonsensical types of discussion that can possibly be had, where the huge complexities of running logistical networks is reduced to silly soundbite arguments that are frankly utterly meaningless.

The only truth that can be gleaned from them is that it is unlikely the transport discussion in the USA is going to become more logical any time soon, and so the future of rail in the USA is similar to the recent past - by the USA's own standards; pathetic.

For every soundbite excuse as to why rail won't work there is a country somewhere in the world with similar situation on the ground that does use rail. But then there'll be some other unrelated argument that brings some sort of philosophy and ideology into it. Truly the only reason why the USA doesn't really bother with rail is because it doesn't understand it like the rest of the world does, and frankly doesn't want to.
__________________
"There is no problem so bad that you can't make it worse" - Chris Hadfield
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 28th, 2012, 06:18 PM   #2387
trainrover
:-x
 
trainrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,787
Likes (Received): 738

Your concluding sentence sums up the matter quite well. It's the same for Canada. However, the question is what exactly is North America? It's a place where economic policies trump socio-economic ones. This is why I try to avoid contributing to all this blathering about what makes sense about the continent's direction regarding rail and what doesn't. Free market? PFFT ... rail isn't the only sector where tell-tale signs abound revealing cornered markets. (Frankly, everything you've just written's spot on/right )
__________________
.
hee hee
.

Last edited by trainrover; August 28th, 2012 at 06:47 PM.
trainrover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2012, 02:26 AM   #2388
Sopomon
Hideous and malformed
 
Sopomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 870
Likes (Received): 153

Quote:
Originally Posted by sekelsenmat View Post
!?!? When did Skyscraper city got dominated by anti-rail biggots?

If you don't care about rail, why discuss here at all? Just keep to the road forum.

If you care about rail, then you know that long distance Amtrak is very important.
It's not being bigoted. It's just the way things are.

Although, I do get the feeling that if the lines were upgraded to 200 km/h and had services every hour, there could be a significant rise in ridership.

That's never going to happen.

Good ol' USA.
__________________
And he kicked so many rosebushes at her that eventually, Sasuke turned into a log.
Sopomon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2012, 05:04 AM   #2389
aquaticko
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 2,000
Likes (Received): 1034

The increase would be significant only relative to the crazy low ridership numbers there are now.

It's widely acknowledged that high speed rail, given the current level of technology, will work only up to distances of about 1000km. It will be a long, long time before trains can take over for long-haul flights. The point of increasing train use in the U.S. is primarily to reduce auto dependancy, a goal which will require a dedication of resources that seems, to many people, to preclude continued provision of long-distance train services.
aquaticko no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2012, 06:16 AM   #2390
trainrover
:-x
 
trainrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,787
Likes (Received): 738

__________________
.
hee hee
.
trainrover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2012, 10:35 AM   #2391
sekelsenmat
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,139
Likes (Received): 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaticko View Post
It's widely acknowledged that high speed rail, given the current level of technology, will work only up to distances of about 1000km.
High Speed Rail is indeed not made for very long trips, that's where sleeper trains are most efficient.

Also HSR is not a one-solution fits all kind of thing. It is adequate for corridors with a lot of people moving between them. Conventional rail at 160km/h is very much adequate for all of the rest of the secondary corridors which do not have enough demand for HSR. Conventional passenger rail is still very important and should not be forgotten.

Quote:
The point of increasing train use in the U.S. is primarily to reduce auto dependancy, a goal which will require a dedication of resources that seems, to many people, to preclude continued provision of long-distance train services.
But it doesn't. If those resources are not put into long-distance rail they will not be put in any other kind of rail.

The arguments by suburbanist are a trap. He demonises long distance rail and throws a kind of carrot: "Maybe if it didnt exist, then Amtrak could take some loans and fill itself with debts" =D That's a joke, right? It must be a joke. His argument is decreasing the rail financing by 1 billion $ per year and instead of that put ZERO $ per year into Amtrak. And if Amtrak wants to build anything, let it make huge debts until it goes bankrupt because it cannot affort the huge interrests it will pay on them...

Let's go back to reality:
1> We need more rail investment, not less.
2> Without long-distance a huge amount of people would never see a passenger train in their entire lives. How will they support something which doesn't even come close to 1000km from their houses? They wont! And then rail investment is doomed for sure.
3> The money going to long-distance would not go anywhere else if it didn't exist
4> The money going to long-distance is peanuts in comparison to anything else. From the 1 billion deficit how much exactly is long distance rail? I think that only half of it, because Amtrak also serves medium distance routes like St. Louis-Chicago, Chicago-Detroit, a lot of short routes in the NE.
5> Would you also axe the newly renovated St. Louis-Chicago, Chicago-Detroit, etc if they have deficits??
6> The deficit for long distance rail is peanuts and would not cover anything else at all. Half a billion $ is something like a 3rd of what Poland for example invests each year into rail infra-structure improvements. It is less then 0.5% of what China invests in rail improvements each year! It is less then 0.1% of what the middle east wars costed.
7> If there is no passenger rail network how can people be seriously expected to live without cars? Long distance bus transportation sucks, not to mention that it is way, way more dangerous and accident prone then rail.

So please, let's advocate more investment, not less. The arguments from suburbanist are a trap. He hates passenger rail and is always making proposing the progressive destruction of passenger rail. Look at how he changes his arguments from country to county:

1> In Europe he proposes to kill regional rail and sleeper services and invest into HSR. He knows that directly proposing to kill rail would not work, so he goes for a progressive solution of first killing regional rail and sleeper services which will push people into cars and destroy the system which we currently have which has allowed me to live years in adult working life without a car =/ Those services are huge successes of ridership in Europe and no sane politian would propose destroying them. But it still annoys to hear this suburbanist troll advocate killing the exact same infra-structure that I use in my leasure and business trips.

I would like to see how he would fell if people were advocating close all highways and force him into trains =D Yes, oh boy, I would like to see that as a revange. But that would not be me. I never advocated such I thing because I am not a sadist like him. I am for freedom of choice: People should be free to either use cars or use trains. He is for forcing people into cars. I am not for forcing people into trains, I just want people to have that transportation choice.

2> In USA where rail is precarious he goes for the final solution: Kill all government rail investment. If Amtrak wants to build anything, let it make debts. And if it made huge debs like he proposes, then he would start argumenting that Amtrak is filled in debts and needs to be killed: The progressive (in this case regressive) strategy.
__________________
True Democracy for Android - A realistic political simulation game where you are the premier/president and guides your country competing against other political parties =)

My blog about trains, politics and urbanism.

Last edited by sekelsenmat; August 29th, 2012 at 10:41 AM.
sekelsenmat no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2012, 04:10 PM   #2392
aquaticko
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 2,000
Likes (Received): 1034

I'm not honestly that concerned with Suburbanist's positions; I've argued with him before and know, broadly speaking what they are. I am also not advocating reducing investment in rail. But if improving various intercity routes with high levels of traffic means dropping long-distance routes with low levels of traffic, then so be it.

I do have to say I don't think you have a proper understanding of the state and situation of the vast majority of the rail network in the U.S.. Most of it isn't owned by Amtrak and so is not subject to improvements at the organization's whims, and even if it was owned by Amtrak, much of it is barely in the sort of condition that allows running much in excess of 100km/h, nevermind 160km/h.

You admit that rail service in the U.S. is in a precarious position, then fail to understand that increasing rail investment from, oh, maybe a few billion dollars per year to a few hundred billion is politically quite difficult, if even possible. Why is that?
aquaticko no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2012, 05:39 PM   #2393
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,536
Likes (Received): 21244

Quote:
Originally Posted by sekelsenmat View Post
Conventional rail at 160km/h is very much adequate for all of the rest of the secondary corridors which do not have enough demand for HSR. Conventional passenger rail is still very important and should not be forgotten.
Most US routes are not fit for traffic above 79 mph, and even if they technically were, the host railways (e.g., the freight companies who own almost all full rail trackage in US) wouldn't let such services operate because a high speed differential would wreak havoc with slower but extremely profitable freight trains. And there isn't an economic case for running coal trains at 60, 80 mph either.

Quote:
2> Without long-distance a huge amount of people would never see a passenger train in their entire lives. How will they support something which doesn't even come close to 1000km from their houses? They wont! And then rail investment is doomed for sure.
This is wrong in so many levels, you are essentially advocating misuse of public funds for symbolic politics (of which Western countries are already full of).

On the one's hand there are much better ways to increase brand recognition for Amtrak to blow $ 1,5 billion/year than running slow long-distance trains whose availability and characteristics are already well known by the most likely group of users!

On the other's hand, the precarious, multi-hour-delay-prone, leisure-oriented Amtrak transcontinental and very long distance services probably do more damage to the institutional image of Amtrak then help it.

Quote:
4> The money going to long-distance is peanuts in comparison to anything else. From the 1 billion deficit how much exactly is long distance rail? I think that only half of it, because Amtrak also serves medium distance routes like St. Louis-Chicago, Chicago-Detroit, a lot of short routes in the NE.
Many of these routes receive state support to close the financial gap and they all perform much better in terms of farebox recover ratio. Many regional routes around the NEC are effective feeders of the NEC mainline. The California Zephyr isn't a relevant feed of any train - for instance.

Quote:
6> The deficit for long distance rail is peanuts and would not cover anything else at all. Half a billion $ is something like a 3rd of what Poland for example invests each year into rail infra-structure improvements. It is less then 0.5% of what China invests in rail improvements each year! It is less then 0.1% of what the middle east wars costed.
Non-sense. Individually considered, virtually any "non-defense discretionary spending" program is "peanuts" compared to the cost of wars. Problem: there are hundreds of "peanut-level programs" that make a nice Nutella jar at the end of the fiscal year!

Quote:
7> If there is no passenger rail network how can people be seriously expected to live without cars? Long distance bus transportation sucks, not to mention that it is way, way more dangerous and accident prone then rail.
Except for retirees of people without any concern for time, multi-day train routes are irrelevant when it comes to "live without car". For a decision of living without car, urban/metropolitan commute service is the most single important thing a person would consider, because that is the service he/she will use every day.

Sort of full-scale US$ 2-trillion national maglev program, the West Coast-elsewhere market will always be air-based, not rail-based. Deal with it. I bet many people wrote in the 1950s how bad was the demise of all regular ocean liners vanishing from transatlantic routes or how bad it were when Singapore lost it last scheduled ocean passenger link (transportation, not leisure cruises) to Australia...

Quote:
2> In USA where rail is precarious he goes for the final solution: Kill all government rail investment. If Amtrak wants to build anything, let it make debts. And if it made huge debs like he proposes, then he would start argumenting that Amtrak is filled in debts and needs to be killed: The progressive (in this case regressive) strategy.
You completely miss the point. If Amtrak's cash flow stop being so negative (and dependent on yearly Congress appropriations) and starts being positive, it could issue bonds to foster more investments and then increase ridership on its key core competitive services, boasting more profits it could then invest in some new alignments etc. That is my reasoning.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2012, 03:57 AM   #2394
Nexis
Dark Wolf
 
Nexis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Along the Rails of North Jersey..
Posts: 15,688
Likes (Received): 17037

Northeast Corridor Journey - Trenton - Philly

Improvements to be made and Notes
All Catenary to be Replaced by 2025
All Signals to be replaced by 2015
All Curves to be straighten by 2030
High Speed Crossovers to allow speeds up 85mph when switching by 2020
@ 1:42 , 2 Bridges will be replaced by 2020
@ 2:14 crossing the Delaware River into Pennsylvania
@ 2:34 Restored Morrisville SEPTA Trenton line Station
@ 2:40 , 2 Center Tracks Diverage for New Jersey Transit's Morrisville Yard
@ 2:59 , 2 Tracks cross over to head to NJT Morrisville Yard
@ 2:32 , the Land to the Left will be cleared and used for a Septa Yard
@ 5:55 , Entering Levittown Station which will be high level platformed by 2020
@ 9:11 , Pennsylvania Turnpike Extension - I-276 Crosses Above
@ 10:19 , Entering Bristol Station which will be high level platformed by 2020

@ 14:00 , Entering Croydon Station ,one of the first stations high level platformed
@ 16:38 , Passing by Eddington Station which could be abandoned by 2020
@ 17:23 , Cornwall Heights Amtrak Sub Station to be replaced by 2020
@ 17:33 , Entering Cornwall Heights Station , this station will be high level platformed and expanded by 2020
@ 21:20 , Entering Torresdale Station , this station will be high level platformed and moved slightly North by 2020
@ 26:05 , Passing Holmesburg Junction , this station will be high level platformed by 2020

@ 26:48 , I-95 can be seen to the left
@ 28:01 , Passing Tacony Station , this station will be High Level Platformed by 2020
@ 29:14-30:01 , This area will be rebuilt , with New Flyovers and New Tunnel to Center City for Next Gen Service
@ 30:04 , SEPTA Market - Frankford Service Crosses above
@ 33:10 , Entering North Philadelphia Station , the 2 Right Tracks will be restored and 1 Left Track by 2020 along with an Expanded Station and high level platformed Chestnut Hill West Platforms
@ 36:06 , The Next 3 Older Bridges to Replaced by 2020
@ 40:07 , Bridge and S-Curve to Straightened out and replaced by 2020
@ 41:52 , Crossing the Schuylkill River & I-76
@ 42:11 , Entering Zoo Interchange which will be upgraded by 2020
@ 42:14 , Crossing SEPTA TRAM Route 15

@ 42:51 , The New Zoo Substation can seen
@ 43:15 , Going under Amtrak's Keystone line
@ 43:51 , Amtrak's Keystone line Merges with SEPTA Center City Approach
@ 44:07 , Center City Skyline comes into view
@ 44:39 , This area with be Developed on by 2030 with Skyscrapers and high rises as part of a University City expansion
@ 44:44 , SEPTA's Center City Yard comes into view on the left
@ 45:19 , This area will be Developed on by 2025 with Hotel and Univ Space
@ 45:38 , Amtrak's 30th Street Station comes into View along with Center City Skyline
@ 45:58 , SEPTA's 30th Street Station


__________________
My FLICKR Page < 54,100+ Photos of Urban Renewal , Infrastructure , Food and Nature in the Northeastern US
Visit the Reorganized New York City Section
My Photography Website
Visit the New Jersey Section

Last edited by Nexis; August 31st, 2012 at 09:02 AM.
Nexis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2012, 03:58 PM   #2395
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,536
Likes (Received): 21244

New AMTRAK baggage policy and fees

Amtrak updated its checked baggage policy and fees, as indicated on their own website:

Quote:
A new baggage policy will be in effect starting September 10, 2012. The key changes include:
  • Each passenger can check up to 4 bags - 2 free of charge and 2 for $20 each.
  • Each bag in checked baggage is limited to a size of 75 linear inches (length + width + height). Oversize baggage (76 - 100 linear inches) is accepted for $20.00/bag.
  • Luggage must be checked 45 minutes prior to scheduled train departure.
  • Rates for storage, parcel check will increase to $4.00 ($5.50 at New York Penn Station) per bag for each 24 hour period.
  • Special item rates will increase from $5.00 to $10.00. Tandem bicycles and kayaks are no longer accepted.
  • Each bag checked must be packed within a suitable container; plastic/rubber storage containers are prohibited.
For carry-on baggage, the rules remain the same
Quote:
Each passenger may only bring a total of 2 carry-on items onboard the train; each item should not exceed 50 lbs. (23 kg) and 28 x 22 x 14 inches.
=========

It is important to remember checked baggage service is not offered everywhere. Actually, it is offered only in around half of Amtrak's stations. In other stations, passengers can only bring 2 carry-on items + notebook backpack or purse
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!

Last edited by Suburbanist; August 31st, 2012 at 04:06 PM.
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2012, 08:22 PM   #2396
China Hand
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 705
Likes (Received): 161

USA and Europe. Explains why CRH/TGV won't work in North America.

Too big, not enough concentrated population centres or density.

[IMG]http://i45.************/ortcmt.png[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i47.************/rsu13a.png[/IMG]
China Hand no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2012, 08:38 PM   #2397
Nexis
Dark Wolf
 
Nexis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Along the Rails of North Jersey..
Posts: 15,688
Likes (Received): 17037

But it will work these regions...such as the Midwest , Northeast , Cascadia , California , and Piedmont Atlantic.



--------------2000 - 2025 - 2050 Population

Greats Lakes : 54.1 - 64.7 - 71.6 Million
Northeastern Megapolis : 49.5 - 58.1 - 75.8 Million
Southern California : 24.9 - 34.8 - 39.3 Million
Texas Triangle : 16.5 - 26.8 - 38.1 Million
Florida : 14.7 - 21.4 - 31.5 Million
Piedmont Atlantic : 14.9 - 20.5 - 31.9 Million
Northern California : 12.7 - 17.3 - 21.1 Million
Gulf Coast : 11.7 - 15.8 - 23.6 Million
Cascadia : 10.2 - 12.5 - 24.6 Million
Arizona Sun Corridor : 5.7 - 7.4 - 12.3 Million
Front Range : 4.7 - 6.8 - 10.5 Million

United States Population in 2000 : 281.4 Million
Urbanized Suburban and Urban Population in 2000 : 219 Million
Public Transit Usage in 2000 : 15 Million


United States Population in 2010 : 308.7 Million
Urbanized Suburban and Urban Population in 2010 : 250 Million
Public Transit Usage in 2010 : 34 Million

United States Population by 2025 : 340 Million
Urbanized Suburban and Urban Population by 2025 : 286.5 Million
Public Transit Usage by 2025 : 54 Million

United States Population by 2050 : 440 Million
Urbanized Suburban and Urban Population by 2050 : 380 Million
Public Transit Usage by 2050 : 170 Million
__________________
My FLICKR Page < 54,100+ Photos of Urban Renewal , Infrastructure , Food and Nature in the Northeastern US
Visit the Reorganized New York City Section
My Photography Website
Visit the New Jersey Section

Last edited by Nexis; September 15th, 2012 at 01:43 PM.
Nexis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 1st, 2012, 04:46 AM   #2398
China Hand
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 705
Likes (Received): 161

Quote:
But it will work these regions...such as the Midwest , Northeast , Cascadia , California , and Piedmont Atlantic.
No it won't because you are assuming that people in the USA travel to/from common destinations in those regions, along the interstates, and that is not the case. They travel so many unique paths, on Interstates [I-95], State Highways [CA 101], United States Numbered Highways [Route 66, 50], local medium distance trips, local and regional daily commutes, that it is not possible to lay enough economical HSR track to meet the need and reduce road trip miles.

You are assuming, example, that people travel from Jacksonville, Fla to Miami, Fla in large enough numbers and they don't. Interstates in the USA are used for local commutes and medium distance trips for the most part. Any trip lengthier than 5 or 6 hours becomes an in-country plane flight.

Many trips are across those mega-regions, negating laying HSR track from one end to another.

The only place in the USA that it makes sense is the NE Corridor from Richmond to Boston, that just happens to be the ONLY profitable stretch of PDL-like track in the USA, and the ONLY one with 'High Speed Rail'. so to speak at 200kph.

Even that route has turbofan shuttles between DC, NYC and Boston that business travelers take over the train because it is faster to fly. 45 minutes DC-NY, both airports served by subway and express trains that get one into the city in 25 minutes each leg.

Those mega-regions that still manufacture anything (few) ship it by long-haul and short-haul truck as that is mostly cheaper except for a few bulk loads. Commercial freight volumes in the USA are in long-term decline and the frequency of freight trains shows this to be the case.

I understand you FanBois desire for HSR toys in the USA and North America (look at Canada and Mexico - really? You think HSR works in NA? Look at all that space.} but the reality of population density and driving culture, desire for mobility, price of gasoline and where everyone lives, works and travels and where they actually drive not where you think they should, means that HSR in the USA will not take off until its population grows significantly more.

The HSR in California is poised to be a massive public works project and handout to California Unions courtesy of Sacramento, and a massive boondoggle and waste of over $100Bn USD.

Your example of Los Angeles is a great example. If you lived or visited Socal you would know that traffic flows all over, not from point A to B. There are over a dozen major routes crossing back and forth, N-S, E-W, where drivers take a variety of surface streets and modern highways to reach their destinations. You would have to duplicate them all to get people to take a HSR train, and then get them from station to destination.

The fact is cars are faster and cheaper and time is money, time is life.

It will [Cali HSR], literally, become a useless train to nowhere except various California State Prisons.

Public Transit in the USA, asides Manhattan, Boston, Chicago and Seattle, is mostly for the not-normal people. Losers, those on Gov't assistance, the poor, and the devoutly environmental.

Not having a car in almost all of the USA means you are a loser.
Go to a job interview and tell them you took the bus. You won't get the job. HR will have someone go into the parking lot to check if you have a car and how nice it is.

Really.

You want the USA to be something it is not.

China HSR is terrific.

China also has 1,000 million people in the eastern third of the nation, in an area the size of the USA east of the Mississippi River. Europe is also much denser than USA. Until USA approaches those pop densities (2100) HSR won't be used by people there no matter how much is spent or how much they are educated (indoctrinated/propagandised) to do so.

Last edited by China Hand; September 1st, 2012 at 04:57 AM.
China Hand no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 1st, 2012, 04:57 AM   #2399
zaphod
PRESIDENT OF SPACE
 
zaphod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,176
Likes (Received): 1676

Quote:
Those mega-regions that still manufacture anything (few) ship it by long-haul and short-haul truck as that is mostly cheaper except for a few bulk loads. Commercial freight volumes in the USA are in long-term decline and the frequency of freight trains shows this to be the case.
How does this pertain to the rest of your argument?

Bulk loads and long-distance intermodal is exactly what rail does best and there's been a lot of private investment in the greater North American freight network for those purposes.

Last edited by zaphod; September 1st, 2012 at 05:19 AM.
zaphod no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 1st, 2012, 05:24 AM   #2400
China Hand
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 705
Likes (Received): 161

Quote:
Originally Posted by zaphod View Post
Quit posting rambling walls of text.
Thank you for your suggestion.

After consideration, it has been rejected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zaphod View Post
How does this pertain to the rest of your argument?

Bulk loads and long-distance intermodal is exactly what rail does best and there's been a lot of private investment in the greater North American freight network for those purposes.
I mentioned it to reference traffic volume in the USA. On interstates traveling between those points in future Megacities, it's mostly truck traffic moving goods. Why? It's cheaper than the train. Thus freight, and by extension passenger, traffic is cheaper and more flexible on the roads.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zaphod View Post
long-distance intermodal is exactly what rail does best.
Yet drive NA and look at all of the long distance truck haulers. Why? It's still cheaper and more flexible to ship most non-bulk loads by truck in the USA. You all continue to claim theory, desire and 'what it does best', yet the USA uses other methods that obviously are better, cheaper, more flexible.

The USA built out a huge rail network for bulk and intermodal, and have pulled up much of that track that was laid in the 1800's because it is cheaper, faster, more flexible to ship by truck.

Guys what you want is counter to USA reality, and most people in the USA simply do not want what you want.

As far as 'educating' Americans to 'want it', people in the USA H-A-T-E being told what is best for them.
China Hand no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
marc, rail, train

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 01:16 AM.


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