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 March 29th, 2009, 06:39 PM   #921
quashlo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 14,835
Likes (Received): 3215

Actually, I think the article is misquoting him (!). Clearly, no one in their right mind would try to argue that the US on average is more dense than Europe or Asia.
quashlo no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old March 30th, 2009, 03:01 AM   #922
hoosier
Registered User
 
hoosier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 2,451
Likes (Received): 63

Well, St. Louis and CHicago both have local rail transit systems that connect DT to the airport and other areas, so HSR would work well there. And having HSR in the U.S. will spur cities to invest more in mass transit, just as the interstate highway system encouraged more local road building.

The fact that there is lower population density between America's big cities means that bullet trains can travel at top speeds for greater distances.

And America's major cities are comparable in distance to many of Europe, Japan, and China's.
__________________
R.I.P. Moke- my best bud
hoosier no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 30th, 2009, 06:40 AM   #923
davsot
Perro que ladra no muerde
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,243
Likes (Received): 47

Amtrak should have Wi-Fi. It's the least they could do after forcing passengers on overnight rides.

It seems like everyone here is a Democrat. me too!
davsot no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 30th, 2009, 06:46 AM   #924
davsot
Perro que ladra no muerde
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,243
Likes (Received): 47

Errr... I like this thread discussion. But..

Did anyone see the new Acela commercial?

The one jabbing at the airlines (Oh wait they always do that).
Couldn't find it on Youtube, but still...
davsot no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 30th, 2009, 06:48 AM   #925
philvia
Registered User
 
philvia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Nyc
Posts: 1,022
Likes (Received): 33

Quote:
Originally Posted by davsot View Post
It seems like everyone here is a Democrat. me too!
this forum lacks religious and gun forums so we tend to not attract many republicans
philvia no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 30th, 2009, 08:59 AM   #926
He Named Thor
Just kidding.
 
He Named Thor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Beautiful Sheboygan, WI
Posts: 673
Likes (Received): 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by philvia View Post
this forum lacks religious and gun forums so we tend to not attract many republicans
Zing!

I'll be taking Amtrak from Chicago to Washington, DC next month.

Much cheaper than flying, and I get to see the scenery along the way.
He Named Thor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2009, 08:31 PM   #927
FlyFish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 352
Likes (Received): 83

Very interesting thread and I love the political and business conspiracies. Great stuff...lunacy mostly but entertaining to read. IMO, some of you are over-complicating this.


We don't want HSR service here in the US. If it was something that enough people wanted it would be built. That's the market speaking. Amtrak is "profitable" in one corridor nationally (Boston to Washington DC), and as a former weekly rider of that corridor I can say that the acela was a great thing but even the old Metroliner service was faster than driving or flying. Everywhere else it loses money, so why would those who steal and then spend my income decide to pour it down a hole where there is no evidence that enough people would use it to justify construction?

The current system needs to be subsidized heavily to stay afloat, why would that be different just because the trains run faster?

This is very simple really, in the US we do not have the desire for this service. It makes sense in Europe I suppose although I am certain the subsidies there are large but here, other than from Boston to DC and eventually down the Pacific coast from SFC to San Diego there just aren't enough riders to justify the expenditure.
FlyFish no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2009, 08:39 PM   #928
Ganis
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Dallas / Amarillo
Posts: 1,775
Likes (Received): 24

The airlines in America do not like the idea of high speed rail connecting regions.

In my opinion it would save the large airlines like AA, United and US a Delta a bundle because they could drop their small plains and stop wasting fuel and maintenance hours flying someone from DC to NY and all these other 1 to 2 hour puddle jumps.

Let the companies like Amtrak take on the short distances and let the airlines focus on Long haul, or any flight over 3 to 4 hours away and International.

Let America travel on the rails between Austin and Dallas, LA and San Francisco, Miami to Atlanta and so on. Let Americans see their country from the ground and not 5000 feet.

I support the push for high speed rail in the USA.
Ganis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2009, 08:45 PM   #929
FlyFish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 352
Likes (Received): 83

Quote:
Originally Posted by philvia View Post
this forum lacks religious and gun forums so we tend to not attract many republicans

We're here, we just have to work during the day.......


By the way, all of the political stuff here is very entertaining ( I especially like the invade Venezuela post, LOL) but you are missing the central point of Amtrak's trouble...no one rides it. They should shut it down everywhere but where it can be self sustaining: the Pacific Coast, Texas triangle and Boston - DC corridor. Regionalize it in those lacations and shut it down everywhere else. It's a money pit.


Well Dems, I gotta go back to work now, someone's got to pay for your stimulus, LOL.

Cheers
FlyFish no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2009, 08:54 PM   #930
FlyFish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 352
Likes (Received): 83

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganis View Post
The airlines in America do not like the idea of high speed rail connecting regions.

In my opinion it would save the large airlines like AA, United and US a Delta a bundle because they could drop their small plains and stop wasting fuel and maintenance hours flying someone from DC to NY and all these other 1 to 2 hour puddle jumps.

Let the companies like Amtrak take on the short distances and let the airlines focus on Long haul, or any flight over 3 to 4 hours away and International.

Let America travel on the rails between Austin and Dallas, LA and San Francisco, Miami to Atlanta and so on. Let Americans see their country from the ground and not 5000 feet.

I support the push for high speed rail in the USA.

It doens't matter if they liked them or not, if Delta or AA thought rail was financially viable and an alternative they'd own rail.
FlyFish no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2009, 09:22 PM   #931
jdbarber
Registered User
 
jdbarber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Morristown, NJ
Posts: 30
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyFish View Post
We're here, we just have to work during the day.......


By the way, all of the political stuff here is very entertaining ( I especially like the invade Venezuela post, LOL) but you are missing the central point of Amtrak's trouble...no one rides it. They should shut it down everywhere but where it can be self sustaining: the Pacific Coast, Texas triangle and Boston - DC corridor. Regionalize it in those lacations and shut it down everywhere else. It's a money pit.


Well Dems, I gotta go back to work now, someone's got to pay for your stimulus, LOL.

Cheers
Last time I checked roads and airports were subsidized by the government. I bus company can make a profit because the most expensive part of it's infrastructure is paid for the government, the billions a year in the gov't paying for road costs. If the consumer had to pay the direct cost of the journey (road construction and maintenace) it would be more expensive to take the Bus same with Airports and the Airlines. Assuming that RRs should operated without subsidies and turn a profit while all other parts of our transportation infrastructure is subsidized is unrealisitic. The reason people do not use rail is not because of free markets, it is because the gov't has pumped its funding into roads and airports for the past 40 yrs and ignored the rail infrastructure.
jdbarber no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2009, 09:35 PM   #932
FlyFish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 352
Likes (Received): 83

The difference is that we all use the roads, very very few of us use the train. I'm all for the train where people will use it but pumping tax money into a system very few ever use just to have it seems silly to me. An infrastructure investment on the NE corridor or on the Pacific coast makes sense. An infrastructure investment on a corridor between Chicago and New Orleans just to pick two places makes very little financial sense.

I disagree with your last sentence. Don't give government so much credit. Americans don't ride the train in measurable numbers because of convenience and speed, Government has nothing to do with it. We generally don't use the train because it is either more convenient to drive, or faster to fly. On the other hand I once did a three year consulting gig in Washington Dc and I lived outside of Philadelphia. I always used the train. Why? Because it was faster than the car and more convenient than the airplane. That is the market, Government has nothing to do with it.
FlyFish no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2009, 10:03 PM   #933
sarflonlad
Registered User
 
sarflonlad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,086
Likes (Received): 68

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyFish View Post
Very interesting thread and I love the political and business conspiracies. Great stuff...lunacy mostly but entertaining to read. IMO, some of you are over-complicating this.


We don't want HSR service here in the US. If it was something that enough people wanted it would be built. That's the market speaking. Amtrak is "profitable" in one corridor nationally (Boston to Washington DC), and as a former weekly rider of that corridor I can say that the acela was a great thing but even the old Metroliner service was faster than driving or flying. Everywhere else it loses money, so why would those who steal and then spend my income decide to pour it down a hole where there is no evidence that enough people would use it to justify construction?

The current system needs to be subsidized heavily to stay afloat, why would that be different just because the trains run faster?

This is very simple really, in the US we do not have the desire for this service. It makes sense in Europe I suppose although I am certain the subsidies there are large but here, other than from Boston to DC and eventually down the Pacific coast from SFC to San Diego there just aren't enough riders to justify the expenditure.
The French TGV and German DB all make tidy profits.... AND the EU still has cheaper airfares than the US.

Look at the link between Paris and London - airlines are falling over themselves to buy in to rail on that route. Even the upgrade of speeds on the London to Manchester route to the laughable "high speed" of 125mph slashed the demand for air travel on that corridor.

Visionaries built the US. If you stand still, you stagnate. And that's what has happened to the long distance travel market in the US. HSR won't ever be the answer coast to coast - but intra and some inter state travel would be very competitive and positive for the consumer.
sarflonlad no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2009, 10:25 PM   #934
Alle
Registered User
 
Alle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: G÷teborg
Posts: 2,333
Likes (Received): 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanfan89 View Post
They're a lot higher in most of Europe or even Canada, and much, much so in Japan. This is a non-argument.
As others noted, there is more private property in the US over larger areas. That needs to be dealt with differently there for anyone aspiring to develop such infrastructure. Personally I think that locally communities maybe should be able to override such, I think some would if considered important for the community. In my opinion personal rights, democracy (direct) > private interests. However, it probably would still be hard to solve the larger stretches between urban areas this way.
__________________
Stop the censorship in the BiH forums

Castles And Fortresses [Alpe Adria] [Bosnia]
Alle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2009, 10:33 PM   #935
FM 2258
Registered User
 
FM 2258's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,438
Likes (Received): 612

Quote:
Originally Posted by nitsua0491 View Post
I don't think that is fair. Texas has some of the largest cities and metroplexes in the nation, and they are close.

DFW --> Austin: 320km (200miles)
DFW --> San Antonio: 432km (270miles)
DFW --> Houston: 382km (240miles)
San Antonio --> Houston: 320km (200miles)
Austin --> Houston: 265km (166miles)

A train linking those cities in a triangle would serve a population of greater than 15 million (or roughly 64% of the state's population!).
Not sure if I posted this before but American Airlines, Continental and Southwest Airlines would hate this idea.

I'm still in favor of the local high speed rail with links to the airport and streamlined security for airport check in.
FM 2258 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2009, 10:45 PM   #936
sarflonlad
Registered User
 
sarflonlad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,086
Likes (Received): 68

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyFish View Post
It doens't matter if they liked them or not, if Delta or AA thought rail was financially viable and an alternative they'd own rail.
Out of interest, how much money does the FAA receive? You're missing the point that the US Government has and does subsidise the infrastructure around air travel.

No sole privately run company has successfully pulled off mass transportation without government backing - or later government bailout. So this USA free market argument really doesn't pan out.

Who pays for your roads? GM? Honda? think about it...
sarflonlad no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2009, 10:55 PM   #937
jdbarber
Registered User
 
jdbarber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Morristown, NJ
Posts: 30
Likes (Received): 3

I think transportation is an example where the free market is a poor example because ALL of its infrastructure is built by the government. It is a Government decsion to build a super highway into a downtown area or a commuter rail system. If the money and infrastructure built by the gov't is designed for auto use it will be used because it is faster. If the money and planning is put into rapit transit or rail service instead of super highways, rail will be quickier. Gov't built our transportation systems to say they have no impact is ridiculous.

I do agree with you on some long Amtrak routes, there is now reason Amtrak should be running through Montana. Important infrastructure improvements are needed where people actual live.
jdbarber no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2009, 10:56 PM   #938
urbanfan89
Registered User
 
urbanfan89's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,502
Likes (Received): 67

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyFish View Post
It doens't matter if they liked them or not, if Delta or AA thought rail was financially viable and an alternative they'd own rail.
What?

Last time I checked, Delta and AA are airlines. Flying is their business. Besides, they're permanently bankrupt and kept afloat by backdoor bailouts anyway.

This is like saying, "If GM thought renewable energy was financially viable they'd own all the solar panels and wind turbines."
urbanfan89 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2009, 11:36 PM   #939
Facial
Seeking truth from facts
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Los Angeles / San Diego
Posts: 636
Likes (Received): 10

Actually a recent thought of mine was:

I understood why people didn't want GM, Ford, Chrysler, etc. to collapse because the auto industry is linked with many other industries, for example, rubber, petrochemicals, steel, etc. Many of those same industries can be restructured to build railroad cars, locomotives, infrastructure, etc.

Why not just let GM and Chrysler collapse, and as the "safety net" that people fear would be absent from the workers and related industries, funnel all the people into the railroad industry?

It would be way the hell better from an efficiency perspective. This is my interpretation of "doing the work that needs to be done."

Close the dealerships, build train stations.
Diminish rubber tire production, increase damper and rubber-based suspensions.
Diminish steel for cars, increase steel for rails, bogies, etc.
Diminish glass for cars, increase FRA glass.
Diminish washer fluids, increase washer fluid for rail washing stations.
Decrease refinement of gasoline, increase diesel slightly.
Decrease batteries for cars, increase batteries for locomotives.
and many more.
Facial no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2009, 11:58 PM   #940
jdbarber
Registered User
 
jdbarber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Morristown, NJ
Posts: 30
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Facial View Post
Actually a recent thought of mine was:

I understood why people didn't want GM, Ford, Chrysler, etc. to collapse because the auto industry is linked with many other industries, for example, rubber, petrochemicals, steel, etc. Many of those same industries can be restructured to build railroad cars, locomotives, infrastructure, etc.

Why not just let GM and Chrysler collapse, and as the "safety net" that people fear would be absent from the workers and related industries, funnel all the people into the railroad industry?

It would be way the hell better from an efficiency perspective. This is my interpretation of "doing the work that needs to be done."

Close the dealerships, build train stations.
Diminish rubber tire production, increase damper and rubber-based suspensions.
Diminish steel for cars, increase steel for rails, bogies, etc.
Diminish glass for cars, increase FRA glass.
Diminish washer fluids, increase washer fluid for rail washing stations.
Decrease refinement of gasoline, increase diesel slightly.
Decrease batteries for cars, increase batteries for locomotives.
and many more.
Good Ideas, I wonder how big a transitional expense that would be $100B?

The auto industry has to realize its going to have to be smaller going forward. Maybe GM can put some money into developing some new rapid transit technologies instead of finding out ways to make the same car into a cadillac, a chevy, a buick, a pontiac, etc. The redundancies at that comapany are ridiculous.
jdbarber 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 12:35 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