As If Flying Didn't Suck Enough..

[SDW2001]

Now this:

Major Carriers Merging (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080425/bs_nm/americanairlines_dc)

So pretty soon we'll be down to Delta/Northwest) vs. US Air/Continental/American/United. That can't be good for the industry. Service sucks, and prices are rising. When I fly I already do my best to avoid these carriers. Instead I fly AirTran or USA 3000 or other smaller carriers. At least we still have Jet Blue and Southwest.

Personally I think these deals should not be allowed. Your thoughts....

[addabox]

At the very least, this means that people living in small markets will pay much more for air travel.

I think I read somewhere that trains are making a comeback. I wonder if we'll reach the point that air travel is so expensive, and such an unbelievable, spine-fusing, brain melting pain in the ass, that we'll actually get a functioning national rail system.

It would mean a wholesale adjustment of our expectations for travel time, of course, but that might be for the better. Planes would become largely the domain of the first class well to do and mission critical business flyers (who would also decrease in number as budget conscious organizations are driven to better and more extensive use of tele-presence). Ever fewer flights, except for few main trunk lines.....

Wow, kind of drifted off there.

Uh, not sure about the ramifications of prohibiting mergers. Apparently running an airline is a pretty dicey proposition, within the current structure.

[SDW2001]

At the very least, this means that people living in small markets will pay much more for air travel.

I think I read somewhere that trains are making a comeback. I wonder if we'll reach the point that air travel is so expensive, and such an unbelievable, spine-fusing, brain melting pain in the ass, that we'll actually get a functioning national rail system.

It would mean a wholesale adjustment of our expectations for travel time, of course, but that might be for the better. Planes would become largely the domain of the first class well to do and mission critical business flyers (who would also decrease in number as budget conscious organizations are driven to better and more extensive use of tele-presence). Ever fewer flights, except for few main trunk lines.....

Wow, kind of drifted off there.

Uh, not sure about the ramifications of prohibiting mergers. Apparently running an airline is a pretty dicey proposition, within the current structure.

WRT trains, I really doubt it. People are used to flying, and have been for 40 years or more. Even with high speed trains, which would cost billions to develop and build...I still doubt it. You might see more in terms of commuting traffic/local transportation, but long distance?

[mydo]

At the very least, this means that people living in small markets will pay much more for air travel.

I think I read somewhere that trains are making a comeback.

In my area the train is a horrible way to travel. Always late. Always slower than driving. The major problem being that Amtrak basically owns no tracks. They always get pushed around by the freight trains. Freight trains business is increasing so it's just going to get worse.

[groverat]

High speed trains between major population centers are tricky propositions in America, where land is vast.

[mydo]

Not on the east coast.

You're not going to get large amounts of people taking the train from NY or LA. Maybe for Boston/NY/Phily/DC but they have that rail already and it's not a huge success.

Low cost airlines are beating rail in Europe too. In terms of price and time. It seems that rail is just a by gone technology for anything other than freight.

[Jubelum]

Isn't Europe the size of America?

They seem to have a train or two.

I posted about the distance issue a couple of weeks ago...

A 12 hour trip in Europe:
You can go from Berlin to Paris, cross two national borders, and have three hours left over.

A 12 hour trip in the Western US:
You can drive from one side of a single state, Texas, to the other side of the same state.

[audiopollution]

I posted about the distance issue a couple of weeks ago...

A 12 hour trip in Europe:
You can go from Berlin to Paris, cross two national borders, and have three hours left over.

A 12 hour trip in the Western US:
You can drive from one side of a single state, Texas, to the other side of the same state.

Travelling by land in the US is a fucking bore.

[Jubelum]

Travelling by land in the US is a fucking bore.

Yep... last weekend we drove six hours in a stretch in west Texas. What a snoozer....

[Jubelum]

Regardless, Europe is comparable to America in total land area, and they seem to have good train service throughout the continent. And I'm sure some areas have better service than others, much like how denser regions like the Northeast, Upper Midwest, and California would have better service than our Midwest.

Not to belabor the point... but europe has about twice the population density per square mile as the US... there are more people "between here and there" to make a rail system work. There's a whole lot of "fly-over country" out west.

I think that the eastern seaboard and west coast could really make it work, if they wanted to.

The Amtrak system has demonstrated the lack of economic viability of a national rail system. It's been an albatross since its inception. It may be great in some areas (the Hiawatha Line from Milwaukee to Chicago is nice) but the overall Amtrak program has been a real loser.

[BRussell]

Not to belabor the point... but europe has about twice the population density per square mile as the US... there are more people "between here and there" to make a rail system work. There's a whole lot of "fly-over country" out west.

I think that the eastern seaboard and west coast could really make it work, if they wanted to.

The Amtrak system has demonstrated the lack of economic viability of a national rail system. It's been an albatross since its inception. It may be great in some areas (the Hiawatha Line from Milwaukee to Chicago is nice) but the overall Amtrak program has been a real loser.

That's not an excuse. You just have less tracks in regions with less people. Europe is larger than the US, contrary to your example about Texas and Berlin-Paris. The real reason it doesn't happen is because of the economic philosophy in the US, which is all about disposable income to buy shit rather than pooling tax money together to do something that could actually good for the country.

[tonton]

That's not an excuse. You just have less tracks in regions with less people. Europe is larger than the US, contrary to your example about Texas and Berlin-Paris. The real reason it doesn't happen is because of the economic philosophy in the US, which is all about disposable income to buy shit rather than pooling tax money together to do something that could actually good for the country.

My friend (from Hong Kong) is going from LA to San Francisco in June. The cost of his flight: US$69. The cost of Amtrak: US$64. The flight takes 2 hours. The train takes 12. Driving takes 8. Who the hell is going to take the train?

We need higher speed rail in viable places like California. And yes, it is exactly about pooling resources to do something beneficial for the country. Americans just hate the concept. Greed greed greed.

[Jubelum]

And yes, it is exactly about pooling resources to do something beneficial for the country. Americans just hate the concept. Greed greed greed.

Um, tonton... I have something to say about pooling resources: AMTRAK.

We've already publicly funded (yes, "pooled resources") Amtrak for decades... and it is still not profitable. Or break-even-able. Failure. No go. Non-viable. DOA. A dud. And chronically mismanaged to boot.

I think it is funny that you agree in the statement with "why would anyone choose rail" (based on logistics) and then turn around in the same post and call out Americans for "greed greed greed." Never miss a chance, eh. ;)

[tonton]

Um, tonton... I have something to say about pooling resources: AMTRAK.

We've already publicly funded (yes, "pooled resources") Amtrak for decades... and it is still not profitable. Or break-even-able. Failure. No go. Non-viable. DOA. A dud. And chronically mismanaged to boot.

I think it is funny that you agree in the statement with "why would anyone choose rail" (based on logistics) and then turn around in the same post and call out Americans for "greed greed greed." Never miss a chance, eh. ;)

Um... does it have to be profitable? Maybe that's where it failed. You don't get the concept. Is the Police Department "profitable"? The Fire Department? Road works?

And the reason Amtrak is "a failure" is because it's half-assed. No high-speed rail. No service. No subsidy from the government to encourage patronage. Half-assed, just like every other compromise we are forced into by people who don't get the concept.

[Jubelum]

Um... does it have to be profitable? Maybe that's where it failed. You don't get the concept. Is the Police Department "profitable"? The Fire Department? Road works?

And the reason Amtrak is "a failure" is because it's half-assed. No high-speed rail. No service. Half-assed, just like every other compromise we are forced into by people who don't get the concept.

I get the concept... maybe we need another 40 years and another 10-20 billion dollars to see if it will somehow suddenly gain widespread appeal. It won't, except maybe in the northeast. I just don't hear people clamoring for more and better rail service... except a few in the eco-crowd and the "US should be more like Europe" crowd. Personally, I love train trips, when I have the time on vacation.

14 unions with 24 contracts does not help progress or reform, either.

No subsidy from the government to encourage patronage.
What? Amtrak is HEAVILY subsidized (read: floated completely with taxpayer funds and worthless stock).
If people had to pay the true cost of a ticket... we'd have a lot of scrap metal to recycle.

[addabox]

My friend (from Hong Kong) is going from LA to San Francisco in June. The cost of his flight: US$69. The cost of Amtrak: US$64. The flight takes 2 hours. The train takes 12. Driving takes 8. Who the hell is going to take the train?

We need higher speed rail in viable places like California. And yes, it is exactly about pooling resources to do something beneficial for the country. Americans just hate the concept. Greed greed greed.

Right, and my original point about rail transit is that if things keep going like they're going, with airlines merging and failing and fuel costs rising and routes being canceled or consolidated, rail may become much more attractive, its drawbacks notwithstanding.

I can't contest that it's neat to go 1000 miles in a few hours instead of a day, but if the plane ticket is three or four times the rail ticket, and the airline experience is like some kind of medieval torture, and if there's a better than even chance that that "few hours" is going to turn into an all day slog through delayed or canceled flights anyway, sitting in that comfy chair with lots of leg room, watching the scenery roll past, starts looking a lot more attractive.

[SDW2001]

That's not an excuse. You just have less tracks in regions with less people. Europe is larger than the US, contrary to your example about Texas and Berlin-Paris. The real reason it doesn't happen is because of the economic philosophy in the US, which is all about disposable income to buy shit rather than pooling tax money together to do something that could actually good for the country.

Oh my God. The average American is paying a good 40-50% in total taxes as we speak. But like most good liberals, you think we need more. Or you know what...maybe it's the Iraq war that's the problem. Or Teh Global Warming™. Guess what will fix it though..more money! And who is going to pay for it? Me and the millions of middle class people just like me. We should stop being so greedy and just pony up the cash. At the same time we can continue to me blamed for all the world's ills.

In all seriousness though, the US is far to spread out. The population density is double that of the US. Jub's example is spot on. Drive through central/western PA and you'll see the same thing.

[SDW2001]

Um... does it have to be profitable? Maybe that's where it failed. You don't get the concept. Is the Police Department "profitable"? The Fire Department? Road works?

I don't agree that transportation should be a government service necessarily, but let's put that aside. BTW, many roads are quite profitable. Why do you think we have permanent tolls on many roads and bridges? Tolls for many roads were put in place to pay for construction. At one time it was promised that the tolls would go away once the road was paid for. Hmmm. Sounds profitable to me.



And the reason Amtrak is "a failure" is because it's half-assed. No high-speed rail. No service. No subsidy from the government to encourage patronage.

Amtrak has some higher speed capability. http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Route/Vertical_Route_Page&cid=1080772074490

And subsidies? Are you kidding me?

Half-assed, just like every other compromise we are forced into by people who don't get the concept.

Right..we just need some enlightened socialists to explain it to the rest of us. The American people don't want rail service. It's slow. It's inconvenient. It's not much cheaper than flying.

I just ran a quote for PHL to Ft Myers Florida. Price? $180. I can fly for about that. That $180 gets me this:

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/7049/trainro2.png (http://imageshack.us)

Are you kidding me? But hey, maybe if we all pay more in taxes, we could eliminate that bus trip at the end and get the trip down to 20 hours instead of 25.

[Bergermeister]

High speed rail is great and Japan has it right. The country is long and narrow, which also helps. However, it can be rather expensive for long trips, topping air travel. The stations tend to be right in the middle of town, so it is very convenient for business travelers.

The train has far better views, more leg room, you can move around, there are vending machines, if you travel in a small group you can spin the chairs around so they face each other, there is a service cart with hot lunches, beer, AC receptacles in many seats.

Local trains abound, which makes train travel really convenient.

[@_@ Artman]

I think I read somewhere that trains are making a comeback.

Why Warren Buffett is buying a train set (http://www.moneyweek.com/file/28514/why-warren-buffett-is-buying-a-train-set.html/)

You would normally associate Warren Buffett with big consumer brands like Coca-Cola and American Express. So when he shelled out $4.4bn on three US rail companies last week, many wondered why he had suddenly fallen in love with the sector. The simple answer is globalisation. With booming demand for commodities from the East and a hunger for cheap foreign goods in the West, the rail companies linking consumer and producer look appealing for the long haul.

...

Buffett will also have noted how the US and Canada have embraced alternative energy, with an increasing amount of coal being hauled across the country for energy production. Coal transport has been a significant factor in the 25% growth in transport volumes in the US since 2002. Potential competition from trucking companies is falling by the wayside amid rising fuel prices: railroads are able to transport the same amount of goods using just a third of the energy.

Though this investment trend isn't directed to the public transportation sector it is a good idea. Rails used to run through most small towns, but they've been removed as freight became dominated by semis. As the price of oil continues to increase, we'll be kicking ourselves for destroying such an efficient means of distribution.

And the technology is advancing too. GPS and radio are starting to be used to providing remote monitoring for each container that is being shipped around the world. This allows the rail network to be come a sort of packet-switched network for containers. Shippers can know exactly where their container is as it is shipped from say the far east to the West Coast and then by rail to Chicago. Data such as temperature for refrigerated containers can also be tracked.

[BRussell]

Oh my God. The average American is paying a good 40-50% in total taxes as we speak. Jeez, no wonder you think taxes are so high. Try about half that.

[KingOfSomewhereHot]

Jeez, no wonder you think taxes are so high. Try about half that.

No, He's pretty accurate.
Figure Federal taxes, State taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, Fee's for various registrations, licenses, permits, etc. Tolls for state/fed highways. All of these things realistically fall under the title of "Tax". The government does not have any money except what they collect form the citizens, so ALL money the government collects are taxes, regardless of what they choose to call them.

With this in mind, my tax burden is over 40%.

[tonton]

No, He's pretty accurate.
Figure Federal taxes, State taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, Fee's for various registrations, licenses, permits, etc. Tolls for state/fed highways. All of these things realistically fall under the title of "Tax". The government does not have any money except what they collect form the citizens, so ALL money the government collects are taxes, regardless of what they choose to call them.

With this in mind, my tax burden is over 40%.

Hey I thought you lived overseas.

[midwinter]

My wife and I hate to fly, and so we've often looked at taking the train back to our hometowns for Xmas. It's completely, utterly, ridiculous (http://tickets.amtrak.com/itd/amtrak/FareFinder?_tripType=Return&_origin=SLC&_depmonthyear=2008-05&_depday=10&_dephourmin=&_destination=MEM&_retmonthyear=2008-05&_retday=20&_rethourmin=&_adults=1&_children=0&_infants=0&_searchBy=schedule&x=19&y=21). 45 hours one way from SLC to Chicago to Memphis.

[SDW2001]

The "too far spread out argument" is bogus. We established that you wouldn't have 500 trains running to Topeka or Lincoln everyday. And the density argument only pertains to the overall level of service trains would provide. It speaks nothing about whether the *current* level of train service is meeting *potential* demand.

It's bogus? The country is 3,000 miles coast to coast, with one hell of a lot of empty space in between. And really...why do you think we don't have a better rail system? Because there is no demand. People aren't going to pay nearly as much for rail, then spend 18 hours on a train instead of 2 on a plane .

One more thing: Are you arguing that if the system was better, it would attract more demand? Isn't that kind of like supply-side transportation?

[SDW2001]

Jeez, no wonder you think taxes are so high. Try about half that.

I can't believe we still are arguing this point. Add up all the taxes you pay, such as:

Income Tax-Federal/State/Local
Social Security
Medicare
Unemployment Tax
Capital Gains Tax
Real Estate Transfer Tax
Property Tax-school/county/local
Sales Tax
Gas Tax
Luxury Tax
Services Tax
Taxes on Utilities
Tobacco tax
Telecommunications taxes ("fees")
Liquor Tax
Tolls
Licenses/permits (fishing, hunting, driving, pets, etc.)
Inheritance tax


Really...do the math. I did once, and found I paid about 40% of my income to a state, local or government agency.

[Jubelum]

No, He's pretty accurate.
Figure Federal taxes, State taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, Fee's for various registrations, licenses, permits, etc. Tolls for state/fed highways. All of these things realistically fall under the title of "Tax".

+1
....

[Jubelum]

Isn't that kind of like supply-side transportation?

:lol: Awesome...

[BRussell]

No, He's pretty accurate.
Figure Federal taxes, State taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, Fee's for various registrations, licenses, permits, etc. Tolls for state/fed highways. All of these things realistically fall under the title of "Tax". The government does not have any money except what they collect form the citizens, so ALL money the government collects are taxes, regardless of what they choose to call them.

With this in mind, my tax burden is over 40%.

I can't believe we still are arguing this point. Add up all the taxes you pay, such as:

Income Tax-Federal/State/Local
Social Security
Medicare
Unemployment Tax
Capital Gains Tax
Real Estate Transfer Tax
Property Tax-school/county/local
Sales Tax
Gas Tax
Luxury Tax
Services Tax
Taxes on Utilities
Tobacco tax
Telecommunications taxes ("fees")
Liquor Tax
Tolls
Licenses/permits (fishing, hunting, driving, pets, etc.)
Inheritance tax


Really...do the math. I did once, and found I paid about 40% of my income to a state, local or government agency. I just don't believe it. I'd be willing to be proven wrong, but I can't see how it's going to add up to 40-45%. The overall tax "wedge" - total state and federal effective taxes, including social security - is an average of 15%. It varies a lot depending on your situation, of course. My US state and federal effective tax rate was less than 10% in 2007, according to turbotax, and that makes sense because the average for families with kids is under 12% according to this (http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P148855.asp).

To get to 40-45% from 15%, you'd need 1/3 of your income going to your highway tolls and car registration fees and sales taxes and such. That's just not credible. A family making $60,000 is not paying $20,000 of it to fees and sales taxes. I'd guess an extra 3-5%, still putting the overall tax rate at something like half of what you claim.

If I'm wrong, please show me how.

[midwinter]

Maybe he's just adding up all those "1% increases" and not figuring how that plays into income?

[addabox]

One more thing: Are you arguing that if the system was better, it would attract more demand? Isn't that kind of like supply-side transportation?

Yes. And rightfully, America's roads should be allowed to deteriorate till they're impassible, then we'll see what's what.

The damn gummit has no business in the transit infrastructure game, since transit infrastructure has no bearing on national well-being, and surely market forces will sort things out.

Privatize the nation's highways immediately! If you can't afford the toll, you should have chosen a better career path!

Once driving reflects its actual costs, we can revisit the efficacy of rail transit.

[SDW2001]

I just don't believe it. I'd be willing to be proven wrong, but I can't see how it's going to add up to 40-45%. The overall tax "wedge" - total state and federal effective taxes, including social security - is an average of 15%. It varies a lot depending on your situation, of course. My US state and federal effective tax rate was less than 10% in 2007, according to turbotax, and that makes sense because the average for families with kids is under 12% according to this (http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P148855.asp).

To get to 40-45% from 15%, you'd need 1/3 of your income going to your highway tolls and car registration fees and sales taxes and such. That's just not credible. A family making $60,000 is not paying $20,000 of it to fees and sales taxes. I'd guess an extra 3-5%, still putting the overall tax rate at something like half of what you claim.

If I'm wrong, please show me how.

OK. Here's a quick and dirty. I currently make about $60,000 gross. This summer I am buying a home, so I'll base it on that.

Effective Income Tax Rate, Federal: 11%
Effective State Tax Rate About 3%
Effective Local Rate 1%
Medicare-1.5%
Social Security-6.2%
Unemployment Tax-negligible
Property Tax-School and county--$4000 or 6%
Sales Tax--assume $20K of taxable spending=About 1.5% of gross income
Gas Tax about 70 cents per gallon (state/federal), 18,000 miles per year=about 1%
Tolls/Road Fees: $20 a month or about .5%
Licenses: About .5%
Utility Taxes: .5%
Telecom taxes .5%
Use Taxes .25%
Real Estate Transfer Tax (one year only): $2000 or 3%

So let's do the math: Without even trying, I'm at about 37%. There are many more taxes and fees I haven't listed here. As you can see, getting to 40% is not hard. I also think I may have underestimated sales taxes. I only figured 20K as taxable, which means the other 2/3 goes to other taxes, food and non-taxable living expenses such as rent/mortgage.


Yes. And rightfully, America's roads should be allowed to deteriorate till they're impassible, then we'll see what's what.

Uhh...why? So we can live in the Utopian paradise of public transit?



The damn gummit has no business in the transit infrastructure game, since transit infrastructure has no bearing on national well-being, and surely market forces will sort things out.

Don't think I made that claim.



Privatize the nation's highways immediately! If you can't afford the toll, you should have chosen a better career path!

Take a pill.



Once driving reflects its actual costs, we can revisit the efficacy of rail transit.

I don't even know what that first part means.

[Frank777]

I know I commented in a previous thread on high speed rail, but the Search function only found this one.

HIgh Speed Rail's potential has caught IBM's attention (http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/22/technology/ibm_china_fast_trains.fortune/index.htm) (which is always a good thing.) China's ambitions could help with economies of scale that impact installations around the world.

As I previously said, I would have preferred to see a national program like this (or even the building of a new college in every state and province) rather than the ridiculous auto bailouts.

I understand that North America still doesn't have the density required to build massive rail expansion across the country, but I think we're getting closer and if new R&D brings lower costs and better systems, we'll be able to jump aboard in due time.

[iPoster]

Why Warren Buffett is buying a train set (http://www.moneyweek.com/file/28514/why-warren-buffett-is-buying-a-train-set.html/)


Interesting that Buffett is investing in rail, though 4.4 Billion for him would be like most people putting a few hundred into a stock. Also a bit OT, but how is transporting coal investing in alternative energy?

As far as high speed rail, I agree it would probably be worthwhile on the East Coast and California. The Midwest? Not so much...

[Talon8472]

If we look at this from the perspective that different transportation systems having different advantages/disadvantages given a geographical and population density spread, we see that a diversified system is more in line with what we need - not one uni-transportation system for America. One size won't fit all because America is so large geographically, with varied terrain and weather conditions and its population is not uniformly dispersed.

Its not that any one particular transportation system sucks per say; its that they can't be a one size fits all economically. If you need to travel a long distance quickly, flying is the more economical approach. But again, one size fits all will never be a solution for America's transportation problems.

[dfiler]

High speed trains between major population centers are tricky propositions in America, where land is vast.The Russians don't seem to have a problem with it. ;)

My take is that rail travel is underutilized in the US. It isn't the solution for all regions/city-types/population-densities, but it is definitely underutilized.

As a biker I have mixed feelings about a resurgence of rail travel. There are many rails-to-trails that would probably be reclaimed. Unused rail lines have been turning into pedestrian and bike trails for a few decades now. As much as I like those trails, they'd probably better serve society by once again being rail lines.

[Talon8472]

The Russians don't seem to have a problem with it. ;)

Apples and oranges. The population layout and density and need for transportation here in America is very different than that of Russia, which has most of its populace around the Eastern border. And again, your also looking at a very different set of needs - large swaths of which are frozen over and hardly habitable; much less productive. So no, the example of the Russians is not comparable to Americas.

My take is that rail travel is underutilized in the US. It isn't the solution for all regions/city-types/population-densities, but it is definitely underutilized.

Rail travel for the US is not as practical or affordable then flying. Rails in this country are best served for heavy freighting for the most part. The reason rail roads for passengers are seemingly underutilized is because other varied technologies which have a different set of advantages for person travel came up that better served the needs of the people. In places like Russia which don't have as much habitable zones and sometimes need to traverse inhospitable lands - rail roads have certain advantages in that case.


As a biker I have mixed feelings about a resurgence of rail travel. There are many rails-to-trails that would probably be reclaimed. Unused rail lines have been turning into pedestrian and bike trails for a few decades now. As much as I like those trails, they'd probably better serve society by once again being rail lines.

There are reasons why they went unused - its not economical unless its a freight destination. Safe bike lanes / trails are underutilized though - and their healthy.

[dfiler]

Apples and oranges. The population layout and density and need for transportation here in America is very different than that of Russia, which has most of its populace around the Eastern border. And again, your also looking at a very different set of needs - large swaths of which are frozen over and hardly habitable; much less productive. So no, the example of the Russians is not comparable to Americas.

Rail travel for the US is not as practical or affordable then flying. Rails in this country are best served for heavy freighting for the most part. The reason rail roads for passengers are seemingly underutilized is because other varied technologies which have a different set of advantages for person travel came up that better served the needs of the people. In places like Russia which don't have as much habitable zones and sometimes need to traverse inhospitable lands - rail roads have certain advantages in that case.

There are reasons why they went unused - its not economical unless its a freight destination. Safe bike lanes / trails are underutilized though - and their healthy.The funny thing is that you picked apart the post of someone who acknowledged that rail travel doesn't always make sense. That it only makes sense in, if I may quote myself, some "regions/city-types/population-densities"

So if you don't even agree my rather uncontentious fence-sitting, you must hold rather extreme views. You must be saying that passenger rail travel is impossible in America. Or perhaps that the transportation system in America is perfect. Nearly the entire world relies on train travel except for us. Since our geography isn't terribly unique, that must mean that everyone else is doing something wrong.

Why be so closed minded to assume that we're infallible, have the perfect solution, and have nothing to learn from others? :no:

Or perhaps those aren't your views. But otherwise, why disagree with my post? It pretty much sat on the fence in terms of the optimal level of rail travel.

[Talon8472]

The funny thing is that you picked apart the post of someone who acknowledged that rail travel doesn't always make sense. That it only makes sense in, if I may quote myself, some "regions/city-types/population-densities"

I think you misunderstood my intentions. I respond fully to every statement - its my way of making complete conversation in a forum. I did not intend to annoy/insult or belittle you in any way. I'm sorry if I came across as such. :embarrass

So if you don't even agree my rather uncontentious fence-sitting, you must hold rather extreme views.

Extremity is a matter of ones own personal perspective on a situation in relation to the perceived other. I have the feeling that neither of us are "extremes" in the spectrum nor are we that far apart.

You must be saying that passenger rail travel is impossible in America.

No, but as technologies have evolved, the practicality and usage of rails diminished in America in favor of other transportation systems. I'm for whatever is the most efficient combination of technologies. I actually enjoyed my last ride on AmTrack here in California - it was a very nice experience. But I took it not because it is a nice experience but because my situation at the time deemed it the most economical and practical.

Or perhaps that the transportation system in America is perfect.

No, I did not say that or wish to imply such. No system is ever perfect, and I don't believe America's transportation systems are as good as they could be.

Nearly the entire world relies on train travel except for us.

Yes, and some are for very good reason too. I'm not advocating that they change from such.

Since our geography isn't terribly unique, that must mean that everyone else is doing something wrong.

That is a fallacious statement. One, we are unique - both in terms of our geography layout in relation to our population densities - and because of our types of commercial output from those locations and needs of those locations are different. Its a combination of relative differences that give it the "unique" situation. And secondly, I did not contest that the rest of the world is wrong - I actually explained why railroads are used in Russia because of the need. I did not go on to say that what Russia was doing was wrong, I merely pointed out why it is the way it is there. Is Russian transportation systems the best possible combination for their country; I wouldn't know, I don't live there. I only spoke to what I knew.

Why be so closed minded to assume that we're infallible, have the perfect solution, and have nothing to learn from others? :no:

I made no reference to being infallible - either me or the country's choices over the past 200+ years. Nor did I contest that we have a perfect solution - combination of transportation systems. In fact, I had stated in my reply to you that biking is underutilized. Also, I again did not say or imply that we have nothing to learn from others. I instead pointed out why their combination of transportation systems are different from our own and why that is. Different should not imply superiority - I think that is where this conversation became confused.

Or perhaps those aren't your views.

They aren't. I think it was a misunderstanding between us.

But otherwise, why disagree with my post? It pretty much sat on the fence in terms of the optimal level of rail travel.

I simple continued the conversation to further elaborate upon the issues you brought to the table (Russia) and biking. This was by no means an attack on you or your ideas, and I am very sorry if that is how it was interpreted. :embarrass

[dfiler]

The problem with quoting and rebutting every sentence separately, is that it tends to lead us astray on tangents while the main point is lost.

Some people enjoy discussing that way. In carefully researched and quantitative discussions it is valuable. When done in relatively unsubstantiated discussions like we have here, it seldom leads to truly fascinating discourse.

Your views would have been far more interesting if presented in a cohesive assertion of the situation as you knew it. This is far different from a piece-meal attack on someone else's post.

Sorry to make you the example, but just thought i'd let you know why I'm not interested in replying to your itemized list. No hard feelings, just not my style of discussion. Thoughtful monologues are just far more interesting.

[Talon8472]

The problem with quoting and rebutting every sentence separately, is that it tends to lead us astray on tangents while the main point is lost.

Not at all - as long as you remember what you said and what the discussion is and as long as my responses are within the realms of the topic, then it successfully addresses each and every point which is raised. Without having to read a paragraph.

Some people enjoy discussing that way. In carefully researched and quantitative discussions it is valuable. When done in relatively unsubstantiated discussions like we have here, it seldom leads to truly fascinating discourse.

If you have not learned anything from the responses I wrote - then there really isn't anything to be gathered from a single huge paragraph for yourself. Note - Melgross and I were able to handle a very long discussion this way which lead to several facts being stated and edification for everyone.

Your views would have been far more interesting if presented in a cohesive assertion of the situation as you knew it.

I had already done that in my first post. Which you responded, and thusly I responded to. You brought up more talking points, I went into each and every one of them - ignoring no part of your paragraph.

This is far different from a piece-meal attack on someone else's post.

Which - was neither the intent nor what actually happened.

Sorry to make you the example, but just thought i'd let you know why I'm not interested in replying to your itemized list. No hard feelings, just not my style of discussion.

That's fine. Anyone can pickup the discussion.


Thoughtful monologues are just far more interesting.

To some - and I'm very direct. I like to see progress on each individual point. What mostly ends up happening in "thoughtful monologues" is people's posts get glossed over, or only part of their statements get responded too - which angers the person. Which really ends up not fully addressing all issues.

Feel free to respond or not. :smokey:

[vinea]

The problem with quoting and rebutting every sentence separately, is that it tends to lead us astray on tangents while the main point is lost.

Some people enjoy discussing that way. In carefully researched and quantitative discussions it is valuable. When done in relatively unsubstantiated discussions like we have here, it seldom leads to truly fascinating discourse.

Your views would have been far more interesting if presented in a cohesive assertion of the situation as you knew it. This is far different from a piece-meal attack on someone else's post.

Sorry to make you the example, but just thought i'd let you know why I'm not interested in replying to your itemized list. No hard feelings, just not my style of discussion. Thoughtful monologues are just far more interesting.

Your thoughtful monologue consisted of a 1 line zinger, an unsupported assertion and a tangent about reclaimed bike trails.

The reason rail is more prevalent in Europe is that we have mostly mixed use rail (frieght and passenger) leading to lower speeds and they have more dedicated passenger rails which allows high speed service like the TGV. Acela averages around 80mph from DC to NY (yes, it goes 150mph when it can). Even the our normal trains can do 90-100 mph and if the tracks in better shape, sustain it for most of the trip. And the north east corridor is a good part of the country as far as rails goes.

Eurostar averages 125 mph from London to Paris and hits 186mph.

I will say the Acela seats are much nicer than Eurostar. They danged well better be because they do cost an arm and a leg.

Given the slower speed of Acela vs Eurostar/TGV it has a speed disadvantage over flying even counting arriving at Penn Station and definately costs more than budget fares (even including the cab ride).

We're underutilized for a big reason. We don't have the infrastructure to make rail travel more convienent for folks vs air.

[dfiler]

Your thoughtful monologue consisted of a 1 line zinger, an unsupported assertion and a tangent about reclaimed bike trails.

The reason rail is more prevalent in Europe is that we have mostly mixed use rail (frieght and passenger) leading to lower speeds and they have more dedicated passenger rails which allows high speed service like the TGV. Acela averages around 80mph from DC to NY (yes, it goes 150mph when it can). Even the our normal trains can do 90-100 mph and if the tracks in better shape, sustain it for most of the trip. And the north east corridor is a good part of the country as far as rails goes.

Eurostar averages 125 mph from London to Paris and hits 186mph.

I will say the Acela seats are much nicer than Eurostar. They danged well better be because they do cost an arm and a leg.

Given the slower speed of Acela vs Eurostar/TGV it has a speed disadvantage over flying even counting arriving at Penn Station and definately costs more than budget fares (even including the cab ride).

We're underutilized for a big reason. We don't have the infrastructure to make rail travel more convienent for folks vs air.Great post! (And also the type that I prefer to engage in discussion) :)

I totally agree with your reasoning. Passenger rail travel in America is nowhere near as convenient for travelers as it is in Europe. People are logically choosing other modes of transportation when it comes time to travel.

There are two ways to look at "underutilized". I was approaching it from a national perspective, how our government chooses to allocate infrastructure funding. The intention wasn't to imply that Americans are underutilizing the choices they are presented with.

Prior to the advent of the automobile, America had similar city structures and transportation systems to Europe. It would be interesting to note the specific governmental policies that drove us down separate paths. It is my belief that we ended up car-dependent because of choices made many decades ago on the funding of rail and roads systems. We opted to fund automobile infrastructure to such an extreme that we're now stuck with a non-optimal transportation system, at least for the short and medium term. Rail-centric nations are also non-optimal, but in other ways. When looking at America, it would seem that heavier reliance on rail would still be beneficial, even though city structures have been built up which aren't suitable to rail. There are still regions that could benefit more from investment in rail. In particular, the northeast is still suited to rail travel. Many cities and neighborhoods predate the automobile and thus are quite analogous to Europe where trains makes sense.

High-speed trains require huge monetary investment. But so do highway systems. You're right, Europe has faster trains and this motivates higher use. Put another way, European governments invested in rail rather than road when building modern links between cities in the past few decades. We could have, and could still, do the same. Rail lines need to be flatter and straighter for high speed travel. This necessitated seizing of property and zoning battles in Europe. New high-speed rail systems are admittedly not without controversy.

With all that said, I'd also like to acknowledge that because of our car-centric policies, many cities have developed with a structure unsuitable to rail transportation. In particular, low density suburbs can't be well served by trains. Trains don't work well for local transportation expect at higher population densities. Most modern cities in the US are low density, meaning much of the West. It's mostly the older parts of the country that underutilize passenger rail. Or perhaps I should say under-fund passenger rail systems. That's probably a more accurate phrasing.

[vinea]

I would almost say that our rails are "overutilized" given the majority of the country is mixing freight service with passenger service causing passenger service to suffer tremendously.

But yes, we agree that the government could allocate infrastructure funding better. Whether we would agree what the RIGHT allocation would be is iffy. :)

One thing is trains and automobile doesn't compete as much as trains and airplanes. Divorcing US drivers from their cars is fairly hard but when the oil prices shot through the roof, train/light rail/commuter rail/subway ridership went up.

While it's a tad late now for Acela, we could also regulate our trains better. One reason Acela is a bit more expensive than it should have been to build is because our train safety regs are different than those of Europe or Japan. Many companies declined to bid on Acela because they'd have to start from scratch to meet our regs. Only bombadier bid and they pretty much had to build a whole new train rather than mod the TGV.

We'd get a lot of cost savings if we could buy stuff off the shelf and use it in the US. That wouldn't require any new subsidies for Amtrak.