http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/54.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net 1. Who between one of the two candicate (Romney VS Santorum) promised railroad reforms?
2. If so. beside the not-so successful ACELA (Hi-speed trains aren't supposed to run on the regular freight tracks!) do you think the USA should have the 'true' Euro HST thing? (all electric-powered train that is as fast as jets. or maybe faster!, runs on a purpose-built tracks that constructed by multilayer composite foundations, think of Japanese Shinkansen, german I.C.E, or european TGV-Chunnel thing). and if the AMTRAK is dissolved (it's actually USRA II). and the likes of Chessie and Union Pacific did the same HST projects. will it becomes successful?
'sigh!' that's the shame. the inspiration to the Shinkansen was in the States by the 1930s. it began with the concepts called streamliners. a series very very aerodynamic shape passenger trains available to both steams, electric, and diesels. too bad no further research done by any of the american rail companies to compete with the jets of the 60s while french SNCF was (and still) very serious about this.
3. did the aviation industry conspires with the US Government to prevent any HST projects to materialize?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3965772.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3965772.page GMT
Likewise, the expense of upgrading the U.S. rail system to something that can handle trains with a top speed similar to that of an airliner would be prohibitive. You're talking about upgrading over 3000 miles of track... for ONE line from NY to LA. Never mind Miami, or Seattle, or all the other places you bypassed. So air travel will also always be faster, until aviation fuel becomes too expensive for commercial use. Even then, electic blimps might be poised to fill in; I keep hearing that there is some interest in reviving airships.


Having said that, I'm quite surprised Amtrack isn't getting a boost from the problems around airport 'security theatre.' Lord knows if I MUST travel, I will NOT expose myself to the indignity of choosing between the porn-o-scanner and getting molested.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3970062.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3970062.page GMT
Likewise, the expense of upgrading the U.S. rail system to something that can handle trains with a top speed similar to that of an airliner would be prohibitive. You're talking about upgrading over 3000 miles of track... for ONE line from NY to LA. Never mind Miami, or Seattle, or all the other places you bypassed. So air travel will also always be faster, until aviation fuel becomes too expensive for commercial use. Even then, electic blimps might be poised to fill in; I keep hearing that there is some interest in reviving airships.


Having said that, I'm quite surprised Amtrack isn't getting a boost from the problems around airport 'security theatre.' Lord knows if I MUST travel, I will NOT expose myself to the indignity of choosing between the porn-o-scanner and getting molested.[/quote]

Didn't Homeland Insecurity mention something about starting that?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3970077.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3970077.page GMT Oh you still take that risk on the train too.
http://news.travel.aol.com/2011/02/28/why-did-tsa-pat-down-kids-adults-getting-off-train/
You just have to understand that the TSA is here to make you safe no matter what your travel arrangements and thec aren't afraid to wipe thier ass with your Constiutional rights to do it.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3970150.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3970150.page GMT
Remember the guy who tried to blow up a plane with his underwear? TSA didn't catch him; they didn't even stop him from getting onto the plane. THE PASSENGERS caught him, not TSA. Granted, that was after he botched detonating his underwear bomb...

The reason the terrorists pulled off 9/11 is because they changed the rules. Prior to that, if you were a passenger on a hijacked flight, al you had to do was sit tight and wait and you were almost certain to come out of it alive. If you tried to be a hero, you stood a good chance of being killed while everyone else lived. 9/11, the passengers on the first three flights to crash beleived that... and died not realizing the rules had changed. On the fourth flight, the passengers figured it out, changed the rules themselves, and nearly pulled it off.

Someone tries to hijack a plane now had better be prepared to stand off the entire compliment of passengers, or they are gonna stomp him into the floor. All airport security has to do is keep the more flagrant weapons and explosives off the plane (which they have enough trouble with, see the underwear bomber above). The passengers will take care of the rest, now that we know the rules have changed.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3970241.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3970241.page GMT
I, for one, think the nations passenger rail network would be better off in private hands, at most I think the government should act as an oversight body to make sure the railroad companies are playing nice with one another and the needs of the national transportation network are being met (I.E.. incentive to build lines to/from certain areas and through certain regions and to upgrade sections of the rail infrastructure, etc.)]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3970286.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3970286.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3970313.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3970313.page GMT I thought I was being pretty obvious in my disdain for the TSA.
But for the underwear bomber I'm pretty sure the TSA did not screen him as it was an international flight, but that may have been the shoe bomber.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3971210.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3971210.page GMT Someone tries to hijack a plane now had better be prepared to stand off the entire compliment of passengers, or they are gonna stomp him into the floor. All airport security has to do is keep the more flagrant weapons and explosives off the plane (which they have enough trouble with, see the underwear bomber above). The passengers will take care of the rest, now that we know the rules have changed.[/quote]

Assuming some basic competence with whatever implement of causing harm you happen to smuggle onto a plane, its not that hard hold off a large number of people. That aisle is mighty narrow, and most people don't want to be the person at the head of the mob. Eventually the mob will win, but how long it takes is more important.

As hijacking goes, however, the improved cockpit door was about the best thing to come out of 9/11.

Either way, the random TSA screening across the USA is more than a little excessive. The airport screening less so.

[quote=juraigamer]A rail system can use electricity, electricity can be created by many sources, and land is a one time purchase. I think we have a winner for long term transportation. [/quote]

Speed is an issue, however, as is the ease of managing demand.

If lots of people suddenly want to fly between Chicago and Austin, you just add more flights. If lots of people want to, say, take the train from Chicago to Montreal you have to build a new track. I pay about 160 USD round trip for my bi-monthly flights to MSP from Chicago, they take about an hour and a half. Amtrak tickets for the same trip are about 140 USD, and the trip takes 9 hours. Choosing between the train and flying, flying is the better option. Hell, Megabus is a better option.

Trains are really good for relatively short commuter trips, for example Chicago to Milwaukee, but for longer distances they're not very useful; at least not given the current structure of the US railway.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3977085.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3977085.page GMT
Trains are really good for relatively short commuter trips, for example Chicago to Milwaukee, but for longer distances they're not very useful; at least not given the current structure of the US railway.[/quote]

Right, which is why this thread exists, because certain candidates are promising railway reform and infrastructure upgrade. A proper high speed rail network should cut that trip down to 4 or 5, if they go fancy-shmancy maglev or whatever, maybe even 2-3. The plane will still be faster, and HOPEFULLY the train would still be around the same price it is now (if not cheaper), so the decision to take that trip becomes a bit more of a question of how much money is your time worth to you? Granted, I agree, it probably won't ever be economical for those long distance trips, but one can dream.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3978482.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3978482.page GMT
If we build Atlanta-New York and Chicago-Houston high speed rail lines, what happens when people want to travel New York-Chicago and Atlanta-Houston? With airplanes we just change routes. Rail requires substantially more work to change capacity.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3978516.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3978516.page GMT Right, which is why this thread exists, because certain candidates are promising railway reform and infrastructure upgrade. A proper high speed rail network should cut that trip down to 4 or 5, if they go fancy-shmancy maglev or whatever, maybe even 2-3. The plane will still be faster, and HOPEFULLY the train would still be around the same price it is now (if not cheaper), so the decision to take that trip becomes a bit more of a question of how much money is your time worth to you? Granted, I agree, it probably won't ever be economical for those long distance trips, but one can dream.[/quote]

Even under best case conditions, though, you're paying 20-30 USD more for a trip that's about half as long. Granted, the price of air travel fluctuates a lot more than the price of rail travel.

And, if oil prices keep increasing, rail might become viable in more circumstances.

But, as long as we're dreaming, lets bring back the Concorde.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3978528.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3978528.page GMT
But, as long as we're dreaming, lets bring back the Concorde.[/quote]

(cant believe I'm saying this) DOGMA FOR PRESIDENT!

[quote]Trains are inefficient because they require tremendous overhead and provide only a fixed route. [/quote]

I wouldnt say they are inefficient... inconvenient is the term you are looking for. Rail is actually the most efficient mode of over-land transportation (including air) bar none, the real problem is volume. The average passenger train would need to be several times longer than it currently is (keep in mind that my Amtrak experience thus far has been limited to traveling from Albany to NYC, I assume that this is the average size of most Amtrak trains) and carry a proportionate number of people for it to be truly economical (I.E. the rail companies could slash prices by half and record greater profits than they currently do). Obviously for this to ever occur a lot of things would have to go wrong for air travel and a lot would have to go right for the future of rail travel if trains hope to steal such a large proportion of customers from planes.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3978660.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3978660.page GMT I thought I was being pretty obvious in my disdain for the TSA.
But for the underwear bomber I'm pretty sure the TSA did not screen him as it was an international flight, but that may have been the shoe bomber.[/quote]

Yeah, the underwear bomber was coming into the US from Amsterdam; Richard Reid got through with explosives in his shoes twice (thanks, dick) which is why we have the whole shoes come off thing now.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3978712.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3978712.page GMT I won't dispute that rail is an incredibly fuel-efficient method of travel. But the overhead costs - track, fixed routes, long trains and intermediate stops - are much higher than they are for airplanes. It's also a very inflexible method of travel.

The reasons people switched to cars and airplanes from trains is because they're better modes of travel. If I want to go to the grocery store it's a 5-minute drive. If I had to take the train, I would have to wait for the local train, go to a central location, and then depart for the store from there, which could be up to half an hour.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3978734.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3978734.page GMT I won't dispute that rail is an incredibly fuel-efficient method of travel. But the overhead costs - track, fixed routes, long trains and intermediate stops - are much higher than they are for airplanes. It's also a very inflexible method of travel.

The reasons people switched to cars and airplanes from trains is because they're better modes of travel. If I want to go to the grocery store it's a 5-minute drive. If I had to take the train, I would have to wait for the local train, go to a central location, and then depart for the store from there, which could be up to half an hour.[/quote]

Having grown up on NYC with its Subway system, its easy to see why I have a skewed perspective when it comes to the viability of trains for such a situation, lol.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3978791.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3978791.page GMT Having grown up on NYC with its Subway system, its easy to see why I have a skewed perspective when it comes to the viability of trains for such a situation, lol.[/quote]

Intercity trains are a very beast when compared to intracity trains.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3978817.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3978817.page GMT lol, but I dont see why you would be using an intracity train to go to the supermarket (unless you lived in the middle of nowhere/flyover state).]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3978823.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3978823.page GMT lol, but I dont see why you would be using an intracity train to go to the supermarket (unless you lived in the middle of nowhere/flyover state).[/quote]

It depends on where you want to shop, and what your situation is. I have a car, so I use that to go grocery shopping (And even that's a pain as the garage my car is kept in is about half a mile from my apartment.), but I know plenty people that hop on the L because the place they want to shop at is a bit of a hike, and carrying lots of groceries is annoying.

And, for the record, intracity trains pretty much only exist in major cities. This is part of the source of the "In much of the US you need a car." argument.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3978841.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3978841.page GMT 3. did the aviation industry conspires with the US Government to prevent any HST projects to materialize?[/quote]
It's true.
The plane people hate the train people and the government are helping the plane people beat the train people...
/conspiricy]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3978988.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3978988.page GMT Yes, Air travel is faster but in most cases you wind up miles outside of the city you are traveling to.
Rail travel typically takes you into the heart of the city you are going to.
Prime example would be travelling from Philadelphia to NYC. By Rail, the trip takes less than 1.5 hours, pick up is in the heart of Philadelphia, convient to subway/el as well as shopping, and the drop off is in Manhattan, also convienent to local travel and shopping. Cost... @$50. Tickets can be purchased that day or in advance for the same price, up to minutes prior to departure.

That same trip by Air is an inconvient mess. The cheap flights run @$400, include layovers, and strange routing (Buffalo, Albany, or Ithica) The Nonstop (direct point to point flight) is more expensive, with even higher prices if purchased the day of departure, takes roughly 1 hour, and has you boarding and deplaning outside of the city proper.

Yes, in certain corridors and over longer distances Air is much faster but it is far less convient.

Besides... Trains are also roomier, and have fewer restrictions on walking around while in transit.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3979280.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3979280.page GMT /conspiricy[/quote]
You've got it backwards. It's the train people who are getting their preferred mode of transportation subsidized at the expense of the rest of us.

I wouldn't have any problem with trains (I still wouldn't use them) if passengers paid their 'fair share.']]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3979311.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3979311.page GMT You've got it backwards. It's the train people who are getting their preferred mode of transportation subsidized at the expense of the rest of us.

I wouldn't have any problem with trains (I still wouldn't use them) if passengers paid their 'fair share.'[/quote]

All modes of transit are, effectively, subsidized by the state.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3979321.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3979321.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3979468.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3979468.page GMT
I've never spent more than 20 minutes getting from the terminal door to the gate, and I fly at least twice a month.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3979511.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3979511.page GMT I was surprised to find that there is no direct rail route from OKC to KC or St. Louis. Taking a train from OKC goes south through Dallas/FW. It would be nice to see some classic rail routes reestablished.....]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3979515.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3979515.page GMT http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2012/01/amtrak

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2011/10/amtrak]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3979766.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3979766.page GMT
I've never spent more than 20 minutes getting from the terminal door to the gate, and I fly at least twice a month.[/quote]

Lucky git... w/ the exception of a couple instances, It usually takes me about an hour.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3979776.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3979776.page GMT
http://www.rita.dot.gov/]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3979853.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3979853.page GMT From the link:
[quote]Here are some better questions: what's the right balance of public- and private-sector involvement in these sorts of enterprises? How much, if anything, should governments continue to invest in air, rail and road infrastructure? If the government is going to invest in infrastructure (rather than simply let the market decide), what is the right balance of spending between those different modes of travel? And how much should the environmental consequences of various modes of travel be taken into account when making these decisions?[/quote]
The question should be: is investing in Amtrak better or worse than other investments.

This is where the "profitability" issue comes from. If Amtrak is profitable, then people value its service more than the cost. If it is not profitable, then people do not value it equal to the true cost of providing the resource. Therefore, profitability isn't simply "does it make money or not," profitability is a measure of success of a venture.

For some types of government spending we consider them a net loss: like defense spending. We know that it's not something people will value rationally, but we pay for it anyway, with the rationale that it's better to have it and not need it than the opposite. Plus, there's no defense competition.

But Amtrak has competition, we see it every day. People choose to drive or fly rather than use Amtrak's service, for a variety of reasons. Obviously, when given a choice, people don't prefer Amtrak, and it's reflected in its lack of profitability.

In short: Amtrak is a service that we have to be [i]compelled[/i] to support because it is unable to succeed in the market.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3979908.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3979908.page GMT http://www.trainweb.org/moksrail/advocacy/resources/subsidies/transport.htm
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3979945.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3979945.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3980354.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3980354.page GMT But Amtrak has competition, we see it every day. People choose to drive or fly rather than use Amtrak's service, for a variety of reasons. Obviously, when given a choice, people don't prefer Amtrak, and it's reflected in its lack of profitability.

In short: Amtrak is a service that we have to be [i]compelled[/i] to support because it is unable to succeed in the market.[/quote]

On a passenger-mile basis Amtrak is subsidized at roughly the same level as air travel.

Automotive travel is subsidized significantly less, but is still subsidized via the construction and maintenance of roads.

Arguably, Amtrak could simply be broken up, with the state taking on a role similar to the one its hold regarding automotive travel. That is, the government maintains the tracks, and establishes transit standards, but private entities incur the financial risk by operating the actual trains.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3981323.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3981323.page GMT /conspiricy[/quote]
You've got it backwards. It's the train people who are getting their preferred mode of transportation subsidized at the expense of the rest of us.

I wouldn't have any problem with trains (I still wouldn't use them) if passengers paid their 'fair share.'[/quote]

yes. i'm favoring railroad reforms. Amtrak is a quasi USRA II, those railroad companies are now operates its lines on revenue. and they should be allowed to invest on Euro-style HST instead.

[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Q9FRWTTefas/Tx74JcvfPLI/AAAAAAAAAN0/_t6oBfoRd6g/s1600/Blogthree.jpg[/img]
This kitty is waitin'!

=^.^=
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3981561.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3981561.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3981657.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/432781/3981657.page GMT