(02-08-2017 10:08 PM)john01992 Wrote: trains really are the best form of transportation.
now maybe we will see a technological advancement with vacuum magnetic tunnels capable of carrying a car, or even air ferries, but one thing for sure is that the interstate highway system is by no means the best mass transportation method. that if anything is the past.
Yes they are. The U.S turned its nose up to railroads in the 70's. They though it would die off, which is why it took passenger travel away from railroad companies and started Amtrak. Amtrak was suppose to only exist for only 5 years. Then discontinue passenger service.
I think if the U.S had developed rail transportation like Europe, things would be a lot different and the country would be better with that kind of transportation.
Amtrak cost $90 round trip per person to DC from here and then you have to take a Metro to wherever you are going and hotels are more expensive within the Metro. I can drive for $30 gas and stay wherever I want. I can travel when I want. Amtrak, meanwhile, is insolvent.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
The 95 corridor line of Amtrak is actually profitable. It's the only one that is though.
Unless you're staying in the DC suburbs, you're not factoring in $25-30+ per night for parking. Even if you stay in the burbs, you're going to have to pay for parking when you get to the city. I lived in DC long enough to learn that trying to find parking was a time wasting and costly venture.
I stay in Fairfax and if I need to go into the city I drive a few miles and park in Vienna for $5. The only time I ever stay in the city is if I am at a multi-day conference taking place in the city, in which case I drive to Springfield and park there at $5 per day and take the Metro in. On top of that, if I take the train, the train coming home leaves Union Station at 2PM, which more often than not would cost another night and a wasted day since business and conferences won't allow me to leave at 2PM. It is much faster and cheaper to drive. The one time I did take the train, it sat idle in Richmond for an hour and the transit time was over 4 hours (takes 2.5 to drive). I have done the analysis many times.
It takes 2.5 hours on a good day. I95 traffic to DC is the debil. Lots of folks at work just say the heck with that and take the train.
(02-08-2017 10:17 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote: Yes they are. The U.S turned its nose up to railroads in the 70's. They though it would die off, which is why it took passenger travel away from railroad companies and started Amtrak. Amtrak was suppose to only exist for only 5 years. Then discontinue passenger service.
I think if the U.S had developed rail transportation like Europe, things would be a lot different and the country would be better with that kind of transportation.
Amtrak cost $90 round trip per person to DC from here and then you have to take a Metro to wherever you are going and hotels are more expensive within the Metro. I can drive for $30 gas and stay wherever I want. I can travel when I want. Amtrak, meanwhile, is insolvent.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
The 95 corridor line of Amtrak is actually profitable. It's the only one that is though.
Unless you're staying in the DC suburbs, you're not factoring in $25-30+ per night for parking. Even if you stay in the burbs, you're going to have to pay for parking when you get to the city. I lived in DC long enough to learn that trying to find parking was a time wasting and costly venture.
I stay in Fairfax and if I need to go into the city I drive a few miles and park in Vienna for $5. The only time I ever stay in the city is if I am at a multi-day conference taking place in the city, in which case I drive to Springfield and park there at $5 per day and take the Metro in. On top of that, if I take the train, the train coming home leaves Union Station at 2PM, which more often than not would cost another night and a wasted day since business and conferences won't allow me to leave at 2PM. It is much faster and cheaper to drive. The one time I did take the train, it sat idle in Richmond for an hour and the transit time was over 4 hours (takes 2.5 to drive). I have done the analysis many times.
It takes 2.5 hours on a good day. I95 traffic to DC is the debil. Lots of folks at work just say the heck with that and take the train.
Takes me 2.5 hours just about every time. I either go the afternoon before when traffic is coming the other way or I leave at 4:30AM if it is a day trip and get there at 7 before the traffic. Yes, the rush hour commute is hell. If I lived in Fredericksburg and had to commute everyday, I likely would take the train as well. But I don't and have no problem planning my time around the traffic. It is also why I stay out in Fairfax. I can easily get around the traffic by driving through all the farmland on the West side of Quantico, which only adds about 15 minutes to the trip.
(02-09-2017 06:29 AM)EverRespect Wrote: Amtrak cost $90 round trip per person to DC from here and then you have to take a Metro to wherever you are going and hotels are more expensive within the Metro. I can drive for $30 gas and stay wherever I want. I can travel when I want. Amtrak, meanwhile, is insolvent.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
The 95 corridor line of Amtrak is actually profitable. It's the only one that is though.
Unless you're staying in the DC suburbs, you're not factoring in $25-30+ per night for parking. Even if you stay in the burbs, you're going to have to pay for parking when you get to the city. I lived in DC long enough to learn that trying to find parking was a time wasting and costly venture.
I stay in Fairfax and if I need to go into the city I drive a few miles and park in Vienna for $5. The only time I ever stay in the city is if I am at a multi-day conference taking place in the city, in which case I drive to Springfield and park there at $5 per day and take the Metro in. On top of that, if I take the train, the train coming home leaves Union Station at 2PM, which more often than not would cost another night and a wasted day since business and conferences won't allow me to leave at 2PM. It is much faster and cheaper to drive. The one time I did take the train, it sat idle in Richmond for an hour and the transit time was over 4 hours (takes 2.5 to drive). I have done the analysis many times.
It takes 2.5 hours on a good day. I95 traffic to DC is the debil. Lots of folks at work just say the heck with that and take the train.
Takes me 2.5 hours just about every time. I either go the afternoon before when traffic is coming the other way or I leave at 4:30AM if it is a day trip and get there at 7 before the traffic. Yes, the rush hour commute is hell. If I lived in Fredericksburg and had to commute everyday, I likely would take the train as well. But I don't and have no problem planning my time around the traffic. It is also why I stay out in Fairfax. I can easily get around the traffic by driving through all the farmland on the West side of Quantico, which only adds about 15 minutes to the trip.
I guess timing it helps but you still never know. I drove back from Dulles not long ago and it took me longer to drive back than it took me to fly from Peru to Panama. I even used the HOV lanes which were still backed up. No wrecks either. I avoid going to DC at all costs. Bu tyeah, I often time take the Dumfries or Occoquan exits to head west and avoid anything DC if possible.
(02-08-2017 09:36 PM)Claw Wrote: Trains are the past. Build a high speed highway for automated vehicles. That would be progress.
trains really are the best form of transportation.
now maybe we will see a technological advancement with vacuum magnetic tunnels capable of carrying a car, or even air ferries, but one thing for sure is that the interstate highway system is by no means the best mass transportation method. that if anything is the past.
Something like a hyperloop that was capable of carrying both cars and freight in both directions would be pretty practical between Dallas and Houston or among Houston-Dallas-Austin/San Antionio. I'm not sure how the economics would work out. I don't see a centralized depot being economical, as it would not offer any advantages over air travel for most consumers.
(02-09-2017 11:33 AM)Claw Wrote: Mass transit is dying.
Uber. Bicycle sharing.
The winning technologies are not mass transit. They are personal transit.
In 20 years your car will join a dynamic virtual train on the expressway. Safer. Faster. Cheaper. And it works on existing roads.
Trains? No.
I'm all in favor of those. Uber's plans for driverless cars that just drive around waiting on customers sounds great to me, but there is a big chunk of the population that says they'll never let a computer drive them around. While autonomous driving will almost certainly exist in 20 years, it is going to take a long time before it is the standard.
I'd love to see separated bike lanes and greenways be a bigger focal point of FTA spending. Greenways are relatively inexpensive to build and if I could ride my bike to more places without having to touch the lanes on the road, I'd ride it more often. I live on the longest greenway in Charlotte and it's great. I can get from my house to one of the larger shopping / nightlife areas in the city almost as fast as I can by car. The problem is, there is a small gap about a half mile long where I have to ride on a major road.
A light rail line or a highway widening project can cost upwards of $100 million per mile. Greenways can generally be constructed for $1-2 million per mile.
(This post was last modified: 02-09-2017 01:44 PM by Niner National.)
(02-09-2017 11:33 AM)Claw Wrote: Mass transit is dying.
Uber. Bicycle sharing.
The winning technologies are not mass transit. They are personal transit.
In 20 years your car will join a dynamic virtual train on the expressway. Safer. Faster. Cheaper. And it works on existing roads.
Trains? No.
I'm all in favor of those. Uber's plans for driverless cars that just drive around waiting on customers sounds great to me, but there is a big chunk of the population that says they'll never let a computer drive them around. While autonomous driving will almost certainly exist in 20 years, it is going to take a long time before it is the standard.
Look at it this way. What percentage of the public would have to accept driverless cars to exceed the number who ride trains? It will happen.
(02-09-2017 11:33 AM)Claw Wrote: Mass transit is dying.
Uber. Bicycle sharing.
The winning technologies are not mass transit. They are personal transit.
In 20 years your car will join a dynamic virtual train on the expressway. Safer. Faster. Cheaper. And it works on existing roads.
Trains? No.
I'm all in favor of those. Uber's plans for driverless cars that just drive around waiting on customers sounds great to me, but there is a big chunk of the population that says they'll never let a computer drive them around. While autonomous driving will almost certainly exist in 20 years, it is going to take a long time before it is the standard.
Look at it this way. What percentage of the public would have to accept driverless cars to exceed the number who ride trains? It will happen.
I just don't want to sit in traffic. As long as a significant portion of the population is still driving and making roads inefficient through bad driving habits, traffic will still be an issue and mass transit systems will still have their place. I'm not going to pay for a driverless cab every time I want to go somewhere if I still have to sit in traffic and get charged by the minute while sitting in that traffic.
(02-09-2017 11:33 AM)Claw Wrote: Mass transit is dying.
Uber. Bicycle sharing.
The winning technologies are not mass transit. They are personal transit.
In 20 years your car will join a dynamic virtual train on the expressway. Safer. Faster. Cheaper. And it works on existing roads.
Trains? No.
I'm all in favor of those. Uber's plans for driverless cars that just drive around waiting on customers sounds great to me, but there is a big chunk of the population that says they'll never let a computer drive them around. While autonomous driving will almost certainly exist in 20 years, it is going to take a long time before it is the standard.
Look at it this way. What percentage of the public would have to accept driverless cars to exceed the number who ride trains? It will happen.
I just don't want to sit in traffic. As long as a significant portion of the population is still driving and making roads inefficient through bad driving habits, traffic will still be an issue and mass transit systems will still have their place. I'm not going to pay for a driverless cab every time I want to go somewhere if I still have to sit in traffic and get charged by the minute while sitting in that traffic.
I agree. I think driverless only roadways will appear to address that.
(02-08-2017 10:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: Our freight rail is actually better than Europe's. But our passenger rail to theirs is like comparing hitchhiking to space travel.
Their cities have dense urban cores and are relatively short trips away from each other. In the US our urban cores are nowhere near as dense and the distances between major cities can be 10 fold greater.
(02-08-2017 10:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: Our freight rail is actually better than Europe's. But our passenger rail to theirs is like comparing hitchhiking to space travel.
Their cities have dense urban cores and are relatively short trips away from each other. In the US our urban cores are nowhere near as dense and the distances between major cities can be 10 fold greater.
Which basically means that the only place high-speed rail could be a slam dunk is the Eastern Corridor from DC to Boston. Something between the Texas Triangle, Southeast Corridor from Raleigh-Durham to Birmingham, California Coast (plus Fresno and Sacramento), and maybe the Great Lakes cities may also work with all the cities involved, but nowhere else would work without massive subsidies (and that's after the substantial investment required to even launch high-speed rail). How many people are going to ride from St. Louis to Denver when Frontier is offering $77 direct flights, and how is it economically feasible to offer that kind of high-speed trip when the only other cities on the route are a college town, a medium-sized city, and a dumpy state capitol?
I wouldn't mind investments in high-speed rail in those areas I listed, I think there's a market out there for people willing to take a train ride if it's cheap and not drastically slower than flying because so many people hate dealing with airports. But with Trump looking to upgrade airports, deregulate airlines, and lower taxes, it may be unnecessary.
(This post was last modified: 02-11-2017 11:29 AM by Love and Honor.)
Outside of highly populated urban areas I can't see people being enthralled with trains. Americans are tied to automobiles at the hip. We love the independence they give us. As long as we have fuel to run them? Automobiles are going to be the preferred mode of travel.
(02-11-2017 11:42 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: Outside of highly populated urban areas I can't see people being enthralled with trains. Americans are tied to automobiles at the hip. We love the independence they give us. As long as we have fuel to run them? Automobiles are going to be the preferred mode of travel.
Except Americans have generally started to lose our sense of self-reliance. We are a long way from moving West because you can see the smoke from your neighbor's cabin.
(02-08-2017 09:36 PM)Claw Wrote: Trains are the past. Build a high speed highway for automated vehicles. That would be progress.
trains really are the best form of transportation.
now maybe we will see a technological advancement with vacuum magnetic tunnels capable of carrying a car, or even air ferries, but one thing for sure is that the interstate highway system is by no means the best mass transportation method. that if anything is the past.
I assume you mean for moving bulk freight.
It is the most efficient on a cost basis and environmental basis as well.
Barges are the most efficient.
correct but you're limited by waterways. there are intermodal yards scatered about though.
(02-11-2017 11:42 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: Outside of highly populated urban areas I can't see people being enthralled with trains. Americans are tied to automobiles at the hip. We love the independence they give us. As long as we have fuel to run them? Automobiles are going to be the preferred mode of travel.
Except Americans have generally started to lose our sense of self-reliance. We are a long way from moving West because you can see the smoke from your neighbor's cabin.
No schit. Just watch what happens when the power goes out. People lose their minds.
(02-11-2017 11:42 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: Outside of highly populated urban areas I can't see people being enthralled with trains. Americans are tied to automobiles at the hip. We love the independence they give us. As long as we have fuel to run them? Automobiles are going to be the preferred mode of travel.
Except Americans have generally started to lose our sense of self-reliance. We are a long way from moving West because you can see the smoke from your neighbor's cabin.
No schit. Just watch what happens when the power goes out. People lose their minds.
