Back to the basic issues of rail/transit vs. automobiles
By Archie Leach
Why is transit and rail passenger transport such a success in Europe,
and why is it such an albatross here in the United States??
Why do Europeans by and large like going by rail, and why do Yanquis by
and large do anything to avoid going by rail??¹
In your responses to this, please try to leave out the flaming and ad
hominem attacks, and do try to concentrate on the pertinent issue in
this thread--the difference between the American and European viewpoint
on "communal" as opposed to "individual" travelling.
Archie Leach
mhm25x6
¹Yes, air transport is obviously a factor but for the purposes of this
discussion I would choose to leave it out, under the assumption that
there's not a significant difference in air transport usage between the
N. America and Europe.
Robert Dubnicka
>
> Why is transit and rail passenger transport such a success in Europe,
> and why is it such an albatross here in the United States??
>
> Why do Europeans by and large like going by rail, and why do Yanquis by
> and large do anything to avoid going by rail??¹
>
> In your responses to this, please try to leave out the flaming and ad
> hominem attacks, and do try to concentrate on the pertinent issue in
> this thread--the difference between the American and European viewpoint
> on "communal" as opposed to "individual" travelling.
I'm sure you may receive interesting opinions, though you'll pardon my
hesitancy to respond to the questions: after all, I would have thought
that Dahmus had "educated" all the r.s.f.c. participants by now.
(Response set to m.t.r. in a deliberate effort to avoid the rail/urban
transit newsgroup flame wars)
David Jensen
"By Archie Leach" <stuco...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:5297-3A9...@storefull-156.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Why is transit and rail passenger transport such a success in Europe,
and why is it such an albatross here in the United States??
Passenger rail has been superceded by air travel far more in the US than in
Europe. Shorter hops are auto-oriented because Americans find that
door-to-door in one vehicle is more convenient.
Transit is a bit different because a combination of stupid decisions on the
part of traction managers and public regulators put rail transit behind the
financial 8-ball. After dying a slow death, only the largest cities still
had rail by the time of UMTA, and buses were the primary mode of public
transportation in most cities.
Why do Europeans by and large like going by rail, and why do Yanquis by
and large do anything to avoid going by rail??ą
Costs and convenience, still, as I understand it, the growth in passenger
transportation is primarily in autos in Europe.
ąYes, air transport is obviously a factor but for the purposes of this
discussion I would choose to leave it out, under the assumption that
there's not a significant difference in air transport usage between the
N. America and Europe.
I think it is. As I understand it, the 100-400 mile trips that are taken by
air in the US are more likely to be taken by rail in Europe.
None
Why is transit and rail passenger transport such a success in Europe,
and why is it such an albatross here in the United States??
*** Fuel prices remain relatively inexpensive. Rail lines receive much more
government support in Europe and cities have enough public transportation
that you don't need to get a rental car in Europe after flying somewhere.
Over here, if it is close enough to drive anyways, why go to the bother of
renting a car?
Why do Europeans by and large like going by rail, and why do Yanquis by
and large do anything to avoid going by rail??ą
*** Population density is one factor, as is the composition of urban areas.
European cities have their roots in fortified locations which meant that
people had to be contained within the boundaries of city walls (an
"Innenstadt" in a German city, for example). Cities then expanded outwards,
but with similar population densities. In America, there is considerably
more space. Consider Germany - it has 80,000,000, or about 30% of America's
population in a space as large as Oregon, a medium-large state. With land
prices being cheap and fuel prices being reasonable, Americans built roads
instead of mass transit, which loses its effectiveness over here because no
single station could serve enough people to make it economical. With the
accelleration of suburbanization, many people now work in the suburbs as
well, making transit even more decentralized.
There is also the whole concept of "white flight" in American urban areas.
While European cities have parts of the city which have been marginalized
and occupied by minorities, "native" populations tended to simply move from
one part of the city to another, rather than leaving the city entirely.
With the abundance of land in America, they simply moved to suburbs instead.
A domino effect then happens when affluent people leave the cities, and the
cities become populated with unemployed and marginal groups. The tax base
falls, but those who remain have to pay more for social services and police
protection, meaning that taxes tend to be higher in the cities. Property
owners who want to get out of high property taxes then move to the suburbs.
There is also the problem of schools. In my city (Rochester, NY) there are
places where you can live in peace and, given the choice, I would live in
the city. But because the schools have students who grow up in asocial
situations (drug abuse, physical abuse, unemployed parents, single family
houses), the high schools tend not to be safe. If I had kids, I would move
to the suburbs simply because there are better schools there. In Europe,
schools are highly regimented and divided among talent - in Germany, the
brightest go to the Gymnasium, those going into professions go to the
Realschule and those going into trades go into another. In the US, all
students attend a common high school, irrespective of talent (like a
Gesamtschule). In this way, it would seem, middle class parents who aspire
to have their children go to good schools have more of a choice, and would
put their students in with other students who are more prone to go to
college than to drop out entirely.
In your responses to this, please try to leave out the flaming and ad
hominem attacks, and do try to concentrate on the pertinent issue in
this thread--the difference between the American and European viewpoint
on "communal" as opposed to "individual" travelling.
****Comments like "Yanquis" are pejorative and likely to get the flaming you
want to avoid.
ąYes, air transport is obviously a factor but for the purposes of this
tony bailey
The British TOC's and London Underground carry more passenger per year than
all the world's SCHEDULED IATA airlines - places like India, Japan and
China have several times MORE rail passengers than all of the worlds
SCHEDULED IATA airlines.J
--
Tony Bailey
Mercury World Travel
Mercury Travel Books
mercury...@one.net.au
"David Jensen" <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:96uiiu$rss$1...@grandcanyon.binc.net...
David Wire
For urban commute traffic, it has more to do with the way our cities are
layed out: wide streets, abundant (thouth costly) parking, urban limited
access highways, residence in suburban single family dwellings, inner city
crime encouraging movement out of the cities.
It is also a function of government policy. In the US, roads and freeways
are built. In Europe, transit is far more likely to get funding. Much of
the same holds true for medium and long distrance travel.
For example, it takes 6 hours for me to drive to San Jose. The train takes
at least that, and involves a bus/train/train or bus transfer or a direct
train that takes 9 hours. And that does not include time to and from
stations. Flying takes 45 minutes. Add 30 to the airport on each end, and a
good hour in the airport on the starting end and 30 or so on the
destination end and you have 3:15. For the extra time, I get my car to use
when I'm there, and don't have to put up with the airport/airplane hastle.
And, just so others don't ridicule you, it is spelled Yankee.
Dave.
By Archie Leach wrote:
> Why is transit and rail passenger transport such a success in Europe,
> and why is it such an albatross here in the United States??
>
> Why do Europeans by and large like going by rail, and why do Yanquis by
> and large do anything to avoid going by rail??ą
>
> In your responses to this, please try to leave out the flaming and ad
> hominem attacks, and do try to concentrate on the pertinent issue in
> this thread--the difference between the American and European viewpoint
> on "communal" as opposed to "individual" travelling.
>
> Archie Leach
> mhm25x6
>
> ąYes, air transport is obviously a factor but for the purposes of this
Martin Bitter
1)Geography - Europe is, unlike America, relatively densely
populated. The classic example can be seen here in the USA where the
dense East Coast has a much better service than the more sparse west.
2) the second is fuel and car costs. Low fuel and car costs encourage
americans to use more road transport than their European counterparts.
3) Air traffic regulation.
Europe's air traffic is, compared to the USA, highly regulated giving
low-cost carrier difficult hurdles to set up business. Air traffic is here
relatively expensive and often dominated by state-owned airline who have
successfully protected their routes
yours
Martin
Trier/Germany
--------------------------
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, By Archie Leach wrote:
>
> Why is transit and rail passenger transport such a success in Europe,
> and why is it such an albatross here in the United States??
>
> Why do Europeans by and large like going by rail, and why do Yanquis by
> and large do anything to avoid going by rail??ą
>
> In your responses to this, please try to leave out the flaming and ad
> hominem attacks, and do try to concentrate on the pertinent issue in
> this thread--the difference between the American and European viewpoint
> on "communal" as opposed to "individual" travelling.
>
>
> Archie Leach
> mhm25x6
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ąYes, air transport is obviously a factor but for the purposes of this
Larry Gross
David Jensen wrote:
> "By Archie Leach" <stuco...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:5297-3A9...@storefull-156.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
>
> Why is transit and rail passenger transport such a success in Europe,
> and why is it such an albatross here in the United States??
>
> Passenger rail has been superceded by air travel far more in the US than in
> Europe. Shorter hops are auto-oriented because Americans find that
> door-to-door in one vehicle is more convenient.
>
> Transit is a bit different because a combination of stupid decisions on the
> part of traction managers and public regulators put rail transit behind the
> financial 8-ball. After dying a slow death, only the largest cities still
> had rail by the time of UMTA, and buses were the primary mode of public
> transportation in most cities.
>
> Why do Europeans by and large like going by rail, and why do Yanquis by
> and large do anything to avoid going by rail??¹
>
> Costs and convenience, still, as I understand it, the growth in passenger
> transportation is primarily in autos in Europe.
>
> ¹Yes, air transport is obviously a factor but for the purposes of this
> discussion I would choose to leave it out, under the assumption that
> there's not a significant difference in air transport usage between the
> N. America and Europe.
>
> I think it is. As I understand it, the 100-400 mile trips that are taken by
> air in the US are more likely to be taken by rail in Europe.
I'm listening. :-)
Dyche Anderson
in the Lufthansa magazine (Lufthansa Magazin) there was an editorial by the
head of Lufthansa about rail/air travel. Lufthansa is going to be "encouraging"
more rail connections for the "ultra-short" (their words) trips within
Germany. This would open up more landing slots to international traffic,
which is the majority of flights in most European airports.
(If I ramble too much, I've been travelling all day. My cab left for the
Milan/Malpensa airport at 7:15 AM - CET (6:15 AM GMT). I apologize.
The basic idea is the right mode of travel for the right job. The distances
in Europe between cities are MUCH shorter than they are in the US. At the
same time, the population densities in the cities are higher than in most
US cities, so a central train station can serve many people. I did, in fact,
take a train last week from downtown Oslo to the Oslo airport (50 kilometers
away). The train was quick, reasonably priced (about $15), and had only one
stop. 400 miles is pushing it for train travel, but it is the total time,
along with the price, that drives the mode. In the US (the last time I looked),
for the New York-Washington market, train travel equalled air travel. Why?
If one is going downtown to downtown, the train is faster - and you avoid dealing
with two airports. Lots of people live in or near both downtown New York and
Washington. Newark to Dulles involves lots of travel to and from the airport.
But there are very few American city pairs where train travel makes sense -
and is available. People fly or drive. For example, I live in metro Detroit.
Beacuse of geography, downtown Detroit is not centrally located. Most train
travellers use Dearborn or Ann Arbor. Chicago is the only city to which train
travel makes sense in any form or fashion - yet the airlines are always faster.
As long as Amtrak cancels trains faster than Northwest cancels flights, people
will fly (or drive).
Dyche Anderson
Amos
individualism more so than Europeans, the Japanese, etc. Cars provide the
kind of individual freedom that rail transit cannot. It's also political. In
the U.S. as the old saying goes, "all politics is local". It's very
difficult to get a large number of government entities in a particular
corridor to agree on rail transit.
That being said, I still think developing a balanced transportation system
is better for America as a whole, but our system makes it very difficult to
get it done.
"By Archie Leach" <stuco...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:5297-3A9...@storefull-156.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Why is transit and rail passenger transport such a success in Europe,
and why is it such an albatross here in the United States??
Why do Europeans by and large like going by rail, and why do Yanquis by
and large do anything to avoid going by rail??ą
In your responses to this, please try to leave out the flaming and ad
hominem attacks, and do try to concentrate on the pertinent issue in
this thread--the difference between the American and European viewpoint
on "communal" as opposed to "individual" travelling.
Archie Leach
mhm25x6
ąYes, air transport is obviously a factor but for the purposes of this
tobias b koehler
> I'd say it's at least in part a cultural issue. Americans have always
> valued individualism more so than Europeans, the Japanese, etc. Cars
> provide the kind of individual freedom that rail transit cannot.
While all modes of transport have their freedoms and limitations
(what about the freedom to get up and walk around while your
vehicle is moving? What good is freedom if you are stuck in
traffic jam while the subway is moving smoothly?), what's
certainly true is that if you travel by car, you are less likely
to come close to other people. In public transportation you will
meet strangers. Some people seem to be more open to this than
others .... (To me, the people are part of what makes train
travel interesting ....)
--
tobias benjamin köhler _______________ t...@rcs.urz.tu-dresden.de
<>_<> _______ _____
.---|'"`|---. | |_| |_|_|_|_|_|_|_ (_____) .-----.
_________`o"O-OO-OO-O"o'`-o---o-'`-oo-----oo-'`-o---o-'`-o---o-'
somebody set up us the bomb!! all your base are belong to us.
John
___>^..^<___
"By Archie Leach" <stuco...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:5297-3A9...@storefull-156.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
>
>Why is transit and rail passenger transport such a success in Europe,
>and why is it such an albatross here in the United States??
>
>Why do Europeans by and large like going by rail, and why do Yanquis by
>and large do anything to avoid going by rail??¹
>
>In your responses to this, please try to leave out the flaming and ad
>hominem attacks, and do try to concentrate on the pertinent issue in
>this thread--the difference between the American and European viewpoint
>on "communal" as opposed to "individual" travelling.
The book "the Geography of Nowhere" Kunstler addresses that question in
detail. His thesis is that the Americas were settled in a different manner
than Europe, with individuality being stressed (and built into the system)
over community and cooperation. Concepts of land ownership changed with
individual profit superceding the public trust. There was also the
perception of unlimited land.
Mikey
Am> I'd say it's at least in part a cultural issue. Americans have always
Am> valued individualism more so than Europeans, the Japanese, etc. Cars
Am> provide the kind of individual freedom that rail transit cannot. It's
Am> also political. In the U.S. as the old saying goes, "all politics is
Am> local". It's very difficult to get a large number of government
Am> entities in a particular corridor to agree on rail transit.
Am> That being said, I still think developing a balanced transportation
Am> system is better for America as a whole, but our system makes it very
Am> difficult to get it done.
If the railroads would cater more to the car driver I think they'd have a
better chance to make rail appealing. If they hang a few Tri-levels behind
the passenger cars so that people could drive on/off and keep their cars with
them would help. Having Bar cars with smoking allowed, Movie cars, Sleeping
cars would be attractive for families. I say if the railroads make rail
travel more fun than long distance driving, the passengers will flock to Rail.
Am> +Yes, air transport is obviously a factor but for the purposes of this
Am> discussion I would choose to leave it out, under the assumption that
Am> there's not a significant difference in air transport usage between
Am> the N. America and Europe.
Am> -!- Internet Rex 2.26
Am> ! Origin: STRATOS Internet Group, Inc - Cleveland, OH (1:167/133.1)
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR]
Philip Nasadowski
> Why is transit and rail passenger transport such a success in Europe,
> and why is it such an albatross here in the United States??
It is? It is?
> Why do Europeans by and large like going by rail, and why do Yanquis by
> and large do anything to avoid going by rail??ą
Funny, I find hopping the LIRR into NYC to be more natural than driving
in. Anyway, there's plenty of issues:
a) Schedule / frequency - I can't take a train if it's not there, or
won't be when I need it.
b) Speed - Why take a train when driving's faster? This kills most
intercity lines, save for the Metroliner.
c) Location - If the rail system doesn't drop me near my desitination,
or near a bus I can connect to, it's useless.
d) Social pressures, preception, etc - let's face it, intercity rail inb
the US by and large has a lousey reputation. Witness the numerous
amtrak jokes, portrayal in movies, etc. Not to mention, people who
regularly take the train are viewed as less than human in some places
(like northern CT).
In terms of this, let's take a route I'm most familliar with - the NY to
Hartford run:
a) There's few trains a day, most require reservations. Thus, it's
difficulty for me to show up at X hour of the day, and get a train
somewhere.
b) It's about 125 miles or so. It's a 3 hour trip. That's 40mph. I
can do the run on my Harley at least an hour faster.
c) I get dumped downtown,away from the central part of the bus system.
Thus, I have to walk 4 blocks for a bus. Which don't run much on
weekends. Thus I have to take a kamakazi cab ride and hope I get there
alive.
d) My perception of Amtrak isn't helped by the 1" layer of bird shit on
the platform, or the holes roped off. And few friends of mine travel by
train because they've all heard everyone's Amtrak horror stories.
Now, let's take a more useful, and different route - the LIRR from
Mineola to NYC.
a) Durring the week, there's at least 3 trains an hour, and often more.
On weekends, it's at least hourly service. And there's even late night
service. Thus, I can be dumped there at almost any time, and go.
b) It's faster than driving, though it's average speed is slow.
c) In NY, I can go to Penn, Flatbush Ave, or transfer to subway at
Jamacia. Comming home, I can go to any number of close train stations.
d) The LIRR's got a bad rep, but most people tolerate it because of A,
B, and C. And going to a game by train is cool because you don't have
to park.
> In your responses to this, please try to leave out the flaming and ad
> hominem attacks, and do try to concentrate on the pertinent issue in
> this thread--the difference between the American and European viewpoint
> on "communal" as opposed to "individual" travelling.
I'm curious - do European car ads show the typically stupid car driving
at excessive speed in the middle of nowhere that they do here? I'm also
curious as to why I'm supposed to be impressed by watching an EPA
castrated imported 4 banger doing a 360 in slow motion in a wet parking
lot.
Then again, I can't get excited by the current crop of automotive
appliances the car makers are pushhing on everyone.
Hank Tiffany
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Amos wrote:
> I'd say it's at least in part a cultural issue. Americans have always valued
> individualism more so than Europeans, the Japanese, etc. Cars provide the
> kind of individual freedom that rail transit cannot.
You know, perhaps it's my age (40) but I've never understood that.
Having grown up in a rural area, and lived in small towns or
rural areas for most of my life, I've always considered a car to
be more a ball and chain than some great liberator. All the time and money
I've had to put into keeping the dang things running, not to mention
gas & insurance & payments. I used to go to urban areas and ride
around town on busses green with envy for the ease and cheapness
with which people could get around. It was a great joy to move to an
area with public transit (Cheney, WA) a few years back so that
if the ^*&^&$# car isn't working, I don't have to worry about it.
Hank
Amos
minds of most Americans, cars equate to freedom. If your car breaks down,
your life changes completely.
Personally, I grew up in New York City and took the subway everywhere I
went...work, school, shopping. The "car culture" was a shock to me when I
left the big city for a new job. I'm car-dependent like everyone else where
live now (Cleveland, Ohio). A few months ago I broke my arm and had to take
public transit to work. It was a very long trip, and I had to get up an hour
earlier to get to work on time. My co-workers acted like I had climbed Mount
Everest every morning when I got to the office. "You made it! I can't
believe you actually took the bus! I didn't even know there was a bus that
stopped here!"
Those kinds of comments are a perfect example of the culture that exists
here.
"tobias b koehler" <tb...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:96v10v$t02$2...@rks1.urz.tu-dresden.de...
Scott M. Kozel
Enough said.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
wrob
Scott. We've lost too much of our online
innocence anyway, I guess...
It depends on the crowd, most of these folks
are writing about this in a very perceptive
almost "professional" manner
-BER :-)
wrob
> b) Speed - Why take a train when driving's faster? This kills most
> intercity lines, save for the Metroliner.
Question, why does this have to be the case??
ESPECIALLY when trains are capable of higher
legal speeds, without any congestion on their tracks
to worry about??
> c) Location - If the rail system doesn't drop me near my desitination,
> or near a bus I can connect to, it's useless.
Urban planning, urban planning, urban planning.
Note I didn't say DENSITY. The #1 way to double
transit ridership is not to increase congestion so
everyone suffers; it's to have a dispersed network
of reasonably-compact business and residential nodes
served by transit. This in turn makes Amtrak feasible.
The notion of driving (esp. driving out of your
neighborhood) to take transit is a dying model
that deserves to be buried. I would rather see
a system that transported fewer people from more
community-friendly stops -- e.g. town center
to town center, or in the suburbs, from the local
industrial/commercial core / local megapark to
the nearest business districts.
> d) Social pressures, preception, etc - let's face it, intercity rail inb
> the US by and large has a lousey reputation. Witness the numerous
> amtrak jokes, portrayal in movies, etc. Not to mention, people who
> regularly take the train are viewed as less than human in some places
> (like northern CT).
Implicit classisim is an enormous part of
this. Europe is "fortunate" to have sublimated
their inequality in other ways.
-BER in Takoma Park MD
(on the Capitol/B&O railroad to Pittsburgh & Chicago)
Silas Warner
>
> I'm curious - do European car ads show the typically stupid car driving
> at excessive speed in the middle of nowhere that they do here? I'm also
> curious as to why I'm supposed to be impressed by watching an EPA
> castrated imported 4 banger doing a 360 in slow motion in a wet parking
> lot.
Very few Californians, and least of all in Monterey County, are
excited by those ads. Between Carmel and Big Sur, in Monterey
County, is that coastal bridge on which EVERY new car is photographed
driving all alone. There are a few other bridges that are also used
in this area. Every time they film one of those car ads, the admen
block off the bridge (and sometimes a couple of miles of road on either
side) starting at sunrise on Sunday morning. Then, because they have
to get the light just right, they keep it blocked off until two or
three in the afternoon. That prejudices the locals against that car
permanently.
> Then again, I can't get excited by the current crop of automotive
> appliances the car makers are pushhing on everyone.
There are a few exceptions. The Honda Insight, for instance (I just
bought one.) I mean, 70 mpg is nice -- but 0-60 in five seconds (on
a 5-speed manual) and a 90-foot turning radius is awesome.
Silas Warner
Hank Tiffany
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> Enough is enough!
Oh, so stating my opinion by you is a flame?
I didn't insult anyone, simply stated my experience
and the conclusions it has led me to on the subject.
Since my dear, departed wife, who raised in an urban
area but quit riding busses as soon as she could drive,
left and I no longer have to support a car my quality of
life has far improved. The @#$@% things used to suck down
30% to 50% of my income so I regard NOT having to pour
money down that particular rathole as liberating.
Of course in the state I live in there is a watch
salesman called Tim Eyman trying to social engineer
things so that I will be forced to put the chains of
subservience to Detroit back on.
Hank
tobias b koehler
<nasa...@mail.hartford.edu> wrote:
> I'm curious - do European car ads show the typically stupid car driving
> at excessive speed in the middle of nowhere that they do here?
Quite often. Even in the city, everything moves smoothly in these ads.
Of course, 4WD vehicles are often shown in offroad situations, difficult
terrain, snow etc. (though in reality people seem to use these mostly in
the cities).
--
tobias benjamin köhler _______________ t...@rcs.urz.tu-dresden.de
__________<_ ______________ ______________ ______________
,''=0==========||===0=========0||=====0========||0=========0===|
`-oo--------oo-'`-oo--------oo-'`-oo--------oo-'`-oo--------oo-'
Tim Kynerd
I've long felt the way you do, Hank, which is part of what led me to move
from Mississippi to Washington, DC, when I was 24. One of my main goals was
to get rid of my car and just use public transportation.
Now I'm happy to be living in the Stockholm area. In Washington, which has
(by US standards) a really good transit system, I always still felt that I
was *getting by* without a car, and there were a significant number of
destinations that I wanted to visit, but couldn't easily reach with transit.
Not so here.
--
Tim Kynerd Sundbyberg, Sweden t...@tram.nu
"But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much.
That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the
right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."
-- West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
Tim Kynerd
>Enough is enough!
>
>Enough said.
Scott, please don't exaggerate. This is hardly a "flamewar," although it
looks like you might be able to turn it into one if you keep calling it one.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Scott M. Kozel <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >Enough is enough!
> >
> >Enough said.
>
> Scott, please don't exaggerate. This is hardly a "flamewar," although it
> looks like you might be able to turn it into one if you keep calling it one.
I responded to the inflammatory comment "auto = slavery". Why don't you
address that and not my response to it?
After several years on Usenet, I've come to realize that crossposts
between road and rail newsgroups invariably lead to contentious
discussions, and the contention usually starts from comments from the
rail side. The misc.transport.road already averages over 300 new posts
per day, and really doesn't need the added contentious stuff.
The Man Up Front
<3A934CEA...@mediaone.net>, seen in misc.transport.rail.europe:
>Enough is enough!
Well, I can't say as I've seen a flamewar in any of the road-vs-rail
postings that have been crossposted to misc.transport.rail.europe.
Hey, if you think anything you've seen yet is a flame, crosspost to
uk.transport and suggest cars ain't all they've cracked up to be.
*Then* you'll see a flamewar!
(Second thoughts, please don't. This is an interesting series of
threads at the moment).
--
The Man Up Front.
The reply-to *does* work - now that I've changed it...
Anyway, if you know who I am, you know what my real e-mail address is...
David Jensen
"Hank Tiffany" <dav...@cet.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.3.96.1010220232034.341A-100000@davidt...
>
>
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>
> > Enough is enough!
>
> Oh, so stating my opinion by you is a flame?
Well, it's more that you changed the title of the thread in a provocative
way and ignored that the thread was intended to be fact gathering.
> I didn't insult anyone, simply stated my experience
> and the conclusions it has led me to on the subject.
> Since my dear, departed wife, who raised in an urban
> area but quit riding busses as soon as she could drive,
> left and I no longer have to support a car my quality of
> life has far improved. The @#$@% things used to suck down
> 30% to 50% of my income so I regard NOT having to pour
> money down that particular rathole as liberating.
>
> Of course in the state I live in there is a watch
> salesman called Tim Eyman trying to social engineer
> things so that I will be forced to put the chains of
> subservience to Detroit back on.
And did it again here.
David Jensen
"wrob" <wr...@erols.com> wrote in message news:3A935B68...@erols.com...
> Philip Nasadowski wrote:
>
> > b) Speed - Why take a train when driving's faster? This kills most
> > intercity lines, save for the Metroliner.
>
> Question, why does this have to be the case??
> ESPECIALLY when trains are capable of higher
> legal speeds, without any congestion on their tracks
> to worry about??
As I understand it, almost all intercity rail is owned by freight companies.
Their interest has been freight at least since they began to bleed serious
money on passenger service after WWII. Fast passenger trains that run often
don't fit onto those rails and most railroads act as if allowing Amtrak to
run on their rails is a revenue stream that they don't need and certainly
don't want to expand.
> > c) Location - If the rail system doesn't drop me near my desitination,
> > or near a bus I can connect to, it's useless.
>
> Urban planning, urban planning, urban planning.
> Note I didn't say DENSITY. The #1 way to double
> transit ridership is not to increase congestion so
> everyone suffers; it's to have a dispersed network
> of reasonably-compact business and residential nodes
> served by transit. This in turn makes Amtrak feasible.
Maybe, but, even there, the old-time commuter lines that connect nodes like
that have all been socialized (Metro North, LIRR, METRA, etc.) because they
didn't make it.
> The notion of driving (esp. driving out of your
> neighborhood) to take transit is a dying model
> that deserves to be buried. I would rather see
> a system that transported fewer people from more
> community-friendly stops -- e.g. town center
> to town center, or in the suburbs, from the local
> industrial/commercial core / local megapark to
> the nearest business districts.
...
> Implicit classisim is an enormous part of
> this. Europe is "fortunate" to have sublimated
> their inequality in other ways.
!
wrob
> "wrob" <wr...@erols.com> wrote in message news:3A935B68...@erols.com...
> > Philip Nasadowski wrote:
> >
> > > b) Speed - Why take a train when driving's faster? This kills most
> > > intercity lines, save for the Metroliner.
> >
> > Question, why does this have to be the case??
> > ESPECIALLY when trains are capable of higher
> > legal speeds, without any congestion on their tracks
> > to worry about??
>
> As I understand it, almost all intercity rail is owned by freight companies.
> Their interest has been freight at least since they began to bleed serious
> money on passenger service after WWII. Fast passenger trains that run often
> don't fit onto those rails and most railroads act as if allowing Amtrak to
> run on their rails is a revenue stream that they don't need and certainly
> don't want to expand.
The answer is to buy some of the Railroad's ROW at a discount and
build additional trackage. Hey, the country HAS grown a little bit
since 1864. A discount because, the railroads can use the capacity
at certain hours, too.
> > > c) Location - If the rail system doesn't drop me near my desitination,
> > > or near a bus I can connect to, it's useless.
> >
> > Urban planning, urban planning, urban planning.
> > Note I didn't say DENSITY. The #1 way to double
> > transit ridership is not to increase congestion so
> > everyone suffers; it's to have a dispersed network
> > of reasonably-compact business and residential nodes
> > served by transit. This in turn makes Amtrak feasible.
>
> Maybe, but, even there, the old-time commuter lines that connect nodes like
> that have all been socialized (Metro North, LIRR, METRA, etc.) because they
> didn't make it.
Interesting point, but these are still the most successful
systems -- perhaps too successful to be profitable as
they're so capital intensive.
The problem with rail in America is it has a
BELL-SHAPED efficiency curve, unlike many
industries -- at small and large patronage the
ratios of investment to reward get out of whack.
The same thing might happen elsewhere if we let it.
Wes Leatherock
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, David Jensen wrote:
> "By Archie Leach" <stuco...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:5297-3A9...@storefull-156.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
[ ... text deleted ... ]
> 鈸es, air transport is obviously a factor but for the purposes of this
> discussion I would choose to leave it out, under the assumption that
> there's not a significant difference in air transport usage between the
> N. America and Europe.
>
> I think it is. As I understand it, the 100-400 mile trips that are taken by
> air in the US are more likely to be taken by rail in Europe.
They are even more likely to be taken by car. An example is
between Oklahoma City and Dallas, about 210 miles and with reasonably
frequent air service.
More passenger automobiles probably pass any given point on I-35
between the two cities in 30 minutes that the total number of passengers
on the scheduled airline flights in a full 24-hour period.
Between Oklahoma City and Tulsa (120 miles) and between Oklahoma
City and Wichita (150 miles) there is no scheduled air service, primarily
because there is no market, the net time by automobile from origin to
destination being less than by air with check in, flying time, getting
your baggage if any, and renting a car.
From Oklahoma City to Houston (450 miles) there is more of a
market, with four scheduled non-stop airline flights a day. But the
big majority of travel is still by automobile.
The only rail passenger service on any of these routes is between
Oklahoma City and Fort Worth (40 miles from Dallas) with one train a
day each way on a schedule much slower than driving.
Wes Leatherock
wle...@sandbox.dynip.com
Bob Johnson
>Philip Nasadowski wrote:
>
>> b) Speed - Why take a train when driving's faster? This kills most
>> intercity lines, save for the Metroliner.
>
>Question, why does this have to be the case??
>ESPECIALLY when trains are capable of higher
>legal speeds, without any congestion on their tracks
>to worry about??
In principle, sure. But then the economics of providing the right of
way enter the picture and that's a hurdle that cannot always be
jumped.
If it were easy to do, the NYC-Boston ROW would have long since been
improved for speed, right?
Norman Wilson
ignorance strength?
--
To reply directly, expel `.edu'.
Graeme Wall
stuco...@webtv.net (By Archie Leach) wrote:
>
> Why is transit and rail passenger transport such a success in Europe,
> and why is it such an albatross here in the United States??
>
> Why do Europeans by and large like going by rail, and why do Yanquis by
> and large do anything to avoid going by rail??ą
>
Distances are very much larger in the States. To get from Chicago to LA by
train takes 3 days. The equivalent in Eurpoe would be something like Paris -
Lyon or London-Birmingham which which is 3hrs and 2 hours respectively.
Operating costs for cars and air fares are very much cheaper in the States
than in Europe. We pay up to five times as much for fuel as you do.
American cities, by and large, are designed for car users, few European
cities are.
> In your responses to this, please try to leave out the flaming and ad
> hominem attacks, and do try to concentrate on the pertinent issue in
> this thread--the difference between the American and European viewpoint
> on "communal" as opposed to "individual" travelling.
>
That`s it, spoil all my fun :-)
Seriously is there that much difference in attitudes? We just don`t have so
much choice in the matter.
> >
> ąYes, air transport is obviously a factor but for the purposes of this
> discussion I would choose to leave it out, under the assumption that
> there's not a significant difference in air transport usage between the
> N. America and Europe.
>
That, I would suggest, is very much a false assumption. Again it comes down
to the relative distances involved. Fast trains are more than competitive
with planes for distances up to about 250 miles, which covers the majority of
intercity journies in Europe. Additionly the skies are getting very crowded
in Europe and even the airlines are in favour of moving short haul traffic to
the rails to free up scarce landing/takeoff slots for long-haul flights.
--
Graeme Wall
Transport Miscellany pages at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail.html>
Hank Tiffany
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Bob Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 01:08:40 -0500, wrob <wr...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >Philip Nasadowski wrote:
> >
> >> b) Speed - Why take a train when driving's faster? This kills most
> >> intercity lines, save for the Metroliner.
> >
> >Question, why does this have to be the case??
> >ESPECIALLY when trains are capable of higher
> >legal speeds, without any congestion on their tracks
> >to worry about??
>
> In principle, sure. But then the economics of providing the right of
> way enter the picture and that's a hurdle that cannot always be
> jumped.
Not to mention such factors as the train must allow for intermediate
stops and that people tend to figure their driving time not on
reality but as if they are going to drive non-stop at 80+ mph.
A couple of years ago I was going to visit my mother in central Iowa,
a trip which involves about 30 hours on Amtrak and then a 5 hour bus
ride, and couldn't get across to one of my neighbors that this
train+bus trip was both faster and cheaper (Note: I include the cost
of my time as driver when I cost trips) than driving. He just looked
at the map, got the mileage, divided by 75 for time and by gas mileage
for cost. That's the way most Americans figure the time & cost of
car trips of any length. No motels, no food (no pee breaks!) nothing
about the value of their own time or extra wear on the car, just
gasoline & 75 mph.
Hank
tobias b koehler
wrote:
> Distances are very much larger in the States. To get from Chicago to LA by
> train takes 3 days. The equivalent in Eurpoe would be something like Paris -
> Lyon or London-Birmingham which which is 3hrs and 2 hours respectively.
Both Europe and the USA have long, medium and short distances. Only true
train enthusiasts would travel by train from Chicago to LA, from Stock-
holm to Roma or from Madrid to Moscow. But some do that ....
> Operating costs for cars and air fares are very much cheaper in the States
> than in Europe.
Not entirely sure about air fares here; Europe has low-cost airlines
too.
> American cities, by and large, are designed for car users, few European
> cities are.
Some European cities are too car-centered and now suffer from it.
> That, I would suggest, is very much a false assumption. Again it comes
> down to the relative distances involved. Fast trains are more than
> competitive with planes for distances up to about 250 miles, which
> covers the majority of intercity journies in Europe. Additionly the
> skies are getting very crowded in Europe and even the airlines are in
> favour of moving short haul traffic to the rails to free up scarce
> landing/takeoff slots for long-haul flights.
However international train journeys often require a combination
of national fares that is more expensive than a flight ticket.
Especially from/to Great Britain.
--
tobias benjamin köhler _______________ t...@rcs.urz.tu-dresden.de
____________ ___________<__ ______________ ______________
,''I= ======= H||H ========== H||H ========== H||H ========== H|
`-oo--------oo-'`-oo--------oo-'`-oo--------oo-'`-oo--------oo-'
Hank Tiffany
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, David Jensen wrote:
>
> "Hank Tiffany" <dav...@cet.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.3.96.1010220232034.341A-100000@davidt...
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> >
> > > Enough is enough!
> >
> > Oh, so stating my opinion by you is a flame?
>
> Well, it's more that you changed the title of the thread in a provocative
> way and ignored that the thread was intended to be fact gathering.
So sorry, thought I was stating an opinion. I do feel oppressed by the
automobile.
> > I didn't insult anyone, simply stated my experience
> > and the conclusions it has led me to on the subject.
> > Since my dear, departed wife, who raised in an urban
> > area but quit riding busses as soon as she could drive,
> > left and I no longer have to support a car my quality of
> > life has far improved. The @#$@% things used to suck down
> > 30% to 50% of my income so I regard NOT having to pour
> > money down that particular rathole as liberating.
> >
> > Of course in the state I live in there is a watch
> > salesman called Tim Eyman trying to social engineer
> > things so that I will be forced to put the chains of
> > subservience to Detroit back on.
>
> And did it again here.
How so?
Hank
David Hatunen
Graeme Wall <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <5297-3A9...@storefull-156.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
> stuco...@webtv.net (By Archie Leach) wrote:
>
>>
>> Why is transit and rail passenger transport such a success in Europe,
>> and why is it such an albatross here in the United States??
>>
>> Why do Europeans by and large like going by rail, and why do
>> Yanquis by and large do anything to avoid going by rail??ą
>>
>Distances are very much larger in the States.
No they're not. Measure out a map of Europe from, say, Gibralter
to Oulu or from Lisbon to Minsk.
There is this myth about that somehow Europe is smaller than the
USA; it's not really, although in the days when only the area west
of the Iron Curtain was thought of as Europe there was some truth
to the myth.
>To get from Chicago to LA by train takes 3 days. The equivalent
>in Eurpoe would be something like Paris - Lyon or
>London-Birmingham which which is 3hrs and 2 hours respectively.
Paris to Lyon wouldn't be anything like the equivalent. The
equivalent might be Madrid to Tallinn. It would take 3 days. An
equivalent in the USA would be maybe Boston to Philadelphia.
But your Chicago-LA comparison is like crossing the steppes of
eastern Europe. Fairer comparisons can be made by comparing the
Eastern US with central and western Europe.
>Operating costs for cars and air fares are very much cheaper in
>the States than in Europe. We pay up to five times as much for
>fuel as you do.
Five times as much? Petrol here runs about Euro 0.46/liter; how
much is it there?
>American cities, by and large, are designed for car users, few
>European cities are.
One stroll around Paris or London easily convinces one that neither
city was really designed for car users, but they use them anyway.
The same is true for New York and Boston. But that's rather beside
the point when discussing modes of intercity travel.
[...]
>> ąYes, air transport is obviously a factor but for the purposes
>> of this discussion I would choose to leave it out, under the
>> assumption that there's not a significant difference in air
>> transport usage between the N. America and Europe.
>>
>That, I would suggest, is very much a false assumption. Again it
>comes down to the relative distances involved.
From about Kansas City east the relative distances in the USA
aren't much different than in Europe. West of Kansas City it
becomes more like the Russian Steppe.
>Fast trains are more than competitive with planes for distances up
>to about 250 miles, which covers the majority of intercity
>journies in Europe.
The same would be true in the eastern USA; the difference is not in
the applicability of fast rail service but in the will and method
of achieving this. The USA does not have national railways to
create the infrastructure for private companies or the national
railway to use. The Europeans do have a rather heavy subsidy for
fast rail. In the case of the UK it is in the trackage and rights
of way "inherited" from the government.
>Additionly the skies are getting very crowded in Europe and even
>the airlines are in favour of moving short haul traffic to the
>rails to free up scarce landing/takeoff slots for long-haul
>flights.
I'm sure American airlines might also like to drop flights from New
York to Phiadelphia or Sacramento to San Francisco.
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@sonic.net) ***********
* Daly City California (Tucson AZ as of 20010303) *
******* My typos are intentional copyright traps ******
David Hatunen
Hank Tiffany <dav...@cet.com> wrote:
>
>
>On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Bob Johnson wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 01:08:40 -0500, wrob <wr...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Philip Nasadowski wrote:
>> >
>> >> b) Speed - Why take a train when driving's faster? This
>> >> kills most intercity lines, save for the Metroliner.
>> >
>> >Question, why does this have to be the case?? ESPECIALLY when
>> >trains are capable of higher legal speeds, without any
>> >congestion on their tracks to worry about??
>>
>> In principle, sure. But then the economics of providing the right of
>> way enter the picture and that's a hurdle that cannot always be
>> jumped.
>
>Not to mention such factors as the train must allow for
>intermediate stops and that people tend to figure their driving
>time not on reality but as if they are going to drive non-stop at
>80+ mph.
>
>A couple of years ago I was going to visit my mother in central
>Iowa, a trip which involves about 30 hours on Amtrak and then a 5
>hour bus ride, and couldn't get across to one of my neighbors that
>this train+bus trip was both faster and cheaper (Note: I include
>the cost of my time as driver when I cost trips) than driving.
Why wouldn't you also count the cost of your time sitting on the
train?
>He just looked at the map, got the mileage, divided by 75 for time
>and by gas mileage for cost. That's the way most Americans figure
>the time & cost of car trips of any length. No motels, no food (no
>pee breaks!) nothing about the value of their own time or extra
>wear on the car, just gasoline & 75 mph.
Most Americans? I certainly don't. AAA map distances and times
include reasonable breaks. And no one I know discounts the cost of
food and lodging.
Consider the simple fact that I can drive from San Francisco to
Los Angeles in six hours, including a lunch and refueling break,
while the train takes twelve hours. And it takes me a good hour to
get to the train from Daly City.
William C. Watson
(1) In America there is inadequate, infrequent service on most rail lines
that even offer any passenger service.
(2) Most Americans have never experienced really good rail service -- or
moreso -- any rail service at all and are conditioned by various aspects
of the culture and cirsumstance not to consider it.
In article <5297-3A9...@storefull-156.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
stuco...@webtv.net (By Archie Leach) wrote:
> Why is transit and rail passenger transport such a success in Europe,
> and why is it such an albatross here in the United States??
>
> Why do Europeans by and large like going by rail, and why do Yanquis by
> and large do anything to avoid going by rail??=B9
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> =B9Yes, air transport is obviously a factor but for the purposes of this
Hank Tiffany
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, David Hatunen wrote:
> In article <Pine.LNX.3.96.1010221115506.210E-100000@davidt>,
> Hank Tiffany <dav...@cet.com> wrote:
> >this train+bus trip was both faster and cheaper (Note: I include
> >the cost of my time as driver when I cost trips) than driving.
>
> Why wouldn't you also count the cost of your time sitting on the
> train?
Because I can do other things on the train, read, sleep, walk around,
I'm not working. When I'm driving, all I can do is drive. Heck, if
the traffic is heavy I can't even hold a conversation with the
other people in the car!(safely)
> >He just looked at the map, got the mileage, divided by 75 for time
> >and by gas mileage for cost. That's the way most Americans figure
> >the time & cost of car trips of any length. No motels, no food (no
> >pee breaks!) nothing about the value of their own time or extra
> >wear on the car, just gasoline & 75 mph.
>
> Most Americans?
The vast majority of those I have ever talked to about the subject
then.
> Consider the simple fact that I can drive from San Francisco to
> Los Angeles in six hours, including a lunch and refueling break,
> while the train takes twelve hours. And it takes me a good hour to
> get to the train from Daly City.
12 hours on the Coast Starlate(actually 13:25 if you count the bus
ride San Fran to Oakland 7:50 am to 9:15 pm,) over the coast line
which is scenic but not very fast.
9:45 via the San Joaquins (#712, 6:25am to 4:10 pm) which includes
a bus ride from Bakersfield, which hopefully will be replaced in the
future.
Just to keep the numbers straight.
8-{)#
Hank
Bob Johnson
wrote:
>A couple of years ago I was going to visit my mother in central Iowa,
>a trip which involves about 30 hours on Amtrak and then a 5 hour bus
>ride, and couldn't get across to one of my neighbors that this
>train+bus trip was both faster and cheaper (Note: I include the cost
>of my time as driver when I cost trips)
And you don't if you're on a train? I don't understand.
> than driving. He just looked
>at the map, got the mileage, divided by 75 for time and by gas mileage
>for cost. That's the way most Americans figure the time & cost of
>car trips of any length. No motels, no food (no pee breaks!) nothing
>about the value of their own time or extra wear on the car, just
>gasoline & 75 mph.
Nobody I know is that stupid.
Hank Tiffany
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, William C. Watson wrote:
> From my own experiences: some points not yet mentioned by others thus far.
> (1) In America there is inadequate, infrequent service on most rail lines
> that even offer any passenger service.
> (2) Most Americans have never experienced really good rail service -- or
> moreso -- any rail service at all and are conditioned by various aspects
> of the culture and cirsumstance not to consider it.
Not to mention:
3) Many Americans don't even realize that any rail passenger service
exists in their area. If I had a buck for every time someone has
said to me "You mean you can catch a train in Spokane? I thought
they quit running them years ago." I could, uhm, catch a train in
Spokane for weekend in Seattle with some old friends. With a Deluxe
room, no less!
8-{)#
Hank
Ken Weaverling
David Hatunen <hat...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
>Five times as much? Petrol here runs about Euro 0.46/liter; how
>much is it there?
That's seems awfully cheap. I thought UK was about 85p/litre.
If so, no wonder Brits are upset at Blair (beings it's mostly tax)
--
Ken Weaverling (ken @ weaverling.org) WHOIS: KJW http://www.weaverling.org/
David Hatunen
Ken Weaverling <we...@apache.dtcc.edu> wrote:
>In article <6TVk6.3524$S25....@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>David Hatunen <hat...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
>>Five times as much? Petrol here runs about Euro 0.46/liter; how
>>much is it there?
>
>That's seems awfully cheap.
In the big picture, including adjustments for inflation over ethe
years, it is cheap.
>I thought UK was about 85p/litre.
But it's not five times as much.
David Jensen
"William C. Watson" <all...@serv.net> wrote in message
news:allegro-2102...@dialup302.serv.net...
> From my own experiences: some points not yet mentioned by others thus far.
> (1) In America there is inadequate, infrequent service on most rail lines
> that even offer any passenger service.
> (2) Most Americans have never experienced really good rail service -- or
> moreso -- any rail service at all and are conditioned by various aspects
> of the culture and cirsumstance not to consider it.
>
reservation is required.
David Hatunen
Hank Tiffany <dav...@cet.com> wrote:
>
>
>On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, David Hatunen wrote:
>> >He just looked at the map, got the mileage, divided by 75 for
>> >time and by gas mileage for cost. That's the way most Americans
>> >figure the time & cost of car trips of any length. No motels,
>> >no food (no pee breaks!) nothing about the value of their own
>> >time or extra wear on the car, just gasoline & 75 mph.
>>
>> Most Americans?
>
>The vast majority of those I have ever talked to about the subject
>then.
How many Americans have you actually spoken to on the subject?
Really? Are we talkigna *vast* majority of twelve people, or what?
Needless to say, even a vast majority of people you talk to about
it are not "most Americans" nor are they necessarily representative
of most Americans.
>> Consider the simple fact that I can drive from San Francisco to
>> Los Angeles in six hours, including a lunch and refueling break,
>> while the train takes twelve hours. And it takes me a good hour
>> to get to the train from Daly City.
>
>12 hours on the Coast Starlate(actually 13:25 if you count the bus
>ride San Fran to Oakland 7:50 am to 9:15 pm,) over the coast line
>which is scenic but not very fast.
>
>9:45 via the San Joaquins (#712, 6:25am to 4:10 pm) which includes
>a bus ride from Bakersfield, which hopefully will be replaced in the
>future.
>
>Just to keep the numbers straight.
I'll grant you that one if spending over two hours on a bus
qualifies as going from SF to LA on a train. After all, that's
partly a motor vehicle trip.
Just to set the qualifications of discourse straight.
Tim Kynerd
>In article <91dcf54f4a%ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk>,
>Graeme Wall <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <5297-3A9...@storefull-156.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
>> stuco...@webtv.net (By Archie Leach) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Why is transit and rail passenger transport such a success in Europe,
>>> and why is it such an albatross here in the United States??
>>>
>>> Why do Europeans by and large like going by rail, and why do
>>>
>>Distances are very much larger in the States.
>
>No they're not. Measure out a map of Europe from, say, Gibralter
>to Oulu or from Lisbon to Minsk.
>
>There is this myth about that somehow Europe is smaller than the
>USA; it's not really, although in the days when only the area west
>of the Iron Curtain was thought of as Europe there was some truth
>to the myth.
>
>>To get from Chicago to LA by train takes 3 days. The equivalent
>>in Eurpoe would be something like Paris - Lyon or
>>London-Birmingham which which is 3hrs and 2 hours respectively.
>
>Paris to Lyon wouldn't be anything like the equivalent. The
>equivalent might be Madrid to Tallinn. It would take 3 days. An
>equivalent in the USA would be maybe Boston to Philadelphia.
I think the point was to compare fairly frequently traveled city pairs within
the same country. Madrid to Tallinn doesn't compare at all.
-snip-
Tim Kynerd
>t...@tram.nu (Tim Kynerd) wrote:
>>
>> Scott M. Kozel <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>> >Enough is enough!
>> >
>> >Enough said.
>>
>> Scott, please don't exaggerate. This is hardly a "flamewar," although it
>> looks like you might be able to turn it into one if you keep calling it one.
>
>I responded to the inflammatory comment "auto = slavery". Why don't you
>address that and not my response to it?
I did. I agreed with it, although that opinion applies only to me (just as
the original poster's did, as his article made clear). You need to think
carefully before bringing someone to task based strictly on what's in their
article headers.
>
>After several years on Usenet, I've come to realize that crossposts
>between road and rail newsgroups invariably lead to contentious
>discussions, and the contention usually starts from comments from the
>rail side. The misc.transport.road already averages over 300 new posts
>per day, and really doesn't need the added contentious stuff.
Then why did you cross-post your "Enough is enough!" reply?
Followups to m.t.u-t.
David Hatunen
Hank Tiffany <dav...@cet.com> wrote:
>Not to mention:
>
>3) Many Americans don't even realize that any rail passenger
>service exists in their area. If I had a buck for every time
>someone has said to me "You mean you can catch a train in Spokane?
>I thought they quit running them years ago." I could, uhm, catch a
>train in Spokane for weekend in Seattle with some old friends.
If you don't mind catching a train at 2:15 am to arrive in Seattle
at 10:20 am, about eight hours
It's only 280 miles. It can be done in a car on one tank of gas in
about three hours or so. And you have a car to get around Seattle in.
>With a Deluxe room, no less!
Not sure a room would be worth it at 2:15 am. Without a room the
train fare is $26 one way, which really isn't too bad. What is it
with a room?
David Hatunen
Maybe because it's easier in the USA, involving only one train with
no changes?
As I try to point out, crossing the American West by train is more
fairly compared to crossing the Russian steppe by train than
comparing it to two cities in western Europe.
tobias b koehler
> I think the point was to compare fairly frequently traveled city pairs within
> the same country. Madrid to Tallinn doesn't compare at all.
Does anyone have information about the average length of a
journey "here" and "there"?
--
tobias benjamin köhler _______________ t...@rcs.urz.tu-dresden.de
__________ ___________<__ ______________ ______________
,-''0=========||0============0||0============0||=======0======|
`-oo--------oo-'`-oo--------oo-'`-oo--------oo-'`-oo--------oo-'
the ICE/ICT pages - http://mercurio.iet.unipi.it/ice/
Martin Bitter
it? Pre-war US Railroad was nothing to snuff at.
Martin
Trier/Germany
--------------------------
tobias b koehler
> But isnt the US Rail service so bad because people stopped using
> it? Pre-war US Railroad was nothing to snuff at.
Something must have started the downward spiral. Less people
took trains, train services were reduced, so even less people
took trains, and so on.
Could something be done to start an upward spiral? Better
services cause more people to take trains, allowing to improve
services further, and so on?
--
tobias benjamin köhler _______________ t...@rcs.urz.tu-dresden.de
_______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _____
,''| ## ||:=====||:=====||:=====||:=====|===~ :||=====:||=====
`-o=o-----o-------o-------o-------o-------o-------o-------o-----
randee
Oakland. LAX to SLO was about 4 hours, maybe a bit more, possibly less
depending on when you left LAX, and possibly a lot more depending on
when you left LAX. Figure a minimum of an hour to hour and a half for
fueling and a decent meal in SLO. Then another 3 hours SLO to Oakland
(including 20 minutes while the driver got a ticket south of Oakland).
Total about 8.5 hours, still faster than rail but not by much.
And you do have to count your time -- when on the train or plane you
can do some work and get paid for the time . Not easy to do any work
while you are driving, so you are losing money on the deal. Plus the
biggest problem with driving, having to pay attention to the road and
other driver's for all that time. Nope, I still think the only really
useful place for a car is on the race track.
David Hatunen wrote:
<<snip some>>
>
> I
> Consider the simple fact that I can drive from San Francisco to
> Los Angeles in six hours, including a lunch and refueling break,
> while the train takes twelve hours. And it takes me a good hour to
> get to the train from Daly City.
>
> --
>
--
wf.
Wayne Flowers
Randee Greenwald
ran...@zianet.com
John R Cambron
David Jensen wrote:
>
> "wrob" <wr...@erols.com> wrote in message news:3A935B68...@erols.com...
> > Philip Nasadowski wrote:
> >
> > > b) Speed - Why take a train when driving's faster? This kills most
> > > intercity lines, save for the Metroliner.
> >
> > Question, why does this have to be the case??
> > ESPECIALLY when trains are capable of higher
> > legal speeds, without any congestion on their tracks
> > to worry about??
>
> As I understand it, almost all intercity rail is owned by freight companies.
> Their interest has been freight at least since they began to bleed serious
> money on passenger service after WWII. Fast passenger trains that run often
> don't fit onto those rails and most railroads act as if allowing Amtrak to
> run on their rails is a revenue stream that they don't need and certainly
> don't want to expand.
Except the NEC where the freight carriers are the tenants.
Part of the bleeding was caused by the loss of USPO "United States Post
Office Department" contracts, and the loss of the package express service
that was also carried on intercity passenger train. Anybody here remember
REA "Railway Express Agency", today's modern equivalent of REA would be
FedEx "Federal Express", and UPS "United Partial Service".
(sniped)
--
======================================================================
NT Geek, MCP
Transit Geek
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/
Model Railroader HO N John R Cambron
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/sunbelt/ North Beach MD USA
Railroad Geek camb...@chesapeake.net
======================================================================
David Hatunen
John R Cambron <*camb...@chesapeake.net*> wrote:
>Part of the bleeding was caused by the loss of USPO "United States
>Post Office Department" contracts, and the loss of the package
>express service that was also carried on intercity passenger
>train. Anybody here remember REA "Railway Express Agency", today's
>modern equivalent of REA would be FedEx "Federal Express", and UPS
>"United Partial Service".
I wish REA was still around. They were slower than FedEx, but would
could still serve a real purpose.
David Hatunen
>David Hatunen wrote:
>> I Consider the simple fact that I can drive from San Francisco
>> to Los Angeles in six hours, including a lunch and refueling
>> break, while the train takes twelve hours. And it takes me a
>> good hour to get to the train from Daly City.
>I think 7 hours would be more like it, with luck. I recently did
>LAX to Oakland.
What you think is irrelevant; I've done it, from Daly City, in less
than six hours.
>LAX to SLO was about 4 hours, maybe a bit more, possibly less
>depending on when you left LAX, and possibly a lot more depending
>on when you left LAX. Figure a minimum of an hour to hour and a
>half for fueling and a decent meal in SLO. Then another 3 hours
>SLO to Oakland (including 20 minutes while the driver got a ticket
>south of Oakland). Total about 8.5 hours, still faster than rail
>but not by much.
There's your problem: you took US-101 instead of I-5. I-5 is twice
as boring and twice as fast as US-101 (little hyperbole there).
>And you do have to count your time -- when on the train or plane
>you can do some work and get paid for the time .
Kind of depends on whether you have work to do, doesn't it?
>Not easy to do any work while you are driving, so you are losing
>money on the deal. Plus the biggest problem with driving, having
>to pay attention to the road and other driver's for all that time.
>Nope, I still think the only really useful place for a car is on
>the race track.
But I usually have someone traveling with me. We can spell each
other off if 5.5 hours gets to be too much.
Hank Tiffany
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, David Hatunen wrote:
> In article <Pine.LNX.3.96.1010221131029.254A-100000@davidt>,
> Hank Tiffany <dav...@cet.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, David Hatunen wrote:
>
> >> >He just looked at the map, got the mileage, divided by 75 for
> >> >time and by gas mileage for cost. That's the way most Americans
> >> >figure the time & cost of car trips of any length. No motels,
> >> >no food (no pee breaks!) nothing about the value of their own
> >> >time or extra wear on the car, just gasoline & 75 mph.
> >>
> >> Most Americans?
> >
> >The vast majority of those I have ever talked to about the subject
> >then.
>
> How many Americans have you actually spoken to on the subject?
> Really? Are we talkigna *vast* majority of twelve people, or what?
At least several hundred over the last 25 years or so.
> Needless to say, even a vast majority of people you talk to about
> it are not "most Americans" nor are they necessarily representative
> of most Americans.
Well now, how could I judge what most Americans think other than to go
by those I have interacted with? It's not like Gallup does polls on
this sort of thing. As for unrepresentative sample, well, yes almost
entirely composed of Westerners, working-class, church-going types
who live in rural areas or small towns because that's who I chat with
mostly day to day. Salt of The Earth types.
8-{)#
> >> Consider the simple fact that I can drive from San Francisco to
> >> Los Angeles in six hours, including a lunch and refueling break,
> >> while the train takes twelve hours. And it takes me a good hour
> >> to get to the train from Daly City.
> >
> >12 hours on the Coast Starlate(actually 13:25 if you count the bus
> >ride San Fran to Oakland 7:50 am to 9:15 pm,) over the coast line
> >which is scenic but not very fast.
> >
> >9:45 via the San Joaquins (#712, 6:25am to 4:10 pm) which includes
> >a bus ride from Bakersfield, which hopefully will be replaced in the
> >future.
> >
> >Just to keep the numbers straight.
>
> I'll grant you that one if spending over two hours on a bus
> qualifies as going from SF to LA on a train. After all, that's
> partly a motor vehicle trip.
>
> Just to set the qualifications of discourse straight.
But still on Public/mass transit, not driving a private auto.
(Can we find any more nits to pick on this between us? 8-{)# )
Hank
Hank Tiffany
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, David Hatunen wrote:
> In article <Pine.LNX.3.96.1010221134115.254B-100000@davidt>,
> Hank Tiffany <dav...@cet.com> wrote:
>
> >Not to mention:
> >
> >3) Many Americans don't even realize that any rail passenger
> >service exists in their area. If I had a buck for every time
> >someone has said to me "You mean you can catch a train in Spokane?
> >I thought they quit running them years ago." I could, uhm, catch a
> >train in Spokane for weekend in Seattle with some old friends.
>
> If you don't mind catching a train at 2:15 am to arrive in Seattle
> at 10:20 am, about eight hours
That's the joy of not living at an endpoint. (Don't get me started)
> It's only 280 miles. It can be done in a car on one tank of gas in
> about three hours or so. And you have a car to get around Seattle in.
More like 5 hours (in good weather,) there's a little thing called the
Cascade Range 'twit here and there. And who needs a car to tie you down
in Seattle? Nice bus system they've got, and a reasonable web site to
get info on it before you arrive. Much less stressful.
> >With a Deluxe room, no less!
>
> Not sure a room would be worth it at 2:15 am.
Board 1st (coach gets to wait til the switching is done) + sleep in +
free breakfast.
> Without a room the
> train fare is $26 one way,
$60 full-fare usually can get that down to $30-$40 if
you get a ticket at the right time.
> which really isn't too bad. What is it
> with a room?
Economy (Standard) is $121. I don't even bother to check Deluxe,
probably around $250 or more.
Hank
Hank Tiffany
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, randee wrote:
> I think 7 hours would be more like it, with luck. I recently did LAX to
> Oakland. LAX to SLO was about 4 hours, maybe a bit more, possibly less
> depending on when you left LAX, and possibly a lot more depending on
> when you left LAX. Figure a minimum of an hour to hour and a half for
> fueling and a decent meal in SLO. Then another 3 hours SLO to Oakland
> (including 20 minutes while the driver got a ticket south of Oakland).
> Total about 8.5 hours, still faster than rail but not by much.
Wouldn't someone taking I-5 & I-580 make better time than you did on
101 tho? Seems that way on the map. Weather & traffic permitting,
of course.
Hank
John
___>^..^<___
"David Jensen" <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:970jn1$ehl$1...@grandcanyon.binc.net...
>
> "Hank Tiffany" <dav...@cet.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.3.96.1010220232034.341A-100000@davidt...
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> >
> > > Enough is enough!
> >
> > Oh, so stating my opinion by you is a flame?
>
> Well, it's more that you changed the title of the thread in a provocative
> way and ignored that the thread was intended to be fact gathering.
>
>
> > I didn't insult anyone, simply stated my experience
> > and the conclusions it has led me to on the subject.
> > Since my dear, departed wife, who raised in an urban
> > area but quit riding busses as soon as she could drive,
> > left and I no longer have to support a car my quality of
> > life has far improved. The @#$@% things used to suck down
> > 30% to 50% of my income so I regard NOT having to pour
> > money down that particular rathole as liberating.
> >
> > Of course in the state I live in there is a watch
> > salesman called Tim Eyman trying to social engineer
> > things so that I will be forced to put the chains of
> > subservience to Detroit back on.
>
> And did it again here.
>
It's really puzzling what some people find "provocative" - and the things
they just gloss over.
John
___>^..^<___
"tobias b koehler" <tb...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:971gh1$26m$1...@rks1.urz.tu-dresden.de...
> In misc.transport.rail.europe Martin Bitter <u4...@abdn.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > But isnt the US Rail service so bad because people stopped using
> > it? Pre-war US Railroad was nothing to snuff at.
>
> Something must have started the downward spiral. Less people
> took trains, train services were reduced, so even less people
> took trains, and so on.
>
> Could something be done to start an upward spiral? Better
> services cause more people to take trains, allowing to improve
> services further, and so on?
>
The Great Depression - nobody could afford to take the trains.
John
___>^..^<___
"Martin Bitter" <u4...@abdn.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.21.010221...@sysa.abdn.ac.uk...
> But isnt the US Rail service so bad because people stopped using
> it? Pre-war US Railroad was nothing to snuff at.
>
And a lot of that was due to neglect because of the Great Depression.
None
"Hank Tiffany" <dav...@cet.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.3.96.1010220232034.341A-100000@davidt...
>
>
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>
> > Enough is enough!
>
> Oh, so stating my opinion by you is a flame?
> I didn't insult anyone, simply stated my experience
> and the conclusions it has led me to on the subject.
> Since my dear, departed wife, who raised in an urban
> area but quit riding busses as soon as she could drive,
> left and I no longer have to support a car my quality of
> life has far improved. The @#$@% things used to suck down
> 30% to 50% of my income so I regard NOT having to pour
> money down that particular rathole as liberating.
>
> Of course in the state I live in there is a watch
> salesman called Tim Eyman trying to social engineer
> things so that I will be forced to put the chains of
> subservience to Detroit back on.
>
>
> Hank
>
randee
And with 101 it's an easy off to visit the Russian restaurant in SLO.
Makes for a nice dinner break for the trip (and there are a couple good
places in Santa Barbarian for lunch/dinner also). 101 has a 65 mph
speed limit for the most part (and seems to be heavily patrolled).
Although I have never taken I5 north of LAX, I assume it has the
'standard' western speed limit of 75 mph, so it would be faster, but
where do you get a nice dinner along that route? On the train you also
get a pretty decent dinner (at least the four or five times I have taken
that route). In fact it used to be the pride of the SP that all the
cooking was done with Challenge butter.
David Hatunen wrote:
>
> In article <3A944CEF...@zianet.com>, randee <ran...@zianet.com> wrote:
>
> >D
> There's your problem: you took US-101 instead of I-5. I-5 is twice
> as boring and twice as fast as US-101 (little hyperbole there).
>
>
Hank Tiffany
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Mark Gibson wrote:
> The automobile: nobody wanted to take the trains anymore.
Now THIS subject has great possibilities for starting a flame war.
There are so many different factors involved in why this change
occurred and so many different theorys to account for ranging from
"the march of progress" to "non-level playing field" to "a vast
conspiracy" and about everything in-between.
I think it highly doubtful that any agreement will be reached on
this topic, but hey, knock yourselves out!
Hank
Tim Kynerd
>In article <X3Xk6.2$aj1....@news.bahnhof.se>, Tim Kynerd <t...@tram.nu> wrote:
>>On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:51:14 GMT, David Hatunen <hat...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
>>>In article <91dcf54f4a%ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk>,
>>>Graeme Wall <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
-snip-
>>>>To get from Chicago to LA by train takes 3 days. The equivalent
>>>>in Eurpoe would be something like Paris - Lyon or
>>>>London-Birmingham which which is 3hrs and 2 hours respectively.
>>>
>>>Paris to Lyon wouldn't be anything like the equivalent. The
>>>equivalent might be Madrid to Tallinn. It would take 3 days. An
>>>equivalent in the USA would be maybe Boston to Philadelphia.
>>
>>I think the point was to compare fairly frequently traveled city
>>pairs within the same country. Madrid to Tallinn doesn't compare
>>at all.
>
>Maybe because it's easier in the USA, involving only one train with
>no changes?
>
>As I try to point out, crossing the American West by train is more
>fairly compared to crossing the Russian steppe by train than
>comparing it to two cities in western Europe.
And as I try to point out, you're missing the point. The point is not to
find a trip similar in time and difficulty to crossing the American West by
train, but to find a similarly frequently made trip between two cities in
the same country. (Even though Chicago-LA isn't a frequently made trip *by
train*, it would appear to be a fairly frequently made trip in general, just
that it's generally done by air.)
Ulf Kutzner
> >> Why is transit and rail passenger transport such a success in Europe,
> >> and why is it such an albatross here in the United States??
> >>
> >> Why do Europeans by and large like going by rail, and why do
> >> Yanquis by and large do anything to avoid going by rail??¹
> >>
> >Distances are very much larger in the States.
>
> No they're not. Measure out a map of Europe from, say, Gibralter
> to Oulu or from Lisbon to Minsk.
>
> There is this myth about that somehow Europe is smaller than the
> USA; it's not really, although in the days when only the area west
> of the Iron Curtain was thought of as Europe there was some truth
> to the myth.
>
> >To get from Chicago to LA by train takes 3 days. The equivalent
> >in Eurpoe would be something like Paris - Lyon or
> >London-Birmingham which which is 3hrs and 2 hours respectively.
>
> Paris to Lyon wouldn't be anything like the equivalent. The
> equivalent might be Madrid to Tallinn.
Not exactly. Passenger traffic between these points is close to zero.
> It would take 3 days. An
> equivalent in the USA would be maybe Boston to Philadelphia.
>
> But your Chicago-LA comparison is like crossing the steppes of
> eastern Europe. Fairer comparisons can be made by comparing the
> Eastern US with central and western Europe.
Well, there are also some steppes in Spain. However, crossing the steppes
of Eastern Europe by train ist still popular.
Regards, ULF
X-Posting reduced.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Ulf Kutzner Backhaushohl 46 D-55128 Mainz
________________________________________________________________________
Ulf Kutzner
> And most of the places that there is service, Amtrak tells us that a
> reservation is required.
Airlines will tell you the same. But if compared to using a car, it maks
things complicated.
Regards, ULF
X-post reduced.
Nick Thompson
<snip>
>>>To get from Chicago to LA by train takes 3 days. The equivalent
>>>in Eurpoe would be something like Paris - Lyon or
>>>London-Birmingham which which is 3hrs and 2 hours respectively.
>>
>>Paris to Lyon wouldn't be anything like the equivalent. The
>>equivalent might be Madrid to Tallinn. It would take 3 days. An
>>equivalent in the USA would be maybe Boston to Philadelphia.
>
>I think the point was to compare fairly frequently traveled city pairs within
>the same country. Madrid to Tallinn doesn't compare at all.
>
OK, but (e.g.) Glasgow to Rome does (judging from the number of fellow
weegie punters stuck in the transit lounge at LGW on Monday). The
as-the-crow-flies distance is about 1400 miles/2000km, so comparable
to a journey from the US east or west coast to the midwest.
It takes half a day by air (theoretically!), including 1 change. Cost
varies according to route and availability, but is usually between
around 150-200 return (I fly this route pretty regularly).
The best rail connection is a shade under 26 hours with 2 cross-city
interchanges [1]. I haven't checked the fare, but since it involves a
sleeper it wouldn't be cheap. Clearly, only a true rail nut would
contemplate such a journey.
A more realistic option for long-distance journeys within Europe is
rail-plus-air. For instance, in May I need to travel from Glasgow to a
conference in Montpellier. Flying the whole way is either expensive
(using French regional puddle-jumpers) or impractical; flying to Paris
CDG or Lyon then TGV is a much better proposition. I would have
thought this could be a sensible long-term option in the US - you fly
to the regional hub, then catch a train.
Nick
[1] Dep Glasgow Central 07.00, change London and Paris, arr Roma
Termini 09.57
Nick Thompson, Glasgow, Scotland
Wes Leatherock
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 04:36:02 +0000 (UTC) Mark Gibson
<gib...@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote:
> In misc.transport.urban-transit John <jk...@anon.net> wrote:
Railroads were already losing passengers to the private
automobile in the early 1920s, enough so that passenger train
discontinuances had become common even before the Great
Depression.
In fact, during the Great Depression many railroads
brought out many innovations in rail passenger travel, as
chronicled in the film "The Streamliners" recently shown
on PBS stations.
It appeared to be primarily a Burlington Route
publicity film, and only briefly mentioned, or ignored
entirely, the improvements in passenger travel on
other roads such as the Milwaukee Road, Union Pacific,
Santa Fe, Rock Island, New York Central, Boston & Maine,
Pennsylvania, the lines to Florida, and many others.
And these innovations did indeed improve passenger
loads in the latter part of the Great Depression.
Heartened by this, after World War II the railroads
spent vast sums for further improvements, only to see
those gains slowly eroded to the car and, on many
routes, to air travel.
Wes Leatherock
wle...@sandbox.dynip.com
Robin Payne
> >much is it there?
>
> That's seems awfully cheap. I thought UK was about 85p/litre.
>
> If so, no wonder Brits are upset at Blair (beings it's mostly tax)
Hence the "fuel protests" over the summer. Road hauliers blockaded the fuel
depots, refused to let deliveries get to filling stations and everyone
panicked. Panic buying started in the petrol forecourts until they were all
dry, then moved to other shops as people feared shortages due to lack of
deliveries. I delighted as I took the electric train to work each day. It
lasted about a week until people began to realise they'd quite like to have
some petrol, regardless of the price, at least in the short term.
Robin
David Hatunen
As either a pro rata part of all travel from Chicago to LA, or in
absolute numbers, there is NO comparison between a trip between Chi
and LA and hardly any trip in Europe. There is a single daily train
from Chicago to LA, its fares are high compared to European fares,
it is all essentially first class, and it is, for the most part,
only used by people taking a train trip for leisure purposes.
Perhaps you need to clarify just what this analogy is supposed to
demonstrate.
David Hatunen
Many a politician and marketer has come to grief assuming his
acquaintances were representative of most Americans. Why make the
extrapolation at all when working from limited data?
>> >> Consider the simple fact that I can drive from San Francisco
>> >> to Los Angeles in six hours, including a lunch and refueling
>> >> break, while the train takes twelve hours. And it takes me a
>> >> good hour to get to the train from Daly City.
>> >
>> >12 hours on the Coast Starlate(actually 13:25 if you count the bus
>> >ride San Fran to Oakland 7:50 am to 9:15 pm,) over the coast line
>> >which is scenic but not very fast.
>> >
>> >9:45 via the San Joaquins (#712, 6:25am to 4:10 pm) which includes
>> >a bus ride from Bakersfield, which hopefully will be replaced in the
>> >future.
>> >
>> >Just to keep the numbers straight.
>>
>> I'll grant you that one if spending over two hours on a bus
>> qualifies as going from SF to LA on a train. After all, that's
>> partly a motor vehicle trip.
>>
>> Just to set the qualifications of discourse straight.
>
>But still on Public/mass transit, not driving a private auto.
>(Can we find any more nits to pick on this between us? 8-{)# )
In that case, skip the train and take the 9:45am Greyhound from SF
to LA: it's a 7:55 trip.
In any case, driving makes more sense than train, train + coach
shuttle, or bus. And the number of travelers doing so proves it,
they constituting "most Americans" who actually make the trip. Of
course, business travelers generally fly, but that's a different
story.
David Hatunen
>Ah, well, it would never occur to me to take I5, too boring as you
>say. And with 101 it's an easy off to visit the Russian
>restaurant in SLO. Makes for a nice dinner break for the trip
>(and there are a couple good places in Santa Barbarian for
>lunch/dinner also). 101 has a 65 mph speed limit for the most
>part (and seems to be heavily patrolled). Although I have never
>taken I5 north of LAX, I assume it has the 'standard' western
>speed limit of 75 mph, so it would be faster, but where do you get
>a nice dinner along that route?
On a six hour drive, I get the nice dinner in San Francisco or LA.
>On the train you also get a pretty decent dinner (at least the
>four or five times I have taken that route). In fact it used to
>be the pride of the SP that all the cooking was done with
>Challenge butter.
Unfortunately, SP no longer runs the train. I have no idea what
kind of butter AMTRAK uses.
I sometimes use US-101 myself, and for the reasons you suggest. I
even use CA-1 from time to time. But this all depends on the reason
for the journey. Under some conditions I might go from SF to LA via
Yosemite.
But if all I'm doing is trying to get to LA, I drive (unless my
employer is paying for air fare and a car rental).
David Hatunen
Hank Tiffany <dav...@cet.com> wrote:
>Wouldn't someone taking I-5 & I-580 make better time than you did on
>101 tho? Seems that way on the map. Weather & traffic permitting,
>of course.
The I-580/I-5 route is very fast. It just seems longer. Boy, is it
boring.
David Hatunen
Hank Tiffany <dav...@cet.com> wrote:
>
>
>On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, David Hatunen wrote:
>
>> In article <Pine.LNX.3.96.1010221134115.254B-100000@davidt>,
>> Hank Tiffany <dav...@cet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Not to mention:
>> >
>> >3) Many Americans don't even realize that any rail passenger
>> >service exists in their area. If I had a buck for every time
>> >someone has said to me "You mean you can catch a train in Spokane?
>> >I thought they quit running them years ago." I could, uhm, catch a
>> >train in Spokane for weekend in Seattle with some old friends.
>>
>> If you don't mind catching a train at 2:15 am to arrive in Seattle
>> at 10:20 am, about eight hours
>
>That's the joy of not living at an endpoint. (Don't get me started)
>
>> It's only 280 miles. It can be done in a car on one tank of gas in
>> about three hours or so. And you have a car to get around Seattle in.
>
>More like 5 hours (in good weather,) there's a little thing called
>the Cascade Range 'twit here and there. And who needs a car to tie
>you down in Seattle? Nice bus system they've got, and a reasonable
>web site to get info on it before you arrive. Much less stressful.
Gimme a break. I lived in eastern Washington for three years while
working on the WPPSS nuclear plants and made the drive over
Snoqualmie Pass on I-90 many times. It doesn't scarcely slow you
down at all. It would be a snap to drive Spokane-Seattle in a
little over three hours.
David Hatunen
Hank Tiffany <dav...@cet.com> wrote:
>> The automobile: nobody wanted to take the trains anymore.
>
>Now THIS subject has great possibilities for starting a flame war.
>There are so many different factors involved in why this change
>occurred and so many different theorys to account for ranging from
>"the march of progress" to "non-level playing field" to "a vast
>conspiracy" and about everything in-between.
>
>I think it highly doubtful that any agreement will be reached on
>this topic, but hey, knock yourselves out!
I was born during the Great Depression, which means I was a kid
during WW2. Because of rationing, personal driving was simply not
done much, so everyone used mass transit. Trains ran everywhere.
As late as 1960 when I was inducted into the Army I was given a
private compartment on a train from Cleveland to Cincinnati on my
way to Fort Knox.
But the simple fact is that during WW2 everyone was making money,
the war having ended the depression, and large numbers of people,
including the GIs in service, had two goals after the war: a home
with a lawn in the suburbs and a new car. They didn't want to ride
buses and trains, and as soon as they didn't have to they stopped
doing it. Rail ridership plunged and cross-country buses tended
toward the mode of choice for the down and out. Except for larger
cities where auto use was difficult local transit systems saw
ridership drop, with the poor and the too-young-to-drive
constituting most passenger loads.
Exile on Market Street
<da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
> "wrob" <wr...@erols.com> wrote in message news:3A935B68...@erols.com...
> > Philip Nasadowski wrote:
> >
> > > b) Speed - Why take a train when driving's faster? This kills most
> > > intercity lines, save for the Metroliner.
> >
> > Question, why does this have to be the case??
> > ESPECIALLY when trains are capable of higher
> > legal speeds, without any congestion on their tracks
> > to worry about??
>
> As I understand it, almost all intercity rail is owned by freight companies.
> Their interest has been freight at least since they began to bleed serious
> money on passenger service after WWII. Fast passenger trains that run often
> don't fit onto those rails and most railroads act as if allowing Amtrak to
> run on their rails is a revenue stream that they don't need and certainly
> don't want to expand.
Didja see the recent "American Experience" documentary on the Zephyr?
There were a bunch of factors that contributed to the *second* decline of
American passenger railroading in the 1950s and 1960s, not all of which can
be laid at the feet of the Interstate Highway System. (The *first* decline
began in the 1920s; the advent of the streamliners reversed it.)
Of course, your understanding is correct -- the only track Amtrak owns
outright is the Northeast Corridor main line and the "Main Line"
(Philly-Harrisburg). To allow for a decent high-speed passenger service
anywhere else in the US, it would take not only a huge capital investment
but getting the major freight railroads on board. Which is why it's not
friggin' likely that the rest of the country will see such a creature
anytime soon, state efforts notwithstanding.
--
Sandy Smith, University Relations / 215.898.1423 / smi...@pobox.upenn.edu
Managing Editor, _Pennsylvania Current_ cur...@pobox.upenn.edu
Penn Web Team -- Web Editor webm...@isc.upenn.edu
I speak for myself here, not Penn http://pobox.upenn.edu/~smiths/
Jazz lives! However, Ken Burns did what he could to embalm it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exile on Market Street
<Pine.LNX.4.21.010222...@mail.sandbox.dynip.com>, Wes
Leatherock <wle...@sandbox.dynip.com> wrote:
> In fact, during the Great Depression many railroads
> brought out many innovations in rail passenger travel, as
> chronicled in the film "The Streamliners" recently shown
> on PBS stations.
>
> It appeared to be primarily a Burlington Route
> publicity film, and only briefly mentioned, or ignored
> entirely, the improvements in passenger travel on
> other roads such as the Milwaukee Road, Union Pacific,
> Santa Fe, Rock Island, New York Central, Boston & Maine,
> Pennsylvania, the lines to Florida, and many others.
The M-10000 -- the Union Pacific's gasoline-powered streamlined train,
which made its debut (ISTR) about a month before the Zephyr's famed maiden
run -- did get what I would consider its due in the documentary.
But it seems to me that the UP did not take the same pride in its
streamlined train that the Burlington did in its -- the UP's two prototypes
(as the documentary noted) wound up on the scrap heap, whereas you can
still see the original Zephyr trainset to this day at Chicago's Museum of
Science and Industry. And the Zephyr design formed the basis for just
about all the streamlined rolling stock ordered by railroads after WW2,
which, IMO, further justifies the additional time spent on it.
The streamlining applied to steam locomotives by a number of railroads did
not represent a significant improvement in performance on the scale of the
Zephyr. The electrification of the Pennsylvania during this same time
period and the development of the streamlined (and very handsome) GG1
electric locomotive, though, probably would rank as a development roughly
equivalent to the creation of the Zephyr. But then again, the Pennsy
really failed to capitalize on the GG1's potential on the passenger side.
ISTR that it did introduce some fast trains that operated at 90-100 mph,
but the Zephyr could beat that (absent the 79 mph rule). The PRR's
breakthrough in the high-speed service department was the Metroliner in the
mid-1960s.
Exile on Market Street
> Part of the bleeding was caused by the loss of USPO "United States Post
> Office Department" contracts, and the loss of the package express service
> that was also carried on intercity passenger train. Anybody here remember
> REA "Railway Express Agency", today's modern equivalent of REA would be
> FedEx "Federal Express", and UPS "United Partial Service".
ISTR that the original legislation that created the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) forbade it from carrying any kind of
package. This prohibition was eliminated in the early-1990s Amtrak Reform
Act (the bill that mandated that it break even on operations two years from
now), and some Amtrak trains now carry express packages.
Robin Payne
> >
> >Now THIS subject has great possibilities for starting a flame war.
> >There are so many different factors involved in why this change
> >occurred and so many different theorys to account for ranging from
> >"the march of progress" to "non-level playing field" to "a vast
> >conspiracy" and about everything in-between.
> >
> >I think it highly doubtful that any agreement will be reached on
> >this topic, but hey, knock yourselves out!
>
> I was born during the Great Depression, which means I was a kid
> during WW2. Because of rationing, personal driving was simply not
> done much, so everyone used mass transit. Trains ran everywhere.
> As late as 1960 when I was inducted into the Army I was given a
> private compartment on a train from Cleveland to Cincinnati on my
> way to Fort Knox.
>
> But the simple fact is that during WW2 everyone was making money,
> the war having ended the depression, and large numbers of people,
> including the GIs in service, had two goals after the war: a home
> with a lawn in the suburbs and a new car. They didn't want to ride
> buses and trains, and as soon as they didn't have to they stopped
> doing it. Rail ridership plunged and cross-country buses tended
> toward the mode of choice for the down and out. Except for larger
> cities where auto use was difficult local transit systems saw
> ridership drop, with the poor and the too-young-to-drive
> constituting most passenger loads.
I think this points to the underlying reality that from well before the
second world war, people perceived the private automobile as a preferable
way to travel in America. For car ownership to be a significant ambition
for people embarking on a career immediately post war, there would have to
be some social predisposition towards the car from an earlier age. From
what I can see, Americans took to the car as their transport of choice from
almost the moment it was invented. The fact that Henry Ford was able to
sell so many cars is an indication that there was a huge latent market for
them that technology then able to fulfill. It seems that it took the
advances in manufacturing brought about by the second world war made cars
accessible to more people than ever, but I would say there was a strong
cultural preference for cars over trains that caused the decline of railway
travel rather than resulted from it.
One thing I find interesting is the social codes used by serious users of
public transport. There is a very strong sense of personal space and
privacy (think how angry you get when the person in front of you on the
plane puts their seat back, and how you *never* make eye contact on the
London Underground, let alone speak to anybody, the orderly bus queues). I
would suggest that European societies are historically more structured than
American society, so that people in Europe more readily accept the sort of
rigid social structure required by public transport, while Americans are
less immediately comfortable with it. The other factor is that in a car,
you feel in control of the situation. If you are running late, you know you
can drive a bit faster, take a shorter rest stop, perhaps skip a meal break
on a long journey. When you travel by train, you are bound to accept
whatever speed the timetable and the railway in general give you. I would
say that European cultures because of their rigidity, make people more
willing to give up that decision making power to someone else
(bus/tram/train driver/signalman/whoever) while the American culture leads
to a greater feeling of self reliance, and an unwillingness to let something
as important as your safe journey be decided by anyone other than yourself.
Another possible factor is that because of the higher population density in
europe, driving takes on so many of the traits of traveling by public
transport that people don't see the advantage of the car to such a big
degree. People like to drive because they like to be in controll of their
journey. If you are driving yourself, you set the route, you decide when
you leave, and you decide how fast you go. If you take the train, or any
other form of public transport, the best you can do is look up on a
timetable what the route and timings are supposed to be. Once you step into
the train/bus/whatever, you give up your ability to make a difference. When
the roads are good and not too crowded, the choice is for driving because of
the flexibility, but as you get more cars on the roads, you begin to get the
situation that your jouney is no longer determined by you, but by other
drivers. Once this happens, people begin to get happier taking public
transport, because driving isn't all that good any more. In europe, where
there are frequent and reliable train services, and the roads are packed to
the gunwhales, there is little perceived advantage to driving because you
still won't get the decision making power back. At that point the ability
to work/read/sleep/walk arround on the train becomes appealing enough to
make people do that instead. In the US, the roads are generally too good
for that, and people willingly sacrifice the comforts of rail travel for the
independance of action of the car.
Just a few rambling thoughts,
Robin
Exile on Market Street
wrote:
> somebody set up us the bomb!! all your base are belong to us.
Seen this yet?
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~pyang/base/allyourbase.swf
Lots of modified images, including [ObRoads:] a large overhead gantry sign
from what looks like an Interstate junction in NYS, another wayside exit
sign in some unspecified location and [ObPhilly:] the NBC10 billboard along
the Schuylkill Expressway.
David Hatunen
Robin Payne <rc...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>I think this points to the underlying reality that from well
>before the second world war, people perceived the private
>automobile as a preferable way to travel in America.
The first cloverleaf interchange in the USA was built in 1929, and
it wasn't for trams and horse-drawn wagons. Auto use boomed in the
1920s, and the first suburbs intended to be accessible by auto were
built in that decade. Many parkways were being built as well.
[...]
>One thing I find interesting is the social codes used by serious
>users of public transport. There is a very strong sense of
>personal space and privacy (think how angry you get when the
>person in front of you on the plane puts their seat back, and how
>you *never* make eye contact on the London Underground, let alone
>speak to anybody, the orderly bus queues). I would suggest that
>European societies are historically more structured than American
>society, so that people in Europe more readily accept the sort of
>rigid social structure required by public transport, while
>Americans are less immediately comfortable with it.
While I hate to engage in stereotypes, there would seem to be a
kernel of truth to that. But I wouldn't press it too far: New
Yorkers take to mass transit, and many Europeans look to live in
the suburbs.
>The other factor is that in a car, you feel in control of the
>situation. If you are running late, you know you can drive a bit
>faster, take a shorter rest stop, perhaps skip a meal break on a
>long journey. When you travel by train, you are bound to accept
>whatever speed the timetable and the railway in general give you.
Even more to the point, Americans tend to make a lot of side trips
even during commutes, to pick up some materials at Home Depot,
maybe, or fulfilling a spouse's request to pick up a gallon of milk
and some bread at the supermarket on the way home. These would be
extremely difficult by transit, especially when the side trip
involves picking up something bulky.
>I would say that European cultures because of their rigidity, make
>people more willing to give up that decision making power to
>someone else (bus/tram/train driver/signalman/whoever) while the
>American culture leads to a greater feeling of self reliance, and
>an unwillingness to let something as important as your safe
>journey be decided by anyone other than yourself.
I think that may be stretching it a bit.
>Another possible factor is that because of the higher population
>density in europe, driving takes on so many of the traits of
>traveling by public transport that people don't see the advantage
>of the car to such a big degree.
Significantly, mass transit is extensively used in American cities
that are densely populated.
[...]
Pat McLean
> As either a pro rata part of all travel from Chicago to LA, or in
> absolute numbers, there is NO comparison between a trip between Chi
> and LA and hardly any trip in Europe. There is a single daily train
> from Chicago to LA, its fares are high compared to European fares,
> it is all essentially first class, and it is, for the most part,
> only used by people taking a train trip for leisure purposes.
>
> Perhaps you need to clarify just what this analogy is supposed to
> demonstrate.
What the analogy is to demonstrate is that while Chicago-LA see the same
distance as Lisboa-Minsk, the frequency of travel between the European
cities is nowhere near what it is between Chicago-LA. A more applicable
European trip would be Berlin-Munich, or something along those lines. The
frequently traveled cities are much closer in europe than they are in North
America. I'm from Canada and I can tell you Toronto-Vancouver is similar to
LA-Chicago, perhaps even more frequently travelled when adjusted for
population. Other than having a similar distance(which isn't totally
relevant in this discussion givne that it is regarding trips that are
typically made), their is no practical parallel that can be drawn with
Lisboa-Minsk.
David Jensen
"Exile on Market Street" <smi...@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:smiths-ya02408000...@netnews.upenn.edu...
> In article <t98m959...@corp.supernews.com>, John R Cambron
> <*camb...@chesapeake.net*> wrote:
>
> > Part of the bleeding was caused by the loss of USPO "United States Post
> > Office Department" contracts, and the loss of the package express
service
> > that was also carried on intercity passenger train. Anybody here
remember
> > REA "Railway Express Agency", today's modern equivalent of REA would be
> > FedEx "Federal Express", and UPS "United Partial Service".
>
> ISTR that the original legislation that created the National Railroad
> Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) forbade it from carrying any kind of
> package. This prohibition was eliminated in the early-1990s Amtrak Reform
> Act (the bill that mandated that it break even on operations two years
from
> now), and some Amtrak trains now carry express packages.
That's about when REA died. What that the final nail in the coffin, or was
REA already dead when Amtrak was created?
David Hatunen
My point is that this totally ignores the realities of the
distances involved, and the distances tend to dictate the mode of
travel. The Chicago-LA train is popular with vacationers who
want a romantic train trip and is really not a valid comparison
with practical travel; the AMTRAK western routes would be more
comparable to a holiday ocean cruise. Anyone actually wanting to
travel from Lisbon to Minsk, or from London to Athens, for that
matter, is probably going to fly. And any realistic comparison of
the passenger travel between Chicago and LA by train and by air
will only indicate that the train is a mere pimple on the travel
mountain. American Airlines alone has five flights per *morning*
non-stop from O'Hare to LAX, each carrying roughly the same
passenger load as the train. Add in the huge number of flights from
other airlines from both O'Hare and Midway to all the LA airports,
Burbank, Ontario, LAX, and John Wayne and the train is a mere
trifle.
Thus, I fail to see what point is being made by such a comparison.
David Hatunen
David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>
>"Exile on Market Street" <smi...@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote in message
>news:smiths-ya02408000...@netnews.upenn.edu...
>> ISTR that the original legislation that created the National
>> Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) forbade it from carrying
>> any kind of package. This prohibition was eliminated in the
>> early-1990s Amtrak Reform Act (the bill that mandated that it
>> break even on operations two years from now), and some Amtrak
>> trains now carry express packages.
>
>That's about when REA died. What that the final nail in the
>coffin, or was REA already dead when Amtrak was created?
REA used *passenger* trains to earn the name "express". Packages
were carried in a special car attached to the passenger trains.
When the passenger service died, REA died with it.
Hank Tiffany
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, David Hatunen wrote:
[much back story cut to save bandwidth]
> In that case, skip the train and take the 9:45am Greyhound from SF
> to LA: it's a 7:55 trip.
A bus is a device to get one to civilized transport, to be endured
only as long as necessary. Having ridden a stagecoach (tourist trap
when I was 10) I am willing to state that the only advantage of
a Greyhound is that it is faster.
And, btw, an airplane is just a bus with wings. I can spend 2 days
on a train and walk off perfectly normally at the end. Six hours
on a plane leaves me bearly able to move. (not an exaggeration,
I'm a cripple and be crammed in an airliner seat, unable to move
aggravates my leg no end.)
> In any case, driving makes more sense than train, train + coach
> shuttle, or bus.
To some, not to all.
> And the number of travelers doing so proves it,
> they constituting "most Americans" who actually make the trip.
Shall we now argue about if this is truly a choice they have made
or a habit they have been indoctrinated into? Not that I think
either of us will convince the other.
The whole question of choice is an interesting one. Where the people
of the various cities in this country offered a choice when the
privately owned trolley companies were, in a perfectly legal manner[1],
sold for scrap and replaced by cheaper, but inferior, busses by their
owners?
Hank
[1] Notice *perfectly legal* I'm not trying to start a flame war
about a certain alleged conspiracy involving large corporations
here, could we all please stay away from that tar baby?
Hank Tiffany
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, David Hatunen wrote:
> Snoqualmie Pass on I-90 many times. It doesn't scarcely slow you
> down at all. It would be a snap to drive Spokane-Seattle in a
> little over three hours.
Not at the speed limit! 286 miles[1] at 70 mph is more like 4 hours+.
And in the urban areas at each end you're only allowed 60 mph.
Hank
[1] Downtown to downtown according to my '86 Rand McNally atlas.
tobias b koehler
wrote:
> Even more to the point, Americans tend to make a lot of side trips
> even during commutes, to pick up some materials at Home Depot,
> maybe, or fulfilling a spouse's request to pick up a gallon of milk
> and some bread at the supermarket on the way home. These would be
> extremely difficult by transit, especially when the side trip
> involves picking up something bulky.
On the way to university, I change trams at central station, and
often on the way home go to the supermarket there to buy food,
then take a tram home ten or twenty minutes later. Not much loss
of time there, and not extremely difficult. :) I find that
shopping on the way saves a lot of time compared to "going out"
for shopping. I only once or twice per year have need for bulky
objects larger than I can carry, and for that, I can ask a
friend to help me out with a car, or rent one.
--
tobias benjamin köhler _______________ t...@rcs.urz.tu-dresden.de
__________<_ ______________ ______________ ______________
,''=0==========||===0=========0||=====0========||0=========0===|
`-oo--------oo-'`-oo--------oo-'`-oo--------oo-'`-oo--------oo-'
David Hatunen
Hank Tiffany <dav...@cet.com> wrote:
>
>
>On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, David Hatunen wrote:
>
>> Snoqualmie Pass on I-90 many times. It doesn't scarcely slow you
>> down at all. It would be a snap to drive Spokane-Seattle in a
>> little over three hours.
>
>Not at the speed limit! 286 miles[1] at 70 mph is more like 4 hours+.
>And in the urban areas at each end you're only allowed 60 mph.
Oops. You're right. Four hours. But urban areas are few and far
between between Spokane and Seattle, mostly consisting of Spokane
and Seattle.
David Hatunen
tobias b koehler <t...@rcs.urz.tu-dresden.de> wrote:
>In misc.transport.rail.europe David Hatunen <hat...@bolt.sonic.net>
>wrote:
>
>> Even more to the point, Americans tend to make a lot of side trips
>> even during commutes, to pick up some materials at Home Depot,
>> maybe, or fulfilling a spouse's request to pick up a gallon of milk
>> and some bread at the supermarket on the way home. These would be
>> extremely difficult by transit, especially when the side trip
>> involves picking up something bulky.
>
>On the way to university, I change trams at central station, and
>often on the way home go to the supermarket there to buy food,
>then take a tram home ten or twenty minutes later. Not much loss
>of time there, and not extremely difficult. :) I find that
>shopping on the way saves a lot of time compared to "going out"
>for shopping. I only once or twice per year have need for bulky
>objects larger than I can carry, and for that, I can ask a
>friend to help me out with a car, or rent one.
Americans are big on bulky. And a gallon of milk (3.8 liter
container) is a fairly awkward thing to carry on a tram, especially
if you're trying to keep the bread from getting squashed by the
milk while you hang onto the overhead bar. Add in some dry cleaning
and you have a real juggling act.
>
>--
>tobias benjamin köhler _______________ t...@rcs.urz.tu-dresden.de
> __________<_ ______________ ______________ ______________
>,''=0==========||===0=========0||=====0========||0=========0===|
>`-oo--------oo-'`-oo--------oo-'`-oo--------oo-'`-oo--------oo-'
MME...@nospam.com
Some reasons might be found by studying the demise of railroads in
isolated areas, and on island nations, such as Puerto Rico. These
areas weren't as affected by any conspiracies, yet still lost their
rail systems.
I've been doing some research and found that two primary factors for
the growth of railroads were the limited capacities of the cart and
horse - roughly 2 tons load for a four horse team, and the terribly
slow speed of both horse travel and canal travel. Both conditions
were unacceptable in an area covering as many miles as the United
States.
The re-invention of cement and the invention of distillate engines
eliminated those barriers, and allowed a distributed transportation
alternative, which was more more enticing to individuals and small
businesses. Towns and cities paved streets first, and it was only a
matter of time before states that developed paved roads between cities
began to have an edge over those states that didn't. What followed
was inevitable within a capitalist economy. In contrast, european
governments held much tighter control of any development, and land
ownership of property within inches of existing narrow streets
prevented or delayed the development of wider roads that would allow
successful competition with rail systems.
There was a little discussed competitor to early railroads, the plank
roads and turnpikes. Plank roads allowed greater carrying capacity
than existing dirt roads, but very few of these were financial
successes. The tolls were high, and the life expectancy of the planks
was no more than seven years. The one permutation that wasn't tried
(to the best of my knowedge) was a public rail system having double
track rails and individual ownership of horse drawn rail carts with
open access to the rails.
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:05:21 -0800, Hank Tiffany <dav...@cet.com>
wrote:
>
>
>On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Mark Gibson wrote:
>
>> In misc.transport.urban-transit John <jk...@anon.net> wrote:
>> >--
>> >___>^..^<___
>>
>> >"tobias b koehler" <tb...@gmx.de> wrote in message
>> >news:971gh1$26m$1...@rks1.urz.tu-dresden.de...
>> >> In misc.transport.rail.europe Martin Bitter <u4...@abdn.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > But isnt the US Rail service so bad because people stopped using
>> >> > it? Pre-war US Railroad was nothing to snuff at.
>> >>
>> >> Something must have started the downward spiral. Less people
>> >> took trains, train services were reduced, so even less people
>> >> took trains, and so on.
>> >>
>> >> Could something be done to start an upward spiral? Better
>> >> services cause more people to take trains, allowing to improve
>> >> services further, and so on?
>> >>
>> >The Great Depression - nobody could afford to take the trains.
>>
>> The automobile: nobody wanted to take the trains anymore.
>
>Now THIS subject has great possibilities for starting a flame war.
>There are so many different factors involved in why this change
>occurred and so many different theorys to account for ranging from
>"the march of progress" to "non-level playing field" to "a vast
>conspiracy" and about everything in-between.
>
>I think it highly doubtful that any agreement will be reached on
>this topic, but hey, knock yourselves out!
>
>Hank
Hank Tiffany
OT for them.
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Exile on Market Street wrote:
> (Philly-Harrisburg). To allow for a decent high-speed passenger service
> anywhere else in the US, it would take not only a huge capital investment
> but getting the major freight railroads on board.
That would depend on your definition of "high speed." Personally, I don't
waste much time lusting after the TGV, I'm more interested in improving
what little train service we already have. There are many, many places
where a relatively small infrastructure investment could pay huge
dividends in cutting time off Amtrak's current routes. A few examples:
Trains that routinely log miles at 75 mph or better slow down to
10 mph and crawl through the yards at major terminals, a few miles
of bypass trackage to one side would allow this burden to be
removed.
Amtrak trains often wind up stuck in sidings because the sidings are too
short for today's longer freight trains so the short passenger goes
in the hole to wait. Lengthening sidings, and adding some, would allow
Amtrak to avoid these delays and maybe even make up time when delayed.
Smaller towns, with short platforms at depots, often require trains
to do double or even triple spots. Lengthen the platforms, cut the
dwell time.
In general, if you do the math you can see for yourself, looking at
areas where a 79 mph train is forced to slow to 25 mph or less and
changing things so that it will be able to continue at 79 both
costs less per mile and gives a greater savings of time than raising
an equivalent section from 79 mph to 150 mph. Doing this kind of work,
plus the work states are proposing to do on corridors, which will
benefit the inter-corridor trains on parts of their routings (examples
Lake Shore east of Buffalo & west of Cleveland, Empire Builder Chicago
to St Paul) we could see the inter-corridor trains average times
creep up from the 45-50 mph range to around 60 mph over the next 10 to
20 years.
To go very much faster than 60 mph average would require improvements
to signal systems and some agreement with the host roads to install
advanced control systems but, assuming such agreements can be reached,
Amtrak's current inter-corridor equipment (viewliners, superliners)
is capable of safe operation at up to 110 mph.
> Which is why it's not
> friggin' likely that the rest of the country will see such a creature
> anytime soon, state efforts notwithstanding.
That would depend on both the relative strengths of lobbying efforts,
pro & con, and a number of other imponderables. Oil supply, road
congestion, the general state of the economy, public perceptions of
the value of rail, all things that factor into the political mix.
I find long-term forecasts in politics to be about as useful as in
weather.
8-{)#
Hank
tobias b koehler
wrote:
> Americans are big on bulky. And a gallon of milk (3.8 liter
> container) is a fairly awkward thing to carry on a tram, especially
> if you're trying to keep the bread from getting squashed by the
> milk while you hang onto the overhead bar.
Ok, I buy my milk in 1 l packages (of various shapes), and prefer
bread which is not all that easily squished ;) I have to take care
where I put the strawberries though. But the problem of getting it
all home undestroyed seems to be similar no matter which way you
transport it.
David Jensen
> In misc.transport.rail.europe David Hatunen <hat...@bolt.sonic.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Americans are big on bulky. And a gallon of milk (3.8 liter
> > container) is a fairly awkward thing to carry on a tram, especially
> > if you're trying to keep the bread from getting squashed by the
> > milk while you hang onto the overhead bar.
>
> Ok, I buy my milk in 1 l packages (of various shapes), and prefer
> bread which is not all that easily squished ;) I have to take care
> where I put the strawberries though. But the problem of getting it
> all home undestroyed seems to be similar no matter which way you
> transport it.
It's extremely easy to transport groceries in a car.
Hank Tiffany
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Exile on Market Street wrote:
> The streamlining applied to steam locomotives by a number of railroads did
> not represent a significant improvement in performance on the scale of the
> Zephyr.
How 'bout the MILW road Hiawathas with their class A Atlantics? The
direct competition of the Twin Zephyrs (CHI - MSP) just as fast and
cheaper (to build.) There was a lot of development of streamliners,
both diesel and steam, by the Chicago area roads prior to WWII that
just sorta didn't get a mention in the documentary. And the section
on the post WWII trains seemed to be mostly "The California Zephyr
Story," even other CB&Q trains need not apply!
Now what we really need is to get Ken Burns to do a 19 hour thing on
streamliners...
Hank
tobias b koehler
wrote:
> It's extremely easy to transport groceries in a car.
Unless you drive fast around a curve and your heavy bottles smash all
the fragile and breakable stuff ;) (I have witnessed events like that)
--
tobias benjamin köhler t...@rcs.urz.tu-dresden.de
__/==----__ _________ _________ _________ _________ __----==\__
/ o oo | 'H'|'H=======|'H=======|=========|'H=======|`H` | oo o \
`-o-o----oo-"-oo---oo-"-oo---oo-"-oo---oo-"-oo---oo-"-oo----o-o-'
Hank Tiffany
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, David Jensen wrote:
> It's extremely easy to transport groceries in a car.
That would depend on the type of car and the quantity of groceries.
If I tried to transport a months worth in my toy car (TR-4A) I'd
run into a problem. In reality, I just walk across the street
from my bus stop and grab what I need on the way home. Usually
only drive if there is a really great sale (40% off or something)
on an item I use a lot of and I have the money to buy several cases
to last the next year or whatever.
As for general shopping, around Cheney I usually walk, with a
backpack, to the stores (up to about 3/4 mile.) If I'm shopping
in Spokane my backpack & I take the bus. Perhaps 3 or 4 times a
year I buy something I can't carry that way (lumber, for example)
and have to drive.
As for dry-cleaning, that's out of my social class so I can't
speak to that.
8-{)#
Hank