More Hippy Dippy Communist Stuff: Public Transit Use In U.S. Is At a 57-Year High

[boutons_deux]

More Americans used public transit last year than in any year since 1956, according to a new report by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA).

Americans took 10.7 billion trips on subways, streetcars, buses and other forms of public transportation in 2013, according to the report (http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/2013-q4-ridership-APTA.pdf), making last year the eighth year in a row with more than 10 billion trips taken on public transportation. The report found that public transit ridership in the U.S. has jumped 37.2 percent since 1995, an increase that’s outpaced population growth and vehicle miles traveled.

The last time public transit ridership was at an all-time high was 2008, when gas prices spiked in the U.S., reaching $4 and $5 per gallon in some places. In 2013, however, gas prices as a whole were lower (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/11/14/gas-prices-close-to-bottom/3530853/), a fact the group says means that public transit isn’t soley reliant on transportation costs.

“Now gas is averaging well under $4 a gallon, the economy is coming back and people are riding transit in record numbers,” Michael Melaniphy, president of APTA told the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/us/use-of-public-transit-in-us-reaches-highest-level-since-1956-advocates-report.html?_r=0). “We’re seeing a fundamental shift in how people are moving about their communities.”

The group said in a release (http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2014/Pages/140310_Ridership.aspx) that part of the reason for the spike in public transit usage was the economic recovery of some cities — with more people employed, there are more people relying on public transit to get to work every day. And, Melaniphy said, the inverse is true as well: cities that invest in public transit often see shrinking unemployment rates, because people have access to job opportunities that may have been off-limits before.

Americans aren’t just taking public transit more often, however. They’re also driving less, according to a 2013 report (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/29/2547801/americans-driving-declines/) from the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. The report found that the amount of miles driven per person has dropped in 46 states since 2007, with Washington, D.C. residents driving the least and young people across the country driving less than older generations.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/10/3382001/public-transit-ridership-increase/

[boutons_deux]

Obama reversed Tom Delay's ban on Houston Light Rail (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/27/1280983/-Obama-reversed-Tom-Delay-s-ban-on-Houston-Light-Rail)

In 2003, voters in the Harris County Metropolitan Transit Authority's (HCMTA) service area approved a referendum on the expansion of light rail. Tom Delay intervened, and overrode the voters' choice. Light rail expansion in Houston was blocked by the George W Bush administration for five years.

Suddenly, in 2009, the ban was lifted by the President's new FTA. Every year, the FTA has sent the HCMTA at least $150 million for light rail expansion. On December 20, 2013, the first new line, Northline-Houston Community College, went into service. This year, two more light rail lines will open.

The suburbanites are complaining because HCMTA is concentrating on the democratic-majority Houston center city. They want commuter light rail to their outlying areas but keep electing republicans who are adamantly opposed to rail expansion. Somehow Houston suburbanites have not made the connection between whom they vote for and what kind of transportation they get.

HCMTA recently announced that additional cars have been added to Northline (named after a 1950's shopping mall) because passenger boardings have exceeded forecasts. HCMTA removes motor vehicle lanes and allocates them to rail. Unlike other new light rail systems, HCMTA is operating the lines as limited-stop streetcars, which is unique in the modern US. Northline has cut the travel time in half from the 15 Fulton Bus which it replaced. I talked to many passengers, and every person I talked to is thrilled about the huge improvement in service. The new line runs every 12 minutes, seven days a week. I recently took a Sunday photographic stroll on the line and uploaded the video to You Tube.

None of this much-needed expansion would have been possible without President Obama. Thanks to federal help, and the backing of Democratic Mayor Annise Parker, these lines are going in fast.

On the Northline, it took less that 3 years from the original groundbreaking to the start of service. Houston, which was the least-likely city to embark on electric rail transit 15 years ago, has an aggressive rail transit program underway. Elections do make a difference.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/27/1280983/-Obama-reversed-Tom-Delay-s-ban-on-Houston-Light-Rail

aka: VRWC/ALEC/Repug War on Public Transport and Infrastructure. Texans are fucking stupid

[boutons_deux]

One Photo which says everything (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/08/1283178/-One-Photo-which-says-everything)

Chinese bullet trains in yard:

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/856/vad4.jpg

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/08/1283178/-One-Photo-which-says-everything?detail=email

[vy65]

That sure doesn't look photoshopped

[vy65]

http://www.studiolighting.net/wp-content/images/faked_photo.jpg

They're so advanced ...

[ChumpDumper]

I think more people are just poorer.

Is this a good thing, boutons?

[Jacob1983]

Why not get some of that shit in Collin County? You have to drive everywhere to get everywhere. Can't walk or bike to anywhere. It's pathetic. And yes, public transportation is important and a must. I don't give a shit if haters are like "hahaha libertarian bitching about public transportation". I have never registered with the libertarian party. I consider myself an apathetic independent.

[tlongII]

And yet most public transportation agencies around the country are hemorrhaging money. Why is that?

[CosmicCowboy]

The only way public transportation survives in San Antonio is with a perpetual regressive tax.

[boutons_deux]

High-speed rail in China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China

[boutons_deux]

I think more people are just poorer.

Is this a good thing, boutons?

what people? American people, yes more American people are poor as the UCA/1% suck down the wealth and reduce opportunities for th 99% to earn a decent living.

[boutons_deux]

The USA has no national energy policy (other than dickhead's "invade Iraq for oil") nor national transportation agency.

When the bogus "free market" is allowed exclusively to provide the "best solution", it's always to enrich itself and fuck everybody else.

As a result, USA has no high speed rail network, even in the several regions where it makes enormous, economic, environmental sense. The airlines, BigOil, car mfrs, aka the "free market" cartel, make sure they provide the only transportation.

[CosmicCowboy]

China's high speed rail still loses money. The political motivation for the rail system was to enrich the oligarchy by increasing the real estate value of the "secondary cities" they created that are served by the system.

[TeyshaBlue]

China's high speed rail still loses money. The political motivation for the rail system was to enrich the oligarchy by increasing the real estate value of the "secondary cities" they created that are served by the system.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/10/28/in-china-theres-not-one-city-sans-terrifying-stretches-of-empty-houses/
You mean the empty, ghost cities?

Yeah, China is a great role model. I can see why boutons loves them so.

[boutons_deux]

China's high speed rail still loses money. The political motivation for the rail system was to enrich the oligarchy by increasing the real estate value of the "secondary cities" they created that are served by the system.

If the HSR rail system keeps 100Ms of Chinese from buying cars and burning $100Bs in gasoline per year, and then there is the savings of freight by rail rather than road, it a huge success for the country.

[boutons_deux]

I think more people are just poorer.

Is this a good thing, boutons?

public transportation enables (poor) people access to jobs. eg, allowing them to live in cheaper housing and commute to city centers where housing is too high for them but pay is better.

In USA, poor people without cars can spends hours/day getting to/from work on shitty public transportation. And some jobs are simply out of reach without a car.

[ChumpDumper]

I agree, I'm just asking whether the increase in use is because workers are poorer.

[boutons_deux]

I agree, I'm just asking whether the increase in use is because workers are poorer.

no doubt, but even in wealthy cities like NY, Paris, London, Chicago, all classes ride the metro and the regional light rail.

In a sun-belt suburb town like SA, the metro/regional transport is so shitty or non-existent, only the car-less really poor are forced to use it.

[ChumpDumper]

no doubt, but even in wealthy cities like NY, Paris, London, Chicago, all classes ride the metro and the regional light rail.

In a sun-belt suburb town like SA, the metro/regional transport is so shitty or non-existent, only the car-less really poor are forced to use it.Not enough density tbh.

[boutons_deux]

Not enough density tbh.

yep, sun belt cities are enslaved to the (single rider) automobile.

[ChumpDumper]

yep, sun belt cities are enslaved to the (single rider) automobile.Relatively cheap land, rather.

[Wild Cobra]

More Americans used public transit last year than in any year since 1956, according to a new report by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA).

Americans took 10.7 billion trips on subways, streetcars, buses and other forms of public transportation in 2013, according to the report (http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/2013-q4-ridership-APTA.pdf), making last year the eighth year in a row with more than 10 billion trips taken on public transportation. The report found that public transit ridership in the U.S. has jumped 37.2 percent since 1995, an increase that’s outpaced population growth and vehicle miles traveled.

The last time public transit ridership was at an all-time high was 2008, when gas prices spiked in the U.S., reaching $4 and $5 per gallon in some places. In 2013, however, gas prices as a whole were lower (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/11/14/gas-prices-close-to-bottom/3530853/), a fact the group says means that public transit isn’t soley reliant on transportation costs.

“Now gas is averaging well under $4 a gallon, the economy is coming back and people are riding transit in record numbers,” Michael Melaniphy, president of APTA told the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/us/use-of-public-transit-in-us-reaches-highest-level-since-1956-advocates-report.html?_r=0). “We’re seeing a fundamental shift in how people are moving about their communities.”

The group said in a release (http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2014/Pages/140310_Ridership.aspx) that part of the reason for the spike in public transit usage was the economic recovery of some cities — with more people employed, there are more people relying on public transit to get to work every day. And, Melaniphy said, the inverse is true as well: cities that invest in public transit often see shrinking unemployment rates, because people have access to job opportunities that may have been off-limits before.

Americans aren’t just taking public transit more often, however. They’re also driving less, according to a 2013 report (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/29/2547801/americans-driving-declines/) from the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. The report found that the amount of miles driven per person has dropped in 46 states since 2007, with Washington, D.C. residents driving the least and young people across the country driving less than older generations.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/10/3382001/public-transit-ridership-increase/



What a stupid article. It doesn't accurately represent what I see.

When people were hit hard in 2007/2008, many could afford to keep car insurance, lost cars, etc. If you own a car and maintain insurance on it, it is cheaper to drive normally than pay for public transportation, unless you have no choice but to pay high parking fees in downtown areas.

People aren't choosing to use public transportation, they are being forced into it in most places that are gaining numbers.

We had a survey at work. Probably part of the same thing this information. I put on it I drive my own vehicle. Reason was that that it is cheaper. I only get about 17 MPG, but it's cheaper than buying a a monthly pass for $100 a month, I don't have to walk in the whether, and public transportation would take me about an hour instead of 20-25 minutes.

I can see it being cheaper on the east coast, but not where I live. Only if a person is factoring in paying for a car and car insurance too.

http://trimet.org/fares/index.htm#farechart

[Wild Cobra]

That sure doesn't look photoshopped
Yep.

I don't see no dead bird damage on them.

[boutons_deux]

Relatively cheap land, rather.

From what I see on google maps, SA suburban/exurban types in new housing tracts love two story ticky tacky beige houses on iddy biddy lots with iddy biddy front and back yards, and minimum regulatory separation between houses.

[Wild Cobra]

I think more people are just poorer.

Is this a good thing, boutons?
I completely agree. I see people who have defaulted on car payments and cannot pay car insurance, still.

[Wild Cobra]

And yet most public transportation agencies around the country are hemorrhaging money. Why is that?

Because the actual cost is twice or more than the ticket price. Light rail is highly subsidized.

[Wild Cobra]

High-speed rail in China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China

What about the 2011 crash in china. many people were killed:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/china-train/

Wiki goes on st say that lightning struck the trail, taking it our and the signal lights down the track, that's why the other high speed train rear ended it. I didn't post that link since the source link is blocked by subscription.

What about the crash in Spain:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFGs6hieZg4

With our litigation system, we cannot afford any possibility of such crashes.

[Wild Cobra]

what people? American people, yes more American people are poor as the UCA/1% suck down the wealth and reduce opportunities for th 99% to earn a decent living.
No.

It's the cheapskates buying online the cheapest stuff they can, forcing retailers to find the cheapest stuff they can overseas. Retailers get screwed by people shopping in their stores for what they want, then finding and ordering it online.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/10/28/in-china-theres-not-one-city-sans-terrifying-stretches-of-empty-houses/
You mean the empty, ghost cities?

Yeah, China is a great role model. I can see why boutons loves them so.
They needed to put our money to use somehow.

At least they created construction jobs!

[boutons_deux]

"a statement made in court by the driver, Garzón Amo, that the train was travelling at 180–190 km/h (111-118 mph) at the time of the accident.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_de_Compostela_derailment#cite_note-18) That was more than double the speed limit for that curve, which is 80 km/h (50 mph).[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_de_Compostela_derailment#cite_note-BBC23448002-19)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_de_Compostela_derailment

Spain train driver 'on phone' at time of deadly crash
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-23507348

[boutons_deux]

What about the 2011 crash in china. many people were killed:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/china-train/

Wiki goes on st say that lightning struck the trail, taking it our and the signal lights down the track, that's why the other high speed train rear ended it. I didn't post that link since the source link is blocked by subscription.

What about the crash in Spain:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFGs6hieZg4

With our litigation system, we cannot afford any possibility of such crashes.

What is your point about TGV rail for USA? do you have one?

[Wild Cobra]

"a statement made in court by the driver, Garzón Amo, that the train was travelling at 180–190 km/h (111-118 mph) at the time of the accident.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_de_Compostela_derailment#cite_note-18) That was more than double the speed limit for that curve, which is 80 km/h (50 mph).[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_de_Compostela_derailment#cite_note-BBC23448002-19)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_de_Compostela_derailment

Spain train driver 'on phone' at time of deadly crash
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-23507348



Yes, I already knew that. High speed accidents are simply more deadly when they happen vs. a normal speed train.

[angrydude]

Most chinese municipalities are completely bankrupt as well. They're gonna have to sell off a ton of public property to pay off all the debt they have since the Chinese central government doesn't want to refinance/reinvent the chinese banking system for the 4th time in 30 years.

[boutons_deux]

Yes, I already knew that. High speed accidents are simply more deadly when they happen vs. a normal speed train.

jet plane accidents are more deadly when they are 35K feet high and carrying 300 people. let's stop flying

gun deaths are a very high with 300M+ guns in USA, so let's stringently regulate guns.

[Wild Cobra]

What is your point about TGV rail for USA? do you have one?
They are too costly to operate. Where we would want then would be places like the west coast, where cities are far away from each other. However, being in the ring of fire, tracks would have to be surveyed after every earthquake. It would be too expensive anywhere in the states with union wages and safety regulations, and excessively more expensive more on the left coast.

[Wild Cobra]

jet plane accidents are more deadly when they are 35K feet high and carrying 300 people. let's stop flying

gun deaths are a very high with 300M+ guns in USA, so let's stringently regulate guns.
The frequency of plane accidents are real real rare. Our TRIMET system has maybe a dozen accidents a year, but none of them fatal except when a car or person goes in front of one.

[Wild Cobra]

Every time you double the speed of a rail car, the smoothness of the track must be 4 time flatter. Going from 60 MPH to 200 MPH is almost quadrupling the speed. It is 3.33 times faster which would require a track 11.1 times flatter and straighter. This is very, very expensive to maintain.

[CosmicCowboy]

Every time you double the speed of a rail car, the smoothness of the track must be 4 time flatter. Going from 60 MPH to 200 MPH is almost quadrupling the speed. It is 3.33 times faster which would require a track 11.1 times flatter and straighter. This is very, very expensive to maintain.

Still cheaper than building 3.3 tracks and buying 3.3 trains to carry the same amount of people/freight.

[Wild Cobra]

Still cheaper than building 3.3 tracks and buying 3.3 trains to carry the same amount of people/freight.
If the track capacity for train spacing was full, I might agree.

[boutons_deux]

This is very, very expensive to maintain.

got any links proving your wild-assed claim? Like from France, about how much it costs them to maintain their TGV rail beds?

[Wild Cobra]

got any links proving your wild-assed claim? Like from France, about how much it costs them to maintain their TGV rail beds?
Well, I guess if we ever charged as much for licensing cars and gasoline as they do, we would have more people willing to foot the bill. as of 2/17, the price of gasoline in France was $7.82 per gallon.

http://www.eia.gov/countries/prices/gasolinewithtax.cfm

Ever see how much Europeans pay to register cars?

[ChumpDumper]

From what I see on google maps, SA suburban/exurban types in new housing tracts love two story ticky tacky beige houses on iddy biddy lots with iddy biddy front and back yards, and minimum regulatory separation between houses.On relatively cheap land.

What neighborhood do you live in btw?

[boutons_deux]

This is very, very expensive to maintain.

Track design[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TGV&action=edit&section=7)]

Main article: High-speed railway line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_railway_line)

TGV track construction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV_track_construction) has a few key differences from normal railway lines. The radii (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radius) of curves are larger so that trains can traverse them at higher speeds without increasing the centripetal acceleration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_acceleration) felt by passengers. The radii of LGV curves have historically been greater than 4 km (2.5 mi): new lines have minimum radii of 7 km (4.3 mi) to allow for future increases in speed.

LGVs can incorporate steeper gradients (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_(slope)) than normal. This facilitates planning and reduces their cost of construction. The high power/weight and adhesive weight/total weight ratios of TGVs allow them to climb much steeper grades than conventional trains. The considerable momentum at high speeds also helps to climb these slopes very fast without greatly increasing their energy consumption. The Paris-Sud-Est LGV has grades of up to 3.5% (on the German NBS high-speed line between Cologne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cologne) and Frankfurt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt) they reach 4%). On a high-speed line it is possible to have greater superelevation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superelevation) (cant), since all trains are travelling at the same (high) speed and a train stopping on a curve is a very rare event. Curve radii in high-speed lines have to be large, but increasing the superelevation allows for tighter curves while supporting the same train speed. Allowance for tighter curves can reduce construction costs by reducing the number and/or length of tunnels or viaducts and the volume of earthworks.

Track alignment is more precise than on normal railway lines, and ballast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_ballast) is in a deeper-than-normal profile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profile_(engineering)), resulting in increased load-bearing capacity and track stability. LGV track is anchored by more sleepers/ ties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_ties) per kilometre than normal, and all are made of concrete, either mono- or bi-bloc, the latter consisting of two separate blocks of concrete joined by a steel bar. Heavy rail (UIC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Union_of_Railways) 60) is used and the rails are more upright, with an inclination of 1 in 40 as opposed to 1 in 20 on normal lines. Use of continuously welded rails in place of shorter, jointed rails yields a comfortable ride at high speed, without the "clickety-clack" vibrations induced by rail joints.

The points/switches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_switch) are different from those on the lignes classiques. Every LGV set of points incorporates a swingnose crossing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swingnose_crossing) (coeur à pointe mobile) or 'moveable point frog', which eliminates the gap in rail support as wheels of a train pass over the 'frog' of conventional points, causing shock and vibration - eliminating these makes the passage of a TGV over an LGV switch imperceptible to passengers, reduces stresses on wheels and track, and permits much higher speeds, 160 km/h (99 mph). At junctions, such as the junction on the TGV Atlantique where the line to Le Mans diverges from the line to Tours, special points designed for higher speeds are installed which permit a diverging speed of 220 km/h (137 mph).

The diameter of tunnels is greater than normally required by the size of the trains, especially at entrances. This limits the effects of air pressure changes, which could be problematic at TGV speeds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV#Track_design

[ChumpDumper]

What about the 2011 crash in china. many people were killed:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/china-train/

Wiki goes on st say that lightning struck the trail, taking it our and the signal lights down the track, that's why the other high speed train rear ended it. I didn't post that link since the source link is blocked by subscription.

What about the crash in Spain:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFGs6hieZg4

With our litigation system, we cannot afford any possibility of such crashes.If a train like that can be built, there should be a way to prevent the train from going twice the speed limit.

[Wild Cobra]

got any links proving your wild-assed claim? Like from France, about how much it costs them to maintain their TGV rail beds?
Here is a quick link I found. It doesn't have my claim in it, but the 110 MPH high speed rail would cost the consumer as much as a plane ticket and take twice as long.

edit add;

this link was suppose to be here:

http://reason.org/blog/show/california-high-speed-rail-2014-bus

[boutons_deux]

Here is a quick link I found. It doesn't have my claim in it, but the 110 MPH high speed rail would cost the consumer as much as a plane ticket and take twice as long.

for a country as big and empty as USA, there are distance limits to the superiority of TGV rail vs air. It's at about 400 miles. And one has to figure door-to-door times, not just on-board times.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not too happy about light rail to start with. The Milwaukee to Portland light rail project cost $204 million per mile to build. $1.5 billion total. It has been pointed out that the interest on this project could have paid for everyone wanting to go between Milwaukee and any other connecting place in the system, could have had their own taxi pick them up. This is such a waste of money. At $5 for a day pass, it will never be paid for. It is just a tax dollar flushing station.

[boutons_deux]

Trains versus planes: Survey shows pull toward tracks

It's a debate that never dies. Between higher fuel costs pushing airfares up and President Obama's multi-billion-dollar proposal last month to improve the country's high-speed rail system, there has been no shortage of fodder recently fueling the argument of whether travelers would be better served by trains or planes.

In a survey of more than 300 North American and European travelers conducted between mid-January and mid-February by SilverRail Technologies, a rail booking technology company, 90 percent of respondents said they would like to see rail options displayed alongside flights when searching for travel; 79 percent would choose trains over planes if high-speed rail options existed; and 61 percent would choose rail over air if the cost was the same or better.

While clearly air travel has a leg-up on train travel in terms of value and convenience (let's face it, there are never going to be certain domestic rail routes available whether the Obama Administration invests $53 billion into high-speed rail or not), the SilverRail survey shows that some of the unpleasantries of flying do lend themselves to a brighter outlook on train travel.

Eighty-six percent of the respondents said they would accept having the entire time from door-to-door be longer to avoid the process of checking in, security and boarding, and 66 percent said they would willingly add an hour or more of total travel to their trip to avoid the hassles of long lines, airport security and baggage fees.

Furthermore, waiting in line was considered the single biggest air travel hassle, according to 72 percent of the respondents, and 36 percent liked the idea of family and friends being able to accompany them to their gate.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42270740/ns/travel-travel_tips/t/trains-versus-planes-survey-shows-pull-toward-tracks/#.UyCXST9dWkc

The US airline cartel, deregulated for decades and with most of them bankrupt or not viable AFTER deregulation, has fucked up air travel so bad, nearly everybody considers air travel a huge pain in the ass.

[Wild Cobra]

for a country as big and empty as USA, there are distance limits to the superiority of TGV rail vs air. It's at about 400 miles. And one has to figure door-to-door times, not just on-board times.
It doesn't take long at all to board a national flight. Factoring in boarding time, it's still only 3/4 the time.

[Wild Cobra]

Trains versus planes: Survey shows pull toward tracks

It's a debate that never dies. Between higher fuel costs pushing airfares up and President Obama's multi-billion-dollar proposal last month to improve the country's high-speed rail system, there has been no shortage of fodder recently fueling the argument of whether travelers would be better served by trains or planes.

In a survey of more than 300 North American and European travelers conducted between mid-January and mid-February by SilverRail Technologies, a rail booking technology company, 90 percent of respondents said they would like to see rail options displayed alongside flights when searching for travel; 79 percent would choose trains over planes if high-speed rail options existed; and 61 percent would choose rail over air if the cost was the same or better.

While clearly air travel has a leg-up on train travel in terms of value and convenience (let's face it, there are never going to be certain domestic rail routes available whether the Obama Administration invests $53 billion into high-speed rail or not), the SilverRail survey shows that some of the unpleasantries of flying do lend themselves to a brighter outlook on train travel.

Eighty-six percent of the respondents said they would accept having the entire time from door-to-door be longer to avoid the process of checking in, security and boarding, and 66 percent said they would willingly add an hour or more of total travel to their trip to avoid the hassles of long lines, airport security and baggage fees.

Furthermore, waiting in line was considered the single biggest air travel hassle, according to 72 percent of the respondents, and 36 percent liked the idea of family and friends being able to accompany them to their gate.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42270740/ns/travel-travel_tips/t/trains-versus-planes-survey-shows-pull-toward-tracks/#.UyCXST9dWkc

The US airline cartel, deregulated for decades and with most of them bankrupt or not viable AFTER deregulation, has fucked up air travel so bad, nearly everybody considers air travel a huge pain in the ass.



LOL...

Fuel costs...

What about electricity costs? The more demand we have on electricity, the more it costs too! these trains will normally operate during peak load also.

[boutons_deux]

It doesn't take long at all to board a national flight. Factoring in boarding time, it's still only 3/4 the time.

bullshit. How can you compare when there is no TGV system in USA?

[leemajors]

public transportation enables (poor) people access to jobs. eg, allowing them to live in cheaper housing and commute to city centers where housing is too high for them but pay is better.

In USA, poor people without cars can spends hours/day getting to/from work on shitty public transportation. And some jobs are simply out of reach without a car.

The USA destroyed their public rail infrastructure almost 70 years ago

[Wild Cobra]

bullshit. How can you compare when there is no TGV system in USA?

And a TVG system would be even more costly than the comparison with 110 MPH high speed rail.

[boutons_deux]

LOL...

Fuel costs...

What about electricity costs? The more demand we have on electricity, the more it costs too! these trains will normally operate during peak load also.

electric trains are cheaper than the US's diesel-electric kludges.

[CosmicCowboy]

You REALLY think the TSA would leave high speed rails alone?

[Wild Cobra]

electric trains are cheaper than the US's diesel-electric kludges.

My God man.

You bring up an article comparing electric trains to fuel, with fuel prices as a reason to go with trains. I simply point out electricity prices rise also.

Buy a clue please.

[Wild Cobra]

You REALLY think the TSA would leave high speed rails alone?
As soon as they because a potentially large killer, I think these would be as difficult to board as a plane.

[Wild Cobra]

The USA destroyed their public rail infrastructure almost 70 years ago

I've seen places in near SE Portland where the asphalt is worn down to the old trolly tracks.

[boutons_deux]

You REALLY think the TSA would leave high speed rails alone?

of course not. TSA plans to metastasize everywhere.

[boutons_deux]

of course not. TSA plans to metastasize everywhere.

If the USA had high-speed regional rail, it would kill a lot of air passenger traffic and congestion at airports, which is why the airline industry will kill US rail, like Southwest killed the TX triangle TGV project.

[Wild Cobra]

If the USA had high-speed regional rail, it would kill a lot of air passenger traffic and congestion at airports, which is why the airline industry will kill US rail, like Southwest killed the TX triangle TGV project.
Excuse me if I don't believe your BS.

[boutons_deux]

"Southwest Airlines was granted intervenor status for the franchise application hearing process." WTF?

"Lack of federal support and lobbying against the HSR plan by Southwest Airlines were among the reasons that no other franchise applications were awarded and a high-speed rail system was not built."

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/tslac/20071/tsl-20071.html

the TX TGV was the perfect fit for the HOU-DAL-SAT-AUS triangle, the distances covered, and would have take a ton of traffic from Southwest and other airlines flying within TX.

[Wild Cobra]

"Southwest Airlines was granted intervenor status for the franchise application hearing process." WTF?

"Lack of federal support and lobbying against the HSR plan by Southwest Airlines were among the reasons that no other franchise applications were awarded and a high-speed rail system was not built."

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/tslac/20071/tsl-20071.html

the TX TGV was the perfect fit for the HOU-DAL-SAT-AUS triangle, the distances covered, and would have take a ton of traffic from Southwest and other airlines flying within TX.




And the ticket prices would have likely been greater than an airlies ticket.

[ChumpDumper]

And the ticket prices would have likely been greater than an airlies ticket.

Got a link for that?

[Wild Cobra]

Got a link for that?
Here is the link I meant to put in post #45:

http://reason.org/blog/show/california-high-speed-rail-2014-bus

[Winehole23]

But when the U.S. ranks 16th for infrastructure quality (http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report-2014-2015/rankings/), easily outranked by countries such as France and Spain, then we should start worrying.

There are substantial costs to the decline of our public transportation system. Closures, accidents and inefficiencies cost individuals and companies and reduce the efficiency of our national economy (https://theconversation.com/want-the-economy-to-grow-its-time-to-look-at-cities-and-efficiency-54517). Poor infrastructure means Americans spend $120 billion each year (https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/economic_analysis_of_transportation_investments.pd f) in extra fuel and lost time.


To some extent, this state of affairs should be no surprise.


Our competitors are out-investing us in the vital infrastructure necessary to make our economy efficient and internationally competitive. Even when our public infrastructure spending is higher than our competitors, it is less well-targeted (http://www.wsj.com/articles/quality-not-just-quantity-of-infrastructure-needs-attention-1432138724) because decisions are more politically motivated than based on economic rationality.


We seem unwilling to pay for public services. Our declining road system, for example, is funded by the Highway Trust Fund (https://theconversation.com/how-should-america-fund-its-highways-in-the-21st-century-53197), which is derived from a gas tax of 18.4 cents per gallon. It has not been raised since 1993, and more fuel-efficient vehicles means less revenue. Raising the gas tax is not considered politically feasible, even in a time of declining gas prices (https://theconversation.com/what-should-america-do-with-its-2-per-gallon-gas-windfall-52258).

http://theconversation.com/why-is-the-u-s-unwilling-to-pay-for-good-public-transportation-56788

[Winehole23]

as cities were designed to meet the needs of the motorist, mass transit systems that had been owned by private companies were abandoned or effectively dismantled (http://eh.net/encyclopedia/urban-mass-transit-in-the-united-states/) in the late 1940s and throughout the 1950s because they were losing money.

As a result, many mass transit systems were taken over by municipalities. This led to a high-cost, low-revenue system dependent on the vagaries of federal, state and city funding. Meanwhile, car drivers were economic free riders (http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/free-rider-problem/), not charged for the social costs of their accidents, pollution and congestion.

[boutons_deux]

Certainly, BigOil and BigAuto lobbied for decades, at all govt levels, against public transport (and railroads), both wanting to sell more cars and more fuel.

iow, just another way, out of very many ways, all y'all's revered BigCorp has fucked up America.