Perhaps that would work out in the hinterlands but most interstate ROWs near the cities where land is hard to come by are pavement to pavement with a concrete barrier down the middle these days because they kept adding lanes to the existing ROW
We would still have wars in the middle east. Oil is just the excuse, the reason is Israel
I'm sure the tracks go there. If people would ride a passenger train, somebody would run one.
Go to the area, but few go on downtown. Although the other problem is that the major players (CSX, NS, etc) generally view passengers as more trouble than they are worth. Even if someone else was going to run it, the RR that owns the track still has to crew it (at least that was the case a few years when I was involved with a museum that also ran steam loco trips). They have to work the newbie around their regular trains (hard enough to get them to do for singleton trips, I can only imagine the gnashing of teeth associated with multiple trips). Insurance. All sorts of reason.
You should read the wikipedia entry on Amtrak. Amtrak is held to much more stringent self sufficiency requirements than either the airline system or the automobile systems, which are very highly subsidized.
glen
From the Wikipedia entry on Amtrak (please check wikipedia.org for original citations):
I spent 3 months in Europe on a Eurail pass in 1986. I never got on the high speed trains, but the typical commuter train ran about 80 in between stations. Express trains didn't go much faster, they just didn't stop as often. The real advantage of rail travel over air is the comfort. Air travel is an ordeal, rail travel is a pleasure.
In areas with expanding population, they are building new freeways all the time.
The USA is still running on the remnants of 19th century rails. I believe about 40% of the rail lines that existed in 1900 have been abandoned. Even the main rail corridors are, in many places, a single pair of rails.
The impetus to rebuild US rail structure will not come from passenger service. Long haul motor trucking is convenient, but uses several times as much energy and labor as rail shipping. At current energy prices, motor freight is only surviving because rail capacity is not available. Terminals were designed for men using hand trucks, and switching yards are a congested mess where cars can get lost for a month at a time. When the system gets rebuilt to handle freight efficiently, adding passenger service will be a minor upgrade.
Larry Caldwell wrote: ...
...
We took the "Chunnel" across the channel to/return Paris/London in '99 I believe was last time.
It runs max of 100+ but on the time we were on had speed restrictions of
That is the big problem with trains. Air travel only requires maintaining a couple miles of runway per airport and the plane itself. Rail travel requires maintaining the train plus maybe a million miles of track if you really want to go where the planes can go. Planes fly over most weather, trains go right through the middle of it. Trains work fopr relatively short trips between population centers on well established rail routes, that is why they are so effective in Europe. People just don't want to spend a day or two on a train here in the US when they can hop on a plane, for less money and get there in hours. If we were really willing to spend more money, they would make the plane ride more pleasant. I generally fly first class and they treat me fine.
Apres toi, le deluge!
Aspasia
A first class train ride will cost a lot more than a first class plane ride. The discount price on a train will be more than the discount price on a plane and you will be in the cattle car for 3 days to get across the country. I'm sure Americans who think the microwave is too slow will be linng up for the train.
no a mag lev train can rival the speed of a aircraft. run with no grade crossings etc.
it can be completely computer controlled with individual cars leaving for different places continually........
like every hour 39B leaves for chicago with just 2 stops.
pay more for reservations or just show up and take next avaliable spot.
all powered by electric for minimum pollution
speeds of 350 MPH have been achieved.
Per Amtrak, a round trip from Cleveland to Chicago Union station is $118 and you start and end up downtown.
Per expedia, a tourist flight from Cleveland to Chicago O'hare is $137, plus fees, and you start and end up in a field far removed from downtown.
Per expedia, the first class flight is $1102, from cowfield to cowfield, so with either flight you have additional time and cost to get downtown.
The train is slower, but the seating and accommodations are superior to any plane, including first class.
It is true that there are more expensive tickets on the train, such as if you want a bedroom or suite (but none as expensive as a first class airline ticket), but I think generally a train is a better bargain for all but very long trips. And with fuel prices soaring and airlines falling out of business, this should be even more true in the future.
So if I want to go to Chicago, I'll take the train. If I want to go to San Diego, I'll fly, although there is something to be said for the adventure of taking a transcontinental train, which is probably why the Canadian transcontinental is consistently oversubscribed.
The main problem with train travel in this country is that routes are so limited. In other countries, they have better train services, due no doubt to their very high cost of gasoline and cars, and very limited parking.
Most of the time on the outbound trip you are substituting a trip from your cornfield to another for a trip from your cornfield to downtown. So, I am not all that sure that trains save you anything on that part. Although this is not always a viable alternative, probably a comparison with flights to Midway (downtown) would be better.
>
So the train already exists, how many people actually take it?
I'm sure he will say you take commuter rail downtown, then get on the train. Hope you didn't have too much luggage. That brings up the other problem with trains, not only do you need to buy thousands of miles of right of way, you also need parking near the station with some kind of shuttle to the train. Suddenly this "quick trip" starts becoming more complicated and pretty soon you are back with all the problems you had at the airport. If it is hard to find parking out in the cow field, imagine how tough it will be in the city.
Perhaps they could do what the Makro stores (German or Dutch Costco-like stores) did in Taiwan: build multi-story parking above the store proper -- reduced the air-conditioning costs too. IOW, build parking structures above the train stations.
Perce
4 years ago, I suspected that the cost of petroluem and NG heating was going to go up considerably in the near future. Based on that and on the fact that we probably have the cheapest electric rates in North America (6 cents KWh), for our new house I decided to go with an electric heat pump. We had an American Standard (Trane) 14 SEER system put in and haven't missed the ever increasing LARGE increases in gas & oil heat. R
Hi Rudy,
Good call! The previous owners of my home used 5,700 litres of heating oil in the year prior to my purchase. I got that down to roughly 2,000 litres through various efficiency upgrades and a new oil-fired boiler, indirect hot water tank and Tekmar control system.
Three years ago I installed a ductless heat pump and, with that, my fuel oil consumption over the first two years fell to 827 and 830 litres respectively. This winter, whilest somewhat colder, it should come in at 750 litres or less -- I'll know the exact number when my tank is topped-up later this month or next.
I use roughly 500 litres for domestic hot water purposes with the remaining 250 or so for backup space heating during the times when the heat pump can't keep up. Next month I will be installing a small 58 litre, 1,500-watt electric water heater to pre-heat the water that is feed my indirect tank. By eliminating the bulk of my DHW demand, I expect my fuel oil consumption to fall in the range of 300 litres/year (80 gallons).
Long term, I hope to install a second ductless heat pump to better serve the lower level and a heat pump water heater. At that point, I will be able to eliminate oil altogether.
Cheers, Paul
Don't get started. You wouldn't have a clue what you're talking about.
Without the government subsidizing our farms, you wouldn't have anything to eat. For 30-odd years, farmers were receiving the same amount of money for their crops, while the price of equipment, fuel, fertilizer all rose with inflation... and that was WITH the government subsidies! It's only recently with the fuel crunch that the prices of crops have risen to where they should've been all along.
You can't have your cheap food and no government subsidies to farmers. It's one or the other. Either quit complaining or pay for your food!
Which farmers are you tallking about -- the classic struggling American farm family, or the agribusiness corporate giants with their tentacles into Congress, "stealing" water that was priced for family farms, never for those behemoths.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.