phatj wrote:

PrattRules wrote:

phatj wrote:

drsmooth wrote:some federal fellow proclaims trains will be going 100+ mph between NYC & DC within 3-5 years

Acela goes 80 or so right now

I'll take the over

And nobody will ride them because they're expensive as $#!+

Gotta do it though. It's the first step in perhaps having an amazing train service. People will complain now about the price, but it will go down eventually (hopefully). People always complain about something not being perfect when it first comes out. Of course it won't be perfect yet. It will takes to refine, but we have to start doing it at some time.

It's not clear to me that we have to start doing it, ever. Having an amazing train service isn't something that many people want, particularly not at the prices Amtrak charges. America is a car culture - we want to go where we want, when we want. It's possible that the price of fuel will at some point will make that lifestyle unsustainable, but we're not at that point, and alternative fuels may prevent that day from ever coming.

Except there is no acceptable alternative fuel as of yet and even when/if we do find one it's going to take AT LEAST a decade for the infrastructure to accommodate it. We might be closer to peak oil then alternative fuel.

I'm not saying trains are the answer, but investing in a more modern rail system can't hurt right?

The Nightman Cometh wrote:I'm not saying trains are the answer, but investing in a more modern rail system can't hurt right?

It could hurt, actually, but I agree with Swish that certain high-traffic routes in densely populated regions, such as the northeast corridoor, make sense for high-speed rail. Updating the nationwide rail system for high-speed rail is almost certainly not a good investment. Not enough passengers to justify it.

Grotewold wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:so these flowers I ordered to show up at my Mom's tomorrow, since she will be in California until tomorrow, showed up today instead. when I call, what do I aim for in negotiations?

full refund. they literally did not deliver

they offered a 25 dollar refund (out of 68) and I jumped at it. I'm no Rube

phatj wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:I'm not saying trains are the answer, but investing in a more modern rail system can't hurt right?

It could hurt, actually, but I agree with Swish that certain high-traffic routes in densely populated regions, such as the northeast corridoor, make sense for high-speed rail. Updating the nationwide rail system for high-speed rail is almost certainly not a good investment. Not enough passengers to justify it.

Yeah, let me say that I agree that a lot of money has been burned maintaining rail service to areas where the level of demand simply doesn't justify it. I only get ticked when rail service is dismissed out of hand, or like Easter week, when I took my kids to Montreal on the train and it took about three to four hours longer than it had to since the train had to creep over poorly maintained tracks at 20 mph.

I believe the Northeast corridor actually makes a small profit though, and I could see other routes like LA/San Francisco and certain routes around Chicago, the Pacific Northwest and the Southeast having both the population and the shorter travel time to make them viable. Just like the interstate highway system I think it's justifiable to make an investment in order to support commerce and general mobility. Making the trains is the easy part, it's increasing the capacity of the roads that requires planning and commitment.

a year from now I'll be wondering, "didn't we have a train thread?"

For high speed rail, don't think train v. car, think train v. plane. If you can get trains that go 200 mph, then anywhere you have large cities within say 600 miles of each other you can get people to take trains instead of planes, assuming the options are cost competitive.

a 200mph train sounds bad ass and sounds like something i'd build in SimCity

Lol tumblr is broke.

swishnicholson wrote:I believe the Northeast corridor actually makes a small profit though, and I could see other routes like LA/San Francisco and certain routes around Chicago, the Pacific Northwest and the Southeast having both the population and the shorter travel time to make them viable. Just like the interstate highway system I think it's justifiable to make an investment in order to support commerce and general mobility. Making the trains is the easy part, it's increasing the capacity of the roads that requires planning and commitment.

The Acela Express service is what makes the profit since the ticket price is so high, the regular Northeast Regional service loses around $5 per passenger, the system nationally loses around $32 per passenger.

VoxOrion wrote:Lol tumblr is broke.

you mean "out of money" broke or "not functioning" broke, or both? And if there's another relevant broke, good

I don't know if it makes economical sense to take the train from Philly to NY or Philly to DC since the comparison is driving and flying really isn't in the picture.

But if you're talking DC to NY to Boston, then the train vs car vs flying debate really starts to make sense.

DC to NYC is a 4 hour drive under ideal conditions with little to no traffic. Then you have to deal with traffic and parking and it becomes a headache. The flight might take 45 minutes, but you have to get to the airport 45 minutes early at least and then getting to the airport takes time if you are in the city (from any of those 3 cities). Call it at least 2 hours total. If you can take a high speed rail for the same price in roughly the same amount of total travel time, I think people would do that.

Costs like $5 million per mile to upgrade existing rail. Laying rail on virgin land would prolly be cheaper, though that prolly depends on the extent of clearing needed...trees/forests, etc. or if they go eminent domain on peoples' hineys and need to clear houses/buildings, etc.

Not really going anywhere with this. Just wanted to say "laying rail".

swishnicholson wrote:28 million people rode Amtrak last year. 250,000 people commute on the Northeast Corridor every day, and it's not because they find trains "neat". It's because the vector of time, money and convenience works for them. It's not part of your lifestyle,fine, but it's still out there and being used, and saving you time if you're driving up the turnpike or waiting at the airport.

I wanted to revisit this.

These numbers seem so small as to be utterly insignificant in the commuting big picture. I have no actual numbers to support this, but I would imagine that the number of automobile passengers exceeds both those by a couple orders of magnitude. So in order for Amtrak or whoever to actually make a dent in road and/or airport congestion they would have to make massive increases in ridership, which would presumably require a huge drop in price and/or a huge increase in fuel costs (the latter of which might affect Amtrak's prices, of course, though economies of scale help here).

my comment: screw cars, go trains


wedding was fun. made an ass of myself after it, though. solid screw up. really a usual no-confidence move

cmon pac

train are only good if you can get to your job from the station

i prefer walking ueber alles, but trains are a definite #3. I guess my preferred modes:

1. walk
2. subway
3. train
4. trolley (short distances ONLY)
5. car
6. bike

screw bikes. honestly. i already have feet and wheels should move on their own.

but you can't walk or take the subway everywhere, that' s the problem. I love walking too, i wish i could keep walking when i move, but no dice

i cant take the subway anywhere here. :\

How many times do you guys use your towels before washing them? I use them like three or four times before finally giving in.

yeah id say 4