National Public Transportation - Page 2 - Political Forum

J.Locke777 · 05-14-2008, 03:07 PM

That's right, thanks Pride.

I ment to mention that the rails would be built to encourage the tracks to "fan out" so-to-speak and those can be used for regional traffic. The 9 Main lines would be like the Highways and the regional traffic lines would be the roads.

Slartibartfas · 05-14-2008, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PayingAttention

While I would love to see a good Public Transport System in the United States I think the country is just too big to make it a success.

Thats a common argument, but its wrong.
The flaw of it lies in the fact that the US is not homogeneously in low density but that quite in the opposite there area nice number of clusters, the east coast corridor being only the largest of them but by far not the only one. Those regions are not of lower density than many European regions and major cities in reasonable distance in order to be connected by high speed trains that are competible against airlines.

Of course there are other problems in the US, but in my opinion one could overcome them at least in the long term and if one starts to break through the chicken/egg dilemma once again.

In general I would love to see an "interstate" program just for passenger rail. Its possible, but it needs the guts of the politicians and of course also the political will to give it its due priority and public funding to help it taking off.

Many American cities have taken the problem already in their own hands. Light rail lines were constructed in cities that have sometimes never seen a rail before and people seem to be glad about that development. In fact one can hear already some talking about a renaissance of rail in the US, even if its still a small one. But the higher capacity PT network that is arising again in many American cities lies the fundament for the feasibility of future high speed connections between cities.

In low density environments one should also as sort of compromise think about good parking facilities. Dual transportation should be an option, ie to get to the light rail station by car and then switch to light rail (or metro) to get into the urban area of the city. That could reduce the car traffic in the city cores considerably and make place for more urbanity and less parking houses in the centers.

PayingAttention · 05-14-2008, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

In low density environments one should also as sort of compromise think about good parking facilities. Dual transportation should be an option, ie to get to the light rail station by car and then switch to light rail (or metro) to get into the urban area of the city. That could reduce the car traffic in the city cores considerably and make place for more urbanity and less parking houses in the centers.

I can actually get from my house in California to my house in southern England entirely by public transport.

1. Walk 200 yards to local light rail station.
2. Light rail to Caltrain station.
3. Caltrain to BART station.
4. BART into SFO airport.
5. British Airways to London Heathrow.
6. Bus from Heathrow to British Rail station.
7. Train to local station.
8. Bus to within 20 yards of my house.

It actually takes almost exactly the same time as driving to and from the airport at each end of the flight.

It's all there for very little effort!

I think one of the more serious issues that need to be resolved to make public transport a success in he United States is the very obvious and prevalent "sense of loss of control" that many people feel when they are not actually driving themselves somewhere.

Slartibartfas · 05-14-2008, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PayingAttention

I can actually get from my house in California to my house in southern England entirely by public transport.

1. Walk 200 yards to local light rail station.
2. Light rail to Caltrain station.
3. Caltrain to BART station.
4. BART into SFO airport.
5. British Airways to London Heathrow.
6. Bus from Heathrow to British Rail station.
7. Train to local station.
8. Bus to within 20 yards of my house.

It actually takes almost exactly the same time as driving to and from the airport at each end of the flight.

It's all there for very little effort!

I think one of the more serious issues that need to be resolved to make public transport a success in he United States is the very obvious and prevalent "sense of loss of control" that many people feel when they are not actually driving themselves somewhere.

I am not sure what you want to say by that.
If there is a good PT serving those locations, its perfectly fine.

My point above was about those areas that are not served that well, but have some useful PT system nearer towards the center.

Regarding the "loss of control". I dont know the Americans well enough, but that might be indeed something that needs to be addressed.

J.Locke777 · 05-14-2008, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PayingAttention

I can actually get from my house in California to my house in southern England entirely by public transport.

1. Walk 200 yards to local light rail station.
2. Light rail to Caltrain station.
3. Caltrain to BART station.
4. BART into SFO airport.
5. British Airways to London Heathrow.
6. Bus from Heathrow to British Rail station.
7. Train to local station.
8. Bus to within 20 yards of my house.

It actually takes almost exactly the same time as driving to and from the airport at each end of the flight.

It's all there for very little effort!

I think one of the more serious issues that need to be resolved to make public transport a success in he United States is the very obvious and prevalent "sense of loss of control" that many people feel when they are not actually driving themselves somewhere.

Wait a minute, are you seriously going to argue against a national public transportation with "I think the country is just too big" and "[people may have the] sense of loss of control"?

Those are some very weak arguements against a national public transit system. Frankly, they only serve to make the original arguement stronger. The benefits to a mass transit system like this would far outweigh the "since of loss." And those that do experience that will either have to get over it, or continue to drive their car, paying $4 or more for gas.

emptypepsi · 05-14-2008, 05:49 PM

Locke, I don't think he was saying that the psyche of Americans in general is a legitimate argument, but rather it is a big impediment as to why we don't see more forceful movement for such a thing. The American mindset of "my car" might be a problem in getting people behind upping taxes for this type of thing, no matter how beneficial it may be.

J.Locke777 · 05-14-2008, 05:57 PM

Maybe so, if that is the case, you have my apologies for misreading your statements. Still, the general premise stands. That psyche is not an excuse to stand by and do nothing. Also, high gas prices will likely contribute to the railroad's popularity resurgence. Basically, it's a poor argument whether it's comming from Paying Attention or from the American people/ other dissenters.

Perhaps it may be a good Idea to revise your post because the way it's arranged with your example, it can be mistaken as a dismissal rather than awknowledging any opposition to similar ideas.

notahack · 05-14-2008, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PayingAttention

While I would love to see a good Public Transport System in the United States I think the country is just too big to make it a success.

Rail transportation in Europe is generally very good. I can do the 450 miles from the centre of London to the centre of Edinburgh in about four hours. There is about one train an hour in each direction throughout the day.

It's much faster than driving and costs less (with gas at the equivalent of 10 bucks a gallon).

On the other hand, if I want to do the 400 miles from the centre of San Francisco to the centre of Los Angeles, there is one train per day which takes 12 to 15 hours, gets stuck behind freight trains, stops at every small town all the way down to Los Angeles. I can drive it there and back in the time the train takes, at less than half the cost even at today's gas prices.

Even if a train could run cross country at 125 miles an hour it would still take 30 hours to get from Los Angeles to New York.

The only place that trains really work in the United States is on the Washington DC to Boston Northeast corridor and as local rapid transit systems.

It's a real pity, but I cannot see it happening in the US.

I've used Amtrak several times for NY NY to Philly. It's a lot faster than doing the airport shuffle for that run.

Also, one of the best small runs is from Atlanta Hartsfield airport to downtown Atlanta. The MARTA is just too convenient and allows hassle free, fly in/fly out same day meetings. It's these types of successes that must really brought to light to show that there are alternatives already to try and increase ridership.

My biggest issue generally with public rail is at big stations, if you aren't a regular, it's darn confusing and poorly marked.

prrriiide · 05-14-2008, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notahack

Also, one of the best small runs is from Atlanta Hartsfield airport to downtown Atlanta. The MARTA is just too convenient and allows hassle free, fly in/fly out same day meetings. It's these types of successes that must really brought to light to show that there are alternatives already to try and increase ridership.

I like MARTA as well. I've used it for transportation to and from Buffett concerts at Lakewood. It's cool because you can take the rail from downtown to Lakewood station, then a bus transfer takes you right to the gate for the concert. Cheap and convenient. That's the key to ANY public transportation system.

Of course, now that I have some friends in Hotlanta, we just get to the venue early and tailgate, then hop the MARTA back to the hotel, avoiding those pesky DUIs...

Yet another big bonus for public transportation!!

PayingAttention · 05-14-2008, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.Locke777

Maybe so, if that is the case, you have my apologies for misreading your statements. Still, the general premise stands. That psyche is not an excuse to stand by and do nothing. Also, high gas prices will likely contribute to the railroad's popularity resurgence. Basically, it's a poor argument whether it's comming from Paying Attention or from the American people/ other dissenters.

Perhaps it may be a good Idea to revise your post because the way it's arranged with your example, it can be mistaken as a dismissal rather than awknowledging any opposition to similar ideas.

I am a total supporter of public transportation.

I would be more than happy to see gas prices rise to 10-12 dollars per gallon.

What I am saying about American attitude towards public transportation is that, since it would need to be voted for, most Americans don't want their tax dollars spent on public transportation.

I base this on twenty years of observing American politics.

As an example, BART (San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit) has been struggling for twenty five years to extend lines south down each side of the bay to meet at San Jose and hook up with Amtrak, but again and again voters have turned down the idea.

BART got within five miles of San Francisco Airport in 1982 but it took another twenty years to get public approval of funding to link up the last five miles.

I believe that public transportation is far too important to be left to the vagaries of so-called democracy!