NewHampshire Black Bears
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 10,153
- Reaction score
- 681
========================================================
peasant,
VERY WELL SAID !!!
NH/BB's
ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN
- Thread starter PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH
- Start date
========================================================
peasant,
VERY WELL SAID !!!
NH/BB's
Those places that have "deliberately high" fuel prices do so b/c they have a strong and reliable transportation infrastructure (rail) and shorter transit distances. The US has deliberately kept rail from prospering as a form of pax travel and b/c of that we have an infrastructure that is hugely inadequate to take on extra demand and costs to upgrade it would be prohibitive. Gas is high in Europe/Asia b/c rail travel is common and cheap. That is not the case in the U.S. and we would be much more affected by high prices than in Europe. We are addicted to our petrol, though (as no alternatives have been promoted) and will have to suck it up and pay whatever the market throws at us. But while we pay it, the economy will go sour, undoubtedly.
NewHampshire Black Bears
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 10,153
- Reaction score
- 681
==========================================================
A good point Ch. 12 !!
Being a fan of usa rail travel, I did a bit of research.
Here in the very heavy traveled Northeast corridor, besides Amtrak, a person can travel by Commuter rail, thru Maine, NH, Mass.,RI,Connecticut, NY, NJ, PA,Delaware, MD,DCA and VA. (In other words from Portland Maine to Richmond VA.)
Also pretty extensive in Chicago, into Indiana, and Wisconsin.
Very extensive thru California, Oregon and Wahington state.
With the exception of Indiana and Virginia, the other "15" states are "BLUE" states(Democratic)
Starting to see a "pattern" Ch. 12 ??
The Republican Congress(whether in "power" or not, has vehemently opposed ANYTHING to do with Rail, (except freight), for as long as I can remember !!
Yup,
The same repuplican party that "LOVES BIG OIL COMPANY'S" !!
'nuff Said !!!!!!!!!
NH/BB's
NH/BB-
It is funny that I had come to the same conclusion. Very shocking, eh? 🙄 The problem is that with half (well...more like 45%) fighting FOR rail travel and the remainder against, it has left a fragmented network and even highly served areas such as the Northeast have horrendous infrastructures. Look at Accella (sp?) and the issues that they have run in to. When we have stalled all development of the rail infrastructure since the early 1900's (almost 100 years!!!), we are bound to have such issues when we try to leap the technology ahead by a century. This is yet another example of lobbying and personal interests run amuck and the resulting permanent dilemma. Greed has made us miss the boat in so many areas and it continues to make us push for use of coal and oil while great minds go untapped b/c our leadership wants nothing to do with true alternative fuels. That's what you get when our elite have invested in other nations and not our own, I guess.
-Ch. 12
It is funny that I had come to the same conclusion. Very shocking, eh? 🙄 The problem is that with half (well...more like 45%) fighting FOR rail travel and the remainder against, it has left a fragmented network and even highly served areas such as the Northeast have horrendous infrastructures. Look at Accella (sp?) and the issues that they have run in to. When we have stalled all development of the rail infrastructure since the early 1900's (almost 100 years!!!), we are bound to have such issues when we try to leap the technology ahead by a century. This is yet another example of lobbying and personal interests run amuck and the resulting permanent dilemma. Greed has made us miss the boat in so many areas and it continues to make us push for use of coal and oil while great minds go untapped b/c our leadership wants nothing to do with true alternative fuels. That's what you get when our elite have invested in other nations and not our own, I guess.
-Ch. 12
kirkpatrick
Veteran
A certain critical population density is necessary for public transportation, especially rail transit, to work. With the exception of the heavily populated Northeast and a few other spots mentioned, the US is simply too sparsely populated for a vast network of high-speed trains to work.
MK
MK
I thought that argument would come up. The US's population density overall is drastically affected by extremely low density regions such as AK, and the upper Rockies. If you look at the population density on a map, though (US Pop. Density per 2000 Census), you will see that outside of those areas, our density is adequate for a rail system. In fact...the density in the majority of the US is the same or better than Switzerland which is known as the model for rail systems throughout the world. I'd say that as long as lines aren't laid to serve the Bismark to Omaha routes, a rail system is quite feasible here. WN's route structure (especially earlier in their life) is testament that there are plenty of close-in pairings that could use rail. Right now, the main competition is the car on these short hauls but a rail system would have served much better. But our gov't has tried to sell the notion that we just have two few cities and not enough density. Well like I said...most of the US is more dense than Switzerland and that rail system formed 100 years ago when they had a much lower density. I find it disconcerting that the disinformation about the potential for a US rail system makes most Americans decide to give up before they even look at the real facts.
RowUnderDCA
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 2,123
- Reaction score
- 1
AGREED! My pet peeve is long-distance commuters expecting the workplace to REVOLVE around them!
Don't know if you were being facecious but the reason that people are moving further and further from their jobs is b/c wage increases (not just this industry) have far under-paced cost of living increases where employers operate. Despite the bogus economic data that has been coming out, the only group getting richer is the top 3%. The rest of us see pay cuts or at best, very modest increases while our costs of living are outpacing our wages. Kind of like slowly sliding down an icy hill. You work harder but keep moving backwards. So my long-winded response is that it is becoming more and more cost-prohibitive to live anywhere near your employer.
Ch 12, you make excellent points. For decades, we have enjoyed cheap energy, and that has enabled people to take jobs paying too little to live nearby. Instead, relatively cheap gas means they can live in outlying places where housing costs are much, much cheaper than in the neighborhoods where they work. Spend a few bucks on the commute but spend tens of thousands (or even hundreds of thousands) less on a house.
The cheap gas is partly to blame for those employers offering paltry pay and very small raises; the workers keep showing up despite the crappy pay. More expensive gas will eventually cause people to say "Nope. This job has to pay more for me to keep coming to work." When that happens, either the job doesn't get done or the pay goes up. Yes, some jobs can be outsourced to some foreign land (or the nonunion South), but not all of them. Gas gets high enough (and gridlock spreads farther and farther out into the suburbs) and people will eventually choose to live closer. Where they will burn less gas.
Here in the Los Angeles region, where the median home price has passed $600k, people are finally becoming concerned about where the new teachers and other young people are gonna live.
On top of that, there's some work neighborhoods that aren't real desirable places to live. If I worked at JFK, for instance, I'd want to travel a ways to get home.
If you worked at LAX, you could still find some "affordable" $250k or $300k homes in S Central LA or Compton, but in reasonably safe neighborhoods near LAX (where a sane person might want to raise a family), the houses are triple that (or more).
I don't think everyone needs to live next door to their worksite, but in my view, too many expensive suburbs are being built in places like Elgin, IL for white collars who work in the Loop. And in Lancaster/Palmdale for people who work in LA. Too many of my friends and acquaintances intentionally choose to live far away from their job. Same thing in Atlanta, Dallas and Denver. Gridlocked and unbelievably crowded freeways have been too willingly accepted as a way of life in this country.
I'm a lifelong Republican (and generally against increased taxes) but one tax I have always wanted to see increased is the gas tax. From roughly 1986-2003, dollar gas was common throughout much of the USA, and the sprawl accelerated. And we rediscovered automotive horsepower. 1984 Corvettes were rated at 205 hp. The 1996 GM 3800 v6 was rated at 205 hp. Now, the Z06 is rated at 505 hp. Sales of Suburbans exploded after their 1992 redesign and they, along their corporate cousins and Ford's Explorers, Expeditions and Excursions, along with dozens of crappier SUVs, replaced the station wagon and minivan. Good thing? I love my Escalade, but then again, my office is 6 miles from my house. I don't fill it up very often.
Higher gas taxes would have helped prevent our increased consumption and increased dependence on oil over the last couple of decades. Instead, we learned nothing from the 1973 and 79-80 oil price spikes, other than "its price will eventually come again to bargain-basement levels if we wait long enough." Although we should make our long-term plans as if oil will never fall below $50/bbl ever again, history tells us it probably will. Especially if we invest tons of money thinking it will stay at $65+. Then it will definitely fall to $25/bbl or less. B)
The cheap gas is partly to blame for those employers offering paltry pay and very small raises; the workers keep showing up despite the crappy pay. More expensive gas will eventually cause people to say "Nope. This job has to pay more for me to keep coming to work." When that happens, either the job doesn't get done or the pay goes up. Yes, some jobs can be outsourced to some foreign land (or the nonunion South), but not all of them. Gas gets high enough (and gridlock spreads farther and farther out into the suburbs) and people will eventually choose to live closer. Where they will burn less gas.
Here in the Los Angeles region, where the median home price has passed $600k, people are finally becoming concerned about where the new teachers and other young people are gonna live.
On top of that, there's some work neighborhoods that aren't real desirable places to live. If I worked at JFK, for instance, I'd want to travel a ways to get home.
If you worked at LAX, you could still find some "affordable" $250k or $300k homes in S Central LA or Compton, but in reasonably safe neighborhoods near LAX (where a sane person might want to raise a family), the houses are triple that (or more).
I don't think everyone needs to live next door to their worksite, but in my view, too many expensive suburbs are being built in places like Elgin, IL for white collars who work in the Loop. And in Lancaster/Palmdale for people who work in LA. Too many of my friends and acquaintances intentionally choose to live far away from their job. Same thing in Atlanta, Dallas and Denver. Gridlocked and unbelievably crowded freeways have been too willingly accepted as a way of life in this country.
I'm a lifelong Republican (and generally against increased taxes) but one tax I have always wanted to see increased is the gas tax. From roughly 1986-2003, dollar gas was common throughout much of the USA, and the sprawl accelerated. And we rediscovered automotive horsepower. 1984 Corvettes were rated at 205 hp. The 1996 GM 3800 v6 was rated at 205 hp. Now, the Z06 is rated at 505 hp. Sales of Suburbans exploded after their 1992 redesign and they, along their corporate cousins and Ford's Explorers, Expeditions and Excursions, along with dozens of crappier SUVs, replaced the station wagon and minivan. Good thing? I love my Escalade, but then again, my office is 6 miles from my house. I don't fill it up very often.
Higher gas taxes would have helped prevent our increased consumption and increased dependence on oil over the last couple of decades. Instead, we learned nothing from the 1973 and 79-80 oil price spikes, other than "its price will eventually come again to bargain-basement levels if we wait long enough." Although we should make our long-term plans as if oil will never fall below $50/bbl ever again, history tells us it probably will. Especially if we invest tons of money thinking it will stay at $65+. Then it will definitely fall to $25/bbl or less. B)
FWAAA-
You, too, make excellent points. I will revert back to my previous post (about alternatives) and expound, though. We "humble" Americans do not travel any more excessively than our European counterparts. In fact, much of the new housing that you mention has had a boless of commercial property (essential grocery, home goods, etc) follow it and people in the US actually often commute much less to get to places other than the workplace. If we "punish" the gas addicts here, there is no alternative to fall back on. If we had spent the last 100 years fostering rail service (ala Europe and Asia) rather than advocating for more support of the oil industry (believe me...this goes back to rockefeller and has only been carried on by our gov't ever since) AND if we had actually spent the last 55 years developing alternatives to petrol (again...Europe and Asia), we would have a much easier time weaning from the oil. Unfortunately, we have no alternative other than expensive and unsafe housing OR to stay at home. I think that given our lack of an alternative, there would be serious economic repurcussions on increasing the gas taxes to deter people from driving. Had we intelligently managed the situation over the past 100 years, we could have been instrumental in having established cheap rail service (not only cheap for the consumer but cheap for the operator if an infrastructure exists) and I would venture to say that if the US would have spent their efforts and resources on alternative fuels over the past half-century as have many Scandinavian and now Asian countries, then the world would have had a "back-up" plan by now. Instead we have developed an ultra-reliance on oil that cannot be broken b/c we have no "plan B". I like your concept but think that it is far more complex than you would think at first glance.
You, too, make excellent points. I will revert back to my previous post (about alternatives) and expound, though. We "humble" Americans do not travel any more excessively than our European counterparts. In fact, much of the new housing that you mention has had a boless of commercial property (essential grocery, home goods, etc) follow it and people in the US actually often commute much less to get to places other than the workplace. If we "punish" the gas addicts here, there is no alternative to fall back on. If we had spent the last 100 years fostering rail service (ala Europe and Asia) rather than advocating for more support of the oil industry (believe me...this goes back to rockefeller and has only been carried on by our gov't ever since) AND if we had actually spent the last 55 years developing alternatives to petrol (again...Europe and Asia), we would have a much easier time weaning from the oil. Unfortunately, we have no alternative other than expensive and unsafe housing OR to stay at home. I think that given our lack of an alternative, there would be serious economic repurcussions on increasing the gas taxes to deter people from driving. Had we intelligently managed the situation over the past 100 years, we could have been instrumental in having established cheap rail service (not only cheap for the consumer but cheap for the operator if an infrastructure exists) and I would venture to say that if the US would have spent their efforts and resources on alternative fuels over the past half-century as have many Scandinavian and now Asian countries, then the world would have had a "back-up" plan by now. Instead we have developed an ultra-reliance on oil that cannot be broken b/c we have no "plan B". I like your concept but think that it is far more complex than you would think at first glance.
Higher oil prices may actually be a good thing for the airline industry, according to the usual suspects:
Let Us Now Praise Pricey Airline Fuel
In the article above, the idea of the LCCs finally slowing down their ridiculous capacity increases is finally mentioned. With B6 widely expected to show a loss in the fourth quarter of 2005 (following its small pre-tax loss in the third quarter), that is a very encouraging development.
Why should everyone assume that domestic capacity reductions must happen only at the legacy airlines? Perhaps Frontier, Airtran and JetBlew should slow their planned growth as well. Or maybe even contract?
Let Us Now Praise Pricey Airline Fuel
In the article above, the idea of the LCCs finally slowing down their ridiculous capacity increases is finally mentioned. With B6 widely expected to show a loss in the fourth quarter of 2005 (following its small pre-tax loss in the third quarter), that is a very encouraging development.
Why should everyone assume that domestic capacity reductions must happen only at the legacy airlines? Perhaps Frontier, Airtran and JetBlew should slow their planned growth as well. Or maybe even contract?
Ch 12 and FWAAA,
Not sure if you ever seen the documentary called the "End of Suburbia" but it goes along with both of you are saying. Kind of explains how and why things are the way they are in this country with regard to mass transit and the like. It's an eyeopener for sure. One of the guys out at work brought it in but ocassionally it is on link tv.
http://www.linktv.org/programming/programD...n.php4?code=end
Link to it is here..http://www.endofsuburbia.com/
Not sure if you ever seen the documentary called the "End of Suburbia" but it goes along with both of you are saying. Kind of explains how and why things are the way they are in this country with regard to mass transit and the like. It's an eyeopener for sure. One of the guys out at work brought it in but ocassionally it is on link tv.
http://www.linktv.org/programming/programD...n.php4?code=end
Link to it is here..http://www.endofsuburbia.com/
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
Ah.... commuter rail is very near and dear to me. I use it to get to/from work daily (and have to catch my train in a few minutes, so I'll try to be brief!).
Commuter rail or light rail is also fairly established in Dallas and the Palm Beach-Miami corridor. It is either under consideration, starting up or expanding in places like ABQ, IAH, BNA, AUS, and DEN.
If I'm not mistaken, more than a few of those are "RED" states, so please don't try too hard to turn this into a political football. It's really just a factor of when those cities expanded into major metro areas.
Chicago and the two coasts are much older metro areas, and are heavily invested with commuter rail because their suburban areas were built around the rail lines. Look at growth maps of metro NYC or Chicago, and it's pretty clear that the oldest towns are within about 5 miles of the rail arterial in/out of the downtown area.
Cities which built up during the interstate era (1955 forward) have growth patterns around the freeways, and don't have the same rail arterials with which to leverage, which makes it a little difficult to introduce rail transit. Either the rail lines are in industrial areas and away from the residential areas (which is the case with the Fort Worth to Dallas line currently in use) or the lines bypass the populated areas because of all the activists who insisted that freight trains and houses don't mix very well at 2am, and the lines needed to be rerouted.
Even in some of the new growth areas of established cities like Chicago are having a hard time expanding commuter rail and light rail for the same reasons newer cities do. Plus, real estate is not exactly cheap, and you need a lot of right-of-way to make any rail transit project work.
Hold on, Bears... Passenger railroads saw the largest decline between 1960 and 1970, which was during Democratic administrations. Amtrak was formed during Nixon's tenure as a way to save passenger rail and try to keep the freight railroads from certain insolvency (a little too late to save Penn Central).
Clinton didn't exactly do a whole lot to build up passenger rail, either. In fact, didn't Amtrak run up some of its biggest deficits during his administration?
Commuter rail or light rail is also fairly established in Dallas and the Palm Beach-Miami corridor. It is either under consideration, starting up or expanding in places like ABQ, IAH, BNA, AUS, and DEN.
If I'm not mistaken, more than a few of those are "RED" states, so please don't try too hard to turn this into a political football. It's really just a factor of when those cities expanded into major metro areas.
Chicago and the two coasts are much older metro areas, and are heavily invested with commuter rail because their suburban areas were built around the rail lines. Look at growth maps of metro NYC or Chicago, and it's pretty clear that the oldest towns are within about 5 miles of the rail arterial in/out of the downtown area.
Cities which built up during the interstate era (1955 forward) have growth patterns around the freeways, and don't have the same rail arterials with which to leverage, which makes it a little difficult to introduce rail transit. Either the rail lines are in industrial areas and away from the residential areas (which is the case with the Fort Worth to Dallas line currently in use) or the lines bypass the populated areas because of all the activists who insisted that freight trains and houses don't mix very well at 2am, and the lines needed to be rerouted.
Even in some of the new growth areas of established cities like Chicago are having a hard time expanding commuter rail and light rail for the same reasons newer cities do. Plus, real estate is not exactly cheap, and you need a lot of right-of-way to make any rail transit project work.
Hold on, Bears... Passenger railroads saw the largest decline between 1960 and 1970, which was during Democratic administrations. Amtrak was formed during Nixon's tenure as a way to save passenger rail and try to keep the freight railroads from certain insolvency (a little too late to save Penn Central).
Clinton didn't exactly do a whole lot to build up passenger rail, either. In fact, didn't Amtrak run up some of its biggest deficits during his administration?
NewHampshire Black Bears
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 10,153
- Reaction score
- 681
"E".
There is a certain amount of blame that can be directed "my way' !!
BUT,
The vast majority of say the 20 largest US cities are in "blue" states, which just happen to have the majority of rail lines.(makes perfect sense)
Using texas as an example, I'd love to see how many times the tx. congressional delegation voted against giving Amtrak an equal share of the transportation bill(s) money's, that they "gleefully" handed out to Interstates, and Airports.
Yes, Amtrak has had many problems, BUT they also have been getting the "$hit end of the stick" from too many Senators from "red places" like AZ, UT, OK, NE, KS, SC, NC, GA, TX, MS, AL, ID, WY, ALASKA,KY, VA, IA, "JUST TO NAME A FEW" !!
NH/BB's
There is a certain amount of blame that can be directed "my way' !!
BUT,
The vast majority of say the 20 largest US cities are in "blue" states, which just happen to have the majority of rail lines.(makes perfect sense)
Using texas as an example, I'd love to see how many times the tx. congressional delegation voted against giving Amtrak an equal share of the transportation bill(s) money's, that they "gleefully" handed out to Interstates, and Airports.
Yes, Amtrak has had many problems, BUT they also have been getting the "$hit end of the stick" from too many Senators from "red places" like AZ, UT, OK, NE, KS, SC, NC, GA, TX, MS, AL, ID, WY, ALASKA,KY, VA, IA, "JUST TO NAME A FEW" !!
NH/BB's
Red or Blue...nobody since the early 50's could even come close to building a rail infrastructure now. As I mentioned before...b/c our current system is so sparse and dilapitated, it is cost prohibitive to build the necessary network. Ever see a European passenger rail station? That takes ALOT of real estate in congested areas. It would be like just now trying to plop down airports in all major cities b/c there were none. If we tried that now, EVERY city would have an airport out in the sticks far from any population and most would ultimately fail. Same with rail. Clinton was at least 50 years too late and Nixon's Amtrak is really a joke. Our continued effort to support the oil industry has led us to favor more oil-hungry transport like automobiles and airplanes. No...the lack of rail goes way beyond any politician in recent years...it began with Ford and Rockefeller and rail has been intensely (though covertly) constrained to a point where we can no longer build the right network. Oil and Auto one, rail zero.
And back to red and blue...what are we doing NOW to support alternate fuel despite making one speech that says we should think about hydro? We are giving no substantial $$ to our scientists to research alternative fuel while Denmark, Finland, Norway, France, Germany, Spain, Japan, etc are all feverishly working to develop their own alt energy infrastructures. In fact...we have thrown out kyoto so that we can try to drill for more oil and greatly reduce pollution standards for coal power. Just as we missed the boat with rail...we are quickly missing it with alt fuel. Just wait to see how GE and Ford do when it is Honda and Kia that have hydro cars AND have infrastructures within their countries to support them. Like so many other issues...we clearly have not learned from the past and are doomed to repeat it.
And back to red and blue...what are we doing NOW to support alternate fuel despite making one speech that says we should think about hydro? We are giving no substantial $$ to our scientists to research alternative fuel while Denmark, Finland, Norway, France, Germany, Spain, Japan, etc are all feverishly working to develop their own alt energy infrastructures. In fact...we have thrown out kyoto so that we can try to drill for more oil and greatly reduce pollution standards for coal power. Just as we missed the boat with rail...we are quickly missing it with alt fuel. Just wait to see how GE and Ford do when it is Honda and Kia that have hydro cars AND have infrastructures within their countries to support them. Like so many other issues...we clearly have not learned from the past and are doomed to repeat it.
