ravensteve1961
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2004
- Messages
- 3,916
- Reaction score
- 0
Would you take the train if it was faster?
- Thread starter ravensteve1961
- Start date
ravensteve1961
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2004
- Messages
- 3,916
- Reaction score
- 0
Well the goverment keeps on bailing out airlines. Airlines dont have good customer service,,They arrivate late, causes delays and number of complants on lost baggage and their pets died during travel.At least on the train you have customer satisfaction and almost ZERO lost baggage and almost no animal deaths. The problem with airlines is their customer service. They have angry people at airports rarely they sovle any problems and they shouldnt have to call security and remove someone because they stood in line for over and hour and their flight took off. I heard a girl in chicago who stood in line waiting to check in for 30 minutes and then waited in another line for 45 miniutes and then their plane took off and then the customer service told the lady theres another flight to new york in 4 hours and she screamed at them very angry she called secuirty and security called police and they arrested her for disorderly conduct. She spent a night in jail and then paid a $150 fine and then she went back to check her ticket and they wouldnt honor it and they told her you have to pay another $300 for the flight Not only she lost $300 she lost a total $750 fines and pay for another ticket. And thats why i think goverment should not bail out airline industry. If airlines want their business i suggest them to work on improvment on their customer service.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2004
- Messages
- 22,242
- Reaction score
- 19
The reason why the US doesn't have the feasiblity getting high speed rail...concentration of people isn't enough in the United states compared to China, Japan or Europe, they're expanding like crazy. Also, we're car dependent country, with millions miles of highway/interstates across the country. We have cities scattered all over the place and it's not as dense, plus United states is 3rd largest country in the world in size. China is actually smaller than US, but has more people.
Upgrading the tracks/overhead wires and expanding high speed rail could cost hundred of billions, or even trillions to have a network of high speed rail across the US. It's much cheaper to have flights, at least for now. There is already high speed rail between Boston to Washington, DC. This is the only one we have and it only goes up to 155 mph for a very short time, it averages about 120-130 mph at the most. Though, California is proposing a 200 mph high speed rail from San Francisco to Los Angeles in 2006 ballot for voters, it would as well cost more than $10 billion, (I'm sure). The best high speed rail is in Europe and Japan, which goes up to 186 mph and soon 200+ mph and China is starting to expand their infrastructure.
It makes sense to have high speed rail for up to 500 mile range, like major city to city, flight would be at least 500 miles or more.
Upgrading the tracks/overhead wires and expanding high speed rail could cost hundred of billions, or even trillions to have a network of high speed rail across the US. It's much cheaper to have flights, at least for now. There is already high speed rail between Boston to Washington, DC. This is the only one we have and it only goes up to 155 mph for a very short time, it averages about 120-130 mph at the most. Though, California is proposing a 200 mph high speed rail from San Francisco to Los Angeles in 2006 ballot for voters, it would as well cost more than $10 billion, (I'm sure). The best high speed rail is in Europe and Japan, which goes up to 186 mph and soon 200+ mph and China is starting to expand their infrastructure.
It makes sense to have high speed rail for up to 500 mile range, like major city to city, flight would be at least 500 miles or more.
K
kuifje75
Guest
In places such as Europe, where ridership on trains are very high, it makes perfect sense to have these high speed trains in place. However, in the United States, we have a pitiful lobbying in the government where the oil and rubber industries convinced the government to invest more money in these sectors, which gave way to a rapid rise of cars and aeroplanes. We used to have trolleys and trains all over the country, but it died out of necessity. Now, cities are trying to bring back trains and trolleys as viable solution for reducing the traffic congestions on the highways and the pollution in the air. It's a very slow road ahead for us, as we need to start convincing people the virtues of public transportation. Before we do that, we need to invest in a good system that can maximise optimal ridership from point A to B, etc...
Right now, SLC only has two light rail lines, connecting the downtown to the Olympic stadium / Univ of Utah, and another one connecting downtown to Sandy. UTA needs to branch out on the routes with the light rail lines, and to also establish train services to and from cities such as Provo/Orem and Ogden. SLC is rapidly becoming overpopulated, and we need these fast.
As for the long distance train rides, I think it makes more sense to fly in aeroplanes. Especially out in the west, where the cities are very far apart, unlike the cities on the East Coast. Las Vegas is about 7 hours from here by car, Denver 9 hours, Reno 8 hours, etc... And cars already drive at an average speed of 90 to 100 mph on the highways (even though the speed limit is set at 75, but there is nothing, not even a living soul in large parts of the areas between the two cities.) So, since cars move almost as fast as these high speed trains, people would probably rather fly in aeroplanes anyhow.
Right now, SLC only has two light rail lines, connecting the downtown to the Olympic stadium / Univ of Utah, and another one connecting downtown to Sandy. UTA needs to branch out on the routes with the light rail lines, and to also establish train services to and from cities such as Provo/Orem and Ogden. SLC is rapidly becoming overpopulated, and we need these fast.
As for the long distance train rides, I think it makes more sense to fly in aeroplanes. Especially out in the west, where the cities are very far apart, unlike the cities on the East Coast. Las Vegas is about 7 hours from here by car, Denver 9 hours, Reno 8 hours, etc... And cars already drive at an average speed of 90 to 100 mph on the highways (even though the speed limit is set at 75, but there is nothing, not even a living soul in large parts of the areas between the two cities.) So, since cars move almost as fast as these high speed trains, people would probably rather fly in aeroplanes anyhow.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2004
- Messages
- 22,242
- Reaction score
- 19
Right now, SLC only has two light rail lines, connecting the downtown to the Olympic stadium / Univ of Utah, and another one connecting downtown to Sandy. UTA needs to branch out on the routes with the light rail lines, and to also establish train services to and from cities such as Provo/Orem and Ogden. SLC is rapidly becoming overpopulated, and we need these fast.
Utah Transit Authority already is proposing a extension to Draper, Utah and adding other line west of the Sandy-Salt Lake City line. The extension to Draper seems more likely, I believe.
By the way, in Seattle we have the 14 mile light rail under construction from S. 154th St. in Burien to Convention center in downtown, with a extension to the Airport which is 1.5 mile extension. Yep, we're late for mass transit system, though we already have a good bus routes and system.
Utah Transit Authority already is proposing a extension to Draper, Utah and adding other line west of the Sandy-Salt Lake City line. The extension to Draper seems more likely, I believe.
By the way, in Seattle we have the 14 mile light rail under construction from S. 154th St. in Burien to Convention center in downtown, with a extension to the Airport which is 1.5 mile extension. Yep, we're late for mass transit system, though we already have a good bus routes and system.
K
kuifje75
Guest
Yeah, but logically, it would be better to extend train lines to like West Jordan, Riverton, Taylorsville, etc... as well as the East Benches such as Sugarhouse, Holladay, etc... I think putting it right in the centre of the valley is just silly. You still have to drive to the parking lot, then take the train. People might feel as if they have to drive to parking lot, they might just as well drive to downtown anyhow.
K
kuifje75
Guest
Check this link:
http://www.sugarhousetrolley.org/utahtramways.html
It says there used to be 147 miles of tracks in Salt Lake City for 300 trolleys, and that the need for trolleys died out in 1940s when automobiles and busses became "popular."
http://www.sugarhousetrolley.org/utahtramways.html
It says there used to be 147 miles of tracks in Salt Lake City for 300 trolleys, and that the need for trolleys died out in 1940s when automobiles and busses became "popular."
diehardbiker
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 16,188
- Reaction score
- 16
What fails in America succeed in other countries? The answer is very simple! In America, we have abduntance of land, so people spread out afar and thinner. We America are FREE to buy 1,000 acres of land! There is no restriction out there in America on size of land one want to buy! So, meaning less people live in acreage of land, so rapid transit for them is not economically feasible for them. On other hand, in Europe, they don't have the luxury of abdunce of land! They were very densely populated, people over there don't have choice to buy 10 acres of land EVEN if they have plenty of money! In Japan, even if your are wealthiest person, you can't buy more than half acre of land for your own residence!!! Millions of lower class Japanese have to share the quarters, all because of lack of land space. This makes perfect for mass transportation.
Finally, it MIGHT shock you... I just found out that the average Diesel powered transit bus in the city average only 3 miles to a gallon of Diesel! I figured out, how could they save money on this method? So, the less people living in the area, then the cost of mass transportation goes higher. We can't save money if we pay 3 gallons per mile for 10 riders IF we have 30 to 40 MPG cars!
So, having rapid transportation in America isn't FEASIBLE! BTW, Gov't gave money to Amtrak, while Gov't ONLY lent money to Airliners, so Airliner don't get free money anyway! Your view is pointless.
Finally, it MIGHT shock you... I just found out that the average Diesel powered transit bus in the city average only 3 miles to a gallon of Diesel! I figured out, how could they save money on this method? So, the less people living in the area, then the cost of mass transportation goes higher. We can't save money if we pay 3 gallons per mile for 10 riders IF we have 30 to 40 MPG cars!
So, having rapid transportation in America isn't FEASIBLE! BTW, Gov't gave money to Amtrak, while Gov't ONLY lent money to Airliners, so Airliner don't get free money anyway! Your view is pointless.