Another airline scare

[jacob07]

Yeah, we were going to fly but were A. worried about the flight costs and B. Flight being cancelled. So we decided to caravan our ways down. 13 straight hours from Flint MI wed night to make it there just before pits open the next day

[Chris Herold]

It's nice if you can actually drive there yourself. I mean 13 hours is still a lot and the gas prices make it not better at all.
For other teams from the Westcoast, etc. there is not possibility like that, well unless you start like 3 days early. I think we're flying on Delta, not sure though, should be a problem though.
It's funny though how much is canceled and grounded around now. I think SAS or Alaska grounded several Q400 not too long ago...well better grounded than crashed!

[artdutra04]

While reading Google News a few days ago, I saw an incredibly funny contrast of news articles. The first one was about the failings and vankruptcies of the air travel industry, and here was the second article.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...in-807789.html

Sure, it's British Rail, but I don't think it would be impossible to replicate their success over here. It'll just take some commitment to passenger rail, as opposed to the "Oh, Amtrak..." mentality.

[Chris Herold]

Hey,
as a European (German), I think I know the value of trains. The trains are usually faster/cheaper than the most other alternatives. Especially the high speed trains are very good for Europe since flights are not necessary to cover most distances. Unfortunately, the trains lost a lot of their networks and its popularity since WW II. My town doesn't have any train access since the 1960's. Surprisingly though, trains are very cheap in Europe. I would pay for a bus to our neighbor community more than for a train to Hanover (about an hour away).
I had to make the experience though that the Northwest here is not able to do provide anything similar at all. Seattle has buses and (pretty soon) a light rail but cargo has the attention on the tracks. Passenger trains are seldom and to funny times. I know back East its different. But in order to achieve a switch from flights to trains, America would have to spend billions and billions of dollars! I don't know how one would finance such a massive project!

[Pavan Dave]

So the elaborate on the trains idea. Right now, there is a LightRail that passes by the Reliant Park (where Nats were a few years back and LSR the past few years minus 2008) and METRO is planning on doing something of the sort around the whole area. I am already aware that Dallas has one but it would be even neater if we (Americans) could standardize a lightrail track (if we haven't) and begin to start joining several major cities that are close like Dallas and Houston which are only about ~250 miles apart.


Pavan

.

[waialua359]

For us Hawaii teams,
if we didnt already start swimming or paddling our canoes already, we would miss the event.

Well, that's why we have no choice, BUT to fly.

[Doug G]

We have 28 tickets booked on Frontier

Hope for the best that our flight won't be cancelled or that we don't get stuck in Atlanta. If we get stuck there, don't be surprised to see our team taking collections to get home or we'll be renting cars and taking that long awaited trip cross country.

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by Doug G

We have 28 tickets booked on Frontier

Hope for the best that our flight won't be cancelled or that we don't get stuck in Atlanta. If we get stuck there, don't be surprised to see our team taking collections to get home or we'll be renting cars and taking that long awaited trip cross country.

You'll be alright, they just filed to protect their fees from a credit card service company. I would be more worried if I were flying on any of the MD80-90 series on any airline.

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by Pavan Dave

(...)it would be even neater if we (Americans) could standardize a lightrail track (if we haven't) and begin to start joining several major cities that are close like Dallas and Houston which are only about ~250 miles apart.

Light-rail is not inter-city capable. A trip of 250 miles would take at LEAST five hours on a light-rail train, which means equipping them with bathrooms and some provision for food. With the frequent stops typical of light rail, that trip is probably more like 7-8 hours.

The big advantage of rail in Europe is that western Europe is small. Americans have trouble realizing that, just like Europeans generally have trouble visualizing North American distances. I once drove from Dusseldorf, Germany, to London in about the same amount of time it takes to drive from Los Angeles to Sacramento. It's 2,700 miles from Seattle to Atlanta. It is less than 1,600 miles from London to Moscow. London is less than 2,600 air miles from Baghdad, Iraq. North America is big -- it's why trains are not preferred for long distances. Even the Eurostar train takes two hours to go from London to Brussels, a distance of 230 miles. If you could build a dedicated high-speed rail line from Seattle to Atlanta that didn't stop along the way, it would still take 20 hours to make the trip. Adding in the problems of crossing the Cascades and the Rockies, and the necessity to stop and add or discharge passengers, I can't see how a coast-to-coast trip could take less than 48 hours, even on a modern super-train. I can fly to Atlanta in six hours. For distances up to maybe 600 or 700 miles rail is competitive, but over that people are going to want to fly.

Light rail is only suited for intra-urban transport. If you want to go between cities or carry lots of people you want heavy rail on restricted tracks with no level crossings. Twenty years ago I did a 15-month consulting project for a transit agency. It's amazing how life experiences come in handy later on.

[Chris Herold]

Originally Posted by Rick TYler

Light-rail is not inter-city capable. A trip of 250 miles would take at LEAST five hours on a light-rail train, which means equipping them with bathrooms and some provision for food. With the frequent stops typical of light rail, that trip is probably more like 7-8 hours.

The big advantage of rail in Europe is that western Europe is small. Americans have trouble realizing that, just like Europeans generally have trouble visualizing North American distances. I once drove from Dusseldorf, Germany, to London in about the same amount of time it takes to drive from Los Angeles to Sacramento. It's 2,700 miles from Seattle to Atlanta. It is less than 1,600 miles from London to Moscow. London is less than 2,600 air miles from Baghdad, Iraq. North America is big -- it's why trains are not preferred for long distances. Even the Eurostar train takes two hours to go from London to Brussels, a distance of 230 miles. If you could build a dedicated high-speed rail line from Seattle to Atlanta that didn't stop along the way, it would still take 20 hours to make the trip. Adding in the problems of crossing the Cascades and the Rockies, and the necessity to stop and add or discharge passengers, I can't see how a coast-to-coast trip could take less than 48 hours, even on a modern super-train. I can fly to Atlanta in six hours. For distances up to maybe 600 or 700 miles rail is competitive, but over that people are going to want to fly.

Light rail is only suited for intra-urban transport. If you want to go between cities or carry lots of people you want heavy rail on restricted tracks with no level crossings. Twenty years ago I did a 15-month consulting project for a transit agency. It's amazing how life experiences come in handy later on.

Due to those facts Europe doesn't use Light Rail systems for long distances. There are (at least in Germany) InterCities (faster than normal Lightrail and less stops) and ICEs (InterCityExpress) that drive about 330 km/h ~ 200 mph, I guess. They only stop like four to five times. Its a hub system and it works well. The thing is though Europe relied on the rail for ever while most west coast cities are designed for cars...

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by Chris Herold

I had to make the experience though that the Northwest here is not able to do provide anything similar at all. Seattle has buses and (pretty soon) a light rail but cargo has the attention on the tracks. Passenger trains are seldom and to funny times. I know back East its different. But in order to achieve a switch from flights to trains, America would have to spend billions and billions of dollars! I don't know how one would finance such a massive project!

Currently, the Northeast Corridor is the only part of Amtrak's operations that is profitable. Especially on the four-track stretch between New Haven, CT and New York City, you'll see various trains every fifteen minutes, whether they are Amtrak Regional service, Amtrak Acela, or Metro North Commuter Rail. As it stands, this stretch of track carries nearly as many people every day as I-95, which parallels the route.

The reason why the Northeast Corridor is profitable is because we have a lot of people using the service, and since these [electrified] tracks are mostly for passenger only, they are in really good shape. This is in complete contrast to almost everything else that Amtrak operates.

Almost everywhere else, Amtrak was given horribly-maintained freight railroad tracks in the 1970s, and an annual budget that can barely cover operating costs. Without any additional funds, they can never hope to repair the 100+ year old infrastructure that sometimes it seems is held together with duct tape and prayers.

The only way out of this is to start investigating the best possibilities for profitable service (basically any trips between 50 and 500 miles), and then proactively start upgrading those routes, including track, signals, bridges, stations, etc., as well as concentrating on maximizing transfer hubs between existing modes of transit (airports, ferries, light rail, subway, etc).

Increasing grade separation is also a must; with a drastically reduced number of level crossings, higher speed can be attained, thus making it a more attractive choice.

As of right now, most of the states are all working on their own plans to bring new light rail and commuter rail service into their metropolis' areas, and this is a very good start. However, very little attention is being spent towards creating a national vision or goal. We need another Eisenhowen-type plan, with the focus on rebuilding America's once great passenger rail network as opposed to more highways.

And before someone starts complaining that this sounds like big government socialism, it kind of is. But the intent of government should never be to compete with business; as such any improvements should be made with the hope that one day the system would be profitable enough to denationalize/deregulate and let industry take over operations. It worked with ConRail for freight rail, and it worked with British Rail in Britain, there's no reason if done right it won't work here, either.


(That is actually how I would propose a funding source for the projects; direct some ($3-5b) of the $33b spent annually on the Interstate Highway system into rail travel. The Interstate Highway System, as envisioned by Eisenhower as a dual purpose military/public transportation network is now done.

We should only be spending money on maintaining the system, as every highway widening project I've seen has only cost the taxpayers much over original estimates, snarled traffic for years during construction, and yet we still end up with traffic jams as bad as before. How many years are we going to continue this inane cycle before we realize that we aren't ever getting the results we want?

That, and I'm pretty sure that most cities now regret building Interstate Highways right through the downtown areas. They lost a lot of taxable (and very expensive) real estate in the process. Roads, highways, and parking lots now often account for 40% of urban areas. I'm sure city planners, as well as the local economy would prefer to see some of that land returned as more residential/commercial real estate.)

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by artdutra04

We should only be spending money on maintaining the system, as every highway widening project I've seen has only cost the taxpayers much over original estimates, snarled traffic for years during construction, and yet we still end up with traffic jams as bad as before. How many years are we going to continue this inane cycle before we realize that we aren't ever getting the results we want?

Cite? When CalTrans widened the Santa Freeway through Orange County from six lanes to twelve and improved several interchanges, there is no doubt that congestion and average trip times were both reduced. The problem with road and highway projects is that they are usually done too late, and upgrade an underbuilt road to another underbuilt road. Tacking rail transit onto an urban area that grew up around a road grid is a fool's task. Urban rail only works well where the urban area grew up around that rail system, not the other way around. How would you do urban rail in a place like King County, Washington, or Denver, Colorado? Unlike Chicago or New York (both of which grew up around rail) people do not live in one spot and work in another. Areas like LA/Orange County in California have residences and work locations spread around a vast area -- it's hard to link the residential areas with inner-city factories and offices when they are spread fairly evenly.

Anyway, there is no magic bullet. No one transportation scheme is going to fit every urban area.

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by Rick TYler

Cite? When CalTrans widened the Santa Freeway through Orange County from six lanes to twelve and improved several interchanges, there is no doubt that congestion and average trip times were both reduced. The problem with road and highway projects is that they are usually done too late, and upgrade an underbuilt road to another underbuilt road. Tacking rail transit onto an urban area that grew up around a road grid is a fool's task. Urban rail only works well where the urban area grew up around that rail system, not the other way around. How would you do urban rail in a place like King County, Washington, or Denver, Colorado? Unlike Chicago or New York (both of which grew up around rail) people do not live in one spot and work in another. Areas like LA/Orange County in California have residences and work locations spread around a vast area -- it's hard to link the residential areas with inner-city factories and offices when they are spread fairly evenly.

Anyway, there is no magic bullet. No one transportation scheme is going to fit every urban area.

I'm sorry for the confusion, as I probably should have clarified that I wasn't proposing a "magic bullet" solution, but rather a set of goals which would be very beneficial for places east of the Mississippi.

All the cities out here grew up around railroads, and by the time the 1950s came around the highways were snaked through cities, often meaning the demolition of tons of neighborhoods. And the population of many major cities out here hasn't changed much since the 1950s.

Out West, where they had the abundance of land, they don't have the same problem with highways as the East does, as such highways are a smart decision and actually work out there.

But here on the East Coast, simply adding a single lane onto existing highways would be a multi-billion dollar eminent domain nightmare, as many highways out here only acquired just enough space for two or three lanes in each direction, sometimes with no median save Jersey barriers, and they've been way over capacity for the past two decades or so.

And yet, for the most part we still have lots of rail lines around here, most of which coincide with areas of very high population density. Most cities of at least 30k or 40k people still have some kind of railroad going through them. Most are used for industrial freight service only, but there is a big movement out here to bring passenger commuter service back onto these rail lines. For this, a sizable chunk of the infrastructure is already in place; with the only "new" infrastructure being rebuilding many of the passing sidings and stations that were abandoned 40 years ago.

As such, if land is cheap and plentiful, and highways are working out West, then that's fine, and proposing rail travel would just be a waste of money. But as I previously posted, it would only be through studies of potential routes between 50 and 500 miles that would be targets of upgrading, as these are the areas where efficient rail can compete with highways and air travel; based upon these goals rail travel would primarily be focused on East coast expansion to the levels it used to be at 40 or 50 years ago.

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by artdutra04

But here on the East Coast, simply adding a single lane onto existing highways would be a multi-billion dollar eminent domain nightmare, as many highways out here only acquired just enough space for two or three lanes in each direction, sometimes with no median save Jersey barriers, and they've been way over capacity for the past two decades or so.

Yep. I had always thought that CalTrans (the California Department of Transportation) did a pretty good job until taxpayers voted for the sales tax increase which resulted in the widening of the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5). That's when I found out that they had done eminent domain condemnation proceedings in the 1950s for all the land along the new freeway. To go from 6 lanes to 12, they simply evicted everyone who had been renting property that had been owned by the state for more than 30 years, tore down the structures and widened the freeway. Since everyone in those rental properties knew they were renting from CalTrans (or whichever was the responsible state agency) there were few lawsuits or other problems. That's planning ahead. I am now officially in awe of CalTrans.

[Qbranch]

Correct me if I'm wrong... but I think this is the FIRST thread I've ever seen on CD discussing choo choos... *puts on conductor's hat*

So now that I'm properly dressed, I believe it was the University of Illinois that did a research project to develop a automated rail-type transportation system that could fit in-between the north/south(or east/west)bound lanes of an interstate, since those areas already have an easy grade and gradual turns.

Also, West Virginia University has a nifty intra-city transportation system that is fully autonomous with no attendants called the PRT. If I remember right, it's something like 98% efficient for having the right cars in the right stations at the right time to meet transportation demand. True, it's a little on the elaborate and I'm sure expensive side, but it's cool, it's green (ehh... blue and gold, really...), and it's fully autonomous.

One last thing, for this post... I'll submit this to the awesome knoledge base that is CD: Why are so many public transportation companies unprofitable? After reading this thread it seems that this phenomena of bankruptcy isn't limited to any one kind of public transportation. Is there a fundamental flaw?

Thanks for your thoughts,

-q