With all that we hear about fuel running out, trains and mass transit systems should be something that we use more and more in the future.
I was wondering what is done in your countries to build infrastructures and systems that would enable travel without using cars...
What do you think is better ? Would you turn in your car if more trains were available ?
There is a very easy point to miss here. People don't look at peace, or better of the world. THeir economics more of how to show off their status in society. Those who do take a train for a change once in a while are different. The economics people see is, how much of an expenditure would keep them wealthy and still show them as a success in society.
To some, transport is about getting places. This is obviously the sensibler class, but here, people are more of, conservers. Most people don't understand that money ain't everything, and its not their fault. The society develops this ideology.
| Scimus wrote: |
There is a very easy point to miss here. People don't look at peace, or better of the world. THeir economics more of how to show off their status in society. Those who do take a train for a change once in a while are different. The economics people see is, how much of an expenditure would keep them wealthy and still show them as a success in society.
To some, transport is about getting places. This is obviously the sensibler class, but here, people are more of, conservers. Most people don't understand that money ain't everything, and its not their fault. The society develops this ideology. |
Gee scimus... I don't see how THAT answers my question... But the world is how it is...I live in the US midwest and rail service is a joke. I looked into it on occasion and it cost more than airfare, took longer than driving. and I had to drive 60 miles to get to an amtrak station (leaving at 3am). Just worthless.
But your question postulates a good system in operation. I'd have to say I wouldn't ditch the car, but I certainly would use the train a lot. I used the rail in Europe and was amazed by the ease and comfort of rail travel.
But my travel includes camping, and kayaking in remote areas, so rail wouldn't likely be possible for ALL my travel.
BTW - Scimus, is English a second language for you? I didn't see any location info, so I was just wondering.
I leave in Belgium, I used to use the train but a car is so much easier if u don't live near a big train station. The only way to make trains more popular is to make them free.
I live ten minute's distance from the nearest paved road. If gas runs out, I'll ride a horse.
i don't see it as becoming much of an option in the US, although i used trains in europe and liked it, for the most part.
I prefer trains. They are comfortable and train lines are almost all over Hungary. And they are very cheap for students!
But the main point is that I can't drink while driving, but on a half-day long train voyage a fair amount of beer can be consumed! (In a cultural manner, of course... 
) My one and only train trip in the U.S. was a miserable one. My bride-to-be and I were eloping to New Orleans to get married there and enjoy a mini vacation, so we thought going by train would be much more romantic. HA!!!
We arrived in New Orleans over 15 HOURS late because of a breakdown in Arizona and another in Texas. What a mess. When you ride AMTRAK in the US, it's hard to even believe that this country once had a wonderful, prosperous train system.
However, when I was stationed in Germany, I very much enjoyed the extensive, wonderful, RELIABLE train system in that country. I hardly used my car during my three-year stay there.
That said, though, I realize that it would be VERY expensive to set up such an extensive system in the U.S., given how vast the nation is. Besides, far too many of my fellow citizens have an irrational love affair with their cars. It might be a hard sell to get them to ride the trains, even if they were built.
Cars are so nice... but the problems (direct and indirect) they cause to the environment are almost unlimited. Mass transport means is a solution to our ever increasing society. Unfortunatelly, my country (and probably every other country on earth) is not doing anything to improve this aspect of our "civilization."
trains work great if there is a dense population, and enough passengers. the passengers will demand reliability and affordability, along with short distances from stations to where they need to go.
In big countries such as the USA and Australia, achieving the last demand is near impossible.
Rail can work, but cars are so much more fun.
With gas getting ready to hit $4.00/gal, mass transit is going to become more and more popular. Across the US, our infrastructure is completely over used (problably because we are busy being the army of the world, but I digress).
For simple rail capacity, most freight railroads are poorly maintained, and simply unable to take even one more train onto their network. System meltdowns happen all the time, forcing trains to run slow, stop, or be delayed for a real long time.
I would love to discuss it more, but I strongly recomend researching this topic VERY throoughly before diving in head first. Might I recomend http://forums.amtraktrains.com/ as a starting point. Mass transit is getting popular - simply for economic reaons.
Once someone figures out a new fuel source, people will simply revert to what is more convienent, personal transportation.
Actually, i can understand why trains are not used in broad and large countries like the US (which doesn't have the rail infrustructure)
In my opinion, there are 3 kinds of trains transits :
- commuter trains from the suburbs to the center of a city,
- intercity trains,
- inter region trains. (only have those in Europe)
In most cases, the commuter trains are quite useful in most cities (except in American cities). However high speed intercity trains can actually be interesting if the distance is quite short... A ride that would take between 3 to 5 hours by road would only take between one and two and a half hours.
Inter region trains are only useful if you don't have a car and that train stations are always close by (In belgium, there's a train station less than 15 km away from any place in the country)
Anyway : my 2 cents
I lived for two years in Ireland. Compared to the mass transit of the U.S. I was amazed that I could conect with just about every little town there was there. I also rode a train for the first time in my life. I realy enjoyed the experience and would rather ride a train then a bus. You tend to get beter veiws from the train. As for turning in my car. I don't think I could do that. I wouldn't use it as much but I would still hold onto it as a backup.
If you could build a train network in a year, then it would probably work well for 5 years, O.K for another 5 then just crap for the rest.
The fact is, there isn't enough workers with the current unemployment rate to cheaply build a network in any realistic time period.
Saying that there should be a rail network with decent coverage in a such big country isn't realistic because it is impossible to maintain. Who will fix point #12866-G at 2AM in Nebraska? Nobody.
Hypothetically, mass transit in the USA is perfect, in reality- no way.
I tend to agree with the folk who are saying that trains and mass transit in general will become more popular as we begin to realize that we can't support the notion of 1 car 1 person.
I also tend to agree that the train system in the US is a joke, although significantly more pleasant than the bus, and reaching the point where it is cost effective. once a tank of gas reaches 50 bucks it will be much better to take the train. For some large atuomobile drivers that is already the case.
The train was nice, got to sit and read for a few hours, got to walk around, buy some beer at an insane price, and check out the countryside.
rather than trains i will use subways... of course i'm speaking of short scale ransportation... the subways are more quiet, they do not bother overground life and they may turn to be pretty fast and with useful and comfortable combinations. also you can have a wider net of subways. regarding the car vs train fight, it depends. if the train stations are comfortable both in the place of arrival and departure, then train is it. but if not, i would choose the car. or the bus.
Would political/tax incentives make you give in your car for mass transit systems ?
In belgium, if you give in your car, you get a year subscription to all the mass transit in Belgium : Trains, Buses, Metros, all of it for free for a year.
Are any other incentives beeing made in your country ? Do you think they're worthwhile ?
(Trains rock)
| Garg wrote: |
In my opinion, there are 3 kinds of trains transits :
- commuter trains from the suburbs to the center of a city,
- intercity trains,
- inter region trains. (only have those in Europe) |
We have all three here in Canada, although the first generally only in the really large cities (see here for details and links on intracity rail transit across Canada). In Ontario at least, they roughly break down as:
- Municipal transit systems (like Toronto's TTC and Ottawa's OC Transpo),
- GO Transit (city to city for most of southern Ontario)
- Via Rail (cross Canada)
Generally speaking, adjacent municipal transit systems will allow you to transfer from one to another - or to or from GO - for free or at a reduced rate.
I have lived and/or worked in five Canadian cities for any appreciable length of time - Mississauga, Hamilton, Brampton and Toronto in Ontario, and Montréal in Québec - and I have always used public transit almost exclusively because I have always found it to be perfectly adequate. Oh, there is large variance between them - I found Hamilton Street Railway (HSR) to be the best, and Brampton Transit to be the worst (but by far, for the best en route entertainment, the TTC hands down) - but generally all were at or above acceptible standards.
We have always gotten tax breaks for using transit in one form or another, but the newly elected government is apparently going to be giving us even more. Are they worthwhile? Yes and no. It depends on the form they take. I don't believe that offering incentives to the average Joe is going to make them change their minds and use transit if they have a car. Let's face it, if you have a car, you're probably going to use it before a bus or train. But offering incentive packages to the transit companies will probably cause immediate and tangible improvements - most notably replacing aging vehicles with newer, more efficient and more evironmentally friendly ones, but also things like fare reductions that may encourage more ridership.
Personally though, I don't think trains are the way to go anymore. The cost of building and maintaining rail networks don't really justify them nowadays. The only rail-based systems that I think are worthwhile expenses today are maglev monorails for intracity transport. But even then, I'm hesitant to suggest investing in one.
The first reason is that buses are getting more and more environmentally friendly. The TTC is getting 150 Orion 7 deisel-electric hybrids this year, for example. When you consider all of the anciliary costs associated with rail, like trucks to inspect and maintain rails and so on, buses may become more economical and efficient than trains even for long routes.
The second reason is that rail may soon become completely superfluous. Automated driving systems are not that far away. We could soon have driverless buses running 24 hours a day. Very likely freeway speed limits will have to be raised eventually - particularly if automated driving becomes common - so buses could run between cities much, much faster. And we may even have automated flying buses in a few decades, flying regular routes between cities. Rails seem to be on the out. | Quote: |
| Personally though, I don't think trains are the way to go anymore. The cost of building and maintaining rail networks don't really justify them nowadays. The only rail-based systems that I think are worthwhile expenses today are maglev monorails for intracity transport. But even then, I'm hesitant to suggest investing in one. |
Quite frankly, i really don't think you can rule out rail just yet... I don't really think you understand how trains are efficient energy wise. The main reason for this is that the wheel/rail contact is a lot more frictionneless than a tyre on a road.
For example, if you take a bogie (the wheel thing under the wagon), it can weigh up to 8 tons. Yet you can easily push it on a flat track without any help from anyone ! Try pushing a hummer alone, on a flat road !!!
You need less energy to push the same mass, which is why i believe that trains are efficient !!! If you already have a network, which is another story.
Oh ! and there's no traffic when you're in a train !!trains are more effcient but look around is there really that much space for trains in big cities like Chicago, New York, LA, Atlanta, Florida and Texas.
Public transportation systems are rarely able to sustain themselves without tax dollars. What this means is, if we all start using more public transport, then we'll all have to pay higher taxes. My point is this.....it's unlikely that a lot of people will switch to public transport for economic reasons. If you happen to be one of the few (relative to total population) people for whom public transportation (trains, subways, etc.) is convenient, then consider yourself lucky.....because the rest of us are paying for your convenience.
| Garg wrote: |
| I don't really think you understand how trains are efficient energy wise. The main reason for this is that the wheel/rail contact is a lot more frictionneless than a tyre on a road. |
Oh, I understand completely. I also understand that removing the rail and the wheel altogether, and floating or flying the vehicle, would produce even less friction.
| Garg wrote: |
| If you already have a network, which is another story. |
Ah, now there's the rub, hm? If you already have a network, your only costs are maintaining it. So, sure, go ahead and use it. But building an entirely new rail network is prohibitively expensive, and immensely disruptive to everything it passes through.
Not to mention a waste of space. You can move far, far more people per hour on a highway in smaller cars or even buses than you can on a rail line, because the sheer mass of the rail cars requires you to keep a good distance between trains for safety. So rail systems take up more space.
Plus, as you said, a single truck alone is like 8 tonnes, so a rail car starts at 16 tonnes, and probably goes closer to 20-50 in reality. A complete (road) car is like 2 tonnes, a bus is around 10 max. So even if a rail can pull weight more efficently, it's pulling a whole hell of a lot more before you even start to load it. Which means you have to load a whole lot more stuff into a rail car to get the same efficiency as a car or bus. Course that means it's going to be harder to stop, which could be problematic in an emergency.
| Garg wrote: |
| Oh ! and there's no traffic when you're in a train !! |
So you hope, because if there is, someone's in trouble.
So why isn't there much traffic on, or even near, a railway? Because it would be far too dangerous. Sure, rail might not be a bad idea when you're talking about areas that aren't that densely populated, but when there's a lot of people around, it gets problematic. You can go underground then, or raise the rails high, but the cost to do that is enormous.
On the other hand, you're going to have roads anyway when you have a large population center, so the cost of laying out the network is amortized to 0. Not even close to that for rail. And putting buses on existing roads costs pretty much nothing more than the cost of the buses, the gas, and a couple stops. Trains on the other hand require stations (and also, since stations would have to be fairly far apart for the system to be economical, something to get to and from stations, so even if you have trains, you're going to need buses anyway), and trains and train stations cost a hell of a lot more upfront than buses and bus stops. Plus, the cost of changing the bus system as the population and the jobs shift from place to place is almost nothing. The cost of moving a rail line? Wow.
It costs so much up front to set up a rail system. And even when you have a good rail system, you still need buses anyway. Buses can do anything trains can do and far, far more. And buses are getting cheaper and cheaper, and more environmentally friendly. So, frankly, I don't really see the point of putting a rail line in nowadays. Yeah, sure, once you get them running, rail systems may be more economical than bus systems - but compared to bus systems, rail systems are disruptive, inflexible, dangerous and incapable of adapting to changing or growing needs.
Sometimes, you need much more than just being cheaper to be better. | smalls wrote: |
| Public transportation systems are rarely able to sustain themselves without tax dollars. What this means is, if we all start using more public transport, then we'll all have to pay higher taxes. My point is this.....it's unlikely that a lot of people will switch to public transport for economic reasons. If you happen to be one of the few (relative to total population) people for whom public transportation (trains, subways, etc.) is convenient, then consider yourself lucky.....because the rest of us are paying for your convenience. |
Actually... you have that completely backwards.
The more people that ride a transportation system, the more money they make. It's not just fares, it's incidental revenue like the advertising on buses and so on. It's just like any other business, more customers = more business, thus more earnings. The more earnings you get, the less subsidizing you need, thus, the less tax dollars you need.
Public transportation needs subsidizing because not many people use it. Even in New York City, the city in the US with the highest amount of public transportation usage by far (a third of all public transit users in all of America live in New York City), only half of the population uses it. And yet, New York state doesn't get more tax dollars to spend on public transportation than other states - in fact, it's 25th overall out of 50.
So, no, if more people use public transportation your taxes will probably go down. In fact, New York City, because of its wide use of public transportation, has a per capita fuel usage that is equal to the average for all of the US in 1920. If the entire country had that kind of fuel usage statistics, America would be a much, much richer country than it is now - and as a bonus, you won't have any oil billionaires.
Saying public transit users are freeloading on the shoulders of non-transit users is misleading, because far more tax dollars are used to pay for the infrastructure used for private transportation than public transit. Yes, some tax dollars pay to subsidize the cost of running a transit system. But much, much, much more pay for costs to subsidize private transit, from automobile registration, to policing roads for speeders and drunk drivers and paying for anti-auto-theft police, courts and so on (who's going to steal a bus?), licencing drivers and cars, more and bigger roads to handle cars that take up far more space per person than buses, etc. etc. etc. - none of which are necessary or would cost nearly as much if there was only public transit. And that's not even considering anciliary costs like the costs of medicare for people hurt in car accidents, pollution control, etc. etc. etc.
So, frankly, no, private car owners are not paying for public transit users to have a free ride. Private car owners are getting a much, much bigger free ride on behalf of people who use public transit.in my city, trains are dead. all the transport is made using cars, buses, trucks, and any kind of road vehicles. the city is simply too complex, and it is not easy to build insfrastructure for trains.
I think we are missing a big oportunity, because pollution is getting worse, and each day will be more difficult to move to trains.
the subway here works very well if you consider it transports millions of persons every day. however, the quality is no good, it's dangerous, and overcrowded. only people ho can't afford a car uses it, as well as any other public transport available. there are some efforts to revive the trains here. next year, the goverment will build around 40km of track that will become the first part of the renewed infrastructure. I hope it works, because traffic is heavier every day.
Train is more useful than a car if the country is served by a very efficient infrastruture and prices are not too high.
| Indi wrote: |
Plus, as you said, a single truck alone is like 8 tonnes, so a rail car starts at 16 tonnes, and probably goes closer to 20-50 in reality. A complete (road) car is like 2 tonnes, a bus is around 10 max. So even if a rail can pull weight more efficently, it's pulling a whole hell of a lot more before you even start to load it. Which means you have to load a whole lot more stuff into a rail car to get the same efficiency as a car or bus. Course that means it's going to be harder to stop, which could be problematic in an emergency.
|
First let's talk energy efficiency:
Ah ! I said a train bogie weighs up to 8 tons. The actual truth is that if you take any train passenger vehicule, 20% of its load are alocated to passagers when fully loaded, which is about the same for a car. Now, if you know that they're up to 50% more efficient than cars to push the same load : (if you use electric locomotives that have efficiencies of up to 95%, and that the electricity is made in power plants that have above 50% efficiencies), and that they're easier to push ! (A diesel engine has an absolute max efficiency of 40 % at a certain speed and without satellite "confort systems" like air con and etc ... )
Plus you're multiplying the amount of wheels and engines and parts that you need to build to move the same amount of load.
I just don't agree with you, because :
- trains uses energy that can be produced in higher efficiency power plants
- they are themselves more efficient,
- they can carry more poeple with less materials, engines and so on (which costs energy to make)
| Indi wrote: |
It costs so much up front to set up a rail system. And even when you have a good rail system, you still need buses anyway. Buses can do anything trains can do and far, far more.
And buses are getting cheaper and cheaper, and more environmentally friendly. So, frankly, I don't really see the point of putting a rail line in nowadays.
|
I don't agree with you again ! Today, i've heard of at least 3 to 4 intercity lines that are beeing built in europe. This means that the infrastructure has been evaluated as an investment that will give (important) returns.
Ok fine, a bus can be more environmently friendly if it runs on biodiesel or methanol or wind turbines. The thing is that you could easily use these energy sources on trains, or in plants connected to the rail network to make more efficient vehicules run with more efficient electric generation.
Concerning safety, you have less chances of accidents than any other mode of transportation : cars & planes... Why do you think some trains are safely traveling at 300 km/h in service ?
The only argument i have no answer to is that buses are easily flexible.
(You pay HUGE investments for the maintanance of roads too, you know !)
Anyway ! My 2 cents
GargI'd give up our little economic car for a good transit system in a whiff. I've lived in Vancouver where the bus system is excellent and the rail system is improving all the time. There simply is no reason to have a car.
Where we are now it is different. I'd love to take the bus to work but it is geared primarily towards students going the opposite direction. A 20 minute trip turns into 1.5 hours.
I have already given up my car for the train. I use my car if I can't get somewhere via train. Other than that I walk to the train station and can get anywhere I want to, including work, which is just a few towns over. For getting around town..ride a bike Trains are more fun than cars but I still need my car for carrying heavy luggage. I live in Stockholm, Sweden and don't drive in the winter, I just use buses, trains and the underground. In the summer it is nice to be able to do shopping for stuff which is difficult to carry. When I'm on the train I can read, sleep, use a notebook computer and several other things which I cannot do whilst driving. Time spent driving is mostly wasted time for me, whereas time spent commuting on a bus or train can be used for something else at the same time, it's like having your own chauffeur. I pity the americans who don't seem to have access to a decent train service.
Have you been in a modern train, not long ago ? I was surprised by the level of confort !
| Jurado wrote: |
| I leave in Belgium, I used to use the train but a car is so much easier if u don't live near a big train station. The only way to make trains more popular is to make them free. |
this is actually a huge point. Here in Europe more people drive fuel efficient cars and and ride bikes more than in the US (i lived almost my entire life in the US) and the reason is price. Gas here is more expensive. I would take a train here, although trains are expensive too. Until trains are cheaper than cars, most people will not take them...
take NY for example. Many people on LI take the long island railroad for two reasons: parking in the city is terrible and EXPENSIVE. it's cheaper to take the train in and not worry about it. in cities where this isnt the case (like cleveland) where the train system is somewhat crappy and its easy and cheaper to drive, people will drive.
For most things, economics is most important. First whats cheaper, then what helps the environment. If this wasnt the case we wouldnt manufacture everything in china (whose environmental records get worse and worse and they will be the biggest polluters in the world in within a decade) but we do beacuse of price.
personally i hope people do start using more trains, and i hope that the Magnetic Levitation train proposed to be built here in munich actually goes through because mass transit does help the environment.I love trains because I can't stand cars...
I don't like cars because I don't have enough room... oh yeah, I need a lot of room. so trains are perfect. I'd like to have a personal train, like my own Orient Express... that also can take me anywhere, even where trains can't normally go... I'm actually soooo fascinated with trains. I love this story I read when I was a kid about a flying train (there must be tons of stories like that) and some kids going all around the world in it. just... magical. there is something about trains that makes them special, maybe it's the space... maybe the railroad... maybe the history behind them, the design, the size, I don't know, but I just wish I had one...
The little train that could ??? my pick...trains are the best solution to the ever increasing fuel consumption...because with the "meglev" trains one can achieve the most comfortable journey when compared with a car and that too in a jiffy ..but there's a catch...the cost of building the infrastructure 
and not many conuntries can afford to have the infrastructure needed if there are good connections with busses, and dont have to wait for hours I'd go by train/bus and if its close by bike.
