Posted on 03/26/2010 8:48:02 AM PDT by BfloGuy
In 2002, the Vermont legislature funded a commuter train from Burlington to Charlotte, 13 miles away (see Appendix A for definitions of terms such as commuter rail, light rail, and streetcars). To ensure funds were effectively spent, the legislature set targets for the service and asked for an audit after one year.
The audit found the rail line’s capital costs were more than twice the projected amounts; the operating costs were nearly three times projections; the trains carried less than half of the projected riders; and fare revenues were less than a third of projections. The audit also found that the environmental benefits of the project were nil: the diesel locomotives powering the trains used more energy and emitted more pollution than the cars the transit service took off the road. The legislature cancelled the train.
(Excerpt) Read more at cato.org ...
If I could enter “the system” within a few blocks walk of origin and destination AND take less than hour to get from point A to point B, I’d be doing it. But I can’t, and therefore I’m still driving 30 miles each way.
Nice spider web LBJ gave us. It serves two clientele, govt workers and tourists. We lost an effective and efficient trolley system for Metro plus GM Buses. Oh, BTW, don’t try and take a coffee on Metro, they don’t allow it.
What you have there is a trolley with no tracks. Funny thing about trolley tracks, they don’t get gridlocked.
No tracks and no overhead catenary wires, either. That’s what makes this concept so efficient . . . it can be done in an existing right-of-way, using the same buses that operate all over the system.
The only downside is that it doesn't serve very well as a national model railroad for power hungry politicians and illetectuals seeking an ego trip.
There is a solution to the passenger rail ‘problem’: privatize it all. (read Atlas Shrugged if you have questions.) i believe that there is a real demand for quality, fast rail travel post 9/11. The problem is the government.
Someone posted statistics on european and asian rail passenger levels here at FR not long ago - I was shocked at how low the figures were for the number of rail trips the average citizen of those areas took each year. Rail accounts for very low percentages of intercity travel, and those percentages have been declining for decades.
As far as the fares go, that's the point, isn't it? You raise fares enough to cover operating costs and an intercity train trip costs 10-20 times what an equivalent trip in an airliner costs.
Yep, the mighty US freight rail system - so strong, even the railroad unions haven't been able to bring it down.
(Excerpt) Read more at cato.org ...
Cato is funded by Big Oil.
Texas is about the size of France but with more arable land.
UK comes in toward Illinois.
Imagine stuffing 70 million people into Indiana and Ohio ~ trains happen.
I think it's an error to even think about inter city travel in Europe by air ~ makes me laugh imagining flying from Rhine-Mein to Nurnburg ~ no need to pull the wheels up eh.
I'm just arguing the economic aspects of passenger rail - it can almost never compete economically with other forms of travel. When you fly, 99%-plus of the trip is made on free infrastructure (air) - every inch a train travels must be on expensive infrastructure, often situated on expensive real estate.
As far as train vs cars go, the people have voted. Even in the heart of western europe and in Japan, with super efficient, clean & safe trains, the vast majority of people choose autos and airlines over trains. And while roads may be a little more expensive to construct than high-speed rail track, I would guess that maintenance and security costs significantly close, if not eliminate, that difference.
The Rhine-Mein to Nurnburg trip? Sounds like Savannah to Atlanta. Done that one about 100 times.
Such as an entrenched criminal political ruling class that drives all productive activity out of the area. With that exodus, the only remaining economic resource is the pocket of the US federal taxpayer.
So?
Does that alter the facts?
Yes. The Oil Lobby opposes efficient mass transit because it lowers their profit.
You have a link to that of course.
LOL! Not on this planet. UK = Oregon. Germany = Montana.
You have a link to that of course.
Cato vs. Greenpeace (the outfit behind exxonsecrets.org)...gee, whom should I trust?
Sure is comforting to note that “big oil” is the only corporation that contributes to Cato.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.