Re: Amtrak Horror


Doug McDonald wrote:
> Bill in Schenectady, Upstate New York wrote:
>
> > Doug McDonald wrote:
> >
> >>Bill in Schenectady wrote:
> >>
> >>>roducts. I'm even
> >>>rethinking my long term opposition to nuclear power. However in an era in
> >>>which cheap oil has powered our lives and economy, we could all live with
> >>>private cars. In the era to come, we will be forced to use much less energy
> >>>and to reduce travel considerably.
> >>
> >>That will be true ONLY if the socialists (in the USA read: Democrats)
> >>rule the world by force. Otherwise, the natural forces of capitalism
> >>will keep private cars purring along just fine.
> >>
> >>Doug McDonald
> >
> >
> > Only for the ever decreasing share of the population that will be able
> > to afford private cars and the fuel to run them.
>
> Uh, no. Capitalism will INCREASE the share of the people who
> will be able to afford cars. It's doing that right now in Asia.

For a very short time because very soon the price of fuel will go up
many fold in a manner unprecedented in modern history. Market
capitalists ASSUME that higher fuel prices will simply lead to more
fuel development. But that ignores the limits to earth's carrying
capacity...limits that do not follow market principles. We are
currently at the tipping point. Oil demand is beginning to surpass
supply and the Saudis have been unable to pump more because, frankly,
they are now at the downward slope of their production capacity ...
..limits that no amount of economic theory can solve.


> > They
> > will instead have to think about the most efficient way to move people
> > and goods....and that is rail and, for freight, often by boat.
>
> Uh, no. The most efficient way is by whatever method the INDIVIDUAL
> decides.

You're really out in left field on this one. It takes a massive effort
to support continental and inter-continental transportation systems ...
a greater effort than private industry itself can provide. This has
always been the case and as such, as a society, we decided to spend
billions and billions of dollars on roads. Once large proportions of
the population is no longer able to afford to drive on those roads,
support for that investment will fall and demand will grow for more
efficient forms of transportation. Since rail is the most efficient
way to move people, it is inevitable that demand will grow for more
rail service and government will be called upon to help make that
happen.

> > And I believe as car travel becomes out of range for more and
> > more Americans, support for government action will be there. And
> > that's called Democracy.
> >
>
> So long as the socialists (in the USA read: Democrats) are out of power,
> EVERYONE who is not a loafer will be able to afford a car or two or
> three. This even includes illegal aliens.

Try reading. We are currently in the final years of mass private
automotive transport. You are still living in the 90's. The 90's are
over. Yeah, most of us will still afford the old clunker (even more so
as gas guzzling SUV's are abandoned!), but that doesn't mean people
will be able to afford to drive them.

> Trains are a very inefficient method of moving people. They are
> basically useful only for long distance moving of commodities. This is
> because they have limited scope (that is, tracks don;t go everywhere)
> and limited timing: they don't go when the individual wants to go.
> This is the definition of inefficiency. Planes have the same problem
> as rail, but they are so much faster that they can become quite
> efficient at moving people long distances.
>
Trains are only inefficient because we have allowed them to deteriorate
to the point in which they do not provide adequate service. Go to
Europe though and you will find that you can get almost anywhere by
train, linked with busses that meet the trains. You may have to wait
an hour or two until the train you want comes by. But in more
frequently travelled corridors, even that wait is unlikely. Where full
trains are used, the cost per passenger mile is much less than
automotive travel.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Should we use French-style duplex trains for HS2?
    ... Two double-deck trains can be ... That seems a very poor return for all the design effort and metalwork ... allow double deck. ... Aluminium alloys would not have the strength - so we'd have to go to steel plates and beams - so although the cars would be shorter, until exotic lightweight composites achieve the same sort of strength for price as specialist steels, the cars are going to weigh as much as 20 and 23m steel framed and bodied cars. ...
    (uk.railway)
  • Re: 3x4 or 2x6
    ... fleet to 6-car trains. ... Surprisingly no analysis is presented of lengthening this train to 6- ... cars which might have been a value for money option. ...
    (uk.railway)
  • Re: Concrete slab dropped on Lancaster train
    ... passenger cars and line all the switches when switching passenger cars? ... second crew will be a guard in future. ... Since the trains are outfitted ...
    (uk.railway)
  • Re: Can you recommend a good explanation of the proof of the Fourier Transform?
    ... You have to find an analogy that is consistent with a persons ... cars and trains do the same thing: ... I won't comment on operating the vehicles; ...
    (comp.dsp)
  • Re: High speed from Paris to London & now high speed from Germany to London & we do not even
    ... >entire American public to use cars and roads. ... > the history of passenger trains in the US. ... watch the scenery go by - rural NY was lovely in those days, ...
    (soc.retirement)