Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Draco-Onis]

People's primary concern with long distance travel is speed. They take the fastest mode available. When trains where the fastest mode they ruled travel over long distance. Now planes, with their massive speed advantage, rule.

You have to show up 2-3 HOURS before the dam flight just to clear customs and there are delays, flying in the US is a fucking nightmare. Don't get me started on some of these planes which are like ridding a rollercoaster because they are so old.

[Kellhound]

Passenger trains were private? Also railway describes more than railroads. Greyhound never let the public use them?

When discussing business, public means owned/controlled by the government and private means owned/controlled by private interests. In the US when referring to heavy rail, railway and railroad are synonyms. The primary use between them is to differentiate between and old and new railroad of the same base name: Northern Railroad dissolving and becoming Northern Railway.

- - - Updated - - -

When was this "spectacular network?"

The height of us railroads was ~1900 to ~1960. For instance, in 1955 if you wanted to get from NYC to LA and you had money you would board the 20th Century Limited to Chicago and change to the Super Chief there. For more pedestrian fare would potentially be the Admiral to Chicago and the El Capitan on to LA.

- - - Updated - - -

During the time the rail was being built on the backs of slaves and indentured laborers. You know, the "spectacular" times......

No, it was well after that period of time.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL I'd love to see you fly out of Boston to NYC and get there in less then 3:30 total time invested.


Acela Train Icon
2155
Acela
DEPARTS
7:15

3h 32m
ARRIVES
10:47


Of course the actual flight is only 1:20-1:40 ish....




imagine we actually invested in real trains

That is not a long trip, and it has been discussed as part of the only profitable Amtrak route, the NEC.

It would be very difficult, very expensive, and require the destruction of significant amounts of existing infrastructure and buildings to increase speeds much higher than they already are in the NEC.

[Elegiac]

The US is too large for trains to be viable NOW.

You really have a problem distinguishing convenience from viability, huh?

Speed is not the only consideration at play these days.

I was countering your argument that they are almost commercially viable, because they are not. Most current US commuter lines are based on private operations that government had to take over to keep them from killing the railroads that were operating them.

That's funny, because I wasn't making the argument that they are commercially viable under current conditions. I'm saying expecting infrastructure to be commercially viable is a stupid worldview because, again, it's a service. Lol.

Americans insist on running their government like a business and then use the resulting inefficiency and incompetence as proof that privatization and application of a profit motive to a public good is beneficial, actually.

[Kellhound]

You have to show up 2-3 HOURS before the dam flight just to clear customs and there are delays, flying in the US is a fucking nightmare. Don't get me started on some of these planes which are like ridding a rollercoaster because they are so old.

It takes me an hour or less to go through TSA in places like SeaTac and DIA. Nor have I flown on anything older than a 737-800 in a decade. The average age for US passenger planes is 11 years. Age is actually not a good indicator of airworthiness of an aircraft. The life of a passenger jet is actually very sedate. I have worked on combat jets over 25 years old, and those have a much harder life.

[Elegiac]

It takes me an hour or less to go through TSA in places like SeaTac and DIA.

This really speaks to how infrequently you fly more than anything.

[Draco-Onis]

It takes me an hour or less to go through TSA in places like SeaTac and DIA. Nor have I flown on anything older than a 737-800 in a decade. The average age for US passenger planes is 11 years. Age is actually not a good indicator of airworthiness of an aircraft. The life of a passenger jet is actually very sedate. I have worked on combat jets over 25 years old, and those have a much harder life.

So you don't fly commercial often is what you are saying, do you book coach or fly business?

[Kellhound]

You really have a problem distinguishing convenience from viability, huh?

Speed is not the only consideration at play these days.



That's funny, because I wasn't making the argument that they are commercially viable under current conditions. I'm saying expecting infrastructure to be commercially viable is a stupid worldview because, again, it's a service. Lol.

Americans insist on running their government like a business and then use the resulting inefficiency and incompetence as proof that privatization and application of a profit motive to a public good is beneficial, actually.

Viability is based on usage, so no they are not viable.

They never will be commercially viable. It takes too much equipment used over too small of a time period. It is not stupid to expect infrastructure capable of being profitable to be run profitably. Hence the large amount of successful airlines in the US and the lack of successful government owned ones.

I am not arguing there are projects that are best run by the government. I support subsidized commuter, regional and Amtrak rail actually.

- - - Updated - - -

European, Chinese and Russian railroads would like to have a word with you.

They are all getting a lot of usage and are commercially viable. High speed trains in EU and China are way faster than cars, travel time is close to plains when you take into account long boarding time at airports. France has just banned short distance planes, more countries will follow because short distance planes produce many times more crap than trains. In Russia trains are everywhere, routes are spanning distances that don't even exist in US, though they aren't high speed and do take many days.

You are generally talking about short range trains, not transcontinental. In Russia it is a matter of a dearth of flights and the significantly lower cost to use rail vs fly added to the significantly small number of people in eastern Russia. Plus most of Russia's rail is located in the western 1/4 of the country (as well as most of the population).

- - - Updated - - -

This really speaks to how infrequently you fly more than anything.

I fly enough. I just took a round trip from SeaTac to DIA mid week. 30 minutes to get through SeaTac, 50 minutes through DIA only because we had to wait in line twice.

[Elegiac]

Viability is based on usage

It's not. It's based on whether or not it's capable of doing the thing as designed, and you've already pointed out several times that the US is capable of conducting its business over rail - it just prefers the convenience of air travel.

They never will be commercially viable.

That's nice - we're already covered this. Please put an unbroken record in your player.

It is not stupid to expect infrastructure capable of being profitable to be run profitably.

Profit should not be the primary concern of a public service, thus expecting it to do so remains stupid, yes.

- - - Updated - - -

I fly enough. I just took a round trip from SeaTac to DIA mid week. 30 minutes to get through SeaTac, 50 minutes through DIA only because we had to wait in line twice.

Oh wow, a sample size of 1 (one). So statistically significant, much evidence.

[Kellhound]

So you don't fly commercial often is what you are saying, do you book coach or fly business?

I fly coach. Business cost too much for what you get unless flying trans-ocean.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not. It's based on whether or not it's capable of doing the thing as designed, and you've already pointed out several times that the US is capable of conducting its business over rail - it just prefers the convenience of air travel.



That's nice - we're already covered this. Please put an unbroken record in your player.



Profit should not be the primary concern of a public service, thus expecting it to do so remains stupid, yes.

- - - Updated - - -



Oh wow, a sample size of 1 (one). So statistically significant, much evidence.

Viability includes us, which it would not be in significant numbers because of the cost and slower speed and fewer options compared to flying.

Then you should not have used "almost commercially viable" as an argument for them. That will never be the case. Stick to things that are positives of it.

My statement did not say it should be the primary concern of infrastructure to be profitable, just that it is not unreasonable to expect something that can be profitable to be profitable. The BPA was profitable last year, for instance.

I stated my last trip between major airports. The outcome is similar to the numerous flights between PDX and Bay Area airports the past few years.

[Shadowferal]

People's primary concern with long distance travel is speed. They take the fastest mode available. .

No. They took the cheapest way available.

[Kellhound]

No. They took the cheapest way available.

Air travel was not cheap in the 1950s and early 1960s, but it was significantly faster. Time is money after all.

[Draco-Onis]

Air travel was not cheap in the 1950s and early 1960s, but it was significantly faster. Time is money after all.

Air travel was vastly more luxurious in those days too. We were not packed like segregated sardines.

[Kellhound]

Air travel was vastly more luxurious in those days too. We were not packed like segregated sardines.

Train travel was a lot more luxurious in those days as well.

[Draco-Onis]

Train travel was a lot more luxurious in those days as well.

However the difference is we never got upgrades for trains, our infrastructure and transportation is from that era retrofitted and glued together. I mean we don't need to argue this, if you were right trains would be obsolete everywhere in the world aside from transporting freight clearly not true.

[Kellhound]

https://www.travelandleisure.com/air...re-cost-change

So, the average cost was $43 from Chicago in 1963. The actual cost of a Chicago to LA, San Diego, or San Fran (about the longest distance from Chicago) train coach ticket was $47. Chicago to KC was less than $10 by train. Trains were still cheaper in 1963, but lost out to the significantly faster travel times offered by jets.

- - - Updated - - -

However the difference is we never got upgrades for trains, our infrastructure and transportation is from that era retrofitted and glued together. I mean we don't need to argue this, if you were right trains would be obsolete everywhere in the world aside from transporting freight clearly not true.

Today's mainline track is superior to 1960s track almost across the board, with perhaps the exception of the the 4 track Pennsy lines. US railroads are extremely effective in moving cargo, where they have advantages over other forms of transportation. It also does a good job in the NEC using ROW already existing. Europe's are not used for much cargo, and high speed rail is useless for most cargo. I am sure the US could build plenty of high speed rail if we didn't work about cost, environmental impacts, or property rights like China.

[Draco-Onis]

Today's mainline track is superior to 1960s track almost across the board, with perhaps the exception of the the 4 track Pennsy lines. US railroads are extremely effective in moving cargo, where they have advantages over other forms of transportation. It also does a good job in the NEC using ROW already existing. Europe's are not used for much cargo, and high speed rail is useless for most cargo. I am sure the US could build plenty of high speed rail if we didn't work about cost, environmental impacts, or property rights like China.

You are ignoring the flaw in your logic which is that planes have rendered trains obsolete, they haven't the world over. The cost, environmental impacts are not the issue here, it has more to do with ineffective government and cost management. If you take a look at cost per mile the US is just awful at cost control but that's another story. The facts are high speed rail is a viable option for the US but we choose not to do it because of the incentives.

If people didn't have to own a car especially the middle class and the poor it would be a huge savings for them but too many powerful industries impacted by that freedom would object.

[Kellhound]

You are ignoring the flaw in your logic which is that planes have rendered trains obsolete, they haven't the world over. The cost, environmental impacts are not the issue here, it has more to do with ineffective government and cost management. If you take a look at cost per mile the US is just awful at cost control but that's another story. The facts are high speed rail is a viable option for the US but we choose not to do it because of the incentives.

If people didn't have to own a car especially the middle class and the poor it would be a huge savings for them but too many powerful industries impacted by that freedom would object.

I never said they were obsolete, I said they were not viable, there is a difference. Oh sure, if you subsidized it to the point that is cost almost nothing to use it become viable, but that is not going to happen any time soon. We don't invest in high speed rail because of the massive costs involved and the absolutely horrendous disruptions that building it would cause. People tend to forget that most viable routes are already in heavy use already. It would involve destruction on a scale never seen in the US.

Having a car IS freedom, freedom to go where you want when you want. It also does not have to be a great expense. I can take public transport to my work. It would take me 3x-4x as long and cost 5x as much.

[Draco-Onis]

I never said they were obsolete, I said they were not viable, there is a difference. Oh sure, if you subsidized it to the point that is cost almost nothing to use it become viable, but that is not going to happen any time soon. We don't invest in high speed rail because of the massive costs involved and the absolutely horrendous disruptions that building it would cause. People tend to forget that most viable routes are already in heavy use already. It would involve destruction on a scale never seen in the US.

Having a car IS freedom, freedom to go where you want when you want. It also does not have to be a great expense. I can take public transport to my work. It would take me 3x-4x as long and cost 5x as much.

ROFLMAO, You have just proven my point our current public transportation is designed so that a car is better. There are very few places in the US where public transportation isn't the worse option and that is by design. In other countries it's the opposite because the network is from the 21st century not the 1900s.

There's no reason for each state not to build hybrids of high speed rail and electric buses so that cars are optional. The cost of a car is very high there's no freedom in it we simply created a system where you have no other viable option.

[Kellhound]

ROFLMAO, You have just proven my point our current public transportation is designed so that a car is better. There are very few places in the US where public transportation isn't the worse option and that is by design. In other countries it's the opposite because the network is from the 21st century not the 1900s.

There's no reason for each state not to build hybrids of high speed rail and electric buses so that cars are optional. The cost of a car is very high there's no freedom in it we simply created a system where you have no other viable option.

Busses SUCK to commute on. Busses SUCK to go shopping. Unless your start point and end point are right at a stop, busses SUCK to use for any reason. Light rail isn't too bad for commutes if you do not have to use a bus at either end. Neither are good unless there are traffic jams or parking issues to navigate. The best public system in the world would not change that.

High speed rail requires the destruction of too much existing infrastructure and it would displace too many people to be viable even in most regional ideas.
A cost of a car need not be very high.

[Draco-Onis]

Busses SUCK to commute on. Busses SUCK to go shopping. Unless your start point and end point are right at a stop, busses SUCK to use for any reason. Light rail isn't too bad for commutes if you do not have to use a bus at either end. Neither are good unless there are traffic jams or parking issues to navigate. The best public system in the world would not change that.

The rest of the world is evidence to the contrary, you are basically arguing that buses that show up on time less traffic because people are using public transportation is bad. You are quite a hoot, we both agree the current system suck it was made to suck.

High speed rail requires the destruction of too much existing infrastructure and it would displace too many people to be viable even in most regional ideas.
A cost of a car need not be very high.

The US is too large for high speed rail or there's not enough space for new infrastructure, pick one?