Trains.com

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

The day the spit hit the fan!...

4932 views
65 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: Southeast Texas
  • 2,392 posts
Posted by Tracklayer on Thursday, September 15, 2005 11:24 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by 1shado1

QUOTE: Originally posted by dthurman

QUOTE: Originally posted by 1shado1


Are you still looking to support the proposed rail project? I hope so. Are there any other backers to the plan?

QUOTE:
Really? Because you know ALL the facts of the proposed rail line? Or simply because you are a rail fan? Just because it is a choo-choo, and you are a fan, that doesn't automatically mean that the proposed plan is a good idea (or a bad one, for that matter).

People blindly supporting such projects is just as silly as people blindly bashing them.[:D]

Jeff


Well Jeff, I guess I am "blindly" supporting the RR idea. If TrackLayer felt strong enough to support the line, I will take at face value his reasons, and support his effort, until shown otherwise. I guess I should have been more fanatical in my post and USED UPPER CASE TO YELL, all kinds of emoticons etc so I would blindly be as silly. [B)]

Also as I stated in my first post to the topic, I am personally experiencing a "railroading" of a railroad that the city here has been after from day one, the media, the "tree-hugger" crowd, which if you watched the council meetings would think the same, crying and chanting to remove the rails for a trail, you would also get a different slant on how some people are against rail.



To each his own. I'm not agreeing, nor am I disagreeing with Tracklayer's opinion, just based on the fact that I think he's a swell guy. I prefer to not be a lemming. I form my own opinions based on information, not on one person's take on any given subject.

Based ONLY on the information you've provided about the problem in your town, I would be inclined to side with you. The railroad brings money to the area. A "trail" would merely spend it. Seems like the choice is obvious.[:D]

Jeff


Thank you Jeff. I appreciate what you said very much-about everything. I also appreciate the replies and input from all of the other members that loaned me their ears (eyes) so that I might finally get this off my chest.

Again, thank you all. "Happy railroading"...

Tracklayer
  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: Southeast Texas
  • 2,392 posts
Posted by Tracklayer on Thursday, September 15, 2005 11:28 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by 1shado1

QUOTE: Originally posted by dthurman

QUOTE: Originally posted by 1shado1


Are you still looking to support the proposed rail project? I hope so. Are there any other backers to the plan?

QUOTE:
Really? Because you know ALL the facts of the proposed rail line? Or simply because you are a rail fan? Just because it is a choo-choo, and you are a fan, that doesn't automatically mean that the proposed plan is a good idea (or a bad one, for that matter).

People blindly supporting such projects is just as silly as people blindly bashing them.[:D]

Jeff


Well Jeff, I guess I am "blindly" supporting the RR idea. If TrackLayer felt strong enough to support the line, I will take at face value his reasons, and support his effort, until shown otherwise. I guess I should have been more fanatical in my post and USED UPPER CASE TO YELL, all kinds of emoticons etc so I would blindly be as silly. [B)]

Also as I stated in my first post to the topic, I am personally experiencing a "railroading" of a railroad that the city here has been after from day one, the media, the "tree-hugger" crowd, which if you watched the council meetings would think the same, crying and chanting to remove the rails for a trail, you would also get a different slant on how some people are against rail.



To each his own. I'm not agreeing, nor am I disagreeing with Tracklayer's opinion, just based on the fact that I think he's a swell guy. I prefer to not be a lemming. I form my own opinions based on information, not on one person's take on any given subject.

Based ONLY on the information you've provided about the problem in your town, I would be inclined to side with you. The railroad brings money to the area. A "trail" would merely spend it. Seems like the choice is obvious.[:D]

Jeff


Thank you Jeff. I appreciate what you said very much-about everything. I also appreciate the replies and input from all of the other members that loaned me their ears (eyes) so that I might finally get this off my chest.

Again, thank you all. "Happy railroading"...

Tracklayer
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • 450 posts
Posted by 1shado1 on Thursday, September 15, 2005 11:29 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by mark_in_utah

Here in Salt Lake we had a raging debate for several years on a Light Rail system. The busses are chronically under utilized, freeways are available, blah, blah, blah.

Freeways were swamped during rush hour. Buses were busy during rush hour but mostly vacant the rest of the time. Light rail ridership was estimated, but purposely low-balled because too many cities had been overly optimistic. Even had it on the ballot, which passed by a small margin.

Light Rail ridership surpassed all expectations. The cities that fought the hardest to NOT have a terminal were petitioning for new terminals after the first year - and they'd PAY for them!. The original terminals were built under the main funding package. All additional teminals had to be paid for by the individual cities.

They're now actively working to expand the system. Built one spur up to the University of Utah, big success. Want to build another spur to the airport, and several more extending the line further south, east, and west. People enjoy riding Light Rail.

We have a commuter Rail system going in now, longer haul, faster trains. Hoping it succeeds as well.

When things go right, the biggest opponents can become your biggest allies.

Mark in Utah


Glad to hear that light rail has worked out so well in Salt Lake. Apparently there was a need for it with your freeways being swamped during rush hour. The portion of the freeways prone to gridlock here in Milwaukee are currently being rebuilt to alleviate the problem. Another reason why light rail is not viable here.

Jeff
  • Member since
    December 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 2,216 posts
Posted by davekelly on Friday, September 16, 2005 10:22 AM
I think one of the main drawbacks of light rail is how do the people get to where they are going once they reach the destination station? (Destination Station? sounds like a movie or TV series). NYC has a massive subway and bus system to further move the commuters on. Dallas' system seems to work (just my observation) because many of the office buildings are in a relatively small area. I would think that if there is no way to get to a person's final destination without a very long walk, then folks won't use it.

Light Rail is a very good idea and a great way to move lots of people, but it has to exist as a part of a more comprehensive transit system in order for it to work.

Just my opinion.
If you ain't having fun, you're not doing it right and if you are having fun, don't let anyone tell you you're doing it wrong.
  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Vancouver Island, BC
  • 23,330 posts
Posted by selector on Friday, September 16, 2005 11:15 AM
I agree with Dave. Light rail is a "higher order" of transit, and like planes, needs an adjunct to get people to and from its terminals/stops.

Vancouver, BC, has the Sky Train, place in time for Expo '86. Hugely expensive, underused, and now the City is actively considering a major extension into the 'burbs. But now the place is littered with parks and flys, parks and rides, and they are clearly half-full. I think the idea is sound, but it seems the public isn't feeling the gas pinch just yet.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, September 16, 2005 12:01 PM
I don't know if this has already been posted, but what really killed the high speed rail running on the DFW-Houston-Austin (or San Antonio) triangle route was pressure brought by Southwest Airlines. They dominate public transportation on that route and they don't want to lose the revenue that would switch to rail. But, for routes of that length (200 to 300 mi.), high speed rail makes much more sense than air travel, especially when you factor in transportation to and from the airport versus a downtown railroad station and the hassle of security at the airport. I guess that some folks just enjoy being wanded and fondled by security types who can't count past ten with their shoes on.
[C):-)]
  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 785 posts
Posted by Leon Silverman on Friday, September 16, 2005 12:26 PM
I agree with Wetumkafats' statement that it makes more sense to utilize high speed trains instead of planes on 200-300 mile routes. The high operating losses (and resultant bankruptsy filings are linked directly to the recent run-up of fuel costs. I wonder if Soutwest Airlines would still oppose this arrangement in today's high fuel cost environment. These short hops have to represent the highest per passenger-mile fuel costs of any of their routes. Southwest is currently attempting to merge with USAir. Giving up these commutor slots would open up berths to longer, more profitable flight routes. One reason why the Acela trains are popular is that when you add in the time it takes to go through an Airport terminal at both ends of the flight along with the typical delays experienced at the busy NEC airports, airplane travel time cannot beat the travel time on the Acela unless you go directly between Boston and DC (maybe!).
  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: Southeast Texas
  • 2,392 posts
Posted by Tracklayer on Friday, September 16, 2005 2:00 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by WetumkaFats

I don't know if this has already been posted, but what really killed the high speed rail running on the DFW-Houston-Austin (or San Antonio) triangle route was pressure brought by Southwest Airlines. They dominate public transportation on that route and they don't want to lose the revenue that would switch to rail. But, for routes of that length (200 to 300 mi.), high speed rail makes much more sense than air travel, especially when you factor in transportation to and from the airport versus a downtown railroad station and the hassle of security at the airport. I guess that some folks just enjoy being wanded and fondled by security types who can't count past ten with their shoes on.
[C):-)]


I thought I was done with this topic, but you guys reminded me of something I failed to mention, so we'll just call the following a "PS"...

Another one of the reasons that the locals-as well as those in other rural communities didn't want the rail service was because it wasn't going to stop in their town(s). It was strictly going to run from Houston to Dallas to Austin and back to Houston again, and they weren't going to benefit from it what so ever. All they saw it as was an unwelcome threat and intruder to their environment.

Tracklayer

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Users Online

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!