Economy silences Atlanta...

[hamsterTK 93]

I think rail is never going to get such a huge market share in North America any time soon.

Right now if you really wanted to travel without a car you could take Greyhound or Megabus

[Meastro444 1]

€1.60 euros for me a litre, thats about $2.50 a littre, and if im correct, a gallon is 4,5 littres, so thats more than $10 a gallon.

honestly, you shouldnt complain that much.

yes, i read Zelgadis' post, but even then, gas prices arent that high. here, people are still buying gas the usual rate, not many complain or switch to other transportation means. 
personal transport: buy a bike! you can cover the 10 miles to the next busstation to hop on a bus .

anyway, i only think its good that fuel prices are that high, it only has positive consequenses until now.

[Frankie_Grove 32]

Originally posted by: hamsterTK I think rail is never going to get such a huge market share in North America any time soon.

Right now if you really wanted to travel without a car you could take Greyhound or Megabusquote>

Much of our rail traffic is devoted to freight, and the companies can't be bothered to add passenger service, especially since passenger service almost killed the companies to begin with. With every new day, freight trains grab more traffic from trucks, railroad companies post massive record-breaking profits, and every day Amtrak ridership actually goes up (hard to believe, I know). As a matter of fact, it looks like US passenger rail service is making a comeback. I think the rising fuel prices, as well as all the problems with the airline companies, are allowing the railroads to start there new rise to dominant form of transportation.

[Ghostkiller108 0]

In a sad way.

[belfastuniguy 18]

US Rail services are somewhat patchy.

I always though the Northeatern states were good passenger rail users. Be nice to see what happens when California go ahead with its high-speed services also.

High-speed rail does bring more people onto rail services. Has worked in Europe and the UK.

[saltandsauce 0]

High-speed rail does bring more people onto rail services. Has worked in Europe and the UK.quote>

there are no high speed railways in the UK

the reason that the UK rails have made a comeback is because for the first time in about 50 years investment is being made into the railways (nothing to do with privatisation, British rail got about a third of the money that private companies get in susidies)

[belfastuniguy 18]

there are no high speed railways in the UKquote>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_1

The West Coast Mainline is also of very high standard with Virgin tilting trains making a journey from Glasgow to London in under 4 hours. On-going improvements will decrease that time. Upgrades are also planned for the East Coast Mainline.

Plans are also under development for a high-speed line between Belfast - Dublin - Cork.

[sedimenjerry 1]

I know not to complain about how ridiculouly high gas prices are in europe but really most people could take a train to almost any place.

[Danlikebooks 6]

As said before, America is MUCH larger than the UK.  America is 9,826,630 square km in size.  Europe is 10,180,000 km in size.  Sure it would be easy to say that American are spoiled with driving if you live in Belgium (which you can drive across in about thirty minutes), but Amercia is HUGE!  So shut up...

[Ghostkiller108 0]

It would cost so much money to bring highspeed rail to the U.S. But I think it's a wise exspense.

[belfastuniguy 18]

As said before, America is MUCH larger than the UK. America is 9,826,630 square km in size. Europe is 10,180,000 km in size. Sure it would be easy to say that American are spoiled with driving if you live in Belgium (which you can drive across in about thirty minutes), but Amercia is HUGE! So shut up...quote>

You already have a high speed service and getting another...

Would you rather have more airports and more highways?? Remember airplanes also need expensive fuel.

No one is saying America is not a large country, but you can easily look at high-speed services along economically viable routes.

[Micah 16]

Our airports are jammed, traffic on highways and byways are getting worse, and infastructure across America is getting older by the day and is falling apart as seen in Minneapolis and New Orleans... to make matters worse, thousands of bridges across America are in a dangerous mode at the moment for potential harm to people if it were to collapse, for example. So, I think we need to begin to focus on the 21st century infastructure. Instead of the Eisenhower highway system, if can have the Clinton, Barrack, or McCain High-Speed Train System. When there are more ways for products to travel across America, you increase the amount of products shipped and, perhaps, create a better economical situation. Also, for military and aid purposes, you could ship soldiers and humanitarian workers quickly by using both high speed train and air.

Also, isn't high-speed train quieter than the current trains America has?

So, I guess you can tell where I stand on this issue...

[sedimenjerry 1]

i like the idea of high speed train for passenger use but i dont think many americans will completley get used to it

americans like being independent and that's why cars are so popular. you leave when you want, you do what you want and go where you want. a pan-american high speed rail network would be very hard to plan. with interstates, there are numerous roads that people can access the interstate but with a train network how would most people access the trains.

either way, it will take hundreds of years for train travel to replace cars i think.

[belfastuniguy 18]

it will take hundreds of years for train travel to replace cars i think.quote>

I think by then we may have moved beyond rail travel tbh

[Frankie_Grove 32]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

it will take hundreds of years for train travel to replace cars i think.quote>

I think by then we may have moved beyond rail travel tbhquote>

Unless the invention of teleporting comes about, I seriously doubt trains will ever be phased out. They've already supported several countries for close to 190 years now. Trains can only get faster and more fuel efficient. I mean sure, when the 70's and 80's rolled around the US rail network about died off, but since then newer, faster, more efficient equipment has allowed them to regain their status as the #1 way to move freight. Passenger rail service may never return to its former glory, mainly because we've been spoiled into it taking only a couple of hours to cross the US by airplane.

[sedimenjerry 1]

both of you have good points

Frankie_Grove: remember, although trains have carried nations for almost 200 years, before that horses and other various beasts of burden were the only modes of transporttion(besides walking). flying is relativiely new considering that it originated just over 100 years ago

technology is improving at an exponential rate. in 50 years they could be a better mode of transportation. the that may change in 25 years, then just over 12 and so on.

of course we'll all just have to wait and see.

[north8234 1]

cuz of gas

[hamsterTK 93]

Rail to move freight has many advantages that trucks don't obviously. There will always be trains far into the future to carry heavy freight that trucks can't handle efficiently over land.

I do think that high speed rail as an alternative to flying as fuel prices increase will finally find some foothold in the US. But intercity rail as an effective alternative to driving probably will never reach the same heights it did in the past.

[belfastuniguy 18]

@Frankie

Yes I know trains have existed for a long time and supported growth, I suppose I should have refined my point by saying that conventional rail will have been replaced by more advanced forms of the transport. Meaning the arguement of building normal rail which is expensive and takes a long time may not be a valid arguement in the future with technology advancements.

[WillAU05 0]

I was amongst 10 other cars on this 5 mile stretch of road... Fuel prices are seriously bogging Atlanta down. The freeways are experiencing simular results. It is almost easy to do 70 - 80 MPH on I-75/85 - I-285 during both morning and evening rushhour... This gas gouge isn't funny at all...quote>

 

Thats not true, I was in Atlanta this past weekend and spent half of my time stopped in traffic on the freeways

[patriots_1228 51]

Originally posted by: north8234 cuz of gasquote>

 

Thanks, glad someone finally pointed that out.

[Need4Camaro 50]

belfastuniguy - Not to be rude my friend but even if you've been to America... Have you tried opperating there for atleast a year?

Alot of you who're comparing gas prices between America, UK, and Europe are comparing apples and oranges. While prices are indeed much higher there, cars are 200 times more important in the United States than both of those countries combined. You cannot just HOP on a train in Atlanta or MOST American cities for that matter and expect to get where you need to go. At best... 15 miles outside of the city center. Jobs and development in America are FAR more spread out... My AVERAGE commutes between every job I have worked in Atlanta has been 40 Miles at bare minimum. On an easy day I am forced to drive about 100 Miles meaning I run through a tank of gas in less than a week. OR roughly $70 for every 4 days. I can spend between $300 - $500 per month just to do my daily tasks... there are no real alternatives. It has nothing to do with my personal freedom but simply the fact that there is no other way... Or atleast not yet.

High Speed Rail, if it ever comes out won't be a valuable solution. A system such as that won't beable to cover every important area of America because the country is too large. It would be far too expensive to implement something like that. We have one Network that connects the Northeast called the Acela and although it is fascinating, its far from removing the need for the automobile even in that area because it can only connect major areas. What if you work 50 miles west of the line? Its far too expensive to construct numerous amount of branches for the numerous amount of possabilities that might ensue in America. You need a car for the flexability.

[Meastro444 1]

need4camaro, its not comparing Apples and Oranges. 

fuel prices are fuel prices

what the difference between EU and US is, is that the various nations in the EU have taken care of their railways. As far as i know, this has not happened in the US. Granted, the most cargo is transported by rail in US, but most railroads dont even carry passengers. (fun fact: only the Dutch railways get more profit out of passengers)

if the US were to spend half of their military budget on rail alone, then it would be able to construct massive raillines everywhere, so to speak. also, car is not the only private transport option, there are bikes too

(by the US i mean the gov't, not you )

regards

Meastro444

[sedimenjerry 1]

the EU is constructed of many countries whereas the US is a bunch of states. im not sure if that has much to do with planning but still something to be considered. many cities in europe have been around for centuries. even though rail travel was not until the 1800's most cities just had to add railways to pre-existing roads and routes. the u.s. has to construct many railroads across miles of land with no major cities. the u.s. had to always work with the states for construction where european nations can deal with their own railroads and then work on connecting with other nations

[belfastuniguy 18]

belfastuniguy - Not to be rude my friend but even if you've been to America... Have you tried opperating there for atleast a yearquote>

Yes I have visited, a couple of years ago I spent the entire summer there, roughly 4 months. So I do have an idea of what its like living there. I assume you meant living and not operating. Of course I haven't lived there for a year, I'm only 22 and had school and university to attend. I wouldn't want to live there for 12 months anyway, like the place, but not for a whole year.

I also think you will find I addressed the issue regarding the size of America and said it would be unrealistic to cover the place in rail lines. Be nice if you read all my post and not selectively cherry picked.