High high speed rail for Atlanta metro (Alpharetta, Kennesaw: sales, real estate)

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by BobKovacs

Well, considering that I live in Cherokee County, work downtown, and know dozens of folks who do the same, and have never heard one of those people "crying for rail service", I think using the phrase "just about everybody that lives 75N, 85N, and everybody that lives OTP but works downtown" is quite an exaggeration. If fact, most people who made the decision to buy out near me did so while consciously aware that they'd be driving to work every day- they didn't buy and then say "waaaahhhh....we really need train service out here". If that was the case, I'm sure you'd see citizen's groups forming all over to push for mass transit- and that's not happening.

JG: When gas was $0.79, no cries. When gas was $1.79, some grumbles. When gas hit $2.79, grimaces. When gas hit $3.79, car pools, electronic commuting, and sweating at the pump. When gas hits $4.79, the cost to fill up a tank will have increased by a factor of 6.
Most budgets can't handle that.
And when it hits $5.79, suburbia is going to be hurting. And since petroleum pricing hits diesel trucks and buses, electrified rail will be the only viable alternative that can carry the passenger and cargo load.

The nation has to go on a crash diet regarding oil consumption - no other option.

And, no, we can't drill our way out of this dilemma. Best estimates is that even if all fossil fuels were fully accessed, we'd have only 50 years worth.

Hitting "empty" when it takes 60 million years to recharge the "fossil fuel tank" is not an option.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by atlantagreg30127

... post something saying that MARTA has been approved to be expanded into Paudling and see what happens? I kid you not, people will start buying ammo at the local pawn shop, boarding up their windows, and lighting torches to march on the Capital building downtown in less than 20 minutes.

JG: I agree that MARTA is a disaster only a bureaucracy can generate. However, unless there is some great leap in technology for electric cars, our only option is electrified rail. But do we have to assume that electrified rail is only possible if government provides it? In retrospect, the rise of electrified rail, in the 1890s - 1910s, was privately funded, and profitable.

According to one site, whenever a city or government authority gets control over a rail asset, competition ends, and innovation slows, if not stops.

Perhaps the WISEST choice is to only let a public authority control the TRACK, not the rolling stock. That way, private ownership of the vehicles and profit incentive will keep rail transportation improving.

Use public funding to build and maintain the rail roads as rights of way open to any who will provide the rolling stock and pay the fee. Like the paved roads, which are taxpayer subsidized, and exempt from property taxes, let's get the rails off the tax rolls. Taxation of rail rights of way was one of the factors in the loss of track across the nation. Ditto for electrified rail lines.

And let us not forget that the privately owned railroad companies engaged in wasteful duplication of track in their quest for market share over their rivals. These redundant tracks led to the collapse or merger of many railroad companies.

One instance where cooperation instead of competition was the rule, the Electric Railway Presidents' Conference Committee , in 1929, came up with a splendid design featuring engineering advancements that were used through out America, and copied by other manufacturers, worldwide.

PCC streetcar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I confess I have developed a new appreciation for the PCC, and mourn its demise.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by Frankie117

Europe might have an edge in passenger, but we destroy them with our freight service and efficiency. As far as US freight technology goes, we are decades ahead of Europe and Japan.

JG: That is not quite correct.
The U.S. low speed high volume freight doesn't compare with European freight, because what America ships as long distance slow freight, is carried by water transport in Europe.

zierke.com/shasta_route :
Different traffic function results in different infrastructure

However, this site mentions that many of the advancements used by European and Japanese high speed lines were first developed in the U.S.A., but were abandoned, as subsidized competitors shut down passenger and fast freight service.

In America, the rails specifications were tailored for low speed, heavy freight, which is wholly inadequate for high speed, light weight passenger service. {superelevation, radius of curvature, axle loading, tilting suspensions}

The aforementioned site goes into great detail, explaining the obstacles to American high speed passenger rail under current FRA rules and economics.
Of course, now that we're facing the prospect of $5.85 gas (if oil hits $200 per barrel or higher), public pressure may finally shift in favor of electrified rail.

The following essay has some interesting data about oil consumption by diesel trains and trucks.

Transportation Electrification, electric transit, electric railways 10% Reduction in America's Oil Use - Light Rail Now

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by BobKovacs

Just curious- where's this huge outpouring of people OTP who are "crying for rail service"????

Not me. It would be nice to have rail in parts of Cobb, but I probably wouldn't use it.

[jetgraphics]

Why the next conservatism should bring back streetcars

" Streetcars, it seems, are one of the most powerful tools for reviving cities."

" Why do streetcars bring new development? There are several reasons. First, middle-class people with significant disposable income like riding streetcars. That is not true of buses. Second, streetcars are "pedestrian facilitators." People who ride through a city on a streetcar tend to get off and on, walking for a while, then riding some more. While they are walking, they go in stores, stop in restaurants for something to eat, maybe see a movie or get tickets for a show. In other words, they spend money downtown. Middle-class pedestrians are the life blood of a city, and streetcars make it easy for them to get around.

"Third, from a developer's perspective, a streetcar line is a guarantee of high-quality public transportation that will be there for decades. That is not true of buses; a bus line can be here today, gone tomorrow. The investment in track and overhead wire streetcars require means their routes don't get up and move. Not surprisingly, bus service does little or nothing for development."

Cities rediscover allure of streetcars - USATODAY.com
"Streetcar lines cost about $10 million to $15 million a mile compared with $50 million to $75 million a mile for light-rail lines.
Most streetcar lines stretch for less than 5 miles compared with 10 to 20 miles for light rail. They've become so appealing that some developers are helping pay for the systems, says Shelley Poticha, president and CEO of Reconnecting America, a national non-profit group that works to spur development around transit stops."


===============
With no expectation of low cost, plentiful petroleum, it's pretty clear that "Bus Rapid Transit" (BRT) based on diesel buses is a dead end.

And it's probably the same conclusion for diesel trucking.

That leaves us one choice - electrified rail...
[] Heavy slow freight
[] Light fast passenger / freight
[] Commuter / Interurban
[] Streetcar

Let's get Georgia back on track! GO RAIL.

[Aloha jon]

The trains in Europe such as The Netherlands, Belgium, France, United Kingdom, and Hungary are real nice. The trams of Amsterdam and their subways are nice too. We Americans could have all this too, but it takes much tax money to build and operate these systems. Getting people to agree to raise taxes in America is very hard. Europeans pay some very high taxes, but they get more. Listen to all the talk now about spending big amounts of tax money to get out of this economic problem we are in. I remember when we had the vote for MARTA in 1971, the vote was so close that we had to have a "RECOUNT." I am glad it passed in Fulton and DeKalb, and wished it had passed in Clayton and Gwinnett. Some day if we get cut off from the oil in several other countries, then Americans may be ready for more high speed transit, even though it can not be built over night.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by Aloha jon

The trains in Europe such as The Netherlands, Belgium, France, United Kingdom, and Hungary are real nice.

I have ridden the rails in each of the countries you mentioned, and you're right that they all have nice systems that do a good job of high speed transport between cities in Europe. The rub is that western Europe is a relatively small place, and the countries you listed are smaller than many US states.

Here in the US we use air travel in the same way they use trains. We have an extensive air network, just as they have an extensive rail network, and in most cases, rail is redundant and much less efficient here. Why take a train for 2 days from NY to CA when you can fly in 6 hours? Even an 6 hour ride from Atlanta to Tampa is silly when I can fly in 1 hour. Where rail begins to make sense is where we have it, and that's in the urban centers in the northeast. You can ride from downtown Boston to midtown Manhattan in under 4 hours.

[RainyRainyDay]

Originally Posted by neil0311

Here in the US we use air travel in the same way they use trains. We have an extensive air network, just as they have an extensive rail network, and in most cases, rail is redundant and much less efficient here. Why take a train for 2 days from NY to CA when you can fly in 6 hours? Even an 6 hour ride from Atlanta to Tampa is silly when I can fly in 1 hour. Where rail begins to make sense is where we have it, and that's in the urban centers in the northeast. You can ride from downtown Boston to midtown Manhattan in under 4 hours.

I partly agree with the above but it leaves out a few things. Rail is more fuel efficient than air, and can be lower cost. Airport delays and security overhead add a lot to air travel time - the one hour flight from Atlanta to Tampa will involve at least an hour at the airport before departure, and it's stressful. If you're not in a rush, rail travel provides more comfortable accomodations than airline travel, by far, and is more conducive to either relaxing or getting some reading/writing/computing done.

I just returned from a family spring break vacation to New Orleans via Amtrak. It's a 12 hour train trip between here and New Orleans. One-way coach fare is $58 for adults and $29 for kids under 16. That's with all taxes in. The airlines can't touch that pricing, and the trip was fun.

[DeaconJ]

Originally Posted by RainyRainyDay

I partly agree with the above but it leaves out a few things. Rail is more fuel efficient than air, and can be lower cost. Airport delays and security overhead add a lot to air travel time - the one hour flight from Atlanta to Tampa will involve at least an hour at the airport before departure, and it's stressful. If you're not in a rush, rail travel provides more comfortable accomodations than airline travel, by far, and is more conducive to either relaxing or getting some reading/writing/computing done.

I just returned from a family spring break vacation to New Orleans via Amtrak. It's a 12 hour train trip between here and New Orleans. One-way coach fare is $58 for adults and $29 for kids under 16. That's with all taxes in. The airlines can't touch that pricing, and the trip was fun.

When I rode Amtrak to Charlotte a couple of months ago, it was only about $20 cheaper than flying...but I wasn't in a hurry and I wanted to experience Amtrak. The train itself was much nicer than the overland trains in London, but it took 5 hours - the drive takes 3 hours.

I would estimate that about 90% of the time, people ARE in a hurry. That's the problem with rail travel.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by RainyRainyDay

I partly agree with the above but it leaves out a few things. Rail is more fuel efficient than air, and can be lower cost. Airport delays and security overhead add a lot to air travel time - the one hour flight from Atlanta to Tampa will involve at least an hour at the airport before departure, and it's stressful. If you're not in a rush, rail travel provides more comfortable accomodations than airline travel, by far, and is more conducive to either relaxing or getting some reading/writing/computing done.

Amtrak is sometimes an option, but only if you have a semi-direct route to the places you want to go.

Try checking out the available Amtrak routes to Chicago or Minneapolis from Atlanta sometime ... you pay a lot more, and you get routed through DC or points quite close to there. I'd rather pay $80-90 each way and fly...

Besides, I would argue that the big leather seats I get on Midwest's Signature Service are at least as comfy as any train cabin, and the stop at MKE is a nice chance to stretch my legs and pick up a bite to eat.