wrote:

Jennifer Howland wrote:
wrote:

Jennifer Howland wrote:

wrote:

Jim Logajan wrote:
wrote:
LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not those haulingu
the
crap between cities, much less across the country.

Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
electric powered trucks hauling carrots from Fresno to Chicago.

Ahem:

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

Electric trains work in parts of Europe because a long haul there
is what would be called just down the road in the US and for local
transit such as the Bay Area Bart system.

Huh? Have you even done much train riding in Europe?? Today, one can take
an electric train from London to Paris and thence to Marseilles. (For
example; there are many others). You think that is equivalent to the local
trains that just serve the SF Bay Area? Dream on! The European trains can
go a good bit faster too.

Even in the USA, you can ride an all electric train froom Washington DC to
Boston MA? You don't consider that inter-city?

Heck, the Pennsylvania Railroad had electric trains between New York (later
to New Haven), Washington, Philadelphia, and Harrisburg almost 100 years
ago.

Yep, works where distances are short and population densities are high.

You declared that long haul in Europe "would be called just down the road in the
US and for local transit such as the Bay Area BART system." London to
Marseilles, one example that I cited, is a good deal greater than the local BART
system, or "down the road."

Are you having a problem understanding "such as"?

Not at all. "Such as" indicates a specific example, to wit San Francisco Bay's BART
local system, which you indicated is what would be called "long haul" in Europe..



Do I need to specifically mention the stuff on the east coast to make
you happy?

No, just try to relate to reality. Long Haul in Europe is NOT analogous to local
transit, 'such as' BART.



European and US East Coast distances are tiny and population densities
enourmous when take into context of the whole US.

Really? Europe distances are certainly comparable to the US, even the whole US.
And the population density of US places such as Southern Califoniia is a good
deal greater than most places in Europe that have far superior rail
coverage/service.

Oh really?

Los Angeles to New York 2139 nm
Houston to Billings 1141 nm

Lisbon to Berlin 1247 nm
Rome to London 779 nm

Keep picking arbitrary city pairs and you can confirm any belief you please.



And the population density of California is why there is any rail service
at all.

Compare the distance and population density from Los Angeles to Chicago
or San Diego to Maddison.

California has a bigger county than some European countries.

So does Massachusetts. So what???

?



Have you ever traveled from Detroit to Los Angeles on the ground?

No, but I've travelled from Philadelphia to Seattle, Denver to Virginia Beach,
etc. So what?

You compared long distance trains in Europe to the San Francisco Bay BART
system. Baloney!

No, I didn't.

"...long haul there [EUROPE] is what would be called just down the road in the US and
for local transit such as the Bay Area Bart system." --Jim Pennino



Your paranoia is showing.

Paranoia of what? Oh do tell!!! :-)



Take a trip to Europe and learn something.

There isn't a lot of passenger rail in the US because there isn't much
use for it other than the places it alread exists, and even in those
places, much of it has to be subsidized to get anyone on it.

Of course it's subsidized. So is everything else. According to Phil Boyer's [AOPA]
last talk in my area, General Aviation receives far more from the Airway and Aviation
Trust Fund more than it sends from fuel taxes. That is one of the reasons why AOPA
supported the privatization of AFSS services. In other words ticket taxes subsidize
GA airport improvements and operations. (Runway surfacing, ASOS, PAPI, lighting, GPS
approach design and verification, etc. My property and income taxes pay for/subsidize
local, county, and state roads, whether I use them or not. Sure, it would be nice if
just the fuel tax paid for that, but it doesn't happen. While railroads need to pay
for the train, the locomotive, the fuel (plus any taxes) AND all of the tracks and
land (plus the associated real estate taxes), trucking companies need only pay for the
truck and fuel. The fuel tax is a pay as you go system. (Trucks pay other fees as
well, but nothing comparable to paying for the entire transportation infrastructure.)
Before and while the nation's policies started decimating the previously very
successful rail industry, rail taxes helped subsidize highway construction.



But let's get back to freight, which was the original issue.

As of 2000, US percentage of freight moved by rail 38%, the European
Union 8%.

The amount of freight moved, US 2,165 billion ton-kilometers, European
Union 238 billion ton-kilometers.

Source? What were the competing modes? Are we still just comparing roads vs rail or
are we now introducing water/sea/canal transport?

Obviously the US is WAY behind Europe when it comes to trains.

"Obviously....?" :-)