Utopia Talk / Politics / Why public transportation wont work

xyz1 Member	Wed Nov 04 08:11:51 SEPTA (the Philadelphia public transportation provider) union workers went on strike out of pure greed. Apparently they were pissed off that the city was ONLY offering guaranteed salary raises of a couple percentage points over five years during a recession. Commuters are screwed now. Just think what would happen if we tried to make public transportation THE primary source of transportation like our citizens. Just think of how devastating a strike by greedy unions like this one would be. Millions of employees unable to get to work, millions of people unable to do chores, etc. Idiots like these are the reason I am in favor of every person buying a car.
ehcks Member	Wed Nov 04 08:15:01 Public transportation doesn't require a union.
Sarcasm Member	Wed Nov 04 08:28:35 Funny how Europe manages to have even stronger unions and fully functioning public transport.
xyz1 Member	Wed Nov 04 08:34:45 Sarcasm, funny you should mention that. ---- Strike disrupts French transport In the past, strikes have put great pressure on political leaders Workers in France have begun a strike which has severely disrupted the country's transport system, especially the railway network. The 24-hour strike began on Wednesday at 2000 local time (1800 GMT). Trade unions called the strike in protest against the reform of special pension schemes enjoyed by a minority of state sector workers. In the past, transport strikes have caused massive disruption and put pressure on political leaders. Soon after the strike started the national railway company SNCF reported many cancellations of its high-speed TGV trains, out of which only about 7% are expected to be in normal service. Eurostar cross-channel trains will also be affected, but SNCF said only five trains would be suspended between Paris and London. Transport links in the Paris region are also severely disrupted, with the public transport company RATP reporting very little traffic on the metro lines, virtually no traffic on the regional trains and only 15% of buses and trams in normal service. The strike is scheduled to last 24 hours, but some unions have called for strikes to be extended to Friday or even Saturday. An extension of the strike could hit spectators heading for the final matches of the Rugby World Cup, held at the Stade de France stadium in a northern suburb of Paris. 'Special regime' President Nicolas Sarkozy, whose proposed pension reforms were invoked by the trade unions as the main reason for this strike, said he was not impressed. Mr Sarkozy promised to maintain a dialogue with unions "I am not stressed. People would be more worried if we didn't make reforms," Mr Sarkozy told France 2 television. "There are reforms to be made, everybody knows this. I was elected for that, we are going to make them calmly, maintaining the dialogue. "I'll meet the railway workers, the RATP agents, the gas workers, the electricians, as I did last week," he said. The government plans to scrap the "special regime" pension system for 500,000 workers in state-controlled companies. It includes workers at SNCF, electricity company EDF, miners and members of parliament. Only 6% of pensions fall under the special regime, which allows beneficiaries to retire after 37.5 years worked, compared with 40 years for other public and private sector employees. The government says the cost to the budget of the special regime will be 5bn euros (£3.48bn) this year. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7049102.stm
Seb Member	Wed Nov 04 08:47:31 xyz1: There is a toss up it is true. This is not a new phenomenon. London has the largest, densest public transport network in the world IIRC, so makes a good model. Buses are fine, but every year the underground railway workers strike much in the way you describe. The difference in bargaining power is due to the higher requirements between being a bus driver and being a train driver (actually, higher percieved requirements: often the unions strike over anything that undermines that perception, such as forcing drivers to work on different lines, claiming specialist training is required for each line in case they miss a signal... kind of like a bus driver insisting he be trained for every route less he jump a red light). Nonetheless, despite the highway robbery, public transport provides enormous economic benefit. This is precisely why the strikes are so damaging. However, there is a route to a strike free future: metro systems can be near fully automated. The problem is with existing systems, any attempt to try and automate, a long and costly programme, is met with immediate striking in the sort and medium term. However, new systems can be built automated from the get-go.
Sarcasm Member	Wed Nov 04 09:23:23 "xyz1 Member Wed Nov 04 08:34:45 Sarcasm, funny you should mention that. ---- Strike disrupts French transport" We have strikes and we also have a fully functioning public service (in most parts of modern Europe). This is simply fact.
Sarcasm Member	Wed Nov 04 09:24:43 Also, we should probably add that the UK has amongst the shittiest PT in Europe and the French are in love with strikes, locking managers in their offices and pelting them with eggs and beheading their leaders.
Aeros Member	Wed Nov 04 09:39:17 When I lived in the middle of nowhere Germany, the Village I was located at had a bus that ran every hour to the Bahnhof. At the Bahnhof, I could hop the local commuter train to the Hauptbahnhof a few miles down the rails. From the Hauptbahnhof I could go anywhere in Europe, or, if I went to the train station at Frankfurt Airport, anywhere in the world. I did not not need a car. For anything. That is public transport, and yes, it works really really good.
Seb Member	Wed Nov 04 09:53:56 Sarcasm: I disagree. France has excellent intercity trains, but by and large my experience in France and other parts of Europe is that it is generally speaking harder to get around locally compared to the UK bus networks. UK bus coverage is generally a lot better in terms of frequency and range, the only bit of the UK public transport that truly sucks is intercity trains.
licker Sports Mod	Wed Nov 04 10:00:12 If you are happy to accept strikes disrupting your ability to travel several times a year then sure, the French model (and apparently other european models are fine, but I can only comment personally on the French model). Point being there is a cultural difference between the US and Europe on tolerance towards striking and need/desire for vehicular freedom. Of course public transport in the western US would never work anyway, and probably true for alot of the midwest as well. On the eastern seaboard, especially the northeast it is more practical, and indeed, more used.
The Powers That Be Member	Wed Nov 04 10:07:30 I encountered traffic this morning related to this on 276. They said the traffic on 76 was one enormous line for miles into center city. And on top of that, there was a train fire on the R5 line that left hundreds of people stranded. Complete craziness.
The Powers That Be Member	Wed Nov 04 10:08:32 The traffic in the Philadelphia area is atrocious on any typical day, but Septa strikes always make it 1000 times worse.
Seb Member	Wed Nov 04 10:21:47 licker: You know public transport isn't "instead" of cars? Striking is a pain in the arse, but it is really a separate issue. Intercity rail public transport for intercity could work on both seaboards, distance between cities is comparable to the European networks. The problem with existing US train networks is, as far as I can see, because they are doing it wrong. Insufficient or inadequate dedicated high speed lines combined with too many local stops. On the "high speed" lines in the US the trains barely average speeds of 80mph according to stats I read last year. Optimal way of doing it is a fast inter city trains connecting to the centre of each city, average distance between stops should be in excess of 60 miles, preferably over 100, combined with local bus networks in each city.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 04 10:26:54 we have been over this. The population density in the US is too small for trains except in a few large cities.
Seb Member	Wed Nov 04 10:47:29 Sam Adams: You were wrong then too. Intercity is not the same as light urban railways. City size, economic activity and relative distance are entirely compatible with European intercity trains.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 04 10:50:57 only in one spot.... Boston-DC, which also hits NYC, PHL, and BWI. every other route in the US favors airplanes
MrBBonz Member	Wed Nov 04 10:54:25 People in the US enjoy being able to take their car wherever they want, whenever they want. There are benefits to both systems, but a country sized system wouldnt work in the US. And I would bet that most cities already have a decent enough system.
Sarcasm Member	Wed Nov 04 11:08:29 "If you are happy to accept strikes disrupting your ability to travel several times a year then sure" man, you are so. full. of. bull. shit. Transport strike once every 30 years or blue moon in most european countries or enormous traffic build ups and hours every day waiting in steamy hot or freezing cars, so uncomfortable that its even created a condition called "road rage" which often is lethal? Yeah, lets see, I don't think we've ever even had a transport strike over here - ever - so, my choice is pretty fucking easy.
Nimatzo Member	Wed Nov 04 11:08:55 That is the dumbest thing, public transportation is mainly an urban issue and the USA certainly doea not lack big metropolitan areas. That is where you build your public transportation, that is wherr EVERYONE builds it, just that in Europe we can go the extra mile and connect cities as well.
Aeros Member	Wed Nov 04 11:58:19 The truck is having high speed inter-city trains, and then each city having its own light rail and bus network.
xyz1 Member	Wed Nov 04 12:07:24 Rail accounts for a miniscule 0.56% of all passenger transportation in the US. IIRC, a recent independent audit determines that Amtrak posts of a net loss of $30 for every passenger that boards a train. It's simply an unsustainable system, and not worth it given the fact that it doesn't even account for anywhere close to 1% of transportation in the country.
xyz1 Member	Wed Nov 04 12:10:54 Sources for my claims: http://en....in_the_United_States#Passenger http://www.businessinsider.com/report-amtrak-loss-comes-to-32-per-passenger-2009-10
Seb Member	Wed Nov 04 12:13:57 xyz1: That is kind of like saying that tractors are shit for farmwork because a mini gets stuck in the mud. The reason Amtrak makes a loss is because it doesn't operate a high speed service. The average speed of one of thier highspeed trains is 80 miles an hour, because of the layout of their network, the frequency of stops, and the state of the track and trains. If it's shit, then people won't use it (they will fly if they need speed, take a greyhound bus if they can't afford to fly, or drive if they want flexibility). People travel by train because it is faster than road (and can often have reduced journey times centre to centre compared to flying) and cheaper or more convenient than flying. Amtrak do not provide a service that meets these requirements, and that is why they can not get the revenue. If you had a network that was actually laid out properly with appropriate track and train, then you would probably get a much higher percentage of passenger transportation. After all, flying sucks as a passenger experience compared to intercity trains european style.
Seb Member	Wed Nov 04 12:17:35 Also, there is plenty of evidence that efficient intercity trains generate passenger hours rather than compete for it. It is not viable to commute from one city to another by plane, car or coach, but it is viable to commute from one city to another by high speed rail.
xyz1 Member	Wed Nov 04 12:24:38 "Amtrak do not provide a service that meets these requirements, and that is why they can not get the revenue." I think you're looking at this from the wrong angle. Acela has the potential to operate at around ~125 MPH; a reform of current government rail speed limitations could increase the train's speed even if no stops were eliminated. Acela is one of the few Amtrak services that makes any money. Even at its current "slow" speed it is making profit. This is not the problem. Unfortunately a large part of the reason Acela is profitable is by price gouging (the average ticket from Philadelphia to Boston is over $200), so they are really cutting down the price advantage in comparison to flight. The main problem is that the Acela "success" really cannot be repeated anywhere else in the country. Acela was done in the Northeast for a reason; that is the densest area of the US, population wise. An Acela clone in any other region wouldn't gain nearly as much traffic and would be unprofitable even with inflated ticket prices.
licker Sports Mod	Wed Nov 04 12:34:33 "Transport strike once every 30 years or blue moon in most european countries or enormous traffic build ups and hours every day waiting in steamy hot or freezing cars, so uncomfortable that its even created a condition called "road rage" which often is lethal? Yeah, lets see, I don't think we've ever even had a transport strike over here - ever - so, my choice is pretty fucking easy. " I am talking about France, where they certainly strike more than once every 30 years. Go fuck yourself retard. "You know public transport isn't "instead" of cars?" Of course, you know that in the western US the population density is tiny and most people are used to driving on open roads without worrying about parking? My only point is that outside of the large cities there is no practical way to make PT effective or efficient currently, and on top of that, no one really wants to pay for it because no one really wants to use it. While I may be all for more PT it's just not going to happen in the Western US, and I would imagine most of the rest of the US outside of the northeastern seaboard. You do realize just how fucking big the US is right? "It is not viable to commute from one city to another by plane, car or coach, but it is viable to commute from one city to another by high speed rail. " Sure, but you still have to change the culture here away from cars. I really do not think you understand exactly what you are asking the US population to do, even if it would be a good thing if they did it.
Seb Member	Wed Nov 04 13:37:42 xyz1: Acela isn't really a high speed service... Operating at 125mph isn't the same, because the train has to start from standstil, accelerate to the operating speed, then decelerate to stop at the next station. The distancce between stops and the time taken for this procedure then gives you the average speed. *average* speed is 80mph whereas the average speed of a TGV is 170 mph. Average means start to stop time divided by distance. Lets put that in perspective for a second: in the sense that matters most, the highest speed passenger train service in the US is LESS THAN HALF that of a "European" one. Even decrepit British intercity rail is faster. Is it any wonder then that you lose almost all of the competetive edge? It has little to do with population density and everything to do with the type of trains, the frequency of stops (you do not want to operate a high speed train with a stop every thirty miles obviously... you never have time to accelerate to the operating speed) and the quality of the line (you can't bomb though an urban area in a train at 350Mph). You guys are totally confusing the economics of a light comuter rail way, which needs relatively high population density with that of intercity trains, which are much more like airports. Indeed, high population density can work against high speed trains. licker: "Of course, you know that in the western US the population density is tiny" City to city doesn't depend on average population density, it depends on local population density separated by long distances. Much like airports... even in the Western US this is plenty high enough (though I concede there is an enormous gap in the western coast... 500miles or so without a stop between california and the next big population centre, which might seriously screw the economics, on the other hand a non-stop trip of 500mph could potentially take only an hour and a half with a TGV style line. San Diego - LA - San Jose - Sacramento... "and most people are used to driving on open roads without worrying about parking?" Twas a time when they were used to horses too... If you look at the TGV figures, passeneger numbers just keep rising... fast trains do not just cater to existing transport demands, they create new demands and new modes of behaviour. "Sure, but you still have to change the culture here away from cars." Not really... if you look up some stats, consider car ownership in France is 45 cars and taxis per square km compared to twenty in the US, and per 1000 capita 430 to 514 (1997 I think). Intercity trains don't really directly compete with cars, and in the sense that they do they are pretty damned good. And they can be combined with a car culture with car wagons. For this you need higher city separation than in most of Europe, which is exactly the situation in the US. It's not asking for a shift in behaviour, rather if you put it in place, people change all by themselves.
Average American Member	Wed Nov 04 13:47:00 Change is dangerous. I want everything to be just like when I was a kid with not a worry in the world.
Average European Member	Wed Nov 04 14:05:48 Change, for it's own sake, is wonderful. I do not want anything to be like it was when I was a kid, I want sharia courts, I don't want to marry/have kids and I want to surrender our national sovereignty to the EU.
Average American Member	Wed Nov 04 14:22:17 You are a filthy traitor. Why, I have half a mind to take you out back and shoot you, ragilover.
licker Sports Mod	Wed Nov 04 14:24:20 "City to city doesn't depend on average population density, it depends on local population density separated by long distances." If you look at california you may get a workable system, but if you include the rocky mountain states I'm pretty sure you'll realize your efficiencies are going to be horrible. The US, especially the western US is a commuter culture based around the individual vehicle. You have to find a way to change this identity, and the 'if you build it they will come' strategy is great, but how the hell do you 'build it' if no one wants to pay for it up front? Also the geography is rather problematic as well, damn those mountains! Europe doesn't have anything remotely close to this kind of an issue, as by comparison the Alps and Pyrenees take up a tiny fraction of the land, and even then (as far as the Pyrenees are concerned) PT is not really an option either. "on the other hand a non-stop trip of 500mph could potentially take only an hour and a half with a TGV style line. " Less for a plane, though the hassle at airports takes some time as well. And of course the connections by air are already well established and require no external infrastructure to maintain as opposed to rail lines through the wilderness. "Twas a time when they were used to horses too..." Not a good analogy. A car is simply an iron horse (though the indians used this term for trains), available to the individual. "Not really... if you look up some stats, consider car ownership in France is 45 cars and taxis per square km compared to twenty in the US, and per 1000 capita 430 to 514 (1997 I think). " I think this highlights my point, more cars per person spread over a greater area. But mostly I live in the mountainous west and understand the car mentality most people have. I actually agree with you though, I'd be ecstatic if PT were more available, and I think TGVs are great, just that I do not see the economic or cultural will to incorporate them in this part of the US. "Intercity trains don't really directly compete with cars, and in the sense that they do they are pretty damned good. And they can be combined with a car culture with car wagons. " Ehh? No, you do not understand car culture then. It's not about driving around downtowns in traffic, it's about the intercity open road freedom aspect. Something missing in europe because, well, the roads are not as open, nor free (talking equivalents to interstates, because if you take surface roads, fuck, you're lucky to average 40km/h).
Seb Member	Wed Nov 04 14:59:16 licker: "The US, especially the western US is a commuter culture based around the individual vehicle." Well it would be, in the absense of any alternative, just as France was prior to the TGV. Car journeys haven't dropped in france as TGV journeys increased... France retains a car culture. Yeah, I wouldn't build a TGV through the rocky mountain states, but eyeballing, I'd say that the northern part has reasonable city sizes and would probably get an economic boost in the long run by greater integration between urban areas. There is a big North/South gap though that would require serious technical details to talk about. "Less for a plane" More of a hastle, generally more costly (though this depends on the length of the line etc.)
licker Sports Mod	Wed Nov 04 15:08:01 "France retains a car culture. " If so, it is far different from the car culture in the US. Highlighted by anytime I talk to friends or family in France about going anywhere they balk if the drive would take more than a couple hours. Here if the drive doesn't take more than a couple hours it's probably not worth going... My brother in law lives ~70km from his parents, yet rarely (relative to what I would do in the same situation) sees them because it's too far to drive (and there's no convenient PT either). 70km is a joke to any westerner in the US, hell I know people who drive 100 miles one way every day for work. Now personally I think that's insane, but that's the culture.
Seb Member	Wed Nov 04 15:08:24 "Not a good analogy." Yeah, but I am not sure yours is either... it's trains v planes, not trains v cars. "I think this highlights my point, more cars per person spread over a greater area." But if your point really held, then the car density in france ought to be compensated for by the trains, and it isn't. The differencce in car ownership isn't that huge, and the density remains high evven though by rights all those people owning cars in high density areas should be traveling far more through public transport. " Something missing in europe because..." I think you are forgetting where the motorway was invented... Germanys Autobahn network is one of the longest per capita in the world (no speed limits nor tolls). Car culture I would have thought is the idea of being able to go where you like when you like. But who in their right mind would prefer to drive 200 miles to a destination at about half the speed of getting their on a train and probably less cost too?
licker Sports Mod	Wed Nov 04 15:10:41 "the density remains high evven though by rights all those people owning cars in high density areas should be traveling far more through public transport." At which point I don't think it's useful to talk just ownership, but rather how much the vehicles are used, and for what purposes. "But who in their right mind would prefer to drive 200 miles to a destination at about half the speed of getting their on a train and probably less cost too? " Many people here would. As I said, the culture is about being in the car and making the trip, not about getting anywhere in particular.
Aeros Member	Wed Nov 04 17:27:39 I live in an area that desperately needs good train service. The North-eastern Corridor from Richmond to Boston is the most densely populated region in the United States. Its even denser then many parts of Europe. The traffic is an abomination. There is no Rush hour here. Just times when traffic is faster then the usual crawl.
Aeros Member	Wed Nov 04 17:28:28 If there were trains that worked like they do in Europe, you can bet people would use them. But there are not. Stop lying with statistics xyz1.
Formerly Fred Member	Wed Nov 04 19:42:36 Philly should be leveled and rebuilt. It's an ancient filthy fucking shit hole and the traffic is always ridiculous.
Camaban Moderator	Wed Nov 04 19:58:03 I live a 10 min drive away from the nearest bus stop. Pisses me off, as my annual car registration costs would pay for my annual bus tickets. Let alone maintenance and petrol.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: