On Feb 7, 2008 6:51 PM, <jon@dakota-truck.net> wrote:
>
> "Andy Levy" <andy.levy@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > If he could hop on a train, it'd be better all around. But even for
> > those shorter trips, we need faster trains to make them viable in most
> > peoples' eyes, because the average speed is still much lower than the
> > interstate.
>
>
> Its too bad, really. Trains have a rather intangible romantic
> quality about them.
Yep, and it's also far more relaxing than having to deal with the
idiots & weather on the Thruway.
To get from here to Schenectady and back costs twice what driving
costs, yet takes the same amount of time. If it was half the price
(equivalent to driving), or twice the speed, I'd give it a lot more
thought.
That doesn't really fit in at this point, but it's a point I should
have made last night.
> I haven't studied this topic at all, but it is my impression that
> trains are pretty great as far as freight goes. In fact, I heard a
> commercial the other day which I guess was intended to attract
> customers to trains, I don't recall the exact details since I was only
> paying half attention, but I *think* they said that they could move a
> ton of cargo 1,000 miles on one gallon of fuel. (The basic jist of
> the commercial was to compare the economy of fright trains to
> automobiles and trucking.) Anyway, I don't know if those figures I
> gave are the correct ones, but whatever they were it was pretty
> impressive.
Per pound per mile, I'm pretty sure that rail is the cheapest, most
efficient way to move stuff. My brother in law would probably know for
sure - he's a train nut. He's gone on train-spotting weekend trips
with friends, intentionally picking a campground that's bordered by a
freight line.
> I've been doing some work in a house near a set of tracks
> that run through WNY between Cleveland and Buffalo, and have been
> surprised at their frequency. There are a LOT of trains going through
> that corridor.
Our house is about a mile or a mile and a half from a rail line, and
although we've pretty much managed to tune them out, we still hear at
least 2 trains per night come through between dinner and bedtime.
Which means there's probably 4 or 5. And several more overnight.
> It would no doubt take a considerable
> infrastructure investment (privately funded, please!) :-) to be able
> to handle those kinds of trains here, but its interesting to think
> about.
Although private funding is a nice idea, you'd at least need *some*
gov't involvement. Personally, I think the medians and right-of-ways
along our interstate highways are ideal places to start building -
they're relatively straight & level (much of the heavy earth-moving is
already done), they're *already* noisy, and the space is already
"used." To do that, you'd have to have the gov't involved at some
level.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 02 2008 - 02:10:10 EST