Its time to make our voices heard

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

I have decided the time has come for us to all band together to explain to our elected representatives how important rail is in our national transportation system. We need to explain how Amtrak and the freight railroads are part of a massive logistics network that connects people and goods within America and the world and should no longer be neglected.

I know we have NARP and other groups that attempt to advocate passenger rail, but they seem to miss a lot of the points, especially the fact that its all about connectivity. I want to create a letter and mail it to all members of congress and the senate as well as others at the federal level and my state and local representatives.

Major points I want to make include:

All transportation is subsidized.

Cars aren't efficient for long trips and highways are heavily subsidized through the general tax fund.

Fuel taxes don't cover highway costs.

Air is subsidized through the FAA, Federally funded air traffic control and that airports are built and maintained by state and local governments.

The importance of Commuter and Light Rail to tie the suburbs to the big cities.

The importance of long distance trains as a back bone for a modern American rail system.

Regional rail should come first and highspeed rail be born from that base.

California and the Northeast are ready for true highspeed rail, the rest of the nation is not.

The Chicago Hub and the Pacific Northwest are becoming the next two regions to need High-speed Rail.

Amtrak as a system can't be profitable, however individual trains can be.

A long term funding system needs to be established for passenger rail and an agency needs to be created to oversee distribution of funds, similar to the Federal Highway Administration which is part of the Federal DOT..

A smart transportation network can be created by properly investing in all modes of transportation where they make the most sense.

All modes need to be used where they are strongest:

*Air for fast cross country and international travel

*Long Distance rail for overnight trips,

*Regional Rail for trips in the 100-500 mi range,

*High-speed rail where Regional Rail is well established and demand for higher speeds exist

*Commuter and Light Rail for connecting suburbs to city centers,

*Cars for trips less than 100mi and for trip continuation from other modes,

*Buses for intra-city transit and low-volume routes,

*Freight Rail for high volume, long distance freight transportation,

*Trucks for initial pick up and final delivery, short distance, and low volume freight transportation.

Rail is the only mode of transportation currently capable of being fully electric.

Electric trains can run on electricity made from renewable energy and fuel sources that are abundant in the US.

In the end its all about making a modern, sustainable transportation network that is better for the environment, reduces dependance on foreign oil and connects the dots to boost the US economy for decades to come.

I need your ideas and help to create this letter. I need to know if I've left out any pertinent points.

The time has come for US as railfans and rail transportation advocates to make our voices heard. We spend too much time talking about paint schemes, train consists and the glory days of railroading when we should be doing what we can to ensure passenger rail is still around and relevant. If we let Amtrak disappear because of our inaction we will only have memories to talk about.

 

[TransitGeek]

Rail is the only mode of transportation currently capable of being fully electric.

This electric trolley-bus in downtown San Francisco says otherwise. So does her articulated sister from Vancouver, BC, along with their BRT cousin in Boston. Also, they wanted to show you their great grand-aunt, an electric trolley-boat who immigrated from Germany.

(In North America alone, electric trolleybuses are also in use in Philadelphia, Seattle and Dayton, OH. They are also a common sight in Europe, Latin America and mainland China, with a few scattered systems elsewhere.)

 

[BobWeaver]

Electric trains can run on electricity made from renewable energy and fuel sources that are abundant in the US.

This is a common misconception. No matter how electricity is produced, it all gets pumped into the same grid and distributed over a large area, unable to be tracked by production method. Unless Amtrak gets into the business of renewable energy (likely story), chances are, the vast majority of those electric trains will be powered by fossil fuels or nuclear power pulled from the grid. Be careful in your confidence in our electric grid to handle a large integrated electric train system too. The system is old, outdated technologically, short on excess capacity, sometimes has problems reliably handling our current energy needs (remember the 2003 blackout?), and isn't optimized for renewable (primarily wind) energy.

I need to know if I've left out any pertinent points.

Yea, how you propose for such a system to be paid for.

The reality is that rail is still on the back burner for many of our public leaders in much of the nation, and rightfully so. Our municipalities and states are extremely cash-strapped currently, and rail initiatives simply aren't on the minds of elected officials. The states alone face a combined budget deficit of an estimated $175 billion in the next 2 to 3 years, and officials are left with no choice but to cut deeply into big programs such as K-12/higher education, medicare, and, you guessed it, transportation spending. What makes you think a train network is immune to any of this?

I don't disagree with any of your posted points. In fact, I agree with most of them. But because we don't live in a bubble, you must keep in mind everything else that is going on in the nation financially. There is absolutely no way those in Congress, or the taxpayers for that matter, would vote in favor of such a large public project at the current time.

 

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

Electric trains can run on electricity made from renewable energy and fuel sources that are abundant in the US.

This is a common misconception. No matter how electricity is produced, it all gets pumped into the same grid and distributed over a large area, unable to be tracked by production method. Unless Amtrak gets into the business of renewable energy (likely story), chances are, the vast majority of those electric trains will be powered by fossil fuels or nuclear power. Be careful in your confidence in our electric grid to handle a large integrated electric train system too. The system is old, outdated technologically, short on excess capacity, sometimes has problems reliably handling our current energy needs (remember the 2003 blackout?), and isn't optimized for renewable (primarily wind) energy.

I need to know if I've left out any pertinent points.

Yea, how you propose for such a system to be paid for.

The reality is that rail is still on the back burner for many of our public leaders in much of the nation, and rightfully so. Our municipalities and states are extremely cash-strapped currently, and rail initiatives simply aren't on the minds of elected officials. The states alone face a combined budget deficit of an estimated $175 billion in the next 2 to 3 years, and officials are left with no choice but to cut deeply into big programs such as K-12/higher education, medicare, and, you guessed it, transportation spending. What makes you think a train network is immune to any of this?

I don't disagree with any of your posted points. In fact, I agree with most of them. But because we don't live in a bubble, you must keep in mind everything else that is going on in the nation financially. There is absolutely no way those in Congress, or the taxpayers for that matter, would vote in favor of such a large public project at the current time.

I'm indifferent to where the electricity comes from as long as the fuel source doesn't have to be imported. Actually nuclear and coal are our best bets. Nuclear is clean and a lot safer than is publicized in the media. Coal can be burned in power plants and the soot and harmful toxins cleaned from the exhaust.

As far as electric infrastructure you can kill two birds with one stone and use the same structures to carry catenary and high voltage power lines. This is already done on portions of the NEC. Our electrical system needs to be improved as well. Combining railroad electrification and electricity distribution into one project would be a good investment.

The money saved on highway and airport construction and maintenance would more than cover the investment in rail. Amtrak covers nearly 80% of its operations and rail is cheaper to build than interstate lanes. So if 80% coverage of operating expenses is maintained you will save money versus the 100% loss on highway and air infrastructure.

Its all about balancing the playing field, rail has been neglected while aviation and roads have been heavily invested in. If only a small portion is shifted to rail more will be accomplished. We all know rail has natural efficiencies that air and road transportation don't.

 

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

Rail is the only mode of transportation currently capable of being fully electric.

This electric trolley-bus in downtown San Francisco says otherwise. So does her articulated sister from Vancouver, BC, along with their BRT cousin in Boston. Also, they wanted to show you their great grand-aunt, an electric trolley-boat who immigrated from Germany.

(In North America alone, electric trolleybuses are also in use in Philadelphia, Seattle and Dayton, OH. They are also a common sight in Europe, Latin America and mainland China, with a few scattered systems elsewhere.)

I was referring more to intercity travel. Yes there are electric buses, trams, etc. but they all to my knowledge operate within the confines of a city. I'm sure it would be possible to run catenary down highways and have electric intercity buses, but this has never been done. You could possibly even devise a way to electrify the interstates and develop cars with electric pickups. Of course batteries or a standard gasoline engine would be required when you left the electrified portion.

 

[BobWeaver]

I'm indifferent to where the electricity comes from as long as the fuel source doesn't have to be imported. Actually nuclear and coal are our best bets. Nuclear is clean and a lot safer than is publicized in the media. Coal can be burned in power plants and the soot and harmful toxins cleaned from the exhaust.

Well I'm glad that someone other than me finally knows this. Thanks for all you do, media. <bangs head against wall>

The money saved on highway and airport construction and maintenance would more than cover the investment in rail. Amtrak covers nearly 80% of its operations and rail is cheaper to build than interstate lanes. So if 80% coverage of operating expenses is maintained you will save money versus the 100% loss on highway and air infrastructure.

Amtrak covers just over 70% of its operating costs. The goal is 80%.

Air infrastructure is not a 100% loss by any means. While much of the initial upfront cost is indeed federally funded, the state and local governments chip in too. Also, the 7.5% excise tax on airfare goes right into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, as does the $3.70 segment tax. A passenger facility charge (PFC) is also included, and goes towards funding airport projects and maintenance, among other things. Airports also generate huge amounts of revenue for their areas. Atlanta Hartsfield Jackson International generates upwards of $30 billion annually for the metro Atlanta area. Not a 100% loss by any means, is it?

Its all about balancing the playing field, rail has been neglected while aviation and roads have been heavily invested in.

And rightfully so. Have you looked at the BTS's statistics lately? In 2008, our nation's air carriers generated 583,506,000 passenger miles and passenger cars generated 2,553,043,000 passenger miles. Amtrak generated 6,179,000. Why wouldn't highway and air get more investment with numbers like that? I'm all for the idea of expanded and modernized rail in the US, but one simply cannot ignore the real passenger mile generators in our transportation network, and certainly cannot reduce their funding. Last time I checked, our highways aren't gleaming, well-maintained technological masterpieces either. After all, 71,000+ of our roadway bridges are structurally deficient. Don't be so fast to create a pity party for rail.

Bottom line: all modes are strained, and all modes need (additional) funding for modernization and expansion. Trains are not the sole answer to our logistical problems. Why can't anyone on this board seem to understand that?

 

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

The money saved on highway and airport construction and maintenance would more than cover the investment in rail. Amtrak covers nearly 80% of its operations and rail is cheaper to build than interstate lanes. So if 80% coverage of operating expenses is maintained you will save money versus the 100% loss on highway and air infrastructure.

Amtrak covers just over 70% of its operating costs. The goal is 80%.

Air infrastructure is not a 100% loss by any means. While much of the initial upfront cost is indeed federally funded, the state and local governments chip in too. Also, the 7.5% excise tax on airfare goes right into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, as does the $3.70 segment tax. A passenger facility charge (PFC) is also included, and goes towards funding airport projects and maintenance, among other things. Airports also generate huge amounts of revenue for their areas. Atlanta Hartsfield Jackson International generates upwards of $30 billion annually for the metro Atlanta area. Not a 100% loss by any means, is it?

I'm sure there are airports out there that cover their cost and a few that make a profit. Just like some Amtrak trains cover their costs and the Acela which turns a profit. There are thousands of municipal airports that don't. Here in Tuscaloosa our airport doesn't even offer commercial flights, I seriously doubt the police and medical helicopters and the few local pilots cover its cost.

The Atlanta airport has loads of retail and restaurants that subsidize it. Is the $30 billion actual money or economic benefit? If more Amtrak stations had retail spaces and restaurants they would be self sustaining for whoever or whatever owns that particular one.

Its all about balancing the playing field, rail has been neglected while aviation and roads have been heavily invested in.

And rightfully so. Have you looked at the BTS's statistics lately? In 2008, our nation's air carriers generated 583,506,000 passenger miles and passenger cars generated 2,553,043,000 passenger miles. Amtrak generated 6,179,000. Why wouldn't highway and air get more investment with numbers like that? I'm all for the idea of expanded and modernized rail in the US, but one simply cannot ignore the real passenger mile generators in our transportation network, and certainly cannot reduce their funding. After all, 71,000+ of our roadway bridges are structurally deficient. Don't be so fast to create a pity party for rail.

Bottom line: all modes are strained, and all modes need (additional) funding for modernization and expansion. Trains are not the sole answer to our logistical problems. Why can't anyone on this board seem to understand that?

Of course highway and air would still get the majority of funding, and of course air and road are strained. A large part of this strain is from picking up the slack that should be carried by rail. We have a problem that was created decades ago by marginalizing a major transportation system. When you starve one mode the others have to work harder.

The interstates are in terrible shape, they are doing something they were never designed to do. They were intended to be supplement the state and local highways, not replace them, killing the small towns along those highways in the process. They had the same effect the railroads did when they were first built, they replaced the canals and wagon routes and all the development moved in to surround them. Railroads shouldn't have replaced canals then and highways shouldn't have replaced rail, each mode has its place. We can't put everything on one mode. We need inland waterways, railroads, highways and air travel, they need to work as one unified transportation system.

Something that should be done that everyone pitches a fit about is to raise taxes. We expect the government to provide more than we pay for in taxes, we either have to expect less or pay more.

 

[BobWeaver]

I'm sure there are airports out there that cover their cost and a few that make a profit. Just like some Amtrak trains cover their costs and the Acela which turns a profit. There are thousands of municipal airports that don't. Here in Tuscaloosa our airport doesn't even offer commercial flights, I seriously doubt the police and medical helicopters and the few local pilots cover its cost.

A municipal airport's job isn't to turn a profit. That idea is fundamentally flawed. TCL had an economic impact of $16 million in 2003, and I would imagine it has increased since then. Do not underestimate the value of your local municipal airport - believe it or not, they do have a major impact on your local and state economy, even ones without commercial service. TCL has a control tower after all - they don't just put those things up for the heck of it. There's evidently enough traffic to justify one.

The Atlanta airport has loads of retail and restaurants that subsidize it. Is the $30 billion actual money or economic benefit? If more Amtrak stations had retail spaces and restaurants they would be self sustaining for whoever or whatever owns that particular one.

The retail and restaurants subsidize...what, exactly? Sure, they pay a rental fee for their space, but then again would you want to travel through the world's busiest airport and not have a restaurant or newspaper shop to stop by between flights? While the government does collect tax revenue off of their sales, I think it's rather far-fetched to say that the shops in an airport subsidize it completely. When McDonald's sells a hamburger in Atlanta airport, the money goes to McDonald's like any other location, not the airport. Same goes for retail space in an Amtrak station - the business would collect sales revenue from its store, not Amtrak!

The ATL $30+ billion figure I referenced is the airport's direct revenue ($32,580,000,000 for 2009). Indirect and induced revenues elevate that to the neighborhood of $58.2 billion.

Of course highway and air would still get the majority of funding, and of course air and road are strained. A large part of this strain is from picking up the slack that should be carried by rail. We have a problem that was created decades ago by marginalizing a major transportation system. When you starve one mode the others have to work harder.

The interstates are in terrible shape, they are doing something they were never designed to do. They were intended to be supplement the state and local highways, not replace them, killing the small towns along those highways in the process. They had the same effect the railroads did when they were first built, they replaced the canals and wagon routes and all the development moved in to surround them. Railroads shouldn't have replaced canals then and highways shouldn't have replaced rail, each mode has its place. We can't put everything on one mode. We need inland waterways, railroads, highways and air travel, they need to work as one unified transportation system.

Something that should be done that everyone pitches a fit about is to raise taxes. We expect the government to provide more than we pay for in taxes, we either have to expect less or pay more.

I agree. But remember, raising taxes now would likely have grave effects on the still-fragile economy, especially when unemployment is still currently at 9% and when companies are still reluctant to increase production and hire workers. Raising taxes is a dangerous game, and will only come when our economy is back on two feet. It's interesting you said that. Do you agree with Florida Governor Rick Scott in his decision to reject high speed rail funds because "government cannot spend more than it takes in." and because of the likelihood of cost overruns?

 

[Spokker]

I'd like to see cuts in education. You can gut top-heavy school districts and schools with three vice principals and never touch a teacher. I'm more familiar with the CSU and UC systems and you can fire half of the administrators and university bureaucrats and nobody would notice.

 

[tp49]

I'd like to see cuts in education. You can gut top-heavy school districts and schools with three vice principals and never touch a teacher. I'm more familiar with the CSU and UC systems and you can fire half of the administrators and university bureaucrats and nobody would notice.

I agree and the same can be said for public school districts where consolidation would reduce the glut of $200k/year plus administrators. Schools don't need more money they need to more efficiently use their resources.

-----------

I'm now going to play devil's advocate and suggest that the most efficient rail network would be one that is more regionalized between major population centers as is the NEC. I don't view the long distance network per se as being all that efficient for "overnight" trips as I can fly or drive most of those distances far faster than the train can take me there.

I like trains as much as the next person but I think when it comes to a national rail network and comparisons to Europe and Japan is the distance between population centers. Those systems are more efficient because the cities served are closer together than those served by the LD's. However, the way I feel on this is definitely the minority position on the boards.

 

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

I agree. But remember, raising taxes now would likely have grave effects on the still-fragile economy, especially when unemployment is still currently at 9% and when companies are still reluctant to increase production and hire workers. Raising taxes is a dangerous game, and will only come when our economy is back on two feet. It's interesting you said that. Do you agree with Florida Governor Rick Scott in his decision to reject high speed rail funds because "government cannot spend more than it takes in." and because of the likelihood of cost overruns?

I agree with the canceling of the Florida High-speed rail because of the design of the system. The Florida system was too short to be anything more than a commuter train. I however don't think the money should have been returned. They should have altered the plans to create an electrified heavy rail commuter system and connected the Tampa Amtrak station as well as the Airport and the Orlando Amtrak station as well as the Orlando Airport and left the stops in between as they were.

As the system was planned several public entities expressed interest in building it and accepting any cost overruns. He should have waited to see their proposals. What's done is done, I hope every penny goes to California. I think as of now it has the best chance of succeeding.

 

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

I'd like to see cuts in education. You can gut top-heavy school districts and schools with three vice principals and never touch a teacher. I'm more familiar with the CSU and UC systems and you can fire half of the administrators and university bureaucrats and nobody would notice.

I agree and the same can be said for public school districts where consolidation would reduce the glut of $200k/year plus administrators. Schools don't need more money they need to more efficiently use their resources.

-----------

I'm now going to play devil's advocate and suggest that the most efficient rail network would be one that is more regionalized between major population centers as is the NEC. I don't view the long distance network per se as being all that efficient for "overnight" trips as I can fly or drive most of those distances far faster than the train can take me there.

I like trains as much as the next person but I think when it comes to a national rail network and comparisons to Europe and Japan is the distance between population centers. Those systems are more efficient because the cities served are closer together than those served by the LD's. However, the way I feel on this is definitely the minority position on the boards.

The LD's would be the backbone, but the Regionals would be the bread and butter. The LD's should essential make the frame work for the regionals with the regionals running along the LD route making more stops. They would ideally run in sections along the routes, most LD routes have 2 or more major cities en-route. These cities would make up division points for the regionals. Each division would have its own separate regional service as well as regional trains radiating out to create spokes and should connect to other major cites along other LD routes. This would create a web of routes serving all medium sized cites. As the regionals are started the track would need to be improved to reduce running times which would benefit the LD's.

As far as Government cuts, Medicare and Medicaid need to be restructured to eliminate abuse. I work in a hospital ER, we have several "regulars" that come in 4-5 times a week with the same minor complaint. 9 times out of 10 they are perfectly fine and don't need treatment, but due to the current legal structure we have to treat anyone who checks in. Every one of them has some form of government insurance whether it is Medicare, Medicaid, or Tricare. Some even come on an ambulance every time. Then there are those who rather come to us for sniffles and stubbed toes rather than go to a regular doctor. All of these people drive the cost of Medicare and Medicaid through the roof. I know if its happening here its happening everywhere. Something needs to be done to ensure those who truly need help can get it and stop people from abusing the system.

I also agree with cutting the number education administrators and their salaries. A superintendent of a small school system in rural Alabama shouldn't make over $120,000 a year, a doesn't need 4 assistants who make as much or more than the teachers.

 

[Ryan]

I'm indifferent to where the electricity comes from as long as the fuel source doesn't have to be imported. Actually nuclear and coal are our best bets. Nuclear is clean and a lot safer than is publicized in the media. Coal can be burned in power plants and the soot and harmful toxins cleaned from the exhaust.

Well I'm glad that someone other than me finally knows this. Thanks for all you do, media. <bangs head against wall>

What exactly are you talking about - it isn't some big secret. The point from the OP was that trains CAN be "run on electricity made from renewable energy and fuel sources that are abundant in the US". If all of our electricity was generated domestically, this would be a true statement.

Bottom line: all modes are strained, and all modes need (additional) funding for modernization and expansion. Trains are not the sole answer to our logistical problems. Why can't anyone on this board seem to understand that?

I don't see anyone on here saying that trains are the only answer. The OP that you are responding to specifically states that each mode of transportation has its place in society. Why rail against something that doesn't exist?

 

[BobWeaver]

I'm indifferent to where the electricity comes from as long as the fuel source doesn't have to be imported. Actually nuclear and coal are our best bets. Nuclear is clean and a lot safer than is publicized in the media. Coal can be burned in power plants and the soot and harmful toxins cleaned from the exhaust.

Well I'm glad that someone other than me finally knows this. Thanks for all you do, media. <bangs head against wall>

What exactly are you talking about - it isn't some big secret. The point from the OP was that trains CAN be "run on electricity made from renewable energy and fuel sources that are abundant in the US". If all of our electricity was generated domestically, this would be a true statement.

I was making a more general statement about what opinions many of our citizens have about electrical generation methods simply because of what they read and see on TV. That is, nuclear power is bad because every single nuclear plant is dangerous, is a Chernobyl waiting to happen, and radioactive waste is killing us all, while coal is bad because it pollutes the air with so many particulates and carbon, blah blah blah. It was just nice to see somebody that can see the truth through the muck, that's all. We produce the vast majority of our electricity domestically, with the other part being imported from Canada, as we are connected to the same grid.

Bottom line: all modes are strained, and all modes need (additional) funding for modernization and expansion. Trains are not the sole answer to our logistical problems. Why can't anyone on this board seem to understand that?

I don't see anyone on here saying that trains are the only answer. The OP that you are responding to specifically states that each mode of transportation has its place in society. Why rail against something that doesn't exist?

In the past, it has seemed that many on this board lean towards wanting to simply pull/decrease highway and airport funding for the sake of enlarging the proportion of rail's, and fail to realize the necessity of a large-scale intermodal system, a system where all methods of transit are important. It wasn't directed at the OP by any means, rather it's just something I have noticed over the past few years. I am all for rail expansion, but decreasing the funding that goes towards airport and highway expansion/maintenance just so a few trains can come online a move a few hundred people per day is unrealistic, given its heavy use and existing capacity and upkeep woes.

I'm now going to play devil's advocate and suggest that the most efficient rail network would be one that is more regionalized between major population centers as is the NEC. I don't view the long distance network per se as being all that efficient for "overnight" trips as I can fly or drive most of those distances far faster than the train can take me there.

I like trains as much as the next person but I think when it comes to a national rail network and comparisons to Europe and Japan is the distance between population centers. Those systems are more efficient because the cities served are closer together than those served by the LD's. However, the way I feel on this is definitely the minority position on the boards.

The LD's would be the backbone, but the Regionals would be the bread and butter. The LD's should essential make the frame work for the regionals with the regionals running along the LD route making more stops. They would ideally run in sections along the routes, most LD routes have 2 or more major cities en-route. These cities would make up division points for the regionals. Each division would have its own separate regional service as well as regional trains radiating out to create spokes and should connect to other major cites along other LD routes. This would create a web of routes serving all medium sized cites. As the regionals are started the track would need to be improved to reduce running times which would benefit the LD's.

Well said, both of you. This is the message that I was attempting to convey in the novel I wrote on page 2 of the "No Florida High Speed Rail" thread in the High Speed Rail forum, but perhaps it didn't come across as well as I had hoped.

Let's not misuse the term "efficient." I'm not sure what metric you're using (time?), but many of the LD trains are major money-makers for Amtrak, and every single one posted higher revenue in December FY11 versus December FY10, with most posting higher ridership levels as well. Obviously there's a market for those trains. The Lynchburg Regional extension also posted higher numbers in both categories, which is good because I believe that this train is a model for the type of service that needs to be implemented in the present time. That is, let's get the trains rolling at current speeds (and at a much lower cost), and then work on service improvements incrementally, much like NCDOT has done. I personally cannot wait for the new Norfolk service to come online...I think there's great potential there. A train network's efficiency can definitely still be maintained with larger lengths between major population centers, though. It's all relative.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

Rail is the only mode of transportation currently capable of being fully electric.

Oh really?

 

[Ryan]

Rail is the only mode of transportation currently capable of being fully electric.

Oh really?

Rail is the only mode of transportation currently capable of being fully electric.

This electric trolley-bus in downtown San Francisco says otherwise. So does her articulated sister from Vancouver, BC, along with their BRT cousin in Boston. Also, they wanted to show you their great grand-aunt, an electric trolley-boat who immigrated from Germany.

(In North America alone, electric trolleybuses are also in use in Philadelphia, Seattle and Dayton, OH. They are also a common sight in Europe, Latin America and mainland China, with a few scattered systems elsewhere.)

I was referring more to intercity travel. Yes there are electric buses, trams, etc. but they all to my knowledge operate within the confines of a city. I'm sure it would be possible to run catenary down highways and have electric intercity buses, but this has never been done. You could possibly even devise a way to electrify the interstates and develop cars with electric pickups. Of course batteries or a standard gasoline engine would be required when you left the electrified portion.

Those would have to be two cities pretty close together.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

It's basically Philly to NYC or Philly to Baltimore or Philly to Harrisburg.

I just had a Chevrolet Volt to review for a week. EVs are the future even if they use a little gas sometimes.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Rail is the only mode of transportation currently capable of being fully electric.

Oh really?

Yes, really. The Nissan Leaf is a toy for short distance commuters and stay-at-home-moms and grandmoms who drive only to the supermarket and back. Its range is not acceptable for a car being used as a primary transportation device.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

Rail is the only mode of transportation currently capable of being fully electric.

Oh really?

Yes, really. The Nissan Leaf is a toy for short distance commuters and stay-at-home-moms and grandmoms who drive only to the supermarket and back. Its range is not acceptable for a car being used as a primary transportation device.

The Leaf, the Volt, the coming Focus Electric are all version 1.0 of electric vehicles (the EV-1 was a Beta 0.5) Version 2.0 will be around in 3 to 5 years. I'm no fan of the Leaf, but 100 miles of range is enough for many people day to day.

Nearly every major manufacturer, and some small time ones, will be introducing EVs in that time frame. Don't put "Trains are the only transportation method that can be all electric" in your letters because despite the range limitations of the version 1.0 vehicles, for better or for worse; electric cars are already on the minds of lawmakers. It reduces the credibility of your letter when the CEO of (Toyota/General Motors/Ford/Volvo/BMW/Mitsubishi/Fisker/Tesla/Mercedes) is waiting on line 2 to invite the good Senator down for a test drive of a new electric car the next time he/she is back in the state.

 

[Ryan]

That's really great. At some point in the future when electric ONLY cars are actually viable, that statement will change. But for the foreseeable future, that ain't going to change.

 

[Ozark Southern]

I'd like to see cuts in education. You can gut top-heavy school districts and schools with three vice principals and never touch a teacher. I'm more familiar with the CSU and UC systems and you can fire half of the administrators and university bureaucrats and nobody would notice.

I agree and the same can be said for public school districts where consolidation would reduce the glut of $200k/year plus administrators. Schools don't need more money they need to more efficiently use their resources.

As a former teacher, I completely agree. The district I taught for had exactly four administrators: one principal for each building (elem., MS, HS) and one superintendent. No assistants, no vice-anythings. Just one person in charge of a couple dozen teachers, who were in turn in charge of a couple dozen students each. The pay was reasonable, too. $85K for each principal, $95K for the superintendent. Considering that they often worked 16-hour days, I think they definitely earned every penny. If only every district were this efficient.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

That's really great. At some point in the future when electric ONLY cars are actually viable, that statement will change. But for the foreseeable future, that ain't going to change.

Hey, I'm all in favor of MORE long distance rail travel. I'm just offering a way to make your letter look more credible.

Who is the Senator going to believe: Some quack writing to him for more Amtrak funding saying there's no such thing as an electric car or the auto manufacturer CEO dropping $5,000 into his re-election fund and driving him to a campaign stop in an electric car?

Write. To. Your. Audience. and for god sake at least acknowledge the percieved reality.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The Leaf, the Volt, the coming Focus Electric are all version 1.0 of electric vehicles (the EV-1 was a Beta 0.5) Version 2.0 will be around in 3 to 5 years. I'm no fan of the Leaf, but 100 miles of range is enough for many people day to day.

Nearly every major manufacturer, and some small time ones, will be introducing EVs in that time frame. Don't put "Trains are the only transportation method that can be all electric" in your letters because despite the range limitations of the version 1.0 vehicles, for better or for worse; electric cars are already on the minds of lawmakers. It reduces the credibility of your letter when the CEO of (Toyota/General Motors/Ford/Volvo/BMW/Mitsubishi/Fisker/Tesla/Mercedes) is waiting on line 2 to invite the good Senator down for a test drive of a new electric car the next time he/she is back in the state.

For the past 20 years, we as a nation have survived on batteries. Batteries for our laptops, wristwatches, remote controls, cellular telephones, video cameras, digital cameras, and so on ad infinitum. Forget all the crap about big oil stifiling development of battery technologies. A wide variety of companies have strived for several decades to make a battery that weighed next to nothing, and contained enough juice to power, say, an iPhone for 8-10 hours of continuos use, reliably, with a lot of charge cycles, at low cost.

In that time, the best we have managed to attain is the Lithium Ion battery in terms of realistic commercial use. Which has substantial drawbacks, not the least of which is its ability to develop internal damage that will cause it to ignite.

Forget cars. They don't matter. The Greeks, the Incans, and the Italians all had working batteries before Christ was born. That, incase you didn't know, was over 2000 years ago. For the past 150 years, since electricity became a major part of society, we have been dedicating a sizable amount of our resources to the construction of cheap, simple, light, and effective portable electricity provision systems.

If you think we are going to make a great leap forward because we just started working en masse towards the use of such systems in purpose of transportation, think again. Battery electric cars have been around for over a hundred years, and we have been working on development of them on and off since. The EV1 was not, by any means, the first modern electric.

Electric storage may be part of the future of cars, but I personally doubt it. I tend to think in terms of minor capacitor use combined with constant consumption drive-electric systems- diesel turbines powering electric motors. But in any case, your fallacious thinking that the cars are going to leap and bound improvements because we "just started working on them" is false... because we haven't.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

Thank you for a long, thoughtful, and accurate post that misses my point entirely. I agree that EV cars are not a real substitute for higher speed rail.

I'm arguing about the perception surrounding EVs that the legislators and senators have. Make the argument that EV cars aren't a replacement for efficient rail... but don't make the argument that EV cars don't exist and more aren't coming because you'll be viewed as a quack. Our congress critters aren't always the brightest bulbs on the tree, they usually believe whoever is writing the check to their campaign.