Ready to develop passenger rail yet?
Posted by: Noël Jones
In an article by Laurie Segall of CNNMoney.com today, John Hofmeister, the former president of Shell Oil, predicts that gas prices at the pump will hit $5/gal by 2012. Later in the article, the chief oil analyst for Oil Price Information Service, Tom Kloza, says gas prices will not hit the $5/gal mark that soon, but definitely within the next decade.
"That wolf is out there and it's going to be at the door...I agree with him that we'll see those numbers at some point this decade but not yet." Kloza said.
So the word from two experts in the field gives us a range of 1 - 10 years--a window in which we will definitely be hitting $5/gallon. Considering it can take 3-10 years to build a passenger rail system, shouldn't this be a wake-up call for everyone to get on board (so to speak) with the idea of developing rail service so that commuters in the not-to-distant future will have an option to driving everywhere and paying $5/gallon and up for gas?
Posts
13 comments:
Compared to other countries,gas would still be cheap here.We are using 50 or 60 percent less gas than we did in the 70's with those gas guzzers.so I guess by raising prices they R trying to have the same icome to help with the lower demand.With the advent of hybrids,and electric we may use even less fuel........I love U NOEL........tunsie
I am sorry sweetheart but these two men who R friends of el harass me.because they dont like it that I dont run after that woman anymore...I woll make my comments in person when I am fortunate 2 see u......I love U noel....tunsie
Soooo...
Is this proposed rail service going to take me from my house to my place of business?
depends on how developed it is, and where you work. for instance, someone who lived in downtown easton and worked in downtown bethlehem or allentown could take the train and walk to work. same with someone who lives in easton but works in manhattan. or philly...
tunsie--according to the article, the demand is growing in other developing countries, putting a stress on the demand and driving prices up...
Then it'll be like a big fat broadband internet pipe financed in part by my taxes but basically for the use of urban dwellers?
But an actual broadband pipe paid for by the people who will use it is unfair and has to be extended to everyone... again in part by my tax dollars?
At least one thing is consistent, my tax dollars at work! (Sorry couldn't resist!)
studies are showing that they can't make a profit on rail. not enough people can actually use rail to get to work. amtrak has been bleeding trillions of dollars forever.
until you force everyone to live in Jetson-style compartmentalized housing, rail is not practical. the northeast corridor is too crowded, too varied to set up lines that benefit/can be used by, enough people to make it feasible.
so what if gas is $5/gal? you cut back somewhere else, you car pool, you get a more efficient car, combine trips, less recreational driving. spending billions on rail so a small percentage of people can get to work is not the answer.
those people who work in NYC would be better served to LIVE in NYC.
BTW, I really don't understand this Tunsie character; WTF is he talking about?
Wayne, tunsie, thanks for posting with your names--much easier to follow the conversation that way.
tunsie, thanks for posting, but please keep comments on topic so that it doesn't confuse the thread and save the personal stuff for in-person conversations--thanks!
Wayne--it depends on how much rail development there is--there is no reason that smaller arteries of track would not connect from rural or suburban communities to the main tracks between urban areas, and even without that much development, people in rural and suburban communities could park and ride at various points along the line. your tax money would also be creating thousands of jobs to build the system, and stimulating economic development along the line, as businesses would be attracted to open at various hubs and end points along any of the tracks. yes, it's expensive, but it would also be a true investment in and stimulus to our economy. i'm ok with my tax money being used for something that is going to create jobs, spur economic development, give people a cheaper, less stressful commute to work and reduce our carbon emissions. the pay off is worth it. we need to face the fact that the U.S.'s butt is getting kicked where passenger rail is concerned--Asian and European countries are all way ahead of us as a developed nation in terms of passenger rail. our tax dollars pay for roads too--do you object to that? in my mind developing passenger rail is every bit as important as repairing forever crumbling roads and highways again and again will billions of our tax dollars.
Anon 7:55--please consider signing in with either your name, or a moniker, as there are bound to be other Anons who join this conversation and then its hard to know which comments should be attributed to one voice.
Amtrak has struggled in part due to the cheap gas that has been available for decades, but those days will be over soon. why should we continue to pour billions into crumbling roads and highways rather than into rail, which needs less repair over time and cuts down drastically on carbon emissions--not to mention giving people the opportunity to read, work on their laptops, or sleep on their commutes, rather than stressing daily in traffic jams and getting into accidents? rail is safer, cleaner, cheaper and needs less repair. it will be expensive in the initial investment, but less expensive to maintain than using our tax dollars to pay road crews to repave the same sections of road on our massive highway system every few years. the fares could also be structured to pay off the investment over time.
That comment that not enough people can use or would use rail is a lie based on based on a fake study. Stop repeating it.
its only labeled a lie based on your particular POV. so you can deny it or show your proof otherwise.
regardless, there are WAY too many hurdles to cross to get this pie in the sky deal going; hell, they can't even figure out how to extend a line from high bridge to p'burg!
they can't build such massive infrastructure like this anymore. there are way too many studies required, years of design and consulting, buying property right of ways,etc etc etc.
if rail was such a great idea, it WOULD STILL BE HERE! but peoples lifestyles and habits have changed. if trains could still be profitable, there would still be two train stations downtown! but ridership fell off and the trains stopped.
180degrees from us, the LIRR has thrived because people use it. but it never went away, it was always being used, compared to the rail line here which dropped in popularity.
you could not build the LIRR from scratch today.
but sure, go dump trillions of dollars you DON'T have into a dream project, it'll create lots of opportunity for lots of people to make lots of money, until its canceled because they ran out of money (which they didn't have to begin with)before one shovel is picked up, before one rail is laid.
you can call it the "never-was Pork Barrel Express"
Ahh.. the great catch-22 of public transportation: We should not fund transit if it is not attracting riders, but it won't attract riders without more funding to make it more attractive. It's obvious where this cycle leads. The only way transit can be viable and capable of supporting itself and growing on its own is if the stations it serves are highly dense, diverse, and attractive. Aside from a few of our big cities, we simply have forgotten how to do this.
Ryan, Wayne, Tunsie--thanks for posting with your names. It's nice to see people willing to own their words.
i just heard from someone today who drove in from Philly that gas was already up to $3.45/gal there...
Post a Comment