Loki's War

[earthJoker]

The reasons cars are so successful and spelled the doom of railways as a major method of transit is because they disaggregate the vehicle from the roadway. This means cars can go pretty much anywhere, and trains can't. Until this little problem can be dealt with, I doubt cars are going anywhere.

You don't have to have a rail network that can reach every single farm. It is sufficient to reach all the major suburbs. And trains can be combined with buses. A railway network of the US shouldn't adopt the European layout, as density is higher here. But you could try to adopt the layout of Melbourne, which has quite a dense network (it still has a lot of room for improvements). HSR is a new chance for the US as it can actually beat the car on those distances the US has between major cities by far and can even reach the "door-to-door" as you have much less overhead.

[earthJoker]

intermodal, which is where they take the box of the trailer chassis and load it on a rail flat bed. Then at the destination ramp they put the box back on a chassis and truck it to final destination.

This would be cool to do with cars (like in your idea to set cars on rail for the long haul, take them off for the short drives). We do something similar with ferry boats, why not with trains?

I did that once from Basel to Hamburg. The real benefit is that you can sleep while you travel and still have your car with all the luggage once you arrive.

Arriving in Hamburg Altona was very funny as they didn't build another terminal for the car train so you actually drive through the station:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qd-fW8WM7I

Edit: No youtube tag?

[GGT]

That looked fun. I liked how they drive right by the stores. Would love to have something like that here, so I wouldn't have to drive the PA turnpike.

[Ominous Gamer]

Edit: No youtube tag?

You yt tag the last strong of letters, example:

[Flixy]

In my experience if the haul is 500+ miles, then regular shipments of material will be routed intermodal, which is where they take the box of the trailer chassis and load it on a rail flat bed. Then at the destination ramp they put the box back on a chassis and truck it to final destination. The only stuff that goes strictly truck long distance is when time is a factor - its faster to truck but much more expensive. In the case of my business, that typically occurs with moderate expedites when there's a part shortage for whatever reason and the plant might stop production if they wait for the railed parts. Hot expedites long distance will go by air. That's VERY expensive.

It depends more of the proximity of the destination to a suitable station, mostly, I think. Combined with time. But Cross-Europe cargo travel, which is about as far as you can get around here, is not rare at all. Probably not the cheapest, but there's apparently plenty of stuff that can't wait that long.

My employer ships by air by the way, except a few weeks back, when they used vans because of the ash clouds

intermodal, which is where they take the box of the trailer chassis and load it on a rail flat bed. Then at the destination ramp they put the box back on a chassis and truck it to final destination.

This would be cool to do with cars (like in your idea to set cars on rail for the long haul, take them off for the short drives). We do something similar with ferry boats, why not with trains?

They do use that, a lot even. You can go on vacation and not have to hire a car when you're there, and you can relax/sleep on the way there. And can make the trip in one run.

[earthJoker]

You yt tag the last strong of letters

yt, cool, other boards have 'youtube' as tag, but yt is even better (shorter)

and you can relax/sleep on the way there

and let's not forget, drink beer!

[EyeKhan]

It depends more of the proximity of the destination to a suitable station, mostly, I think. Combined with time. But Cross-Europe cargo travel, which is about as far as you can get around here, is not rare at all. Probably not the cheapest, but there's apparently plenty of stuff that can't wait that long.

We get a lot of material coming up to SE Michigan from Mexico. That all goes intermodal to Chicago then gets trucked from there to the Detroit area, which is about a half day ride. Our Asia origin stuff comes in one of the West Coast ports and gets loaded on flatbed rail right from the boat, is railed to Chicago, then the cans are put on trailer chassis and trucked in. We have rail yards right here in SE Michigan but the congestion is so high in relation to capacity its cheaper to truck from Chicago.

[']['ear]

Can we agree that because of the auto industry, SE Michigan is probably not typical of the rest of the country?

[EyeKhan]

Can we agree that because of the auto industry, SE Michigan is probably not typical of the rest of the country?

God I hope its not.

[rumrunner]

#1. That's not accurate - cars require roads to go anywhere.

Uhm, others have already pointed out the potholes in this statement. so, I'll just move on.

#2. The ability to go anywhere there's a road independantly is part of the problem. It's extremely costly to maintain all these roads and highways to everywhere, they aggravate the pollution problem, and its led to the sprawl of our cities which has led to the degradation of the old inner cities, etc etc.

The convenience is part of the problem. It's a wasteful, expensive, destructive, and wholly unneccsary convenience. The measure of how our civilization's transportation network is designed should not (just) be what Joe Citizen finds super duper neat and convenient. What would be most convenient is for me to walk out my front door and be at work, the grocery store, my kid's school, the doctor's office, and the local soccer field. Everyone wants that so lets design it.

People also want space, lot's and lot's of space. Large properties with fences and walls to keep the world far away. People want the places they are currently going to be close-by, and far away when they are not(going there). Cars perform this trick. not very efficiently, but better than a horse and buggy. If you think the horse and buggy are better, remember, you don't have gas-up a car if it's not leaving the garage. Horses eat everyday, and hay isn't cheap.

Edit: forgive my spelling and grammar this morning. Long night, lot's of and little sleep.

[EyeKhan]

Uhm, others have already pointed out the potholes in this statement. so, I'll just move on.

no they haven't. It's a self-evident fact.

People also want space, lot's and lot's of space. Large properties with fences and walls to keep the world far away. People want the places they are currently going to be close-by, and far away when they are not(going there). Cars perform this trick. not very efficiently, but better than a horse and buggy. If you think the horse and buggy are better, remember, you don't have gas-up a car if it's not leaving the garage. Horses eat everyday, and hay isn't cheap.

Edit: forgive my spelling and grammar this morning. Long night, lot's of and little sleep.

who said anything what all about horse and buggy? And clearly what people want and giving it to them is the heart of the problem.

[rumrunner]

no they haven't. It's a self-evident fact.


who said anything what all about horse and buggy? And clearly what people want and giving it to them is the heart of the problem.

Maybe it's my hangover that's confusing me, but what is a self-evident fact? That cars do not require roads?
The horse and buggy was a comparison of convenience and overall cost. Cars are popular because they are faster, give the driver more freedom (when to go,where to go, how to get there,etc...), and some of them look really cool and make you look cooler when you drive.
If you think giving people what they want causes problems, try denying them.The problem isn't in what people want but how they think it should be accomplished/acquired. It's like having too many cooks in kitchen, each working from a different recipe for the same dish.

[']['ear]

Uhm, others have already pointed out the potholes in this statement. so, I'll just move on.


People also want space, lot's and lot's of space. Large properties with fences and walls to keep the world far away. People want the places they are currently going to be close-by, and far away when they are not(going there). Cars perform this trick. not very efficiently, but better than a horse and buggy. If you think the horse and buggy are better, remember, you don't have gas-up a car if it's not leaving the garage. Horses eat everyday, and hay isn't cheap.

Edit: forgive my spelling and grammar this morning. Long night, lot's of and little sleep.

Pro tip: "lots" does not warrant an apostrophe. It is not a contraction of two words.

Maybe it's my hangover that's confusing me, but what is a self-evident fact? That cars do not require roads?
The horse and buggy was a comparison of convenience and overall cost. Cars are popular because they are faster, give the driver more freedom (when to go,where to go, how to get there,etc...), and some of them look really cool and make you look cooler when you drive.
If you think giving people what they want causes problems, try denying them.The problem isn't in what people want but how they think it should be accomplished/acquired. It's like having too many cooks in kitchen, each working from a different recipe for the same dish.

People also bought a lot of McMansions, and now a lot of them are fleeing their mortgages or going bankrupt. In other words, people are dumb.

If people had to pay the real costs of automobiles, they'd use them a lot less.

[rumrunner]

Pro tip: "lots" does not warrant an apostrophe. It is not a contraction of two words.

Did you read the entire edit, or just pick up on the mistake and jump into action?

People also bought a lot of McMansions, and now a lot of them are fleeing their mortgages or going bankrupt. In other words, people are dumb.

That's pretty much what I was getting at. People aren't always as stupid as they seem, but apparently stupidity is cumulative. So the larger the group ...

If people had to pay the real costs of automobiles, they'd use them a lot less.

If the real cost was realized, cars may never have become reality. Henry Fords original Model A would be in museum of human follies somewhere.

[EyeKhan]

Maybe it's my hangover that's confusing me, but what is a self-evident fact? That cars do not require roads?
The horse and buggy was a comparison of convenience and overall cost. Cars are popular because they are faster, give the driver more freedom (when to go,where to go, how to get there,etc...), and some of them look really cool and make you look cooler when you drive.
If you think giving people what they want causes problems, try denying them.The problem isn't in what people want but how they think it should be accomplished/acquired. It's like having too many cooks in kitchen, each working from a different recipe for the same dish.

The fact is that cars DO require roads and a lot of other infrastructure and it costs a hell of a lot to maintain it.


The odd structure of your post seemed to show you suggesting the discussion was about choosing between cars and horses. This is more about mass transit vs individual transit.

Arguably the function of civilization is to put people into rigid channels of behavior, in other words to continuously deny us what we want. I'm sure we could adapt to more mass transit and less acreage without self destructing. Unfortunately the same is not certain if we don't adapt.

That's pretty much what I was getting at. People aren't always as stupid as they seem, but apparently stupidity is cumulative. So the larger the group ...

Oh yes we are. Most of the time we don't even bother to think. We just do whatever our culture scripts for us like good little automatons. Just cogs in the giant human machine..