• Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!

    You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!

Skier speed trap hell

cdskier

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
3,965
Points
48
Location
NJ
I appreciate all the back pedaling! :)

I don't think there's really been that much back pedaling. The original argument that led us into the mass transit and train subject was that the "Dependence on cars is ending". To which some of us said "bs" and cited reasons why car dependence will never end anytime soon even in metropolitan areas. Trying to expand rail lines in a congested area like NJ would be insanely expensive, inefficient, and in many cases simply not possible without outright taking over existing property through eminent domain to make way for new lines. So yes, for those reasons I would be very much against certain route expansions. I'd be ok with expanding the ends of the lines further as populations shift outward from the cities more if it makes financial sense and if there's demand. I'd be ok with increasing capacity on existing lines where necessary and feasible. But I would be against trying to squeeze a new line/route into an area that is already built out simply to make rail routes accessible/practical for everyone. If you start adding too many routes and stops, you'll start decreasing efficiency and then it becomes practical for no one. Rail serves a certain target group and can be a great option if you're in that specific situation, but even many people that use rails still have and use cars. Maybe instead of driving 45 miles to work they drive 5 miles to a train station and then take the train the rest of the way. Bottom line though is that car dependence is not ending or even substantially decreasing.
 

abc

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
4,206
Points
48
Location
Lower Hudson Valley
I agree there's been some back pedaling (I'd like to call it consensus building...), but not sure why you threw my quote in there. I said nothing along the lines of eliminating mass transit options with the exception of Amtrak lines that lose $60,000,000 a year.
I wasn't focusing on YOU as a person or the source. Those statements of your had been put forth earlier as opposition against trains of ANY KIND. Instead of going back and hunting down who wrote what, I merely pulled some example of the earlier vs later post.

Sorry it caused you some misunderstanding. My apology.
 

sull1102

Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2010
Messages
712
Points
18
Location
Boston, MA
Just to add a little bit to this conversation here, a perfect PERFECT example of a spot where trains should theoretically work and internationally would... Loon Mountain and Lincoln NH. You have ALL the ingredients needed.

1. The rails already exist (yes they need millions and millions of $$$ to rehab into quality 60-80mph tracks, but the ROW is currently in minimal use) from Boston-Lowell-Manchester-Concord-Weirs Beach-Lincoln

2. The tracks end within a stone's throw of some hotels and 1 mile of a lift.

3. Lincoln is a 4 season destination, Loon is one of if not the top ski area in the state pulling almost all of that from Boston. Waterville could be accessed by a 20 minute shuttle from a stop in Campton(exact set up I used for Laax). Weirs Beach would draw riders in the summer, some weeks more than others.

But sadly the state lawmakers have made it clear rail is not something they are interested in.

Sent from my LG-H820 using AlpineZone mobile app
 

abc

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
4,206
Points
48
Location
Lower Hudson Valley
I don't think there's really been that much back pedaling. The original argument that led us into the mass transit and train subject was that the "Dependence on cars is ending". To which some of us said "bs" and cited reasons why car dependence will never end anytime soon even in metropolitan areas.
Yes, and no.

In many metropolitan area, DEPENDENCY on cars is not so much "ending" but never started! I lived in New York City for some years. I didn't have a car for part of those years!!! Lots of people living in the city NEVER own a car. Many who had a car at some point but not at other points.

Does that means cars has NO USE? NO! But it's definitely not a NECESSITY!!! It's a choice one gets to make, to own a car or NOT own a car. We had the CHOICE. Rather than having that choice removed from us due to lack of transport infrastructure.

Where I live now? A car is super beneficial. So I own one. But I have very low mileage on it. And almost all the mileage has to do with skiing. All that points to is, had there been transit options to ski mountains, I wouldn't have "needed" a car!

Now, that situation can lead man to 2 opposite conclusions. My conclusion is we could use better infrastructure to REDUCE our dependency to cars. Others may conclude "trains will never replace cars!"!!! ;)


Trying to expand rail lines in a congested area like NJ would be insanely expensive, inefficient, and in many cases simply not possible without outright taking over existing property through eminent domain to make way for new lines. So yes, for those reasons I would be very much against certain route expansions. I'd be ok with expanding the ends of the lines further as populations shift outward from the cities more if it makes financial sense and if there's demand. I'd be ok with increasing capacity on existing lines where necessary and feasible. But I would be against trying to squeeze a new line/route into an area that is already built out simply to make rail routes accessible/practical for everyone. If you start adding too many routes and stops, you'll start decreasing efficiency and then it becomes practical for no one. Rail serves a certain target group and can be a great option if you're in that specific situation, but even many people that use rails still have and use cars. Maybe instead of driving 45 miles to work they drive 5 miles to a train station and then take the train the rest of the way. Bottom line though is that car dependence is not ending or even substantially decreasing.
You know, almost ALL the people drive 30 min to 2 hours to an airport to fly out west. But no one is proposing to eliminate airports because it "will never replace cars". In fact, there's a big long list to ADD more routes, or upgrade small airports to attract commercial flights. Yet, people are against expanding rail lines.

I'm not advocating we have rail services to every single village like the Swiss has. That time window had unfortunately long past. We now have this sprawling villages and towns laid out at random locations we had to build lots of new roads to access. But whether you want to believe it or not, the Gen-X'ers and Millennia are settling MORE around towns and villages served by rails. Just look at the housing price trend of locations near train lines.
 

x10003q

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
748
Points
16
Location
Bergen County, NJ
I appreciate all the back pedaling! :)

Seems we went from "trains are impractical" and "train will never replace cars".... To:
Attributing your point of view to those of us who disagree with your point of view and calling it back pedaling is hilarious.


"Trains serve a great purpose that can be expanded upon in most metro areas "
"not meant to eliminate commuter TRAINS"
"don't think anyone in this thread was suggesting that trains and purely 'mass' forms of transit would ever completely replace cars"

Where are these quotes from?


The funnest part is, those who think trains are impractical because they don't go where they need to go are the same people who don't want train route expansions.
They are impractical because the current cost of new rail is multi-billion times more expensive than the cheaper and more flexible mass transit choice - buses/vans.

I'm a software guys who's been in this profession for over 20 years. I was lucky enough to be a young engineer when the internet exploded. Back then 90% of the managers didn't want anything to do with the "internedz" because there's no traffic on it! Not saying trains will be the next internet. But that same look under their nose mentality just sound so familiar...actually, IDENTICAL!
I will say it - trains are not the next internet. You might want to look up the word IDENTICAL and see what it means.

I can totally understand where benski and the like come from. It may strikes you old geezer as naive or misguided. Sure, there maybe some element of that. But there's also courage and refreshment too. The world is constantly changing. Things don't stay the same forever. What used to work may no longer do. And what didn't used to work may start to work in a modified form.

Take a deep breath and think slowly whether those fresh (or even re-cycled) idea has any merit before blowing it off. It's a good habit to get into.

Are you talking about trains?
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
10,765
Points
48
Location
PRNJ
Just to add a little bit to this conversation here, a perfect PERFECT example of a spot where trains should theoretically work and internationally would... Loon Mountain and Lincoln NH. You have ALL the ingredients needed.

This would be a perfect example of yet another train route (and an uber short one at that) which would lose millions of dollars.
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
10,765
Points
48
Location
PRNJ
In many metropolitan area, DEPENDENCY on cars is not so much "ending" but never started! I lived in New York City for some years. I didn't have a car for part of those years!!! Lots of people living in the city NEVER own a car. Many who had a car at some point but not at other points.

Not sure I get the point here, if you live "in" a city, you also dont depend on a commuter train either, because you already woke up in the destination. So those people may not depend on cars (unless you count Taxis), but they also dont depend on trains (unless you count subways).
 

sull1102

Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2010
Messages
712
Points
18
Location
Boston, MA
Attributing your point of view to those of us who disagree with your point of view and calling it back pedaling is hilarious.



Where are these quotes from?



They are impractical because the current cost of new rail is multi-billion times more expensive than the cheaper and more flexible mass transit choice - buses/vans.


I will say it - trains are not the next internet. You might want to look up the word IDENTICAL and see what it means.



Are you talking about trains?
Boston to Lincoln is about a 150 mile rail corridor, actually an ideal distance for the type of operation that does work in the US, i.e. the Cape Flyer for the T.

People that live in the city do use commuter rail as well. In Boston the commuter rail is uses a train car on commuter rail train for the ski train and runs a whole train in summer for the Flyer. People use the commuter rail to get out of the city, or if it's something like the Fairmount line it runs entirely in the city well than it's only being used in the city. LIRR is used religiously for summer escapes by New Yorkers, that's commuter rail. Providence and Boston both use commuter rail for Patriots game day trains. In Dallas and Fort Worth they run their newer commuter rail system to and from the airport, I've used that system, very nice. Need I continue on this one? Feels as though the point is proven.

The subway is a train, duh. That one's pretty obvious. And oh, they are used by millions and millions and millions of Americans everyday in the Northeast alone.

In comparison to the dreaded bus trains are more expensive for to their added benefits. They carry far more passengers, remove cars from the road by the hundreds, but here's the key part. Busses do not inspire TOD(transit oriented development). You don't see apartment complexes popping up at a bus station sign on the street, you see them being built next to commuter rail stations and obviously subway stations. This is something the bus people never ever think about or choose to ignore because it doesn't fit their narrative. A bus means literally nothing at all, it can be stopped tomorrow and that's that. As a developer I'll take my chances on the train staying around longer.

When the government finally gets worth the times and changes the regulations for rail equipment to match those around the world we will be able to buy cheaper, better, off the shelf rolling stock that impresses. It's slowly happening with Siemens massive push into the space in the last 5 years.

Sent from my LG-H820 using AlpineZone mobile app
 

cdskier

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
3,965
Points
48
Location
NJ
Yes, and no.

In many metropolitan area, DEPENDENCY on cars is not so much "ending" but never started! I lived in New York City for some years. I didn't have a car for part of those years!!! Lots of people living in the city NEVER own a car. Many who had a car at some point but not at other points.

Here's the quote that in my view started this conversation and the quote I'm responding to in reference to dependence...
I'm so glad the car dependence is ending in this country.

"Country" includes far more than just cities. I agree with you (abc) that for people that live in cities, many people don't need and choose not to have cars. That has absolutely nothing to do with overall card dependence in this country though. The overall dependence will never end and that's the point myself and others have illustrated.

Does that means cars has NO USE? NO! But it's definitely not a NECESSITY!!! It's a choice one gets to make, to own a car or NOT own a car. We had the CHOICE. Rather than having that choice removed from us due to lack of transport infrastructure.

Where I live now? A car is super beneficial. So I own one. But I have very low mileage on it. And almost all the mileage has to do with skiing. All that points to is, had there been transit options to ski mountains, I wouldn't have "needed" a car!

Now, that situation can lead man to 2 opposite conclusions. My conclusion is we could use better infrastructure to REDUCE our dependency to cars. Others may conclude "trains will never replace cars!"!!! ;)

I gave examples already of where train infrastructure could be expanded and other areas where it can't or shouldn't be. I really don't care if we reduce our dependency on cars. That isn't a priority of mine and not something I'm particularly in a rush to see tax money invested in as it just doesn't have a good ROI or Cost/Benefit ratio right now in many cases (again, need to look at it on a case by case basis. Don't take my statement to mean I'm against ALL expansion...I'm not). I like having a car. Trains are too linear. I'm very non-linear. I don't go from just point A to B. I like having the freedom and flexibility to jump from A to G to Z to M to C if I want to on my schedule.

You know, almost ALL the people drive 30 min to 2 hours to an airport to fly out west. But no one is proposing to eliminate airports because it "will never replace cars". In fact, there's a big long list to ADD more routes, or upgrade small airports to attract commercial flights. Yet, people are against expanding rail lines.

It has nothing to do with the relationship with cars, but there are actually people proposing to eliminate (or reduce operations at) certain airports (*cough*Teterboro*cough*). I don't agree with that, but it is something others do. However you're comparing apples and oranges anyway. I never said that because trains can't replace cars that we should eliminate trains. Again, you need to look at things on a case by case basis. Many trains (particularly commuter lines) are very valuable. Others are simply a giant waste of money.

I'm not advocating we have rail services to every single village like the Swiss has. That time window had unfortunately long past. We now have this sprawling villages and towns laid out at random locations we had to build lots of new roads to access. But whether you want to believe it or not, the Gen-X'ers and Millennia are settling MORE around towns and villages served by rails. Just look at the housing price trend of locations near train lines.

I live in one of those very towns that is in "high demand" (my reasoning had nothing to do with the rail line though). And there are also plenty of Gen-X'ers (and Oregon Trail generation people like myself) that are moving further into the suburbs and not necessarily sticking by rail lines. So what though? Housing demand in those particular towns doesn't mean we should expand rail infrastructure in other towns. For every person that wants to be near a rail line, there's another person that doesn't want to be.

Attributing your point of view to those of us who disagree with your point of view and calling it back pedaling is hilarious.

They are impractical because the current cost of new rail is multi-billion times more expensive than the cheaper and more flexible mass transit choice - buses/vans.

I will say it - trains are not the next internet. You might want to look up the word IDENTICAL and see what it means.

I think I pretty much agree with everything x10003q said here.
 

Smellytele

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
7,714
Points
48
Location
Right where I want to be
Y

But whether you want to believe it or not, the Gen-X'ers and Millennia are settling MORE around towns and villages served by rails. Just look at the housing price trend of locations near train lines.

The price trend may force people to move further way again. Math at work here. A house for 250k and a 30k car or a house for 600k and no car...
 

VTKilarney

Active member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
5,388
Points
38
Location
VT NEK
I go to Chicago on business from time to time. On a whim, I recently looked into taking the train.

Here is what I found:
1) You can't take the train from White River Junction to Chicago - even though the White River Junction train stops in Springfield, MA which is also a stop on the Boston-Chicago train.
2) You arrive in Chicago at 9:45 am, but the train is NEVER on time, so it is very risky to plan any meetings before mid-afternoon on the day that you arrive. Even that has some risk.
3) Hardly any Amtrak stations on the route have long term parking. Springfield, MA doesn't. Framingham, MA doesn't. If you want to park, you pretty much have to drive all the way to Rensselaer, New York.
4) A sleeping berth, one way, is over $500 before taxes.

Compare that to flying from Lebanon, New Hampshire. Lebanon airport has free parking. When you factor in free parking and the cheaper airfares out of Boston, it is cheaper to fly out of Lebanon than Burlington or Manchester, NH. (Yes, thanks to a government subsidy for the Lebanon - Boston flight.) At Lebanon, I breeze through security since the airplane only seats nine people. Arriving at the airport an hour early, and with a 1.25 hour layover in Boston, total travel time from my front door to downtown Chicago is about eight hours. Compare that to about 21 hours door to door on Amtrak - if the train is on time, which it never is. To add insult to injury, Amtrak just eliminated the dining car on this route. You now get a pre-packaged cold meal.

I am a guy who WANTED to take the train. But instead I booked a first class airplane ticket for half the price of an Amtrak sleeping berth. The cost and travel time on Amtrak made no sense whatsoever, even on a lark. And, no, there is no way I am going to sit in a coach Amtrak seat for an overnight trip. A sleeping berth was mandatory for me.
 
Last edited:

Domeskier

Active member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,054
Points
36
Location
New York
I hope it's a long time before the country reaches a population density that would make trains and subways a viable alternative to cars outside of Manhattan.
 

Edd

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
5,450
Points
48
Location
Newmarket, NH
4) A sleeping berth, one way, is over $500 before taxes.

I am a guy who WANTED to take the train. But instead I booked a first class airplane ticket for half the price of an Amtrak sleeping berth.

Is this a first class ticket for $250?
 

Jcb890

Active member
Joined
Feb 25, 2015
Messages
1,741
Points
38
Location
Central MA
The only places public transportation makes sense is in cities like Boston, NY, Chicago, etc.
And even still, public transportation sucks.

When someone suggests we drive somewhere (Riverside stop) to take the T into Boston, my blood boils.

30-35 mins to the T stop.
1 hr or more to ride the T into Boston from Riverside.
Always delays, never on time.
Always idiots, creepy people, smelly people.
Always dirty and disgusting.

And it isn't even that cheap!

I'd much rather drive my car in and find somewhat-reasonably priced parking. I can leave when I want, be in my own car driving home, etc.

If I lived in Boston or NYC though, I'd only use public transportation. It isn't worth it if you live in the city solely based on convenience. Then, when you factor in the cost of a parking spot, it is a no-brainer to not have a car/truck in the city.

I have absolutely no interest in living in a major metropolitan area. Boston and New York are fun to visit, but no thanks!
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
662
Points
0
Location
spring mount, pa
And to think, every year we only need to flush $63,000,000 down the toilet from taxpayer's paychecks to make it happen.

hahaha both you ninnies completely missed the point that i made---that they could likely exist on their own as "land cruises", not greyhound buses on rails, which they currently are

long distance trains actually make a profit on the first class passengers, genius
 

AdironRider

Active member
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
3,210
Points
36
The only places public transportation makes sense is in cities like Boston, NY, Chicago, etc.
And even still, public transportation sucks.

When someone suggests we drive somewhere (Riverside stop) to take the T into Boston, my blood boils.

30-35 mins to the T stop.
1 hr or more to ride the T into Boston from Riverside.
Always delays, never on time.
Always idiots, creepy people, smelly people.
Always dirty and disgusting.

And it isn't even that cheap!

I'd much rather drive my car in and find somewhat-reasonably priced parking. I can leave when I want, be in my own car driving home, etc.

If I lived in Boston or NYC though, I'd only use public transportation. It isn't worth it if you live in the city solely based on convenience. Then, when you factor in the cost of a parking spot, it is a no-brainer to not have a car/truck in the city.

I have absolutely no interest in living in a major metropolitan area. Boston and New York are fun to visit, but no thanks!


Isn't the T like 2-3 bucks a ride these days? That's pretty damn cheap all in all.

But everything else you said is spot on.
 
Top