6 ms·

What alternatives come close to the carrying capacity of fixed rail?

burfog 8y ago
Roads do. Compare the size of the gap between vehicles. Fixed rail is a really inefficient use of land. Most of the time, the rail is just sitting there without a train anywhere in sight. It is normal for the rail to be idle for long periods of time. The density of a packed-full train does not make up for this. Of course, many systems are running trains that are far from being packed full.
- shirakawasuna 8y ago
  Roads, which is the default everywhere, have literally the least capacity. Single-occupancy vehicles have the worst, followed by normal buses, followed by rapid transit buses, followed by rail.
  - CamperBob2 8y ago
    Trains already work as well as they possibly can. There is no room for improvement in fixed rail, no space for progress. Fixed rail is, well, fixed. If it doesn't exist where you are at the moment, or go where you want to go, that's too bad. And if everyone achieves their dream of living next to a fixed rail station, as advocated so enthusiastically in this thread, this is what their homes will look like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdzJpM-EMNg&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdzJpM-EMNg&feature=youtu.be Or does everyone on here just naturally assume the penthouse with the tennis court and helipad will be theirs? Conversely, if you can look at a crowded, congested city full of automotive traffic and think, "This is as well as this system can possibly work," I have to wonder what you're doing on a site called Hacker News. What a single road lacks in capacity, it makes up by being part of a larger network. In every other context on HN, that's considered a good thing. When it comes to transportation, not so much. I will never understand that.
    - EliRivers 8y ago
      Fixed rail is, well, fixed. If it doesn't exist where you are at the moment, or go where you want to go, that's too bad. Is that not true of roads? If there is no road right now where I want to go, I'm out of luck. Or do you mean than no new rail is being laid? That doesn't fit my observations. I see new rail and new stations. I wonder if you've got a specific context; perhaps you're thinking of small regions of the USA? Many of us (myself included) do not live in the USA. The USA is notoriously bad at rail.
      - CamperBob2 8y ago
        Take a look out your window... all of your windows. Roads are already pretty much everywhere, for better or worse. Rails are not. I believe that we should be working on forms of transit, both new and old, that take advantage of the infrastructure we already have. The USA's geography is very different from places like Europe and Japan, if that's where you're coming from. Centralized transit is a lot more effective in places where 200 km is considered a long distance, and where the bulk of the population is already compressed into compact urban centers.
- adrianN 8y ago
  You're comparing roads that run at full capacity to rails that are basically unused. Heavily used lines have intervals of less than two minutes between trains and the trains are absolutely packed during rush hour. No road can compete with that. Imagine these people would each occupy a car: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMZhQLhcB08 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMZhQLhcB08 Take note of the intervals between trains.
  - CamperBob2 8y ago
    Never mind that the reason all those people are crammed into one train is that that's where the train is. (Also, I have to ask, are you trying to sell me on this lifestyle, or trying to scare me into further entrenching my existing beliefs?) In other areas of life, deliberately creating bottlenecks is frowned upon.
  - burfog 8y ago
    Yes, I am comparing roads that run at full capacity to rails that are basically unused, because that is normal. Realistic trains in the USA are perhaps 20% full. Including the stops, they average 35 MPH, which is about 56 km/hour. They run once or twice an hour in the morning and in the evening. They shut down for many hours each day, for example from 1:30 PM to 4:30 PM and also from 8 PM to 5 AM. I'll pick several examples I've seen. These are thus not perfectly random, but they are not chosen to be unusually bad. Typical railway right-of-way is 100 feet, which is enough for a highway. Caltrain example: It's every 90 minutes, though sometimes better if you are at the right stop (express service) or at the right time of day (rush hour). On weekdays, 62190 people ride it. It goes for 77.4 mi (124.6 km) in 143 minutes, so about 32 MPH or 52 km/hour. The land usage per person is 657 square feet. Tri-Rail example: Trains normally run an hour apart. It is 38 miles per hour (61 km/h) overall average, which is pretty awful compared to a car on the nearby interstate 95. It carries 14000 per day over 71 miles, but of course most people don't go the full distance. The land usage per person is 2678 square feet. MBTA Lowell example: Today they ran 8 trains. On weekdays they run up to 26 trains, with a shutdown for 6.5 hours each night. The line does 11965 people per weekday, with maximum distance 25.4 miles (40.9 km). It takes 47 minutes, so about 32 MPH or 52 km/hour. The land usage per person is 1121 square feet. Look at the square footage. Without subsidies, ticket prices would need to be like a day of renting a townhouse.
CamperBob2 8y ago
Fixed rail is indeed better than anything else at carrying large numbers of people from one place where they don't want to be to someplace else where they don't want to be. Networked autonomous road vehicles are the obvious way forward, but achieving their true potential will require more organization than our society can apparently bring to bear.
- adrianN 8y ago
  Why is real estate around train stations more expensive if that's a place where people don't want to be? Maybe you should look at places where public transport works before claiming such nonsense.
  - CamperBob2 8y ago
    Do you want to spend the rest of your life living next to a train station, and the rest of your career working next to a different one? Didn't think so.
    - adrianN 8y ago
      I'd like to move closer to a train station, yes, but rent there is too expensive for my taste. Currently I have to walk 15 minutes to get to the nearest train station, or take the bus. I already work next to a train station. I only use the trains when the weather is really bad though, because I'm a little bit faster on my bike and I like the exercise. I honestly don't understand your point. What's so bad about living next to a train station? There are all kinds of shops there and the trains take me to basically anywhere in the city in less than 40 minutes. Would you rather live next to a highway?
      - CamperBob2 8y ago
        Everyone can live near a road, if they wish to do so, and most people do. Not everyone can live near a train station. Seems like this should be obvious, but...

Roads do. Compare the size of the gap between vehicles. Fixed rail is a really inefficient use of land. Most of the time, the rail is just sitting there without a train anywhere in sight. It is normal for the rail to be idle for long periods of time. The density of a packed-full train does not make up for this. Of course, many systems are running trains that are far from being packed full.

shirakawasuna 8y ago
Roads, which is the default everywhere, have literally the least capacity. Single-occupancy vehicles have the worst, followed by normal buses, followed by rapid transit buses, followed by rail.
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  Trains already work as well as they possibly can. There is no room for improvement in fixed rail, no space for progress. Fixed rail is, well, fixed. If it doesn't exist where you are at the moment, or go where you want to go, that's too bad. And if everyone achieves their dream of living next to a fixed rail station, as advocated so enthusiastically in this thread, this is what their homes will look like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdzJpM-EMNg&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdzJpM-EMNg&feature=youtu.be Or does everyone on here just naturally assume the penthouse with the tennis court and helipad will be theirs? Conversely, if you can look at a crowded, congested city full of automotive traffic and think, "This is as well as this system can possibly work," I have to wonder what you're doing on a site called Hacker News. What a single road lacks in capacity, it makes up by being part of a larger network. In every other context on HN, that's considered a good thing. When it comes to transportation, not so much. I will never understand that.
  - EliRivers 8y ago
    Fixed rail is, well, fixed. If it doesn't exist where you are at the moment, or go where you want to go, that's too bad. Is that not true of roads? If there is no road right now where I want to go, I'm out of luck. Or do you mean than no new rail is being laid? That doesn't fit my observations. I see new rail and new stations. I wonder if you've got a specific context; perhaps you're thinking of small regions of the USA? Many of us (myself included) do not live in the USA. The USA is notoriously bad at rail.
    - CamperBob2 8y ago
      Take a look out your window... all of your windows. Roads are already pretty much everywhere, for better or worse. Rails are not. I believe that we should be working on forms of transit, both new and old, that take advantage of the infrastructure we already have. The USA's geography is very different from places like Europe and Japan, if that's where you're coming from. Centralized transit is a lot more effective in places where 200 km is considered a long distance, and where the bulk of the population is already compressed into compact urban centers.
adrianN 8y ago
You're comparing roads that run at full capacity to rails that are basically unused. Heavily used lines have intervals of less than two minutes between trains and the trains are absolutely packed during rush hour. No road can compete with that. Imagine these people would each occupy a car: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMZhQLhcB08 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMZhQLhcB08 Take note of the intervals between trains.
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  Never mind that the reason all those people are crammed into one train is that that's where the train is. (Also, I have to ask, are you trying to sell me on this lifestyle, or trying to scare me into further entrenching my existing beliefs?) In other areas of life, deliberately creating bottlenecks is frowned upon.
- burfog 8y ago
  Yes, I am comparing roads that run at full capacity to rails that are basically unused, because that is normal. Realistic trains in the USA are perhaps 20% full. Including the stops, they average 35 MPH, which is about 56 km/hour. They run once or twice an hour in the morning and in the evening. They shut down for many hours each day, for example from 1:30 PM to 4:30 PM and also from 8 PM to 5 AM. I'll pick several examples I've seen. These are thus not perfectly random, but they are not chosen to be unusually bad. Typical railway right-of-way is 100 feet, which is enough for a highway. Caltrain example: It's every 90 minutes, though sometimes better if you are at the right stop (express service) or at the right time of day (rush hour). On weekdays, 62190 people ride it. It goes for 77.4 mi (124.6 km) in 143 minutes, so about 32 MPH or 52 km/hour. The land usage per person is 657 square feet. Tri-Rail example: Trains normally run an hour apart. It is 38 miles per hour (61 km/h) overall average, which is pretty awful compared to a car on the nearby interstate 95. It carries 14000 per day over 71 miles, but of course most people don't go the full distance. The land usage per person is 2678 square feet. MBTA Lowell example: Today they ran 8 trains. On weekdays they run up to 26 trains, with a shutdown for 6.5 hours each night. The line does 11965 people per weekday, with maximum distance 25.4 miles (40.9 km). It takes 47 minutes, so about 32 MPH or 52 km/hour. The land usage per person is 1121 square feet. Look at the square footage. Without subsidies, ticket prices would need to be like a day of renting a townhouse.

CamperBob2 8y ago

Fixed rail is indeed better than anything else at carrying large numbers of people from one place where they don't want to be to someplace else where they don't want to be. Networked autonomous road vehicles are the obvious way forward, but achieving their true potential will require more organization than our society can apparently bring to bear.

adrianN 8y ago
Why is real estate around train stations more expensive if that's a place where people don't want to be? Maybe you should look at places where public transport works before claiming such nonsense.
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  Do you want to spend the rest of your life living next to a train station, and the rest of your career working next to a different one? Didn't think so.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    I'd like to move closer to a train station, yes, but rent there is too expensive for my taste. Currently I have to walk 15 minutes to get to the nearest train station, or take the bus. I already work next to a train station. I only use the trains when the weather is really bad though, because I'm a little bit faster on my bike and I like the exercise. I honestly don't understand your point. What's so bad about living next to a train station? There are all kinds of shops there and the trains take me to basically anywhere in the city in less than 40 minutes. Would you rather live next to a highway?
    - CamperBob2 8y ago
      Everyone can live near a road, if they wish to do so, and most people do. Not everyone can live near a train station. Seems like this should be obvious, but...