Posting mode: Reply
[Return]
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
File
Password(Password used for file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 3072 KB.
  • Images greater than 250x250 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Read the rules and FAQ before posting.
  • このサイトについて - 翻訳


  • File : 1270053141.jpg-(47 KB, 319x243, you mad.jpg)
    47 KB Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)12:32 No.503837  
    >Roadways for private cars are actually one of the most inefficient forms of transport infrastructure, particularly when compared with railways and tramways. This was pointed out starkly in a 2009 op-ed piece in the New York Times. In 1907, writer Robert Sullivan reminds us, the Brooklyn Bridge in New York carried 426,000 people per day - most on trains, on horse-drawn trolleys or on foot. After World War II, the train and tram tracks were removed in order to make more room for cars (just as the Sydney Harbour Bridge's two tram tracks were removed around the same time). As a result, by 1989 there were 178,000 people crossing per day - and nearly all of them complained about the traffic congestion.
    >> AngryR !tuu4Suy7rc 03/31/10(Wed)12:35 No.503863
    Jesus christ the train faggot is back. Good luck getting funding and beating Toyota and GM out for cars vs trains. You wont you lose trains suck.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)12:37 No.503872
    >>503863
    I never leave.
    All trains all the time.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)12:37 No.503873
    >>503863
    the 12:35 butthurt express has arrive
    ALL ABOARD
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)12:38 No.503874
    MAg Lev trainzzzz!
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)12:38 No.503876
    America doesn't like trains because Americans hate things that would improve the country.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)12:38 No.503878
    >>503863
    fuck you faggot
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)12:38 No.503880
    Speaking of trains it's kinda sad that Japan and China have these super fast bullet trains and we're still using that archaic Amtrak shit.

    Toime to UPDATE
    >> AngryR !tuu4Suy7rc 03/31/10(Wed)12:42 No.503919
    >>503880
    >>503878
    >>503876
    >>503874
    >>503873
    >>503872
    >>503837

    Samefag
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)12:43 No.503923
         File1270053826.jpg-(32 KB, 400x400, 1269127744655.jpg)
    32 KB
    >>503919
    >AngryRetard living up to his name
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)12:43 No.503925
    >>503874
    Its nice, but theres no way to integrate it with existing rail infrastructure like you can every other sort of steel wheel on steel track train.
    So you not only have the expense of the technology, but you also have to acquire land for a right-of-way and the build it, or convert an existing railway denying other trains from ever using it again.

    Anyway this thread appears to be about in-city commuter and metro trains
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)12:44 No.503930
    >>503837
    Take this shit to /n/.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)12:46 No.503942
    leftists, just ignore them and use your own minds. what they are spinning is preposterous.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)12:46 No.503943
    >>503925
    WE don't give a shit about betamax and HD DVD so we shouldn't give a shit about old ass trains. Time for an upgrade my niggas
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)12:48 No.503952
    >>503942
    >road use is the solution to everything
    you were speaking of preposterous?
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)12:48 No.503955
         File1270054117.jpg-(172 KB, 500x375, train.jpg)
    172 KB
    >>503925
    Solution, flying train
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)12:57 No.504006
    the United States was actually the leader of early highspeed train developments with the M-10000, the several Pioneer Zephyrs, and the Electroliner in the 1930s-1960s.
    But they were introduced in the depression, or war in the case of Electroliner, so not a lot could be done. And then afterward the automotive industry ganged up on urban and regional rail.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)13:01 No.504016
    >roadways are less efficient than trains
    >no attempt to consider location

    Oh look, it's stupidity on the internet. Also, protip: unless those trains can actually carry cars on them, they aren't performing the same role.
    >> Ω 03/31/10(Wed)13:02 No.504019
    >>503955
    >>503925

    Ahem. Monorails.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)13:07 No.504041
    >>504016
    >But how does the capacity of a freeway and a railway compare? The carrying capacity of a freeway lane is roughly 1800 vehicles per hour, or 2000 people per hour given average vehicle occupancy of 1.11 passengers. A typical six-lane freeway therefore carries up to 12,000 people per hour in both directions.
    >A double-track suburban railway, meanwhile, can easily support one train movement every three minutes in each direction without straining its capacity. A six-car train can carry around 1000 passengers before reaching crush conditions. Thus the rail line can carry at least 40,000 people per hour in both directions, and perhaps more depending on the signalling system and vehicle design.
    U Mad?
    as for train carrying your car, wtf?
    The train is carrying you to your destination, you might as well ride a bike and wear rollerblades at the same time.
    >>504019
    So then you've got to build the elevated causeway for the maglev, which is expensive and ugly
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)13:12 No.504059
    >>504041
    I'll elevate your causeway!
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)13:36 No.504168
    >>504041
    Trains are very frequently not going to bring you within walking distance of your destination. Unless you call a taxi, or bring a bike, you're fucked without a second mode of transportation.

    Also, LOL at comparing the average number of passengers for automobiles with the maximum number of passengers for trains.

    Here, let me correct it for you:

    >But how does the capacity of a freeway and a railway compare? The carrying capacity of a freeway lane is roughly 1800 vehicles per hour, or 6400 people per hour given the average maximum vehicle capacity of 4 passengers.

    Now that it's actually measuring capacity it's higher than a railway. Interesting.

    It might be interesting to look at the average number of people railways DO carry, and compare them to the average number of people the highways carry that has already been established.

    Of course, in any case, the carrying capacity of a train could TEN BILLION ZILLION PEOPLE PER SECOND!!!! and it still wouldn't make them "more efficient" than roads. There is more to efficiency in transportation than bulk carrying capacity; cost being a big one. There are going to be some places where rail systems are better, and some where they're worse. Which is why saying that one is "more efficient" than the other, without context, is stupid.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)13:44 No.504217
         File1270057461.jpg-(31 KB, 450x338, mono-rail.jpg)
    31 KB
    >>504019
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)13:49 No.504248
         File1270057766.jpg-(63 KB, 657x521, epcot_center.jpg)
    63 KB
    Whys everyone jerking off to monorails... sure it was cool at disney world at the epcot center and shit, but irl I dont know
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:06 No.504318
         File1270058764.jpg-(66 KB, 590x298, hogwarts-express1.jpg)
    66 KB
    silly muggles
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:06 No.504325
    >>504168
    >Trains are very frequently not going to bring you within walking distance of your destination.
    You seem to have this crazed belief that railways travel through nowhere and have stops miles from anywhere. Where is this the case?
    Metro: Where are all the stops then on the New York Subway, London Underground, Paris Metro, in the middle of nowhere?
    Suburban Commuter: Where are all the stops then on a German S-Bah, Melbournes railway, in the middle of nowhere?
    et cetera
    >Unless you call a taxi, or bring a bike, you're fucked without a second mode of transportation.
    Bus, Tram/Streetcar, Lightrail. Where I live all stations have adjacent bus stops, often servicing a dozen or more bus routes. In the inter metropolitan area a tram will often be on a nearby road.
    >Also, LOL at comparing the average number of passengers for automobiles with the maximum number of passengers for trains.
    You pretend cars on a freeway are all full all the time. You know thats not true. 1.11 is the average figure for a reason.
    >It might be interesting to look at the average number of people railways DO carry, and compare them to the average number of people the highways carry that has already been established.
    201 million annual passenger trips in Melbourne 2008, and thats in spite of a massive freeway building project over the past 40 years. The trains in the morning and evening peak are often full after the first few stops. Tell me now that nobody uses it.
    Figure is the same worldwide wherever theres a competently organized public transportation system.
    >cost being a big one.
    $450 billion for the Interstate Highway System when adjusted for inflation. How much has been spent since then?
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:07 No.504332
    >>504248
    one person said it, everyone else is for trains.
    Then there are some aspies who've memorized road maps.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:12 No.504361
         File1270059146.gif-(646 KB, 300x236, 1268240939018.gif)
    646 KB
    hey maybe you motherfuckers should take this shit to........./n/ where it belongs
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:13 No.504367
         File1270059213.jpg-(16 KB, 300x197, train time machine.jpg)
    16 KB
    Doc Browns Flying Train!
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:19 No.504402
    I'd love to commute by train. Driving is boring, dangerous, and expensive.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:24 No.504432
    >/n/ - News
    >nigger nigger nigger
    >/n/ - transportation
    >/new/ - News
    >nigger nigger nigger
    >/new/ - transportation
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:25 No.504437
         File1270059913.jpg-(140 KB, 500x343, traincrash.jpg)
    140 KB
    >>504402
    Trains are Dangerous!
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:28 No.504455
         File1270060123.jpg-(15 KB, 400x306, caraccident.jpg)
    15 KB
    >>504437
    Cars are dangerous.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:29 No.504461
    >>504437
    in 45 years of operation the Shinkensen highspeed train has only ever had one accident.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:30 No.504463
         File1270060229.jpg-(45 KB, 350x265, National_Park_Service_9-11_Sta(...).jpg)
    45 KB
    planes are dangerous
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:33 No.504482
    >>504437
    >>504455
    >>504463
    so its agreed: never leave your home
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:34 No.504488
    >>504437
    >>504455
    >>504463
    I lol'd
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:35 No.504491
    anecdotes are dangerous
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:39 No.504502
    Even in the most fuel efficient cars today, way less than 1% of the energy released in burning gasoline is used to move people and goods.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:40 No.504510
    >>504502
    More like 20-25%.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:40 No.504512
         File1270060824.jpg-(20 KB, 450x397, radon.jpg)
    20 KB
    >>504482
    Homes are dangerous.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:43 No.504521
    >>504510
    That's the efficiency of the piston engine. You are ignoring that most of the energy is then wasted on power transfer to the wheels, transmission, idling, moving this huge piece of metal around, etc.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:43 No.504523
         File1270061004.jpg-(83 KB, 800x600, 800px-Denver_Light_Rail_Near_U(...).jpg)
    83 KB
    >FasTracks is a twelve-year, $6.5 billion public transportation expansion plan for the Denver-Aurora and Boulder metropolitan areas in Colorado, USA, developed by the Regional Transportation District. The plan calls for six light rail, diesel commuter rail, and electric commuter rail lines with a combined length of 119 miles (192 km) to be opened between 2013 and 2016 to help relieve traffic congestion on the region's roads and highways.
    Well I'm impressed.
    Although not so sure about just what sort of rolling stock though use, proper heavy rail trains or the dinky lightrail that is quickly overwhelmed by demand that is so beloved in America?
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:47 No.504540
    >>504521
    No, I'm not. You measure engine output at the wheels and specific engine fuel consumption to remove those variables.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:47 No.504545
         File1270061274.jpg-(50 KB, 400x370, bicycle-crash.jpg)
    50 KB
    Bicycle's Dangerous!
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:48 No.504551
    >>504502
    >>504510
    >>504521
    Myth: Cars are becoming more fuel efficient
    Fact: While it’s true that engines get steadily better at using fuel, people have responded by buying more fuel-hungry cars. As a result, the average efficiency of the Australian vehicle fleet has not changed significantly since figures were first collected in 1963.
    Hopes that car use will become more sustainable through better fuel economy are widespread, and often exploited for political advantage. In 2007, for example, then State Treasurer John Brumby used this myth to defend cuts to stamp duty on large new cars:
    >I think it is generally accepted that newer cars are certainly much cleaner, as I said, much safer and generally more fuel efficient - not all of them, but generally more fuel efficient.... I certainly believe that there will be very positive environmental benefits from getting people out of old [cars].... and getting them into new cars. -John Brumby, Victorian Hansard, May 2007
    Such hopes have been likened to walking down an ‘up’ escalator. Even if vehicles become on the whole more fuel efficient, motorists can be expected to respond much as they would to a drop in petrol prices: by driving further and more often.
    However, there is little indication that the cars we actually drive are becoming any more fuel efficient. In Britain, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution found that, while the fuel economy of new British cars improved during the oil shock of the late 1970s and early 1980s, fuel economy has actually worsened since then.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:51 No.504567
    >>504551
    Which is directly attributable to the crash standards necessitating heavier vehicles.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:52 No.504573
    >Roadways for private cars are actually one of the most inefficient forms of transport infrastructure, particularly when compared with railways and tramways.

    And the main reason why we have traffic gridlock. WE have enough highways in America. Why not divert most of the money that is currently used for highways and divert that to building public transit and expanding Amtrak.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:53 No.504578
    >>504573
    Because that is too easy. And Amtrak and public transportation doesn't have campaign funding dollars.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:53 No.504585
         File1270061624.jpg-(42 KB, 389x526, average fuel efficiency.jpg)
    42 KB
    >>504551
    Australian figures for fuel economy tell a similar story. For some decades, the Australian Bureau of Statistics has conducted a Survey of Motor Vehicle Usage, which estimates the average fuel consumption of all Australian passenger vehicles on the road. This figure has hovered slightly above or below 12 litres per 100 km over the entire period for which data have been collected. The most recent available figure (from 2007) of 11.5 litres/100km is higher than the very first figure collected over four decades earlier!
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:54 No.504589
    >>504540
    It doesn't matter if you measure it at the wheels, the cars will still use a lot of fuel idling, braking, and because they are very large, moving just the car (or just keeping it moving) takes a lot of energy.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:54 No.504597
    OP, the reason people don't accept trains is because of faggots like you.

    All you do is whine about other people's lifestyle choices and tastes because you need to get laid and don't realise it.

    Have you ever considered doing something about it? Figuring out a way for trains to compete with cars for convenience and freedom? I know you haven't but in the rare event that you have tried then it is obvious you have not succeeded and you should stop whining and get on with it and get back to us when you've figured it out.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:54 No.504598
    >>504589
    It takes about 15-20 hp to keep a car moving along a level road at highway speed.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:55 No.504604
    >>504567
    NO!
    Heavier cars aren't better at crash tests.
    Big cars aren't better at crash tests.
    Cars builds to crash well are good at crash tests and guess what, those kind of cars come in all shapes and sizes.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:56 No.504606
    >>504578
    Yes, but it pays out so much more in benefits to the environment, safety, and mobility.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:56 No.504608
    Trains ? Are you mad ? Trains doesn't stop and mcdonalds or kfc drive in. They don't even have a cup holder
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:56 No.504614
    >>504578
    Actually Siemens have contributed money to a number community groups ballot initiatives pushing for rail, that was one criticism of the FasTracks
    But I didn't see these people complaining about the auto industry killing rail so fuck 'em
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:57 No.504618
         File1270061859.jpg-(22 KB, 404x224, ave-interior_678440c.jpg)
    22 KB
    >>504608
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:58 No.504624
    >>504604
    >Cars builds to crash well are good at crash tests and guess what, those kind of cars come in all shapes and sizes.
    I understand that. It still doesn't change the fact that the average car weight in the US has been increasing for the last 20 years which is directly attributable to the changing crash standards.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)14:59 No.504632
    >>504624
    Well that's mostly because you use 60s technology to respond to 90s standards.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)15:01 No.504642
    >>504632
    you're an idiot
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)15:02 No.504649
    >>504597
    the convenience and freedom of their cost, efficiency, and cleanliness?
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)15:05 No.504658
    >>504642
    No, I just realise that it's easier to make shit cars and sell them in america than anywhere else, fuck, some of your "modern" cars use leaf springs. You know, those things that are exclusively used for oxen carts everywhere else in the world.

    My point still stands, under 1% of the energy in gasoline is used to move people and goods when you talk about cars.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)15:05 No.504661
         File1270062340.jpg-(49 KB, 500x375, groping.jpg)
    49 KB
    The only reason these trainfags want to be crowded with a bunch of other people is so they can sneakely grope japs
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)15:05 No.504664
    OP, you know what the real problem is that keeps people from using more trains? its that people have too much wealth. they can afford to live in places that are nicer than some cramped shitty apartment in a city. this is why the suburbs have grown at such a high rate ever since the 50s.

    my solution is to make people poor. this will drive them back into the cities since they can no longer afford to commute 30 miles to work from their shitty suburban house.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)15:09 No.504675
    I have always thought it odd that in 1947 Phoenix suffered a fire in their streetcar depot which seemingly destroyed all the rolling stock leaving them with apparently no choice but to shut down the steetcar system (although I'm sure they could have imported PCCs or Birneys or other models from elsewhere, would have only waited a few months).
    We all know what happened to the major streetcar systems around this time in history, but did any others suffer such accidents?
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)15:10 No.504684
    >>504664
    suburbanization was a deliberately planned program
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)15:10 No.504686
    >>504664
    can still use suburban commuter trains
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)15:12 No.504692
    >>504686
    >suburban commuter trains

    lolno.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)15:15 No.504706
    >>504692
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commuter_train
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)15:17 No.504719
    i agree 110% OP, abolish cars and replace them with those magnetic hovertrains
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)15:18 No.504725
    >>504608
    Just put those ON the train. Problem solved.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)15:19 No.504732
    >>504706
    I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm saying no one is going to use them. you still need a car to get to and from the station in the suburb, and the tickets will run you more than gas for your car would.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)15:28 No.504775
    >>504732
    bus interchange at station
    streetcar/tram or lightrail once you start getting into the urban city
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)15:33 No.504799
    >>504775
    and even if you could take a bus to a train to the city, what is the likelyhood this will have cost you less money than driving a car?

    and what about the cost in time? it takes a hell of a lot longer to ride around on a bus and a train than it would to just drive.

    tl;dr Public transportation is economically infeasible for your average suburban resident.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)15:37 No.504820
    >>504799
    >and even if you could take a bus to a train to the city, what is the likelyhood this will have cost you less money than driving a car?
    $10.60AUD in Melbourne for a Zone 1+2 ticket, it covers everything on the metropolitan system: buses, trains, trams.
    Same done everywhere else.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)15:40 No.504838
    >>504820
    silly ausfag, I'm an American. your colorful playmoney means nothing to me.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)15:50 No.504911
    >>504820
    >>504838
    Lilydale Station-Flinders St Station, 37km, direct is 58 minutes, 62 minutes via loop. (this could be improved but they're still using a schedule devised decades ago when they operated much slow trains, also track quality and signaling vary greatly plus not enough trains)
    You're looking at an hours drive.
    Of the countless freeways they've foolishly built here the ones since the 1990s have been tolled so that would make it quicker but of course cost more, and then there is parking
    drive: fuel, toll, parking
    public transportation: met ticket
    >> lol i trol u !!FXIYoStbOnd 03/31/10(Wed)15:55 No.504945
    >>504799

    Dammit, I've read stuff on this, and the time is generally identical or slightly favoring light rail, because of traffic congestion.

    Also, on the train you can relax and read a newspaper or something, whereas in a car you're having to drive the fucker, three feet at a time.
    >> The Green Hornet Streetcar Disaster Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)15:58 No.504957
         File1270065489.jpg-(126 KB, 432x355, Grnhrnt2.jpg)
    126 KB
    A streetcar named Disaster!
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)15:59 No.504967
    >>504945
    >lightrail
    thats because you Americans fail and think you can solve it all with a couple lightrail lines. No.
    Lightrail does have its place complementing other means but trying to use it exclusively is like trying to use the car exclusively.
    Also unlike the tram/streetcar lightrail can work effectively on their own right-of-way, although due to their smaller capacity you wouldn't want it going as far as a train.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)16:01 No.504986
         File1270065697.jpg-(87 KB, 468x703, massive-car-pileup.jpg)
    87 KB
    >>504957
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)16:02 No.504988
    >>504967
    I could never use those because My shifts never matched up with the schedules
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)16:02 No.504995
    >>504957
    I oddly thought of James Dean's car.
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)16:02 No.504997
         File1270065777.jpg-(23 KB, 507x299, accident_rates.jpg)
    23 KB
    http://fixexpo.blogspot.com/2008/09/comparing-accident-rates-of-light-rail.html
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)16:04 No.505001
    >>503837

    Cam'ron is a bitch nigga
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)16:05 No.505008
    >>505001
    How?
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)16:06 No.505012
    >>504988
    well they ought to be running anywhere from every 10 minutes to every half hour
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)16:06 No.505013
    >>504997
    >blogspot
    really?
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)16:06 No.505014
    >>505008

    chump flow
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)16:07 No.505018
    >>504997
    It's only valid when you compare accidents per person-mile
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)16:11 No.505037
    >>505001
    lolololololo was wondering how you knew my name (cameron), thought you had hax, just realized picture was rapper Cam'Ron.... feel dumb
    >> Anonymous 03/31/10(Wed)16:12 No.505042
         File1270066341.jpg-(29 KB, 492x277, mother of god.jpg)
    29 KB
    >>505037



    [Return]
    Delete Post [File Only]
    Password
    Style [Yotsuba | Yotsuba B | Futaba | Burichan]
    Watched Threads
    PosterThread Title
    [V][X]Anonymous
    [V][X]Anonymous7 yr-old pimped...
    [V][X]Anonymous