Thinks back to 90's Geo Metro....talk about a quality vehicle.

 

You know, I was going to mention the Metro but I figured that'd really be unfair. I am sure the Ford 1.0T will be a far superior motor, and the car that wraps around it will be light years better, but I still wonder if or at what point the "cheap" stigma of a U.S. three cylinder car overpowers the efficiency factor.

 

"Turbo" is seen as a prestigious thing, it probably cancels out any negative that comes with 3cyl.

Honestly though I don't expect people to pay much attention to that. I think what will draw them into show rooms and seal the deal is a number like 46-50mpg.

Also, that engine won't be cheap. It will cost at least the same, if not a little more than the current 1.6L N/A 4cyl.

Most rail is used for freight trains, and it is far from a loser, it is a growing industry. The higher diesel prices go, the better freight rail does since it is the more fuel efficient way to ship long distance.

 

But I wasn't talking about freight rail.

 

And you're basing this on what, media reports?

I can tell you this, our ridership has boomed in the wake of the recession. Yes, our maintenance costs have skyrocketed, however that is because it is an aging infrastructure that is living beyond its initial intended lifespan.

We should've invested more in rail decades ago and we're now being forced to play catch-up.

 

Yep, Amtrack has been a huge money looser for years. Now it seems every state gov is pushing these multi billion dollar high speed rail money pits. Although the idea is cool they will be money loosers big time. People in this country like their freedom to much.

 

I suppose you missed where I said "Except for very specific corridors". I see you live in the heart of the San Diego-LA-San Jose-San Francisco corridor. Rail makes some sense there along with the east coast Boston-NYC-Philly-Baltimore-DC corridor.

For you guys rail is just great, but as I've said numerous times, there's this vast and rather insignificant space between the two coasts called 'the Rest of America' ( ) where passenger trains are a waste of time and money. The data doesn't lie. And even in places where modern high speed rail makes sense from a pure convenience/traveling aspect, how do you resolve the fact that rail is ALWAYS going to be much more expensive to maintain than a piece of interstate? Not to mention the fact that I'll be subsidizing yet another pet project which I would never use. I mean hey, if the brokest state in the brokest country wants to spend money on high speed rail transportation, knock yourselves out, just leave me out of it.

My wife is originally from Saint Louis so we make the trip from DET to STL at least once a year to visit her family and friends there. I've looked into the train. It's ridiculous. As it is now it's nearly 10 hours by train and costs $200 a ticket round trip. Uh, I think I'll drive, save an hour and a half and hundreds of dollars in fares and a rental car, thanks. Even if it was true, modern "high speed" rail where the trip time would be cut in half or less, I highly doubt you're going to get the costs to be competitive with air which is also even faster (assuming they're running on time ).

With the exceptions of the coasts, this country was built for airline travel. We don't have the dense population distributions that Europe has. In between major midwestern/plains cities there's a whole lot of nothing. Trains are never going to service those cities quickly enough to realistically compete with air travel. The obsession with trains is the perverbial square peg, round hole scenario for most of us.

 

It's not booming here in St. Louis. More and more money is being sunk into it, but less and less people are riding.

Then again, population is falling, and jobs are disappearing. So there is less people, who now have no where to go anyway.

 

St. Louis City is the problem there. The economically viable groups live outside the actual city limits. Metro-Link bacically serves the city. Most St. Louis based Corporations (those that are still left) hav moved to the county or to other towns (due to the ridiculous corruption, payoffs, and 1% city tax). Metro Link gets use on game days (the only thing anybody need to go to in St. Louis City are the Cards, Blues, and Rams). The rest of the ridership is not a sterling group. Totally wasted project. Some friends recently drove her to visit from southern Georgia. They spent $92 in gas each way. Even at todays high prices it is still economical.

 

We produce 5.3 million barrels per day.
We import 9.0 million barrels per day.
We use 18.7 millions barrels per day.

http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/i...=oil_home#tab2

Even if you were to say we use none of our own oil, which is clearly not the case, then Saudi Arabia and Russia alone produce enough for the United States at over 9 million barrels a day each.

So, top two, not top 3 and that includes all of US oil consumption from industrial to residential and no use of domestic production. Do you just make up numbers?


Last raised at the federal level in 1993 or 18 years ago, but 20 is a better sounding number!?!
http://www.infrastructurist.com/2010...-have-no-clue/
Oh and they are varied/raised at the state level much more often.


Ahh, India did in fact cross the 1 BILLION mark, but China has about 1.3 billion people. That's ok, you were only off by 1.7 billion!


You actually got this one right! Canada is our number one supplier, but Saudi Arabia and Mexico are essentially tied for second place!

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move...0_mbblpd_a.htm


Now there is something we can agree on!

 

Most of the time it is the same set of rails they are using.

So then we skip passenger rail in "the rest of America" and just build it on the coasts where most of people live. Build it where it is needed/used.

Do you have numbers to back this up? I've always heard the opposite. I've read that the highways are multiple times more expensive to maintain than a rail line.
Most of us don't live in the midwest, and if we had 100mph train service then sub 400 mile tips would be a lot faster by rail.

In my perfect world you would take 150mph trains for trips under 600 miles and save the planes for 600+ mile trips. Coast to coast is always going to be something people were would rather fly. It doesn't have to be all or nothing with trains. Each form of transportation has its place. I take my car for short trips, train for medium, and plane for long trips.

Amtrak has had big increases in ridership over the last decade. Every time I ride Metro North or NJ Transit the train is packed.

I don't even know what this means? Are you saying more travel options = less freedom?

 

Ignoring the fact that I'm not so sure about "most people" living on the coasts, I'm fine with that. But it should be a state and locally funded project.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_r..._and_operation

Before you jump down my throat that it's "just" a Wikipedia article, I'd point out that everything is properly sourced - just the easiest thing to point to at the moment.

The article does point out that at a train's peak capacity, the per-person costs are about the same with roads - it's just too bad rail rarely sees peak capacity outside of places like NY-NJ.

It's common sense really, what are you maintaining with a piece of road - the pavement and bridges. What are you maintaining with regional high speed rail? Track, bridges, locomotives, cars, and now you want to electrify it which means massive spending on grid infrastructure and the accompanying systems. This is another reason why we love the car in the U.S. - everyone buys their own vehicle, maintains it, puts gas in it, and all we share is the cost in maintaining the roads that we all use. With high speed rail I have my money funding/subsidizing all these things which I and most others don't use.

Again, depending on where you live and your own experience is going to influence your opinions on trains. If you step out of the northeast you'd have a very different view. It doesn't make sense in most places, which is what I've been saying forever now.

More travel options is great when you have the fiscal means to build and maintain them. We don't.

 

About 200 million live in a state that touches the ocean in the lower 48 states. Much of the Interstate highway system was federally funded. It is the governments job to provide infrastructure to facilitate commerce.

They kind of cherry picked an expensive rail project. That is like using the numbers for the "Big Dig" in Boston to show how expensive it is to build a highway. In that case I think it is a couple hundred million dollars per mile. Initial construction is only part of it. A set of rails also last longer than a road surface. The rail line running through my old home town has to be at least 50 years old.

Also, we tax payers don't have to buy the locomotives, just like we don't have to pay for the buses or trucks that use the interstate highway system, or the Jets that land at our airports. Private companies can buy and run the trains. The State or Federal Gov't can charge them tolls and also bill then for the electricity used if it is electrified rail. Use that same model that the airports and highways use.

I don't think anyone is pushing for NYC style subways or a high speed rail station in every city in Wyoming. The infrastructure will get built where there is a need for it.

Here is a map of the USA by population density:



We are the wealthiest country on Earth. We can afford it. We just choose to **** our money away on other less important things.

For the $70 Billion that has been taken from my state to pay for that mess in Iraq we could have had a real nice upgrade to our train network here.

 

But it is not the federal government's job to spend irresponsibly on that responsibility.


The numbers clearly show that on average rail is more expensive, it explicitly says "excluding Seattle's rail project". I'll have to try and find other studies later.

Ok, you find a private company or two that is salivating over the prospect of building high speed rail trains. If there was profit to be made, this would have been pushed by private industry a long time ago.

No, but you want the guy in Wyoming to help build you a "gee whiz" transportation infrastructure for NYC, Boston and other cities some 2000 miles away. That isn't right.

Good grief. http://www.usdebtclock.org/ How are those numbers looking to you?

How come every time the issue of spending is brought up, a "certain" group points to money we've spent on our Middle East conflicts and ignores everything else that has been spent so frivilously? If we didn't spend another dime on defense this year we'd still be drowning. Another argument for another time and place I suppose. Bottom line is that it's time to prioritize what we're spending on. Transportation as the nation sits now works. And we're getting more fuel efficient every day.

...

Back to the Fiesta, any idea what the premium will be for this motor? Or will they go with a Cruze-like strategy of offering it standard on higher trim levels....

 

With all this talk about trains, does this mean the Fiesta handles like it's on rails?