Weird Harold wrote:Zakharra wrote:...I don't know if there is train service here or not. If there is, it is at night when the passenger trains pass through and that being just once a night.
There probably isn't any passenger rail service in Sand Point but that lack doesn't mean there never has been, or shouldn't be on Safehold.
You're arguing that passenger rail and mass-transit isn't viable because it doesn't exist. I'm arguing that if it did exist it would be viable because the simple fact of its existence would indicate a different mindset than the standard American "Me First" attitude.
You're also arguing that because it won't work in the panhandle of Idaho, it can't work on Safehold -- which doesn't have a tradition of personal vehicle and an installed base of several million ICEs and a globe spanning petro-chemical industry.
You're arguing that "government" has to maintain inter-city highways, yet there is no trans-siberian highway, only a trans-siberian railroad. Very similar to the US transcontinental railroad of the 1860's. Local government needs to maintain local roads, but there is no real need to maintain inter-city roads where there is adequate rail service. The US didn't bother with inter-city highways until the 1950s.
There used to be. Two major lines run through/by Sandpoint (one word). A north/south line and an east/west line, and a hell of a lot of freight passes by Sandpoint day and night. The north/south line runs by a small rail station that has recently been remodeled (it's a historical landmark). So it used to have rail service and I am pretty sure it still does, just at night though. During the day it's strictly freight trains, including a lot of coal and oil trains.
I am arguing for it because IC engines open up choice for people. By limiting everything to rails or mass transit and by restricting how far people can drive you restrict peoples choice of where they can go. Right now, I can hop into my car and make a quick trip into town and be back in a half hour. I can't do that with a train because I would be limited by the train schedule. The trips would take a lot longer and I wouldn't be able to take as much back with me as I might want. It's the convenience that I am arguing for. You would restrict that convenience because you don't like IC engines or cars/trucks it seems. Everything you're arguing for is a restriction of the freedom of movement. You seem to want to restrict everyone to driving to a central location, then parking and using mass transit to do anything in town. Anything but letting people drive into towns and cities to shop or do what they want on their own time and schedule.
So far Safehold doesn't have a globe spanning petrochemical industry, but it will, if only for artillery filler and fuel to fire boilers for ships, trains, and eventually airplanes using IC engines. Cars/trucks are a small step from that and they open up the range of movement for a lot of people, and it doesn't make any sense to ignore the wonderful roads Safehold does have. With only a little work they could easily take automobiles
If Siberia had the population that Russia west of the Urals had, there would be more roads. And a point of note, there are roads all through out Russia. The Russia military would not be restricted to using just the trans-Siberia railroad. Another thing is that Russia has a tendency to wanting to restrict travel (being a monarchy/dictatorship for its existence tends to do that) so that might be a reason they might be inclined to restrict travel to places.
Weird Harold wrote:Castenea wrote:Harold, all that is necessary for a city is the roads between the city and the markets where farmers sell their produce to wholesalers and where farmers get their goods. Most farmers would be a bit put out though at only having less than all weather roads to get to market, unless they were semi-subsistance.
I'm not suggesting that local roads need to be "less than all weather" just that they don't need to connect cities; connecting cities is the job of railroads and airlines.Castenea wrote:I also think you are severely underestimating the cost of public transport system you are proposing. Owner operated vehicles only run when the owner feels there is a need, a public transit system must run their vehicles on a set schedule, no matter how many (or few) passengers there are.
Amtrak operates a high-speed, catenary-powered, all electric passenger service along the eastern seaboard. That doesn't put any wear on highways; in fact, it removes several thousand vehicles a day from the highways.
Catenary powered all electric, high speed trains are all over the planet. How an where the electricity for those trains varies almost as much as the locations of those trains do. On a per-passenger or per ton basis, those trains are orders of magnitude more efficient than any other mode of transport.
Electric light rail, monorail, people-movers, et al in the urban environment are also orders of magnitude more economical, even if 12 of 24 trips each day are totally empty.
Sure, an integrated continental mass transit system is going to be expensive but possibly not as expensive as millions of private vehicles AND mass transit for those who can't afford private vehicles.
UUmm.. roads would be required to connect cities, not just railroads or airlines. One reason for an effective road network (thanks for who brought that to my mind, I had forgotten about it) is to facilitate the movement of the military. Trains only cut it so far and modern armies need to be able to move fast. This means a good and reliable road system. It also means a good automobile to carry the troops and equipment (trucks, jeeps and the like) as well as fighting vehicles.(tanks, IFV, gun buggies and the like). Roads also allow the police and security and fire departments to travel to do their duties.
The rail systems are nice and all, but they are extremely limited to where they go. Roads are there year round whether you use them or not and you can drive or walk on them as your choice. A railroad is limited to one place and it requires a lot of work to extend it. For a population that is spread out, trains are only somewhat useful. To use them you have to go to them. With a car, all you need to do is hop in and go.