Route 15

QueenlnR8 - You're right on track!

I live in a neighborhood that has public water & sewage; except for one little 1819-built house that still has the old well & cesspool. The owners of this little place want to hook up to public water & sewage - and this has a lot of neighbors in a uproar.

You see, there are Public Easements all around the neighborhood, which go through the properties. That means that for the folks in the little house to hook up, a number of yards must be dug up.

That's Life! You have no choice where there are Public Easements, Tracks that have already been installed, Areas of Public Utilities, etc. When you buy a property next to a railroad track - that's what you're getting. It is public domain, and perhaps one day trains will be running next to your home.

If you can't stand the sight trolleys, don't buy a house next to trolley tracks.

R3 Rider wrote: Is there any city government anywhere in the world that takes less interest in transportation?

If you have a chance to visit the rest of the world, you will see a lot of governments privatize their public transportation to private companies.

In Britian, the whole railroad system had been sold to several companies in mid 90's. The system never ran out of money except for some serious accidents and strikes.

In Hong Kong, the government takes no interest in public transportation. The railroad system makes millions in US per year. There is no timetable in the train/bus stations because you would never wait for train/bus for more than 15 minutes.

I don't see any reason that the government have to get involved into public transportation.

If Britain's privatization scheme was such a success and "never ran out of money", then why is Network Rail about to pump £5 billion per year into the infrastructure? And just whom is this National Rail entity, and why do they use the same logo as British Rail?

I don't see any reason that the government have to get involved into public transportation

Roadways are a form of public transportation. How should they be funded and maintained?

Ix-nay on the off topic-nay atter-chay.

Lets keep talking about the Route 15. I enjoy it!

:D

R3 Rider wrote:Gimme a break. Those people haven't seen a trolley go down that street in over a decade...

Ya..... except it was never actually, officially abandoned. SEPTA always said it intended to restore service, it's reputation of not doing so aside.

jfrey40535 wrote: I would have to agree and have some sympathy for them. They live next to a sleezy, smelly, noisy bus depot. This is their chance to get SEPTA

This would be a fair argument.......if anyone who lives there moved in before 1914 , when Callowhill was built. If you don't like bus/trolley depots, WHY DID YOU MOVE THERE??[/quote]

WOW. I royally screwed that up.

No offense SCB, but just because you moved next to a bus depot after it was built doesen't give SEPTA the right to run it like a trash plant. They should be stewards of the neighborhood. Keep the place clean, minimize disruptions and noise. There are laws about idling of buses and SEPTA ignores them all. DOT rules specify that buses must be turned off when temperatures are at a certain point (something like 40F-85F), or when idling for a certain period of time (over 15 minutes). Not only are they wasting fuel, they are contributing more to pollution and creating excess noise. So when you're sitting next to a depot of 100 buses, its probablly pretty nasty there.

jfrey40535 wrote:No offense SCB, but just because you moved next to a bus depot after it was built doesen't give SEPTA the right to run it like a trash plant. They should be stewards of the neighborhood. Keep the place clean, minimize disruptions and noise. There are laws about idling of buses and SEPTA ignores them all. DOT rules specify that buses must be turned off when temperatures are at a certain point (something like 40F-85F), or when idling for a certain period of time (over 15 minutes). Not only are they wasting fuel, they are contributing more to pollution and creating excess noise. So when you're sitting next to a depot of 100 buses, its probablly pretty nasty there.

All the more reason to get the trolleys through. :D

Irish Chieftain wrote:If Britain's privatization scheme was such a success and "never ran out of money", then why is Network Rail about to pump £5 billion per year into the infrastructure? And just whom is this National Rail entity, and why do they use the same logo as British Rail?

I don't see any reason that the government have to get involved into public transportation

Roadways are a form of public transportation. How should they be funded and maintained?

The operators did not own most tracks and stations in Britian. The operators have to pay to the National Rail / Railtrack for infrastructure (£5 billion mostly came from the operators). They kept the National System / BR logo because of reasons. 1. A station can be operated by multiple companies. Using histroical BR logo will make less confusion. 2. Fare structure and collection, I can't explain it here since it's too complex, you may want to ask somebody who know this in depth.

SEPTA should consider selling their RR lines to indivudal operators. At least private companies are willing to invest more money to improve the system than SEPTA.

Apologies for OT reply, but this cannot go unanswered:
In case you missed the moderator's adminition in Pig Latin, here it is in normal English: Nix on the off-topic chatter. If you want to talk about privatizing any aspect of SEPTA (which won't work), I advise you start a different thread on it.

SEPTA should consider selling their RR lines to indivudal operators. At least private companies are willing to invest more money to improve the system than SEPTA

Are you unfamiliar with the history of making passenger railroad transportation into public entities? Governments took them over when passenger haulage could not make money—and it still cannot make money. No private owner of infrastructure would dare take on a losing proposition. That's why in Britain there are Network Rail and the private operators, not owner-operators. Network Rail is funded by the Strategic Rail Authority, a government entity. Why aren't there any private railroads in the USA taking on the entire burden of passenger haulage—why won't CSX and NS take over all trains on SEPTA's and Amtrak's network? There's no money in it.

OK, I think I'll start a thread on this in a different forum. KKwan, if and when I do, I'll PM you with the link.

Irish Chieftain wrote:Are you unfamiliar with the history of making passenger railroad transportation into public entities? Governments took them over when passenger haulage could not make money—and it still cannot make money. No private owner of infrastructure would dare take on a losing proposition.

Welp, it seems to me that Tony Macrie's been turning a profit down on the CMSL. His operating costs don't receive a dime of subsidy. Sure, the state kicked in some funds for rehabbing the line, but the track isn't his, it's NJT's. The entity of the CMSL encompasses mainly the service provided and the equipment. The track upon which it operates just happens to belong to somebody else. Now, I know that the CMSL is a substantial contrast from a day to day commuter rail line, but I wouldn't say that they're extremely dissimilar. Passenger rail may not be profitable now, but why isn't it? It was at one time, wasn't it? Seems to me that damn near all of the rail in this country was built with private funds. To build the infrastructure we have today from scratch would more than likely mean some rather steep taxes. Throughout the golden age of railroading, nary a penny came out of peoples' pockets to subsidize rail services that ran with clockwork precision. What the hell happened? Unfair competition from Uncle Sam. An interstate highway system was built. Such a system, on a basic level, was probably a good thing. Eisenhower saw it as invaluable from a military logistical standpoint, and I believe he was correct. He saw how efficient it was for Germany in terms of moving resources to where they needed to be. (They still lost though!) But now our interstate highway system, in my opinion, has become a monster. Look at North Jersey. At one time, pairs of steel ribbons came from all directions moving people and goods in a relatively efficient manner in and out of each of those towns. Many of them are still in place, but don't see nearly the traffic they once did. Today, it's wall to wall concrete, confusion, and congestion. It seems pretty evident that building highway upon highway, double decking them, widening them to 32 lanes, tunneling them beneath entire cities etc. is expensive, inefficient, a waste of perfectly good land, and detrimental to the immediate surrounding area. It seems to me that they should have simply left the interstate highway system as a basic network of limited access roads constructed and maintained by tolls, not taxes. Another problem I see contributing to the unprofitability of passenger rail is the ease of which a drivers license can be obtained. Our roads are dangerous because so many licensed drivers are unqualified to drive. To go off on a tangent, does anyone find it funny that FRA standards are so rigid for vehicles that are inevitably guided? I don't have the statistics to back this up, but I'd be more than willing to bet that a person riding a train in the 1940's was safer than the same person driving on a highway today. By sponsoring the endless construction of superhighways, our government has put massive good and successful private industries out of business, and they have artificially influenced our culture. For the way in which our government is set up, the results are usually negative every time they stick their nose into somebody's business. I'd be satisfied if they just stopped building highways. Maybe they can even quit maintaining some of them, let them fall apart, and sell the land (revenue) putting it back on the tax rolls. (more revenue) They could also make the driver's test about 75 times more rigorous, and maybe they'll stop subsidizing and bailing out airlines too. Maybe scale back some of the more overbearing FRA regulations, and just maybe passenger rail can once again be profitable. Yes, I'm a shameless libertarian. I can dream, can't I? Hell, if this house was built on trolley car profits, I definitely think running a passenger railroad in the black is within the realm of possibility.

I hate having to reiterate myself, but ...

KEEP IT ON TOPIC.

If you want to talk about the Cape May Seashore Lines and how they run their operations, I suggest you take it to the New Jersey Railfan page.

http://64.78.30.219/forums/viewforum.php?f=127

I would agree with you lime, however it seems that government regulation is further moving our mass transit systems, particuarlly rail, further and further away from break-even, let alone profitable. Look at all the money being spent to make systems ADA compliant (thanks to Mr. Clinton). We're tearing down train stations so we can rebuild them with high level platforms. Extra money goes into railcars so that the blind and deaf are aware of what the train is doing, and where it is (doors are closing.....).

Yet we have a thing in this city called Paratransit, which is supposed to offer door-to-door customized service for the diabled. But they don't want to use it. Is it run poorly? Why must we create all of these accessibility rules for the masses when they are only used by the few? That's what is discouraging and what will keep future trolley lines from returning (23, 56).

kkwan wrote:

R3 Rider wrote: Is there any city government anywhere in the world that takes less interest in transportation?

Actually, Matthew Mitchell posted that, not me, but either way, thanks for the enlightening response.