Trains Are for Tourists

Sorry so few posts this week; I caught a cold in Washington, DC — one of the hazards of travel.

However, NPR has an interesting article about high-speed rail. If This will help you to cure erectile dysfunction Learn More generic levitra faster. The several features of the modern treatment procedures are: All the remedies that are prepared for treating this disorder are herbal and organic as these are made with essential minerals, oils, metals, leaves, stems, roots and other important http://www.icks.org/html/04_publication.php?cate=SPRING%2FSUMMER+2015 online prescription viagra without parts of the plants. This type of machine consists of three parts known as a motor, mask or tubing. icks.org buy viagra without rx Smoking and drug and alcohol abuse are also risk factors for ED and poor strength in male genitals are – Inactivity can be a major cause for poor reproductive functions. viagra online for sale you have comments, please leave them on NPR’s web site to let NPR know people are interested in the issue. (Go ahead and leave comments here too if you want.)

Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

16 Responses to Trains Are for Tourists

  1. the highwayman says:

    ROT: Sorry so few posts this week; I caught a cold in Washington, DC — one of the hazards of travel.

    THWM: You could have drove across town and caught a cold too.

  2. t g says:

    I luv it highwayman! We’re so contrarian on here we can’t even let a man complain about his travels without calling him out. (For the truth of the matter is, THWM, if he had driven by car he wouldn’t have been exposed to as many germs. Factor that into travel efficiency. I’m kidding, please don’t)

  3. the highwayman says:

    For that matter Mr.O’Toole gets paid to complain!

  4. Francis King says:

    Antiplanner wrote:

    “Throughout the world and throughout history, passenger trains have been used mainly by a wealthy elite…”

    I’d like to see some evidence for this somewhat sweeping statement.

    The railways of the 19C in the UK were built using strictly private funding, without subsidy. Ordinary people used the railways for personal travel and freight. The railways were profitable, and changed the economic situation in the country radically. Rural branch lines halved the cost of coal in the cities, and doubled the price of milk – the latter, because milk would arrive in town in a much better condition.

    “…and have never given the average people of any nation as much mobility as our interstate highways.”

    Increased mobility means that people move further away from each other. I can’t see the point of this.

  5. the highwayman says:

    O’Toole: “We have a choice between a transportation system that everyone uses and that pays for itself, or one that requires everyone to pay through their taxes but that is used by only a small elite.”

    THWM: It’s nice of comrade O’Toole to defend the proletariat by saying this.

  6. Borealis says:

    Having been training through Europe, it is obvious that it is a great way to tour around, but it is hard to see how it pays for itself.

  7. the highwayman says:

    So, roads don’t make money.

    I don’t get money from people who drive past my house.

    Maybe you want to live in a private police state, but I don’t!

  8. ws says:

    ROT, can you substantiate your claims that “trains are for tourists”?

  9. the highwayman says:

    He can’t, that’s just it.

  10. C. P. Zilliacus says:

    ws asked:

    > ROT, can you substantiate your claims that “trains are for tourists”?

    and

    the highwayman [sic] asserted:

    > He can’t, that’s just it.

    I’m not Randal (and I don’t play him on TV), but here are trip data from 2001 from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (full report here):

    Personal vehicle 89.5%
    Air 7.4%
    Bus 2.1%
    Train 0.8%
    Other 0.2%

  11. C. P. Zilliacus says:

    All travel when computed as a function of passenger-miles of travel in 2002 (source here):

    Air carrier 9.7%
    General aviation (undefined)
    Passenger car 52.8%
    Light truck 33.7%
    Motorcycle 0.2%
    Bus 2.9%
    Transit, excluding bus 0.5%
    Amtrak 0.1%

  12. ws says:

    C. P. Zilliacus:

    My comments and highwayman’s were in regards to Randal’s “trains are for tourists” assertion. The data that you are presenting does not give any information regarding transportation and tourism.

  13. the highwayman says:

    C. P. Zilliacus said: I’m not Randal (and I don’t play him on TV):

    THWM: Then Randal might as well have told us that “Trix are for kids”.

  14. C. P. Zilliacus says:

    ws wrote:

    > My comments and highwayman’s were in regards to Randal’s “trains are for tourists” assertion.
    > The data that you are presenting does not give any information regarding transportation and
    > tourism.

    [Begin quote of my previous posts]

    Share of long-distance travel – Train 0.8%

    Passenger-Miles of Travel by Mode –
    Transit, excluding bus 0.5%
    Amtrak 0.1%

    [End quote of my previous posts]

    Based on the above numbers, maybe Randal should have written trains are not for most travelers?

  15. the highwayman says:

    Randal O’Toole does what he does for a political agenda and nothing more.

    What ever he(or Cox) writes is worthless to begin with.

  16. Borealis says:

    Francis King summed up most of the debates on this blog: “Increased mobility means that people move further away from each other. I can’t see the point of this.”

    Most debates here are about whether you agree or disagree with this statement.

Leave a Reply