MAP PR0N!

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, CMRivdogs said:

I don't disagree but I still see rail as a viable alternative for short distance travel in some aspects. I'd never take Amtrak to Detroit for instance due to time and somewhat cost. At the same time flying is more efficient time wise, the cost can be close to prohibitive in terms of add ons. Parking or other airport transportation, rental cars at DTW, etc. Not to mention flying these days seems akin to traveling by Trailways or Greyhound in terms of the overall personalities of fellow travelers.

I can go from Richmond to DC in about two hours, cheaper parking at the train station that you would find anywhere in the district and little or no issues with traffic. I feel the same way about DET to Chicago, except it might be a bit quicker to drive but the parking rates and having to deal with Chicago traffic would probably negate that for me.  
 

Now if I can just find a way to get to Durham on demand in less than 2 hours 

Not sure which paper, but a reporter took Amtrak from NY to SF and of course the fuel use by the train per passenger mile was far higher than a plane would have been. By his numbers (which he didn't provide) 700 miles was the crossover where air was more fuel efficient than rail. With planes you minimize fuel use by minimizing takeoffs, thus efficiency goes up with trip length. The great unknown in the story was how full his train was for that calc. A SRO Acela on the east coast is probably very fuel efficient. A mostly empty cross country Amtrak not so much. The primary virtue of rail is it's scalability. Once you have a track you can move an almost arbitrarily large number of people on it at low marginal cost. Airports run out of gates and landing slots and those are very hard constraints. But rails need your entire urban geography to be conformed to where the tracks are, and unlike Europe, for the last 100 yrs in the US our urban geography was evolved in almost exactly the opposite direction. Big lift to change that! But urban light rail still seems to be the tech that can move the most people intra urban distances for the least cost and least congestion. I've always been partial to electric buses/trolleys. We still had them in Det when I was young.

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, John_Brian_K said:

to wait until that next break through with travel.

there is a lot of energy around fixed wing VTOL electric commuter airplanes. Very complex mechanical system to achieve a high enough level of safety. I'm not holding my breath on that one.

[romad1]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

Not sure which paper, but a reporter took Amtrak from NY to SF and of course the fuel use by the train per passenger mile was far higher than a plane would have been. By his numbers (which he didn't provide) 700 miles was the crossover where air was more fuel efficient than rail. With planes you minimize fuel use by minimizing takeoffs, thus efficiency goes up with trip length. The great unknown in the story was how full his train was for that calc. A SRO Acela on the east coast is probably very fuel efficient. A mostly empty cross country Amtrak not so much. The primary virtue of rail is it's scalability. Once you have a track you can move an almost arbitrarily large number of people on it at low marginal cost. Airports run out of gates and landing slots and those are very hard constraints. But rails need your entire urban geography to be conformed to where the tracks are, and unlike Europe, for the last 100 yrs in the US our urban geography was evolved in almost exactly the opposite direction. Big lift to change that! But urban light rail still seems to be the tech that can move the most people intra urban distances for the least cost and least congestion. I've always been partial to electric buses/trolleys. We still had them in Det when I was young.

You know what I don't like  Is triple bottom trucks on the OH Turnpike. 

[casimir]

2 hours ago, smr-nj said:

Doesn’t an enormous amount of goods still travel cross country on freight trains?  Need to maintain and upgrade those systems, imo.

While “people commuter” trains may be only reasonable in metro areas, (& mostly East coast), they’re important and will remain so.

I guess it depends upon your definition of "enormous".  The line that I refer supposedly has around 20 freights a day.  A few years ago there was some sort of potential issue with the Suez Canal.  That 20 was going to grow to I want to say short of 40 if the canal was closed.

FYI, my daughter grew up with "stuff" trains and "people" trains.  So if this discussion continues and I accidently use those technical terms, just play along.

[1984Echoes]

11.5 billion tons of freight are by trucking in the U.S. (~73%)

and:

1.6 billion tons by rail (10.1%).

I assume the balance (2.74 billion tons) is by air or river portage... or other alternative?

[casimir]

2 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

11.5 billion tons of freight are by trucking in the U.S. (~73%)

and:

1.6 billion tons by rail (10.1%).

I assume the balance (2.74 billion tons) is by air or river portage... or other alternative?

But how is freight going by multiple means of transport calculated?

[gehringer_2]

16 minutes ago, romad1 said:

You know what I don't like  Is triple bottom trucks on the OH Turnpike. 

Have you been to Australia? They run what they call 'road trains' because there isn't much rail as you get to the interior. It's a over size semi tractor with three drive axles pulling three trailers - each around maybe ~80ft. Mostly on two lane roads. When one passes you in the oncoming you just hope you spent enough on your rental upgrade to have sufficient rubber on the road to keep you in your lane.

[1984Echoes]

3 minutes ago, casimir said:

But how is freight going by multiple means of transport calculated?

Have at it if you want to parse that out...

I'm just going to call those rounded numbers and good enough for me.

[casimir]

2 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

Have at it if you want to parse that out...

I'm just going to call those rounded numbers and good enough for me.

Oh, its just a random question I have about it.  I'm not assigning it to you.  Yet....😁

[1984Echoes]

45 minutes ago, casimir said:

Oh, its just a random question I have about it.  I'm not assigning it to you.  Yet....😁

😉

[romad1]

52 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Have you been to Australia? They run what they call 'road trains' because there isn't much rail as you get to the interior. It's a over size semi tractor with three drive axles pulling three trailers - each around maybe ~80ft. Mostly on two lane roads. When one passes you in the oncoming you just hope you spent enough on your rental upgrade to have sufficient rubber on the road to keep you in your lane.

I would not like that.  

[1984Echoes]

1 minute ago, romad1 said:

I would not like that.  

Same.

Maybe pull off the road for a few seconds until it passes.

Highly inconvenient and annoying but...

"Alligator Alley" in Florida is similar. 2-lane extreme high traffic road with lots of semi's on there IIRC, and lots of road deaths.

[John_Brian_K]

2 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

there is a lot of energy around fixed wing VTOL electric commuter airplanes. Very complex mechanical system to achieve a high enough level of safety. I'm not holding my breath on that one.

I have always assumed something along those lines would be the next thing.  Even if they are 10-15 years away...it would take that long just to get a budget plan for revamping the rail lines.

[chasfh]

Back to the maps!

The problem is not you—the problem is where you live.

[Tigeraholic1]

[smr-nj]

Yep! Always been soda to me.

when I first went away to college in Western Pennsylvania, coming from New Jersey, and just a year or two before that from the Bronx, when I heard people refer to soda as “pop“, I thought I had been transported back to the 1950s. Lol, …it was a culture shock to me. 

[gehringer_2]

21 minutes ago, smr-nj said:

Yep! Always been soda to me.

when I first went away to college in Western Pennsylvania, coming from New Jersey, and just a year or two before that from the Bronx, when I heard people refer to soda as “pop“, I thought I had been transported back to the 1950s. Lol, …it was a culture shock to me. 

It is odd but In this part of the world, 'soda' is what you mix with a whiskey and pretty much only that. I suppose since 'Soda' is short for 'Bicarbonate of Soda (sodium)', which is what club soda is, and a Coke doesn't have much sodium in it (compared to Club Soda), it's not a 'soda'. But I've been hearing 'soda' even in SoCal recently.

Edited April 25 by gehringer_2

[oblong]

I wonder if the decline in usage of the word pop is related to a decline in drinking it in the predominant region?

[romad1]

2 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

It is odd but In this part of the world, 'soda' is what you mix with a whiskey and pretty much only that. I suppose since 'Soda' is short for 'Bicarbonate of Soda (sodium)', which is what club soda is, and a Coke doesn't have much sodium in it (compared to Club Soda), it's not a 'soda'. But I've been hearing 'soda' even in SoCal recently.

ESL classes must teach that because the cash register girls at all the cafeterias say soda.

[1984Echoes]

4 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

It is odd but In this part of the world, 'soda' is what you mix with a whiskey and pretty much only that. I suppose since 'Soda' is short for 'Bicarbonate of Soda (sodium)', which is what club soda is, and a Coke doesn't have much sodium in it (compared to Club Soda), it's not a 'soda'. But I've been hearing 'soda' even in SoCal recently.

It used to be "Soda-Pop"

And then everyone picked a side...

[1984Echoes]

 

Where did soda pop slang come from?

 

 

 

They say the term "soda pop" is traced back to the 1800s when seltzer water came into production and tasty carbonated beverages were eventually served at soda fountains in drug stores. Their report indicates "pop" itself caught on as slang, and was prominently used in northern states like Minnesota and Wisconsin.

 

 

[gehringer_2]

4 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

 

Where did soda pop slang come from?

 

 

 

 

 

because no-one wants to be a wuss and order a soft-drink!

Edited April 26 by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

I find it hard to believe that there are substantial pockets of Michigan that prefer soda over pop. I find it even harder to believe that Chicago is firmly soda country. I can tell you from first-hand experience: it ain’t.

[chasfh]

I read about people's preferences for seasons in the Washington Post and this is a pretty good map:

What it basically shows is which season people tend to look forward to more, spring or fall. A lot has to do with the local climate, obvs: if you live in the cold north, you are more likely to look forward to spring; in very warm or hot climes, more likely to look forward to fall. This is apparently based on Google searches.

Now, this isn't a map, but I found this really interesting: you are more likely to prefer the season your birthday falls within!

[romad1]

47 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I read about people's preferences for seasons in the Washington Post and this is a pretty good map:

What it basically shows is which season people tend to look forward to more, spring or fall. A lot has to do with the local climate, obvs: if you live in the cold north, you are more likely to look forward to spring; in very warm or hot climes, more likely to look forward to fall. This is apparently based on Google searches.

Now, this isn't a map, but I found this really interesting: you are more likely to prefer the season your birthday falls within!

There is a reason that the line in Bob Segar’s “Famous Final Scene” where he says autumn is closing in that hits hard for those who grew up in the North.  It’s the resignation that a particular kind of joy is about to end.  

Meanwhile, living and running youth sports in the heat of Virginia, i welcome Fall.