The Huston evac fiasco proves exactly why we need more Amtrak

[don954]

a few thousand auto-train cars to evac people with their cars and stuff to Dallas would sure have came in handy, you know?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_Train

[Systematic Chaos]

1. Many of us here agree.

I've stated already, in another thread, that about half a million miles of track should do. It will help stave off the worst of peak oil for at least another few years as well.

[tjdee]

2. Exactly--wonder if that could be a win/win situation....

I was just reading the stories, and there has to be something better than people getting stranded on the highway after being in traffic for six hours.

Amtrak, aren't they on the road to bankruptcy? Maybe they could get some sort of business contracting for the government for situations like this?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Good idea

You know, as memory serves, there are a lot of tracks and railroad cars that carry automobiles around Fort Worth, since there's an auto assembly plant in Arlington. I'm not sure if the tracks go to Houston, but if they do, why weren't the railroads commandeered to help out?

[wakeme2008]

4. Think about the number of people that travel between Houston

and Dallas. Forget the cars, if they had hi-speed rail to Dallas and could transfer to a West coast Amtrack.......

[BlueEyedSon]

5. Hard to justify when we have a "need" once ever 30 years.....

sorry, just being a "devil's advocate"...

[don954]

6. we only need a billion dollar 17' seawall once every 30 years

but we still build them. At least a good rail system can be used every day as a commuter system.

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. Well we need better mass transit anyway.

[niallmac]

9. Right you are. There are so many other good reasons for rail.

Aside from the fact I am a rail junky and would do anything to bring back the trains...rail is cheaper, it is 'public' it promotes a social versus a capsulized traveling population.
The engines have bright lights and horns that go wooooo woooo. Not a stong argument but on my list! Trains are a great way to say 'screw you' to the oil industry. Oh, I don't know. Don't you just miss them?

[BlueEyedSon]

12. Americans don't run on "need", they run on "want"

and they want their own personal car. For now, it will be Hummers and other ginormous SUVs. In the futire it will be Minis and hybrids.

Anyway, the way most of the country is laid out, you still need a "station car" to get the the mass transit.....

[niallmac]

14. I wonder if the sprawl will tighten up a bit

with increasing fuel costs etc.

[Gogi]

8. Forget it, Southwest Airlines does'nt want it so it ain't gonna happen!

Same for a high speed train between Kansas City, MO and Chicago.

[Spinzonner]

10. I doubt it

Getting the resources there would be a logistical nightmare.

Any track blockages due to accidents could paralyze the evacuation if alternatives were not staged and ready. Then why have the trains at all.

How long would it take to load the trains ? It seems like a bottleneck.

What is needed is a better system for using buses - which are a lot more flexible in many ways - and to actively mange the traffic problem rather than treating it passively which has lead to the massive gridlocks.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. I did some quick calculations today based on

Japan's "bullet train" Shinkansen.

There are four lines radiating from Tokyo. The oldest line, the one from Tokyo to Osaka, runs every 5 minutes, 16 hours a day, carrying 300-500 passengers on each train (and that's with everyone having a reserved seat). The Tokyo-Osaka line could therefore carry 3600-6000 people per hour, or from 48,000 to 98,000 per day. I don't recall the frequency of the other three lines--it's less--but let's just say (at a very conservative estimate), that they run four times an hour. With three lines, the other lines combined could carry the same as the Tokyo-Osaka line (at the very least), for another 48,000-98,000 per day. At that rate, using just regularly scheduled trains, you could keep as many as 294,000 people off the road over three days at a minimum.

Those figures do not include the dozens of conventional train lines radiating from the city or the thousands of buses. They run so frequently that I couldn't begin to calculate how many people they could carry, again, running on their normal schedules.

Since all the train lines I've seen have parallel inbound and outbound tracks, empty trains could be quickly sent back to pick up more people.

In real life, cities that have train systems find that they're heavily used in non-emergency situations, even by people who wouldn't be caught dead on a bus. As the system expands, it becomes useful to more and more people, and my experience was that while, for example, the Portland light rail system didn't take any traffic off the highways (traffic expands to fill the space for it), it gave people a CHOICE to avoid the traffic.

As far as bottlenecks go, I'm sure that horrific bus explosion today slowed traffic quite a bit. Heavens, I see infuriating bottlenecks just during normal commuting hours in Minneapolis, which has a mediocre bus system, and I'd hate to see what would happen if the city ever had to be evacuated. Indeed, if I had to evacuate Minneapolis, I'd be inclined to load up a backpack and cycle out into the country on one of the trails.

[CAcyclist]

11. Absolutely

but also more long-distance buses in case rails get flooded or broken.

we need public transportation improvements and redundancy in that public transportation so that flexibility is built in.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

15. Yes, redundancy is the key to a good transit system

In Tokyo, you can usually get somewhere by surface train, subway, and bus.

Closer to home, Portland has both bus and transit options for many major destinations.

Minneapolis-St. Paul....well, let's just say that they have a long way to go to provide even one option for many major destinations.

[atommom]

16. I've been wondering about this a lot lately, wondering how different

things might have been if the big automakers hadn't squashed public transit in so many cities. I'm as addicted to my car as anyone else, but does it really make sense for all of us to drive ourselves around, wasting gas, polluting the environment, and clogging the roads in times of emergency?

Trains could have gotten people out so much faster.