Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

I was just visit several people in Illinois earlier this summer. Several stated that they were actively looking at leaving Illinois with the prospect of increased taxes. So if Illinois raises taxes, but fewer pay the taxes by not working or by moving to another state (individuals and businesses), how is Illinois ahead? Wouldn't they stay at the same level or possibly worse?

 

We've been told that won't happen. So there. But let's take a look at the same practice in microcosm. Last year Cook County IL put a sin tax on pre-sweetened beverages. After a lengthy delay for implementation and a court challenge with several extensions, it finally went into effect this past week. The chair of the county commission was wailing how much the delay in implementation was costing the County because they had already worked the expected future revenues into the current budget. Before any tax was even collected. How much do you want to bet that the expected revenues will decrease over the coming months, particularly since many shoppers in Cook County can go to the collar counties without the tax and purchase their naughty drinks?

 

The City & County Of Philadelphia already implemented a similar tax last year. Revenues are down over projections. The powers that be are shocked, particularly since they, too, are relying on the sinful beverage tax as a cash cow (while at the same time desiring to decrease consumption). But expect more governmental bodies to follow suit nonetheless.

 

Interesting....talk about a 'regressive' tax....the inner city people, the ones that probably suffer the most from over-consumption of the target drinks, will probably just pay it and keep on drinking, while those close to the suburban counties, and probably less likely to over-indulge in the sweet drinks can avoid the new tax easily.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are companies and individuals moving away from high taxes?? Check out the growth of Frisco, Texas just north of Dallas, the fastest growing city is the US. The city is mostly transplants for high tax states like California, New York, and/or economic hurt areas like Illinois and Michigan. Toyota, USA is moving their entire corporate office from California to Texas. Toyota said all their employees got a raise just by moving, no income tax and lower gas prices. If you could get 6% - 10% a year or more, would you consider moving. In California, with the high salaries, that could be $8,000 - $12,000 increase a year. How many are moving for just this one company? Over 4000. Yes, people are moving. We moved from Chicago, due to the job market. I have several friends who moved from Michigan and Illinois due to the economy.and taxes. The higher the taxes rise, the more people and companies will consider relocating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, people are relocating away from states which don't provide reasonable levels of public services, to states which do provide public services (and of course, have higher taxes). Kansas cut taxes and services and watched everyone and every business move across the border to Missouri, which has higher taxes and better services.

 

Texas is bad, though not Kansas bad, when it comes to public services, and I know a large number of people who have done whatever they can to move out of Texas because of its insufficient public services. The caveat to that is that *certain cities* within Texas are providing the public services which the state is not providing. Eventually, however, those cities are going to need to raise taxes in order to keep it up.

 

Paying less in taxes is completely worthless if you end up having to pay for private school (because the public schools have been trashed as in Kansas), pay for out-of-pocket medical care (because there's no decent health insurance), pay for bottled water (because your city water is toxic), etc. etc.

Edited by neroden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If you could get 6% - 10% a year or more, would you consider moving."

 

To Texas? No way in hell.

 

Everyone I know who's moved from a healthy state to Texas has regretted it. Sometimes because of the endemic racism, sometimes because of the endemic sexism, sometimes because of the homophobia, occasionally because of the corrupt legal system, often because of the derelict state of public health services... many of them are trying to find a way to get out of Texas again but can't afford to. Others did get out.

 

It's a trap.

 

Many of them found that their out-of-pocket expenses went up. Turned out those taxes were paying for services which you have to buy privately in Texas.

Edited by neroden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are companies and individuals moving away from high taxes?? Check out the growth of Frisco, Texas just north of Dallas, the fastest growing city is the US. The city is mostly transplants for high tax states like California, New York, and/or economic hurt areas like Illinois and Michigan. Toyota, USA is moving their entire corporate office from California to Texas. Toyota said all their employees got a raise just by moving, no income tax and lower gas prices. If you could get 6% - 10% a year or more, would you consider moving. In California, with the high salaries, that could be $8,000 - $12,000 increase a year. How many are moving for just this one company? Over 4000. Yes, people are moving. We moved from Chicago, due to the job market. I have several friends who moved from Michigan and Illinois due to the economy.and taxes. The higher the taxes rise, the more people and companies will consider relocating.

Interesting, I guess, but still irrelevant (doesn't prove your initial contention that tax revenue goes down as tax rates go up) and still wildly off topic for the conversation at hand. Maybe this time you'll consider dropping it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So I was in CUS almost a week ago, and I remember there were a lot of fumes, and a suprising number got into the station, which didn't bother me, but I'm sure it bothered others. What if (yeah, I know it's real unlikely) third rail electrification was mandatory on all regular trains (perhaps exceptions can be made for excursions, as they are rare and pose no threat to regular conditions), like in Manhattan, so as to eliminate issues with fumes in the station. Also, overhead wire would work, but I know people will complain about Superliner clearances, but if they are moving everything to Viewliner, there shouldn't be an issue onve they switch, just slap a 5 MPH restriction on the Superliners in the station.

Electrification, especially just within terminal areas, is not really a practical solution even if there were a severe problem with exhaust. Regardless, improved ventilation would be far less expensive.

 

Where did you ever get the (mistaken) idea Amtrak was "moving everything to Viewliner" ?

Well I was talking with a conductor and he said everything will be moving to Viewliner, because Amtrak bought the plans from Budd when it went bankrupt, so if it can make it's own cars that saves a lot of money.

 

Sent from my SM-G930P using Amtrak Forum mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would definitely trust a Conductor to be an authoritative source of information on Amtrak’s long term build plans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As most members on here do, I doubt every train will become Viewliner in the near future. Such a move would require a huge car order. In addition, Amtrak would either have to deal with mixed consists or convert entire trains at once as the cars have different floor heights than Superliners. Add this to the potential platform length and height issues and the lack of a sightseer lounge on Western tourist-oriented trains and such a move makes little to no sense.

 

Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As most members on here do, I doubt every train will become Viewliner in the near future. Such a move would require a huge car order. In addition, Amtrak would either have to deal with mixed consists or convert entire trains at once as the cars have different floor heights than Superliners. Add this to the potential platform length and height issues and the lack of a sightseer lounge on Western tourist-oriented trains and such a move makes little to no sense.

 

Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app

While I agree, he did his research. Superliners are the best cars IMHO for passengers but apparantly crews hate them, though I do think it's possible to chop a SSL and make it into a good single level car, putting the cafe where the stairs and wet bar are located.

 

Sent from my SM-G930P using Amtrak Forum mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of what kind of cars are used, I think Superliners should fit under catenary wire, though I'd rather third rail since it's cheapers and would work just fine for the job of getting rid of the majority of fumes, if all locos were dual mode then it wouldn't even cost any time for trains, no loco swaps.

 

Sent from my SM-G930P using Amtrak Forum mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who told you third rail is cheaper? Besides the fact that Thirdrail would be most offended :) , that is actually not true for mainline electrification in this century. That is why no one does it unless they are forced to by some other factors.

 

Making all locos dual mode is lunacy. Carrying around the extra weight and incurring the extra cost of acquisition and maintenance on all locos so that they can run 3 miles on the other mode out of their 200 to 2,000 mile run is crazy. It is easier and more cost effective to put in all the duct work and exhaust fans necessary to suck out all fumes form the train shed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who told you third rail is cheaper? Besides the fact that Thirdrail would be most offended :) , that is actually not true for mainline electrification in this century. That is why no one does it unless they are forced to by some other factors.

 

Making all locos dual mode is lunacy. Carrying around the extra weight and incurring the extra cost of acquisition and maintenance on all locos so that they can run 3 miles on the other mode out of their 200 to 2,000 mile run is crazy. It is easier and more cost effective to put in all the duct work and exhaust fans necessary to suck out all fumes form the train shed.

Do you know why the LIRR and Metro-North predominantly chose third rail? It seems odd that they are the only commuter rail operators in the US to use it. Also, why do almost all rapid transit railroads use it? Is third rail more efficient when high speeds are not achieved (such as on rapid transit lines)?

 

Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Who told you third rail is cheaper? Besides the fact that Thirdrail would be most offended :) , that is actually not true for mainline electrification in this century. That is why no one does it unless they are forced to by some other factors.

 

Making all locos dual mode is lunacy. Carrying around the extra weight and incurring the extra cost of acquisition and maintenance on all locos so that they can run 3 miles on the other mode out of their 200 to 2,000 mile run is crazy. It is easier and more cost effective to put in all the duct work and exhaust fans necessary to suck out all fumes form the train shed.

Do you know why the LIRR and Metro-North predominantly chose third rail? It seems odd that they are the only commuter rail operators in the US to use it. Also, why do almost all rapid transit railroads use it? Is third rail more efficient when high speeds are not achieved (such as on rapid transit lines)?

 

Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app

 

 

The southeastern England electrification was also done with third rail, even "main lines." It's been my understanding that once you get over about 100 MPH it becomes problematic and that constant tension catenary which is what high-speed rail uses is superior. I think it was probably done because that was the available and state of the art technology. Heck, there was even a Chicago-NY high speed line planned with third rail at the turn of the last century.

 

When the IC electrified their commuter lines in the 20's it was catenary rather than third rail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As most members on here do, I doubt every train will become Viewliner in the near future. Such a move would require a huge car order. In addition, Amtrak would either have to deal with mixed consists or convert entire trains at once as the cars have different floor heights than Superliners. Add this to the potential platform length and height issues and the lack of a sightseer lounge on Western tourist-oriented trains and such a move makes little to no sense.

 

Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app

While I agree, he did his research. Superliners are the best cars IMHO for passengers but apparantly crews hate them, though I do think it's possible to chop a SSL and make it into a good single level car, putting the cafe where the stairs and wet bar are located.

 

Sent from my SM-G930P using Amtrak Forum mobile app

 

 

If a conductor was saying that Amtrak was converting everything to Viewliner, I can assure you he either did no research at all, or his "research" consisted of listening to a drunken lunatic talking in his sleep (or something of comparable credibility), because there is no such plan in the works. I'm sure *some* crews don't like Superliners, but that doesn't apply to all crews. For the record, when the first Viewliner diner was introduced a couple decades back, crews didn't like it either. Anything (other than the existence of stairs) that is really a problem for crews working those cars could be worked out in a revised design, provided they seek appropriate input.

 

Superliners have a major advantage over the standard single-level fleet in that they are ADA compliant without the need for high-level platforms or lifts at every station. They also have a bit more capacity overall, and so require fewer cars to carry the same number of passengers.

 

It's certainly possible to make a sightseer-lounge-esque single-level car, but there aren't currently any plans to do so with Amtrak's fleet.

 

Sent from my LAPTOP COMPUTER using a web browser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Who told you third rail is cheaper? Besides the fact that Thirdrail would be most offended :) , that is actually not true for mainline electrification in this century. That is why no one does it unless they are forced to by some other factors.

 

Making all locos dual mode is lunacy. Carrying around the extra weight and incurring the extra cost of acquisition and maintenance on all locos so that they can run 3 miles on the other mode out of their 200 to 2,000 mile run is crazy. It is easier and more cost effective to put in all the duct work and exhaust fans necessary to suck out all fumes form the train shed.

Do you know why the LIRR and Metro-North predominantly chose third rail? It seems odd that they are the only commuter rail operators in the US to use it. Also, why do almost all rapid transit railroads use it? Is third rail more efficient when high speeds are not achieved (such as on rapid transit lines)?

 

Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app

 

There was a point in time when OHE was more expensive to maintain and feed, and there are applications even now where that may be the case. But electrifying CUS is not one of them since it is predominately serving loco hauled trains.

 

If you look at even rapid transit lines of the nature of RER being built today, it is not at all unusual for them to use overhead, even using ceiling rails in tunnels - case in point e.g. the brand spanking new Elizabeth line (Cross Rail) in London. What are today known as People Mover systems which tend to use some variation of third rail, often don't even run on steel rails - e.g. the VAL systems.

 

But that point is moot since Chicago Union Station does not serve any rapid transit line. It serves only main line. Main line loco hauled trains usually have concentrated power feed needs, for which third rails with low voltage requiring extremely high current feeds through third rail shoes, making them uniquely poor choice.

Edited by jis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over head electric for high level boarding subways may not have been chosen due to the need for slightly higher clearances. So tunnels would need more excavation spoil to meet those clearances. 3000 V overhead AC or DC might have been a great compromise to reduce the number of substations ? Low level boarding such as Chicago seems to be a receipt for disaster using 3rd rail ?

 

12.5 or 25 kV AC overhead reduces the need for close to station DC 3rd rail substations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another reason against third rail electrification is that, one assumes anyway(s), is that Metra would probably just want to start electrifying their lines rather than just the station, is that much of Metra's system runs at grade with frequent pedestrian crossings (likely one of the reasons the IC went with catenary - street level running). Ever so often you hear about people being electrocuted at the grade section of the brown line, less so with the yellow, though that has fewer street crossings and far fewer pedestrians. Another is our propensity for heavy snows and very cold weather from time to time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know why the LIRR and Metro-North predominantly chose third rail? It seems odd that they are the only commuter rail operators in the US to use it. Also, why do almost all rapid transit railroads use it? Is third rail more efficient when high speeds are not achieved (such as on rapid transit lines)?

History. Those are very very old electrification systems. There were some problems with overhead line electrification (making third rail appear to have some advantages) which were solved by the 1930s.

 

Rapid transit systems use third rail generally to reduce the tunnel diameter relative to overhead line electrification. For short distances overhead lines lose some of their advantages, and smaller tunnels often save enough money to be worth it. For systems which are not primarily underground, this advantage disappears.

Edited by neroden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Metro North didn't choose it; they inherited it from New York Central. LIRR IIRC actually electrified some lines under state ownership. Why they maintained third rail for that and modernization periods is a bit of a mystery. It might have something to do with a tightass idiot of a Texan technical planner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

As most members on here do, I doubt every train will become Viewliner in the near future. Such a move would require a huge car order. In addition, Amtrak would either have to deal with mixed consists or convert entire trains at once as the cars have different floor heights than Superliners. Add this to the potential platform length and height issues and the lack of a sightseer lounge on Western tourist-oriented trains and such a move makes little to no sense.

 

Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app

While I agree, he did his research. Superliners are the best cars IMHO for passengers but apparantly crews hate them, though I do think it's possible to chop a SSL and make it into a good single level car, putting the cafe where the stairs and wet bar are located.

 

Sent from my SM-G930P using Amtrak Forum mobile app

If a conductor was saying that Amtrak was converting everything to Viewliner, I can assure you he either did no research at all, or his "research" consisted of listening to a drunken lunatic talking in his sleep (or something of comparable credibility), because there is no such plan in the works. I'm sure *some* crews don't like Superliners, but that doesn't apply to all crews. For the record, when the first Viewliner diner was introduced a couple decades back, crews didn't like it either. Anything (other than the existence of stairs) that is really a problem for crews working those cars could be worked out in a revised design, provided they seek appropriate input.

 

Superliners have a major advantage over the standard single-level fleet in that they are ADA compliant without the need for high-level platforms or lifts at every station. They also have a bit more capacity overall, and so require fewer cars to carry the same number of passengers.

 

It's certainly possible to make a sightseer-lounge-esque single-level car, but there aren't currently any plans to do so with Amtrak's fleet.

 

Sent from my LAPTOP COMPUTER using a web browser

While they make sense in a business world, it's much easier to evade the conductor with the bi-level design. I still think everywhere should run Superliners but I know that ain't gonna happen. I love the old Superliner design, my personal favorite Amtrak fleet, but I mean if Amtrak has the rights to the Viewliner design and can build them themselves that makes a lot of sense to standardise the fleet. The was conductor explained it seemed pretty solid and didn't SEEM like he was lying but I don't get why he would be doing that.

 

Sent from my SM-G930P using Amtrak Forum mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

As most members on here do, I doubt every train will become Viewliner in the near future. Such a move would require a huge car order. In addition, Amtrak would either have to deal with mixed consists or convert entire trains at once as the cars have different floor heights than Superliners. Add this to the potential platform length and height issues and the lack of a sightseer lounge on Western tourist-oriented trains and such a move makes little to no sense.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app

While I agree, he did his research. Superliners are the best cars IMHO for passengers but apparantly crews hate them, though I do think it's possible to chop a SSL and make it into a good single level car, putting the cafe where the stairs and wet bar are located.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Amtrak Forum mobile app

If a conductor was saying that Amtrak was converting everything to Viewliner, I can assure you he either did no research at all, or his "research" consisted of listening to a drunken lunatic talking in his sleep (or something of comparable credibility), because there is no such plan in the works. I'm sure *some* crews don't like Superliners, but that doesn't apply to all crews. For the record, when the first Viewliner diner was introduced a couple decades back, crews didn't like it either. Anything (other than the existence of stairs) that is really a problem for crews working those cars could be worked out in a revised design, provided they seek appropriate input.

 

Superliners have a major advantage over the standard single-level fleet in that they are ADA compliant without the need for high-level platforms or lifts at every station. They also have a bit more capacity overall, and so require fewer cars to carry the same number of passengers.

 

It's certainly possible to make a sightseer-lounge-esque single-level car, but there aren't currently any plans to do so with Amtrak's fleet.

 

Sent from my LAPTOP COMPUTER using a web browser

While they make sense in a business world, it's much easier to evade the conductor with the bi-level design. I still think everywhere should run Superliners but I know that ain't gonna happen. I love the old Superliner design, my personal favorite Amtrak fleet, but I mean if Amtrak has the rights to the Viewliner design and can build them themselves that makes a lot of sense to standardise the fleet. The was conductor explained it seemed pretty solid and didn't SEEM like he was lying but I don't get why he would be doing that.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Amtrak Forum mobile app

Where is the funding coming from for Amtrak to convert all cars to viewliners? Since Amtrak owns the Viewliner design, why haven't they finished up the the current group of Sleeping cars and Dormitory Baggage cars?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×