# Skier speed trap hell



## VTKilarney (Apr 25, 2018)

Police in Bridgewater, on VT Route 4, issued over 2,300 tickets last year.  Oh, and the 25 mph school zone doesn’t even have a school.  

http://www.wcax.com/content/news/Vermonts-top-speed-trap-is-a-defunct-school-zone-480793251.html


----------



## caribchakita (Apr 25, 2018)

Right outside Woodstock, 12:25 AM, heading to K'Ton, foggy night, $185 ticket for 35 in 25 zone.  I disputed it because radar equipment is flawed in fog. No luck

https://www.speedtrap.org/vermont/woodstock/


----------



## drjeff (Apr 25, 2018)

Arguably the most well known, and frequently with a police car stationed speed trap in all of New England ski country....  

I've learned to set the cruise at 24 when going through there...


----------



## gregnye (Apr 25, 2018)

There's also another "speed trap town" on route 100, on the way from Okemo to killington, right at 100A in Plymouth.

Basically unless you come from the north, there's a "speed trap town" no matter how you get to K.

Overall both of these speed trap towns are dumb. If people traveled the speed limit in Vermont, you would never get anywhere. So naturally people go around 5mph over. These speed trap towns just add unpredictability to the road. You don't know whether you should actually slow down to 25mph because of a dangerous curve or if its just a random speed set by some local farmers who want to fund their police department.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Apr 25, 2018)

Plymouth and Chester both qualify as speed traps.

Just obey the speed limits going through those 2 sections, drive at 10/10ths the rest of the time. I can see getting upset if you didn't know about the speed traps, but the speed limits ARE posted clearly, and anyone familiar with the drive really has no excuse.

I've only personally had good/helpful experiences with Vermont cops to and from skiing... in some ways I'm glad they are there, even the speed traps, because if they weren't there let's be honest, half of us would just drive 90mph on Route 100 and similar roads the entire time.

I get more upset at that one slow Vermont driver who won't pull over to the side with a line of 15 cars behind him/her.

Also shouldn't speed too much going through downtown Ludlow.


----------



## ss20 (Apr 25, 2018)

The whole route from 91S to Killington is awful.  Chester, Ludlow, and Plymouth.  The Plymouth cop was not as prevalent as usual this year...I only saw him stationed ~half the times I went to K this year.  In a normal year I'd see him 9/10 times I went through Plymouth...and that is not exaggerating at all.  

What I don't understand is how the state lets local cops nab you for doing 40mph in a 35mp, but lets people do 70mph on all the rural areas of the state roads.  I'm not complaining...60-70mph is my cruising speed on the VT roads I know well (100, 9, 11, 30). But I NEVER see state cops or local cops posted wherever the speed limit is 50mph.  Only in the towns.  

I've also noticed the state has relaxed on the Route 7 highway up through Rutland.  That's become pretty dangerous when you have one guy trying to do 80mph passing right at the end of the truck lane....then in the single-lane parts they try to pass 3 cars by going in the oncoming lane.


----------



## ss20 (Apr 25, 2018)

bdfreetuna said:


> I've only personally had good/helpful experiences with Vermont cops to and from skiing... in some ways I'm glad they are there, even the speed traps, because if they weren't there let's be honest, half of us would just drive 90mph on Route 100 and similar roads the entire time.



I got pulled over in VT this year for a headlight being out.  No ticket...no paperwork...nothing.  Just a verbal "get it fixed before you drive at night again".  Total opposite of what they'd do in CT.  "Fill this form, you have 72 hours to get it fixed, go to a police station, blah blah blah..."


----------



## BenedictGomez (Apr 25, 2018)

VTKilarney said:


> Police in Bridgewater, on VT Route 4,* issued over 2,300 tickets last year.  *Oh, *and the 25 mph school zone doesn’t even have a school.  *



This is the most Vermont story ever.


----------



## Domeskier (Apr 25, 2018)

bdfreetuna said:


> I get more upset at that one slow Vermont driver who won't pull over to the side with a line of 15 cars behind him/her.



I like to strictly obey the ridiculous posted limits when there's a car with VT plates behind me.  Anyone who lives in one of those towns should be ashamed of themselves.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Apr 25, 2018)

ss20 said:


> What I don't understand is how the state lets local cops nab you for doing 40mph in a 35mp, but lets people do 70mph on all the rural areas of the state roads.  I'm not complaining...60-70mph is my cruising speed on the VT roads I know well (100, 9, 11, 30). But I NEVER see state cops or local cops posted wherever the speed limit is 50mph.  Only in the towns.



I mean, in addition to bagging skiers with out of state plates as easy revenue from non taxpayers, it also makes total sense for the cops to be posted up in the towns from a pure safety perspective. route 100 goes from what is essentially a high speed road to a small town main street, over and over again. the cops are in the towns to make sure you aren't mowing down kids and pedestrians. they don't care what you do on long empty stretches of 50 mph limit


----------



## ThinkSnow (Apr 25, 2018)

KustyTheKlown said:


> I mean, in addition to bagging skiers with out of state plates as easy revenue from non taxpayers, it also makes total sense for the cops to be posted up in the towns from a pure safety perspective. route 100 goes from what is essentially a high speed road to a small town main street, over and over again. the cops are in the towns to make sure you aren't mowing down kids and pedestrians. they don't care what you do on long empty stretches of 50 mph limit


  Its nice to see some motorist respect when passing through small towns on the way to a ski destination......considering most posters on this forum call parts of VT their "home" ski areas....while having out of state plates.


----------



## Smellytele (Apr 25, 2018)

Go speed through a town in CT, NY or NJ where the speed limit is 30. Plow over your own kids not the "farmers' children" in VT.

Although the school zone with no school anymore is pretty stupid.


----------



## HowieT2 (Apr 25, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> This is the most Vermont story ever.


right, because this doesnt happen in every state.  Going tomorrow to contest a ticket I got on my way back from plattekil in March.


----------



## Smellytele (Apr 25, 2018)

HowieT2 said:


> right, because this doesnt happen in every state.  Going tomorrow to contest a ticket I got on my way back from plattekil in March.



Does NY still give you a ticket that you have to mail in then they mail it back to you with what you owe and you have to mail it back to them again. Very efficient system.


----------



## Ol Dirty Noodle (Apr 25, 2018)

Smellytele said:


> Does NY still give you a ticket that you have to mail in then they mail it back to you with what you owe and you have to mail it back to them again. Very efficient system.



Yes


----------



## mister moose (Apr 25, 2018)

I've been stopped on Rte 103 by a Statie, it doesn't have to be in a small town.  

(I forget why he stopped me, might have been a light out.  He then asked if I'd been drinking, and I volunteered I had a beer with dinner an hour ago.  So he asks me to blow into his breathalyzer, and I'm thinking, "What is the upside to saying yes?"  Apparently it's a trip to the station.  So, fine, I'll risk using some untuned piece of equipment on 1 beer.  Ha!  I blow a 0.0)

Anyway, in the case of Plymouth, and decades of driving through, I have never seen a child.  Ever.  3pm, 7pm, 10pm.  Even people on the road are non existent.  I see a few people in their yard, that's it.  That said I don't have a problem slowing down driving through, but the strong arm ever present sheriff with the cash register pen is over the top.  The hours of the cop are NOT the hours children are on the road (if there are any children there)  The hours the cop is running the sting is when ski traffic is driving.  Let's state the obvious here.

Woodstock (don't be 2 mph over)
Bridgewater
Mendon
Plymouth
Ludlow (lesser extent)
Chester (Town, Stone Village and the Depot)

Just recognize those towns enforce heavily and drive appropriately.  I find Woodstock and Ludlow so crammed with cars, people, dogs, bicycles, grannies, gawkers, left turners, and parking spot hunters that you can only drive 5 under anyway in the downtown area.  Of course that's not where they hand out tickets, they do it right past the sign where the speed drops.

Other than Woodstock, 5 over doesn't get a second glance.

And folks, if you insist on doing the exact speed limit with a line of cars behind you, check your speedometer.  Many read high, and you're driving slow.  (Drive exactly 60 for exactly 5 miles on 91 using the mile-markers.  Use a stopwatch.  It's on your cell phone if you don't own one.  Anything over 5:00 minutes and you're slow.)


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Apr 25, 2018)

There are pretty accurate speedometer apps out there for your phone to check against your speedometer.


----------



## Glenn (Apr 25, 2018)

VTKilarney said:


> Police in Bridgewater, on VT Route 4, issued over 2,300 tickets last year.  Oh, and the 25 mph school zone doesn’t even have a school.
> 
> http://www.wcax.com/content/news/Vermonts-top-speed-trap-is-a-defunct-school-zone-480793251.html



This is beyond crazy. Why is this allowed? 

If there's one reason to look forward to self driving cars; it'll eliminate chicken$hit tickets like these. 

I use Waze whenever I drive. The stretch of 91 from Northampton to the VT line is very heavily patrolled during ski season. 9 times out of 10, it's an out of stater that's pulled over.


----------



## mister moose (Apr 25, 2018)

MEtoVTSkier said:


> There are pretty accurate speedometer apps out there for your phone to check against your speedometer.


Would these be the same apps that show you wandering a squiggly line in the trees when riding the lift, and show 81mph from a guy not wearing a speed suit on a blue slope?


----------



## ss20 (Apr 25, 2018)

Glenn said:


> This is beyond crazy. Why is this allowed?
> 
> If there's one reason to look forward to self driving cars; it'll eliminate chicken$hit tickets like these.
> 
> I use Waze whenever I drive. The stretch of 91 from Northampton to the VT line is very heavily patrolled during ski season. 9 times out of 10, it's an out of stater that's pulled over.



I-91 in Mass is terrible in general with cops posted everywhere and some hide really good.  

Of course...in my home state of Connecticut I'm used to seeing one State trooper on the interstate a month, tops.  Enforcement of any road rules is a total joke.  The section of 84 between Waterbury and Harford where it's supposedly a 55mph limit cracks me up the most.  Do less than 70mph and you'll get run over.


----------



## skimagic (Apr 25, 2018)

ss20 said:


> Of course...in my home state of Connecticut I'm used to seeing one State trooper on the interstate a month, tops.  Enforcement of any road rules is a total joke.  The section of 84 between Waterbury and Harford where it's supposedly a 55mph limit cracks me up the most.  Do less than 70mph and you'll get run over.



Good news, CDOT is raising the speed limit on that stretch soon,so now you can do 80.     Whoever designed 84 should be in jail for incompetence, worst highway anywhere.


----------



## bushpilot (Apr 25, 2018)

Waze and a valentine 1 radar locator. Most VT cops leave their radar running so you know they are coming. In the event they use I/O (instant on) or quick trigger you’ll know and it will be easier to eat in court. Any officer under oath will have to tell you the technique they use and that it takes approximately 3 seconds o stabilize the speed. They will also admit that they have seen inaccurate speeds at times. Once he states this information. You move to dismiss the chatrge. The V1 gives you the information you need before you are sitting in court.


----------



## benski (Apr 25, 2018)

I estimated all those tickets come out top 250 dollars per resident of bridgwater VT which has only has aa population of 936, assuming everyone was 10mph over the speed-limit. Good look convincing them to give up that revenue.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Apr 25, 2018)

HowieT2 said:


> *right, because this doesnt happen in every state.  *



No, actually, it doesn't happen in every state.   

This is the first I've ever heard of issuing literally *THOUSANDS* of individual speeding tickets per year in a fraudulent, non-existent, phantom, "school zone".




Glenn said:


> This is beyond crazy. Why is this allowed?
> *
> If there's one reason to look forward to self driving cars; it'll eliminate chicken$hit tickets like these. *



Once that happens those backwater towns will simply issue tickets for everything else that they normally don't bother with.  Either that or the residents will take it on the chin with increased fees & taxes.  Local government is going to recapture that $$$$$ one way or the other.


----------



## ThinkSnow (Apr 25, 2018)

If this is such a sore issue, here's an idea-- drive the speed limit in these known speed-traps, and remove the possibility of contributing to the "highway robbery."  ......Or the more likely scenario, continue to complain about it here.


----------



## drjeff (Apr 25, 2018)

ThinkSnow said:


> If this is such a sore issue, here's an idea-- drive the speed limit in these known speed-traps, and remove the possibility of contributing to the "highway robbery."  ......Or the more likely scenario, continue to complain about it here.



Literally driven the Mass Pike/91 combo hundreds of times on Friday and Sunday afternoons/evening in ski season over the last 15 or so years.  Cruise set at 75 when the traffic and road conditions allow. Never gotten a ticket even though I've passed by hundreds of police cars doing speed enforcement...

As for VT, it's pretty simple, if the speed limit dramatically drops from the usual 50 or so that it is on many non limited access highways in VT that we all use to get to various ski areas down to 25 -35 as you enter a small town, the odds of one encountering an officer where the speed limit quickly drops are usually pretty good.  

Just drive smart, and respect the small towns, and while it might end up taking you a few extra minutes to get to your intended destination, you'll arrive with your wallet more flush


----------



## AdironRider (Apr 25, 2018)

I still find it interesting the double yellow is only a suggestion in VT, but that is neither here nor there in terms of this conversation.


----------



## benski (Apr 25, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> No, actually, it doesn't happen in every state.
> 
> This is the first I've ever heard of issuing literally *THOUSANDS* of individual speeding tickets per year in a fraudulent, non-existent, phantom, "school zone".



School zone is just there excuse, becouse every backwater town has a low speed limit school or no school. Is there a higher fine for school zones than non school zones?


----------



## tumbler (Apr 25, 2018)

I learned very quickly 25 years ago to ALWAYS do the speed limit in the towns.  ALWAYS.  That is advice I give all friends that come for weekend visits.  Also get any headlight, tail light, blinker, etc fixed ASAP because as stated before they use that to pull you over and check for DUI.  Read the local police blotter and how many DUI's were nabbed for faulty equipment.  2 beers at apres is all it takes.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Apr 25, 2018)

yep, whenever one particular friend does the driving, i have to scold him repeatedly to cool it thru the towns. its really annoying how he doesn't get it. he won't get it until we get pulled over. with bud in the car.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Apr 25, 2018)

ThinkSnow said:


> If this is such a sore issue, here's an idea-- drive the speed limit in these known speed-traps, and remove the possibility of contributing to the "highway robbery."  ......Or the more likely scenario, continue to complain about it here.



I agree but just wondering if you are a cop?


----------



## JimG. (Apr 25, 2018)

Well, soon autonomous driving will put an end to all this.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Apr 25, 2018)

i cant wait to get in my car at 2 AM in NYC, program jay peak stateside lodge, recline all the way, and wake up 6 hours later at jay peak stateside lodge.


----------



## tumbler (Apr 25, 2018)

JimG. said:


> Well, soon autonomous driving will put an end to all this.



Hal, open the door...open the door Hal.


----------



## Not Sure (Apr 25, 2018)

tumbler said:


> Hal, open the door...open the door Hal.



LOL . Damn Straight ...They can have my steering wheel when they pry it from my cold dead fingers LOL.
I can picture a scene from Idiocrasy as the cars drop one by one off half a bridge LOL


----------



## bdfreetuna (Apr 25, 2018)

If you all didn't stop driving manual transmissions we wouldn't have the problem of autonomous vehicles on the horizon.


----------



## 2Planker (Apr 25, 2018)

bushpilot said:


> Waze and a valentine 1 radar locator. Most VT cops leave their radar running so you know they are coming. In the event they use I/O (instant on) or quick trigger you’ll know and it will be easier to eat in court. Any officer under oath will have to tell you the technique they use and that it takes approximately 3 seconds o stabilize the speed. They will also admit that they have seen inaccurate speeds at times. Once he states this information. You move to dismiss the chatrge. The V1 gives you the information you need before you are sitting in court.




   After years of Rt 26 on the way to SR, and Madison NH school zone....
I finally invested in an Escort (totally concealed) Radar/Laser detector and *Jammer.  *Has 2 front and 1 rear pod.
Thing is awesome !!!!!  My buddy a MA Trooper says he's getting one ($1,100 w/ installation) for the wife


----------



## bdfreetuna (Apr 25, 2018)

2Planker said:


> After years of Rt 26 on the way to SR, and Madison NH school zone....
> I finally invested in an Escort (totally concealed) Radar/Laser detector and *Jammer.  *Has 2 front and 1 rear pod.
> Thing is awesome !!!!!  My buddy a MA Trooper says he's getting one ($1,100 w/ installation) for the wife



Surprised to find out those are legal in basically the entire Northeast.

Probably cheaper than getting an F-117 Nighthawk body kit.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Apr 25, 2018)

"And folks, if you insist on doing the exact speed limit with a line of cars behind you, check your speedometer. Many read high, and you're driving slow. (Drive exactly 60 for exactly 5 miles on 91 using the mile-markers. Use a stopwatch. It's on your cell phone if you don't own one. Anything over 5:00 minutes and you're slow.)"

The speed that is posted on the sign is called the SPEED LIMIT. If you don't like getting there a minute or 2 later leave the house a few mins early.

Sent from my SM-G930F using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## 2Planker (Apr 25, 2018)

They are LEGAL in every state Except Virginia and Wash DC.

 Conn. just took down all their signage stating that the use of such is illegal....


bdfreetuna said:


> Surprised to find out those are legal in basically the entire Northeast.
> 
> Probably cheaper than getting an F-117 Nighthawk body kit.


----------



## skifree (Apr 25, 2018)

Days of being a dipshit in ski country is over


----------



## BenedictGomez (Apr 25, 2018)

KustyTheKlown said:


> *i cant wait to get in my car at 2 AM in NYC, program jay peak stateside lodge, recline all the way, and wake up 6 hours later at jay peak stateside lodge.*



Pretty sure that will be illegal.  Well....at least for probably the first decade or so of self-driving cars.



2Planker said:


> *I finally invested in an Escort *(totally concealed) Radar/Laser detector and *Jammer.  *Has 2 front and 1 rear pod.
> *Thing is awesome !!!!!  *My buddy a MA Trooper says he's getting one ($1,100 w/ installation) for the wife



Escort makes a great product.  What model is yours? I'm probably due for an upgrade as mine is about 8 or 9 years old.  Only the Lord knows how many times its' paid for itself over those years.


----------



## mister moose (Apr 25, 2018)

Hawkshot99 said:


> "And folks, if you insist on doing the exact speed limit with a line of cars behind you, check your speedometer. Many read high, and you're driving slow. (Drive exactly 60 for exactly 5 miles on 91 using the mile-markers. Use a stopwatch. It's on your cell phone if you don't own one. Anything over 5:00 minutes and you're slow.)"
> 
> The speed that is posted on the sign is called the SPEED LIMIT. If you don't like getting there a minute or 2 later leave the house a few mins early.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930F using AlpineZone mobile app



You must get passed a lot.


----------



## Scruffy (Apr 25, 2018)

ss20 said:


> What I don't understand is how the state lets local cops nab you for doing 40mph in a 35mp, but lets people do 70mph on all the rural areas of the state roads.  I'm not complaining...60-70mph is my cruising speed on the VT roads I know well (100, 9, 11, 30). But I NEVER see state cops or local cops posted wherever the speed limit is 50mph.  Only in the towns.
> 
> .



This has nothing to do with what the State authorizes; any cop can give a ticket for any speed over the speed limit. It has to do with how much work the cop wants to do to prove your were speeding for the level of fine that the judge can levy. State troopers on highways "usually" don't bother with anything less than 15mph over, or a 3 point infraction: so in a 65 mph zone, a speed of 80 gets you a ticket while 75 usually doesn't. Depending on the jurisdiction, the cop usually needs to show up in court and plead the state's/town's/county's case. State cops don't want to show up to court for a 5mph over infraction and a 1 point fine; it's just not worth their time, but there's no rule on that and one day they could be ordered by their superiors to go after,  let's say 10mph over in a 65mph zone. For town cops in small towns with not a lot to do, a 5 mph over infraction is just ripe pickings for them. The town brings in extra revenue and the cop gets overtime pay for going to court, not to mention the judge is probably local and tough and won't play ball either.


----------



## 2Planker (Apr 25, 2018)

Out of town right now.  Will let you know Fri. when I get home.
Installer also put an additional tiny red LED on top of the steering column for night time operation, w/ minimal volume setting....





BenedictGomez said:


> Pretty sure that will be illegal.  Well....at least for probably the first decade or so of self-driving cars.
> 
> 
> 
> Escort makes a great product.  What model is yours? I'm probably due for an upgrade as mine is about 8 or 9 years old.  Only the Lord knows how many times its' paid for itself over those years.


----------



## chuckstah (Apr 25, 2018)

On a late Friday night heading toward Killington not long after I exited 91 onto VT 103, driving maybe plus 2 at 52, some asshat statie did an abrubt u-turn and started following me.  For Miles.  I set the cruise at -2 or so and just went slow, and was followed all the way into the Chester 25 zone, where I was now going not much over  20.  The asshat finally u-turned, when another car finally came by,  and started following that car.  Before long while still on 103, another official looking car was following me.  Drove real, real slow, and miles later when a truck lane came along another statie finally passed me.  Being followed by polce for 20 or so miles while doing nothing wrong?  Not needed for safety IMO.  
Side note, One expensive speeding ticket in Brattleboro several years ago in a useless 25 zone on Rt 30. Challenged it and it was dropped down to $50 or so, and not reported to NH. Proceeded to Killington for some late spring skiing after the brief hearing.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Apr 25, 2018)

mister moose said:


> You must get passed a lot.



For starters I dont give a shit if someone wants to pass me, have fun.  I used to be the asshole driver flying along trying to shave 2 mins off my drive.  I spent way to much $ in tickets, lawyer fees, and increased insurance.  I now drive 10% over the posted speed.  I get places nearly as fast, better mpg, way less stress when i am driving and when I arrive, and haven't had a ticket in 5+ yrs.  I can live with it happily...


----------



## Not Sure (Apr 25, 2018)

Scruffy said:


> This has nothing to do with what the State authorizes; any cop can give a ticket for any speed over the speed limit. .



Very True ....My Aunt actually got a ticket for "1" MPH over the limit . No shitting true story !!!!
It later came to light the cops were given quotas . Lazy asshole gave her a ticket right in front of the station . She fought it and got it dismissed but crap like that gives cops a bad rep. 

It was township not State though .


----------



## cdskier (Apr 25, 2018)

skimagic said:


> Good news, CDOT is raising the speed limit on that stretch soon,so now you can do 80.     Whoever designed 84 should be in jail for incompetence, worst highway anywhere.



I chose to drive an extra 60 miles and take the Mass Pike all the way to the NY Thruway today to get back to NJ from MA just to avoid going through CT during rush hour. I have to say, it was incredibly relaxing. I hit virtually no traffic once I got past the exit for 84 from the Mass Pike.


----------



## VTKilarney (Apr 26, 2018)

There is another major reason why the speed traps are in local villages and not in between.  In Vermont, if the ticket is written in a village (local speed zone), the town gets to keep the revenue from the ticket.  Otherwise the revenue goes to the State.  Taxpayers in these small villages don’t want to pay for an unnecessary police officer, so the officer generates enough revenue from unsuspecting tourists to pay for their salary.


----------



## Smellytele (Apr 26, 2018)

You may not like getting what you wish for. When self driving cars become the norm they will go the speed limit everywhere. no making up time going over the speed limit. Also not thinking you can just recline the seat and not care. If it gets in an accident you are still responsible.


----------



## Glenn (Apr 26, 2018)

tumbler said:


> I learned very quickly 25 years ago to ALWAYS do the speed limit in the towns.  ALWAYS.  That is advice I give all friends that come for weekend visits.  Also get any headlight, tail light, blinker, etc fixed ASAP because as stated before they use that to pull you over and check for DUI.  Read the local police blotter and how many DUI's were nabbed for faulty equipment.  2 beers at apres is all it takes.



This right here. 9 times out of 10 the local papers in SoVT list "A vehicle was stopped for faulty equipment...and the operator was arrested for driving under the influence".  You'll also get the random ones who drive off the road...or get stuck in a snowbank. But most of the time, it's light out...or someone not signaling.


----------



## ThinkSnow (Apr 26, 2018)

Glenn said:


> ..or someone not signaling.


  State law in VT to use a turn signal.


----------



## cdskier (Apr 26, 2018)

ThinkSnow said:


> State law in VT to use a turn signal.



Isn't this a state law in most states in the north east at least? A couple years ago two of my cousins were pulled over on the Sugarbush Access Road for failing to signal at the end of German Flats Road (they were coming back from dinner at Common Man). The state trooper let both of them go with just a warning and admitted he was pretty much just looking for anyone drunk.


----------



## ThinkSnow (Apr 26, 2018)

cdskier said:


> Isn't this a state law in most states in the north east at least? A couple years ago two of my cousins were pulled over on the Sugarbush Access Road for failing to signal at the end of German Flats Road (they were coming back from dinner at Common Man). The state trooper let both of them go with just a warning and admitted he was pretty much just looking for anyone drunk.


  Must have been the same night I got pulled over in the same spot for the same thing.


----------



## cdskier (Apr 26, 2018)

ThinkSnow said:


> Must have been the same night I got pulled over in the same spot for the same thing.



Pretty sure it was a holiday weekend if my cousins were up there and I wasn't. I also remember my cousin telling me it was super-cold that night/weekend.


----------



## VTKilarney (Apr 26, 2018)

Smellytele said:


> You may not like getting what you wish for. When self driving cars become the norm they will go the speed limit everywhere. no making up time going over the speed limit. Also not thinking you can just recline the seat and not care. If it gets in an accident you are still responsible.



I've been wondering about this.  My hope is that when autonomous cars take over the speed limits will be adjusted to be reasonable.  There will certainly be a lot of public pressure for that to happen.

I actually just got back from a conference that had some sessions on autonomous vehicles.  A couple of interesting points:
1) This will be an evolution rather than a revolution.  Cars will get more and more autonomous over time (with features here and there being added) before fully autonomous vehicles are the norm.
2) It is going to be difficult integrating fully autonomous vehicles with human operated vehicles - at least if you want the efficiencies that autonomous vehicles bring (no traffic jams, etc.)
3) People still want their car in their driveway.  The idea that nobody will own a car is just not true - at least outside of urban centers.  People don't want to have to wait for their ride-share.  Americans love their cars and that's not going away.
4) Cars owned by individuals may drive more and, therefore, pollute more.  This is because they may be making a lot of dead-head trips that they wouldn't otherwise make.  Public transportation will also become much less appealing.
5) Fully autonomous vehicles will be VERY expensive for a while.

IMHO, you are looking at 20 years or so until the true autonomous vehicle era.  We still need to develop the technology and, when we finally do, it will take some time for the price to come down so the masses can purchase an autonomous vehicle.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Apr 26, 2018)

Smellytele said:


> You may not like getting what you wish for. *When self driving cars become the norm they will go the speed limit everywhere. no making up time going over the speed limit.* Also not thinking you can just recline the seat and not care. If it gets in an accident you are still responsible.



Once the kinks get worked out, presumably it would allow for an increase in speed limits, at least on the highway.   That said, I think by the time this all gets sorted out will take WAY longer than people are currently thinking, like 25 years at least.  So many moving parts (no pun intended).


----------



## mikec142 (Apr 26, 2018)

chuckstah said:


> On a late Friday night heading toward Killington not long after I exited 91 onto VT 103, driving maybe plus 2 at 52, some asshat statie did an abrubt u-turn and started following me.  For Miles.  I set the cruise at -2 or so and just went slow, and was followed all the way into the Chester 25 zone, where I was now going not much over  20.  The asshat finally u-turned, when another car finally came by,  and started following that car.  Before long while still on 103, another official looking car was following me.  Drove real, real slow, and miles later when a truck lane came along another statie finally passed me.  Being followed by polce for 20 or so miles while doing nothing wrong?  Not needed for safety IMO.



It's things like the above that I find disturbing.

Two years ago my family and I had a terrible experience in Coxsackie, NY.  We were skiing at Windham over MLK weekend and staying about 25 miles from the mountain at a hotel with another family (looking to keep costs down).  We went to dinner in town one of those nights and on the way back from dinner (I didn't drink) I came upon a police officer who had pulled a car over in town.  So it's a two lane street, and cars are parked on the sides of the street.  The speed limit was 25mph.  I slowed down to about 10-12 mph and pulled as far into the oncoming lane as possible.  I made sure I was no danger to the officer and proceeded around him.  If I had pulled over any further into the oncoming lane I would have scraped a parked car.  

About two minutes later I see flashing lights in my rearview mirror and this same cop is pulling me over.  He came running up to my car and with a red face and spit flying proceeded to scream at me in front of my wife and two pre-teen kids.  He was saying that in NY you have to pull over and slow down to go around a stopped police officer.  I calmly explained that's exactly what I did and he continued to scream at me.  At one point I thought he was going to open my door and pull me out of the car.  He kept on saying that I drove by him so fast and close that his pant leg ruffled in the breeze.  I decided that it wouldn't be a good idea to point out that it's a windy, winter night and that could explain his pants.  I asked him what the proper thing was to do?  I couldn't pull over any further and I was going half (or less) the speed limit.  He seemed stumped and couldn't come up with a coherent reply.

Bottom line, he realized he was wrong and didn't write me a ticket and let me go.  I was tempted to write a letter to the mayor detailing my experience with the officer who had an anger management issue but decided it wasn't worth my time.  Instead, despite skiing at Windham a lot, I will never spend another dime in the town of Coxsackie again.  No gas, food, hotel, etc.

If I do something wrong (and get caught) I deserve the penalty.  But an officer abusing their position of power is unacceptable.  This couldn't have been the first time the guy acted like this and thus, IMHO it's the town's responsibility to recognize this and handle it.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Apr 26, 2018)

Well he didn't write you up. Perhaps you should write that up to a rare/random example of a cop being stressed on the job, probably dealing with assholes half the day and trying to maintain professionalism and inpartiality, which is impossible for anyone to do 100% of the time. I still think we're lucky not to have RoboCops though.

I'm glad you were able to work it out by trying to soften the conversation and help him realize you're basically on his side.

Not returning to the Catskills to ski seems a little drastic, especially since the cop cooled down and did let you go (as he should have, and as would be your Constitutional / natural / God-given right, having committed no crime and no intent to do so).


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 26, 2018)

bdfreetuna said:


> If you all didn't stop driving manual transmissions we wouldn't have the problem of autonomous vehicles on the horizon.


I vastly prefer manual transmission.  my personal vehicles are manuals.  However, if we could flip the switch to autonomous vehicles tomorrow, I'd be first in line.  I spend 20+ hours a week on average in my van for work.  The increase in efficiency at my job and weekly work hours reduction would be massive.  As much as I love driving, it's an absolute waste of valuable time.  

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## bdfreetuna (Apr 26, 2018)

deadheadskier said:


> I vastly prefer manual transmission.  my personal vehicles are manuals.  However, if we could flip the switch to autonomous vehicles tomorrow, I'd be first in line.  I spend 20+ hours a week on average in my van for work.  The increase in efficiency at my job and weekly work hours reduction would be massive.  As much as I love driving, it's an absolute waste of valuable time.



If I was driving a work van I'd rather have it be automatic too. Autonomous, never. Even if I ended up liking it, I'd hate it anyway. Something about reducing the human species to the level of hive-mind pond-scum, rather looking at any number of screens than paying attention to the road and natural scenery.

Maybe you could be studying for a licensing exam or learning how to cook better macaroni while it drives you around; this I could see in balance.

Imagine if instead they were offering brain interfaces which allowed non-autonomous control of the vehicle through thought. Then your wife and kids start yelling in the vehicle... :lol:

My primary objection is that my own choice to drive a vehicle with as much manual control as possible is going to sooner or later come to head with the autonomous stuff. Conflict will occur. I feel like driving a stick shift is a more fundamental freedom in the auto world when it boils down to it.


----------



## VTKilarney (Apr 26, 2018)

On the one hand, I get what you are saying.  I really don't need any more screen time in my life.  And reading would likely make me car sick anyway.

On the other hand, I would LOVE to be able to get into a vehicle at 9:00 PM, sleep, and wake up somewhere in the morning.  How they will buckle you in safely while you are sleeping is another question that needs to be answered.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 26, 2018)

VTKilarney said:


> On the one hand, I get what you are saying.  I really don't need any more screen time in my life.  And reading would likely make me car sick anyway.
> 
> On the other hand, I would LOVE to be able to get into a vehicle at 9:00 PM, sleep, and wake up somewhere in the morning.  How they will buckle you in safely while you are sleeping is another question that needs to be answered.


In my case the time I could spend on screen time in the car traveling from hospital to hospital would only serve to reduce my screen time when I'm not driving.  I could cut most all of those hours out of my work week. 

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Apr 26, 2018)

mister moose said:


> Would these be the same apps that show you wandering a squiggly line in the trees when riding the lift, and show 81mph from a guy not wearing a speed suit on a blue slope?



No. Not skiing apps. Speedometer apps. Pretty darn accurate on normal level ground, not ascending/descending steep slopes. I've checked one agpsgainst my vehicles, and my other handheld GPS's and it was within .5mph or less of everything else. Close enough on my S6 to use instead of a vehicles speedometer. 

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.coolniks.niksgps


----------



## mikec142 (Apr 26, 2018)

bdfreetuna said:


> Not returning to the Catskills to ski seems a little drastic, especially since the cop cooled down and did let you go (as he should have, and as would be your Constitutional / natural / God-given right, having committed no crime and no intent to do so).



I don't think what I wrote was clear.  I've skied at Windham numerous times since this incident and will continue to do so.  But this incident occured in a nearby town.  I won't spend money in that particular town.  If I need gas, I'll get it in the next town.  If I want food, I'll find another place in the next town.  Even though the hotel was clean and met my needs, I'll find a similar hotel in another town the next time.  A lot of the towns we are discussing are rural and struggling.  And if your first impression is an out of control policeman...that's hard to shake.  

As an aside, I get that being a police officer can't be easy, but this was over the top and scary.


----------



## spiderpig (Apr 26, 2018)

skimagic said:


> Good news, CDOT is raising the speed limit on that stretch soon,so now you can do 80.     Whoever designed 84 should be in jail for incompetence, worst highway anywhere.



Good news! I noticed the change last weekend and was pretty pleased since I didn't know it was happening. The concurrence with Route 72 is up to 55 from 50, as well.


----------



## SkiingInABlueDream (Apr 26, 2018)

mikec142 said:


> It's things like the above that I find disturbing.
> 
> Two years ago my family and I had a terrible experience in Coxsackie, NY....



Maybe someone else actually did fly past the cop as claimed and he mistakenly thought it was you? Whatever the case that sucks.


----------



## Glenn (Apr 26, 2018)

VTKilarney said:


> On the one hand, I get what you are saying.  I really don't need any more screen time in my life.  And reading would likely make me car sick anyway.
> 
> On the other hand, I would LOVE to be able to get into a vehicle at 9:00 PM, sleep, and wake up somewhere in the morning.  How they will buckle you in safely while you are sleeping is another question that needs to be answered.



Some school's of thought are that safety systems will be greatly reduced in vehicles since the likelihood of crashing does down significantly. This is with everything on the road being autonomous, vehicle to vehicle communication, vehicle to infrastructure communications and I'm sure a few others I'm missing.


----------



## SkiingInABlueDream (Apr 26, 2018)

I'm really split on autonomous vehicles. I consider myself a former car enthusiast and still generally enjoy driving. I'm buying a car in the next few months and a requirement is manual transmission. Every car I've owned has been manual. That all said on ski day trips I would love to be able to check out on at least the uninteresting (dark highway) hours of those road trips. 
And I agree that we are a very long time away, 20 yrs min, from the point where human piloted vehicles are mostly gone, and that transition where there's a mix of autonomous and non- is the biggest challenge.


----------



## crank (Apr 26, 2018)

Troy VT on the way to Jay.  Yes I always slow down to conform with lower speed limit coming into town and was glad I did that day as there was a Patroller sitting there in wait.  However, I sped up to 50 too soon leaving the other side of town and was in sight of the 50mph speed limit sign when ticketed by the patroller lying in wait on the other side of town.  Lesson learned.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Apr 26, 2018)

SkiingInABlueDream said:


> I'm really split on autonomous vehicles. I consider myself a former car enthusiast and still generally enjoy driving. I'm buying a car in the next few months and a requirement is manual transmission. Every car I've owned has been manual. That all said on ski day trips I would love to be able to check out on at least the uninteresting (dark highway) hours of those road trips.
> And I agree that we are a very long time away, 20 yrs min, from the point where human piloted vehicles are mostly gone, and that transition where there's a mix of autonomous and non- is the biggest challenge.



Lots of cars have lane-keeping assist and adaptive cruise control. Not sure how many of those offered in 6MT at the moment. But from what I hear the new Honda Accord, for example, you can drive near hands-off on the highway and it's very accurate. It requires *some* steering feedback like 3x a minute or so, basically it just wants to know you haven't totally abandoned the steering wheel, but it will steer itself.

IMO a good compromise between being able to relax on the highway effectively and still driving an otherwise engaging vehicle.


----------



## mikec142 (Apr 26, 2018)

I know that some people love to drive.  I personally can't wait til I can take a self driving car from NJ to VT with me reading a book or taking a nap.  Beam me up Scotty!


----------



## drjeff (Apr 26, 2018)

A nicely balanced car on a winding road is pretty darn close to a pair of GS race skis on some smooth corduroy when you know how to arc them!  

Put me in the category of people who never want to give up my steering wheel!!!!


----------



## bdfreetuna (Apr 26, 2018)

Just remember you'll be rolling along at the speed limit ... or less


----------



## Smellytele (Apr 26, 2018)

mikec142 said:


> I know that some people love to drive.  I personally can't wait til I can take a self driving car from NJ to VT with me reading a book or taking a nap.  Beam me up Scotty!



It would get rid of all drunk driving


----------



## x10003q (Apr 26, 2018)

Scruffy said:


> This has nothing to do with what the State authorizes; any cop can give a ticket for any speed over the speed limit. It has to do with how much work the cop wants to do to prove your were speeding for the level of fine that the judge can levy. State troopers on highways "usually" don't bother with anything less than 15mph over, or a 3 point infraction: so in a 65 mph zone, a speed of 80 gets you a ticket while 75 usually doesn't. Depending on the jurisdiction, the cop usually needs to show up in court and plead the state's/town's/county's case. State cops don't want to show up to court for a 5mph over infraction and a 1 point fine; it's just not worth their time, but there's no rule on that and one day they could be ordered by their superiors to go after,  let's say 10mph over in a 65mph zone. For town cops in small towns with not a lot to do, a 5 mph over infraction is just ripe pickings for them. The town brings in extra revenue and the cop gets overtime pay for going to court, not to mention the judge is probably local and tough and won't play ball either.



Speedometers can be plus or minus 5mph at highway speeds. Also, sometimes people put the wrong size tires on their vehicles and that also changes speedometers. This is why cops generally let you slide for 10 mph over. I have seen cops write tickets down to under 10 over in order not to bury people in fines and insurance increases. 

In NJ - if a state trooper writes the ticket, NJ gets 100% and if a municipal/town officer writes the ticket, the town gets 50% and the county gets 50%. Tickets written for bad lights, expired inspection, etc, go 100% to NJ no matter who writes the ticket. There are court costs on every ticket, limited to $33.00, of which 27.50 (max) goes to the municipal court where the ticket was written.

In NJ, if somebody figured out that speeding tickets where being written in a closed school zone, there would be a lawsuit and quite possibly a refund and/or a points reduction for people caught in such a scam.


----------



## ThinkSnow (Apr 26, 2018)

drjeff said:


> A nicely balanced car on a winding road is pretty darn close to a pair of GS race skis on some smooth corduroy when you know how to arc them!
> 
> Put me in the category of people who never want to give up my steering wheel!!!!


 +1  Love manual transmissions.


----------



## mister moose (Apr 26, 2018)

drjeff said:


> A nicely balanced car on a winding road is pretty darn close to a pair of GS race skis on some smooth corduroy when you know how to arc them!
> 
> Put me in the category of people who never want to give up my steering wheel!!!!



"If you like your car, you can keep your car"


----------



## bdfreetuna (Apr 26, 2018)

drjeff said:


> A nicely balanced car on a winding road is pretty darn close to a pair of GS race skis on some smooth corduroy when you know how to arc them!
> 
> Put me in the category of people who never want to give up my steering wheel!!!!



The Koni Yellow struts and H&R black springs I installed a couple months ago has really made for some fun drives to and from the mountains. Pretty firm but still dampens broken pavement and even potholes well. Body roll basically eliminated.

Considering I often spend 5 or 6 hours in any given ski day driving... about the same as actually skiing... I consider the before and after experience pretty important as well


----------



## Glenn (Apr 26, 2018)

I love cars and I enjoy driving. I also spend enough time on the road to see how bad people are at driving. It's scary as hell to see someone puttering along in the left lane, swerving.....and when you pass them(on the right)...they're texting or talking on the phone. It's crazy how many feet you travel per second a highway speeds; and you see people not paying attention.


----------



## benski (Apr 26, 2018)

As a college student, I feel like most people my age don't like driving. I know many people who don't have there license, and we are always carpooling, and often looking for ways to avoid driving. I think the big drunk driving and texting meanwhile driving campaigns combines with a desire to do both meanwhile in transit makes driving feel like a chore to my generation. I think this is also why millennial tend to put off moving to the suburbs.


----------



## ss20 (Apr 26, 2018)

As an avid NASCAR fan, something I often talk about with other racing fans is the death of American car culture.  Not only is working on cars not a thing anymore, just owning them is viewed as too much of a "hassle", as benski said.  

The truth is when you're in high school getting a car is far too expensive (especially insurance).  And is it worth it so the kid can commute to/from a minimum wage job?  Then in college, they live on-campus or in-town, as quite a few colleges now require first year students to live on-campus, and without a car.  So now the individual is in their early 20s, and, demographics would indicate that a young professional at that age is most likely to live in a city, where they can use mass transportation.


Somewhere along the line people stopped equating cars with freedom and personal independence.  Independence has started to mean going to university and living away from home....and with that, cars just became another large, costly appliance.  

My $0.02.  And for the record, after skiing, the biggest thing I couldn't live without is a car.


----------



## cdskier (Apr 26, 2018)

ss20 said:


> Somewhere along the line people stopped equating cars with freedom and personal independence.  Independence has started to mean going to university and living away from home....and with that, cars just became another large, costly appliance.



When I went to college (a mere 18 years ago), I was thrilled to find that my top choice let freshmen have cars on campus. I just couldn't have imagined being without a car even in college (and I went away to college 5 hours from home).


----------



## Scruffy (Apr 26, 2018)

x10003q said:


> Speedometers can be plus or minus 5mph at highway speeds. Also, sometimes people put the wrong size tires on their vehicles and that also changes speedometers. This is why cops generally let you slide for 10 mph over. I have seen cops write tickets down to under 10 over in order not to bury people in fines and insurance increases.



I agree 100% with the variation in speedometers and different sized tires, and I knew someone would bring this up 
But, that in and of it's self is not why cops let you ride for +10mph, they're generally not that magnanimous. In fact it'd be up to you as the car owner, to keep your car in compliance. The real issue is most cops don't want to be bothered fighting a fight in court with someone over a small speeding infraction and a small fine, especially if the infraction get's pleaded down. A 15mph or over is less likely to get pleaded down, or if it does it still results in a traffic infraction and a fine, so it's a fast in and out in court for the cop, and more of a sure thing for conviction.


----------



## Scruffy (Apr 26, 2018)

cdskier said:


> When I went to college (a mere 18 years ago), I was thrilled to find that my top choice let freshmen have cars on campus. I just couldn't have imagined being without a car even in college (and I went away to college 5 hours from home).



Me too. College 5 hours away. Drove myself there and back in my MGB from day one, my parents never set foot on the campus. It's a shame that insurance is so high now for young men, it was high when I was young, but now it's crazy--it's the lions share of the cost of ownership usually--especially for a used or free from family member car. It's too bad young people don't see the freedom a car can offer. I can understand that if you live in a city, a car is a hassle, but that of course depends on the city, some are more car friendly than others.


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 26, 2018)

VTKilarney said:


> Police in Bridgewater, on VT Route 4, issued over 2,300 tickets last year.  Oh, and the 25 mph school zone doesn’t even have a school.
> 
> http://www.wcax.com/content/news/Vermonts-top-speed-trap-is-a-defunct-school-zone-480793251.html



Some things don't change.  That is a huge speed trap.


----------



## ss20 (Apr 26, 2018)

Cars were everything in my teens.  My car gave me access to skiing, a nice job, going out with friends, and since the parents were at home... my car gave me a private place for many romantic "firsts"


----------



## gregnye (Apr 26, 2018)

ss20 said:


> Somewhere along the line people stopped equating cars with freedom and personal independence.  Independence has started to mean going to university and living away from home....and with that, cars just became another large, costly appliance.




I'm so glad the car dependence is ending in this country. And this is coming from someone who drives commercially for work. Cars are unsustainable modes of transportation that prevent social interaction. Not to mention how unsafe they are. We have just become accustom to the daily car crashes and loss of lives cars create.

People always are often impressed at the low miles on my car. Really I only use it to go skiing and take public transit into work. I would 100% sell my car if there was a reliable train to the ski areas I frequent.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Apr 26, 2018)

bdfreetuna said:


> Just remember you'll be rolling along at the speed limit ... or less


If everyone drives at the speedlimit tragic flows much better. Cars merge together nicely eliminating traffic jams. By everyone driving the same and constant speed you would be amazed how much faster you arrive even driving slower.

Sent from my SM-G930F using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## BenedictGomez (Apr 26, 2018)

Smellytele said:


> *It would get rid of all drunk driving*



Would it?  Probably not for a while.  

 The technology is not so good that they'll allow you to be bombed as a solo passenger.  In fact, this will probably be an early issue, and it wouldn't surprise me if people could get DWI while alone in a self-driving car even if an "accident" is the fault of the non self-driving car.



ss20 said:


> Not only is* working on cars not a thing anymore*



Some of the auto manufacturers are partly to blame for this.  You'd need to be a mechanic who works on tons of different cars to know all the manufacturers that are guilty, but I've definitely noticed a trend towards intentional and needless complications of "placement" of things.  Sometimes things that should be EASY to fix yourself, are made extremely complicated so you have to bring the car into the shop. 
Really bizarrely placed and extraordinarily difficult to reach spark plugs, for instance.




gregnye said:


> *Cars are unsustainable modes of transportation that prevent social interaction.*



Talking on horseback is worse.


----------



## x10003q (Apr 26, 2018)

gregnye said:


> I'm so glad the car dependence is ending in this country. And this is coming from someone who drives commercially for work. Cars are unsustainable modes of transportation that prevent social interaction. Not to mention how unsafe they are. We have just become accustom to the daily car crashes and loss of lives cars create.


You are grossly mistaken. Car dependence will NEVER end in the USA. People need to get to work and mass transit will NEVER be able to accommodate all the workers and the locations where they work.




gregnye said:


> People always are often impressed at the low miles on my car. Really I only use it to go skiing and take public transit into work. I would 100% sell my car if there was a reliable train to the ski areas I frequent.



I lived in NYC for 15 years and I did try to figure out a train trip to Killington. It was an expensive nightmare that can take twice as long as a car trip.


----------



## x10003q (Apr 26, 2018)

Hawkshot99 said:


> If everyone drives at the speedlimit tragic flows much better. Cars merge together nicely eliminating traffic jams. By everyone driving the same and constant speed you would be amazed how much faster you arrive even driving slower.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930F using AlpineZone mobile app



This might be true on highways during rush hour when roads at overcapacity. 

It is definitely not true when highways are at normal capacity or less than normal capacity. It is also not true when speed limits are arbitrarily set lower than the speed limit the road was designed to handle.


----------



## Smellytele (Apr 27, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> Would it?  Probably not for a while.
> 
> The technology is not so good that they'll allow you to be bombed as a solo passenger.  In fact, this will probably be an early issue, and it wouldn't surprise me if people could get DWI while alone in a self-driving car even if an "accident" is the fault of the non self-driving car.



If the tech was at the point where as he said he could take a self driving car from NJ to VT and be reading a book or taking a nap then yes.


----------



## Smellytele (Apr 27, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> Some of the auto manufacturers are partly to blame for this.  You'd need to be a mechanic who works on tons of different cars to know all the manufacturers that are guilty, but I've definitely noticed a trend towards intentional and needless complications of "placement" of things.  Sometimes things that should be EASY to fix yourself, are made extremely complicated so you have to bring the car into the shop.
> Really bizarrely placed and extraordinarily difficult to reach spark plugs, for instance.



On my wife's vehicle you have to take the front end apart to change the headlight.


----------



## Smellytele (Apr 27, 2018)

x10003q said:


> You are grossly mistaken. Car dependence will NEVER end in the USA. People need to get to work and mass transit will NEVER be able to accommodate all the workers and the locations where they work.


Lets get rid of all those rail to trails and start a trails to rail movement!


----------



## VTKilarney (Apr 27, 2018)

The simple reality is that the United States does not have the infrastructure for mass transit to meaningfully replace automobiles.  This is the result of a decades long policy of preferring automobile infrastructure over mass transit infrastructure.  Automobiles are not going away because of this.  The example of taking the train to Killington is a good example.  It just doesn't make sense if you have an automobile.


----------



## 2Planker (Apr 27, 2018)

Model is Passport SR7 (w/ optional Escort ZR3 jammer).  Great performance from a nice stealthy unit.  Takes the traditional detector to the next level w/ jamming capabilitities. Works GREAT !

http://www.blinder-laser-jammer.com/escort-passport-sr7-radar-detector.htm










BenedictGomez said:


> Pretty sure that will be illegal.  Well....at least for probably the first decade or so of self-driving cars.
> 
> 
> 
> Escort makes a great product.  What model is yours? I'm probably due for an upgrade as mine is about 8 or 9 years old.  Only the Lord knows how many times its' paid for itself over those years.


----------



## ThinkSnow (Apr 27, 2018)

ss20 said:


> The truth is when you're in high school getting a car is far too expensive (especially insurance).  And is it worth it so the kid can commute to/from a minimum wage job?  Then in college, they live on-campus or in-town, as quite a few colleges now require first year students to live on-campus, and without a car.  So now the individual is in their early 20s, and, demographics would indicate that a young professional at that age is most likely to live in a city, where they can use mass transportation.
> Somewhere along the line people stopped equating cars with freedom and personal independence.  Independence has started to mean going to university and living away from home....and with that, cars just became another large, costly appliance.QUOTE]
> 
> Are you basically saying that high school kids these days can't be bothered with a low paying job in order to afford a vehicle, which in turn teaches them how to save money, and prioritize-- perhaps because its easier to be coddled by mom & dad? And when in college are  then complacent to continue to allow mommy & daddy to take them to and from campus because they can't be bothered doing these things for themselves because they won't end up living in the horrible suburbs like their parents did?  If this is the case, then isn't it the parents fault for not instilling these values initially?


----------



## Jully (Apr 27, 2018)

ThinkSnow said:


> ss20 said:
> 
> 
> > The truth is when you're in high school getting a car is far too expensive (especially insurance).  And is it worth it so the kid can commute to/from a minimum wage job?  Then in college, they live on-campus or in-town, as quite a few colleges now require first year students to live on-campus, and without a car.  So now the individual is in their early 20s, and, demographics would indicate that a young professional at that age is most likely to live in a city, where they can use mass transportation.
> ...


----------



## gregnye (Apr 27, 2018)

x10003q said:


> You are grossly mistaken. Car dependence will NEVER end in the USA. People need to get to work and mass transit will NEVER be able to accommodate all the workers and the locations where they work.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I really hate this argument that "trains will never work in the U.S." because size, etc. I understand that there are many rural areas of the U.S., however most people do live in city areas. And recently we've seen a transition to cities like never before.

The truth is that the American population is becoming increasingly urban/concentrated in cities. The fact that many cities have inadequate transit infrastructure for this urbanization is ridiculous.

While obviously a train will never be possible for people who live in remote areas like the grand canyon, we can and should fund trains in areas where people live, like Springfield Metro Area in Mass for example.

On the topic of taking a train to Killington, I've seriously been considering moving to Salt Lake simply because I can take a bus to the ski area! And the snow's better too!


----------



## Pez (Apr 27, 2018)

Springfield mass needs a lot of things  a train is not one of them.


----------



## tumbler (Apr 27, 2018)

I think the kids today have found freedom through their phones.  We would first use our bikes to find friends then as soon as we could drive would use the car.  Now they text, snapchat, play video games, etc and don't have to leave the house.  That is their version of independence.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Apr 27, 2018)

gregnye said:


> I really hate this argument that "trains will never work in the U.S." because size, etc.* I understand that there are many rural areas of the U.S., however most people do live in city areas. And recently we've seen a transition to cities like never before.*



And the prediction of futurists is that self-driving cars are going to lead to people fleeing the cities and moving to the suburbs and rural areas.



gregnye said:


> I've seriously been considering moving to Salt Lake *simply because I can take a bus to the ski area!*



You hate driving yourself so much that you'd move somewhere "simply" because you can take the bus places?


----------



## cdskier (Apr 27, 2018)

gregnye said:


> I understand that there are many rural areas of the U.S., however most people do live in city areas. And recently we've seen a transition to cities like never before.
> 
> The truth is that the American population is becoming increasingly urban/concentrated in cities. The fact that many cities have inadequate transit infrastructure for this urbanization is ridiculous.



Do you have numbers to support this claim? It just seems counter-intuitive to everything I know personally. So many of my friends and family that were in cities have spread out and moved away from the big cities.

And if you're going off census data, you need to be very careful with how they define urban areas. For US Census data purposes, anyone that lives in a whopping 3500 square mile area around NYC is considered part of that urban area. I'd love to see someone try to cover an "urban" area that big with efficient mass transit. Not going to happen...

I for one cannot stand mass transit and have 0 interest in taking it if at all possible (and that's one reason you'll rarely see me in NYC even though I live less than 10 miles away from it).


----------



## x10003q (Apr 27, 2018)

gregnye said:


> I really hate this argument that "trains will never work in the U.S." because size, etc. I understand that there are many rural areas of the U.S., however most people do live in city areas. And recently we've seen a transition to cities like never before.The truth is that the American population is becoming increasingly urban/concentrated in cities. The fact that many cities have inadequate transit infrastructure for this urbanization is ridiculous.



You may hate the argument, but it speaks the truth. There is zero money  for rail and due to the way metro areas have developed, trains will  never be able to serve commuters. While metro areas are increasing in population, millenials are starting to have kids and are leaving cities for suburbs  due to schools and space. This is a common theme in the NYC metro area.



gregnye said:


> While obviously a train will never be possible for people who live in remote areas like the grand canyon, we can and should fund trains in areas where people live, like Springfield Metro Area in Mass for example.



There is not enough population or density or money in Springfield to justify rail, let alone the ridiculous idea of spreading rail around the Springfield Metro Area. It is probably hard to even justify vans/buses for Springfield metro.

I live in north NJ, one of the best rail served areas in the US, but,  unless I am headed to NYC/Hoboken/Jersey City, rail is difficult to use. I had a job 6 miles from my home on a different rail line. By car my commute was around 12-15 minutes, by rail it would have been over 2 hours (including a 20 minute walk from the train station to the office) and the times did not correspond to my  work schedule and family schedule. Every town in NJ has residential and commercial real estate, but that does not mean your job is in your town. People are commuting many different directions due to this mixing of residential and commercial. The only way to get to work is by car.



gregnye said:


> On the topic of taking a train to Killington, I've seriously been considering moving to Salt Lake simply because I can take a bus to the ski area! And the snow's better too!



That would be the smart move. I wish train travel worked for skiing, but it really is not possible in most cases.


----------



## Domeskier (Apr 27, 2018)

When will automatic flying cars be a thing?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Apr 27, 2018)

cdskier said:


> And if you're going off census data, *you need to be very careful with how they define urban areas. For US Census data purposes, anyone that lives in a whopping 3500 square mile area around NYC is considered part of that urban area.* I'd love to see someone try to cover an "urban" area that big with efficient mass transit. Not going to happen...



I'm surrounded by horse farms and state & county parks, yet I live in the "NYC metro area" for some odd reason.



cdskier said:


> *I for one cannot stand mass transit and have 0 interest in taking it* if at all possible (and that's one reason you'll rarely see me in NYC even though I live less than 10 miles away from it).



Especially the bus; the bus is a little slice of hell on earth. 

 The only time I ever took the bus is when I lived on the UWS and worked on the east side.  Subway to midtown, then bus cross-town each day. I dont mind the subway so much at all, but the bus is like a form of punishment.  I once took the bus to LGA too, since it's essentially "free" with an MTA card, a horrendous mistake.  Ponied-up the ~$55 cab far each time after that.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Apr 27, 2018)

x10003q said:


> *There is not enough population or density or money in Springfield to justify rail, let alone the ridiculous idea of spreading rail around the Springfield Metro Area.* It is probably hard to even justify vans/buses for Springfield metro.



Just pick the funds off of Bernie Sanders' magical money trees.


----------



## cdskier (Apr 27, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> Yeah, I'm surrounded by horse farms and state & county parks, yet I live in the "NYC metro area" for some odd reason.



About 75% of the "cities" within the Cenus designated "urban areas" have populations under 20,000. I'd consider those small towns, not "urban" areas. Some of the towns in certain urban areas have populations as low as 2500. We're REALLY stretching the definition of "urban" here. As far as I'm concerned, these statistics are pretty meaningless as a result.

And even if 80% of the US population is in a so-called "urban" area, that still means 65 Million people don't live in urban areas.


----------



## Pez (Apr 27, 2018)

Amtrack goes right through springfield BTW


----------



## Domeskier (Apr 27, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> Especially the bus; the bus is a little slice of hell on earth.



+1 x 10[SUP]9[/SUP]


----------



## Hawk (Apr 27, 2018)

benski said:


> As a college student, I feel like most people my age don't like driving. I know many people who don't have there license, and we are always carpooling, and often looking for ways to avoid driving. I think the big drunk driving and texting meanwhile driving campaigns combines with a desire to do both meanwhile in transit makes driving feel like a chore to my generation. I think this is also why millennial tend to put off moving to the suburbs.


I think that Millennials are basically too lazy to drive or move to the suburbs.  They would rather use their sense of entitlement and have someone else  drive for them.  That way they can text and play video games.  Driving requires some skill and it also requires an attention span that they do not have.  Us Gen-Xers are the generation that will make sure things get done while you guys are busy liking your friends sushi post.  LOL

I took the train for 15 years every day.  Trains suck and I will never use them again.  Dealing with the masses of idiotic people frustrated me to no end.


----------



## Jully (Apr 27, 2018)

x10003q said:


> That would be the smart move. I wish train travel worked for skiing, but it really is not possible in most cases.



I'm curious why you think it doesn't work for skiing? While obviously it isn't ever going to be the ONLY way to go skiing, there's hundreds of bus trips out of Boston alone every weekend. Beyond the startup cost, which is very large, it seems like a more reliable method of bus transportation to resorts.

If a resort like Sunday River had a train to it (tracks that are used still run through Bethel), I would ski way more there and decrease the frequency I'm at other places because of the convenience of the train.


----------



## Jully (Apr 27, 2018)

Hawk said:


> I think that Millennials are basically too lazy to drive or move to the suburbs.  They would rather use their sense of entitlement and have someone else  drive for them.  That way they can text and play video games.  Driving requires some skill and it also requires an attention span that they do not have.  Us Gen-Xers are the generation that will make sure things get done while you guys are busy liking your friends sushi post.  LOL
> 
> I took the train for 15 years every day.  Trains suck and I will never use them again.  Dealing with the masses of idiotic people frustrated me to no end.



HAHAHA. 

Dealing with masses of idiotic people sounds like driving in rush hour traffic to me, except its idiots with 2000 lb weapons strapped around them rather than oversized purses and backpacks. Commuting around other people sucks, whatever your method.


----------



## Glenn (Apr 27, 2018)

The college I went to allowed Freshman to have cars. The place emptied out on the weekends. Didn't stop us from having a good time. I never figured out why people wanted to rush home on the weekends. Plus, they were urinating away some of their housing budget since they weren't living in their room two days a week.


----------



## Smellytele (Apr 27, 2018)

Jully said:


> HAHAHA.
> 
> Dealing with masses of idiotic people sounds like driving in rush hour traffic to me, except its idiots with 2000 lb weapons strapped around them rather than oversized purses and backpacks. Commuting around other people sucks, whatever your method.



But you don't have to sit or stand next to some one who smells like a dead goat nor sit on and touch things that have been pissed on.


----------



## Domeskier (Apr 27, 2018)

Smellytele said:


> But you don't have to sit or stand next to some one who smells like a dead goat nor sit on and touch things that have been pissed on.



I can't remember the last time I sat down on the subway.  Probably after my pants were already compromised by sitting on a bus.  I regret the end of winter less because skiing is over and more because it's not longer socially acceptable to wear gloves on public transportation.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Apr 27, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> I'm surrounded by horse farms and state & county parks, yet I live in the "NYC metro area" for some odd reason.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I choose to take the bus to work over the subway. the bus stop is a 2 minute walk from my apt. the g train is 10. I spend more time on the bus but like being above ground, seeing the sights, having full service and use of my phone. I only take the G when I'm in a particular hurry since it gets me there about 10 min faster.

but I'm also living and working in Brooklyn. your mileage may vary in big evil manhattan.


----------



## Jully (Apr 27, 2018)

Smellytele said:


> But you don't have to sit or stand next to some one who smells like a dead goat nor sit on and touch things that have been pissed on.



Fair point.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 27, 2018)

gregnye said:


> I'm so glad the car dependence is ending in this country. And this is coming from someone who drives commercially for work. Cars are unsustainable modes of transportation that prevent social interaction. Not to mention how unsafe they are. We have just become accustom to the daily car crashes and loss of lives cars create.
> 
> People always are often impressed at the low miles on my car. Really I only use it to go skiing and take public transit into work. I would 100% sell my car if there was a reliable train to the ski areas I frequent.


Yeah, I don't see the dependence on cars going away in this country at all.  Plenty of reasons outlined in this thread. 

Plus, the cost of adding commuter rail in heavily populated areas is insane.  The Green Line extension in Boston is projected to cost North of a billion dollars just to add four miles to the track.  

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## BenedictGomez (Apr 27, 2018)

deadheadskier said:


> *The Green Line extension in Boston is projected to cost North of a billion dollars just to add four miles to the track.  *



Normally I'd read a sentence like this & assume you're wrong, but given its' Boston I'm not even going to bother fact-checking it & just assume you're correct.


----------



## Jully (Apr 27, 2018)

deadheadskier said:


> Yeah, I don't see the dependence on cars going away in this country at all.  Plenty of reasons outlined in this thread.
> 
> Plus, the cost of adding commuter rail in heavily populated areas is insane.  The Green Line extension in Boston is projected to cost North of a billion dollars just to add four miles to the track.
> 
> Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app





BenedictGomez said:


> Normally I'd read a sentence like this & assume you're wrong, but given its' Boston I'm not even going to bother fact-checking it & just assume you're correct.



Even funnier is that the GLX is almost exclusively on existing commuter rail lines!

What a disaster of a plan. Construction was supposed to originally start in something like 1999.


----------



## Hawk (Apr 27, 2018)

Smellytele said:


> But you don't have to sit or stand next to some one who smells like a dead goat nor sit on and touch things that have been pissed on.



Exactly.  I have so many stories about whacked out people on the train. At least in my car I can do my own thing and not have to deal with other peoples issues.  Believe me, people have some really f-ed up issues and they love to share them.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Apr 27, 2018)

Hawk said:


> *I have so many stories about whacked out people on the train. *



I have plenty.

One of my favorites is the time people (and I mean > 20) were _quickly _STREAMING into my car with a purpose.

  I got up thinking maybe they were fleeing from a crazy person with a knife or something.  The truth was much worse, a woman in the next car dropped her pants and was taking a dump right in the middle of the car.


----------



## VTKilarney (Apr 27, 2018)

x10003q said:


> There is zero money  for rail *and due to the way metro areas have developed, trains will  never be able to serve commuters.*



Bingo.  You just can erase the fact that our infrastructure for decades has developed to serve the automobile.


----------



## tumbler (Apr 27, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> a woman in the next car dropped her pants and was taking a dump right in the middle of the car.



And now when I do the spped limit through a little VT town I will think of this.


----------



## benski (Apr 27, 2018)

Hawk said:


> I think that Millennials are basically too lazy to drive or move to the suburbs.  They would rather use their sense of entitlement and have someone else  drive for them.  That way they can text and play video games.  Driving requires some skill and it also requires an attention span that they do not have. Us Gen-Xers are the generation that will make sure things get done while you guys are busy liking your friends sushi post.  LOL



Cars create a lot more problems for society. Highways have to be subsidized by the state budgets just like public transportations but cars also add a lot more pollutants, and force everything further apart, which further increases the cost of transportation. I once estimated NYC's 4 track subways can handle about as many people as a 20 lane highway. And then you have all these suburban businesses that are half parking, which is payed for by the business owner who passes this onto his clients. And look at what we pay for rent, college and compare that to what your generation payed. We really got screwed by your generations laziness to stop investing in education, and trying you best to keep home prices high.


----------



## VTKilarney (Apr 27, 2018)

benski said:


> Cars create a lot more problems for society. Highways have to be subsidized by the state budgets just like public *transportations* but cars also add a lot more pollutants, and force everything further apart, which further increases the cost of transportation. I once estimated NYC's 4 track subways can handle about as many people as a 20 lane highway. And then you have all these suburban businesses that are half parking, which is *payed* for by the business owner who passes this onto his clients. And look at what we pay for* rent, college* and compare that to what your generation *payed*. We really got screwed by your *generations* laziness to stop investing in education, and trying* you best* to keep home prices high.



Clearly too many people are going to college.


----------



## benski (Apr 27, 2018)

cdskier said:


> And if you're going off census data, you need to be very careful with how they define urban areas. For US Census data purposes, anyone that lives in a whopping 3500 square mile area around NYC is considered part of that urban area. I'd love to see someone try to cover an "urban" area that big with efficient mass transit. Not going to happen...


The Netherlands cover there whole country with efficient public transportation, Its close in size but has 3 million fewer people and a much lower GDP per capita than New Yorks Metro area. The difference is they don't have much infrastructure that was built around cars, and no sprawling suburbs so its much easier to serve every neighborhood and town.


----------



## Jully (Apr 27, 2018)

benski said:


> Cars create a lot more problems for society. Highways have to be subsidized by the state budgets just like public transportations but cars also add a lot more pollutants, and force everything further apart, which further increases the cost of transportation. I once estimated NYC's 4 track subways can handle about as many people as a 20 lane highway. And then you have all these suburban businesses that are half parking, which is payed for by the business owner who passes this onto his clients. And look at what we pay for rent, college and compare that to what your generation payed. We really got screwed by your generations laziness to stop investing in education, and trying you best to keep home prices high.



Placing blame on anyone doesn't help with anything. It just takes you down frustrating paths (like this thread is about to go down). There are plenty of disadvantages to cars, but plenty of advantages to them as well. The US transportation system is what it is and bitching about who is to blame for it gets you no where. 

It is awesome that in most of the east coast cities, mass transit options have been developed as alternatives to reduce the hideous smog, ozone, and NOx filled highway monstrosities and its also great that our roads have improved and traffic flow has been more optimized to give an alternative to shit filled train cars haha.


----------



## Jully (Apr 27, 2018)

benski said:


> The Netherlands cover there whole country with efficient public transportation, Its close in size but has 3 million fewer people and a much lower GDP per capita than New Yorks Metro area. The difference is they don't have much infrastructure that was built around cars, and no sprawling suburbs so its much easier to serve every neighborhood and town.



While you have a point, the New York Metro area is hardly the reason why people are saying the US will never lose its dependence on cars. It's places like Maine, Montana, Wyoming, and Florida.


----------



## x10003q (Apr 27, 2018)

Jully said:


> I'm curious why you think it doesn't work for skiing? While obviously it isn't ever going to be the ONLY way to go skiing, there's hundreds of bus trips out of Boston alone every weekend. Beyond the startup cost, which is very large, it seems like a more reliable method of bus transportation to resorts.
> 
> If a resort like Sunday River had a train to it (tracks that are used still run through Bethel), I would ski way more there and decrease the frequency I'm at other places because of the convenience of the train.



Unless you live right next to the train station, just getting to the train station is a giant pain in the ass. At the time I considered the train, we were living in NYC around 14th st and 3rd ave. We (wife, 9 year old, me) all own equipment. Trying to maneuver heavy ski equipment around NYC at rush hour is difficult at best. The train left around 5:45pm. We needed to leave our apt at 4:45pm and we planned on using the subway (cabs are hard to find at rush hour, plus the traffic can be insane). That meant humping the ski equipment one long block, going down 4 flights of stairs, getting on a crowded subway train, getting off a crowded subway train, walking up 4-6 flights of stairs, walking 1 long block and then walking a good distance in Penn Station. Then we had to go down 2 flights of stairs and load the equipment on the train.
This was just to get to the train.

At the other end in Rutland at 11:15pm, we were still about 30-45 minutes from the lodging, depending where and depending on the shuttle driver meeting us at the train station and if there were other shuttle passengers. We had to unload the equipment from the train and load it onto the van. When we arrive at the lodging, we have to unload the equipment and get it into our room. We also had to make sure we were on a shuttle route or at least slopeside since we did not have a car.
On Sunday you have to reverse the process. Since checkout is usually 11am, you have to hope the lodging will have a place to store your stuff and have a place to change out of your ski clothes for the ride back toRutland to get on the train to NYC. The train leaves Rutland around 5pm and gets into NY Penn around 11pm. Then you need to get a cab back to the apt.

The r/t train tickets were about $300 for the 3 of us. We never priced the shuttle to and from the train station in VT. It can cost money to get to and from NY Penn, also.

Via car (we had one in the city for my job) - 550 miles of driving, about $70 gas and $20 tolls, we could leave at 3pm and be up at Killington about 9pm with a dinner stop. We only had to load the car once and the skis always stayed in the car. We also did not have to pay a premium to be slopeside or rely on the shuttle. We also could bring food or buy food to make lunches and 1 dinner if we wanted to save more money.

The train might work if you could leave your stuff at Killington, but if you went every weekend, it would cost $300 (family of 3) plus the shuttle cost every time you went. You would also have a tough time navigating around Killington for food if you did not have access to a car. 

Maybe it works for a single person with a seasonal place to stay. It is pretty difficult and expensive for a family.


----------



## VTKilarney (Apr 27, 2018)

Jully said:


> While you have a point, the New York Metro area is hardly the reason why people are saying the US will never lose its dependence on cars. It's places like Maine, Montana, Wyoming, and Florida.



And the suburbs too.  Try not having a car in Wilton or Mt. Kisco.


----------



## x10003q (Apr 27, 2018)

VTKilarney said:


> And the suburbs too.  Try not having a car in Wilton or Mt. Kisco.



or anywhere in NJ except Hoboken and Jersey City. There are many places in Brooklyn, Queens, The Bronx and Staten Island where you pretty much need a car.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Apr 27, 2018)

benski said:


> *We really got screwed by your generations laziness to stop investing in education, and trying you best to keep home prices high.*



The fault for the reason education now costs so much, as well as the reason home prices are artificially high, is the same = Government.



tumbler said:


> And now when I do the spped limit through a little VT town I will think of this.



You're welcome!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Apr 27, 2018)

Jully said:


> *The US transportation system is what it is and bitching about who is to blame for it gets you no where. *



The US highway system (Eisenhower) is the envy of the world.  

The only people you typically find "bitching about it" are either a small minority of eco-extremists or the people who wish America was Europe, and often those two small groups of "people" are actually the same people.


----------



## Killingtime (Apr 27, 2018)

x10003q said:


> The train might work if you could leave your stuff at Killington, but if you went every weekend, it would cost $300 (family of 3) plus the shuttle cost every time you went. You would also have a tough time navigating around Killington for food if you did not have access to a car.
> 
> Yeah, Amtrak from NYC to Rutland is way more expensive than driving especially if you are travelling with a family. I always drive too. Can't imagine lugging ski equipment through Penn Station on a Friday evening either.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Apr 27, 2018)

Given the choice of Eisenhower highways or a bullet train to Osaka, I'll take the open road.


----------



## Jully (Apr 27, 2018)

x10003q said:


> Unless you live right next to the train station, just getting to the train station is a giant pain in the ass. At the time I considered the train, we were living in NYC around 14th st and 3rd ave. We (wife, 9 year old, me) all own equipment. Trying to maneuver heavy ski equipment around NYC at rush hour is difficult at best. The train left around 5:45pm. We needed to leave our apt at 4:45pm and we planned on using the subway (cabs are hard to find at rush hour, plus the traffic can be insane). That meant humping the ski equipment one long block, going down 4 flights of stairs, getting on a crowded subway train, getting off a crowded subway train, walking up 4-6 flights of stairs, walking 1 long block and then walking a good distance in Penn Station. Then we had to go down 2 flights of stairs and load the equipment on the train.
> This was just to get to the train.
> 
> At the other end in Rutland at 11:15pm, we were still about 30-45 minutes from the lodging, depending where and depending on the shuttle driver meeting us at the train station and if there were other shuttle passengers. We had to unload the equipment from the train and load it onto the van. When we arrive at the lodging, we have to unload the equipment and get it into our room. We also had to make sure we were on a shuttle route or at least slopeside since we did not have a car.
> ...



The Rutland train is hardly what i was envisioning though. You're absolutely correct that trains like that are next to useless.

The Winter Park ski train is what I am talking about being replicated. Beyond startup costs, I don't see much reason why it can't be and most of the rail lines are there and in use already for freight. WP train arrives literally slopeside and tickets are $29 pp I think. Maybe not cost effective for a family, but that is less than what I pay to drive to Sunday River or Sugarloaf when you factor in mileage and gas on the car.


----------



## benski (Apr 27, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> The fault for the reason education now costs so much, as well as the reason home prices are artificially high, is the same = Government.



Education was a lot cheeper when the government spent more money on it 30 years ago. Public and private education have the same problem with costs. But yeah, zoning rules seam do be designed to make homes artificially high, but it does not help that suburban lifestyles also increase the demand for land a lot.


----------



## gregnye (Apr 27, 2018)

Hawk said:


> I think that Millennials are basically too lazy to drive or move to the suburbs.  They would rather use their sense of entitlement and have someone else  drive for them.  That way they can text and play video games.  Driving requires some skill and it also requires an attention span that they do not have.  Us Gen-Xers are the generation that will make sure things get done while you guys are busy liking your friends sushi post.  LOL



Don't know whether this post is supposed to sarcasm or not. As a Millennial myself it's more just the fact that we hate devoting time to traveling. Think about how long it takes to live in NH and commute to Boston. That's at least 2 hours one way. Thats 4 hours per day.

If you commute 90 mins per day, you spend around 31.3 days commuting (timewise) per year! That's time I could use to buy avocado toast! :razz:

Finally, this combined with the fact that the younger generation is no longer scared of city life and people from different backgrounds who live in the city (aka no more white flight to suburbs) create this situation where millennials live close to work and don't need a car.

source: https://www.thepennyhoarder.com/make-money/side-gigs/commuting-for-years/


----------



## gregnye (Apr 27, 2018)

This whole thread is just amplifying the stereotype that skiing is a rich man's sport. One of my life dreams (that I know I will never achieve) is to make skiing more affordable to all. I wish everyone could experience the pleasure of skiing fresh powder. Sadly here in the U.S. that costs a $100 lift ticket, rentals, ski clothes, _*a personal car to the mountain *_and much more. Or it costs an expensive alpine touring setup, Avalanche Safety Knowledge and a desire to hike.

We've gotten off topic though. I think regardless of opinions on the state of transportation in the U.S. we all can agree that speed traps in "school zones" without actual schools are dumb.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Apr 27, 2018)

benski said:


> Education was a lot cheeper when the government spent more money on it 30 years ago. Public and private education have the same problem with costs.



The only reason education has rise as dramatically as it has is due to the absurd student loan expenditures by the federal government (a good overview below).  The government is handing out student loans like candy, which in turn is gamed by the colleges who then increase professor salaries, tuition fees, and not to mention silly spending on things like 85" HDTVs in gyms, etc...   Bonus points for kids spending $200,000 on a college "education" (term used loosely) with a major in 16th Century Greek Philosophy or Women's Studies, who will never be able to crawl out of debt due to their useless degree.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/presto...will-cost-taxpayers-170-billion/#59f1a6b762a9


----------



## BenedictGomez (Apr 27, 2018)

gregnye said:


> Finally, *this combined with the fact that the younger generation is no longer scared of city life and people from different backgrounds who live in the city (aka no more white flight to suburbs) *create this situation where millennials live close to work and don't need a car.



lULZ.   Spoken like someone clearly not old enough to remember when the city was actually the city.  

*HINT:*  There didn't used to be a SBUX on every corner and a Disney Store in every C.B.D., and SHOCKINGLY...... no, really, SHOCKINGLY I tell you, that actually _wasn't_ people's biggest concern at the time!


----------



## Jully (Apr 27, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> The only reason education has rise as dramatically as it has is due to the absurd student loan expenditures by the federal government (a good overview below).  The government is handing out student loans like candy, which in turn is gamed by the colleges who then increase professor salaries, tuition fees, and not to mention silly spending on things like 85" HDTVs in gyms, etc...   Bonus points for kids spending $200,000 on a college "education" (term used loosely) with a major in 16th Century Greek Philosophy or Women's Studies, who will never be able to crawl out of debt due to their useless degree.
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/presto...will-cost-taxpayers-170-billion/#59f1a6b762a9



Admin costs at colleges and universities these days are ridiculous. Obviously all the speed traps in ski country these days are only exacerbating this malignancy!


----------



## Jully (Apr 27, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> lULZ.   Spoken like someone clearly not old enough to remember when the city was actually the city.
> 
> *HINT:*  There didn't used to be a SBUX on every corner and a Disney Store in every C.B.D., and SHOCKINGLY...... no, really, SHOCKINGLY I tell you, that actually _wasn't_ people's biggest concern at the time!



Spot on. The most recent generation's open minded ideals wouldn't hold up in the Bronx at 9pm in 1980.


----------



## Jully (Apr 27, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> The US highway system (Eisenhower) is the envy of the world.
> 
> The only people you typically find "bitching about it" are either a small minority of eco-extremists or the people who wish America was Europe, and often those two small groups of "people" are actually the same people.



Eh, the interstates are the envy of the world, the Boston road network, MBTA subway lines, and Maine state roads on the way to SR and SL are FAR from it. 

Lots of good and lots of bad.


----------



## cdskier (Apr 27, 2018)

Glenn said:


> The college I went to allowed Freshman to have cars. The place emptied out on the weekends. Didn't stop us from having a good time. I never figured out why people wanted to rush home on the weekends. Plus, they were urinating away some of their housing budget since they weren't living in their room two days a week.



A few people went home weekends at my college, but not that many even though freshmen could have cars. Although I'd say many students also would have had a sizable drive home so that probably helped deter that.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 27, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> Normally I'd read a sentence like this & assume you're wrong, but given its' Boston I'm not even going to bother fact-checking it & just assume you're correct.


It actually had a price tag of $3 Billion before being put back out to bid. So a bit under $750 million per mile for 30k new riders a day

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Line_Extension

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Smellytele (Apr 27, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> The only reason education has rise as dramatically as it has is due to the absurd student loan expenditures by the federal government (a good overview below).  The government is handing out student loans like candy, which in turn is gamed by the colleges who then increase professor salaries, tuition fees, and not to mention silly spending on things like 85" HDTVs in gyms, etc...   Bonus points for kids spending $200,000 on a college "education" (term used loosely) with a major in 16th Century Greek Philosophy or Women's Studies, who will never be able to crawl out of debt due to their useless degree.
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/presto...will-cost-taxpayers-170-billion/#59f1a6b762a9



This


----------



## Smellytele (Apr 27, 2018)

gregnye said:


> Finally, this combined with the fact that the younger generation is no longer scared of city life and people from different backgrounds who live in the city (aka no more white flight to suburbs) create this situation where millennials live close to work and don't need a car.
> 
> source: https://www.thepennyhoarder.com/make-money/side-gigs/commuting-for-years/



No but they do need comfort dogs and safe zones


----------



## ss20 (Apr 27, 2018)

There's one ski train in the Northeast.  The Metro-North ski train to Thunder Ridge.  It's 99% first-generation, first-time skiers who's ethnicity is...lets say...not from around here.  They come and have little intention of coming back, and just see it as an activity to do for the day...just like if the ski mountain were a casino, baseball park, theme park, ect- it's just a daytrip...not something they except to become a lifelong activity.  

So would a ski train be great?  Maybe...but it seems that the majority of the skiing demographic (middle-upper class) isn't interested. 


And if it were a ski train that ran from...say...Boston-Sunday River... or any other destination resort, I doubt that the results would be much different.  Because if you can afford to ski, you can afford to have a car.  If you can't afford a car, you probably can't afford to ski...so how does a train benefit either party?


----------



## benski (Apr 28, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> The only reason education has rise as dramatically as it has is due to the absurd student loan expenditures by the federal government (a good overview below).  The government is handing out student loans like candy, which in turn is gamed by the colleges who then increase professor salaries, tuition fees, and not to mention silly spending on things like 85" HDTVs in gyms, etc...   Bonus points for kids spending $200,000 on a college "education" (term used loosely) with a major in 16th Century Greek Philosophy or Women's Studies, who will never be able to crawl out of debt due to their useless degree.
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/presto...will-cost-taxpayers-170-billion/#59f1a6b762a9



You are not wrong, but just look at how colleges are ranked, few ranking actually reward colleges for a good ROI, especially US news, which gives financial resources 10% of there formulas weight, just behind selectivity. This really suggests to me the goals colleges have when trying to improve there reputation are all wrong.


----------



## sull1102 (Apr 28, 2018)

ss20 said:


> There's one ski train in the Northeast.  The Metro-North ski train to Thunder Ridge.  It's 99% first-generation, first-time skiers who's ethnicity is...lets say...not from around here.  They come and have little intention of coming back, and just see it as an activity to do for the day...just like if the ski mountain were a casino, baseball park, theme park, ect- it's just a daytrip...not something they except to become a lifelong activity.
> 
> So would a ski train be great?  Maybe...but it seems that the majority of the skiing demographic (middle-upper class) isn't interested.
> 
> ...


Wrong, MBTA and Wachusett have had one running for at least 7 years now.

Sent from my LG-H820 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Smellytele (Apr 28, 2018)

benski said:


> You are not wrong, but just look at how colleges are ranked, few ranking actually reward colleges for a good ROI, especially US news, which gives financial resources 10% of there formulas weight, just behind selectivity. This really suggests to me the goals colleges have when trying to improve there reputation are all wrong.



Bachelor Degrees are like high school diplomas were 30 years ago. Maybe even worth less than that. I remember taking some classes with some real stupid people and thought to myself - if that person gets a degree, mine is worthless.


----------



## SkiingInABlueDream (Apr 28, 2018)

Smellytele said:


> Bachelor Degrees are like high school diplomas were 30 years ago. Maybe even worth less than that. I remember taking some classes with some real stupid people and thought to myself - if that person gets a degree, mine is worthless.



No way. A bachelor's degree today in a field like engineering is far more valuable than a HS diploma from any era. Bachelors degree in basket weaving, maybe a different story. But in general I disagree with your statement.


----------



## abc (Apr 28, 2018)

x10003q said:


> Unless you live right next to the train station, just getting to the train station is a giant pain in the ass. At the time I considered the train, we were living in NYC around 14th st and 3rd ave. We (wife, 9 year old, me) all own equipment. Trying to maneuver heavy ski equipment around NYC at rush hour is difficult at best. The train left around 5:45pm. We needed to leave our apt at 4:45pm and we planned on using the subway (cabs are hard to find at rush hour, plus the traffic can be insane). That meant humping the ski equipment one long block, going down 4 flights of stairs, getting on a crowded subway train, getting off a crowded subway train, walking up 4-6 flights of stairs, walking 1 long block and then walking a good distance in Penn Station. Then we had to go down 2 flights of stairs and load the equipment on the train.
> This was just to get to the train.
> 
> ....
> Maybe it works for a single person with a seasonal place to stay. It is pretty difficult and expensive for a family.


The few times I went to Switzerland (to ski), on my way to the mountains *by train*, I saw quite many people taking the train to the mountains for a day trip. I wonder how they got to the train with their ski equipment? 

(Actually, I asked. They simply hump it from their home to the train. Some drove to the train station, some walked, it all depends on where they live)

Most are solo skiers. It's quite an interesting scene 

The obvious difference, is almost ALL of Swiss ski resorts are on the train line. Or put another way, the Swiss train line reaches almost all the villages people live, even deep in the mountain. There're lift ticket machine right at the station. Lockers to stow away your street shoes and backpack. The ski lifts are visible from the train. Now I call that INFRASTRUCTURE!


----------



## boston_e (Apr 28, 2018)

ss20 said:


> There's one ski train in the Northeast.  The Metro-North ski train to Thunder Ridge.  It's 99% first-generation, first-time skiers who's ethnicity is...lets say...not from around here.  They come and have little intention of coming back, and just see it as an activity to do for the day...just like if the ski mountain were a casino, baseball park, theme park, ect- it's just a daytrip...not something they except to become a lifelong activity.
> 
> So would a ski train be great?  Maybe...but it seems that the majority of the skiing demographic (middle-upper class) isn't interested.
> 
> ...



Wachusett Mountain is connected by commuter train to Boston. I don’t know how much it is used though.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Apr 28, 2018)

Smellytele said:


> Bachelor Degrees are like high school diplomas were 30 years ago. Maybe even worth less than that. *I remember taking some classes with some real stupid people and thought to myself - if that person gets a degree, mine is worthless.*



I am legitimately HORRIFIED at the devaluation of a college degree during my lifetime.

  I think I'm generally of around the age when college was last a serious thing most everywhere.   Now it's an entitled daycare for delayed adulthood, where the $$$$ is the most important thing, not education.  College acceptance rates have skyrocketed compared to the past ($$$$), and grade inflation ($$$) is rampant even at the Ivy League schools.   The most common grade given in college today is an 'A'; seriously.


Worse?  Rampant grade inflation has now trickled down to the high-school level.



> *Nearly half of America’s Class of 2016 are A students. Meanwhile, their average SAT score fell *from 1,026 to 1,002 on a 1,600-point scale — suggesting that those A's on report cards might be fool's gold.



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...y-half-hs-seniors-graduate-average/485787001/


----------



## BenedictGomez (Apr 28, 2018)

abc said:


> the Swiss train line reaches almost all the villages people live, even deep in the mountain. There're lift ticket machine right at the station. Lockers to stow away your street shoes and backpack. The ski lifts are visible from the train. *Now I call that INFRASTRUCTURE!*



Maybe, but that's not terribly difficult to do when skiing represents a big part of your nation's ethos, a decent contributor to GDP, and the entire country is only the size of roughly Vermont & New Hampshire combined.  It's just not practical here.


----------



## gregnye (Apr 28, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> Maybe, but that's not terribly difficult to do when skiing represents a big part of your nation's ethos, a decent contributor to GDP, and the entire country is only the size of roughly Vermont & New Hampshire combined.  It's just not practical here.



I could see it being practical in Salt Lake City Utah, to replace the bus system. Or maybe even Denver to get to the Summit County Area.


----------



## x10003q (Apr 28, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> The only reason education has rise as dramatically as it has is due to the absurd student loan expenditures by the federal government (a good overview below).  The government is handing out student loans like candy, which in turn is gamed by the colleges who then increase professor salaries, tuition fees, and not to mention silly spending on things like 85" HDTVs in gyms, etc...   Bonus points for kids spending $200,000 on a college "education" (term used loosely) with a major in 16th Century Greek Philosophy or Women's Studies, who will never be able to crawl out of debt due to their useless degree.
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/presto...will-cost-taxpayers-170-billion/#59f1a6b762a9



There is not one mention in the Forbes article that since 2005, it is nearly impossible to discharge a student loan (Federal or private) in a bankruptcy. This is one of the driving forces behind the loans being handed out to anybody and everybody and the increase in college and trade school costs. Schools know that anybody can get loans now and have jacked up the costs to go dramatically.


----------



## abc (Apr 28, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> Maybe, but that's not terribly difficult to do when skiing represents a big part of your nation's ethos, a decent contributor to GDP, and the entire country is only the size of roughly Vermont & New Hampshire combined.  It's just not practical here.


So it should be even less difficult for the state of Vermont, the size of HALF of Switzerland and skiing is its main economy, to do the same then?


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 28, 2018)

If VT had half Switzerland's population at 4+ million, maybe

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## abc (Apr 28, 2018)

deadheadskier said:


> If VT had half Switzerland's population at 4+ million, maybe
> 
> Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


Except Vermont doesn’t have half as many ski resorts as Switzerland. So a lot less work. 

But no, that would deprive a big chunk of speeding ticket fines to all those villages along Rt 4 and Rt 100


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 28, 2018)

My point was Switzerland has a higher critical mass of residents and likely tourists too from all those ski resorts to make a rail system more viable financially.  As is, I'd imagine the system in Switzerland is heavily subsidized

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## benski (Apr 28, 2018)

deadheadskier said:


> My point was Switzerland has a higher critical mass of residents and likely tourists too from all those ski resorts to make a rail system more viable financially.  As is, I'd imagine the system in Switzerland is heavily subsidized
> 
> Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app



Its actually really expensive to ride, which is probably what does it. It could actually be cheeper to fly to resorts if you have enough people to fill a 737.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 28, 2018)

What's a typical ticket cost?

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Jully (Apr 28, 2018)

benski said:


> Its actually really expensive to ride, which is probably what does it. It could actually be cheeper to fly to resorts if you have enough people to fill a 737.



Still subsidized, I almost guarantee it. There's no way Switzerland gets enough traffic to pay for trains through that terrain. Covering operating costs, maybe, but pay down debt or make capital purchases, no way.


----------



## VTKilarney (Apr 28, 2018)

deadheadskier said:


> My point was Switzerland has a higher critical mass of residents and likely tourists too from all those ski resorts to make a rail system more viable financially.  As is, I'd imagine the system in Switzerland is heavily subsidized
> 
> Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app



Not to mention a whole lot more money than Vermont.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Apr 28, 2018)

VTKilarney said:


> Not to mention *a whole lot more money than Vermont.*



Sounds like more fake school zones are needed.


----------



## sull1102 (Apr 28, 2018)

Just went to Laax by way of train and bus from Zurich in the middle of a couple week trip around the EU. While yes, their trains are impossibly better than our PATHETIC railroads(might be more passionate about trains than skiing) in this country, they do pay for it. Taxes are pretty high and an ice coffee will run ya $8, Switzerland may be the most beautiful place on the planet, but damn do they make ya pay! EXCEPT ON LIFT TICKETS!!!! I PAID $80 FOR A FULL DAY. Ugh I'm getting going, the saddle leather interior of the gondola, the Porsche designed bubble 6 that angles itself so you can see more scenery not the back of the chair in front of you, the place was heaven.

Sent from my LG-H820 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## benski (Apr 28, 2018)

deadheadskier said:


> What's a typical ticket cost?
> 
> Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app



Zermatt is in the 70's and I think Andermatt was in the 60's.


----------



## abc (Apr 28, 2018)

Jully said:


> Still subsidized, I almost guarantee it. There's no way Switzerland gets enough traffic to pay for trains through that terrain. Covering operating costs, maybe, but pay down debt or make capital purchases, no way.


The train system are subsidized, I'm told. How much of that goes to the mountain region vs how much goes to inter-city trains I know not. 

The train were not just for skiers alone. People who live in those villages use the train to go into the city too.

But that's the point. For people who said trains impractical because it can't replace cars, you're all WRONG! But you are all RIGHT at the same time. Trains are not to REPLACE cars, it's to SUPPLEMENT car journeys. It CAN BE very practical without replacing cars. Provided it's well developed to serve the population movement pattern. 

It's already happening in the US if you care to look. Just about all major metropolitan areas in the northeast have well developed train systems. New York City, Washington DC, Boston, even San Francisco has commuter trains. The trains are heavily used. The demands are clearly there, for those who are not too blind about its practicality.


----------



## 2planks2coasts (Apr 29, 2018)

A. Speed traps that are more for revenue than for safety are a bad thing. That said, the risk of pedestrian death in an auto vs ped crash increases very rapidly with the speed of the car, so slow down.

B. There are heaps of ways to go skiing without a car. I haven't owned one in 20 years, though I did rent one for a 3 day Stratton/ Okemo trip this year and did a Zipcar carpool to Windham in late March.  Windham, Hunter, Mt. Peter, Belleayre all have bus service daily from Manhattan. The resorts further north have what are essentially redeye buses leaving from NY/NJ/LI in the wee hours. Most folks sleep the first few hours, then there's a coffee stop near Albany. The aforementioned Thunder Ridge and Wachusett ski trains are an easy and cheap day trip option. Gore had a ski train, but I'm not sure it ran this season. Tremblant is super easy to get to from Montreal by bus. Out west, SLC is the obvious winner for car free access, but pretty much every major western city has reasonable day trip ski buses. Even Phoenix.

C. While there will always be a significant number of Americans who need a car, that number will likely shrink with improved urban planning, telecommuting, rideshare services, etc. In 1983, 87% of American 19 year olds had Drivers Licenses. By 2015, that was down to 70%.

D. Of course trains in Switzerland are subsidized. All transport is, including highways, airports, etc, etc. It's all about priorities. The Swiss spend about 13% of their annual budget on transport.  The US spends about 2% of the Federal Budget on transport.  The states kick in a percentage as well, but total per capita spending is not even close to comparable. 

Enjoy the freedom of your car,  I'll have that second beer at apres without fear of a DUI, maybe even have one on the bus as we roll down the thruway.


----------



## sull1102 (Apr 29, 2018)

2planks2coasts said:


> A. Speed traps that are more for revenue than for safety are a bad thing. That said, the risk of pedestrian death in an auto vs ped crash increases very rapidly with the speed of the car, so slow down.
> 
> B. There are heaps of ways to go skiing without a car. I haven't owned one in 20 years, though I did rent one for a 3 day Stratton/ Okemo trip this year and did a Zipcar carpool to Windham in late March.  Windham, Hunter, Mt. Peter, Belleayre all have bus service daily from Manhattan. The resorts further north have what are essentially redeye buses leaving from NY/NJ/LI in the wee hours. Most folks sleep the first few hours, then there's a coffee stop near Albany. The aforementioned Thunder Ridge and Wachusett ski trains are an easy and cheap day trip option. Gore had a ski train, but I'm not sure it ran this season. Tremblant is super easy to get to from Montreal by bus. Out west, SLC is the obvious winner for car free access, but pretty much every major western city has reasonable day trip ski buses. Even Phoenix.
> 
> ...


Having moved to Vermont from Boston in the last couple years this comes off as a city guy taking. Up here cars are going nowhere, they are the ONLY form of transportation for most people around me. You will never see infrastructure in rural areas like you see overseas where every village gets quality service. 

For those who may not know, Trump's guy running Amtrak has actually been cutting things left and right and is now proposing cutting all long distance trains so we're heading in the other direction. Americans aren't used to the train and have an overall not great perception of it and then Amtrak is just barely better than a Greyhound. It's not like Europe where seemingly every train station is a gorgeous cathedral and the trains are modern, clean, fast, and very good looking both in and out. 

Sent from my LG-H820 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## 2planks2coasts (Apr 29, 2018)

sull1102 said:


> Having moved to Vermont from Boston in the last couple years this comes off as a city guy taking. Up here cars are going nowhere, they are the ONLY form of transportation for most people around me. You will never see infrastructure in rural areas like you see overseas where every village gets quality service.
> 
> For those who may not know, Trump's guy running Amtrak has actually been cutting things left and right and is now proposing cutting all long distance trains so we're heading in the other direction. Americans aren't used to the train and have an overall not great perception of it and then Amtrak is just barely better than a Greyhound. It's not like Europe where seemingly every train station is a gorgeous cathedral and the trains are modern, clean, fast, and very good looking both in and out.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H820 using AlpineZone mobile app



Of course it sounds like a city guy talking. Though I have lived car free in rural Maine and New Mexico as well.  the 20% of Americans who live in rural areas is the significant portion I was referring to that will always need a car, and they should have well maintained roads to drive them on.  An ever increasing number live in suburban or urban areas though, and their need for a vehicle of their own is likely to decrease even further.  The point is they can still ski or ride without owning a car.

While this is a ski / snowboard forum, Infrastructure requires spending and  thus any discussion of it is inherently political. We as a country would rather spend our billions on things other than infrastructure.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Apr 29, 2018)

abc said:


> It's already happening in the US if you care to look. Just about all major metropolitan areas in the northeast have well developed train systems. New York City, Washington DC, Boston, even San Francisco has commuter trains. The trains are heavily used. The demands are clearly there, for those who are not too blind about its practicality.



It's not practical at all when it's a massive cost center.   In all of America, there is only one Amtrak train route that is profitable, and that is Boston to DC (via NYC & Philly).   Other than that relatively short route, Amtrak is a major taxpayer-sucking failure.  Keep the Boston to DC route, and let the rest of it die would be my recommendation.


----------



## abc (Apr 29, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> It's not practical at all when it's a massive cost center.   In all of America, there is only one Amtrak train route that is profitable, and that is Boston to DC (via NYC & Philly).   Other than that relatively short route, Amtrak is a major taxpayer-sucking failure.  Keep the Boston to DC route, and let the rest of it die would be my recommendation.


For a guy living in northern Jersey to advocate eliminating trains, all those 10+ lines of Jersey Transit trains needs to go! I'm sure the roads of northern Jersey will have no trouble absorbing all those train riders getting into their personal cars!  

BTW, the roads are also a "cost center". Better remove them except the ones that survive on tolls.:roll:


----------



## BenedictGomez (Apr 29, 2018)

abc said:


> For a guy living in northern Jersey to advocate eliminating trains, all those 10+ lines of Jersey Transit trains needs to go! I'm sure the roads of northern Jersey will have no trouble absorbing all those train riders getting into their personal cars!
> 
> BTW, the roads are also a "cost center". Better remove them except the ones that survive on tolls.:roll:



NJTRANSIT loses money too, but it has a net positive economic benefit.  Conversely, there's no rational defense to many (most) Amtrak lines in America due to the low benefit from these lines.  They just flat-out lose money with little economic benefit in return.  

That said, my guess is NJTRANSIT could be very profitable were it not run by the government.


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Apr 30, 2018)

It take a constant supply of bodies to keep passenger trains profitiable. Offer something people WANT to ride...

https://gobrightline.com/

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/07/569183423/florida-set-to-launch-countrys-first-private-high-speed-train-service


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Apr 30, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> It's not practical at all when it's a massive cost center.   In all of America, there is only one Amtrak train route that is profitable, and that is Boston to DC (via NYC & Philly).   Other than that relatively short route, Amtrak is a major taxpayer-sucking failure.  Keep the Boston to DC route, and let the rest of it die would be my recommendation.



I believe they stated that the Amtrack "Auto-Train" is also actual profitable route...


----------



## sull1102 (Apr 30, 2018)

Yeah, the common argument for anti train people is this crap about only the NE Corridor makes a dime, but it is becoming less and less true every year. The Corridor is profitable, depending on how you look at maintence and everything else, but the Downeaster is getting very close to profitable and should cross that line in the next couple years. There's also the Auto Train that makes money and then the private operators like Brightline are making a go of it and could be profitable soon. And of course on the other side of railroading, Warren Buffett runs the show in freight and he knows a thing or two about money.


----------



## benski (Apr 30, 2018)

MEtoVTSkier said:


> I believe they stated that the Amtrack "Auto-Train" is also actual profitable route...



Here is a list. They have 4 profitable routes, and a few more that come close. 
http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2014/11/amtrak-routes-by-2014-cost-recovery.html


----------



## Smellytele (Apr 30, 2018)

sull1102 said:


> Yeah, the common argument for anti train people is this crap about only the NE Corridor makes a dime, but it is becoming less and less true every year. The Corridor is profitable, depending on how you look at maintence and everything else, but the Downeaster is getting very close to profitable and should cross that line in the next couple years. There's also the Auto Train that makes money and then the private operators like Brightline are making a go of it and could be profitable soon. And of course on the other side of railroading, Warren Buffett runs the show in freight and he knows a thing or two about money.



Downeaster really? they barely covered half their expenses.


 

*Revenue 2014*​ *Expenses 2014*​ *Cost recovery 2014*​ *Profit/lo*​

*Downeaster*$8,638,103​ $15,700,000​ 55.02%​ ($7,061,897)​


----------



## Hawk (Apr 30, 2018)

I'll take my generation over yours any day.  But not the greatest generation.  My parents and their generation were the hardest working, fearless and most giving generation of all time.  They certainly earned the respect of all generations.  They were the ones that expanded and created the infrastructure that we are left with.  Now we are dealing with the results of population growth.  You say that your generation got screw by mine.  Who said we owed you anything?  That is the sense of entitlement I was speaking about.  Your generation needs to stop thinking they are owed and just do something about it.

As for NYC Traffic and public trans.  I have no idea of the pains that you people endure as I live north of Boston.  My commute in a car is 45 to my desk at 6am in the morning.  We still have our sanity for the most part but I am sure that your perspective is much different.


----------



## x10003q (Apr 30, 2018)

abc said:


> For a guy living in northern Jersey to advocate eliminating trains, all those 10+ lines of Jersey Transit trains needs to go! I'm sure the roads of northern Jersey will have no trouble absorbing all those train riders getting into their personal cars!
> 
> BTW, the roads are also a "cost center". Better remove them except the ones that survive on tolls.:roll:



Nobody said anything about eliminating commuter lines in NJ, but you might not understand how NJ trains operate.
The trains in NJ go to and from NYC/Hoboken like spokes on a wheel. The spokes are not connected. Unless you have hours to burn getting from your spoke to the next spoke over, you drive and it takes 15 minutes. Every town in NJ has residential housing and jobs. Even the highly developed trains in NJ cannot accommodate most people. Car registration has been increasing almost every year in the US and will continue to do so.


----------



## benski (Apr 30, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> NJTRANSIT loses money too, but it has a net positive economic benefit.  Conversely, there's no rational defense to many (most) Amtrak lines in America due to the low benefit from these lines.  They just flat-out lose money with little economic benefit in return.
> 
> That said, my guess is NJTRANSIT could be very profitable were it not run by the government.



So you want a monopoly? I could understand relying more on contracts but complete privatization would probably be a terrible idea. There would be little accountability, and the government would never want them to cut every service thats not profitable forcing people onto inefficient roads. Supposedly, they could add a few more trains for very little, if NJ Transit and the LIRR put there Penn station operations under one operator since using Penn station as a terminus, is very inefficient.


----------



## cdskier (Apr 30, 2018)

x10003q said:


> Nobody said anything about eliminating commuter lines in NJ, but you might not understand how NJ trains operate.
> The trains in NJ go to and from NYC/Hoboken like spokes on a wheel. The spokes are not connected. Unless you have hours to burn getting from your spoke to the next spoke over, you drive and it takes 15 minutes. Every town in NJ has residential housing and jobs. Even the highly developed trains in NJ cannot accommodate most people. Car registration has been increasing almost every year in the US and will continue to do so.



Right. The train is useful if you work in NYC, Newark, or Hoboken/Jersey City. However like you stated there are jobs in nearly every town in NJ.

So the trains are pretty useless for someone that lives in say North Jersey on one train line and works in Central Jersey on a separate train line (or in a town that isn't on a train line at all). To get from the town where I live to where I work would require 3 trains and take nearly 2 hours (and would still leave me almost 10 miles from my actual office). Driving takes me 45 minutes door to door.


----------



## benski (Apr 30, 2018)

cdskier said:


> Right. The train is useful if you work in NYC, Newark, or Hoboken/Jersey City. However like you stated there are jobs in nearly every town in NJ.
> 
> So the trains are pretty useless for someone that lives in say North Jersey on one train line and works in Central Jersey on a separate train line (or in a town that isn't on a train line at all). To get from the town where I live to where I work would require 3 trains and take nearly 2 hours (and would still leave me almost 10 miles from my actual office). Driving takes me 45 minutes door to door.



Though you don't ride the trains, it helps a lot with traffic. It only takes about 3 NJ transit trains per hour to carry the same number of people one expressway lane typically does in an hour.


----------



## cdskier (Apr 30, 2018)

benski said:


> Though you don't ride the trains, it helps a lot with traffic. It only takes about 3 NJ transit trains per hour to carry the same number of people one expressway lane typically does in an hour.



No doubt and I would never advocate eliminating them. They do serve a definite purpose and benefit. I'm just pointing out that they can never replace cars even in highly populated areas like NJ, never mind in really rural locations.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Apr 30, 2018)

benski said:


> Here is a list. They have 4 profitable routes, and a few more that come close.
> http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2014/11/amtrak-routes-by-2014-cost-recovery.html




It's actually 3, because 2 or those trains are really the same route.  Still, that's 2 more than I was aware of, so I imagine the DC commuter trains have recently become profitable; not shocking given how much money, people, and jobs have poured into the DC area during the last decade.

I actually don't have a problem with a line incurring a small loss, like the Washington - Norfolk route, because the net economic benefit to the region can surely justify that as having value.  But there is no reasonable justification for a route like the Southwest Chief, going through a bunch of minor towns & cities and losing $62,000,000 per year.


----------



## Jully (Apr 30, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> I actually don't have a problem with a line incurring a small loss, like the Washington - Norfolk route, because the net economic benefit to the region can surely justify that as having value.  But there is no reasonable justification for a route like the Southwest Chief, going through a bunch of minor towns & cities and losing $62,000,000 per year.



Agree with this completely. As far as I can tell, the cross country Amtrak trains are essentially gimmicks. They cost as much as plane tickets, aren't particularly nice, and are NEVER on time for any practical use (like 6+ hour delays).



x10003q said:


> Nobody said anything about eliminating commuter lines in NJ, but you might not understand how NJ trains operate.
> The trains in NJ go to and from NYC/Hoboken like spokes on a wheel. The spokes are not connected. Unless you have hours to burn getting from your spoke to the next spoke over, you drive and it takes 15 minutes. Every town in NJ has residential housing and jobs. Even the highly developed trains in NJ cannot accommodate most people. Car registration has been increasing almost every year in the US and will continue to do so.



Trains serve a great purpose that can be expanded upon in most metro areas (profitably, or at least at zero loss if run right, IMO). The wheel and spoke works for what it is supposed to accomplish. That said, cars or some sort of private-ish transportation will always be necessary as long as we are living in a suburban/urban model or even more rural (which certainly isn't changing anytime in the next 2 centuries). Ride sharing I think will decrease car ownership (note the decrease NOT replace) in very dense suburban areas in coming years, but that is just my opinion and I have zero data to back that up at this time.

I don't think anyone in this thread was suggesting that trains and purely 'mass' forms of transit would ever completely replace cars in this country. 

I also just think that ski trains can also be run profitably and benefit those who ski and live in cities. The Rutland thing does not count. :flag:


----------



## spring_mountain_high (Apr 30, 2018)

long distance trains would have to exist like a land cruise to be profitable...a greyhound bus on rails offering cheap fares is not profitable, and we have to decide if it's worth subsidizing it to basically provide a service to the towns along the way

there are some amazing routes in existence that can exist as an experience in their own right...the california zephyr from chicago to california is one of the top ten train rides in the world


----------



## Smellytele (Apr 30, 2018)

spring_mountain_high said:


> long distance trains would have to exist like a land cruise to be profitable...a greyhound bus on rails offering cheap fares is not profitable, and we have to decide if it's worth subsidizing it to basically provide a service to the towns along the way
> 
> there are some amazing routes in existence that can exist as an experience in their own right...the california zephyr from chicago to california is one of the top ten train rides in the world



Just because they are amazing doesn't mean they should be subsidized by tax payers.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Apr 30, 2018)

spring_mountain_high said:


> there are some amazing routes in existence that can exist as an experience in their own right...*the california zephyr from chicago to california is one of the top ten train rides in the world*



And to think, every year we only need to flush $63,000,000 down the toilet from taxpayer's paychecks to make it happen.


----------



## abc (Apr 30, 2018)

I appreciate all the back pedaling! 

Seems we went from "trains are impractical" and "train will never replace cars".... To: 

"Trains serve a great purpose that can be expanded upon in most metro areas "
"not meant to eliminate commuter TRAINS" 
"don't think anyone in this thread was suggesting that trains and purely 'mass' forms of transit would ever completely replace cars"

The funnest part is, those who think trains are impractical because they don't go where they need to go are the same people who don't want train route expansions. 

I'm a software guys who's been in this profession for over 20 years. I was lucky enough to be a young engineer when the internet exploded. Back then 90% of the managers didn't want anything to do with the "internedz" because there's no traffic on it! Not saying trains will be the next internet. But that same look under their nose mentality just sound so familiar...actually, IDENTICAL!

I can totally understand where *benski *and the like come from. It may strikes you old geezer as naive or misguided. Sure, there maybe some element of that. But there's also courage and refreshment too. The world is constantly changing. Things don't stay the same forever. What used to work may no longer do. And what didn't used to work may start to work in a modified form. 

Take a deep breath and think slowly whether those fresh (or even re-cycled) idea has any merit before blowing it off. It's a good habit to get into.


----------



## Jully (Apr 30, 2018)

abc said:


> I appreciate all the back pedaling!
> 
> Seems we went from "trains are impractical" and "train will never replace cars".... To:
> 
> ...



I agree there's been some back pedaling (I'd like to call it consensus building...), but not sure why you threw my quote in there. I said nothing along the lines of eliminating mass transit options with the exception of Amtrak lines that lose $60,000,000 a year. 

A common complaint of those using caution against the expansion of mass transit is that 'trains won't replace cars and are impractical.' All I was pointing out is that that is not a valid argument as no one is advocating that rural Maine should eliminate all roads and cars to be replaced with a system of cable cars and commuter rail.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Apr 30, 2018)

Dont put me in any "back-peddling" crowd either, there's no reason to back-peddle when the economics of commuter trains has repeatedly & demonstrably failed in this nation on most routes.  Some of that failure is admittedly due to government incompetence, but it's failure nonetheless.

Not to mention, the emergence of self-driving cars is going to be another negative against train commuting, and a huge one at that.

Hell, if we're going to flush literally HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars down the toilet literally every year, I'd rather they close these inefficient train routes & spend that money on newer technology instead.  Trains sure as hell arent, _"the next internet"_, but maybe something like that hyperloop will be.


----------



## cdskier (Apr 30, 2018)

abc said:


> I appreciate all the back pedaling!



I don't think there's really been that much back pedaling. The original argument that led us into the mass transit and train subject was that the "Dependence on cars is ending". To which some of us said "bs" and cited reasons why car dependence will never end anytime soon even in metropolitan areas. Trying to expand rail lines in a congested area like NJ would be insanely expensive, inefficient, and in many cases simply not possible without outright taking over existing property through eminent domain to make way for new lines. So yes, for those reasons I would be very much against certain route expansions. I'd be ok with expanding the ends of the lines further as populations shift outward from the cities more if it makes financial sense and if there's demand. I'd be ok with increasing capacity on existing lines where necessary and feasible. But I would be against trying to squeeze a new line/route into an area that is already built out simply to make rail routes accessible/practical for everyone. If you start adding too many routes and stops, you'll start decreasing efficiency and then it becomes practical for no one. Rail serves a certain target group and can be a great option if you're in that specific situation, but even many people that use rails still have and use cars. Maybe instead of driving 45 miles to work they drive 5 miles to a train station and then take the train the rest of the way. Bottom line though is that car dependence is not ending or even substantially decreasing.


----------



## abc (Apr 30, 2018)

Jully said:


> I agree there's been some back pedaling (I'd like to call it consensus building...), but not sure why you threw my quote in there. I said nothing along the lines of eliminating mass transit options with the exception of Amtrak lines that lose $60,000,000 a year.


I wasn't focusing on YOU as a person or the source. Those statements of your had been put forth earlier as opposition against trains of ANY KIND. Instead of going back and hunting down who wrote what, I merely pulled some example of the earlier vs later post. 

Sorry it caused you some misunderstanding. My apology.


----------



## sull1102 (Apr 30, 2018)

Just to add a little bit to this conversation here, a perfect PERFECT example of a spot where trains should theoretically work and internationally would... Loon Mountain and Lincoln NH. You have ALL the ingredients needed.

1. The rails already exist (yes they need millions and millions of $$$ to rehab into quality 60-80mph tracks, but the ROW is  currently in minimal use) from Boston-Lowell-Manchester-Concord-Weirs Beach-Lincoln 

2. The tracks end within a stone's throw of some hotels and 1 mile of a lift.

3. Lincoln is a 4 season destination, Loon is one of if not the top ski area in the state pulling almost all of that from Boston. Waterville could be accessed by a 20 minute shuttle from a stop in Campton(exact set up I used for Laax). Weirs Beach would draw riders in the summer, some weeks more than others. 

But sadly the state lawmakers have made it clear rail is not something they are interested in.

Sent from my LG-H820 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## abc (Apr 30, 2018)

cdskier said:


> I don't think there's really been that much back pedaling. The original argument that led us into the mass transit and train subject was that the "Dependence on cars is ending". To which some of us said "bs" and cited reasons why car dependence will never end anytime soon even in metropolitan areas.


Yes, and no. 

In many metropolitan area, DEPENDENCY on cars is not so much "ending" but never started! I lived in New York City for some years. I didn't have a car for part of those years!!! Lots of people living in the city NEVER own a car. Many who had a car at some point but not at other points. 

Does that means cars has NO USE? NO! But it's definitely not a NECESSITY!!! It's a choice one gets to make, to own a car or NOT own a car. We had the CHOICE. Rather than having that choice removed from us due to lack of transport infrastructure. 

Where I live now? A car is super beneficial. So I own one. But I have very low mileage on it. And almost all the mileage has to do with skiing. All that points to is, had there been transit options to ski mountains, I wouldn't have "needed" a car! 

Now, that situation can lead man to 2 opposite conclusions. My conclusion is we could use better infrastructure to REDUCE our dependency to cars. Others may conclude "trains will never replace cars!"!!! 




> Trying to expand rail lines in a congested area like NJ would be insanely expensive, inefficient, and in many cases simply not possible without outright taking over existing property through eminent domain to make way for new lines. So yes, for those reasons I would be very much against certain route expansions. I'd be ok with expanding the ends of the lines further as populations shift outward from the cities more if it makes financial sense and if there's demand. I'd be ok with increasing capacity on existing lines where necessary and feasible. But I would be against trying to squeeze a new line/route into an area that is already built out simply to make rail routes accessible/practical for everyone. If you start adding too many routes and stops, you'll start decreasing efficiency and then it becomes practical for no one. Rail serves a certain target group and can be a great option if you're in that specific situation, but even *many people that use rails still have and use cars*. Maybe instead of driving 45 miles to work they drive 5 miles to a train station and then take the train the rest of the way. Bottom line though is that car dependence is not ending or even substantially decreasing.


You know, almost ALL the people drive 30 min to 2 hours to an airport to fly out west. But no one is proposing to eliminate airports because it "will never replace cars". In fact, there's a big long list to ADD more routes, or upgrade small airports to attract commercial flights. Yet, people are against expanding rail lines. 

I'm not advocating we have rail services to every single village like the Swiss has. That time window had unfortunately long past. We now have this sprawling villages and towns laid out at random locations we had to build lots of new roads to access. But whether you want to believe it or not, the Gen-X'ers and Millennia are settling MORE around towns and villages served by rails. Just look at the housing price trend of locations near train lines.


----------



## x10003q (Apr 30, 2018)

abc said:


> I appreciate all the back pedaling!
> 
> Seems we went from "trains are impractical" and "train will never replace cars".... To:


Attributing your point of view to those of us who disagree with your point of view and calling it back pedaling is hilarious. 




abc said:


> "Trains serve a great purpose that can be expanded upon in most metro areas "
> "not meant to eliminate commuter TRAINS"
> "don't think anyone in this thread was suggesting that trains and purely 'mass' forms of transit would ever completely replace cars"



Where are these quotes from? 





abc said:


> The funnest part is, those who think trains are impractical because they don't go where they need to go are the same people who don't want train route expansions.


They are impractical because the current cost of new rail is multi-billion times more expensive than the cheaper and more flexible mass transit choice - buses/vans.



abc said:


> I'm a software guys who's been in this profession for over 20 years. I was lucky enough to be a young engineer when the internet exploded. Back then 90% of the managers didn't want anything to do with the "internedz" because there's no traffic on it! Not saying trains will be the next internet. But that same look under their nose mentality just sound so familiar...actually, IDENTICAL!


I will say it - trains are not the next internet. You might want to look up the word IDENTICAL and see what it means. 



abc said:


> I can totally understand where *benski *and the like come from. It may strikes you old geezer as naive or misguided. Sure, there maybe some element of that. But there's also courage and refreshment too. The world is constantly changing. Things don't stay the same forever. What used to work may no longer do. And what didn't used to work may start to work in a modified form.
> 
> Take a deep breath and think slowly whether those fresh (or even re-cycled) idea has any merit before blowing it off. It's a good habit to get into.



Are you talking about trains?


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 1, 2018)

sull1102 said:


> Just to add a little bit to this conversation here, *a perfect PERFECT example of a spot where trains should theoretically work and internationally would... Loon Mountain and Lincoln NH.* You have ALL the ingredients needed.



This would be a perfect example of yet another train route (and an uber short one at that) which would lose millions of dollars.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 1, 2018)

abc said:


> In many metropolitan area, DEPENDENCY on cars is not so much "ending" but never started!* I lived in New York City for some years. I didn't have a car for part of those years!!! Lots of people living in the city NEVER own a car. *Many who had a car at some point but not at other points.



Not sure I get the point here, if you live "in" a city, you also dont depend on a commuter train either, because you already woke up in the destination.   So those people may not depend on cars (unless you count Taxis), but they also dont depend on trains (unless you count subways).


----------



## sull1102 (May 1, 2018)

x10003q said:


> Attributing your point of view to those of us who disagree with your point of view and calling it back pedaling is hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Boston to Lincoln is about a 150 mile rail corridor, actually an ideal distance for the type of operation that does work in the US, i.e. the Cape Flyer for the T. 

People that live in the city do use commuter rail as well. In Boston the commuter rail is uses a train car on commuter rail train for the ski train and runs a whole train in summer for the Flyer. People use the commuter rail to get out of the city, or if it's something like the Fairmount line it runs entirely in the city well than it's only being used in the city. LIRR is used religiously for summer escapes by New Yorkers, that's commuter rail. Providence and Boston both use commuter rail for Patriots game day trains. In Dallas and Fort Worth they run their newer commuter rail system to and from the airport, I've used that system, very nice.  Need I continue on this one? Feels as though the point is proven.

The subway is a train, duh. That one's pretty obvious. And oh, they are used by millions and millions and millions of Americans everyday in the Northeast alone.

In comparison to the dreaded bus trains are more expensive for to their added benefits. They carry far more passengers, remove cars from the road by the hundreds, but here's the key part. Busses do not inspire TOD(transit oriented development). You don't see apartment complexes popping up at a bus station sign on the street, you see them being built next to commuter rail stations and obviously subway stations. This is something the bus people never ever think about or choose to ignore because it doesn't fit their narrative. A bus means literally nothing at all, it can be stopped tomorrow and that's that. As a developer I'll take my chances on the train staying around longer.

When the government finally gets worth the times and changes the regulations for rail equipment to match those around the world we will be able to buy cheaper, better, off the shelf rolling stock that impresses. It's slowly happening with Siemens massive push into the space in the last 5 years.

Sent from my LG-H820 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (May 1, 2018)

benski said:


> Here is a list. They have 4 profitable routes, and a few more that come close.
> http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2014/11/amtrak-routes-by-2014-cost-recovery.html



That's 2014... show me some numbers from 2016-2017


----------



## cdskier (May 1, 2018)

abc said:


> Yes, and no.
> 
> In many metropolitan area, DEPENDENCY on cars is not so much "ending" but never started! I lived in New York City for some years. I didn't have a car for part of those years!!! Lots of people living in the city NEVER own a car. Many who had a car at some point but not at other points.



Here's the quote that in my view started this conversation and the quote I'm responding to in reference to dependence...


gregnye said:


> I'm so glad the car dependence is ending in this country.



"Country" includes far more than just cities. I agree with you (abc) that for people that live in cities, many people don't need and choose not to have cars. That has absolutely nothing to do with overall card dependence in this country though. The overall dependence will never end and that's the point myself and others have illustrated.



> Does that means cars has NO USE? NO! But it's definitely not a NECESSITY!!! It's a choice one gets to make, to own a car or NOT own a car. We had the CHOICE. Rather than having that choice removed from us due to lack of transport infrastructure.
> 
> Where I live now? A car is super beneficial. So I own one. But I have very low mileage on it. And almost all the mileage has to do with skiing. All that points to is, had there been transit options to ski mountains, I wouldn't have "needed" a car!
> 
> Now, that situation can lead man to 2 opposite conclusions. My conclusion is we could use better infrastructure to REDUCE our dependency to cars. Others may conclude "trains will never replace cars!"!!!



I gave examples already of where train infrastructure could be expanded and other areas where it can't or shouldn't be. I really don't care if we reduce our dependency on cars. That isn't a priority of mine and not something I'm particularly in a rush to see tax money invested in as it just doesn't have a good ROI or Cost/Benefit ratio right now in many cases (again, need to look at it on a case by case basis. Don't take my statement to mean I'm against ALL expansion...I'm not). I like having a car. Trains are too linear. I'm very non-linear. I don't go from just point A to B. I like having the freedom and flexibility to jump from A to G to Z to M to C if I want to on my schedule. 



> You know, almost ALL the people drive 30 min to 2 hours to an airport to fly out west. But no one is proposing to eliminate airports because it "will never replace cars". In fact, there's a big long list to ADD more routes, or upgrade small airports to attract commercial flights. Yet, people are against expanding rail lines.



It has nothing to do with the relationship with cars, but there are actually people proposing to eliminate (or reduce operations at) certain airports (*cough*Teterboro*cough*). I don't agree with that, but it is something others do. However you're comparing apples and oranges anyway. I never said that because trains can't replace cars that we should eliminate trains. Again, you need to look at things on a case by case basis. Many trains (particularly commuter lines) are very valuable. Others are simply a giant waste of money.



> I'm not advocating we have rail services to every single village like the Swiss has. That time window had unfortunately long past. We now have this sprawling villages and towns laid out at random locations we had to build lots of new roads to access. But whether you want to believe it or not, the Gen-X'ers and Millennia are settling MORE around towns and villages served by rails. Just look at the housing price trend of locations near train lines.



I live in one of those very towns that is in "high demand" (my reasoning had nothing to do with the rail line though). And there are also plenty of Gen-X'ers (and Oregon Trail generation people like myself) that are moving further into the suburbs and not necessarily sticking by rail lines. So what though? Housing demand in those particular towns doesn't mean we should expand rail infrastructure in other towns. For every person that wants to be near a rail line, there's another person that doesn't want to be.



x10003q said:


> Attributing your point of view to those of us who disagree with your point of view and calling it back pedaling is hilarious.
> 
> They are impractical because the current cost of new rail is multi-billion times more expensive than the cheaper and more flexible mass transit choice - buses/vans.
> 
> I will say it - trains are not the next internet. You might want to look up the word IDENTICAL and see what it means.



I think I pretty much agree with everything x10003q said here.


----------



## Smellytele (May 1, 2018)

abc said:


> Y
> 
> But whether you want to believe it or not, the Gen-X'ers and Millennia are settling MORE around towns and villages served by rails. Just look at the housing price trend of locations near train lines.



The price trend may force people to move further way again. Math at work here. A house for 250k and a 30k car or a house for 600k and no car...


----------



## VTKilarney (May 1, 2018)

I go to Chicago on business from time to time.  On a whim, I recently looked into taking the train.

Here is what I found:
1) You can't take the train from White River Junction to Chicago - even though the White River Junction train stops in Springfield, MA which is also a stop on the Boston-Chicago train.
2) You arrive in Chicago at 9:45 am, but the train is NEVER on time, so it is very risky to plan any meetings before mid-afternoon on the day that you arrive.  Even that has some risk.
3) Hardly any Amtrak stations on the route have long term parking.  Springfield, MA doesn't.  Framingham, MA doesn't.  If you want to park, you pretty much have to drive all the way to Rensselaer, New York.  
4) A sleeping berth, one way, is over $500 before taxes.  

Compare that to flying from Lebanon, New Hampshire.  Lebanon airport has free parking.  When you factor in free parking and the cheaper airfares out of Boston, it is cheaper to fly out of Lebanon than Burlington or Manchester, NH.  (Yes, thanks to a government subsidy for the Lebanon - Boston flight.)  At Lebanon, I breeze through security since the airplane only seats nine people.  Arriving at the airport an hour early, and with a 1.25 hour layover in Boston, total travel time from my front door to downtown Chicago is about eight hours.  Compare that to about 21 hours door to door on Amtrak - if the train is on time, which it never is.  To add insult to injury, Amtrak just eliminated the dining car on this route.  You now get a pre-packaged cold meal.

I am a guy who WANTED to take the train.  But instead I booked a first class airplane ticket for half the price of an Amtrak sleeping berth.   The cost and travel time on Amtrak made no sense whatsoever, even on a lark.  And, no, there is no way I am going to sit in a coach Amtrak seat for an overnight trip.  A sleeping berth was mandatory for me.


----------



## Domeskier (May 1, 2018)

I hope it's a long time before the country reaches a population density that would make trains and subways a viable alternative to cars outside of Manhattan.


----------



## Edd (May 1, 2018)

VTKilarney said:


> 4) A sleeping berth, one way, is over $500 before taxes.
> 
> I am a guy who WANTED to take the train.  But instead I booked a first class airplane ticket for half the price of an Amtrak sleeping berth.



Is this a first class ticket for $250?


----------



## Jcb890 (May 1, 2018)

The only places public transportation makes sense is in cities like Boston, NY, Chicago, etc.
And even still, public transportation sucks.

When someone suggests we drive somewhere (Riverside stop) to take the T into Boston, my blood boils.

30-35 mins to the T stop.
1 hr or more to ride the T into Boston from Riverside.
Always delays, never on time.
Always idiots, creepy people, smelly people.
Always dirty and disgusting.

And it isn't even that cheap!

I'd much rather drive my car in and find somewhat-reasonably priced parking.  I can leave when I want, be in my own car driving home, etc.

If I lived in Boston or NYC though, I'd only use public transportation.  It isn't worth it if you live in the city solely based on convenience.  Then, when you factor in the cost of a parking spot, it is a no-brainer to not have a car/truck in the city.

I have absolutely no interest in living in a major metropolitan area.  Boston and New York are fun to visit, but no thanks!


----------



## spring_mountain_high (May 1, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> And to think, every year we only need to flush $63,000,000 down the toilet from taxpayer's paychecks to make it happen.



hahaha both you ninnies completely missed the point that i made---that they could likely exist on their own as "land cruises", not greyhound buses on rails, which they currently are

long distance trains actually make a profit on the first class passengers, genius


----------



## VTKilarney (May 1, 2018)

Edd said:


> Is this a first class ticket for $250?



$550 round trip.  The train would be over $1,000.


----------



## AdironRider (May 1, 2018)

Jcb890 said:


> The only places public transportation makes sense is in cities like Boston, NY, Chicago, etc.
> And even still, public transportation sucks.
> 
> When someone suggests we drive somewhere (Riverside stop) to take the T into Boston, my blood boils.
> ...




Isn't the T like 2-3 bucks a ride these days? That's pretty damn cheap all in all.

But everything else you said is spot on.


----------



## SkiRay (May 1, 2018)

VTKilarney said:


> Police in Bridgewater, on VT Route 4, issued over 2,300 tickets last year.  Oh, and the 25 mph school zone doesn’t even have a school.
> 
> http://www.wcax.com/content/news/Vermonts-top-speed-trap-is-a-defunct-school-zone-480793251.html



Yes.. And Plymouth for sure...


----------



## Jcb890 (May 1, 2018)

AdironRider said:


> Isn't the T like 2-3 bucks a ride these days? That's pretty damn cheap all in all.
> 
> But everything else you said is spot on.


Something like that.  But you're also still paying for parking too.


----------



## VTKilarney (May 1, 2018)

Jcb890 said:


> Something like that.  But you're also still paying for parking too.



But you would pay to park one way or the other.


----------



## SkiFanE (May 1, 2018)

Have only read last few pages. Thoughts:

i recommend parkwhiz app. I am not an app person at all, but my college kid turned me on to this. Great deals in big cities. 

My college kid already has first job and her first place has to be near the T. Her and her BF hope to have only one car. She wants nothing to do with the burbs and wants to buy her own place as soon as she can - but says she never wants a yard or anything to do with home maintenance. She thinks I'm crazy to like having a yard.  Giving up privacy is no big deal.   Too much work. 

Suburbainites are living in the result of sprawl. Bad where I am now. I hate it. I never thought about it when we moved here 20ish years ago. When kids are out of the great public schools - we plan to move close to the T, a nelghborhood, etc.  Hate hopping in the car for everything. I have wracked my brain on a solution - but feel it's almost like the horse is out of the barn (no public transportation before building out). Some type of implosion or self combustion or something is inevitable lol.


----------



## Smellytele (May 1, 2018)

SkiFanE said:


> Have only read last few pages. Thoughts:
> 
> i recommend parkwhiz app. I am not an app person at all, but my college kid turned me on to this. Great deals in big cities.
> 
> ...



My college age son wants nothing to do with a city or the burbs (thinks Southern NH is too densely packed let alone anything near Boston). I also want nothing to do with them either. i keep moving further away. 
As far as trains (subways are fine for getting around in cities) I like to be able to go when i want to go. Even in Boston where the subway stops running before the bars close they are not practical and uber/lyft or a taxi are my choices for transportation.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 1, 2018)

spring_mountain_high said:


> hahaha both you ninnies completely missed the point that i made---that *they could likely exist on their own as "land cruises"*, not greyhound buses on rails, which they currently are
> 
> *long distance trains actually make a profit on the first class passengers, genius*



Really?   Then why don't they already make their fortune on these "land cruises"

hahaha. They sure must have an aversion to making money.


----------



## SkiFanE (May 1, 2018)

Smellytele said:


> My college age son wants nothing to do with a city or the burbs (thinks Southern NH is too densely packed let alone anything near Boston). I also want nothing to do with them either. i keep moving further away.
> As far as trains (subways are fine for getting around in cities) I like to be able to go when i want to go. Even in Boston where the subway stops running before the bars close they are not practical and uber/lyft or a taxi are my choices for transportation.


I want to be near a T stop not a train. I have a ski place in the boonies of Bethel Maine. From there I can walk to a few pubs, restaurants, grocery store, coffee shop, movies, h/w store and soon to be brewery (there's a ski shuttle in winter). I realized how much I love to do things without a car. Everyone is different. I grew up with two acres, have an acre now...never experienced that kind of walkable living before. And I love it. So I hope to be able to live that way in Boston area. Ditch a car. I'm not at last call at bars lol, but if I have to Uber/lyft on occasion - still beats owning a car.


----------



## Jully (May 1, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> This would be a perfect example of yet another train route (and an uber short one at that) which would lose millions of dollars.



I'm not so convinced it would lose money. If the Downeaster is posting a 50% loss (which is HUGE, but actually much less massive than I thought it was), I would think there is WAY more demand to go to Lincoln, Waterville, Plymouth (college kids), and Winnipesaukee than Durham, Portland, Brunswick, and Freeport on the Downeaster.

It would be an interesting venture, but one that will almost certainly never take place.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 1, 2018)

Jully said:


> *I'm not so convinced it would lose money.*



It would definitely lose money; lots of money. You're not going to get enough people to pay enough money to go to Loon via train to justify the expense of a track build-out (+ interest). Not to mention the labor & benefits, etc.


----------



## Jully (May 1, 2018)

cdskier said:


> "Country" includes far more than just cities. I agree with you (abc) that for people that live in cities, many people don't need and choose not to have cars. That has absolutely nothing to do with overall card dependence in this country though. The overall dependence will never end and that's the point myself and others have illustrated.



While the US will never see the ratio of car-less folks to car owners that say, the Netherlands sees, what I take people like Gregnye to mean when they say "the US is losing its dependency on cars" is that in other areas beyond just inner, large cities, cars are no longer a necessity. This just wasn't the case not that long ago. In 1990, if you didn't want to own a car (not that many people living in 1990 didn't want to), you HAD to live in a large city (and mostly on the east coast). 

The innovation that ride shares + expanded bike lanes + expanded and better bus service in smaller cities, like Portland ME, has drastically decreased the proliferation of new car registrations in the city over the last few years. That is a new phenomenon.

Additionally in the Boston metro area it is now POSSIBLE (though I am not sure I would choose this lifestyle myself, IMO) to live without a car if you're near commuter rail. Sull1102's point about transit oriented development is truly happening even in some suburbs (many think this is incredibly foolhardy... but it is still happening). In West Concord, MA a large luxury condo/apartment complex went in 200m from the commuter rail station a few years ago and is sold out ($2500 for a one bedroom I think I saw). While many people in those apartments have cars, it is far from all of them. 

Just because you own a car does not mean you are dependent on it too. I live in Boston and use my car to ski and drive to visit family outside the city. I commute on mass transit, visit friends on mass transit, and do errands using mass transit.

Basically, in many areas of the US (including many new types of areas), it is possible to live a carless life more than ever now. 

Many (including a lot on this board) think that doing that is a lot more trouble than it is worth, and they have a point. However people are still doing it and are very glad they've done so.


----------



## Smellytele (May 2, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> It would definitely lose money; lots of money. You're not going to get enough people to pay enough money to go to Loon via train to justify the expense of a track build-out (+ interest). Not to mention the labor & benefits, etc.



I agree. There would never be enough weekday passengers. With one train running Friday evening, Saturday and Sunday AM and PM no way can they afford building the track.


----------



## VTKilarney (May 2, 2018)

The Canadian and US governments are getting close to establishing pre-clearance at the train station in Montreal.  If that happens, I could see a ski train from Montreal to Waterbury on the weekend.  Stowe and Sugarbush could run shuttles from the Waterbury train station.

The one thing going against this is that it would be a lot easier to have a suburban location to pick up the ski train.  Parking in downtown Montreal and lugging ski gear is not that appealing.  But if there is pre-clearance, there won't be any stops between Montreal and the US border.


----------



## Hawk (May 2, 2018)

Jully said:


> Basically, in many areas of the US (including many new types of areas), it is possible to live a carless life more than ever now.
> 
> Many (including a lot on this board) think that doing that is a lot more trouble than it is worth, and they have a point. However people are still doing it and are very glad they've done so.



I think that if you are someone that loves city life and spends most of your time there it can happen. I can see a developer type that is non athletic might like this lifestyle.  But Anybody that I hang with or and most people I know need to drive to do the things we love.  How do you mountain bike in most areas without driving to locations?  I drive all over new England to do this.  Same with hiking, kayaking, skiing, any outdoor activity.  How about going to concert venues in the suburbs or outlying areas?  How about if your job requires you to go on site?  To me anybody that does not drive or own a car is missing out on so much and is limiting their life.  There is no way I would ever consider this.


----------



## Jcb890 (May 2, 2018)

VTKilarney said:


> But you would pay to park one way or the other.


Exactly, which is to my point why I don't want to drive to somewhere to pay to park and then pay to take the T.  I'd rather take my car in and be in control of my own timing and destination(s) since no matter what I am paying for parking.  There's plenty of places to park in Boston for ~$20 that are convenient.


----------



## cdskier (May 2, 2018)

Hawk said:


> I think that if you are someone that loves city life and spends most of your time there it can happen. I can see a developer type that is non athletic might like this lifestyle.  But Anybody that I hang with or and most people I know need to drive to do the things we love.  How do you mountain bike in most areas without driving to locations?  I drive all over new England to do this.  Same with hiking, kayaking, skiing, any outdoor activity.  How about going to concert venues in the suburbs or outlying areas?  How about if your job requires you to go on site?  To me anybody that does not drive or own a car is missing out on so much and is limiting their life.  There is no way I would ever consider this.



On the front page of the local newspaper today there was article about self-driving cars and how a lot of people simply aren't interested in them and even don't want them. In some recent poll, 75% of people said they would still rather keep driving themselves even if automated driving was available to them. Over 70% said they would "miss" driving if we moved towards self-driving cars.

I also agree with much of what you're saying Hawk. I could never imagine not having a car. It absolutely is essential for the things I enjoy. For people that love city life but also enjoy an active lifestyle, one thing I've heard some people in this situation mention would be solutions like zipcar where you basically rent a car when you need to. While that gets around having to actually "own" a car, it still shows that you do have a dependence on cars.


----------



## Jully (May 2, 2018)

Hawk said:


> I think that if you are someone that loves city life and spends most of your time there it can happen. I can see a developer type that is non athletic might like this lifestyle.  But Anybody that I hang with or and most people I know need to drive to do the things we love.  How do you mountain bike in most areas without driving to locations?  I drive all over new England to do this.  Same with hiking, kayaking, skiing, any outdoor activity.  How about going to concert venues in the suburbs or outlying areas?  How about if your job requires you to go on site?  To me anybody that does not drive or own a car is missing out on so much and is limiting their life.  There is no way I would ever consider this.



Exactly my point. There are certain lifestyles in the US that cars are pretty essential and that will always be the case.

But a whole host of people feel that they are not missing anything. Many concert venues have buses and shuttles running from the city (Gillette and the huge place in Mansfield both do). Zipcar or Uber or the occasional rental car handles whatever these people need outside of the city that they can't get to on the commuter rail.

Its now a little more than just developer types in big cities that can and do live this way too.


----------



## benski (May 2, 2018)

VTKilarney said:


> The Canadian and US governments are getting close to establishing pre-clearance at the train station in Montreal.  If that happens, I could see a ski train from Montreal to Waterbury on the weekend.  Stowe and Sugarbush could run shuttles from the Waterbury train station.
> 
> The one thing going against this is that it would be a lot easier to have a suburban location to pick up the ski train.  Parking in downtown Montreal and lugging ski gear is not that appealing.  But if there is pre-clearance, there won't be any stops between Montreal and the US border.



Screw boarders, the EU has the rite idea. Is the boarder crossing why the train takes 7 hours to get from Albany to Montreal.


----------



## Hawk (May 2, 2018)

Jully said:


> Exactly my point. There are certain lifestyles in the US that cars are pretty essential and that will always be the case.
> 
> But a whole host of people feel that they are not missing anything. Many concert venues have buses and shuttles running from the city (Gillette and the huge place in Mansfield both do). Zipcar or Uber or the occasional rental car handles whatever these people need outside of the city that they can't get to on the commuter rail.
> 
> Its now a little more than just developer types in big cities that can and do live this way too.


I do understand what you are saying.  I have a Nephew that is a huge advocate of selling his car.  And then he realized that he would miss out on all kinds of things.  Life is quick and fast paced for me.  Plans change, things are uncertain.  Most people do not have time to be working around train schedules or standing around waiting for trains or buses to show up.  No thanks.


----------



## Hawk (May 2, 2018)

benski said:


> Screw boarders, the EU has the rite idea. Is the boarder crossing why the train takes 7 hours to get from Albany to Montreal.


I am sure all those people that lost or knew people in the twin towers do not feel the same way.  I am not a supporter of the current administration's policies they are pushing but boarder security is certainly very important in this day and age.  Anyone that thinks otherwise is not up to speed on the real issues this country is faced with.  We are most certainly a target.


----------



## cdskier (May 2, 2018)

Hawk said:


> Life is quick and fast paced for me.  Plans change, things are uncertain.  Most people do not have time to be working around train schedules or standing around waiting for trains or buses to show up.  No thanks.



Last time I was in NYC I missed the bus back home by literally about 60 seconds (saw it pulling away just as I got to the gate). So annoying having to stand around and wait another 30 minutes for the next bus. I don't like having to plan around set schedules because there's just no flexibility.


----------



## gregnye (May 2, 2018)

People always argue that the car represents freedom in the U.S. and that not having a car prevents freedom.

I disagree. While getting a car might make you feel free when you're back in High School, commuting everyday by car is the least-free thing you can imagine. Traffic everywhere. At least in the Boston Metro area where I live.

And people always argue against trains because "with cars I can leave when I want". But what they don't realize is that they are not really leaving when they want in a car. Say you have to be at work by 9 in Boston and you live in southern NH, that 5 minutes that you have of flexibility in leaving could severely increase your commute time. Leaving 5-10 mins later than "usual" makes all the difference when its rush-hour traffic. I know people who wake up at 4:45 just to beat the morning commute (and still run into traffic)--thats also not leaving "when you want".

Rather than pushing the idea of a car as "freedom" we as a country should make our train systems more robust and push the idea of a trains as "reliability". Yes, a train has a fixed schedule, but good train service surpasses anything cars can offer (see Europe). And you can sleep/text during the commute!!

After a long day of skiing the last thing I want to do is drive the 3 hours home. If there was a train that took me home in 3 hours or less I would take it.


----------



## Hawk (May 2, 2018)

Jully said:


> Many concert venues have buses and shuttles running from the city (Gillette and the huge place in Mansfield both do). Zipcar or Uber or the occasional rental car handles whatever these people need outside of the city that they can't get to on the commuter rail.  Its now a little more than just developer types in big cities that can and do live this way too.



Jully, just so you know if I was to think about taking public transportation to Foxboro from my house it would be Commute rail from Beverly to Boston, orange line to Red line to South Station and then commuter rail from South station to Foxboro.  Round trip cost would be $37.  That pays for gas and parking if I take my car.


----------



## Smellytele (May 2, 2018)

Hawk said:


> Jully, just so you know if I was to think about taking public transportation to Foxboro from my house it would be Commute rail from Beverly to Boston, orange line to Red line to South Station and then commuter rail from South station to Foxboro.  Round trip cost would be $37.  That pays for gas and parking if I take my car.


$37 round trip per person so if you went with 3 other people it would be $148!


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 2, 2018)

cdskier said:


> *On the front page of the local newspaper today there was article about self-driving cars and how a lot of people simply aren't interested in them and even don't want them. *In some recent poll, 75% of people said they would still rather keep driving themselves even if automated driving was available to them. Over 70% said they would "miss" driving if we moved towards self-driving cars.



Too early, but the consumer will change.

Barnes & Noble came out with e-readers circa 1998, and it was basically a complete flop.  Pffttt.... who wants that?  Nobody wants to read on a SCREEN they said!  Same thing will happen with driverless cars.  Once they get on the road and folks get used to the idea and grow familiar with them, people will want them.




gregnye said:


> *People always argue that the car represents freedom in the U.S. and that not having a car prevents freedom.*




Correct; and the reason they argue that is because in 99% of the geography, that's a true statement.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 2, 2018)

Smellytele said:


> $37 round trip per person so if you went with 3 other people it would be $148!



Same here.

It's now up to an insane $32.50 per person to get into Manhattan from where I am in Jersey!  LOL. 

Something like a 100% cost increase in less than 10 years =  Yeah, no thanks.


----------



## 2Planker (May 2, 2018)

30 mins ???  Try waiting 3 hours for the next bus.

 In Boston you wait 30 mins for a T bus IF it is running on time.  Not uncommon to wait 45+ mins....




cdskier said:


> Last time I was in NYC I missed the bus back home by literally about 60 seconds (saw it pulling away just as I got to the gate). So annoying having to stand around and wait another 30 minutes for the next bus. I don't like having to plan around set schedules because there's just no flexibility.


----------



## cdskier (May 2, 2018)

2Planker said:


> 30 mins ???  Try waiting 3 hours for the next bus.
> 
> In Boston you wait 30 mins for a T bus IF it is running on time.  Not uncommon to wait 45+ mins....



Yea, in NYC/NJ it depends on the route and time of day. The bus route I would use is one of the more popular ones that has very frequent departures most days and at most times during the day. There are other routes to other places in NJ from NYC that are far less frequent.


----------



## Jcb890 (May 2, 2018)

gregnye said:


> People always argue that the car represents freedom in the U.S. and that not having a car prevents freedom.
> 
> I disagree. While getting a car might make you feel free when you're back in High School, commuting everyday by car is the least-free thing you can imagine. Traffic everywhere. At least in the Boston Metro area where I live.
> 
> ...


IMO, people driving from Southern NH to Boston daily for work are insane.


----------



## tumbler (May 2, 2018)

As I'm driving my car on interstates in New England and the Northeast I do wonder about a new high speed train system but building it would be way too expensive and too many NIMBYS.  One thing that struck me was why not use the massive footprint that the interstates take up and put rails either on the shoulder and/or in the median?  There would be some issues of large percent grades but would think that could be solved.  The stations could correspond with exits so cars could easily get there to pick you up.  Doesn't have to be every exit.  

I do love my car and do not know what I would do without it.  But if I could take a relaible train to Waterbury and be picked up to go to SB and back on Sunday, I would seriously consider it.  I would love to apres on Sunday!!!


----------



## deadheadskier (May 2, 2018)

IMO, people who live in Mass are insane. Lol

I make the commute down to the city a couple of days a week.  It blows, but I can't deal with Boston metro traffic even on the weekends.   Happy to keep my sanity a bit North of the border

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## tumbler (May 2, 2018)

Jcb890 said:


> IMO, people driving from Southern NH to Boston daily for work are insane.



I cannot believe that Mass does not have tolls on 93 and 3 at the border and only on the Pike.  Would certainly help take care of the roads.  There are tolls in NH so poeple shouldn't complain.


----------



## SkiFanE (May 2, 2018)

Smellytele said:


> I agree. There would never be enough weekday passengers. With one train running Friday evening, Saturday and Sunday AM and PM no way can they afford building the track.



This statement is the crux of the problem. The expectation a rail line has to be profitable.  We, as a society, have to come together and put $ into the public good. Not worry about profitability. We put tax dollars into the millions of miles of roads, and don't expect profitability.  Maybe instead of adding a 4th lane to a highway, adding public transportation may make the 4th lane unnecessary.  I am no way advocating or debating for this - but after seeing traffic grow so much around me, with new condo complexes being added to places without any public transportation - there really is no longer a way to build our way out with new roads and traffic signals. At some point we all have to agree to fix this. May not be for 50 years until we can no longer move our car around - but it also seems to be unsustainable growth.


----------



## speden (May 2, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> Too early, but the consumer will change.



The car companies might also make self driving cars to suit different types of car buyers. I'd probably dislike a self driving car if it drove around like a little old lady, but if I could customize it to drive more aggressively and use my favorite short cuts on the way to work, then it would be more appealing. Kind of like the way you can set cruise control to go faster than the speed limit if you want to. With the advances in artificial intelligence and speech recognition, the car might be able to learn your preferences and you could bark out commands like, "Go around that slow poke".


----------



## deadheadskier (May 2, 2018)

SkiFanE said:


> This statement is the crux of the problem. The expectation a rail line has to be profitable.  We, as a society, have to come together and put $ into the public good. Not worry about profitability. We put tax dollars into the millions of miles of roads, and don't expect profitability.  Maybe instead of adding a 4th lane to a highway, adding public transportation may make the 4th lane unnecessary.  I am no way advocating or debating for this - but after seeing traffic grow so much around me, with new condo complexes being added to places without any public transportation - there really is no longer a way to build our way out with new roads and traffic signals. At some point we all have to agree to fix this. May not be for 50 years until we can no longer move our car around - but it also seems to be unsustainable growth.


Good idea.  But can we get 495 to five lanes first?  Turn it back to what it was up until 20 years ago?  A bypass highway for the metro Boston traffic hell.  Three lanes no longer cuts it.  Manchester NH is the only city in New England these days with a highway system capable of handling the traffic that needs to get around it.  Boston, Providence, Worcester, Hartford, New Haven.... everywhere else blows

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Jully (May 2, 2018)

Hawk said:


> Jully, just so you know if I was to think about taking public transportation to Foxboro from my house it would be Commute rail from Beverly to Boston, orange line to Red line to South Station and then commuter rail from South station to Foxboro.  Round trip cost would be $37.  That pays for gas and parking if I take my car.



Haha it is FAR from seamless or even halfway ideally functional for a lot of the Boston area because of the North/South station situation. I'll add that the train to FXB from South Station also sucks (I've taken it). But these options are improving every year almost and theres motivation to improve it further.

FWIW I'm with you regarding the impracticality of living carless in a suburb too.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 3, 2018)

Jully said:


> Haha it is FAR from seamless or even halfway ideally functional for a lot of the Boston area because of the North/South station situation. I'll add that the train to FXB from South Station also sucks (I've taken it). But these options are improving every year almost and theres motivation to improve it further.
> 
> FWIW I'm with you regarding the impracticality of living carless in a suburb too.


Biggest blunder of the big dig was not connecting North and South station.  Of the $20+ Billion they spent on that project it's a crime they couldn't figure that part out.  

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Scruffy (May 3, 2018)

gregnye said:


> People always argue that the car represents freedom in the U.S. and that not having a car prevents freedom.
> 
> I disagree. While getting a car might make you feel free when you're back in High School, commuting everyday by car is the least-free thing you can imagine. Traffic everywhere. At least in the Boston Metro area where I live.
> 
> ...



You live in the wrong place to believe that a car = freedom. Except it, and stop whining, Boston and most of Mass is a mess for travel. I live in the mountains and a car is not only necessary, it is complete freedom compared to my ancestors with only a horse or their own feet to get around. I can drive hundreds of miles a day, ski, fish, boat, climb, etc.. and still be home at night. And your Europe example visa vie trains vs cars is flawed. Yes Europe, by and large, invests more heavily in mass transit via much higher taxes, but have you been to Europe? They still have cars there, lots of them. They love their cars and spend a lot on them, even as they take the train to work every day. Lot's of Europe, and the UK and Scandinavia too, are small towns connected by both roads and rail. Sure there are big cities like London, Berlin, etc.. but get out of the city and it's like western Mass, think Stockbridge. This country is f#@ked because your govt. is bought and paid for by big business, and is so far in debt that big infrastructure builds, like the Eisenhower highway project are a thing of the past. And your govt. no longer gives a rats ass that you are stuck in traffic three-four hours of your day- that's your problem. There was never a master plan. Anything goes as long as it makes money for someone--we just keep building out our cities and pushing the limits of roads and rail with no plan of what to do if there are more people taking trains, for cars on the roads, etc.. 
So move, or take the train and deal with it's limitations. Or do what they do in Europe, take the train to commute, but own a car for that weekend freedom.


----------



## lentilmaps (May 3, 2018)

Maybe it’s difficult to live completely car-less in most suburbs, but car-light is totally doable depending on your situation.  We live in a suburb, first one out from Boston on the commuter rail.  The Mr walks to the train and takes it to town daily.  I commute by car out west, no good train option there.  Had two cars for a while but used the second so infrequently that its battery kept dying, so we got rid of it.  Kids do sports but luckily most are within a mile or so of home, easy to walk/bike if the car is in use.

A handful of times a year, we need a second car, so we rent one or take a Lyft.  It’d take a lot of trips like that to equal the cost of a second car.  

One thing transit-oriented development does is facilitate scaling back car use, even if it doesn’t totally replace cars. Maybe a family of four, like ours, will have just one car.  Maybe someone in their twenties will have a car but not need to use it for every day commuting.  It all helps decrease traffic/pollution, benefits everyone.

~lm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Smellytele (May 3, 2018)

I am 25 miles away from a place to take a bus let alone a train. A train is more than an hour away. Work is 45 minutes. I don't even drive on a highway to get to work.


----------



## Jully (May 8, 2018)

Scruffy said:


> Or do what they do in Europe, take the train to commute, but own a car for that weekend freedom.





lentilmaps said:


> Maybe it’s difficult to live completely car-less in most suburbs, but car-light is totally doable depending on your situation.  We live in a suburb, first one out from Boston on the commuter rail.  The Mr walks to the train and takes it to town daily.  I commute by car out west, no good train option there.  Had two cars for a while but used the second so infrequently that its battery kept dying, so we got rid of it.  Kids do sports but luckily most are within a mile or so of home, easy to walk/bike if the car is in use.
> 
> A handful of times a year, we need a second car, so we rent one or take a Lyft.  It’d take a lot of trips like that to equal the cost of a second car.
> 
> ...



This is how I live in Boston now and how I lived in Malden previously. I own a car for skiing with the added benefit of some freedom to do the occasional other trip in summer months/ to visit family in northern NE. The car gets used very minimally in the non-winter months compared to ski season though.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 8, 2018)

The people in this thread advocating for the spending of billions of dollars on new trains & tracks, reminds me of people investing in car phones a few years before the smartphone.


----------



## abc (May 8, 2018)

Wow! The forum was only up for about 24 hrs, there’re 2 pages of anti-train arguments!

I wonder how many more pages it would have had the forum stay up for the week?

Next to guns, cars are the item most tied up in people’s self identity. “You have to ply it out of my cold dead hands”.


----------



## x10003q (May 9, 2018)

abc said:


> Wow! The forum was only up for about 24 hrs, there’re 2 pages of anti-train arguments!
> 
> I wonder how many more pages it would have had the forum stay up for the week?
> 
> Next to guns, cars are the item most tied up in people’s self identity. “You have to ply it out of my cold dead hands”.



Not even close. For many people, no car, no work. When I commuted into NYC I took the train. When I changed jobs and there was no mass transit to the job, I needed the car. The car is a time machine. It saves massive amount of time.


----------



## bdfreetuna (May 9, 2018)

Self defense is a right and a responsibility. Ownership or use of firearms evokes very little passion in me. Going to the range isn't very exciting (to me) and if the world was a nice place I'd have zero interest in firearms.

Driving is not a right although one could argue freedom of mobility is a negative right. For some as x10003q stated, it is a time machine, a means of transportation necessary for employment at the very least.

That puts it about equal to firearms in terms of it being a necessity, although some folks don't consider means of self defense a necessity due to a different outlook on the world, I consider working and self-defense equally high-order needs.

Anyway horsepower > firepower but everyone should have both


----------



## Domeskier (May 9, 2018)

x10003q said:


> Not even close. For many people, no car, no work.



Sounds like the real problem is giving people the freedom to choose where to live and work.  This would not happen in an enlightened society based on a nineteenth century mode of transportation.


----------



## 2Planker (May 9, 2018)

Public transportation in Boston doesn't run frequently enough to get me to work for 6am.  At night I can drive home in 25-30 mins vs 1 1/2-2 hours minimum for the subway/bus combo..  Everything shuts down by 1am so if you're on nights you're pretty much screwed....  T is NOT reliable, especially in inclement weather, it's also pretty dirty, and waiting outside in Cold or rain sucks.


----------



## bdfreetuna (May 9, 2018)

As winter enthusiasts, we should all be introducing as much soot particles as humanly possible to the atmosphere in order to ensure the survival of our sport.


----------



## abc (May 9, 2018)

bdfreetuna said:


> Self defense is a right and a responsibility. Ownership or use of firearms evokes very little passion in me. Going to the range isn't very exciting (to me) and if the world was a nice place I'd have zero interest in firearms.
> 
> Driving is not a right although one could argue freedom of mobility is a negative right. For some as x10003q stated, it is a time machine, a means of transportation necessary for employment at the very least.
> 
> ...


I feel the opposite.

I enjoy shooting. Working out the wind and humidity. Nailing bulls eye a hundred yard away. It's as satisfying as a smooth rhythmic dance down Superstar. Fun stuff for those who have the right attitude. (I don't care for the blasting the whole clip in full auto into a stop sign 20 yard away. Boring)

But self-defense? Nah. How many here pack heat while on the slope? I bet very very few. So what if you end up in a confrontation? Your weapon isn't there with you aren't going to help you. I thought long and hard about keeping a gun at home for self defense, and in the end decided against it. The risk of accident far outweighs any potential it'll ever come in useful in a break-in. 

Driving to me is a drudgery. A necessary evil to get to work or get to the mountain. I don't really "enjoy" driving. Can't wait for the end of those 5 hr drive in the dead of night after a long day of skiing or a long day in the office. 

I don't consider either as necessary. Both are fun toys for some, indispensable but expensive and complicated tools for others.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 10, 2018)

abc said:


> I thought long and hard about keeping a gun at home for self defense, and in the end decided against it. *The risk of accident far outweighs any potential it'll ever come in useful* in a break-in.



Then you made the right choice.  Gun ownership is a major responsibility, if you dont think you can properly maintain that level of care then it's irresponsible to own a firearm.


----------



## abc (May 10, 2018)

When there’s children in the house, it’s particularly difficult. They’re smarter than we give them credit for. But dumber than we fear. 

When I was 6 or 7, I managed to get my hand on a gun from the safe. I overheard the access code when my parent gave it to my aunt. I was in the process of putting bullet into the gun when my Mom walked in. Was mighty proud of it because I really impressed my cousin. Didn’t really understand the gravity untill much later. Fortunately for me, my parents stopped keeping guns around the house since that incident. 

(There are various ways to keep guns “safer”. But they slow the access so it’s useless for defense against break-in)

I dont want to deal with that responsibility when the positive potential is next to zero.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 10, 2018)

abc said:


> There are various ways to keep guns “safer”. But they slow the access so it’s useless for defense against break-in



The high-end biometric safes are very quick, definitely not "useless" against break-in.

 In terms of larger storage where speed isn't an issue, a well-constructed dial safe eliminates any chance of little ones gaining access.  Most toddlers don't carry plasma torches!


----------



## abc (May 10, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> In terms of larger storage where speed isn't an issue, a well-constructed dial safe eliminates any chance of little ones gaining access. Most toddlers don't carry plasma torches!


It was a dial safe that I managed to open as a 6-7 year old!


----------



## Scruffy (May 10, 2018)

People that feel they need to have guns for home self defense are living in the wrong place. I leave my doors unlocked most of the time.
My hunting guns are locked up and useless for self defense. I like it that way.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 10, 2018)

abc said:


> *It was a dial safe that I managed to open as a 6-7 year old!*



Why did someone teach you how to open the gun safe at the age of 6 years old?   And how did you know the correct turn pattern, or did you overhear that too?




Scruffy said:


> *People that feel they need to have guns for home self defense are living in the wrong place.* I leave my doors unlocked most of the time.  My hunting guns are locked up and useless for self defense. I like it that way.



People who care about self-defense are living in the wrong place; where do you live?   I dont know that place.  

 I live in one of the lowest crime places there is, my mother worked as the secretary for the chief of police here for over a decade, and I definitely care about self-defense.  Even here in Pleasantville.


----------



## abc (May 10, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> Why did someone teach you how to open the gun safe at the age of 6 years old?   And how did you know the correct turn pattern, or did you overhear that too?


No one taught me how to open the safe. Yes, I overheard the turn pattern earlier, at separate occasion. 

You seem to miss my earlier point. So let me repeat it again: 
*
Children are smarter than we give them credit for, yet they’re also dumber than we fear*

As a 6-7 year old, I've seen guns in movies. A toy that makes a hell of a noise, and scare the hell out of people (running away at the sight of it) was just irresistible! I had no comprehension that the "noise" and "scare" was related and cause for severe consequence. So when my cousin came to visit, it seemed a perfect occasion to show off that impressive noise maker from the safe! 

The only reason I didn't get to blow my cousin's head off was because, as responsible gun owners who follow good practice, the guns were stored unloaded. In the time it took for the 2 of us (my cousin was a year older) to find the bullet, figure out which way the bullet goes into the clip, my Mom came in for something else and found us with a "toy" that don't belong to us!


----------



## Scruffy (May 10, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> *People who care about self-defense are living in the wrong place;* where do you live?   I dont know that place.
> 
> I live in one of the lowest crime places there is, my mother worked as the secretary for the chief of police here for over a decade, and I definitely care about self-defense.  Even here in Pleasantville.



Pretty much.

I don't live in fear that I need a gun for self defense, simple as that. If I did, I'd move.

If you live in one of lowest crime places, why do you feel you need a gun for self defense?


----------



## deadheadskier (May 10, 2018)

I have a far greater fear of an accident happening with a gun in the house than I do ever needing a gun for self defense.  The amount of random gun violence in NH is practically zero.  Any shootings that do happen are either crimes of passion, drug deal related or small pockets of gang activity in Nashua or Manchester.  The boogyman coming through my door wishing to do harm to my family is just that; the boogyman.

 I actually called the cops for the first time in ten years living in our condo a couple of weeks ago.  A neighbor had a drunk visitor who was damaging property in the common areas and threatening violence to those wanting to stop him.  Cops were here in 2 minutes.  I'll let the professionals handle my security needs if I ever need them.  That's what I pay taxes for.

Not sure how we've gone from a transportation discussion to firearms.  There is literally zero parallel.  Guess that means it's summer.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 10, 2018)

abc said:


> The only reason I didn't get to blow my cousin's head off was because, *as responsible gun owners who follow good practice*, the guns were stored unloaded.



With all due respect, your father was obviously not a _"responsible gun owner",_ given he hadn't taught his children not to play with guns.  That was beaten into my head at such a young age that I literally cannot even remember the actual lesson(s).  I was shooting by the age of 8 (supervised obviously) and knew that a gun was a deadly weapon and not a toy long before my first shooting lesson.  



Scruffy said:


> If *you live in one of lowest crime places, why do you feel you need a gun for self defense?*



Reality.


----------



## Not Sure (May 10, 2018)

Yin/Yang Subject ....I have a friend who was killed on his front porch ,shot in the chest ( Not what is considered  a bad part of town ).He had many books on Gandhi ,was a pacifist and always avoided confrontation.

I also have a friend who's mother is in a permanently  wheelchair ,beaten almost to death in a home invasion . 

When seconds count the cops are there in minutes


----------



## abc (May 10, 2018)

Question is, would he/she had their gun in their hand at the time to use? Or would they be just as dead because the gun is in a safe at the back of the house?

When seconds count, how many can get to your gun?


----------



## Not Sure (May 10, 2018)

Former , crime was never solved. He went for a pizza and was confronted outside his house and didn't comply with the assailants demand and went in his house and faced the person through the screen door and was shot. If he had a concealed carry he would have had a chance? 

Latter , the 2 men kicked her door in ....took a minute or two in the process. She could have had a chance as well . 

This thread could go down a rat hole ...so I wont post other examples. Lots of emotion on both sides....Peace


----------



## abc (May 10, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> With all due respect, your father was obviously not a _"responsible gun owner",_ given he hadn't taught his children not to play with guns.  That was beaten into my head at such a young age that I literally cannot even remember the actual lesson(s).  I was shooting by the age of 8 (supervised obviously) and knew that a gun was a deadly weapon and not a toy long before my first shooting lesson.


You don’t seem to read too well...

I was at most 7, may be 6.


----------



## Not Sure (May 10, 2018)

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/mc-...-rocco-surveillance-video-20150407-story.html


----------



## abc (May 10, 2018)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> Former , crime was never solved. He went for a pizza and was confronted outside his house and didn't comply with the assailants demand and went in his house and faced the person through the screen door and was shot. If he had a concealed carry he would have had a chance?
> 
> Latter , the 2 men kicked her door in ....took a minute or two in the process. She could have had a chance as well .
> 
> This thread could go down a rat hole ...so I wont post other examples. Lots of emotion on both sides....Peace


I’m with *scruffy*. I wouldn’t live in a neighborhood where someone can so easily follow me home after a “confrontation”.


----------



## skiur (May 11, 2018)

abc said:


> I’m with *scruffy*. I wouldn’t live in a neighborhood where someone can so easily follow me home after a “confrontation”.



Well then don't live in NYC or Boston or any other city or it's surrounding suberbs.


----------



## ironhippy (May 11, 2018)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> Former , crime was never solved. He went for a pizza and was confronted outside his house and didn't comply with the assailants demand and went in his house and faced the person through the screen door and was shot. If he had a concealed carry he would have had a chance?
> 
> Latter , the 2 men kicked her door in ....took a minute or two in the process. She could have had a chance as well .
> 
> This thread could go down a rat hole ...so I wont post other examples. Lots of emotion on both sides....Peace



But in order for those people to have a "chance" they would have to be able to literally shoot someone with the intention of killing them.

I know everyone likes to say "I'll kill anyone who wants to hurt my family" but are you REALLY willing to do that especially when you aren't sure of what the outcome will be?

I have been in high pressure situations (not self defense) and have reacted the way I hoped I would, however when it comes to taking someone else's life, I don't think I could do it without some serious thought in which case it would be too late even if I had a gun pointing at the other person.

Luckily, based on where I live and everything else, I have a much better chance of winning the lottery (even if I don't play) than I do being involved in a life or death struggle with another human, so I don't even think about it unless I'm replying to a thread like this.


----------



## abc (May 11, 2018)

skiur said:


> Well then don't live in NYC or Boston or any other city or it's surrounding suberbs.


I live in the above mentioned area. But no, no one can follow me "home".


----------



## skiur (May 11, 2018)

abc said:


> I live in the above mentioned area. But no, no one can follow me "home".



Keep thinking that if it makes you feel better.


----------



## abc (May 11, 2018)

deadheadskier said:


> Not sure how we've gone from a transportation discussion to firearms.  There is literally zero parallel.  Guess that means it's summer.


I was the guilty party who started the drift. My apology.

My point was neither cars nor guns are a NEED. In some situation, they become a "need" due to outside factors not within our control. (lack of efficient transport, high crime). But in many cases, that outside situation isn't really there, or have changed long ago. But people have been conditioned to the perceived "need" they automatically assume it's always true. 

In many cases, people are rationalizing their WANT. Many of the "justification" offered up illustrate that line of thinking. 

We see a lot of that when it comes to rationalizing ski quivers too. Just to bring it back on topic...


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 11, 2018)

abc said:


> *When seconds count, how many can get to your gun?*



You seem to be doing backflips to justify your decision to be unarmed.  That's fine, it's your choice.

To answer your question, if you hear a breakin in your home, there's no reason to not be able to get to your weapon in "seconds" if you have it competently stored and have a plan in place.  Ten seconds verus ten minutes (police) is a rather hefty difference in a survival situation.



abc said:


> *You don’t seem to read too well...*  I was at most 7, may be 6.



I read very well.  

What _"you dont seem to" _grasp, is the concept of firearms safety, which must start well before a child is 6 or 7 if guns are present in the home.



skiur said:


> *Well then don't live in NYC or Boston or any other city or it's surrounding suberbs.*



Or pretty much anywhere where you dont own at least 5 acres.


----------



## Hawk (May 11, 2018)

I'm 50 and my wife and I are going to take a course in gun safety at the local gun club as part of the process of getting a license to carry a pistol or simply put, a pistol permit. The process in my town is pretty strict as the local police chief is anti civilian gun rights.  I have fired all kinds of weapons at my friends place in Maine and have shown to have a good eye.  I have never owned a gun but I find myself wanting to exercise my right while I still can.  We also watch the news and see what is going on.  There have been some home invasions recently in my town.  The other determining factor is we have no kids.  That is pretty much the final reason we feel strongly about safely owning a gun at this time.  I can see the dilemma of having firearms with young ones around.  I am not sure we would do this if we did.  But one thing is for sure.  If someone breaks in, by the time they make it up to the 2nd Floor to the bedroom, I will be ready.


----------



## Scruffy (May 11, 2018)

Wow, the fear and paranoia in this country is off the charts. No wonder we're so polarized. How do you people live with so much fear. The FUD machine has done it's job. Meanwhile, I sleep like a baby with my door unlocked. Thieves don't usually bust into occupied homes, unless they're high as kite.


----------



## Not Sure (May 11, 2018)

Scruffy said:


> Wow, the fear and paranoia in this country is off the charts. No wonder we're so polarized. How do you people live with so much fear. The FUD machine has done it's job. Meanwhile, I sleep like a baby with my door unlocked. Thieves don't usually bust into occupied homes, unless they're high as kite.



Yea?
http://www.wagc.com/11-year-old-girl-shoots-2-home-intruders-montana/

If it happens to someone ,people you know it's not paranoia. With the 24/7 news cable thing sensationalizing every bad thing I can see 
how hysteria can spread . I do  agree with your point though . So I shut off my TV 99.999% of the time.


----------



## spiderpig (May 11, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> Not sure I get the point here, if you live "in" a city, you also dont depend on a commuter train either, because you already woke up in the destination.   So those people may not depend on cars (unless you count Taxis), but they also dont depend on trains (unless you count subways).



A lot of over-the-top anti-train posts here. You may not depend on the train, but you benefit from people using it because they don't have to take their private cars into town. Interestingly, though maybe not since it's a skiing forum, no discussion here on public transportation being necessary for lower income workers to move around, especially from far suburbs into the city.



BenedictGomez said:


> NJTRANSIT loses money too, but it has a net positive economic benefit.  Conversely, there's no rational defense to many (most) Amtrak lines in America due to the low benefit from these lines.  They just flat-out lose money with little economic benefit in return.
> 
> That said, my guess is NJTRANSIT could be very profitable were it not run by the government.



Yeah, it would be profitable. With government subsidies.



BenedictGomez said:


> The people in this thread advocating for the spending of billions of dollars on new trains & tracks, reminds me of people investing in car phones a few years before the smartphone.



Well, I do agree with this if self-driving (electric) cars are going to be considered public transportation. And the Amtrak long-haul routes are garbage and still would be with more frequent or reliable service. Maybe better when they can run the trains without crew.

But back to speed traps. They're stupid.


----------



## mbedle (May 11, 2018)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> Yea?
> http://www.wagc.com/11-year-old-girl-shoots-2-home-intruders-montana/
> 
> If it happens to someone ,people you know it's not paranoia. With the 24/7 news cable thing sensationalizing every bad thing I can see
> how hysteria can spread . I do  agree with your point though . So I shut off my TV 99.999% of the time.



Hate to break it to you, but that story is made up.


----------



## GregoryIsaacs (May 11, 2018)

mbedle said:


> Hate to break it to you, but that story is made up.



Also the sketchiest website ive seen in a while.... it almost sucked me right into Iowa


----------



## Scruffy (May 11, 2018)

Meanwhile the violent crime rate in the US is the lowest it's been in over 40 years!


----------



## KustyTheKlown (May 11, 2018)

seriously. it must suck to live in constant unreasonable fear.


----------



## Domeskier (May 11, 2018)

KustyTheKlown said:


> seriously. it must suck to live in constant unreasonable fear.



I guess that's what the gun is for.  Prozac is probably cheaper and more effective.


----------



## Edd (May 11, 2018)

KustyTheKlown said:


> seriously. it must suck to live in constant unreasonable fear.



Conservative media is effective that way.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 11, 2018)

Hawk said:


> I'm 50 and *my wife and I are going to take a course in gun safety at the local gun club as part of the process of getting a license to carry a pistol or simply put, a pistol permit.*



NRA classes are another option to explore if you want to compare. NRA instructors are very dedicated and often ex-military with great training.   The classes are cheap as profit isnt the goal, and they really focus on safety

http://www.nrainstructors.org/search.aspx



Hawk said:


> The process in my town is pretty strict as the local police chief is anti civilian gun rights.  I have fired all kinds of weapons at my friends place in Maine and have shown to have a good eye.  *I have never owned a gun but I find myself wanting to exercise my right while I still can. *


 
Try before you buy if you can.  A good range usually will rent a variety of pistols to try for a very minimal fee.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 11, 2018)

Scruffy said:


> Wow, *the fear and paranoia in this country is off the charts. *No wonder we're so polarized. *How do you people live with so much fear. *T



Why do you believe gun ownership = fear?   

I've never heard this idea expressed before, and it seems a rather illogical belief.



Scruffy said:


> Meanwhile *the violent crime rate in the US is the lowest it's been in over 40 years!*



I think it's more than that actually.


----------



## Not Sure (May 11, 2018)

mbedle said:


> Hate to break it to you, but that story is made up.



Ok my bad for the fake news. Point is there are a lot of home invasions. This channel is video proof https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsE_m2z1NrvF2ImeNWh84mw/videos
Pretty good critique of situations . 
I don't live in abject fear,not sure how that applies? 
Many people learn Karate and Martial arts they don't live in abject fear . 

Crime stats ....Trust them NOT!

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article201887629.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkSIzTpFLL0


----------



## deadheadskier (May 11, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> Why do you believe gun ownership = fear?
> 
> I've never heard this idea expressed before, and it seems a rather illogical belief.
> 
> ...


If your only interest in owning a firearm is for hunting or you enjoy target shooting, you might have a point.  But, you have said you care about self defense and imply that you own a gun in part for those reasons.  You don't get to that point without some fear that someone or thing might do physical harm to you.





Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Scruffy (May 11, 2018)

deadheadskier said:


> If your only interest in owning a firearm is for hunting or you enjoy target shooting, you might have a point.  But, you have said you care about self defense and imply that you own a gun in part for those reasons.  You don't get to that point without some fear that someone or thing might do physical harm to you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



^^ Exactly. 

Your posts up thread talked about living in Pleasantville and still needing gun for self defense. I asked you why, and you replied "Reality". Others have eluded to crime and needing a gun for self defense. 

I own a few guns. I use to hunt, may take it up again when I retire. I shoot a couple of woodchucks a year that invade my garden. I have zero need for one for self defense. I have zero fear someone is going to break into my house while I'm in it and attack me or my family.

I realize not every person lives the same life or the life they dream of, or can always control,  but I can only tell you that if I lived in a place where I thought it would be a good idea to own a gun for self defense, if I was afraid someone would break into my house while I'm in it, I'd find a way to move and start a new life where I felt safe; there are still plenty of places in the good ol' USA where home invasion/assault with a deadly weapon are not everyday concerns.


----------



## abc (May 11, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> What _"you dont seem to" _grasp, is the concept of firearms safety, which must start well before a child is 6 or 7 if guns are present in the home.


If 6 is too late, what age do you start? 5? Or 4? How about 3? :-o


----------



## abc (May 11, 2018)

Hawk said:


> But one thing is for sure. If someone breaks in, by the time they make it up to the 2nd Floor to the bedroom, I will be ready.


I get that you're assuming you'll store the gun in the bedroom. Do you have a basement? What if you're in the basement when the break-in happens? Or do you plan to have another gun stored there too?

The one and only one POSSIBLE break-in attempt I've heard of from people I personally know, happens around 8pm. Dad was watching TV in the rec room in basement while junior was at the main floor. He heard someone fiddling with the front door. The family and their neighbors and friends don't use the front door. Everyone knows to walk around to use the back door. So he knew it's a stranger, not a neighbor or friends. He ran downstairs to tell Dad there's a stranger at the door. Dad went back upstairs (pass the front door) to get the gun from the bedroom. Then decided he'll go out the backdoor and around to the front. But found no one there. Apparently, the person who's fiddling with the front door were gone. 

As most of the houses look more or less the same, their thought was its a someone visiting another house down the street and stopped at the wrong house. I'm incline to agree with that thought. I once went into their neighbor's house, through the back door, before realizing I was at the wrong house!


----------



## deadheadskier (May 11, 2018)

abc said:


> If 6 is too late, what age do you start? 5? Or 4? How about 3? :-o


Not 3. I have a 3 year old. We are working on the dangers of scissors right now.  

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 12, 2018)

deadheadskier said:


> *you have said you care about self defense and imply that you own a gun in part for those reasons.  You don't get to that point without some fear that someone or thing might do physical harm to you.*



Fear ≠ Preparedness

There are many things I'm "prepared for" that I dont have a constant fear of.  I put snow tires on my car each winter, but I wouldn't "fear" getting into an accident if I didn't; however, that doesn't mean it isn't wise to use snow tires anyway.



Scruffy said:


> * there are still plenty of places in the good ol' USA where home invasion/assault with a deadly weapon are not everyday concerns.*



You keep going back to this, are you saying there are places where robbery and crime doesn't exist?  Could you rattle off 4 or 5 since there are "plenty" of these places?



abc said:


> If 6 is too late, *what age do you start? *5? Or 4? How about 3? :-o



Age 4 or 5 depending on the child.  The age of 7 is way too late.


----------



## VTKilarney (May 12, 2018)

Scruffy said:


> Meanwhile the violent crime rate in the US is the lowest it's been in over 40 years!



For the record, it’s ticked back up.  But it’s still low.


----------



## skiur (May 12, 2018)

Do I think I will ever need a gun for self defense? Probably not. But if it ever comes to that I am quite happy that I live in a country that guarantees me the right to protect myself.


----------



## Scruffy (May 12, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> Fear ≠ Preparedness
> 
> There are many things I'm "prepared for" that I dont have a constant fear of.  I put snow tires on my car each winter, but I wouldn't "fear" getting into an accident if I didn't; however, that doesn't mean it isn't wise to use snow tires anyway.



It is fear, whether you choose to recognize it or not, that you are preparing against (fear for a possible future event). Fear is the only basic human emotion that fits the bill here. Concern or worry, for example ( I'm concerned/worried that someone might break in to my house and attack me ) is not a basic human emotion, they are amalgam emotions in which fear is a component. Humans are the only known species to be able to project themselves into future situations. Negative, or fearful situations are undesirable, and therefore are what we prepare ourselves against. Fear of sliding off the road and crashing our car pushes people to prepare, via snow tires, against a future event that may or may not happen. I wish more drivers had that fear.



BenedictGomez said:


> You keep going back to this, are you saying there are places where robbery and crime doesn't exist?  Could you rattle off 4 or 5 since there are "plenty" of these places?



We're talking violent crimes here. I'm sure you're not going to cap someone for stealing a garden gnome off your lawn.
And yes, there are many places where crime is near zero, you should be able to find them with a little sleuthing. 

Here's a list took me 2 seconds to find: https://www.safewise.com/safest-cities-america 
Many North east places on there, some in Jersey as well. And that list doesn't even begin to cover the many rural places in between, all over the North East and even close to skiing.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 12, 2018)

What stands out about that list is two of the cities experienced some of the most notorious violent crimes of the past 20 years.  Newton with Sandy Hook and Chesire, CT with the brutal home invasion, rape and murder of a doctor's wife and daughters.    Knowing the latter can occur anywhere doesn't change my desire to own a firearm.  The statistics just don't support the choice.   The chances of an accident happening and killing a child by a gun in the house is on the order of hundreds of times greater than random invasion murders.  

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## abc (May 12, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> Age 4 or 5 depending on the child.  The age of 7 is way too late.


I could have easily done that at 4 or 5, but for the lack of motivation (my cousin coming to visit). I dissembled a lock about 4 or 5 according to my parents. (didn't have the skill to put it back together). Many parents underestimate their kids' ability in some area. 



> You keep going back to this, are you saying there are places where robbery and crime doesn't exist? Could you rattle off 4 or 5 since there are "plenty" of these places?


"robbery and crime *doesn't exist*"? Who suggest that?

I know a few where robbery and crime are so low you have a chance of getting hit by passing cars than by robbers:

Suburban: Redwood Shore, CA; Los Gatos, CA 
Rural: Sherman, CT; Somers, NY; Rocky Point, NY

All towns and villages I've lived at one point or another.


----------



## The Sneak (May 12, 2018)

I love cars AND would prefer to commute by bicycle. If my commute allowed for it, I totally would. However, it’s 30 miles each way over 3 bridges and not feasible. 

But yeah, I daydream about a commute that would let me justify (albeit flimsily) a Lynskey Backroad or similar for commuting purposes.

And of course, a late 80s 911 for fun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JimG. (May 12, 2018)

The Sneak said:


> I love cars AND would prefer to commute by bicycle. If my commute allowed for it, I totally would. However, it’s 30 miles each way over 3 bridges and not feasible.
> 
> But yeah, I daydream about a commute that would let me justify (albeit flimsily) a Lynskey Backroad or similar for commuting purposes.
> 
> And of course, a late 80s 911 for fun.



+1

The thought of sitting in a box that transfers me from place to place with zero interaction from me is scary and offensive. We are (becoming) a society of do nothings and complainers. I will not live that way. 

And the idea that people will use the time spent sitting in a box to lead a renaissance of deep thought and innovative ideas makes me laugh. People will use that time to drink, do drugs or jerk off. 

I think I'm glad I'll probably be dead before any of that comes to pass.


----------



## abc (May 12, 2018)

JimG. said:


> The thought of sitting in a box that transfers me from place to place with zero interaction from me is scary and offensive.
> 
> I think I'm glad I'll probably be dead before any of that comes to pass.


But Jim, that "box" is already zipping around all over. It's call a bus, or a train, or a plane! 

Do yo really wish you're dead before those were invented?


----------



## Jully (May 12, 2018)

deadheadskier said:


> What stands out about that list is two of the cities experienced some of the most notorious violent crimes of the past 20 years.  Newton with Sandy Hook and Chesire, CT with the brutal home invasion, rape and murder of a doctor's wife and daughters.    Knowing the latter can occur anywhere doesn't change my desire to own a firearm.  The statistics just don't support the choice.   The chances of an accident happening and killing a child by a gun in the house is on the order of hundreds of times greater than random invasion murders.
> 
> Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app



This. Like others have said, it is a choice. Either one carries risk. No where is perfectly safe, and owning a gun comes with a real accident risk. No civilian "needs" a gun for self defense in America, that would imply you couldn't live without it. Literally millions of Americans live without it their whole lives. It can be justified in my opinion though, further so by responsible gun owners like BG / his parents were in teaching gun safety at a very young age which will reduce the accident chance. Teaching your 6 year old kid about him safety is a tough choice for parents though. Makes telling them santa isn't real a whole lot easier I bet haha.

Also, fear 100% motivates me to put snows on my car every winter. Fear I'll crash or get stuck on the way to an epic powder day (basically 100% serious).


----------



## Jully (May 12, 2018)

abc said:


> But Jim, that "box" is already zipping around all over. It's call a bus, or a train, or a plane!
> 
> Do yo really wish you're dead before those were invented?



First thing I thought he was talking about was commuting via public transit.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 12, 2018)

JimG. said:


> +1
> 
> The thought of sitting in a box that transfers me from place to place with zero interaction from me is scary and offensive. We are (becoming) a society of do nothings and complainers. I will not live that way.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry Jim, but that's simply not true in my case.  I spend on average 20 hours a week driving; probably closer to 25.  As an example, it's 6.5 hours to Ft Kent, Maine from where I live.  I have a fair amount of business up there.  My job requires a tremendous amount of time doing market research, writing proposals and negotiating via email in addition to the phone, which I try and limit even while using Bluetooth behind the wheel.  I could be doing all of that while enroute to my customers with a fully autonomous vehicle.  Instead much of that work gets pushed into the evenings and weekends.  It would add an enormous amount of free time to my life that I could devote more of to my family, skiing etc. 

And I'm someone who truly loves driving.  I don't even care for automatic transmissions, so wanting full auto is all about improved work efficiency and productivity for me. 

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## JimG. (May 12, 2018)

abc said:


> But Jim, that "box" is already zipping around all over. It's call a bus, or a train, or a plane!
> 
> Do yo really wish you're dead before those were invented?


 
I use none. My post was poorly written and was referring back to the autonomous car part of this ever changing thread.

But yes, I do not use trains, planes, or buses. I like my car controlled by me.


----------



## JimG. (May 12, 2018)

deadheadskier said:


> I'm sorry Jim, but that's simply not true in my case.  I spend on average 20 hours a week driving; probably closer to 25.  As an example, it's 6.5 hours to Ft Kent, Maine from where I live.  I have a fair amount of business up there.  My job requires a tremendous amount of time doing market research, writing proposals and negotiating via email in addition to the phone, which I try and limit even while using Bluetooth behind the wheel.  I could be doing all of that while enroute to my customers with a fully autonomous vehicle.  Instead much of that work gets pushed into the evenings and weekends.  It would add an enormous amount of free time to my life that I could devote more of to my family, skiing etc.
> 
> And I'm someone who truly loves driving.  I don't even care for automatic transmissions, so wanting full auto is all about improved work efficiency and productivity for me.
> 
> Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app



I don't want to live like that and am lucky I don't have to. 

I see your point, and I congratulate you on your earnest work and family ethic. Most people are not like you.

For me, the only autonomous driving I'm looking for is my hearse ride to the cemetery.


----------



## Smellytele (May 12, 2018)

deadheadskier said:


> I'm sorry Jim, but that's simply not true in my case.  I spend on average 20 hours a week driving; probably closer to 25.  As an example, it's 6.5 hours to Ft Kent, Maine from where I live.  I have a fair amount of business up there.  My job requires a tremendous amount of time doing market research, writing proposals and negotiating via email in addition to the phone, which I try and limit even while using Bluetooth behind the wheel.  I could be doing all of that while enroute to my customers with a fully autonomous vehicle.  Instead much of that work gets pushed into the evenings and weekends.  It would add an enormous amount of free time to my life that I could devote more of to my family, skiing etc.
> 
> And I'm someone who truly loves driving.  I don't even care for automatic transmissions, so wanting full auto is all about improved work efficiency and productivity for me.
> 
> Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app



I would use it to drink, do drugs and jerk off as reading in a moving vehicle gets me sick.


----------



## abc (May 12, 2018)

JimG. said:


> I use none. My post was poorly written and was referring back to the autonomous car part of this ever changing thread.
> 
> But yes, I do not use trains, planes, or buses. I like my car controlled by me.


Jim, I read it as you don’t like others responsible for your movement. That’s why I listed planes and buses. Most people had to use one of those. Or their life would be rather limited. 

I hope you get to use those before you ride your heresy.


----------



## abc (May 12, 2018)

Smellytele said:


> I would use it to drink, do drugs and jerk off as reading in a moving vehicle gets me sick.


If the software gets to be as good as the average driver, I’ll take a nap. Just like if I’m sharing the driving with a companion. 

After a day of skiing, I want to eat then sleep. I can eat while driving, but can’t nap unless “someone” else is driving.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 12, 2018)

skiur said:


> Do I think I will ever need a gun for self defense? Probably not. But if it ever comes to that I am quite happy that I live in a country that guarantees me the right to protect myself.



Amen.



Scruffy said:


> *We're talking violent crimes here.* I'm sure you're not going to cap someone for stealing a garden gnome off your lawn.
> And yes, *there are many places where crime is near zero*, you should be able to find them with a little sleuthing.



Again you go back to this same "point", which I see very little validity to.  By nature, unless you live in some festering hell-hole or near war zone (parts of Chicago, parts of St. Louis, Newark, etc..), violent crimes are typically black swan events.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 12, 2018)

deadheadskier said:


> *What stands out about that list is two of the cities experienced some of the most notorious violent crimes of the past 20 years. *



Alternatively; this.



abc said:


> *I could have easily done that at 4 or 5,* but for the lack of motivation (my cousin coming to visit). I dissembled a lock about 4 or 5 according to my parents. (didn't have the skill to put it back together).



Very doubtful.  I think your story is difficult to believe as is at age 6, let alone age 4.  Most 4 year olds wouldn't even know the numbers 47, 38, 19, let alone even understand what a turn pattern is on a combination safe.  I dont even think the average 4 year old could reach the dial on a typical gun safe; mine's about 4 feet off the ground I'd guess (without measuring).


----------



## abc (May 12, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> Very doubtful.  I think your story is difficult to believe as is at age 6, let alone age 4.  Most 4 year olds wouldn't even know the numbers 47, 38, 19, let alone even understand what a turn pattern is on a combination safe.  I dont even think the average 4 year old could reach the dial on a typical gun safe; mine's about 4 feet off the ground I'd guess (without measuring).


I obviously didn’t open the safe at 4. But I knew about the dial pattern many months before the “event”. As for the number, that’s typically taught no later than 5. (counting at 5, reading & writing at 6)

As for my real age for the incident? It was before I went to school (because we moved the summer before my 1st grade. —the guns didn’t follow the move). I started 1st grade a little after 7. 

It was recounted by my parents in detail, including the approximate age. I provided my side of the story, most significantly how I overheard the instruction on how to open a dial safe by putting two & two together.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 13, 2018)

End of the day, I come back to this fact.  Statistics don't lie.  Households without guns in the US are safer than those that have them.  That's why I don't own one. 



Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 13, 2018)

deadheadskier said:


> End of the day, I come back to this fact. * Statistics don't lie.  *



Statistics sometimes dont do anything other than lie, even if unintentionally.

Guns are one such case.

*Any time there is a death resultant from a gun, it is captured. LITERALLY.  Every time.  You cannot escape a body bag.*

But* MOST times when a gun is successfully used in self-defense it isn't captured.*   This is for two-fold reasons.  First, most "confrontations" with a bad guy end as soon as the defender brandishes his/her weapon, and these encounters are typically not counted, because nothing actually "happened" there.  Nobody pulled a trigger, nobody was shot or wounded or killed, etc....  Secondly, even if a criminal is shot in the committing of a crime, ending the potential killing,  if that criminal isnt killed it isnt recorded as such (SEE: body bag). There is no national database or requirement for the recording of self-defense matters.  The only "requirement" is the recording of deaths from firearms.  Until/unless that is changed, there will always be a DRAMATIC and systemic bias against guns in terms of data capturing nationally.

When adjusting for these situations (mostly #1), the script is flipped.  The reality is in the overwhelming number of successful uses of a gun in self-defense in America, NEITHER party pulls a trigger, and none of these instances are counted.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 13, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> The reality is in the overwhelming number of successful uses of a gun in self-defense in America, NEITHER party pulls a trigger, and none of these instances are counted.



If they aren't counted, how can you make that claim? Lol

But, I got it Charlie Heston.  More guns = more safe society. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Scruffy (May 13, 2018)

Originally Posted by *Scruffy* 


_
*We're talking violent crimes here.* I'm sure you're not going to cap someone for stealing a garden gnome off your lawn._



BenedictGomez said:


> Again you go back to this same "point", which I see very little validity to.  By nature, unless you live in some festering hell-hole or near war zone (parts of Chicago, parts of St. Louis, Newark, etc..), violent crimes are typically black swan events.



The conversation about guns started with *self defense*, you don't 'self' defend against petty crimes. You're circle jerking the conversation around to all crimes and defenders brandishing a gun to ward off a crime. What crime are you imagining here? A home invasion at night while you're sleeping? A dog is a much better, and safer deterrent. 

You are proving my point with your quote "_By nature, unless you live in some festering hell-hole or near war zone (parts of Chicago, parts of St. Louis, Newark, etc..), violent crimes are typically black swan events._"  *Thank you*.
The media FUD machine has people living in fear, was and is my only point here. Some of the fearful believe they need guns to defend themselves. I am a gun owner so I have no natural aversion to guns in general. I'm simply of the mind that most people who get a gun for self defense only are misguided. But that is simply my opinion and how I wish to live my life. 

I'm out of this conversation. This is just another one of those polarized topics where there is no meaningful back and forth; simply each side justifying their stance.


----------



## abc (May 13, 2018)

Scruffy said:


> This is just another one of those polarized topics where there is no meaningful back and forth; simply each side justifying their stance.


Scruffy, I agree with all your basic points. 

Though I’d say this is one of the most polite gun discussion I’ve seen in a long while. It helps most of us own guns at one time or another. 

To the many who never owned a gun and never used one, all gun owners are seen as the same. But when gun violence and accidents happened, it doesn’t discriminate whether the victim is a pro gun or not. 

If we don’t speak out against the fear marketing mechine, who will?

But to circle back to the discussion earlier, whether guns and cars are NEEDS...

If it’s a “need”, one must accept many people own them reluctantly (because they “need” to). The expectation of their behavior will have to be lower, to allow those who “need” it the ability to have them even if they aren’t entirely capable of operating them safely. Because otherwise we will be depriving some people’s “normalcy”.

But if it’s just a want, than society can demand they take the necessary responsibility for doing what they WANT without endangering others.


----------



## Hawk (May 13, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> Amen.
> 
> 
> 
> Again you go back to this same "point", which I see very little validity to.  By nature, unless you live in some festering hell-hole or near war zone (parts of Chicago, parts of St. Louis, Newark, etc..), violent crimes are typically black swan events.



I don't think that crimes like burglary and home invasions are always in nasty urban areas.  They occur everywhere but not as frequent as in the urban areas.  I think the Petit family from CT would not agree with this assessment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders

People I ski with at Sugarbush lived down the street from these people.  This event changes that community forever.  Also there have been 3 break ins in my town in the last 3 months.  We are a city of 40K, 25 miles from Boston and mostly a quiet place.  The point is that these things happen.  I have never owned but now I find myself seeing the need just incase.  I am sure I am not by myself in this thought process.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 13, 2018)

deadheadskier said:


> *If they aren't counted, how can you make that claim?* Lol



Because it's a factually correct statement.  *No such database currently exists*; as such there is no "hard count" of successful usages of weapons for self-defense, which is why researchers must estimate them.



deadheadskier said:


> But, *I got it Charlie Heston.* *More guns = more safe society.*



More guns certainly dont = less safe society given the violent crime rate in America has decreased steadily at precisely the same time as total guns in America has absolutely skyrocketed, contrary to the anti-gun crowd's beliefs.    

And this time, that's a factually accurate statement that *can* be easily proven via FBI data.

This fact is ignored and swept under the rug, but if you graph "total guns in America" against "violent crime" it's like an 'X' shape with guns going up and crime going down.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 13, 2018)

abc said:


> But* to circle back to the discussion earlier, whether guns and cars are NEEDS*...



I feel it's better to have a gun that you dont need, than to need a gun that you dont have.  My 2¢.



Hawk said:


> *I don't think that crimes like burglary and home invasions are always in nasty urban areas.  They occur everywhere *but not as frequent as in the urban areas.



That was my point.  If I wrote somehow wrote something seemingly to the contrary, that was not my intention.


----------



## abc (May 13, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> I feel it's better to have a gun that you dont need, than to need a gun that you dont have.  My 2¢.
> .


I don’t have anything against people WANT to own gun they don’t NEED. 

I don’t need a car but I choose to own one because I like to own one. I don’t need a gun except I enjoy target shooting...

But the expected care they must bare should be proportinal to the potential risk owning poses. So mislabeling a want to be a need is a cop out to bear responsibility for the safe storage and operation. 

The drive skill required to get (and keep) a driver license is very low because it’s considered essential for most communities, i.e. almost a need. For gun, there’s no license. In other words, the standard is nonexistent. You can only be forbidden from owning a gun AFTER you are convicted a crime! Even if you are so blind you can’t tell a man from a tree 3 feet away, you are still fit to own and operate a gun!


----------



## Smellytele (May 13, 2018)

deadheadskier said:


> End of the day, I come back to this fact.  Statistics don't lie.  Households without guns in the US are safer than those that have them.  That's why I don't own one.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app



Well not a gun owner myself and this maybe true but where are these households with guns? If more people own guns in cities that are already know to be dangerous than this maybe misleading.


----------



## JimG. (May 13, 2018)

abc said:


> Jim, I read it as you don’t like others responsible for your movement. That’s why I listed planes and buses. Most people had to use one of those. Or their life would be rather limited.
> 
> I hope you get to use those before you ride your heresy.



April I've done the plane, train, and bus thing sometimes all 3 on one trip. 

I was lucky to have parents who traveled extensively and who brought me with them to share these experiences. I've been all over Europe and have been blessed to ski in the Alps many times. I spent 3 months in France living with a French family and spoke fluent French by the time I left. I've also been skiing at many places out west in CO, UT, WY, etc. I have also fished in the US and Canada extensively.

My personal wanderlust has been satisfied many times over. My impression of mass transit is that it is way less comfortable and enjoyable than it was years ago. And due to our current geopolitical situation it has also become more dangerous to both take mass transit or visit foreign countries. Let's face it, Americans wear a bulls eye on our backs.

My preference for being personally in charge of my transport comes from that recent lack of trust and the fact that I have no burning desire to go anywhere that requires me to use mass transit. So I don't. In addition, I love driving. Like deadheadskier, I prefer a manual transmission (with a foot activated clutch, no paddle shifters for me). My dream is to own a new Z06 Corvette. Not far off from reality at this point.


----------



## Scruffy (May 13, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> More guns certainly dont = less safe society given the violent crime rate in America has decreased steadily at precisely the same time as total guns in America has absolutely skyrocketed, contrary to the anti-gun crowd's beliefs.
> 
> And this time, that's a factually accurate statement that *can* be easily proven via FBI data.
> 
> This fact is ignored and swept under the rug, but if you graph "total guns in America" against "violent crime" it's like an 'X' shape with guns going up and crime going down.



_cum hoc ergo propter hoc   _:grin:


----------



## Edd (May 13, 2018)

JimG. said:


> My personal wanderlust has been satisfied many times over. My impression of mass transit is that it is way less comfortable and enjoyable than it was years ago. And due to our current geopolitical situation it has also become more dangerous to both take mass transit or visit foreign countries. Let's face it, Americans wear a bulls eye on our backs.



We should face that, and the reasons why, I agree.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 13, 2018)

Scruffy said:


> _cum hoc ergo propter hoc   _:grin:



Which doesn't apply in this specific case given causation isn't required for refutation.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 13, 2018)

JimG. said:


> My impression of mass transit is that it is way less comfortable and enjoyable than it was years ago.



Why do you suppose that is, is it mostly due to the safety concerns you mentioned?  More checks, more time required, etc....


----------



## JimG. (May 13, 2018)

Edd said:


> We should face that, and the reasons why, I agree.



If I have to fly or visit another continent I will. It's a shame it causes anxiety.

Not currently getting better either. But I digress.


----------



## JimG. (May 13, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> Why do you suppose that is, is it mostly due to the safety concerns you mentioned?  More checks, more time required, etc....



It's a lot of things. The traffic, airport parking, the airport "experience", the people tube and being packed in with others, lack of personal space, not comfortable, all that. It's a concentrated human behavior and misbehavior display. Then add in the crazy people. And the zealots. It's impossible for me to be comfortable with all that. 

I don't mind security or being checked, not a bit. I sold packing house equipment for years and roamed the catwalks at the kill floors of several meat packers for years. That's what mass transit feels like to me today. Noise, commotion, controlled chaos. I expect to hear mooing.

So I don't expose myself to it.


----------



## VTKilarney (May 13, 2018)

Global Entry and TSA Pre Check make a big difference.  I also fly first class quite often.   

But let’s face it.  Air travel has become more like bus travel.


----------



## x10003q (May 13, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> Because it's a factually correct statement.  *No such database currently exists*; as such there is no "hard count" of successful usages of weapons for self-defense, which is why researchers must estimate them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/despit...-of-households-owning-guns-is-on-the-decline/
There are way less households with guns today in the US vs 40 years ago. It looks like a high of 51% between 1975 and 1980 to less than 35% today. Less household gun ownership contradicts your comparison.

"Survey results also show that hunting as a sport has declined since  1977, when 31 percent of Americans said they or their spouse hunted.  More recently, in 2014, just 15 percent said they hunted." 

"They found that those who own guns own an average of 4.8 firearms.  But they also found that half of all guns — 130 million guns — are owned by 14 percent of gun owners or 7.6 million people.  That's 3 percent of the U.S. population."
This also contradicts your point. 

I would imagine in some cases, the only reason to break into some of these homes is to get at the cache of weapons.


----------



## abc (May 13, 2018)

JimG. said:


> And due to our current geopolitical situation it has also become more dangerous to both take mass transit or visit foreign countries. Let's face it, Americans wear a bulls eye on our backs.


I don't see any evidence of it. 

Compare to 20 years earlier, when Americans were picked out from hijacked planes to be executed, there hasn't been any incidents of Americans being singled out by terrorists. With the increase airport security, it's actually LESS dangerous for Americans traveling in foreign countries. The same danger applies to French or German as to Americans.



> My impression of mass transit is that it is way less comfortable and enjoyable than it was years ago.


I suspect that might be true. In the not so distant past, planes are for well-to-do people. So there's a certain expectation of comfort and style. Now, transatlantic flights are just bus-in-the-sky. 

For the same price as a flight to Utah, one can fly to Paris or Zurich. But for that price reduction, comfort had to suffer. Flights to Japan has been unchanged for the past 30 years! How can that be? By stuffing more people into the plane! 30 years ago, when I flew to Japan, the plane was half empty. I could stretch out across the seats. I was also upgraded to business class in more than one occasions. Today, the same flight cost the same, but the seats are closer together, and cabin is always 90% full. Barely room to stand while waiting for toilets!

You can't have it both ways. It's either go first class, expensive and comfortable. Or cheap but crammed in the cattle class.


----------



## JimG. (May 13, 2018)

abc said:


> But for that price reduction, comfort had to suffer. You can't have it both ways. It's either go first class, expensive and comfortable. Or cheap but crammed in the cattle class.



Or just use my car.


----------



## benski (May 13, 2018)

VTKilarney said:


> Global Entry and TSA Pre Check make a big difference.  I also fly first class quite often.
> 
> But let’s face it.  Air travel has become more like bus travel.



I tried flying out of Newburgh. The security took 5 minuets for my flight to Dublin and no traffic. Parking wasn't bad either. Only thing was it was a transatlantic flight on a jet with no outlets, free food or minimal legroom.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 14, 2018)

JimG. said:


> April I've done the plane, train, and bus thing sometimes all 3 on one trip.
> 
> I was lucky to have parents who traveled extensively and who brought me with them to share these experiences. I've been all over Europe and have been blessed to ski in the Alps many times. I spent 3 months in France living with a French family and spoke fluent French by the time I left. I've also been skiing at many places out west in CO, UT, WY, etc. I have also fished in the US and Canada extensively.
> 
> ...


We share a similar disdain for public transportation.  There are several places I still wish to travel to with my family, but I'm never in a rush to get on a plane.  Hate, hate, hate the flying experience.  Don't mind the train, but I've done enough big city visiting and rarely desire to spend my time in them anymore.  Smaller cities like Portland or Burlington are well enough for me to satisfy my occasional night life itch and such places usually don't have subways.

I'd also love a Corvette, but my preference would be the Grand Sport. A little more practical for every day driving where as the Z06 is more track focused.   At least that's how I interpret the designs. Far off reality for me though.  Maybe after I finish saving for two kids college funds.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## sull1102 (May 14, 2018)

I was going to take the time to find the foolish post by JimG about how Americans are so unsafe and traveling is dangerous now, but I realized something. Because of foolish thinking like this I'm able to go to Europe every 6 months and tour the continent, be skiing the Alps the day after walking through Brandenburg Gate all while admiring the amazing public transportation systems across the continent and spending less than going to in comparison craptastic Denver(love Denver and CO, but compared to the great cities of Europe and the World it gets maybe a C+). You say you spent significant time in Europe, but I can't understand how anyone who has been to Europe for literally any time at all can think "oh I'm an American and have a target on my back." Maybe if you're a loud, obnoxious, ignorant, rude typical American coming in at 300-400 pounds sure you will have a very well deserved target on your back. If you're just a normal person and try to adapt to the culture of wherever you are then guess what, NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOU. People have lives man, they aren't looking around for Americans to hassle on the streets of Zurich or Paris. Do you think other nationalities "think oh boy I better not travel because I'll be a target for harrasment and terrorism by the baddies!"? Jesus, we Americans have such a sense of international self importance. Your government tells you this country is the best, this place is free, you are the best people, and then you say shit we're so good we're targets out there and it's so great here I'll just stay here. Then you never see the world, you never see other cultures, experience the world, never bring new ideas and concepts home with you to change your own culture or government. And don't say oh I did that back in the day I don't need that now. The world is changing every day and you need to see that with your own eyes. But hey thanks again for the cheapest transatlantic flights in decades!

Sent from my LG-H820 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## abc (May 14, 2018)

JimG. said:


> Or just use my car.


Good luck driving to Japan or New Zealand. And for that matter, Chile.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 14, 2018)

sull1102 said:


> Then you never see the world, you never see other cultures, experience the world, never bring new ideas and concepts home with you to change your own culture or government. And don't say oh I did that back in the day I don't need that now. The world is changing every day and you need to see that with your own eyes.



Life interests change.  Also, for some folks this simply is not a priority.  They're content with their culture.  Don't care about changing their government.  A couple of hour drive to a special fishing hole or a favorite ski area provides more enjoyment for someone like Jim than what you choose to do with international travel.   Too each their own.


----------



## sull1102 (May 14, 2018)

Thats fine, you do as you please of course! However, that also means the person has ZERO clue what it is like out in the rest of the world and has no right to speak out the behind about how it is "not safe" That is fear mongering garbage no different from saying I need a gun so I can be the good guy when the bad guy comes with a gun. Also cannot speak on mass transit seeing as there is no experience to speak of. Oh you rode on something 30 years ago, BUT your "impression" is that it is now uncomfortable. How would you know? Have you been on the subways of Europe, ridden their busses, light rail, commuter rail, and or regional rail in this millennium? this decade? These things matter and when people just run their mouths about how dangerous everything is and that this where people are safe while there are more guns on the streets than people and a school gets shot up once a month. But we keep on just trucking along because this is america and we are #1!


----------



## ss20 (May 14, 2018)

The moral of the story is...

Either take your car and gun and get busted in Woodstock for speeding...or you can take the heavily-subsidized train or autonomous car gun-free because guns are dangerous.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 14, 2018)

x10003q said:


> *There are way less households with guns today in the US vs 40 years ago.*



Not really.

What there is, are way fewer people who are going to affirmatively answer the question,_ "do you have guns in your home"_, when blindly called by a stranger representing a polling agency, for reasons that in 2018 should be abundantly obvious to you.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 14, 2018)

benski said:


> I tried flying out of Newburgh. The security took 5 minuets for my flight to Dublin and no traffic. Parking wasn't bad either. Only thing was it was a transatlantic flight on a jet with no outlets, free food or minimal legroom.



I've never flown out of there, but IME small airports are an absolute pleasure.  Flying out of Burlington was easy when I lived in Vermont, and now I eschew Newark & Philadelphia for Allentown even if the ticket costs $25 or $40 more.  Another example is that Sanford is a much better option than flying into Orlando.


----------



## Jully (May 14, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> I've never flown out of there, but IME small airports are an absolute pleasure.  Flying out of Burlington was easy when I lived in Vermont, and now I eschew Newark & Philadelphia for Allentown even if the ticket costs $25 or $40 more.  Another example is that Sanford is a much better option than flying into Orlando.



+1. I like flying into SLC more than Denver for this reason too.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 14, 2018)

sull1102 said:


> *I was going to take the time to find the foolish post by JimG *



A classmate of mine's father is currently being held hostage in a foreign nation.  

Extraordinarily rare?  Yes. Clearly. But to act like this never happens is at least as "foolish" as however foolish you believe Jim's opinion is.

For my money, there are certainly places I wouldn't go.  And THIS time, it's definitely "fear" that's the reason.  Or perhaps more accurately, an abundance of caution.


----------



## cdskier (May 14, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> A classmate of mine's father is currently being held hostage in a foreign nation.
> 
> Extraordinarily rare?  Yes. Clearly. But to act like this never happens is at least as "foolish" as however foolish you believe Jim's opinion is.
> 
> For my money, there are certainly places I wouldn't go.  And THIS time, it's definitely "fear" that's the reason.  Or perhaps more accurately, an abundance of caution.



Maybe sull has never seen the Taken movies. While they may be fiction, things like that really do happen. I wouldn't necessarily say "Americans" themselves are specifically targets, but tourists in general often can be. I agree that pretending these things don't happen is foolish.


----------



## Domeskier (May 14, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> Extraordinarily rare?  Yes. Clearly. But to act like this never happens is at least as "foolish" as however foolish you believe Jim's opinion is.



Ignoring miniscule risks is not foolish.  Spending your life in a concrete bunker because there is a non-zero chance of being hit by an asteroid or space debris is.  Rational people weigh risks accurately and take appropriate precautions.  Irrational people magnify risks like being taken hostage on a trip to London and ignore much more mundane but significantly higher risks like driving 80 mph to the airport to shave a few minutes off an eight hour trip.


----------



## x10003q (May 14, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> Not really.
> 
> What there is, are way fewer people who are going to affirmatively answer the question,_ "do you have guns in your home"_, when blindly called by a stranger representing a polling agency, for reasons that in 2018 should be abundantly obvious to you.



Because nobody thought of that before? It is accounted for in the survey.
http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS Reports/GSS_Trends in Gun Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf


----------



## Jcb890 (May 14, 2018)

sull1102 said:


> I was going to take the time to find the foolish post by JimG about how Americans are so unsafe and traveling is dangerous now, but I realized something. Because of foolish thinking like this I'm able to go to Europe every 6 months and tour the continent, be skiing the Alps the day after walking through Brandenburg Gate all while admiring the amazing public transportation systems across the continent and spending less than going to in comparison craptastic Denver(love Denver and CO, but compared to the great cities of Europe and the World it gets maybe a C+). You say you spent significant time in Europe, but I can't understand how anyone who has been to Europe for literally any time at all can think "oh I'm an American and have a target on my back." Maybe if you're a loud, obnoxious, ignorant, rude typical American coming in at 300-400 pounds sure you will have a very well deserved target on your back. If you're just a normal person and try to adapt to the culture of wherever you are then guess what, NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOU. People have lives man, they aren't looking around for Americans to hassle on the streets of Zurich or Paris. Do you think other nationalities "think oh boy I better not travel because I'll be a target for harrasment and terrorism by the baddies!"? Jesus, we Americans have such a sense of international self importance. Your government tells you this country is the best, this place is free, you are the best people, and then you say shit we're so good we're targets out there and it's so great here I'll just stay here. Then you never see the world, you never see other cultures, experience the world, never bring new ideas and concepts home with you to change your own culture or government. And don't say oh I did that back in the day I don't need that now. The world is changing every day and you need to see that with your own eyes. But hey thanks again for the cheapest transatlantic flights in decades!
> 
> Sent from my LG-H820 using AlpineZone mobile app


Apparently you have never been to Brazil then.  We were treated poorly at resorts (not by locals in the local towns) because we were white Americans.  Travel and life in general is very unsafe there, especially for white Americans because the locals think you have money.  Which, compared to them, anyone visiting does.

We went to Brazil for a little over a week and wanted to spend part of it in Rio to visit and sight-see.  We were out-voted and told not to go by my sister-in-law's family because it was not safe enough.  Even just being out in a city at night was a bit scary with her family rushing us out of public and reminding us not to take cell phones or cameras out of your pocket.

In the end, we did not have any issues while we were there.  However, my parents arrived 2 days prior to the rest of us and my mother was held up at knife-point on the beach boardwalk by a local teen trying to steal her iPhone.  She apparently said "No!" and ran back to the house we were renting at the time.

Look at the Olympics - lots of bad stuff going on during that time and that's a time when there literally is never going to be more of a spotlight on the area/city/state.  Athletes being kidnapped, murders, etc.

So, I can certainly understand the whole notion of having a target due to being American... depending on where you're traveling.  In the Middle East or parts of South America, sure.  Most of Europe?  Like you said, nobody cares and you don't look that different from others.



BenedictGomez said:


> A classmate of mine's father is currently being held hostage in a foreign nation.
> 
> Extraordinarily rare?  Yes. Clearly. But to act like this never happens is at least as "foolish" as however foolish you believe Jim's opinion is.
> 
> For my money, there are certainly places I wouldn't go.  And THIS time, it's definitely "fear" that's the reason.  Or perhaps more accurately, an abundance of caution.


Damn, that's crazy!  That is very rare.  Do you have any details like where or why?


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 14, 2018)

x10003q said:


> Because nobody thought of that before? *It is accounted for in the survey.*



Good luck with that!    And the way they did it is by literally citing their own previous work.  

In Excel, that would be called a circular reference & result in an error.



> *Do you happen to have in your home any guns or revolvers?*



Yeah, I'm sure this question being asked wouldn't generate a bunch of false "no" responses in the survey.  Nope; none at all.


----------



## benski (May 14, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> Good luck with that!    And the way they did it is by literally citing their own previous work.
> 
> In Excel, that would be called a circular reference & result in an error.
> 
> ...



I am sure. Who is ashamed to be a gun owner? I am pretty confident this is your only foray outside the right wing echo chamber, but only a small group of people have a problem with normal people who own guns, and at most think they are a little trashy and red-necky, that is criminals and mentally ill aside.


----------



## Not Sure (May 14, 2018)

Domeskier said:


> Ignoring miniscule risks is not foolish.  Spending your life in a concrete bunker because there is a non-zero chance of being hit by an asteroid or space debris is.



As mentioned by DHS he says the risk of an accident with a firearm is the reason he doesn't own one . Building a bunker can also be hazardous to your health. In a bizarre accident a former co worker of mine was overcome by paint fumes and died in the bunker which he hoped would save his life .  I guess he didn't read the directions? Twilight Zone episode worthy .


----------



## Edd (May 14, 2018)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> In a bizarre accident a former co worker of mine was overcome by paint fumes and died in the bunker which he hoped would save his life .  I guess he didn't read the directions? Twilight Zone episode worthy .



Paranoia will destroy ya. Cheap shot, I know, but for f***s sake it’s borderline comical.


----------



## x10003q (May 14, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> Good luck with that!    And the way they did it is by literally citing their own previous work.
> 
> In Excel, that would be called a circular reference & result in an error.
> 
> ...



'Refusing to answer' was offered as a question on the survey. This would lower the false responses. There are formulas for this and percent errors. The trend is lower gun ownership no matter whether you understand the methodology or not, or whether you want to believe or not. That is why I also included the decline in hunting. There are other surveys that support this trend.

Less households have guns vs previous years and an even smaller number of gun owning households are responsible for a large portion of the guns purchased today.


----------



## Domeskier (May 14, 2018)

benski said:


> I am sure. Who is ashamed to be a gun owner?



Kind of like expecting a vegan to deny being a vegan.  If there're two groups of people who care more about broadcasting their life choices to other people, I cannot imagine who they are.


----------



## cdskier (May 14, 2018)

benski said:


> I am sure. Who is ashamed to be a gun owner?



Not a matter of being ashamed...more a matter of wanting their choice kept private and not trusting where that information will go. I know people who own guns who without a doubt would only admit that to people they absolutely trust.



Domeskier said:


> Kind of like expecting a vegan to deny being a vegan.  If there're two groups of people who care more about broadcasting their life choices to other people, I cannot imagine who they are.



I disagree. Sure there are some gun-owners that broadcast it. However there are also others that keep their choice to have a gun very private.

I don't have a gun and have no interest in having one, but I also think it is pretty naive to believe that even all legal gun-owners would be honest about that in a survey in today's anti-gun climate. A "refusing to answer" choice is also not an answer I could see many people that want their choice private to use. I could see an outright lie of "no" being used instead. Surveys and polls are becoming incredibly unreliable on certain topics. I myself have lied on surveys and polls in the past.


----------



## Domeskier (May 14, 2018)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> As mentioned by DHS he says the risk of an accident with a firearm is the reason he doesn't own one . Building a bunker can also be hazardous to your health. In a bizarre accident a former co worker of mine was overcome by paint fumes and died in the bunker which he hoped would save his life .  I guess he didn't read the directions? Twilight Zone episode worthy .



Yeah, I think the risk of a firearm accident is definitely significant enough to outweigh the benefits of gun ownership in many cases, particularly when the likelihood that the average American will ever need to use a gun in defense of self or family is so low.  I am also now going to have to reevaluate the benefits of personal fallout shelters, too...


----------



## Domeskier (May 14, 2018)

cdskier said:


> I disagree. Sure there are some gun-owners that broadcast it. However there are also others that keep their choice to have a gun very private.



The stereotypes never fit everyone in the group.  I'm sure there are even one or two people who don't own televisions and never mention it to anyone!


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 14, 2018)

x10003q said:


> *'Refusing to answer' was offered* as a question on the survey. This would lower the false responses.



Did you look at the data of the very study you posted?    The "Refusing to Answer" and "Dont Know" (yeah, right) responses were incredibly low, which seems bizarre.  

 There were a number of things about that study you posted I thought highly unusual (including the only citations being one's own work), as well as commonly known to be overtly false (e.g. claiming female gun ownership has not increased over the last 25 years) so I went to pull their methodology, and I couldn't.   Quite frankly, any polling "study" that doesn't release its' methodology raises a huge red flag. 



Domeskier said:


> Kind of like expecting a vegan to deny being a vegan.  If there're two groups of people who care more about broadcasting their life choices to other people, I cannot imagine who they are.



You're WAY off base on this one, almost 100% the opposite.  Most gun owners DO NOT broadcast or want ANYONE to know that they own guns.   Actually, I dont know anyone who constantly "broadcasts" how they own guns, and I'm a hunter who also shoots clays and knows many people from shooting at various ranges - so I know a lot of gun owners, and dont know anyone who's constantly talking about them. That would be pretty weird actually.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 14, 2018)

cdskier said:


> *a matter of wanting their choice kept private and not trusting where that information will go. I know people who own guns who without a doubt would only admit that to people they absolutely trust......I also think it is pretty naive to believe that even all legal gun-owners would be honest about that in a survey in today's anti-gun climate.*



Exactly.  

 Which is why I would expect a study like that to get tons of "refused to answer" responses as well as "fake no" responses (though they claim they dont).  And that effect will surely get much worse in a climate where some left-wing politicians are now seeking to actively ban commonly owned guns.

It also doesnt pass the common sense test to claim that gun ownership is at record lows during precisely the same time (literally) of record high gun sales, and then attempting to bat away that obvious massive contradiction by lamely claiming that everyone who's buying a gun must actually be buying tons of guns! lol


----------



## Smellytele (May 14, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> You're WAY off base on this one, almost 100% the opposite.  Most gun owners DO NOT broadcast or want ANYONE to know that they own guns.   Actually, I dont know anyone who constantly "broadcasts" how they own guns, and I'm a hunter who also shoots clays and knows many people from shooting at various ranges - so I know a lot of gun owners, and dont know anyone who's constantly talking about them. That would be pretty weird actually.



I work with 2 guys who constantly are talking about their guns. I also have a friend who owns at least one gun but never talks about it.


----------



## Smellytele (May 14, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> It also doesnt pass the common sense test to claim that gun ownership is at record lows during precisely the same time (literally) of record high gun sales, and then attempting to bat away that obvious massive contradiction by lamely claiming that everyone who's buying a gun must actually be buying tons of guns! lol


this maybe actually true. The 2 guys I work with are constantly buying new guns but I know of none of my non gun owning friends talking about buying one.


----------



## Not Sure (May 14, 2018)

Edd said:


> Paranoia will destroy ya. Cheap shot, I know, but for f***s sake it’s borderline comical.



Well the rest of the story is quite comical ,Al's been gone a while so a bit of humor no one will be any worse off.

Al was a reclusive ex Mennonite who lived a hermits life outside his full time job. He farmed his 3 acres and went to auctions and flipped heavy equipment. 

After not showing up to work for a couple days with no answer from his phone. His supervisor sent out "Scott" to check up on him . Scott was in very poor health and had blood pressure issues and would frequently get eye hemorrhages. He arrived and found his lights on and "No Al" ? Small out building glanced in Nothing?

With a few more days "Scott" went back out and looked around ,Same lights on ? back to the out building ,this time he noticed light from a 2' hole in the corner . He looked down and there was Al , seated on the floor leaning against the wall. 
He calls 911 in the meantime suffers eye hemorrhage again. EMT's show up and "Scott " has difficulty describing why they are there . He freaks them out with his no longer white's of his eyes that are red. The EMT's have a tough time getting Al out as he rarely  bathed and was quite stiff. 

Apparently Al had 40K in cash in mattress and according to his records that were found was buying an ounce of gold a month for some time  . Scott  lived nearby and was driving home , he looked over to see 3 Mennonites with a metal detector stop on a spot and digging frantically . Scott's curiosity got the best of him and he walked over just in time to see the jackpot . A septic tank lid . After watching a few more pieces of junk metal being un earthed he walked away laughing.
A week later the whole 3 acres was dug up , seems Al had anticipated someone finding his loot . He planted literally hundreds of decoy pieces. 

Flash forward a few years , I was in the ER at the local hospital and ran into a friend and was having a good laugh about the relatives efforts .I had my back to the waiting room but heard a loud laugh being stifled quickly . I turned around to see a Mennonite woman holding in a laugh looking to her right . I looked to her left and there was the spitting Image of Al (with a beard" ) scowling .


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 14, 2018)

Smellytele said:


> this maybe actually true. The 2 guys I work with are constantly buying new guns



There are definitely people who collect guns of one type or another like people collect anything else.  I collect WWII rifles, so I "inflate" the number (though those obviously arent in the lists counting "new" guns), but a vast majority of Americans are not "collectors", and in a climate of record high gun sales, practically everyone would have to be buying numerous guns to simultaneously have record low gun ownership.


----------



## JimG. (May 14, 2018)

abc said:


> Good luck driving to Japan or New Zealand. And for that matter, Chile.



Been to Chile and Argentina.


----------



## JimG. (May 14, 2018)

sull1102 said:


> I was going to take the time to find the foolish post by JimG about how Americans are so unsafe and traveling is dangerous now, but I realized something. Because of foolish thinking like this I'm able to go to Europe every 6 months and tour the continent, be skiing the Alps the day after walking through Brandenburg Gate all while admiring the amazing public transportation systems across the continent and spending less than going to in comparison craptastic Denver(love Denver and CO, but compared to the great cities of Europe and the World it gets maybe a C+). You say you spent significant time in Europe, but I can't understand how anyone who has been to Europe for literally any time at all can think "oh I'm an American and have a target on my back." Maybe if you're a loud, obnoxious, ignorant, rude typical American coming in at 300-400 pounds sure you will have a very well deserved target on your back. If you're just a normal person and try to adapt to the culture of wherever you are then guess what, NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOU. People have lives man, they aren't looking around for Americans to hassle on the streets of Zurich or Paris. Do you think other nationalities "think oh boy I better not travel because I'll be a target for harrasment and terrorism by the baddies!"? Jesus, we Americans have such a sense of international self importance. Your government tells you this country is the best, this place is free, you are the best people, and then you say shit we're so good we're targets out there and it's so great here I'll just stay here. Then you never see the world, you never see other cultures, experience the world, never bring new ideas and concepts home with you to change your own culture or government. And don't say oh I did that back in the day I don't need that now. The world is changing every day and you need to see that with your own eyes. But hey thanks again for the cheapest transatlantic flights in decades!
> 
> Sent from my LG-H820 using AlpineZone mobile app



Wow dude, too dramatic.

I think you read a little too much into my post.


----------



## abc (May 15, 2018)

JimG. said:


> Been to Chile and Argentina.


Did you drive there?


----------



## spiderpig (May 15, 2018)

Jcb890 said:


> Damn, that's crazy!  That is very rare.  Do you have any details like where or why?



I guess that's a no. Weird!


----------



## JimG. (May 15, 2018)

abc said:


> Did you drive there?



That would be quite a drive!

Long trips. Good skiing and great experiences but not motivated now to return. Going on 25 years ago.


----------



## sull1102 (May 15, 2018)

JimG. said:


> Going on 25 years ago.



Gotta get back out there man, much has changed!


Sent from my Pixel using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## JimG. (May 16, 2018)

deadheadskier said:


> I'd also love a Corvette, but my preference would be the Grand Sport. A little more practical for every day driving where as the Z06 is more track focused.   At least that's how I interpret the designs. Far off reality for me though.  Maybe after I finish saving for two kids college funds.



Somehow missed this part.

Yeah I keep going back and forth between the Grand Sport and Z06. You're right about the everyday drivability of the GS but I also want to get involved in area track days. Maybe take some performance driving lessons at Lime Rock or Watkins Glen. Then I hear my neighbor up the street drive by in his Z06 (black coupe with black interior and black wheels) and that wonderful exhaust note kind of makes it seem like a no brainer.

Still a few years away.


----------



## moresnow (May 16, 2018)

JimG. said:


> Somehow missed this part.
> 
> Yeah I keep going back and forth between the Grand Sport and Z06. You're right about the everyday drivability of the GS but I also want to get involved in area track days. Maybe take some performance driving lessons at Lime Rock or Watkins Glen. Then I hear my neighbor up the street drive by in his Z06 (black coupe with black interior and black wheels) and that wonderful exhaust note kind of makes it seem like a no brainer.
> 
> Still a few years away.


Maybe you will be able to get the mythical mid-engine Corvette by then.

Sent from my Pixel XL using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Jcb890 (May 17, 2018)

If you're going to buy a mid-life-crisis-mobile, why in the hell go out and buy a watered-down version of the sports car you want?  Either actually go for it, or don't waste your money.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 17, 2018)

Jcb890 said:


> If you're going to buy a mid-life-crisis-mobile, why in the hell go out and buy a watered-down version of the sports car you want?  Either actually go for it, or don't waste your money.


In regards to the difference between the two Corvettes, the Grand Sport I wouldn't necessarily call a watered down vehicle. The Stingray, would be a big drop off. The GS is still pretty much the best performing sports car on the market for under $100G. The Z06 is really designed for track enthusiasts.   It has ground affects that make damage a risk on anything, but board flat roads. It also has had more reliability issues with it's crazy engine.  But, I'm sure it's a bit more fun on the track.  So, I could see why Jim would be interested.  



Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Jcb890 (May 17, 2018)

deadheadskier said:


> In regards to the difference between the two Corvettes, the Grand Sport I wouldn't necessarily call a watered down vehicle. The Stingray, would be a big drop off. The GS is still pretty much the best performing sports car on the market for under $100G. The Z06 is really designed for track enthusiasts.   It has ground affects that make damage a risk on anything, but board flat roads. It also has had more reliability issues with it's crazy engine.  But, I'm sure it's a bit more fun on the track.  So, I could see why Jim would be interested.
> 
> Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


My comment was more a generality.  If you're going to go buy a mid-life-crisis toy of any kind, why bother half-assing it?

Who worries about reliability issues when buying a new car?  If you buy it new, you have a warranty.  Issues are fixed for free.  If you're worried about reliability, don't keep the car once the warranty is up.  Are you going to use any type of Corvette for a daily driver?  Most likely not.  So, might as well get what you want for the fun days.  That's where my other suggestion comes in - go with something used and already modified that will be as fun or more fun and cost less if cost is what you're worried about.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 17, 2018)

Jcb890 said:


> If you're going to buy a mid-life-crisis-mobile, why in the hell go out and buy a watered-down version of the sports car you want?  Either actually go for it, or don't waste your money.



Hasn't that always been the knock on the Corvette; that for the same sum of money you can get a better sports car?


----------



## deadheadskier (May 17, 2018)

Jcb890 said:


> My comment was more a generality.  If you're going to go buy a mid-life-crisis toy of any kind, why bother half-assing it?
> 
> Who worries about reliability issues when buying a new car?  If you buy it new, you have a warranty.  Issues are fixed for free.  If you're worried about reliability, don't keep the car once the warranty is up.  Are you going to use any type of Corvette for a daily driver?  Most likely not.  So, might as well get what you want for the fun days.  That's where my other suggestion comes in - go with something used and already modified that will be as fun or more fun and cost less if cost is what you're worried about.


Well, you are talking 75-80k for a well equipped Grand Sport.  You are looking North of $100k for the Z.  That's a big leap.

This article describes why the GS is perhaps the better pick if you mainly plan on cruising around normal roads 

https://jalopnik.com/2017-corvette-grand-sport-don-t-buy-any-other-corvette-1784235809

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## The Sneak (May 17, 2018)

Responding to Benecdict:

Actually nowadays the opposite is true. The last 2 generations of Corvette punch well above their weight and are tremendous value for the dollar. They don't appeal to or make sense for me, but I can certainly appreciate them.

I'd rather have a 10 year Porsche Cayman or 30-40 year old 911, performance be damned.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 17, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> Hasn't that always been the knock on the Corvette; that for the same sum of money you can get a better sports car?


For the $$$, the current Corvette is about the highest performing sports car you can buy.  You have to get into high end Porches and other European exotics costing far more $$$$ to get the kind of handling, acceleration and braking you get in a Corvette these days.  

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Jcb890 (May 17, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> Hasn't that always been the knock on the Corvette; that for the same sum of money you can get a better sports car?


No, that's always been one of its calling cards really.  Its always been competing with exotics in terms of performance at a much lesser price tag.  Of course, with that, you lost a lot of the comforts and build quality compared to the more expensive alternates.



deadheadskier said:


> For the $$$, the current Corvette is about the highest performing sports car you can buy.  You have to get into high end Porches and other European exotics costing far more $$$$ to get the kind of handling, acceleration and braking you get in a Corvette these days.
> 
> Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


^^ This.  Though it will never be looked on the same due to the build quality, etc. which allow a car like the Corvette to perform the way it does and not cost 2-3x.  Personally, I have nothing against Corvettes in general.



deadheadskier said:


> Well, you are talking 75-80k for a well equipped Grand Sport.  You are looking North of $100k for the Z.  That's a big leap.
> 
> This article describes why the GS is perhaps the better pick if you mainly plan on cruising around normal roads
> 
> ...


If you're buying a part-time mid-life-crisis-mobile and money is a concern, go used.  You could get something much more impressive, faster, etc. than a new Corvette Grand Sport for $75-80k.  If you're worried about reliability, buy something cheaper and reliable and a less reliable toy.  I'd bet you can do both for under $80k still.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 17, 2018)

The Sneak said:


> *Actually nowadays the opposite is true. The last 2 generations of Corvette punch well above their weight and are tremendous value for the dollar.* They don't appeal to or make sense for me, but I can certainly appreciate them.
> 
> I'd rather have a 10 year Porsche Cayman or 30-40 year old 911, performance be damned.





deadheadskier said:


> *For the $$$, the current Corvette is about the highest performing sports car you can buy. * You have to get into high end Porches and other European exotics costing far more $$$$ to get the kind of handling, acceleration and braking you get in a Corvette these days.



Interesting; I'm glad to hear that, go USA.


----------



## Jcb890 (May 17, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> Interesting; I'm glad to hear that, go USA.


Performance-wise, they stand up.

But don't worry, the rest of the world still snubs their nose at the Corvette for being made of sub-par materials and having sub-par build quality compared to its European counterparts.


----------



## JimG. (May 17, 2018)

Not considering European sports cars, I think most are overpriced and maintaining them is even more expensive. 

I'm looking for something made in the USA and I've always had a thing for Corvettes going way back to being a kid. My neighbor's Z06 is a beast and it looks like one too. The murdered out all black look isn't my style but it does enhance the beastly look. 

I have considered buying an older Vette but I really like the newest styling. The Z06 does have a ton of ground effects bodywork that would be problematic for daily driving. That exhaust note (roar) is hard to resist though. Perhaps the best solution is to get the GS and bring it to a tuner.

Decisions decisions!


----------



## x10003q (May 17, 2018)

JimG. said:


> Not considering European sports cars, I think most are overpriced and maintaining them is even more expensive.
> 
> I'm looking for something made in the USA and I've always had a thing for Corvettes going way back to being a kid. My neighbor's Z06 is a beast and it looks like one too. The murdered out all black look isn't my style but it does enhance the beastly look.
> 
> ...



If you want a fun and affordable car, get the new Camaro V6 with the 1LE Track Package - out the door for around $32k 
http://www.chevrolet.com/camaro-sports-car/1le-packages


----------



## chuckstah (May 18, 2018)

Going back to the original topic for a moment, (sorry to hijack the thread drift). On my way to Killington this morning while passing through the 25 MPH school zone with no school in Bridgewater, as I slowed to 25 I was passed by a car with NH plates flying, at maybe 50.  Now, I never wish bad karma on anyone, but I was expecting a good laugh a 100 or so yards up the road where the Sherriff basically lives.  Alas, the unsuspecting tourist lucked out and likely caught a shift change as it was about 8 am, and passed safely.  On my way home, the Sherriff was back in his usual spot, enforcing the the no school school zone 25.  That drives sucks, and is at least part of the reason that I no longer ski K, until it is the only option.  Carry on with the thread hijack.


----------



## Zand (May 18, 2018)

Saw a county cop doing radar at the old gas station in Plymouth on the up...nothing on the way home. First time I've seen a cop in Plymouth this year. Didn't see another cop the whole day...91 included. The construction delay in Chester sucked though.


----------



## sull1102 (May 19, 2018)

Just to confirm for everyone, Mount Tabor's finest was out in full force aka all of one with his Charger. Was there in the way up to K and then again heading home in the afternoon in the exact same spot so much so I kind of wondered if he had moved at all in the 7-8 hours that had passed. 

All this talk of Corvettes being the best performance for the money, LoL... No. Unbelievable performance for the many absolutely, right up there, but just a small step below the real boys. I mean even the new Camaro ZL1 comes real close on track but just cannot handle as tight. Hell a Hellcat or Demon is more interesting overall, just be very careful cause it wants to kill you. The real competitors would be a BMW M4 and M2 competition packs. They handle significantly better than anything GM can manage and the interior/tech is all far superior as well. Of course BMW comes with it's own stereotypes, but hey the Vettes sure do cover up for something small as well! 

Sent from my LG-H820 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## JimG. (May 19, 2018)

sull1102 said:


> All this talk of Corvettes being the best performance for the money, LoL... No. Unbelievable performance for the many absolutely, right up there, but just a small step below the real boys. I mean even the new Camaro ZL1 comes real close on track but just cannot handle as tight. Hell a Hellcat or Demon is more interesting overall, just be very careful cause it wants to kill you. The real competitors would be a BMW M4 and M2 competition packs. They handle significantly better than anything GM can manage and the interior/tech is all far superior as well. Of course BMW comes with it's own stereotypes, but hey the Vettes sure do cover up for something small as well!



I'd have to do research and test drive to determine which car has the best performance for the money. But that is not my main concern.

Again, I'm not a fan of European cars in general. Many seem to think that euro cars have better build quality but I think they are way overpriced and outrageously expensive to maintain. Friends of mine who own euro cars often complain about service issues, especially after 100,000 miles. BMW may make a sports car that has advantages over a Corvette but quite frankly BMW styling reminds me of a shoebox and that's not what I'm looking for. I would say the same for Mopars. I've owned one Chrysler product in my life and it was the biggest sh*tbox ever. Got rid of it after 3 years and many service issues. None of those models you mentioned come anywhere close to the styling of the Corvette.

If I were to look overseas for a sports car I would look to Japan over anything from Europe.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 19, 2018)

sull1102 said:


> Just to confirm for everyone, Mount Tabor's finest was out in full force aka all of one with his Charger. Was there in the way up to K and then again heading home in the afternoon in the exact same spot so much so I kind of wondered if he had moved at all in the 7-8 hours that had passed.
> 
> All this talk of Corvettes being the best performance for the money, LoL... No. Unbelievable performance for the many absolutely, right up there, but just a small step below the real boys. I mean even the new Camaro ZL1 comes real close on track but just cannot handle as tight. Hell a Hellcat or Demon is more interesting overall, just be very careful cause it wants to kill you. The real competitors would be a BMW M4 and M2 competition packs. They handle significantly better than anything GM can manage and the interior/tech is all far superior as well. Of course BMW comes with it's own stereotypes, but hey the Vettes sure do cover up for something small as well!
> 
> Sent from my LG-H820 using AlpineZone mobile app


The Vette smokes the M series in just about all driving performance categories.  

This article breaks it down well. 

https://www.asburyauto.com/compare/2018-chevrolet-corvette-vs-2017-bmw-m4/141890

Sure, the European interiors are nice, but if driving performance is what you are after, the Vette is the better choice.  And I agree with Jim on exterior styling being better as well.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## VTKilarney (Jun 26, 2018)

The NH Department of Public Safety airplane is getting a lot of use today.


----------



## Edd (Jun 26, 2018)

Not familiar with that. What app follows that plane?


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## AdironRider (Jun 26, 2018)

deadheadskier said:


> The Vette smokes the M series in just about all driving performance categories.
> 
> This article breaks it down well.
> 
> ...



The new vettes are pretty slick these days. I think the comparison to the M cars from BMW though aren't the best. M cars are usually more street oriented (and very good at it) VS a pure performance per dollar exclamation point like the Vette. You can't realistically daily a Vette, you can pretty much any of the BMW M cars. 

I think the sweet spot on the Vettes is the Grand Sport mid range. Plenty of power, all the suspension goodies of the Z06. 

The ZO6's have always been supercar killers, but you need the chops to take advantage of it. That aspect of the Vette hasn't changed (at the ZO6 level). Put the average driver in a M4, then put them in the Vette Z06, and I'd wager they will be faster around a track in the BMW. Sure the Vette is quicker when driven by a pro, the average dude, not so much.

Shifting gears (see what I did there), I think one of the reason's Top Gear was so successful is they didn't just go by numbers on a page. The Vette on paper is a world beater, but in practice is much more difficult to access that performance. The Top Gear guys seemed to ignore the statistics and go off driving feel and impression, which is ultimately what matters.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 26, 2018)

Next thing you know Waze will be integrating aircraft. lol


----------



## VTKilarney (Jun 26, 2018)

Edd said:


> Not familiar with that. What app follows that plane?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


Flightradar24


----------



## VTKilarney (Jun 26, 2018)

That plane is used a lot:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N366NH


----------



## 2Planker (Jun 27, 2018)

Own both a manual Z06 and an M4.  Vette is faster in a straight line BUT that is where it ends.   BMW M4 is a far better car to drive. WAY MORE FUN !!!  Shifts are super smooth and it handles like it's on rails.  Wifey drives the Vette now....





AdironRider said:


> The new vettes are pretty slick these days. I think the comparison to the M cars from BMW though aren't the best. M cars are usually more street oriented (and very good at it) VS a pure performance per dollar exclamation point like the Vette. You can't realistically daily a Vette, you can pretty much any of the BMW M cars.
> 
> I think the sweet spot on the Vettes is the Grand Sport mid range. Plenty of power, all the suspension goodies of the Z06.
> 
> ...


----------

