Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

8123Re: [carfree_cities] Re: McLanes vs. Train Lanes

Expand Messages
  • CEB
    Feb 27, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      RESPONSES below, starting in CAPS....
      ______________________________________________________________
      > Od: "emccaughrin" <emccaughrin@...>
      > Komu: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
      > Datum: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 00:59:55 -0000
      > Předmět: [carfree_cities] Re: McLanes vs. Train Lanes
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "CEB" <cyklopraha@c...> wrote:
      > >
      > > Well, I read the IR piece and was crossing my fingers that my
      > > limitations on technical knowledge didnt make me embarrased after
      > > comparing my blurb on Train Lanes to Joel's.
      > > Aside from things I simply didnt know, I think my only mistake
      > > was the suggestion of the necessit of tilting trains. The fact
      > > that the tracks would already be tilted would make that
      > > unnecessary it seems (unless tilted tracks are much more expensive
      > > than non-tilted ones).
      >
      > Well, don't feel too bad. I can't imagine anything you might have
      > written could have been more ridiculous than Joel's suggestion that
      > non-standard, 9-foot(!) track guage be used to deal with a problem
      > solved eons ago by the Japanese, Germans, etc.

      THIS struck me as strange too, BUT, Joel, could you explain please?
      > >
      > > Finally finally, I am not sure if the IR system has been seriously
      > > considered as it should be by the rail industry
      >
      > If by "rail industry" you mean the freight operators, they are too
      > busy consolidating and reducing track miles. Even if they were to
      > contemplate building a new ROW, your typical freeway overpass has
      > nowhere near the loading guage required for a freight, or for that
      > matter passenger rail.
      >
      > Consider the new East Span of the Bay Bridge -- an interesting
      > example as the lower deck of the Bay Bridge once carried intercity
      > trains. The replacement span, being built to standard Caltrans
      > specs, could not possibly support a TGV or ICE train, let alone an
      > Acela. At a bare minimum, running trains (i.e. anything other than a
      > streetcar) might require the replacement of a lot of overpasses.

      IN regards to weight, what about a lightweight regional type (short) DMU or EMU? Is that really heavier than a highway full of frozen traffic full of trucks full of frozen chickens and cars full of perhaps frozen minds, all of this stuck on an overpass, in freezing weather??


      > There are quite a lot of other problems too. The idea of creating
      > train stops at interchanges is problematic because (in the current
      > regulatory environment), train platforms can only be built on level
      > ground, which generally is not the case for an over/under-pass. As
      > well, I found the so-called freeway standards (12' lanes, exits on
      > the right side, etc) to be unrealistic. In most built-up areas,
      > these standards are thrown out the window - there are fewer
      > shoulders, narrower lanes, complicated interchanges, etc. And it is
      > in the built-up areas where ROW is most valuable.

      YES, that seems to be the case.

      > Of course, building transit lines in freeway medians is nothing new.
      > Just within the last 10-20 years, we've had 2 BART extensions, the
      > Sacramento LRT running along I80, San Jose LRT in the Hwy85 median,
      > Los Angeles, etc.
      >
      > In the case of BART, the I580 freeway was designed from the
      > beginning to accomodate rail in the median. Nonetheless, the 13 mile
      > BART extension to Dublin/Pleasanton still managed to cost over $0.5
      > billion -- and that's after the West Dublin station had to be
      > dropped due to 100% cost overruns.
      >
      >
      >
      > I
      >
      >
      > To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
      > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
      > Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Show all 24 messages in this topic