8123Re: [carfree_cities] Re: McLanes vs. Train Lanes
- Feb 27, 2005RESPONSES below, starting in CAPS....
> Od: "emccaughrin" <emccaughrin@...>THIS struck me as strange too, BUT, Joel, could you explain please?
> Komu: email@example.com
> Datum: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 00:59:55 -0000
> Předmět: [carfree_cities] Re: McLanes vs. Train Lanes
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "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.
> >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??
> > 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.
> There are quite a lot of other problems too. The idea of creatingYES, that seems to be the case.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>