- ... Probably doesn t have to be as much as 100 miles. Boston-Providence is probably just far enough for trains to travel at speeds as high as 200 MPH. ...Message 1 of 13 , Nov 14, 2001View SourceMark Rauterkus said:
>High speed rail works in effective models (hunch) when the stops are moreProbably doesn't have to be as much as 100 miles. Boston-Providence is
>than 100-miles apart. The more distance between A-and-B the better.
probably just far enough for trains to travel at speeds as high as 200 MPH.
>The high-speed rail is going to cost $12, $15 per trip. We don't needThat's been one of the unexpected (and by may, undesired) side-effects
>commuters taking high-speed rail.
of the Paris-Lyon TGV--people DO commute between two cities that
are 2 hours apart in time and hundreds of kilometers in distance.
>Agree. So, to evolve and upgrade the Acela makes sense then, right?Now that they've stuck billions into the New Haven-Boston electrification,
I certainly hope so!
>We don't need MAGLEV speed along the east coast. We need that speed (if wePossibly. Air travel may still make more sense from a whole host
>need it at all) into the heartland.
of perspectives, especially if it can be cleaned up and made much
more efficient (hydrogen fuel!).
-- ### --
J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
- ... Mostly state & local level, I believe. Federal regulations affect lending institutions, so indirectly they have an effect. NU communities are gettingMessage 2 of 13 , Nov 14, 2001View Source
>Here's a good question: let's say that enought interest was raisedMostly state & local level, I believe. Federal regulations affect
>to build a new carfree city. Are there any state or national laws
>that prohibit it?
lending institutions, so indirectly they have an effect.
NU communities are getting built, and they almost always require
changes in local zoning. This appears to be achievable in many cases.
>I know that carfree development in many existingNot sure what that would entail. It's a serious question that
>cities can be considered illegal due to laws that separate zoning,
>require parking, and require "fire and disabled access".
bears looking into.
>Is there anyone out there--possibly a lawyer specializing inThe irony of this all is that the carfree city ought to be, by far,
>disability law--who would be able to explain the legal implications
>of developing an area that doesn't have a disabled parking space in
>sight (except for the parking garages in the utility areas, of
>course)? The reference design calls for all buildings within a
>quarter mile of a metro stop--half mile if a sparser layout is
>chosen. The majority of disabled parking spaces I see are within 100
>feet of a building--and there are some outside every building.
>Apparently, there's a law keeping 'em real close in, since I have
>seen nice little plazas destroyed with disabled parking spaces
>(which induces illegal parking all over the plaza).
the most accessible urban form possible.
-- ### --
J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
- Hi All, Since we are on this thread about high-speed trains, ... here is the latest news in the saga. Here is an article from our Pittsburgh Business TimesMessage 3 of 13 , Nov 15, 2001View SourceHi All,
Since we are on this thread about high-speed trains, ... here is the latest
news in the saga.
Here is an article from our Pittsburgh Business Times about MAGLEV.
> Maglev to partner with German company- - - -
> Maglev Inc. and CargoLifter AG of Germany are expected to form a
> partnership that would give each company an equity stake in the other.
> Under the partnership, Maglev Inc., the Monroeville-based private group
> backing the proposed local high-speed train project, and CargoLifter would
> exchange stock and other undisclosed considerations.
> The pact is expected to be announced during a news conference Wednesday
> afternoon at Carnegie Mellon University in Oakland.
> CargoLifter is currently working to develop airships to help transport and
> install guideway beams during construction of Pittsburgh's proposed
> high-speed maglev line. The German company has developed an airship
> technology capable of lifting 175 tons.
> Pittsburgh is competing against Baltimore/Washington, D.C., for $950
> million to be appropriated by Congress for a pilot project of the
> high-speed train. The two regions beat out five others to become finalists.
> Under Pittsburgh's proposal, a 15-mile line would be built from Downtown to
> Pittsburgh International Airport. The second stage of the project involves
> running the line from Downtown to Monroeville and a third stage would run
> from Monroeville to Greensburg.
> The commuter train, which would levitate over an elevated guideway and be
> propelled by electromagnetic fields, could be capable of traveling at
> speeds approaching 300 miles an hour -- taking passengers from Downtown to
> the airport in seven minutes.
> The entire project, which has been under study since 1990, would run 47 miles.
> The Baltimore/Washington project, which calls for a 40-mile line connecting
> Camden Yards and Baltimore-Washington International Airport to Union
> Station in Washington, D.C., has been under study since 1994. That
> project's sponsors view its construction as a key element to winning a bid
> for the 2012 Olympics.
> A decision from the U.S. Department of Transportation on which city will
> get the funding isn't expected for at least a year. Both regions are
> currently conducting environmental impact and other studies.
Here is my prime gripe --- besides it not being sustainable -- is that we'll
be giving $950 M to one company. The ownership of it all is so suspect. This
isn't a public project -- rather one for the benefit of Maglev Inc., the
Monroeville-based private group.
Notice how the organizers hold the meeting at CMU. Now we get the "Olympics"
as a backdrop too.
Get past the spin and into the facts of the corporate welfare elements.