I read the summary, and I have read the German newspaper stories condemning the two stations. The station of Limburg Süd (Limburg South) serves Limburg an der Lahn, a district that includes several small villages, with a population of just over 34 thousand. The station is not very close to the town proper, indeed the A-3 Autobahn and the other station is located inside the town boundaries. The newspapers at the time accused the German state of Hesse of blackmail to get the station built. The cost of the station was roughly €27 million. The station at Montabaur cost a similar amount, but it was reputedly in exchange for the German state of Rheinland-Pfalz to acquiesce to the building of the Limburg station.
The service at Limburg Süd is 7 trains per day about one every two hours, 5 trains per day on Saturday, just one train on Sunday.
The population of Montabaur is about half of that of Limburg.
Many thanks for all the information being offered. Let's consider this. Passenger service provided by roadrailer based highway coaches would simply take adavantage of linehaul efficiencies of rail. Operators would be government authorities and private companies. Some companies would identify the market and serve it - executives? professionals? managers? office workers? manual workers? No intervening stations. Just transport - sort of a "railpike" as if a turnpike. Freight - roadrailer vehicle instead of lumbering behomeths now used. Why? the HrSR higher speed rail would primarily compete for highway bound business. Adding lanes and concrete not likely and is not desireable. So, forget current heavy rail. How about new heavy rail with a proven vehicle to add transport capacity for the future. All perdeictions are for substatial, even complete gridblock by 2035. Thoughts?
Even when there is a fairly good system for bringing people into the big city, it does not work well for everybody. I have a cousin in King George, Virginia; her husband worked in Washington--but for him to drive to Fredericksburg, take the VRE and then go from Union Station to his place of work would have added about an hour to the time it took him to get to work by driving his car.
Johnny
One thing standing in the way of commuter rail is that we no longer live in a hub-and-spoke world.
There was a time when the centers of commerce and industry could be located on a map in most big cities. And the residential areas were on the fringes of those cities. Commuters rode from the residential areas to the centers of commerce and industry, and then home again.
This is less the case today, although the growth of local commuter rail does show that it occurs.
The automobile and suburban crawl mean that people want/need to travel between points other than those centers, and may not be willing to endure a trip all the way downtown for a transfer out another spoke - it may be a substantially longer trip than simply driving between the two points.
Some transit systems were built speculatively - the builder of the system was trying to induce people to settle in an area the builder was developing.
Of course, unless you're talking some form of express trains, this has little to do with high speed rail.
It's been said that the most efficient rail system is one that runs at a consistent speed. In real terms, this means that freight and passenger traffic needs to run at the same speed. This is bad for both - bringing the general freight up to a speed that will make passenger happy is costly, and bringing passenger down to freight speeds makes it that much less attractive.
The Central and Pennsy had the right idea with their four track mains - two for passenger, two for freight, and rarely did the twain meet. Passenger trains could run upwards of 100 MPH while freight plodded along at 45 or 50 MPH.
Even having a third track strictly for passenger (with a few well-placed passing sidings) would help. There's room on most of the Water Level Route, and possibly on the Pennsy ROW, but other lines might have problems finding the room.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
I'm no data scientist, as has been pointed out by another non-data scientist above. Therefore what follows is my opinion based on my perspective of the questions asked. My opinions are in red.
SAMUEL C WALKER Would an American Higher Speed Railroad Network - Up to 110 mph - Contirbute to Productivity and Competitiveness? Technically it could, I suppose. The net result would not be good for the economy as a whole as I feel it would require some crazy spending- like a Trillion dollars (hoenestly). As our railroad system is a freight railroad system, additional passenger service in many instances impedes freight operations due to diefferences in freight and passneger speeds. If both operated at 110 mph max, they would then be speed compatible. Would higher freight speeds create more competiveness and productivity for the American economy?No, as the majority of freight hauled is not time sensitive but you'd be rebuilding the entire railroad system to cater to that freight that was. Would higher speed compatibility attract passener business both now bound to the road and the air?Airlines- maybe on some coridoors. Autos- probably not. We're not Europe and we like our cars. Would a higher speed railroad (HrSR) system relieve / lessen truck / auto congestion and passenger air congestion? Conceivable. But so would spending that same Trillion dollars on all new roads.These thoughts from "The Economics and Politics of High-Speed Rail" by Albalate and Gel. I'm betting that their perspective has a slant toward high speed rail for passenger service, not freight.
Would an American Higher Speed Railroad Network - Up to 110 mph - Contirbute to Productivity and Competitiveness? Technically it could, I suppose. The net result would not be good for the economy as a whole as I feel it would require some crazy spending- like a Trillion dollars (hoenestly). As our railroad system is a freight railroad system, additional passenger service in many instances impedes freight operations due to diefferences in freight and passneger speeds. If both operated at 110 mph max, they would then be speed compatible. Would higher freight speeds create more competiveness and productivity for the American economy?No, as the majority of freight hauled is not time sensitive but you'd be rebuilding the entire railroad system to cater to that freight that was. Would higher speed compatibility attract passener business both now bound to the road and the air?Airlines- maybe on some coridoors. Autos- probably not. We're not Europe and we like our cars. Would a higher speed railroad (HrSR) system relieve / lessen truck / auto congestion and passenger air congestion? Conceivable. But so would spending that same Trillion dollars on all new roads.These thoughts from "The Economics and Politics of High-Speed Rail" by Albalate and Gel. I'm betting that their perspective has a slant toward high speed rail for passenger service, not freight.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Victrola1 It's not how fast you go. It's how soon you get there and how closely you adhere to your schedule. I remember a trucking company that ran tachs in their tractors years ago. One driver was always on the carpet for speeding out on the road. You never knew when old Bill would be in to turn his unit over to the next driver. It consistently took Bill longer to make the same run compared to how long other drivers took. Old Bill would yak forever if anybody would listen to him when he made a stop. Reducing delays enroute to speed up and consistently make a schedule is not easy. It is less expensive than investing the capital to move faster from delay point to delay point.
It's not how fast you go. It's how soon you get there and how closely you adhere to your schedule.
I remember a trucking company that ran tachs in their tractors years ago. One driver was always on the carpet for speeding out on the road. You never knew when old Bill would be in to turn his unit over to the next driver. It consistently took Bill longer to make the same run compared to how long other drivers took.
Old Bill would yak forever if anybody would listen to him when he made a stop.
Reducing delays enroute to speed up and consistently make a schedule is not easy. It is less expensive than investing the capital to move faster from delay point to delay point.
Agreed, I made the same point much earlier in this thread.
What I want to know about all the PhD's and their theories and charts - how many of them have actually run a business at a profit, especially a transportation business?
I don't have all the answers, but I learned a lot from my father who spent most of his working life in trucking management, much of that as a regional manager and terminal manager for what was at the time the largest carrier in the east, CAROLINA.
Freight trains don't have to go 110 mph, they just need to keep moving.
And all these "save the planet" ideas about rail passenger service are a waste of time and money.
Where we do have the need, we should have good commuter rail, which to some degree should be at least close to self supporting. Make it better in those places and those people to which it applies will use it, and that will make it more economically sound. And yes it needs goverment support because it benefits everyone in the areas it serves, just like a public road - but we only build roads based on need, not on dreams of people using them.......
Expecting other groups of people to adapt a different life style so they can live without a car and ride a train is the most backwards thinking I have ever heard.
As for long distance rail travel, that one is tough as long as airlines can do business the way they do.....that's another story for another time.
Sheldon
jeffhergert Oh No! Never Assume anything. You know what happens when you assume something, right? To the railroad, there are a few things that are time sensitive. Enough that they'll kill off (HOS, not actually murder) crews on other trains to keep the hot ones moving. Think UPS. But in the big picture, the hottest of UPS business doesn't go by rail. For the railroad, reliability would go along way to get more business. Assuming (See, now you have me doing it. And I know what happens when you assume.) they want more business. Jeff
Oh No! Never Assume anything. You know what happens when you assume something, right?
To the railroad, there are a few things that are time sensitive. Enough that they'll kill off (HOS, not actually murder) crews on other trains to keep the hot ones moving. Think UPS. But in the big picture, the hottest of UPS business doesn't go by rail. For the railroad, reliability would go along way to get more business. Assuming (See, now you have me doing it. And I know what happens when you assume.) they want more business.
Jeff
One thing, I would add is that UPS may be the oldest large 'package shipper' ; BUT NEVER FORGET it was Fred Smith's, college paper, that shook up the package delivery business. It gave us the Fed Ex Corp. [nee: Federal Express model] of package delivery. Since adopted by most compeditors, in the package delivery business.
The Santa Fe's 'Super C' was the harbinger of the current COFC/TOFC transportation model. It was AT&SF president Mike Havery who recruited trucker JB Hunt to take a ride on the Super C that really brought TOFC into the world of today's railroading.
The point is that the 'model' of Fred Smith's college paper, was a 'universal model' for the future of the package delivery business. It was adopted also by UPS, and it is the reason that both these major compeditor's locations, and businesses virtually, mirror each other today.
Likewise, the COFC/TOFC railroad business transportation competition has evolved to provided the National, and International 'models'; used by most all the compeditors on this continent, and somewhat overseas as well.
CMStPnP PNWRMNM So, CMStPnP says that there is an Economic Theory somewhere, note he did not bother to cite it, that says faster passenger transport increases GDP and effieciency. Lets stipuate that, there is such a theory. At most a 3-5 min search via Google. Your not a data scientist and neither are most of the readers here so to find a non-technical article without complex charts and graphs which you would struggle to understand might take longer both are really beyond the audience of this forum as I stated earlier. But here is a good starter article for you since your incapable of using the keywords I provided with Google. Still I am willing to bet some of what is dicussed in the below is above your comprehension, hence I was hesistant to post a link since the article will tend to be misread or misquoted.
PNWRMNM So, CMStPnP says that there is an Economic Theory somewhere, note he did not bother to cite it, that says faster passenger transport increases GDP and effieciency. Lets stipuate that, there is such a theory.
At most a 3-5 min search via Google. Your not a data scientist and neither are most of the readers here so to find a non-technical article without complex charts and graphs which you would struggle to understand might take longer both are really beyond the audience of this forum as I stated earlier.
But here is a good starter article for you since your incapable of using the keywords I provided with Google. Still I am willing to bet some of what is dicussed in the below is above your comprehension, hence I was hesistant to post a link since the article will tend to be misread or misquoted.
The point of my post from which you launched your ignorant and insulting personal attack was that the theory, whatever it/they are, does not matter. Reality is what matters.
I went to Amazon to find the book that the OP referenced. The promotional material makes clear that HSR, that is new passenger only lines built within the last 60 years, make economic sense ONLY within a narrow band of conditions. This means that outside of that narrow band, they cost more than they are worth and cause a net destruction of wealth.
There is also an excellent review of the book, which reads like a dust jacket summary, that makes the same point perfectly clear.
As to the economics of high speed rail, I do not care enough about the subject matter to spend (invest if you are a progressive) $35 to find out what those narrow boundary conditions are.
Mac
Murphy SidingIt looks like I'm in good company. You didn't read it either. Oh well. I'm looking forward to how you explain the relevance of a study about congested railroads in a tightly packed, urban, industrial continent verses a railroad system hauling zillions of tons of non-time sensitive, commodities over long distances.
Completely irrelevant to what was being discussed in the article which was efficiency of market access (incremental - using speed) per an individual and the effect on wages, GDP, where they chose to live, etc.
Your using the old standby for the Trains forum, if you do not understand what was posted or do not comprehend it.......pull another subject out of thin air and start to talk about it instead. Which proves my point about discussing economic theories in this forum (in this case a spatial economic theory). Flys over most peoples understanding here and the discussion never addresses the issues raised.
Not that I am faulting that. This is not an Economics forum but it is what it is and hence pointed out to the OP his subject matter is at a level that he will never really get a straight or fact based answer here. He is better off taking it to an Economics Forum.
CMStPnP Murphy Siding The above referenced link is based on the densely populated part of Europe that has an entirely different transportation system and transportation financing than in the U.S. Is that a relevent source in light of the old apples/oranges type comaparison? Ad Thanks for proving my point and commenting on the submission without reading it in it's entirety. This is what I meant with my first post and hopefully the OP reads this and learns from it.
Murphy Siding The above referenced link is based on the densely populated part of Europe that has an entirely different transportation system and transportation financing than in the U.S. Is that a relevent source in light of the old apples/oranges type comaparison? Ad
Thanks for proving my point and commenting on the submission without reading it in it's entirety. This is what I meant with my first post and hopefully the OP reads this and learns from it.
It looks like I'm in good company. You didn't read it either. Oh well. I'm looking forward to how you explain the relevance of a study about congested railroads in a tightly packed, urban, industrial continent verses a railroad system hauling zillions of tons of non-time sensitive, commodities over long distances.
Murphy SidingThe above referenced link is based on the densely populated part of Europe that has an entirely different transportation system and transportation financing than in the U.S. Is that a relevent source in light of the old apples/oranges type comaparison? Ad
CMStPnP At most a 3-5 min search via Google. Your not a data scientist and neither are most of the readers here so to find a non-technical article without complex charts and graphs which you would struggle to understand might take longer both are really beyond the audience of this forum as I stated earlier. But here is a good starter article for you since your incapable of using the keywords I provided with Google. Still I am willing to bet some of what is dicussed in the below is above your comprehension, hence I was hesistant to post a link since the article will tend to be misread or misquoted. London School of Economics: From Periphery to Core, Economic Adjustments to High Speed Rail (downloadable *.pdf): http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/29430/
London School of Economics: From Periphery to Core, Economic Adjustments to High Speed Rail (downloadable *.pdf):
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/29430/
PNWRMNMSo, CMStPnP says that there is an Economic Theory somewhere, note he did not bother to cite it, that says faster passenger transport increases GDP and effieciency. Lets stipuate that, there is such a theory.
Higher speed track is one cost element that keeps on spending at a higher level to raise the track to 110 MPH specs and then keep it at that specification. Higher maintenance expenditures are required to keep higher speed tracks safe at their higher speeds.
Secondly, all freight equipment would have to be redesigned and rebuilt to operate at 110 MPH and maintaining that equipment safe for those speeds would require signifigantly more maintenance expenditures.
From a railroad standpoint, the only possible return for all the expenditures would be increased equipment utilization. Today's rail customers expect daily service at agreed upon time windows - improving O-D transit times by anything less than 24 hours has not speeded what the customer sees at all.
Whatever time passenger service is sped up will be noticable to the customer, but will it be enough to include rail transit as their prefered mode of travel?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
As I recall, the Santa Fe's expedited freight service was called the Super C.
jeffhergertTo the railroad, there are a few things that are time sensitive. Enough that they'll kill off (HOS, not actually murder) crews on other trains to keep the hot ones moving. Think UPS. But in the big picture, the hottest of UPS business doesn't go by rail. For the railroad, reliability would go along way to get more business. Assuming (See, now you have me doing it. And I know what happens when you assume.) they want more business.
Based on what happened during the UPS experience I agree niether client nor railroad wants to stick it's neck out with a trial unless they have a guarantee the money potentially wasted would not be their own. I seem to remember prior to the UPS transcontinental test there was also the Santa Fe experiment with adding a premium fee, higher speed intermodal train that also didn't do so well. Wasn't it called the "Super Chief"? Clients could not be convinced to pay the higher fee on the Super Chief because the speed improvement was only marginal at best.
At any rate the railroads really do not seem to want to spend a whole lot of money experimenting in this area which I think is a impediment as well. The biggest reason it seems is nobody is really pushing them too and they seem to feel they have enough traffic without adding a new market........they are happy with the traffic niche's they have already carved out for themselves.
Though it will be interesting if the Brightline service proposal spreads beyond Florida. Brightline Executives have hinted that if the service is a success in Florida they would want to expand outside the state as well and I wonder what that would mean for existing Amtrak corridor contracts as well as potentially new corridors or potentially if there would be a bidding war for corridor operations between Amtrak and Brightline.........thats at least 7-10 years in the future though AND only if the Florida service is a success.
Overmodgetting Euclyrusized
I'm surprised that gem passed without a comment. That should win the best posting award for January!! Congrats.
Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid I assume that what the OP refers to is a PPP arrangement in which the government funds the capital upgrade as public infrastructure. So the government will decide whether it is cost-effective. So it seems to me that this would be a nationalized transportation overlay onto existing private freight railroads. It would be kind of like a high speed freight Amtrak. Why do you get to say what the OP means? I said I assumed what he meant. I assumed he was referring to a PPP arrangement because he said this: These thoughts from "The Economics and Politics of High-Speed Rail" by Albalate and Gel. Maybe the OP will come back and confirm what I assumed.
Murphy Siding Euclid I assume that what the OP refers to is a PPP arrangement in which the government funds the capital upgrade as public infrastructure. So the government will decide whether it is cost-effective. So it seems to me that this would be a nationalized transportation overlay onto existing private freight railroads. It would be kind of like a high speed freight Amtrak. Why do you get to say what the OP means?
Euclid I assume that what the OP refers to is a PPP arrangement in which the government funds the capital upgrade as public infrastructure. So the government will decide whether it is cost-effective. So it seems to me that this would be a nationalized transportation overlay onto existing private freight railroads. It would be kind of like a high speed freight Amtrak.
I assume that what the OP refers to is a PPP arrangement in which the government funds the capital upgrade as public infrastructure. So the government will decide whether it is cost-effective. So it seems to me that this would be a nationalized transportation overlay onto existing private freight railroads. It would be kind of like a high speed freight Amtrak.
Why do you get to say what the OP means?
I said I assumed what he meant. I assumed he was referring to a PPP arrangement because he said this:
These thoughts from "The Economics and Politics of High-Speed Rail" by Albalate and Gel.
Maybe the OP will come back and confirm what I assumed.
It's evident this is gearing up to be another exercise in pointless semanticism when someone quotes a reference without ... well, not just without reading it, or the Rodrigues or some other review of it, but not even bothering to correct the wretched typo (his name is Bel, not "Gel")
The relevant sources they used for 'American practice' are listed before the formal introduction, and discussion of the 'special' American case begins on p.9, both of which can be read in online preview. I recommend that y'all actually read the material, taking due note of the Fogel quote and the authors' response to it, before getting Euclyrusized in theoretical minutiae unrelated to the OP's question (which, incidentally, I don't see following from what the authors say in the book...)
CMStPnP .......Rail Freight service is a somewhat different animal in that your more looking at the increased productivity of rail equipment or the increased utility of getting a transported object from A to B faster......which is a little more complex than a human. Generally, inventories could be tighter if freight train velocity was faster, saving money, equipment utilitization would be more as well and potentially we might see markets expand (say perhaps in the perishable food area) with faster velocity of freight handled by rail. The problem you will run into with faster freight handling is institutional resistance. Since other competing modes that handle bulk freight are not much faster than frieght rail there is not much in the way of motivation to move to a higher speed and pay a higher cost in maintainence........since you can retain the bulk of your existing clients just via the status quo. I believe there was an experiment not too long ago where the various railroads attempted to run a UPS express intermodal train coast to coast. The railroads involved struggled to do so with their existing infrastruture, signaling and crew change systems in place. The railroads were not willing to fund the improvements necessary to get past these hurdles without increased fees being paid by UPS to help cover or cover all of their increased costs. UPS didn't see the point in paying for marginally improved service and felt the railroads should fund it to retain their buiness or capture more UPS business............and thats where the experiment ended.......an argument over who pays for the better service.
.......Rail Freight service is a somewhat different animal in that your more looking at the increased productivity of rail equipment or the increased utility of getting a transported object from A to B faster......which is a little more complex than a human. Generally, inventories could be tighter if freight train velocity was faster, saving money, equipment utilitization would be more as well and potentially we might see markets expand (say perhaps in the perishable food area) with faster velocity of freight handled by rail. The problem you will run into with faster freight handling is institutional resistance. Since other competing modes that handle bulk freight are not much faster than frieght rail there is not much in the way of motivation to move to a higher speed and pay a higher cost in maintainence........since you can retain the bulk of your existing clients just via the status quo.
I believe there was an experiment not too long ago where the various railroads attempted to run a UPS express intermodal train coast to coast. The railroads involved struggled to do so with their existing infrastruture, signaling and crew change systems in place. The railroads were not willing to fund the improvements necessary to get past these hurdles without increased fees being paid by UPS to help cover or cover all of their increased costs. UPS didn't see the point in paying for marginally improved service and felt the railroads should fund it to retain their buiness or capture more UPS business............and thats where the experiment ended.......an argument over who pays for the better service.
I'd say that the overwhelming majority of tonnage hauled on our railroads is not time sensitive. Having that train of grain, lumber, coal or oil show up a few hours or even a few days sooner doesn’t make it worth more. To speed up the whole rail system to get those items that are time sensitive as far as pricing goes would not make economic sense.
[quote user="CMStPnP"]
Well first let me be the first to tell you that your in the wrong forum if your going to discuss Finance or Economic theory as both topics are well beyond most of the posters here and so you will probably not get the answers your looking for. There is a Economic theory on velocity that says faster velocity is better and produces tangible positive GDP results. That is if everything being equal in your transportation choices and a additional rail choice that did not exist before gets you between point A and point B faster than existing transportation choices then your transportation between A and B no longer takes the time it did which frees you up to produce more and be more productive. Thats how it basically applies to rail passenger service.
So, CMStPnP says that there is an Economic Theory somewhere, note he did not bother to cite it, that says faster passenger transport increases GDP and effieciency. Lets stipuate that, there is such a theory. The problem is how much increase in GDP and effiency FOR HOW MUCH COST. This is plain old cost/benefit analysis which itself is succeptible to manipulation.
Proponents almost never consider the cost, as you did not, and when a specific project gets beyond the vague idea stage they always under estimate the cost and over estimate the benefit.
For an example of cost underestimates review the history of the California Bullet Train. The benefits are the most difficult to get correct. Consider a project much like your original question, a faster Chicago-St. Louis train with 110 MPH speed. I think end to end time savings was about an hour. What is that worth?
Theory is simple figure total traffic, how many passengers, say 100,000 per year, multiply hours saved by their hourly pay rate, and that is the value of time saved, or benefit. Nice theory but is it real? First, the economic value of time of many passengers is zero. Retired people, kids, and students, those not employed in other words, have no time value. Whether they spend that hour on a slow train or at home makes no difference to GDP. What about the employed? Will they use that saved hour to do more work and add to GDP or will they spend the time with their kids, which while possibly of huge social value, will add nothing to GDP.
My point is that theory is theory, but theory is not reality.
Next those annual benefits must be discounted to bring them to the present so the present value of life cycle benefits can be compared to the present value of life cycle costs.
What interest rate to use? 30 year US government bonds or railroad's Weighted Average Cost of Capital, that is 3% or 12% in round numbers. This will make a huge difference in the present value of future cash flows. Proponents naturally take the US bonds rate on the theory that the Feds will be the source of the funds, which may or not be true in any particular case. The true cost is probably closer to WACC since that will be the true cost to the econonmy, due to Federal borrowing crouding out private intestment that would have otherwise been made. No proponent will ever admit that. They like the unfair advantage of the government's fat hand and unstated assumptions on the scale.
Everybody has a bias. Factor that into whatever claims anybody makes. Follow the money. Consultants love high speed rail projects since they are a honey pot for the consultants whether they get built or not.
SAMUEL C WALKERWould an American Higher Speed Railroad Network - Up to 110 mph - Contirbute to Productivity and Competitiveness? As our railroad system is a freight railroad system, additional passenger service in many instances impedes freight operations due to diefferences in freight and passneger speeds. If both operated at 110 mph max, they would then be speed compatible. Would higher freight speeds create more competiveness and productivity for the American economy? Would higher speed compatibility attract passener business both now bound to the road and the air? Would a higher speed railroad (HrSR) system relieve / lessen truck / auto congestion and passenger air congestion? These thoughts from "The Economics and Politics of High-Speed Rail" by Albalate and Gel.
Rail Freight service is a somewhat different animal in that your more looking at the increased productivity of rail equipment or the increased utility of getting a transported object from A to B faster......which is a little more complex than a human. Generally, inventories could be tighter if freight train velocity was faster, saving money, equipment utilitization would be more as well and potentially we might see markets expand (say perhaps in the perishable food area) with faster velocity of freight handled by rail. The problem you will run into with faster freight handling is institutional resistance. Since other competing modes that handle bulk freight are not much faster than frieght rail there is not much in the way of motivation to move to a higher speed and pay a higher cost in maintainence........since you can retain the bulk of your existing clients just via the status quo.
PNWRMNM blue streak 1 It is not about the top speed but eliminating the slow sections. True enough. Bring many buckets of money for each one. Mac
blue streak 1 It is not about the top speed but eliminating the slow sections.
It is not about the top speed but eliminating the slow sections.
True enough. Bring many buckets of money for each one.
Yes, like the replacement of the Susquehanna Rivier bridge on the Northeast corridor........
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.