What would the founding fathers think about this.

[Anonymous]

On the subject of HSR:

NIMBY factor - Using freeway medians where possible eliminates the NIMBY factor on those stretches.

Short haul vs long haul HSR - If your focus is passenger only HSR, then you are correct that long HSR makes no sense. If your focus is freight based HSR, then there are opportunities for all corridors, short, medium, and long. A freight based HSR system can carry megatons more than air freight, and can carry those megatons four or five times as fast as the current freight rail system. Therein lies the niche market: The costs of carrying megatons more of freight would be lower via HSR than my air freight, while what is at best a 5 day trip across the country via the hottest current TOFC becomes a two day trip via HSR.

The founding fathers would go all giddy over a nationwide HSR system.

[Anonymous]

Last of my political commentary on this thread (hopefully):

James has provided reference for his take on WMD/Bush/Democrats.

vsmith has not.

Therefore, although you can "agree to disagree" about WMD/Bush/Democrats, what is undeniable is that the positions taken by vsmith et al are without a documentable basis, rather they are feelgood positions simply based on political slander of Bush. It is political postering, nothing more. You can disagree all you want about Bush's policies, but you cannot dimini***he man's intengrity and honesty without making a complete***of yourself.

And a word of advice for you Democrats: If you think you will take back the House or Senate soley via Bush-bashing, you will be sorely disappointed come Novemeber 2006. You guys better come up with some positive ideas to present to the American people. Personally, if the Democrats would just go back to the days of Scoop Jackson, Warren Magnuson, and Zell Miller, they might just get my vote.

BTW, Big Boy, it's more like you guys are bringing spitballs to a nukefest.

[Anonymous]

What if I buy ink by the barrel?

[Big_Boy_4005]

Thanks Vic, Ontario and John Wayne were the ones I was thinking of in addition to LAX. A fast rail connection between them would be cool. Expanding off shore is a good idea.

James, it's just when you spout off the way you have in this topic, it's very easy to take shots at you. Calm down. In a battle of wits, it's not smart to bring a knife to a gun fight. [swg]

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

Allright, smarty. With the possible exception of the German remark, what did I say that was factually incorrect? You might like to know I aced history class.

vsmith,

If you want to stop, why did you edit your post to include it?

I didnt add it, it was the original post, but I then decided to answer your question by adding "Simple Answer" and there on.

The Simple Answer James, is that we BOTH have to agree that we will NEVER EVER agree about certain subjects and that BOTH of us will have to remember that if we are posting on the same subjects. I wont bring those issues again if you wont, and if you dont add the little snips like the "disruption" snip. I'll stop pointing them out,

If you make a clean start, so wilI I. I'm holding out the Olive Branch.....

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

Why not just build a new airport the on edge of town, and have two?
BTW: That's why I didn't bring them up, and don't carry a flame thrower.

DIA..... Denver International Airport. It has been done, though they closed the old one, since the new one is very expandable. There was talk of doing that in the Twin Cities 10 years ago, but it was dropped in favor of the new runway I mentioned earlier.

NYC shares 3 airports. Washington DC 2 airports. The LA area, we'll have to ask Vic, but at least 2.

By the way James, that stuff they are teaching you at home from those books is scary. Don't believe everything you read. You need more work on your history, and less on your politics.

LA?
LAX right on the coast, right in the metro area, pain in the %$^% to get to because of traffic. talk for a decade of expansion but no consensus due to NIMBY, and space restrictions. Persoanlly I say build a new island or peninsula expansion into the Santa Monica Bay like they did in Hong Kong, It can be built as big as needed and not into the urban area

Burbank, they want to expand it and connect it with LAX via rail line, NIMBY's creating trouble even though the airports been there since before WW2

Ontario, this is a big airport thats currently under-utilized, also want to expand it, again with rail connect, again NIMBYs pissing about it, Irony is that if they did the expansion 10 years ago there wouldnt be all the new housing developments whining about the expansion.

Long Beach, smaller regional airport limited passenger capacity.

in the OC

John Wayne Airport. large regional airport, NIMBYs wont allow expansion or any planes large like 747s. would prefer to see airport go away entirely so they can enjoy quite afternoons in the jacuzzi. Of course that would just implode the freeway system but rational thought has been outlawed in the OC.

El Toro Marine Base was closed and would have made a good expansion airport to support John Wayne but greedy developers managed to buy the county board of directors with the promise of a "Great Park" instead, Of course latest plan in almost 90% developement 10% park. Again see above about rational thought.

[Anonymous]

Allright, smarty. With the possible exception of the German remark, what did I say that was factually incorrect? You might like to know I aced history class.

vsmith,

If you want to stop, why did you edit your post to include it?

[Big_Boy_4005]

Vic, the Twin Cities airport has been doing all of those things for years within their confined space. With Northwest's bankruptcy, some of the pressure may be off temporarily, as some flights have been canceled. Eventually we will get back to pre bankruptcy flight levels, then surpass them.

Now that this runway is done, I expect we will hear the move the airport thing again, as people look to the future. You're right about the NIMBYS, and the edges of large cities.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

Why not just build a new airport the on edge of town, and have two?
BTW: That's why I didn't bring them up, and don't carry a flame thrower.

DIA..... Denver International Airport. It has been done, though they closed the old one, since the new one is very expandable. There was talk of doing that in the Twin Cities 10 years ago, but it was dropped in favor of the new runway I mentioned earlier.

NYC shares 3 airports. Washington DC 2 airports. The LA area, we'll have to ask Vic, but at least 2.

By the way James, that stuff they are teaching you at home from those books is scary. Don't believe everything you read. You need more work on your history, and less on your politics.

[vsmith]

Ahh, quote...
"As I was saying before you used your Weapons of Mass Disruption"

How about an agreement that we both simply stop the snips like this and let it go, here and now.

Simple answer. NIMBY Not In My Back yard. The people who live near the proposed airport site will fight tooth and nail to prevent its construction and legal bind up any progress with legal challenges.

Most urban areas no longer have a defined Edge anymore but areas where the density just drops a bit before it starts rising again at the next nearest urban area, so its very very difficult to find a spot thats close enough to the major centers, and far enough out to find an arae large enough to build it.

[Anonymous]

Why not just build a new airport the on edge of town, and have two?
BTW: That's why I didn't bring them up, and don't carry a flame thrower.

[vsmith]

James
The trouble with expanding airport capacity is you cannot just add additional runways, you also have to add terminals, maintanence facilities, and parking capacity. This is OK for airports that were built on the outskirts of cities where there is land to expand. Its very expensive and complicated to expand an airport while still remaining operational.

But where the airport exists inside the metropolitan area it can be very dificult to expand an airport. Adjacent properties have to be bought and demolished to make room for the expansion, often thru Eminant Domain, against people who do not want to sell. This can lead to lenthy legal delays and that can result in it being many years before the airport can be expanded. In a couple of Japanese cities and in Hong Kong, instead of expanding the existing airports, they instead built new airports on artificial islands in the harbours where they could build as big as they needed.

BTW thats Weapons of Mass Deception, but lets go there anymore, its too hard to type and sit in this chair wearing the flamethower's tank.

[Big_Boy_4005]

The answer to the median is the state. They own the entire right of way. In the case of interstates and federal highways they get much of their funding from the federal government, but the state owns and maintains them.

[Anonymous]

Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper to expand airports than build a whole new infrastructure? Don't get me wrong; I am not against a HSL, I am just thinking logically. The closer the two destinations, the more the car becomes the competition, it is going to have to be cheaper, or at least competitive, with cars. Are the only planned (used) high speed trains electric?

As I was saying before you used your Weapons of Mass Disruption[:D]
Who owns the median to a freeway, is it federal, or state? Does it really make sense fuel-wise to run freight that fast, don't a lot of railroads focus on fuel efficiency?

[Big_Boy_4005]

Got bad news for you Vic, the Twin Cities airport just opened a new runway last month. They'll just work around it. Throwing down a new patch of concrete is cheaper than building a rail line, even if they have to condemn adjacent properties to do it, which they did.

I'm afraid you are a little too optimistic on HSR prospects.

[vsmith]

I personally feel nothing really concrete will happen until we get closer to saturation on the airport capacity. thats whe the airports can physically no longer support additional landings and takeoffs past a fixed number. Many airports are very close to this now.

Once it gets to the point where its becomes so inconvenient to take the plane, we'll see a screaming demand for HSR. Once business travelers are grounded there will be a fast mobilization, no matter who pays for it, it will happen along these close urban pathways.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

I could use some popcorn MMMmmmm popcorn.[:p]

Dan I give up with this, its like talking to a tree![;)]

Big Boy. I dont see how any justfication for long distance HSR can be made in the US, the airlines do have a definite advantage if they can cross the country at 500mph and the best we could likely get is 150-170mph tops with rail. I say that due to the topography issues, weather conditions could be another issue. Japans system goes thru some mountains and passes that make the wesern US look tame, of course they do it by massive tunneling and bridgeworks to maintain the straightest ROWs and it does so even is some terrible winter weather. But the shorter routes, Chicago to St Louis, LA to Sacramento, could be very competitve with airlines when the airport lag is factored in.

Vic, you and I are pretty much on the same page here. I was just trying to use few words. I agree for short regional runs the time is comparable to air travel. The hangup is the economics, because who want's to pick up the infrastructure tab? There has been talk of Twin Cities to Chicago, but that's all it is talk.

As for the founding fathers, high speed to them was 10 MPH. [swg]

[vsmith]

Don't let Mookie find out you took the popper!

[blhanel]

Last call- gotta take this popper back to the diner before I go to bed.

[vsmith]

Who's got the soda?

[Anonymous]

Well, for once we agree! How about some popcorn.

[vsmith]

I could use some popcorn MMMmmmm popcorn.[:p]

Dan I give up with this, its like talking to a tree![;)]

Big Boy. I dont see how any justfication for long distance HSR can be made in the US, the airlines do have a definite advantage if they can cross the country at 500mph and the best we could likely get is 150-170mph tops with rail. I say that due to the topography issues, weather conditions could be another issue. Japans system goes thru some mountains and passes that make the wesern US look tame, of course they do it by massive tunneling and bridgeworks to maintain the straightest ROWs and it does so even is some terrible winter weather. But the shorter routes, Chicago to St Louis, LA to Sacramento, could be very competitve with airlines when the airport lag is factored in.

[rvos1979]

QUOTE: Originally posted by blhanel

Have a nice big bowl of popcorn, Dan. Those posts were worth it.

This is almost better than watching poker on ESPN.....

Pass the popcorn this way, please.

Randy

[blhanel]

Have a nice big bowl of popcorn, Dan. Those posts were worth it.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005

If we are going to discuss high speed rail in North America, the discussion is going to be very short. There are two factors that make it virtually impossible, geography and economics.

Economics has been pretty well discussed, if the government doesn't do it nobody will. High speed rail can't coexist with freight, so new right of ways will be needed. That's a knock out punch right there.

So why does high speed rail work in Europe and Japan. Geography. High speed rail works best for trips under 300 miles between dense population centers. It is less practical to fly in Europe and Japan than to take the train. Here in the US we just don't have enough of those situations outside the NEC.

And in Japan, they have all those huge monsters that tear everything up and eat it, so every few years they get to rebuild from scratch with the latest technology.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

Murphy Siding addressed that! Your bringing this back up only helps to drag us farther off topic. Windbag alert. Why in the world did we invade Germany in World War II, it didn't have anything to do with mass murder?
Of course what do you expect from someone who calls the truth crap, and doesn't want us to uphold UN sanctions, protect our country, and spread freedom. WHAT WOULD THE FOUNDERS OF OUR GREAT NATION THINK OF THAT? This is my last post on the thread dealing with WMDs; and I am not lying, like vsimth. Blow up a storm; thank you for attempting to derail yet another try to get us back on Trains. I don't want to have Bergie nuke a very informative train thread. I apologize for having gotten us this far into politics, and will try yet again to get us back on trains.

railroads son, railroads.

Boy you lost me with the why did we invade Germany thing...Is that like Animal House "did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor..." thing....


I think it might have had something to do with them being allied with Japan (and Italy) in a little trio known as the Axis. Maybe a bit to do with them pounding the hell out of our Brit friends and a bit more to do with U Boats sinking US merchantmen off the US east coast and it was only going to be a matter of time before we faced off. Roosevelt knew we weren't prepared and was building up for the eventuality. It had very little (read nothing) to do with mass murder...the evidence of the holocaust was not widely known until the camps were uncovered by troops on the ground. But what do I know...I'm not a teenager?

Dan

[Big_Boy_4005]

If we are going to discuss high speed rail in North America, the discussion is going to be very short. There are two factors that make it virtually impossible, geography and economics.

Economics has been pretty well discussed, if the government doesn't do it nobody will. High speed rail can't coexist with freight, so new right of ways will be needed. That's a knock out punch right there.

So why does high speed rail work in Europe and Japan. Geography. High speed rail works best for trips under 300 miles between dense population centers. It is less practical to fly in Europe and Japan than to take the train. Here in the US we just don't have enough of those situations outside the NEC.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Now then: How are you going to pay for the lines between areas of high population density that have to pass through long distances of low population states, like yours and mine?

Like I said I'd prefer to talk TRAINS....

Depends if your talking long distance cross country or intercity from large center to large center thru rural areas. It would likely require a combination of State and Federal funding, similar to what California is doing, I beleive its 40% state, 60% federal funding to construct rail systems here. of course the cities where the routes pass through are expected to pay a larger sum of the state fees. The state fees can be a deal buster though, if the state is poor it might not be able to ante up. Even in large populace states, example, Calif is having that problem now trying to come up with its share of the funding for a proposed HSR system here.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Son: I worry sometimes that you just don't get it.How about trying to get back to subject (TRAINS) without needing to get in the last jab? ( Oh yea? Yea! Oh Yea? Yea!=) Think about it please.

Yes Sir, and Sorry Sir! [*^_^*] [B)] Thank you for being so patient. [bow]

QUOTE: Now then: How are you going to pay for the lines between areas of high population density that have to pass through long distances of low population states, like yours and mine?

Well the main problem I see with funding, goes back to economics. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. We are going to have to pay, be it taxes or otherwise.

[blhanel]

//wheels popcorn popper over from diner

I promise I won't break it, CopCarSS!