In article ,
says...

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 07:39:10 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

Part of the cost of your travel to Jax is subsidized by taxpayers
although Amtrak has done better this year, requiring only $1.3 billion
in federal subsidizes compared to $1.4 billion in 2012.

Air travel is subsidized as well.

Cite

You're kidding, right???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_Air_Service

http://tinyurl.com/882ckbl

On 9/3/13 12:10 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 07:39:10 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

Part of the cost of your travel to Jax is subsidized by taxpayers
although Amtrak has done better this year, requiring only $1.3 billion
in federal subsidizes compared to $1.4 billion in 2012.

Air travel is subsidized as well.

Cite

You're kidding, right???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_Air_Service

http://tinyurl.com/882ckbl


Airlines and those who buy new planes for airlines don't write off those
purchases? That is a subsidy.

On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 08:57:34 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:

On 9/3/2013 7:51 AM, Hank© wrote:
On 9/2/2013 11:24 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 14:42:08 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

I'll betcha if a national poll was taken the majority of people would
prefer spending money on fixing roads and airports in lieu of
building a
rail system network and trains capable of travelling 200+ mph.

The power grid isn't as big of a problem as you may think. Demand has
basically flat lined in the past several years and has actually dropped
in some. Smart grids and energy efficient devices have helped.



Not to worry. Nothing much is happening in refurbishing roads,
bridges, dams, infrastructure.

That must be a North East problem. Florida maintains it's roads
..

BTW who was talking about dams?
The environmentalists want all of them blown up anyway

Roads don't freeze in Florida. Northerners haven't figured out how to
build roads to survive the harsh winters they experience.

The "infrastructure" is not crumbling... I drive all over the place with
a trailer. The roads are fine... the bridges are fine....

You've obviously not been on I-95 around Boston with a trailer. The asphalt dips three to five
inches just before the concrete overpasses. When the wheels hit the concrete overpass, the trailer
seems to bounce a foot. Our cabinet doors were opened, crap all over the floor, and shelves broken.
What a mess.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 11:52:03 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 09:49:34 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

What you don't realize is that many bridges carrying interstate traffic
were never engineered for that weight and frequency of traffic loads.
That is but one problem.

Why not? They were originally designed for trucks carrying tanks.

Now where on earth do you get THAT idea from???

Eisenhower said it.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 11:06:06 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 07:56:05 -0400, Hank©
wrote:

On 9/3/2013 12:33 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 21:05:10 -0400, Wayne.B

You still run into that "last 20 (or 40) mile" problem in each city
you get close to.
They may not have a suitable interstate going into the city and that
real estate tends to be curb to curb traffic lane.

Elevating a high speed train? That is just funny.
Cost, additional danger in a derailment, more noise.

I do like your sense of humor tho.

All it would take is a train popping off a track and taking out a
whole row of bumper to bumper commuters in cars on that interstate
below to sink rail in this country for years.


I wonder why the monorail concept never took off?

It did, go to Disneyland and ride it any time you want.

It is a slow theme park ride, not good for much else.

And now, because of 'security' considerations, you can't ride up in the front cab anymore. F'ing
Muslim Terrorists have taken the fun out of everything.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 11:51:32 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 09:53:38 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

A fairly substantial bridge carrying I-95 over a river in Greenwich
collapsed about three decades ago.

===

I was over that bridge about an hour before it went down, couldn't
believe my ears when I heard the news in the morning.

That bridge failed more from engineering/design issues than it did
from deterioration. It was only about 30 years old at the time.

Again, those "issues" are usually the result of old bridges being re-
purposed and thus were never engineered to carry the traffic that they
are getting.

===

Not in this case. There was an extensive engineering review
conducted and it was concluded that the design was unsuited for that
particular bridge configuration. The span that failed was not
rectangular since the bridge makes a turn, more of a trapezoidal shape
if my memory is correct. That creates an asymetrical rocking motion
as traffic passes over it, and that caused a so called link pin to
fail prematurely. It was always known that the bridge would be
subject to heavy traffic but the span couplings were unsuitable for
the type of unusual loading encountered.

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 09:49:34 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

What you don't realize is that many bridges carrying interstate
traffic
were never engineered for that weight and frequency of traffic
loads.
That is but one problem.

Why not? They were originally designed for trucks carrying tanks.


Now where on earth do you get THAT idea from???

-------------------------

One of the many purposes and reasons for Eisenhower's Interstate
Highway project which started in 1956, was to provide a means for
efficient movements of military assets, the requirements of which
contributed to the highway design. Another was for civil defense and
mass evacuations of areas hit by natural disasters. It's the reason
the design consists of lanes separated by a barrier. In the event of
an emergency, traffic can travel in the same direction, using both
sides of the highway.

On 9/3/2013 10:26 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 09:53:38 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

A fairly substantial bridge carrying I-95 over a river in Greenwich
collapsed about three decades ago.

===

I was over that bridge about an hour before it went down, couldn't
believe my ears when I heard the news in the morning.

That bridge failed more from engineering/design issues than it did
from deterioration. It was only about 30 years old at the time.


Again, another red herring... That bridge has nothing to do with this
conversation...

On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 11:36:00 -0400, John H
wrote:

Been on I-95 lately?

===

NY to Jacksonville just a week ago, other than traffic issues south of
Baltimore, not all that bad in my opinion.

On 9/3/2013 10:28 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 05:46:06 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:

On 9/2/2013 11:26 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 16:18:37 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:

NIMBY
Would you want a 150 MPH train running by your house?



It's already there on the whole frekin' shoreline... they got the land,
it's not about land...

Where is that?

Are you saying they are going to condemn all of those Sandy damaged
properties and build a railroad? (where the next hurricane will
destroy it)
That sounds like our government.


Don't understand your question... There is already a railroad there...
Right on the shoreline.... all the way from Stonington to Grenwich....

What is it used for now and how will they replace that line if they
put in high speed rail?

You don't run 280,000 pound freight cars on the same track you run a
150 MPH train.
Railroads are in no big hurry to get rid of freight, that actually
makes money to put in a money losing passenger service.


It's mostly a passenger service... they already have some high speed
locomotives too, but it's still not the right tool for moving folks
around here...