In article ,
says...

On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 11:48:38 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 10:58:12 -0400, wrote:

What "subsidy".

===

The FAA and the air traffic control system.

ATC could easily be privatized (like Canada), as could TSA (it used to
be).

Sure it could, and then the airlines would go broke without the subsidy.

That is nothing more than governmental creep.

If the airlines had to pay back every dime of the FAA cost of ATC it
would be about $10 a flight per passenger. A private operator would do
it cheaper, no doubt.

cite?

In article ,
says...

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.

Why not?

Because they weren't intended to be interstate bridges.

In article ,
says...

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.

Eisenhower said that local bridges that were re-purposed LONG after his
death when building new city interstate roads that they needed to carry
tanks??????

In article ,
says...

"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.



But LONG after his death, more and more interstate highways were built.
When the built these in cities, many bridges got re-purposed as
interstate bridges and weren't intended nor designed for that kind of
traffic.

In article ,
says...

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???

The original purpose of the interstate highway system and the original
design guidelines

In many cities, the interstate highways are being added and have been
added. The original guidelines no longer stand, and the fact is that
city bridges have been re-purposed to use for interstate traffic that
they were never intended nor designed to hold.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 12:02:12 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 09:57:25 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

No, it's mostly a stigma, people think elevated trains, they think
noise, they think unsafe, etc. Add to that that for some reason beyond
me, there are a LOT of people in the U.S. who just fear and loathe any
new technology.

Elevated trains ARE noisier and if they derail, over a major road,
they are a lot more dangerous.
We are not talking about the Lake Street El here. You want that train
going 150 MPH or more.

Please show me how elevated monorail trains (that IS what we are
discussing here) are any less safe than any other.


The only monorails I know of go about 50-60 MPH. We have been talking
about HIGH SPEED RAIL for 3 days.

Oh, good lord..... WHOOOOOOOOOSH......

BTW you keep saying "innovation" and "new technology" but this is 200
year old technology and every plan I have heard involves buying
existing technology from Europe or Japan. Were is the innovation?

Oh, I forgot, you were the one who claimed that because the automobile
was invented a long time ago, that our cars are the same as the model
T....

Just like trains, there have been slow, incremental changes to the
same basic concept. No massive innovation
Cars were also invented and developed without massive infusions of
public money ... until the unions sucked the industry dry.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 12:10:54 -0400, 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

A boondoggle that should be stopped IMHO.
That is not a general subsidy for anyone not going to 100 tiny
airports.
Rail needs the same kind of subsidy for virtually every passenger
because ticket prices never cover costs.

Oh ****, what on earth do you think the air subsidies are for???

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 13:18:09 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 07:39:51 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 21:41:57 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


When we take the train to Jax, it usually works out to be a 13 hour
train trip. We leave in the evening and arrive the next morining, after
a good night's sleep aboard the train. No long waits to clear security
at the origin, no long wait for luggage at the termination. Compartment
includes private toilet, two bunk beds and two pretty decent meals.
Takes about the same time as driving, if I felt like driving without an
overnight stop, which I don't like doing. Would take much less time if
trackage and equipment were a lot better, but the trackage south of DC
is mostly CSX, and it doesn't give a **** about high speed passenger rail.

No worries about all the crap that accompanies airline travel.

That "crap" is coming TSA is already eyeing trains as the next place
to expand their empire. All it would take is one "terrorist gesture"
to lock the train stations down as tight as an airport.


About $700 round trip for two adults. Much more comfy than even first
class on a plane. Takes longer, sure, but it's overnight and you have to
sleep. Oh, and two first class airline tickets would be about $1000.

But we can't improve passenger rail transportation because this is
America and we can't things like that anymore. I get it.

It is something most people do not want.
It is simple, just put it to a vote.
In Florida High Speed Rail went down about two to one in the 2004
vote.

Kill the bullet train

Yes 4,519,423 63.72%
No 2,573,280 36.28%

Bunch of old retirees that are afraid of change!

Cite? :)

John (Gun Nut) H.

Wow, must you be shown everything? He

http://bit.ly/18Auhqn

You really should learn how to do a little research yourself.

Nowhere says the 4,519,423 pollsters who said 'kill it' were old, retirees, or afraid of change.

Perhaps you should read some of your 'cites'.

John (Gun Nut) H.

You stupid fool, are you incapable of extrapolating data now? Hint: what
percentage of Floridians are retirees......... think now, it may do some
good.

In article ,
says...

"John H" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 13:18:09 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:


You really should learn how to do a little research yourself.



Nowhere says the 4,519,423 pollsters who said 'kill it' were old,
retirees, or afraid of change.

Perhaps you should read some of your 'cites'.

John (Gun Nut) H.

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

Sometimes I think iBoaterer just reads the title of an article and
then "cites" it.

You have to be able to extrapolate data, it's not hard, either.

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

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.

Why not?

Because they weren't intended to be interstate bridges.

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

A bridge on *Interstate Route 95" is not an interstate bridge?