On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 11:43:26 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 11:16:30 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 9/2/13 10:27 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


Yeah, I've heard and read every excuse here for at least the last 20
years. The fact remains that in the operation of high speed trains,
we're still in the caboose.

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


===

I don't think that's it because there are already plenty of
established right-of-ways that could be utilized. It's probably more
a perception, probably accurate, that most americans would rather
drive if at all possible. When I was living and working in the NYC
area it was almost always easier, and about as fast, to drive to
Philly, DC or Boston even though there are decent rail links. The
only exception was if you were traveling to a downtown location which
was usually not the case. I think it will take a radical change in
fuel prices and/or availability to change that thinking.

On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 18:16:12 -0400, wrote:

The problem is a lot of those right of ways have been ceded over to
the power companies for power lines and the Internet. That is where a
good chunk of the national fiber backbone is installed. Nobody wants
you digging roadbeds around that.
The existing ROW is being used for freight. They don't want that on HS
rail.

===

Don't forget about the interstate highway system, especially the air
rights over the medians, or the air rights over the freight lines.

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

On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 18:16:12 -0400, wrote:

The problem is a lot of those right of ways have been ceded over to
the power companies for power lines and the Internet. That is where a
good chunk of the national fiber backbone is installed. Nobody wants
you digging roadbeds around that.
The existing ROW is being used for freight. They don't want that on HS
rail.

===

Don't forget about the interstate highway system, especially the air
rights over the medians, or the air rights over the freight lines.

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?

On 9/3/2013 7:56 AM, Hank© wrote:
On 9/3/2013 12:33 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 21:05:10 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 18:16:12 -0400, wrote:

The problem is a lot of those right of ways have been ceded over to
the power companies for power lines and the Internet. That is where a
good chunk of the national fiber backbone is installed. Nobody wants
you digging roadbeds around that.
The existing ROW is being used for freight. They don't want that on HS
rail.

===

Don't forget about the interstate highway system, especially the air
rights over the medians, or the air rights over the freight lines.

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?

Because, Americans can't live with set tracks for routes...

On 9/3/2013 8:58 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 9/3/2013 7:56 AM, Hank© wrote:
On 9/3/2013 12:33 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 21:05:10 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 18:16:12 -0400, wrote:

The problem is a lot of those right of ways have been ceded over to
the power companies for power lines and the Internet. That is where a
good chunk of the national fiber backbone is installed. Nobody wants
you digging roadbeds around that.
The existing ROW is being used for freight. They don't want that on HS
rail.

===

Don't forget about the interstate highway system, especially the air
rights over the medians, or the air rights over the freight lines.

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?

Because, Americans can't live with set tracks for routes...

I'm waiting for Loogies answer. I already know what it will be. ;-)

On 9/3/2013 9:16 AM, Hank© wrote:
On 9/3/2013 8:58 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 9/3/2013 7:56 AM, Hank© wrote:
On 9/3/2013 12:33 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 21:05:10 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 18:16:12 -0400, wrote:

The problem is a lot of those right of ways have been ceded over to
the power companies for power lines and the Internet. That is where a
good chunk of the national fiber backbone is installed. Nobody wants
you digging roadbeds around that.
The existing ROW is being used for freight. They don't want that
on HS
rail.

===

Don't forget about the interstate highway system, especially the air
rights over the medians, or the air rights over the freight lines.

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?

Because, Americans can't live with set tracks for routes...

I'm waiting for Loogies answer. I already know what it will be. ;-)

You read his stuff?

On 9/3/2013 9:22 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 9/3/2013 9:16 AM, Hank© wrote:
On 9/3/2013 8:58 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 9/3/2013 7:56 AM, Hank© wrote:
On 9/3/2013 12:33 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 21:05:10 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 18:16:12 -0400, wrote:

The problem is a lot of those right of ways have been ceded over to
the power companies for power lines and the Internet. That is
where a
good chunk of the national fiber backbone is installed. Nobody wants
you digging roadbeds around that.
The existing ROW is being used for freight. They don't want that
on HS
rail.

===

Don't forget about the interstate highway system, especially the air
rights over the medians, or the air rights over the freight lines.

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?

Because, Americans can't live with set tracks for routes...

I'm waiting for Loogies answer. I already know what it will be. ;-)

You read his stuff?

Indirectly. Harry and others love to chat with him.

In article ,
says...

On 9/3/2013 7:56 AM, Hank© wrote:
On 9/3/2013 12:33 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 21:05:10 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 18:16:12 -0400, wrote:

The problem is a lot of those right of ways have been ceded over to
the power companies for power lines and the Internet. That is where a
good chunk of the national fiber backbone is installed. Nobody wants
you digging roadbeds around that.
The existing ROW is being used for freight. They don't want that on HS
rail.

===

Don't forget about the interstate highway system, especially the air
rights over the medians, or the air rights over the freight lines.

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?

Because, Americans can't live with set tracks for routes...

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.

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

there are a LOT of people in the U.S. who just fear and loathe any
new technology.

===

I think that's more a recent political phenomenon, largely inspired by
the Rush Limbaughs of the world. There was a time, not too far in
the past, when most people took pride in seeing new technology
developed. They need to see the advantages for themselves however
instead of being told they must adopt it.

In article ,
says...

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

there are a LOT of people in the U.S. who just fear and loathe any
new technology.

===

I think that's more a recent political phenomenon, largely inspired by
the Rush Limbaughs of the world. There was a time, not too far in
the past, when most people took pride in seeing new technology
developed. They need to see the advantages for themselves however
instead of being told they must adopt it.

I agree, and I really don't understand it! I guess it just goes to show
that for a lot of Americans, they'd rather get their education from Rush
than from reality!