Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I read the article...waste of money. I am a big fan of high speed rail, which this is not. These aren't that fast and with all of the stops, a car will be faster. We should go all the way or not at all. Half assing it is a joke.
A bicyclist comes into my lane of traffic and I hit him and it's illegal?
Better brush up on your law dude.........
Geez officer, he just swerved right out in front of me......
You will be at fault.
If you approach any vehicle, including cyclists, from behind, the law states that you cannot pass them until it is safe to do so. If the cyclist signals to turn or takes the lane, you have to yield. When passing a cyclist, you should yield them as much of the lane as possible, meaning using the oncoming traffic lane if it is clear.
Did you even take a driver's test?
For anyone not filled with rage at the sight of a cyclist, this really isn't an issue. Bicycles travel between 20-30 mph and non-interstate (from which bicycles are banned) roadway speed limits generally don't exceed 55mph--with no curves and long visibility range--and are lower than that for curvy or hilly roads with poor visibility. There's plenty of time and space to drop the 20mph difference between you and the cyclist and pass at a safe 5-10 mph faster than the cyclist rather than blowing by them at a reckless 30-40 mph faster than they are moving.
An automobile driver shouldn't have any problem dealing with bicycles on the road unless that driver is so irresponsible that they don't deserve to operate a motor vehicle in the first place.
Interesting article. (Slant of the site and authors not withstanding)
Personally, I'd like nothing more than to see true passenger rail come back in the U.S.
But there are some pretty serious stumbling blocks that will have to be addressed once the nasty fog of politics blows away.
Rail (like other mass-transit systems) will almost certainly have to be perpetually supported by tax-payer dollars. Rail is very expensive (the very sum of nearly 60 to 200+ billion in proposed improvements shows that) and the biggest cost will be labor, both for the improvements in road-bed and rolling stock and right after that will be the labor cost in staffing the trains. Cargo rail, especially for bulk commodities is relatively inexpensive in ton per mile, passengers won't be.
Will improved passenger service in whatever form be even partially able to support itself? Will ticket sales be at a price point that consumers are willing to bear? Will there be a sufficient volume of ridership (even with population growth projections that are themselves sort of crazy) that the systems can prevent themselves from becoming little more than a make-work program for "organized" supporters of the politicians who forwarded the rail proposal in the first place?
Perhaps the freight companies could be counted on for some support provided the upgrades benefitted the cargo rail systems too, and provided that all players when they enter into negotiations do so with truly cooperative mentalities.
Perhaps commuter rail for the suburbs and exurbs would be good as more people flee the cities yet by circumstances are continually forced to work there.
Will riders patronize rail and forgo the frequent need for follow-on transportation once at their destinations? Will they take busses subways and cabs? How will the "new" commuter rail (high speed or no) help people get from actual door to actual door with greater ease and speed? Have the proponents of rail really considered these salient points?
To say that all riders can simply take a cab or bus is not perhaps realistic and they won't rent cars either. What are the studies on the average number of multiple system commuters? How many different systems for public transportation does the average commuter use or need to go "door -to- door"? Will the average rider of public rail go through two or three different systems each time they go TO work and each time the head home FROM work? Will they take two and then walk or three and then walk?
And what of the people who are not riders now but who the system will need to entice, to get more riders? People who live in the suburbs are likely to be more educated and better off than not. Will they opt to use rail over the convenience and the privacy of a personal auto?
Perhaps in cities where car congestion is atrocious rail might have an advantage, at least relatively short distance commuter rail? If rail lines catered to those with higher incomes and higher expectations of the services they hire, then rail just might attract more people and increase ridership. Has anyone thought about what type of high quality ie "polite and affordable" service a rail line would need to attract high-paying riders needed to support the system?
Filthy perpetually late train cars, surly staff and other passengers who look like they just got out of the penitentiary are probably not going to attract riders to rail.
Then there is the issue of “high speed” going through on legacy right-always or over new ground. Many cities that clamored for high speed rail, either for the “gee-whiz” techno appeal to it or the dripping political “green-ish-ness” of it are rapidly changing their tune when they discover how many houses will have to be leveled via-eminent domain to make room for the new line. (To include the houses of many hitherto rail “supporters” themselves)
So, I’m all for a resurgence of passenger rail.
But….
1. Don’t let it become an endless burden on the taxpayer.
2. Insist on passenger rail being able to cover at least 25% of their total budget either from ticket sales or from sharing leasing lines to cargo systems. Award lines for their efficiency and encourage their profitability.
3. Don’t let passenger rail become a “make work” entitlement program where “employees” are totally immune from any and all repercussions for poor service and lousy performance. If this is to truly be a “new” system the old practices that have led directly to exploding costs and less that stellar service are going to have to go away entirely. New rail WILL HAVE TO BE NEW and exciting once again and it will have to stay that way. Riding will have to be a pleasant memorable relaxing experience that people will look forward to and will want to experience over and over. If they hate riding the train…they won’t.
4. Keep the system competitive so that prices can be held down. PRIVATIZE. If the government “runs” the system, they’ll run it into the ground, and the taxpayer will be obliged to “bail-out” a system that was only destined to bankrupt.
5. Limit the impact on the environment by utilizing existing or legacy rightaways preventing the breaking of new ground and/or the loss of private property from eminent domain.
6. Explore multiple power systems, from diesel (diesel electric) to fully electric service. Can local / regional grids handle the increased demand? (Consider the multiple order impacts)
7. Allow, encourage lines to provide customized services. Encourage operators to develop programs that will invite new riders to utilize the service and existing riders to stay. Don’t let the systems become “cattle-cars” whose novelty will wear quickly once consumers figure out that they have a better experience getting to and from work driving their personal automobiles even IF stuck in traffic.
8. Explore all the possible follow-on transportation needs of the commuters. If they had a great time on the train, but are now stuck with a long dreadful walk or a miserable cab ride or wretched city-bus or subway experience….they WON’T use the train. The ENTIRE system will, by necessity have to be revised updated and modernized and the focus on providing SUPERLATIVE service to the rider will have to encompass the ENTIRE system. If any ONE part of the commute experience is nasty the whole exercise is for naught. Riding the train WILL have to become fun again in order to have ANY renaissance of rail be successful.
Last edited by Happy Cells; 02-19-2011 at 10:10 PM..
Yea, well, I'd like to see Ralph Cramden come back. But, times change. We aren't gonna kiss grandma good bye at the station and no one is gonna pay 500,000,000,000 so that a few petulant young adults can get a fast ride out to college or spring break on the bullet train. Read up a little on who rides it in France and Japan and then move on to some other incredibly expensive stupid idea. This one is over. Consider the billions spent by its advocates a good investment in educating the rest of us.
no one is gonna pay 500,000,000,000 so that a few petulant young adults can get a fast ride out to college or spring break on the bullet train. Read up a little on who rides it in France and Japan and then move on to some other incredibly expensive stupid idea.
Or you could unglue yourself from the political tv/blogs, get out of the basement, actually visit those countries, and learn the truth. Believe me, the TGV between Paris and Brussels, the D-Train between Shanghai and Beijing, the Shinkansen between Tokyo and Kyoto, and the HSR between Taipei and Khaosung are ridden by more than just "a few petulant young adults."
When we are packed in like sardines living in 300 square feet in a country and few families having even one personal car, then we will applaud the arrival of the Shinkansen. When will that be? Seems like our cities are emptying out? Oh, wait a minute, they are emptying out. It will never happen here. I guess it will just be a few petulant young adults interested in these expensive toys.
Hmm, one of those is significantly smaller than the rest.
LOL , but you forgot the Northeast most states are packed far more dense then that...
New Jersey Density 1,185/sq mi
Delaware Density 442.6/sq mi
Maryland Density 541.9/sq mi
New York Density 408.7/sq mi
Connecticut Density 702.9/sq mi
Rhode Island Density 1,012.3/sq mi
Massachusetts Density 809.8/sq mi
Vermont Density 65.8/sq mi
New Hampshire Density 146.8/sq mi
Maine Density 43.1/sq mi
Pennsylvania Density 283.9/sq mi
Most states in the NE have a higher density then the rest of the Country thus we are restoring 18,000+ miles of Railway by 2050 even to Rural areas.....even the less dense states like Maine and Vermont have a long term Rail plan....
When we are packed in like sardines living in 300 square feet in a country and few families having even one personal car, then we will applaud the arrival of the Shinkansen. When will that be? Seems like our cities are emptying out? Oh, wait a minute, they are emptying out. It will never happen here. I guess it will just be a few petulant young adults interested in these expensive toys.
All the NE cities except Baltimore , Camden and Trenton grew by at least 3%... Some of the Railway towns grew by 30%....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
