So much for the idea of an SRB being less expensive for CLV

[vt_hokie]

The Northeast Corridor is the one route in this country that is grade separated, except for a handful of remaining road crossings in eastern Connecticut on lower speed sections.

 

[mlorrey]

This is the problem: if you grade separate the rail line for high speed, and fence it off, you wind up cutting your community in two, destroying the community. The phrase "other side of the tracks" arose specifically because of the tendency of railroad tracks to divide communities. It contributes to class separation, class conflict, and turns a communitarian/egalitarian community into one rooted in patriarchal relationships.<br /><br />Do local communities benefit at all from such divisive forces? To make high speed routes work, the stops need to be very far apart, ergo most communities along a route would not be permitted to benefit from the rail line. Conversely, all communities along interstate highways can benefit from the raised road because ramps can be built anywhere the traffic can be justified, since every vehicle operates at its own speed, independently navigated.<br /><br />If you do not grade separate the line, it is a hazard to the members of the community, if you do grade separate the line, it is a hazard to the community itself.

 

[vt_hokie]

So much for not hijacking this thread...LOL! I'd love to see us turn railroad rights of way into bike paths once we have high speed elevated maglev trains, but until then, how is a railroad any worse than a highway? The fact is, it has a lower impact on the environment, not to mention a much lower cost to society in terms of fatalities. Auto travel is very dangerous and takes a lot of lives, and somehow that gets overlooked all too often when evaluating the costs of transportation. High speed rail is probably the safest form of transport out there.

 

[mlorrey]

I would dispute the figures for rail accident deaths. Many times that number died in a single derailment a few months ago. Somebody is fudging the numbers. Start googling derailments and start adding the numbers up.<br /><br />This California derailment in 2005 caused 11 deaths and 200 injuries.<br />This one in 2003 led to one death and more than 230 injuries.<br /><br />I can dig for more, but I will say the only reason there are not more deaths on US passenger trains is because there are so few of them, and ridership is so poor. Passenger railroads in other countries regularly experience death tolls of 80-200 in derailments.<br />According to this: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20060321-1621-transport-rail.html<br />railroad crossing deaths in 2005 were 355, and 1,000 injuries, a new low, achieved only because the Transportation Department has undertaken a campaign of closing 4,400 railroad crossings.<br /><br />So your claim of only 6 deaths in rail accidents in 2005 is quite wrong. Rail proponents seem to separate the different types of rail deaths: rail crossing deaths, from derailment deaths, from hobos falling off train car deaths, from commuters pushed off subway platform deaths, etc etc etc.<br /><br />I'll bet if you added them all up, and compared the actual deaths to the amont of rail passenger ridership vs the automobile ridership in the US, rail will show up as significantly more dangerous.<br />

 

[j05h]

>The Northeast Corridor is the one route in this country that is grade separated, except for a handful of remaining road crossings in eastern Connecticut on lower speed sections.<br /><br />It's probably not part of the Northeast Corridor (technically), but the "Downeaster" train line has many road crossings, in Dover, Berwick, Saco, Old Orchard and other spots. I'm pretty sure cars have been hit in it's few years of operation. <br /><br />Still doesn't change the reality: America's roads are dangerous with 40,000 deaths and millions of injuries every year. Our roads are a meat grinder. <br /><br />Wow, this is off topic.<br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>I would dispute the figures for rail accident deaths. Many times that number died in a single derailment a few months ago. Somebody is fudging the numbers. Start googling derailments and start adding the numbers up. </i><br /><br />I said high speed rail. Japan's Shinkansen has yet to experience a passenger fatality, and the first Shinkansens went into service in the 1960's. France's TGV has an enviable safety record. Germany had one tragedy with its ICE, but still has an excellent safety record overall. <br /><br />Most passenger rail accidents in the United States are grade crossing accidents, or are related to a lack of automation and antiquated signaling/traffic control systems. But even with our antiquated infrastructure in the United States, rail travel is statistically orders of magnitude safer than driving, and comparable to commercial aviation.

 

[mlorrey]

JO5H, you need to compare the total deaths versus ridership. If a lot more people rode trains, a lot more people would die on trains. Currently only a small fraction of the people use a train even once a week. Everybody uses cars every day, for many more miles. Subways are safer than railroads because the only way to get hurt is if you jump or are pushed off a station platform, or in some stations, simply stand on the tracks (not all subway stations have raised platforms, you can walk across some quite easily).<br /><br />"It ain't that people are ignorant, its that they know so many things that ain't so."

 

[mlorrey]

Death toll from crash may top 100<br /><br />AMAGASAKI, Hyogo Pref. (Kyodo) Police said Wednesday that at least 20 people, presumably dead, are still in the first two cars of the train that rammed a condominium here Monday, raising the prospect that the death toll could top 100.<br /> <br />The House of Councilors offers a moment of silence Wednesday for victims of Monday's train crash in Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture. <br /><br />The toll from the rush-hour crash on the JR Fukuchiyama Line had risen to 96 dead -- 53 males and 43 females -- and 456 injured by Wednesday afternoon, as rescuers pulled more bodies from the wreckage.<br /><br />Police and firefighters had been trying to locate survivors by using equipment that uses electromagnetic waves to detect heartbeats.<br /><br />But by early Wednesday, it became clear that nobody who was inside the wreckage -- especially the badly mangled first car -- could still be alive.<br /><br />West Japan Railway Co. said separately that the number of people listed by relatives as missing stood at 42 as of Wednesday morning.<br /><br />Most of the victims died instantly when the train derailed and hit the nine-story condominium, investigative sources said.<br /><br />The accident occurred Monday morning near a railway crossing on JR West's Fukuchiyama Line. The train, after passing Tsukaguchi Station, was headed for Amagasaki Station -- at high speed according to some witnesses -- after overrunning its stopping point at Itami Station by about 40 meters.<br /><br />As it approached a curve in the tracks, the first five cars derailed, with the first one plowing into the condominium's ground-floor parking garage about 6 meters from the tracks. The second car was flattened after crashing into the corner of the building.<br /><br />The investigators said earlier that the train was approaching the curve at more than 100 kph when it derailed, although the speed limit there is 70 kph.<br /><br />JR West said the train could theoretically be driven as fast

 

[vt_hokie]

I remember that crash. That was not the Shinkansen, however. <br /><br />I could start randomly pulling up stories of aviation disasters or fatal auto accidents, but that would be statistically meaningless. No form of transportation is without risk, but I stand by my assertion that modern passenger rail systems are at least as safe as commercial aviation, and certainly much safer than highways. <br /><br />http://www.cwrr.com/Amtrak/about_am.html<br /><br /><i>The historic passenger fatality rate on Amtrak trains is ten times less per mile than riding in an automobile, and about the same as on an airplane. People being killed or injured on a train is big news; auto accidents are so common as to be ignored.</i>

 

[mattblack]

I never knew you guys were such "Trainspotters"!!<br /><br /> />>I agree! 787 is a major disappointment after having the Sonic Cruiser killed.<<<br /><br />For me, not a major dissapointment -- but a dissapointment nonetheless! At least some of it's technology will live on in the 787. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

Well since this turned into a rail transport thread... I'd like to see Skyweb Express in real action. Cab-like privacy yet efficiency of public transport. IMO there are many ways to make this concept even more appealing. Intercity lines. Cabs of different sizes and purposes (moving stuff? order cargo cab). Make the rail specs a public standard and invite other to manufacture third party cabs which can be privately owned. Ramps to get on and off rail in order to commute the last mile or two in the suburbs to your garage on small tyres and electric drive.<br />

 

[mogster]

Rail usage per head of population in the UK is quite high. Rail passenger deaths are very very unusual, road deaths happen all the time, so often no one takes any notice. 10 people killed in a motorway pile up hardly makes the news, 10 people killed in a rail accident is big news beacuse its so unusuall.<br /><br />I don't understand the whole destroying/deviding communities thing. In the UK there's a lot of railways, people live close to them, very close and its not a problem. Open crossings are dangerous, UK high speed rail lines (140mph) have underpasses and bridges, underpasses through gradients are easy. The West cost main line runs about 200yards from my house, 140mph electric trains. You have to be quite close to notice them, the main noise is the rumble as the pass over a road bridge. If your very close to the line (and I mean very close) there's like a thud as the trains pass then nothing, no buildup of sound or anything. You get used to it very quickly.

 

[n_kitson]

Unfortunately, it does turn out that rail as a whole has higher fatality rates in the US than auto traffic. The fatalities per 100MM passenger miles are as follows:<br /><br />Year / Auto / All rail / Rail at grade only<br />2001 / 1.51 / 5.80 / 2.63<br />2002 / 1.51 / 6.20 / 2.69<br />2003 / 1.48 / 6.27 / 2.35<br /><br />This is all US data. In the UK, the rail rates are lower than the auto rates. However in Italy, they are substantially higher.<br /><br />The challenge in the US is the "Concorde" syndrome. Is you look at the fatal event rate for Concorde, it is the most dangerous production airliner. Unfortunately, the data is skewed due to one crash on relatively few flights, compared to say a 747. Rail fatalities in the US appear high, beacuse the vast majority of rail movement is cargo trains - a single fatality on a cargo train results in a very high rate per 100MM passenger miles. <br /><br />I'm sure if the US invested heavily in rail infrastructure with new, modern trains and an updated, integrated signalling system, these rates would plummet. But, that is just a hypothesis, and likely to reamin so.<br /><br />It is an unfortunate fact that a combination of the the current US addiction to cars and the loud voices of the NIMBYs will continue to prevent new investment in infrastructure.

 

[edkyle98]

I think that this cost "increase" may actually be due to the <br />decision to develop the 5-segment booster for CLV. <br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[lampblack]

I wonder how fast you could do a cross-country express railroad trip with the aid of a five-segment solid rocket booster?<br /><br />Just mount an SRB on top of the locomotive -- then clear all the crossings and light that bad boy! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

Really fast ... until first tunnel <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[vt_hokie]

How about a couple of jet engines instead? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />http://rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/nyc-m497all.jpg

 

[lampblack]

<font color="yellow">How about a couple of jet engines instead? <br /><br />http://rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/nyc-m497all.jpg </font><br /><br />Now we talkin'!!<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[nibb31]

deaths per distance or per person aren't really relevant. You have to calculate per (person x distance) to get a relevant figure.<br /><br />I found the following figures for France, where a large proportion of train traffic is TGV, an average from 1999 to 2003:<br /><br />Air transport: 0.25 deaths per billion people.kilometers.<br />Train: 0.19<br />Road: 6.46<br /><br />Road travel is uncomparably more dangerous than any other transportation method. It's also the most expensive per capita, and the most polluting. High-speed trains are electric, therefore nuclear.<br /><br />I doubt that the figures for any industrialized country are that much different. <br />

 

[josh_simonson]

I rode amtrak once from Davis, ca to union city, CA. It cost about 35 bucks and took about twice as long as driving. Even in my 17mph cargo van the fuel would have been cheaper to drive too.<br /><br />The only nice thing was I could relax, I was snoozing with my head against the window when a rock or brick(probably thrown by kids) broke the window. A security guard was sitting across from me and said that they have to replace a couple windows a week due to people throwing rocks at the train. <br /><br />All told I spent more time and money on the train than I would have in my van, and AMTRAK had to replace a probably $500 tinted safety glass window. I've never been tempted to ride it again.<br /><br />Folks are never going to take the train if it's more expensive than driving. Even alone in a poor mileage vehicle, I was better off driving. Tickets would have to be less than $5 to make it worthwhile to take one's family on amtrak.<br /><br />OTOH, the BART trains that link up half the bay area are pretty successful. They are usually about $5 for a round trip, and if you go to san francisco it saves a $3 bridge toll and $5-10 in parking, as well as not having to weave around transvestite crack whores (I'm not kidding on that). <br />

 

[mlorrey]

Quite so. Rail proponents complain that the rail line owners pay property taxes, while government owned highways don't. I'd point out that people who use cars on highways pay more in taxes: registration, sales taxes, gas taxes, tolls, than the cost of building and maintaining the highways, while AMTRAK and various subway/light rail programs around the country receive significant subsidies (excess of a billion a year) that come from federal highway funds paid for by car users.<br /><br />Your AMTRAK tickets are subsidized by your car-related taxes, so, when you look at in sum, AMTRAK still can't compete. If people reduce their car use, ticket prices will go up, not down, because tickets are subsidized by gas taxes that aren't being paid because of reduced car use.<br /><br />This is the typical rerouting of funds: subway systems around the country are subsidized by public parking revenues, bridge tolls, and local gas taxes, money that is taken away from road maintenance and given to mass transit. Every time you hit a pothole on the roads of some big city, the money for fixing it went to subsidize someone else's subway pass. Ask yourself: why is it the cities with the highest local gas taxes in the country have the most poorly maintained roads?

 

[vt_hokie]

The problem is that people always ignore "externalities" like pollution when evaluating the cost of auto travel. And consider the toll on wildlife, in addition to the human carnage. I've hit two deer already since moving to Pennsylvania, and I see far too many gruesome animal remains along the roads.

 

[mlorrey]

Wildlife roadkill is a result of too many ignorant anti-hunting weenies who fail to understand the hunters place in wildlife management, and post their land against hunting, resulting in wildlife overpopulation.<br /><br />You never see the wildlife that trains kill. At least a moose has a fighting chance of killing you and surviving if you hit it. It's got no chance against a train. I've seen deer survive hits with econoboxes (those crumple zones are as good for wildlife as they are for you). Trains have no crumple zones.<br /><br />If you care about the deer, buy some deer alerts (they mount on your bumper and make an ultrasonic whistle that annoys deer), and learn to drive the speed limit, and learn how to look out for wildlife.<br /><br />I live in much more rural areas than you (upstate NH), and I've only hit a deer once in my life, when I was out in Colorado in a snowstorm. I have responsibly stopped many times for deer and moose crossing roads, and I am alert for wildlife, particularly at dusk and dawn.<br /><br />As for pollution externalities: you produce the most pollution driving below highways speeds on your way from your house to the train station. The cab you take from the destination station to wherever you work in the city also produces lots of pollution idling in traffic. Most trains are diesel, not electric, and given ridership are not cleaner than cars.<br /><br />Highway driving is the least polluting segment of your commute: your engine is running at peak efficiency, and your catalytic converter is running hot enough to actually catalyse the exaust properly.

 

[vt_hokie]

The hunting argument is bogus. Animals will die violently being hit by cars whether there is overpopulation or not. Yeah, trains hit animals too, but not as many. Automobiles kill thousands a day. Like I said, I'd love to see elevated maglev trains. That would probably eliminate all but the bird strikes.<br /><br />I do drive carefully and have successfully avoided many collisions with deer and other wildlife. But sometimes there is nothing you can do, so don't assume that I drive recklessly. The last deer I hit really more or less hit me! It ran into the side of the car. Oh, and when I hit the first deer, I had those deer whistles on the car! They're pretty worthless. I think they've been proven to be ineffective.

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>This thread is finished. </i><br /><br />Much like VSE! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />