Elevated Trains on Interstates

[Sundance]

I have often thought how great it would be if our
country had a system of high speed elevated trains
that followed existing interstate freeway right of
ways.

*No land acquisition costs (or marginal at most).

*Routes already in place that efficiently link major metro areas.

*Electrically powered with zero point emissions.

*Passenger and light freight capability.


Think of the jobs!! How cool to fly across the country at
200 mph or so, some 30 feet off the ground.

[Sungold]

As long as it is privately funded and operated, it sounds like a great idea. I can just imagine the feeling as you get to the first overpass and go up over and then back down at 200 mph.

[Joseph Clemens]

As often as I hear of train accidents, I can't help but imagine what the new class of accidents would be like when the 200 MPH train derails into a crowded freeway.

[Sundance]

Joe........ It would be based on the monorail system and
they are attached to the track itself. Will there be accidents?
Probably....... But so do airliners and every other mode of
transport. Just guessing, but I would bet that lots fewer
deaths would occur than automobiles.

Sungold........ If we'd have waited for private funding for
the vast interstate system we'd still be traveling on
2 laners.

[Bodo]

It's a wonderful idea, Sun. But it's not going to happen unless some serious things change. Unless it's cheap and dependable people won't use it. We're a car culture.

In Florida, we amended the state constitution to force the government to add light passenger rail. It hasn't been done yet...

[Sundance]

It's a wonderful idea, Sun. But it's not going to happen unless some serious things change. Unless it's cheap and dependable people won't use it. We're a car culture.

In Florida, we amended the state constitution to force the government to add light passenger rail. It hasn't been done yet...

Sadly you are right......... But one can hope.......:) It takes a leader
that can lead like Ike was when he launched the largest public works
project in history.

It's time again.

[Galaxy]

Sungold........ If we'd have waited for private funding for
the vast interstate system we'd still be traveling on
2 laners. Not true, most of the interstate-type highway system in France was built and is owned by private firms and it is superior to our interstates (of course, they are toll roads). The world's tallest bridge the Millau Viaduct in the south of France was built and is owned by a private firm. It is an astounding piece of engineering. See: http://www.hoax-slayer.com/millau-viaduct-photo.html

and

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

The Eiffage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffage) group operates the viaduct as a toll bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_bridge), with the toll currently (Feb 2008) set at € (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro)5.60 for light automobiles (€7.40 during the peak months of July and August). The bridge was constructed by the Eiffage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffage) group, under a government contract which allows the company to collect tolls for up to 75 years. We should do the same here and let those who use the roads pay for them.

A privately built and owned toll tunnel is being proposed under Long Island Sound to provide a new link between Long Island and mainland New York state in Rye. But, I understand there is a lot of opposition. http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/3278

When will we ever learn?

[MapMan]

Not true, most of the interstate-type highway system in France was built and is owned by private firms and it is superior to our interstates (of course, they are toll roads). The world's tallest bridge the Millau Viaduct in the south of France was built and is owned by a private firm. It is an astounding piece of engineering. See: http://www.hoax-slayer.com/millau-viaduct-photo.html

and

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

We should do the same here and let those who use the roads pay for them.

A privately built and owned toll tunnel is being proposed under Long Island Sound to provide a new link between Long Island and mainland New York state in Rye. But, I understand there is a lot of opposition. http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/3278

When will we ever learn?

Galaxy:

Quand êtes-vous le déplacement en France?

MM

[Barry Digman]

Not true, most of the interstate-type highway system in France was built and is owned by private firms and it is superior to our interstates (of course, they are toll roads). ...

When will we ever learn?




Julius Caesar, Inc.? King Louis LLC?

The modern road system in France is a product of a couple of thousand years of development that includes a little organization known as the Roman Empire and a whole raft of kings and queens who spent fortunes to improve their transportation systems.

[Sundance]

Galaxy....... you are truly a master of the internet "cut
and paste". But I giggle like a school boy with your continued
use of France and a model. Now for roads?? You slay me.:)

Hey by the way........ Did you see the Obama.McCain poll done
in France??? 64% for Obama...... 4% for McCain. Can we start
calling them French Fries again Galaxy???:D:D

[Jim Fischer]

While it is not a monorail, and does not go 200 MPH, the "AirTrain"
runs around the JFK area in western Queens NY, and runs on an
elevated track on the median of the Van Wyck Expressway (I-678)

http://www.northeastroads.com/new_york400/i-678_sb_exit_004_02.jpg

Further, Asia has a number of very high-speed rail lines that are
elevated. Taipei is one end of such a rail line that runs down through
Taiwan. It crusies at 300 kph (186 mph). Now the trick here is to
build the train line PERFECTLY STRAIGHT. At these speeds, one does
not want to think about the forces upon the train cars if they were
to take a curve.

So, from a purely "basic physics" point of view, could we build train
tracks along interstates? Sure, easy. Could they be high-speed
trains of the European and Asian types with speeds over 100 mph?
Very doubtful.

[Galaxy]

Julius Caesar, Inc.? King Louis LLC?

The modern road system in France is a product of a couple of thousand years of development that includes a little organization known as the Roman Empire and a whole raft of kings and queens who spent fortunes to improve their transportation systems.Interesting, but irrelevant and potentially misleading.

The A Route system (the French name for interstate type highways) was all built on new, virgin right of ways. So, how could the Romans and the various King Louis have contributed to the A Route system?

By your logic the Romans, Sequoyah, and Abraham Lincoln are significant contributers to our interstate systems.

[Galaxy]

Galaxy....... you are truly a master of the internet "cut
and paste". But I giggle like a school boy with your continued
use of France and a model. Now for roads?? You slay me.:)

Hey by the way........ Did you see the Obama.McCain poll done
in France??? 64% for Obama...... 4% for McCain. Can we start
calling them French Fries again Galaxy???:D:DThanks Sundance, I actually like the French. I do not like all the things they do, but that is their choice.

I post these examples (like privately owned interstates) because I think it is important to recognize that we Americans do not have all the answers and there are others that have very good ideas that we could consider using.

Let a thousand ideas bloom. But, don't try to force their adoption through the power of the government. Let the people decide through the market place.

[Galaxy]

Galaxy:

Quand êtes-vous le déplacement en France?

MMJe voyagerai en France encore l'été prochain.

[Hillside]

So with these French super highways, were the rights of way purchased through private dealings? Everyone who owned property in the path of the highway wanted to sell?

[Galaxy]

So with these French super highways, were the rights of way purchased through private dealings? Everyone who owned property in the path of the highway wanted to sell?I'm sure they were purchased by the firms that now own them. And, I assume they have something like the power of eminent domain as the private utility companies do here.

[Barry Digman]

By your logic the Romans, Sequoyah, and Abraham Lincoln are significant contributers to our interstate systems.

I'm simply not so near-sighted that I believe that history and human development began with the first corporation.

[Hillside]

Eminent domain is a governmental power, not private. A private corporation cannot "take" private property, not even in France. See the French "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen".

So even the French had to rely on government to take property for their private highways. Taking from one individual for the express purpose of giving to another individual for economic benefit of the second individual doesn't cut it with me.

[Galaxy]

But, I have never seen a rail line and a major highway share the same right of way in France.

I have seen it in the USA. In the DC area, the Washington Metro is often in the median area of interstate-type highways, but as i recall they are at ground level and not elevated.

There are some very significant design considerations for high speed track and concerns about mixed traffic, i.e. trains, autos, and trucks. Think about what would happen to an eighteen wheeler or a Toyota Prius when they meet the air pressure/turbulence wave of an oncoming train traveling at 200 mph.

High speed trains need minimum curve radii also. Existing interstates have much too small minimum curve radii. So, you might not be able to build high speed train beds (or monorails) in the existing right of way.

But, there maybe solutions for these problems See below:
Track design

LGV construction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGV_construction) is similar to that of normal railway lines, but with a few key differences. The radii (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radius) of curves are larger so that trains can traverse them at higher speeds without increasing the centrifugal force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force) felt by passengers. The radii of LGV curves have historically been greater than 4 km (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilometre) (2.5 miles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mile)). New lines have minimum radii of 7 km (4 miles) to allow for future increases in speed.

Lines used only for high-speed traffic can incorporate steeper grades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_%28slope%29) than normal. This facilitates the planning of LGVs and reduces the cost of line construction. The considerable momentum of TGVs at high speed allows them to climb steep slopes without greatly increasing their energy consumption. They can also coast on downward slopes, further increasing efficiency. The Paris-Sud-Est LGV features line grades of up to 3.5%. (On the German NBS high-speed line between Cologne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cologne) and Frankfurt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt) they reach 4%.)

Track alignment is more precise than on normal railway lines, and ballast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_ballast) is in a deeper than normal profile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profile_%28engineering%29), resulting in increased load-bearing capacity and track stability. LGV track is anchored by more sleepers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_tie) (railroad ties) per kilometre than usual, and all are made of concrete, either mono- or bi-bloc, the latter consisting of two separate blocks of concrete joined by a steel bar. Heavy rail (UIC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Union_of_Railways) 60) is used and the rails themselves are more upright, with an inclination of 1 in 40 as opposed to 1 in 20 on normal lines. Use of continuous welded rails in place of shorter, jointed rails yields a comfortable ride at high speed, without the "clickety-clack" vibrations induced by rail joints.

The diameter of tunnels is greater than normally required by the size of the trains, especially at entrances. This limits the effects of air pressure changes, which could be problematic at TGV speeds.

Traffic limitations

LGVs are reserved primarily for TGVs. One reason for this limitation is that capacity is sharply reduced when trains of differing speeds are mixed. Passing freight and passenger trains also constitute a safety risk, as cargo on freight cars can be destabilised by the air turbulence caused by the TGV.

The steep gradients common on LGVs would limit the weight of slow freight trains. Slower trains would also mean that the maximum track cant (banking on curves) would be limited, so for the same maximum speed a mixed-traffic LGV would need to be built with curves of even larger radius. Such track would be much more expensive to build and maintain. Some stretches of less-used LGV are routinely mixed-traffic, such as the Tours (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tours) branch of the LGV Atlantique, and the planned Nîmes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%AEmes)/Montpellier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montpellier) branch of the LGV Mediterranée. The British High Speed 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_1) from the Channel Tunnel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Tunnel) to London has been built with passing loops to support freight use, but this facility has not been used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV

[Galaxy]

So even the French had to rely on government to take property for their private highways. Taking from one individual for the express purpose of giving to another individual for economic benefit of the second individual doesn't cut it with me.So, are you one of those who wants to take Judge Souter's home in New Hampshire by eminent domain for a hotel? See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4639374.stm

How about utility lines (electricity, etc.)? How will they get built without eminent domain? They are privately owned.

[Hillside]

So, are you one of those who wants to take Judge Souter's home in New Hampshire by eminent domain for a hotel?

Maybe I should draw a picture for you. No, I'll just repeat myself. "Taking from one individual for the express purpose of giving to another individual for economic benefit of the second individual doesn't cut it with me."

For the public good, the government may take property. They must fairly compensate. Infrastructural development usually requires it. Personally, I would prefer that government not only had to fairly compensate, but had to pay a premium. That way, only property takings that were really necessary would occur. It would raise the cost of government, but it's a price to be paid for being secure in property. What do you think, 10%? Or would the premium have to be higher?

[Galaxy]

For the public good, the government may take property. They must fairly compensate. Infrastructural development usually requires it. Aaaah, the premium. I would tend to make it higher than 10%, maybe 25%. But, then you have to realize the taking of part of your property may greatly enhance the value of your remaining property, especially if an interstate interchange will be built in the center of your property. Should the property owner have compensate the government
or private developers for this enhanced value? The devil is always in the details.

I do have problems with the government using eminent domain for the purposes of urban "renewal". We already tear down to much of our architectural heritage.
For the public good, the government may take property. They must fairly compensate. Infrastructural development usually requires it.Remember a super highway is infrastructure of the first order. My main point is that if we rely on private firms to build these roads and own/maintain them we will get a less expensive product that is of higher quality. And, those who use the roads will pay for them. Seems fair to me.

[John F]

Sungold........ If we'd have waited for private funding for
the vast interstate system we'd still be traveling on
2 laners.

This is a false assumption. You cannot know what we would be traveling on if it were done by other than force but to assume that highways would not happen cannot be supported by logic.

I do have problems with the government using eminent domain for the purposes of urban "renewal". We already tear down to much of our architectural heritage.

So, theft for a project you like is ok but theft for project you don't is a problem?

Hillside, a premium can be paid by the enterprise that is building.

<sigh> You cannot feel the grip if you were born into it.

[Galaxy]

This guy has it correct. High gas prices are not really a problem.

The Myth of the Gas Price "Crisis"
(http://www.reason.org/commentaries/staley_20080619.shtml)

[John F]

This guy has it correct. High gas prices are not really a problem.

The Myth of the Gas Price "Crisis"
(http://www.reason.org/commentaries/staley_20080619.shtml)

Dude, If I would have told you this you would have argued with me. ;)

[Eaglerock]

I have often thought how great it would be if our
country had a system of high speed elevated trains
that followed existing interstate freeway right of
ways.

*No land acquisition costs (or marginal at most).

*Routes already in place that efficiently link major metro areas.

*Electrically powered with zero point emissions.

*Passenger and light freight capability.


Think of the jobs!! How cool to fly across the country at
200 mph or so, some 30 feet off the ground.

Yes it might be nice, however, the states do not, nor would they, like having that. Why?, you ask. Glad you ask me, gonna tell ya. LOL Because of revenue.

Ever wonder why you see less trains in the US. Think of the cost a company would have if they sent more and more things by trains and not trucks. I deal with Apportioned Registration for Semi Trucks. These people pay out the bumm for their business in Registration, road taxes, fuel tax, etc. All revenue for whom? However, if it was railroaded to places they would lose that. Not to mention Tolls collected. Ask a truckdriver the cost to go across a state in tolls. And then ask him also the cost across country.

But the big one is the registration... I collected from one small business, for the states, (for the states meaning registration collected for each state as to how many miles they drive in that state per year) over $18,000.00 for a few trucks. It can run from about 1600.00 to 2500.00 per truck and up. Plus you have the trailer Registrations too.

If you figure how many trucks are on the highways... that is a lot of revenue... take that away and one rail car holding two or three truck trailers... money money money lost in revenue per year.

Sadly they do not think in our dream world... :(

[Sundance]

The elevated train using existing interstate corridors does
not have to go 300 mph, or 200 mph. A nice steady 100 mph
or so would be ample and higher speeds where terrain safely
allows.

There are many areas in the plains where there are long
runs that are essentially straight and higher speeds could
be obtained.

But 100 to 125 mph would be great. Including contracting
with UPS, USPS, Fed Ex for light packages.

It could be a long term solution to fossil fuel transport.

[Sundance]

Yes it might be nice, however, the states do not, nor would they, like having that. Why?, you ask. Glad you ask me, gonna tell ya. LOL Because of revenue.

Ever wonder why you see less trains in the US. Think of the cost a company would have if they sent more and more things by trains and not trucks. I deal with Apportioned Registration for Semi Trucks. These people pay out the bumm for their business in Registration, road taxes, fuel tax, etc. All revenue for whom? However, if it was railroaded to places they would lose that. Not to mention Tolls collected. Ask a truckdriver the cost to go across a state in tolls. And then ask him also the cost across country.

But the big one is the registration... I collected from one small business, for the states, (for the states meaning registration collected for each state as to how many miles they drive in that state per year) over $18,000.00 for a few trucks. It can run from about 1600.00 to 2500.00 per truck and up. Plus you have the trailer Registrations too.

If you figure how many trucks are on the highways... that is a lot of revenue... take that away and one rail car holding two or three truck trailers... money money money lost in revenue per year.

Sadly they do not think in our dream world... :(

They are going to have to fend for themselves. Semi's are
a dinosaur on their last legs. Inefficient, dirty, and damaging
to roadways.

Take a look at freight trains. Lately they are loaded with
semi trailers. The price of fuel will price them out of
existence. The states will have to figure other revenue
streams.

[drobbins]

>>The states will have to figure other revenue
streams.

stop, you're scaring me:eek:

Dave

[Galaxy]

Dude, If I would have told you this you would have argued with me. ;)John F, am I making you tend towards paranoia? ;) I have no intent to do so. I am happy to see you agree with the link. Actually, I never doubted that you would.

[Galaxy]

They are going to have to fend for themselves. Semi's are
a dinosaur on their last legs. Inefficient, dirty, and damaging
to roadways.

Take a look at freight trains. Lately they are loaded with
semi trailers. The price of fuel will price them out of
existence. The states will have to figure other revenue
streams.Absolutely correct Sundance. The $18,000 that the company paid was probably a bargain for the company.

Several years ago, I had a conversation with a world-class Professor of Civil Engineering whose expertise is road building. He was very adamant about the damage that a loaded tractor trailer does to an Interstate compared with a passenger auto.

His suggestion to illustrate the difference was to go to an interstate bridge, go underneath it and listen to the bridge when an 18 wheeler goes over it compared to an auto. He said that almost all the damage to interstate road bed and bridges is due to large trucks.

If energy prices keep going up, a lot of truck freight will go to trains, the more the better.

[NasalSponge]

Being both a big truck mechanic and a FedEx employee.....I feel compelled to speak up since it is human nature to attempt to protect one's livelihood when threatened.... you will never see tractors go away completely because trains are very limited in where they can go and what they can haul to a lesser degree. Due to the recent and upcoming federal restrictions on diesels they are becoming more and more efficient with less and less emissions. We run one Mercedes engine that is getting 26 mpg, it is a smaller box truck but just five years ago those numbers where unheard of. All diesel engines built today have a catalytic converter, run egr systems, and the fuel systems are all computer controlled all of which lower emissions.

As for tearing up the roads.....I would say big trucks are by far the hardest vehicle on our roads. Under a bridge?? Try being ON a bridge when a semi rolls by....your feet will leave the ground.

Many thing will have to change in the FedEx culture before we would give any contracted vendor control of our freight. The way we guaranty overnight delivery is we (company employees) control the package from the time we receive it until we deliver it.

[Galaxy]

NasalSponge, I think you are correct there will still be many trucks on the road. Another reason is just-in-time inventory systems that many companies now use. Inventory is kept less in warehouses and more on traveling trucks, resulting in less inventory carry costs. The ideal is to have no inventory in the warehouse. It is delivered by truck just-in-time for use. Trains don't deliver as quickly as trucks.