LaHood Announces Guidelines for High-Speed Rail Funding

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

Can you imagine what our Interstate Highway system would look like today if it was developed only along existing ROWs. They would be at least as goofy as the Northern and Southern State Parkways on LI if not considerably worse.

Not sure how it is everywhere else, but in Alabama almost all of I-20 is made up of the ROWs of state, federal and local highways. In some areas we have a sign with I-20, I-59, US 78, US 11 and AL 5 all on one ROW. Apparently one was built first and as the others were built they shared the ROW ending with the interstates.

 

[Kramerica]

Can you imagine what our Interstate Highway system would look like today if it was developed only along existing ROWs. They would be at least as goofy as the Northern and Southern State Parkways on LI if not considerably worse.

Not sure how it is everywhere else, but in Alabama almost all of I-20 is made up of the ROWs of state, federal and local highways. In some areas we have a sign with I-20, I-59, US 78, US 11 and AL 5 all on one ROW. Apparently one was built first and as the others were built they shared the ROW ending with the interstates.

You are wrong about I-20 in Alabama. It was built almost entirely on new right-of-way. East of Birmingham it parallels US 78, which has its own ROW except for just west of Pell City where I-20 must have needed to us US 78's ROW for 3 miles. West of Birmingham, I-20/59 parallels US 11. They only share a ROW for about 10 miles.

In the eastern US, the generally the Interstates had all-new ROW, separate from the US highways they usually paralleled. This was because the US highways had a lot of development along them, even between cities/towns, and the cities/towns were close together. So re-using the old ROW would have been expensive because of relocating all those buildings.

In the western US, many of the Interstates were built on existing US highway ROW because there was little development on them in rural areas and the towns were very spread out. But many of the western Interstates were still built on new ROW too.

Generally speaking, if there is a state route co-signed on an Interstate, it was to move the state highway traffic to a better highway. In the case of AL 5 and AL 7, they already followed US 11 west of Birmingham, and so when I-20/59 came along and took over those 10 miles of US 11's ROW, AL 5 and AL 7 also followed.

Also look at I-65 in Alabama. It parallels US 31, but very rarely do they share a ROW.

 

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

Can you imagine what our Interstate Highway system would look like today if it was developed only along existing ROWs. They would be at least as goofy as the Northern and Southern State Parkways on LI if not considerably worse.

Not sure how it is everywhere else, but in Alabama almost all of I-20 is made up of the ROWs of state, federal and local highways. In some areas we have a sign with I-20, I-59, US 78, US 11 and AL 5 all on one ROW. Apparently one was built first and as the others were built they shared the ROW ending with the interstates.

You are wrong about I-20 in Alabama. It was built almost entirely on new right-of-way. East of Birmingham it parallels US 78, which has its own ROW except for just west of Pell City where I-20 must have needed to us US 78's ROW for 3 miles. West of Birmingham, I-20/59 parallels US 11. They only share a ROW for about 10 miles.

In the eastern US, the generally the Interstates had all-new ROW, separate from the US highways they usually paralleled. This was because the US highways had a lot of development along them, even between cities/towns, and the cities/towns were close together. So re-using the old ROW would have been expensive because of relocating all those buildings.

In the western US, many of the Interstates were built on existing US highway ROW because there was little development on them in rural areas and the towns were very spread out. But many of the western Interstates were still built on new ROW too.

Generally speaking, if there is a state route co-signed on an Interstate, it was to move the state highway traffic to a better highway. In the case of AL 5 and AL 7, they already followed US 11 west of Birmingham, and so when I-20/59 came along and took over those 10 miles of US 11's ROW, AL 5 and AL 7 also followed.

Also look at I-65 in Alabama. It parallels US 31, but very rarely do they share a ROW.

There is a lot more ROW sharing than that, there are loads of places in AL where everything from county roads to US highways run down the I-20 ROW. Some of it may not be from I-20 being built over them, it may be from them being parrallel and intact but Alabama not funding the secondary roads so they were combined over the years into I-20. I drive from Tuscaloosa to the Oxford/Anniston area about 3 or 4 times a month and usually try to stick with the non-interstate routings to get away from the monotony but I always end up on I-20 for about 20-30 mi from highways dead-ending into I-20 or the routing of the highway directing me on to I-20.

 

[Kramerica]

Can you imagine what our Interstate Highway system would look like today if it was developed only along existing ROWs. They would be at least as goofy as the Northern and Southern State Parkways on LI if not considerably worse.

Not sure how it is everywhere else, but in Alabama almost all of I-20 is made up of the ROWs of state, federal and local highways. In some areas we have a sign with I-20, I-59, US 78, US 11 and AL 5 all on one ROW. Apparently one was built first and as the others were built they shared the ROW ending with the interstates.

You are wrong about I-20 in Alabama. It was built almost entirely on new right-of-way. East of Birmingham it parallels US 78, which has its own ROW except for just west of Pell City where I-20 must have needed to us US 78's ROW for 3 miles. West of Birmingham, I-20/59 parallels US 11. They only share a ROW for about 10 miles.

In the eastern US, the generally the Interstates had all-new ROW, separate from the US highways they usually paralleled. This was because the US highways had a lot of development along them, even between cities/towns, and the cities/towns were close together. So re-using the old ROW would have been expensive because of relocating all those buildings.

In the western US, many of the Interstates were built on existing US highway ROW because there was little development on them in rural areas and the towns were very spread out. But many of the western Interstates were still built on new ROW too.

Generally speaking, if there is a state route co-signed on an Interstate, it was to move the state highway traffic to a better highway. In the case of AL 5 and AL 7, they already followed US 11 west of Birmingham, and so when I-20/59 came along and took over those 10 miles of US 11's ROW, AL 5 and AL 7 also followed.

Also look at I-65 in Alabama. It parallels US 31, but very rarely do they share a ROW.

There is a lot more ROW sharing than that, there are loads of places in AL where everything from county roads to US highways run down the I-20 ROW. Some of it may not be from I-20 being built over them, it may be from them being parrallel and intact but Alabama not funding the secondary roads so they were combined over the years into I-20. I drive from Tuscaloosa to the Oxford/Anniston area about 3 or 4 times a month and usually try to stick with the non-interstate routings to get away from the monotony but I always end up on I-20 for about 20-30 mi from highways dead-ending into I-20 or the routing of the highway directing me on to I-20.

The original point that jis was trying to make was that our Interstate System would be ridiculous if it was just built over pre-existing ROWs. You tried to say that I-20 WAS built on pre-existing ROW. I'm saying that is not correct. The vast majority of I-20 in Alabama was built on new ROW in the 1960's and 1970's. The fact that some county, state, and US highways now share that ROW is irrelevant to jis' original point.

 

[George Harris]

Can you imagine what our Interstate Highway system would look like today if it was developed only along existing ROWs. They would be at least as goofy as the Northern and Southern State Parkways on LI if not considerably worse.

Not sure how it is everywhere else, but in Alabama almost all of I-20 is made up of the ROWs of state, federal and local highways. In some areas we have a sign with I-20, I-59, US 78, US 11 and AL 5 all on one ROW. Apparently one was built first and as the others were built they shared the ROW ending with the interstates.

You are wrong about I-20 in Alabama. It was built almost entirely on new right-of-way. East of Birmingham it parallels US 78, which has its own ROW except for just west of Pell City where I-20 must have needed to us US 78's ROW for 3 miles. West of Birmingham, I-20/59 parallels US 11. They only share a ROW for about 10 miles.

In the eastern US, the generally the Interstates had all-new ROW, separate from the US highways they usually paralleled. This was because the US highways had a lot of development along them, even between cities/towns, and the cities/towns were close together. So re-using the old ROW would have been expensive because of relocating all those buildings.

In the western US, many of the Interstates were built on existing US highway ROW because there was little development on them in rural areas and the towns were very spread out. But many of the western Interstates were still built on new ROW too.

Generally speaking, if there is a state route co-signed on an Interstate, it was to move the state highway traffic to a better highway. In the case of AL 5 and AL 7, they already followed US 11 west of Birmingham, and so when I-20/59 came along and took over those 10 miles of US 11's ROW, AL 5 and AL 7 also followed.

Also look at I-65 in Alabama. It parallels US 31, but very rarely do they share a ROW.

There is a lot more ROW sharing than that, there are loads of places in AL where everything from county roads to US highways run down the I-20 ROW. Some of it may not be from I-20 being built over them, it may be from them being parrallel and intact but Alabama not funding the secondary roads so they were combined over the years into I-20. I drive from Tuscaloosa to the Oxford/Anniston area about 3 or 4 times a month and usually try to stick with the non-interstate routings to get away from the monotony but I always end up on I-20 for about 20-30 mi from highways dead-ending into I-20 or the routing of the highway directing me on to I-20.

The original point that jis was trying to make was that our Interstate System would be ridiculous if it was just built over pre-existing ROWs. You tried to say that I-20 WAS built on pre-existing ROW. I'm saying that is not correct. The vast majority of I-20 in Alabama was built on new ROW in the 1960's and 1970's. The fact that some county, state, and US highways now share that ROW is irrelevant to jis' original point.

In the 1950's, before the Interstate system got started, Alabama was in the process of rebuilding US 78 between B'han and the Georgia line. Chances are, the portiion of I-20 that is on US 78 ROW is on that portion that was built in this time frame. The pre-rebuild US 78 was very crooked.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Can we stop discussing Eisenhowers "Interstate Act Of Treason Act" and its various implications?

 

[George Harris]

Can we stop discussing Eisenhowers "Interstate Act Of Treason Act" and its various implications?

Just one more thing: What did not get rebuilt in all this was the parallel Southern or SAL alignment. That is why the Crescent takes 4 hours to cover 165 miles, and is pushing the envelope to do that. Meanwhile, the people on I-20 are doing it in under 2.5 hours. I felt at the time, that for equity, if the highway was rebuilt to a faster alignment, the parallel railroad should have been also. If the NS main between B'ham and Atlanta could be made good for 79 mph and no more, the Crescent could be covering this distance in 2.5 to 2.75 hours without breaking a sweat.

 

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

Can we stop discussing Eisenhowers "Interstate Act Of Treason Act" and its various implications?

Just one more thing: What did not get rebuilt in all this was the parallel Southern or SAL alignment. That is why the Crescent takes 4 hours to cover 165 miles, and is pushing the envelope to do that. Meanwhile, the people on I-20 are doing it in under 2.5 hours. I felt at the time, that for equity, if the highway was rebuilt to a faster alignment, the parallel railroad should have been also. If the NS main between B'ham and Atlanta could be made good for 79 mph and no more, the Crescent could be covering this distance in 2.5 to 2.75 hours without breaking a sweat.

There is evidence that parts of this line have been re-routed to cut out some of the curves. On my last trip on the Cresecnt I remember seeing at least 4 separate locations where there appeared to be an old embankment following us through the trees in west Georgia.

Also a lot of the restrictions are now gone between Anniston and just outside of Birmingham in Irondale, most of this due to the line being super-elevated now.. I know the limit is 79 from Anniston to CP Coosa, 55 across the old swing bridge across the Coosa River that is now welded closed. Then back up top 79 from CP Riverside to CP Eden. between Eden and Brompton speeds are very slow, because of the Chula Vista Mountain Tunnel, and the Hairpin Curve at Brompton that limits all trains to 15mph or less. Then from Brompton to Irondale its mostly 79mph with a few curve restrictions and a interlocking restriction at Leeds.

 

[Kramerica]

Can we stop discussing Eisenhowers "Interstate Act Of Treason Act" and its various implications?

YOU can stop reading about it if you are so concerned.

 

[volkris]

I felt at the time, that for equity, if the highway was rebuilt to a faster alignment, the parallel railroad should have been also.

Unfortunately, such thinking often ends up with everything being equally bad (slow, in this case).

It was probably hard enough to come up with funds for the highway rebuild, much less tacking on railroad at the same time.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I felt at the time, that for equity, if the highway was rebuilt to a faster alignment, the parallel railroad should have been also.

Unfortunately, such thinking often ends up with everything being equally bad (slow, in this case).

It was probably hard enough to come up with funds for the highway rebuild, much less tacking on railroad at the same time.

Roads should be slow. Driving should be discouraged whenever possible.

 

[Neil_M]

Well, make of it what you will but even your old adversary Russia has nice new fast trains now, 280kph on a test run of their new ICE3alike train.

Russia. Oh dear..... :lol:

http://w1.siemens.com/press/en/presspictur...;tag=sots200711

 

[Bob Dylan]

Well, make of it what you will but even your old adversary Russia has nice new fast trains now, 280kph on a test run of their new ICE3alike train.Russia. Oh dear..... :lol:

http://w1.siemens.com/press/en/presspictur...;tag=sots200711

No cold war flashbacks but would you want to trust mechanical Anything in Russia?In my experience

just about all of their stuff is shoddily built,breaksdown,rusts(lots of iron and steel! :lol: )and or

gets abandoned for lack of parts!I wouldnt trust a train going 200 MPH in Russia or the USA!! :lol:

 

[Neil_M]

Well, make of it what you will but even your old adversary Russia has nice new fast trains now, 280kph on a test run of their new ICE3alike train.Russia. Oh dear..... :lol:

http://w1.siemens.com/press/en/presspictur...;tag=sots200711

No cold war flashbacks but would you want to trust mechanical Anything in Russia?In my experience

just about all of their stuff is shoddily built,breaksdown,rusts(lots of iron and steel! :lol: )and or

gets abandoned for lack of parts!I wouldnt trust a train going 200 MPH in Russia or the USA!! :lol:

Built and maintained by Siemens. German not Russian.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Well, make of it what you will but even your old adversary Russia has nice new fast trains now, 280kph on a test run of their new ICE3alike train.Russia. Oh dear..... :lol:

http://w1.siemens.com/press/en/presspictur...;tag=sots200711

No cold war flashbacks but would you want to trust mechanical Anything in Russia?In my experience

just about all of their stuff is shoddily built,breaksdown,rusts(lots of iron and steel! :lol: )and or

gets abandoned for lack of parts!I wouldnt trust a train going 200 MPH in Russia or the USA!! :lol:

Built and maintained by Siemens. German not Russian.

Well German stuff is pretty good but I still wonder if Russian engineers and mechanics operate

it, not to mention the track maintence it might not be too long till it was out of service

or having "accidents"!Hope that they get $$ up front, Russia is broke arent they? :lol:

 

[transit54]

You know, when I was in Russia last year, I was really surprised to see pictures of that high speed train. I really had no idea they had such a train till I was over there. But in general, I have nothing bad to say about their rail system - every train I took was on time, and I was able to take a sleeper train from St Petersburg to Moscow for about $55 USD. But if you want to see incredible mass transit, go to Moscow. Their subway stations are quite literally works of art.

 

[Neil_M]

!Hope that they get $$ up front, Russia is broke arent they? :lol:

Hmmm, that particular accusation could be levelled at many countries really......

 

[jis]

Hope that they get $$ up front, Russia is broke arent they? :lol:

Yeah, we should be talking about someone else being broke when it comes to funding rail :lol:

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Well, make of it what you will but even your old adversary Russia has nice new fast trains now, 280kph on a test run of their new ICE3alike train.Russia. Oh dear..... :lol:

http://w1.siemens.com/press/en/presspictur...;tag=sots200711

No cold war flashbacks but would you want to trust mechanical Anything in Russia?In my experience

just about all of their stuff is shoddily built,breaksdown,rusts(lots of iron and steel! :lol: )and or

gets abandoned for lack of parts!I wouldnt trust a train going 200 MPH in Russia or the USA!! :lol:

Check out Russian watches. Poljots and Vostoks, in particular. My experience with them is they are rugged as hell, overbuilt, reliable, and accurate. Actually, that's my impression of almost every russian thing I own- workmanlike, not fancy, but overbuilt, overweight, overdone, and essentially indestructable. But usually with indifferent workmanship. Its an odd thing to really examine, which is why I collect ex-soviet junk.

But I sincerely doubt that nowadays, with the communist attitudes of workmanship and quality control improving, anything they build is the inferior junk people accuse it of being.

 

[birdy]

You know, when I was in Russia last year, I was really surprised to see pictures of that high speed train. I really had no idea they had such a train till I was over there. But in general, I have nothing bad to say about their rail system - every train I took was on time, and I was able to take a sleeper train from St Petersburg to Moscow for about $55 USD. But if you want to see incredible mass transit, go to Moscow. Their subway stations are quite literally works of art.

You know, its odd that the subway stations would not be done in the "Socialist Realism" style of art, but actual.....art. I wonder what the story is with that?

 

[volkris]

Check out Russian watches. Poljots and Vostoks, in particular. My experience with them is they are rugged as hell, overbuilt, reliable, and accurate. Actually, that's my impression of almost every russian thing I own- workmanlike, not fancy, but overbuilt, overweight, overdone, and essentially indestructable. But usually with indifferent workmanship. Its an odd thing to really examine, which is why I collect ex-soviet junk.

My Russian and ex-Soviet friends have endless stories about how unreliable everything was, that the indifference to workmanship and politicization of industry lead to rugged, overbuilt, overly expensive, useless hunks of metal. On their trips back they report that things are getting a little better, but it's a lot to turn around.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Check out Russian watches. Poljots and Vostoks, in particular. My experience with them is they are rugged as hell, overbuilt, reliable, and accurate. Actually, that's my impression of almost every russian thing I own- workmanlike, not fancy, but overbuilt, overweight, overdone, and essentially indestructable. But usually with indifferent workmanship. Its an odd thing to really examine, which is why I collect ex-soviet junk.

My Russian and ex-Soviet friends have endless stories about how unreliable everything was, that the indifference to workmanship and politicization of industry lead to rugged, overbuilt, overly expensive, useless hunks of metal. On their trips back they report that things are getting a little better, but it's a lot to turn around.

*Shrugs* the level of innovation and the precision of design juxtaposed with the outrageously overbuilt design and the shoddy workmanship all of the above was designed to compensate for is interesting. A well-built example of a soviet design will last until the end of time- as my friend Chad's ancient 1978 Lada suggests.

 

[jis]

*Shrugs* the level of innovation and the precision of design juxtaposed with the outrageously overbuilt design and the shoddy workmanship all of the above was designed to compensate for is interesting. A well-built example of a soviet design will last until the end of time- as my friend Chad's ancient 1978 Lada suggests.

Russians have been very good at designing rugged stuff. Unfortunately their shoddy workmanship in manufacturing has often done less than justice to good designs. I am actually quite amazed at how much one of the world's most deployed fighter plane, the MiG 21, is liked by plane aficionados even today.

As for Russian trains, I have traveled some in Russia in sleepers and they were uniformly good and the trains were almost always on time. Of course the international sleeper on the Helsinki - Moscow Leo Tolstoy was considerably better than the internal ones, but that is to be expected. And gosh, the border crossing at Vanaikkala/Vyborg was a breeze in both direction compared to the third degree that one can get at the allegedly open US/Canada border, even though it did involve a big guy wearing an even bigger cap and a pretty lady wearing a smaller cap towing a fierce looking dog behind her.

 

[jackal]

And gosh, the border crossing at Vanaikkala/Vyborg was a breeze in both direction compared to the third degree that one can get at the allegedly open US/Canada border, even though it did involve a big guy wearing an even bigger cap and a pretty lady wearing a smaller cap towing a fierce looking dog behind her.

I know--I've used that same border crossing as an example here (except I did it on the daytime Finnish-operated Sibelius train), but some people here just can't wrap their heads around how a proper border crossing like that should work! They don't believe me! (Or actually, I post about it and then they continue discussing border crossings as if I had never posted...)

 

[Chris J.]

Check out Russian watches. Poljots and Vostoks, in particular. My experience with them is they are rugged as hell, overbuilt, reliable, and accurate. Actually, that's my impression of almost every russian thing I own- workmanlike, not fancy, but overbuilt, overweight, overdone, and essentially indestructable. But usually with indifferent workmanship. Its an odd thing to really examine, which is why I collect ex-soviet junk.

I had (probably still have somewhere) a USSR-build SLR film camera (a Zenth). Built like a russian tank. It did have an electronic light meter built in, but everything else was mechanical.