Possible WMATA "infill" development legal liability?

[Douglas A. Willinger]

The recent push for "Transit Oriented Development" is resulting in the
construction of new residences in questionable proximity with existing
heavy rail, with such new apartments and condos so located TOO CLOSE,
without the traditional 50-100 feet of setback, and at elevations the
same or lower then the immeidately adjacent heavy RR. This results in
a significently lower margin of safety and an greatly increased risk
exposure for people living in such new fad "Smart Growth" real estate
developments.

For instance, the 1996 RR derailment in Silver Spring, Md. (on this
same RR in question: the Metropolitan Branch B&O RR, otherwise the
WMATA Red Line and CSX tracks) occurred next to an apartment building
just north of 16th Street which has a parking lot between it and the
RR; hence that derailment did not strike the apartment building. 20
years earlier though, another such derailment, just a few hundred feet
south of today's Takoma WMATA Red Line Station, sent cargo cariiers
full of GM automobiles onto Blair Road, and partially into houses
along that street's east side that now face the RR wall with less
setback then the Silver Spring/16th Street area apartments.

Yet new projects have been approved along this RR corridor without any
apparant regard of the idea of a safety setback, with new residences
being placed mere feet from heavy RR. Most notably of these are the
currently under construction "Elevation 314" with ZERO setback on its
second and third levels which sit at or lower then the existing heavy
RR, (and to a lesser extent) the aproved but not yet started
construction "Cedar Crossing" condomimiums approximately 50 feet from
this RR's west side. All of these projects lay within the probable
footprint of a RR derailment, with about all of the "Elevation 314"
structure within such a footprint (and without any sort of RR
"guardrail"), hence creating a significently greater risk of people
being killed in their homes in the event of a RR derailment
(particularly at night in their sleep as WMATA allows CSX freight
trains to run through Takoma in wee hours).

(Would we allow people to sleep in tents pitched immediately next to
the shoulder of an interstate highway?)

Could such "infill" developement open up WMATA or other formal
planning bodies up to a future legal liability?

Douglas A. Willinger
Takoma Park Highway Design Studio
http://www.HighwaysAndCommunities.com

[g***@earthlink.net]

Post by Douglas A. Willinger
The recent push for "Transit Oriented Development" is resulting in the
construction of new residences in questionable proximity with existing
heavy rail, with such new apartments and condos so located TOO CLOSE,
without the traditional 50-100 feet of setback, and at elevations the
same or lower then the immeidately adjacent heavy RR. This results in
a significently lower margin of safety and an greatly increased risk
exposure for people living in such new fad "Smart Growth" real estate
developments.
For instance, the 1996 RR derailment in Silver Spring, Md. (on this
same RR in question: the Metropolitan Branch B&O RR, otherwise the
WMATA Red Line and CSX tracks) occurred next to an apartment building
just north of 16th Street which has a parking lot between it and the
RR; hence that derailment did not strike the apartment building. 20
years earlier though, another such derailment, just a few hundred feet
south of today's Takoma WMATA Red Line Station, sent cargo cariiers
full of GM automobiles onto Blair Road, and partially into houses
along that street's east side that now face the RR wall with less
setback then the Silver Spring/16th Street area apartments.
Yet new projects have been approved along this RR corridor without any
apparant regard of the idea of a safety setback, with new residences
being placed mere feet from heavy RR. Most notably of these are the
currently under construction "Elevation 314" with ZERO setback on its
second and third levels which sit at or lower then the existing heavy
RR, (and to a lesser extent) the aproved but not yet started
construction "Cedar Crossing" condomimiums approximately 50 feet from
this RR's west side. All of these projects lay within the probable
footprint of a RR derailment, with about all of the "Elevation 314"
structure within such a footprint (and without any sort of RR
"guardrail"), hence creating a significently greater risk of people
being killed in their homes in the event of a RR derailment
(particularly at night in their sleep as WMATA allows CSX freight
trains to run through Takoma in wee hours).
(Would we allow people to sleep in tents pitched immediately next to
the shoulder of an interstate highway?)
Could such "infill" developement open up WMATA or other formal
planning bodies up to a future legal liability?
Douglas A. Willinger
Takoma Park Highway Design Studio
http://www.HighwaysAndCommunities.com

Doug: The same thing is being pushed in the RTP area of North Carolina.
Architects want houses within very short distances of a heavy rail line.
This line has many trains a day with highly dangerous chemicals passing
through. Architects keep pushing the idea that Smart Growth means building
on top of rail lines so people will be 'encouraged' to walk. But how much
walking do you do if your apartment is on top of a train line?

And there is the issue of noise too. And vibration.

[Jym Dyer]

Post by Douglas A. Willinger
The recent push for "Transit Oriented Development" is
resulting in the construction of new residences in
questionable proximity with existing heavy rail, with
such new apartments and condos so located TOO CLOSE,
without the traditional 50-100 feet of setback, ...

=v= "Traditional" meaning what, more specifically?

=v= My understanding of TOD from the literature does not mean
cramming housing next to rail, it means clustering a live/work
mix near transit stops and building housing within a short
walk from those stops.

=v= Perhaps the cramming is being done by those looking to make
a good buck, under the guise of misused planning terms? It
wouldn't be the first time. I've seen "TOD" used to justify
giantic parking garages in Atlanta, and "live/work" used to
dodge residential tax codes in San Francisco.

=v= We really ought to vigorously oppose the use of good
planning concepts as Trojan horses for the same old quick buck
schemes.
<_Jym_>

[Michael G. Koerner]

Post by Jym Dyer

Post by Douglas A. Willinger
The recent push for "Transit Oriented Development" is
resulting in the construction of new residences in
questionable proximity with existing heavy rail, with
such new apartments and condos so located TOO CLOSE,
without the traditional 50-100 feet of setback, ...

=v= "Traditional" meaning what, more specifically?
=v= My understanding of TOD from the literature does not mean
cramming housing next to rail, it means clustering a live/work
mix near transit stops and building housing within a short
walk from those stops.
=v= Perhaps the cramming is being done by those looking to make
a good buck, under the guise of misused planning terms? It
wouldn't be the first time. I've seen "TOD" used to justify
giantic parking garages in Atlanta, and "live/work" used to
dodge residential tax codes in San Francisco.

It is normal for developers to want to squeeze as much out of a piece of
land that the zoning laws will allow. In densely populated urban areas,
it can mean seeing some amazing things being built on the smallest
remnant scraps for land in the oddest places.

Amenities like popular Metro stations will obviously attract more
developer interest than open farmfields far away from anything with only
two-lane road access.

It is only the free market at work.

Post by Jym Dyer
=v= We really ought to vigorously oppose the use of good
planning concepts as Trojan horses for the same old quick buck
schemes.
<_Jym_>

[g***@earthlink.net]

Post by Michael G. Koerner

Post by Jym Dyer

Post by Douglas A. Willinger
The recent push for "Transit Oriented Development" is
resulting in the construction of new residences in
questionable proximity with existing heavy rail, with
such new apartments and condos so located TOO CLOSE,
without the traditional 50-100 feet of setback, ...

=v= "Traditional" meaning what, more specifically?
=v= My understanding of TOD from the literature does not mean
cramming housing next to rail, it means clustering a live/work
mix near transit stops and building housing within a short
walk from those stops.
=v= Perhaps the cramming is being done by those looking to make
a good buck, under the guise of misused planning terms? It
wouldn't be the first time. I've seen "TOD" used to justify
giantic parking garages in Atlanta, and "live/work" used to
dodge residential tax codes in San Francisco.

It is normal for developers to want to squeeze as much out of a piece of
land that the zoning laws will allow. In densely populated urban areas,
it can mean seeing some amazing things being built on the smallest
remnant scraps for land in the oddest places.
Amenities like popular Metro stations will obviously attract more
developer interest than open farmfields far away from anything with only
two-lane road access.

You have changed your story again. You used to rant that people wanted
to live away from center cities and that people should be forbidden and
discouraged from living away from the city. How many ways can you argue
anyway? And from a small, unknown berg like Appleton, famous only for an
out-of-business brewery?

[Phaedra Dragon]

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Michael G. Koerner

Post by Jym Dyer

Post by Douglas A. Willinger
The recent push for "Transit Oriented Development" is
resulting in the construction of new residences in
questionable proximity with existing heavy rail, with
such new apartments and condos so located TOO CLOSE,
without the traditional 50-100 feet of setback, ...

=v= "Traditional" meaning what, more specifically?
=v= My understanding of TOD from the literature does not mean
cramming housing next to rail, it means clustering a live/work
mix near transit stops and building housing within a short
walk from those stops.
=v= Perhaps the cramming is being done by those looking to make
a good buck, under the guise of misused planning terms? It
wouldn't be the first time. I've seen "TOD" used to justify
giantic parking garages in Atlanta, and "live/work" used to
dodge residential tax codes in San Francisco.

It is normal for developers to want to squeeze as much out of a piece of
land that the zoning laws will allow. In densely populated urban areas,
it can mean seeing some amazing things being built on the smallest
remnant scraps for land in the oddest places.
Amenities like popular Metro stations will obviously attract more
developer interest than open farmfields far away from anything with only
two-lane road access.

You have changed your story again. You used to rant that people wanted
to live away from center cities and that people should be forbidden and
discouraged from living away from the city. How many ways can you argue
anyway? And from a small, unknown berg like Appleton, famous only for an
out-of-business brewery?

What is at work here is not "free enterprise", but "GREED". Pure
simple, unadulterated GREED. Developers with a limited land i\on
which can be constructed residental units, almost always find way to
increase the nymver of families living in the area.
They have no concept of RR safety codes, nor do they really care.
In the case of a derailment, they are not the ones who have to pay for
the cleaning up of the mess, nor are they the ones who will have to
shoulder the cost of compensating the familes of the dead. Most of
that cost will be carried by the railroad, even when it can clearly be
shown that the developer ignored safety practices by building housing
units too close to a rail line.
If you really want to stop that, you need to get the state legislature
to recognize the danger of having homes closer than 100' from a
heavily used rail line, and then get them to pass laws requiring a
widening of the safety zone along the tracks.

[John Obert]

I am sorry but when has free enterprise/capitalism and greed been different
words?

Have you ever taken less than the market will bear when you sell something?
have you ever gone down the street to the old stores that provide their
workers with union wages and health benefits in your town and knowing paid
more there than you would at Wal-Mart ?

Of course you have. That¹s why Wal-Mart is opening stores every day and the
old department stores are closing

Getting the most you can for your plot of land and using the system to get
the zoning upgraded to what you need is what America is about its called
free enterprise just because it is near a rail line does not mean you should
get less for it. If the idiot buyer can not figure out the problems of
living next to the track. it falls to the first thing you learned in
contracts buyer beware.

On the Metra/ Chicago and Pacific line (the old Milwaukee Road freight
line) in Chicago at Paulina the north wall of several condo buildings is
anchored to the limestone brick abatement for the tracks

Post by Phaedra Dragon
What is at work here is not "free enterprise", but "GREED". Pure
simple, unadulterated GREED. Developers with a limited land i\on
which can be constructed residental units, almost always find way to
increase the nymver of families living in the area.
They have no concept of RR safety codes, nor do they really care.
In the case of a derailment, they are not the ones who have to pay for
the cleaning up of the mess, nor are they the ones who will have to
shoulder the cost of compensating the familes of the dead. Most of
that cost will be carried by the railroad, even when it can clearly be
shown that the developer ignored safety practices by building housing
units too close to a rail line.
If you really want to stop that, you need to get the state legislature
to recognize the danger of having homes closer than 100' from a
heavily used rail line, and then get them to pass laws requiring a
widening of the safety zone along the tracks.

[Phaedra Dragon]

Maybe they are not different words to you, but when free enterprise
gives way to putting people at risk, then it becomes GREED.
And to answer your questions posed; Yes, I have often found myself
selling stuff at a loss, mainly cause I wanted to get rid of it.
Past thet, I still buy from J.C.Penny and Sears, as they often can
provide me with exactly what I want, when Wal-Mart, or K-Mart cant.
On other occasions, I do show at Wal-Mart.
I also shop at Best Buy, CompUSA, National Computers, OfficeMax/Office
Depot, Grainger, Sams (the big brother to Wal-Mart, where you buy Name
brand items for less than whay it would sell for elsewhere).
But if I owned land next to a railroad, and some developer came along
offering me $X amount so he could turn the property into housing, I
think I would have some say about how much he could use.
I have lived in homes built along railroads, and while train watching
is fun; most of those places were set far enough away from the tracks,
that you could have put a 2-lane street between the back fence, and
the RR property line.

But I believe that free enterprise does become GREED, when the number
of potential housing units gets doubled, or tripled, or quadrupled, by
building so close to a rail line, that the homes can be construed to
present a possibly problem for the RR.
I am glad I dont have that problem to worry about.

Post by John Obert
I am sorry but when has free enterprise/capitalism and greed been different
words?
Have you ever taken less than the market will bear when you sell something?
have you ever gone down the street to the old stores that provide their
workers with union wages and health benefits in your town and knowing paid
more there than you would at Wal-Mart ?
Of course you have. That¹s why Wal-Mart is opening stores every day and the
old department stores are closing
Getting the most you can for your plot of land and using the system to get
the zoning upgraded to what you need is what America is about its called
free enterprise just because it is near a rail line does not mean you should
get less for it. If the idiot buyer can not figure out the problems of
living next to the track. it falls to the first thing you learned in
contracts buyer beware.
On the Metra/ Chicago and Pacific line (the old Milwaukee Road freight
line) in Chicago at Paulina the north wall of several condo buildings is
anchored to the limestone brick abatement for the tracks

Post by Phaedra Dragon
What is at work here is not "free enterprise", but "GREED". Pure
simple, unadulterated GREED. Developers with a limited land i\on
which can be constructed residental units, almost always find way to
increase the nymver of families living in the area.
They have no concept of RR safety codes, nor do they really care.
In the case of a derailment, they are not the ones who have to pay for
the cleaning up of the mess, nor are they the ones who will have to
shoulder the cost of compensating the familes of the dead. Most of
that cost will be carried by the railroad, even when it can clearly be
shown that the developer ignored safety practices by building housing
units too close to a rail line.
If you really want to stop that, you need to get the state legislature
to recognize the danger of having homes closer than 100' from a
heavily used rail line, and then get them to pass laws requiring a
widening of the safety zone along the tracks.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Phaedra Dragon
But I believe that free enterprise does become GREED, when the number
of potential housing units gets doubled, or tripled, or quadrupled, by
building so close to a rail line, that the homes can be construed to
present a possibly problem for the RR.
I am glad I dont have that problem to worry about.

Gotta ask - where's the responsibility of the Railroads in this? Why can't
they retain enough of the land they were granted to act as a buffer? Yes,
even in cities.

[g***@earthlink.net]

Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Phaedra Dragon
But I believe that free enterprise does become GREED, when the number
of potential housing units gets doubled, or tripled, or quadrupled, by
building so close to a rail line, that the homes can be construed to
present a possibly problem for the RR.
I am glad I dont have that problem to worry about.

Gotta ask - where's the responsibility of the Railroads in this? Why can't
they retain enough of the land they were granted to act as a buffer? Yes,
even in cities.

Planners want those houses as close to the rail line as possible. It is
a failure of planning, but then that is what Smart Growth is all about.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Baxter
--

Post by Phaedra Dragon
But I believe that free enterprise does become GREED, when the number
of potential housing units gets doubled, or tripled, or quadrupled, by
building so close to a rail line, that the homes can be construed to
present a possibly problem for the RR.
I am glad I dont have that problem to worry about.

Gotta ask - where's the responsibility of the Railroads in this? Why

can't

Post by Baxter
they retain enough of the land they were granted to act as a buffer?

Yes,

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Baxter
even in cities.

Planners want those houses as close to the rail line as possible. It is
a failure of planning, but then that is what Smart Growth is all about.

No, georgie porgie, the "planners" can't do a thing about RailRoad property.
You, on the other hand, DO want to restrict what people can do with their
own property - all the while blathering the libertarian mantras about
freedom and free enterprise.

Which is it georgie porgie? Are we to use "Planners" and regulations to
keep housing away from rail lines? Or are we going to allow the owners of
private property to do (build) how they would like?

[Michael G. Koerner]

Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Baxter
--

Post by Phaedra Dragon
But I believe that free enterprise does become GREED, when the number
of potential housing units gets doubled, or tripled, or quadrupled, by
building so close to a rail line, that the homes can be construed to
present a possibly problem for the RR.
I am glad I dont have that problem to worry about.

Gotta ask - where's the responsibility of the Railroads in this? Why

can't

Post by Baxter
they retain enough of the land they were granted to act as a buffer?

Yes,

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Baxter
even in cities.

Planners want those houses as close to the rail line as possible. It

is

Post by g***@earthlink.net
a failure of planning, but then that is what Smart Growth is all about.

No, georgie porgie, the "planners" can't do a thing about RailRoad property.
You, on the other hand, DO want to restrict what people can do with their
own property - all the while blathering the libertarian mantras about
freedom and free enterprise.
Which is it georgie porgie? Are we to use "Planners" and regulations to
keep housing away from rail lines? Or are we going to allow the owners of
private property to do (build) how they would like?

It is not the planners who are advocating for HIGHER unit density, it is
the private developers - the *FREE MARKET*. Virtually ALL of the
zoning/development related conflicts that I see are between developers,
who are trying to respond to their marketing studies that are showing a
demand for more units, and neighbors who are trying to impose lower unit
densities on them.

I have been souring on the entire concept of 'zoning' in recent years
because of this. IMHO, zoning itself is one of the biggest factors
driving our 'sprawl' problem. Left to the free market (with no zoning
restrictions), I would anticipate our urbanized areas being far more
compact than they are now.

A very good 'what if' question would be "what if the USSupreme Court had
ruled the other way in the City of Euclid (?) zoning case from the mid-1920s?".

[g***@earthlink.net]

Post by Baxter

Post by Baxter
--

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Baxter
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Baxter

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Baxter
--

Post by Phaedra Dragon
But I believe that free enterprise does become GREED, when the number
of potential housing units gets doubled, or tripled, or quadrupled, by
building so close to a rail line, that the homes can be construed to
present a possibly problem for the RR.
I am glad I dont have that problem to worry about.

Gotta ask - where's the responsibility of the Railroads in this?

Why

Post by Baxter

Post by Baxter

Post by g***@earthlink.net
can't

Post by Baxter
they retain enough of the land they were granted to act as a buffer?

Yes,

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Baxter
even in cities.

Planners want those houses as close to the rail line as possible.

It

Post by Baxter

Post by Baxter
is

Post by g***@earthlink.net
a failure of planning, but then that is what Smart Growth is all about.

No, georgie porgie, the "planners" can't do a thing about RailRoad property.
You, on the other hand, DO want to restrict what people can do with their
own property - all the while blathering the libertarian mantras about
freedom and free enterprise.
Which is it georgie porgie? Are we to use "Planners" and regulations to
keep housing away from rail lines? Or are we going to allow the owners of
private property to do (build) how they would like?

It is not the planners who are advocating for HIGHER unit density,

The entire Smart Growth movement is about higher density, pure and simple.
And that high density is supposed to be around trains stations, putting
people at a high risk of problem. Not only is noise and vibration an issue,
but as the original poster stated, there a safety issue relating to
proximity to stations. In the RTP region, no such high density housing
exists near future trains stations, but planners are pushing for it. No
builder seems interested, so incentives may have to offered. It is an
ideologically-pushed initiative.

[Merritt Mullen]

Post by Baxter
Gotta ask - where's the responsibility of the Railroads in this? Why can't
they retain enough of the land they were granted to act as a buffer? Yes,
even in cities.

"Granted?" Most RRs bought their land. The RR land grants were in the
uninhabited spaces of the remote west, certainly not in cities.

Merritt

[Phaedra Dragon]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:43:33 GMT, Merritt Mullen

Post by Merritt Mullen

Post by Baxter
Gotta ask - where's the responsibility of the Railroads in this? Why can't
they retain enough of the land they were granted to act as a buffer? Yes,
even in cities.

"Granted?" Most RRs bought their land. The RR land grants were in the
uninhabited spaces of the remote west, certainly not in cities.
Merritt

As Railroads pushed west, starting in the East, moving to the Big
Muddy, and on into the west, the govt considered the idea of granting
railroads land, in the hopes of fostering development of the western
lands.
Railroad were granted odd numbered sections, leaving even numbered
section open for developing.
But ear;y on, there was no question as to what the railroad RoW was,
as no one argued with railroads.
Where a future problem might arise, the railroads deemed it a safety
issue, and claimed x-number of feet from the center line to either
side of the track center line, as being "Railroad Property, including
RoW".
Where that gets fuzzy, is in letting developers tell the railroads -
"Your right of way now lies within 4' (or less) of your tracks";
ignoring what ever existing RoW there is (was).
For the Railroads, if they fight back, they get branded as being
detrimental to development, branded as being restrictive, branded as
being against growth.
One thing planners of those urban areas should do, is plan a new
housing area, built around a street railway, where home folks ride
trolleys to the nearest mall, office complex, commercial/industrial
working area.
I have a book which lays out concept of quality housing planning and
development; but it was published back in 1995. I am willing to bet
that the majority of planners today, not only have never seen this
book, but would claim that such a book, If they did see it, is "too
restrictive", and "doesn't take into account what the people want".
Title of the book: "Time Saving Standards for Housing and Residential
Development" - by Joseph deChiara, Julius Panero, Martin Zelnik -
Second Edition.
It is a well drafted, well-written book, and coveres almost every
aspect of housing and residential development, including such things
as how far developments should be from airports, railways, main and
secondary highways, etc.
If anyone is interested, the book was published by McGraw-Hill.
And if you propose to fight the developers over their proposed
developments, then you will need this book.

[g***@earthlink.net]

Post by Phaedra Dragon
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:43:33 GMT, Merritt Mullen

Post by Merritt Mullen

Post by Baxter
Gotta ask - where's the responsibility of the Railroads in this? Why can't
they retain enough of the land they were granted to act as a buffer?

Yes,

Post by Phaedra Dragon

Post by Merritt Mullen

Post by Baxter
even in cities.

"Granted?" Most RRs bought their land. The RR land grants were in the
uninhabited spaces of the remote west, certainly not in cities.
Merritt

As Railroads pushed west, starting in the East, moving to the Big
Muddy, and on into the west, the govt considered the idea of granting
railroads land, in the hopes of fostering development of the western
lands.
Railroad were granted odd numbered sections, leaving even numbered
section open for developing.
But ear;y on, there was no question as to what the railroad RoW was,
as no one argued with railroads.
Where a future problem might arise, the railroads deemed it a safety
issue, and claimed x-number of feet from the center line to either
side of the track center line, as being "Railroad Property, including
RoW".
Where that gets fuzzy, is in letting developers tell the railroads -
"Your right of way now lies within 4' (or less) of your tracks";
ignoring what ever existing RoW there is (was).
For the Railroads, if they fight back, they get branded as being
detrimental to development, branded as being restrictive, branded as
being against growth.
One thing planners of those urban areas should do, is plan a new
housing area, built around a street railway, where home folks ride
trolleys to the nearest mall, office complex, commercial/industrial
working area.
I have a book which lays out concept of quality housing planning and
development; but it was published back in 1995. I am willing to bet
that the majority of planners today, not only have never seen this
book, but would claim that such a book, If they did see it, is "too
restrictive", and "doesn't take into account what the people want".
Title of the book: "Time Saving Standards for Housing and Residential
Development" - by Joseph deChiara, Julius Panero, Martin Zelnik -
Second Edition.
It is a well drafted, well-written book, and coveres almost every
aspect of housing and residential development, including such things
as how far developments should be from airports, railways, main and
secondary highways, etc.
If anyone is interested, the book was published by McGraw-Hill.
And if you propose to fight the developers over their proposed
developments, then you will need this book.

Such books ignore the fact that the world has moved beyond 1900. People
cannot go purchase food in such small amounts that they can haul it home in
little baggies on trolleys or buses. Nor are they going to pay convience
store prices for everything they buy in overpriced stores. Public transit
wastes peoples time.

Liberals in Durham, NC got Sam's banned from city. Now you find people
from Durham going to Cary to shop. Planners would stop that for our
benefit, so they say.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by g***@earthlink.net
Such books ignore the fact that the world has moved beyond 1900.

People

Post by g***@earthlink.net
cannot go purchase food in such small amounts that they can haul it home in
little baggies on trolleys or buses. Nor are they going to pay convience
store prices for everything they buy in overpriced stores. Public transit
wastes peoples time.

Actually, georgie porgie, building of the InterstateMAX LRT has prompted
one -large- supermarket chain (Fred Meyer/Kroger) to completely rebuild (and
significantly enlarge) their existing store on the line, and has also
prompted a smaller, upscale chain (New Seasons) to build a new store on the
line.

Seems people can and do use transit to do their grocery shopping. In the
case of New Seasons, they feature a large Deli section - which will make it
easy for people to pick up something for dinner on their way home from work
(fresh tasty food, as opposed to canned, boxed, bland and stored for six
months).

[g***@earthlink.net]

Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by g***@earthlink.net
Such books ignore the fact that the world has moved beyond 1900.

People

Post by g***@earthlink.net
cannot go purchase food in such small amounts that they can haul it home

in

Post by g***@earthlink.net
little baggies on trolleys or buses. Nor are they going to pay convience
store prices for everything they buy in overpriced stores. Public transit
wastes peoples time.

Actually, georgie porgie, building of the InterstateMAX LRT has prompted
one -large- supermarket chain (Fred Meyer/Kroger) to completely rebuild (and
significantly enlarge) their existing store on the line, and has also
prompted a smaller, upscale chain (New Seasons) to build a new store on the
line.

You cannot care much of anything on a bus, be it food something else.
One baggie maybe, and in rush hour less than that.

[Keith F. Lynch]

People cannot go purchase food in such small amounts that they can
haul it home in little baggies on trolleys or buses.

Who said anything about "little baggies"? I often carry two or three
full-sized grocery bags -- the biggest the store has -- on the Metro,
or on foot.

Nor are they going to pay convience store prices for everything
they buy in overpriced stores.

There are four full-sized grocery stores within a one hour walk of my
apartment. I often take Metro across the state line, so I can shop in
a store where sales taxes are lower. I almost never shop at the 7-11,
which is a two minute walk from my apartment.

Public transit wastes peoples time.

As contrasted with what alternative? On transit, I can read. When
walking or biking, I get exercise benefit.

If I were to drive a car, I'd get neither benefit. Time spend driving
a car is pure waste. And are you neglecting the value of the time
the driver spends earning the money needed to pay for parking, title,
tags, insurance, fuel, maintenance, taxes, repairs, interest payments,
etc., or the value of the time spent waiting in line at the DMV?

Or the disvalue of the negative externality of making the roads less
safe for pedestians, for cyclists, for children playing, and for other
motorists? Or the disvalue of the negative externality of making the
air quality worse for everyone? Or the disvalue of having to carry
what amounts to an "internal passport" whenever you go to the store
or anywhere else?

[g***@earthlink.net]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

People cannot go purchase food in such small amounts that they can
haul it home in little baggies on trolleys or buses.

Who said anything about "little baggies"? I often carry two or three
full-sized grocery bags -- the biggest the store has -- on the Metro,
or on foot.

I grew up on NYC subways and people NEVER carried food on the subway.
Rather, we had to buy food on the way home from small stores and pay highway
robbery prices. Two bags of food? What about two carts both full. That is
what we come home with from Sams.

[Access Systems]

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Keith F. Lynch

People cannot go purchase food in such small amounts that they can
haul it home in little baggies on trolleys or buses.

Who said anything about "little baggies"? I often carry two or three
full-sized grocery bags -- the biggest the store has -- on the Metro,
or on foot.

I grew up on NYC subways and people NEVER carried food on the subway.
Rather, we had to buy food on the way home from small stores and pay highway
robbery prices. Two bags of food? What about two carts both full. That is
what we come home with from Sams.

around here folks will hire a car or take a cab once a month to get the
major groceries if they don't have a car...pick up milk/eggs/bread/etc on
the way and carry on the bus or train

Bob
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve Neither liberty nor safety", Benjamin Franklin
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ASCII Ribbon Campaign accessBob
NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail ***@smartnospam.net
NO MSWord docs in e-mail Access Systems, engineers
NO attachments in e-mail, *LINUX powered* access is a civil right
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
privileged. They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named

[g***@earthlink.net]

Post by Access Systems

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Keith F. Lynch

People cannot go purchase food in such small amounts that they can
haul it home in little baggies on trolleys or buses.

Who said anything about "little baggies"? I often carry two or three
full-sized grocery bags -- the biggest the store has -- on the Metro,
or on foot.

I grew up on NYC subways and people NEVER carried food on the subway.
Rather, we had to buy food on the way home from small stores and pay highway
robbery prices. Two bags of food? What about two carts both full.

That is

Post by Access Systems

Post by g***@earthlink.net
what we come home with from Sams.

around here folks will hire a car or take a cab once a month to get the
major groceries if they don't have a car...pick up milk/eggs/bread/etc on
the way and carry on the bus or train
Bob

Car rentals to buy food? Are you serious? I'll have to put that in my
file for reference for what radial urban militants want to reduce us to.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Access Systems
around here folks will hire a car or take a cab once a month to get the
major groceries if they don't have a car...pick up milk/eggs/bread/etc on
the way and carry on the bus or train
Bob

Car rentals to buy food? Are you serious? I'll have to put that in my
file for reference for what radial urban militants want to reduce us to.

Hell of a good way to save money. Keeping a car costs, on average, $500 per
month. That can buy a lot of taxi rides.

[Access Systems]

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Access Systems

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Keith F. Lynch

People cannot go purchase food in such small amounts that they can
haul it home in little baggies on trolleys or buses.

Who said anything about "little baggies"? I often carry two or three

I grew up on NYC subways and people NEVER carried food on the subway.
Rather, we had to buy food on the way home from small stores and pay
robbery prices. Two bags of food? What about two carts both full.
what we come home with from Sams.

around here folks will hire a car or take a cab once a month to get the
major groceries if they don't have a car...pick up milk/eggs/bread/etc on
the way and carry on the bus or train

Car rentals to buy food? Are you serious? I'll have to put that in my

who said anything about renting a car, it is usually paying a neighbor to
drive them to the store, and they shop at the same time, many times they
go to the Sams' or whatever and then split the huge packages, half a case
for me half a case for you.

Post by g***@earthlink.net
file for reference for what radial urban militants want to reduce us to.

nah stay out there and leave us alone, and take your drug buying out there
too, best time of the day is when all the commuters leave, and we get some
peace. I went from over 25k a year on my car to less than 10k a year on
my 26 year old VW........

Bob
Urban by choice
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve Neither liberty nor safety", Benjamin Franklin
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ASCII Ribbon Campaign accessBob
NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail ***@smartnospam.net
NO MSWord docs in e-mail Access Systems, engineers
NO attachments in e-mail, *LINUX powered* access is a civil right
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
privileged. They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named

[g***@earthlink.net]

Post by Access Systems

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Access Systems

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Keith F. Lynch

People cannot go purchase food in such small amounts that they can
haul it home in little baggies on trolleys or buses.

Who said anything about "little baggies"? I often carry two or three

I grew up on NYC subways and people NEVER carried food on the subway.
Rather, we had to buy food on the way home from small stores and pay
robbery prices. Two bags of food? What about two carts both full.
what we come home with from Sams.

around here folks will hire a car or take a cab once a month to get the
major groceries if they don't have a car...pick up milk/eggs/bread/etc on
the way and carry on the bus or train

Car rentals to buy food? Are you serious? I'll have to put that in my

who said anything about renting a car, it is usually paying a neighbor to
drive them to the store, and they shop at the same time, many times they
go to the Sams' or whatever and then split the huge packages, half a case
for me half a case for you.

Of course, this would make your neighbor an illegal jitney and taxi.
Unless you also have a car and do not drive it, you are breaking insurance
laws designed to make the efficient use of a car impossible. By the way, I
would propose making legal anyone taking anyone anyplace any time for any
fee agreed upon between them. But no government would ever allow that,
because the demand for transit would tank.

Post by Access Systems

Post by g***@earthlink.net
file for reference for what radial urban militants want to reduce us to.

nah stay out there and leave us alone, and take your drug buying out there
too, best time of the day is when all the commuters leave, and we get some
peace. I went from over 25k a year on my car to less than 10k a year on
my 26 year old VW........
Bob
Urban by choice

Thats nice. People do need to come to the city for deviant activities
which flourish with urban density.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Access Systems
who said anything about renting a car, it is usually paying a neighbor to
drive them to the store, and they shop at the same time, many times they
go to the Sams' or whatever and then split the huge packages, half a case
for me half a case for you.

Of course, this would make your neighbor an illegal jitney and taxi.

Ah, the tired old jitney canard. Fact is, ride sharing is encouraged by
nearly every jurisdiction out there. The only issue is when you try to make
a business out of it without being covered by insurance, etc.

"Jitney" is simply another name for "rip-off cabbie".

[Merritt Mullen]

Post by g***@earthlink.net
Of course, this would make your neighbor an illegal jitney and taxi.
Unless you also have a car and do not drive it, you are breaking insurance
laws designed to make the efficient use of a car impossible. By the way, I
would propose making legal anyone taking anyone anyplace any time for any
fee agreed upon between them. But no government would ever allow that,
because the demand for transit would tank.

You keep stating this piece of mis-information, I suppose because you
believe it and are to hard-headed to learn the truth, but there is nothing
illegal about two or more people sharing the cost of operating one
person's car. In fact, when I lived and commuted in northern Virginia,
the state encouraged this and actually provided an 800 number so that
people could set up car sharing deals. The only restriction was that the
maximum size vehicle was a 12-passenger van.

Merritt

[Merritt Mullen]

Post by g***@earthlink.net
I grew up on NYC subways and people NEVER carried food on the subway.
Rather, we had to buy food on the way home from small stores and pay highway
robbery prices. Two bags of food? What about two carts both full. That is
what we come home with from Sams.

The smart way to shop is have your groceries delivered. Why should the
customer be burdened with the heavy hauling?

Merritt

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Merritt Mullen

Post by g***@earthlink.net
I grew up on NYC subways and people NEVER carried food on the subway.
Rather, we had to buy food on the way home from small stores and pay highway
robbery prices. Two bags of food? What about two carts both full.

That is

Post by Merritt Mullen

Post by g***@earthlink.net
what we come home with from Sams.

The smart way to shop is have your groceries delivered. Why should the
customer be burdened with the heavy hauling?

At Sams, like Costco, everything comes in the super-duper size -- like
catsup in the two-gallon size, Hamburger in the 10-pound (or larger)
package, etc.

[g***@earthlink.net]

Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Merritt Mullen

Post by g***@earthlink.net
I grew up on NYC subways and people NEVER carried food on the subway.
Rather, we had to buy food on the way home from small stores and pay

highway

Post by Merritt Mullen

Post by g***@earthlink.net
robbery prices. Two bags of food? What about two carts both full.

That is

Post by Merritt Mullen

Post by g***@earthlink.net
what we come home with from Sams.

The smart way to shop is have your groceries delivered. Why should the
customer be burdened with the heavy hauling?

At Sams, like Costco, everything comes in the super-duper size -- like
catsup in the two-gallon size, Hamburger in the 10-pound (or larger)
package, etc.

You can get the largest sizes, but you don't need to. When you get 3
lbs of bacon for 50% less per pound, you just freeze the other two. Should
food prices go up 50% to make you happy? Obviously you think so.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Baxter
--
At Sams, like Costco, everything comes in the super-duper size -- like
catsup in the two-gallon size, Hamburger in the 10-pound (or larger)
package, etc.

You can get the largest sizes, but you don't need to.

If it's like Costco (and I understand it is), you do indeed have to buy
larger quantities than you would buy at a regular supermarket.

Post by g***@earthlink.net
When you get 3
lbs of bacon for 50% less per pound, you just freeze the other two.

Should

Post by g***@earthlink.net
food prices go up 50% to make you happy? Obviously you think so.

And then you pay the electric bill to keep it frozen - and possibly lose it
all in a power outage. Or throw it out because of freezer burn. etc. The
reality is not nearly as pretty as your fantasy.

[g***@earthlink.net]

Post by Merritt Mullen

Post by g***@earthlink.net
I grew up on NYC subways and people NEVER carried food on the subway.
Rather, we had to buy food on the way home from small stores and pay highway
robbery prices. Two bags of food? What about two carts both full.

That is

Post by Merritt Mullen

Post by g***@earthlink.net
what we come home with from Sams.

The smart way to shop is have your groceries delivered. Why should the
customer be burdened with the heavy hauling?
Merritt

Of course, again you pay about twice as much as you ought to for food.
It is a nice lifestyle for the rich and famous. Why not send you khansama
to the market for you while your ayah watches the children and the mali
tends your plants?

[Merritt Mullen]

Post by Douglas A. Willinger

Post by Merritt Mullen

Post by g***@earthlink.net
I grew up on NYC subways and people NEVER carried food on the subway.
Rather, we had to buy food on the way home from small stores and pay

highway

Post by Merritt Mullen

Post by g***@earthlink.net
robbery prices. Two bags of food? What about two carts both full.

That is

Post by Merritt Mullen

Post by g***@earthlink.net
what we come home with from Sams.

The smart way to shop is have your groceries delivered. Why should the
customer be burdened with the heavy hauling?
Merritt

Of course, again you pay about twice as much as you ought to for food.
It is a nice lifestyle for the rich and famous.

Do you really think owning a car costs less than having your goods
delivered? Home delivery of products, usually ordered over the internet,
is the way of the future. You are stuck in the second half of the 20th
century.

Merritt

[g***@earthlink.net]

Post by Merritt Mullen

Post by Douglas A. Willinger

Post by Merritt Mullen

Post by g***@earthlink.net
I grew up on NYC subways and people NEVER carried food on the subway.
Rather, we had to buy food on the way home from small stores and pay

highway

Post by Merritt Mullen

Post by g***@earthlink.net
robbery prices. Two bags of food? What about two carts both full.

That is

Post by Merritt Mullen

Post by g***@earthlink.net
what we come home with from Sams.

The smart way to shop is have your groceries delivered. Why should the
customer be burdened with the heavy hauling?
Merritt

Of course, again you pay about twice as much as you ought to for food.
It is a nice lifestyle for the rich and famous.

Do you really think owning a car costs less than having your goods
delivered? Home delivery of products, usually ordered over the internet,
is the way of the future. You are stuck in the second half of the 20th
century.
Merritt

Delivering those groceries by bicycle in Manhattan is more like 1850.

[RJ]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 21:14:59 GMT, Merritt Mullen

Post by Merritt Mullen

Post by Douglas A. Willinger

Post by Merritt Mullen

Post by g***@earthlink.net
I grew up on NYC subways and people NEVER carried food on the subway.
Rather, we had to buy food on the way home from small stores and pay

highway

Post by Merritt Mullen

Post by g***@earthlink.net
robbery prices. Two bags of food? What about two carts both full.

That is

Post by Merritt Mullen

Post by g***@earthlink.net
what we come home with from Sams.

The smart way to shop is have your groceries delivered. Why should the
customer be burdened with the heavy hauling?
Merritt

Of course, again you pay about twice as much as you ought to for food.
It is a nice lifestyle for the rich and famous.

Do you really think owning a car costs less than having your goods
delivered? Home delivery of products, usually ordered over the internet,
is the way of the future.

And that will eliminate personal car ownership? Not likely.

---
Bob

[Merritt Mullen]

Post by RJ
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 21:14:59 GMT, Merritt Mullen

Post by Merritt Mullen
Do you really think owning a car costs less than having your goods
delivered? Home delivery of products, usually ordered over the internet,
is the way of the future.

And that will eliminate personal car ownership? Not likely.

I didn't say it would. But such things, coupled with other trends such as
improved public transit and better planned communities, will reduce the
need for personal automobile ownership. If a family only needed to own
one car instead of two, they would save quite a bit of money.

Merritt

[g***@earthlink.net]

Post by Merritt Mullen

Post by RJ
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 21:14:59 GMT, Merritt Mullen

Post by Merritt Mullen
Do you really think owning a car costs less than having your goods
delivered? Home delivery of products, usually ordered over the internet,
is the way of the future.

And that will eliminate personal car ownership? Not likely.

I didn't say it would. But such things, coupled with other trends such as
improved public transit and better planned communities, will reduce the
need for personal automobile ownership. If a family only needed to own
one car instead of two, they would save quite a bit of money.
Merritt

Only if both cars are less than 5 years old. After that, money saved is
trivial.

[Jordan Bettis]

Post by g***@earthlink.net
Only if both cars are less than 5 years old. After that, money
saved is trivial.

Somebody needs to put a site together that chronicals the stupidest
things George has ever said.

I nominate this.

You are aware, George, that the fact that they NEED TO OWN two cars
also implies that they NEED TO USE two cars, I hope?

[g***@earthlink.net]

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by g***@earthlink.net
Only if both cars are less than 5 years old. After that, money
saved is trivial.

Somebody needs to put a site together that chronicals the stupidest
things George has ever said.
I nominate this.

No, buddy boy, the biggest cost of a car is depreciation. When this ends,
insurance rates cut way back and the cost of driving tanks. If you are
stupid enough to have to hire a taxi to go shopping, your car is totally
free to you.

[Merritt Mullen]

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by g***@earthlink.net
Only if both cars are less than 5 years old. After that, money
saved is trivial.

Somebody needs to put a site together that chronicals the stupidest
things George has ever said.
I nominate this.

No, buddy boy, the biggest cost of a car is depreciation. When this ends,
insurance rates cut way back and the cost of driving tanks. If you are
stupid enough to have to hire a taxi to go shopping, your car is totally
free to you.

So you advise that no one buy a new car? Where do the used cars come from
anyway?

I own an '87 Toyota Camry that I bought used in the early '90s. It has
about 130,000 miles on it and has been a very reliable car. But I finally
had to have the brakes overhauled a couple of months ago and that cost
about $600. Two weeks ago the air conditioner compressor failed and I am
having that replaced at a cost of about $1000. Add in the normal
maintenence, annual cost of insurance and registration, and I would say
the annual cost is anything but trivial.

Of course, if you want to live poorly, drive a junker, and wear Wal-Mart
clothes, that is your choice. Some of us have higher aspirations.

Merritt

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Merritt Mullen
I didn't say it would. But such things, coupled with other trends such as
improved public transit and better planned communities, will reduce the
need for personal automobile ownership. If a family only needed to own
one car instead of two, they would save quite a bit of money.
Merritt

Only if both cars are less than 5 years old. After that, money saved is
trivial.

Not so trivial. Insurance alone on that second car can run a couple hundred
a month. Far more than a transit pass.

[RJ]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 15:33:31 GMT, Merritt Mullen

Post by Merritt Mullen

Post by g***@earthlink.net
I grew up on NYC subways and people NEVER carried food on the subway.
Rather, we had to buy food on the way home from small stores and pay highway
robbery prices. Two bags of food? What about two carts both full. That is
what we come home with from Sams.

The smart way to shop is have your groceries delivered. Why should the
customer be burdened with the heavy hauling?

Why did nearly all the home delivery grocery online stores fold?


---
Bob

[Merritt Mullen]

Post by RJ
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 15:33:31 GMT, Merritt Mullen

Post by Merritt Mullen
The smart way to shop is have your groceries delivered. Why should the
customer be burdened with the heavy hauling?

Why did nearly all the home delivery grocery online stores fold?

A little ahead of their time, I suspect.

Merritt

[g***@earthlink.net]

Post by RJ
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 15:33:31 GMT, Merritt Mullen

Post by Merritt Mullen

Post by g***@earthlink.net
I grew up on NYC subways and people NEVER carried food on the subway.
Rather, we had to buy food on the way home from small stores and pay highway
robbery prices. Two bags of food? What about two carts both full.

That is

Post by RJ

Post by Merritt Mullen

Post by g***@earthlink.net
what we come home with from Sams.

The smart way to shop is have your groceries delivered. Why should the
customer be burdened with the heavy hauling?

Why did nearly all the home delivery grocery online stores fold?
---
Bob

No demand Bob. It was not the future.

[Jordan Bettis]

Post by RJ
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 15:33:31 GMT, Merritt Mullen

Post by Merritt Mullen

Post by g***@earthlink.net
I grew up on NYC subways and people NEVER carried food on the

subway. > >> Rather, we had to buy food on the way home from small
stores and pay highway > >> robbery prices. Two bags of food? What
about two carts both full. That is > >> what we come home with from
Sams.

Post by RJ

Post by Merritt Mullen
The smart way to shop is have your groceries delivered. Why should the
customer be burdened with the heavy hauling?

Why did nearly all the home delivery grocery online stores fold?

Peapod.com seems to be doing pretty well. I see their trucks all the
time in Chicago.

Maybe it was because those companies tried to serve suburban
environments that are much more suited to do-it-yourself hauling than
home delivery.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Keith F. Lynch

People cannot go purchase food in such small amounts that they can
haul it home in little baggies on trolleys or buses.

Who said anything about "little baggies"? I often carry two or three
full-sized grocery bags -- the biggest the store has -- on the Metro,
or on foot.

I grew up on NYC subways and people NEVER carried food on the subway.
Rather, we had to buy food on the way home from small stores and pay highway
robbery prices. Two bags of food? What about two carts both full. That is
what we come home with from Sams.

And you're an idiot if you shop a Sams more than once a month. 'Course,
you're an idiot - but not (just) because of your shopping.

[g***@earthlink.net]

Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Keith F. Lynch

People cannot go purchase food in such small amounts that they can
haul it home in little baggies on trolleys or buses.

Who said anything about "little baggies"? I often carry two or three
full-sized grocery bags -- the biggest the store has -- on the Metro,
or on foot.

I grew up on NYC subways and people NEVER carried food on the subway.
Rather, we had to buy food on the way home from small stores and pay

highway

Post by g***@earthlink.net
robbery prices. Two bags of food? What about two carts both full.

That

Post by Baxter
is

Post by g***@earthlink.net
what we come home with from Sams.

And you're an idiot if you shop a Sams more than once a month. 'Course,
you're an idiot - but not (just) because of your shopping.

We tend to go every other week, except if I want roses for my wife, then
I go more often. She likes roses. You like poverty.

[Jordan Bettis]

Post by g***@earthlink.net
We tend to go every other week, except if I want roses for my wife, then
I go more often. She likes roses. You like poverty.

Buying roses at Sam's!

George, you're an incurable romantic.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Baxter
--
And you're an idiot if you shop a Sams more than once a month. 'Course,
you're an idiot - but not (just) because of your shopping.

We tend to go every other week, except if I want roses for my wife, then
I go more often. She likes roses. You like poverty.

I eat fresher when I visit the local Trader Joe's (or equivalent) - and I
don't pay that much more.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Post by g***@earthlink.net
I grew up on NYC subways and people NEVER carried food on the subway.

"Never"? I rode the New York subway earlier this month, while carrying
groceries. Nobody tried to stop me. Nobody even looked at me askance.

I saw plenty of others carrying grocery bags. I admit I didn't check
to make sure they contained groceries, rarher than, say, auto parts.

Post by g***@earthlink.net
Two bags of food? What about two carts both full.

Stocking up for World War Three?

Post by g***@earthlink.net
That is what we come home with from Sams.

Even if I had a way to carry that much, I don't have any place to
store it. And most of it would probably spoil before I had a chance
to eat it, unless I bought nothing but canned goods, military surplus
MREs, vitamin pills, and nitrogen packed dried grains. I prefer fresh
fruit and vegetables.

And what would be the point? So that I wouldn't have to shop again
for six months? Is grocery shopping really so unpleasant that you
revolve your whole life around being able to go as long as possible
without doing it, regardless of the expense and inconvenience?

[g***@earthlink.net]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by g***@earthlink.net
I grew up on NYC subways and people NEVER carried food on the subway.

"Never"? I rode the New York subway earlier this month, while carrying
groceries. Nobody tried to stop me. Nobody even looked at me askance.
I saw plenty of others carrying grocery bags. I admit I didn't check
to make sure they contained groceries, rarher than, say, auto parts.

Post by g***@earthlink.net
Two bags of food? What about two carts both full.

Stocking up for World War Three?

Just normal shopping. A large amount of what is in the freezers
consists of apple sauce, berries and other produce from our own land.

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by g***@earthlink.net
That is what we come home with from Sams.

Even if I had a way to carry that much, I don't have any place to
store it.

Not everyone lives in a travel trailer.

[g***@earthlink.net]

Post by Jym Dyer

Post by Douglas A. Willinger
The recent push for "Transit Oriented Development" is
resulting in the construction of new residences in
questionable proximity with existing heavy rail, with
such new apartments and condos so located TOO CLOSE,
without the traditional 50-100 feet of setback, ...

=v= "Traditional" meaning what, more specifically?
=v= My understanding of TOD from the literature does not mean
cramming housing next to rail, it means clustering a live/work
mix near transit stops and building housing within a short
walk from those stops.

What??? The goal of the new urbanists is to make people WALK for their
health, not to be near a transit stop.

Post by Jym Dyer
=v= Perhaps the cramming is being done by those looking to make
a good buck, under the guise of misused planning terms? It
wouldn't be the first time. I've seen "TOD" used to justify
giantic parking garages in Atlanta, and "live/work" used to
dodge residential tax codes in San Francisco.
=v= We really ought to vigorously oppose the use of good
planning concepts as Trojan horses for the same old quick buck
schemes.
<_Jym_>

Builders are discovering the joys of cramming, now called Smart Growth.
They can buy land zoned R10 and make it R5 by citing the need to save
society. It used to be called greed. Liberals and reactionaries are now in
bed together. The public gets had.

[Jym Dyer]

Post by g***@earthlink.net
What??? The goal of the new urbanists is to make people WALK
for their health, not to be near a transit stop.
...
Builders are discovering the joys of cramming, now called
Smart Growth.

=v= Either you're very misinformed, or these are deliberately
inaccurate statements. If the latter, you're not being amusing,
you're being a troll.
<_Jym_>

[Jordan Bettis]

Post by Jym Dyer

Post by g***@earthlink.net
What??? The goal of the new urbanists is to make people WALK
for their health, not to be near a transit stop.
...
Builders are discovering the joys of cramming, now called
Smart Growth.

=v= Either you're very misinformed, or these are deliberately
inaccurate statements. If the latter, you're not being amusing,
you're being a troll.
<_Jym_>

Nah, he's just being George.

By the way, could you include references when you quote?

[Jym Dyer]

Post by Jordan Bettis
By the way, could you include references when you quote?

=v= Pick up any book by Peter Calthorpe.
<_Jym_>

[Access Systems]

In alt.railroad Douglas A. Willinger <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

you obviously haven't ridden the "L" in Chicago

Bob

Post by Douglas A. Willinger
The recent push for "Transit Oriented Development" is resulting in the
construction of new residences in questionable proximity with existing
heavy rail, with such new apartments and condos so located TOO CLOSE,
without the traditional 50-100 feet of setback, and at elevations the
same or lower then the immeidately adjacent heavy RR. This results in
a significently lower margin of safety and an greatly increased risk
exposure for people living in such new fad "Smart Growth" real estate
developments.
For instance, the 1996 RR derailment in Silver Spring, Md. (on this
same RR in question: the Metropolitan Branch B&O RR, otherwise the
WMATA Red Line and CSX tracks) occurred next to an apartment building
just north of 16th Street which has a parking lot between it and the
RR; hence that derailment did not strike the apartment building. 20
years earlier though, another such derailment, just a few hundred feet
south of today's Takoma WMATA Red Line Station, sent cargo cariiers
full of GM automobiles onto Blair Road, and partially into houses
along that street's east side that now face the RR wall with less
setback then the Silver Spring/16th Street area apartments.
Yet new projects have been approved along this RR corridor without any
apparant regard of the idea of a safety setback, with new residences
being placed mere feet from heavy RR. Most notably of these are the
currently under construction "Elevation 314" with ZERO setback on its
second and third levels which sit at or lower then the existing heavy
RR, (and to a lesser extent) the aproved but not yet started
construction "Cedar Crossing" condomimiums approximately 50 feet from
this RR's west side. All of these projects lay within the probable
footprint of a RR derailment, with about all of the "Elevation 314"
structure within such a footprint (and without any sort of RR
"guardrail"), hence creating a significently greater risk of people
being killed in their homes in the event of a RR derailment
(particularly at night in their sleep as WMATA allows CSX freight
trains to run through Takoma in wee hours).
(Would we allow people to sleep in tents pitched immediately next to
the shoulder of an interstate highway?)
Could such "infill" developement open up WMATA or other formal
planning bodies up to a future legal liability?
Douglas A. Willinger
Takoma Park Highway Design Studio
http://www.HighwaysAndCommunities.com

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve Neither liberty nor safety", Benjamin Franklin
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ASCII Ribbon Campaign accessBob
NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail ***@smartnospam.net
NO MSWord docs in e-mail Access Systems, engineers
NO attachments in e-mail, *LINUX powered* access is a civil right
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
privileged. They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named

[J. A. Mc.]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 18:18:57 -0000, Access Systems

Post by Access Systems
you obviously haven't ridden the "L" in Chicago
Bob

Love to see the loop get up to 65 mph and with 75-100 cars .....

'till it does, I don't think it's classed as "Heavy Rail".

[Michael G. Koerner]

Post by J. A. Mc.
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 18:18:57 -0000, Access Systems

Post by Access Systems
you obviously haven't ridden the "L" in Chicago
Bob

Love to see the loop get up to 65 mph and with 75-100 cars .....
'till it does, I don't think it's classed as "Heavy Rail".

Isn't '3rd rail' power supply considered 'heavy rail'? The CTA uses 3rd
rail on all of its lines except the Skokie-Swift, which uses an overhead wire.

[g***@earthlink.net]

Post by J. A. Mc.
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 18:18:57 -0000, Access Systems

Post by Access Systems
you obviously haven't ridden the "L" in Chicago
Bob

Love to see the loop get up to 65 mph and with 75-100 cars .....
'till it does, I don't think it's classed as "Heavy Rail".

Doe sthe loop carry dangerous chemicals for delivery?

[Jordan Bettis]

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by J. A. Mc.
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 18:18:57 -0000, Access Systems

Post by Access Systems
you obviously haven't ridden the "L" in Chicago
Bob

Love to see the loop get up to 65 mph and with 75-100 cars .....
'till it does, I don't think it's classed as "Heavy Rail".

Doe sthe loop carry dangerous chemicals for delivery?

Does the WMATA?

[John r Cambron]

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by J. A. Mc.
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 18:18:57 -0000, Access Systems

Post by Access Systems
you obviously haven't ridden the "L" in Chicago
Bob

Love to see the loop get up to 65 mph and with 75-100 cars .....
'till it does, I don't think it's classed as "Heavy Rail".

Doe sthe loop carry dangerous chemicals for delivery?

Does the WMATA?

The question here is CSX.

The easement WMATA shares with CSX between 16th Street in Silver
Spring Maryland and Franklin Street in North East Washington DC
is WMATA property. CSX is the tenetent and leases the area where
there tracks are on the right of way.

Derailment of a WMATA train would be significantly less of a
hazard then the derailment of an auto rack, TOFC, or other car
carrying hazardous cargo. The large cars such as auto racks,
TOFC and bulkhead flats with lumber loads are very destructive
to properties adjacent to the railroad right of way.

Remember the Lumber loads that derailed in Los Angeles this Summer.

About 25 years ago Chessie System now CSX had a derailment north
of Germantown where two auto racks loaded with Caddilacs flattened
a house that was setback about 75' from the railroad right of way.

[Jordan Bettis]

Post by John r Cambron
The easement WMATA shares with CSX between 16th Street in Silver
Spring Maryland and Franklin Street in North East Washington DC is
WMATA property. CSX is the tenetent and leases the area where there
tracks are on the right of way.

I assume this isn't rapid transit then...

Post by John r Cambron
Derailment of a WMATA train would be significantly less of a hazard
then the derailment of an auto rack, TOFC, or other car carrying
hazardous cargo. The large cars such as auto racks, TOFC and
bulkhead flats with lumber loads are very destructive to properties
adjacent to the railroad right of way.

I might point out that although derails are a fairly common occurance,
they rarely cause any damage to anything except perhaps the
ties. Railroaders have described them before as "flat tires for
trains." A derail becomes dangerous, like a flat tire for a car, only
at high speeds.

Post by John r Cambron
Remember the Lumber loads that derailed in Los Angeles this Summer.

The derail wasn't the problem, the problem was the high speed at which
the cars were moving. They were moving quickly because they were
runaways downhill. If the length you're talking about isn't at a steep
grade then it's not an issue.

[George Conklin]

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by John r Cambron
The easement WMATA shares with CSX between 16th Street in Silver
Spring Maryland and Franklin Street in North East Washington DC is
WMATA property. CSX is the tenetent and leases the area where there
tracks are on the right of way.

I assume this isn't rapid transit then...

Post by John r Cambron
Derailment of a WMATA train would be significantly less of a hazard
then the derailment of an auto rack, TOFC, or other car carrying
hazardous cargo. The large cars such as auto racks, TOFC and
bulkhead flats with lumber loads are very destructive to properties
adjacent to the railroad right of way.

I might point out that although derails are a fairly common occurance,
they rarely cause any damage to anything except perhaps the
ties. Railroaders have described them before as "flat tires for
trains." A derail becomes dangerous, like a flat tire for a car, only
at high speeds.

This statement is toally untrue. Even at low speeds, chemical cars
rupture frequently. Durham has seen whole neighborhoods evacuated even
though the speed limit through town is 25 mph. Sometimes it pays to know
the truth and stop posting known lies.

[Phaedra Dragon]

On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 12:25:48 GMT, "George Conklin"

Post by George Conklin

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by John r Cambron
The easement WMATA shares with CSX between 16th Street in Silver
Spring Maryland and Franklin Street in North East Washington DC is
WMATA property. CSX is the tenetent and leases the area where there
tracks are on the right of way.

I assume this isn't rapid transit then...

Post by John r Cambron
Derailment of a WMATA train would be significantly less of a hazard
then the derailment of an auto rack, TOFC, or other car carrying
hazardous cargo. The large cars such as auto racks, TOFC and
bulkhead flats with lumber loads are very destructive to properties
adjacent to the railroad right of way.

I might point out that although derails are a fairly common occurance,
they rarely cause any damage to anything except perhaps the
ties. Railroaders have described them before as "flat tires for
trains." A derail becomes dangerous, like a flat tire for a car, only
at high speeds.

This statement is toally untrue. Even at low speeds, chemical cars
rupture frequently. Durham has seen whole neighborhoods evacuated even
though the speed limit through town is 25 mph. Sometimes it pays to know
the truth and stop posting known lies.

But different cars pose different problems. Chemical cars can
split/rupture a seam even at a low speed when derailing. But a car
load of lumber, when derailed at a low speed, very seldom causes
damage like those cars did in L.A.
Derail a train set of coal cars, and you will likely have coal
scattered over a wide area. Have the cars derail in an urban setting,
and the kids get free chunks of coal to play with.
Derail a tank car load of diesel in an industrial setting, and you get
to close the area, due to a hazardous material spill.
Every freight cars, including auto racks, and container stackers, pose
a different kind of hazard, when they derail.
I have seen derailments where the cars left the tracks with a train
speed, immediately preceeding the accident, of 70+mph. That scatteres
lots of salvage, and really messes up the track, not to mention the
area in which the cars left the rails.
By the same token, I have seen cars dropp off the rails, (rail
roll-over), while moving at speeds less than 10mph. Damage was
minimal, and the crews usually had the cars back on the tracks, and
were busy repairing the track.
Here in Wichita, the UP buried the front trucks of a diesel unit near
Watkins Steel. The ties were rotted, and the track had never been
maintained.
When the lead loco got to the bad section of track, the rails slid
sideways, dropping the loco onto the roadbed. Forward speed at the
time of the accident was 20mph, which caused the lead wheel set, of
the lead loco, to actually plow into the ground, forcing the front
steel work to remold itsself to accomodate the ground unerneath.
A local heavy lift company, "Belger", had to use 2 crans to lift the
loco, and then both cranes had to walk the loco backward, until it
could be rerailed on safe - sound trackage.
Then the track crews came in and rebuilt the track in that area,
replacing 30 rotted ties, as well as some broken rail.
The land was fairly flat, but the area was mostly sand, as it was
quite close to the Arkansas River.
It was a local, with 2 engines, pulling five loaded gondolas.
And it happened just as I described it, as I was waiting for the train
to clear the crossing so I could get home.

[g***@earthlink.net]

Post by Phaedra Dragon
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 12:25:48 GMT, "George Conklin"

Post by George Conklin

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by John r Cambron
The easement WMATA shares with CSX between 16th Street in Silver
Spring Maryland and Franklin Street in North East Washington DC is
WMATA property. CSX is the tenetent and leases the area where there
tracks are on the right of way.

I assume this isn't rapid transit then...

Post by John r Cambron
Derailment of a WMATA train would be significantly less of a hazard
then the derailment of an auto rack, TOFC, or other car carrying
hazardous cargo. The large cars such as auto racks, TOFC and
bulkhead flats with lumber loads are very destructive to properties
adjacent to the railroad right of way.

I might point out that although derails are a fairly common occurance,
they rarely cause any damage to anything except perhaps the
ties. Railroaders have described them before as "flat tires for
trains." A derail becomes dangerous, like a flat tire for a car, only
at high speeds.

This statement is toally untrue. Even at low speeds, chemical cars
rupture frequently. Durham has seen whole neighborhoods evacuated even
though the speed limit through town is 25 mph. Sometimes it pays to know
the truth and stop posting known lies.

But different cars pose different problems. Chemical cars can
split/rupture a seam even at a low speed when derailing. But a car
load of lumber, when derailed at a low speed, very seldom causes
damage like those cars did in L.A.
Derail a train set of coal cars, and you will likely have coal
scattered over a wide area. Have the cars derail in an urban setting,
and the kids get free chunks of coal to play with.
Derail a tank car load of diesel in an industrial setting, and you get
to close the area, due to a hazardous material spill.
Every freight cars, including auto racks, and container stackers, pose
a different kind of hazard, when they derail.
I have seen derailments where the cars left the tracks with a train
speed, immediately preceeding the accident, of 70+mph. That scatteres
lots of salvage, and really messes up the track, not to mention the
area in which the cars left the rails.
By the same token, I have seen cars dropp off the rails, (rail
roll-over), while moving at speeds less than 10mph. Damage was
minimal, and the crews usually had the cars back on the tracks, and
were busy repairing the track.
Here in Wichita, the UP buried the front trucks of a diesel unit near
Watkins Steel. The ties were rotted, and the track had never been
maintained.
When the lead loco got to the bad section of track, the rails slid
sideways, dropping the loco onto the roadbed. Forward speed at the
time of the accident was 20mph, which caused the lead wheel set, of
the lead loco, to actually plow into the ground, forcing the front
steel work to remold itsself to accomodate the ground unerneath.
A local heavy lift company, "Belger", had to use 2 crans to lift the
loco, and then both cranes had to walk the loco backward, until it
could be rerailed on safe - sound trackage.
Then the track crews came in and rebuilt the track in that area,
replacing 30 rotted ties, as well as some broken rail.
The land was fairly flat, but the area was mostly sand, as it was
quite close to the Arkansas River.
It was a local, with 2 engines, pulling five loaded gondolas.
And it happened just as I described it, as I was waiting for the train
to clear the crossing so I could get home.

I am glad to see that some train wrecks are not total disasters. But
many are, and you should not build housing next to railroad tracks.

[Jordan Bettis]

Post by g***@earthlink.net
I am glad to see that some train wrecks are not total disasters.
But many are, and you should not build housing next to railroad
tracks.

Nearly all airline crashes are total disasters. And last I checked,
100% of jets carry extreemly dangerous and flammable
petrochemicals. Those chemicals have been known to burn so hot that
they can melt steel and cause catostrophic structural failure in
buildings.

I have a friend who lives in the city about nine miles from O'Hare. We
were sitting outside his place talking when a plane flew over. He said
they line up with Foster Ave to make their final approach. Then he
said that every so often, one comes in really low and loud, and he
wonders if it's ok

Planes have crashed into cities several miles from the airport several
times before. Would you put an urban growth boundery ten miles from
every airport to make sure that can't happen?
--
Jordan Bettis <http://www.hafd.org/~jordanb>
While the USA railroads pay 24 per cent of their profits in taxes,
road operators pay 5 per cent, air lines 4 per cent, and water
carriers nothing. In addition, the competing carriers receive Federal
assistance amounting to thousands of millions of dollars. In 1986 the
railroads of the USA paid a total of $2,507,924 in taxes, while
receiving meagre Federal assistance, totally out of proportion to the
contribution they make to the national economy.
-- Guinnes Publishing _The Guinnes Railway Book_ 1989

[g***@earthlink.net]

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by g***@earthlink.net
I am glad to see that some train wrecks are not total disasters.
But many are, and you should not build housing next to railroad
tracks.

Nearly all airline crashes are total disasters.

And nearly all airliners cash near the airports. And housing should NOT
be built in flight tracks near airports either.

[Jordan Bettis]

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by g***@earthlink.net
I am glad to see that some train wrecks are not total disasters.
But many are, and you should not build housing next to railroad
tracks.

Nearly all airline crashes are total disasters.

And nearly all airliners cash near the airports. And housing
should NOT be built in flight tracks near airports either.

So you would agree with an urban growth boundary 10 miles from all
airports?

[Access Systems]

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by g***@earthlink.net
But many are, and you should not build housing next to railroad
tracks.

Nearly all airline crashes are total disasters.

And nearly all airliners cash near the airports. And housing
should NOT be built in flight tracks near airports either.

So you would agree with an urban growth boundary 10 miles from all
airports?

so much for Washington DC....New York City, San Francisco, and a whole
lot of other cities

Bob

Post by Jordan Bettis
--
Jordan Bettis <http://www.hafd.org/~jordanb>
Modern art is what happens when painters stop looking at girls and
persuade themselves that they have a better idea.
-- John Ciardi

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve Neither liberty nor safety", Benjamin Franklin
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ASCII Ribbon Campaign accessBob
NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail ***@smartnospam.net
NO MSWord docs in e-mail Access Systems, engineers
NO attachments in e-mail, *LINUX powered* access is a civil right
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
privileged. They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named

[g***@earthlink.net]

Post by Access Systems

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by g***@earthlink.net
But many are, and you should not build housing next to railroad
tracks.

Nearly all airline crashes are total disasters.

And nearly all airliners cash near the airports. And housing
should NOT be built in flight tracks near airports either.

So you would agree with an urban growth boundary 10 miles from all
airports?

so much for Washington DC....New York City, San Francisco, and a whole
lot of other cities
Bob

It was a stupid comment. Coastal cities can take off over rivers and
water, and so forth.

[Access Systems]

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Access Systems

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by g***@earthlink.net
But many are, and you should not build housing next to railroad
tracks.

Nearly all airline crashes are total disasters.

And nearly all airliners cash near the airports. And housing
should NOT be built in flight tracks near airports either.

So you would agree with an urban growth boundary 10 miles from all
airports?

so much for Washington DC....New York City, San Francisco, and a whole
lot of other cities

It was a stupid comment. Coastal cities can take off over rivers and
water, and so forth.

really, and have you flown into National airport in DC, only pure luck put
the Plane in the river instead of the Lincoln memorial (which was in the
direct flight path) when it clipped the rail bridge in the air Florida
crash, and Kennedy just recently had a plane crash into housing in the
Rockaway section of NYC... maybe landing at SF might be able to stay over
the water...the Potomac river is only few hundred feet wide NW of DC, not
a very big target to hit.

and how would St Louis, or Pittsburgh, or Chicago, or KC, Salt Lake City
do this at thier airports and then there is Las Vegas, in the middle of
the desert they build the airport right in the center of town...


????

Bob
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve Neither liberty nor safety", Benjamin Franklin
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ASCII Ribbon Campaign accessBob
NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail ***@smartnospam.net
NO MSWord docs in e-mail Access Systems, engineers
NO attachments in e-mail, *LINUX powered* access is a civil right
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
privileged. They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named

[g***@earthlink.net]

Post by Access Systems

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Access Systems

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by g***@earthlink.net
But many are, and you should not build housing next to railroad
tracks.

Nearly all airline crashes are total disasters.

And nearly all airliners cash near the airports. And housing
should NOT be built in flight tracks near airports either.

So you would agree with an urban growth boundary 10 miles from all
airports?

so much for Washington DC....New York City, San Francisco, and a whole
lot of other cities

It was a stupid comment. Coastal cities can take off over rivers and
water, and so forth.

really, and have you flown into National airport in DC, only pure luck put
the Plane in the river instead of the Lincoln memorial (which was in the
direct flight path) when it clipped the rail bridge in the air Florida
crash, and Kennedy just recently had a plane crash into housing in the
Rockaway section of NYC... maybe landing at SF might be able to stay over
the water...the Potomac river is only few hundred feet wide NW of DC, not
a very big target to hit.
and how would St Louis, or Pittsburgh, or Chicago, or KC, Salt Lake City
do this at thier airports and then there is Las Vegas, in the middle of
the desert they build the airport right in the center of town...

Land use planners have not even tried to keep housing away from airports,
even when the airports were once isolated. It is a purposive failure, based
on Smart Growth which does not allow for an industrial zone anymore. They
want everything mixed up. Of course, unlike trains, which people think of
as safe, most planes are not chemical bombs running through town at 3:00 AM
10 feet from houses. Also, the original post which suggested that putting
new housing on top of railroad tracks was a bad idea too...except that it
ALSO is Smart Growth, so the problems are parallel.

As for DC, National planes do come in up the river, cutting down risks.
When the bridge was clipped, the plane did not hit buildings, nor was it
carrying a load of poison like the trains through here do.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by g***@earthlink.net
Land use planners have not even tried to keep housing away from airports,
even when the airports were once isolated.

Of course not. People like you won't let them. You insist on gutting
regulations and spreading out all over the landscape.

[g***@earthlink.net]

Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by g***@earthlink.net
Land use planners have not even tried to keep housing away from

airports,

Post by g***@earthlink.net
even when the airports were once isolated.

Of course not. People like you won't let them. You insist on gutting
regulations and spreading out all over the landscape.

I worked for 10 years to try to stop buildings being put under flight
tracks, you fool. I even did the regressions to settle some of the suits,
which is more than you can do.

[Phaedra Dragon]

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by g***@earthlink.net
Land use planners have not even tried to keep housing away from

airports,

Post by g***@earthlink.net
even when the airports were once isolated.

Of course not. People like you won't let them. You insist on gutting
regulations and spreading out all over the landscape.

I worked for 10 years to try to stop buildings being put under flight
tracks, you fool. I even did the regressions to settle some of the suits,
which is more than you can do.

Still, the bottom line to every planned housing development, is still
"GREED".

[Michael G. Koerner]

Post by Access Systems

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Access Systems

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by g***@earthlink.net
But many are, and you should not build housing next to railroad
tracks.

Nearly all airline crashes are total disasters.

And nearly all airliners cash near the airports. And housing
should NOT be built in flight tracks near airports either.

So you would agree with an urban growth boundary 10 miles from all
airports?

so much for Washington DC....New York City, San Francisco, and a whole
lot of other cities

It was a stupid comment. Coastal cities can take off over rivers and
water, and so forth.

really, and have you flown into National airport in DC, only pure luck put
the Plane in the river instead of the Lincoln memorial (which was in the
direct flight path) when it clipped the rail bridge in the air Florida
crash, and Kennedy just recently had a plane crash into housing in the
Rockaway section of NYC... maybe landing at SF might be able to stay over
the water...the Potomac river is only few hundred feet wide NW of DC, not
a very big target to hit.
and how would St Louis, or Pittsburgh, or Chicago, or KC, Salt Lake City
do this at thier airports and then there is Las Vegas, in the middle of
the desert they build the airport right in the center of town...
????

Actually, McCarran Airport in Las Vegas, NV _was_ waaaay out in the
country when it was first built, the 'Strip' area grew around it.

Las Vegas, NV needs a new airport farther out.

[Phaedra Dragon]

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 13:17:40 -0000, Access Systems

Post by Access Systems

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Access Systems

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by g***@earthlink.net
But many are, and you should not build housing next to railroad
tracks.

Nearly all airline crashes are total disasters.

And nearly all airliners cash near the airports. And housing
should NOT be built in flight tracks near airports either.

So you would agree with an urban growth boundary 10 miles from all
airports?

so much for Washington DC....New York City, San Francisco, and a whole
lot of other cities

It was a stupid comment. Coastal cities can take off over rivers and
water, and so forth.

really, and have you flown into National airport in DC, only pure luck put
the Plane in the river instead of the Lincoln memorial (which was in the
direct flight path) when it clipped the rail bridge in the air Florida
crash, and Kennedy just recently had a plane crash into housing in the
Rockaway section of NYC... maybe landing at SF might be able to stay over
the water...the Potomac river is only few hundred feet wide NW of DC, not
a very big target to hit.
and how would St Louis, or Pittsburgh, or Chicago, or KC, Salt Lake City
do this at thier airports and then there is Las Vegas, in the middle of
the desert they build the airport right in the center of town...

McCarran Airport, in Las Vegas is not in the center of town. It is on
the south side of Las Vegas, and according to the zoning laws, no
highrise building can be built within500' ot any landing/take-off
line.
But since the stip runs mainly East/West, that isn't much of a
problem.
As for KC, the downtown airport is mostly used by shuttles and charter
fights, using small aircraft. The main airlines almost all use KCI,
several miles to the north and west.
Out to Denver, they built a new airport, which is basically an
extension of the old runway, but with a totally new terminal building.
And I70 still runs under the landing/take-off strip.

Post by Access Systems
????
Bob

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Access Systems

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by g***@earthlink.net
But many are, and you should not build housing next to railroad
tracks.

Nearly all airline crashes are total disasters.

And nearly all airliners cash near the airports. And housing
should NOT be built in flight tracks near airports either.

So you would agree with an urban growth boundary 10 miles from all
airports?

so much for Washington DC....New York City, San Francisco, and a whole
lot of other cities
Bob

It was a stupid comment. Coastal cities can take off over rivers and
water, and so forth.

Sometimes. Not always.

[Michael G. Koerner]

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by g***@earthlink.net
I am glad to see that some train wrecks are not total disasters.
But many are, and you should not build housing next to railroad
tracks.

Nearly all airline crashes are total disasters.

And nearly all airliners cash near the airports. And housing
should NOT be built in flight tracks near airports either.

So you would agree with an urban growth boundary 10 miles from all
airports?

You'd have to declare at least half of every major metro area (NYC,
Chicago, Los Angeles, etc) as 'no build zones'. But then, that is what
Georgie keeps advocating. BTW, how far does Georgie live from RDU?

[g***@earthlink.net]

Post by Michael G. Koerner

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by g***@earthlink.net
I am glad to see that some train wrecks are not total disasters.
But many are, and you should not build housing next to railroad
tracks.

Nearly all airline crashes are total disasters.

And nearly all airliners cash near the airports. And housing
should NOT be built in flight tracks near airports either.

So you would agree with an urban growth boundary 10 miles from all
airports?

You'd have to declare at least half of every major metro area (NYC,
Chicago, Los Angeles, etc) as 'no build zones'. But then, that is what
Georgie keeps advocating. BTW, how far does Georgie live from RDU?

Appleton does not have any worries. Being in the middle of nowhere with
no future does not mean the rest of the world has to conform to a man
posting from a city famous only for Appleton Beer, which went bankrupt about
1972.

Keeping housing back to the 55 DNL would work quite well at most
airports to be super safe, but 65 would do well in most cities. However, at
RDU it was the planners in Wake and Raleigh which put housing close to the
airport and militantly defended their decisions. Planning was the problem,
not the solution. Planners wanted mixed land use theory to win out over
anything practical, and succeeded in putting people at risk. They also cost
the public about $3.8 million in noise suits. Planning theory is a disaster
for cities with airports.

[Phaedra Dragon]

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Michael G. Koerner

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by g***@earthlink.net
I am glad to see that some train wrecks are not total disasters.
But many are, and you should not build housing next to railroad
tracks.

Nearly all airline crashes are total disasters.

And nearly all airliners cash near the airports. And housing
should NOT be built in flight tracks near airports either.

So you would agree with an urban growth boundary 10 miles from all
airports?

You'd have to declare at least half of every major metro area (NYC,
Chicago, Los Angeles, etc) as 'no build zones'. But then, that is what
Georgie keeps advocating. BTW, how far does Georgie live from RDU?

Appleton does not have any worries. Being in the middle of nowhere with
no future does not mean the rest of the world has to conform to a man
posting from a city famous only for Appleton Beer, which went bankrupt about
1972.
Keeping housing back to the 55 DNL would work quite well at most
airports to be super safe, but 65 would do well in most cities. However, at
RDU it was the planners in Wake and Raleigh which put housing close to the
airport and militantly defended their decisions. Planning was the problem,
not the solution. Planners wanted mixed land use theory to win out over
anything practical, and succeeded in putting people at risk. They also cost
the public about $3.8 million in noise suits. Planning theory is a disaster
for cities with airports.

It does not have to be a disaster, provided one follows whatever
existing zoning laws there are.
It only becomes a disaster, when the greed of the developers,
overwhelms their common sense; which probably most developers never
did have much of to begin with.
Out here in Wichita, Mid-Continent Airport is outside the city limits,
and therefore becoms a county problem. But in locating the airport
out where it is now, both the city, the county, and the State did
agree on some sensible solutions to the problems of noise, and
possible crashes on take-off/landing. They passed a very strict
guidline which actually prohibits the construction of any building
over 4 floors in height, within a 1/2mile radius of the property line,
which is not that rectangular.
Out where Boieng shares the field with the USAF, the zoning laws are
much more strict, and actually prohibit the building of any kind of
structure under the flight path, south of the Kansas Turnpike.
For areas south of the base, under the flight path, the zoning laws
will allow you to build a one story home, but it cant be higher than
one floor, excluding the basement, (if any).

[Michael G. Koerner]

Post by Phaedra Dragon

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Michael G. Koerner

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by g***@earthlink.net
I am glad to see that some train wrecks are not total disasters.
But many are, and you should not build housing next to railroad
tracks.

Nearly all airline crashes are total disasters.

And nearly all airliners cash near the airports. And housing
should NOT be built in flight tracks near airports either.

So you would agree with an urban growth boundary 10 miles from all
airports?

You'd have to declare at least half of every major metro area (NYC,
Chicago, Los Angeles, etc) as 'no build zones'. But then, that is what
Georgie keeps advocating. BTW, how far does Georgie live from RDU?

Appleton does not have any worries. Being in the middle of nowhere with
no future does not mean the rest of the world has to conform to a man
posting from a city famous only for Appleton Beer, which went bankrupt about
1972.
Keeping housing back to the 55 DNL would work quite well at most
airports to be super safe, but 65 would do well in most cities. However, at
RDU it was the planners in Wake and Raleigh which put housing close to the
airport and militantly defended their decisions. Planning was the problem,
not the solution. Planners wanted mixed land use theory to win out over
anything practical, and succeeded in putting people at risk. They also cost
the public about $3.8 million in noise suits. Planning theory is a disaster
for cities with airports.

It does not have to be a disaster, provided one follows whatever
existing zoning laws there are.
It only becomes a disaster, when the greed of the developers,
overwhelms their common sense; which probably most developers never
did have much of to begin with.
Out here in Wichita, Mid-Continent Airport is outside the city limits,
and therefore becoms a county problem. But in locating the airport
out where it is now, both the city, the county, and the State did
agree on some sensible solutions to the problems of noise, and
possible crashes on take-off/landing. They passed a very strict
guidline which actually prohibits the construction of any building
over 4 floors in height, within a 1/2mile radius of the property line,
which is not that rectangular.
Out where Boieng shares the field with the USAF, the zoning laws are
much more strict, and actually prohibit the building of any kind of
structure under the flight path, south of the Kansas Turnpike.
For areas south of the base, under the flight path, the zoning laws
will allow you to build a one story home, but it cant be higher than
one floor, excluding the basement, (if any).

Several years ago, Outagamie County (WI) imposed a series of
progressively restrictive 'airport overlay' zones around the airport at
the west of the Appleton metro area ('ATW'), which is now being
surrounded by suburban sprawl style development. The south edge of the
airport grounds is at the Winnebago County line and one of the runway
approaches (actually a string of approach lights) extends slightly
across the line. Winnebago County and two of its unincorporated towns
then promptly _SUED_ Outagamie County to try to overturn those
restrictions (the restrictions were upheld in court).

BTW, I wonder if Goergie has ever visited the Appleton, WI area, or at
least taken the time to study maps (both current and historical), aerial
photos, census trends, air-traffic trends at ATW, marketing data, etc,
of it?

There is a reason why I have just put him back into my 'killfile' list.

[g***@earthlink.net]

Post by Michael G. Koerner

Post by Phaedra Dragon

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Michael G. Koerner

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by g***@earthlink.net
I am glad to see that some train wrecks are not total disasters.
But many are, and you should not build housing next to railroad
tracks.

Nearly all airline crashes are total disasters.

And nearly all airliners cash near the airports. And housing
should NOT be built in flight tracks near airports either.

So you would agree with an urban growth boundary 10 miles from all
airports?

You'd have to declare at least half of every major metro area (NYC,
Chicago, Los Angeles, etc) as 'no build zones'. But then, that is what
Georgie keeps advocating. BTW, how far does Georgie live from RDU?

Appleton does not have any worries. Being in the middle of nowhere with
no future does not mean the rest of the world has to conform to a man
posting from a city famous only for Appleton Beer, which went bankrupt about
1972.
Keeping housing back to the 55 DNL would work quite well at most
airports to be super safe, but 65 would do well in most cities.

However, at

Post by Michael G. Koerner

Post by Phaedra Dragon

Post by g***@earthlink.net
RDU it was the planners in Wake and Raleigh which put housing close to the
airport and militantly defended their decisions. Planning was the problem,
not the solution. Planners wanted mixed land use theory to win out over
anything practical, and succeeded in putting people at risk. They also cost
the public about $3.8 million in noise suits. Planning theory is a disaster
for cities with airports.

It does not have to be a disaster, provided one follows whatever
existing zoning laws there are.
It only becomes a disaster, when the greed of the developers,
overwhelms their common sense; which probably most developers never
did have much of to begin with.

Planners could easily have prevented housing at the 65+ DNL. Those chose
not to. Our local county commissioner chair insisted that Durham's chief
planner attend some meetings on the subject. He did. But Wake County and
the City of Raleigh basically told the airport to kiss their ass.

Post by Michael G. Koerner

Post by Phaedra Dragon
Out here in Wichita, Mid-Continent Airport is outside the city limits,
and therefore becoms a county problem. But in locating the airport
out where it is now, both the city, the county, and the State did
agree on some sensible solutions to the problems of noise, and
possible crashes on take-off/landing. They passed a very strict
guidline which actually prohibits the construction of any building
over 4 floors in height, within a 1/2mile radius of the property line,
which is not that rectangular.
Out where Boieng shares the field with the USAF, the zoning laws are
much more strict, and actually prohibit the building of any kind of
structure under the flight path, south of the Kansas Turnpike.
For areas south of the base, under the flight path, the zoning laws
will allow you to build a one story home, but it cant be higher than
one floor, excluding the basement, (if any).

Several years ago, Outagamie County (WI) imposed a series of
progressively restrictive 'airport overlay' zones around the airport at
the west of the Appleton metro area ('ATW'), which is now being
surrounded by suburban sprawl style development. The south edge of the
airport grounds is at the Winnebago County line and one of the runway
approaches (actually a string of approach lights) extends slightly
across the line. Winnebago County and two of its unincorporated towns
then promptly _SUED_ Outagamie County to try to overturn those
restrictions (the restrictions were upheld in court).

Airport overlay districts tend to be done away with as land gets more
valuable.

Post by Michael G. Koerner
BTW, I wonder if Goergie has ever visited the Appleton, WI area, or at
least taken the time to study maps (both current and historical), aerial
photos, census trends, air-traffic trends at ATW, marketing data, etc,
of it?
There is a reason why I have just put him back into my 'killfile' list.

That is nice. Because you have no business telling a successful area how
to become like poor Appleton. The summer I was there, Lake Winnebago was so
polluted the green slime would ruin your bathing suit and stain your legs.
It was such a wonderful place.

[g***@earthlink.net]

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by g***@earthlink.net
I am glad to see that some train wrecks are not total disasters.
But many are, and you should not build housing next to railroad
tracks.

Nearly all airline crashes are total disasters.

And nearly all airliners cash near the airports. And housing
should NOT be built in flight tracks near airports either.

So you would agree with an urban growth boundary 10 miles from all
airports?

You know nothing about the military Cash Zone One and Crash Zone Two,
which is a frank examination of issues. Basically, no development should
take place inside the 55 DNL as a good estimate. It is so easy to post when
you have nothing going for you but hatred of the middle class.

[John Obert]

isn't that why they want to build the airport in Petone

Post by Jordan Bettis
Planes have crashed into cities several miles from the airport several
times before. Would you put an urban growth boundery ten miles from
every airport to make sure that can't happen?

[Jordan Bettis]

Post by John Obert
isn't that why they want to build the airport in Petone

Post by Jordan Bettis
Planes have crashed into cities several miles from the airport
several times before. Would you put an urban growth boundery ten
miles from every airport to make sure that can't happen?

No.

[g***@earthlink.net]

Post by John Obert
isn't that why they want to build the airport in Petone

Post by Jordan Bettis
Planes have crashed into cities several miles from the airport several
times before. Would you put an urban growth boundery ten miles from
every airport to make sure that can't happen?

Growth outside the 55 DNL would be sufficient, but then no planner wants
to do that. Planners in Raleigh put housing up to the 65 DNL, despite pleas
not to do so. The FAA, at a planning session I was running, called it a
classic case of bad planning. However, it does conform to the principles of
Smart Growth.

[Phaedra Dragon]

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by John Obert
isn't that why they want to build the airport in Petone

Post by Jordan Bettis
Planes have crashed into cities several miles from the airport several
times before. Would you put an urban growth boundery ten miles from
every airport to make sure that can't happen?

Growth outside the 55 DNL would be sufficient, but then no planner wants
to do that. Planners in Raleigh put housing up to the 65 DNL, despite pleas
not to do so. The FAA, at a planning session I was running, called it a
classic case of bad planning. However, it does conform to the principles of
Smart Growth.

SMart Growth raised it's ugly head down this away, and got squished
like the bad bug it is. An out-of-state developer came in and
actually proposed putting up high-rise apartments within 10' of an
existing rail line, but on both sides of that line, with a connecting
walkway at 22foot over the tracks.
While the idea sounded good, for a heavy residential area, the housing
units, as proposed, would have been used by college students, and not
families. Not only did the City say "No>", but the Railroad, (BNSF),
said "HELL NO". The developer forgot to take into account the fact
that the BNSF has a RoW of 10' to either side of the track center
line, with a planned for buffer zone, (City, County and state
approved), of 30'.
I wonder if I could charge the BNSF for running trains on their tracks
across my property?

[g***@earthlink.net]

Post by Phaedra Dragon

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by John Obert
isn't that why they want to build the airport in Petone

Post by Jordan Bettis
Planes have crashed into cities several miles from the airport several
times before. Would you put an urban growth boundery ten miles from
every airport to make sure that can't happen?

Growth outside the 55 DNL would be sufficient, but then no planner wants
to do that. Planners in Raleigh put housing up to the 65 DNL, despite pleas
not to do so. The FAA, at a planning session I was running, called it a
classic case of bad planning. However, it does conform to the principles of
Smart Growth.

SMart Growth raised it's ugly head down this away, and got squished
like the bad bug it is. An out-of-state developer came in and
actually proposed putting up high-rise apartments within 10' of an
existing rail line, but on both sides of that line, with a connecting
walkway at 22foot over the tracks.

Our local transit agency is trying to encourage such development.

[John R Cambron]

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by John r Cambron
The easement WMATA shares with CSX between 16th Street in Silver
Spring Maryland and Franklin Street in North East Washington DC is
WMATA property. CSX is the tenetent and leases the area where there
tracks are on the right of way.

I assume this isn't rapid transit then...

The alignment I described above was the same section of railroad
right of that was the subject of the author of the opening post
in this thread by Douglas A. Willinger.

The alignment is four track with the CSX freight tracks on the
outside and the WMATA metrorail tracks between the the freight
tracks. The WMATA tracks are fenced off from the freight tracks
and the freight tracks are fenced from adjacent properties.

The fenced on either side of the WMATA tracks have a intrusion
system running along the fence. If the fence is displaced or
knocked down by any object be it a train running on the CSX
tracks or a WMATA train an alarm go off in the central control
room at WMATA headquarters

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by John r Cambron
Derailment of a WMATA train would be significantly less of a hazard
then the derailment of an auto rack, TOFC, or other car carrying
hazardous cargo. The large cars such as auto racks, TOFC and
bulkhead flats with lumber loads are very destructive to properties
adjacent to the railroad right of way.

I might point out that although derails are a fairly common occurance,
they rarely cause any damage to anything except perhaps the
ties. Railroaders have described them before as "flat tires for
trains." A derail becomes dangerous, like a flat tire for a car, only
at high speeds.

Trains operating along the CSX track generally operate at speed
greater 40 MPH and as high as 60 MPH.

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by John r Cambron
Remember the Lumber loads that derailed in Los Angeles this Summer.

The derail wasn't the problem, the problem was the high speed at which
the cars were moving. They were moving quickly because they were
runaways downhill. If the length you're talking about isn't at a steep
grade then it's not an issue.

See above.

The grade profile south of Silver Spring on the CSX tracks to
down to the interlocking that connects the CSX tracks to
Washington DC Union Station is over 1.5%.

[George Conklin]

Post by John r Cambron

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by J. A. Mc.
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 18:18:57 -0000, Access Systems

Post by Access Systems
you obviously haven't ridden the "L" in Chicago
Bob

Love to see the loop get up to 65 mph and with 75-100 cars .....
'till it does, I don't think it's classed as "Heavy Rail".

Doe sthe loop carry dangerous chemicals for delivery?

Does the WMATA?

The question here is CSX.
The easement WMATA shares with CSX between 16th Street in Silver
Spring Maryland and Franklin Street in North East Washington DC
is WMATA property. CSX is the tenetent and leases the area where
there tracks are on the right of way.
Derailment of a WMATA train would be significantly less of a
hazard then the derailment of an auto rack, TOFC, or other car
carrying hazardous cargo. The large cars such as auto racks,
TOFC and bulkhead flats with lumber loads are very destructive
to properties adjacent to the railroad right of way.
Remember the Lumber loads that derailed in Los Angeles this Summer.
About 25 years ago Chessie System now CSX had a derailment north
of Germantown where two auto racks loaded with Caddilacs flattened
a house that was setback about 75' from the railroad right of way.

There is also the issue of the fact that in most areas trains are running
chemical bombs. If a train were to derail near such a house, the people
would die not from the impact but from chemical exposures.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by George Conklin
There is also the issue of the fact that in most areas trains are running
chemical bombs. If a train were to derail near such a house, the people
would die not from the impact but from chemical exposures.

Conklin would prefer to put the chemicals on truck on the highways - sure to
be mixed with rush-hour traffic.

[David Lesher]

Post by George Conklin
There is also the issue of the fact that in most areas trains are running
chemical bombs. If a train were to derail near such a house, the people
would die not from the impact but from chemical exposures.

I stood on the Silver Spring platform and watched an outboard freight.

10+ cars chlorine
20+ LPG
2-3 sodium hydroxide
2 fuming sulphuric acid
1 hydrochloric acid
many all black mystery "call ChemTrak in case of.." tankers

and just for fun...

15-20 ADM cornstarch mix


Now class, what can we make with this?

[Michael G. Koerner]

Post by David Lesher

Post by George Conklin
There is also the issue of the fact that in most areas trains are running
chemical bombs. If a train were to derail near such a house, the people
would die not from the impact but from chemical exposures.

I stood on the Silver Spring platform and watched an outboard freight.
10+ cars chlorine
20+ LPG
2-3 sodium hydroxide
2 fuming sulphuric acid
1 hydrochloric acid
many all black mystery "call ChemTrak in case of.." tankers
and just for fun...
15-20 ADM cornstarch mix
Now class, what can we make with this?

That that is a lot of haz-mat trucks that won't have to take I-695
around Baltimore because they can't go through the I-95 and I-895 tunnels?

[g***@earthlink.net]

Post by Michael G. Koerner

Post by David Lesher

Post by George Conklin
There is also the issue of the fact that in most areas trains are running
chemical bombs. If a train were to derail near such a house, the people
would die not from the impact but from chemical exposures.

I stood on the Silver Spring platform and watched an outboard freight.
10+ cars chlorine
20+ LPG
2-3 sodium hydroxide
2 fuming sulphuric acid
1 hydrochloric acid
many all black mystery "call ChemTrak in case of.." tankers
and just for fun...
15-20 ADM cornstarch mix
Now class, what can we make with this?

That that is a lot of haz-mat trucks that won't have to take I-695
around Baltimore because they can't go through the I-95 and I-895 tunnels?

No one has any business encouraging development just a few feet from
heavy-duty rail lines just because Smart Growth says they should. It will
happen in the RTP region and it is toally irresponsible.

[g***@earthlink.net]

Post by David Lesher

Post by George Conklin
There is also the issue of the fact that in most areas trains are running
chemical bombs. If a train were to derail near such a house, the people
would die not from the impact but from chemical exposures.

I stood on the Silver Spring platform and watched an outboard freight.
10+ cars chlorine
20+ LPG
2-3 sodium hydroxide
2 fuming sulphuric acid
1 hydrochloric acid
many all black mystery "call ChemTrak in case of.." tankers
and just for fun...
15-20 ADM cornstarch mix
Now class, what can we make with this?

Just hope it is the cornstarch mix which derails!!!!

[Keith F. Lynch]

Post by David Lesher
I stood on the Silver Spring platform and watched an outboard freight.
10+ cars chlorine
20+ LPG
2-3 sodium hydroxide
2 fuming sulphuric acid
1 hydrochloric acid
many all black mystery "call ChemTrak in case of.." tankers
and just for fun...
15-20 ADM cornstarch mix
Now class, what can we make with this?

With the hydrochloric acid and the sodium hydroxide you can make
ordinary table salt and water. Replace the hydrochloric acid with
the fuming sulphuric acid, and you get epsom salt instead.

Add a little chlorine to the water, and you get water suitable for
drinking. Add more, and you get water suitable for swimming in.
Use the LPG if you want the swimming pool water temperature to be
comfortable.

The cornstarch could be dangerous, however. A bunch of people
were once killed by a molasses flood. And grain elevators full of
cornstarch dust have been known to *explode*. Can't be too careful.
Ban the interstate transporation of food products!

[Joe the Aroma]

Post by George Conklin

Post by John r Cambron

Post by Jordan Bettis

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by J. A. Mc.
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 18:18:57 -0000, Access Systems

Post by Access Systems
you obviously haven't ridden the "L" in Chicago
Bob

Love to see the loop get up to 65 mph and with 75-100 cars .....
'till it does, I don't think it's classed as "Heavy Rail".

Doe sthe loop carry dangerous chemicals for delivery?

Does the WMATA?

The question here is CSX.
The easement WMATA shares with CSX between 16th Street in Silver
Spring Maryland and Franklin Street in North East Washington DC
is WMATA property. CSX is the tenetent and leases the area where
there tracks are on the right of way.
Derailment of a WMATA train would be significantly less of a
hazard then the derailment of an auto rack, TOFC, or other car
carrying hazardous cargo. The large cars such as auto racks,
TOFC and bulkhead flats with lumber loads are very destructive
to properties adjacent to the railroad right of way.
Remember the Lumber loads that derailed in Los Angeles this Summer.
About 25 years ago Chessie System now CSX had a derailment north
of Germantown where two auto racks loaded with Caddilacs flattened
a house that was setback about 75' from the railroad right of way.

There is also the issue of the fact that in most areas trains are running
chemical bombs. If a train were to derail near such a house, the people
would die not from the impact but from chemical exposures.

Not just trains, George. Where I live here in CT we had two chemical
tractor trailers overturn on the highway and the entire area was
evacuated.

Talk about unsafe. A freight train is safer than a semi anyday.

[mark]

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by J. A. Mc.
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 18:18:57 -0000, Access Systems

Post by Access Systems
you obviously haven't ridden the "L" in Chicago
Bob

Love to see the loop get up to 65 mph and with 75-100 cars .....
'till it does, I don't think it's classed as "Heavy Rail".

Doe sthe loop carry dangerous chemicals for delivery?

That depends, are there Starbucks' near the L stations?

[George Conklin]

Post by mark

Post by g***@earthlink.net

Post by J. A. Mc.
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 18:18:57 -0000, Access Systems

Post by Access Systems
you obviously haven't ridden the "L" in Chicago
Bob

Love to see the loop get up to 65 mph and with 75-100 cars .....
'till it does, I don't think it's classed as "Heavy Rail".

Doe sthe loop carry dangerous chemicals for delivery?

That depends, are there Starbucks' near the L stations?

Ok you got me. But seriously, trolley car sysems in many cities did
deliver freight. I was wondering if that still happens in Chicago. Any
idea?