On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 02:14:19 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:P9qpe.2425
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.com...

I don't see much reason why rail lines couldn't be run down the medians
of
existing interstates, similarly to the commuter rail service in and out
of
Chicago. And there are plenty of *existing* rail lines on *existing*
rights of way that could be upgraded, doubtless at less expense than
leasing
*new* rights of way and constructing new lines.

Did you ever notice what _else_ is in those medians at most underpasses?
Concrete pillars....

So how hard is it to go one side or the other? That doesn't seem to have
been
much of a problem in Chicago; I can't imagine it would be more difficult
to
figure out anywhere else.

Where do you guys live? Along many of the interstates here in the
northeast, you'd be hard pressed to ride a scooter let alone put rail lines.
There is NO median, just a barrier. Drive I-95 from Philly to Boston and
see how much rail you can lay. I know a Plate B boxcar has an inside height
of 10' 7" but I don' tknow the outside. Bridge clearance could also be a
problem. McKinley cars are 18' high. That puts the median 5" below the
grade of the highway.

I'm sure the idea has merit in some areas, but it is not easy to do in
others.

I think you've got a good point there- Where I'm at, there is plenty
of room, and I would like to think that a small line starting from
Superior, and passing through Rice Lake, Eau Claire, and whatever else
is on the way on through to Madison, Milwalkee or Chicago would be a
very good thing. With some strategic stops, it would be a great
commuter line- and it could be funded locally. Every area is going to
be a little different, but I've got a good deal of faith in the state
and local governments in my area- but I doubt the value of the Federal
system for a lot of things. A system doesn't have to be
coast-to-coast to be useful, after all.