Skip to comments.
Tomorrowland meets Texas - Futuristic freight system planned for I-35 corridor
Fort Worth Star-Telegram ^
| June 6, 2012
Posted on 06/06/2012 2:44:37 PM PDT by Zakeet
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-84 next last
To: Charles Martel
Instead of locks they could have those conveyor belts like they do at Amusement Park boat rides.
21
posted on
06/06/2012 3:10:15 PM PDT
by
Paladin2
To: ngat
22
posted on
06/06/2012 3:12:18 PM PDT
by
Paladin2
To: Paladin2
And where is the water to come from? This is Texas we are talking about?
Lake Travis
23
posted on
06/06/2012 3:13:03 PM PDT
by
Kartographer
("We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.")
To: Zakeet
From the article:
The prospect of reducing truck traffic on the I-35 corridor excited several members of the Tarrant Regional Transportation Coalition. Tarrant County Judge Glen Whitley said he could envision moving people on trains in the highway right-of-way, too, instead of relying on railroad tracks owned and controlled by freight companies.
IOW....we don't want private industry getting involved in something government can (ought to) control.
The existing rail/truck transportation system is as efficient as it can get, given existing infrastructure and population density. Call me very skeptical on this pie in the sky idea.
24
posted on
06/06/2012 3:15:36 PM PDT
by
rottndog
(Be Prepared.....for what's coming AFTER America.)
To: Charles Martel
Easy fix. Just subject every container crossing the border to a high X-ray/Gamma Flux sterilizer. To kill the cucarachas, don’t ya know.
Think of it as a big bug trap: Illegals check in, but they don’t check out. . . .
25
posted on
06/06/2012 3:16:34 PM PDT
by
Salgak
(Acme Lasers presents: The Energizer Border. I **DARE** you to cross it. . . .)
To: Zakeet
Sounds similiar to the NAFTA SuperHighway that open border RINOs like Medved keep trying to tell us is a figment of our imagination.
26
posted on
06/06/2012 3:16:46 PM PDT
by
MachIV
To: Zakeet
If it can get these slow poke trucks off the road, then I say build it.
27
posted on
06/06/2012 3:17:39 PM PDT
by
SteelToe
To: SteelToe
If it can get these slow poke trucks off the road, then I say build it.
And a major chunk of highway funding will be gone. Not to mention, how much fun it will be shopping at the railyard or other freight terminal because trains, barges, or magical monorails don't go to the supermarket.
28
posted on
06/06/2012 3:23:09 PM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
To: Kartographer
"And where is the water to come from?"
This is also Texas:
Get T-Boone to build windmills to do the pumping.
29
posted on
06/06/2012 3:34:13 PM PDT
by
Paladin2
To: Paladin2
Salt water pumping stations?
30
posted on
06/06/2012 3:42:53 PM PDT
by
Sawdring
To: Sawdring
Run it through a solar powered desalination plant if you want.
I'd guess that infrastructure cost is no object with this proposal.
31
posted on
06/06/2012 3:53:06 PM PDT
by
Paladin2
To: Zakeet
This isn’t another segment of the Trans Texas Tollway, is it?
32
posted on
06/06/2012 4:02:27 PM PDT
by
getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL
(chirping birds + basket weavers who sit + smile + twiddle their thumbs + toes They're coming to take)
Believe it or not, I know some of the guys behind this thing.
The conception is correct, but the idea is that unlike a conventional train which either must stop at every station along the way if only to unload one container or it stops at very distant depots requiring the containers to then be trucked back to whereever from the depot, the system would automatically route containers to the nearest station for someone to haul away. Said stations could be relatively small and one could be in every town along the route. Alternately, if an outfit like FedEx or UPS or USPS (something like a third of I-35 traffic is trucks hauling mail and packages) wants, they can have branch lines run to their facilities easily and cheaply compared to conventional rail.
The last version of the proposal I saw had the tractor on the rail car with the trailer. This meant that the truck could drive away with its load as soon as it got to the station.
33
posted on
06/06/2012 4:06:29 PM PDT
by
Spktyr
(Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
To: Kartographer
And where is the water to come from? This is Texas we are talking about? If you started up near Dallas and dug straight down about 500 feet, you could then proceed at that same depth toward the Gulf Coast (stopping by Austin first and then over past Houston).
Of course, you'd have to pave the entire length of the thing to keep that arid land from sucking the channel dry at anything less than high tide. And you'd have to put some big-ass flood gates in at the mouth of the thing, lest several inland Texas cities end up getting hurricane storm surge. :-)
It would sure put the "Big Dig" to shame. But talk about your shovel-ready jobs!
34
posted on
06/06/2012 4:07:15 PM PDT
by
Charles Martel
(Endeavor to persevere...)
To: Paladin2
If it runs per what my friends say, it costs less to build per mile than adding another lane to 35 - and we desperately need to do something to improve the throughput of 35.
35
posted on
06/06/2012 4:08:09 PM PDT
by
Spktyr
(Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
To: Zakeet
36
posted on
06/06/2012 4:17:54 PM PDT
by
ExCTCitizen
(If we stay home in November '12, don't blame 0 for tearing up the CONSTITUTION!!)
To: Spktyr
If someone thinks this will make them rich, as long as it is funded by private investors and not the government, then I say go for it!
37
posted on
06/06/2012 4:21:15 PM PDT
by
Left2Right
(Starve the Beast!)
To: cripplecreek
Heavy trucks cause a lot of wear and tear on pavement — up to several thousands more times what an automobile causes. Truck licensing and fuel taxes do not cover the incremental costs. Therefore, less highway funding would be required, to move a given number of cars and light trucks.
Trains — including variants, such as the one proposed in the article, make a lot of sense for moving freight over long distances. Containerization makes it easy to switch modes for local pick up and delivery.
High-speed passenger rail seldom makes sense. Rail freight almost always makes sense.
To: cripplecreek
To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
The thing is that you’ll never get trucks off the road unless you find a means of transporting goods to each individual retailer from the freight hubs. As it is now I think the average radius each freight rail hub covers is around 500 miles by truck.
40
posted on
06/06/2012 4:31:02 PM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-84 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson