Metro Jacksonville

Community => Transportation, Mass Transit & Infrastructure => Topic started by: gatorback on May 29, 2008, 09:04:22 AM

Title: This is why rail is bad
Post by: gatorback on May 29, 2008, 09:04:22 AM
Quote from:  STEVE LEBLANC, Associated Press Writer

NEWTON, Mass. - The operator of a commuter train was killed and several passengers were injured when the trolley she was driving slammed into the back of another train, derailing both, officials said.

Investigators did not know what caused Wednesday's wreck, which came hours after an elevated train derailed in Chicago, sending 14 people to hospitals. Officials there quickly blamed human error by the operator.

Outside Boston, 24-year-old Terrese Edmonds was killed and about 10 passengers were injured in the aboveground accident on the city's "T" system, said Joe Pesaturo, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority.

The two-car train Edmonds was operating struck the back of another two-car train approaching Woodland Station during the evening rush hour, Pesaturo said. The trains had about 200 passengers combined.

"The first one was stopped at a red signal and was ready to proceed to the station when it was struck," he said.

For hours, firefighters struggled to free Edmonds from the mangled wreckage. She was finally extricated early Thursday.

"It is my unfortunate duty to report the death of one of our employees," MBTA General Manager Daniel Grabauskas said, adding that it was a "miracle" that there weren't more fatalities.

One passenger was flown to a Boston hospital, and the other injured commuters were taken to nearby Newton-Wellesley Hospital. The hospital had eight train-wreck patients, none with serious injuries, spokesman Brian O'Dea said.

Federal investigators were on their way to the crash site to study the scene and interview witnesses, said Peter Knudson, a spokesman for the National Transportation Safety Board. A full report is not expected for up to 18 months, he said.

Both trains remained at the crash site early Thursday, covered in tarpaulins. The MBTA was busing commuters around the scene.

In Chicago, authorities said a train operator apparently made two key errors in quick succession to cause a derailment that left passengers perched more than 20 feet above the ground.

"Everybody was screaming and hollering and you know, and praying for God," said 35-year-old Willie Jackson, who was aboard the train's second car when it derailed and leaned west off the tracks.

The operator failed to heed a red signal ordering him to stop, Chicago Transit Authority spokeswoman Noelle Gaffney said. After the four-car train went through the signal, it automatically activated a trip, which stopped the train.

But the operator moved the train forward again to a spot where the tracks weren't aligned, causing the rear end of the front car and the second car to derail but remain standing, with the other two cars still on the tracks, Gaffney said.

"He was going on the wrong tracks, or started to," she said.

Gaffney said there was still a possibility the aging transit system played a role in the derailment.

The operator, who has 31 years' experience, was cooperating with the investigation and will not be allowed to return to work until the probe is done, she said.

A total of 25 people were on the train, including one CTA employee. Some of the injured were put in ladder baskets and lowered to the ground, where they were put in ambulances. Others were led off the tracks via a nearby stairwell, officials said.

Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: Beloki on May 29, 2008, 09:08:35 AM
Please,, Trains are still far safer than cars.........
Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: thelakelander on May 29, 2008, 09:13:50 AM
lol.  How many deaths happen on a daily basis by automobile?  One rail death involved in a freak accident pales in comparison with the amount of people being scrapped off the streets after auto, motorcycle, truck and SUV collisions.
Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: gatorback on May 29, 2008, 09:29:45 AM
I guess if they had airbags it would be better. They probably don't have seatbelts or safty glass.
Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: second_pancake on May 29, 2008, 09:30:47 AM
Yet another great argument for the good ole bike ;)
Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: gatorback on May 29, 2008, 09:33:48 AM
A Bike?  In Boston? You're kidding right?  You'd be even flatter then a pancake pancake befor you got 1/4 mile. LOL
Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: thelakelander on May 29, 2008, 09:35:31 AM
I'm considering biking to work.  My only problem is Southside Blvd does not have any bike lanes or sidewalks where I live and rush hour traffic merging on the Southside from I-95 is pretty heavy and quick. Its not exactly the best environment to ride a bike in.
Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: Downtown Dweller on May 29, 2008, 10:01:59 AM
Missing bike lanes has been a long standing issue, well at least an issue for me since I moved to JAX. Whenever I complain some smarty pants tells me about the wonderful bike trails available. I love the bike trails, there is even a new one I haven’t tried that some neighbors have, but let’s face it a bike trail to no where gets me no where. We need bike lanes on the streets! I would bike one of my children to school downtown and finally stopped as it was juts too risky. I mean how crazy is it that I have to drive twelve blocks because we can’t bike safely? Better Jacksonville should = bike lanes, but alas all the money goes to the bus routes no one uses!!!!
Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: gatorback on May 29, 2008, 10:19:38 AM
Oh yes, the bike lane topic is back.  Gezz, if we weren't so spread out then maybe we could afford bike lanes...damn urban sprawl.
Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: thelakelander on May 29, 2008, 10:29:21 AM
Good question.  I would assume most of the newer systems are in excellent condition.  However, safety issues would definately be a concern in cities still operating 100 year old lines.
Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: second_pancake on May 29, 2008, 10:34:00 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 29, 2008, 09:35:31 AM
I'm considering biking to work.  My only problem is Southside Blvd does not have any bike lanes or sidewalks where I live and rush hour traffic merging on the Southside from I-95 is pretty heavy and quick. Its not exactly the best environment to ride a bike in.

Southside has a pretty wide shoulder.  I don't know where you're coming from, but from Phillips down to Beach (I think even beyond) the shoulder is as wide, if not wider, than the bike lanes.  The only problem is, while the speed limit is 45, most people drive in excess of 60 mph through there which is helluv frightening when you're on a bike doing 20.  I do ride Southside between Baymeadows and Deerwood and I've seen many others riding through there lately as well.  The I-95 merge is tricky as well as the JTB merge...people are freakin crazy through there!

GB, biking in Boston would work in lieu of the rail...which is the context of my comment...a response to the "why rail is bad" remark.  If rail is so bad and driving is so bad, then everyone should bike.  While death can occur, it's very rare that you'll experience anything more than a few broken bones colliding with another cyclist.  The greatest chance of severe injury would occur going downhill where speeds can be greater than 40mph and crashing all alone...without a helmet...into a concrete wall.
Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: gatorback on May 29, 2008, 10:35:38 AM
I agree.  That is a good question.  Like the 1 person killed today on our rail systems( compared to say 10 traffic  fatalities, and no doubt the 100's sent to the hospital today from car accidents) is why rail is bad.  I guess the Subject of the thread should be "This is why rail is bad?"
Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: thelakelander on May 29, 2008, 10:49:44 AM
Quote from: second_pancake on May 29, 2008, 10:34:00 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 29, 2008, 09:35:31 AM
I'm considering biking to work.  My only problem is Southside Blvd does not have any bike lanes or sidewalks where I live and rush hour traffic merging on the Southside from I-95 is pretty heavy and quick. Its not exactly the best environment to ride a bike in.

Southside has a pretty wide shoulder.  I don't know where you're coming from, but from Phillips down to Beach (I think even beyond) the shoulder is as wide, if not wider, than the bike lanes.  The only problem is, while the speed limit is 45, most people drive in excess of 60 mph through there which is helluv frightening when you're on a bike doing 20.  I do ride Southside between Baymeadows and Deerwood and I've seen many others riding through there lately as well.  The I-95 merge is tricky as well as the JTB merge...people are freakin crazy through there!

I live the neighborhood behind Target on Southside. Starting tomorrow, my new office will be located on Baymeadows, just east of 9A.  The only section I'm worried about is the I-95 merge.  In the morning, people drive like bats out of hell through there with no let up in the amount of cars speeding down the flyover.  I'm also not too crazy about the possibility of someone putting on their makeup, reading the paper or changing CDs, not paying attention and driving over into the shoulder, which is pretty narrow at that point.  These are things I see quite often while commuting down Southside to JTB in the morning.  All it takes is one spilled cup of coffee and someone biking will be taken out without even having a chance to take notice of what's driving up behind them.
Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: second_pancake on May 29, 2008, 10:59:47 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 29, 2008, 10:49:44 AM
Quote from: second_pancake on May 29, 2008, 10:34:00 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 29, 2008, 09:35:31 AM
I'm considering biking to work.  My only problem is Southside Blvd does not have any bike lanes or sidewalks where I live and rush hour traffic merging on the Southside from I-95 is pretty heavy and quick. Its not exactly the best environment to ride a bike in.

Southside has a pretty wide shoulder.  I don't know where you're coming from, but from Phillips down to Beach (I think even beyond) the shoulder is as wide, if not wider, than the bike lanes.  The only problem is, while the speed limit is 45, most people drive in excess of 60 mph through there which is helluv frightening when you're on a bike doing 20.  I do ride Southside between Baymeadows and Deerwood and I've seen many others riding through there lately as well.  The I-95 merge is tricky as well as the JTB merge...people are freakin crazy through there!

I live the neighborhood behind Target on Southside. Starting tomorrow, my new office will be located on Baymeadows, just east of 9A.  The only section I'm worried about is the I-95 merge.  In the morning, people drive like bats out of hell through there with no let up in the amount of cars speeding down the flyover.  I'm also not too crazy about the possibility of someone putting on their makeup, reading the paper or changing CDs, not paying attention and driving over into the shoulder, which is pretty narrow at that point.  These are things I see quite often while commuting down Southside to JTB in the morning.  All it takes is one spilled cup of coffee and someone biking will be taken out without even having a chance to take notice of what's driving up behind them.

While I agree, a dedicated bike lane would not make your commute any safer.  I ride down Baymeadows, both the section without and with bike lanes, in the mornings during rush hour, and have experienced drivers taking over the bike lane on several occasions.  It's an unfortunate price a cyclist pays when using their bike as a vehicle, in that 2 tons of steel will always win over 17 pounds of aluminum or carbon fiber.
Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: gatorback on May 29, 2008, 11:05:54 AM
17 pounds?  What are you riding?  A tank? lol
Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: second_pancake on May 29, 2008, 11:24:38 AM
Quote from: gatorback on May 29, 2008, 11:05:54 AM
17 pounds?  What are you riding?  A tank? lol

Lol.  Bite me ;)
Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: Jason on May 29, 2008, 11:47:59 AM
Don't feel bad Pancake, my Mongoose mountain bike weighs at least 25 pounds and doesn't have ANY carbon fiber in it.  If yours is a tank, then mine is a 747!
Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: Driven1 on May 29, 2008, 01:07:02 PM
17 lbs??  seriously, what are you riding pancake?  I have a "07 Trek 1500.  It weighs about 20.5 with the saddle bag and aerobars.

Sooo glad I bought it last year.  I paid $900 last year.  Was in the bike store this morning and the 1500 is now the "1.5" and they took the components down 1 or 2 notches and jacked the price up $80.  Ridiculous.  Rode this morning about an hour.  Took my buddy over to Bikes Direct (SJTC) yesterday and he got an 06 Motobecane Sprint for $750 out the door.  Complete Ultegra components and a carbon fork.

Lake, even if it is slightly too dangerous right now (I would ride Baymeadows over there, but being very cautious) I think it will become progressively less dangerous as gas prices continue rising and people begin seeing more and more of folks like us on bikes and scooters - the "new" alternative transportation.
Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: gatorback on May 29, 2008, 01:51:22 PM
I don't think there's a bike scale in all of Texas big enough to weigh my old Schwinn Cruiser.  I'm guessing at least 32. LOL
Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: Driven1 on May 29, 2008, 02:10:51 PM
not only that, but i dare say my 2007 LOOKS MUCH BETTER than the new 1.5.

you be the judge.

here is my 2007...

(http://scottsbikes.com/merchant/1178/images/site/1500_bluesilver.jpg)

and here is the 2008...

(http://www.roadcycler.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/2008-trek-12-white.jpg)

now sure, Team Discovery has been disbanded (with 10 of the 20 team members going to Team Astana - who is currently barred from this year's Tour de France), but judging on strict aesthetics, i still think my 07 takes the cake.  (performance-wise too with my better components and better wheels - less spokes)
Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: second_pancake on May 29, 2008, 02:17:36 PM
Quote from: Driven1 on May 29, 2008, 01:07:02 PM
17 lbs??  seriously, what are you riding pancake?  I have a "07 Trek 1500.  It weighs about 20.5 with the saddle bag and aerobars.

Sooo glad I bought it last year.  I paid $900 last year.  Was in the bike store this morning and the 1500 is now the "1.5" and they took the components down 1 or 2 notches and jacked the price up $80.  Ridiculous.  Rode this morning about an hour.  Took my buddy over to Bikes Direct (SJTC) yesterday and he got an 06 Motobecane Sprint for $750 out the door.  Complete Ultegra components and a carbon fork.

Lake, even if it is slightly too dangerous right now (I would ride Baymeadows over there, but being very cautious) I think it will become progressively less dangerous as gas prices continue rising and people begin seeing more and more of folks like us on bikes and scooters - the "new" alternative transportation.

;D 2005 Specialized Tarmac with Dura Ace rear derailleur and Ultegra front derailleur, FSA cranks (standard on that model, haven't switched them out yet), with Topolino carbon/kevlar wheelset (i only use these when riding the bridges), Michelin Race tires and a Cannondale System Six carbon stem. That's nothing though.  My husband rides a Cannondale Caad 9 Team frame and his, with all components and saddle bag, weighs just over 13 pounds.
Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: Driven1 on May 29, 2008, 02:23:41 PM
Quote from: second_pancake on May 29, 2008, 02:17:36 PM
Quote from: Driven1 on May 29, 2008, 01:07:02 PM
17 lbs??  seriously, what are you riding pancake?  I have a "07 Trek 1500.  It weighs about 20.5 with the saddle bag and aerobars.

Sooo glad I bought it last year.  I paid $900 last year.  Was in the bike store this morning and the 1500 is now the "1.5" and they took the components down 1 or 2 notches and jacked the price up $80.  Ridiculous.  Rode this morning about an hour.  Took my buddy over to Bikes Direct (SJTC) yesterday and he got an 06 Motobecane Sprint for $750 out the door.  Complete Ultegra components and a carbon fork.

Lake, even if it is slightly too dangerous right now (I would ride Baymeadows over there, but being very cautious) I think it will become progressively less dangerous as gas prices continue rising and people begin seeing more and more of folks like us on bikes and scooters - the "new" alternative transportation.

;D 2005 Specialized Tarmac with Dura Ace rear derailleur and Ultegra front derailleur, FSA cranks (standard on that model, haven't switched them out yet), with Topolino carbon/kevlar wheelset (i only use these when riding the bridges), Michelin Race tires and a Cannondale System Six carbon stem. That's nothing though.  My husband rides a Cannondale Caad 9 Team frame and his, with all components and saddle bag, weighs just over 13 pounds.

(http://bikeri.com/merchant/131/images/site/05SWorksTarmacCarbon_Red_d.jpg)
(http://www.goldcoasttriathlete.com.au/images/P/CAAD9-5-(double).jpg)

i should've shopped around and check out all that Specialized & Giant had to offer before purchasing.  all in all though, for my kind of entry level Trek, i've been pretty happy.  i do have the michelin race tires though. 
Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: second_pancake on May 29, 2008, 03:16:46 PM
(http://www.worldfamouscitycycle.com/city%20cycle%20website/MS%20Bike%20Ride.jpg)

This is the frame my husband has (we're in the back on the left).  He, of course, has it completely decked out with carbon everything which is why it's so light as a complete bike.

Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: David on May 29, 2008, 03:46:05 PM
um....I have a fuji.

400 bucks, 2 lbs.

Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: second_pancake on May 29, 2008, 03:49:09 PM
Quote from: David on May 29, 2008, 03:46:05 PM
um....I have a fuji.

400 bucks, 2 lbs.



Fixies with no brakes or wheels don't count;-)
Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: gatorback on May 29, 2008, 05:40:51 PM
13 lbs.  now that's more like it.
Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: Ernest Street on May 30, 2008, 11:23:31 PM
Most Bike lanes in Jax have an unacceptable amount of trash and debris.And in San Marco we have the $5000 road bike snobs that feel entitled to take up an auto lane!..Yea You know who you are.As a daily rider for the last 8 years, I don't see how some riders mix it up in traffic? They ride through 5 points in the middle of the street!  Ok, about rail. I heard somewhere that Euro rails are welded together, effectively making the rail one piece.any insight on this since Ocklawaha is at Large? Ock? are you online?
Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: Driven1 on May 30, 2008, 11:25:11 PM
state law states a cyclist can take a full lane only when necessary and then only for a brief time.  it is allowed though in those circumstances.
Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: Ernest Street on May 30, 2008, 11:36:25 PM
seriously, when is it necessary to ride in front of a car or truck? If I had a dollar for every side Mirror that almost knocked me off..Hell in Riverside you can get Killed in your own neighborhood by drivers doing 50 in a 30 down our streets.I'm a 6'3" 220# man and people act like I'm invisible. Thats why I ride a MTB..I stay off the roads from experience.
Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: gatorback on May 31, 2008, 04:30:03 AM
Austin's Red Line will be one long rail.  The thinking is that it will be bring less clink-clang as the train goes by.
Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: Driven1 on May 31, 2008, 08:39:36 AM
Quote from: Ernest Street on May 30, 2008, 11:36:25 PM
seriously, when is it necessary to ride in front of a car or truck? If I had a dollar for every side Mirror that almost knocked me off..Hell in Riverside you can get Killed in your own neighborhood by drivers doing 50 in a 30 down our streets.I'm a 6'3" 220# man and people act like I'm invisible. Thats why I ride a MTB..I stay off the roads from experience.

just one example:  you need to make a left hand turn.  how you gonna do this WITHOUT crossing into the "with-traffic" lane(s)?  you have to.

i like riding San Jose.  it is the far best area around to ride IMO.  large bike lane and cyclists are always out there, so i like to believe (maybe naively) that the drivers here are more used to seeing them and are therefore being careful.  that being said, there was a cyclist killed on San Jose a month ago when he cut across traffic at an intersection.
Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: Ocklawaha on May 31, 2008, 10:01:29 AM
QuoteAustin's Red Line will be one long rail.  The thinking is that it will be bring less clink-clang as the train goes by.

There won't be ANY, except for passing over switches or crossing other railroads. Also concrete crossties will take out about 90% of any rocking motion.

I expect Austin to errect cantenary over the line as soon as time and $$ permit. With soaring fuel costs, electric is not only cheaper but offers so many more "off the shelf" options for generation. Economics. Something Jacksonville needs to get through its head.  


Ocklawaha
Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: gatorback on May 31, 2008, 12:18:01 PM
We get quad gate crossings as well so no honkey honks.  It's all coming together.  I think Austin started the process in 2000, and was vote in 2004,  so if Jax doesn't  get it together within the next decade or so I'm afraid the young'ns will be the only ones to enjoy it.  Us old farts will have been in a nursing home or out to pasture by then.
Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: Ernest Street on May 31, 2008, 05:36:05 PM
Driven1, I had not heard of the San Jose death.. :(  Please ride safe.
Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: second_pancake on June 02, 2008, 04:07:54 PM
Quote from: Ernest Street on May 30, 2008, 11:23:31 PM
Most Bike lanes in Jax have an unacceptable amount of trash and debris.And in San Marco we have the $5000 road bike snobs that feel entitled to take up an auto lane!..Yea You know who you are.As a daily rider for the last 8 years, I don't see how some riders mix it up in traffic? They ride through 5 points in the middle of the street!  Ok, about rail. I heard somewhere that Euro rails are welded together, effectively making the rail one piece.any insight on this since Ocklawaha is at Large? Ock? are you online?

I find it interesting that in one sentence you manage to show how it is nearly impossible to ride in the bike lanes and yet it is equally as unacceptable (to you) to ride in the traffic lane.  Hmm, if it boils down to a decison to try and ride over debris that could get lodged into my wheel, propelling me into traffic and causing my ultimate demise versus over-taking a lane and slowing down a vehicle that clearly sees me and has another lane in which to pass me, I'm going to choose taking over the auto lane.
Title: Re: This is why rail is bad
Post by: gatorback on June 02, 2008, 04:54:20 PM
I use the road more then a bike path.  You have rights as a cyclist you know.  And they(cars) can't be in the same lane you're in, it's called failing to stay to the right.  Which means you can't be toward the left of a lane you have to maintain the right.  Does that happen when cars and bikes pass?  No.  Also, as a cyclist, you can't pass cars at an intersection and cars can't pass you.  But they always do.