I'm 110% for commuter rail. After seeing the pictures though, I'll just have to do some trusting. Those angles look mighty wide. I don't know as much as many of you, just experience. And when we starting talking in concrete terms about vehicles, it starts to confuse things more.
Let me expound. In The Netherlands, there is one type of train to get around the country. It's big. Two levels, and they are many, many cars long.
And here is where I've been many times:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=delft...46819299949543
Another:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=delft...63262257417873
It isn't 750' radii... not even close.
So when I hear that this building blocks that, I do have to roll my eyes a little. Maybe it's just the US 'standards' but it sounds too much like the common theme of we can't do it -- regardless of the fact that it is done like that all of the world.
So, do we need a 750' radii, or is that just a best case scenario? Is that what planners 'over here' call for simply because we just don't have a culture of efficiency. We just consume as much land as we need on projects like this.
I certainly wasn't trying to sidetrack the conversation with the HSR.
If we have to have that space no matter what for commuter rail, and we are actually planning on putting in commuter rail in the next decade going out east (that is serious news to me), then I'm on board with preserving the property. But the city better get with the program of buying up that land.
Bookmarks