turbo1889

As to taking the thread off topic. At its most basic level this thread (at least to me) seems to be about the pros. & cons. of rail vs. surface streets and how that relates to cycling and environmental costs and benefits as a whole.

Basically my two points have been:

1. ~ Rail crossing danger for cyclists and how to at least minimize this.
2. ~ The benefits of cargo rail service vs. on-roadway heavy truck cargo service is where you get more bang for your buck in terms of environmental and social costs compared to passenger rail service vs. on-roadway passenger service. Thus the cargo end of the equation should take priority because the costs, disruption, and time frame for total or near total mode shift are lower and the benefits are higher in almost every imaginable way. Plus its something we know can be done and we already know how since we would be going "back to the future" and returning to a predominantly rail mode for over land heavy cargo system in our society.

turbo1889

So, yes, if your Grocery store is big enough and is "on the best line of service" for putting in a new spur line. Box cars delivering the goods to the back of your grocery store instead of long haul trucks at substantial long term benefit for everyone. If your grocery store isn't that big, at least they won't have to truck it near as far and only from the nearest spur line distribution center which almost every town or city of any significant size is going to have at least one spur line servicing it.

howsteepisit

Maybe even a medium rail service would be useful for getting a lot of delivery trucks away from surface streets. I am fully supportive of rail, both passenger and freight. And we supporters are in good company, Recall Warren Buffet bought the BNSF rail company a few years ago.

turbo1889

Not to mention that cargo spur lines intended to serve the majority of a communities freight in/out needs when not being used for freight can do double service for at least some passenger service. Cargo at night to the stock boys stocking the shelves and moving the warehouse freight in and out, and short tugging out going shipments from factories up the spur to the wait at the junction of the main line to go out with the next main line freight. Then passenger service in the daylight hours at least for across town runs. No reason why a sensible double use schedule like that isn't possible. Obviously not door to door service but across town service is still better then nothing especially if there are bike racks so the bikes can cover "the last mile".

My really only opposition point on rail is my hesitation for "covering all the freaking roads with rails" because of the huge number of rail crossings at every intersection that would be created for bikes. And then public funds for high speed "bullet train" type rail. If there is enough business opportunity to justify a bullet train run lets say for example between Seattle, Washington and San Diego, California through the other major cities along the way of Portland, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, and Los Angeles then let some private company build it and run the bullet trains and sell tickets just like the airlines do. Public funds on the other hand being spend for putting in ten times or more the track for the same price or less going more places for lower speed dual use cargo and passenger service. And while your at it on the public funds long distance passenger rail, how about tacking a passenger car onto the back of the freights that's already going there anyway at almost no extra fuel costs and greater service options offering more runs to more places rather then always having to run a dedicated passenger only train with much more limited service and burning extra fuel and taking up track time and space (unless of course you actually have enough passengers for a dedicated passenger run).