If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
South western USA (CA, UT, AR) landscapes ?
On 22 Jan 2007 15:42:35 -0800, "PeterL"
wrote: Hatunen wrote: Using the top deck of the Bay Bridge to get to Berkeley is pretty stupid, though, Not so stupid because at one time the top deck was two ways. Not in 1967, though. The Key Line tracks were gone. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
South western USA (CA, UT, AR) landscapes ?
Hatunen wrote: On 22 Jan 2007 15:42:35 -0800, "PeterL" wrote: Hatunen wrote: Using the top deck of the Bay Bridge to get to Berkeley is pretty stupid, though, Not so stupid because at one time the top deck was two ways. Not in 1967, though. The Key Line tracks were gone. The movie came out in 1967. But did they say what year the events took place? Parenthetically, the final scene at the church was shot at a church in LaVerne, CA. Locals refer to that church as the Graduate Church. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
South western USA (CA, UT, AR) landscapes ?
PeterL wrote:
at one time the top deck was two ways. Both decks were two/way. The lower was for cars, buses, trucks, and the Key System's street cars. A few years ago some idiot proposed a multi-million dollar study to learn whether rail could be put on the San Francisco Bay Bridge! Duh-uh. -- __________________________________________________ ______________ San Francisco is awesome -- George Max http://geocities.com/dancefest/ --- http://geocities.com/iconoc/ ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 ------- IClast at Gmail com -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
South western USA (CA, UT, AR) landscapes ?
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 04:15:33 -0800, Icono Clast
wrote: PeterL wrote: at one time the top deck was two ways. Both decks were two/way. The lower was for cars, buses, trucks, and the Key System's street cars. A few years ago some idiot proposed a multi-million dollar study to learn whether rail could be put on the San Francisco Bay Bridge! Duh-uh. Not as dumb as it seems when you haven't thought about it. While the lower deck could obviously be made to carry the weight of a light rail system, since it one had, it would take quite a study to determine whether the old support systems were intact enough and whther it would be cost effective to restore it all and to remove a couple of lanes of traffic. And, of course, there's the problem that two-way traffic would have to be restored since the lanes taken out of service for rail would be on the lower deck which would restrict traffic leaving SF. Given the crowding on the bridge 24x7, crowding that didn't exist fifty years ago, there's a serious question about the loss of traffic lanes. BTW, is the new east span designed for the possible addition of rail? -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
South western USA (CA, UT, AR) landscapes ?
Hatunen wrote:
Icono Clast wrote: PeterL wrote: at one time the top deck was two ways. Both decks were two/way. The lower was for cars, buses, trucks, and the Key System's street cars. A few years ago some idiot proposed a multi-million dollar study to learn whether rail could be put on the San Francisco Bay Bridge! Duh-uh. Not as dumb as it seems when you haven't thought about it. While the lower deck could obviously be made to carry the weight of a light rail system, since it one had, it would take quite a study to determine whether the old support systems were intact enough and whther it would be cost effective to restore it all and to remove a couple of lanes of traffic. See? Your area of expertise! And, of course, there's the problem that two-way traffic would have to be restored since the lanes taken out of service for rail would be on the lower deck which would restrict traffic leaving SF. Would they have to be? The five lanes we have now aren't wide but it seems to me that if a streetcar is about ninety inches wide and a barrier would add another six inches, the five lanes could be narrowed nineteen inches. Whoops, they'd be much too narrow and dangerous. I was thinking one direction's rail atop and the other's below. We'd lose a lane each way no matter what. BTW, is the new east span designed for the possible addition of rail? I don't know. According to Paul Verdier, the Golden Gate Bridge was designed to carry a monorail. -- __________________________________________________ ______________ A San Franciscan in 47.452 mile² San Francisco. http://geocities.com/dancefest/ --- http://geocities.com/iconoc/ ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 ------- IClast at Gmail com -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
South western USA (CA, UT, AR) landscapes ?
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 04:03:30 -0800, Icono Clast
wrote: Hatunen wrote: Icono Clast wrote: PeterL wrote: at one time the top deck was two ways. Both decks were two/way. The lower was for cars, buses, trucks, and the Key System's street cars. A few years ago some idiot proposed a multi-million dollar study to learn whether rail could be put on the San Francisco Bay Bridge! Duh-uh. Not as dumb as it seems when you haven't thought about it. While the lower deck could obviously be made to carry the weight of a light rail system, since it one had, it would take quite a study to determine whether the old support systems were intact enough and whther it would be cost effective to restore it all and to remove a couple of lanes of traffic. See? Your area of expertise! And, of course, there's the problem that two-way traffic would have to be restored since the lanes taken out of service for rail would be on the lower deck which would restrict traffic leaving SF. Would they have to be? The five lanes we have now aren't wide but it seems to me that if a streetcar is about ninety inches wide and a barrier would add another six inches, the five lanes could be narrowed nineteen inches. Whoops, they'd be much too narrow and dangerous. I was thinking one direction's rail atop and the other's below. The bridge wasn't originally designed for rail on the top deck. Although, when you come right down to it, light rail might be lighter in weight than the cars displaced by the tracks and rolling stock used on the bridge. Cars aren't as heavy as one usually thinks. Remember how the pedestrian load on the Golden Gate Bridge flattened the curvature of the bridge the day they opened it to pedestrians only? We'd lose a lane each way no matter what. BTW, is the new east span designed for the possible addition of rail? I don't know. According to Paul Verdier, the Golden Gate Bridge was designed to carry a monorail. In the 1930s? Seems unlikely. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
South western USA (CA, UT, AR) landscapes ?
Hello, Hatunen!
You wrote on Wed, 24 Jan 2007 08:54:09 -0700: ?? Hatunen wrote: ?? ?? I don't know. According to Paul Verdier, the Golden Gate ?? Bridge was designed to carry a monorail. H In the 1930s? Seems unlikely. I had heard that rail track was originally intended but not that a monorail was proposed. There was a monorail train in Germany in the 30s. James Silverton Potomac, Maryland E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
South western USA (CA, UT, AR) landscapes ?
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 10:58:16 -0500, "James Silverton"
not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not wrote: Hello, Hatunen! You wrote on Wed, 24 Jan 2007 08:54:09 -0700: ?? Hatunen wrote: ?? ?? I don't know. According to Paul Verdier, the Golden Gate ?? Bridge was designed to carry a monorail. H In the 1930s? Seems unlikely. I had heard that rail track was originally intended but not that a monorail was proposed. There was a monorail train in Germany in the 30s. At Wuppertal. It was built back near 1901. I was on a DeutscheBahn ICE passing by Wuppertal when I realized it was where the monorail was when i saw the "tracks". The rails sort of go up and down the river. I wanted so much to get off the ICE for an hour or so. (My brother, a rial buff, has ridden it.) http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/Wuprtal.html But I still would doubt that teh original design of the GGB included provision for a monorail. The original plan for BART had BART using the GGB for the northern line. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
South western USA (CA, UT, AR) landscapes ?
wrote in message ups.com... Hi, Three years ago I have visited south western USA. (Vegas, Bryce Canyon, Canyonlands, Monument Valley, Grand Canyon). This year I will be in Vegas too (begining of March) and I have about 6-7 days to fill. This time I am considering Death Valley, Yosemite NP, and maybe canyonlands one more time. Do you have any suggestions where should I go this time ? Mostly I am interested in landscapes. Thanks in advance for any suggestions. If someone is interested in gallery from last trip here is some pictures: http://hubi.net.pl/gallery/usa2004/usa2004.html best regards, Hubert Great pics! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nature - Landscapes | [email protected] | Backpacking and Budget travel | 0 | September 15th, 2006 12:21 AM |
(South) Western Australia.... | SportChick | Australia & New Zealand | 0 | November 19th, 2003 04:22 PM |
(South) Western Australia.... | SportChick | Australia & New Zealand | 0 | November 19th, 2003 04:19 PM |
(South) Western Australia.... | Tom Hatfield | Australia & New Zealand | 2 | September 27th, 2003 12:41 PM |
(South) Western Australia.... | Ross | Australia & New Zealand | 0 | September 16th, 2003 06:19 AM |