High-speed rail system best for state's (CA) travel needs - AP

[question everything]

SACRAMENTO – A high-speed rail system linking California's major cities would be less than half as expensive and more environmentally friendly than building out highways and airports to meet the state's travel demands, a draft environmental impact report says.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/tue/news/news_1n27rail.html

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. They should have started this in the 60's

n/t

[shanti]

9. that's when they started

THINKING about this! i'm in northern cali and would LOVE a bullet train to L.A.

[reprobate]

2. The same could be said about linking US cities.

High speed rail is the fastest, safest, most economical, and most ecological means of people transport.

But we have too much money supporting the airlines in congress so as long as we have corporations bribing representatives and senators we won't have high speed rail.

This is amerika, first among the third world.

[Beaker]

12. How do you figure?

"High speed rail is the fastest, safest, most economical, and most ecological means of people transport."

how do you figure?

the U.S. is a very big place, especially compared to most European countries/Japan, where most commercial high-speed rail already exists. How is it possible to determine that it would be the most economical way to go...and in cross-country trips,(e.g. NY-SFO/LAX/LAS/PHX/etc...) planes will always be faster.

as far as "safer" is concerned- that would remain to be seen. High-speed trains would very likely be very juicy terrorist targets in the U.S.- especially in the vast rural stretches that have to be traversed. It's one thing trying to cause harm to something that's 30,000 feet in the air, compared to something that zips along at ground level on the exact same course every time.

[reprobate]

17. Planes ARE faster, airport to airport.

But when you figure the airport to city travel time, with more and more airports moving further out, you don't gain much. Compare a 250mph train to a 350mph airliner, add the time waiting on the taxiway,with the time to climb to altitude and the time spent holding in pattern over busy terminals, and the travel time to and from the airport, and I'd be willing to bet the train would win. Plus the train terminal could be almost right downtown. Remember Grand Central Station in NY?

As far as energy expended is concerned, rolling friction is far less than the energy required to keep an airliner in the air. Now look at the mag-lev. Here you have NO friction (except the air friction which would be less than the airliner), so it would be the most economical. You could also elevate it on pylons or bury it in tubes so it would not be an eyesore. And since it would be completely run on electric power, ecologicly it would be FAR more desireable than the airliner.

I don't have an answer to the 'terrorist target' except to say keep george away from it. Sorry, little joke. Seriously, I think it's a problem that could be solved with the right minds working on it.

As for general safety, even in the worst case, losing one or two hundred would be less horrifying than losing four or five hundred as the new airliners will carry. And safety devices would probably be easier to design for the train than for the airliner falling from 30 thousand feet. There is NO survivability there.

There probably is no one more aviation oriented than I. As a child I can remember the thrill when my father would take me out to the airfields and watch the warbirds coming and going. Those were the days before computers when a pilot would have to really pilot the plane. But as enthusiastic as I am, there comes a time when technology moves on and we must move with it.

[Beaker]

24. you'd be wrong.

"Compare a 250mph train to a 350mph airliner, add the time waiting on the taxiway,with the time to climb to altitude and the time spent holding in pattern over busy terminals, and the travel time to and from the airport, and I'd be willing to bet the train would win..."

first of all- i would think that someone so "aviation oriented", would know that commercial airliners travel at speeds of more like 500-600 mph, not 350...and even if railway stations could be retro-fitted into downtown areas, the 250mph trains woud have to slow down some once they reached the edge of town, for safety reasons.

even though they have no friction- given the cost of the technology and the power it would take to run the system, mag-lev trains are not necessarily "the most economical"...

[reprobate]

32. Let's talk real world speeds.

As an example, while cruising speeds can reach that fast modern airliners, air traffic limits speeds that are actually done. Take the run from JFK to MCO (New York to Orlando). This is an air distance of 950 statute miles. Delta schedules show it to be a three hour flight. That equates to a speed of approx. 320 mph. Real world. And most flights take longer than schedule. We're talking about busy airports, as most are today.

[Beaker]

41. JFK to MCO is far from cross country.

besides- how much would it cost to build a NYC-MCO high-speed rail line? they can't use existing rails, so there's a lot of expensive realestate to aquire.
The plane goes jfk to mco non-stop. the train wouldn't, it would probably have at least a dozen stops along the way...slowing down and accelerating takes time and distance- therefore each stop is going to bring the trains average speed for the trip way down.

[reprobate]

47. Not cross country, but probably the busiest route in the country.

And if it's one of the busiest it means there are plenty of seats being sold. If airliners do it non-stop, and there used to be trains do it non-stop (they were called 'express'), why couldn't mag-lev trains too.

But why am I argueing with you? You keep throwing up strawmen and I keep burning them down. Do you own gobs of airline stock? I'm undoubtedly older than you (I'm actually older than dirt) and yet I'm on the progress side while you defend the status quo. The fact is that a majority is in favor of high speed rail, and only special interests are opposed. Time will see.

[mumon]

40. You left out "comfortable"

You get a first class seat for less than coach fare.

[radwriter0555]

3. But that's not profitable for the gop, now is it? And it will take almost

20 years to put it into place.

The likes of Halliburton are APPALLED since this would cut down on the oil, gas, and car manufacturing profiteering.

Don't hold yer breath. Not with a goper as governor.

[dogpatch]

5. For some, this is more problematic than it seems

I've been doing research in CA's Central Valley for a project and have talked to a lot of progressive smart growth types who are leery of high speed rail. They are worried that it will serve the urbanizing trend in the Central Valley where the region transforms from an agricultural area to a bedroom community for commuters who work in the coastal cities, and that it will not help these very poor communities to develop their own economic bases.

It's a hard call because on the other hand the Valley has horrible air pollution problems, in large part because of highways 5 and 99. To address that, some think it's cargo, not passengers, that needs high speed rail.

All to say this seems to be a complicated issue, at least for the Central Valley, and the opinions are not following the ideological lines one might expect.

[question everything]

8. Will create jobs

I think that urbanization of rural areas is happening all over the country.

But think what will happen if we view fast train all over the country - the way the Interstate happened in the 50s. Think of how many jobs this project will generate - for engineers, physicist, mechanics, etc. Jobs that will not be transported to India or to China.

[dogpatch]

10. Yes, I love fast trains

It's true, urbanization of rural areas is endemic but in CA we've got some real reasons to worry about the way it's taking place. The population of the state is supposed to double in 40 years (from 35 million to 70 million) and in the Central Valley rate of growth will be triple that of the rest of the state. The area currently is very poor with wealth concentrated in the hands of a small group and not a lot of good job options outside of ag and the growing service sector, and the concerns there are that the socio-economic imbalances that have historically existed will not be solved, but rather swept under the rug, if urbanization is done without economic development for the people who live there.

Sorry to go on so long --- can you tell I'm currently writing something about all these issues?

Anyway, I personally think high speed rail is long overdue throughout the US, that it like so many alternative transportation systems has the potential to create wonderful new industries and jobs. I just wanted to point out though, that what would seem like a slam dunk is surprisingly more complex for fellow progressives in that particular area of the country.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

35. Trains and urbanization

If you couple trains with transit-oriented development, you actually cut down on urban sprawl. Not everyone wants a trophy house with a two-acre lawn and three cars. By siting train stations in the existing downtowns of Central Valley cities, you would actually encourage people to live there.

A lot of people are moving downtown in cities all over the country, even in car-oriented Minneapolis-St. Paul.

[dogpatch]

39. You're absolutely right, Lydia

One of the reasons I understand people are wary about the high speed rail is that it will probably bypass a lot of Central Valley towns and woud not really serve as a intra-regional system.

There does seem to be a lot of support for a train system, or light rail of some sort, that would link the downtowns of Valley cities, but that would be a different plan than the high speed rail.

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. It is hard to do to make it cost-effective

I am a huge supporter of mass transit, but the amount of land condemnation that would be needed in more urban areas is incredible.

[Fovea]

15. Compared to air travel

and highway travel, both of which have huge subsidies, overt and hidden, rail is great.

I don;t know about safety per se, but I think it would have been a lot better on 9-11 if there had been a functioning rail system rather than have our national mid distance and long distance transportation system completely halted.

Further, rail is far less stressful a way to travel than air. No comparison, really.

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. Like I said

I love mass transit. However, to go ahead and try and build up a high-speed rail link would cause numerous problems and would encounter zoning constraints endlessly.

When the French first built their high-speed rail, it covered mostly open country and used existing rail links around the urban areas.

[bleedingheart]

30. This country is littered with loads of rail tracks

some have been turned into bike trails and some are just getting covered over with grass...

the best thing about using the century old railtrails is that the heavy land moving has been done...graded flat...ready to go...

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. Maybe elsewhere

But the requirements for high-speed rail are different than older, slower rail and trying to make use of that in the built-up Northeast is almost impossible.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

26. Safety

Japan's high-speed rail system has been running since 1964, and it has NEVER had a passenger fatality (other than things that weren't their fault, like heart attacks, or people committing suicide by jumping onto the tracks).

[Snow]

28. Take a look at the Seattle monorail initiative....

not the old world's fair thing, either - using those pylons cuts back a lot on the land needed and gives you more long-term flexibility. Looks like a sensible idea from my limited research.

[radwriter0555]

38. Go UP. Put it overhead like the "L" in chicago... the footprint is much

smaller that way.

[Bridget Burke]

4. High Speed Rail was planned for Texas

It was a triangle route, linking Houston, Dallas & San Antonio. Distances in Texas are large, making for long drives between cities. Air travel is quicker, but most airports are in the far boonies.

Southwest Airlines lobbied heavily to kill it.

[LifeDuringWartime]

6. japan and europe have had these for years

bout time we got some...

[Snow]

29. Korea has had these for years...

their mainline trains are considerably faster than the 'high-speed' trains Amtrak runs in the northeast corridor.

[hunter]

7. Duh.

But reprobate is right:

"This is amerika, first among the third world."

[Sinistrous]

13. But it would be a hell of a lot better in Pennsylvania.

I have been following the agonizingly slow march of the funding for a long time. The route - Greensburg, Monroeville, downtown (dahntahn), airport - is great. It serves already urbanized areas and has a good population to draw from. There will be only one project funded. I think California is running after the bandwagon.

[bleedingheart]

14. I vote for Pittsburgh...we have the cottage industries to help

bring this type of rail system up and running faster!

Plus we are the perfect test...all four seasons and loads of hills, valleys and rivers to cross..

I have to commute east to west across the city!!! I want high speed rail!

[KamaAina]

18. The Pittsburgh area project is maglev

that is, magnetic levitation, as opposed to the more conventional high-speed trains, similar to Japan's bullet trains, proposed in California and elsewhere.

I think California is running after the bandwagon

The other route running after the maglev bandwagon is Baltimore to Washington, connecting two large cities, one of which is full to the gills with high-powered Senators, lobbyists, etc.

But wait! The whole bandwagon may have been derailed by a collision with a big pile of chimp droppings...

http://www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20030926maglevlocal2p2.asp

Allegheny County Chief Executive Jim Roddey advised members of a business group yesterday to "forget about maglev," dismissing the proposed high-speed train project as too costly.

"The federal government isn't going to pay for it," Roddey said, addressing the Pittsburgh chapter of the International Association of Business Communicators....

But the Federal Railroad Administration has indefinitely postponed the selection of the winning project and Congress has not approved the expenditure.

The growing federal debt is fueling skepticism about the prospects for maglev funding.

Why do I get the feeling that Baghdad will get maglev befroe the 'Burgh does? </sarcasm>

[Sinistrous]

19. The Baltimore to Washington maglev has more problems than Pgh.

Also, Roddy was defeated in the last election.

The delays in funding the maglev pilot project (as mentioned above, relating to high-speed rail) probably stem from the big oil lobby fighting any attempt at viable mass transit. "Gotta keep them SUV's a rollin'"

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. Baltimore to DC

That route would have huge problems, but is still a likely candidate because Congress would bd able to see it and even use it. Never doubt the greed or arrogance of Congress.

[happyslug]

23. I did some research on Mag-lev about ten years ago

The results were interesting. Mag-Lev has several problems (none of which directly affects Mag-lev's ability to operate but relate to costs and costs of operating).

The first problem is spare parts. Steel rail has been around since the US Civil War (Prior to the Civil War Railroads used Iron Rails, but these started being replaced by Steel in the 1870s and had been almost totally replaced by Steel by 1900). Given this over 150 years of Steel rail usage, production of Steel Wheels to operate on Steel Rails is mature i.e. lots of people who can produce the item and Given what has been made over the last 150 years many of these parts are interchangeable (Either with no fitting or minimal fitting). Mag-Lev on the other hand will be made almost of completely custom made parts. It was the costs of these spare parts that lead to the British abandoning its Mag-lev project several years ago (The Mag-Lev did what it was suppose to do, but the costs of parts to keep it running doomed the project).

The Second problem is that Steel wheel on Steel Rails is the most energy efficient means of transport at speed below 250 MPH (Only at greater speeds is Mag-Lev superior). The problem with speeds exceeding 250 MPH is the time to accelerate and decelerate to those greater speeds. Even at 60 MPH Trains today take over a mile to get up to that speed (and down from that speed). This is why you hear of "average speed" being 20-25 mph not only for trains but even auto traffic. At the speeds exceeding 250 MPH it will take 15-20 miles to accelerate or decelerate which means no more than one stop every one or two COUNTIES (As opposed to stops every 1-2 miles that you can do with Steel Rail).
Please note this problem is one of MOMENTUM not Mag-lev technology, you can NOT solve it except by slowing down and if you slow down below 250 mph why go Mag-lev instead of Steel rail?

The Third Problem was the need for increase buffer Zone. When I lived in Taxes there was a little two lane road (One lane in each direction) where everyone went 80-90 MPH. The Wind caused by two trucks passing each other going in opposite directions was SEVERE. The same with Trains going over 50MPH or even 250 MPH, the wind caused by the trains passing each other will be severe which will lead to the need for a wider buffer zone around MAG-Lev than is presently done for steel rail. The only solution to this problem is to reduce speed, and if you reduce speed why go Mag-Lev (Steel rail comes into its own).

Fourth Problem is Electrical Usage. Electrical usage also increases with speed, again the solution is slower speeds which again favors steel rail.

Fifth problem is one of the need for new right of ways. The existing rail lines can not be used by Mag-Lev for the the speeds of Mag-Lev requires straighter lines than existing rail lines go (Especially in the East coast and Appalachian C\Mountains). Steel Rail can use these right of ways with minimal change (more to do with slower speeds of Steel rails than any other technological problems).

I can go on, but the problems with Mag-Lev is that it is NOT that much of an advantage over Steel Rail AND those advantages only come into play at vastly increased costs over Steel Rail. High Speed rail would be a better way to go than Mag-Lev.

The Only way Mag-Lev should be prefered over Steel Rail would be a Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York City, New Haven, and Boston lines WHERE THE ONLY STOPS ARE THOSE STOPS (i.e. NO stops in between, stops that Steel Rail could do and which would enhance the number of people who can use the line). At Present AmTrak makes the following stops:
1. Boston-South Station, MA
2. Boston - Back Bay Stn, MA
3. Boston - Route 128, MA
4. Providence, RI
5. New London, CT
6. New Haven, CT
7. Stamford, CT
8. New York - Penn Station
9. Newark, NJ
10. Metropark, NJ
11. Princeton Junction, NJ
12. Trenton, NJ
13. Philadelphia, PA
14. Wilmington, DE
15. Baltimore, MD
16. BWI Airport Rail Station
17. New Carrollton, MD
18. Washington, DC

In effect Mag-Lev would have 5 stops, Steel Rail would have 18. Which will be used more? Which will have MORE politcal Support? Mag-Lev would be faster, but at a huge cost, costs I can not justify given the existing (and potential) usage. Steel rail (and its lower speed) would be a better fit in the Northwest Corridor, the Washington to Chicago Corridor, the Califoria Corridor and even the New Orleans, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio (and back to Houston) corridor.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. The Japanese have been trying to get MagLev to work

for at least 25 years, and they can't make it cost-effective.

Their Shinkansen trains work on the principal that each car has its own electric motor, so that there is no locomotive, although the cars at each end have "noses." When a train arrives at its destination, the motorman simply walks to the other "nose" car and starts up.

[harpboy_ak]

45. zap your hard drive?

"The Pittsburgh area project is maglev"

has anyone carried a laptop on any of the test maglev trains? seems to me magnetic fields that large would wreak havoc on hard drives on laptops, and if strong enough, the induction currents could mess up a lot of integrated circuitry.

[truthisfreedom]

46. there's no reason that they can't isolate most of the magnetic field using

permeable materials. certainly computers can safely operate near powerful magnetic fields found in modern medical diagnostic machines and near giant electromagnetic generators in hydroelectric dams, nuclear reactors and conventional power plants, as well as near humungous transformer substations. you can guide strong magnetic fields relatively easily.

[ConcernedCanuk]

20. BUT, but, aren't the SLOW trains still falling off the tracks ???

.
.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
.

[question everything]

21. {San Diego] officials back high-speed rail report

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/01/28/news/top_stories/1_27_0423_42_03.txt

By: DAVE DOWNEY - Staff Writer

Regional transportation officials Tuesday said they agreed with a new report that says building a high-speed rail line would be cheaper, less intrusive and easier on the environment than adding 3,000 miles of freeway lanes and the equivalent of two Ontario airports to improve travel between Southern and Northern California.

Temecula Councilman Ron Roberts, who serves on a Southern California Association of Governments transportation panel, said there is very little room for expanding airports such as San Diego's Lindbergh Field or for building new ones. And he said people will not stand for massive widening of freeways.

"We're out of space," Roberts said.

It would be a lot easier, he said, to squeeze in a rail line supporting trains capable of traveling faster than 200 mph in a network connecting San Diego and Riverside counties with Los Angeles, Fresno, San Francisco and Sacramento.

(snip)

Environmentalists suggested railways would be less harmful than freeways, but that's not to say they don't have concerns.

"High-speed rail might provide a good alternative to airport crowding and pollution," said David Hogan, a spokesman for the Center for Biological Diversity in San Diego County. "But planners have their work cut out for them to avoid endangered natural areas and maintain coastal access."

(snip)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

25. I translated a history of Japan's high-speed rail system

At present, it carries an amazing amount of traffic between the Tokyo-Yokohama area and the Osaka-Kyoto-Kobe area, the two largest population centers, with trains running every five minutes, eighteen hours a day. I don't remember the exact figures, but adding this much capacity to the tollway that connects the two areas would require adding a ridiculous number of lanes in each direction (10 or 12), and adding the equivalent number of planes would absolutely swamp the airports on both ends and make the route busier than any in the world.

I've traveled the Tokyo-Osaka route by plane twice and by train countless times. The plane ride is, well, a plane ride like any other, and you're still way out of town when you land. The train goes from city center to city center, the seats are comfortable, the scenery is good once you're out of the urban conglomeration (long views of Mount Fuji), you can get up and walk around, and uniformed personnel keep coming up and down the aisles selling tea, coffee, soft drinks, beer, sake, snacks, and box lunches. I LOOOVE Japanese trains.

If the spacing of stops for California's high-speed rail from SF to San Diego were similar to that in Japan, it could start in the city, with stops at Palo Alto, San Jose, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, maybe a stop somewhere in the San Fernando Valley, downtown LA, Long Beach, Newport Beach, and San Diego.

As another poster said, it's too bad we didn't start doing this in the 1960s, when Japan defied the advice of the World Bank and built the first high-speed rail line.

[pinto]

33. I am soooo for this idea, when funding is possible, but wouldn't Valley

be logical route? Or Coast for ridership value (I live on the Central Coast).

[gate of the sun]

31. and will this be paid for by cutting funds to schools?

to me(at this point in time financially) this is like George planning his trip to Mars while the country is fucking broke.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

34. Not if you had an intelligent governor and legislature

who would have the courage to rescind Prop 13 and restructure the tax system.

[gate of the sun]

36. Do you think that's likely

with Arnold in charge.

[pinto]

37. kick, or at least cut the loopholes out of 13, for a start.

[monchie]

43. California Has Been a Rail Success Story

Two of Amtrak's most unexpected successes have been in California: the LA-San Diego line and Oakland-Bakersfield, through the Central Valley. The Capitol Corridor (San Jose/Oakland-Sacramento) has also been well patronized.

I don't think it would be an exaggeration to call California the most rail-supportive state in the country. The state government, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, has played a key role in both developing new services and expanding old ones. It even buys its own cars and engines, which Amtrak operates.

That said, there are a few major problems. First, IMHO maglev is pie-in-the-sky that's still many, many years in the future, if then. Second, there really is no fast LA-Bay Area service, and upgrading it to, say, the level of the Northeast Corridor would cost lots of money, largely because of the mountainous geography.

The current LA-Bay Area route runs along the coast and is very slow because of the many twists and turns, and the current Central Valley-Bay Area route goes all the way up to around Stockton before turning west and then actually goes south between Richmond and Oakland.

I think I've got the geography right. I'm an East Coaster, though I've been to the Bay Area a number of times. But the way I understand it is this:

1. A fast coastal route is out of the question because of the mountainous terrain.

2. The Central Valley is flat, and thus more suited for fast trains, but trains would have to cross the mountains once coming out of LA, then a second time between the Valley and South Bay if trains were to run to downtown San Francisco.

3. The route through the Central Valley to Stockton is less mountainous but more roundabout. Plus, trains would have to terminate in Oakland unless a new tunnel or bridge was built to San Francisco.

The distances in California are perfect for high speed rail...IIRC, San Francisco to LA is roughly similar to Boston to Washington. But the Northeast Corridor is almost completely flat, unlike California's mountainous terrain, which creates special problems for high speed rail. The problems probably can be overcome -- I think Japan has similar terrain problems -- but not without a lot of money.

[monchie]

44. On the East Coast...

I'd like to see high-speed rail from New York to Pittsburgh, New York to Buffalo/Toronto, and New York to Montreal.

All three routes have distances that are perfect for high speed rail: 500 miles or less. The Pittsburgh and Montreal routes do have problems with mountainous terrain, though much less so than California. Also, the customs/immigration check at the Canadian border on current trains usually takes at least an hour and sometimes as long as an hour and a half, so something should be done to speed it up. (And those times were my experience pre-9/11.) For a comparison, the last time I drove from Montreal to New York, it took me 7 and a half hours, including a 45 minute lunch stop outside Albany; customs/immigration took less than a minute. The train on that route is scheduled to take about 10 hours.

[happyslug]

48. Pittsburgh to New York?

Amtrak already runs such a train and it slowed by curves in the Rail bed. A better route would be Pittsburgh to DC and than to New York. The Route is flatter but such a route would still require the construction of several tunnels just to straighten out the rail line so the train can go over 50 MPH.

If you decide to go from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh Instead you still have to drill at least two tunnels, one to bypass Horseshoe Curve (It is a construction marvel, built to AVOID having to drill at least two tunnels) and another between Johnstown and Blairsville (Just to avoid the curves of the track that now goes along the Conemaugh River). Further construction would be needed between Harrisburg and Altoona just to make the line capable of speeds over 50 MPH.

The Old B&O line between Pittsburgh and Chambersburg is a little flatter but you will still have to drill at least one tunnel through Salvage Mountain just to make the line straight enough for high speed rail. The Rail line along the Potomac is pretty straight but the part between Chambersburg and Pittsburgh has a lot of curves which can only be bypassed by tunneling.
The ATA trail map, this is a rail to Trail between Chambersburg and Pittsburgh. It follows the old and abandoned Chesapeake and Ohio (C&O) Rail line. This line was built around 1910 as a coal hauling line between Pittsburgh and the East Coast. When the C&O purchased the B&O this old line was abandoned, the B&O was easier to upgrade and repair (and was already two tracks a opposed to the C&O's single track. It follows the B&O tracks on a slightly straighter line but as you can see while straight still has some severe curves (The B&O line has similar curves, both follow the same rivers tills Myersdale Pa than went up two different Creeks. The Rail to trail line follows the Old C&O line through Flaugherty Creek and than through Mt Salvage tunnel. The Old B&O line follows Wills Creek around Mt Salvage and has more curves than the old C&O line.

Allegheny Trail Alliance map of its Rails to Trails from Chambersburg to Pittsburgh:
http://www.atatrail.org/seg-maps/overmap.htm


Topo maps of Pa on line (These are County maps, which tend to be older and have less covered than normal Topo maps):
http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/maps/pa/county/