Rail Use To Rise?
Energy conservationists and environmentalists have supported the increased use of public transportation for decades. Judging by the number of cars and trucks on the road, I don't think that they've had much luck. While a fair number of America's cities have solid mass transit systems, some are lacking.
When I lived in the Atlanta area during the early 90's, it's rail network (MARTA) consisted of one East-West line and one North-South line. If you didn't live and work near the lines, you were probably stuck dealing with the city's 8-lane interstate gridlock, unless you were lucky enough to find some back roads and shortcuts like I did. Shuttle buses? Nope. My employer didn't have them and since I had an aversion to buses there was no way I was going to try and figure that one out.
Why did I have an aversion to buses? 7 1/2 hour bus rides from Syracuse, where I went to college, and home. And that was the direct route. Since the trip only takes 4 1/2 hours by car, I dreaded the longer trip. 4 1/2 hours in a car, even an econobox, was better than dealing with 7 1/2 hours on a bus.
Fortunately, in my sophmore year, I discovered that I could take the train from Syracuse to Poughkeepsie, NY. I always had a friend willing to pick me up there (I paid for gas) for the rest of the journey home. That route would take 5 hours (train + car). Riding the train, which was cheaper at the time believe it or not, was much more enjoyable. I always had plenty of room and the scenery was great. Riding along the Huson River in Winter with the river full of ice and the landscape covered in snow was beautiful.
So, from all this you can infer that I'm "pro train." On those rare occasions when I've had to work in Manhattan, or been fortunate to be there just for fun, I've made it a point to take the train. I'm lucky in that I can take two different rail routes: Brewster or Danbury. I usually opt for Brewster although I have to drive 20 minutes to get there and the Danbury line stop is in my town. Why drive to the further one? Schedule flexibility. There are twice to thrice the number of trains on the Brewster line as the Danbury line. I don't know why that is.
You may have heard that Connecticut has a transportation problem: too many cars and trucks on the roads and little room to expand the roads. Even where there's room to widen a road, locals fight it. They'd rather see gridlock on a two lane road then a wider road. And when proposals to build bypasses around town centers are suggested, local businesses whine that they'll lose customers. Fortunately, after decades of bumper-to-bumper traffic, expansions to key portions of Route 7 (the artery that connects Norwalk to Danbury and New Milford) are being widened.
Overlooked in all this has been the rail line that roughly parallels Route 7. While the rails actually run all the way to Vermont, only freight trains run the whole line, and even they aren't utilizing the track as much as they could. I think they run once or twice a week, though I'm not certain of that frequency. The commuter trains end at Danbury, ignoring the sizable population of New Milford which is stuck dealing with Route 7 every day.
Finally, the idea of opening up the rail line to New Milford to passengers and increasing the number of freight trains in Connecticut is being taken seriously. Considering the number of traffic studies that have been done over the decades, you have to wonder why this option hasn't been pursued before. Maybe they were waiting for the flying cars.
Meanwhile in China, the government's choke hold on Tibet may finally be nearing completion. It was Mao Zedong's dream to build a rail line into Lhasa, the capital of Tibet. A rail line would enable him to send troops and supplies with relative ease to crush Tibetan resistance. However, the mountainous terrain presented too many technological hurdles to overcome, until now.
Last summer, the rail line connecting Golmud (elev. 9,220 ft) to Lhasa (elevation 11,975 ft) was completed. Chinese engineers, with the help of Nortel, GE, and Bombardier, pulled off a major accomplishment. Worried that the weight of the trains would lead to melting of the permafrost, the engineers employed several techniques (both low and high tech) to keep the ground cool. The trains themselves have to literarlly be air tight to prevent pressure loss at the high altitudes. Even so, each seat comes with oxygen diffusers for those travelers not quite acclimated to the altitude. No offense Denver, but you've got nothing on these guys.
But with Mao decades dead and the Chinese government moving away from communism and towards fascist capitalists, why continue with Mao's dream? The government still firmly believes in One China, and Tibet is part of that vision. Instead of sending soldiers, the new invaders will be workers, economic aid, and tourists. The "benefits" of modern life will be delivered to Tibet to "rescue" it from isolation and its "backwater" status. Lhasa could be the next Shanghai or Guangzhou.
The Dalai Lama's last hope will be that global warming will overwhelm the permafrost and send the rail line into chaos before Tibet's culture gets wiped out by the strategists in Beijing.
So whether it's swallowing up an ancient culture for the sake of nationalism or helping to alleviate the congested roads and highways of the megalopolis, it certainly looks to me like rail use is on the rise.
For those of you who stuck with this entry: Enjoy. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote about. I just thought it was cool and decided to share. Thanks to Bob for sending it my way.
\_/
DED
When I lived in the Atlanta area during the early 90's, it's rail network (MARTA) consisted of one East-West line and one North-South line. If you didn't live and work near the lines, you were probably stuck dealing with the city's 8-lane interstate gridlock, unless you were lucky enough to find some back roads and shortcuts like I did. Shuttle buses? Nope. My employer didn't have them and since I had an aversion to buses there was no way I was going to try and figure that one out.
Why did I have an aversion to buses? 7 1/2 hour bus rides from Syracuse, where I went to college, and home. And that was the direct route. Since the trip only takes 4 1/2 hours by car, I dreaded the longer trip. 4 1/2 hours in a car, even an econobox, was better than dealing with 7 1/2 hours on a bus.
Fortunately, in my sophmore year, I discovered that I could take the train from Syracuse to Poughkeepsie, NY. I always had a friend willing to pick me up there (I paid for gas) for the rest of the journey home. That route would take 5 hours (train + car). Riding the train, which was cheaper at the time believe it or not, was much more enjoyable. I always had plenty of room and the scenery was great. Riding along the Huson River in Winter with the river full of ice and the landscape covered in snow was beautiful.
So, from all this you can infer that I'm "pro train." On those rare occasions when I've had to work in Manhattan, or been fortunate to be there just for fun, I've made it a point to take the train. I'm lucky in that I can take two different rail routes: Brewster or Danbury. I usually opt for Brewster although I have to drive 20 minutes to get there and the Danbury line stop is in my town. Why drive to the further one? Schedule flexibility. There are twice to thrice the number of trains on the Brewster line as the Danbury line. I don't know why that is.
You may have heard that Connecticut has a transportation problem: too many cars and trucks on the roads and little room to expand the roads. Even where there's room to widen a road, locals fight it. They'd rather see gridlock on a two lane road then a wider road. And when proposals to build bypasses around town centers are suggested, local businesses whine that they'll lose customers. Fortunately, after decades of bumper-to-bumper traffic, expansions to key portions of Route 7 (the artery that connects Norwalk to Danbury and New Milford) are being widened.
Overlooked in all this has been the rail line that roughly parallels Route 7. While the rails actually run all the way to Vermont, only freight trains run the whole line, and even they aren't utilizing the track as much as they could. I think they run once or twice a week, though I'm not certain of that frequency. The commuter trains end at Danbury, ignoring the sizable population of New Milford which is stuck dealing with Route 7 every day.
Finally, the idea of opening up the rail line to New Milford to passengers and increasing the number of freight trains in Connecticut is being taken seriously. Considering the number of traffic studies that have been done over the decades, you have to wonder why this option hasn't been pursued before. Maybe they were waiting for the flying cars.
Meanwhile in China, the government's choke hold on Tibet may finally be nearing completion. It was Mao Zedong's dream to build a rail line into Lhasa, the capital of Tibet. A rail line would enable him to send troops and supplies with relative ease to crush Tibetan resistance. However, the mountainous terrain presented too many technological hurdles to overcome, until now.
Last summer, the rail line connecting Golmud (elev. 9,220 ft) to Lhasa (elevation 11,975 ft) was completed. Chinese engineers, with the help of Nortel, GE, and Bombardier, pulled off a major accomplishment. Worried that the weight of the trains would lead to melting of the permafrost, the engineers employed several techniques (both low and high tech) to keep the ground cool. The trains themselves have to literarlly be air tight to prevent pressure loss at the high altitudes. Even so, each seat comes with oxygen diffusers for those travelers not quite acclimated to the altitude. No offense Denver, but you've got nothing on these guys.
But with Mao decades dead and the Chinese government moving away from communism and towards fascist capitalists, why continue with Mao's dream? The government still firmly believes in One China, and Tibet is part of that vision. Instead of sending soldiers, the new invaders will be workers, economic aid, and tourists. The "benefits" of modern life will be delivered to Tibet to "rescue" it from isolation and its "backwater" status. Lhasa could be the next Shanghai or Guangzhou.
The Dalai Lama's last hope will be that global warming will overwhelm the permafrost and send the rail line into chaos before Tibet's culture gets wiped out by the strategists in Beijing.
So whether it's swallowing up an ancient culture for the sake of nationalism or helping to alleviate the congested roads and highways of the megalopolis, it certainly looks to me like rail use is on the rise.
For those of you who stuck with this entry: Enjoy. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote about. I just thought it was cool and decided to share. Thanks to Bob for sending it my way.
\_/
DED
Labels: China
posted by DED at 5:23 PM
6 Comments:
Train travel is so much better than bus it's immeasurable.
Nice piece ded. I can't wear a custom made t-shirt though. The fundies would stone me for calling them a den of vipers.
Rail transportation in CT is an absolute joke. I couldn't believe it when Rell came out with her big public transit initiative and the rail portion of it basically consisted of refurbishing trains and bolstering the Springfield-Hartford-New Haven line. That's it. No new rail. No light rail heading east or west of the city. Just putting new trains on the single north-south route that's already there. A perfectly useless gesture.
If the line from New Milford to Danbury is opened up to commuters, it'll help this end of the state. Traffic up this way has been a nightmare. But yes, it won't help the bulk of the problem, which is the I-95 corridor.
yes electrified rail may be a large part of our future...richard heinberg is an electrifed rail advocate.
over at the oildrum there was quite the discussion about this
nice blog btw
Thanks!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home