|
THE FIRST COMMENT IS LAST AND THE LAST SHALL BE FIRST |
|
YOUR VIEWPOINT HERE - YOU ARE NEXT - SEND TO: |
|
Friday, September 12, 2008 9:17 PM As a "Newbie," I find myself privileged to be working on car #36, with my wife doing her part also, as well as surfing the web for just about anything rail and/or traction related when at home. As some of you know, although I grew up in Essex (when it was still a tiny town of 1,100 folk)I was one of the original members of the Indiana Museum of Transport and Communication back in the early 1960s, so I find the museum here a GOLD MINE!
gms186 |
|
Saturday, August 30, 2008 4:52 PM Gentlemen, I believe that point to point rail transportation is as viable today as it was “yesterday”! Consider the focal point origination at commuter parking lots and its straight-in run to an urban area – place here any city name that you wish that supports heavy, concentrated, employment! We have the outlying spokes (towns) feeding a hub (commuter parking area) with subsequent rail line to the interested major employment area – (cities). How is that any different than the “yesterdays” of trolley transportation? However, the costs today are quite extreme in comparison but consider, in this equation, the immediate use of the upcoming electric auto and it’s (for now) limited mileage before recharge. A ten mile sprint to a commuter parking lot and light-rail service into their employment center is just what the doctor ordered. We must let loose of the preconceived notions that each individual must have a solitary method of getting to his/her place of employment and open the perspective that a two hour – 20 mile drive need not be the ri'gor every morning. The people are ready – the politicians are not… Joe
|
Friday, August 29, 2008 9:38 PM Peter - some very thoughtful remarks ... let me make two points: 1. "track based transportation inflexible" That was one of the problems that killed off most of the trolleys in America ... but take a look at what NJT (New Jersey Transit) has done: a. NCS, i.e. Newark City Subway b. HBLR, i.e. Hudson Bergen Light Rail c. The Riverline a diesel light rail ... goes from Trenton to just north of Philly thru a bunch of small towns that were part of the rust bowl. It coexists with a major freight operation that has to cross its tracks when the light rail shuts down for the night.
In regard to the last two in particular this has been TOD when it works. Anyone who has been to the areas served by these cars before & after their introduction understands
2. "Obsolete downtown" you may be right, but the mayors of these towns aren't convinced.
I live in Rockville Centre L.I. We don't have a light rail, but we do have a city government who is very active in keeping downtown alive. They not doing anything new or creative like you suggest, just making sure very store fronts are empty. Right now we have a few too many bars. This has happened because they dropped the rule that you couldn't open a new bar, only replace an existing one ... they didn't want to become the bar town they have.
3. OK I do have a third
point. In regard to a new heritage line ... San Fran bought a bunch of
old PCC from Philly painted them in colors of many of the cities that used to
run them & made it a tourist thing ... now they are going to expand to a
second line.
|
Friday, August 29, 2008 3:20 PM I think that track based transportation usage in so called Transit Oriented Development is a poor plan, and a step backwards in terms of what the general public really wants and needs.
Trolleys and other track based transportation is too inflexible for local transportation use in CT. Basically, if the track doesn't go 'there' ('there' meaning most businesses and other development hot spots) a sort of isolation is created. 'There' will be determined by whom?? Money, politics??
Also, I think that liberally applied track based transportation is not such a good option in CT because 'there' likes to move around. I agree that carefully planned and judiciously applied city to city or state to state trolleys and other track based transportation in a hub to hub model can, in some cases, be a good idea because cities don't move around all that much. In many ways, I see the airline industry, as poorly as it is doing, as a model of 'trains' in the skies because airports don't move around all that much.
On the issue of 'dying' cities and what to do about this ... I am of the opinion that cities and their downtown areas as they exist are more or less obsolete and that these areas, need to change their operating paradigm. In a past career, I have had opportunities to work with urban planners. I find that, at least in central CT, the urban planners are trying to restore cities to what they were rather than trying to create cities anew into what they can and should be in today's world. They want folks to live downtown, they want folk to shop downtown but folks (with the possible exception of young upwardly mobile people with no children) want to live in the suburbs, or even farther out, and they want to shop at the mall. Even the young upwardly mobile eventually people move out of the city when they have kids because they want back yards and traffic reduced streets and better schools and a little peace and quiet for their families as well as many more things that cities do not, and sometimes cannot, offer.
Let's face it, the world is far less compact and local and far more expanded and global than when cities, as we know them, were viable entities.
I've had some disagreements with those urban planners that I've worked with. It seems to me that they want to find a way to force more people to live and work in the city when most folks really do not want to do this. Absent this, they propose additional taxes and want to impose other hardships on suburbanites in order to subsidize the cities.
These days, in government, subsidizing things that just won't work, and just don't want to change, seems to be the norm. If a city, or any business, needs to be subsidized in order to exist, maybe it is not serving a useful purpose in a way that enough people find desirable, and maybe it needs to change to become viable.
If cities can change their mission and become useful to today's people and in today's world, I think that they will attract meaningful (i.e. not taxpayer subsidized) investment and that they'll do just fine.
I know that there are some folks that feel that cities cannot be viable on their own. I disagree. Cities were viable, and with change, they can be viable once again. They'll be much different, I think, but they can be viable entities.
And that's my two cents worth ...... actually, this is long enough to be more like a dollar fifty's worth. Peter |
|
Friday, August 29, 2008 10:40 AM Gentlemen, consider that the newfound interest in electric traction is a partial result of the current fuel crisis. And we might also agree that some inner cities/suburbs would benefit from the use of light-rail. However, the costs and logistics of right of way development are a major factor in any decision to pursue this form of mass transportation. I could even envision the use of open cars on special occasions, under good weather conditions, but the everyday rider ship wouldn't accept the use of the old-build technology as an ongoing enticement to ride. If we (and I mean here the CTDOT) can't even actively consider the use of existing rail lines into Hartford (Griffin Line on the west of the CT river -the Rockville line to the east) then it would seem certain that new track laying is a long-long way off - regretfully! Joe
|
Thursday, August 28, 2008 2:44 PM I have to disagree ... TOD ... Transit Oriented Development & the general dieing of downtown is what is the driving force is behind these efforts. So a modern car with A/C is what they'll be looking at. That goes for commuters or tourists. The two local trolley museums can
offer help & support and maybe the short term loan of a car to get them
started.
|
Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2008, 10:26 AM It wouldn't really hurt the museums since we are really the only real sources for real heritage equipment. If they did rebuild a trolley system which both museums in CT would strongly support, the State of Connecticut could loan/lease equipment from either museum. This would be there only option for real vintage Conn. Co. equipment. They could also get a reproduction made by Gomaco Inc. and pay an arm and leg for a car that looks original but isn't truly authentic. This would be very beneficial to non profit organizations. Besides, most people who ride the trolleys are looking for a nice scenic ride such as what the CT Trolley Museum offers. They are not going to want to ride a crowded city trolley through the streets of Hartford. If the trolley system was installed in any of the mentioned cities, they would likely be for commuter service more so than tourism. Time will tell what happens, but it is definite that it's not happening anytime soon. Xian
|
Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 9:59 AM My guess is that any return
to light rail would have an impact on both Trolley Museums, at least
initially, if they were conceived as passenger lines or mixed
passenger/freight. As far as vintage traction being used I'm not sure that they would take
the strain of the volume required of them nor am I sure that any museum
would lease their traction for this purpose;-)
I agree with your New
Britain/Hartford "Bus way" observation. However with today's prices for copper, therefore
wire costs, I'm sure that it isn't in anyone's budget for the miles
needed with installation. Perhaps we are only wishfully thinking! - but I also would relish that infrastructure...
In the early '60s the
Glastonbury/East and scrapped. I have often thought
of how successful that line might have been if used to transport
passengers to into the rail-bridge over the CT
River then into the North Meadows area. How shortsighted some of our political-visionaries
were and still are:-) Joe
|
|
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:42 pm I wonder what the impact on CT's two trolley museums would be if a trolley/light rail line in Hartford, New Haven or Stamford was established. If "heritage" equipment was used on any of the city lines I don't think it would be good for the museums.
My vote would be for modern light rail on the Hartford -New Britain route, currently unfortunately being proposed as a bus way. William
|
|
Saturday, August 16, 2008 12:14 PM Folks
Also, Walt gave me a reference web site for light rail and trolley systems. www.lightrail.net/LRTSystems.htm Frank
|
|
Thursday, August 14, 2008 2:13 PM Yes it is. A couple of years ago there was some federal seed money, that was used up, but the trend continues! Portland, OR has been so successful that they are duplicating what they did on the west side of town on the east ... another 3 miles of track; Swamp-Yankee aka Mr. RT
|
|
Date: Thursday, August 14, 2008, 1:07 PM And yesterday there was another
article in the NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/us/14streetcar.html?em Hugh
|
|
Sunday, August 10, 2008 5:56 PM The following reference references a Hartford Courant article from about a week ago. The newspaper article also had a picture with Ct. Co, "breezer" carrying a bunch of kids to Camp Courant http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-plccondon.artaug03,0,7516396.column Frank
|
|
Links as supplied by the writers - CTM not responsible for non-linkables :-) |
