Hey, there! Log in / Register
Amtrak: No clue when you'll be able to take a train to New York again
By adamg on Mon, 05/20/2013 - 7:33am
There is no estimate on service restoration:
Starting Monday, Metro-North Railroad will offer alternate transportation for passengers traveling between New Haven, Conn., and Grand Central Terminal via a train-bus-train connection. Amtrak passengers using this option will need to arrange for transportation between Grand Central and New York Penn Station.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Does this happen
in other major cities, where there is a train accident or derailment that shuts down train service for days on end?? This seems so disruptive on a regular basis.
The accident was in Connecticut
so yes, it happens in other major cities, as in this case, where the primary inconvenience is to MetroNorth Commuter Rail riders (ie NYC commuters).
It's pretty rare
I think the last time they had an incident of this magnitude on MNR it was the 80s.
Fifty or so years ago they could have cobbled together some branch lines to through-route some traffic. Not anymore.
But this is also a bit of a special case because there are two of the four tracks out of service for a long-term improvement project. If not for that they could have restored some service.
Shit happens, hopefully everyone recovers fully. I got lucky, I guess, I rode through there a couple days ago on my way back home.
now imagine...
...that this was a freight train with a couple million gallons of ethanol rolling down shared commuter rail tracks through Porter Square, Sullivan Square or maybe even through Kendall (and past MIT's nuclear facility)... Just a little derailment...a punctured tank...an explosion and fire that can't be put out with water. Should be a real treat and it's heading our way!!
And the company responsible was #3 on the Globe's top 100 businesses.
Some more reading on it if you're interested:
http://www.cambridgeday.com/2013/04/10/officials-slam-ethanol-train-plan-announce-forum-for-residents-tuesday/
http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x1433806041/COLUMN-The-dangers-of-transporting-ethanol-by-train#axzz2Tps2ieoi
http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/east_boston/2013/05/residents_oppose_plan_to_trans.html
Because trucking is so much safer, amirite?
Put the soap box away, and take the high horse back to the stables.
No
No. No, you're not rite.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2007/12/a_fiery_river_o.html
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-07-23-massachusetts-tanker-crash_n.htm
However the barges they are currently using to get the ethanol to this facility have been much safer and there's no reason to discontinue them, except greed (and as the company's ranking in the Globe 100 and its profile indicates, greed's been good for them).
There's far better security in the Port under the control of the USCG as opposed to completely unmonitored rail lines passing a matter of feet from some of the densest-packed housing and businesses in the State. A spill in the harbor would not be good, but ethanol quickly disperses in water (although is still flammable in water). Rapid oxygen depletion would be a concern, which is a bummer but far better than Chelsea burning down....again. Or Somerville, or Cambridge or Waltham or Fitchburg or Melrose or....
I'll take the horse to the stable, if you shovel the poop.
Please do tell.
Please, do show an entire town that ever burned down from an ethanol train derailing. These trains will be lucky to get ANY speed at all. Between crossing multiple high-ish frequency commuter rail lines, crossing the incredibly steep grade Mystic River, and needing to reverse move into East Boston, it is highly unlikely this train will even break 30 MPH within 128.
Your fear mongering is obnoxious.
fear mongering
monger monger...
Considering derailments of ethanol rail cars usually take place in big rectangular states, in the middle of nowhere they're just left to burn out. But occasionally they happen in more populous areas like Columbus, Ohio.
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/07/12/shocking-video-shows-enormous-explosion-after-ohio-ethanol-train-derails
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-07-11/ohio-train-fire/56141154/1
In many, if not most, of the derailments we're not talking about Keanu Reeves trains hurtling to Hollywood doom. A 20-30 mph derailment can end up as messy as you would want to get.
And once you get within 128 on commuter rail lines (actually once you past 495) you start getting some at-grade crossings that are less than ideal for this as it adds car drivers into the mix.
Bottom line, news footage makes for great fear mongering! But the odds are these things won't be exploding every week. But even one accident over 10 years could be very bad and is not unthinkable. And the only reason why this risk is being increased and a large cost being foisted upon first responders in many of these towns (meaning special foam and equipment and training for fire departments as well as more extensive contingency planning) is for 1 company to make more profit.
They're already bringing this stuff in by barge without a problem, why greatly increase the risk by bringing it in by rail through the middle of densely packed cities?
Do you have a cite saying the
Do you have a cite saying the alternative to ethanol trains is barges, and not trucks?
Read the links
http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/east_boston/20...
http://www.wickedlocal.com/somerville/news/x848268...
I think people here know I'm a big fan of freight rail because it's more efficient, and the negative externalities of trucking are heavily subsidized by the rest of us.
But I think here we have a case of Global attempting to save a little money by foisting off the liability issue of ethanol transport onto the residents and taxpayers of the Commonwealth. That's a pretty big negative externality. I wonder if any insurance company would even take on such a large risk. Or maybe they would, but like with flood insurance, just require bailout after any serious incident. So we would pay.
Towns have been evacuated due to ethanol shipment derailment and subsequent chemical explosion. For example, Tisilkwa, IL in 2011.
I don't think trucking the ethanol would be any safer, but we're not talking about shifting from trucks, but rather from barges. If Global were required to abide by an independent study and pay insurance for the liability then I think we would see much less enthusiasm for switching from their current setup.
We probably shouldn't even be using ethanol in gasoline but that's a whole other can of worms.
High speed accident
Reportedly, the train accident occurred at nearly 70 mph as the train was entering a slower speed zone. Freight trans don't travel that fast. Oh, and God forbid anyone tries to support the rail system by using it more. Remember that freight was usually the first consideration for rail use and paying the bills. Locally, we have so many spur lines to populated areas because transporting passengers was an afterthought. People didn't want noisy freight trains going through existing population centers, so located them well away. Out west, trains created population centers, much like new development boomed around new interstate highways (ie I-495).
...sigh....
isn't there a dead bicyclist you can be gloating over somewhere?
Oh, wait...you already did. My bad.
BosUrbEx is right
because trucking is so much safe.
*cough* Everett Circle Accident *cough* (99 @ 16 @ Main)
Yes, trucking is
so much safer.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/05/10/Fiery-ta...
High Speed Rail Project
And people are up in arms about money going to high speed rail projects? If this was done, we'd have another tracks that would run Boston to Albany, then people could switch trains to go south to NYC (or just re-route the entire line).
Then it wouldn't be so much of an issue (which, of course, would not help Connecticut Commuters but wouldn't cripple rail service in the Northeast Corridor).
Billions of dollars. And
Billions of dollars. And even as high-speed rail, it wouldn't save any time versus taking a bus, since going via Albany adds a hundred miles. All to provide an alternate route to get around a line blockage which happens maybe once every 30 years.
This would be pretty low on my list of desired rail improvements in the Northeast.
time to
start the Fung Wah conspiracy theories... they did stand the most to gain in this...