You Want Safety? Ride The Rails!

(usdotblog.typepad.com)

Since the Chinese witnessed their high speed rail system rack up over 40 fatalities last August in an accident that has since been blamed on design flaws in the rail signal equipment, many critics of high speed rail have used this incident for their rationale that high speed rail isn't safe.

As you will see in the article below, this couldn't be any farther from the truth. High speed rail's safety record, which has seen zero fatalities in France, Spain, and Japan and only one in Germany, is light years ahead of the automobile.

We've been told that building I-69 is necessary for the safety of those commuting from Evansville to Bloomington. This couldn't be any farther from the truth as well. Although automobile fatalities are decreasing sharply, they aren't anywhere near the safety level of high speed rail.

Every year, over 30,000 Americans die in automobile related accidents. There were 814 fatalities in 2008 in Indiana, and In 2009, 680 people died on Indiana roads. This does not include those who were injured but survived, and it does not include damages done by the automobile to personal property.

The following article, which can be found on the website for California's proposed high speed rail system, illustrates perfectly why we need to invest in high speed rail.

**********************************************************************************
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/safety.aspx

Why are high-speed trains the safest form of transportation?

High-speed train systems have been operated safely every day in other parts of the world for many years. The unparalleled safety record for high-speed trains is based upon their actual operating experience. For example, in Japan high-speed train operations began in 1964. In over 44 years of operation, Japanese high-speed trains (the “Shinkansen”) have carried more than 9 billion passengers without a single train related fatality. In France, their high-speed trains (the “TGV”) have been operating for 27 years and currently carry more than 100 million passengers a year. Like Japan, the French high-speed train system has never had a single high-speed train related passenger fatality on the completely dedicated new line such as will be built in California.

In contrast, the automobile is unquestionably the most used and most dangerous when comparing auto, air and rail modes of transportation. In 2004 alone, there were over 4,000 fatalities and more than 200,000 nonfatal injuries on California highways. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that deaths and injuries resulting from motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for persons between the ages of 4 and 33 in the United States. With more and more vehicles on our highways, the potential for automobile accidents increases.

What makes high-speed trains so safe?

High-speed trains have the proven record as the safest and most reliable form of transportation in the world as a result of separating high-speed trains from other forms of traffic and implementing automated positive train control that safeguards against human error.

High-speed trains operate on grade separated tracks designed for high-speeds. Most train accidents are the consequence of passenger and freight trains using the same tracks and with a signaling and switching system that depends on humans. 87% of California’s 800-mile route will be on new completely separate track reserved for the exclusive use of high-speed trains.

The key distinguishing reasons for the near perfect safety record of high-speed train travel in Europe and Asia are summarized below. (The California High-Speed Rail Project will incorporate all of these safety features, building upon the proven safety and design criteria used for existing high-speed train systems in Europe and Asia):

The entire high-speed train system is fully access controlled and grade-separated (there are no at grade crossings with roads, pedestrians, or other rail services), eliminating pedestrian and motor vehicle conflicts.

The high-speed train systems are completely double-tracked with additional tracks at intermediate stations to support express operations.

The trains are centrally monitored and controlled, effectively preventing operators from making serious errors, stopping or slowing trains automatically in the event of external problem such as earthquakes, objects falling on the tracks, or gale force winds. High-speed train traffic control and communications systems are state-of-the-art, regulated, and managed during all hours of operation. These systems monitor and limit the train’s speed, schedule, routing, and headway (following distance behind another train). These systems, combined with the operator, have integral redundancy and ensure safety.

Heavy, conventional freight trains do not share infrastructure designed for high-speed operations.

High-speed trains use a cab signaling system that transmits commands directly to the driver. This technology makes high-speed operation possible in darkness, rain, and fog. In Japan, even moderate snowfall does not slow the Shinkansen because of special ice-melting equipment built into the rail bed.

Unlike aircraft, high-speed train systems are not subject to turbulence. Passengers may sit without seat restraints and may stand and walk comfortably even at maximum speeds and around curves.

Although high-speed train systems do operate in highly seismic areas, such as Japan, no fatalities have ever occurred as a result of a seismic event. The control system is linked to motion detectors close to faults having the potential to affect the line, even hundreds of miles from the line The systems stops the trains when an earthquake is detected, and at-grade construction in fault zones further improves safety.

Like airplanes, and other public intercity modes, high-speed trains and the infrastructure they operate on (tracks, control systems, and electrification systems) are be maintained on a regular schedule and the maintenance records would be subject to inspection by the Federal Railroad Administration. This regular inspection of both rolling stock and track would ensure the safety of the high-speed train system.

In California, key safeguards will prevent unwarranted access to the system. The California high-speed train system would be a fully grade-separated and fully access-controlled guideway with intrusion monitoring systems in place. This means that the train system’s infrastructure (e.g., mainline tracks and maintenance and storage facilities) would be designed to prevent access by unauthorized vehicles, persons, animals, and objects and to detect breaches of the system. The capital cost estimates include allowances for appropriate barriers (fences and walls), state-of-the-art communication, access-control, and monitoring and detection systems. All aspects of the California high-speed train system would conform to the latest federal requirements regarding transportation security. High-Speed trains will not require lengthy “airport style” screenings because like other passenger rail transportation services operating throughout the United States, high-speed trains do not present as great a security risk as air transportation.

************************************************************************************

It's pretty obvious that high speed rail, not I-69, is the answer to safety for those traveling to and from Bloomington. Furthermore, I-69 does not provide a safe route for those going from Evansville to Terre Haute or for those going from Terre Haute to Bloomington.

Wouldn't it be nice to pick up the paper and read "Zero Fatalities in Indiana" everyday? Wouldn't it be nice to ride safely on high speed rail knowing you will reach your destination? And wouldn't it be nice knowing that high speed rail will not cause damage or harm to any of neighborhoods it travels through?

It you want to be safe, you better ride the rails!

(distinctivenurseries.com)

I-69 Supporters Just Can't Answer The Big Questions

(deanhunt.com)

What does Governor Mitch Daniels, the Evansville Courier & Press, and those who support I-69 have in common? Answer: None of them can answer the big questions regarding the construction of this boondoggle and unneeded interstate. Let's take a look at some of the recent articles that prove this...

http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/sep/27/bloomington-mpo-should-open-county-to-i-69/

According to the Herald Times newspaper of Bloomington, the Bloomington/Monroe County Metropolitan Planning Organization submitted 109 questions to INDOT last week, as it said it would on Sept. 9 when it delayed a vote on whether to include construction of I-69 in Monroe County in its county transportation plan.

According to the Bloomington newspaper, among the questions was the most familiar — how does the state plan to complete financing of the highway between Bloomington and Indianapolis?

That's a very simple question, correct? After all, didn't the C&P themselves write an editorial against high speed rail citing costs as the main reason for not pursuing it?...

http://www.courierpress.com/news/2010/oct/03/high-speed-rail-the-issue-amtrak-looks-to-our-we/

It's quite ironic, and hypocritical to suggest that high speed rail is unaffordable when construction costs average 1/4th the price of interstates...

http://www.indianahighspeedrail.org/whyHSR.htm

So how would the C&P answer this simple question?...

At this point, INDOT probably cannot answer that question with anything near certainty. As everyone knows, Gov. Mitch Daniels pulled financing for the Evansville to Crane stretch out of his hat with the Major Moves highway initiative.

THERE YOU HAVE IT. The C&P has finally admitted they don't have a clue how to finish this road off. We've been told that Roberts Stadium can only stand if it there's a business plan for it to make money. We've been told that high speed rail is too expensive and shall be financed only through the private sector. Yet the C&P endorses a road that doesn't even stand a chance of getting finances for completion, much less profitability which as we all know roads don't profit.

Could you imagine if we built half of an arena without enough financing to complete it? Could you imagine only building a fraction of New North High School? I-69 supporters love complaining about US 41 not being a true interstate, yet we are now going to have an interstate connecting to a freeway. What's the difference? This is exactly why the Lloyd Expressway and the Greenway are in the shape they're in.

Beyond that, unless Daniels comes up with another innovative idea, it may well be up to the next governor and legislature to finish financing, either through traditional sources of highway funding or perhaps with some form of user fee, such as tolls, or both.

Governor Daniels has already tried tolling the interstate, I-69 supporters wanted no part of that. The highway fund is depleted (as it should be), and there isn't even enough money left to repair existing infrastructure much less add to this boondoggle. Basically, it's thanks for nothing! I-69 opponents have warned the state about this since the very beginning. Now, we all see that they were right.

Regardless, there is no sensible reason to stop construction cold in its tracks at Crane, as opponents of I-69 would seem to prefer. It would be best to construct the highway as far as possible, so as to be ready when issues involving the Bloomington to Indianapolis link are resolved.

We have crumbling bridges, an economy that has been hampered due to the fact that they can not get from Point A to Point B at speeds that high speed rail can take it, and we still have other infrastructure woes. Why should we continue with this boondoggle? There's already a route to Indianapolis and it already has powerful corporations such as Toyota and GBT on it. Let's stick with fixing US 41.

No doubt, the MPO has some legitimate questions for INDOT — questions that could have been posed a year ago — and it might benefit their community and the project to have this discussion.

You think? These questions have been posed since the very beginning. I-69 supporters cannot answer them now, and they will never be able to answer them in the future. Again, why continue?

But in the end, this project must go forward. Indeed, we hope that once the questions are answered, and discussed, the MPO will stop its petty, provincial stall tactics and open their community and the state to this much-needed highway.

Much needed highway? The C&P cannot answer basic questions such as funding, much less the lack of jobs, the environmental disaster this road is causing, and the basic truths that high speed rail is cleaner, greener, faster, cheaper, produces more jobs, safer, and more reliable. That's what we need to invest in.

For the record, I practice what I preach. Yesterday, I went to Bloomington to attend an IU football game against Penn St. Did I take state road 57 or the brief part of I-69? NO! I took US 41, state road 67, state road 54, and state road 45. After all, it is the main route listed on mapquest. I left a half hour later than when I was suppose to to get to the game, but in the end, I arrived in Bloomington a half hour before kick off. I have the following questions for the C&P and the rest of the I-69 supporters...

1. Why is new terrain being chosen over US 41/I-70 when US 41 has a main CSX route parallel to it and the new Terre Haute Bypass is under construction?

2. If you're worried about safety,why not upgrade US 41 to I-70 and convert state road 67 and US 231 to a freeway? As is, how are those students traveling to Bloomington from Vincenness, Terre Haute, or Sullivan going to get there safely?

3. Northern Indiana, Central Indiana, and Southeastern Indiana are planning for high speed rail. If we are planning a highway that isn't even funded how are we suppose to stay competitive with these regions?

4. If I-69 is all that, why is Toyota (which is the reason North American Lighting came to town) and GBT located on US 41?

5. If there isn't any funding to complete I-69, why would anyone believe there is enough to construct an Ohio River bridge?

If this editorial wasn't bad enough, we where treated to a "Community Comment" today. I-69 opponents are commonly called clowns, jokers, and nutcases. This writer just proves that it is the supporters of I-69 that are the rubes. For this reason, I'm glad they publish these articles. Let's dive into some of the comments...

http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/oct/02/the-case-to-build-i-69-may-be-found-at-the-roads/

Now let's talk about the little towns along the way. How about Fort Branch? Will they get two exits or just one? Doesn't really matter, all of those businesses and homes along that stretch will have to come down. The few that are left will be inaccessible with only one exit.

They will die out. Same holds true for Sullivan and Farmersburg and all the other small cities, towns, businesses and homes along the way.

This is the dumbest rebuttal I have ever heard. The cost to upgrade US 41 was roughly 1/3rd of the new terrain cost. Worst of all, the current I-69 plan will destroy 400 homes, 2,800 acres of farmland, and 1,000 acres of forest. And this writer is concerned about Fort Branch? WOW!

For this reason, I-69 is the 7th worst interstate construction in the country...

http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/03/16/highways-to-nowhere-the-7-most-ridiulous-new-roads/

Then I'd like for the people of Bloomington, on the next rainy night, to head south via Highways 37/50 and drive to Evansville. Hey, it will only take about 3 to 3 ½ hours, if you make it. Be careful, as the highway is hilly and don't forget the very sharp curves and changes in speed limits frequently mostly 50 to 35 mph. You don't get 55 mph until you get to the last stretch of U.S. 50 approaching Bedford. Then back to the hills and hollers and the slower speed limits.

Bottom line: The new highway is needed and my research shows that to redo U.S. 41 would be the most devastating to people and places.

"My research." There's the problem. My research, which included driving US 41 to Bloomington shows that state road 67, which branches off of US 41 is already being widened. My research also showed that a brand new rail line is being laid down next to the road. This rail line will compliment the new coal plant at Edwardsport. Lastly, my research tells me that would be a much better solution than the current wasteful plan.

Hey, it might cost a little more money but let's just skip Monroe County. Somewhere around Hobbieville, turn I-69 north. Skirt Monroe County, go up through Greene and Owen counties and pick up Indiana 67 and Indianapolis here we come.

So long, nut cases in Bloomington! Oh, be sure and give them an exit at Indiana 48 so they can see what they missed.

The final sentence just proves how pointless this article is to begin with. The funny thing about it, is that the writer is now advocating for state road 67 to be used anyways which would avoid Bloomington. This writer doesn't even know what he's arguing for.

Of course it might cost a little bit of money but who cares? It's not like we need to repair the Sherman Minton Bridge. And it's not like anyone would take US 41 to Terre Haute where they would get on a bypass. And it's not like this project is already under construction with Mitch Daniels HIMSELF grandstanding in front of it...

http://www.in.gov/indot/div/projects/sr641/

That photo of Mitch Daniels standing in front of the Terre Haute Bypass is further proof that he, as well as the rest of the I-69 supporters, are hypocrites.

As each week goes along, I-69 supporters show us what they are really about. They don't care about your safety going to Terre Haute, they don't care about your safety traveling over bridges that are listed in bad condition, they don't care about students going from Vincenness to Bloomington, and they don't care about Southern Indiana's future which is high speed rail.

If we are ever going to move into the 21st century, we must ignore those who support I-69 and start planning for a system that works. High speed rail is clean, green, cheaper, faster, reliable, safer, and more productive.

WHEN WILL THE C&P AND I-69 SUPPORTERS ANSWER THE BIG QUESTIONS?

(icanhascheezburger.com)