Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
Many of the technologies that are potentially applicable to other modes of transport could be used by rail.  It already uses enhanced computer technology to improve scheduling, control power, and manage signal systems, not to mention a variety of administrative processes.  Also, there is the possibility of a break through with maglev technology that would make it economically feasible.  The point is that the changes in the technology of competing transport modes are likely to reduce if not wipe out the rail advantage envisioned by the PRWG.  By 2050, for example, there is a good chance that most of the vehicles on the road will be powered by zero emission engines or motors, thereby taking away the argument that trains are more environmentally benign.  Car makers and highway engineers are studying the use of electronically guided highways, i.e. cars would be guided by electronic sensors embedded in the highway and the vehicle.  In fact, GM announced just last week that it is within a couple of years of having a vehicle that can be controlled by GPS, thereby greatly reducing the probability of a crash.  If this comes about - I am convinced it will, the highways could handle many more cars than they do today, thereby removing the need for a lot of the concrete that would otherwise be required to keep up with population growth.  If people can travel in their vehicle and drive hands-off along the nation's busiest corridors, they will opt to do so in a heartbeat.  Many people in the rail advocacy movement miss a key point.  Most people, given a viable option, would rather drive.  They prefer sitting in their own vehicle, where they can listen to the radio and be bothered only by their spouse, as opposed to piling on to a train or bus, where they might wind-up sitting next to a person with a runny noise who has not bathed in a week.  Computer technology makes it possible for millions of people to work from home.  We have only begun to tap this possibility.  Unfortunately most organizations have not gotten outside of the nine dots when it comes to thinking about where and when people should work.  If employers get smart about scheduling where and when people work, the number of people who have to go to a central work location could drop even more, thereby diminishing the need for concentrated transport systems. The other point that I was making is that the PRWG focused on a single solution, whereas the solution to the nation's transport challenges lies in a multi-faceted approach.  One size does not fit all.  I understand that the PRWG was charged with laying out a vision of how passenger rail could solve the nation's transport problem.  I also understand that many if not most of the members came to the table with a passenger train bias.  So the outcome is to be expected.  But in the long run a one dimensional approach that fails to consider all alternatives will not fly.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag