Link to NYT
I believe that these types of changes can greatly improve rail safety within large cities, the reduction in speed reduces the probability for time consuming derailments or crashes. Unfortunately, a side effect for crossings that are not rail dedicated and share a vehicular or pedestrian paths will increase wait time at the intersection and could potentially lead to increased traffic load during peak hours. The offset however, is that by reducing derailments and accidents the likelihood of a regional shutdown is decreased. Because an environmental cleanup is much more involved with chemical tankers, as compared to lumber, passenger, or other dry goods; the newer models will decrease the probability of a rupture which can lead to large infernos, explosions, and other ill-fated results. Personally, I view this as an environmental response rather than safety, but the net effect is the same.
I'm all for safety and I can agree with how you think this is also an environmental response. Reduce the speed, lengthen the trips, increase traffic, but in that "what if" scenario there will be less likely of a tragic event that could be very costly.
ReplyDelete