Improving the viability of the Amtrak Downeaster by expanding services

Home In All Lands: Vox populi: defending the world’s most undervalued instrument

If it were an ordinary, artificial instrument, the humble larynx wouldn’t be well loved. It’s a complicated organ, a dense nexus of muscles, cartilage and nerves, flanked by bones. As vocal scientist Ingo Titze notes, were the larynx to be arranged by size against other instruments, “it would be grouped with the piccolo, among the smallest of mechanical music makers.”
The larynx’s unassuming size, however, belies its power as a musical instrument. Some of the greatest pieces of music ever written wouldn’t be half the works they are if the human voice were erased from the score.
Remove the voice, and Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony becomes a shadow of itself. Without voice, the musical numbers in Bollywood just become garishly colored dance sequences, robbed of any meaning. Remove the voice and Ave Maria is just silence.
Don’t get me wrong, I like John Cage’s 4’33’’—a composition performed in the absence of noise—as much as the next man, but a world without singing is one that I don’t want to imagine and, I suspect, neither do you. And yet, for its importance as an instrument in so many genres of music, the mighty larynx is seldom perceived to be a legitimate music maker.
I cannot begin to count the number of times I have had some permutation of the following conversation, with other musicians and non-musicians alike:
“So tell me, do you play an instrument?” they ask.
“Yes,” I reply “I sing.”
(Laughs) “No, but seriously, do you play an instrument?”
When I ask these people why they don’t think the voice is a legitimate instrument, they point to the fact that everyone has one and we use it more often for speaking than we do for making music. Their ignorance aside, these folks do have a point.
The voice is common: there are, roughly, seven billion larynxes out there and they are primarily used for speaking, not singing. Yet the commonality of the voice and its use for something other than music making shouldn’t discredit its value as an instrument.
Although everyone has the tools at their disposal to sing, it takes years of training and plenty of hard work to build up the vocal strength necessary for singing. In the same way that picking up a 500 kg dumbbell on the first attempt is all but impossible, you can’t expect to sing an aria without first practicing.
Titze says that singers ask the vocal cords to do something “no other string instrument can do: vary the length and tension of the vibrating material simultaneously to change frequency.” And thankfully, all that precise control doesn’t go to waste—just come to the Chamber Choir concerts in the Chapel, this Saturday and Sunday at 3 p.m., to find out what voices can truly do!Judging by complexity and range alone, the voice box clearly meets the definition of “instrument.” But I’m not all about merely checking boxes. Technical considerations are great pieces of evidence, but they cannot be the only determining factor. Clearly, something more ethereal is needed.
Again, vocal music is up to the task. If you were to draw up a top 10 list of the best works of music in history, it wouldn’t be all that surprising if some (if not the majority) of pieces included a voice. As the universal instrument, the voice is a unifying experience. While our tastes in music differ and the ways that we produce song differ as a consequence, humans can still be united by our voices. Because it requires no external aids, no knowledge of musical notation and no experience in music whatsoever, the larynx is the perfect equalizing instrument. Yes, some people may be more adept at using the voice than others, but that should not discourage you from trying to master your larynx as well. Go out there and sing!

Home In All Lands: Approach danger calmly and rationally

“Life is hard,” goes the saying, “and then you die.” It’s a succinct and blunt way to express that life is dangerous. In the last year (thanks to the highly excitable media) you may have gotten the impression that life is more dangerous than it used to be.
Ebola, the sudden rise of Daesh (more commonly called ISIS), the disappearance of Malaysian Airlines flight 370, the conflict in Ukraine: all these give the impression that our world is more fractured, violent and deadly than ever before.
To be honest, I’m somewhat unsure as to why everyone is freaking out. For one thing, the world isn’t necessarily more dangerous. More unstable, certainly, but death hides amongst everyday occurrences.
The daily commute to work puts you at risk of being one of the approximately 34,000 killed on U.S. roads every year. Death by scalding, falling or drowning can await you in the bathroom. Forgetting to empty the lint filter on your dryer could lead to a fire that destroys your house and you with it.
I don’t mean to be overly moribund, but we have to face the facts: even the most humdrum facets of our lives can bring about an untimely demise. After all, on average two people a year die from being crushed by vending machines.
So why, if death is so ubiquitous, are we so afraid of the “Ebolas” of this world? It may have something to do with something called “the safety paradox.” Essentially, we are afraid because we are no longer accustomed to danger, to death.
As Hans Boutellier describes in his book, “De Veiligheidsutopie” (“The Safety Utopia”), the safer a country and society, the more frightened its people are. We are scared of Ebola, of Daesh, of terrorism because we have no control over their outcomes.
Although, for example, driving puts you at risk of being killed, you feel safer in a car because there are many factors that you can control to reduce the likelihood of death. You can buy a car that performs well in crash tests. You can put your seatbelt on before you set off. If the weather turns for the worse, you can adapt to the changing conditions.
In other words, as Carola Houtekamer and Arlen Poort explain in their article “A safe country is a scared land,” we take solace in being able to control a small part of our fate. “Terror,” they suggest, “is like having a dark thundercloud above you. You cannot help but ask yourself if you will be struck by lightning.” (Lightning accounts for about 30 deaths a year in the U.S.) Like dying in a terrorist attack, the likelihood of being struck by lightning at any point in your life is infinitesimally small (1 in 12,000). Getting hysterical about odds that small is meaningless and will do nothing to improve your chances of controlling the outcome.
You could, of course, quit your job, pack up your house, and move to a remote corner west of nowhere in the hope that nothing bad will ever happen to you. Aside from the fact that your house is essentially a death-trap, you could be pretty safe. And even if you survive, quip Houtekamer and Poort, “That’s a sure-fire way to ruin your life.”
When it comes to terrorism, organizations like Daesh thrive on the confusion and violence of fear. According to Edwin Bakker, “terrorism-induced hysteria is itself an invitation to be terrorized.” Unfortunately, this particular symptom is readily apparent in the U.S., where the specter of 9/11 still looms large.
This does not mean to say that we shouldn’t be vigilant about terrorism. We should anticipate the worst but, in our actions, show that we expect the best. The same should be said for Ebola and other calamities. Needless worry benefits no one—calm, careful and considerate thought is what we need in a time of crisis.

Home In All Lands

Improving the viability of the Amtrak Downeaster by expanding services

This piece represents the opinion of the author:

Jean-Paul Honegger

Columnist

September 26, 2014

If you sit on the Quad around six on a cool evening, you’ll hear the languid horn of the Amtrak Downeaster announcing its southbound departure. After half a century without rail service between midcoast Maine and Boston, passenger trains returned to Brunswick two years ago.
Ridership on the Downeaster has increased steadily, exceeding Amtrak’s expectations of 100 daily passengers from Freeport and Brunswick. However, I do not expect these figures to increase much until Amtrak expands its schedule as planned.

The Downeaster operates a limited schedule from Brunswick: the southbound train leaves early (7 a.m.) or late (6 p.m.). Northbound trains leave Boston at 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. The first departure south and the last departure north allow you to spend a full day in Boston, but the current schedule limits the possibility of an evening in the city.

The schedule hasn’t changed over the last two years because of agreements between the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority (NNEPRA), which operates the Downeaster on Amtrak’s behalf, and Pan Am Railways, the company that owns the tracks. According to the NNEPRA, these agreements cap the number of daily trips at six, forcing the company run an empty trainbetween Portland and Brunswick twice per day.

These trips burn 45,000 gallons of fuel every year and leave a train idling near Union Street five hours every day. To mitigate the waste, the NNEPRA has proposed building a layover facility—essentially, a train garage—on tracks between Church and Stanwood Street in west Brunswick.

Trains stored in the facility would be switched off, eliminating the noise and air pollution caused by idling engines. Constructing the garage would also let Amtrak expand its daily service to Boston, thereby improving the Downeaster’s viability.

Though the project seems simple enough, the layover facility plans are embroiled in a complicated dispute that involves local residents, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the NNEPRA and Governor Paul LePage. Some local residents, including Professor of History Patrick Rael, claim that the environmental impact of the layover facility was not properly assessed.

In a letter published in the Times-Record on 28 August, Rael criticized people who “wish the facility to be built regardless of whom it impacts, and how.” But Rael isn’t opposed to the train service itself. He supports Amtrak as “an alternative to carbon-heavy transportation modes such as cars.” While I sympathize with Rael’s muted pro-train attitude, he stands opposed to a project that is essential to preserving Amtrak service to Brunswick.

By contrast, Bob Morrison, the chairman of the Brunswick West Neighborhood Coalition, demonstrates open contempt for the train line. In an article published on seacoastonline.com, he attacked the Freeport-to-Brunswick segment of the Downeaster line and suggested that further investment in the service would be a waste of money because of low ridership. This is mistaken.

For one thing, the numbers aren’t low. In an article in the Portland Press Herald on Monday, Tom Bell reported that Brunswick is the fourth-most popular station on the Downeaster route. An increase in services from Brunswick to Boston should increase ridership.

Emotions in west Brunswick have not gone unnoticed. In March, Governor LePage intervened, calling on the Federal Rail Administration to require the NNEPRA to undertake further environmental assessments.

The governor’s interventions reveal how LePage sees this as a political opportunity above all. He is using this local disagreement to portray himself as a defender of “the little man” against big government, all while using the tools of big government to hurt local businesses.

His actions have alarmed businesses in Freeport and Brunswick, where the train has proven important to local economic health.

“It is vital to our community that Amtrak be able to continue providing our only public transportation service,” said Kelly Edwards, the executive director of Freeport USA, an organization that represents over 155 Freeport businesses. “The Downeaster service is an asset to [Freeport] and important to the future growth of our community.”

In a letter sent to Governor LePage last month, the Brunswick Downtown Association (which represents nearly 300 businesses and individuals) wrote, “that further delay and disruption in improvements to NNEPRA services is harmful to local businesses, the Town of Brunswick and the region.”

The issues raised by the facility’s opponents shouldn’t be sidestepped, but it’s galling to see how the governor and some of the residents ignore the economic benefits that come with an increase in Amtrak services. With an increase in investment and improvements in infrastructure—such as the construction of the layover facility—can help build the future of railway travel in America.

Comments are permanently closed.