Having lived and worked within walking distance of the train service on the Northeast corridor, I saw the benefit of commuter train service. High speed rail is not a look backward but a way forward for those of us in WNY.
It won't help us, in Batavia, since to get to the service will mean driving to either Buffalo or Rochester.
However, even that is a small inconvenience, when it means faster and better service to NYC and points south or Chicago and points west.
Train travel in Europe and Asia is accepted as the norm. It is only here, where the car is king, that it is considered second class transportation.
I don't claim to be a rail expert, however if Amtrac is going to be the business model, its bound to be another over budget, under used government blunder. We should expect to see a " High Speed Rail Authority" , and thousand of newly created state employees who collect public pensions after 20 years. Do that many people travel to NYC every day to justify the HUGE expense?
I love how everyone is complaining about how NY is running out of money, then they turn around and say "Hey, let's spend billions and build a high speed rail."
To those in favor of spending millions of dollars on high soeed rail, I ask where the money will come from? The overtaxed and overspent (broke) state of NY? The overtaxed and overspent (broke) federal government?
I would also remind you of two points: Amtrak is already subsidized (our tax dollars) millions of dollars annually and the fact that such a rail system would save less then 2 hours from Buffalo to NYC. Hardly enough to increase ridership to the point that the operator would be solvent initially or in the distant future.
What exactly do you detractors consider our toll free highways? Highways are built for economic development, by the government. The base plate price for truck tags and FHA funding do not equal the damage done to highways by heavy trucks. The gap is made up by outside funding, cities, counties, states. Otherwise known as a "subsidy." Hypocrites. Don't drive, walk on sidewalks, fly, or even visit an airport... until then, don't concern yourself with public funding on public goods or worry about "thousands of newly created state employees who collect public pensions after 20 years."
As far as "over budget, under used"... more along the lines of, under-funded, gouged by private interests... if the US spent 25 cents of every dollar it spent on roads, airports and airplane subsidies, the US would have the most developed rail system in the world.... or maybe it's failure is because car companies like GM & Ford, rubber companies like Firestone, and oil companies like Standard bought the most important train lines, forcing most Amtrak trains to the freight trains ROW, which often means stopping as freight trains pass them.... and then proceeded to pave the old passenger lines... That Thruway of ours? The part past the tolls at Williamsville is the Erie Canal, between that and Albany, is the old New York Central Railroad line. Funny how there's no tracks there now, isn't it?
"Posted by Peter O'Brien on November 25, 2009 - 2:12pm
What do I do when I get to Buffalo to get around? Oh that's right, I'll need a car anyways.
This is just stupid. Car = freedom, train = government."
Funny... That's because the company that made you your "freedom" bought all the local mass transit lines (especially in larger cities), took the streetcars, and junked them. Buffalo had all kinds of streetcars... funny thing is, the bus runs the same routes now, and the Subway is another streetcar line. You should try research, it's called the Great American Streetcar Scandal, which was compounded in this area by Robert Moses and his "urban" vision, which did nothing but expand ghettos, middle-class flight to the suburbs, and expound the car culture that replaced an actual choice - all of which have shifted in reverse for the past 20 years back to a city center for population, and away from cars. Sounds more to me like your "freedom" is more along the lines of "slavery" with all that choice of how to get there and get around you now have as a result... hmmm.....
Posted by Tony Ferrando on November 25, 2009 - 2:29pm
What exactly do you detractors consider our toll free highways? Highways are built for economic development, by the government. The base plate price for truck tags and FHA funding do not equal the damage done to highways by heavy trucks. The gap is made up by outside funding, cities, counties, states. Otherwise known as a "subsidy." Hypocrites. Don't drive, walk on sidewalks, fly, or even visit an airport... until then, don't concern yourself with public funding on public goods or worry about "thousands of newly created state employees who collect public pensions after 20 years."
As far as "over budget, under used"... more along the lines of, under-funded, gouged by private interests... if the US spent 25 cents of every dollar it spent on roads, airports and airplane subsidies, the US would have the most developed rail system in the world.... or maybe it's failure is because car companies like GM & Ford, rubber companies like Firestone, and oil companies like Standard bought the most important train lines, forcing most Amtrak trains to the freight trains ROW, which often means stopping as freight trains pass them.... and then proceeded to pave the old passenger lines... That Thruway of ours? The part past the tolls at Williamsville is the Erie Canal, between that and Albany, is the old New York Central Railroad line. Funny how there's no tracks there now, isn't it?
Save your bandwidth, Tony.
This is small town mentality coming at you loud and clear. Taking your car may equal freedom to some (less government?), I guess they don't count the amount they pay in gas taxes as part of the government.
If they haven't experienced the time saved and the fact that you arrive rested and ready to hit the ground running, then it can't be so.
Even with the current train system from Rochester to NYC, on slower tracks, the ride is comfortable and one can get a lot done while leaving the 'driving' to them.
Business class may cost a few dollars more, but it is certainly worth it.
Tony makes good and valid points. The government and big business combined to reduce transportation choices. That's what you get with big government, big business and centralization.
Building roads and even mass transit may be one of the legitimate roles of government.
The big if is, though, if it's a benefit to overall society.
The Thruway is of questionable economic benefit to society. It did much to damage the economic vitality of many small towns, adding to the decline of upstate New York (there are other reasons and causes besides the Thruway, of course).
So my big question isn't whether there should be high speed rail? My question is, will it really benefit upstate New York. Will it bring more jobs to the area? Or will it further erode the economic vitality of what is the backbone of upstate -- it's small towns.
There is also legitimate reason to be skeptical that once built at a cost of billions of dollars that there will be any real ROI? Will people use it? Will it eventually pay for itself. Or will be another boondoggle.
If I were assured that it wouldn't further damage New York's smaller cities and town, and that it helped create sustained economic growth, and that it actually were an environmental benefit, and that people would actually use it -- if we knew all of those things to be true, it would be foolish to oppose it.
Howard,
One seems to forget that those railroads helped build those small towns and create growth. It brought people to the center of these small communities.
Farmers and city people, alike, depended on the railroad.
In the eastern cities they still do. There was a time when ALL New York Central passenger trains stopped in Batavia, the home of Dean Richmond. I would love to see an Amtrak/Bus transportation complex in downtown Batavia, like the one built in outside Albany or the one near Syracuse.
People, here won't use it because they are too attached to their cars. When you get further east, you see parking lots filled with cars as people use Amtrak and other commuters to get to jobs,schools and shopping.
Does that mean they are backward or progressive?
Living on the "Main Line" in PA means that you live in a town serviced by the railroad. The trains are filled,daily, by people commuting into Philadelphia for work, and many are commuting from Philadelphia into the outlying areas where corproate centers thrive because of the railroad's ability to move people to their jobs without congesting the highways.
High speed rail system????Use Amtrak,or go to airport and get on a plane if you want to get there fast.I would put the high speed rail in the same category as that debacle that Rochester had w/ the "Fast Ferry"......
The fast ferry was designed for recreation. High Speed rail isn't designed for recreational travel.
Are you saying the high speed rail in Europe and Asia are debacles?
There are people, wealthy and not so wealthy who prefer rail travel over planes. Why should they not be given the choice?
Bea, you're mixing apples and oranges. The rail lines that built America and served so well towns both big and small are not what the high-speed rail is all about. It's about bypassing, just like the Thruway, small towns and small cities. To whatever degree the Thruway helps bring in even a small amount of business to Batavia, the rail would likely take away even that small amount of business.
I'm not saying I'm against the rail. I'm saying I'm just not buying hook, line and sinker that it's an unalloyed good. Hasn't New York been sold enough "progress" is good BS? If you think not, I'll point you to three city blocks of North Main that suggest otherwise.
Every change has consequences. But I'm not against change. I'm against doing something just because it seems good. I want to know it is good before I buy into it. There should be lots of study and the full impact of the project should be considered before funding -- not just that it will get people to Albany two hours fast, not just that Europeans like their rails, not just (even) that it will be good for the environment. Those are all great things to go into the PLUS column, but my question is, what goes into the MINUS column and are we really ready to accept those minuses?
Having lived in the DC area for almost a year I saw how useful a rail system could be. I only had to drive to Fairfax and get on the train to avoid all the congestion on the roads. The ticket cost alone would have probably equaled my fuel cost. What to do about transportation once you get somewhere is really the major drawback to rail travel.
AMTRAK loses money everyday...not enought riders...they run this same route..Why would people all of a sudden use this high speed rail system..that might only save them 1 hr and cost more...You can fly to NYC in one hour..whats the benefit...
If its such a great idea why doesn't a private company built it....Where will all the funding come for all this...
Government didn't build the railroads, private individuals did...
Government bonds were used to build the Transcontinental. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Transcontinental_Railroad
Authorized by the Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 and 1864 during the American Civil War and supported by 30-year U.S. government bonds and extensive land grants of government owned land, it was the culmination of a decades-long movement to build such a line and was one of the crowning achievements labor in the crossing of plains and high mountains westward by the Union Pacific and eastward by the Central Pacific.
Howard,
Not mixing apples and oranges - yet. Tonight, it is cranberries and oranges (with a shot of good port wine).
What I envision is the high speed rail transportation hub, here, in Batavia (Buffalo and Rochester people come here to board the train to either NY or Chicago).
We are the logical place for the high speed train to stop rather than stopping in Buffalo and then, again, in Rochester or the other way around.
Yes, I would love to also see Batavia be a stop for normal rail service as well.
As I said, if you haven't experienced the convenience, then it is difficult to explain.
By the way, as I turn MY attention to tomorrow's dinner, a happy Thanksgiving to all.
Not all Amtrak lines lose money, the service as a whole is dragged down by slower corridors. And the goal isn't to make money anyway, so your point is moot. Further, the number of cars on the road is a much larger negative investment than any train could ever be... because the government builds the roads.
The flight to NYC is an hour, yes, but the drive to either airport is about 40 minutes. Then you have to be sure you're there an hour early in Roc or Buf to get thru Homeland Security, then you have to wait about 30 minutes to get your bags, then you have to wait for a taxi, then you have a nice hour or so taxi ride into the city from either Newark, JFK or LaGuardia (or if you land in rush hour, best of luck to ya)... then you need to get back to those airports with the same length of a drive, and arrive at any of those airports at least 2 to 3 hours early, take the same flight, wait the same length of time for baggage, then take that 40 minute drive back home. So, in reality, your hour long flight turns into a minimum 4 hour trip to NYC, if not longer which is exactly why many choose to drive it instead... and a minimum 6 hour trip back home. OR, you could take a train and be dropped off right in the heart of Manhattan, show up 5 minutes before the train leaves, walk on with your bags if you choose, walk off with your bag, and have the same trip for the same amount of time, without the hassle and not have to worry about catching your flight or parking your car.
Oh, and planes can, ya know, be steered into buildings and what not. A train stays on a pre-determined track... so yeah, no hijack threat.
As far as overall infrastructure improvement. 1 gallon of diesel fuel can move 1 ton of freight 400 miles on a train vs 100 miles on a semi - and one can carry significantly more than the other. Don't go thinking that CSX would be giving up their ROWs without access to new ROWs in other parts of the country. It's beneficial on several levels.
Bea, I'm also in charge of cranberries. I add oranges, orange zest and a hand full of red raspberries. I have a very nice Cabernet that I'm going to open right now and think that I'll splash a little on my cranberry recipe :)
I love taking Amtrak. Part of the reason that I love it so much is the cheap price. It's usually around 50 bucks from Rochester to Penn Station. I think the cheap price would go out the window if we entered high speed rail into the equation. I took France's high speed 'TGV' from Toulon to Paris (400+ miles) and I think it was $220 round trip. For a cheaper price and shorter travel time, wouldn't any business executive much rather fly???
Tyler,
I have met executives who state they would rather take the train cross country (and that means 2 1/2 days) rather than fly.
The reasons become obvious. They can get a lot done without distractions while sitting in an observation car as they pass through the Rockies; or watch the Mississippi flow beneath them.
One gentleman, with whom I was seated during dinner, told me that he likes to take the train for the ability to ask how is company was doing..what could they do to improve..and most of all what one liked or disliked about his product line. Informal poll? Yes. The man had an opportunity to sit with different people at different meals and really listen to what they had to say.
On another trip, I encountered five salespeople who were traveling from Seattle to NYC. They all said that they argued with their boss about taking the train, they all prefered to fly. However, all of them said that they had the chance to tweak their presentation; make adjustments that they felt would were beneficial to thier goal and they were able to do that because they had the time to spend together without distraction. The key word is 'distraction'.
Their very astute boss knew that they would come together in a relaxed environment.
You would be surprised at how many executives take the Acela on a daily basis. Can they all be wrong?
Philosophically, I would support the high speed rail proposal.
However, from a practical point of view, I do not think it would see the use that the Albany-New York City corridor generates. In fact, it would probably be a white elephant not unlike the fast ferry that sunk in Rochester.
Primarily, Americans are not mass transit oriented. Existing subordinate systems are inconvenient. How does one get around after getting off the train? Most destinations (work, school, shopping) are nowhere near city routes, and suburban service is questionable. If the rail service doesn't appeal to commuters, it won't work. The Buffalo region with its subway system might be better off, but the potential rail stops in the Rochester area would be far-flung (assuming that existing rail lines were utilized). It might serve those who make occasional trips to Albany or New York City, but the riders necessary to support such an investment would have to approach the numbers on the Hudson Valley corridor to be self-sustaining. I doubt that will ever happen. The whole system of interconnecting mass transit and public attitudes (most importantly) would have to be reinvented.
The potential stops in Genesee County could include Corfu, Batavia, South Byron and Bergen. In Monroe County: Churchville, Chili, Gates and downtown Rochester, Pittsford, Fairport, Victor. Even with park and ride, the potential ridership from those embarkment points would be insignificant, very few businesses are located in the city. Connecting from the depot on Central Avenue to the suburban commercial locations presents too many challenges. Our culture fully embraced the personal automobile transport mentality to the extent of scrapping busses, trolleys, and subways. If suburban areas have limited public transport options, rail service without a hub to access the commercial and industrial destinations is futile.
The only real selling point would be the recreational aspect- state fair, sporting events, casino trips, New York city events. How much ridership would those activities generate?
The other issue is where does one go after Erie/Niagara? Our national rail picture is dismal. With so many lines abandoned, aside from freight service, one can't make make interstate connections.
C.M.
I was so spoiled living on the Main Line. You are right, of course. The interconnecting mass transit has to be in place as well.
The Main Line is served by numerous different modes of transportation, and benefits from an ideal position within the Philadelphia region. U.S. Route 30 (Lancaster Avenue) is the main thoroughfare through the Main Line; running east to west, it is the backbone of the region and runs through the large majority of its towns and municipalities.
The Main Line benefits from numerous highways, including the Schuylkill Expressway (I-76) which connects it to Center City Philadelphia, I-476 which runs north to south connecting the region with the Northeast Extension and the Pennsylvania Turnpike to the north, and to Philadelphia International Airport and I-95 to the south.
The Main Line is served by three train lines operated by SEPTA, the R5 and the R6 which connect the region with Center City Philadelphia, and the Route 100 Highspeed Line which runs between 69th terminal in Upper Darby to Norristown. Amtrak also serves the region at certain stations along the Keystone Corridor.
The Main Line serves Montgomery County, Delaware County and and Chester County. Students, teachers, and support staff from 6 public high schools, 7 private schools, 9 Catholic schools can be seen using mass transit. It also provides transportation to:
Bryn Mawr College
Cabrini College
Eastern University
Harcum College
Haverford College
Immaculata University
Rosemont College
Valley Forge Military Academy and College
Villanova University
If you ever drive the Schuylkill Expressway, then you know why mass transit is essential.
There are numerous business opportunities connected with having a good mass transit system. Shops; shuttles; restaurants, corporate centers, hotels, etc. thrive in each of the communities serviced by Septa and Amtrak. Having a home near mass transit increases the value of the home.
BTW: When I lived in Ventura, I regularly took the the train down to San Diego to visit friends and family.
The main reason I didn't every trip was it would be such a hassle to be in San Diego without a car. It was more than just the hassle we would impose on a family member to pick us up at the train station, but then what did do for a car once there?
San Diego has an extensive trolley system, but taking it around town doesn't really get you where you want to be and even if it does, it's time consuming. The car is faster.
I'd say about 30 percent of my trips to San Diego over 11 years were via train. I really enjoyed riding on the train. I could read, work on the computer, sleep, even have a beer. But it was the hassle once you got there that was a problem.
A high speed rail wouldn't get me into New York City any more often. Even though NYC is much more non-car friendly than San Diego, there's an even bigger problem -- NYC is a very expensive city to visit. Even now, my problem isn't getting to NYC, it's the expense I'd face once I got there. So the train isn't going to help me.
That said, there's a lot more study and information that needs to come out before I would know whether I support or oppose high speed rail.
Why would a train stop in Batavia? If anything it'll go Buffalo to Rochester to Syracuse to Albany. It's nice to think that there'd be a stop here, but you have to be practical about it. These trains are meant to go really fast and get you there soon, stopping at all these little towns along the way would waste so much time, and the train would never achieve it's maximum speed let alone maintain it with so many stops in the way.
Posted by Joe Lullo on November 26, 2009 - 12:41pm
Why would a train stop in Batavia? If anything it'll go Buffalo to Rochester to Syracuse to Albany. It's nice to think that there'd be a stop here, but you have to be practical about it. These trains are meant to go really fast and get you there soon, stopping at all these little towns along the way would waste so much time, and the train would never achieve it's maximum speed let alone maintain it with so many stops in the way.
Bingo!
Which is why Batavia is the logical starting point for the high speed rail. Midway between Buffalo and Rochester, it would be a straight shot from here to Syracuse without stopping at Rochester. Same with coming back.
The exact point I tried to make yesterday.
If it starts in Buffalo, it barely gets up power before it has to stop in Rochester, the same coming back. Batavia is the logical beginning point.
What about all the people who are traveling to Buffalo on business from NY??? If Batavia was the last stop, I'm guessing they'd chose alternative means of transportation.
Too bad they don't build it
Too bad they don't build it for one way use to get out of N.Y.State. They could sell alot of tickets. Another govt. waste of money!
Could you explain why it's
Could you explain why it's waste of money? Have you done any research about the pros and cons of available high speed rail systems?
Having lived and worked
Having lived and worked within walking distance of the train service on the Northeast corridor, I saw the benefit of commuter train service. High speed rail is not a look backward but a way forward for those of us in WNY.
It won't help us, in Batavia, since to get to the service will mean driving to either Buffalo or Rochester.
However, even that is a small inconvenience, when it means faster and better service to NYC and points south or Chicago and points west.
Train travel in Europe and Asia is accepted as the norm. It is only here, where the car is king, that it is considered second class transportation.
I wonder if we'll have wear
I wonder if we'll have wear seat belts on the train?
Dave, You're still here. Are
Dave,
You're still here. Are you waiting to buy a ticket?
:) Funny Howard, we need more
:) Funny Howard, we need more light hearted posts, ya think?
I don't claim to be a rail
I don't claim to be a rail expert, however if Amtrac is going to be the business model, its bound to be another over budget, under used government blunder. We should expect to see a " High Speed Rail Authority" , and thousand of newly created state employees who collect public pensions after 20 years. Do that many people travel to NYC every day to justify the HUGE expense?
I love how everyone is
I love how everyone is complaining about how NY is running out of money, then they turn around and say "Hey, let's spend billions and build a high speed rail."
To those in favor of spending
To those in favor of spending millions of dollars on high soeed rail, I ask where the money will come from? The overtaxed and overspent (broke) state of NY? The overtaxed and overspent (broke) federal government?
I would also remind you of two points: Amtrak is already subsidized (our tax dollars) millions of dollars annually and the fact that such a rail system would save less then 2 hours from Buffalo to NYC. Hardly enough to increase ridership to the point that the operator would be solvent initially or in the distant future.
What do I do when I get to
What do I do when I get to Buffalo to get around? Oh that's right, I'll need a car anyways.
This is just stupid. Car = freedom, train = government.
What exactly do you
What exactly do you detractors consider our toll free highways? Highways are built for economic development, by the government. The base plate price for truck tags and FHA funding do not equal the damage done to highways by heavy trucks. The gap is made up by outside funding, cities, counties, states. Otherwise known as a "subsidy." Hypocrites. Don't drive, walk on sidewalks, fly, or even visit an airport... until then, don't concern yourself with public funding on public goods or worry about "thousands of newly created state employees who collect public pensions after 20 years."
As far as "over budget, under used"... more along the lines of, under-funded, gouged by private interests... if the US spent 25 cents of every dollar it spent on roads, airports and airplane subsidies, the US would have the most developed rail system in the world.... or maybe it's failure is because car companies like GM & Ford, rubber companies like Firestone, and oil companies like Standard bought the most important train lines, forcing most Amtrak trains to the freight trains ROW, which often means stopping as freight trains pass them.... and then proceeded to pave the old passenger lines... That Thruway of ours? The part past the tolls at Williamsville is the Erie Canal, between that and Albany, is the old New York Central Railroad line. Funny how there's no tracks there now, isn't it?
"Posted by Peter O'Brien on
"Posted by Peter O'Brien on November 25, 2009 - 2:12pm
What do I do when I get to Buffalo to get around? Oh that's right, I'll need a car anyways.
This is just stupid. Car = freedom, train = government."
Funny... That's because the company that made you your "freedom" bought all the local mass transit lines (especially in larger cities), took the streetcars, and junked them. Buffalo had all kinds of streetcars... funny thing is, the bus runs the same routes now, and the Subway is another streetcar line. You should try research, it's called the Great American Streetcar Scandal, which was compounded in this area by Robert Moses and his "urban" vision, which did nothing but expand ghettos, middle-class flight to the suburbs, and expound the car culture that replaced an actual choice - all of which have shifted in reverse for the past 20 years back to a city center for population, and away from cars. Sounds more to me like your "freedom" is more along the lines of "slavery" with all that choice of how to get there and get around you now have as a result... hmmm.....
Posted by Tony Ferrando on
Posted by Tony Ferrando on November 25, 2009 - 2:29pm
What exactly do you detractors consider our toll free highways? Highways are built for economic development, by the government. The base plate price for truck tags and FHA funding do not equal the damage done to highways by heavy trucks. The gap is made up by outside funding, cities, counties, states. Otherwise known as a "subsidy." Hypocrites. Don't drive, walk on sidewalks, fly, or even visit an airport... until then, don't concern yourself with public funding on public goods or worry about "thousands of newly created state employees who collect public pensions after 20 years."
As far as "over budget, under used"... more along the lines of, under-funded, gouged by private interests... if the US spent 25 cents of every dollar it spent on roads, airports and airplane subsidies, the US would have the most developed rail system in the world.... or maybe it's failure is because car companies like GM & Ford, rubber companies like Firestone, and oil companies like Standard bought the most important train lines, forcing most Amtrak trains to the freight trains ROW, which often means stopping as freight trains pass them.... and then proceeded to pave the old passenger lines... That Thruway of ours? The part past the tolls at Williamsville is the Erie Canal, between that and Albany, is the old New York Central Railroad line. Funny how there's no tracks there now, isn't it?
Save your bandwidth, Tony.
This is small town mentality coming at you loud and clear. Taking your car may equal freedom to some (less government?), I guess they don't count the amount they pay in gas taxes as part of the government.
If they haven't experienced the time saved and the fact that you arrive rested and ready to hit the ground running, then it can't be so.
Even with the current train system from Rochester to NYC, on slower tracks, the ride is comfortable and one can get a lot done while leaving the 'driving' to them.
Business class may cost a few dollars more, but it is certainly worth it.
Tony makes good and valid
Tony makes good and valid points. The government and big business combined to reduce transportation choices. That's what you get with big government, big business and centralization.
Building roads and even mass transit may be one of the legitimate roles of government.
The big if is, though, if it's a benefit to overall society.
The Thruway is of questionable economic benefit to society. It did much to damage the economic vitality of many small towns, adding to the decline of upstate New York (there are other reasons and causes besides the Thruway, of course).
So my big question isn't whether there should be high speed rail? My question is, will it really benefit upstate New York. Will it bring more jobs to the area? Or will it further erode the economic vitality of what is the backbone of upstate -- it's small towns.
There is also legitimate reason to be skeptical that once built at a cost of billions of dollars that there will be any real ROI? Will people use it? Will it eventually pay for itself. Or will be another boondoggle.
If I were assured that it wouldn't further damage New York's smaller cities and town, and that it helped create sustained economic growth, and that it actually were an environmental benefit, and that people would actually use it -- if we knew all of those things to be true, it would be foolish to oppose it.
Right now, it's fair to be skeptical.
Howard, One seems to forget
Howard,
One seems to forget that those railroads helped build those small towns and create growth. It brought people to the center of these small communities.
Farmers and city people, alike, depended on the railroad.
In the eastern cities they still do. There was a time when ALL New York Central passenger trains stopped in Batavia, the home of Dean Richmond. I would love to see an Amtrak/Bus transportation complex in downtown Batavia, like the one built in outside Albany or the one near Syracuse.
People, here won't use it because they are too attached to their cars. When you get further east, you see parking lots filled with cars as people use Amtrak and other commuters to get to jobs,schools and shopping.
Does that mean they are backward or progressive?
Living on the "Main Line" in PA means that you live in a town serviced by the railroad. The trains are filled,daily, by people commuting into Philadelphia for work, and many are commuting from Philadelphia into the outlying areas where corproate centers thrive because of the railroad's ability to move people to their jobs without congesting the highways.
High speed rail system????Use
High speed rail system????Use Amtrak,or go to airport and get on a plane if you want to get there fast.I would put the high speed rail in the same category as that debacle that Rochester had w/ the "Fast Ferry"......
The fast ferry was designed
The fast ferry was designed for recreation. High Speed rail isn't designed for recreational travel.
Are you saying the high speed rail in Europe and Asia are debacles?
There are people, wealthy and not so wealthy who prefer rail travel over planes. Why should they not be given the choice?
Bea, you're mixing apples and
Bea, you're mixing apples and oranges. The rail lines that built America and served so well towns both big and small are not what the high-speed rail is all about. It's about bypassing, just like the Thruway, small towns and small cities. To whatever degree the Thruway helps bring in even a small amount of business to Batavia, the rail would likely take away even that small amount of business.
I'm not saying I'm against the rail. I'm saying I'm just not buying hook, line and sinker that it's an unalloyed good. Hasn't New York been sold enough "progress" is good BS? If you think not, I'll point you to three city blocks of North Main that suggest otherwise.
Every change has consequences. But I'm not against change. I'm against doing something just because it seems good. I want to know it is good before I buy into it. There should be lots of study and the full impact of the project should be considered before funding -- not just that it will get people to Albany two hours fast, not just that Europeans like their rails, not just (even) that it will be good for the environment. Those are all great things to go into the PLUS column, but my question is, what goes into the MINUS column and are we really ready to accept those minuses?
Having lived in the DC area
Having lived in the DC area for almost a year I saw how useful a rail system could be. I only had to drive to Fairfax and get on the train to avoid all the congestion on the roads. The ticket cost alone would have probably equaled my fuel cost. What to do about transportation once you get somewhere is really the major drawback to rail travel.
AMTRAK loses money
AMTRAK loses money everyday...not enought riders...they run this same route..Why would people all of a sudden use this high speed rail system..that might only save them 1 hr and cost more...You can fly to NYC in one hour..whats the benefit...
If its such a great idea why doesn't a private company built it....Where will all the funding come for all this...
Government didn't build the railroads, private individuals did...
Government bonds were used to
Government bonds were used to build the Transcontinental.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Transcontinental_Railroad
Authorized by the Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 and 1864 during the American Civil War and supported by 30-year U.S. government bonds and extensive land grants of government owned land, it was the culmination of a decades-long movement to build such a line and was one of the crowning achievements labor in the crossing of plains and high mountains westward by the Union Pacific and eastward by the Central Pacific.
Howard, Not mixing apples and
Howard,
Not mixing apples and oranges - yet. Tonight, it is cranberries and oranges (with a shot of good port wine).
What I envision is the high speed rail transportation hub, here, in Batavia (Buffalo and Rochester people come here to board the train to either NY or Chicago).
We are the logical place for the high speed train to stop rather than stopping in Buffalo and then, again, in Rochester or the other way around.
Yes, I would love to also see Batavia be a stop for normal rail service as well.
As I said, if you haven't experienced the convenience, then it is difficult to explain.
By the way, as I turn MY attention to tomorrow's dinner, a happy Thanksgiving to all.
Not all Amtrak lines lose
Not all Amtrak lines lose money, the service as a whole is dragged down by slower corridors. And the goal isn't to make money anyway, so your point is moot. Further, the number of cars on the road is a much larger negative investment than any train could ever be... because the government builds the roads.
The flight to NYC is an hour, yes, but the drive to either airport is about 40 minutes. Then you have to be sure you're there an hour early in Roc or Buf to get thru Homeland Security, then you have to wait about 30 minutes to get your bags, then you have to wait for a taxi, then you have a nice hour or so taxi ride into the city from either Newark, JFK or LaGuardia (or if you land in rush hour, best of luck to ya)... then you need to get back to those airports with the same length of a drive, and arrive at any of those airports at least 2 to 3 hours early, take the same flight, wait the same length of time for baggage, then take that 40 minute drive back home. So, in reality, your hour long flight turns into a minimum 4 hour trip to NYC, if not longer which is exactly why many choose to drive it instead... and a minimum 6 hour trip back home. OR, you could take a train and be dropped off right in the heart of Manhattan, show up 5 minutes before the train leaves, walk on with your bags if you choose, walk off with your bag, and have the same trip for the same amount of time, without the hassle and not have to worry about catching your flight or parking your car.
Oh, and planes can, ya know, be steered into buildings and what not. A train stays on a pre-determined track... so yeah, no hijack threat.
As far as overall infrastructure improvement. 1 gallon of diesel fuel can move 1 ton of freight 400 miles on a train vs 100 miles on a semi - and one can carry significantly more than the other. Don't go thinking that CSX would be giving up their ROWs without access to new ROWs in other parts of the country. It's beneficial on several levels.
Bea, I'm also in charge of
Bea, I'm also in charge of cranberries. I add oranges, orange zest and a hand full of red raspberries. I have a very nice Cabernet that I'm going to open right now and think that I'll splash a little on my cranberry recipe :)
Happy Thanksgiving to all!
I love taking Amtrak. Part of
I love taking Amtrak. Part of the reason that I love it so much is the cheap price. It's usually around 50 bucks from Rochester to Penn Station. I think the cheap price would go out the window if we entered high speed rail into the equation. I took France's high speed 'TGV' from Toulon to Paris (400+ miles) and I think it was $220 round trip. For a cheaper price and shorter travel time, wouldn't any business executive much rather fly???
Tyler, I have met executives
Tyler,
I have met executives who state they would rather take the train cross country (and that means 2 1/2 days) rather than fly.
The reasons become obvious. They can get a lot done without distractions while sitting in an observation car as they pass through the Rockies; or watch the Mississippi flow beneath them.
One gentleman, with whom I was seated during dinner, told me that he likes to take the train for the ability to ask how is company was doing..what could they do to improve..and most of all what one liked or disliked about his product line. Informal poll? Yes. The man had an opportunity to sit with different people at different meals and really listen to what they had to say.
On another trip, I encountered five salespeople who were traveling from Seattle to NYC. They all said that they argued with their boss about taking the train, they all prefered to fly. However, all of them said that they had the chance to tweak their presentation; make adjustments that they felt would were beneficial to thier goal and they were able to do that because they had the time to spend together without distraction. The key word is 'distraction'.
Their very astute boss knew that they would come together in a relaxed environment.
You would be surprised at how many executives take the Acela on a daily basis. Can they all be wrong?
Philosophically, I would
Philosophically, I would support the high speed rail proposal.
However, from a practical point of view, I do not think it would see the use that the Albany-New York City corridor generates. In fact, it would probably be a white elephant not unlike the fast ferry that sunk in Rochester.
Primarily, Americans are not mass transit oriented. Existing subordinate systems are inconvenient. How does one get around after getting off the train? Most destinations (work, school, shopping) are nowhere near city routes, and suburban service is questionable. If the rail service doesn't appeal to commuters, it won't work. The Buffalo region with its subway system might be better off, but the potential rail stops in the Rochester area would be far-flung (assuming that existing rail lines were utilized). It might serve those who make occasional trips to Albany or New York City, but the riders necessary to support such an investment would have to approach the numbers on the Hudson Valley corridor to be self-sustaining. I doubt that will ever happen. The whole system of interconnecting mass transit and public attitudes (most importantly) would have to be reinvented.
The potential stops in Genesee County could include Corfu, Batavia, South Byron and Bergen. In Monroe County: Churchville, Chili, Gates and downtown Rochester, Pittsford, Fairport, Victor. Even with park and ride, the potential ridership from those embarkment points would be insignificant, very few businesses are located in the city. Connecting from the depot on Central Avenue to the suburban commercial locations presents too many challenges. Our culture fully embraced the personal automobile transport mentality to the extent of scrapping busses, trolleys, and subways. If suburban areas have limited public transport options, rail service without a hub to access the commercial and industrial destinations is futile.
The only real selling point would be the recreational aspect- state fair, sporting events, casino trips, New York city events. How much ridership would those activities generate?
The other issue is where does one go after Erie/Niagara? Our national rail picture is dismal. With so many lines abandoned, aside from freight service, one can't make make interstate connections.
C.M. I was so spoiled living
C.M.
I was so spoiled living on the Main Line. You are right, of course. The interconnecting mass transit has to be in place as well.
The Main Line is served by numerous different modes of transportation, and benefits from an ideal position within the Philadelphia region. U.S. Route 30 (Lancaster Avenue) is the main thoroughfare through the Main Line; running east to west, it is the backbone of the region and runs through the large majority of its towns and municipalities.
The Main Line benefits from numerous highways, including the Schuylkill Expressway (I-76) which connects it to Center City Philadelphia, I-476 which runs north to south connecting the region with the Northeast Extension and the Pennsylvania Turnpike to the north, and to Philadelphia International Airport and I-95 to the south.
The Main Line is served by three train lines operated by SEPTA, the R5 and the R6 which connect the region with Center City Philadelphia, and the Route 100 Highspeed Line which runs between 69th terminal in Upper Darby to Norristown. Amtrak also serves the region at certain stations along the Keystone Corridor.
The Main Line serves Montgomery County, Delaware County and and Chester County. Students, teachers, and support staff from 6 public high schools, 7 private schools, 9 Catholic schools can be seen using mass transit. It also provides transportation to:
Bryn Mawr College
Cabrini College
Eastern University
Harcum College
Haverford College
Immaculata University
Rosemont College
Valley Forge Military Academy and College
Villanova University
If you ever drive the Schuylkill Expressway, then you know why mass transit is essential.
There are numerous business opportunities connected with having a good mass transit system. Shops; shuttles; restaurants, corporate centers, hotels, etc. thrive in each of the communities serviced by Septa and Amtrak. Having a home near mass transit increases the value of the home.
Just another thing we will
Just another thing we will have to pay some kind of TAX on!
BTW: When I lived in
BTW: When I lived in Ventura, I regularly took the the train down to San Diego to visit friends and family.
The main reason I didn't every trip was it would be such a hassle to be in San Diego without a car. It was more than just the hassle we would impose on a family member to pick us up at the train station, but then what did do for a car once there?
San Diego has an extensive trolley system, but taking it around town doesn't really get you where you want to be and even if it does, it's time consuming. The car is faster.
I'd say about 30 percent of my trips to San Diego over 11 years were via train. I really enjoyed riding on the train. I could read, work on the computer, sleep, even have a beer. But it was the hassle once you got there that was a problem.
A high speed rail wouldn't get me into New York City any more often. Even though NYC is much more non-car friendly than San Diego, there's an even bigger problem -- NYC is a very expensive city to visit. Even now, my problem isn't getting to NYC, it's the expense I'd face once I got there. So the train isn't going to help me.
That said, there's a lot more study and information that needs to come out before I would know whether I support or oppose high speed rail.
Why would a train stop in
Why would a train stop in Batavia? If anything it'll go Buffalo to Rochester to Syracuse to Albany. It's nice to think that there'd be a stop here, but you have to be practical about it. These trains are meant to go really fast and get you there soon, stopping at all these little towns along the way would waste so much time, and the train would never achieve it's maximum speed let alone maintain it with so many stops in the way.
Posted by Joe Lullo on
Posted by Joe Lullo on November 26, 2009 - 12:41pm
Why would a train stop in Batavia? If anything it'll go Buffalo to Rochester to Syracuse to Albany. It's nice to think that there'd be a stop here, but you have to be practical about it. These trains are meant to go really fast and get you there soon, stopping at all these little towns along the way would waste so much time, and the train would never achieve it's maximum speed let alone maintain it with so many stops in the way.
Bingo!
Which is why Batavia is the logical starting point for the high speed rail. Midway between Buffalo and Rochester, it would be a straight shot from here to Syracuse without stopping at Rochester. Same with coming back.
The exact point I tried to make yesterday.
If it starts in Buffalo, it barely gets up power before it has to stop in Rochester, the same coming back. Batavia is the logical beginning point.
What about all the people who
What about all the people who are traveling to Buffalo on business from NY??? If Batavia was the last stop, I'm guessing they'd chose alternative means of transportation.