Beerball Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 If this gets off the ground I can't help but see positives for the entire area. High speed link.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Believe it when I see it ... but I have to say, I loved the NF-Toronto-Montreal-QC round trip I took on VIA years ago. 150 mph? Half an hour from Buffalo to Rochester? Win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Upstate cities are full of crumbling, 80-year old infrastucture, but shaving a few hours off the time it takes to get from Buffalo to Albany is a high priority public good? This has boondoggle (or worse, Slaughter's 'legacy') written all over it. IMO, $3-$5 billion could be spent a lot more effectively on things that actually improve the quality of life/business attractiveness of the Upstate region. Not sexy, photo op friendly projects like HSR, but 'meat and potatoes' things like brownfield remediation, expansion of historic renovation tax credits, sewer/water/fiber re-builds, waterfront development (i.e., blow up the Skyway), or a host of things that would be used by everyone, not just a handfull. So...when does the first train to Utica leave? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 If this gets off the ground I can't help but see positives for the entire area. High speed link.... Sigh. I wish politicians would stop raising such things. IIRC, Obama etc. made some grandiose noise a few months ago about hi-speed rail connecting the country. The problems are huge. You need dedicated track. Unless you want to share with freight. Which means it won't be high speed. Rail lines aren't roads - you need long stretches of favorable geography on your side...which is currently occupied by existing freight lines. Right-of-way issues. Hi-speed rails don't have crossings...they have expensive underpasses or overpasses. So assuming you flick the freight off of existing lines (fat chance), rebuild that track, your cost per mile upgrade is huge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Well, as someone who has designed and managed numerous rail projects, let’s see: High-speed rail requires flat terrain. Therefore, it cannot cross the Adirondacks between Albany and Syracuse, and cannot use the existing Thruway right-of-way (unless you are going to cause massive environmental impacts with boring and excavation). High-speed rail requires straight alignments. Therefore, it cannot use existing rail alignments (too many curves) and would require the acquisition of tens of thousands of acres of private property. High-speed rail only works if it travels at high speeds, which means that it can’t stop every 50 miles at a station. And I’m sure that the cities of Rochester, Syracuse, Utica, Rome and Albany will all want stops at their cities. High-speed rail does not work at temperatures under 25 degrees F. Currently, Amtrak fares only cover between 10% to 35% of its operating costs (the Federal Government subsidizes the rest). And who will subsidize the high-speed rail? Due to customs and other inspections, trains sit at the US-Canada border for an average of 2 hours. And high-speed rail is good because…? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 As you know, there has been talk of the same between Houston and Dallas. I wonder if it is simply a political piece of low hanging fruit so to speak. Sounds good, hard to say no to it but then actually getting it done is another issue altogether. Personally I hope for Upstate NY that it does happen. Rail is a great way to travel IMO much better than air. I am not even sure the time difference is as big as it once was given all of the airport security and flight delay issues that exist. I like the idea of being able to sit on a train with access to broadband - I can get my work done and get to my destination -not to mention the idea of walking to the bar car (for snacks and Kool Aid ya know) blows away the "cart coming down the ailse" crap anyday of the week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Well, as someone who has designed and managed numerous rail projects, let’s see: And high-speed rail is good because…? Man you know how to rain errrrr.. snow on a parade! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Well, as someone who has designed and managed numerous rail projects, let’s see: High-speed rail requires flat terrain. Therefore, it cannot cross the Adirondacks between Albany and Syracuse, and cannot use the existing Thruway right-of-way (unless you are going to cause massive environmental impacts with boring and excavation). High-speed rail requires straight alignments. Therefore, it cannot use existing rail alignments (too many curves) and would require the acquisition of tens of thousands of acres of private property. High-speed rail only works if it travels at high speeds, which means that it can’t stop every 50 miles at a station. And I’m sure that the cities of Rochester, Syracuse, Utica, Rome and Albany will all want stops at their cities. High-speed rail does not work at temperatures under 25 degrees F. Currently, Amtrak fares only cover between 10% to 35% of its operating costs (the Federal Government subsidizes the rest). And who will subsidize the high-speed rail? Due to customs and other inspections, trains sit at the US-Canada border for an average of 2 hours. And high-speed rail is good because…? Excellent post. You should send it to Slaughter's office and see if you get a response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Well, as someone who has designed and managed numerous rail projects, let’s see: High-speed rail requires flat terrain. Therefore, it cannot cross the Adirondacks between Albany and Syracuse, and cannot use the existing Thruway right-of-way (unless you are going to cause massive environmental impacts with boring and excavation). High-speed rail requires straight alignments. Therefore, it cannot use existing rail alignments (too many curves) and would require the acquisition of tens of thousands of acres of private property. High-speed rail only works if it travels at high speeds, which means that it can’t stop every 50 miles at a station. And I’m sure that the cities of Rochester, Syracuse, Utica, Rome and Albany will all want stops at their cities. High-speed rail does not work at temperatures under 25 degrees F. Currently, Amtrak fares only cover between 10% to 35% of its operating costs (the Federal Government subsidizes the rest). And who will subsidize the high-speed rail? Due to customs and other inspections, trains sit at the US-Canada border for an average of 2 hours. And high-speed rail is good because…? if you READ the proposal..there is a mandatory Evelyn Woods course for customs agents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted June 28, 2009 Author Share Posted June 28, 2009 Well, as someone who has designed and managed numerous rail projects, let’s see: I reject your reality and choose to continue to wear my rose colored glasses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a player to be named later Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 High Speed Rail up from New York to Albany then to Buffalo Stopping in select cities Utica, SYR and ROC could cut hours off riding by car or by plane. I live in new york and regularly fly into Buffalo. Anyone that does this knows that it is hell getting out of new york. 1. You wait in traffic to get to the airport or take mass transit which takes an hour as well. 2. You have to get the the airport an hour early. 3. Most planes especially in the summer are delayed 4. Has anyone been on a plane and you push off from the gate taxi a bit and then the pilot comes on as says we are 30th for take off?? Point is that many times it takes me just as long to get from NYC to BUF as it would in a car. If you have high speed rail and shave an hour off what it would take in a car it would make it worth it. With WiFi available in the cars it is a no brainer for business travelers, pols, and even vacationers. The $$ is going to be spent on high speed rail, I would rather have it spent here than in some other state.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOBILLS78 Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Well, as someone who has designed and managed numerous rail projects, let’s see: High-speed rail requires flat terrain. Therefore, it cannot cross the Adirondacks between Albany and Syracuse, and cannot use the existing Thruway right-of-way (unless you are going to cause massive environmental impacts with boring and excavation). High-speed rail requires straight alignments. Therefore, it cannot use existing rail alignments (too many curves) and would require the acquisition of tens of thousands of acres of private property. High-speed rail only works if it travels at high speeds, which means that it can’t stop every 50 miles at a station. And I’m sure that the cities of Rochester, Syracuse, Utica, Rome and Albany will all want stops at their cities. High-speed rail does not work at temperatures under 25 degrees F. Currently, Amtrak fares only cover between 10% to 35% of its operating costs (the Federal Government subsidizes the rest). And who will subsidize the high-speed rail? Due to customs and other inspections, trains sit at the US-Canada border for an average of 2 hours. And high-speed rail is good because…? Because WNYers love to dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 The $$ is going to be spent on high speed rail, I would rather have it spent here than in some other state.... The question remains whether spending more money we don't have makes as much sense as cutting the crap out of taxes and actually inviting businesses back to areas with incentives instead. I'm sorry, no one is going to convince me that high speed rail is going to be successful in the U.S. because it has been in places like Japan (which is smaller than California but has over 3 times as many people) or France (about 3/4ths the size of Texas with a population of over 60,000,000). The number that's being shopped is between $12,000,000.00 and $58,000,000.00 per MILE. I'll venture a guess that the number is going to be at least double that and quite likely SIGNIFICANTLY more. That means a rail between Rochester and Buffalo will cost taxpayers between $720,000,000.00 and $4 BILLION for one length of track. You'll forgive me if I think that's ridiculous given the state of infrastructure. That money would be much better spent on developing a real electrical infrastructure in this country - NUCLEAR POWER ANYONE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 High Speed Rail up from New York to Albany then to Buffalo Stopping in select cities Utica, SYR and ROC could cut hours off riding by car or by plane. I live in new york and regularly fly into Buffalo. Anyone that does this knows that it is hell getting out of new york. Point is that many times it takes me just as long to get from NYC to BUF as it would in a car. If you have high speed rail and shave an hour off what it would take in a car it would make it worth it. With WiFi available in the cars it is a no brainer for business travelers, pols, and even vacationers. i disagree... its easier for me to get in my car and drive to roch or syr then have to worry about getting to a train station, getting a ticket, dealing with luggage, finding transportaion once im to that city to get to my final destination. i dont see any way they can make this work. who wants to take a train to utica or rome? what would that accomplish? its nothing against those towns its just horribly ineffecient to have a state of the art billion/trillion $ transportation sysem for that. and i honestly dont see any way you are taking a "high speed train" which most likely we will get a crappy version and be lucky if it breaks 100mph, stopping in various places every 50miles to beat an airplane. hell if you have a motivated driver you could probably end up with a similar travel time due to less stops and delays. the only way high speed rail will ever work in the US is if it is a national system connecting major cities and can have travel times and cost that can realistically come close to air travel, otherwise whats the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 The $$ is going to be spent on high speed rail, I would rather have it spent here than in some other state.... That same rationale put the light rail transit system down Main Street in Buffalo. Shaving a few minutes off of the Amherst-to-Downtown commute sure helped Buffalo's economy, didn't it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 If this gets off the ground I can't help but see positives for the entire area. High speed link.... total waste. I say offer the 4 billion to Honda or Toyota or Microsoft or Genentech and BEG them to locate plants in WNY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 High speed train in BY FAR the best thing the french government has built those last 30 years. It has completly changed the way we travel in this country. And with lines continuing to be built with some connecting now and in a near future Spain, Belgium, Italy, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, it truly is the way most europeans will travel inside the Continent this next century. I 'll never understand why the US and Canada has not seriously started to study what would be obvious successes: Lines in Ca from SF to SD, in the NE from Bos to DC, in Canada the triangle OTT- Montreal- Toronto, the Texas triangle of Hous-Dall-SA, Midwest connections of MILW-CHI-DET-CLEV-PITT-BUF to Canada etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Anything that connects Toronto to Buffalo is a good thing. If it weren't for the border Buffalo would be getting more financial spillover. That said, having a hi-speed link to NYC is good too. There are a growing number of people who work in NYC that live in Buffalo, flying in a few days a week. But I also agree with Cinci that projects like these are not guarenteed to succeed and are more likely to be black holes. How's Metro Rail working? PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts