Regional October 26, 2009 4:52 PM

High Speed Rail: The Next Erie Canal

High Speed Rail: The Next Erie Canal

On this date 184 years ago the Erie Canal opened, becoming a vital transportation artery for Buffalo and much of Upstate New York. The economic vitality created by that accessibility is a major reason Buffalo became the hub of business, culture and innovation at the turn of the last century.

Today Buffalo has a new opportunity to build on that tradition and make our city more accessible. Even more than the revitalization of the inner and outer harbors, that opportunity hinges on high-speed rail.  With it, the Buffalo-Niagara region can become a competitive center for economic development with strengthened cross-border trade--the kind that doesn't have to move across the Peace Bridge.

A new high-speed rail transit system would connect Buffalo and Rochester with enhanced commuter rail service to Niagara Falls, creating a local, mobile workforce--almost 1 million strong. It would let allow our local universities to be more competitive in recruiting and make it easier for students to get home on breaks. It would also bring more tourists to the Buffalo-Niagara region, spending dollars that benefit our local hospitality industry. And by allowing people to commute between these cities by rail, we'd reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality for the whole region.

With so many issues about roadways and bridges, many have recognized rail as a critical component of Buffalo's economy. A report by the High-Speed Rail New York Coalition found that, "in the Buffalo-Niagara area alone, over 200 businesses depend heavily on rail for delivery and shipment of goods and products. These companies employ over 27,000 workers and have annual sales of over $7.2 billion." 

Of high-speed rail's many proponents, including the Citizen's Regional Transit Corporation, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter is a staunch advocate.  Slaughter has been leading meetings with the key players that would allow a third track dedicated to passenger rail and make it a reality across upstate New York.  Those who have faith in Slaughter's vision include U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, fellow Members of Congress, representatives from Governor Paterson's office, the N.Y. Department of Transportation, the Federal Railroad Administration, Amtrak, and CSX.

The expectation is that the Obama Administration will support the State of New York on these requests and honor the work we have done to make the case for investing in the Empire Corridor.

Specifically, New York State has submitted two applications for federal recovery funding to improve rail service. The first application includes projects to improve stations in both Buffalo and Niagara, and to make the tracks between the two cities safer and more efficient. The second application is much larger and will encompass projects to establish high-speed rail along the entire Empire corridor.

Thankfully there's been broad support for high-speed rail from business groups, local politicians and citizens from all backgrounds - all of whom are united in their desire to make high-speed rail a reality across Upstate New York. They understand that high-speed rail can be our next Erie Canal.

View image

Comments

Leave a comment

Id settle for decent conventional rail service to TO will arrivals screened at their destination (like the Seattle -Vancouver International).

Its not that hard. Its not that expensive. All is missing is some leadership.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I'd love rail to Toronto...the backups both ways get worse and worse each time I drive up there. I'm sure there would be demand by travelers on the U.S. side...just not sure of the demand from Canadian travelers.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

the key for any successful service would be the incorporation some local stops.

an express Bflo-TO service limits the pool of riders. but by adding local stops at NF, NY, NF, Ont., and Hamilton the service becomes much more marketable without the sandbagging the train as a local (or adding needless customs inspection points).

Canadians responded very favorably to the summer weekend NF-TO GO transit service, and it suggests a potential ridership may be there. A market analysis and demonstrator service would be better able to identify what the route would support.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

While we are at it, maybe we could use some of that low cost power to attract a company that builds high speed trains and or rails. Our existing system would make us an ideal location for this sort of thing.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

The thing that bugs me everytime that the high speed rail issue comes up is that its not that "high speed". Its all about retro fitting and using trains the push the limits of conventional tracks, technology that is not that ground breaking.

If we are going to speand BILLIONS of dollars for gods sake lets spend it on something worth while. A bullet train that cuts 30-50% off the trip from Buffalo to NYC, instead of an hour off a trip I can drive 2+ hours faster.

Anything less is spending money to spend money.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

A modern tilt-train is anything but retro - the most sophisticated ones from Japan use precise models of the route to determine how much tilt to provide along the route.

And of course, a tilt-train can travel faster with a 110mph speed limit than a conventional train can travel with a 125mph speed limit, because it is not constantly slowing down for curves. People who compare speeds reached in the 1930's with the 110mph tilt-train systems often get confused between maximum speed and average running speed - for average running speed, the new tilt-train technology is faster than anything OTHER than the bullet trains themselves.

Most importantly, it IS true that because of the distance to NYC, the 110mph Emerging HSR tilt-trains will be primarily for service to Toronto, Albany, and Cleveland. However, they make tilt-trains for the 220mph class of service too - so once a 110mph Emerging HSR corridor has been upgraded to a 125mph corridor and electrified, the 220mph HSR trains can run along a 220mph Express HSR corridor to the point where it connects to a 125mph corridor, and finish the trip on the 125mph corridor. A large number of French High Speed Rail services operate in precisely that way.

So if there were, for example, a "Northeast Corridor Bypass" Express HSR route between NYC and Boston via Albany, that would allow for a service running at 220mph NYC/Albany and then 125mph Albany/Buffalo - as long as the 125mph Albany/Buffalo corridor is available to be used.

replied to sobuffbillsfan
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Well if nothing else you know more than I do about trains :) I just see the times they are talking about and I'm not thinkg that I'm taking the train instead of driving....unless gas goes to $8

replied to BruceMcF
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Oh they will have to do something with the trains, thats a given. Also the tracks will have to have a makeover. All the wooden railroad ties are not suitable for high speed rail, they would have to be replaced with concrete. Also the trains would be the new Accela trains. These trains already exist on the east coast corridor, and they tilt so speeds can be far higher than a normal Amtrak train.

replied to sobuffbillsfan
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

"On this date 184 years ago the Erie Canal opened, and over the last century it has become a vital transportation artery for Buffalo and much of Upstate New York. "

...needs to be reworded as....

"On this date 184 years ago the Erie Canal opened, and in the years following it became a vital transportation artery for Buffalo and much of Upstate New York."

Otherwise, I'd love the opportunity to have a quick train ride to TO. Driving there is simply too stressful for semi-frequent visits.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I guarantee no one likes you.

replied to bufflow
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Why not take the train to Toronto now? If you're not pressed for time, you can catch it at Exchange St, but you have a 1.5 hour wait for customs at the border (bring a book!). Or you can drive to Niagara Falls, Ontario, park your car at the train station for free, and take the train from there into downtown Toronto (a 2 hour trip). I believe there are two trains each way per day from Niagara Falls, and this summer GO Transit ran 4 trains per day each way on the weekends.

It's a nice ride, very relaxing, and you get off in the heart of Toronto (right at a subway station) without having to worry about finding or paying for parking.

replied to bufflow
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

No thanks for the English lesson. Make a point, voice your opinion, say something funny, or don't say anything at all.

replied to bufflow
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

To the naysayers who complain about the 190 running along the river, take a look at that picture. Before the 190 was built, this rail line cut off water access. And before rails, it was the Erie Canal. It's the hand we were dealt.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Canal bridges and train tracks are much easier to cross than a 4 lane expressway.

replied to Chenango
Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

The Erie Canal enhanced the waterfront and brought jobs and opportunities to the area. Local residents utilized the canal for recreation and it did not sever the neighborhood from the river. The railroad was not obtrusive as it ran below the bluff of Niagara St. and then turned inland at Black Rock. The 190 is a wall of concrete, noise, and pollution that was jammed through our community against the wishes of area residents. It occupies a huge swath of valuable waterfront land and its very presence devalues our neighborhood and makes it a less desirable place to live.

replied to Chenango
Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

So how many people need to get from downtown Rochester to downtown Buffalo on a given day? I would guess not too many.
More often than not, it is someone driving from his/her suburban Rochester home to an office park in Amherst. The train does not work for this person.

With over a $1 trillion deficit, there are much better things to do with federal money (like perhaps not printing more of it).

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

there might be a bit of confusion of types or rail operations.

regional commuter rail is not a nonstop downtown to downtown express train - nor would it likely operate at HSR speeds. a commuter system would likely have station stops in places like the the Tonawandas, Airport/Cheektowaga, Batavia, etc - and could likely enjoy multiple stops within the cities.

it actually seems very workable to employ the entire region within a commuter type system. in many other operations, commuter trains have to return nearly empty to the origination point to carry another load of passengers. in a system with metro areas as end points, there is less wasted capacity.

now corridor type trains would likely just service bigger metro areas, where the commuter operations also act as feeders (think: you dont fly directly to Europe from Bflo, you go hub like Kennedy, Detroit, Philly etc).


replied to rubagreta
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Who cares how many need to get there currently. How about how many will want to get there in the future? Think about how great this would be. If you live in Buffalo or Rochester you could get to Bills/Sabres games easily and not worry about driving, or you can get to Rochester for any events there. It makes the overall experience nicer.

replied to rubagreta
Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

rubagreta makes good points.

Even when someone from Buffalo spends the day in Rochester or vice versa, why take a 110 mph train then have to rent a car after arriving? Time to arrange rental, return the car, and go from train station and car rental place would eat into time savings and add to the cost. Just driving there and back would cost way less than train tix and car rental, and might take take less total time.

110 mph HSR isn't the next Erie Canal. It would be a slightly better Amtrak, still far behind cars and planes for in-demand travel methods in NY state. Greyhound might battle HSR for 3rd place.

Costs for any track improvements should be funded by surcharges on train ticket prices so people who ride the train pay for them.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Well then lets start charging drivers according to the miles they drive on our public highways. As a city resident I continue to subsidize highways I seldom use or need. Let those that benefit pay the full cost of their lifestyle choice.

replied to whatever
Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I have no children so would that include charging parents with children for the schools and education instead of my property taxes paying for them? The list can go on and on about paying for just what you use.

replied to Blackrocklifer
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Schools, Police, Fireman, etc. are basic rights that we all contribute to for the good of society, driving is a privilege and should be payed for by drivers.

replied to Allentwnguy
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

BRLifer>"Well then lets start charging drivers according to the miles they drive on our public highways."

Already happening. People who drive longer distances pay more taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, proportionately. More miles driven equals more purchases at gas stations.

If there's any proof (not random assertions) that federal and NYS gas taxes aren't paying for construction and maintenance of highways in NYS, then I might be convinced to support gax tax increases.

Also, there's ever-increasing fees on driver licences, car registrations, extra fees on trucks, NYS taxes on car insurance (just raised), NYS taxes on car rentals (also just raised), growing revenues for traffic tickets, ...on and on.

Users of highways are already paying a lot toward their costs. Train riders should do the same for costs of tracks and related infrastructure.

replied to Blackrocklifer
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I think you are smart enough to know that automobiles are subsidized in many ways. The cost of the Iraq war and the rest of our military misadventures in the middle east are all due to our car centric society. No other commodity requires the dollars and American's soldier's lives that are sacrificed so Joe suburbanite can drive an oversized SUV.

replied to whatever
Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

BRLifer, most Amtrak trains are diesel-powered and also depend on oil imports. So if you want to argue Iraq war spending subsidizes car drivers, to be consistent you'dd have to say it subsidizes Amtrak passengers too.

(It's a weak argument because war wasn't needed to import Iraqi oil. Sadam was always willing to sell us as much oil as we want until Kuwait. But if you want to make the argument, it applies to all uses of oil imports including cars, Amtrak, planes, plastics, some home heating and electricity, etc.)

Also, we could easily make up for the small portion of our oil use we formerly bought from Sadam by more drilling here off coasts of Fla and Ca, or in Alaskan ANWR. We choose not to for now so our green citizens won't be upset.

replied to Blackrocklifer
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Passenger trains burn far less fuel per person than automobiles so BRL was right to point out military campaigns for access to oil as an added cost to overconsumption of oil.
Id say its a good argument since the conflict began when Iraq invaded one of our oil rich trading partners and threatened another.

Whatever>"Also, we could easily make up for the small portion of our oil use we formerly bought from Sadam by more drilling here off coasts of Fla and Ca, or in Alaskan ANWR. We choose not to for now so our green citizens won't be upset"

Brilliant energy policy. Why conserve when we can suck it dry and let the next generation deal with the consequences.

replied to whatever
Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Our reliance on foreign oil is due to our car dependant culture and sprawl. Amtrak is small potatoes in the equation, you know that.
You claim "war wasn't needed to import Iraqi oil", we have spent billions in the past decades to ensure the flow of oil is not disrupted. We have gone to war, propped up dictators, and done things that do not mesh with the values we claim to represent and uphold.
As for "drill baby drill", this is a simplistic short term strategy. It isn't that we are placating our "green citizens" but wisely keeping this nest egg for a very uncertain future.

replied to whatever
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

correct. here are various estimates of the subsidies.

http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/articles/subsidies.asp#SUB

replied to Blackrocklifer
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Whatever>"Already happening. People who drive longer distances pay more taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, proportionately. More miles driven equals more purchases at gas stations"

Nope. I drive every day, buy plenty of gas but hardly ever use the sprawlways that are built with my tax dollars. I doubt DMV fees come close to covering the huge cost of road construction.


BTW, I think just the interstate system is paid for from gas taxes. Im not sure about that one though.

replied to whatever
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Federal gas taxes are supposed to fund interstate highways. NY state's high gas taxes should fund DOT budgets here for what feds don't pay for. Local high sales taxes from gas sales should fund local roads.

pitbull>"I drive every day, buy plenty of gas but hardly ever use the sprawlways"

But people who do use them drive further distances - that's what environmentalist extremists hate about them, that they cause more carbon to be burned.

The difference between a sprawlway and city streets are that the former have longer distances in between stuff. That causes longer distances to be driven. More miles driven, more gas tax paying.

If you're "buying plenty of gas" as you said, that means you're doing a lot of city driving. News flash: the environmentalists will say that's bad too. That's the whole reason they hate sprawlways - because of the miles driven on them. Miles are miles, in the city or burbs.

replied to Armchair MBA
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Whatever" If you're "buying plenty of gas" as you said, that means you're doing a lot of city driving. News flash: the environmentalists will say that's bad too. That's the whole reason they hate sprawlways - because of the miles driven on them. Miles are miles, in the city or burbs"

The point I was making about city driving was taxing gas doesnt fairly distribute the cost of highways. Take rt 5, a 100 million dollar road. A very small portion of WNYrs will use this road yet all will have to pay for it. The highway equivalent to what you are suggesting for train surcharges would be to put a toll booth at every single street.

This discussion has given me a great idea on how to finance HSR. We should raise the fuel tax to pay for the rail upgrades. It could be justified as a way to conserve oil and reduce wear ant tear on the road system. May save us money in the long run. Your thoughts?

replied to whatever
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Try to look at the big picture. By diversifying transportation beyond the auto, you are incentivizing centralization for each city along the HSR corridor. If Rochester has a HSR stop downtown, that makes their cbd more attractive because acces to Buffalo, Albany and NYC is improved. Buffalo-Rochester may be a bad example because they are right next door but dont you think a company in Buffalo that did business in Albany or NYC would like the idea of having their employees in close proximity to the capital and manhattan?

That means less cars, traffic, pollution etc. on NYS roads + highways.

As far as financing, adding to the cost of the train ride with a surcharge may discourage ridership. Making the riders pay the whole cost of track improvements is like putting a toll booth on every road and intersection to cover highway construction.

replied to whatever
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

only if every driver on the 440 gets charged their share!@!

replied to whatever
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Al, what's the 440? ...and how do drivers on it escape gasoline taxes?

pit, for business travel betw Buf-NYC (and Toronto-NYC), air will still be much preferred over rail. Even with airport delays, faster travel speed in the air and more direct path instead of going through Albany is unbeatable.

There just won't be a big advantage for Buffalo businesses to use 110mph HSR to/from NYC. A few might like it, but not enough for a big economic impact.

Buffalo and Albany don't have a lot of business activity overlapping, and again - once arriving at Albany train station a business person would usually need a car so they'd have to rent one. Some probably do that already, and others just decide to drive. Faster trains would be convenient for a few (state legislators for example) but not big economic impact. Cars will still be better for most people who frequently travel between Albany-Buffalo, and there aren't many people who need to do that anyhow. There's not much in Albany other than state govt.

replied to al labruna
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Whatever>"Buffalo and Albany don't have a lot of business activity overlapping, and again - once arriving at Albany train station a business person would usually need a car so they'd have to rent one"

State govt is a big one. NYS is one of the largest employers in WNY and many of those people, not just the lawmakers, go back and forth to Albany on a regular basis. You can do the excruciating drive costing $230 if you put miles on your personal car(.50/mile x 300+ aprox $80 gas+ tolls) or $160 for a rental ($40/day x2 + $80 gas + tolls) or take a HSR train(cost unknown) that takes you in and out of each downtown. Much of the State functions are in that god awful urban nightmare mall so there wouldnt be much of a need to rent a car if you were going on state business. As I said earlier, this will not only improve our air quality and fuel usage but it will make downtowns more desirable for business by concentrating inter-city transportation there.

As far as the flights, its hard to compete with the $39 Jet Blue to JFK (do they still do that?). But HSR is just another option to compete with both the thruway and air. The trip may take longer but there is less waiting at the train station and less security which would lead to a more plesant experience. If HSR was on its own line you wouldnt see the delays that you see on Amtrack.

replied to whatever
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

High Speed rail would be amazing for the region. I would love to have it. Unfortunately, our fool of a governor requesting a laughable $11.6 billion (only $8 Billion was allocated nationally) surely put the kibosh on any high speed rail for upstate NY.

Here's the story:
http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/niagaracounty/story/820238.html

Let's be realistic, the high speed rail lines will first be placed in regions where there is an increase in population. Upstate NY and the upper mid-west (excluding) Chicago don't fit the bill and therefore, will be the last to benefit.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

GO Train (Toronto transit) did offer a train to Toronto from last spring thru the beginning of October. Did anyone here use it?????? It was an hour and 45 minute ride from NF to Toronto...

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Yes, and now I take the VIA rail from NF to Toronto. It costs about $30.00 Canadian and takes about 2 hours to get there.

replied to Scott E. Krajeski
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Heather: Not everyone has $30 to spend so freely like you do. Some people actually have to work for living and not live off of their wealth. Your concentration on money is disheartning. You should see how the other half lives sometime.

replied to Heather
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

LMAO! That was funny! How long did it take you to put together that response? Concentration of money is disheartening. Priceless! Thanks for the laugh.

replied to KarlMalone
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Your a heartless capitalist, Heather. Money is the only thing truly important to you and taking advantage of those w/o money. I feel sorry for you

replied to Heather
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

LOL! Wow... you really are a tool!

replied to KarlMalone
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

wtf? It could cost $30 in gas alone to drive to Toronto. Am I missing a joke?

replied to KarlMalone
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

From survival of the fittest elitist to advocate of "the other half". Im glad to see you are changing for the better Karl.

replied to KarlMalone
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

"Why can't we all just get along"
-Indira Gandhi, circa 1967

replied to Armchair MBA
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

If you don't have $30 to spend on the train to Toronto then there probably isn't a whole lot you will be doing in Toronto.

replied to KarlMalone
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

You are correct for some people it will not work. We have spread ourselves out to a point where any form of transit is limited.

But it isn't supposed to get me to my exact destination. I have several friends in the Rochester area and I would visit them more often if it was convenient to get there. They would just pick me up and we would be on our way.

Also that type of trip isn't the main purpose of the train. Buffalo, Rochester, Albany, NF, Hamilton would basically be feeder cities to bring business people, tourists to the destinations, Toronto - NYC. Sure people would use it to also go between the smaller cities but it is about making a stronger connection between TO and NYC. Also it would make it easier for citizens to travel to Albany... maybe even enact some political pressure to change in the process...

ohh crap, now the politicians will never build it.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I still think some people are missing the point of the benefits of High speed rail. It simply isn't about how many people would take it from Buffalo to Rochester, or Niagara Falls to Buffalo. I am a huge supporter of High speed rail, and if that was the only use for it, even I would not want it. What it IS for is for Buffalo to Syracuse or NY city...Niagara Falls to Albany or Rochester...NY City to Utica or Toronto.

It isn't about the point to point, 50-70 mile travel. It is about the ENTIRE LENGHT OF THE LINE and all the options someone can have.

If you have taken an Amtrak train in the past couple years (especially near holidays or on some weekends), the Trains from the Buffalo/Niagara Falls area can be mostly full (I have been on some trains that were sold out). VERY few of the people on the train in Buffalo were going to Rochester. Some were. Others were goign to Albany. Others to NY city, some to Syracuse. But the train was nearly full and being used. THAT is the benefit of High speed rail, to make those trips even easier, and to draw even more people to that mode of travel.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

"What it IS for is for Buffalo to Syracuse or NY city...Niagara Falls to Albany or Rochester...NY City to Utica or Toronto"

Toronto: If Canada wants to build HSR from Toronto to NF or Ft Erie, nobody's stopping them. But they're not considering it, so why pretend they are? Can anyone point to any Canadian politician proposing that kind of HSR line? Are any even seriously proposing HSR from Toronto to Ottawa or Montreal? I haven't heard that. Speeding up border crossing for train passengers as Al has suggested sounds good, but that's separate from HSR.

Niagara Falls: NY state officials have clearly said HSR between Buffalo and NF isn't viable - not even the 110mph version of HSR. They aren't considering it. Non-issue.

Buffalo, Syracuse, NYC, Albany, Utica, or Rochester:
Usually plane travel will still be much preferred for Buff or Roch to/from NYC (even more so for Toronto-NYC), and car travel for other Upstate cities because after arriving a car is usually needed in Upstate cities.

Yes some people prefer trains. Why not have them fund it by ticket prices? And why exaggerate the impact of HSR by crazy comparisons to the Erie Canal? Even if 110mph HSR is built and ends up doubling the Amtrak passenger count (doubtful but say it does), how is that any great general benefit to justify the price tag?

replied to mjd1001
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Light rail to T.O. would suffice. Who needs a 200mph train for such a short route? On the whole, the real benefit of spending so much money for HSR is that overtaxed, congested airports won't need MULTIBILLION DOLLAR expansions that inevitably get bogged down in community hearings, delays, and take years to develop while airliners stack up at the end of runways. Roads, airports, railroads, it doesn't matter: transportation infrastructure will always cost tons of money and of the three modes above, rail is the most efficient, cost-effective way of moving people.

replied to whatever
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

In a very dense regions like DC-Philly-NYC-Boston (maybe only that one for now, maybe there's a few others, but def. not Upstate NY), I see your point about rail easing airport congestion.

Even then, I'd still want costs passed along in passenger tickets over some time.

If Canada wants to build light rail (or any kind of new rail) to Ft. Erie or N.F. they should go ahead. I find it strange when American people or politicians keep saying they should.

replied to sonyactivision
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Actually, Canadian politicians have discussed the idea of high-speed rail on a Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor for some time. Some even raised the idea of extending it to Windsor; but, considering that Windsor has been in decline for some time, the likelihood of that is probably quite slim. The discussion in Canada on this topic probably mirrors the comments here on BRO.

replied to whatever
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

to clarify:

light rail could be more expensive - and slower than conventional rail service. light rail isnt meant to operate at those speeds, and requires overhead catenary and entirely separate right of way (under current FRA rules) - greatly and needlessly increasing construction costs with no real return.

Other options like Bombardier's Jet Train or Talgo's tilt train could run without and modifications to the ROW, and result in higher speeds. If such an investment is not yet warranted, a Diesel Multiple Unit train like those built by US railcar would be a cheap and easy way to inaugurate service.

replied to sonyactivision
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

"Yes some people prefer trains. Why not have them fund it by ticket prices?"

Whatever,

construction costs arent really entirely borne by the gas tax either:

" 2. Myth: Highways pay for themselves through user fees.

Fact: In 2001, 41% of the $133 billion spent on highways came from payments other than the gas tax, tolls, and vehicle taxes and fees, as follows: 15.3% general fund appropriations; 9.5% bond issue proceeds; 5.8% investment income and other receipts; 5.6% other taxes and fees; 4.8% property taxes. While most of this is at the state and local levels, federal policy encourages this by offering states generous funding matches for highway investments but no match for intercity rail investments. These statistics are in "Improving Efficiency and Equity in Transportation Finance," by Martin Wachs [The Brookings Institution Series on Transportation Reform (April 2003)], which states: "Revenues from fuel taxes have for three decades been rising more slowly than program costs as legislators become ever more reluctant to raise them to meet inflation. As a result, the burden of raising the funds for transportation programs is gradually being shifted to local governments and voter-approved initiatives that are, in most instances, not based on user fees."*

of course, that doesnt really account for securing oil supply lines. but thats a more involved discussion.


* http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/resources/more/myths/

replied to whatever
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

"construction costs arent really entirely borne by the gas tax either"

Not entirely, and it must vary among states, but your reference says its 59%. It's higher if any portion of the 9.5% funded by bond issues is repaid with gas taxes.

But let's start there and say 59% of passenger train system costs and HSR construction and upkeep should be funded through ticket prices.

Oil supplies are needed for diesel to fuel trains too.

replied to al labruna
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

ah whatever - there's the thing: Amtrak's farebox recovery ratio isnt too far off from that.

all of Amtrak's long distance routes average 51.8%.* and thats including some real dogs who either need complete rethinking or even elimination. now corridors generally fair much better - more trains servicing fixed asset costs (ie station, shops or trackage ownership that are fixed no matter the train frequency).

i honestly dont have the data at my fingertips, but my recollection is the entire system averages out to 68% or so. thats right there with highways costs.

anyway, the entire model isnt realistic. if there is a dip in usage, all the revenue disappears while expenses continue. just look at what happened to the highway trust fund - with people driving less, it went bankrupt last year, and its on track to repeat itself.


*North Coast Hiawatha Survey

replied to whatever
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Al, what I'm saying is HSR construction should be funded by passenger ticket surcharges to the same extent. I agree Amtrak should get rid of the worst performing existing routes, or raise prices on them.

Another factor about the highway comparison is highways have a lot of benefit even to those who never drive. People who walk to Wilson Farms would find empty shelves without highways. Amtrak provides far less general benefit.

replied to al labruna
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Whatever>"People who walk to Wilson Farms would find empty shelves without highways"

Society has been able to feed itself long before highways and we will continue to long after they are gone. It could be an improvement as more people would eat locally grown and less processed food.

Whatever>" Amtrak provides far less general benefit"

Cleaner air, less traffic, reduced energy consumption and an alternative mode of transportation sound like strong benifits to me.

replied to whatever
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Whatever -

I dont think thats really an apples to apples comparison. Passenger rail is a segment of a larger rail sector, while highways represent the entire sector.

In any case, passenger rail enables freight railroads to concentrate on what they want to do - move goods. They dont want to haul passengers - and couldnt afford to if they did (partially due to unequal property taxation. When did the last airport pay any property tax? Now, how much would a major terminal like the BCT or Penn Station cost?)

I guess lastly, the Eisenhower Interstate cost something like $425 billion in '06 dollars. No one is suggestion a passenger rail system approaching that cost or scale - and if they were, ticket revenues would likely bare some of those costs, just like the early days of the Interstate.

replied to whatever
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Here is what I find absolutely amazing. There are ALOT of people who hate rail so they have been starving it and killing it almost as long as Buffalo has been in decline.

Yes people hate highways also but as much as they hate highways they love their cars, trucks and SUVs and the businesses like their semi-tractor trailers.

Yet here is the thing:
1) Put some money out there and EVERY state in the US wants money for RAIL, EVERY state wants better freight rail and EVERY state wants oriental and european style bullet trains.
2) Ground all the planes in a 911 terrorist attack and everyone wants RAIL
3) Ground all the planes because of inclement weather and everyone wants RAIL
4) Go through a 1970 style oil embargo, or a 1990 Houston style hedge/option ENRON attempt to monopolize the fuel market or a leftwing liberal moratorium on drilling until the price of fuel goes up to 150/barrel and EVERYONE loves the efficiency of rail.

So the thing is...if people hated rail so much then why ask for and take the money when its offered. Yup, see thats why its a lie. People love rail and they love airplanes and they would like the options of highways, air and rail to be equal options.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Al, Yes obviously cargo rail is important to the economy. Way more important at this point in time than passenger rail - although I'm not saying totally eliminate the latter. My point about highways being needed for trucking that we all benefit from is related to greater importance of highways for the whole economy compared to Amtrak, which probably roughly 40+ of 50 states wouldn't miss at all economically if it didn't exist. Not many people ride it except for a few lines.


pitbull>"Society has been able to feed itself long before highways and we will continue to long after they are gone."

Most average people were fed much worse before highways! Look at food distribution and availability in less developed countries without paved roads and trucks. Way worse than ours. That's why as soon as they become wealthier, they invest more and more in paving and buying trucks.


pitbull>"It could be an improvement as more people would eat locally grown and less processed food."

For one thing, trucking isn't only for food. Pretty much everything you own got to you using many of highways you hate so much.

Also, even "locally grown" food depends on highways and trucks to reach stores in the city. The new little farm on Wilson Street and chickens in West Side backyards won't feed a city of 270,000.

Sounds like you were born 150 years too late. 1859 Buffalo would have been a better match for you - no sprawlways, the canal actually being in Buffalo, some cobblestone streets....

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Whatever>"Most average people were fed much worse before highways! Look at food distribution and availability in less developed countries without paved roads and trucks. Way worse than ours. That's why as soon as they become wealthier, they invest more and more in paving and buying trucks"

Oh no not another "average people" post. There is more to our road system than the interstate and food can be distributed just fine without it. I am not calling for a return to dirt roads and buggys, Im just saying that as a society we would do just fine without the superhighways which in wny are a luxury more than a necessity.

Whatever> "Sounds like you were born 150 years too late. 1859 Buffalo would have been a better match for you - no sprawlways, the canal actually being in Buffalo, some cobblestone streets...."

No civic inferiority compex either. Maybe you were born about 50 years too late. A lot of what you preach reeks of the tried and failed urban planning of the 1950s.


replied to whatever
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

" . . . Amtrak, which probably roughly 40+ of 50 states wouldn't miss at all economically if it didn't exist. Not many people ride it except for a few lines."

Whatever,

Well, first Id challenge the 40+ number* A more important number might be how much of the nation's population is represent in those states? And how can you fault people for not riding a system that isnt as well developed as it could be? Nobody rode on highways before they were constructed - nor did anyone ride Acela before its first run.

Take a look at Ohio. Its about as dense as Germany, but lacks any corridor type service. If the Ohio Hub Plan comes to fruition, obviously there would be a sudden rise in ridership, and eventual dependence on rail as part of a developed transportation network. Should it not be built because no one rides rail now on the 3 times a week Cardinal, or poorly timed Lake Shore Limited that connect to far off cities?

Or even here in WNY, where train speeds are limited, and frequency not great - is that a fair way to establish potential for ridership?

Further - this is only Amtrak service. There are many transit authorities across the United States moving passengers frequently, quickly and safely. NY's MTA moves 11 million people a day, after all.

*Id say Amtrak is pretty critical in Mass, Conn, NY, NJ, PA, MD, DE, DC, VA, Ill, WI, CA, RI - and increasingly so in each of those markets.

replied to whatever
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

id also add that intercity rail could become pretty critical in MO, MI, OH, IN, TX, FL, NC, SC, IA, MN, OR, WA pretty quickly - should the system be developed.

In some of those places, it is beginning to be. Just look at the Cascades between Portland and Seattle.

replied to al labruna
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Al, I don't question importance of MTA and the few high-use Amtrak lines. Because they're so useful I'd raise their ticket prices. They should consider it a compliment.

"And how can you fault people for not riding a system that isnt as well developed as it could be?"
I don't fault them. So many people are spread out in smaller metros or suburbs/exurbs that train travel won't make sense many places even if a lot of costly work is done. Their travel destinations are spread out too.

"Mass, Conn, NY, NJ, PA, MD, DE, DC, VA, Ill, WI, CA, RI" is about a dozen, so there's 38 others. My rough guess of 40+ looks good. You're right, the list could grow. But mostly only heavily used lines will be big positives to their cities - NYC, DC, Philly, Boston, etc.

Still, many cities like Buffalo have low ridership. I doubt that's only due to bad service. Even if expensive improvements can double Buffalo Amtrak use, it's still a small number. I don't know if the WNY economy would suffer much without Amtrak.

pitbull, Yes average and below average (income) people too. Almost everybody is fed much better today, thanks in part to lots of trucks and highways that you hate.

pit>"Maybe you were born about 50 years too late. A lot of what you preach reeks of the tried and failed urban planning of the 1950s."
No way. In the 50's they still depended on things some of you can't let go of like train travel, downtown retail, churches on every block. Most highways hadn't been built yet. It's you guys who sound like you want to turn back the clock to all that.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

not quite so fast to the draw...

What we are finding out is that we live in VERY VOLITILE times which range from terrorism and weather shutting down highways and airports, to Spain's terrorism shutting down rail, to spikes in energy that had airlines unable to fly and residents taking their trucks and SUVs off the road.

We live in times where people and businesses need alternative means of transportation. Just depending on airplanes and SUVs isnt sufficient for a first world just-in-time economy.

In our world, we need to make choice based on cost and convenience and time and availability. All of which has been demonstrated in the last 5-10 years has put one mode of transportation un-usable.

replied to whatever
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Whatever>"No way. In the 50's they still depended on things some of you can't let go of like train travel, downtown retail, churches on every block. Most highways hadn't been built yet. It's you guys who sound like you want to turn back the clock to all that"

The 50s have your name written all over them. That was when govt poured billions into undermining the institutions you mentioned and despise. The "average people" you claim to represent flocked to the burbs, oil dependancy grew, and people stil thought urban superhighways and slum clearance were good ideas.

Seriously, there is good reason to hang on to train travel, and downtown retail. I have talked to death the health and conservation benifits of alternative transportation and compact development so I wont bother repeating them. I dont see why, other than to spite us non-average people, you seem hell bent on squashing alternative ideas.

replied to whatever
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

like i said earlier Amtrak's user fees (fares) recoup as much or more than highways recoup from their user fees (gas tax, tolls, etc). so Im not following the issue with tickets covering costs.

___


"Because they're so useful I'd raise their ticket prices. They should consider it a compliment."

I dont follow this. So if you consider highways (or some highways) more useful, should they have premium tolls added?

___


"Still, many cities like Buffalo have low ridership. I doubt that's only due to bad service."

A quick illustration: Buffalo eastbound departures from downtown: 428 am, 718 am, 115 pm (last departure is chronically late due to boarder crossing issues). Scheduled time to NY Penn: eight hours.

Not exactly encouraging folks to take the train with that schedule. Would you take your Grandma under the highway @ Exchange st at 4 am with a locked station?

Under those conditions, current ridership is a testament to how much people *WANT* to take the train.

Now, in markets where service has been enhanced, ridership always improves. Again and again - Harrisburg - to Philly, Portland to Boston, Chicago - Milwaukee, Portland - Seattle, DC - Richmond, Albany - NYC, Acela service, NC, all of Amtrak California, etc.

These improved corridors are generally just incremental moves - not too many even get up to 110, and only Acela exceeds 125. Now, not to be overly simplistic, but if minor upgrades result in higher passenger yields - higher speeds, more frequent trains, and more reliability will have a potentially exponential impact.

Why not invest in a higher speed, more environmentally friendly, anti-sprawl, lower dependence on oil, less weather dependent, cheaper than highways form of transport?

replied to whatever
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

"No way. In the 50's they still depended on things some of you can't let go of like train travel, downtown retail, churches on every block. Most highways hadn't been built yet."

Uh huh. There are more people in America today who "depend on train travel" than there are people who live west of Onondaga County. They must all be stuck in the 50's. Imagine that! And many of them happen to live in one of the most affluent, economically viable regions in these great United States. OMFG!!! And here's the worst part - we live in the same state as these crazy train people!

The provincialism in WNY drives me nuts. "Whatever" is clearly a smart person, but it's clear s/he has never lived outside of Western New York. Smart people like him/her have me continually questioning my motives for moving here. Why would you hitch your wagon to a mode of thinking that has been outdated for years in most urbanized places? I just don't get it. I guess I never will. I mean, in some parts of THIS STATE people buy homes in the suburbs so they can still commute to work ON A TRAIN.

I usually come to the conclusion that the good outweighs the bad here, but some days I have my doubts. Despite the encouraging and interesting grass roots progressive groups that do exist in Buffalo, sometimes I think that most people around here truly are about 25 years behind the times. It's disheartening.

replied to whatever
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Don't be too hard on "Whatever". Like everyone else here, he's been taxed to death and is frustrated with any talk of shiny expensive new things because he knows who will ultimately pay for it, even if he and so many others won't enjoy it. And until somebody blows up Albany, things won't change. I'm a big supporter of rail because I know where the price of gas is going and I'd rather change my behavior than feed an oil company $200 every time I fill the tank. That's a huge tax on all of us that goes off to Dubai to put up another silly mall or tower. We get nothing. At least with rail, we get the spinoff jobs, the development, and cleaner air.

replied to reflip
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

150 million for the empire corridor came today.



http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/story/937698.html

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

150 million is a joke. We lost out big time on this.

See other states take:

California - 2.5 billion
Washington St - 590 million
Missouri - 1 billion
Florida (tampa area) 1.25 billion

Either our officals did not take the proper steps to get the project close enough to be considered or NYS loses because we are a solid blue state that Dems don't have to worry about in an election year. Maybe both...

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Leave a comment

Buffalo Rising Poll