City March 15, 2011 12:29 PM

Hoyt and Grisanti push for additional rail funding.

Hoyt and Grisanti push for additional rail funding.
A letter was recently sent to the U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood from Assemblyman Sam Hoyt and Senator Mark Grisanti pushing him to redirect $2.4 billion in high speed rail funding that was rejected by Florida to New York.

Receiving this money would be very beneficial for the development of New York's high speed rail corridor.

"New York has faced many challenges as of late: an upstate economy and population that are in serious decline as well as immense job loss," Hoyt and Grisanti said in the letter. "This funding presents New Yorkers with an opportunity to help quell the devastating effects the declining economy has had on our upstate cities by offering economic revitalization, job creation in the high-tech, construction, operational and service sectors, as well as reducing our dependence on foreign oil."

Federal rail officials will not reallocate the money that was rejected by Florida. New York initially received $151 million in federal high speed rail funding and partial funds of $7.3 million rejected by Ohio and Wisconsin earlier this year.

The funding would be very beneficial to New Yorkers especially from this area. The program could expand the Western New York labor market and open access to Canadian markets. Furthermore, the effects of the economy could be lightened because the funding would create more jobs in the markets of high tech construction, operational and service sectors and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

Another benefit of high speed rail funding would be the environmentally friendly and energy efficient travel that it would create. The High Speed Rail Corridor would allow free intercity connections through all of New York State.

"New York is no stranger to bold efforts, particularly in times of great financial distress. Decades ago, New York invested in the creation of the Erie Canal, along the same east-west corridor as the proposed high speed rail line," Hoyt and Grisanti said in the letter. "The canal paved the way for New York's well-earned reputation as the center of our nation's commerce. A high speed rail program can provide a much needed direct stimulus to the economic life that our upstate communities deserve."

A 20-year plan was concocted by the New York State Department of Transportation which is the basis of creating a high speed rail from Western New York to Albany. High speed rail authorities can be crucial in creating the vision in that plan.

View image

Comments

Leave a comment

Does stuff like this ever work? seems more political rhetoric than something that could actually happen.

Score: 1 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

At the moment it seems to have much more momentum than it's had at any point in recent memory. And it did actually work in the Northeast Corridor, and that required collusion between 7 states!

replied to JM
Score: 2 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Build it right or don't build it all.

Should have 100% independent rail lines of freight and powered by Catenary Wires. Any system that continues to be dependent upon diesel fuel and freight schedules will never have any competitive advantage over air travel.

The rail industry will never be able to compete with the air industry in the United States until they have reliability and alternative fuel sources. As the price for oil continues to rise to new levels, the Air industry will suffer mightily. But if Trains are also dependent on oil, they'll suffer just as much. They need to have catenary wires to allow the system to depend upon alternative sources - the niagara power grid, if they are ever going to survive.

Score: 5 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I agree. It seems like a waste of money to spend on anything other than Boston to NYC to Washington. Don't get me wrong I would love to have true high speed rail btwn NYC and Buffalo, but there is just more need downstate.

Do the highspeed rail lines run around the world run on Electric or fossile fuels. I would seem more practical use diesel or whatever on trains where you get the most miles per gallon and make the change in cars where only one person would be using the fuel as opposed to hundreds.

replied to townline
Score: 1 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I think that's missing the bigger potential though. The line from NYC to Buffalo/Niagara could then connect to a line connecting Niagara with Toronto... creating a new Toronto-to-NYC line.

replied to Chris
Score: 6 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Thats great. And I'm absolutely a train fanatic. But you can fly from Buffalo to NYC in an hour for $50.

replied to 300miles
Score: 3 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

For now. Plus parking. Plus baggage fees. Plus fuel surcharge. Plus cab from JFK. And as long as you arent traveling that day.

Of course that scenario only works if you are flying between the two furthermost and most populous points in the corridor. If your destination or departure point is other than one of those places, costs and sometimes travel times rise quickly. Flying to Albany isnt a cheap way to travel.

replied to townline
Score: 3 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Sure the flight's an hour, but when you add up the drive to the airport, getting there an hour+ before your flight, waiting for bags at JFK, and Subway or cab from JFK to your destination its not an hour anymore.

replied to townline
Score: 1 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

people always say that... you can fly for 50 dollars or whatever but in the past several years i have not bought a ticket for less than 90 and that's even rare. More like $120 to 190 is the range unless you plan way in advance..

Here is my take on time:
Home to jfk - 1.5 hours
airport time - 1 hour
flight - 1 hour
airport to downtown - 20 min
total time - 3.8 hours

If they can bring the travel time in a train down to 4.5 hours max. I would consider it an alternative. If not then it's hard to justify.

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

The interesting thing about rail would be the promotional aspect of get away nights. the design and location of the station are almost more important then the speed of the train.

Score: 3 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

"Federal rail officials will not reallocate the money that was rejected by Florida."

Where did the author research this from? The FRA is putting this money back out to bid (which is a great thing) for states to try to win. I found that out this past weekend at a work group for rail in NYS.

Score: 3 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

JM: Just look to Europe and Asia as your examples for success. And even the foolishly-canceled Florida line would have made hundreds of millions in positive revenue within a decade.

Townline: There is no such thing as high-speed rail that isn't maglev or electrically-powered. Diesel simply can't achieve speeds above 110mph. But, on conventional routes, even diesel-powered trains are still far more energy efficient than automobiles (although, to be fair, intercity buses are incredibly fuel efficient as well).

Chris: You are right that no other corridor in the Western Hemisphere has as much high-speed rail potential than Boston-NY-Washington. See my blog post on the subject here: http://potomacexpress.blogspot.com/2011/02/true-story-of-high-speed-rail-in-us.html

However, as my post indicates, true high-speed rail in that corridor is decades in the future because of the cost of land acquisition and expensive bridges and tunnels through the major cities.

In that world, the Empire Corridor is vastly more doable because the New York Central engineered its Albany-to-Buffalo railroad to achieve top speeds with four tracks, an infrastructure that still exists today even though CSX only maintains two tracks in most of the corridor. It would be relatively simple to add certainly a 3rd track dedicated to passenger trains, and in many stretches a 4th. But its foolish to consider this corridor without a connection to Hamilton and Toronto. The upstate cities alone do not have the population to merit such an operation, but a 4-hour Toronto-NYC trip does. However, the customs challenges for that are substantial and, at the moment, unresolvable.

How all this relates to other corridors, namely California, is an entirely different matter.

Score: 3 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Many of Britain's trains do 125 mph on diesel power (and were put into service in the 1980s!). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterCity_125

I know "true high speed rail" is a big exciting shiny thing that makes for great PR moments, but I would be just as happy (if not more) to see higher frequencies at conventional speeds - even at the current 79 mph. I'd love to take a train to Cleveland that didn't involve arriving at three in the morning.

Europe is full of trains that run under 100 mph, but they run every 15 or 30 minutes to just about everywhere you might want to go.

It's sort of moot anyway, because most of the "high speed rail" plans in the US are just badly needed incremental upgrades to get speeds up to 90 or 110 mph and fix some of the worst bottlenecks that slow down the schedules.

replied to rich.sampson
Score: 5 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I dont know about that unresolvable customs part. Vancouver - Seattle service continues to see service improvements and planned expansion despite the cross boarder location.

Its comes down to having leadership with the ability to coordinate, plan and a desire to see a project through.

Forget it, you're right.

replied to rich.sampson
Score: 5 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I'm referring to getting money from States that refused the money.

replied to rich.sampson
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboliner

Amtrak owns diesel trains capable of 125 mph, that they used between Niagara Falls and NYC. The problem is that the passenger coaches are inhospitable due problems with their air conditioning. I assume fixing the car's problems would involve rebuilding them, costing several hundred million dollars.

replied to rich.sampson
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Nerd,

Those gas turbine trains have been boondoggle after boondoggle. Had Amtrak and NYS used the monies to purchase or rebuild conventional equipment, they would have been able to add a lot of capacity for far less money. Too late now, I guess.

Turboliners have a big drawback: they use large amounts of fuel, even at idle. Bombardier's new prototype Jet Train (based on the Acela) gets around this by having an auxiliary engine for low speeds and head end power.

The other issue is they're generally pretty loud. To over simplify, they are a jet engine on rails. Earlier Gas-Turbine-Electrics have been nicknamed "Big Blows" due to their loud howls. Im not sure how the proposed rebuilding would have remediated that issue, or what those Bombardier sets sound like.

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

If they can connect WNY through to NYC via Roch., Syr. and Albany I think it would be a fantastic addition. You might see more people heading out of Buffalo downstate, but you also could see a massive influx of people heading through Buffalo up to NF. If the station is put in a good area with a cool design (like impressingagent said) it would be even more functional. But if they put the rail through a suburb it wouldn't do you any good.

Just a quick thought out of a cannon. Scrap the current bus terminal and make a brand new train/bus station for use by the high speed rail - I did not consider what the current station would act as, I was just thinking a bit out of the box.

Score: 2 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Quick points of order:

- On Diesels (more accurately, diesel-electrics) locomotives have no technological barrier preventing speeds up to and over 125 mph. Although most U.S. locomotives are only geared for top speeds of 110 mph, many places around the world use diesel-electric for at least a portion of their nations passenger rail.

The great benefit of electric locomotion in passenger applications is during acceleration: The elimination of the fuel, head end power generator, prime mover and generators creates a huge weight savings.

- On fuel usage: rail is a much better value per passenger per mile. Amtrak uses about 2,650 BTUs per passenger mile, vs 3,512. True, greater savings can be gleaned from greater electrification, but still a significant savings.

- On downstate vs. upstate: There is obviously a much larger passenger load on the NYC-Albany segment than West of Albany (Albany is Amtrak's 10th busiest station[2008]). However, any speed increases benefit the entire corridor. If 30 minutes are knocked off the schedule btwn Alb and NYC, thats 30 minutes which is also saved on a NYC to Buffalo train. Should there be a greater focus on say, east of Syracuse to NYC? Seems reasonable. But those improvements directly benefit us in WNY as well.

That said, much of the low hanging fruit (particularly btwn Alb-NYC) has already or will be gotten. Additional improvements will likely be incremental or very expensive.

- On demand: Many of the Empire Service trains are running at or near capacity. Using some dollars to add additional service, adds flexibility without too much cost.


Score: 4 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

The problem is we the sucker taxpayers of NY are going to have to subsidize this boondoggle once it gets running.

So let's you need to get from your house in Amherst to a suburban office park located 10 miles outside of Syracuse. You have two options:

Scenario A:

1)Drive door to door both ways. No traffic. No problems

Scenario B:

1) Drive to the Buffalo station.
2) Pay for parking.
3) Wait for the train.
4) Arrive in downtown Syracuse.
5) Take a taxi to your destination.

Going home:

1) Take a taxi (good luck finding one) to the Syracuse station. If you can't find one on a timely basis you will miss your train.
2) Wait for the train.
3) Arrive at the Buffalo station.
4) Drive home.

I would guess that 99% would opt for Scenario A.

This is not 1925 folks, when all business was downtown and railroad stations were the hubs of the business district.

Score: 0 ( 8 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Buffalo still maintains a downtown station accessible by transit. The Depew station parking is free.

Syracuse's station was relocated out of the city center, its true. But others still maintain downtown locations, including our neighbors in NF and ROC.

replied to rubagreta
Score: 2 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Drive from Amherst to Syracuse every day? Isn't that a >2 hour drive each way?

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

Trains will look a lot different when gas is $10 a gallon, and that is not that far off. Movement will be back to central city business districts and the cities with the best public transit systems will be the ones that thrive. We can thumb our nose at train travel now and we will continue to struggle or we can push for more mass- and rapid-transit and have a shot at actually becoming a desirable place.

replied to rubagreta
Score: 6 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

You forgot to add this in your rosy drive-to-syracuse scenario:

1. Summertime highway resurfacing repairs and lane closures tacking an hour at least onto your drive each way
2. Random accidents/backups
3. Tolls
4. The eventual driving award from the Staties for doing 68 in a 65
5. Winter squalls/lake effect surrounding syracuse all winter and the delays they cause
6. Ever-increasing gas costs

And is calling a cab and scheduling a pickup that hard to do? Is it really that difficult to find a cab company (even if theres only a few) and set a time and place for a pickup?

Seems to be a fairly simple part of trip planning to me.

replied to rubagreta
Score: 6 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

not to mention the risk of getting killed by a drunk, sleepy, or texting driver.

replied to RumRunner
Score: 3 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Dont refuse federal or state monies. Why? Because those pesky politicians will just find someplace else to spend the taxpayers money.

Those politicians are not going to give taxpayers a giant rebate check if we say no to transportation funds.

Extending our light rail and upgrading our empire line to high speed are 2 of the biggest priorities we could hope for relating to infrastructure.

Score: 5 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I love all these negative comments. Build the stupid thing. That way this region can be competitive.

Score: 5 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment


The challenge with HSR, is that it has not been proven to be what most think it will be to places like Buffalo. As a fan of HSR, I see the compounding benefit to connecting DT Buffalo to NYC and everywhere in between.

The challenge with HSR until the last couple of years has been funding. Now, while there is a ton of funding out there, the challenge is how it's being spent. In order for it to work, overall, you have to prove that it works somewhere. Meaning, they just need to take a single line and build it out as it should be.

Maybe this line is in another state and NY needs to wait. Maybe the line should be in NYS. That really does not matter IMO.

What does matter, IMO, is taking a line, say Buffalo to NYC, and throwing every penny needed to complete that as fast as possible. None of this partial, faster than before but not really that fast, BULL. True HS rail with new stations where needed.

In business, it's called a Case Study. In politics, it's called..well hell they do not do it in politics.

Anyways, a complete line at true HS needs to be built. All of the spin off will happen and then there will be no room for argument going forward on the other areas.

That's my 2cents on how to spend part of the $53Billion.

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

The $10/gallon price sounds like wishful thinking on RhodeIslandBoy's part.
A more likely scenario is when the price reaches an amount that makes enough people really cut back on driving instead of just complain (maybe $4/gal does that, or maybe $4.50, who knows?), demand will fall, the price will stop climbing, and within a year could easily fall back to at or near $3/gal before it ever reaches $5. We'll see.

As rubagretta said, one big problem with using trains to get to upstate metros areas such as metro Buffalo, metro Rochester, or metro Syracuse, is once you arrive more often than not a car ride is needed. So to the train ticket costs then also add car rental (or even when possible taxi) costs and time delays... and then car travel to those metro areas would still usually seem preferable to HSR even if gas was $5/gal or $6, etc.

It's a little disappointing to see Grisanti be on the wrong side of this, but he's still much better than Antoine Thompson or probably anybody else who could win that district.

Score: -1 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Demand destruction certainly plays a role, but don't forget the importance of petroleum in other (arguably more important) products and roles, such as production of fertilizer, plastics, machine lubricants, etc. It's entirely possible that as oil becomes more scarce and expensive, governments will be forced to introduce some form of rationing to make sure there is oil available for these uses. This might take the form of "no gas days" or it might take the form of high gas taxes, which could well produce $10/gallon gasoline. (They already pay about that much in countries like Denmark, so it's not that unrealistic.)

Regarding your point about needing a car when you get there, if gas prices are in fact $10/gallon, or people have voluntarily reduced their driving, it probably means cities and towns will naturally become more densely populated, so people don't have to drive as far (or at all) to go about their daily business. At that point, public transportation and centralized railroad stations become much more practical and feasible.

replied to whatever
Score: 4 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

js>"if gas prices are in fact $10/gallon, or people have voluntarily reduced their driving, it probably means cities and towns will naturally become more densely populated"

That sounds like a big leap if you're predicting gasoline prices would cause cities of Buffalo, Roch, and Syr to become substantially more densely populated during lifetimes of anyone alive today (where 'substantially' would mean enough that my description of usual car needs are no longer true - which would need a huge reversal of trends).

I've been in both Roch and Syr areas within the past year, and both felt to me even more spread out than metro Buffalo. (Although that might be my perception since I'm used to the spread-outness around here).

Anyhow, I don't mind Buffalo's city density - obviously because I live here in the city - but I try to not confuse my tastes with that of the masses. Just as much as some who comment here despise the lack of density in our burbs so much they can't understand why anybody would choose to live there unless they're racists, many other Americans equally value lower density. I'd bet many would be willing to use a much greater % of personal budgets for gasoline spending if necessary. Perhaps they'd buy smaller vehicles or cut spending in other areas sooner than trading suburban for city life. Not everybody, but enough to keep things at least about as spread out as now. And yeah, it isn't only about housing density, but density is one major factor along with perceptions of crime, schools, etc.

replied to JSmith
Score: 2 ( 8 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Whatever> "It's a little disappointing to see Grisanti be on the wrong side of this... "

If you pretend this is a highway instead of a rail line he will actually be on the right side of this.

replied to whatever
Score: 2 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Haha, ok Arm but if pretending is involved, might as well just pretend Grisanti proposed reducing federal spending/borrowing by the $2.4 billion.
Yay for Pretend Grisanti!

I'd like to see fed highway spending exactly equal fed gasoline tax revenue (if fed gas taxes have to exist at all).

replied to The Kettle
Score: 0 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

So if it is okay to build an abundance of roads so long as the cost "exactly equals" gas taxes, than it must be okay to build a rail network so long as the cost "exactly equals" admission fares, correct?

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

Armchair, if memory serves, at least one of my past comments on BR suggested the same thing as it sounds like your question is asking me about.

When the proposed upgrades of NY state passenger rail up to speeds of about 150mph was announced a couple years ago, didn't I comment that it should be funded entirely by surcharges on Amtrak tickets in NY state? If I didn't, I was thinking it, but I think I commented it too.

Anyhow, yes - just as gasoline taxes are a good way to fund highways and streets, it sounds good to have those who choose to ride Amtrak along a particular route fund its upgrades when they buy tickets. If idone that way, the federal and state budgets shouldn't need to allocate any $ for this.

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

Whatever> "...just as gasoline taxes are a good way to fund highways and streets, it sounds good to have those who choose to ride Amtrak along a particular route fund its upgrades when they buy tickets."

You and I both know that road construction and up keep require subsidies not related to automobile transportation. If it is okay to supplement gas taxes with other revenues to build roads, then it would be okay to fund rail projects in a similar manner right?

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

Armchair>"If it is okay to..."

I don't buy into the kind of argument that says just because Thing A is publicly funded a certain way or to a certain amount that automatically means Thing B also should be. The flaws of that so-called logic are pretty obvious. Two wongs don't make a right is one way to look at it. Or if that's still too complex, just look at the federal deficit or NY state's taxes at or near highest in the U.S.
What spending should be cut to raise public spending on rail, and if that other spending is cut why not use the savings to reduce NYS taxes or the federal deficit?

If you want to advocate against other subsidies you refer to but don't name, go ahead and there's a good chance I'll agree with you. Ethanol public funding - for one among many possible examples - should be ended totally.

By the way, I notice you were silent about my agreement with your apparent suggestion that higher prices for Amtrak tickets in NYS should be what funds rail upgrades here. I wonder, did you pull a John Kerry and now oppose that after you were for it? Or were you just pretending to favor it for sake of argument but then the fun was gone when I agreed?

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

$4 per gallon gas in 2008 led to 300 million more trips on public transportation systems in the U.S. than were taken in 2007. It led to Americans driving a collective 100 billion (yes, that's a B) fewer miles in 2008 versus 2007. It led to the near-death of SUVs and therefore the near-death of the American auto manufacturers Chrysler, Ford and GM. There will be a seismic realignment of the way we get around and in fact there already is. If you don't see more bikes on the streets, your eyes aren't open.

replied to whatever
Score: 2 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

That period from 2007 - 2008 is also marked by one of the largest increases in unemployment in recent history. US unemployment rose from 4.7% - 7.25% in a matter of months. I don't think the rise in gas prices is the primary factor in fewer cars being on the road because there were about 6.5 million people who were no longer commuting to work that year. Unfortunately for many Americans this trend has yet to reverse significantly.

replied to RhodeIslandBoy2
Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I hate to be too skeptical but I heard the same hype when gas prices reached $1.00 per gallon, $2.00 per gallon, and $3.00 per gallon. Fuel and cars are a necessity for most Americans, including those who live in the cities. They may walk a little more or take a bus, bike, or train a little more often as gas prices rise, but by and large they will make other trade-offs before abandoning their car as their primary means of transportation. For example, I've seen mention on BRO of more companies allowing employees to work from home, this is a cost savings for the employee and the company. What do you think will happen to the central business districts if most workers are home 2 or 3 days each week instead of downtown? They will save money on fuel and food, but what happens to the local businesses who lose 2/3rds of their patrons each week?

What trade-offs do you think most Buffalonians would make if the gas prices increase to $10.00 per gallon? Do you think they'll still frequent the shows and Sabres games downtown as much as they currently are, or do they trade-off those luxuries for the necessity of fuel for their car? Given our inadequate public transit system, I'd worry about the future of some of our cultural and sports events if prices continue to inflate.

replied to RhodeIslandBoy2
Score: 2 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I think it needs to be said that we should consider planning for high speed rail within the geographic, environmental and economic contexts of the Great Lakes Megaregion ( see America 2050: Where High Speed Rail Works). Chicago, from what I have heard, has been quite a bit more successful in securing funds, and is a natural rail hub within what could be considered a relatively appropriate HSR distance from Buffalo.

Let's look to our West as well when developing a transportation infrastructure (Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland AND Toronto) and stop solely looking at a NYC connection as the only practical option. From a megaregion standpoint, we're much more linked with other Great Lakes cities than the East Coast Corridor. Of course, this would actually require working with other Great Lakes states...

Score: 3 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I'm more interested in how Hoyt and Grisanti are working together on a bi-partisan plan to direct necessary funding to New York State to put the high speed rail project on the "fast track". Good job guys!

Maybe some of that funding could be directed to the Central Terminal?? Just a thought.

Score: 2 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I'm curious as to just what 2.4 billion would buy.........actual construction or just more studies.

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

For me, there were never any times that it would have made a difference if the trip from Buf-NYC took 2-3 hours (air) or 8-10 (rail).

When given the option, I always took rail... it's more pleasant, more comfortable, less stressful. High speed would be great, but the trade-off of being able to stretch out, walk around and enjoy the scenery (it truly is a lovely view, especially between Albany and NY) will ALWAYS beat the hassle of fighting for overhead space, going through TSA security and gambling with runway delays. Not to mention, once you land in NY, your trip is only half over... getting to any of the airports is a pain in the butt compared to arriving via Penn Station or Grand Central.

The same with Syracuse and Albany... flying is a nightmare, and the drive is such a pain that even greyhound is better than taking your own car.

Score: 1 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Great topic and it presents even more reasons to preserve Central Terminal for the somewhat distant future.

Score: 1 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Could Hoyt talk to Grisanti about his backward attitude towards Gay Marriage. Of course he's having an affair on his wife.

Score: -3 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Lady Gaga on BR?

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

Until you have good paying jobs and better education in this area it's another train to nowhere.Use the billions to help this area become a real destination to live,work and raise a family or make the high speed rail go in one direction.....outbound.

Score: 0 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Of course, the Erie Canal was a canal to nowhere as well.

replied to MARIO SIMMS
Score: 0 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

With the current Canadian federal government showing little interest in HSR, it would be great if New York State (or heck even the Obama Admin) could press Canada on getting a HSR connection between Buffalo and Toronto. An assertive American push, would probably get P.M. Harper listening.

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

Leave a comment