So, what about High Speed Rail?

[Linda_D]

Here's an article from the Buffalo News on high speed rail: HSR.

I'm not sure that HSR is a good idea. The supposed purpose of HSR is to spur economic growth by replacing a lot of regional air travel as well as automobile/truck travel with more efficient rail service, but constructing HSR puts so many dollars into specific corridors that it leaves little to improve rail service, both passenger and freight, to areas not in the corridor. Moreover, since HSR is supposed to be fast, it can't have many stops, and that's another drawback. If HSR schedules aren't convenient and take people where they want to go, they certainly aren't going to swap their cars for trains.

The distance between Buffalo and Albany rail stations is about 300 miles. Assuming no stops ...

• regular trains traveling at 90 MPH would take about 3 hours and 20 minutes
• high speed trains traveling at 110 MPH would take about 2 hours and 45 minutes, again, with no stops.

Is saving a half hour of travel time between Buffalo and Albany worth billions of dollars? Keep in mind that the trains would have to slow down coming and leaving stations, and that there would likely be at least one stop, most likely in Syracuse.

It seems to me that some better options might be to:

• improve the current railbeds so that trains can go 90 MPH, not just between Buffalo and Albany, but throughout the state;
• provide passenger rail service outside the Buffalo-Albany-NYC corridor: especially to the smaller cities like those in the Southern Tier (Jamestown, Salamanca, Corning, Binghamton);
• provide direct inter-city passenger rail service in Upstate: Buffalo/Rochester, Rochester/Syracuse, Buffalo/Syracuse, Buffalo/Jamestown, Rochester/Corning, Syracuse/Binghamton, Syracuse/Utica, etc.

[yaksplat]

If there was HSR around the major hubs in the US i'd take it over flying. I'd take lite rail around the area if it was available. People need to go to europe and see what it's like having another mode of transportation available. Too bad it'll never happen here.

[Dougles]

I've taken the Amtrak from Depew to Schenectady... 5 hours 20 minutes.

[FisherRd]

I've taken the Amtrak from Depew to Schenectady... 5 hours 20 minutes.

I'm pretty sure when I drive that route it takes me about 3.5 hours...

HSR is a loser. The reality is there are multiple stops, otherwise you'd be greatly limiting those that can use it. Those stops add time. Time is money.

We're not europe, and I for one, am glad.

[Dougles]

From exit 49 to 26 it's usually about 3.5 hours... the Schectady station is off exit 25 by Erie blvd and the GE plants... but as anyone who lives in the area knows, only crack heads and welfare leeches live there.

[Linda_D]

I'm pretty sure when I drive that route it takes me about 3.5 hours...

HSR is a loser. The reality is there are multiple stops, otherwise you'd be greatly limiting those that can use it. Those stops add time. Time is money.

We're not europe, and I for one, am glad.

I think this is the big problem. European distances are small compared to US distances. Never having been in Europe, I don't know about their highway system, but I don't think they have anything resembling our interstate system. Germany has the Autobahn, but I don't believe there's any seemless limited access highway stretching from Moscow to Madrid like I-80 stretches from Albany to Denver (both about 1800 miles).

Most people don't really travel those really long distances a lot, and if they do, they'll take planes. They want shorter, direct routes at convenient times, and HSR doesn't gain you much going between Buffalo and Syracuse. If HSR could cut travel time between Buffalo and NYC in half, that might make the investment worthwhile but that's not going to happen with present technology.

[Dougles]

Europe does has a great highway system and an even better flying system.

A train from Berlin to Madrid will take almost 16 hours and cost about $150.... you can get a direct flight for $125 and it's only 1.5 hours...

Which would you take?

[Bioguy231]

My own opinion is that if the government wants to spend a bunch of money to copy Europe's transportation system, work on turning our interstate system into something akin to the autobahn.....widen the lanes, smooth out the driving surface and get rid of the speed limits.

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

The distance between Buffalo and Albany rail stations is about 300 miles. Assuming no stops ...

• regular trains traveling at 90 MPH would take about 3 hours and 20 minutes
• high speed trains traveling at 110 MPH would take about 2 hours and 45 minutes, again, with no stops.

Is saving a half hour of travel time between Buffalo and Albany worth billions of dollars? Keep in mind that the trains would have to slow down coming and leaving stations, and that there would likely be at least one stop, most likely in Syracuse.

Just where do you get 3:20? Off the Amtrak website, a trip from Buffalo to Albany takes 5:16 minutes.

As for what Fish said about HSR being a loser...it's not. What the US does and calls it HSR is a loser. What the US will pay to have the half ass network built will make it a loser.

Here is what I do not get. Why is it OK to tell people who want to live in the sticks they have to drive 1-2hrs to get to an airport...yet for some reason, they should have the right to have a HSR station in their backyard? How does that make sense?

The reason why HSR in Europe works is because they only have stations in densely populated areas. In Europe, a city/county like Syracuse/Onondaga with under $500k people, would have to fight for a station. In NY, because they are #4 metro, they are auto included in the plan.

The problem with HSR in the US is politicians are building it...not business owners.

[Dougles]

No, it's the US business owners who OWN the politicians that are building it... and the Chinese of course!

[Linda_D]

Just where do you get 3:20? Off the Amtrak website, a trip from Buffalo to Albany takes 5:16 minutes.

As for what Fish said about HSR being a loser...it's not. What the US does and calls it HSR is a loser. What the US will pay to have the half ass network built will make it a loser.

Here is what I do not get. Why is it OK to tell people who want to live in the sticks they have to drive 1-2hrs to get to an airport...yet for some reason, they should have the right to have a HSR station in their backyard? How does that make sense?

The reason why HSR in Europe works is because they only have stations in densely populated areas. In Europe, a city/county like Syracuse/Onondaga with under $500k people, would have to fight for a station. In NY, because they are #4 metro, they are auto included in the plan.

The problem with HSR in the US is politicians are building it...not business owners.

If you read my post carefully, you would realize I was calculating 90 mph regular trains vs 110 HSR. I said that stops and slowing for stations add to the time.

If HSR was such a great idea, why aren't business owners building it then? There's no law against it. I just don't see how HSR is superior for business use. Shipping a package a half hour faster between Buffalo and Albany is unlikely to make or break a company, especially when the company wastes time getting the package to the station, waiting for the next scheduled train, and then picking up the package. A courier/shipping service using the roads can make the trip faster than a scheduled train and it picks up and delivers door-to-door.

[Linda_D]

I think HSR is alot like the Buffalo subway. There will be "economic develop" (ie, jobs) created by the building of it, but then it will become a white elephant. In and of itself, HSR is NOT going to create economic development after it's built any more than the subway did.

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

I think HSR is alot like the Buffalo subway. There will be "economic develop" (ie, jobs) created by the building of it, but then it will become a white elephant. In and of itself, HSR is NOT going to create economic development after it's built any more than the subway did.

I agree that HSR is a lot like the Buffalo subway...but not like you present.

How they are similar is they will be used by Politicians to create jobs instead of creating something that works. It will be over budget and it will be located where the most people bitch instead of where it would get the most use.

An example of this is the people who think having the HSR station at the Central Terminal is a good idea. It's not...but if they bitch enough and get the right pols behind it...the region is stupid enough to make the same mistake AGAIN by placing the train terminal out there. Another example would be the number of stops and where they are located.

I think it comes down to implementation...which is pretty much always awful for government run projects.


Put it this way...say the Buffalo Subway did not face all of the issues that it did. Say all of those were removed and what was created was a 100% subway from HSBC Arena to UB North.

I think that would have provided a much different and better result than what currently exists. Not saying to would have been a 'silver bullet' but I do think DT Buffalo would look a lot different today if that was the case. Same for Amherst.

[Dougles]

I agree. I think Central Amherst would look a lot more like the City... run down and empty!

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

I agree. I think Central Amherst would look a lot more like the City... run down and empty!

No.

Central Amherst would look like East Amherst. The student housing would have been placed inside of the city, rather than Central Amherst, because it would have been connected to the campus by the metro.