Albany Area Rising- need commuter rail (New Haven, Jay: maintenance, price, light rail)

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by X-man rising

transit is not all about "need". If you're referring to the Wasatch front, that's like comparing Albany-Schenectady-Troy-Amsterdam, Clifton Park, Pittsfield, Saratoga region. If you compare LIKE urban areas, population numbers are similar (have you BEEN to Salt Lake? :-) and density is considerably greater in Albany metro. Not to mention the 50,000+ students, many of whom don't come from the direct area NOR the fact that Albany metro is one of the top aging areas in the country.

Compare relevant facts and we can have a conversation that's steeped in relevency. Reciting the same 5 or 6 overly-generic factors just doesn't cut it anymore.

Still, if Albany wishes to be left behind Seattle, Austin, Minneapolis, Salt Lake, Ottawa, Sheffield, Adeliade, Tacoma and many, many, many others...it'd hardly be the first time. Albany continues to squander its potential to break out and lead. Sad.

Sorry to disagree with you again X-man, but funding transportation is all about need or at least it should be. Yes, there are pork barrel projects everywhere but to spend $300 million on a rail line in Albany would be a push even Hillary would have a hard time to push through if she is elected President. There are hundreds of cities with greater traffic problems and transportation needs. That is just the way it is. And no I am not the bureaucrat you accuse me of being and may be I am not being a "visionary" that you would like me to be, but it is hard to say that spending $300 million to $700 million on one small transit project that ould be used by a few thousand people in an area where it is marginally needed is a good idea. Jay

[livecontent]

I grew up near Buffalo, NY(Cheektowaga) and it had a terrible transit system in the fifties through the seventies, when the city had 550,000 people with the area over 2 million. Very little of the transit went into the suburbs.

I moved the Denver in 1979 and I was stunned. The area had a great bus transit system that extended well out into the suburbs with multiple park and rides. This was in a Spread out Western Area and in the condensed Buffalo area--there was very little past the city limits.

It is disgusting to see the second largest city in the "Empire State" with terrible mass transit. Of Course, the area has half the people today, so why would the state bother to care if they did not care fifty years ago. Other areas of the country, with less population and more expansive areas, are moving into great mass transit. And the state capital of Albany, not to have a good system, says that the big shots in New York City do not care about the rest of the state. "Empire State" is not what it is---it is a backwoods state with most of the people entrenched in "the city" and the rest is all "upstate".

Look around New Yorkers, the rest of the country is rapidly growing transit lines and Denver is expanding, quickly, light rail, heavy rail and bus rapid systems. The City of New York and suburbs are the leader in transit and many other fields but will not see that there is more to the state.

I believe the rest of New York should separate from that self centered metro area and take this beautiful area and the great people and apply for inclusion to neighboring states.

[JWKessler]

It's interesting to compare the differences in philosophy between the US and Europe. In the US the State and Federal governments collect taxes and use the money to pay for roads and generally subsidize private automobiles. Government policy is also used to keep gas prices low. In Europe the government collects taxes and uses the funds to invest in public transit - mostly in the form of rail. Government policy also tends to keep fuel prices high. As a result you can live in most areas of Europe with out needing to own a car. Even small towns are served by some form of reliable rail service.

As for requiring large population densities to support rail service, I'm a rail fan and enjoy watching films of old rail operations. I'm always amazed at how crowded the trolleys were in those old films. Before cars took over and clogged the streets, many people used these systems - and this was back when the US population was much smaller than it is today.

To those who feel that public transportation systems must be profitable and self sustaining to be effective, I wonder how you might feel if we took the same attitude with automobiles. Should all roads be run for a profit? Should private car owners pay directly for the cost of building and maintaining the bridges and other highway infrastructure they drive on?

If we can have tax supported infrastructure for private automobiles, why can't we have the same for public transportation?

[Sgoldie]

I like the idea of light rail as well. It will have to be part of an urban planning dynamic which incorporates access of residential as well as shopping and work areas that may be fundamentally different than they are now. Many cities will change in the future.

There's just not enough parking available in downtowns, people want walkable areas, our population is increasing, seniors may not be able to drive, riding is less stressful than driving, maintaining multiple cars is expensive, expanding sprawl makes commuting increasingly untenable, urban parking costs will become more expensive than ridership.

People won't have to give up their cars entirely, unless they want to, which is what I think scares them. A well planned out system of light rail and busses or trolleys in combination in addition to cars is what we will be seeing a lot more of.

[rug city]

Just a small example of the insatiable need for pouring millions into keeping up w/the crush of cars into capital area in Albany--All of last year, a literal line of cement trucks would roll past the front of the State Education building to pour concrete for the massive Sheridan Hollow Parking garage. The garage is manned with security, has elevators and a long waiting list to get access to it- not to mention is butt ugly.

The skyline of Albany is now punctuated every few blocks with another parking garage/lot and they will never be able to keep up w/demand. The most popular is just off Thruway Exit 23 and has a line of buses waiting to shuttle the drones from their cars to 7 or 8 stops downtown.

[Logan11]

Originally Posted by JWKessler

It's interesting to compare the differences in philosophy between the US and Europe. In the US the State and Federal governments collect taxes and use the money to pay for roads and generally subsidize private automobiles.

This is a fantastic point. Can you imagine the amount of goverment money that is spent every year to keep the interstate system in a good state of repair and improvements/new highways? That is a government subsidy that probably dwarfs that $300,000 - $700,00 number I see bandied about here. And how about the subsidization of the trucking industry? The freight hauling industry shifted from the rails to the highways in large part and the goverment has been picking up the tab for all of the infrastructure.

If the people that use the roads were assessed on a per mile basis for the true cost, all of a sudden it might not seem like such a bad idea to try mass transit

[Fearringtonflash]

I agree on light rail needs. But it is important to remember that the actual transportation function is only part of the picture. Light rail lines can concentrate denser development in narrower corridors, reducing urban/suburban sprawl. So light rail is as much a situs planning tool as it is a transportation mechanism

[JiminCT]

I look at my home city of Hartford that doesnt have a commuter rail..and there are over 2 million people in the Hartford -Springfield corridor. I suspect that the if there are federal dollars to be allocated to mass transit projects, there are many other cities that will get priority over Albany. That one would seem to be one that would be funded within NY state. Seattle, Hartford, Nashville are a few cities that need mass transit more than Albany.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by JiminCT

I look at my home city of Hartford that doesnt have a commuter rail..and there are over 2 million people in the Hartford -Springfield corridor. I suspect that the if there are federal dollars to be allocated to mass transit projects, there are many other cities that will get priority over Albany. That one would seem to be one that would be funded within NY state. Seattle, Hartford, Nashville are a few cities that need mass transit more than Albany.

JiminCT - There are plans to begin commuter rail service from Springfield to Hartford and New Haven. It has received funding from the Connecticut State Legislature and is currently going through its environmental review process. Even though it serves an area with approximately 2 million people, it is expected to never be profitable or pay for itself. And it would be built on an exisintg rail line with minimal infrastructure costs. Jay

[JiminCT]

Hartford needs above ground ELECTRIC lines on that rail...and refurbished stations. THey still use diesel engines for the Amtrak line.

Albany...simply too small right now to warrant commuter rail