Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think high speed rail will be great for Upstate, but I think localized light rail systems, like connecting outlying cities Amsterdam, Schenec, Saratoga to downtown Albany would be more important. Microcities downtowns could be revitalized- imagine a bustling downtown train station, people grabbing a breakfast in the AM & a quick beer after work in a nearby cafe. As it is now, commuters jump in their cars, bypass downtowns, and don't even think about doing anything social after work besides jumping in their cars to beat traffic.
You wonder why many Westchester towns still have thriving downtowns? The metro north passes through many of them on their way to Grand Central.
Diversified transportation would be like having a deversified energy supplier.
The airlines are very fast, but are a pain and not usefull on short distances.
The cost to own a car is expensive, you pay for parking sometimes, tolls, construction and traffic jams. Long distances can wear you down.
Trains are slow, but very comfortable and almost hassle free. Plus you can eat or drink, use the restroom without having to leave the train.
I've got news for you, most trains in NY are far faster than driving (w/ the exception of a few routes). However, other than the Acela driving is faster than Amtrak.
I've got news for you, most trains in NY are far faster than driving (w/ the exception of a few routes). However, other than the Acela driving is faster than Amtrak.
I disagree, you can still drive to most places Upstate faster than what the train travels. The train makes alot of stops and does not travel as fast as a car normally would on the 90.
I disagree, you can still drive to most places Upstate faster than what the train travels. The train makes alot of stops and does not travel as fast as a car normally would on the 90.
If you read what I wrote, I said w/ the exception of the Acela driving is faster than Amtrak. This would apply to upstate since there isn't a train system upstate.
The Upstate trains are a lot slower in part because the tracks in the Northeast outside of the NYC metro area are owned by commercial freight hauling companies. Derailments, accidents and so on make it almost impossible for Amtrak to keep to its schedules.
well if you use the antiquated steel-rail technology, then the trains will have to be subsidized to cover operating costs and will not travel as fast.
but check out this: fastransitinc.com
This is the future of high speed rail travel. I even had an opportunity to meet in person with the company CEO right here in NYS (Rockefeller Center) and I can tell you this technology is for real.
It uses stationary magnetic suspension, utilizes almost no energy (other than that required to displace air) and can be integrated with existing rail infrastructure without interfering with conventional rail travel. But most importantly, it costs very little to build (<15 mil/ mile) and has extremely low operating costs, thus making even a low fare structure be able to pay for the capital costs on top of the operating costs within a decade, if not sooner.
Hook the cities upstate with this, and you will see all kinds of development take place where it belongs, in our aging city centers (buffalo, rochester, syracuse, utica, schenectady, albany, poughkeepsie).
check out the site and let me know what you guys think. The technology is 12 million dollars shy of completing their test track in California, making this system ready for implementation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.