Shuster: Improved Rail Access wrong for central PA & Pittsburgh (Philadelphia: house, construction)

[pman]

Shuster said, I believe in rail investment “where it makes sense.” But, Shuster noted, he didn’t ask for help funding rail improvements between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh – and that line goes right through his district. But it’s not a strategic investment priority for the country.

LaHood Defends High-Speed Rail Program At House Hearing | Streetsblog Capitol Hill

[2nd trick op]

As much as I like railroading and enjoy rail travel, I can't see much justification for expanding rail service beyonf the eastern 1/3 of the state.

The city of Pittsburgh never had "commuter" trains in the traditional sense; it did, at one time, have "accomodation" or "suburban" services originating in places like Greensburg, Kitanning, Washington, McKeesport, Rochester and Burgettstown. These were geared to day trips into the city for shopping rather than work, since most people worked close to home, and Pittsburgh had not yeat developed an "office culture similar to Bston, New York, Philadelphia and Chicago. With one exception (the former Pittsburgh and Lake Erie to McKeespoert and Beaver County) all of these seriices were gone by the early 1960's.

Service between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh is similarly hard to warrant because most people in the communities in between are locally employed, and the remainder of the population, mostly elderly and /or non-driving, could be adequately served by buses (which, BTW, are already subsuduzed) The one exception -- State College -- would have to be served by connecting busues from Lewistown. All you PSU alumni are likely familiar with the term "Seven Mountains" which has always made a rail connection to Happy Valley impossible, even in the days when a phone number for service "to Lewistown and PRR" was posted next to the phones in PSU dormitories.

East of US Route 11, things are somewhat more promising. Philadelphia's SEPTA operated a system of "exurban" trains which reached points as distant as Bethlehem, Reading and Pottville. These lasted until the early 1980's, and would likely be easier to revive since popuation density is greater and the faclities, while downgraderd, are still there in most cases. Service from these points (and Harrisburg) directly to New York and New Jersey, however, would be more ov a challenge, since Conrail has diverted about a threefold increase in freight moves oto the former Reading Lines such service would have to use.

Finally, as evidenced in the link below, our own Senator Casey has been keeping a watchful eye toward the possiblilty of reviving conventional rail service, as opposed to the over-hyped and prohibitively expensive High Spped Rail (HSR) networks ballyhooed in the euphoria at the Inauguration of our current Administration. These could prove to be a much more pragmatic alterative if our economy's recovery continues to be hampered by fuel concerns.

RAILROAD.NET • View topic - Sen. Casey urges slower speeds for high-speed rail contracts

[Craziaskowboi]

Pittsburgh is big enough that it ought to be connected with the rest of the state, plus other places like Washington DC. Besides, a good train line would get those who don't belong on the Interstates off the Interstates.

[pman]

Im really somewhat confused by the logic of no commuter railroad means there should be no intercity passenger rail. There used to be literally dozens of trains between pittsburgh and philly..so by historic logic there should be service indeed. The bus argument is also a bit specious. No one is arguing we need rail to johnstown....johnstwon happens to be on the way to pittsburgh. I fail to see how an improved connection to the outside world wouldnt benefit johnstown

[airwave09]

I also would like to know what commuter rail and locals living in the towns between the route would have to do with justifying inter-city rail. When it comes to this study, the people living in Johnstown on a Pittsburgh to Philly/NYC train are not the reason for which a route like this would be created.

You would have to study how many people would use a train to travel between the major cities themselves, and then pick the best candidates for smaller stops in between using potential riders and distance between stops.

This study has literally nothing to do with commuters, only much farther city-to-city destinations that are too long to drive but also too short to fly. With Pittsburgh's increasing national popularity as not only a tourist attraction but as a place to move to, I see this idea making more and more economic sense by the minute.

Not to mention all of the ex-burghers that have moved east thanks to the steel bust (especially to DC), and the USAir monopoly on the Pitt to Philly flights ($700 a pop). With these facts in hand how can anyone not see how this route would pay for itself very quickly if done right?

Heck, I would use the train to get to NYC in a couple of weeks for New Years if it already existed.

[2nd trick op]

The people who don't have access to a car, or are afraid to fly, already have analternative; it's called a bus, and admittedly, it's not very glamorous or very comfortable, but it gets the job done, and the taxpayers are already subsidizing it.

The reason for LaHood's, and other Administration flunkies supporting this proposal is really quite simple -- it involves government hijacking of private-sector responsibilities, and overpriced union labor.

If the public wanted this frill, and were willing to pay the full price, it would appear on its own. But rail passenger service, under any conditions, can't recover the full cost of its provision, due mostly to the fact that it involves huge amounts of fixed capital, which then becomes hostage to all manner of political looters.

Having said that, it should be recognized that in many places -- generally on the fringes of major cities where congestion is too great for additional highway expansion, there is no alternative to passenger rail. That is why Los Angeles, South Florida, Dallas/Fort Worth and Washington have all started suburban rail systems whithin the past several years.

But this example is a simple political ploy, started by the usual suspects -- "good jobs for da people", and dues for the labor racketeers.

[2nd trick op]

Originally Posted by airwave09

Not to mention all of the ex-burghers that have moved east thanks to the steel bust (especially to DC), and the USAir monopoly on the Pitt to Philly flights ($700 a pop). .

I'd like to know how that $700 figure was arrived upon. Admittedly, it might be relevant for "on demand" service -- which few people use, since most of us plan our travel well in advance -- or for short-notice business travel (for which the company picks up the tab).

BTW, I operated the bus service in my home town of Berwick for about a year during the 1990's. Short-notice travel for funerals and the like, priced out of the airline market by the scenario described above, was one of the few promising sectors of the bus-travel market.

[pman]

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

The people who don't have access to a car, or are afraid to fly, already have analternative; it's called a bus,... and the taxpayers are already subsidizing it.

...

If the public wanted this frill, and were willing to pay the full price

so you support bus subsidies, air subsidies, and road subsidies, but railroad subsidies are wrong, and are only supported by union loving schlubs? just want to make sure I understand your point of view.

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

which then becomes hostage to all manner of political looters.

as opposed to highway construction which requires small amounts of capital and is completely free of political connections for paving contracts, construction, sweetheart land deals?

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

Having said that, it should be recognized that in many places -- generally on the fringes of major cities where congestion is too great for additional highway expansion, there is no alternative to passenger rail.

commuter rail is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

I'd like to know how that $700 figure was arrived upon. Admittedly, it might be relevant for "on demand" service -- which few people use, since most of us plan our travel well in advance -- or for short-notice business travel (for which the company picks up the tab).

nope, it's for same day travel...planned in advance or walkup...leisure travel will also double or treble once southwest ends service in january.

The fact is, roads constitute one of the biggest tax burdens we face.Non-users fork over $779 per household for roads — as opposed to $50 for transit. But most drivers still believe that transit eats a huge chunk of transportation funding while roads are self-supporting. SSTI wanted to dispel that notion, said study author Bill Holloway.

http://ssti.us/wp/wp-content/uploads...s%20report.pdf

[Blackbeauty212]

Wow I never knew how Elitist the Eastern Side of the state has become towards the Western....Its like they're totally oblivious to the anything important west of Harrisburg

[2nd trick op]

Originally Posted by pman

so you support bus subsidies, air subsidies, and road subsidies, but railroad subsidies are wrong, and are only supported by union loving schlubs? just want to make sure I understand your point of view.

I don't "support" subsidies for anybody; in theory all business should operate in a laissez-faire environment, but we all recognize that that's not completely practical. The current congestion at the edge of major cities is an example that rail service can address at (probably) a lower cost per passenger than the other alternatives. But ultimately the choice rests with the individual traveler/customer, as it should.

Re-instituing a lightly-used and more-expensive rail option to serve a handful of railroad buffs (of which, I admit to being, BTW) finicky grandparents and expensive (and state sanction-monopolized) union labor is not a reasonably priced option, so the use of the state's access to the power to coerce is sought.

nope, it's for same day travel...planned in advance or walkup...leisure travel will also double or treble once southwest ends service in january.

Then you still have the option of waiting until the next day, or booking in advance, or flying on a competitor based at a nearby airport like Allentown. This is all about the overindulged adult/child who resents having to pay more for getting things exactly their way, which is a central principle of all entrepreneurship. (And exacltly why the natural foe, the political hack who doles out access to the government's monopoly on the power to coerce, doesn't like it).