New report evaluates HSR routes, including PGH's (Pittsburgh, Harrisburg: fit in, depreciation)

[DarkWolf]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Someone didn't get the memo that Pittsburgh is the #1 large American metro of the future:

Burgh Diaspora - Economic Development From Geographic Mobility

I'm also a little confused about how Harrisburg, and not Pittsburgh, could be considered worthy for HSR.

But--whatever. Maybe Ohio will get its act back together and we can start working with them again.

Harrisburg is the JCT of the states current and future Railway network....the Eastern Network needs more $$$ then the Western Network. Ridership is already there for the eastern system. In a Decade or 2 the Western side of PA will have ridership for a HSL. But right now it seems wasteful....

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

Harrisburg is the JCT of the states current and future Railway network....the Eastern Network needs more $$$ then the Western Network.

It is crucial to spend money now to improve rail to Harrisburg because it is the junction with a future network to Pittsburgh that doesn't yet exist, and in fact you think we shouldn't spend any money on creating?

Ridership is already there for the eastern system. In a Decade or 2 the Western side of PA will have ridership for a HSL. But right now it seems wasteful....

Funny how that works: spend a bunch of money upgrading the line to Harrisburg, and ridership to Harrisburg goes way up. This, of course, is a reason not to spend any money on a line to Pittsburgh, because after not spending any money on it, ridership is relatively stagnant.

I look forward to repeating this conversation in a decade or two--after investing nothing in rail to Pittsburgh, strangely enough, there will probably still not be as much ridership to Pittsburgh. Lather, rinse, repeat. Eventually, people will be whisked on gold-plated maglev trains in vacuum tunnels with free personal masseurs to Harrisburg, and Pittsburgh will still get nothing. All because--strangely enough--riders will still prefer the line to Harrisburg.

[pman]

I dont see why it has to be either or. If this gets funded i look forward to the state implementing some of the finding from the current pittsburgh study. Certainly it should take precendent over scranton

[I_Like_Spam]

I just don't see much of a call for high speed rail here in Pittsburgh.

Are there really enough travelers to justify the high cost of this program, particularly as the Pittsburgh region is pretty spread out with the urbanized area approaching Washington to the south and well into Butler County in the north.



I can't see it competing very successfully with driving, and bus transportation or ordinary speed railroads are a lot less expensive for those who don't wish to drive.

Busses might not be that exciting or cutting edge, but they offer the flexibility to change routes or deliver smaller loads of passengers that high speed rail can't begin to approach.

[BrianTH]

True HSR primarily competes with short haul airplane flights, which it can beat on costs, convenience, comfort/productivity, and speed. Driving and buses aren't really a substitute at the relevant distances. For example, you could be talking around 2 hours to DC or Philly. Driving and buses aren't in that category.

[I_Like_Spam]

I don't think that HSR is really that cost efficient, in comparison to driving/busses or airlines.

The cost of building, maintaining and running the system are pretty great.

And convenience wise, driving has a lot going for it, as you can make your own schedule. If there are a half dozen trips a day from Pittsburgh to DC, for example, that's still an average 4 hour gap between the trips. Driving also allows for portal to portal service. If someone is going from Mt. Lebanon to Leesburg VA, they have to still make their way to the Pittsburgh train station and then from the DC station to their final destination in Leesburg.

Unless someone is going straight from downtown Pittsburgh to downtown DC, the convenience and speed aspect to the HSR is a bit overstated. Of course its the same with air transport, and making to and from the airport.

[DarkWolf]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

It is crucial to spend money now to improve rail to Harrisburg because it is the junction with a future network to Pittsburgh that doesn't yet exist, and in fact you think we shouldn't spend any money on creating?



Funny how that works: spend a bunch of money upgrading the line to Harrisburg, and ridership to Harrisburg goes way up. This, of course, is a reason not to spend any money on a line to Pittsburgh, because after not spending any money on it, ridership is relatively stagnant.

I look forward to repeating this conversation in a decade or two--after investing nothing in rail to Pittsburgh, strangely enough, there will probably still not be as much ridership to Pittsburgh. Lather, rinse, repeat. Eventually, people will be whisked on gold-plated maglev trains in vacuum tunnels with free personal masseurs to Harrisburg, and Pittsburgh will still get nothing. All because--strangely enough--riders will still prefer the line to Harrisburg.

Still there should be more $$$ spent into restoring and connecting lines into NJ and NY then over Pittsburgh. Western PA can wait , but PA is holding up key projects in the East and for no reason. NJ and NY can only do so much....

[pman]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

Still there should be more $$$ spent into restoring and connecting lines into NJ and NY then over Pittsburgh. Western PA can wait , but PA is holding up key projects in the East and for no reason. NJ and NY can only do so much....

no reason? You mean aside from money? I have to disagree with you. Connecting the states biggest cities is more important than monroe cty rail service

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

I don't think that HSR is really that cost efficient, in comparison to driving/busses or airlines.

The cost of building, maintaining and running the system are pretty great.

The cost of building it is not that different from the cost of building highways or airports, and once it is built it is cheaper to operate. And this is going to become increasingly true as oil prices increase.

And convenience wise, driving has a lot going for it, as you can make your own schedule. If there are a half dozen trips a day from Pittsburgh to DC, for example, that's still an average 4 hour gap between the trips.

They would likely be scheduled to allow a day trip either way. Less than four hours roundtrip on the train versus more like nine hours driving makes a day trip possible.

Driving also allows for portal to portal service. If someone is going from Mt. Lebanon to Leesburg VA, they have to still make their way to the Pittsburgh train station and then from the DC station to their final destination in Leesburg.

It is true the convenience/speed depends on end points. But Mt. Lebanon is on the T, and then in DC anything near a Metro station would be easy to get to. Of course you could also use cars on either end if necessary. Having a core trip time with a 2+ hour advantage gives you a lot of room on the ends before driving the whole way will become faster.

Of course its the same with air transport, and making to and from the airport.

Exactly. For trips of this length, we know that HSR can compete effectively with air travel, and we know there is already frequent air travel between Pittsburgh and DC, Pittsburgh and Philly, and so on. That is really all you need to know to conclude there is a potential market for HSR.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

Still there should be more $$$ spent into restoring and connecting lines into NJ and NY then over Pittsburgh. Western PA can wait , but PA is holding up key projects in the East and for no reason. NJ and NY can only do so much....

Yeah, yeah, we get it. Your vision is gold-plated vacuum trains for New Jersey, and nothing for "flyover country".