[harry chickpea]

My intent in posting in the thread was to comment on the amazing thread drift, and I found myself drawn in to a debate that I had hoped to avoid. The original post in the thread showed to me that while Nexis4Jersey is interested in rail, as are many of us, the cogent discussions of practicalities were being sidetracked, and a greater understanding of rail economics shunted to the wrecker track. Example: Another line for some reason fell off the map , it would run from Rutland to Greenfield,Mass via Bennington & North Adams.... Short of a Gothard tunnel being constructed for it, the geographics of the route make it physically impractical, especially for HSR, to say nothing of the economics involved.

The debate has turned into a "religious" one, where personal beliefs and faith attempt to trump common empirically tested laws of economics and physics. I know from past experience that such discussions result in repetition of points to no effect, and once the original positions are stated fully become further attempts become time wasters.

I applaud Nexis4Jersey's interest in rail, while at the same time being a little disturbed with his fetish on the single aspect of high speed passenger rail. All I can suggest to readers of the thread is to do their own research into costs, benefits, success rates, and the history of rail, and make their own conclusions.

[DarkWolf]

Originally Posted by harry chickpea

My intent in posting in the thread was to comment on the amazing thread drift, and I found myself drawn in to a debate that I had hoped to avoid. The original post in the thread showed to me that while Nexis4Jersey is interested in rail, as are many of us, the cogent discussions of practicalities were being sidetracked, and a greater understanding of rail economics shunted to the wrecker track. Example: Another line for some reason fell off the map , it would run from Rutland to Greenfield,Mass via Bennington & North Adams.... Short of a Gothard tunnel being constructed for it, the geographics of the route make it physically impractical, especially for HSR, to say nothing of the economics involved.

The debate has turned into a "religious" one, where personal beliefs and faith attempt to trump common empirically tested laws of economics and physics. I know from past experience that such discussions result in repetition of points to no effect, and once the original positions are stated fully become further attempts become time wasters.

I applaud Nexis4Jersey's interest in rail, while at the same time being a little disturbed with his fetish on the single aspect of high speed passenger rail. All I can suggest to readers of the thread is to do their own research into costs, benefits, success rates, and the history of rail, and make their own conclusions.

I never said HSR for the Western line , its a regional line , as with the Vermonter/Knowledge Corridor. 125mph is the lower end of the High Speed Rail dept , but its used for many lower ridership corridors or rural areas.... Regional Rail has speeds between 50-125mph , the Vermonter is technically a Regional Rail line. I never really said it was High Speed Rail. Theres a private Proposal to build a line between Boston and Montreal however Economics in the present don't make it as viable as say a I-90 HSL between Boston and Buffalo or a New Northeast Corridor between Boston and New York City via Inland Connecticut or Massachusetts.... On the First page I explained all the speeds and other things , if you gotten confused that's your own fault.

[delmioquartiere]

Dick Maza talking about train service from Burlington to NYC on TV today. That should work out just great!

Lets see take a train 6 1/2 hours or get on Jet Blue and be there in 45 minutes for less money.

[tkln]

Factoring in getting to the airport, waiting at the gate and waiting for luggage, flying time for me turns into an almost 4 hour affair, and it hasn't been cheaper than $75 each way in a really long time. My mom takes Amtrak for $57 each way, just takes 8 hours lol. If it was 2 hours quicker I would seriously consider the train.

[nei]

Haven't followed the thread, but a rail connection to NYC would be a useful thing, especially as driving into the city doesn't work that well with congestion and parking. From Rutland to Burlington is roughly 65-70 miles so there's not that much track that needs to refuribushed. And with service to Burlington it would be a far more useful service. Add a stop in Middlebury as well. According to the wikipedia article, the current service is limited to 59 mph, it would need to be raised to the usual Amtrak 79 mph to be a useful route. Right now the west side Vermont Amtrak is a half-way route: almost there, but misses the largest population center and too slow.

The east side Vermonter will be sped by work done in Massachusetts allowing a more direct route, and will be more useful. Perhaps from White River Junction southward the frequency could be increased?

[68vette]

The train may be an option for some, but it is much cheaper to drive or take the bus. If you plan your route or know the tricks of getting into the city, you can make the trip by car in 5 hours from Burlington without speeding. The bus is always faster and much cheaper. My daughter only uses the bus right now coming back to Burlington. Several hours faster and the train can be just as bad as dealing with flight issues. The last three times she used the train, were nightmares. They were 4 hours delayed because of an accident down the line, the train had to stop and unboard all passengers onto bus service to Springfield, MA due to a bridge fire and the last time she took the train, the train hit a car trying to cross the tracks.