Albany, NY – New York transportation officials are setting up public hearings to discuss options for an idea that has been kicked around for years but has yet to leave the station: high-speed passenger rail service.
Join our WhatsApp groupSubscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
Boosting the speeds of trains traveling Amtrak’s Empire Corridor between New York City and Niagara Falls has been the goal of industry leaders, elected officials and transit advocates for two decades. Progress may be coming down the line now that the state Department of Transportation and the Federal Railroad Administration have scheduled hearings next month in six upstate cities along the 463-mile corridor.
New York was required to conduct the environmental review to be eligible for any new federal funding for high-speed rail, according to DOT spokesman Beau Duffy.
“It has taken longer than anyone had wanted, but we’re happy this draft is out and the hearings are scheduled,” said Bruce Becker of East Amherst, president of the Empire State Passengers Association, a passenger rail advocacy group.
The public meetings will be held between March 4 and March 14, starting in Albany and followed by Syracuse, Buffalo, Rochester, Utica and Poughkeepsie. The public will have the opportunity to view displays and question experts about the plans.
The environmental review analyzes the five most viable higher-speed options for trains with top operating speeds of 79, 90, 110 and 125 mph. The current top speed allowed west of Schenectady is 79 mph, although the study said the current average speed for Amtrak trains traveling between Buffalo and Albany barely tops 50 mph. Trains traveling between Albany and Manhattan can go as fast as 110 mph along some stretches.
The costs of the plans range from $1.7 billion to $6.2 billion, with the most expensive calling for construction of a third track dedicated to passenger trains traveling the 273 miles between Schenectady and the Amtrak station in Depew, just east of Buffalo. That plan, favored by Beck’s group, would also add a fourth passenger track over a combined distance of nearly 40 miles in five separate locations.
Once the state selects its option, the FRA must sign off on the plan, which isn’t expected to happen for an additional six months to a year, Duffy said.
Amtrak must share existing rail lines with CSX freight trains that are given track priority, a situation that frequently causes delays for the passenger trains. The main east-west choke point is the single track that runs between Albany and Schenectady. Upgrades to that 17-mile existing stretch were completed in December, while work on a new second track between the two cities is expected to begin this year, Duffy said.
New York’s efforts at high-speed rail, or at least higher-speed service, have not succeeded in the past. In December 2012, the state auctioned off surplus train cars and other rail equipment from a failed project to improve service between Albany and New York City. The state bought the trains and related gear in 1998, during the Pataki administration, to test higher-speed service along the Hudson River. Technical problems and the inability of the tracks to support the faster trains sidelined the project.
State officials say high-speed trains can boost tourism and economic development in the upstate region, as well as reduce highway traffic and pollution. Improving Amtrak’s on-time record and increasing the frequency of trains running between Manhattan and Buffalo would move New York state much closer to that goal, Becker said.
“Folks are using Amtrak,” Becker said. “With improvement in reliability and shorter trip times, we feel more and more folks will pick Amtrak over flying to New York City or driving.”
WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONIES! They won’t get that many more people taking it that would make it worth anything.
Soon we will have complete gridlock on the roads and streets ,unless something is done to improve mass transportation. There was an elevated train line on every north south avenue in Manhattan to bring passengers to work. and 30 ferries to Manhattan that was all ended by 1945 so that cars became the norm.
Charlie, 2 to 6 Billion dollars is a lot of money for trains.
Charlie, systems that work well in Europe don’t necessarily apply here in the U.S. I agree that Mark Levine is an idiot but even a broken clock is right twice a day. I cannot imagine that there would be sufficient ridership to sustain service on such a route. Most of the traffic would be between NYC and Albany which already has pretty good rail service. Perhaps a high speed line on that route would be viable, but the route proposed, notwithstanding the efficiency of rail transport, could only exist with heavy government subsidies.
The unfortunate fact is that intercity train travel, even high speed, in the U.S. cannot compete with travel by air or auto. I don’t know how long it currently takes to get from NYC to Niagara Falls by train or even if it’s possible to do so these days (When I was a kid, my family actually went to Niagara Falls by train. it was an overnight trip.) but I can get there by car in about five hours. How fast would the train have to make the trip so that my total travel time, with intermediate stops and including driving into the city, parking, waiting to board, renting a car at Niagara Falls, etc. would be less than five hours?
Let’s spend billions to increase speeds of trains by a few miles per hour.
That sure worked out well for Acela, which barely ekes out much increased speeds for amtrak.
Massive waste of money. People clearly prefer planes and driving to taking the train.
to pursue my previous thought, mass transit advocates often point to Europe as a model of popular efficient intercity rail travel. What works in Europe doesn’t work so well here for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the distances in Europe are significantly shorter. In France, the TGV takes about 2 and a half hours to go from Paris to Avignon (my buddy lives in Avignon). It is a 7 hour car trip. The TGV runs at about 300 KM/Hr so thats about 700 KM or about 400 miles. Outside of the Northeast Corridor, 400 miles gets you about half way to Chicago. Even at 300km/hr, it would still take a day’s travel to get to Chicago. By plane it’s a two hour trip. You could leave NYC early enough to make a morning meeting.
Secondly, rail travel is inconvenient or most Americans. American cities are organized differently than European ones. Trains mostly travel between city centers. In Europe, that works out well because the center is where most of the middle and upper middle class folks, I.E. the ones likely to travel, live. Here in the U.S., except for Manhattan, the most likely travelers live in the suburbs making getting downtown to catch a train a major pain. Easier to drive.
About time for high speed trains, although I am not sure if Niagra -NYC would be best starting point. Perhaps Niagara to Washington DC via NYC.