<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: New York Planners Zoom Ahead with HSR Plans</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/03/05/new-york-planners-zoom-ahead-with-hsr-plans/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/03/05/new-york-planners-zoom-ahead-with-hsr-plans/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:19:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: anon.</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/03/05/new-york-planners-zoom-ahead-with-hsr-plans/#comment-614</link>
		<dc:creator>anon.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 06:03:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=1560#comment-614</guid>
		<description>&quot;there’s no need to exercise eminent domain, CSX is willing to sell the required portion of the ROW. It is to their benefit, of course, since it reduces their property tax obligations&quot;

And unlike many states (for instance, Pennsylvania) NY gives *NO* property tax breaks to railroads.  It&#039;s very much in CSX&#039;s interest to have an easement on the rails rather than owning them -- if they can tolerate the lack of control.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;there’s no need to exercise eminent domain, CSX is willing to sell the required portion of the ROW. It is to their benefit, of course, since it reduces their property tax obligations&#8221;</p>
<p>And unlike many states (for instance, Pennsylvania) NY gives *NO* property tax breaks to railroads.  It&#8217;s very much in CSX&#8217;s interest to have an easement on the rails rather than owning them &#8212; if they can tolerate the lack of control.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alon Levy</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/03/05/new-york-planners-zoom-ahead-with-hsr-plans/#comment-609</link>
		<dc:creator>Alon Levy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 01:01:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=1560#comment-609</guid>
		<description>Bruce, the problem is that if the ROW has many curves, then upgrading to HSR can be a pain. The Acela is capable of 200 mph, but runs at less than 100 mph in Connecticut; increasing its speed requires eliminating curves one at a time, with cost and NIMBYism problems at every step.

There&#039;s also a separate issue of priorities. It&#039;s arguably better to spend the money on just electrifying the existing line, and install full HSR tracks in stages. That way, an electric train would run at high speeds on the new lines, and at medium speed on the old lines. This is more flexible because each time money becomes available, it can just be used to upgrade more track sections to high speed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bruce, the problem is that if the ROW has many curves, then upgrading to HSR can be a pain. The Acela is capable of 200 mph, but runs at less than 100 mph in Connecticut; increasing its speed requires eliminating curves one at a time, with cost and NIMBYism problems at every step.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s also a separate issue of priorities. It&#8217;s arguably better to spend the money on just electrifying the existing line, and install full HSR tracks in stages. That way, an electric train would run at high speeds on the new lines, and at medium speed on the old lines. This is more flexible because each time money becomes available, it can just be used to upgrade more track sections to high speed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BruceMcF</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/03/05/new-york-planners-zoom-ahead-with-hsr-plans/#comment-613</link>
		<dc:creator>BruceMcF</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2009 23:32:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=1560#comment-613</guid>
		<description>@ Adam P ... there&#039;s no need to exercise eminent domain, CSX is willing to sell the required portion of the ROW. It is to their benefit, of course, since it reduces their property tax obligations (recall that freight railroads, unlike road freight and air freight, PAYS  tax on its privately owned infrastructure, rather than getting tax subsidy to support taxpayer provided infrastructure).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ Adam P &#8230; there&#8217;s no need to exercise eminent domain, CSX is willing to sell the required portion of the ROW. It is to their benefit, of course, since it reduces their property tax obligations (recall that freight railroads, unlike road freight and air freight, PAYS  tax on its privately owned infrastructure, rather than getting tax subsidy to support taxpayer provided infrastructure).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BruceMcF</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/03/05/new-york-planners-zoom-ahead-with-hsr-plans/#comment-612</link>
		<dc:creator>BruceMcF</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2009 23:29:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=1560#comment-612</guid>
		<description>Regarding the complaint that its not a bullet train system, by the same token a bullet train system is not a mass transit system.

Any system that is designed to fit a particular niche well will, necessarily, &quot;not be&quot; something else.

As a Rapid Rail system, its certainly justifiable.

With respect to electrification, the Dept. of Transportation should insist that all new works include sufficient clearance to be compatible with later overhead electrification. Given that, electrification of the line is a much lower hurdle to cross than getting the line established in the first place.

Indeed, given that HSR ... &quot;real&quot; Rapid Rail as well as &quot;real&quot; bullet trains ... between metro areas of that size with those prospective trip times ought to be able to cover its operating cost and yield a surplus, unlike other rail systems, this is a case where electrification can be directly self-funding.

Provided, of course, that an effective 110mph service gets up and running.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Regarding the complaint that its not a bullet train system, by the same token a bullet train system is not a mass transit system.</p>
<p>Any system that is designed to fit a particular niche well will, necessarily, &#8220;not be&#8221; something else.</p>
<p>As a Rapid Rail system, its certainly justifiable.</p>
<p>With respect to electrification, the Dept. of Transportation should insist that all new works include sufficient clearance to be compatible with later overhead electrification. Given that, electrification of the line is a much lower hurdle to cross than getting the line established in the first place.</p>
<p>Indeed, given that HSR &#8230; &#8220;real&#8221; Rapid Rail as well as &#8220;real&#8221; bullet trains &#8230; between metro areas of that size with those prospective trip times ought to be able to cover its operating cost and yield a surplus, unlike other rail systems, this is a case where electrification can be directly self-funding.</p>
<p>Provided, of course, that an effective 110mph service gets up and running.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam P</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/03/05/new-york-planners-zoom-ahead-with-hsr-plans/#comment-610</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam P</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Mar 2009 22:10:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=1560#comment-610</guid>
		<description>There is plenty of room to add additional tracks, especially since it used to be there already. Plus its is mostly flat and I believe there is only a handful of large bridges. The big issue if they decide to do this would be eliminate all the at-grade crossings. Electrification would be nice, but 110-150mph is still a nice improvement and would pull a lot of people from their cars and paying tolls on the NYS Thruway. What about eminent domain for obtaining part of the ROW from CSX?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is plenty of room to add additional tracks, especially since it used to be there already. Plus its is mostly flat and I believe there is only a handful of large bridges. The big issue if they decide to do this would be eliminate all the at-grade crossings. Electrification would be nice, but 110-150mph is still a nice improvement and would pull a lot of people from their cars and paying tolls on the NYS Thruway. What about eminent domain for obtaining part of the ROW from CSX?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Norman Brown</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/03/05/new-york-planners-zoom-ahead-with-hsr-plans/#comment-611</link>
		<dc:creator>Norman Brown</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Mar 2009 13:40:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=1560#comment-611</guid>
		<description>*-10 B capital cost,  How many passengers do we get for that?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>*-10 B capital cost,  How many passengers do we get for that?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NikolasM</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/03/05/new-york-planners-zoom-ahead-with-hsr-plans/#comment-604</link>
		<dc:creator>NikolasM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 21:00:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=1560#comment-604</guid>
		<description>I thought the entire ROW used to be 4 wide anyways, now in most places just 2. There should be plenty of space.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I thought the entire ROW used to be 4 wide anyways, now in most places just 2. There should be plenty of space.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Boris</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/03/05/new-york-planners-zoom-ahead-with-hsr-plans/#comment-608</link>
		<dc:creator>Boris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:14:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=1560#comment-608</guid>
		<description>The High Speed Rail Task Force Report says, &quot;The network map is based on a compilation of previous passenger rail plans and
proposals from 30 years of studies.&quot;

For how many years did we study highways before building hundreds of them?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The High Speed Rail Task Force Report says, &#8220;The network map is based on a compilation of previous passenger rail plans and<br />
proposals from 30 years of studies.&#8221;</p>
<p>For how many years did we study highways before building hundreds of them?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Strauss</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/03/05/new-york-planners-zoom-ahead-with-hsr-plans/#comment-607</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Strauss</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:47:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=1560#comment-607</guid>
		<description>The existing CSX ROW is wide enough for a third track.  It was built with four tracks by the NY Central back in the 19th or early 20th century.  Except for a small segment west of Albany (less than 20 miles) I believe the entire ROW is owned by CSX.  NY State will have to negotiate a lease or sale of ROW to buld the passenger rail track.

The 20 or so miles west of Albany is single track and owned by Amtrak.  NY State is working with Amtrak to build a second track there and build the missing 4th station track in Albany.  Both projects will greatly improve on-time performance in the Empire Corridor.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The existing CSX ROW is wide enough for a third track.  It was built with four tracks by the NY Central back in the 19th or early 20th century.  Except for a small segment west of Albany (less than 20 miles) I believe the entire ROW is owned by CSX.  NY State will have to negotiate a lease or sale of ROW to buld the passenger rail track.</p>
<p>The 20 or so miles west of Albany is single track and owned by Amtrak.  NY State is working with Amtrak to build a second track there and build the missing 4th station track in Albany.  Both projects will greatly improve on-time performance in the Empire Corridor.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cap'n Transit</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/03/05/new-york-planners-zoom-ahead-with-hsr-plans/#comment-606</link>
		<dc:creator>Cap'n Transit</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:46:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=1560#comment-606</guid>
		<description>I mean, rebuild one of the previously existing tracks?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I mean, rebuild one of the previously existing tracks?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

