NYSW OnTrack's dirty laundry?

I don't think it broke even in the first place, even with all kinds of volunteer help to run the thing.

Look at all the hassle Congel has had building the mall, it's no wonder they couldn't get one little bridge built. I think that they would have been smarter to bring him aboard for the trains, if possible, and get him to help lobby to get that Park Street bridge completely replaced. If they build that thing into the huge retail center it's supposed to become, that's always going to be a bottleneck because you have three lanes there and that's it and all there can ever be.


Which, there was a rumor for a while that some Amtrak money would be used for a project that would have involved a 3-day curfew to remove and replace the existing bridge with a longer one that also would carry a third and maybe even a fourth track. But like everything else nothing came of it.

For being built in 1958 or so, the stonework for the existing bridge is in pretty rough-looking shape.

I agree with the assessment of how the politics of the situation works, and what was in it for NYSW. Say what you will about the departed Mr Rich, he did indeed play the game well. And yes, he did some real good for NY State in the process.

That said, Syracuse could have been a success story, and one that illustrated how to make rail transit work in smaller towns. You had concentrations of riders, a couple of concentrated destinations, and existing ROWs that connected (well, ALMOST connected) them.

Unfortunately, as one poster said, Syracuse is a car town, as are most American cities, and virtually all of them with MSA populations under a million.

What would it take to change that? Ten dollar gasoline, sustained for long enough to get everyone's undivided attention.

And a price spike from another mideast war isn't enough to do that. Once the shooting stops, prices will be driven down, and we will go back to doing what's convenient (driving everywhere).

Tax policy, on the other hand, could do precisely that. But I haven't seen a lot of people willing to run for office on a promise to radically increase fuel taxes. Even the global warming activists shy away from just how they plan to reduce transportation emissions, because an honest discussion of what is required would be instant political suicide.

Face it folks, we have the government we deserve.

nessman wrote:it all starts with the contributions that companies make to the politicians.

No, it all starts with the citizens who want governments to interfere in the marketplace. The citizens believe that government will protect them from the companies, but it's the companies that end up being protected from citizens.

While I happen to believe that less legislation is good legislation, I realize that other people disagree. Where I hope everyone can agree is that monopoly, non-competitve government is bad. That's why our country was designed so that the central government had a strictly limited set of tasks, with everything else delegated to the competing states. So I'm fine with people regulating businesses, because I expect that states competing for residents will keep a lid on the worse excesses.

Some argue it was Lincoln's Civil War, some argue it was FDR's New Deal, but somewhere between the two of them people became convinced that centralization was good. It isn't, and I think we have sufficient evidence to show this.

The problem with subsidies (air, road, canal, or rail) is that the subsidized businesses become wards of the state. Rather than looking at their customers, they look at the government for money. Then nobody knows who wants what, because nobody depends on satisfying their customers' wants. Do people want to ride trolleys again, now that gas will soon be over $4/gallon? Who knows?

Maybe there's some new transportation technology that hasn't been invented because nobody thinks they'll be able to get it subsidized?

err... let's not wander too far away from the topic of OnTrack and the negotiations with the County. Thanks.

-otto-

Yeah, I know, but any discussion of receiving subsidies ought to include a note that says that subsidies are anti-consumer and anti-business, and pro-corruption.

LOL. Start a new thread (Railroad Operations would be a good start) if you want to have that discussion.

-otto-

here's michael bragman's response to the "train that never came" article...

http://www.syracuse.com/poststandard/st ... xml&coll=1

scharnhorst wrote:seem like the service could have come in hand for the people who work at University Hospital. Many of the people who work there have to park at the Ball Park and hop a bus to the hospital where they work. If you don't know whats going on the hospital is exspanding and parking space next to the hospital is thight for everyone at this time.

It wouldn't work - University Hospital is located 3/4 of a mile from the OnTrack station, and the inbound commute would require a steep two-block walk up the hill.

The OnTrack tracks actually come rather closer to University Hospital than the University station; I suppose they couldn't build a station on the curve, or some such thing.

The key point really is the bridge. The service makes no sense without the bridge. With the bridge, it connects a line of high-traffic destinations to the transportation center along a route where Centro simply can't provide a reasonable-speed bus route (thanks to the street layout). It also hits essentially every point in Syracuse which ever has a traffic problem.

But without the bridge, it's just not integrated with public transportation: there's no reason to use it unless you want to park at one stop and go to another one, which only happens if the parking lot at one is full (parking lots at all of them), which therefore only happens at special events. At special events OnTrack was actually pretty successful, apparently.

If the backers had been a lot more aggressive, they could have created 'facts on the ground' by just building the bridge and telling CSX to fix its own damn bridge. Lawsuits would have ensued, but with the bridge built, the service would have run. And been mildly effective.

In my opinion, Syracuse like the other upstate cities is simply not large
enough to support commuter trains. Having said that, On Track with its
rather low operating costs, a single Budd Car with only an engineer could
have been much more successful if access to the present Amtrak station
facility had been made possible.
I still think that there is a POSSIBILITY of success if the bridge were to
be built for access but without the bridge, we can probably forget it.
Noel Weaver

Way back when, politics was the art of compromise but now its the art of
blame. Railfans (most anyway) know passenger DOES NOT PAY. Except
for a few tourist lines they all operate with some sort subsidy either overtly or covertly. Everywhere in the world including the USA this true.
We seem to freak out in this country if its suggested that we might need to do this. I get a kick out of those that complain about the late Walt Rich's
supposed sweetheart deal yet give Amtrak a pass. Its pennies verses dollars. The CSX bridge over Park St will probibly need attention sooner
rather than later so here's what I would do. Extend the current trk 7
pass the switch that leads back to trk2 at the Westbound home signal at
CP 291 and swing it towards Mall to pick up the existing Ontrack line.
A switch could be cut in aproaching the platform to get Ontrack back to
the alignment it was designed to take on the back side of the platform
continuing to the Ball Park and Regional Market. The new bridge would carry 1,2 and7 over a widened Park St for the Destiny project. All partys
concerned would pony up for the bill including you and me. Sounds simple but you get the idea.

O-6-O wrote:Way back when, politics was the art of compromise but now its the art of
blame. Railfans (most anyway) know passenger DOES NOT PAY. Except
for a few tourist lines they all operate with some sort subsidy either overtly or covertly. Everywhere in the world including the USA this true.
We seem to freak out in this country if its suggested that we might need to do this. I get a kick out of those that complain about the late Walt Rich's
supposed sweetheart deal yet give Amtrak a pass. Its pennies verses dollars. The CSX bridge over Park St will probibly need attention sooner
rather than later so here's what I would do. Extend the current trk 7
pass the switch that leads back to trk2 at the Westbound home signal at
CP 291

erm, if that switch is any further west it's going to be hagning in midair over Park Street.

and swing it towards Mall to pick up the existing Ontrack line.
A switch could be cut in aproaching the platform to get Ontrack back to
the alignment it was designed to take on the back side of the platform
continuing to the Ball Park and Regional Market. The new bridge would carry 1,2 and7 over a widened Park St for the Destiny project. All partys
concerned would pony up for the bill including you and me. Sounds simple but you get the idea.

While a switch into CP-291 on the west side of Park Street is a reasonable idea, the liability insurance needed to get CSX to let you use their main track for 200 feet is going to be astronomical. Not to mention getting the dispatcher to ever let you out of there. That's why they were floating the idea of a bridge over the mainline at around MP 293 to allow the service to reach the NYS fairgrounds via the B-ville Secondary - CSX wouldn't even let them consider crossing through the interlocking I believe even if they had insurance. At least thats what I was told.

lvrr325, I guess I'm not being clear. let me try it this way. Looking West
from the platform you know 7 swings up to join 2 at the CP. I'm saying leave this switch which Amtrak needs , add a new switch to carry 7 further West over a new bridge that would include 7,2 and 1. Once over
the bridge 7 would swing down and pick up the existing Ontrack line past the Mall. A new facing point East switch would be needed East of the CP
to get Ontrack down behind the platform like it was intended. Yes CSX would have to work with Ontrack to make it happen. Compromise is needed as I said. CSX is getting a new bridge out of the deal so the
pressure needs to be on. It could work I think.

Got about 25 million you don't need to make that happen? Probably more?

That idea's already been floated, under the guise of an Amtrak project and to add lanes to Park Street to improve the traffic situation. I've even posted it here before. It would require shutting down the mainline for several days, meaning lots of trains rerouted all over the place, and the replacement structure would have to be preassembled in modular sections small enough to bring in but large enough to assemble quickly by teams working 24/7. Because that's all swamp, it would probably require piles be driven on both sides to anchor the new structure to. It makes just adding an additional bridge seem like child's play.

Sad tone really from the same state that once hand dug a ditch 360+ miles across its interior. 25 Mil? Who knows where you got that number.
Might be right might not. The State spent 1/2 that on 7 Turbos that NEVER
turned a single revenue mile. The Rochester Ferry? How about the money
that went to upgrade the West Shore around Amsterdam back in 70's only to torn out a few years later. Or the Utica side of the NYS&W which is now
oos? We all could name more thats not the point. The WE CAN'TS rule the
day it seems.