Shore Line East or Metro North to Rhode Island Green Airport

And let's not forget that those visionaries were the employees of PRIVATE companies that stood to gain a lot from their accomplishments.

I agree, it's a sad state that we can't do anything big anymore. But someone has to pay for the big things, and when it's the taxpayers footing the bill, most of whom won't directly benefit from the expenditure, then the likelihood of it getting done is rather small. That's today's reality in these great United States of America.

Long-range vision is great, but at some point you have to put the glasses back on and read what's up close.

Go on, call me a nay-sayer. ;-)

Jim

I don't call you a nay sayer, but I will say there are times when building is required. Robert Moses was our last great builder. He was an SOB and this is well documented. He built plenty of things that I don't use, but it is a legitimate question to ask, where would we be without him. And, he used public funds to build everything.

All I am saying is this is such a time. There is a good case to make that trains are a very good means to move us off foreign oil dependency. Restoring the great train networks that were decimated by the preference for the automobile and doing it in a logical staged manner is good policy.

We don't have sunny weather all year round like the southwest, but we do have this fantastic transportation infrastructure that if we would recognize it's possibility and take advantage of it, could be a huge strategic advantage for our region in attracting prospective employers--especially since NYC is seen as one of the greatest cities in the world.

sC

With high gas prices it does not matter if investing public dollars into rail is going to be the best thing or the worst. America has suffered a lot when it became a gas guzzling nation after the interstates were built and we gave up the rails for the roads.
now the time has come to look for more alternative means of transport, and via rail is one of them. Using ideas and the tools of 2008 we must look for more environmentally friendly means of transport. The biggest problem today is that visionaries are not very welcomed in this political atmosphere and when politics is involved it's always to try to please every one and get no argument. which is more impossible then MNCR acquiring commuter right into RI. This is not going to be NYS tax payer dollars but rather each state involved would pay into the pot for MNCR to provide the commuter operation. This can only happen one step at a time and going to RI tomorrow is not a realistic approach. It needs to be planned and studied and the people who would take the train would need to have say in this. I know it's been discussed a lot on this forum but MNCR service to Albany (NYS) is a more realistic plan to improve service before extending into other states. If that's a success and becomes a reality one day then they may consider acquiring SLE.

I just wanted to say that there is nothing wrong with some one having bold visions and ideas of what would be both good and bad for commuter/long distance rail. not all are going to be realistic IE. transatlantic rail tunnel but it's been talked about and there is a following since there is a TV program about it. It is unfortunate that passenger rail cannot turn a profit, but if you look at airlines, a trip from NY to Miami is at cheapest $99.00 and I have seen peak over$300.00 think of that being MNCR a ride from NH-GCT Would fetch well over $300.00 per person Peak. (not affordable to commute.) Working with the tools of 2008 which is political control we have to figure a way of adding and building new service

I do have a question for yall.
Is there any means for a private corporation to operate the commuter rail but receive the losses/necessary funding for commuter operation from the state?

There is no incentive for privatizing commuter rail. In Boston, a private corporation operates the commuter rail. The corporation was founded by a bunch of cronies who left the MBTA to pursue this venture. Their incentive is to spend as little as possible on the operation so that more money goes into their pockets. I'm great oversimplifying the situation, but that's the jist. There is no business model for commuter rail as a for-profit company (NYW&B, I'm looking in your direction)... there have been private companies that operate commuter rail with subsidy from state organizations. This is more or less how Chicago commuter rail operates. The traditional rail carriers are subsidized to operate the service under the Metra banner.

But we're getting far afield of the Rhode Island discussion. The fact of the matter is that there is no reason for Metro-North to operate services beyond New York State or its contracted operations in Connecticut. Pick another scenario that does NOT involve Metro-North, a public benefit corporation for the citizens of the STATE OF NEW YORK, and you might have something to talk about. A CDOT-RIDOT-MBTA cooperation is somewhat more likely. Somewhat. What you're really talking about is some sort of New London-Providence operation possibly operated under the SLE banner.

Oh, sC, did anyone tell you WHY SLE doesn't operate its own equipment to New London anymore? It involves the Coast Guard and several movable bridges on the Shore Route. You want to add additional service to this route that already has roadblocks?

-otto-

SystemsConsciousness wrote:Thank you very much. NETrainMan.

Unfortunately, it does matter how old I am though. I wish I were as young as I were given debit for

Perhaps there needs to be some kind of major reorganization like the one that created the MTA in the first place. I think we are entering a new era where public transit is not only valued but encouraged. All of the governors in the Northeast (PA, NJ, NY, CT, MA) share this view and don't have the type of hostility to mass transit that many of the predecessors had.

But most of all, thank you for your kind message.

sC

On behalf of everyone here, shut up, and get a blog to write all this crap in. This is a discussion forum, not
a place for you to put your hands over your ears while you ponder things that will never happen. Grow up.

Hebrewman9 wrote:

SystemsConsciousness wrote:Thank you very much. NETrainMan.

Unfortunately, it does matter how old I am though. I wish I were as young as I were given debit for

Perhaps there needs to be some kind of major reorganization like the one that created the MTA in the first place. I think we are entering a new era where public transit is not only valued but encouraged. All of the governors in the Northeast (PA, NJ, NY, CT, MA) share this view and don't have the type of hostility to mass transit that many of the predecessors had.

But most of all, thank you for your kind message.

sC

On behalf of everyone here, shut up, and get a blog to write all this crap in. This is a discussion forum, not
a place for you to put your hands over your ears while you ponder things that will never happen. Grow up.

I second that.

Metro-North has no need to continue past New Haven. I can understand acquiring SLE to an extent and even then I'd suggest that being a more Rhode Island-oriented system. Metro-North's purpose is to be a commuter railway into GCT and NYC; would anyone actually commute from east of New Haven into New York anyway? It's a ridiculously long ride, remember that.

Commuter railroads are no longer only for people going to and from a single terminus.

Wow, did you think that up all yourself? Thanks for stating the obvious. Now, if you READ ALL of the previous posts, you'll see why it doesn't make sense. Yes, commuter service is no longer multiple points to a single point. It hasn't been that way for a LONG TIME, thus, the growth and service adjustments for reverse-peak-commuters. However, you have to have a reasonable area of service. If you want to go from Mamaroneck to Providence, it is easy enough without making one very large (and likely inefficient) super-agency. That's not a commuter market, that's LD, and thus, Amtrak. Different markets, different agency.

Of course, everyone has ALREAD SAID THAT.

That's not to say that there shouldn't be inter-agency cooperation, and if you read some of the previous threads, you'll see that is already happening (e.g. proposed limited NH line service to the Meadowlands). Notice one thing, though: that's one metro-area market.

You give us foamers a bad name.

Sarge,

Your points are kind of meaningless. The only reason for the limits on territory have to do with the state's jurisdiction. In the PRR days, there were local commuter trains between Philadelphia and NYC.

sc

It's only 1 bridge, Conn.River. Nan, & Shaws Cove are not hurdles. I still cant imagine why CDOT and the USCG cannot get some kind of agreement on running additional trains. I see very few large boats running up the river, it's very shallow and mostly pleasure crafts. NLC is west of the Thames, someone posted otherwise.

Simply put, there are way more boating lobbyist than rail lobbyist, so who do you think wins.
I believe this thread has run its course, nice dream with no substance, MNCR will not go east of New Haven in any foreseeable future.
And to Rhode Island is about as attainable as me finding Gissele Bunchen on my pillow, nice yes, attainable in my dreams.

-what a great and extremely wide ranging discussion. I had no idea there were so many points of view.

-perhaps someone could solve the many governmental, railroad, union and operating problems by privatizing the rail service from Grand Central to Providence. We could make up a creative name, such as "New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad."



Roger

SystemsConsciousness wrote:Sarge,

Your points are kind of meaningless. The only reason for the limits on territory have to do with the state's jurisdiction. In the PRR days, there were local commuter trains between Philadelphia and NYC.

sc

My points are meaningless? How so? I think I and eveyrone else has addressed why your ideas are in the realm of fantasy. Actually, rather than being offended by your comment, I'm actually complimented. I'd be scared if you agreed.

Your comment regarding limits on territory having to do with a state's jurisdiction is non-sensical. PATH and NJT operate to NYC. CDOT operates (under contract to MNRR) to Westchester and NYC. MNRR operates (under contract to NJT) to Hoboken form Port Jervis and Nanuet. Now, to rebut the point I anticipate you will make about state borders "can be overcome", I answer this. Why on earth would MNRR want to operate a service to a state they don't even share a border with? My point is precisely that it doesn't make sense to operate a commuter service from Providence to NYC since that is not a market. How is that meaningless?

As for the PRR service from Philly to NY, how does that relate? PRR was a private railroad. And Amtrak runs that service today.

Dude, get a clue.

Enough of this mess, at least the foamer fantasy topics of the past had actual discussion, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about and won't listen to reason.

Somebody please put this thread out of its misery.