Today's Buffalo News

nycr wrote:

Nasadowsk wrote:
It's not that knocking two hours off isn't a big deal, it's there no real ridership in the first place. In part, because Albany to Buffalo is basically farmland dotted with a few abandoned cities. Cows don't take the train much and their owners tend not to be big into travel either...

This posting probably doesn't merit a response but...Buffalo alone has over a million people...

Which makes it the second largest metro area in New York and that's almost 450 miles away from New York City. I imagine if you could wrestle the info out of Amtrak you would find that very few people are boarding at Albany for westbound destinations (leaving the LSL out of it). For the most part, aren't most people using Empire Service trains going to or from NYP? Is so... the farther away from NYP, the lower the passenger count.

MudLake wrote: Which makes it the second largest metro area in New York and that's almost 450 miles away from New York City. I imagine if you could wrestle the info out of Amtrak you would find that very few people are boarding at Albany for westbound destinations (leaving the LSL out of it). For the most part, aren't most people using Empire Service trains going to or from NYP? Is so... the farther away from NYP, the lower the passenger count.

I'm sure there are people going to Albany since it's the state capitol just as on the Keystone people board in Lancaster for Harrisburg. the flip side is, with the improvement, buffalo stands to gain the most since it will gain two full hours on a trip to NYC. West of Albany carried 355k riders on a slow, unreliable schedule. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect this could be upwards of 1.2 million riders at two hours less. In my modest experience on the line, most of the ridership was buffalo east but maybe that changes in better weather. it's faster to get off at buffalo and take the bus to toronto. I also think this is a no brainer for NYS, it needs to invest in these struggling cities.

I don't know, Suburban. Tripling ridership? That's a bold statement based on two hours saved. Can you do better than that with any other economic indicators?

Dave Becker

pablo wrote:I don't know, Suburban. Tripling ridership? That's a bold statement based on two hours saved. Can you do better than that with any other economic indicators?

Dave Becker

That's assuming no change in economic indicators. it takes about 6 hours to drive to ny, the train currently takes 8 hours from buffalo, when it's on time. the new schedule would drop it to 6 hours, comparable to driving. since decisions are made at the margin, people no longer have to give up a large chunk of time to take the train. as mentioned, more trains could be added by turning equipment which can't be done today. At hour hours, you could feasibly have a 5 pm train from Buffalo.

Suburban Station wrote: I'm sure there are people going to Albany since it's the state capitol just as on the Keystone people board in Lancaster for Harrisburg. the flip side is, with the improvement, buffalo stands to gain the most since it will gain two full hours on a trip to NYC.

There's still plenty of improvement south of Albany, and it's a MUCH heavier traveled route. Put the money there, first.

West of Albany carried 355k riders on a slow, unreliable schedule. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect this could be upwards of 1.2 million riders at two hours less.

Where will these riders come from? Rochester's fading away as Kodak shrinks and flees NY state's obscene taxes, Syracuse has seasonal college kids, Rome/Utica's a dead area. Schenectady is a goner with GE moving whatever they can to China or India.

Make the existing trains run on time, and see if ridership improves. And I suspect it won't.

Look at it this way - the LIRR and Metro-North's NY state daily ridership is around the yearly west of Albany ridership.

. I also think this is a no brainer for NYS, it needs to invest in these struggling cities.

Millions to improve rail service to cities that have been dead for decades, now? It's not like the Thruway is clogged with traffic - in fact, it's generally 'set the cruise at 80 and steer' most of the time. The simple fact is, NY state's taxation is a bigger barrier to investment up state than transportation is.

Nasadowsk wrote:Rochester's fading away as Kodak shrinks and flees NY state's obscene taxes, Syracuse has seasonal college kids, Rome/Utica's a dead area. Schenectady is a goner with GE moving whatever they can to China or India.

Millions to improve rail service to cities that have been dead for decades, now? It's not like the Thruway is clogged with traffic .

Mr. Nas, let us be mindful we are addressing the cradle of Railroad Net.

However, I came to hold many of like thoughts after an extremely "eye opening" journey aboard #48 during June 2001 (pre 9/11, pre-recession). From what I could see of Buffalo Central Terminal, Rochester, Utica, and Schenectady, it sure looked like rust belt to me. But the region still enjoys 100% Federally funded "four a day"; considering the declining population base, I would dare say, absent Local funding, is quite 'overserved". I realize expressing such thoughts here is blasphemy, but I tend to agree with Mr. Nas regarding such.

nycr wrote:

Jishnu wrote:Just for reference, here are some numbers that were given to us at the Schenectady ESPA/NARP meeting last Saturday by the NY DOT. These are for running time estimates in hour:mins, between Albany and Buffalo Depew (what they call Empire Corridor West) , using various speed and equipment in their study:

• Today Scheduled 4:55
• Today actual mean 5:44
• 110 mph current equipment current alignment 3:51
• 110mph Jet-train current alignment 3:42
• 125mph Jet-train current alignment 3:41
• 150mph Acela on current alignment 3:12

The biggest problem with the current service, as the first two figures show, is its inability to meet schedule. What makes NYSDOT think that upgraded trains and tracks would do any better? Seems like the only way this plan could be viable would be to return the route to its original 4 tracks, designate 2 for passenger service and dispatch them separately from CSX. But I am guessing that is way beyond what the state has in mind...

That is a very good point indeed. What NYS DOT is talking about is adding a third track with 110mph capability and use the existing tracks to arrange crossing as and when needed.

MudLake wrote:

nycr wrote:

Nasadowsk wrote:
It's not that knocking two hours off isn't a big deal, it's there no real ridership in the first place. In part, because Albany to Buffalo is basically farmland dotted with a few abandoned cities. Cows don't take the train much and their owners tend not to be big into travel either...

This posting probably doesn't merit a response but...Buffalo alone has over a million people...

Which makes it the second largest metro area in New York and that's almost 450 miles away from New York City. I imagine if you could wrestle the info out of Amtrak you would find that very few people are boarding at Albany for westbound destinations (leaving the LSL out of it). For the most part, aren't most people using Empire Service trains going to or from NYP? Is so... the farther away from NYP, the lower the passenger count.

Easy to "wrestle" -- for at least some of the data, anyway. See the pdf file for New York State in 2008 at http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/factsheets/NEWYORK08.pdf

Nasadowsk wrote: There's still plenty of improvement south of Albany, and it's a MUCH heavier traveled route. Put the money there, first.

I assume you live there? albany's a dump too, but at least it's the capitol.

Nasadowsk wrote: Where will these riders come from? Rochester's fading away as Kodak shrinks and flees NY state's obscene taxes, Syracuse has seasonal college kids, Rome/Utica's a dead area. Schenectady is a goner with GE moving whatever they can to China or India.

the riders are there already, NYS can't afford to offer any less to what's left of the state they claim to run.

Nasadowsk wrote: Make the existing trains run on time, and see if ridership improves. And I suspect it won't.

that'd be a nice start, but I fail to see how a crappy schedule is going to attract more riders.

Nasadowsk wrote: Millions to improve rail service to cities that have been dead for decades, now? It's not like the Thruway is clogged with traffic - in fact, it's generally 'set the cruise at 80 and steer' most of the time. The simple fact is, NY state's taxation is a bigger barrier to investment up state than transportation is.

I'm sure it is, but my friends up there are already looking forward to this, hoping it's true. I think their nuts for living in NYS to begin with but hey, if I were NYS, I think this is a good investment. The taxes won't get fixed until NYC circles the bowl.

GeorgeF wrote:

MudLake wrote:

nycr wrote:
This posting probably doesn't merit a response but...Buffalo alone has over a million people...

Which makes it the second largest metro area in New York and that's almost 450 miles away from New York City. I imagine if you could wrestle the info out of Amtrak you would find that very few people are boarding at Albany for westbound destinations (leaving the LSL out of it). For the most part, aren't most people using Empire Service trains going to or from NYP? Is so... the farther away from NYP, the lower the passenger count.

Easy to "wrestle" -- for at least some of the data, anyway. See the pdf file for New York State in 2008 at http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/factsheets/NEWYORK08.pdf

Maybe I'm just clueless but I don't see any way that information helps extract an answer to my question of how many people board at ALB on westbound trains (either including the LSL or excluding it).

[quote="MudLake", "GeorgeF" & "nycr"]

NYCR.....This posting probably doesn't merit a response but...Buffalo alone has over a million people..
Which makes it the second largest metro area in New York and that's almost 450 miles away from New York City. I imagine if you could wrestle the info out of Amtrak you would find that very few people are boarding at Albany for westbound destinations (leaving the LSL out of it). For the most part, aren't most people using Empire Service trains going to or from NYP? Is so... the farther away from NYP, the lower the passenger count.

Georgef....Easy to "wrestle" -- for at least some of the data, anyway. See the pdf file for New York State in 2008 at [url]http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/factsheets/NEWYORK08.pdf

Mudlake......Maybe I'm just clueless but I don't see any way that information helps extract an answer to my question of how many people board at ALB on westbound trains (either including the LSL or excluding it).[/quote]

You make a good point Mudlake it does not include how many passengers actually board in Buffalo going east or Albany going west. Also nycr if you did the research in NY state only 276k people (estimated as of 2008) live in buffalo. The Buffalo–Niagara–Cattaraugus Combined Statistical Area is 1.2 million people, which is a massive amount of land space so how many would be willing to travel into central buffalo to catch Amtrak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo,_New_York

MudLake wrote: Maybe I'm just clueless but I don't see any way that information helps extract an answer to my question of how many people board at ALB on westbound trains (either including the LSL or excluding it).

Mr. Mudlake,

Yes, you're right, but at least you get an idea of how much business there is at stations west of ALB (although the LSL is mixed in there -- except at Niagra Falls). That is, if you ignore LSL business (granted, a big IF), then any traffic in the NY State report for stations such as Rochester are "west of Albany" traffic. It surely isn't perfect, but it gives you an idea of west of ALB traffic, although it does not specifically give you ALB-originating-to-west traffic. It's just a thought.

GeorgeF wrote: Yes, you're right, but at least you get an idea of how much business there is at stations west of ALB (although the LSL is mixed in there -- except at Niagra Falls). That is, if you ignore LSL business (granted, a big IF), then any traffic in the NY State report for stations such as Rochester are "west of Albany" traffic. It surely isn't perfect, but it gives you an idea of west of ALB traffic, although it does not specifically give you ALB-originating-to-west traffic. It's just a thought.

excellent point, the 355k riders does not include the number of riders using the LSL for the empire corridor. I'd imagine that the bulk of riders will be concerned about ROC-NYP or BUF-NYP with albany being a secondary destination. This plan might also save some time for the LSL, though it wouldn't be operating with dual modes.

GeorgeF wrote:

MudLake wrote: Maybe I'm just clueless but I don't see any way that information helps extract an answer to my question of how many people board at ALB on westbound trains (either including the LSL or excluding it).

Mr. Mudlake,

Yes, you're right, but at least you get an idea of how much business there is at stations west of ALB (although the LSL is mixed in there -- except at Niagra Falls). That is, if you ignore LSL business (granted, a big IF), then any traffic in the NY State report for stations such as Rochester are "west of Albany" traffic. It surely isn't perfect, but it gives you an idea of west of ALB traffic, although it does not specifically give you ALB-originating-to-west traffic. It's just a thought.

Mr. George, if you go back and read the original comment I made on this subject, you'll see that it was about the potential ridership for west of Albany (especially the farther west you go). My belief is that the vast majority of Empire Service passengers are going to or coming from New York City. Is increasing speed from Syracuse to Rochester going to cause a huge influx of passengers originating in Buffalo heading for New York City? That market opportunity is going to be limited by the fact that those two cities are 450 miles apart. I seriously doubt you have all that many people traveling west of Albany exclusively.

The ALB - NYP portion of New York State's Amtrak line is by far the most heavily used and I believe will remain so regardless of what projects are done anywhere in the state. Wouldn't it make sense to concentrate the efforts first on where the business already is in hopes that it will become even greater? It's the part of the rail line that most passengers are already traveling on whether they are going to Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, of Buffalo.

correct , it doesnt matter where the time is saved , the journey will be shorter . Makes sense to do it on the most heavily travelled section . plus i would say the planning has already been done , wasnt an upgrade blamed when ( hate to mention them ) turbos were rebuilt ?